"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Barbara Blaine-Founder of SNAP
(She has more cojones than the entire SBC leadership)
TWW would normally post an excerpt from a Christian History manuscript today. However, due to some factors beyond our control, that will be postponed for one week.
We are currently involved in a discussion surrounding pedophilia and the church. The current issues being discussed in the comment thread involve both forgiveness and restoration. I have decided to change my post for tomorrow and look at both of these issues and how they relate to pedophiles and the church.
This issue is a hot button issue for both of us at TWW. We watched a church which dealt with this problem in a most unsatisfactory manner. Frankly, I have been astonished at how much churches lawyer up in these circumstances and show little regard for the well-being of the children involved. These churches mistakenly believe that they are protecting the church by utilizing intimidation tactics normally seen in secular organizations. (The Mafia comes to mind).
In many instances, there seems to be more interest directed toward the perpetrator with churches often providing character references for these perverts. In our state, recently, a man was sent to jail for consuming large quantities of vile child pornography. This is the sort of stuff in which little kids are molested on camera for popular consumption. So, who defends such a creep? Well, a minister defended this man, stating he had now become a Christian and should have his jail sentence delayed so that he could stay at home and get his affairs in order. Said pastor never once mentioned any concern for all of the children harmed by this pornographic business. I think this is sick and I say shame on him.
Recently I spoke with a gentleman who is the head of a national ministry. When I brought up the Eddie Long debacle, his first response was that we needed to forgive him and restore him. Restore him? He hasn't been unrestored! Not one word was spoken about the children and their need for help. Not one word was mentioned about insisting that Long ask the children for forgiveness. Nope! In fact, this ministry was inviting Eddie Long to speak! I wonder if they ever considered getting any molested children to speak…
David Brown wrote an excellent comment on our blog. He is a representative of SNAP (Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests). For those of you unfamiliar with this fine organization, here is a link to their website. Here is a quote from their Welcome page.
“If you've been victimized by clergy, please know that you are not alone. You can get better. You can reach out to others who've been hurt just like you have. Together, we can heal one another.
We are SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
We are the nation's largest, oldest and most active support group for women and men wounded by religious authority figures (priests, ministers, bishops, deacons, nuns, brothers, monks, and others). We are an independent and confidential organization, with no connections with the church or church officials. And we are here to help.
SNAP was founded by Chicago's Barbara Blaine in 1988. Since then, SNAP has helped thousands of survivors. We offer support in person, (via monthly self-help group meetings in chapters across the country), over the phone, on line, and at twice-a-year national meetings.
We also provide a safe and productive outlet for the passion many survivors feel toward preventing future abuse.
Our web site exists to provide support and knowledge to all victims of clergy abuse, to help educate the public, and to help ensure that in future generations, children will be safe.”
This group has done more to help those molested by clergy than any other organization. They have been instrumental in the actions against the Roman Catholic Church and its pedophile priests. They provide support groups and can help in getting psychological counseling for victims. If you want to understand how victims feels, this is the group to ask. If you need help in resolving your own experience, this is the place to go.
During our own little debacle, SNAP offered legal help and was willing to address the situation by sending representatives to meet with and confront the church. When this organization speaks, everyone should listen carefully. I can assure you that their very name sends cold chills up the spines of churches that have been on the receiving end of their attention.
Once again, I say shame on the churches that have not spoken out loud and clear on this issue. Shame in the men who have not demanded churches do the right thing. Instead, you all hide behind the sorry excuses. The world sees through them and so does Jesus who loved the children. Al Mohler, Jack Graham, Mac Brunson, Paige Patterson, JD Greear, and many, many others, your silence is deafening. Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about the eternal subordination of women and more time addressing a real problem. SNAP makes you guys look like a bunch of impotent backslappers.
And since you can't seem to rouse yourselves to do something about this issues, I offer the following. David Brown (Many thanks!) suggested the Bishop's Accountability blog. LINK If they can do it, so can you.
Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 12:1-13:23 John 7:1-30 Psalm 108:1-13 Proverbs 15:4
Dee,
After reading the article and associated website, here are several statements that should cause “concern”…
• The database is not the original reporter of any new information or new allegations. Each allegation that we list has already been reported in public sources. The database “re-reports” or “re-formats” information in the public domain
• Alleged acts of sexual abuse or possession of child pornography by lay teachers, church volunteers, church administrators, or other diocesan or religious order employees are excluded.
• If an individual is “cleared” or “exonerated” by an internal church investigation and/or a diocesan review board decision, the individual remains in the database.
• The database does not state or imply that individuals facing allegations are guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims. The reports contained in the database are merely allegations. The U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, individuals who may be defendants in civil actions are presumed not to be liable for such claims unless a plaintiff proves otherwise. Admissions of guilt or liability are not typically a part of civil or private settlements.
It seems to me that there are several concerns here, why are priests who have accusations against them targeted but not lay teachers, church volunteers, church administrators, or other diocesan or religious order employees…Are they less of a threat?
Even when an investigation clears or exonerates the priest in question they are still kept on the public list for all to see…Holy crap! So even if you’re innocent the mere possibility keeps you on a list.
Making the statement that having a name on the list “does not imply guilt”. This is just laughable and deceitful, of course it does, that’s why they have the list in the first place, who are they trying to fool
This is what you want to create? It tramples on the very foundation of our constitution and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. These men, have NOT been found guilty in a court of law, and I’m sorry if that offends anyone, but in this country, until that happens you are not guilty. Therefore by making this permanent, public database you are effectively destroying lives of those who, by definition, are innocent.
Now, before anon chimes in about protecting pedophiles…let me state, one more time, that is NOT what I am doing…I am trying to protect all of our rights…if these men are found guilty in a court of law, then put em in jail if that’s the punishment…but until then, they are innocent and should be treated as such.
Do you want to live in a society where simply the accusation of wrong doing can destroy your life and publicly brand you as a criminal? I want the protection of the legal process should it ever become needed and if I want it for myself, I must defend it for others as well…however distasteful that might be.
If you want to protect children and if you believe that all sex offenders are a danger to children then work to change the legal process, make it faster, more efficient. If you want these people to go to trial then work with the victims and the prosecuting attorney’s office to get em into court. But until that happens and a conviction is handed down, you have no business playing judge and jury yourselves based on credible accusations or not.
Dee
Crap i screwed up the again .. my bad sorry
Bravo Dee!
Godly men protect women and children at all costs – no excuses. I am fed up with Biblical Manhood”. Look at the latest post over at CBMW.
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/New-book-provides-guide-to-biblical-manhood
Here’s how the post begins:
“The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has published a new book called A Guide to Biblical Manhood based on the Biblical Masculinity class taught in January 2011 byRandy Stinson, CBMW president and dean of the School of Church Ministries, along with Dan Dumas, senior vice president for institutional administration at SBTS. In the following excerpt, the authors explain their motivation for providing this resource. Readers can find more information about A Guide to Biblical Manhood at press.sbts.edu. Interested readers may order copies of the book. This story originally ran in Towers, Southern’s campus newspaper.
We need men. If ever there was a time we needed men to know their purpose and to be men again, it’s now.”
You should see the list of endorsers of this books. Yep, the usual suspects. You promote my book and I’ll promote yours.
It’s truly disgusting!!!
Deb
This is a guide to Impotent Manhood. These men do precious little to protect the children from predators. Real men? Pshaw! They are girly men. I think we should invent a new symbol- a pink armband- to mourn the loss of men to the SBC girly men.
It is not about “society”, Karlton. It is about the Body of Christ. You cannot seem to grasp that point. True Believers do not care what you think of them. They understand you and where you are coming from.
I suppose Karlton thinks the pervert in 1 Corin 5 had his “rights” violated when Paul counseled them to kick him out of the Body.
Karl
I am not saying that this blog is perfect. However, it sure seems to me to be one attempt to stem the rampant abuses within the RCC.
Let me tell you how this is handled in SBC land. I know of a situation. A boy reports that a youth leaders is playing “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.” Pastors refused to believe him and decided that he was just a little touched. He wasn’t. And many, many boys were severely molested. Now, these pastors claimed that they didn’t have to report it according to the law. So, they didn’t.
Now, said pedophile is in jail and said pastors are merrily rolling along-still in charge.
It is time all of these guys are called on the carpet and this can be done within the church. No legal machinations. Merely calling people on the carpet.
You are correct. There are more people in lay ministry who are involved in this stuff. But, it is usually the pastors who do the coverup and that is where things need to change. I bet if Al Mohler called the girly boy pastors at this church, they would listen. The problem is, Mohler doesn’t care and neither do they.
So, I have one plan to make sure pastors don’t get away with this stuff and I will be working on this over the summer. I’ll let TWW readers know once the process is started to prevent some girly men from calling other girly men and trying to stop it.
Anon,
There is no point to grasp..this isn’t about what people think of me or what I think of them .. this is about preserving the rights of anyone who has not been formally convicted of a crime. Maybe you’d like to do a spin off on death Wish..you know, you could get a shotgun and go shoot people who have been accused of rape..no sense waiting to see what an actual judge and jury will find .. you know better then all of them.
Dee,
I don’t have a problem with what you are trying to accomplish but I think the methodology is wrong and dangerous and has much wider implications than people are considering. Once again, putting people on a list because of accusations only without waiting for the legal process is no different than McCarthyism…the ends can never justify the means.
if the process isn’t fast enough, fine, then work to fix it. If not enough people are coming forward to prosecute, them help support them and make it happen, but don’t trample over the system because it’s an easy way to get the result that you would like to see.
Dee,
I really enjoyed those Western shows when I was growing up like The Big Valley, Gunsmoke, and Bonanza. Now those were REAL MEN! You could always count on them to protect women, children, and the less fortunate in society. ALWAYS…
Here’s the “bottom line”. Those self-described “Biblical Men” are primarily interested in bucks from book sales. If they were really concerned about Biblical Manhood, they would publish their information online FOR FREE. Go over to The Gospel Coalition website and take a look at Randy Stinson’s latest book on Biblical Manhood. It’s just so obvious…
Anonymous
I agree with you. Sorry Karl. The Bible does provide for a court of sorts within the church. The problem is that there are few Pauls out there who are willing to call others on the carpet. They are all too bust sucking up to one another so that they will get book endorsements. BTW, who is reading all of these books? My guess is that there arr far too many mediocre books out there written by very mediocre guys pretending they are patriarchs. Blech!
Can you imagine what would happen if John Piper said that Warren Community Church should not have put a pedophile as a trustee? All the Calvinistas would follow suit. Real men know how to twist arms. Paul sure did.
Deb
I loooooooove what you said. We need to write a column why these guys, who are so concerned about the state of the church, need to sell their books. If they are pastors, they are being reimbursed for their full time position. So, they should be able to donate their pearls of wisdom gratis. They should be able to go speak at conferences for simple reimbursement of expenses. This has the making of a good blog post. Care to do it?
Dee,
Then I’m sorry but you too miss the point. People in the church are also part of the US and lt’s laws and while no one questions the church’s right not to hire a sex offender (or hire one if that’s what they want), I will say that you have no right to hold up someone to the court of public opinion and potentially ruin someone’s life, if they have not been charged with a crime. Get em charged with a crime or move on, but don’t try and be judge and jury just because it makes you feel safer.
Dee,
I should be able to put together a post or two next week on how lucrative it is to be a Big Dawg in the Calvinista movement.
All I can say is they have learned quite well from the big pins in AmWay. Conferences, books, and other merchandise. That’s the name of the game! In case anyone’s wondering, conferences and bookstores at the conference are BIG BUSINESS!
“There is no point to grasp..this isn’t about what people think of me or what I think of them .. this is about preserving the rights of anyone who has not been formally convicted of a crime. Maybe you’d like to do a spin off on death Wish..you know, you could get a shotgun and go shoot people who have been accused of rape..no sense waiting to see what an actual judge and jury will find .. you know better then all of them.”i
That won’t be necessary. Although, your hyperbole is touching. Sound logic there, Karlton. If I don’t want them in the Body of Christ, it means I want them shot.
And I thought you said you used only sound reasoning and logic instead of “emotion” when conversing.
I just don’t want them in the Body of Christ (See 1 Corin 5)
They do not have any “civil” right to be there unless the Body decides it to be so.
“People in the church are also part of the US and lt’s laws”
Tell that to Dr. Klouda. And it was not even a “church”. It was a seminary that claimed “church” status and the court agreed.
“Churches” can discriminate any way they want with members and with employees. You may not like it. You may think it is unfair and unAmerican. But that is the way it is. Churches do not even have to participate in the SS system for employees but most do anyway. Or even with unemployment benefit laws of their states. Many don’t. If you are fired, you cannot even claim unemployment benefits. Only fools go to work for churches
also, when there is an accusation about a teacher concerning sexual advances or inappropriate behavior, that teacher is put on Admin leave while there is an investigation. Why do you think that is?
I suppose civil rights are being violated.
Karlton:
I am the real anon!!!
You are looking at this correctly.
The database idea is a bad one for many reasons, some of which you cited.
But to some people, the database is a must. Nothing else matters.
They are so invested in a database that they can’t see straight. And they are driving people away who are their allies in so many other respects.
Dee:
You asked me in the last post about intemperance. Look at your 8:10 comment.
Dee:
And look at the 8:20 comment.
Karlton:
I think that you understand more about what the Bible teaches in this area than the Christians who are commenting here.
I believe that Jesus would be interested in a fair system, and not a system that brands innocent people – just to prove a point made by some people who think their proposed solution must be adopted or people will die.
Anonymous
I stand by my comment. Guys that spend more time writing about manhood and neglect doing a hard task are not real men.
Karlton:
Now, see how Anon has chided you and brought Dr. Klouda into this.
A seminary employment policy has precious little to do with whether the database is a good idea. But you have been so articulate in pointing out the problems with a database that your detractor has to retreat to a completely different issue.
I am sure one of the reasons you may disrespect the way some Christians argue points is being demonstrated in this thread. It is – “I have a point. I cannot persuade you to accept my point. So I will argue another point and attempt to shame you. There. I’ve proved my point.”
Dee:
I never expected you to do anything but stand by the comments you are making here.
I don’t think at this time you are willing or able to attempt an objective analysis regarding whether a database is a good idea.
Anonymous
This has nothing to do with innocent people. We are talking about predator pedophiles. We are talking about predators who molested and abused missionary kids at boarding schools. We are talking about pastors, like Steve Gaines who hid Paul Williams past from the congregation. We are talking about pastors who knowingly admit convicted pedophiles into a church with no warning to a congregation. Good night! Do you really think we are talking about 18 year old guys who are having sex with their 16 year old girlfriend?
That sort of thing trivializes a terrible problem in the church and the Baptist church is loaded with sexual predators. Read Christa Brown’s blog if you don’t believe me. I left a church that had two different pedophile situations in the course of a year. Two! And that is one small church in the SBC.
So don’t give me the arrogant nonsense of intemperate. Intemperate is setting up a system that protects the pedophile and hangs the kids out to dry and that I have seen done by an SBC church as well. Intemperate is sitting back and doing nothing about a growing problem in the church. But it is a little hard to imagine that men who support a certain agenda might also be pedophiles or protectors of pedophiles. It just doesn’t compute in the patriarch circles.
Why don’t you tell me how “temperate” it is to appoint a pedophile as a trustee. Or, like Paige Patterson did, support a molester of young girls? Temperate my foot. It is time for people to stand up and protect our children instead of thinking of a million reasons why you can’t. But you sure can get rid of churches that have a woman as pastor.Hypocrisy is not a virtue.
I try very hard to listen to all sides of an argument. But pedophilia is hot button issue with me and i think it is high time to stop the excuses and do something more than say “Lifeway has some resources.”
Darn it. This thing is going bold again-Guy Behind the Curtain-how do I stop this????????
Anonymous
Even the secular new sources have pointed at the SBC and its lack of oversight on this issue. I suppose all of these sources are intemperate and the SBC is “oh so temperate”and godly in its response. It is not. It has done little in this area except to make some hogwash announcement that pedophilia is bad and we shouldn’t allow it.
As for my ability to look objectively at this issue “at this time”, if you look back on this blog, I have thought and spoken of this issue over the course of two years. In the meantime, Mohler and buddies are spending time worrying about YE creationism and the “place of women” instead of addressing this issue. Could it be that this issue mostly (not always) focuses on the sins of men and that is not to the liking of a patriarchal based theology.
Karl said: ” this is about preserving the rights of anyone who has not been formally convicted of a crime.”
What should the rights be of someone not formally convicted of a crime? Not “how is is rights defined in the constitution” but “what is right towards all concerned?”
If person X was accused of a sex crime, but not found guilty yet, who’se rights should trump:
1) The right of the perhaps-molester to be treated as an innocent man
OR
2) The right of children to be protected from someone who may be a molester.
I say that safety should trump.
“Innocent until proven guilty in a court” is a great principle for a court of law, but ordinary people don’t have to follow it day to day. For example, when you need a plumber and your brother say that plumber X cheated him last time, you haven’t proven plumber X’s guilt. But wisdom means that you rather go to plumber Y. When you want a new hi-fi, and two people tell you brand A has great quality sound and brand B bad, do you find the people at brand B factory “innocent until proven guilty” of making mediocre equipment, or do you favor brand A?
Nobody should shoot people because they are accused of a crime, but we should be careful. And the safety of children is important.
“A seminary employment policy has precious little to do with whether the database is a good idea. But you have been so articulate in pointing out the problems with a database that your detractor has to retreat to a completely different issue.”
Nice try. It has everything to do with it. The seminary was able to claim it was a church to DISCRIMINATE in employment. There was no policy in place that would have kept Klouda from being hired. She WAS hired by the previous administration. She worked there.
Patterson, by claiming SWBTS be a “church” was able to hve the case of discrimination dismissed.
So, you want to tell me that a group of churches associated with the SBC could not discriminate against those credibily accused of sexual perversion by sharing information in order to follow the doctrine of a pure church?
The doctrine of women not teaching men worked for SWBTS by claiming to be a church and it going against their beliefs.
“I don’t think at this time you are willing or able to attempt an objective analysis regarding whether a database is a good idea.”
Code for: If you don’t agree with us you are emotional, illogical and unreasonable. Typical woman.
Gee, no wonder perverts love the SBC. They are so protected! But we know that state associations disfellowship churches with women preachers! That is a bigger sin than a pervert molesting a child in church.
In the case of Warren Community Church, all it would take was some well known PDL preacher to publicly rebuke them for making Williams a trustee. But there are no real men in Christendom anymore willing to put the safety of kids as the “least of these” above their other pet doctrines that sell books.
Anonymous
You get it. These wimps will not respond when it comes to men who abuse. Then, when women speak their mind, they get together and come up with “doctrines” that state women are gullible and easily deceived. in this situation, and many, many others, the MEN give a prime example that they are just as gullible and easily deceived.
They are the ones who try to make this a stupid woman versus “temperate” man issue. Nope. Not going to buy it and neither does most of the watching world-male and female. The SBC leadership cannot explain away their “thing” about women in leadership and then explain away their lists and list of perverts over at Stop Baptist Predators. They should be ashamed but they are not.
I will not back down on this issue . I watched some kids who had their lives destroyed by a pervert and then watched as girly leaders tried to blame the boys. You know, one of these guys did a endorsement commercial about how much he likes a certain company. Maybe he should make a commercial about fighting pedophilia in the church. But, there are no monetary benefits in such a pursuit, are there?
Valarie
We would love to see the email you got from Warren. We would be happy to post it. Please send it to dee@thewartburgwatch.com
Anonymous,
There is a difference between women speaking in church and hiring practices…one has to do with membership the other with employment…there IS a difference.
Dee,
Is there more than one “Anonymous” poster?
Arce,
Please clarify something for me…let’s suppose that some organization did have a list of accused felons who had not been tried in a court of law (yet)….and they published this database as a public resource for doing pre-employment background checks. John Smith applies for a job at Church X and is denied employment solely based on being found in said database. He denies the charges but still is refused employment…what exactly would he be able to take the company with the database to court for, under breech of what law(s)?
Karl
Yes this is more than one anonymous poster. I wish people would make up names that were different. They are still anonymous.
Secondly, I am not suggesting that a church deny such a person a job based solely on that information. here is my guess. Such an individual, if guilty, would have some other hincky things in their past that would come out while checking on references.
The idea behind this would be to give a heads up on the situation, not on the guilt or innocence.
I would also like to hear Arce chime in on that question from Karlton.
Regarding the big shots stepping in…there seems to be a contradiction in the way these guys are viewed. On the one had they are decried as excersising too much sway, and on the other hand they are asked to step in and influence individual cases and individual churches that they have no authority over?
I understand wanting them to generally condemn practices that endanger kids. Which they all would. (At my church, before being allowed to work in any way that relates to kids, you have to sign an agreement stating that the church can do a criminal background check, and they reserve the right to not allow participation in certain events and certain ministries based on the results. This is great, common sense practice pretty much everyone would agree on. If asked, I am sure that all the men you think are girly would think this is a great practice.) I am just not sure that it is consistent to skewer them for trying to influence doctrine (their actual job as teachers) and also skewer them for not trying to influence individual church situations (not their job).
Joey
How does one separate doctrine from influence? Is the faith merely theoretical?
Dee,
I understand what you are driving at, but in practice, when anyone sees a person’s name on that type of list they are going to PRESUME guilt, regardless of any disclaimer on the site. They are going to do exactly what the owners of these lists expect them to do, i.e. deny employment, why take a “chance” with someone who’s name is on the list when you can find someone else who isn’t.
Again, I can tell you from experience in the corporate world, typically when a candidate has a “hit” on a criminal database the employer will ask to not even receive the application, they typically do not even bother to try and distinguish false from true positive hits, it’s not worth the risk or their effort.
Dee,
Maybe the guy behind the curtain could setup a database (here we go again :)) , so people have to at least register a name before posting…doesn’t have to be their “real” name, but something so we can distinguish who we are talking to.
Dee,
You are right, doctrine should influence practice. I am more talking about them speaking to specific situations that aren’t necessarily involving a doctrinal issue. The Warren case for instance. They could research it, come to the conclusion that you did, and publicly state that pastor is crazy for allowing that guy to be involved in ministries relating to kids. That would be great, but is it their job? Should guys whose job it is to teach be spending their time investigating case by case situations and determining fault? Because they can just offer the blanket “don’t be morons and let pedophiles work with kids, forgiveness doesn’t mean pretending something didn’t happen” but other than that they have to treat each case on its own basis.
Joey
Paul did. So, these guys all love a guy (CJ Mahaney) who claimed for most of his life that the was the “Head Apostle.” They obviously accepted his self assessment or they would have told him to bug off. So, if these guys, claiming to be patriarchs and apostles and such, can’t speak out, who can? Oh, I get it. Leave it to the women and then tell them they are “intemperate.”
Sorry Joey, I think these guys are weenies when it comes to the hard stuff. The “it’s not my job” is an excuse used by just about anyone who doesn’t want to do the difficult thing.
Dee, Joey,
Just a question which I haven’t seen addressed yet on this issue…
Everyone is all over the church Pastors and the SBC leadership in terms of vetting potential staff, not hiring sexual offenders and doing something to help protect the children. I haven’t yet heard what responsibilities that actual parents of these child are supposed to have.
Should parents just “assume” that because someone works at a church that they are “safe” to have around their children? What kind of due diligence is it reasonable for a parent to exercise before leaving their children unattended with a stranger (church employer or not).
Truthfully, while we all want safety for children it is primarily the responsibility of each parent to do the research before leaving their child with a stranger and to delegate that responsibility to an organization, could be construed as being irresponsible.
Yes?
“There is a difference between women speaking in church and hiring practices…one has to do with membership the other with employment…there IS a difference.”
What?
So, you think it is legal for churches to discriminate against hiring women but not to discriminate against hiring perverts?
“Everyone is all over the church Pastors and the SBC leadership in terms of vetting potential staff, not hiring sexual offenders and doing something to help protect the children. I haven’t yet heard what responsibilities that actual parents of these child are supposed to have.
Should parents just “assume” that because someone works at a church that they are “safe” to have around their children? What kind of due diligence is it reasonable for a parent to exercise before leaving their children unattended with a stranger (church employer or not).
Truthfully, while we all want safety for children it is primarily the responsibility of each parent to do the research before leaving their child with a stranger and to delegate that responsibility to an organization, could be construed as being irresponsible.”
Substitute the word “public school” for church. Now what? You think parents should trust them? What sort of due diligence should parents do before sending their kids to school?
“I am more talking about them speaking to specific situations that aren’t necessarily involving a doctrinal issue. ”
For a professed believer who is in ministry–molesting a young boy— is NOT a “doctrinal issue”?
It is a doctrinal issue for all of us.
“Again, I can tell you from experience in the corporate world, typically when a candidate has a “hit” on a criminal database the employer will ask to not even receive the application, they typically do not even bother to try and distinguish false from true positive hits, it’s not worth the risk or their effort.”
This makes no sense. The only way the employer knows there is a “hit” on a criminal database is if they have received application and did the search. It could be that HR does not send such applications on to departments. But the “employer” DID receive the application unless they are using an outside agency.
“”Maybe the guy behind the curtain could setup a database (here we go again ) , so people have to at least register a name before posting…doesn’t have to be their “real” name, but something so we can distinguish who we are talking to.”
Why would that matter? It is the issue and ideas being discussed that should matter.
“Joey
Paul did. So, these guys all love a guy (CJ Mahaney) who claimed for most of his life that the was the “Head Apostle.” They obviously accepted his self assessment or they would have told him to bug off. So, if these guys, claiming to be patriarchs and apostles and such, can’t speak out, who can? Oh, I get it. Leave it to the women and then tell them they are “intemperate.”
Sorry Joey, I think these guys are weenies when it comes to the hard stuff. The “it’s not my job” is an excuse used by just about anyone who doesn’t want to do the difficult thing.”
Well, first things first…in SGM the term ‘apostle’ is gone because “these guys” didn’t think it was at all helpful. They didn’t tell him to bug off because they recognized that the term was unhelpful, but not a reflection of Mahaney thinking he was Paul. Anyways, that is beside the point…the “its not my job” excuse is only an excuse if its not true. If I don’t moderate this blog, and I say its not my job to do so…that’s not an excuse, its an explanation. I would argue (to you and anonymous) this issue is not a doctrinal one because the only doctrinal issues involved are not complex or debatable is any real sense. If there arises some movement out there to allow repentant child molesters into ministry related in any way to kids then absolutely “these guys” should loudly and publicly explain why that is wrong. But on a case by case basis, they can’t step in and evaluate every situation where a pastor does something wrong and publicly comment on it. And for the reasons Karlton is talking about, I don’t see that they can get behind this database idea. Ad hominem language aside.
Lastly, Karlton on the parent issue…I see where you are coming from, and I think parents should educate themselves on how to be alert to warning signs, and do due diligence before leaving their kids with folks they don’t know well. You can only do so much though, and many times its folks close to the family, who the parents DO think they can trust, that are involved in these situations.
Anonymous,
For many corporations it does not work that way…many have a kiosk or web page setup for “potential” candidates to fill out info and attach a resume..it goes FIRST to the background screening company … if there is a hit it is never forwarded to the corporation in question. For the others, yes they receive a resume directly then send a batch a potential candidates for background check…typically if there is a “hit” that person is just never asked in for an interview…it is actually rare for a a company to pay the extra fees to track down the “accuracy” of the hit…if the candidate wants to do it on his own, he can, but typically the job is lost long before he can complete the task.
for the discrimination thing on woman vs sex offenders… how in the world did you come up with that from what I wrote…not even going to bother answering the question…
Anon, maybe you should look up the word “doctrinal”, that is not the sense in which it was being used by Joey.
Anon, it matters that each person has a unique name …. I want to be sure that I am calling the correct “anonymous” stupid, I’d hate to offend the wrong person.
“(c). The SBC has the ability to remove from fellowship churches that protect homosexual members, but in will do absolutely nothing about churches that protect pedophiles in the pulpit and men who sexually exploit women and remain in the ministry.”
From Burleson’s latest blog post
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2011/06/now-is-summer-of-our-discontent-21st.html
“for the discrimination thing on woman vs sex offenders… how in the world did you come up with that from what I wrote…not even going to bother answering the question… ”
it made no sense…can you explain your original statement of:
“There is a difference between women speaking in church and hiring practices…one has to do with membership the other with employment…there IS a difference.”
“Anon, maybe you should look up the word “doctrinal”, that is not the sense in which it was being used by Joey.”
Oh, how was Joey using it? I am sure you can speak for him, too.
Anonymous,
You had made a comment which tried to compare the “discrimination” of not allowing women to speak in church with the “discrimination” of hiring employees. I was simply trying to point out that they can’t be compared on that basis. There are federal hiring practices that a church must comply with, but as far as enforcing scriptural edicts, the government has no say.
Anonymous,
There is also a false comparison between schools, churches and a parents responsibility to perform due diligence. A public school is, by law, required to perform sex offender and criminal background checks on their employees, as a parent I do not feel the need to repeat what has already been done. Churches are under no such requirement…therefore as a parent, before leaving my children with a stranger I feel it IS my responsibility to do some research…and not assume that just because they are professed Christians everything must be ok…a strategy which is obviously flawed or we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
Karlton, you are arguing that a maybe guilty-maybe-not perhaps-predator should get precedence over the safety of children.
Others are arguing that the safety of children should take precence over a maybe guilty-maybe-not perhaps-predator.
By repeating to us that a maybe-innocent guy can be harmed by this, you tell us something we already know. The part you should tell us, if you want to convince us, is why his welfare should go before that of the children. Do you, for example, think the harm of an innocent guy not finding a job in his chosen direction is worse than the harm of being molested? If you think that, then make a case for it!
Karlton, it seems you approve of a background checklist from which schools can eliminate predators. In the case of churches, you want parents to do the background check. Would you approve of a background checklist which is available to any parent, of accused offenders?
Joey
Mahaney seems to make all sorts of excuses for his theology. The usual is “the rest of us were stupid to understand just how deeply theologically correct he is” and so he had to dumb it down for the rest of us poor “slugs.” Baloney, Joey, baloney.
And it is their job. Since they think so much of their patriarchal calling ,then they should act on it. They don’t because they are weenies. Now, they get rid of the churches that take homosexuals but keep the churches that hide pedophiles. This is a pile of codswallop. See today’s postings!
Retha, the background list the schools use are for convicted criminals, which Karlton is, of course, fine with…whether its being use by a school or church. What he is leery of (me too) is using a database that includes folks who have not been convicted of anything. You argue that innocent folks being branded is a fine price to pay for the safety of children…and I say there has to be a better solution. I refuse to believe that we have to go to a system where simply being accused of something gets you on a database that gets you branded as untrustworthy, dangerous to kids and not hire-able. Not only is it the case that it might be illegal, it is simply unjust.
Retha,
2nd question first…you miss the key part of the background check, it is a list of CONVICTED sex offenders, not just a list of people who have had an accusation made against them. I think churches SHOULD do a background check of their employees…but from a professional service company which only takes records of convictions.
1st question…
We all want to protect children, but you cannot trample over one person in order to protect another when that person has NOT been convicted of a crime, unless you prefer living in a totalitarian regime where we have kangaroo courts, if any at all and accusation is the same as guilt.
Protect the children, absolutely…but you can’t do it by trampling over another human being, no matter what you think of him personally. Ensure there are always more than one person with children in Church, ensure counselling is always done either with pairs of counselors, or with some type of monitoring. Their are many ways to ensure the safety of children. Once an accused person is convicted, THEN throw him/her in jail…but until then find another way. If a person is accused, then yes, I think the church should immediately relieve him/her of the duties until an investigation is done and authorities have had time to investigate, but you cannot punish someone simply because they are accused of a crime.
“You argue that innocent folks being branded is a fine price to pay for the safety of children…and I say there has to be a better solution”
What is your solution? Christa Brown’s blog is full of those who went from church to church. her own rapist (the youth director) went from church to church, at one point was on Charles Stanley’s staff and she recently posted another church where is a current staff minister. He has no criminal background.
Matt Baker killed his wife because he wanted to marry someone else after going from Christian org to churches where he had inappropriate behavior reported on him. He had no criminal background.
If somone one is fired for inappropriate behavior are you saying the one who hires them next has no right to know? Many times they are not even fired but urged to move or had their budget cut so as not to have a salary for them.
“We all want to protect children, but you cannot trample over one person in order to protect another when that person has NOT been convicted of a crime, unless you prefer living in a totalitarian regime where we have kangaroo courts, if any at all and accusation is the same as guilty.”
We do this now in public schools with accusations. We put the person on admin leave while investigating. They are kept away from children. Is that trampling rights? Is that person on a “list” of guilty because they are being put on leave even if innocent? We do it because children are so defenseless and vulnerable we dare not take the chance.
‘You had made a comment which tried to compare the “discrimination” of not allowing women to speak in church with the “discrimination” of hiring employees. I was simply trying to point out that they can’t be compared on that basis. There are federal hiring practices that a church must comply with, but as far as enforcing scriptural edicts, the government has no say.’
Churches are NOT under Federal hiring practices. You cannot seem to grasp that. If they were, they could not discriminate from hiring women preachers or homosexual preachers. “Spiritual edicts” and hiring practices are the same thing in the church world. Think about this: In some states pastors do not even have to report rape, etc that was told them during a confidential counseling session.
I have told you this over and over and you do not get it. Churches CAN discriminate in hiring, firing and how they operate. They do it all the time. And this takes us back to the fact that churches could keep information on those who exhibit inapproprate behavior or credible accusations and share it with other churches. Perfectly legal for churches. They are a breed apart. Which is why Patterson claimed SWBTS was a church when they were sued for gender discrimination.
“The usual is “the rest of us were stupid to understand just how deeply theologically correct he is” and so he had to dumb it down for the rest of us poor “slugs.” Baloney, Joey, baloney.”
I would love to see one quote of his resembling anything close to that perspective.
“Now, they get rid of the churches that take homosexuals but keep the churches that hide pedophiles. This is a pile of codswallop. See today’s postings!”
There are two different issues here…if a church teaches that homosexuality is OK (either explicitly or implicitly) then you can make the argument that they believe the Word of God is wrong. If you make that case, then its understandable that they would be dismissed from an organization that believes in innerrancy. I think its debatable, but understandable…it just depends on what you think the SBC is designed for.
However, what would make no sense at all is if you started tossing out churches that had pastors or members that were convicted of sex crimes. None of these stories include anybody trying to claim that pedophilia or rape is OK. That is why I have been saying…this is not a theological issue! If any church argues that pedophilia or rape is fine…then I guarantee you they will be tossed out of the SBC on their ear. (And don’t get me wrong, some of these situations were handled deplorably, especially the IFB church, which incidentally has nothing to do with “these guys”).
Martin,
I am not sure what the solution is…other than if one church knows of illegal behavior they should prosecute so these people do get on legitimate databases.
Martin,
Karlton has hit on a number of ways to make churches safer by just using common sense and caution. I would prefer to go with those methods, plus encouraging prosecution when crimes are committed…rather going with the database.
Joey
They should boot every last church that hires a known pedophile to be a pastor. period. And that is theology applied.
I can agree with that.
Karlton, on Fri, Jun 10 2011 at 09:10 am said: . . ..
“Arce,
Please clarify something for me…let’s suppose that some organization did have a list of accused felons who had not been tried in a court of law (yet)….and they published this database as a public resource for doing pre-employment background checks. John Smith applies for a job at Church X and is denied employment solely based on being found in said database. He denies the charges but still is refused employment…what exactly would he be able to take the company with the database to court for, under breech of what law(s)?”
Since the accusation has resulted in a public charge filed by the authorities, reporting the fact of the charge does not constitute a violation of anyone’s rights, nor would creating a database of such charges and the alleged perpetrators, so long as the database made clear that these were not convicted, and so long as the entry would be deleted if/when the person was cleared of the charge. I would be very careful about going beyond the facts released by the DA in a press release, and I would cite the source of the information along with the entry.
Most employers ask about arrests, not convictions. I think that is reasonable if, and only if, the arrest is not held against a person when the charges have been dropped or the person is found not guilty of the offense. Similarly, using a database of charges to screen potential employees must rely on it being updated and removing people when the charges are dropped or a not guilty verdict is rendered.
I do believe that a church, an association of churches (local, state, national) or a hierarchical national church could conduct an investigation and hold a “hearing” with appropriate due process safeguards if, after reporting to the authorities, no action is taken or seen to be forthcoming. The purpose would be to see if the standards of the church, which should be higher than those of the criminal justice system, were violated by the alleged offender. IF so determined, then putting that person on a database would be reasonable and legal, provided that the database clearly indicated the process used. The trouble is that most allegations in churches result in contempt for the victim and protection of the alleged offender.
Such a process could be applied to situations that are not contrary to criminal law. For example, seduction of one being counseled by a pastor is not a criminal offense in most states, but is generally against church principles. It may also result in a successful civil suit for damages.
I would note that most teachers and other school personnel, and most other professionals in employment situations, are not dismissed upon charge, but are placed on paid leave until the end of the contract period, unless they have tenure, then until the resolution of the charge. That is because of the presumption of innocence and the desire to protect potential further victims.
Btw, to whomever asked, there are 2 anonymouses on this thread.
One, being me, thinks that a database is a bad idea. Karlton and I agree on this one.
The other guy thinks a database is a good idea. That person agrees with Dee, Deb and others.
Churches and most professional day care centers have published and publicly available policies and procedures that are designed to protect children from abuse and the adults who work with them from false charges. Two workers at all times, should not be related to each other or one the employment supervisor of the other. No fully closed bathroom doors if a worker is assisting a small child. Diaper changing table visible. Windows in doors or walls allowing people to see into the space. Extensive background checks for all workers. At least 6 months membership in the church prior to becoming a worker. Age appropriate rules (birth to first grade, first grade to sixth grade, sixth grade to 18 y/o) but always the two worker rule.
Karlton: “We all want to protect children, but you cannot trample over one person in order to protect another when that person has NOT been convicted of a crime, unless you prefer living in a totalitarian regime where we have kangaroo courts, if any at all and accusation is the same as guilt.”
Me: Define “trampling over rights.” If I choose not to hire someone who may(or may not) be guilty (wether I heard about the accusations from a website, from a friend whose kid it allegedly happened to, or wherever) because I want to make sure the children are safe, then I trample over the alleged molester’s rights by listening to my sources?
I should rather hire him, and perhaps trample over children’s safety rights? And if I prefer not to hire him, I like totalitarian regimes? There is no way to say that people who won’t trust accused criminals like totalitarian regimes. In fact, I believe in free access to information, the freedom to decide for yourself how to use it, and the freedom to keep those you love even from potential harm. Place the rights of potential pedo’s before the rights of children if you wish, but don’t say that those who disagree don’t like freedom. I like children to live free without this kind of burdens. I
Karlton, did you ever do things on word of mouth testimony? If you heard of someone say a certain mechanic is dishonest, you rather go to another mechanic. You cheat this man out of a job without him being found guilty! If you hear brand name X is better than brand name Y that you usually bought, you cheat the makers of brand name Y out of money- without them being found guilty! You must want a totalitarian regime.
Retha,
NO ONE is saying you have to hire someone or that you can’t reject someone as a candidate…I am saying that creating a public database that lists people solely based on accusation is wrong..period.
If your neighbor says that she heard that your cousin’s next door neighbor in their vacation home in the Bahama’s head from their neighbor in Germany that a person currently living in your town was accused as a sex offender 30 years ago while himself on vacation in Miami then by all means feel free NOT to hire them…makes no difference to me. We are talking about creating a list for public consumption of people who have not been charged with any crime and are being listed only because they are “suspected” of being sex offenders.
I can’t make it any clearer
Dee @ “…Yes this is more than one anonymous poster. I wish people would make up names that were different. They are still anonymous…”
Please permit me a bad guy response. You “wish” people would show some courtesy with comments???
You own this blog. If neither one of the peeps who lay claim to the screen nic “Anonymous” will under their own volition and common courtesy change their nic for purposes of clarity, kindly advise them to do so.
If that fails, handle it Solomon style: Tel the captain of your guard (IT person) to draw his or her sword (you get the allegory?) and cleave the baby in two. This will quickly tell you which one has a modicum of manners and courtesy. And if that fails? Shit-can both halves of the baby, those kinds of people would presume upon their own mothers, and probably learnt nothing at her knee anyway.
Muff,
Love your comment! It really made my day.
Muff
Thank you for a good laugh!
“We are talking about creating a list for public consumption of people who have not been charged with any crime and are being listed only because they are “suspected” of being sex offenders.”
No we aren’t. It is not for “public” consumption. Only churches within the SBC would have access
Pingback: LiveThank.com
Dee,
Wow, you really seem to have big issues with people you disagree with… Are Mohler and Piper pedophiles? Are they supposed to police pedophiles? Are you accusing them of believing pedophilia is OK?
Someone in Proverbs it says to not rejoice when your enemy falls.
Even though I believe, for example, that Biologos teaches heresy, I am not so sure I would go to these extremes, looking for every excuse to criticize them. And you know what, I don’t mean a Tridentine Roman Catholic calling me a heretic. Why not — that’s what they believe. You need to grow up!
Not sure where your blog is going, but you people need to get a life.
Nick
Hmmmm, the approach of a Calvinista is usually illuminating. Why bother with us? We are merely heretics? And, I guess, children. Thank you for the sound and loving advice of “grow up” and “get a life.”
You show us where your loyalty rests. It is with the big dogs. You did not once share your concern for those deeply harmed by pedophiles. Your lack of compassion belies your devotion to the Gospel. May God have mercy on you.