SBC leaders respond to DOJ investigation

[JonC]

When it comes to kids - I will err on the side of safety.

That's the issue. It is not about harming the accused but protecting the children.

We should not have Chester the Molester watching the kid's until he is convicted, or Richard the Righteous while there are allegations of molestation.

I think most ministers who are falsely accused would have enough discernment to inform the church and refrain from being alone with children until the truth (hopefully) comes out.

 

[Reynolds]

Sounds real Christian of you, @Reynolds. I would not want anybody to be wrongfully accused.

The issue is you have no problem with cases like this:

Seven Years of Sex Abuse: How Mormon Officials Let it Happen

Unless they have been convicted you have no problem with keeping allegations of abuse secret.

We can replace "How Mormon officials let it happen" with "How Reynolds would let it happen" and be spot on. Reynolds would be waiting to see what the government has to say, and that would be simply based on whether the DA thought he could win a case.

And OJ was acquitted of committing the crime of murder. Civil issues are not criminal.


BTW, for sensitive purposes "dismissed without predjudice" is considered "open charge".

Should a pastor have to let a prospective church know if he has an open charge for sexual crimes?

You say "no", let the accused child molester work with children until he is found guilty. I question your discernment.

(An expunged record that cannot be recovered counts as "guilty", btw....just some advise if you ate wrongfully charged and then it is dismissed with prejudice).

Who runs a civil court? The govt.
You are a proponent of smearing the name and reputation of the innocent.

 

[JonC]

Who runs a civil court? The govt.
You are a proponent of smearing the name and reputation of the innocent.

Yes, BUT a civil charge is NOT a criminal charge. Holding someone responsible for a death (civil) is not the same as being found guilty of murder.

If my tree falls on my neighbors car I could found responsible for the damage. BUT this does not mean I was guilty of vandalizing my neighbors car.

Derek Chauvin probably should not have been found guilty of murder (I know you consider him guilty as that was the verdict, but that's not my point). Even if he was cleared of the criminal charge he would probably have lost a civil case as Floyd was his responsibility.

I am not saying slander anybody. I am saying that if someone has been accused of child molestation that person should not be working with children until the case is investigated, closed, and he is found innocent.

You disagree as until a verdict is rendered you consider him innocent. But that is at the expense of children.

By your logic, if in charge you would be guilty of child molestation for willingly allowing a molester (pre-conviction) to watch children as you'd lose any civil case. You would not really be guilty, but you would be responsible for the rape of the child.

 

[Salty]

ADMIN NOTE:

Point has been made of Civil vs Criminal
lets move on

 

[Reynolds]

Yes, BUT a civil charge is NOT a criminal charge. Holding someone responsible for a death (civil) is not the same as being found guilty of murder.

If my tree falls on my neighbors car I could found responsible for the damage. BUT this does not mean I was guilty of vandalizing my neighbors car.

Derek Chauvin probably should not have been found guilty of murder (I know you consider him guilty as that was the verdict, but that's not my point). Even if he was cleared of the criminal charge he would probably have lost a civil case as Floyd was his responsibility.

I am not saying slander anybody. I am saying that if someone has been accused of child molestation that person should not be working with children until the case is investigated, closed, and he is found innocent.

You disagree as until a verdict is rendered you consider him innocent. But that is at the expense of children.

By your logic, if in charge you would be guilty of child molestation for willingly allowing a molester (pre-conviction) to watch children as you'd lose any civil case. You would not really be guilty, but you would be responsible for the rape of the child.

Clarify for me. Who finds the accused "innocent"? Will that ever happe?
I do not advocate a person working with youth after they have been formally charged and prior to the adjudication of the case.
What I am saying is allegation is made, L.E. investigates, no charges are filed.
The person will never be found "innocent". How long you gonna leave them on SBC wall of shame?
Make no bones about it, I have no sympathy for a pedophile. If someone molests on of my kids, they won't see the C.J. system. Having worked sex crimes, I know there are tons of innocently people accused.

 

[Revmitchell]

Clarify for me. Who finds the accused "innocent"? Will that ever happe?
I do not advocate a person working with youth after they have been formally charged and prior to the adjudication of the case.
What I am saying is allegation is made, L.E. investigates, no charges are filed.
The person will never be found "innocent". How long you gonna leave them on SBC wall of shame?
Make no bones about it, I have no sympathy for a pedophile. If someone molests on of my kids, they won't see the C.J. system. Having worked sex crimes, I know there are tons of innocently people accused.

He wants innocent people stigmatized for the rest of their life. I doubt you will change his mind.

 

[JonC]

Clarify for me. Who finds the accused "innocent"? Will that ever happe?
I do not advocate a person working with youth after they have been formally charged and prior to the adjudication of the case.
What I am saying is allegation is made, L.E. investigates, no charges are filed.
The person will never be found "innocent". How long you gonna leave them on SBC wall of shame?
Make no bones about it, I have no sympathy for a pedophile. If someone molests on of my kids, they won't see the C.J. system. Having worked sex crimes, I know there are tons of innocently people accused.

??? There is no "SBC Wall of Shame". The point is to prevent possible child molestation and report the incident. The proper authorities investigate and determine whether the accusations are legitimate.

What is being sought are measures within SBC churches to prevent, as best as possible, allegations being ignored or covered up (like with the Mormons, the RCC, Presbyterian churches, etc.

The idea us to develop policies in dealing with sexual misconduct allegations (in addition to reporting) to safeguard people.

At least 28 pastors sns church workers in SC SBC churches are on the sex offender list. This is not something that should simply be ignored. Sure, the people may not do it again, sure they may have "paid their debt". But it remains an issue of concern (perhaps not for you, but for those who care about the children).

I know you do not really support child molestation. You are just trying to be difficult (I don't know why). But if you seriously think there should be no policies regarding sexual misconduct then I'll simply leave it at we have to agree to disagree.

 

[JonC]

He wants innocent people stigmatized for the rest of their life. I doubt you will change his mind.

I have a question, Mitch. In your opinion is it wrong to lie about other people. I ask because we live in a culture where "truth" is subjective. Some believe they can say whatever they want about people and it is not morally wrong because it is their "opinion".

Anyway, back to the topic.

I did say (and believe) that a church has the right to be informed (like I said, by the acquitted minister) if the minister had been accused of child molestation. The church needs to know the case was investigated and the minister found not guilty.
Like @Reynolds points out these charges, regardless of outcome, harms reputations (the accused and the churches). I believe ministers should be open and honest about issues that may affect the church.

Now, I am not sure why you think I said that I believe the innocent should be stigmatized for the rest of their life. I certainly do not recall ever thinking that, much less saying it.

You must have been reading something else and just got confused. It happens.

Being honest and open does not mean one is stigmatized. But the innocent will still carry that burden with him or her, I agree with @Reynolds on that.

Personally, I think background checks should be run on all staff. I also believe churches should have strict policies in place. Too often accusations have been ignored because people simply think the accused couldn't do that. But rarely, it seems, for these cases in churches involve a minister in tank top driving an ice cream truck.

 

[JonC]

So here again is the OP.

NASHVILLE (BP) – The Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee has been informed that the United States Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into the SBC that will include “multiple SBC entities,” according to an Aug. 12 statement from all SBC entity leaders and SBC President Bart Barber.

“Individually and collectively, each SBC entity is resolved to fully and completely cooperate with the investigation,” the statement said.

The announcement comes two months after messengers to the SBC Annual Meeting in Anaheim passed a resolution On Lament and Repentance for Sexual Abuse. Southern Baptists also voted overwhelmingly to adopt a report that approved recommendations toward addressing and preventing sexual abuse in the Convention.

SBC leaders respond to DOJ investigation

As it is apparently controversial, let's talk about it.

Here are the main points:


1. The SBC stated that it will cooperate with law enforcement regarding investigating sexual abuse.

Those who believe the SBC should not cooperate with law enforcement in investigating sexual abuse, please state your reasons as well as your alternative.

2. The SBC churches passed a resolution to address sexual abuse. I will post the resolution and those who disagree can offer a reason.

 

[JonC]

The Resolution:

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse is an abomination before God and an affront to the teachings of Scripture (Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-20; Mark 7:20-34; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 1:15-17); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse grieves Christ and contradicts the heart of the gospel (Mark 12:31; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 1:27); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse abandons the demands of Scripture for the holy living of God’s people (1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1 Timothy 1:8-11); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse is a violation of the Imago Dei, dishonoring and degrading human dignity, especially in those most vulnerable among us (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 9:6; Psalm 8:3-5); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse causes harm to those who are entrusted to the church’s care and protection (Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 22:3-5; Micah 6:8; 1 John 3:16-18); and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention declared in our 2021 Resolution “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications” that sexual abuse “is an action repugnant to the teachings of Scripture and reprehensible even to those who are not believers”; and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse perpetrated by pastoral leaders or church members is a violation of the sacred trust for pastoral leaders and all believers to care for and minister to people (Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 28:13; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse in the church is a failure of personal and public witness (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Ephesians 5:1-15; Ephesians 5:25-27); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse has occurred in and among our churches, sometimes at the hands of church members and sometimes at the hands of pastoral leaders; and

WHEREAS, In too many cases our convention of churches has failed to care well for those who have been abused; and

WHEREAS, Our responses have at times sought first to protect the reputation of our leaders, churches, and institutions rather than to care for survivors of sexual abuse; and

WHEREAS, Our institutional responses have at times caused irreparable personal harm to survivors of sexual abuse, leaving them feeling isolated, powerless, and without a voice; and

WHEREAS, We have failed to educate and thus adequately prepare church leaders to respond to abuse; and

WHEREAS, Our churches have failed at times properly to report cases of abuse to the appropriate authorities (Romans 13:1-7); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Anaheim, California, June 14-15, 2022, denounce in the strongest possible terms every instance of sexual abuse, those who perpetrate abuse, and those who seek to defend or protect these perpetrators; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bible’s teaching to seek justice for those who have been harmed, protect the vulnerable, and honor the dignity and worth of survivors of sexual abuse (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:2-4, Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly lament the harm our actions and inactions have caused to survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly apologize to and ask forgiveness from survivors of sexual abuse for our failure to care well for survivors, for our failure to hold perpetrators of sexual abuse adequately accountable in our churches and institutions, for our institutional responses which have prioritized the reputation of our institutions over protection and justice for survivors, and for the unspeakable harm this failure has caused to survivors through both our action and inaction; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly repent and acknowledge our need for comprehensive change in caring well for survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That amid our failures, we express our hope in Christ, who never fails to care for those who have been harmed, that he watches over the vulnerable members of our churches, that he can bring healing to survivors of sexual abuse, and that he can bring both retributive justice to perpetrators of sexual abuse and restorative justice to survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we prayerfully endeavor to eliminate all instances of sexual abuse among our churches; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to the ongoing moral demands of the gospel in relation to sexual abuse, observing the command of our Lord to “teach everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20), including the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27, 34-35); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call for churches to teach the importance of honoring one another and treating one another virtuously in the area of sexuality so churches can become safe places that protect the vulnerable; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we give of our time and resources to bind the wounds of the broken, hold accountable perpetrators of sexual abuse and those who seek to defend them, and care well for survivors of sexual abuse; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we recognize and appreciate the work and advocacy of sexual abuse survivors, repent of our resistance and neglect of their efforts, and unreservedly apologize to survivors mentioned in the report, including Christa Brown, Susan Codone, Megan Lively, Jennifer Lyell, Anne Marie Miller, David Pittman, Tiffany Thigpen, Debbie Vasquez, Hannah-Kate Williams, and Jules Woodson, for our not heeding their collective warnings and taking swift action to address clergy sexual abuse.

 

[Revmitchell]

There has been no resistance to any if it. That is a lie. What there has been a resistance to is creating more centralized governance. Its not necessary. However, saying there is a resistance to obeying the law is similar yo the democrats who lie and suggest that if we dont want yo do it their way then we dont want to do anything at all. Its just plain dishonest

 

[Reynolds]

??? There is no "SBC Wall of Shame". The point is to prevent possible child molestation and report the incident. The proper authorities investigate and determine whether the accusations are legitimate.

What is being sought are measures within SBC churches to prevent, as best as possible, allegations being ignored or covered up (like with the Mormons, the RCC, Presbyterian churches, etc.

The idea us to develop policies in dealing with sexual misconduct allegations (in addition to reporting) to safeguard people.

At least 28 pastors sns church workers in SC SBC churches are on the sex offender list. This is not something that should simply be ignored. Sure, the people may not do it again, sure they may have "paid their debt". But it remains an issue of concern (perhaps not for you, but for those who care about the children).

I know you do not really support child molestation. You are just trying to be difficult (I don't know why). But if you seriously think there should be no policies regarding sexual misconduct then I'll simply leave it at we have to agree to disagree.

