Apr 17 2007
Complex Issue
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have all or for that matter many answers to the issue of sexual predators in churches. I do think that our children are too important to just say that every church must fend for themselves.  We must work together.
But what about those who may be falsely accused? That issue has been raised and I realize it is a very touchy subject. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be on a person and their family to be accused of something they didn’t do.
I received an e-mail from someone I don’t know and lives nowhere near me.  They wanted to tell their story but they don’t want to be dragged though the mud and especially their family. I have received several e-mails this week from people who have been abused and now one who was accused wrongly.  All of the stories break my heart.
The person who was wrongly accused gave me permission to share their story to give another point of view. I left out parts and reworded it to protect them. Here it is:
This person has been investigated numerous times for Child abuse. Each Report has been thoroughly investigated, and it was concluded in every case they were false reports.  Over a period of time his home was searched and his family have been to see DHS, and the police. The police know him and his family and realize they are being victimized. The law says someone can be arrested for repeatedly making a false report but the false reports change a little each time which keeps them from being arrested.
I can’t reveal who set him up but there are other issues he shared which can not be posted here to protect him and his family. Lets just say it is painful. There are many other complex issues that have arisen. It has caused a strain on his family and his wife. Read what he said:.
“I understand your furor over these creeps who have legitimately done wrong and admitted to it, or it was proven…..but this could get huge and horrible. Someone needs to remember Americans are innocent until proven guilty…. “
As I read his e-mail I realized this is more complex than just lists and such. I’ve never claimed to be an expert. But I do hurt for those who have been abused as well as those who have been falsely accused.  I don’t know what the answer is but I have a lot of questions.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
15 responses so far
I’m not suggesting that Baptists of any stripe adopt Christa Brown’s proposal for an Independent Investigative Board (or whatever it’s called). However, the system that she advocates is one that has been adopted by PC-USA and I believe UMC?
All this talk about the falsely accused hinges on the phrase “credible report.”
And this review board is obviously made up of highly educated folks from various professions including lawyers. Reports are taken seriously and investigated carefully. The potential for a false accusation to pass as a credible report is essentially zero.
Nonetheless, like I said before, there are more than two options available.
And shouldn’t a database consist of more than just convicted pastors? Are there not instances, when years laters, pastors confess to allegations of abuse but were never prosecuted? You bet. What percentage of those RCC priests were actually prosecuted? Not a whole lot. I’ll take it a step further. I think a pastor who has inappropriate relations or actual sex with one of his older youth (17-18) should also be included in a database. Does the abuser need to have actually violated a law of the state to be put on such a list? I hope not.
Pastors that are convicted, Pastors that have confessed, Pastors that seduce barely legal teens, and Pastors that can’t keep their zippers up shouldn’t be able to hop around from one church job to the next. Further, seminaries shouldn’t be in the business of admitting those convicted of incest and those convicted of possessing child porn….
First, let’s separate malicious reports from mistaken reports.
The former, as all police know, are done for a variety of reasons- attention-seeking, revenge, etc. The latter are filed by people who geninely bellieve that there is something to actually report. For instance: A small girl returns from school with a urinary tract infection, which causes her pain, and she winces when touched. She informs her parents that she doesn’t like a certain ( usually male) teacher, because he hurts her. ( Said teacher might have made a belittling remark.) Ergo, parents put two and two together, come up with five, and charge off to the police. That sort of thing can be sorted out.
But surely, malicious liars can be dealt with by the courts, particularly if they have a past history? When you make a statement to the authorities, don’t you swear an oath to the effect that you’ve told the truth and know the meaning of, and penalties for, perjury? Your legal system is quite weird, but surely you must have SOME way of punishing a liar? Particularly when that liar levels a very serious accusation?
BDW,
I’m with you. I’m just trying to give another side to this issue. I hope the SBC will adopt some sort of reporting.
This is a natural progression for a fallen world. We sin, then we try to fix it, but we sin again when fixing it. There should be consequences for deliberately false accusations to help keep things in balance.
Being falsely accused of something like that would be a horrible situation. Most people would never look at the person the same way again.
Adding the names of those who have confessed definitely would make sense.
I just read Dr. Pages response to 20/20 segment. An SBC attorney make a comment that gave me a thought. He noted that the ABC stated that these guys were endorsed and qualified by the SBC. Of course, SBC pastors are ordained by local Churches not the Convention. I didn’t even catch that one.
But, why couldn’t we establish a voluntary registry for ordained SBC ministers (and not ordained) to submit themselves to the SBC E.C. for background checks ect. NAMB provides endorsement for missionaries of different types. Why couldn’t we establish a voluntary endorsement system. This wouldn’t violate autonomy and could be a proactive step of protection.
Again, this might not be the best idea but I am certain that we can find many ways to make our kids and Churches safer.
When I returned from missionary service overseas, and began the process of finding the church that would be the right fit for me and I for them, I was repeatedly requested (by churches of all sizes) to sign permission for background check. Whether these churches followed through or simply dismissed any candidates who did not sign the agreement, I couldn’t say. Only about two of the several churches who went beyond the stage of glancing at my resume did not do this. One of those had a history of an abusive pastor (whom they dismissed when they learned of past offenses). Still, they neglected to even offer to do a bgc on me. I think having some kind of database is a good idea–I’m trying to think up a possible solution that would be worthwhile to consider.
Christa Brown has some FAQs here: http://stopbaptistpredators.org/faqs/autonomy_and_review_board.html
This includes answering the “credible reports” question.
