I have written about child abuse allegations and the church before: here, here and here. I was once the interim/transitional pastor at a church where I discovered the husband of the children’s director was a convicted child molester (not merely accused but convicted) and two previous pastors had ignored the situation. I addressed the situation quickly, decisively, and I can assure you I did not continue the tradition of willful ignorance.
As a counselor, I deal with issues related to child abuse on a regular basis. I understand, perhaps better than the average minister, the impact of molestation on a child and his/her family. I am also aware that not every allegation is to be believed and that my profession has contributed to the problem of “memories” falsely created by inept therapists and susceptible clients.
I was quick to warn some of my outspoken friends not to feel too smug in haranguing the Roman Catholic church when the same thing occurs in every setting in which children gather (protestant churches, public and private schools, youth sporting leagues, etc.).
If anyone ought to be in favor of procedures and policies that make identifying child molesters and protecting children easier, it ought to be me. So why am I not excited about recent news surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention and SNAP, a victim’s rights group?
The short answer is that I am interested in solutions that actually solve existing problems and I’m not convinced SNAP’s proposals solve the problems in the SBC. The problem in the SBC is not that the national denomination is transferring alleged pedophiles out of one church and into another congregation and then covering up the allegations. That doesn’t happen because it can’t: the SBC doesn’t hire or transfer any ministers.
One problem is that some SBC churches willfully ignore the law. Some ministers and lay leaders look at the state laws regarding reporting and decide they know better. They decide separation of church and state means they don’t have to report suspected child abuse. SNAP’s recommendations do not address this fundamental underlying problem found within some independent churches.
Proposed solutions ought to fix the problem. An independent review board may have fixed some problems in traditional, hierarchical denominations, but it won’t fix the problems of arrogance, fear, and setting ones self above the law found in some SBC and independent congregations.
I would like to focus on one paragraph in SNAP’s letter to the SBC:
Just as family members cannot properly investigate a molestation claim made against a close relative, local church leaders cannot properly investigate a report of clergy abuse made against a much-loved minister. The usual dynamics dictate that there cannot possibly be a proper inquiry without outside intervention. Given the reported pattern of church officials being “not responsive’ when confronted with clergy abuse allegations, the SBC must provide leadership if it wants to rid the ranks of clergy predators who have been recycled from church to church. When kids are at stake, there is no place for passivity on the part of denominational leaders.
An independent review board would, at the very least, allow some churches to feel good about having done something while still avoiding the law. I don’t see that as a good thing. Anything that allows a minister or church member to set themselves above the law isn’t helpful. If someone were following the reporting laws, then the idea of an independent review board is moot: the incident is already being investigated.
At worst, it would create another layer of problems. Investigations into child abuse allegations are a difficult thing to do. It requires specialized training in the interviewing of children and adults. A poor investigation can overlook legitimate allegations, lead witnesses toward false memories/false accusations, or taint the legal case making it difficult for a DA to prosecute in the future. I would prefer those with the proper training – and only those with the proper training – conduct investigations.
I do like the idea of a national clearinghouse of information on convicted molesters. I would think the federal government should be the ones to do so; if not, then the SBC itself maintaining such a database seems like a natural fit.
Some would complain that waiting for a conviction is too late. On another blog, Christa Brown with SNAP left this comment:
If a Baptist minister can remain in the pulpit until there’s an actual conviction against him, then far too many predatory pastors are going to remain in positions of trust, and kids are left in harm’s way.
The alternative is to turn our civil liberties on their head and blacklist ministers and volunteers for rumor and innuendo. I’m not willing to do that.
I am willing to look at creative ways to address a very real problem. And I’m very willing for people like SNAP and Ms. Brown to continue to raise issues and demand solutions. Just because I don’t like one particular solution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything.
So, let me ask you: if you are a member (clergy or laity) of a protestant church, what ideas do you think would be helpful? What will protect our children and the rights of the accused all at the same time?
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Good question. I’m not sure there’s a conventional sort of answer in the Baptist church, as the pastor isn’t accountable to a discrete group of overseers. Typically, the pastor is the only elder in an SBC church, so there’s nobody to hold his feet to the fire.
It’d be against Baptist teachings, as I understand them, to appoint elders (although many SBC churches do, like Gateway Baptist in Montgomery – Alan Cross’ church), but that would be a start.
Then, overhaul the tendency among all the churches I know of to downplay misdeeds in the name of “protecting our testimony”. Can’t bemirch the Lord’s name, you know, although that’s a lot like protecting the lion. Be as open about such problems as the SEC makes our stockbroker to be, about misdeeds by their personnel, when they’re responsible for our money.
Bob,
Thanks for responding. I have some ideas about how to overhaul the tendency among all the churches… to downplay misdeeds in the name of “protecting our testimony†but would like to hear from others.
(I can always count on you to check blogs and comment first thing in the morning. Is that part of retirement?)
I’m not retired. I simply have a somewhat different work schedule, and a radically different attitude, since I discovered I could live on Social Security.
Which reminds me .. thanks for the monthly checks and for paying my medical bills for me.
I think the SBC should have some sort of way of alerting churches to child molestors, etc… It is more common than we want to admit.
I’m a little late to comment on this blog, but do churches not routinely do a background check on ministers? I think one should be done on all members personally, anyone who is contact with children in the church. With one out five young girls being a victim of some form of sexual abuse, we would be idiots to not think that it is happening in our churches.