The temptation is to smirk a little while reading about the trouble of Catholic leaders in such places as Boston and Los Angeles. In each case the local cardinal knew certain priests had sexually abused children. The cardinal reassigned the priests but did not tell responsible parties about their new priests’ troubled past.
Now, years later, the cardinals are being condemned for not sharing the information and for putting other children in potential danger. In at least one case there is no evidence of repeat behavior. In the majority of cases, the evil behavior re-emerged as it usually does. Studies indicate that pedophilia almost always reoccurs.
No one can smirk about sexual abuse of children. It is a terrible thing. But Baptists might be tempted to feel rather smug about the cardinals’ problems. “He should have told,” we conclude. “No one should put children at risk.” It all seems so simple in hindsight.
Baptists might be tempted to feel smug for another reason. Baptists do not assign ministers to churches. Churches make autonomous decisions about whom to call and not call to serve them. Thus, Baptists do not face the same situation as Roman Catholics.
Yet, in our system, there are enough similarities to cause any Baptist to squirm uncomfortably when reading the current news stories. Next week’s news could be about us.
Occasionally, instances of Baptist ministers acting in inappropriate ways come to light. When that happens, what should the employing church do? Should the minister be fired outright? Should psychological help be made available or required? Should the minister be told to find another place of service and given time to do so?
If the minister attempts to move to another church, should the calling church be told of the problem behavior? If the inappropriate behavior occurs in the new church, does the former church bear part of the responsibility if it did not alert the new church to the potential problem?
These are not academic questions. They occur every week as Baptist churches seek God-called men and women to lead them and serve them as ministers.
Long before it was a popular political phrase, Baptists practiced a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Churches calling a minister did not ask the former church about the one being called unless first alerted to problems. The former church did not tell the calling church about problems unless first asked. The result — little information was ever shared between the two bodies.
Frequently, churches calling ministers want to believe the individuals are next to God in perfection. Hearing evidences of a minister’s humanity turns the search committee toward another candidate. On the other hand, churches sometimes get so focused on wanting a minister to leave that their response to inquiries is less than candid.
There is a legal reason also. How much can a church tell about a problem area of a former minister without opening itself to libel charges or charges about invasion of privacy?
And there is a practical reason. We all know of cases where someone has become fixated on destroying a minister. Tales – no, lies – have been told about the person to purposely undermine or prevent his ministry.
Our Baptist way of doing things is filled with loopholes. There is no room for Baptists to smirk about the problems of others.
This is not to say that all ministers engage in inappropriate behavior. They do not. Most are persons of high moral character, persons who can be trusted, persons deserving of honor and respect. But even the best are subject to temptation just as all of us are.
Hopefully the first response of a church toward a misbehaving minister will be loving restoration. Help with the problem should be made available, even required. If possible, the minister should have opportunity to continue his service after providing appropriate evidence of repentance and healing.
Sometimes the violation is too serious or too long standing for continued ministry in the same place. Sometimes the violation is so serious that it may remove the individual from further vocational service as a minister. Still, compassion and redemption should be the guides.
Churches must also be honest. That does not mean that everyone in the congregation should be told of the problem or that everyone in the congregation should tell others about the problem. That is not always compassionate and loving behavior toward the minister.
But the church must also be compassionate and honest toward those harmed by the minister’s actions and other potential victims. That sometimes means publicly sharing basic information.
Under certain conditions a church may want to authorize a spokesperson who can communicate clearly and accurately about the inappropriate behavior. The spokesperson would be charged with communicating with search committees, not for the purpose of preventing an individual’s being called to another place of service, but to help the inquiring church make an informed decision.
Thankfully, some churches have learned about problems in a minister’s life and called the minister anyway. More than one Alabama Baptist church is served by a pastor with a prison record. The church knew the story and saw the change in the lives of these men. Now they have effective ministries. God does work miracles.
But for a church to know of documented problem behavior and not share that with a calling church places that church in a similar position to that faced by the Roman Catholic cardinals in Boston and Los Angeles. Innocent people may be placed in harm’s way by silence.
Obviously, what a church communicates about a minister’s inappropriate behavior is not an easy question to answer. Problems abound on all sides. Far better it would be if churches constantly prayed that God would place a hedge around their ministers and cause His angels to guard them from inappropriate behavior in the first place.
When problems arise, whether among Roman Catholics or Baptists, no one can smirk. We can only cry over the hurt done to individuals for whom Christ died and for the harm done to the cause of Christ.
Share with others: