Southern Baptists Overwhelmingly Approve Abuse Reforms, Public Database

The reporting on this whole thing is hyperbolic as the media usually is. The EC of the SBC didn’t keep a “secret list” of abusers in the way that statement is written to read as. All they did is keep records of leaders who were publicly charged and convicted of crimes. This is the complete “low hanging fruit” of sexual abuse. Anyone can find the guy who is convicted of abuse by a simple google search! There was nothing “secret” about it.

What I am interested in, rather than the actions of the EC, is what will First SBC of Nowhere, TX do when their rising star youth pastor is accused of shagging the 17 year old prom queen. Will he be blacklisted for life like he should be? Or will the good ‘ole boy network accuse the girl of being a Jezebel temptress and run her off while he is promoted to another church?

I will wait until those guys are blacklisted for life to be impressed.

The SBC and other evangelical churches still have a major problem with sexual abuse, and WE ARE THE CAUSE. We cover up these things at the local church level for a host of reasons… but cheer when a national group gets caught…

Time will tell how well they do it, but this is a wonderful start. Mark is entirely correct, however, that the database (like the Brady database or others) is only as good as its data entry. If churches quietly decide not to report, it will be useless.

What I am interested in, rather than the actions of the EC, is what will First SBC of Nowhere, TX do when their rising star youth pastor is accused of shagging the 17 year old prom queen. Will he be blacklisted for life like he should be?

Would there be any interest in finding out whether or not the accusations are true before he gets blacklisted?

[Larry]

What I am interested in, rather than the actions of the EC, is what will First SBC of Nowhere, TX do when their rising star youth pastor is accused of shagging the 17 year old prom queen. Will he be blacklisted for life like he should be?

Would there be any interest in finding out whether or not the accusations are true before he gets blacklisted?

What can be credibly discerned without a confession or conviction?

Tom, it depends on what we mean by confession or conviction. There are—see Mark’s note—a number of things that ought to exclude a pastor from the pastorate that are not illegal—e.g. fornication with an adult. Only about 14 states ban clergy-laity sex by law, so what do you do? I’d dare suggest that a church with allegations perform an investigation, optimally hiring an investigator, to see whose story (it tends to be notoriously he said/she said) holds up, and who brings relevant side evidence up.

There is also the reality that there are a number of “suspect behaviors” that are of interest—e.g. alone with a child, etc..—and churches might even consider mentioning “this person repeatedly was found violating the requirements of our child protection policy” and such when they’re called for a recommendation.

But since it’s hard to make that stick, we might have another rule of thumb; if a prospective hire is not willing for you to call former churches, that’s a sign to not proceed. Also a sign would be if the church has a hushed silence when asked about issues of trust.

[Bert Perry]

Tom, it depends on what we mean by confession or conviction. There are—see Mark’s note—a number of things that ought to exclude a pastor from the pastorate that are not illegal—e.g. fornication with an adult. Only about 14 states ban clergy-laity sex by law, so what do you do? I’d dare suggest that a church with allegations perform an investigation, optimally hiring an investigator, to see whose story (it tends to be notoriously he said/she said) holds up, and who brings relevant side evidence up.

So, you’re proposing that the elders investigate a fellow elder accused of sexual / emotional / spiritual abuse but who denies it? In the old days, that solution may be workable. In our current evangelical environment, not a chance. As for hiring an “investigator,” who would that be? How would the average 100-member church afford it? How would the investigator get to the facts of the situation if one party refuses to cooperate? Regardless, because the investigator would be paid by the church, his / her findings could be questioned / dismissed as not credible by either party.

Based on my experience serving on an elder board, when someone accuses the senior pastor of any form of impropriety, and he denies it, it’s a difficult task for the elder board to objectively handle the accusation. Some guys on the board are good friends with the senior pastor and are extremely loyal to him. Other elders may not be buddies with the pastor, but there is still pressure on the board to “support our pastor.” Even if the board is able to be objective, the people making the accusation will doubt the objectivity of the elder board and question the board’s findings if it finds for the pastor.

So, at the end of the day, you’re left with an accusation that cannot be definitively proven. Does an SBC church still report the allegation?

Is everyone is all a flutter about this investigation into the EC of the SBC when the real problem is the actions of each individual church! They are the ones who cover up the sins of their pastors or youth pastors. They pass the guy on. They high five the guy and move him on because he is ” a great preacher with a bright future” or some such thing. but no one wants to investigate “us”. They want to investigate “the other guy.”

And to answer the question from Larry, when the YP is abusing a member of his youth group, people know it… we need to stop acting like “the girl asked for it.” It is 100% the leader’s fault.

No doubt it is difficult, and no doubt that smaller churches might not be able to afford a private investigator. And at the same time, you don’t need to “catch” everybody that sins. You simply need to be effective enough that those who would willfully sin in this way think twice.

That noted, it’s worth noting that there are going to be certain things that are going to be able to tell you about a situation:

• Is an allegation made? I don’t quite go with “only 2-10% are false”, but to step forward takes enough courage to at least take it very seriously.
• Is there evidence of misconduct like pregnancy, abortion, STDs, and the like?
• Have people in the church noticed patterns by the person in question? Women in particular will pick up on unseemly familiarity between people, long absences from responsibilities, etc..
• What are his patterns of time usage, spending, and the like?

You can’t do the forensics analysis and subpoena power that the police can, among other things, but one thing to note here is a lot of the worst scandals are where both sides acknowledge some level of sexual misconduct, but the woman involved is blamed because she made some decisions that made her more vulnerable to being seduced and/or raped. (she was drinking, in his apartment, wearing something revealing, etc..)

The trick in these cases is that even if a drop dead gorgeous woman comes to my home after tying one on, wearing little or nothing, I’m still responsible for my response to her, no? Joseph survived such a case, and Proverbs tells us we can as well, no? And hence for a good chunk of the worst cases, I’d argue churches do indeed have a lot of the tools to deal with bad actors at least some of the time.

And in that portion of cases where you don’t have or perceive enough evidence to make a call, you simply said “we had an allegation where we were not able to confirm or reject it.” And if the person stays on after the allegation, they ought to know that the church is watching.

No?

[Bert Perry] That noted, it’s worth noting that there are going to be certain things that are going to be able to tell you about a situation:

• Is an allegation made? I don’t quite go with “only 2-10% are false”, but to step forward takes enough courage to at least take it very seriously.
• Is there evidence of misconduct like pregnancy, abortion, STDs, and the like?
• Have people in the church noticed patterns by the person in question? Women in particular will pick up on unseemly familiarity between people, long absences from responsibilities, etc..
• What are his patterns of time usage, spending, and the like?

Regarding the allegation, how do you follow the biblical admonition of 1 Timothy 5:19-20 when it’s only one person’s word against the pastor? Obviously, if there are residual effects like you mention in your second point above, that is easier to ascertain. But, that isn’t always the case.

Also, based on my experience serving on an elder board, most congregants are not forthcoming with information to your third point. It isn’t until after the incident is public knowledge (e.g. the pastor confesses or the accuser goes public), that congregants will tell you that they suspected something wasn’t right. I understand why this happens; that is, people want to assume the best about their pastor and don’t want to make a serious allegation against the pastor based only on a hunch or what I call their “spidey sense.” That said, my wife has a keen “spidey sense.” I used to dismiss it when she would bring things to my attention based on her spidey sense. I don’t anymore. Her spidey sense is pretty accurate.

That said, “spidey sense” and an accusation is not enough to convict someone or to determine whether an accusation is credible.

BTW, if a pastor confesses when accused, regardless of his reasoning, then that is a pretty straight forward case. You get a signed confession outlining his sin and taking responsibility for his actions, then you keep his confession on file forever and post his name to the database. The accusations I’m thinking about are not issues that would involve law enforcement but are issues that still involve sin / impropriety and that the pastor denies. For example, accusations concerning sexual / emotional abuse or grooming of non-minors. Accusations of spiritual abuse. Accusations of being domineering and pugilistic.

And to answer the question from Larry, when the YP is abusing a member of his youth group, people know it… we need to stop acting like “the girl asked for it.” It is 100% the leader’s fault.

That doesn’t answer anything I said. It changes the premise to which I responded.

….is to ask the complainant who might be able to corroborate aspects of their story. No doubt, you’re still going to have some people who know who won’t speak up, but it gives a chance.

And again, we don’t need to get to 100% cleared with a ton of evidence to make this work. We just need to have enough cases where perpetrators get removed from ministry that those who would sin this way take notice. And agreed 100% that domineering/pugilistic is hard to tell, especially (see thread about discernment without being judgmental) since all too often, we see a firm response as being “harsh” in our culture.

My overall thought is that in these type of matters and others involving church discipline, churches generally need to seriously up their game.

Yes, the churches need to up their game, and part of that is holding pastors more accountable. That’s just as much a part of Scripture as Matthew 18 is.

Has anyone ever seen or heard of a church publicly rebuking an elder? So many of these guys that are named in the SBC report are pastors but I have yet to hear of one (except Johnny Hunt) being held to any semblance of account. Even Hunt is on a “restoration plan” after a sexual assault (he claims consensual affair).

Yet the cry in Evangelical media is to keep this within the church and investigate it ourselves if it isn’t already under the auspices of the men who abused others and created this disaster. It’s weird how everyone wants to apply Matthew 18 or due process but 1 Timothy 5:20 is completely missing in the discussions.

[Bert Perry]….is to ask the complainant who might be able to corroborate aspects of their story. No doubt, you’re still going to have some people who know who won’t speak up, but it gives a chance.

Been there. Done that. The problem is that the accuser is then accused by the pastor (and his supporters) of gossip and slander for talking about his/her story to others. In this case, the others were other church staff who experienced the same leadership issues with the pastor. The pastor’s perspective was that if these individuals had an issue with his leadership, before they spoke to anyone else (including the elders) they needed to go to him one-on-one first (Matt 18). The accuser tried but felt shut down by the pastor. The others were too fearful to say anything. So, in this case, the pastor claimed the accuser and the other staff gossiped and slandered him, and he wanted us to church discipline them for it. Of course, he claimed he was completely innocent of all charges.

[Larry]

And to answer the question from Larry, when the YP is abusing a member of his youth group, people know it… we need to stop acting like “the girl asked for it.” It is 100% the leader’s fault.

That doesn’t answer anything I said. It changes the premise to which I responded.

Of course there is an investigation… but studies have shown almost all accusations of abuse, especially those involving children, are true.

[Mark_Smith]

Of course there is an investigation… but studies have shown almost all accusations of abuse, especially those involving children, are true.

Even if it’s true that “almost all accusations of abuse, especially those involving children, are true,” which I’m not sure I accept, the fact that it’s still “almost” means that you can’t assume that the accusation is true, and perform only a pro forma “investigation” before putting someone on a list as an abuser. That’s absolutely the definition of “no due process.” That shouldn’t even happen in a secular court, let alone a church where we should actually care about truth and actual justice.

No one is trying to say that a real investigation process will be easy for a church to accomplish (or cheap), especially given what others said above about counter accusations that can arise from the accused, but it is the minimum necessary before destroying someone’s life over something that may be completely false.