Child abuse in protestant churches is a real problem. Just last week several church insurance agencies have spoken out on this problem. I am proud to say that Southern Baptists Churches are aware of the issues and looking for ways to protect children. Here is the historic resolution passed by the Southern Baptist Convention against child abuse last month.
Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting
San Antonio, TX. June 12-13, 2007
Resolution No. 7
ON PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM ABUSE
WHEREAS, The Bible stresses the protection of and care for children, as evidenced by: its condemnation of the ancient pagan practice of child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-7; Ezekiel 16:20-21); its special regard for orphans in the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 24, 26); and the teaching of Jesus, who welcomed and valued little children (Matthew 18:1-5; 19:14); and
WHEREAS, Faithful Christians throughout history have risen to the defense of children, as seen in the Early Church’s protest of the practice of “child exposure”—in which unwanted infants were abandoned and left to die; the work of nineteenth-century Christians such as Lord Shaftesbury and others, who campaigned against child slavery and enacted child labor laws; and the diligence of those who defend the right to life of unborn children today; and
WHEREAS, Violent physical and sexual crimes against children have reached alarming levels in our nation, thus showing child abuse to be a leading issue requiring the urgent response of God’s people; and
WHEREAS, This abuse has occurred too often in churches and homes—which ought to be places of shelter and safety—and it has happened at the hands of family, educators, ordained ministers, and ministry workers—who ought to be trusted persons of authority; and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention in 2002: called Southern Baptists to practice integrity and fidelity to God; urged accountability among spiritual leaders to the highest standards of Christian moral practice; urged seminaries and related educational institutions to emphasize ministerial integrity; encouraged religious bodies to rid their ranks of predatory ministers; called on civil authorities to punish to the fullest extent of the law sexual abuse among clergy and counselors; called on our churches to discipline those guilty of any sexual abuse as well as to cooperate with civil authorities in the prosecution of those cases; and urged our churches to offer support, compassion, and biblical counseling to victims and their families; and
WHEREAS, LifeWay Christian Resources and many state conventions offer extensive resources designed to assist churches in addressing this issue; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, express our deep level of moral outrage and concern at any instance of child victimization; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we implore Southern Baptist churches to utilize materials from LifeWay Christian Resources and state conventions and other relevant research that help churches prevent child abuse; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we strongly recommend that Southern Baptist churches and Convention entities respond to any suspicions or allegations of child abuse in a timely and forthright manner; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptist churches and Convention entities to exercise moral stewardship by observing responsible employment practices, including performing criminal background checks on all ministers, employees, and volunteers; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we renounce individuals who commit heinous acts against children; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we renounce individuals, churches, or other religious bodies that cover up, ignore, or otherwise contribute to or condone the abuse of children; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we pray for righteousness and justice to prevail in our land and intercede on behalf of victimized children, asking God to heal their deep emotional and physical wounds, grow them into mature and healthy adults, and stop the cycle of abuse from repeating itself in another generation.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
R. Mansfield 06.25.07 at 3:45 pm
This is a good start, but I believe further actions need to be taken, including a private SBC database of sexual offenders. I’ve known of at least two churches (thankfully not ones I was a member of) that out of a sense of not wanting a scandal, swept the issue under the rug, kept it quiet, and allowed the so-called minister to simply go on to another church. Odds are that such ministers will simply do these things again.
I feel there needs to be a convention-wide database in which churches could register the names of offenders, thus allowing other churches to perform a background check on any ministerial applicants.
Because the reality is that if a church simply sends a minister on to the next church and he does it there, too, both churches could be held liable.
My hunch, though, is that it will take some multi-million-dollar lawsuits to take place before these kinds of safeguards are put in place.
Tony Kummer 06.25.07 at 4:26 pm
I think your are right - local churches should do more to protect kids, even if it hurts their reputation. Any kind of cover up to “preserve” the good name of the particular church does much greater harm to the good name of Christ.
The database idea could be easily abused. If we include only “convicted” cases then it wouldn’t be much help at all. If we include “accused or suspected” then it becomes a database of limited credibility. Maybe the SBC could form a commission to investigate and substantiate accusations, working in full cooperation with local authorities.
But again, it may take the pain of several lawsuits to move that issue forward. Thanks for you comments and sharing your insight.
John Rothra 06.26.07 at 8:16 am
There are numerous problems with a database system. I cannot outline them all here if I want to ensure brevity. However, I shall mention two as a starting point.
1. Tony rightfully points out the first I wish to highlight: should it include only convicted, only those accused, or only those alleged? If only the accused, then there are already databases available through law enforcement agencies. Duplicating this would be an unnecessary burden on the SBC. If only the accused, how do we define the term ‘accused’ in relation to the database? Are you accused only if charges are filed by a prosecutor? Are you accused when you are arrested (not all arrests are prosecuted, some are dropped). If the standard for inclusion is the mere allegation, then the minute someone cries fowl, should they be included? Does the mere thought of the allegation warrant tarnishing the character of a potentially innocent person? We need to remember that, according to law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. The SBC should not play the media games and accuse, try, and convict a person in the public arena. Let them remain innocent until proven guilty.
