The recent articles from the Houston Chronicle about sex abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are convicting to me. What can I and others do better to prevent such abuse? How can we better serve, help, and show compassion to the victims?
I know many of you readers are not a part of the SBC, but please allow me to have this “family” conversation. It is too great of an issue to treat lightly.
One of the issues we have in SBC life is how we license and ordain pastors and staff. Each local church has the authority to ordain and license people because of our belief in the autonomy of the local church. In many cases, because our ordination process is so weak, we “bless” new pastoral candidates who may not be ready for ministry at the least, and who are sexual predators at worst.
Here are some of my thoughts on how we ordain, and how we could do so differently, particularly to protect our churches from predators and others who are not fit for vocational ministry.
- Autonomy is not an excuse for irresponsibility. Every local church that licenses and ordains has a heavy and sobering responsibility. We need to examine our processes and how we communicate those processes to the full congregation. No church should vote on a candidate until they are confident the candidate has been vetted in every way possible.
- Background checks should become normative in the ordination process. Some of you may be shocked to learn we likely have more churches doing background checks on church volunteers than we do ordination candidates. And let me confess my own neglect. I have sat on many ordination councils, and I have never asked to see a background check of the candidate. In fact, I doubt a background check was done, because it was not mentioned. Shame on me.
- We should not assume the ordination of a pastor or staff member from another church is sufficient for our church. When churches call a pastor or pastoral staff member, that person should be examined as if a new ordination is taking place. Unfortunately, we cannot always have confidence that the ordaining church did its homework.
- Leaders should insist on vigorous examinations of candidates for ordination. Our polity does indeed advocate local church autonomy, as I note above. But our structure should not be an impediment for good practices. The influence of leaders is often more powerful than the rules of a structure. Leaders, like me, should speak up more clearly and more quickly.
Solving the ordination problem alone will not solve the sexual abuse problem. But it’s a start. Many predators in the pulpits and on church staff got there because we did not ask the right questions nor put them through thorough screening processes.
It’s time to change.
Posted on February 16, 2019
With nearly 40 years of ministry experience, Thom Rainer has spent a lifetime committed to the growth and health of local churches across North America.
More from Thom
78 Comments
Background checks are not of much value. I have done background checks on staff and volunteers for over 20 years now. Not once has a background check revealed something that would prohibit a person from serving (I’m not suggesting that they should not be done). The problem with ordination is councils is not the failure to do background checks (I’m not opposed to that), the problem is that councils often neglect to “check” the background of the candidate. An ordination council presumably is to determine the candidate’s theology and evidence of a calling by God to a pastoral vocation. But since this is a local church matter it should be left with the local church, and the reality will be that many of them will not do it well. Resources are plentiful to assist in setting up the process. The denomination sticking its nose into it is not what is needed, outside of providing resource material and assistance with actual background checks (these things are now available). The real issue is vetting candidates and volunteers when they are called or volunteer to serve in a church. Regardless of their ordination, or how many times they’ve been checked in the past, churches should be vigilant in this area. The SBC needs to police itself, its entity heads and employees. They have enough trouble there. Get that corrected then maybe someone will take you seriously when you start directing the churches as to how they should operate.
Thanks Thom,
Do you feel that a new pastor that inherits a church staff that has never had a back ground check have one done for them?
What is the best practice if the staff members have been in the church a long time?
Also, if a potential pastor meets with a search committee and they never ask him or mention a back ground check, do you feel he should encourage them to have one done on himself?
Just my thoughts out loud and I value your wisdom!
Blessings,
Tim
Sexual sin is grievous in every way. It leaves a painful wound on everyone. It tears away at the very fiber of all things pure and holy that is the bride of Christ.
I would like to refer people again to John Wiggins’ comments (Feb 16). His thoughts support the idea of churches taking personal responsibility in both vetting and qualifying. The Scriptures are full of instruction about qualifying leaders as well as leaders who disqualify themselves (1 Tim 3; 5:19-25; & Matt 18:15-17 to name a few). I would like to highlight the point of our taking a personal role in the process of knowing our leaders and church members well. Let’s do the background checks and utilize available resources, sure, but more importantly let’s get to know our people well, and personally. When we suspect something might not be ok with a church member or leader, then let’s lean hard (and lovingly) into that discernment. There is so much shame (and righteous anger) associated with sexual sin that it appears to me that many people just don’t want to deal with it up close and personal. Truth is, it’s likely they’ve been hurt by it personally, too.
The Scripture is full of instruction to not only keep ourselves sexually pure, but also to hold others accountable to sexual purity. My hope for people who sin (even sexually) is that they continue in repentance and find complete restoration to God through His church body.
I grew up in the SBC, the son of an ordained SBC pastor, but as I entered ministry I moved into the Evangelical Free Church of America. EFCA likewise supports the autonomy of the local church, but the credentialing process is held at the district level and verified at the national level. This is not foolproof, but it helps uphold good standards more consistently. Perhaps the SBC might be able to develop regional teams to oversee ordinations and serve as gatekeepers for the ministry. I believe this upholds the autonomy of each church while entrusting credentialing to a more specialized group (just as the theological training of each pastor is entrusted to seminaries rather than local churches). I’ve been out of the SBC for 20 years, so perhaps a process like this is already happening, so please forgive me if I’m suggesting something that’s already firmly in place.
From what I have seen, all one has to do to be ordained is say “I am called” and answer every other question with “I believe the Bible” (meaning KJV).
Nothing else seems necessary. A parrot could answer well enough of what I have seen in one ordination i attended.
There needs to be psychological exams given before churches start ordaining people who are likely mentally ill.
The Assemblies of God has a congregational form of government with Independent autonomous churches.
We do not have independent autonomous pastors. Our ministers are interviewed / examined and tested on a state level and are credentialed by the nations headquarters.
It’s not a perfect system, but does allow for accountability.
I grew up up in the church of Christ which did not ordain but we’re fiercely autonomous similar to the Baptists. When leadership does not examine all available records and people, they are abdicating their responsibilities. There is also this idea that leaders and their friends are exempt from certain rules. Additionally, the statement “we are accountable to each other” is worthless. No leader is going to go against fellow leaders and generally will defend them at all cost. This mentality is going to have to go the way of the dinosaur. The modern version is finally being promulgated is “I may be your friend, but I will investigate you religiously as well as criminally and have you defrocked if need be.”
Tom, sad that we had a recent case in our town of a minister (Volunteer youth) Had changed churches and even denominations while working with the Local school system. Now serving a Life sentence for molesting multiple boys and schools did extensive back ground check. My point is, unless there is a red flag what can you do? …He did not work with our church but the church he did work with had community name same as ours and looking back, we received a warning call from an unidentified mother warning us of a male youth leader molesting her son…. left no return number or anything. We had a female leader, so knew it wasn’t us and we called the local authorities but nothing could be done until years later it was exposed. heart broken but tried to help… But covered ourselves by doing due-diligence
Thank you for addressing this topic. Although I’m of another tribe, most would agree that we all have this issue. The only thing I’d add to everyones’ comments is that all people in leadership, including elders, should have background checks and references contacted. From my observations, most churches do these checks for those involved in children’s ministry but not anyone else.
Here in Montana SBC, life and churches, I’ve recognized our ordinations are weak as well. The ones I’ve sat on have had a scheduled time limit and softball questions and answers are the norm.
Your idea about background checks as a part of the ordination process is a good one.
I spent 30 years in law enforcement. I received my call to ministry at about the 25 year mark. My primary focus for 19 years of my LE career was child abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, robbery and murder investigation.
I can tell you a simple criminal history check will provide you with very little background information because most sex offenders have never been arrested. The only way you will identify a problem is if a physical background investigation is conducted. What I mean by that is all references are interviewed and for every reference you interview you obtain three more references from that person who knows the applicant. You should go through this process three times, then you will start to find out what kind of person you are dealing with.
Any candidate that is constantly jumping from one church to another is a red flag. Remember, the sex offender who is clever enough to use an organization to access the victim is often extreamly manipulative and an above average liar.
I would be glad to talk to anyone who has questions about background checks, procedures and a series of questions to ask.
My email address is [email protected].
Thank you so much for this example of practicality.
I highly recommend MinistrySafe’s resources be utilized. They’ve certainly been a blessing to our congregation.
I also recommend that the licensing/ordaining church communicates to candidates that, should they make shipwreck of the faith, their license/ordination will be revoked.
That is a good reminder. Our ordination process takes at least a year. We have our congregation participate by announcing at the ceremony they as a church have a responsibility to revoke the ordination if the person is ever disqualified.