Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Baptism by Fire
Posted by Elizabeth Ulrich on Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Comments (8)
Showing 1-8 of 8
Good to know these fine Christian gentlemen are putting the blame for their diabolical deeds right where it belongs—on you and their victims. God works in mysterious ways, but Satan is just too easy to read.
like
dislike
I read the cover story, which certainly raises some troubling questions about how concerned the SBC leadership truly is over this issue. That said, here's a serious question:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the SBC leadership wanted to make a good-faith effort to alert churches, what would this proposed database actually look like? Would it include only those who had admitted guilt or somehow been found guilty through a fact-finding process? Would it include the pastor referenced in the article, who admitted fathering a child by a teenage parishioner but claimed it was all consensual, leaving the allegation as a case of she said-he said? Would the database include pastors against whom any allegation of sexual impropriety had been made? On what basis would allegations be deemed to be credible? Would the database be sortable (or need to be sortable) according to whether the impropriety involved homosexual vs. heterosexual behavior? What legal ramifications would there be if you attempted to publish the names of church officials against whom credible yet unproven allegations had been made? Could the SBC become liable to lawsuits by the accused? How do you protect officials who might be accused unfairly from effectively becoming blacklisted?
I think the article raises enough troubling questions that I wouldn't simply give the SBC the benefit of the doubt. (And Lord knows that Paige Patterson, like his old mentor WA Criswell, are among the worst of the tribe of Shiite Baptists.) But even if everybody in this study group had the apparent integrity and good intentions of Wade Burleson, developing a database like this would be fraught with difficulties and would require the group to proceed cautiously, would it not?
One other question: I'm a little confused by the statement in the blog posting that we can guess what was said at the study group meeting based on the roster (which I took a look at). Could you elaborate? Should we infer that the group wasn't interested because only 6 of the 80 or so names on the list were women (and, as you wrote, only 1 woman was in attendance)? Or was it something else? Not sure what was meant here.
Would it include only those who had admitted guilt or somehow been found guilty through a fact-finding process?
The motion that Wade Burleson made at last year's convention—a motion that was approved almost unanimously by more than 8,600 messengers in attendance—described the database as one that would identify "Southern Baptist clergy and staff who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harassment or abuse."
The "credibly accused" aspect is an important one. Few clergy abusers are ever charged—and even fewer are convicted. The statute of limitations makes prosecution next to impossible. Plus, when you throw in the amount of cover-ups on the local church level—and the victims' fear of coming forward to accuse a beloved, powerful pastor—it's easy to see why most of these predators never find themselves in court.
Determining "credibility" is obviously the sticking point. SBC pastors we spoke to and victims groups such as SNAP have suggested that, in addition to creating a database, the SBC establish some sort of committee to review claims of abuse.
What legal ramifications would there be if you attempted to publish the names of church officials against whom credible yet unproven allegations had been made?
This was something that the SBC committee studying the database discussed Tuesday. There were questions about lawsuits on all ends of this: Could a pastor deemed to have been "credibly accused" sue? And what about the victims? If the committee charged with determining the validity of claims decided that an allegation didn't stick, could the victim sue the committee for damaging his/her reputation by essentially deeming him/her a liar?
SBC legal counsel chimed in at the meeting to explain that, when it comes to claims of defamation, the SBC and church officials would be protected under "qualified privilege." When it comes to claims of defamation, qualified privilege comes into play if the church officials are working together within a common interest—a legal, moral or societal duty—to discuss matters of concern (i.e. abuse) among themselves.
Short answer: It's a lot of legal gumbo that they'll have to wade through. But the SBC certainly has the staffing to do so.
I'm a little confused by the statement in the blog posting that we can guess what was said at the study group meeting based on the roster (which I took a look at). Could you elaborate?
The SBC executive committee has 81 members. Of those 81, a handful serve on the bylaws workgroup, which was charged with studying the feasibility of this predator database. Those who were supposed to be at Tuesday's meeting were, indeed, there.
Thank you for the elaboration, Elizabeth.