2. Not all churches would use the database. The quick answer is for the SBC to force them to use it. However, that runs counter to the organization of the SBC. Unlike most denominations, the national organization cannot impose itself upon state and local conventions nor local churches. Nor can the state impose itself upon the local. The local imposes upon the state and national levels. Essentially, the top of the organization is the local church rather than the SBC. Therefore, the SBC cannot force a church to do anything. They can only prevent the church from participating in the SBC.
Furthermore, there are two difficulties with the statement, “Maybe the SBC could form a commission to investigate and substantiate accusations, working in full cooperation with local authorities.”
First, the idea of forming a commission to solve something. I’m reminded of the line from Star Wars V when Han Solo tells Leia they need to leave the cave, Leia argues, and Solo yells, “No time to discuss this in a committee!” to which Leia responds, “I am NOT a committee!” Call it a commission, committee, or whatever, the idea of creating a bureaucratic body to investigate something often leads to a watered-down pseudo solution. The result is often neither enforcible, meaningful, nor informative. Instead, it is full of compromise, vague wording, and avoiding the tough issues.
Second, the idea of substantiating accusations made is tough because even law enforcement would argue over the idea of what is a legitimate accusation and what is not. Many arrests, which are legally considered accusations, are not prosecuted by the local attorney, but are dropped. According to law, the arresting officer(s) has enough reason to issue the legal accusation. However, the prosecutors office decided there was not enough evidence to pursue the accusation and, hence, retracts the accusation. So, the same person is both accused with reason and not accused with reason. So, is this accusation substantiated? My point is this, it is difficult to determine of an accusation is substantiated.
My view is this: any such database should not include anyone who is not convicted of the crime. To include those not convicted is to declare the person’s guilt in the public arena. The result would have to be removing the person if they are proven not guilty.
The consequence is dangerous. It means the person is guilty upon accusation and must be proven innocent. Furthermore, it means the SBC would have to retract and, possibly, publicly apologize to every person they had to remove from the database. Also, it would open up the SBC to potential lawsuits from those found not guilty because the database harmed their reputation, destroyed their life, and caused hardship. The SBC does not want to get into defending themselves against this.
Therefore, the best answer is to only include those convicted. However, these databases already exist so the SBC need not worry about creating one.
Regarding the resolution, I find it doesn’t say much, really. It can be summarized this way: We believe child abuse is wrong and recommend that churches do what they can to prevent it. Well, I’m sure 99.9 percent of the world would agree with that, so saying it is neither profound nor ‘historic.’ Instead, it is obvious and redundant.
Tony Kummer 06.26.07 at 11:38 am
John,
Thanks for your well reasoned response. I think I agree with most of what you wrote. Any real solution is nearly impossible on a denominational level. Ultimately, it will take local churches who do the right thing for children.
I have mixed feelings about the resolution. I am really glad that we said something, even if it is obvious and redundant. By their very nature ‘SBC resolutions’ can never really change things. It is a positive step that we are willing to admit this is a problem in our churches.
Bob Dewhurst 06.26.07 at 1:01 pm
As a retired criminal investigator whose career focus was and in part still is child sexual abuse I see the problem continuing to worsen. It is a symptom of the morale decay in our culture brought about the promotion of illicit sex of all type through media; TV, radio, music lyrics, billboards, movies, video games, internet and more. Tony, I agree with your last comment. We must do more than print a document and vote in favor of it. We must take action. For the past decade I have “preached” (even though I am not a ordained minister) about the victimization of children in many churches. Some churches acted. Other church ask for a workshop on the topic just so they could tell their insurance company they had been trained. There needs to be a plan followed by action. We must first clean up and protect the church before we can be a voice to the world around us.
Tony Kummer 06.30.07 at 5:09 am
Bob,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your passion on this issue. It is a sad statement on our culture and our churches that children continue to be victimized while we worry about our insurance rates.
Michael 05.26.08 at 11:10 am
My wife was the children’s director for many years at our Mother’s Day Out after working in Church child care centers for many years before that. Thank God, we never had a case of child abuse at our MDO program.
One of the members of our church was a police officer. He would come out to the church and give us tips, help and best practices for keeping our kids safe. I think this helped us immensely.
Sadly, there was an instance of child abuse at one of the Church child care centers my wife worked at previously. It was a janitor. A janitor that was loved (and trusted) by everyone in the center. It was heart-breaking for my wife.
Needless to say, I am always most concerned with the people who are on the inside in any child care situation. They need to be checked, double checked and triple checked. I think security cameras need to be installed everywhere in the church or child care facility. If possible, live streaming video should be broadcast on the internet (that isn’t as expensive as it was in the past). We should take every measure we can to protect our kids. I applaud the Southern Baptist Convention for taking a strong stand!
Michaels last blog post..Mansfield TX Hail Storm
Tony Kummer 05.28.08 at 9:42 pm
Michael,
Thanks for sharing your insight. In almost every story I hear about child abuse (especially withing faith communities) the attacker is someone that everyone trusts.
We’ve just upgrades several aspects of our facility with the goal of “zero hiding places.”