When I lived in Arkansas, I worked at an oil changing shop. There was one customer in particular who made us cringe every time he pulled up to the shop. He owned a used car lot and reminded me of Harry Wormwood from the 1996 movie Matilda. “Push ‘er in there, boys!,” he would tell us. “The transmission is slipping too bad to start from a dead stop. We gotta push it in!” The car salesman was getting a transmission flush at our shop to temporarily get the bad transmission working long enough to make a sale. It’s a very dishonest move that probably happens more often than people realize. When customers test drive the car, it runs smoothly after a transmission flush. But the clutch plates inside the transmission are already worn out so the flush doesn’t actually fix anything. Within a matter of months, the transmission inevitably breaks apart. Transmissions cost thousands of dollars to replace, and unsuspecting customers are left with a broken down car and a repair bill that will cost $3,000 or more to get it fixed.
Had the salesman at our shop been honest, he would have either told customers that the transmission was bad and sold the car as is for a reduced price or would have had his mechanics rebuild the transmission and charge more for the car. But he didn’t do either of those things. With snake oil dripping off his suit, he chose to lie and deceive, giving unsuspecting customers the illusion that the car posed no risk to the new owner. I often thought about who the victims were of the dishonest salesman. Were they single moms who scraped all they had together in order to purchase a car so they could have transportation to their job? Were they teenagers, excited to own their very first car? Regardless of who the victims were, the fact is that this man’s dishonesty was putting people out of thousands of dollars while he was getting richer.
If this bothers us, it should. When I see churches intentionally hide sex offenders in the church, I can’t help but to see similarities between them and the dishonest car salesman. Many survivors of abuse and concerned church members contact me quite often to say that their leaders allow sex offenders to join the church but refuse to inform the church of their sex offender status. In fact, churches often will go out of their way to keep sex offenders anonymous, protecting them while placing every child at risk. Another common scenario is when someone is credibly accused of molesting children but the leaders refuse to report it to police, even though they are mandated reporters.
In essence, what leaders are doing is no different than what the dishonest car salesman did. When leaders behave this way, they’re giving the false impression that the abuser has a clean past with no criminal history. The reality is that the abusers are ticking time bombs. The reality is that they do have a history of abusing children. Can’t we at least agree that it is dishonest to pretend that the person is in tip-top shape? And remember, we’re not talking about cars here. We’re talking about real people! Real children are being raped and molested, having their lives altered forever by their abusers. And this, all because churches are giving the false impression that these people are safe.
If we take the above scene from Matilda and apply it to church leaders who tidy up abusers to the church, it’s eerily prophetic. Harry Wormwood tells his kids, “We really should weld these bumpers on. But that takes time, equipment, money. So, we use Super Super Glue instead.” Matilda asks, “Isn’t that dangerous?” Harry barks back, “Not to me, OK?” When she tells him that what he’s doing is dishonest and illegal, he gives his staple reply that’s reminiscent of leaders who run roughshod over concerned members: “I’m smart, you’re dumb. I’m big, you’re little. I’m right, you’re wrong. And there’s nothing you can do about it.”
I think it’s wrong for churches to package these practices as “grace” when it’s quite the opposite. It’s dishonest. Failing to inform the church of an abuser’s history of abuse is putting others at risk. Last year I wrote a post about J.D. Greear’s Summit Church’s policy on registered sex offenders. Their policy is linked to as a resource in the SBC’s Caring Well curriculum, touting it as a model policy. You can read my post, which has a copy of Summit Church’s policy embedded. In short, Summit Church makes it clear that only certain leaders will be notified of the sex offender status while church members are asked to “sacrifice peace of mind” that comes with keeping sex offenders away from church where their children attend. Harry Wormwood could have written the policy, and Caring Well is supposed to be the SBC’s gold standard for teaching other churches how to prevent and handle abuse.
It should not surprise anyone, then, that once again Summit Church is making waves. On June 1st, Summit Church hired Bryan Loritts, who allegedly destroyed cell phone evidence when his brother-in-law took voyeuristic videos of approximately one hundred victims when he was at Fellowship Memphis ten years ago. Julie Roys spoke with Jennifer Baker, a victim of Loritts’ brother-in-law, Rick Trotter. Jennifer and another witness from Fellowship Memphis called Summit Church to express concerns about Loritts. Jennifer Baker told Julie Roys, “Shame on Summit for taking a full hour to meet with Greg and (me) ‘to gain more insight and information,’ and then put out this blatantly false statement in complete contradiction to what we testified and what we spelled out for them.”
Church leaders need to do better. We’ve got to be more honest. Churches who invite abusers in should at least offer disclaimers when having anything to do with sex offenders and those who protect and defend them. Otherwise, the message that’s sent to church members may as well be the same as Harry Wormwood: “I’m smart, you’re dumb. I’m big, you’re little. I’m right, you’re wrong. And there’s nothing you can do about it.”
I am not attacking church leaders here. I’m a church leader myself, and I’m begging them to repent and reconsider these policies. We’ve got to understand how these policies look to church members. More importantly, we need to see what message this communicates to abuse survivors. When people’s lives have been wrecked by dangerous predators, it makes no sense when those same predators are painted as safe or righteous when they have a history of abusing minor children.
If churches want to accept sexual predators into their worship service, that’s entirely up to them. It’s not what I would do, but I cannot tell other churches what to do. If the policy is to allow sexual predators to attend, though, the very least they can do is have enough decency to tell the church who the predator is and what his or her history of abuse is. If they are on the sex offender registry, print it off and hand it to church members. A repentant sex offender will thank leaders who inform the church. More importantly, a repentant abuser will have absolutely nothing to hide. A non-repentant one, however, will shame you. Be honest about someone’s bad behaviors and criminal activity. Parents of children will thank you.
