Apr 16 2007
Ostrich Faith?
I used to be an ostrich. I would bury my head in the sand when I didn’t want to deal with something. I admit I lived a pretty sheltered life until high school. Growing up in the biggest party town of all universities has a way of opening your eyes. I found ways of ignoring sin or just acting like I lived in another planet.
But God has a way of hitting me across the head. It began when my best friend got his girlfriend pregnant. Then I fell in love with a young woman who had a different upbringing than me. I began to deal with people in my ministry who have gone through unspeakable horrors. Just this week I had people (not in my church) share with me things that were done to them as children.
For that reason I can’t be an ostrich anymore. I am proudly a Southern Baptist and have been since I can remember. I was baptized in an SBC church, went to and SBC University and have SBC Seminary degree. I have served on staff in SBC churches since 1992. God has done some amazing things through the Southern Baptist Convention. But what better way to ruin God’s work than for Satan to discredit God’s mouthpieces –pastors and ministerial staff. If Satan can make the clergy look like they are hypocrites and even worse criminals he can do more harm to God’s church than anything else.
There is no question in my mind that 99% of Southern Baptist ministers are in the ministry to serve God. But after watching ABC’s 20/20 on Friday night it is obvious that there are some bad apples too. Christa Brown, Debbie Vasquez and others have exposed that there are predators in some SBC churches. You look at Christa’s site and you will see dozens of convicted ministers just within the last few months. We can’t possibly know about all of them but what about those who have already been arrested or caught? Why is it that some churches want to just be ostriches and bury their heads in the sand?
The argument that some give is that Southern Baptist Churches are “autonomous” which means they are independent and no outside group can tell them what to do. That is one of the things that makes SBC churches unique. We aren’t bound by any hierarchy. Our churches voluntarily cooperate with other churches to do missions around the world. That is why I am a Southern Baptist.
But when Christa Brown’s organization and SNAP began to call for a SBC predator database some say the SBC doesn’t need any kind of database because every church is autonomous. Well in my opinion that is a lame excuse. There are others who are worried about false accusations. This is a valid concern but shouldn’t we trust that God will protect those who are innocent. If by some horrible chance someone has a “JOSEPH” experience–that is tragic. But what is more tragic is there are predators being swapped from church to church because people don’t have the guts to do something about it. This has to stop.
I mentioned before that we had a young man who joined our church in Atlanta. Thankfully his home church in Tennessee was more concerned about children than a lawsuit. The pastor called me and said don’t let him work with children. He had already asked our children’s minister that week. We tried to get him help but he eventually moved on. A year later I was called to the emergency room at Northside Hospital where he was guarded by 2 police officers. The police went to arrest him that day for being a predator and he tried to commit suicide with a chainsaw on his neck. This is a real story.
It is time the SBC quits burying it’s head in the sand and playing the “autonomous” church card. The SBC has kicked out churches for homosexual ministers. The SBC has boycotted Disney. It is time the SBC started defrocking minister credentials from those ministers who have been convicted of sexual abuse. Especially those who have hurt innocent children. I know that ordination is done at the local church level. But somehow we need to make sure convicted predators are removed from church leadership. Our children are too important. Our testimony to the world is too important.
Wade Burleson and Ben Cole have stepped up to the plate and are trying to do something about this. Are their plans perfect? No but they are better than no plan at all. Thanks Ben and Wade. I’m not passing blame on anyone. This is a complicated issue. But now that these horrible events have been exposed, we must do something.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
15 responses so far
It is a bit of a cheap shot to say the SBC is “hiding behind autonomy.”
Like it or not, the SBC is the loosest of loosely connected, independent organizations. I don’t know but that most any minister can call himself an SBC minister and that any church can designate itself a Southern Baptist church. Local church autonomy is the reality around which any present or proposed SBC policy on sexual abusers must be framed.
What SNAP wants is for the SBC to create an independent board that would receive and investigate reports of abuse. The board would handle those cases where there is little doubt about the guilt of the accused because of a legal conviction or a confession. Simple enough, but the board would also determine which individuals had “credible reports” of abuse absent a conviction or confession and these individuals so accused would be listed in the database. Manifestly, this sword has two edges: individuals so judged correctly as abusers would be identified; individuals falsely judged would be ruined.
So far as local church autonomy goes, the board (or the Exec Comm) would not have any power to “defrock” any minister nor could they prevent any church from hiring any on the list, nor could they cause any church to fire a listed minister. The only power the board, or their sponsor the XCom, would have would be to recommend to the assembled SBC that the church be kicked out because they harbor a sexual abuser. No church would be required to check the database. No minister would be required to undergo a background check before his credentials were approved.
