Tip of the iceberg for Baptist sex abuse

Recent Episcopal news has me still pondering Marv Knox’s editorial. He said the Baptist General Convention of Texas has been “appropriately reticent to publicize names of accused perpetrators unless the charges have been substantiated.”

But this begs a couple questions.

What about the cases in which clergy child molestation charges HAVE been substantiated? What about cases like mine in which the BGCT determined there was “substantial evidence that the abuse took place”? Why hasn’t the BGCT been informing people about clergy-perpetrators such as that? If a man with a claim having "substantial evidence" was a children’s minister in your church, wouldn’t you want to know?

And whose job is it to look for evidence on whether an accusation can be substantiated? The BGCT puts the entire burden on the back of the victim, who has already been plenty burdened enough in dealing with the fall-out from the abuse. Shouldn’t the faith community itself have some interest in determining whether an accusation of clergy child molestation can be substantiated?

Compare the lack of action by Texas Baptist leaders with recent action by Texas Episcopal leaders on a clergy child molestation accusation. (1) Episcopal leaders hired an outside organization to investigate, and in doing so, they found three more persons who made similar abuse accusations. By contrast, Baptist leaders don't even help a victim in finding the perpetrator’s current church, much less in finding any other possible victims. (2) Episcopal leaders sent out a letter to people in the church where the priest had worked, informing them that the claims of abuse “have substance.” By contrast, Baptist leaders leave the information sitting in a confidential file even when they have determined there is “substantial evidence that the abuse took place.” (3) Episcopal leaders made a PUBLIC statement about the abuse claims, and in this way, reached out to the larger community and also acknowledged the wounds of the victims. By contrast, even when a claim is so readily substantiated that it requires no investigation, and even when it's been determined there is “substantial evidence that the abuse took place,” Baptist leaders still don't warn people in the pews of the perpetrator’s church, and they certainly don’t make any public statement acknowledging the claims.

A Baptist leader recently disclosed that the BGCT’s confidential file contains “about 11 cases involving clergy abuse with minors.” These are “just the tip of the iceberg,” he said, “because churches don’t have to report cases” to the BGCT (and the BGCT doesn’t accept abuse reports from mere victims). But even this substantiated “tip of the iceberg” remains secret. Who are the Baptist clergy-perpetrators in those 11 cases? Why aren’t the parents of kids in Baptist churches entitled to know? And why doesn’t anyone in Baptist leadership care enough to peer beneath the water line at the biggest part of the iceberg and to find out whether all those other clergy abuse allegations may be substantiated?

Finally, having stated my disagreement with Marv Knox, I want to also state my thanks. With the Baptist Standard, Knox has often sought to shine light on the clergy abuse problem. Just a month ago, the Baptist Standard, along with the Associated Baptist Press and the Biblical Recorder News jointly published an extraordinary series of articles on clergy sex abuse. Kudos to all three of these publications for working to raise the level of dialogue on this issue!