One follow-up question: Based on what you have seen and heard, do you feel comfortable in offering your own opinion about how the SBC could/should resolve the above questions in ways that could protect both church members and church officials while staying within the law? Just curious.
Based on what you have seen and heard, do you feel comfortable in offering your own opinion about how the SBC could/should resolve the above questions in ways that could protect both church members and church officials while staying within the law?
Based on the hours I've spent talking with people who are far more intimately involved in addressing the problem of abuse in SBC churches...people like Wade Burleson (who has pastored in Southern Baptist churches for a quarter of a century and who made the motion for the database); Father Thomas Doyle (who was one of the first to warn Catholic officials that clergy abuse would be a scandal of epic proportions if they didn't act quickly); Christa Brown (a victim of clergy abuse herself and a woman who's talked with more Baptist abuse victims than I could ever hope to); a handful of brave women who came to me with their stories (some of which we couldn't print); and several academics who've followed this issue closely...I do feel comfortable weighing in with my observations.
Do I feel qualified to give a specific recommendation about how the SBC should proceed? No. But it's not my job to act as a consultant. I do feel comfortable letting the more-than-qualified individuals I've listed above speak to what the SBC should do through my reporting. And, as you'll see in last week's cover story, each offered his or her take on how the SBC could address this.
And I absolutely feel comfortable saying that I think the SBC needs to do more to help the victims—and to protect the people in the pews. But that's a no-brainer.
Mr. Wilson – stated “ Would it include the pastor referenced in the article, who admitted fathering a child by a teenage parishioner but claimed it was all consensual, leaving the allegation as case of she said-he said? ” -- First off this was not a she said he said – I was 14 yrs old when he started touching me inappropriately and I was only 15 yrs old when he raped me. As he told me about another young girl and I became very worried about her – I made a tape recording of him, trying to get him to give me that girl’s name. So I have a tape recording that he gives his age of 28 at the time he started with me, which proves I was 14 yrs old, as he is 14 yrs older than me. Between the tape recording and what I told in my deposition and what he said in his deposition and other things, I think it is more than he said she said. Now considering what he says in the tape and what he says about these other girls in the deposition, I think that would be enough for any normal person to be very concerned and would want him on the list. It was in no way consensual -- If it was why did he use a gun with me !! Regardless any minister that has sex with a teenager who is in his congregation should be on that list. Just as it is against the law for a therapist to have sex with a patient – it should be the same for a minister. And according to the Bible then this person should not be a pastor.
I believe the data base needs to have those found guilty as well as those who confess and those that there is credible allegations. There needs to be a group to look into allegations. It needs to be people who do not go to that church and are not involved. It is often too late by time a child can tell what had happened for there to be any legal action and therefore there is no court. Just because someone confesses does not mean that they are forgiven and allowed to stay in the ministry and not put on any list. I am not saying that forgiveness is wrong. I am saying it is wrong to put someone in a position to hurt someone else. You would not put a recovering alcoholic to work in a bar or a recovering drug addict to work in a pharmacy. So why would you want to put anyone who sexually abuses anyone in a position to do it again, especially in a place like church? This man who abused me told me that He had the best job, as he could do whatever he wanted and as long as he asks for forgiveness they (the church) has to forgive him. Well first off that is not truly asking for forgiveness. He only admitted what he has because he got me pregnant and knew that could be proven and therefore he figured it would be better for him to confess something that he knew he was already caught for doing.
* I cannot say this any stronger – but you have to know that coming forward and telling what happened is an extremely hard thing to do and I seriously doubt there would be very many who would come forward and admit to this kind of abuse falsely *
People who sexually abuse young people – are not going to come out and admit anything if they do not have to, as they want to stay in a position to keep doing it. They are going to be careful to hide there actions and so there will be cases of he said she said, that is why you need people to look into it. Hopefully at least one person who is a professional who has dealt with people who have been abused would be in the group to look into this.
