The problem I have with the child molestation narrative being presented by the leftists on this forum and leftist media is that the corrective steps being taken are being treated as some kind of cover up when it was the SBC who commissioned the audit. It should be interpreted in that context, not with this dark, nefarious spin. This is a thread about State Farm and its ridiculous woke appeal and the SBC story had nothing to do with the thread. Also, I have a problem with, as another thread name on this subject implies, that this is only occurring in the SBC - which is nonsense. Everywhere we have adults (mostly men) and children, we have instances of sexual abuse on occasion. Most sexual abuse occurs in and around the victim's homes, particularly when non-blood relative males live with minor females. So, let's have some context and perspective.
For the record, I have no affiliation with the SBC.
I have a few experiences from my past that's informative on this subject. One is that I served on a committee to draft a church policy on child abuse, including sexual abuse. This was in the 1990's. It became necessary when it became a known major legal liability. So, all workers in the church had to fill out a form and background checks were conducted. The church had never had an incident involving any form of child abuse and hasn't up to today, but the legal liability connected with such events forced them to protect themselves with new screening systems.
My wife's freshman roommate married a guy from my freshman year dorm and a friend of mine. Their son was molested by a Sunday School teacher at a church in Wisconsin where they moved. The offender was arrested, prosecuted, and served 12 years in prison. My friend and father of the victim was a police officer. He and his wife struggled for several years with bitterness and unforgiveness. They eventually healed, as did their son, and the father went into the ministry where he serves today. But this event was extremely painful and difficult, despite the fact that the church and the authorities all did the right things.
In terms of understanding how complicated things can get, I offer this. I have changed a few details to protect the innocent. We had a new pastor come from several states away. He was a very fine man with a picture-perfect family. But that was just in the picture. My wife and I became friends with them almost immediately, which gave us access to the family others did not have. The pastor was a very kind, sweet, and sincere man. His wife was sharper, smarter, and a natural born leader. This was a problem only because in our circles, the pastor is the leader of the church and one of the requirements of a pastor is that he be the leader in his home. He wasn't. His wife was. He was, in a word, detached. In the church he was hesitant, non-committal, and reluctant to make firm decisions. This lovely couple had an oldest child, a daughter, who was hell on wheels. If you think of a stereotypical rebel preacher's kid, she was it. If it was forbidden, she was doing it. She was like a soap opera character who used her sexuality and had 100 ways to manipulate and use people.
One day I showed up at a track meet where my son was competing, and the pastor's daughter was also a member of the team. She had a tank top on, and she had very deep bruises from her shoulder to her elbow on one arm. I asked her what happened and she told me that her dad had became angry with her and punched her 3 or 4 times. This put me in a pickle. I wanted to report, but that girl lied like she breathed, so she couldn't be trusted, and a police or CPS investigation would be devastating to the family and the church. I had a private meeting with the pastor and asked him if he had inflicted those bruises and he said that she had provoked him, he lost his temper, and was, indeed, responsible for those bruises. I told him what he already knew - that this kind of thing should never happen and can't happen. I told him that if it ever happened again, I would report him. He said he understood and that it wouldn't happen again because he and his wife had decided that only she would be in charge of discipline - which wasn't exactly the remedy I was looking for. I try to put myself in someone else's shoes: while I don't think a parent should ever physically discipline a teenager, I also know that if that girl was my daughter and was acting the way she was, I know I could have lost my temper and self-control as well. Once you get the authorities involved in a situation like this one, which I perceived as a one-off and not likely to ever happen again, things can go in unexpected directions and end up with consequences that exceed expectations. I didn't want to test those possibilities.
Long story short, he was not fit to be in ministry because of his lack of leadership skills and because of that one incident of abuse. We offered he and his wife 3 different forms of counselling help on 3 occasions at our expense, which they refused. The problems with the daughter's behavior worsened, they would not address it, and we were down to 2 choices: make the problems known to the church board (and eventually the church at large) or leave. We left very quietly because I had vowed to never be the guy that caused a big stink in the church - or be accused of doing it. Eventually, the problems in the family and the daughter became very public and the pastor resigned 1 1/2 years after we left.
Now, if this had involved sexual abuse, I would have reported it without hesitation. The circumstances were such that I felt we could save the family and church a lot pain and difficulty if their family problems were handled privately. I still think that was correct, although the practical effect was all it accomplished was delaying the public exposure of the problems for 18 months. And, no, there was no more physical abuse of the daughter after that one event. But that wasn't the core of their problems, only a symptom, and the only people who could really fix it was the pastor and his wife, and they refused to receive the help offered them to do so.
I guess the point is that while hiding sexual abuse is inexcusable and criminal, I do understand the wider concerns that weigh in on someone in terms of reporting and how a lack of proper priorities can cause some people to end up protecting a predator in an effort to protect innocent people and the church's reputation. Private matters should be handled privately and public ones publicly. However, since I have been taught by the church that the answer to every problem is: transparency, responsibility, and accountability, whatever embarrassment is caused by pursuing those things pales in comparison to the consequences of avoiding them when something like sexual abuse has occurred. A lot of well-intended people have tried to keep things private that should have been made public and made a situation much worse - and then the leftist mob descends to make their condemnations and say, "I told you so". I can do without that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
www.yahoo.com
abcnews.go.com
www.esquire.com