You talking in a circle. The SBC is going to create a registry. That is the wall of shame.
Again. This is not too hard JonC. Who declares the accused "innocent"? The "proper authorities" will never declare someone innocent. They will also rarely if ever charge a juvenile false reporter of sexual abuse with filing a false report. When and how does the victim of the false accusations get "found innocent"? Please do tell.

 

[Reynolds]

The Resolution:

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse is an abomination before God and an affront to the teachings of Scripture (Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-20; Mark 7:20-34; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 1:15-17); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse grieves Christ and contradicts the heart of the gospel (Mark 12:31; 1 Corinthians 6:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 4:1; Philippians 1:27); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse abandons the demands of Scripture for the holy living of God’s people (1 Corinthians 6:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; 1 Timothy 1:8-11); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse is a violation of the Imago Dei, dishonoring and degrading human dignity, especially in those most vulnerable among us (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 9:6; Psalm 8:3-5); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse causes harm to those who are entrusted to the church’s care and protection (Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 22:3-5; Micah 6:8; 1 John 3:16-18); and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention declared in our 2021 Resolution “On Abuse and Pastoral Qualifications” that sexual abuse “is an action repugnant to the teachings of Scripture and reprehensible even to those who are not believers”; and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse perpetrated by pastoral leaders or church members is a violation of the sacred trust for pastoral leaders and all believers to care for and minister to people (Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 28:13; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse in the church is a failure of personal and public witness (1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 1 Corinthians 10:8; Ephesians 5:1-15; Ephesians 5:25-27); and

WHEREAS, Sexual abuse has occurred in and among our churches, sometimes at the hands of church members and sometimes at the hands of pastoral leaders; and

WHEREAS, In too many cases our convention of churches has failed to care well for those who have been abused; and

WHEREAS, Our responses have at times sought first to protect the reputation of our leaders, churches, and institutions rather than to care for survivors of sexual abuse; and

WHEREAS, Our institutional responses have at times caused irreparable personal harm to survivors of sexual abuse, leaving them feeling isolated, powerless, and without a voice; and

WHEREAS, We have failed to educate and thus adequately prepare church leaders to respond to abuse; and

WHEREAS, Our churches have failed at times properly to report cases of abuse to the appropriate authorities (Romans 13:1-7); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Anaheim, California, June 14-15, 2022, denounce in the strongest possible terms every instance of sexual abuse, those who perpetrate abuse, and those who seek to defend or protect these perpetrators; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bible’s teaching to seek justice for those who have been harmed, protect the vulnerable, and honor the dignity and worth of survivors of sexual abuse (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:2-4, Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly lament the harm our actions and inactions have caused to survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly apologize to and ask forgiveness from survivors of sexual abuse for our failure to care well for survivors, for our failure to hold perpetrators of sexual abuse adequately accountable in our churches and institutions, for our institutional responses which have prioritized the reputation of our institutions over protection and justice for survivors, and for the unspeakable harm this failure has caused to survivors through both our action and inaction; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we publicly repent and acknowledge our need for comprehensive change in caring well for survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That amid our failures, we express our hope in Christ, who never fails to care for those who have been harmed, that he watches over the vulnerable members of our churches, that he can bring healing to survivors of sexual abuse, and that he can bring both retributive justice to perpetrators of sexual abuse and restorative justice to survivors of sexual abuse; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we prayerfully endeavor to eliminate all instances of sexual abuse among our churches; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to the ongoing moral demands of the gospel in relation to sexual abuse, observing the command of our Lord to “teach everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20), including the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27, 34-35); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call for churches to teach the importance of honoring one another and treating one another virtuously in the area of sexuality so churches can become safe places that protect the vulnerable; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we give of our time and resources to bind the wounds of the broken, hold accountable perpetrators of sexual abuse and those who seek to defend them, and care well for survivors of sexual abuse; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we recognize and appreciate the work and advocacy of sexual abuse survivors, repent of our resistance and neglect of their efforts, and unreservedly apologize to survivors mentioned in the report, including Christa Brown, Susan Codone, Megan Lively, Jennifer Lyell, Anne Marie Miller, David Pittman, Tiffany Thigpen, Debbie Vasquez, Hannah-Kate Williams, and Jules Woodson, for our not heeding their collective warnings and taking swift action to address clergy sexual abuse.

So, the SBC starts yet another apology tour.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have a question, Mitch. In your opinion is it wrong to lie about other people. I ask because we live in a culture where "truth" is subjective. Some believe they can say whatever they want about people and it is not morally wrong because it is their "opinion".

Anyway, back to the topic.

I did say (and believe) that a church has the right to be informed (like I said, by the acquitted minister) if the minister had been accused of child molestation. The church needs to know the case was investigated and the minister found not guilty.
Like @Reynolds points out these charges, regardless of outcome, harms reputations (the accused and the churches). I believe ministers should be open and honest about issues that may affect the church.

Now, I am not sure why you think I said that I believe the innocent should be stigmatized for the rest of their life. I certainly do not recall ever thinking that, much less saying it.

You must have been reading something else and just got confused. It happens.

Being honest and open does not mean one is stigmatized. But the innocent will still carry that burden with him or her, I agree with @Reynolds on that.

Personally, I think background checks should be run on all staff. I also believe churches should have strict policies in place. Too often accusations have been ignored because people simply think the accused couldn't do that. But rarely, it seems, for these cases in churches involve a minister in tank top driving an ice cream truck.

Well i havent lied that is the way your posts read. Im not the only one. However, if you want to talk about lying then lets talk about all the lies you told about anyone who opposed the false info from our government about china, covid, or the shots.


Further, your posts are so convoluted its often hard to gain any understanding. I at one time tried to defend your convoluted posts when all the calvies came after you. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when they wouldnt. Turned out to be a mistake. Your hostile and vitriolic accusations during covid showed me the light. Not to mention the dishonesty. You dont have any credibility. Good luck with that

 

[JonC]

You talking on a circle. The SBC is going to create a registry. That is the wall of shame.
Again. This is not too hard JonC. Who declares the accused "innocent"? The "proper authorities" will never declare someone innocent. They will also rarely if ever charge a juvenile false reporter of sexual abuse with filing a false report. When and how does the victim of the false accusations get "found innocent"? Please do tell.

What registry?

What I mean by being found innocent is being found "not guilty". For example, on May 5 2022 Trevor Pankau was found "not guilty of child molestation".

Being found "innocent" means "not guilty of a crime".

 

[JonC]

So, the SBC starts yet another apology tour.

They should apologize to those listed (there were more, but the people listed were molested by clergy and agreed to the release of their names). More than that, since their allegations were initially ignored they should implement measures to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Again, what registry were you talking about?

 

[JonC]

Well i havent lied that is the way your posts read. Im not the only one. However, if you want to talk about lying then lets talk about all the lies you told about anyone who opposed the false info from our government about china, covid, or the shots.

Further, your posts are so convoluted its often hard to gain any understanding. I at one time tried to defend your convoluted posts when all the calvies came after you. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when they wouldnt. Turned out to be a mistake. Your hostile and vitriolic accusations during covid showed me the light. Not to mention the dishonesty. You dont have any credibility. Good luck with that

I'm not saying you lied. I'm saying I do not recall ever thinking, much less posting, that "innocent people should be stigmatized for the rest of their life."

It isn't how my posts read (posts don't read...it's how you read them).

But since you posted it (that I believe innocent people should be stigmatized for the rest of their life) it is up to you to quote that post (we haven't spoken off of the public forum, so it should be easy).

You became hostile towards me, not because of my views about the government and COVID (I oppose forced vaccinations, even in the military....I mean ANY forced vaccinations) but because I believe the vaccines were effective against the virus. I never belittled you for believing they were not effective. I did call into question several of your sources. Many proved false and were removed (but NOT by me).

To me covid and the vaccines would not be enough to come between people. But I don't take the issue politically. The only reason I think they helped is the medical professionals I trust. That's a personal decision (I'm not asking anyone else to trust them).

 

[Reynolds]

What registry?

What I mean by being found innocent is being found "not guilty". For example, on May 5 2022 Trevor Pankau was found "not guilty of child molestation".

Being found "innocent" means "not guilty of a crime".

Jon C. You only get found not guilty if you get charged. You said you wanted to list all accused.

 

[JonC]

@Revmitchell

You and I have more in common than I suspect you want to admit. We share a concern about the SBC.

My question is what part of the resolution you believe is wrong. Do you believe the SBC should not cooperate with law enforcement regarding sexual abuse issues?

 

[Reynolds]

They should apologize to those listed (there were more, but the people listed were molested by clergy and agreed to the release of their names). More than that, since their allegations were initially ignored they should implement measures to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Again, what registry were you talking about?

Jon, the SBC has been discussing a registry for some time. Without a registry, how they going to accomplish your wild ideas?