Mark Aderholt has become the latest example in Southern Baptists’ struggle against sexual abuse and harassment.
And while the International Mission Board (IMB) is on the hot seat for actions which some contend protected Aderholt for more than a decade, the issue is larger than a single person or a single church-related institution.
Aderholt served as a Southern Baptist international missionary from 2000 to 2008. In 2007 allegations reached IMB that Aderholt had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with 16-year-old Ann Marie Miller in 1996–97 while he was a 25-year-old student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
According to public reports, the IMB investigation concluded that Aderholt “engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship” with Miller, that Miller “suffered as a result” and that Aderholt “was not truthful” with the IMB “about the full extent of the relationship.”
Filed away
Before the IMB board of trustees could fire Aderholt, he resigned. At that point information about his alleged offense was filed away and did not become public until after the recent Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) annual meeting at which messengers adopted a strong resolution condemning sexual abuse and harassment.
Following his resignation from the IMB in 2008, Aderholt served on the pastoral staff of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, one of the largest churches in the state. When Immanuel’s pastor, former Alabamian Gary Hollingsworth, was elected executive director of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, Hollingsworth took Aderholt with him as associate executive director and chief strategist. Shortly before being arrested and booked into the Tarrant County, Texas, jail July 3, 2018, Aderholt resigned from his position with the South Carolina convention.
For the past few weeks Miller and IMB have engaged in a back-and-forth debated about why IMB took no action on Aderholt and allowed him to serve in church leadership roles for more than a decade after their investigation and why IMB did not report the sexual abuse of a minor to authorities.
That exchange ended abruptly July 25 when IMB President David Platt issued a public apology to Miller and thanked her for her courage in forcing others to deal with this issue.
Platt also announced “thorough, outside and independent” investigations into how IMB handled past allegations of sexual abuse and into implementation of IMB’s policies of zero tolerance for such issues.
The next day SBC President J.D. Greear announced the appointment of a Sexual Abuse Presidential Study Group in partnership with the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). The purpose of the group is to “consider how Southern Baptists at every level can take discernable action to respond swiftly and compassionately to incidents of abuse as well as to foster safe environments within churches and institutions.”
Both Platt’s and Greear’s actions came a week after all six SBC-related seminaries shared information about steps they are taking to increase emphasis on personal integrity for those studying for the ministry.
Evidently the resolution titled “On Abuse” adopted by messengers to the June SBC annual meeting is making a difference. That resolution condemned all forms of abuse and urged abuse victims to contact civil authorities, separate from their abusers and seek protection. It also urged churches and entities to speak out against the sin of all forms of abuse.
Abuse is wrong. It is wrong in the home. It is wrong in business. It is wrong in the church. The sin must be identified and repudiated. Perpetrators must be called to accountability.
But that brings the issue back to situations like the way IMB handled the Aderholt case. When he resigned, he was no longer their problem. The information was placed in a file and the file drawer shut.
That is not unlike a local church that never says a word about the pastor or staff member guilty of sexual abuse or harassment. The primary concern is to get the guy out of town as quickly as possible. The actions become an open secret.
Even if the next church considering the offending pastor contacts the first church for a reference, seldom is anything said about the offense. Fear of a lawsuit over an accusation not proven in court plays no small role in decisions like that.
SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Pastors)) has urged Southern Baptists to compile some kind of list of those found guilty of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The usual response is that Baptist congregational polity makes that difficult. There is no ecclesiastical body that has authority over a local Baptist church. Therefore, no outside body can tell a local church what to do or whom to hire.
The result is no one does anything. Not IMB. Not seminaries, as we learned earlier this year. Not churches. Files are closed or destroyed and perpetrators are free to continue their patterns of abuse and harassment in other churches or denominational positions.
Victims are usually offered counseling, but little is done to prevent the abuse and harassment in the first place.
But SNAP did not ask for the denomination to police actions of cooperating churches. SNAP asked the denomination to collect information that could be important to a church about a potential staff member if the church asked.
Making the effort
Thankfully, Southern Baptists are increasing the emphasis on personal integrity for its ministers. Thankfully, churches, entities and institutions are adopting zero-tolerance policies for abuse and harassment. Thankfully, Southern Baptists are working to make every church and every Baptist entity a safe place.
May God bless these efforts.
And may God grant wisdom to the Sexual Abuse Presidential Study Group that it will find some way to keep a record of known sexual abusers and some way to make that information available to churches and entities interested in checking the backgrounds of those they consider to serve them.
Share with others: