by William Thornton » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:59 am
Exclusion isn't a big disincentive but it's about all the SBC, or state convention, or association has. The idea of what Tim calls a "blacklist" and others call a registry or database had difficulties. All of you know that the SBC doesn't ordain, hire, supervise, or fire ministers. The SBC doesn't require training, education or any degrees. SBC entities (seminaries, mission boards, state conventions, etc) can require these and they do hire, supervise, and fire clergy. In what is broadly called denominational positions, sex abuse training is almost universally required across the SBC. Students have it as a graduation requirement in the seminaries, I believe.
The problem is what to do with churches that hire, condone, cover up, fail to report sex abuse. They can be excluded but that's about it.
What can be done with the minister who is accused of abuse but not convicted? Advocates call for a list to be created and maintained of these who have "confessed" or who have "credible reports" of abuse against them. The CBF in one state tried this. I don't know if it is still maintained or if it was effective. The CBF, mind you, deals with hundreds of ministers and churches. The SBC deals with tens of thousands. No one has a list of all "SBC" clergy. No church is required to report those whom they have ordained to the ministry. Only about 3/4 of SBC churches bother to file the annual church statistical report. That 1/4 amounts to around 12,000 churches.
I'm not sure the SBC can create a system for registered, approved, credentialled clergy.
But, I expect proposals to be made and am open to being persuaded about what can be done to solve the problem.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog,