;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church, Church Life, Current Events, Guest Authors, Pastoral Issues, SBC Issues, SBC NewsSexual Sin and the Ministry
Posted by Guest Author in Uncategorized
Today’s guest author is Wesley Handy. Wes is happily married to his wife of over five years, Zhanara (‘zh’ pronounced like the ‘s’ in measure). They have two children, Odelia and Isaiah, and are expecting their third this Spring. Currently. Wes serves as an Assistant Registrar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he is also a Ph.D. student in Applied Theology with a concentration in Christian Missions. He is a member of First Baptist Church, where he has served as a lay person since Fall 2000. For the past three years, he has been co-leading mission teams into the Central Asian Republic of Kazakhstan, cooperating with a local indigenous church in their missionary efforts among their own countrymen and beyond.
• • •
Lest you think this post is intending to be a shock and awe, grab your attention with a naughty topic kind of post, please keep reading—this is a serious issue. In the past year, several Southern Baptist ministers and seminary students have been revealed publicly as sex offenders. In the past month, the community around Southeastern Seminary has been rocked by the alleged crimes of a student. Right now, do a Google search on “Baptist minister sex scandal” and peruse the results.
It is sickening.
Well, it’s really not that surprising though, since we’re all sinners whose natural number one priority is self-gratification. The fact that these things happen does not invalidate the gospel or irreversibly scar the image of Southern Baptists. The Bible tells us that we are this way, and it provides the means to overcome the problem. I don’t mean to overlook the pain caused by sexual sin, but even those victimized by sin can find healing in Jesus. Only when we fail to respond with attention to God’s love and holiness do we dishonor Jesus and our other Christian brothers and sisters. We need to learn how to deal with these issues rightly.
On her website “StopBaptistPredators.org: Shining Light on Clergy Sex Abuse,” Christa Brown leads a charge for exposing what she thinks is a systemic problem among SBC churches. Bob Allen, in an article posted this 12/31/07 on EthicsDaily.com, highlights the number of sex scandals among Southern Baptist ministers in the past year. Allen also reports on the apparent spitting contest between Christa Brown along with SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) and the SBC Executive Committee.
[One must note that Ethics Daily is produced by the Baptist Center for Ethics which, though independent, states on its website the following:
“BCE is a freestanding, nonprofit organization. BCE’s financial support comes from a variety of organizations. These have included the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Baptist General Association of Virginia and Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. The state Cooperative Baptist Fellowships in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee have also provided funding, and a growing number of churches are placing BCE in their mission budgets” (emphasis added).
In other words, it is not sympathetic to the SBC.]
In another article, Allen reports that “Brown, a survivor of clergy sex abuse, and SNAP have been calling for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s second-largest faith group behind Roman Catholics, to develop a denomination-wide policy to eradicate sexual predators similar to one adopted by Catholic bishops in response to a pedophile priest scandal five years ago.” But if you are a Southern Baptist you notice a problem. Southern Baptist churches are autonomous and local, whereas the Catholic Church is unified and hierarchical. No SBC entity, including the Executive Committee, much less a neighboring church, could enforce this database on another Baptist church. A backward, ignorant church could hire a sex offender if they wanted to, and it would be their own fault. This doesn’t make it right, but it is a reality of the relationship between Baptist churches. Therefore, something else must be done.
Before we come to that something else, let us first applaud the efforts of Christa Brown and SNAP. Never, no never, should we sweep under the rug the sexual sins of our pastors and leaders. Go to her website and read a little about her life. She was abused by her youth minister; then the pastor knowingly offered the minister to quit or be exposed. In other words, he allowed the fiend to save face, while a young woman was kept quiet and thereby SHAMED. What a backward situation!!! Christa found that minister was still a pastor years later.
I Timothy 5:20 “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.” Then Paul exhorts Timothy to “keep these instructions without partiality.” Why? Because it is easy to be partial to a respected leader. We should never give a leader an easy sentence, because “those who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). I know that is out of context, but I think it applies.
Here’s the problem, because Baptist churches are local, autonomous, and thus largely independent, it has become easy for sexual predators to slip from congregation to congregation unawares. The conclusion of Brown and SNAP is to promote nationwide databases; here’s the beginning of one for Southern Baptists. Such a ministerial database would not be useless, and kudos to Wade Burleson for making a motion to investigate such an endeavor. (But I think it might be illegal to blacklist folks who were only credibly accused. You might find yourself on the wrong side of a huge lawsuit. Furthermore, what does credibly mean? Also, by law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to change that, then you better not have many enemies…) Though one can understand why someone might be offended when Frank Page and others called the project a “moot point,” a database falls way short of what is needed in our convention due to our polity. On her website, Christa Brown attacks the “autonomy excuse” by pointing out the instances that State Conventions have “disfellowshipped” churches for other doctrinal issues. Though the ability to break fellowship exists, such an action would be too little, too late. In other words, you can only disassociate from a church after something has happened; the abuse would have to have already taken place. On top of that, you are punishing an entire church for the actions of one or a few among the ranks. Then the church becomes a victim, and the ones devastated by the abuse become double victims. It would be a different story if a church knowingly hired a sex offender as ministerial staff. Furthermore, breaking fellowship with a church does not violate that church’s autonomy. Life in the church can go on as before. So, I don’t buy her claim that “local church autonomy” is a smoke screen excuse. Southern Baptist churches are not the Roman Catholic Church. We can have 10,000 databases, but local churches have to take the steps, not just the convention. There is some truth to the adage that the SBC exists only three days out of the year. That being the reality of Southern Baptist life, what should be done? Note: these are not listed in any particular order:
First, pastor search committees should do background searches on all prospective ministerial candidates; contact every church the pastor has served in the past. (The burden of which would be greatly reduced if ministers were raised from within, but that’s another post on another day.) If such a database ever comes into existence, it should be standard procedure for churches to check it. Here’s a tidbit from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC website :
“The church can do a much better job making sure they do not call an immoral minister. Churches must check out the minister before extending a call. They should run references, talk to directors of missions, check with former church members, and question other ministers who know the prospect. Don’t hesitate to ask any question about the prospective minister. Listen carefully to what the reference may tell you.”
Second, other staff or church members should never take sexual sin lightly. If a pastor has been involved in any sexual sin in the past, he has been forever disqualified from the ministry (I Timothy 3:2). Note, I’m not saying he is not a Christian. In Christ, there is forgiveness and healing; but a sex offender has qualified himself to be a car or insurance salesman, not a minister. Let him live the gospel, God will raise other leaders.
Third, when a pastor or staff member has committed sexual abuse, he is subject to the law. Do not be merciful and protect him from justice; rather, be loud. The lost world is more amazed at our silence on the issue than the fact it happens (FYI, in our sex-crazed culture, it happens everywhere). If he is convicted, proclaim that Christ does not condone such actions. Tell of the Law; repeat that “the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Then, preach the gospel. You have the world watching and listening. Let us not be silent any longer. Let not the media have the last word.
Fourth, actively and passionately comfort the afflicted. How many homosexuals are there in the world who may come to Jesus if they only find the healing salve of the cross? How many people tainted by sexual sin, lack only the comfort of the Holy Spirit? But that would require that we love people. I think we may love our image more than we love people and that more than we love Jesus. How many people are ready to quit Christianity in light of these tragedies? Let us not give them silence and deepen their grief and sorrow, let us give them hope!
Fifth, Church Discipline, need I say more?!
Finally, databases should be kept not only on the National Convention level, but also on the Associational level and State Convention level. If these databases were maintained and used, it would be harder for people with previous records of sexual sin in the ministry to slip from church to church.
Please feel free add more to this list in the comments.
Friends, because of who we are as Southern Baptists, for us to make progress, this has to happen on the local church level. We should support the creation of databases, on the Associational, State Convention, and National Convention levels, but each church has the responsibility to care for its health and well-being by thoroughly screening its prospective ministers as well as responding to possible situations with the heart of the gospel—love and holiness.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Wes,
Glad to see your article on IMPACT. I have a question. When you cited 1 Tim. 3:2 and said that any pastor who has been involved in sexual sin in the past should never pastor again, I assume you are thinking of the “above reproach” part of that verse. My question is, what counts as disqualifying sexual sin? Do you mean, as you wrote, “any sexual sin?” If so, then any man who has ever lusted in his heart should step down and never serve again. I’m not trying to go soft here. I’m in agreement with just about everything you wrote. I think it’s insane for CNN to run a poll asking if Bill Clinton, who lied under oath, would make a good Supreme Court justice. I don’t think a Christian man who has been a sex offender should be a pastor. I’m just wondering how far you are going with your second rule.
