Unfortunately, the “20/20” report last Friday had the effect of misleading at least some of its viewers to believe that the Southern Baptist Convention somehow condones, hides or denies sexual offenses committed by ministers in SBC-affiliated churches. The Convention does none of those things. Quite the contrary.
D. August Boto is general counsel and
vice president for convention policy with the Executive Committee of the
Southern Baptist Convention.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) – Unfortunately, the “20/20” report
last Friday had the effect of misleading at least some of its viewers to
believe that the Southern Baptist Convention somehow condones, hides or denies
sexual offenses committed by ministers in SBC-affiliated churches. The
Convention does none of those things. Quite the contrary.
The report included accurate assertions,
certainly. For instance, it is true that Southern Baptist ministers have been
charged and/or convicted of sexually abusing children. It is true that in some
of those instances, abuse had occurred earlier at churches where those men had
been previously employed. It is apparently true that at least in one case a
church previously employing a sexual predator and the church employing the
offender at the time of his ultimate arrest did not communicate with each other
in a way that disclosed any earlier indication of moral failure. It may be true
that other churches have similarly failed to communicate.
It is not true, however, that the
Southern Baptist Convention has qualified or endorsed any minister a church has
chosen. There is an explicit statement saying as much on the same page the
interviewer used to locate the ministers he named. So it is the local churches
which do the qualifying, not the SBC. 20/20 referred to the list of ministers
as “the list of available ministers.” It would have been more accurate to refer
to it as the “list of serving ministers.” The Convention merely shares
information provided by its affiliated churches.
It is ironic that a news service would
find fault in the SBC’s reporting of a fact. Imagine what 20/20 would have said
had the Convention NOT included the names of those men in its list of present
church ministers. Whether 20/20 approves of the practice or not, we believe it
is best to report openly, for the benefit of everyone INCLUDING VICTIMS, the
names of ministers our affiliated churches are employing.
The ABC report also left a misperception
regarding what the Convention “would allow.” By posing the question to
President Page as the interviewer did, and editing out the bulk of the
interview and Dr. Page’s responses, the report left the impression that the
Convention was being arbitrary in “not allowing” women ministers or homosexual
ministers, and yet “allowing” ministers who are convicted or suspected sexual
predators.
The fact is the Convention does not
control a church’s employment of its ministers on ANY basis. A church is free
to employ anyone it wishes as pastor. All the Convention says is that if the
church employs a gay person as pastor then the Convention will no longer
consider that church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, but
that does not mean the Convention can control whom a church employs as its
pastor.
Additionally, as is always the case when
alarming, but misleading information is first reported, public reaction is to
call for correction. Unfortunately, the solutions being offered often relate to
the misperception that was received, and therefore many of those solutions are
either inappropriate or unproductive.
For instance, the suggested solution of
producing a list of sex offenders at the Convention level overlooks the fact
that, in most of the cases being cited, the perpetrators had no criminal
record.
Additionally, the 20/20 report made the
point that in the cases cited, including the egregious cases involving Ken Ward
and Shawn Davies, the churches where those men initially committed their crimes
did not report them.
The quality and ameliorative ability of
any national database would be directly proportional to the quality of the
input. In neither of those cases would a national database have been of any
help at all because it would have contained no report on either of those men.
Nevertheless, we are still examining possibilities of that option. But any
solution which is of no real benefit holds no appeal for us, especially if it
operates to create a false sense of security as people depend on it.
I do, however, see a major benefit to the
airing of the 20/20 segment — that it significantly raised the level of
apprehension and wariness among Southern Baptists who have responsibilities in
qualifying volunteers and prospective employees.
Significant impact in reducing instances
of sexual abuse must start at the local level. The authority is there, the
children are there, the applicants are there, the circumstances are understood
better there, and the child’s most motivated defenders are there – their
parents.