I’m not against it but I’m not sure the motion by Burleson would accomplish much other than publicity. Christa Brown would tell you that any action limited to convicted abusers is virtually meaningless. An SBC database of “convicted” abusers would by definition be redundant with state and national lists. To include those who had confessed to abuse but for various reasons did not have a legal conviction would be a reasonably simple and straightforward step, though it would require some concrete evidence of the same. Moving beyond these two to include those with “credible reports” of abuse is a proposas that needs far more scrutiny. There should be no illusions here - this is the goal for SNAP and others. A database of convicted abusers would be seen as merely a first baby step.
No doubt the XComm will have to do a better job of explaining and handling this issue. They have been correct in their explanations but a bit heavy handed in managing this. I am unwilling to sacrifice local church autonomy. I am also unwilling to sit still while abusers move from church-to-church or state-to-state.
SNAP suggested a database of anyone accused or suspected while Wade and Ben are advocating a database of those convicted of “sexual harassment and abuse”. That is a huge difference and one I could whole-heartedly endorse.
I still maintain the problem is not cover-ups or ignorance on the part of the SBC but one of individual congregations and church leaders willfully ignoring the child abuse reporting laws. Once you set yourself above the law, bad things begin to happen.
You hit a nerve. You said, “I know that ordination is done at the local church level. But somehow we need to make sure convicted predators are removed from church leadership. Our children are too important. Our testimony to the world is too important.”
As a director of missions, I find too many or our churches take ordination much too lightly. There are few if any background checks. Invitations state, “ordination council at 5:00 PM, and ordination service at 6:30 PM.” That is no council to determine if the candidate is fit for service in ministry, it is a rubber stamp. I have been refusing to participate in such a sham.
Autonomy is one thing, accountability is another. We no longer hold each other accountable in love in the church or in the association. We need a return to loving church discipline on all levels. Oh well, that is another subject.
Kevin,
I have read, with interest, your blog and several others over the course of the past year but have never responded.
I am a children’s minister in SC who is looking at a children’s ministry opportunity at a church in SC. This issue of protecting children is not a new issue - I have seen several organizations I use, including Awana, that have stepped up over the past few years to provide resources to local churches for policy creation and leader training.
I do not know if any resolution to the SBC will help or not - but anything to open the eyes of local churches to this potential problem would be great. It is sad that in this day any man with a seminary degree and experience can be hired without as much as a flick of the eye. Yet churches do this so they can have a live body to work with kids to please parents and keep them coming to church.
I believe in the autonomy of the local church but this can not be used as a crutch to be lax in the leadership standards of the local church. As a result of this report I inquired with the pastor of this prospective church about a background check and he stated this was part of the process. Now I’m afraid of those speeding tickets as a teenager…..
Churches - take the time to follow through and include in the process reference checks and background checks. Both of these should allow you at least some accountability. If you see any gaps in employment or if a candidate does not want you to inquire with a certain church, ask WHY?
Parents - make sure your church has performed the steps necessary to check prospective leaders. For current leaders, ALWAYS ask your children what they have learned and what is going on in their classes. Ask about their leaders and pay attention to any changes. Even if the church provides every resource and event known to man it still does not mask any problems.
Treat your kids as your most prized resource from God - they are !
God bless you, Kevin - I have been an ostrich before too. May we all open our eyes and fight the greatest disease in the churches today - sin.
Jesus loves me - this I know!
Sam in SC
Baptistcurmudgeon,
The autonomy defense is overused and weak. Like it or not, Southern Baptists have a history of hiding behind autonomy. Think back to the 50’s and 60’s, quite a few Southern Baptists (actually more than quite a few) hid being autonomy and other doctrines to avoid helping African-Americans in their struggle for Civil Rights.
Local church autonomy! Soul Competency! Those phrases and more were thrown around so that Southern Baptists could remain comfortable in their seats and not be pressured/forced into doing what was right, what was just: to speak out against the lynchings, the mob violence, the KKK, and all other forms of white supremacy prevalent in southern culture and in SBC life.
Christa Brown’s plan may not be perfect. But there are more than two options: The Christa Brown Option and the Do-Nothing Option.
Southern Baptists individually and the Convention as a whole need to be proactive and not reactive. It’s always better to do something than to do nothing.
Big Daddy,
Christa Brownâs plan may not be perfect. But there are more than two options: The Christa Brown Option and the Do-Nothing Option. Well said.
It’s difficult for me to imagine that churches don’t check out their potential ministry staff before calling them. Every church where I’ve served on staff has done a thorough investigation of references, as well as a criminal background check. When I’ve served as advisor to a staff committee, we did the same, contacting not only the candidate’s reference list, but requiring at least one reference from each of their previous congregations, as far back as possible, and a criminal background check. That should be standard proceedure, and should eliminate the free movement of these guys from one church to another. I’m just blown away by the fact that there are churches who don’t do this.
There isn’t any way for the SBC to act authoritatively in this matter. But it can be pro-active in encouraging churches to train their staff and their volunteers, and enact policies which prevent situations that can lead to abuse. A high level of supervision and accountability should be the goal of each congregation. Having been involved with churches that have enacted such policies and proceedures in recent years, I’m surprised there are so many that haven’t. If a church isn’t willing to do a criminal background check on a prospective minister, will they be more willing to access an SBC list? And who determines what is a “credible” accusation?
Lee,
You are right that every church should do thorough background checks. Our church does and it weeded out a lot. But there are some churches who would gladly get rid of “their” problem by sending them to another church. Just look at the famous pastor who was exposed last month of having multiple affairs for 25 years. Now it is coming out that the churches he served at knew it all along.
I don’t know what all of the answers are but as BDW says we need to do something.
Sorry, you present a false choice. It is not between SNAP’s choice and nothing. There is a lot of ground between the two, some of which is represented by Burleson’s motion. The burden should fall on the hiring, supervising, and firing entity - the local church.
It is a bit ironic to hear baptist moderates and liberals downgrade local church autonomy, something they have shouted from the rooftops in years past. The SBC didn’t violate any local church’s autonomy by kicking out homosexual approving congregations but they did create SNAP’s most effective point about sexual abuse in the SBC: the SBC is willing to kick out homosexual-approving churches but not pedophile-harboring churches.
SNAP’s plan should be considered, and probably rejected - think about the implications of a permanent database of sexual abuse reports, credible and non-credible, on SBC ministers being maintained by the denomination. A given minister may have one non-credible report, he is in the sexual abuse database. What church would touch him? It is never far from the database containing all reports, credible and non-credible (and that is what is sought) and an authentic 21st century witch hunt.
You cannot overcome the inherent independence of baptist church whatever good cause is behind the effort.
If pastors act like criminals and hypocrites, why blame poor old Satan? Blame the ministers concerned, and leave it at that. Human beings don’t need the services of the supernatural in order to commit crimes. “The Devil made me do it” is a cop-out par excellence, though I dare say that enterprising lawyers have tried that stunt in defending exceptionally vicious clients
You have to understand one thing about sexual predators. No matter how you punish them, it never changes them. I guarantee that when they’re in prison, they spend most waking moments planning their next “conquests” and swapping info with other depraved molesters.
The only way to deal with them is to treat them as criminals and turn them over to the authorities. They are extremely cunning and manipulative- all too often blaming the victim for enticing them! - and will interpret any sign of compassion as carte blanche to commit more crimes. Believe me- I know, as a police officer, and from bitter personal experience.
About 15 years ago, there was a pastor in Sydney ( Australia). The usual story, molesting kids, then being shunted off from one church to another, rather than the congregations doing the right thing and reporting his deeds as crimes. Well, one father of several youngsters wasn’t going to stand for the strain of wondering if the molester was going to attack his sons- so he made a pre-emptive strike and killed the bloke the minute he entered their community. Result? The court found him not guilty ,and everone was happy.
But why did it have to get to that point in the first place?
Does Christian “mercy” and “forgiveness” mean that inexcusable things can be done to children by other so-called Christians?
Why the reluctance to treat it as a crime?
Kevin,
Please forgive the length of my comment but that great question you pose encourages study.
Could it be that the SBC Statement of Faith (SOF), could lead a Pastor into doubting his Savior or his salvation… thereby saying “If I can’t do what I have promised to do (abide by legalism of the SBC SOF) then I might as well live it up.”
After you read this check out The SBC Statement of Beliefs: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
Reading the section on Salvation carefully, you will notice that there are two errors in the same paragraph, Repentance and Faith. It is one paragraph comprised of two sentences quoted from the Baptist Faith and Message:
The first is: “Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God.”
This is false doctrine. Repentance in salvation is simply a change of mind. When one repents, he changes his mind from his own works, or whatever he may be trusting to save him, to believing that Jesus Christ will save him — and is now his Savior. Repentance for salvation (New Testament) is NOT turning from sin since that would make salvation no longer God’s gift through faith but a reward or wages owed because of one’s works.
Notice the second sentence of this same paragraph on Salvation:
“Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.”
This likewise is false doctrine. If SBC had just stopped with “Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ…”[as Savior] that would be Biblical.. but they had to add a works message of “and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.” To be saved, one DOES NOT commit his “entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior.” One simply trusts, believes in Christ as his Savior. Period. Commitment may or may not come later for a believer, but whether it does or not cannot alter one’s salvation.