My dear friend Di called me last week. “Can I just vent?,” she asked. “I can’t bring myself to wear a mask and I’m tired of feeling like I’m an evil person for it.” Di is a survivor of severe sexual abuse and just the thought of fully covering her mouth and nose at the same time is too much. In fact, not only is it triggering to think about wearing a mask, but it’s triggering for her just to see others wearing masks. All of the things that covering the mouth and nose symbolize brings so much of her past to the surface. She is an essential worker, which means she cannot draw unemployment just because she’s not able to wear a mask. She has to work and she’s required to wear a mask if her clients request it. And I’m positive she is not alone. Several people have told me that wearing masks creates anxiety, and in some cases extreme anxiety. As the CDC rolled out it’s newest recommendations, many states took aim at people who “refuse” to wear a mask.
Pennsylvania, where I live, made it mandatory last week for people to wear masks in order to enter businesses. With a very few exceptions and no accountability for businesses to refrain from verbally attacking customers, businesses are now required to turn away people who don’t wear a mask. A recent opinion piece by columnist Paul Muschick shows just how judgmental he and many other people are towards people like my friend Di who cannot wear masks. Paul writes:
Businesses that provide medication, medical supplies or food “must provide alternative methods of pick-up or delivery of such goods” for those without a mask.
Why?
Why are we putting the onus on the businesses to cater to people who are too lazy, stubborn or self-conscious to wear a mask?
Grocery stores, convenience stores and pharmacies have their hands full during the coronavirus crisis. Employees are stressed. They don’t need the responsibility of taking extra steps to serve customers who don’t want to play by the rules.
Customers need to take responsibility and cover their faces. Those who refuse should stay home and shop online.
So are we to believe that people who can’t wear masks due to anxiety, panic attacks, asthma, and various triggers from being forcibly raped, gagged, choked, and beaten are being “catered to”? They’re too, in the words of Mr. Muschick, “lazy, stubborn or self-conscious to wear a mask”? This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that abuse survivors are hearing across the country.
— PA Department of Health (@PAHealthDept) April 16, 2020
A debate about the effectiveness of masks and how these policies are being implemented from state to state are probably best left for another post. What troubles me most, though, is that my brothers and sisters who are suffering with anxiety from abuse are being targeted and told that not wearing masks makes them selfish, reckless, dangerous, hateful, etc. I couldn’t disagree more, and it’s time someone speaks up to this kind of unnecessary and harmful rhetoric. “Just stay home” isn’t possible for essential workers, people who have bills to pay, and people who need to shop for food and can’t do so online.
It’s disappointing to see so many people flouting the CDC face mask recommendation. I just ran to store and only saw 2 other people wearing one. Wearing a face mask should not be optional. At this point not wearing one around crowds of people is a selfish and reckless decision. pic.twitter.com/1S8hOCSDe0
yes thanks for explaining that it is about the other person not you and you are being selfish NOT wearing a mask. we will pressure this country to change its ways during the siege!! https://t.co/0MBZoGe6Pb
I’m all for using common sense, social distancing, and working together to slow the spread of this horrific disease. My family and church have gladly followed the requirements and recommendations put out by our governor’s office. But we also must acknowledge that some of these policies are not thought through very well. These mandates are making some of our most vulnerable and valuable people targets of harassment. We need to exercise compassion towards those who cannot wear masks for various reasons and stop assuming that every person without one is a selfish dirt bag. Hurling insults at people for not wearing a mask in public defies common decency. Targeting and bullying people who may be suffering with chronic anxiety doesn’t make you any more of a decent person than the person not wearing a mask. Why are more people not calling out this kind of behavior? These attacks are not helpful. They’re not kind. They’re not compassionate. And it needs to stop.
I worry about people like Di who physically cannot wear a mask. I worry about people with panic and anxiety disorders who are terrified to walk out into public right now. I worry about abuse survivors who finally do venture out into public only to have their pictures taken without their knowledge then who are mocked and attacked by #Covidstupid tags on social media. I worry about people who don’t have the ability or luxury to do their shopping online for essential food items but will be refused or bullied at the grocery store for not wearing a mask. I worry about people who cannot wear masks but are considered essential workers. They will be forced to make a choice that could bring them to financial ruin. And I worry about abuse survivors who are too afraid to tell people why they cannot bring themselves to put a mask over their face.
As advocates, Christians, and neighbors, we need to consider that sometimes blanket policies will not work for everyone. Next time you go out in public you may see people without masks. That doesn’t mean those people who don’t (or can’t) wear masks aren’t concerned for the health of others. It doesn’t mean that they are “Trumpers” who are defying the law. It doesn’t mean they hope your grandma gets sick and dies. It doesn’t mean they hate the government. It doesn’t mean they are fundamentalist Christians who mock policies and defy “man’s authority.”
It could well be that people not wearing masks are struggling to survive themselves. It could be that it took every bit of their strength to go out in public, knowing that there will be people judging them harshly and insulting them for not wearing a mask. It could be that they’ve endured the most agonizing, horrific abuse imaginable. It could be that they have special needs and cannot stand the texture or feeling of a mask. Let’s be a bit kinder to our neighbors during this pandemic as we all try to figure out our new normal.
Several weeks ago I was having breakfast in a crowded restaurant with two of my church members, who happen to be best friends of mine. Thursday men’s breakfast is a tradition that we’ve been doing for years. We’d just started eating when I looked at my friend Dave, who wasn’t breathing. I asked if he was OK. He shook his head no and stood up. Though not trained in the Heimlich maneuver, I started working on him anyway. I instructed someone to call 911 and asked if any doctors or nurses were in the restaurant. Nothing.
Ironically, I knew for sure that there was one nurse in the room, and he happened to be the one who was dying in my arms. Dave had recently retired as an ER nurse, just six weeks before our breakfast. I desperately continued to work on Dave, who towers over my 6 foot frame. He’s a big guy, and it took a lot of power to try to force the lodged food out of him. I was losing the battle, and I could feel Dave start to fade. He was slowly going down and I was getting exhausted. About sixty seconds had passed since I first noticed that he couldn’t breathe, and I was terrified that one of my very best friends would die in my arms that day. It would be several more minutes until the ambulance would arrive, and every second counted.
Just as Dave was going down, I looked up and our hostess, Hannah, was standing beside me. We never exchanged a single word, but we locked eyes for a second and I knew that she was offering to take over. I stepped aside and she began working on Dave. About ten seconds later, Dave took a deep breath. Hannah remained incredibly calm and offered Dave a glass of water. Hannah saved Dave’s life that day. She told us that she was a nurse’s assistant and was trained in CPR. Her training kicked in and she saved a life that day. It was the first time she ever performed the Heimlich. Dave told me later that the vast majority of people trained in the maneuver will never have to use it.
Dave and Mike having a good laugh outside of the Corner Coffee Shoppe after Hannah saved Dave
This morning the same three of us had breakfast at the same diner, where we were greeted by Hannah. We thanked her again for saving Dave a few weeks ago. She asked if we’d seen the local news report from about a week ago. We hadn’t. It turns out that another customer choked at the same restaurant and went into cardiac arrest. Hannah jumped into action once again and performed CPR on the woman until the paramedics showed up to take over. The paramedics were able to revive the woman, thanks to Hannah keeping her heart pumping until the ambulance showed up. Here is the local news story, where Hannah’s rescue of Dave was caught on camera.
We were blown away to find out that the same person who saved my friend Dave saved another choking victim just weeks later!
Hannah truly is a hero, and a humble one too. Good training, professionalism, and a willingness to step in when needed is what saved two lives by the same person, just a few weeks apart. I routinely train churches, police departments, schools, and the military to safeguard against child sexual abuse. But I wasn’t trained in the Heimlich maneuver and it could have easily cost my friend’s life. It’s a harsh reminder that training, and not just good intentions, is what saves people.
Within two weeks after Hannah saved Dave, I became CPR certified. We should never delay training, even if we think we will never need it. Words can’t express how thankful we all are for Hannah, who quietly saved two lives. I thank God that someone with proper training was in the restaurant that day to do what nobody else in the room was trained to do. Heroes really don’t wear capes.
A massive pile up in Wyoming on Sunday, March 1st, involved over 100 vehicles and claimed the lives of three people while thirty more went to the hospital with injuries. As an avid driver, who spent over ten years as a professional truck driver, I’ve always studied accidents like this. It may seem like a strange method, but the acute observer and analytical thinker in me prods me to learn from others’ mistakes. Mistakes happen all the time. We’ve got to observe and learn from them. And I think when it comes to abuse, we can learn from all kinds of scenarios that have little to nothing to do with abuse because there often are overlapping principles at work.
The following video was posted by a truck driver who came upon Sunday’s accident scene. Just a warning that there is strong language and the carnage of the crash can be disturbing to watch.
As an “old school” truck driver, watching these videos makes my blood boil. Being a professional driver comes with incredible responsibility. There was no reason for this pile up to occur. There was light snow, little wind, decent visibility, and the temperature was in the lower twenties. An empty tractor trailer weighs 35,000 lbs and a fully loaded one is 80,000 lbs. It takes a long time to stop on ice, so reduced speed and constant communication between drivers is essential. I’ve personally witnessed hundreds of accidents. I’ve never witnessed a pile up in over a million miles. The main reason, I believe, is that communication between drivers was always decent when I was on the road.
I’ve been the first to come upon bad accidents in the road. The most memorable was when I was rounding a blind curve, fully loaded at 80,000 lbs, only to find a rolled over pick up truck in my lane. Passengers were crawling out of the window. A coworker was behind me, also fully loaded. I instantly reached for the CB microphone and told Kim to switch lanes. Neither of us could stop in time, but we both avoided killing people that day. In the above video, communication is absent. This driver (as well as the other ones involved) should have been hollering back to everyone behind them to back it down! Those three words have saved me multiple times, and I’ve used those same three words to save other people from getting tangled up in accidents.
Instead of warning others over the CB radio, the driver is focused on filming. He even narrates and calls attention to the sound of more trucks smashing into other parked vehicles. My jaw was on the floor in disbelief. Lives would have been saved. Millions of dollars of equipment and freight could have been spared. Some of these drivers’ livelihoods are now gone because other drivers didn’t tell them to back it down.
Me driving a loaded tractor trailer @80,000 lbs in 2004.
The lack of communication in the church when warning signs are present also astounds me. The reality is that many innocent people are unnecessarily getting injured by abusers because people fail to communicate quickly and with precise language when we witness risky behavior. We need to learn from these mistakes. We need to improve communication. Below are five reasons why I believe people don’t report suspicious behavior:
#1 The shock of what we are witnessing can be paralyzing
People used to argue that there are two reactions when we sense risk–fight or flight. Now it’s widely recognized that freeze is a very common response. When we become shocked at what we are witnessing, it’s easy to freeze and not know what to do. Good training helps us overcome this. My trainers reminded us that there is never an excuse for not communicating danger to other drivers. I do the same when I train churches. Even if an incident isn’t reportable to the police, there are high risk behaviors that we must communicate to others. Remaining silent is not an option.