Cyle,
I think you ask a good question. “Any” is vague and/or ambiguous. Jesus said that to lust in one’s heart after a woman is to commit adultery with her. Paul said that sexual sin is sin “against the body.” Sexual sin has consequences. The question is, at what point does sexual sin bring upon a person reproach. I would also ask, at what point does sexual sin make you more than a one-woman man?
Pornography is a big issue, and problem. Does looking at pornography once disqualify you from ministry? Habitual pornography does even tremendous damage.
Definitely, any sexual sin that involves another moral being other than one’s spouse is of the disqualifying nature. However, what about the person involved in immorality before becoming a believer? This is a trickier issue, but I believe there are forms of sexual sin that forever disqualify a person from being an elder/pastor. Certainly anything that would have led to execution under the Old Testament law. (One may argue the law/gospel issue here, but remember one of the purposes of the law is wisdom.)
Overall, certain issues are clearer than others, but drawing sharp lines on internal sexual sins borders on legalism. But those committing internal sins, if unrepentant, will soon find themselves in external sin.
What do you think?
Outstanding article!
I agree that ultimate responsibility for investigating the background of all potential employees and volunteers rests with the local church. (I include non-pastoral and non-paid staff because churches may be held accountable for the acts of persons other than pastors.) Our churches have a clear and unavoidable duty to assure members and communities that as long as they or their children are engaged in any activity of the church, they are as safe as humanly possible from sexual predators. Unfortunately, many SBC churches simply lack the resources to conduct a background check for every Sunday school teacher and youth worker, or the volunteer who mows the grass in the parking lot.
The SBC must act to assist local churches in this area. The SBC could easily stand up a national entity tasked to provide a range of services to help local churches complete thorough and detailed background investigations. This will include implementing a database, and yes, it is possible that we may be called to defend lawsuits because of it. I submit, however, that the costs to settle these lawsuits will seem but a pittance when compared to massive sums rightly awarded assault victims by civil juries.
We have a duty to reasonably maintain our facilities such that no harm befalls even a casual visitor to our premises and we buy insurance against the liability. We have an even greater duty to protect our people against the horrific crimes of sexual predators. I believe it is absolutely inappropriate for anyone in the SBC to engage in hand-wringing, finger-pointing or responsibility-shifting over this issue. Let me be absolutely clear that I now make no such charge against you and that I did not detect any suggestion of that in your article.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that sexual abuse/assault is a tragic crime with horrible consequences for its victims and it is occurring in SBC churches everywhere.
If we don’t believe that, we will simply do nothing.
Fairly well put.
SNAP’s promotion of listing for abusers who have been ‘credibly accused’ could be a problem. There should be no problem listing convicted and confessed abusers. The guilt of either is not in question.
On the issue of disfellowshiping churches – it is not an unjust punishment for the entire church based on the action of their clergy. The action would come only for a church that knowingly harbors a convicted or confessed abuser. We already do that over the homosexual issue. Why not with sexual abuse by clergy? This is one of SNAPs stronger points.
At the moment, Brown and SNAP take issue with secret databases, as in Texas. Databases can get complicated, since such would be the kiss of death for a minister, but the Texas approach doesn’t appear to be exactly on the mark.
Of course if we had a decent way to handle church discipline in SBC churches this would be a non-issue. The good old boy network is all we have now and there’s not much [read: any] accountability in that. That is the issue at hand, really, for any sin committed by pastors and leaders and even church members: the Churches in the SBC have no teeth. In general, their polity doesn’t allow it.
It’s all well and good to put it off on the Convention or try anyway. The truth is that local churches either don’t or won’t deal with discipline and I can’t see them beginning at any point in the future short of the sort of litigation that the Catholics have had to deal with.
Wesley,
I want to thank you for the very thoughtful and important article. I think this issue of disqualification becomes even more complicated than your thoughts expressed. For example, if we use the standard of “anything that would have led to execution under the Old Testament law” then David (adultery and murder), who was under the Law, would have been disqualified and should have all of his Psalms removed. Or, Paul (accomplice to murder) should have been disqualified for life from ministry as well. There are other examples as well, but the point here is they weren’t disqualified for life. In fact, David is called by God, “a man after My heart” and Paul is the great Apostle to the Gentiles through whom God gave the bulk of the New Testament.
The key here is repentance. When these men were confronted with their sin, they confessed it and repented and God restored them and used them for His great work.
If we use the words in Timothy 3:2 to mean one who has never sinned and is therefore above reproach, then Paul would be disqualifying himself from the ministry because he was well known as a former persecutor of the church and a murderer, wasn’t he? And David should have been removed immediately from the throne and taken out and stoned under the Law.
My comment is beginning to sound argumentative and I truly do not mean to sound that way. I am only reinforcing the point you made that this is far more complicated an issue than just a blanket statement that a man who is guilty of “any sexual sin” is disqualified from ministry for life. And I in no way want to diminish the gravity of sexual abuse of children by anyone, let alone ministers. I simply believe we should use a little more wisdom in this very serious issue before disqualifying someone from ministry because of sins that have been forgiven (and forgotten) by God through a repentant heart, and the blood of Christ.
The Apostle John wrote, “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If a man (or woman) has sinned, sexually or otherwise, in their past, has repented and shows through their lives that the pattern of that sin is broken in their lives, we shouldn’t have a standard any lower than that of Christ.
I simply can’t read 1 Timothy 3:2 to exclude anyone with sexual sin in their past life from ministry. This verse does, to me, mean that someone who commits sins of “reproach” – again, what is the definition of that – DURING ministry would be excluded. I believe that the issue of CRIMINAL sexual offense is an entirely different matter, but the “above reproach” is the clear issue here. I simply don’t read “husband of one wife” to mean “he who has never lusted, viewed pornography, or committed sexual sin with another person, even prior to salvation.” Interpreting “husband of one wife” literally, a single man cannot be a pastor or a deacon.
A pastor or other church worker who is either under investigation for or convicted of criminal behavior – with the exception of true religious persecution – is, in my opinion, immediately disqualified from ministry until the allegations are settled. However, churches are probably “out of bounds” if they pursue defamation of that persons character by maintaining a database of offenders that is outside the normal law enforcement channels.
C. Anderson,
Thanks for the response.
William,
Perhaps my point on disfellowshipping was unclear, or I misunderstand SNAP’s rebuttal of “local church autonomy.” Breaking fellowship with a church does nothing to the church. It does not prove that the SBC has, in the past, exerted power of individuals in churches or local churches themselves. Even in Missouri, all the state convention could do is withold funding from the churches it disliked. It didn’t stop the churches. Though a National Convention, the SBC does not hold power of its members, it represents them. Though I believe that a database of offending pastors may be helpful, individual churches will have to utilize it for it to be effective. Thus, SNAP has not trumped the “local church autonomy” argument.
Josh,
Thanks for the comment.
Jeff and Bernard,
Thanks for pointing out the problem with the issue of ministers who have sinned sexually.
Jeff, I appreciate your comments and calling me out to greater clarity. However, if above reproach means only that there is not unrepentant sin, then there really is no standard as long as you repent, right? Paul wasn’t so gracious to the fellow in 1 Corinthians caught in sexual immorality. True, Paul encouraged the church to restore fellowship to him, but that is something other than making him a pastor. If a pastor commits sexual sin, it doesn’t make him an unbeliever, just unqualified to be a pastor. We still need qualifiers of what types of sexual sin that would be.
Bernard, I’m not certain that I Tim 3:2 states that sins of reproach have to be committed during ministry to count. It is simply stated that he is to be above reproach. My point about one-woman man is that sexual sins with other humans make them no longer “one-woman.” Nonetheless, we need to have these discussions to clarify what is acceptable of a pastor.
Wesley – I neglected to mention that I appreciate the time you spent researching and writing this article. Well done.
Not to divert needlessly, but I don’t equate “husband of one wife” with “one-woman-man”. I think we’re superimposing something onto the text if we interpret it that way. Every person I’ve ever discussed this with presumes it to mean “a man with no more than one living wife.” Thus, widowers are acceptable, even if they remarry. Thus, we make an exception even though it is – when taken literally – in violation of Scripture, largely because it “fits” our definition of “okay”. Likewise, I think there are Scriptural reasons to allow a person with sexual sin in his past – especially before conversion but, in my opinion, even after conversion – to pursue ministry if he feels truly called by God and has obviously repented of his sin. Perhaps there are boundaries within that “allowance” that should be clarified, but I don’t think that every sexual sin is an automatic disqualifier. Disclaimer – I’m not PREACHING here, I’m simply talking about what I THINK. I’m not imposing this view on anyone, I’m just sharing it.
I simply feel it’s inappropriate to conclude, as a bunch of guys sitting around reading and writing comments on a blog post, that anyone who has committed fornication at any point in their life is automatically excluded from ministry. I don’t “read” that about grace and forgiveness. I’m not prepared to exegetically defend that position, but I believe it’s valid.
As mentioned by someone else, this sounds much more argumentative than I mean. I’m just discussing because I think it’s important.
Thanks!
Wesley,
Your first article on Impact is a good one and I commend your bravery for talking about a difficult topic. I also would like to say it is good to talk to a fellow Southeasterner, my Alma Mater, class of 2002!
I do have a quibble, and it probably is nothing more than that. I think we refer to church discipline a little too-offhandedly. You say your fifth rule a bit too cavalierly, at least in my opinion. I believe we need to return to a solid understanding of church discipline, but referring to it as a “given” in SB church life is unhelpful.
The reality is most SB churches don’t practice discipline the way many in the ivory towers say (not saying you’re in an ivory tower) it should be practiced and getting SB churches back to that point is going to take a lot of love, a lot of education, and a lot of prayer. I agree we have dropped the ball here but reinstituting church discipline, at least the way it was practiced in the nineteenth century and where many say we need to return, is not that simple.
I don’t really follow our brother Josh’s line of thinking about the “good old boy” network. If he means something of an honor system I think then I may understand. Like I said, a minor quibble, but an outstanding post and a timely and well-written word.
Wesley,
I think that any pastor who has had a physical affair should step down from the pastorate. I think that any pastor who has committed s criminal sexual offense should step down. I think a pastor who continues to fantasize or use pornography should step down. I’m not sure which ones should step back in to the pastorate. I would be very unlikely to recommend a man for the pastorate who has done these things while a pastor. Personally, I believe that a man who was a child sex offender as an adult or as pastor should not be in a pastoral roll in the church at all.
To all,
I think that the SBC, state conventions, and local associations could take clear steps beyond lists of offenders. (1) the SBC, state conventions, and local associations, should resolve to remove from fellowship any church that knowingly hired a sex offender who re-offended. (2) DOM’s should refuse to recommend pastors to churches unless they had first performed a criminal background check on those pastors, and that the SBC, state conventions and local associations could act to make that a requirement for DOM’s. (3) the SBC, state conventions, and local associations should refuse to list any pastor’s resume on denominational websites until a criminal background check has been peformed for that person.
Wesley,
I also want to echo Bernard’s appreciation for all of the research, time and obvious compassion you put into your article. As I said before, I firmly believe this is an important issue that needs to be discussed. But at the same time, I believe there is room for disagreement as well.
I do in fact believe that repenting is the watermark because (forgive me if I am oversimplifying…) that is the standard which Jesus, our Lord and Savior, has for forgiveness. And I believe the context of 1 Corinthians 5 is the fact that this is an on-going sinful relationship of which everyone in the church is aware, and the man is unrepentant. I believe it also infers that Paul had already addressed this very issue in an earlier letter to the church and the behavior had not changed.
So, I guess my point is yes, repentance – true repentance with fruit in accordance and not just “lip service” – should exactly be the standard. Otherwise, I would think Paul’s Epistles and David’s Psalms should be removed and they should be disqualified for having sinned and broken Old Testament Laws deserving of execution. And any minister, who had committed fornication as a teenager, should resign from their church. Or what about the rest of the Old Testament Law? Let’s not forget that only one of the 10 Commandments deals directly with sexual sin. So what about a minister who tells a lie, or steals, or covets? What about Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount where He says that just having a hatred for someone is murder in God’s eyes, or having lustful thoughts is adultery? There wouldn’t be a qualified man – or woman, for that matter – left in the human race.
Again, I really am not meaning to sound argumentative. I just don’t want us to get so overzealous about making sure our Pastor hasn’t committed a sexual sin ever in his past, that we disqualify someone from God’s work whom God himself has not disqualified. That’s all. And I am probably not making my point very clearly…I apologize.
Bernard,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. I agree, perhaps we have gone off the topic by discussing what is or is not disqualifying sin. Perhaps this is where we are all talking past one another. The topic is the issue of sexual abuse by ministers. My responses have this topic in mind.
This is a serious issue. I think Christa Brown’s testimony and research to have some merit. According to statistics on her website, around 3% of sexual abuse leads to a conviction. Among ministers, this is the case because, for the sake of unity, or for the sake of the public “face” of the church, an abusive minister is allowed to walk without anything being disclosed to the church or the public. Thus, he goes on do the same horrific things he has done before. Something has to change.
Tony,
What up SEBTS!!! But seriously, my point about Church discipline, which was intentionally vague, is that if we followed church discipline, the ability of ministers to go from church to church as sexual predators will be diminished. As it is, I can think of one case myself where a minister was asked to leave because of alleged improprieties. In the church, there is no alleged, there should be full disclosure, for the sake of the church, etc. I don’t mean to take church discipline for granted, but rather promote the idea that we need to implement it much more consistently, and more strictly for pastors.
Cyle,
Great suggestions!!!
Jeff,
The OT laws I had in mind dealt with sexual immorality such as bestiality, lying with your sister/mother, homosexuality, etc. Adultery was punishable by death in certain situations. The laws are clear on some extreme forms of sexuality that are out of bounds.
To all my friends, this is a discussion that every church should be having. We can disagree of where the boundary lay, but all too often, pastor search committees have other criteria for an incoming pastor. We should be very interested in the sexual mores of any incoming pastor. It really doesn’t matter if he can preach good, or if he seems friendly, or anything else, if he molests your sons, daughters, or wives.
Wesley
I have apparently then missed the point and I will refrain from further comments. Like I said, I do not want to appear obstinate or anything like that and I did not mean to take the conversation completely off-topic. If that is how I have come off, I sincerely apologize to you, and everyone.
In Christ,
Jeff
wesley,
your post is very good, and it’s truly one that we all need to consider and act upon. it makes us think. but, i, too, see bernard and jeff’s point about overzealousness on this issue. i mean, the way some look upon this issue would lead to there being no ministers. would there be anyone out there left to be a pastor?
i kind of also go along with cyle on this matter…that if a pastor has committed adultery, that he should step down. he should repent…publicly. he should get his life in order…and, get his marriage strengthened again, and then, as jeff points out, show that he’s truly repented. give it some time. then, would he at that point not be qualified again to pastor a church? i have a friend who did this very thing. he now pastors a church again, and he’s doing very well with no relapses that i know of… and, it’s been many, many years since the adultery.
now, i just cant see a convicted child molestor ever again being a pastor. i just cant. if he was truly guilty of this crime, and not just accused. i know of some good men who were falsely accused of sexual crimes due to some low life’s who wanted to destroy them. they used these false accusations to try to try to attack the pastor for whatever reason and destroy him. a good friend of mine, different from the one who committed adultery, has gone thru a false accusation for the past year and a half. and, the teen who accused him was just trying to avoid trouble for the sexual sins he was committing that my pastor friend caught him in. and, my friend has been living with this for a year and a half with no time in the court room, because the DA has no case, and he knows it. but, they just leave my friend in limbo…with his reputation severely hurt. thus, i cant agree with wade and snap about “credible accusations of child abuse” being included in some kind of sbc database. whatever “credible accusations” are. that’s lawsuits just waiting to happen.
but, let me ask you, wesley, and others in here, something. i’m very sincere in this question, and i’d like some genuine answers. my question is this…do any of you honestly think that there are any ministers out there who have not either lusted in their hearts, nor ever had sexual thoughts or fantasies, nor ever looked at porno on tv, nor looked at porno on the net, nor looked at some porno magazine, nor ever looked at a billboard on the side of the road and thought things they shouldnt? and, i mean as a saved person never did these things….as a minister never did these things? is there any minister out there who could honestly, before God, say that they’ve never lusted in their heart? never watched a movie that showed too much, and they found their mind wondering where it shouldnt go? is there any man out there, who is truly a saved man, who is truly called into the ministry, never done any of the things that i’ve mentioned? i would really like to hear the response to this question. in an attempt to keep it all real, i’d like to hear the response to this.
david
Wesley,
I agree 100%! If the system of church discipline wasn’t broken, I would hazard to say that such abuses would not take place at all, or would at least be stopped dead in its tracks after the first violation. I think you got my main point though, so I won’t rehash it. Hey, if you see Dr. Rooker, give him a shout-out for me, OK?
God bless, brother.
Tony,
I disagree with you about stopping abuse. The church discipline system is a local system in SBC churches. Even in denominational churches, those who want to sin find a way to sin. No law has ever stopped sin. It may restrain, but it doesn’t stop it. The tougher we get on sexual sin, the less there will be, and that which continues will be harder to find. I don’t think it will be stopped dead in its tracks after the first offense, either, unless we stone all offenders to death after the first offense
Jeff,
I don’t think you were out of bounds. I found myself wanting to draw lines in the sand as well, but I just wanted us to remember the issue of pastoral predators. Thank you for the conversation.
volfan2007, or david,
You ask a good question about lust and pornography. Check here for part of my testimony.
Tony,
We’re eye to eye. Peace!
Cyle,
I’m lost. Walk me through where we are disagreeing because I am not seeing it. I don’t disagree with anything you have said in #17. Thanks brother!
Tony,
You said that if the church discipline thing took place this would all be stopped or at least stopped ead in its tracks. I think it would be lessened, not stopped. Maybe too find a line to draw?
Cyle,
The light bulb just flipped on. I see now. Sorry! I was too hasty in my follow-up to Wesley I didn’t think through exactly what I was saying. I do agree there; church discipline will not cause such abuses to cease altogether but it would work to curb them. Sorry for my muddleheadedness!
Hi from the UK
I wonder if it might be possible to identify two categories of sexual sin that would disqualify from ministerial office permanently.
Sin that also constitutes criminal behaviour – sexual violence, abuse, illegal computer images, etc; and sexual sin which arises out of the ministerial office itself – adultery with church people, church resources used to view porn etc.
Neither exclusion denies the possibility for repentance or redemption but accepts a care both for the good name of Christ and his church and for the need to protect the fallen pastor from situations where temptation might arise again, since the calling to live as a faithful Christian is even greater than the calling to pastoral office.
Other matters need to be addressed on a individual basis but I would wonder if at the very least it might be right to ask a pastor to step back from office and seek counsel and oversight. Should some of the CP millions be diverted from association staff to provide interim funding which would allow a pastor to step back from ministry for say 12 to 18 months for that challenge and support and not at the same time throw his family into poverty. Isn’t it possible that it is trying to avoid destitution that makes some pastors minimise the damage of their sexual sin.
Just some thoughts from the other side of the pond.
Oh and why cant the SBC Exec Com or the Convention take a formal decision which automatically removes from the convention any church which knowingly employs or retains in employment anyone who has or is given a conviction for a child sex offence. If churches can be dis-fellowshipped for breaking biblical morality (employing active and practising homosexuals as pastors), which can’t they be dis-fellowshipped for breaking both biblical morality and endangering children?
To all,
Wes and I know each other very well, in fact we co-lead those endeavors in Central Asia together. I say this because my question and response are short to him. He knows me and knows my heart. Maybe that is a bad thing.
Wes,
Great post! I do think that this subject needs to be addressed. I also think that there needs to be a great deal of discussion on this issue both in the “ivory tower” and in the “pew.”
But, I have one thing I would like to address though it does not have to deal with the main point of your post.
You state that “pastor search comittees should do background searches.” Of course I understand that you are working with the current system of hiring a pastor and that you weren’t writing on the following topic but…Should they not be pulling pastors from within their congregation? Background checks could still be done but the comittee would know the person better if they came from within their congregation.
Thanks for letting me comment a little off topic.
Dougald
The moral of the story is…Don’t skim a post.
Wes did mention what I did above.
So, what Wes said.
Dougald
But Dougald … if a church called a pastor from within the church, he wouldn’t be quite so easy to run off in 2 or 3 years!
[...] Sexual Sin and the Ministry [...]
The Southern Baptist Texan has a related article to this post:
Southwestern president responds to victims’ rights group criticism, by Tammi Reed Ledbetter, January 09, 2008.
I don’t know how to set up a link but it can be found at http://www.texanonline.net.
Sincerely,
David R. Brumbelow
Fantastic article! I find it so expected that most of the “conversation” following this article is among men “debating” over what they believe their interpretation of the verses are.
I grew up in this “religion” and was succomed to unthinkable abuse. Allow me to be so bold and challenge those of you who are a little sidetracked with “figuring out” what exactly the verse means. Imagine if you spent all that time working together to try to find a solution to help the VICTIMS in these circumstances. Pastor’s aren’t just going to run out and confess to this and show themselves. They do it in secret and they damage an enormous amount of people. The statistics show that. Their victims remain silent for years sometimes forever because of various reasons so it continues on for years.
While it is fun and challenging to debate scripture why is the focus on disecting scripture instead of seeing the tremendous amount of harm that comes to those abused with in this and many other denominations. What can we do for them? How can we protect the innocent within our churches from the evil that awaits them on Sunday’s? Would that not be a more valuable use of our time?