Read on Twitter
Researching for an upcoming podcast interview, and I finally read the SBC’s June 2008 Response to the motion to create a database of sexual offenders in SBC churches.
The document itself presents three reasons for not creating such a database, and all three are totally bogus.
The document itself presents three reasons for not creating such a database, and all three are totally bogus.
To be clear: for all I know, there may be good reasons for not creating the database—I don’t know what they would be, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
What I absolutely do know is that the reasons offered in the 2008 Response do not withstand mild scrutiny.
For example,
What I absolutely do know is that the reasons offered in the 2008 Response do not withstand mild scrutiny.
For example,
Reason 1: It would be impossible to ensure that all sexual predators with connections to the SBC would be included in the database.
Answer: So what? Surely an incomplete database is better than no database at all. No one expects perfection. So the notion that action is only worthwhile when perfection is attainable is a pretense to avoid taking any action. Weak.
Reason 2a: The database wouldn’t include documented sexual predators with no previous connection to an affiliated SBC church.
Answer: See previous answer.
And maybe make folks aware that, ex hypothesi, a database of sexual predators with connections to SBC churches isn’t likely to include records of sexual predators with no previous connection to an SBC church.
And maybe make folks aware that, ex hypothesi, a database of sexual predators with connections to SBC churches isn’t likely to include records of sexual predators with no previous connection to an SBC church.
Reason 2b: There’s already a convicted sex offender registry that’s more comprehensive than any database that the SBC could compile.
Answer: Note, *convicted*. As the document itself acknowledges (and then glosses over), those urging a database have something broader in mind.
Answer: Note, *convicted*. As the document itself acknowledges (and then glosses over), those urging a database have something broader in mind.
Reason 3: The SBC doesn’t have authority to require churches to report sexual predators to the SBC for inclusion in a database.
Answer: See first answer. This doesn't rule out voluntary reporting to a centralized entity that simply collects and disseminates information.
Answer: See first answer. This doesn't rule out voluntary reporting to a centralized entity that simply collects and disseminates information.
Moreover, the SBC has the authority to determine which churches are in the SBC and which churches aren't, and on what terms.
Rules can be changed. And rules that result in avoidable, egregious harms like sexual abuse *should* be changed.
Rules can be changed. And rules that result in avoidable, egregious harms like sexual abuse *should* be changed.
The 2008 Response may be found here:
http://www.sbc.net:60080/3b7859789dc9534203d98cffaeefe01d5ab8cc20/1cabc79b-1f00-fc38-654d-1eccbc9c7488/tap2_B4qIyG_dec/2008ReportSBC.pdf
http://www.sbc.net:60080/3b7859789dc9534203d98cffaeefe01d5ab8cc20/1cabc79b-1f00-fc38-654d-1eccbc9c7488/tap2_B4qIyG_dec/2008ReportSBC.pdf
