SBC leaders respond to DOJ investigation

If I understand the investigation correctly, it was about SBC actions involving molestation the SBC was aware of.

But to answer your question, having to report child molestation to a convention or association of churches helps by preventing molesters from simply joining a new church and molesting other children in cases where the church chose to address the issue "in house" or did not involve the authorities.

It would, for example, help First Baptist Church of town A from having their children raped by a child molester who was kicked out of First Baptist in town B.

I know you disagree, but I would not oppose the pictures and names of child molesters being in a billboard for all to see. Maybe you are right, and it's nobody's business. But I'd rather be wary than regretful.

IMHO child molesters have lost all rights, so I do not care if their identity is made known.

As far as requiring background checks, that is the responsibility of the church and not the SBC (they cannot make requirements of the church, but can come up with requirements for membership which would be voted on by churches).

 

Progressive Judiasm.

 

No.

 

How do set offenders end up on the registry if churches do not notify law enforcement of allegations?

You are skipping ahead way too far. I agree that convicted sex offenders do not need to be convicted for the crimes of which they are already convicted.

Thing is, I do not believe most churches are equipped to investigate allegations of sexual abuse on their own (which is often what occurs...churches think there is nothing worth investigating because so and so is a beloved member).

 

They do need to report to LE. I agree.

But at the same time it would not be a bad thing for churches partnering together to be aware of such allegations, especially as the SBC helps churches try to fill needs.

I am in favor of my neighborhood being notified if a child molester moves in the area (I know, you think that is over the top, but I have absolutely no respect for child molesters and their privacy).

Churches normally run checks on people working with children, but mist of the people around these children are not workers.

 

I agree completely here.

One thing we are assuming, however, is that background checks are run on the molester by the church. This is probably true if the person is working, particularly with children. But churches should be aware of dangers that can creep into the congregation (probably the best place for a molester to hide and abuse).

I agree with you about the move to centralize power. This has been going on for a long time, and inch by inch it seems to be a growing issue.

 

Yes, strictly voluntarily

About Us
GuideStone

 

I am not talking about processed cases or instances where a person was found guilty.

I am saying that I do not want an accused child molester, who has accusations against him or her, watching children until they are investigated and cleared.

Like you, I do not have much faith in our justice system.

Unlike you, I am not putting my faith in the justice system to identify those who may endanger children.

Why do you trust the government so much?

 

No, I am not. The SBC does not even pay the staff of SBC churches. How are they going to have a retirement plan from the SBC??????

 

It depends. It is up to the local church. A pastor has to have a good (moral) reputation. The church should know that he was accused, tried, and acquitted of child molestation. Then they question him about the circumstances and prayerfully make a decision.

Is it fair to Pastor Jay? No, but life is not fair and Pastor Jay needs to consider the witness of the church before himself.

Also, too many times I've seen abusers found guilty only after having been acquitted at least once.

I share neither your faith in the government nor your distrust of churches.