To your remark on “ How do you protect officials who might be accused unfairly from effectively becoming blacklisted? “ I do not have all of the answers, but I believe that for starts you could start to have classes in the seminary to help ministers to know how to prevent this. Such as, having a glass door so that the secretary or other people could see into the office or space where a minister might be counseling someone, that would allow others to see that there is no inappropriate touching going on. That would protect everyone. Having someone else present when counseling a minor or someone of the opposite sex. Not to be alone with a minor for any reason would protect everyone. That would also protect both the minister as well as any vulnerable person that might be seeking help. I would think that these men who are leaders of are churches could come up with many more things to protect both minister as well as others from being hurt. I would also hope that they are wise enough to put aside their own personal hurts & feelings and talk with and listen to other people who have been hurt or who have already taken steps to protect our churches. I would also like to see ministers taught what to do when someone comes to them to report abuse. Some of the things said to me were very hurtful and made me feel even worse, even though they did not mean to hurt me with their words they did and the position that they are in they should know more.
Are you saying that you would rather put a child at risk than having a minister leave the ministry?
As far as your comment about the difficulties doing this database – of course it is going to be hard, but is it not worth it if you protect others from being hurt so badly especially children !! As far as working cautiously, I believe that the SBC has been working on this problem since at least 2002. It is now 2008 – is it not time for action now – how much more time do they need ?
I do not know about the legal aspect. I would hope that these people looking into this would have enough knowledge to find a way, such as putting a disclaimer. I believe that there will be problems and that things will need to be adjusted. But you have to start to do something just talking and no action helps no one.
I would like to talk to these people who are looking into this, as I feel that they do not really understand. I do not know how to express the tremendous amount of hurt and damage done to the life of a young person who has been sexually abused. If you or they knew what it does to such innocent little lives, I think maybe they would be more interested in finding a way to accomplish these things instead of finding so many reasons, why they cannot do more to protect the young vulnerable people in our churches.
As far as what reporters are saying – If people would start to do something to protect our children then there would be no story for them to report.
I thank these reporters that have brought this issue to light. If people are not aware of a problem how can the problem be fixed ?
I could say a lot more, but I have probably already said too much.
Thanks for listening
Debbie
Debbie:
First off, I am very sorry about what happened to you and about the way church officials responded. I agree with you that no pastor who does such a thing should be allowed to remain a pastor.
I agree also that better training in seminaries about this issue would be a helpful step.
Of course, such training would not substitute for a database. And establishing a database remains an extremely complex issue. My point was not that the idea of a database should therefore be abandoned. It was that even a church body acting in good faith and with the best of intentions would be expected to proceed carefully and deliberately in order to create something that was both workable yet fair to all concerned. It sounds like there are a number of people within the SBC who do have good intentions, but as I said in an earlier post, I have very little faith in people like Paige Patterson.
If they have indeed been working on this since 2002, then I would conclude that the top leadership have not taken this issue seriously.
And though it may sound like a copout (and may truly be one for some), the congregationalist structure of SBC churches does complicate things because the denomination has so little direct leverage over individual congregations. (On the other hand, the church's direct leverage didn't exactly do much to protect young Catholic parishioners.)
I wonder if one possibility might be, instead of creating some database that would be essentially public, to have permanent files about a pastor's tenure (which could include information about other conduct as well as any complaints of sexual misconduct) be made available to pastoral search committees upon request. As you say, it's hard to know what the best answer is.
More of the leadership need to take seriously Jesus' statement that it would be better for someone to tie a millstone around their neck and jump into the ocean than to harm one of our little ones. And a special place of punishment should be reserved for those leaders who recommend sexual predators to new congregations in spite of track records of complaints.
I went back and read the original story again. I couldn't find anything stating that the SBC had been "working" on this since 2002. If true, the fact that so little had happened in such a long time would be a very relevant and damning detail.
On second reading, I also noticed a detail I had overlooked -- that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship had set up its own sex offender database. I realize there may not have been space in the story for more detail, but I'd be very curious to learn how this group approached the problems of "credible allegations," protecting the innocent, potential legal pitfalls, etc.