The SBC is already looking into a registry for convicted abusers. Fine. I predict they will settle on something before June’s meeting in San Antonio.
Your example of the guy repeatedly accused is a good one because those who want an independent investigatory body to receive and handle such things for SBC clergy accused would keep all of those false reports in a permanent database. My friend BDW above who asserts that the educated experts would reduce the possibility of a false report being treated as credible to “essentially zero” has more confidence in education and expertise than is wise. Besides, all those false ones would be kept anyway. I can hear it now, “We have no credible reports on Rev. XYZ but have 13 reports deemed false.” Who would touch that guy?
SNAP says false reports are an insignificant percentage. Insignificant until you are in that group.
These discussions always include broader issues - Burleson’s motion includes “sexual harrassment” a non-juvenile crime, I presume, and ‘consensual’ sex between clergy and congregant is mentioned above. If we are to have a database of disqualified clergy, what should be included?
I think some voluntary registry is worth scrutiny but what would the parameters be? And who would make determinations as to who should be on and who not? If we are still dealing with legal convictions we’re essentially talking about redundancy.
I think that, in maintaining any kind of database related to this issue, the legal principle of “Innocent until proven guilty,” should be the guiding principle. I don’t know what constitutes a “credible accusation,” but as far as I am concerned, no accusation is credible unless the accused has been convicted by a court of law, which is the way we have agreed to handle these issues in this country. Attempts to bypass the legal system to satisfy the emotions of the accuser will only create more victims and it won’t solve the problem.
I’m also not willing to consider anything which would place the SBC as an entity in a position of authority over a local church. Turning the denomination into a heirarchial structure, just to solve this particular problem, can’t be done. It may take more work to generate the kind of awareness on the local church level to get congregations to cooperate in order to prevent abuse, goodness, churches should bend over backward in order to protect their younger members, but you can’t change the inherent nature of a Baptist congregation in order to do that.
The first step is for Southern Baptists to realize that this is not just a Catholic problem.
Baptistcurmudgeon, you hit the nail precisely on the head. Who’s going to touch him? Hopefully the loving body of Christ.
BigDaddy….dude I love your music but for someone to put faith in educated experts is very, very unwise. The wisdom of man is foolishness. The foolishness of God is wise.
There are many handsome winsome beautiful people in “positions” of ministry who do not know anything of the path of sufferring that Jesus walked. When Samuel went to look at the son’s of Jesse, what was he looking at? Then who did God choose?
Forget background checks…..Check all those in ministry to see if their knees are dirty! See what kind of struggles they have endured. You might want to do something as radical as….praying.
I strongly am convinced that the Spirit of the LORD will protect HIS church better than anyone… if WE will seek Him first, trust HIM and not lean to our own understanding.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
First, as I have said on a couple of other blogs, the SBC can and has said, “We will not accept contributions from churches that endorse the practice of homosexuality, nor will we seat their messengers,” and, “We will not accept for service in the SBC members of a church that does not endorse the BF&M 2000.” This (apparently) does not cross the line of church autonomy; so then why cannot we say, “We will not accept contributions from, and we will not seat messengers from any church that does not run a criminal records check (with especially attention to sexual-related offences) for ministerial staff”?
Second, I would suggest that considering “credible accusations” is valid because, unlike murder, there is in most states there is a statute of limitations on sexual offenses. There cannot be a “conviction” in such cases. However, just because an accusation does not come foreward until after that period does not lessen either the liklihood that it actually happened, or that it will not happen again. I am not sure what a such a review would look like, but it is certainly worth considering, rather than just dismissing it out-of-hand. And I am sensitive to wrongful accusations and convictions too. As a former police officer, I have seen that happen, once even within my own family (although unrelated to sexual offenses).
Christa Brown on “credible reports” of abuse: “Some of the factors that an independent board could weigh in making the determination are the reliability of the account, documentary evidence such as letters and diaries, any corroboration from other witnesses, circumstantial information, the context in which the event occurred, and statements by the alleged perpetrator (often perpetrators essentially admit to the conduct but rationalize it in some way - e.g., by calling it âconsensualâ even though the kid was 14 or by minimizing it as “just” fondling, etc.). The board’s independent review could also be guided by research and information arising from social service investigations of abuse.”
It is not impossible to make a determination of abuse in cases beyond legal remedy. Certainly those clergy who have abused children in the past ought to be exposed. There is usually some indication - witnesses, ‘private’ comfessions etc. Whether the SBC XComm should fund and staff a board to do such a thing is another question, one I have reservations about.
I doubt seriously that the borderline cases and the false reports are the problem. The problem is a system (SBC) which lets predators move from church to church, hides the truth for fear of some worldly reaction, and then does nothing at all the stem the tide of prevent it in the first place.
Something plainly needs to be done. I am aware of a church in which nothing was done about an admittedly abusing pastor for some time after he was dismissed, until he applied to another church who was not aware of his history.
He was then, only then, reported to the authorities.
That sure needs to stop.
I was thinking as I was reading the comments, why couldn’t those who are pastors in SBC churches submit their names to the SBC and have a back ground check done and have a list of Pastor who have checked out as âOKâ and that list would be available to churches and it could be updated regularly that way you are not dealing with the false accusation and if the name of a pastor is not on that list it would flag him to be checked (not accused) for a back ground check.
I know most new pastors wouldnât know about this but when they become a pastor or a staff member their local association could then tell them to add their name to the list.
Itâs not perfect but I think it could work.
I also know that there would be a large expense to the SBC but every church gives to the SBC so it is in my mind worth the cost!
What do yaâll think?
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
Amen, Kevin!