A Pastor who does not fully understand God’s Grace may realize he cannot keep the laws of his SBC church. He may very well fall into despondency and be open for just about any kind of sin.
Thankfully the Lord does not require either of these two SBC rules for salvation. Those rules do not illustrate God’s Grace in salvation.
However, every one who has trusted Christ alone as Savior SHOULD, by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, turn from sin. Every believer SHOULD, by the power of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit, commit his entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour. But these have nothing to do with accepting God’s free gift of salvation.
However, Kevin, as you implied, this is not just an SBC problem. Any Pastor who forgets, ignores or dosn’t know the Grace of God is susceptible. Never forget God’s Grace.
God’s Grace is absolutely Amazing — and so all-encompassing. What about God’s Grace?
God’s grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Titus 2:11
As every believer should know, God gives Grace through which we are saved. “For by grace are ye saved through faith;” Ephesians 2:8
We believers have received grace to enable our obedience to the Lord. “By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith….” Romans 1:5
We have God’s Grace to help our behavior. “…not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [manner of life] in the world,” 2 Corinthians 1:12b
God’s Grace will help us begin and finish as believers. “Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.” 2 Corinthians 8:6
God’s Grace is something in which we believers should abound and even more, help us to abound to every good work with sufficiency in all things..”….. see that ye abound [have more abundance] in this grace also.” 2 Corinthians 8:7b. And then, “…God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: ” 2 Corinthians 9:8
Believers can gain strength in God’s Grace. “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 2:1
God gives His grace to help believers in time of need.
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”Hebrews 4:16
Believers are justified by God’s Grace. Titus 3:7
We should never be satisfied but “…grow in grace, ….” 2 Peter 3:18
We are save by God’s Grace so let us serve Him, not by legalism or laws but by living in and sharing His powerful enabling Grace.
ExP(Jack)
The problem with a registry (at the exec. comm.) is that you wouldn’t be able to gain any information that isn’t already public record unless you include accusations and suspicions. The argument goes that most predators go undetected and that we can’t just rely on stopping those who have gotten caught. This is true and it is an issue that must be addressed but two evils don’t make a virtue and the false accusations that are routinely made can not be allowed to become apart of any attempt to catch the predators. The Joseph analogy is simply not an acceptable casualty of circumstances.
However, I believe that a lot could be accomplished by hiring some staff to do the programing and research to simply correlate the lists of public records that are available from every State and the FBI and make it easy to flag registered SBC minsters who have been convicted of these crimes or who is on any national or local registry.
Last, I do not agree with all of the various “releases” that are becoming so popular these days with Churches looking for staff and especially ministerial staff. However, a complete background criminal check should be an absolute requirement and the E.C. could find ways to make it easier for local Churches to do those checks. Local autonomy is a real issue and the fact that so many are so willing to dismiss it as not important reveals how little even our leaders understand the biblical foundations of being a Baptist. Nonetheless, autonomy doesn’t mean that we can’t find ways to make it easier for Churches to protect themselves. For an example, a local association could come together in annual meeting and decide to require of all member churches that a criminal background check be run for all ministerial staff called by the member Churches. If the Churches agreed to this then a policy would be established and the local Churches could choose or not choose to associate with sister churches who were that committed to protecting their children. I am not saying that this is the best option. I am saying that with some creativity and sincere hearts we can find a way to do much more than we are right now. But a registry that allows for the listing of the names of people who have not been convicted or (maybe indicted could be added) is absolutely unacceptable.
Jack,
I disagree with your thinking about repentance and agree with the BF&M.
Perry,
Thanks for your thoughts. Your ideas make a lot of sense.
Kevin,
You did raise an issue that I raised some 4 years ago here in Chicago. There is no doubt in my mind that many people serving in ministry have abused children…sexually and otherwise. BUT NOT everyone accused is guilty or even remotely guilty either.
What happens when someone has been accused, and later found innocent? What about the person whose life has been destroyed—not to mention their family, children, and everything else—just because some child didn’t like something that was said or done?
I have no doubt in my mind that several Catholic priests were guilty of the things with which they were charged–but certainly not all of them.
I often think this “abused by Father so-and-so” has become a cash cow for people who want to make alot of money, and know the Catholic Church will pay up.
I’m not defending predators—not even remotely close to defending them. But I do want someone to defend the honest men and women of God who have been wrongly accused…and unjustly destroyed.
God will defend them. Maybe HIS CHURCH should as well.
Harboring
I think our president Frank Page missed a golden opportunity to set one record straight. It is my belief that associations and conventions would seek to remove a church from fellowship that hires a known child abuser just as they seek to remove from fellowship those that hire practicing homosexuals. When have we refused to break fellowship with a church that hires known or confessing child abusers?