If someone in our church is violating physical boundaries, we warn others. It is not cruel or unfair to do so. It’s quite the opposite. It’s completely fair and warnings are warranted when someone is clearly making other people uncomfortable by crossing appropriate boundaries.
#2 The bystander effect is powerful
Surely someone else will speak up! If you find yourself thinking this thought. . . it’s time to speak up. The bystander effect is very powerful. Lots of studies have been done on this. In emergency situations, we are likely to follow the behavior of people around us. If everyone around us fails to take action, we similarly will fail to take action. The best way to break that pattern is to be aware that we are all vulnerable to the bystander effect. We must condition ourselves to be the first to speak up.
#3 Poor training
We often either have a lack of training, or our training is lacking. In other words, even when people are trained to speak up, they may question proper procedures for doing so and end up not reporting at all. A survey of 197 school teachers in the early 2000s revealed that 73% of those surveyed never made a report. Only 11% said there were instances they felt were reportable, but failed to report. Those surveyed said that both pre- and post-service training was inadequate for instructing them how to report, and they cited the following reasons for not reporting: fear of making an inaccurate report, feeling as though child protective services don’t help families, and no apparent signs of abuse.
#4 Reliance on technology
We are becoming more and more reliant on technology. Map apps now have the ability for drivers to report accidents, road blockages, construction zones, and even speed traps. This is becoming a crutch and it will never be able to take the place of old fashioned CB radio communication. Yet drivers depend on their apps to warn them if there is trouble, which is ending in disaster. The same is true of our sex offender registries, back ground checks, etc. I still am blown away at the number of people I speak with who believe that conducting background checks is an adequate way to reveal and communicate who dangerous people are. They are not.
#5 There is no clear chain of command
In the church, especially, our leadership structures often prevent lay people from taking initiative to communicate who risky people are to the church without going through a maze of red tape. When risky behavior is identified, many people (even among leaders) scratch their heads because they don’t know who to report the behavior to. As a friend of mine says, “When seconds count, help is only minutes away.” Or in most cases, it could be months away.
We need better systems in place with clear checklists, protocols, and precise reporting procedures if we are going to stop these massive casualties from occurring within our organizations.
“But if the watchman sees the enemy coming and doesn’t sound the alarm to warn the people, he is responsible for their captivity. They will die in their sins, but I will hold the watchman responsible for their deaths.” –Ezekiel 33:6 NL
Advocates and abuse survivors are not quite convinced that the SBC is really working to protect victims. Neither am I, especially after going through the Caring Well curriculum. To be fair, most of the content is decent. I found myself audibly Amen-ing Diane Langberg and Rachael Denhollander throughout. Those two understand abusers and what it takes to keep people safe from them. Then I came to Lesson Ten–Pastoral Care and Correction For an Abuser. The problem with this dangerous lesson is the same problem I encounter with the vast majority of churches–the theology doesn’t allow them to name people as wolves and to keep them at bay. Worse, it actually protects the wolf while leaving the sheep vulnerable.
As best I can tell, over past dozen years, what has changed institutionally in the #SBC at state & national levels re clergy sex abuse is primarily that leaders have gotten a lot more sophisticated & cunning in their PR tactics. But #CaringWell? No. Not even close. #SBCtoohttps://t.co/rWbx4YXQgO
This false theology of protecting abusers assumes that all people are capable of repenting and that the church should be a place where all are welcome, regardless of what they’ve done (or are doing). It’s driven by authoritarian leadership structures that give leaders all the power to make decisions regarding abusers, regardless of what church members or abuse survivors think. It allows leaders to keep the church in the dark about the presence of abusers and anyone who questions the leaders’ decisions are labeled as divisive trouble makers.
Foundations are vital. Get the foundation wrong and everything else we build on it will eventually crumble. When I speak places, I often ask what God’s foundation is. This is the most basic question that we all should be able to answer. Yet not one person has ever answered it correctly. The right answer is righteousness and justice: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you” (Psalm 89:14 ESV).
Righteousness–doing what is right, just, and fair (a term used for balancing scales)–and justice–the act of deciding a case and executing a sentence with righteousness as the standard of judgement–are the foundation of God. Everything-literally everything-is built on doing what is fair, just, and balanced, and meeting out justice according to one’s actions. Only in this context can Jesus make sense when John introduced him as someone whose axe is already laid at the root of the tree. John said that every tree that does not bear good fruit “is cut down and thrown into the fire” by Jesus (Matthew 3:10). John continued his introduction of Jesus: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 10:12).
Righteousness and justice are married throughout the Bible. They cannot be separated. Isaiah 59 gives a thorough description of what happens when Israel turns a blind eye to oppression. Evil increases and chaos ensues. Isaiah 59:9 sums it up perfectly:
“Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. “
The foundation of righteousness and justice requires an account for people who refuse to repent. If we don’t know what righteous behavior is, the scales automatically tip in one direction or the other based on what we feel about a person and justice becomes impossible. Jesus echoed John’s words in Matthew 7:19 when he said, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Over and over again Jesus named wolves and kept them away from his sheep. He overturned tables and chased oppressors out of the Temple with whips. He gave a lengthy “woe to you” sermon without ending with, “But all are welcome here.” He said that it would be better for the one who causes a little one of his to stumble to have a millstone tied around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. He said he was sending his disciples out like sheep among the wolves. Therefore, they were to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. He said that the hired hand runs away when the wolf comes because he cares not for the sheep: “He sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them” (John 10: 12).
Over and over and over again, the scriptures are clear that wolves pretend to be sheep, sneak in, and destroy. It’s not just what wolves do, it’s who they are. Never is the plea to give them community, more love, empathy, understanding, etc. Why? Because of righteousness and justice. Paul says to avoid such people. He goes on to say that evil people and impostors go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13). Peter gives a gut wrenching description of false prophets who were sexual predators in 2 Peter 2. There is zero hint of empathy, restoration, or redemption. Why? Because of God’s foundation. Jesus doesn’t say that wolves can be saved. He says they produce thistles and are incapable of producing good fruit. Therefore they are cut down and thrown out. To be clear, those are Jesus’ words and not mine.
Consistently wolves are identified and told to get out. Make no mistake that people who pretend to be righteous in order to steal away the innocence of children and violate them in the worst possible ways are not sheep. They are not people who “mess up, slip up, or fall into temptation.” I’ve been around abusers and have been studying them for a long time. They know exactly what they are doing. They are meticulous in their planning, scheming, and execution of their plans. Very rarely do sexual predators repent, even when the words are there. This is not because they are “struggling” with sin. It is because they are deceptive wolves. They thrive on deceit and stealing that which does not belong to them.
Regardless of what one’s theology is on sheep versus wolves, what concerns me the most is that the Caring Well curriculum coddles predators, welcomes them into the church, and gives them all the secrecy and anonymity they need in order to keep abusing. As if the Lesson Ten on pastoral care for the abuser wasn’t alarming enough, the final lesson, Lesson Twelve, gives a list of follow up resources. The third resource is an article by Brad Hambrick called, “Registered Sex Offender. A Sample Church Membership and Attendance Policy.” This is the exact policy that advocates and survivors work so hard to fight against. This policy is written as a letter to the abuser and it begins with the word, “Friend.” These “friends” are given anonymity and, like usual, the only people “in the know” about the registered sex offender status are a select group of leaders.
I’ve highlighted the sections within this sample policy that are most alarming and dangerous.
First, Summit Church is touted as “a safe place for everyone.” What that means is that abusers are also kept safe within the church. If you don’t believe me, there are three priorities and the third priority is “opportunities to worship and fellowship for everyone, including those under RSO (registered sex offender) status.“ Very ironically, the protection and safety of abuse survivors is not mentioned in the top three priorities.
The next highlighted section assumes the abusers are “wrestling with the consequences of past actions” and that doing so “can be emotionally difficult.” The policy also rushes to offer unconditional forgiveness: “We want to reiterate throughout this process that you are offered full forgiveness because of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. We do not want you to live with a sense of shame.” Oh. My. Goodness. Can you imagine Jesus talking to the money exchangers like this? Remember, these are not people who went out drinking on a Friday night and got themselves into trouble. They are child rapists. They are predators. They are people who have many victims. They are people who deceived, tested, and groomed everyone around them in order to steal the innocence away from little boys and girls. They lived, and continue to live a double life. It’s not just what they do, it’s who they are.
It gets worse. It clearly states, “You can attend services where children are present.” Confusingly, they can attend services where children are present but then page 3 lists conditions that the abuser has to agree to. #9 says, “I acknowledge and agree that all children and student areas are off limits at all times, even if my children are attending Summit Church.” #10 says, “I will not attend a Summit Church small group or visit the home of a Summit Church family where children are present, without the parent knowing my history and giving permission for my entry into their home.” If this isn’t confusing, I don’t know what is. They can attend services where children are present without church members being aware of their presence, but not in a small group, the children’s wing, or in someone’s home.
It can’t be overstated that this policy intentionally keeps the lay church members in the dark. On page 2, under FAQ, it reads, “Who would know about this arrangement and agreement? Those who would know about this arrangement are: the pastors of the Summit Church, the lay elders at your campus, campus security teams, and the point person(s) over student and children’s ministries at your campus.” Really? So the church remains unaware of the agreement between the leadership and the person who is on the public sex offender registry? The church should always have a copy of the agreement unless there is something to hide.
This is not an exaggeration. According to the policy, the elders work with the abuser to pick his own team of individuals to “care” for him. They “do want them to be people you know, trust, and like.” Then what happens when the abuser shows up at church? Page 1 says, “This person would great (sic) you when you arrived at a Summit service or event, at a discrete location, and have you check-in via an app on their phone. . . In function, these individuals should be viewed as a supportive friend. We want you to identify people you would be ‘doing life’ with at Summit anyway and make that more intentional. Socially, there would be nothing to draw attention to this shepherding arrangement.“ Isn’t that cute? You can’t make this stuff up! The abuser is checked in at a discrete location by the supportive friend, and the abuser is reassured that nothing will be done to draw attention to this agreement.
So let’s recap. Abusers are our friends, we will reiterate that they are forgiven, they get to hand select who their accountability friend is that they will be “doing life” with, they can attend services where children are present, they can check into church at a discrete location, there will be nothing to draw attention to this agreement, and the only ones who know about this agreement are pastors, lay elders, campus security teams, and only the point person(s) over children’s ministries.
Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, on page 2 they state the purpose for having this secret agreement with the sex offender: “Why is this needed? How is this loving? This is a form of protection for you and provides peace of mind to the families in our church.” By now, readers may wonder how families will get peace of mind about this secret agreement if they are not even aware of it. Strangely, the policy reassures the sex offender that they will be the ones protected and that this secret policy “provides peace of mind to the families in our church.” Yet confusingly, the next paragraph states that leaders are “asking” families to sacrifice peace of mind: “We are asking families to sacrifice peace of mind that would be present if we did not allow anyone under RSO status to attend.“ In other words, they acknowledge that there is a peace of mind that comes with knowing that registered sex offenders are not permitted to attend church. However, the leaders are “asking” families to sacrifice that peace of mind by inviting sex offenders to attend. My jaw is literally on the floor in disbelief! I wonder how many family members have ever been approached by leaders who ask them if they are willing to sacrifice their peace of mind by having sex offenders attend.
The final page has interview questions to ask the sex offender. This is where the real coddling comes into play. They give the sex offender plenty of wiggle room to not answer questions, to only answer when they are ready, and they’re even instructed to ask the abuser permission to talk to a former church that they attended. At least they are sensitive to the abuser’s feelings and, as part of protection for the abuser, they protect their emotions too: “Do they become emotionally overwhelmed as they tell their story? Assessment: Is this person going to be able to withstand the process of joining a small group which will entail the members of the group knowing his/her RSO status?”
Gee whiz. This policy is an abuser’s paradise. It gives them everything they need to be empowered: choice, secrecy, anonymity, access to children, a “sacrifice” on the part of families by allowing the sex offender to be there, and a way to crank up their emotions in the interview process. Advocates know that written policy is very important. The policy endorsed by Caring Well as a top resource, and one that is used at JD Greear’s Summit Church, is reckless, in my opinion.
A couple of years ago I interviewed someone who works with the parole board and has worked in the prison for over 22 years. He told me that sex offenders always change character when before the board. They know the right things to say and when and how to cry. It is all faked. He described one inmate who was a serial child rapist who propped his feet on my friend’s desk. He was cocky and arrogant. A few days later he was before the parole board and was sobbing, saying he’s learned from his mistakes and promised to never hurt anyone again. He was so “ashamed” of what he had done. Here is an excerpt from my interview:
Unless someone is an abuse survivor, most Christians I interact with assume that child predators are remorseful and ashamed when they go to prison and that they pose little risk when they get out of prison. Does this perception match the reality you see with incarcerated sex offenders?
“Absolutely not. We obviously see that remorse about every time I interview a sex offender in my room or any time a parole agent does. I don’t interview as many as I used to but when I do remorse is always the first thing we see. They are crying and say they are so sorry for what they have done. When they get to my department they want to sit on the tack because that’s how they’re getting out the door. In Pennsylvania, we have the Act 98 law. The law says that if you are not admitting to your crime and you are not in treatment, you are not even considered for parole. So remorse is their ticket to get a green light to the parole board.“
In my opinion, Caring Well’s Lesson Ten and this policy as a top resource undoes everything that the other survivors and advocates accomplished in the previous nine lessons. Even more important, it demonstrates that the SBC proves itself to be full of empty words when their actions and policies reflect a culture of secrecy, welcoming abusers into the church against the will of its members, and protecting those same abusers. Until the SBC develops policies that are transparent, it will be known as the organization that hides and protects abusers.
This post is not meant to criticize and wish any ill towards the SBC. Quite the opposite. I want the SBC to get it right. But remaining silent when such dangerous policies are being implemented is not an option. The SBC cannot claim it is caring well when secret agreements hide convicted sex offenders in the church against the knowledge or will of its church members. I pray that more people shine a light on these injustices. I pray that the SBC leaders who think it’s OK to embrace predators and maintain secrecy are either broken or removed. It is my plea to see the Body built upon a foundation of righteousness and justice.
“Look around the courtroom. Remember what you have witnessed these past seven days. This is what it looks like when institutions create a culture where a predator can flourish unafraid and unabated. And this is what it looks like when people in authority refuse to listen; put friendships in front of truth, fail to create or enforce proper policy, and fail to hold enablers accountable” – Rachael Denhollander speaking of the hundreds of Larry Nassar’s victims who should have been spared.
Rachael Denhollander statement at Nassar Sentencing January 24, 2018
The sad reality is that many people, myself included, see what it looks like when abusers are hidden within churches and institutions in the name of “grace.” I thought back to Rachael’s words when I spoke over the phone with Kyle Cowden a few days ago. He reached out to me after listening to one of my podcasts and wanted to share his frustration with our nation’s broken sex offender registry and the church’s covering up of abuse. He has officially lost track of the serial abuser who molested his daughter. We connected and he told me about his daughter Rena’s abuse that happened in 1995 at Webb Chapel Church of Christ in Farmer’s Branch, TX. Rena was thirteen. James Apple, her abuser, was fifteen.
When Kyle found out his young daughter was abused, he approached the elders, one of whom was the father of the perpetrator. Kyle’s family was gossiped about and Rena and other victims of James were ostracized by the congregation. Kyle only became more emboldened to fight for his little girl. The elders, despite being mandated reporters, never went to the police. It was Rena’s mom and dad who reported to police. James Apple served two years probation for Rena’s case. Kyle’s gut feeling would prove to be right. More victims were discovered and, in 2000 James was given a six year prison sentence. He is listed as a high risk offender in Texas and is a lifetime registrant-a registration that is only reserved for those deemed to be unsafe for the rest of their lives.
I used to wonder if church leaders who give abusers free reign simply don’t know how dangerous they really are. Perhaps it’s a matter of ignorance, I thought. Sadly, this isn’t the case with Rena’s abuse. She lamented, “When the elders found out, they requested that I write a letter describing what happened. It took three pages and when it wasn’t reported, I felt so betrayed.”
Of course she did. They got to read the most humiliating details of what happened to her, only to turn around and accuse her of making up allegations that weren’t true. This wasn’t the only time she had to tell humiliating details of how her abuser had forced himself onto her. The police report is only one paragraph containing details that Rena shared. After rumors kept circulating, Rena and the other girls were asked by the elders to write letters. Rena’s was three pages long. And they still didn’t report, despite being required to do so by law.
Neither did they tell the church. According to Kyle, the elders were divided. Some thought the congregation should know. Others were adamant that the leaders handle it internally. According to Kyle, “We were chastised for pressing charges even after the DA had told us we could be charged for not reporting to them as soon as we knew and reporting to the elders instead. Hubert Smith was the most vocal and had called my wife when he knew I was on shift and chastised her for trying to “ruin James’ life. We also had our advocates, Bill Keith, Dan Camp and Don Petty (eventually).”
Rena recalled, “After charges were filed, it went to court pretty quickly. His attorney asked me what I was wearing and how far my legs were spread when he was abusing me.” As is common, Rena remembers the courtroom being pretty full. When I asked if the spectators were there to support her, she said, “I don’t remember anyone besides by family coming to support me. They were either there to support James or were just curious.”
Kyle pushed and pushed, and eventually was permitted to read a letter to the church that he had written about their ordeal. James Apple’s victims and their mothers who went forward as Kyle read the letter filled two pews. When James Apple was arrested, angry church members continued pointing the finger at Rena’s family for “making up false allegations.”
Webb Chapel wasn’t the only church organization to cover up James Apple’s abusive behavior. Kyle described an event when he was at a Christian camp at about the same time his daughter was abused:
“I was the camp medic assigned my own cabin as I would be seeing campers in a medical setting. James and another boy (who were like “junior counselors” to younger boys) were suddenly moved into my cabin for “inappropriate” conversations. It was later, maybe a year, that we held camp in Cisco, TX. James’ father was there and I was told that he had reassigned James because “something had occurred”. It was years later that the youth minister intern, now a pulpit minister, was tearfully telling me how awful James had been and how mad he was because he wasn’t allowed to have him removed and how his dad had intimidated him and anyone else that knew about it.“
After Kyle’s letter was read to the church the Apples quit attending church. A simple announcement was made from the pulpit that “the Apples will no longer be attending Webb Chapel.” The Apples moved to Prestoncrest Church of Christ in Dallas. Much to Kyle’s surprise, “My wife saw something showing James was involved in the youth ministry and called them. She was chastised for gossiping. I read where Ron was up for an eldership there and called. Their pulpit minister and one of their elders asked me to come in. They then told me they were well aware of the “persecution” James and the Apples were receiving and I should repent of gossiping and pursuing my agenda.“
Kyle and Rena have attempted to know where James is, because they feel it is their duty to warn other parents. Rena tells me that Apple had several aliases on Facebook and even attempted to friend her. A few years ago, Rena was shocked when her mom discovered a picture of her abuser at a Chuck E Cheese in Washington state. Apple, a lifetime registrant, is not on Washinton’s sex offender registry, despite being a resident there. Rena went so far as to call Washington state police and send police reports and records of her abuse. They finally told her, “Sorry, there’s nothing we can do.” Kyle also notified the local sheriff. He seemed sympathetic and asked for more information. Kyle sent James’ records along with a brief description of what happened to his daughter Rena. Nothing was ever done to put James on Washington’s sex offender registry. Rena and her father both told me that they are sick not knowing where he is or what church he may have been able to reinvent himself inside of.
If this were the only case I had come across, I’d be mortified enough. It is not. Last year I received an anonymous message from an abuse survivor who attended Downtown Church of Christ in Searcy, AR-a church that I attended for several years while in college and seminary. The survivor told me that a man had really set off all her alarms and that he stuck out like a sore thumb, in a church of well over 1,000 people. She looked up the Arkansas sex offender registry only to be mortified that he was listed as a tier 3 offender. According to the Rogers, AR government website, tier three offenders “have a history of repeat sexual offending, and/or strong antisocial, violent, or predatory personality characteristics,” and require notification throughout the community.
Mr. Smith was a minister and doubled as a youth leader when he abused multiple little girls, including his own daughter Leachelle. Leachelle bravely wrote about her story in June. Last year, as soon as I was notified anonymously, I contacted the church’s minister, a former Bible professor of mine. I informed him that a church member found out about this dangerous predator who was actively involved in the life of the church, and that she was aware that at least some of the elders knew of this sex offender but had not informed the church. I’ve been down this road many times with churches and suspected what kind of response I’d receive. An elder from that church returned an email to me informing me that they take the protection of all seriously and that they “do not require our members wear their past sin on a label or announce it to the world unless they choose to do so.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest people not hold their breath waiting for a high risk serial offender to voluntarily inform a church with hundreds of minor children that he is on the sex offender registry.
The line that jumped off the page was, “If you know of some specific current activity or behavior of the person named in your e-mail to _____, please respond directly to _____ and _____.” If I know of some specific current activity!? I live 1,000 miles away! I never met this offender, though his family members inform me that he did premarital counseling for a couple at Downtown–a direct violation of probation. He and his wife also baby sit some children who are family members. And trust that if I hear of any “current activity,” the church will be very far down my list of people I will be contacting about it. Tier 3 offenders must remain on the registry forever because of violent, predatory behavior.
Notification must be made to any member of the community whom the offender is likely to encounter, based on the offender’s prior history, recreational or religious interests, employment, or the characteristics of the offender’s victims.
The problem is that the website doesn’t spell out exactly who is supposed to do the notifying, when they do it, or how often. State police are supposed to, but this often does not happen. For example, we had a Tier 3 sexually violent predator move in just a few feet from my church office window. Pennsylvania law requires everyone within a one mile radius to receive a flyer from police. We were never informed. I only found out by checking the registry, which I do every few months. Another problem in Arkansas is that individuals and agencies who are notified by law are not authorized to notify people within and apparently can use their own judgment as to who “has a need to know” within the agency. This is ambiguous. Who are the ones who “have a need to know” within any agency? In most cases, this is interpreted as the leadership only.
Notification given to any individual or agency does not authorize that individual or agency to disseminate information beyond those residing with the individual, or beyond those who have a need to know within the agency.
I believe that parents of minor children within an agency have a need to know, and should always be notified when a high risk predator is a member of a church. What those parents do with that information is entirely up to them, but shouldn’t they have a right to know? Furthermore, a repentant serial offender would be completely transparent and would ask that his information be shared so that there is never a chance he or she could gain access to children again. I am not alone in this thinking. Nor am I the only one who notified Downtown with concerns. Christine Fox Parker is a survivor advocate, has 27 years ministry experience, spent several years as a therapist at a private practice where she developed a specialty in trauma stemming from abuse at the hands of church leaders, and is the founder, president and executive director of PorchSwing Ministries. She and her son, a former member at Downtown, met with an elder in person to express the urgency for parents at the congregation to be notified. Christine told me that the response was similar to what I received–the elders take the protection of everyone seriously and are monitoring the abuser.
Leachelle (the abuser’s own daughter) has sent multiple emails to the elders begging them to notify unsuspecting parents about her father and was assured that, though they empathize with her as a survivor, they will not notify the congregation.
What purpose does a public registry serve if church leaders are able to and choose to ignore it? None of us suggested that the elders remove Mr. Smith from church (though it is my stance that he shouldn’t be at a church with hundreds of minors). We simply were asking them to inform parents of young children that a high risk sex offender is among them. So how did the church respond after repeated emails from Leachelle, describing her abuse and begging elders to inform parents that they have a serial offender in their midst? They read a letter to the church about “some blogs” that created “this situation” and that, though they have a sex offender in the church, they won’t be naming him:
The major problem I have with this (and there are many) is that they continue to circumvent the sex offender registry by hiding a high risk offender’s identity. The only biblical reason they can find for publicly stating the name of a church member “caught up in sinful behavior is for continuing, deliberate sin.” Even still, naming such a person “would only be for the purpose of winning the sinner back to Christ.” I’m dumbfounded. What about protecting innocents? Is that not a biblical reason to name a serial, high risk criminal who is already on the public registry? Ezekiel 33 and John 10 come to mind as biblical reasons to speak up and warn. Parents of children often befriend abusers, not knowing they are abusers, and will spend time in their homes and vice versa. In my opinion, when leaders fail to inform churches of high risk serial predators, they are wielding a moral superiority to the rest of the church by intentionally keeping them blind. The leaders, in effect, are the ones who have the benefit of remaining in the know and they have the power to keep the rest of the congregation in the dark.
And if these two cases aren’t enough, I reported a serial predator in 2013 who was a missionary in Haiti a few years prior. Bob Valerius, who had a clean Facebook profile as a missionary, had an alias on Facebook as “Milton Hargrave” and was asking a mess of young boys to show their penises to him. I saw with my own eyes the disgusting things he was saying to these little boys. I gathered a file folder full of evidence and spoke with state police, the US Marshall Service, and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. I found out through an investigation that Cyrus Sibert conducted in Haiti, that the Southwest Church of Christ in Ada, Oklahoma–the church that funded the orphanage where Bob worked–black listed and disciplined a Haitian preacher, Pierre Ludovic, who reported that “Bob is in relationship with the little boys he help (sic).” Valerius was reported by Mr. Ludovic in 2010. Mr. Ludovic was banned from the orphanage and the Southwest church, to my knowledge, never reported it. They did, however, blacklist the preacher who did. Southwest eventually removed Valarius from his post as director of the orphanage. Three years later, I personally witnessed Valerius asking multiple minor children for pictures of their penises while saying, “You should know that makes my cock hard.”
Unlike the Southwest church, I reported immediately and fully cooperated with this investigation only to find out that Bob Valerius, who fled Haiti and is currently wanted by the Haitian justice department, was spotted by one of his victims in August while roaming the streets of Cap Haitien.
Translation: Saturday, August 24, 2019 Mandate to bring against the American Robert (Bob) Valerius accused of pedophilia in Haiti.- The American citizen Robert (Bob) Valerius is wanted by the Haitian justice for sexual abuse on children. Mr. Valerius picture taken by one of his victims, was noticed Saturday, August 10 in the city of Cap-Haitien, a few years after he fled Haiti. #LeReCit
What’s incredibly frustrating about all of these cases is that our governments do all they can to track serial abusers because they have a pattern of being dangerous. The church, on the other hand, works very hard to keep abusers’ identities hidden and to allow them unfettered access to children. Churches think that by putting a few restrictions on where an abuser can be inside the church building, they are keeping children safe. This simply is not true. James Apple produced several more victims after Rena was abused because the church failed to report. Bob Valerius produced many more victims after he was quietly removed from the orphanage he was employed at. He still defiantly visits a country where he violated many young boys and is wanted by the justice department. The Southwest Church of Christ failed to protect more innocent children and even blacklisted a preacher who warned them about the predator. And Chuck Smith continues to enjoy anonymity as he worships at a church with hundreds of minor children. I have to wonder, at a church that size, how many other dangerous predators are being kept hidden within the pews.
Rachael is right. This is what it looks like when institutions create a culture where a predator can flourish unafraid and unabated. And this is what it looks like when people in authority refuse to listen; put friendships in front of truth, fail to create or enforce proper policy, and fail to hold enablers accountable”
