SBC’s Caring Well stance on abusers coddles them while keeping them hidden within the church

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.

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.

13 Replies to “SBC’s Caring Well stance on abusers coddles them while keeping them hidden within the church”

  1. Would these churches have the same response if a serial rapist who got his jollies from raping heterosexual males wanted to join the church? I think that if someone were on the sex offender registry for raping men, they would have him arrested for trespassing. What would they do if 2 people joined the church after completing their jail sentences and 1 of them accused the other of raping him while in prison? (In that case, I think that they would still victim-blame and they would kick out both of them, but I’m certain that they wouldn’t allow a raper of men to stay.)

    I think that violence against women and children is viewed as acceptable collateral damage, but violence against men is viewed as intolerable.

    1. This is a good point and a good question. I’ve never understood why violent sex crimes against women and children is so easily forgiven and such great measures are used to ensure the abusers’ anonymity. It’s all so foreign to me.

  2. Thank you Jimmy! This is excellent. This business of keeping the wicked in our midst and covering for them is certain evidence that the SBC and most other groups really don’t want to fundamentally reform and repent. I knew the outcome of this Caring Well production group would be rotten fruit because there are people on their team that insist that through their programs, they can reform abusers. They have the secret, they say, to turning wolves into lambs. But as you have so wonderfully shown here, Scripture commands us to cast out the wolves and to be wise about their evil. The fact is that things like Caring Well “sell” to most professing Christians, keep the numbers and money coming in, and allow everyone involved to pat themselves on the back and say “my, what a good boy am I.”

    1Co 5:1-2  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.  (2)  And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

    1. I totally agree, Jeff! I think there is a legitimate concern that some people will excessively label people as wolves, but when we have tangible evidence that there are no fruits in keeping with repentance, it’s safe to do so. Wolves are always spun on their heels and sent on their way in the Bible.

  3. As an abuse survivor, and a recent ERLC conference attendee, I second the points Jimmy has stated. He has gone in to great and accurate detail of what is going on.

  4. (Sorry for the long comment. Feel free not to post it if it’s not acceptable or if just by reading it, it takes up too much of your time.)

    I think there is also needs to be consideration of who gets the label of RSO and why. The justice system isn’t perfect and I know of one wealthy businessman who raped a little girl, about 5 years of age or so, multiple times and yet his legal team finagled a plea bargain where he wasn’t given prison, nor was he required to register as a sex offender for any amount of time, and all his punishment amounted to was house arrest for maybe a year, at his super plush mansion. He’d be allowed into a church and not be seen as a RSO, yet he is as predatory as the next child rapist. Money talks. Money buys results.

    Then there is the case of someone who is poor, not the brightest, who touches someone. They get slapped with the RSO status and then despite never doing it again, they are exiled and not given housing, church fellowship, etc. Even if they readily admit their crimes, readily pay for the crime, and spend the rest of their life making up for that horrible sin, paying for it every day, they are still cast off.

    There are so many rapists who are never charged. So many child molesters who are never charged. If people don’t realize the amount of evil depravity in most men, then they need to be better informed of what is reality.

    A blanket policy doesn’t work. I’m sure there are exceptions, both ways. Predatory rapists who never have the RSO label assigned to them, but should never be allowed to set foot in a church, as well as those rare ones who did something stupid, evil, and have paid for it ever since.

    Either way, victims pay for the others’ sins for the rest of their lives. They pay every day.

    If a RSO was really repentant and had only one victim, long, long ago, and readily shared the RSO status, in order to ensure nobody was caught unaware and everyone was informed, then I’d see such as evidence of repentance. But they shouldn’t be anywhere near potential victims. They can worship perhaps at a non-heavily-attended worship time (some churches do Monday night services, for example, and such services are usually sparsely attended, but for those who work weekends, it allows one to attend weekly worship).

    Plus, there is the internet. Many churches are now putting their church services online, so there is the opportunity to worship apart from the regular congregation.

    I think the Caring Well example you gave allows RSOs to be too cozy. It should depend on the details of the crime(s). Anyone with more than one victim should not be ever considered. It depends on the crime. But if the RSO wants secrecy, then that’s a bad sign and an indication of non-repentance, in my mind, at least.

    I don’t believe there is much nuance to be had, but there are always exceptions and so RSOs shouldn’t be all treated equally. Criminal background checks should be run on all members. For the wealthy child rapist, (of the 5 year old little girl) he’d not be filtered out on the RSO screening, as he didn’t have to register with such label, thanks to money, money, money. But a criminal background check would find out he was charged with such, and then the details could be seen and hopefully wolf status would be assigned to him.

    And even with this all, one of the best things for keeping children safe is well informed parents and well informed children. I think about the example you, Pastor Hinton, gave about one of your children had a doctor appointment and another child of yours had to use the bathroom, so you took all your kids to the bathroom, and had the doctor’s appointment wait. Diligence by both parents and children is best. Kids should be taught from very early on, the awful realities of the world we live in and how many evil people walk the earth. There is so much time spent in schools teaching kids useless (by comparison) stuff, and yet maybe there is a one day, quick, little session on ‘Stranger Danger’ given about ‘don’t get into vans with strange men who are looking for lost pets’.

    There ought to be serious time devoted to training girls, especially the girls, as to how many men (and boys) are awful, evil, predatory rapists, molesters, perverts and so forth. And not only should they be regularly told such truths, but they should be trained on how such wicked men operate, how often it is someone known to the child, how the child is groomed into compliance, how the child may be rewarded (given extra attention, gifts, etc) and/or threatened into compliance. They should know the lies before the rapist ever speaks them. They should have hugs chunks of time spent all throughout their childhoods spent telling them about sex abusers, about molesters, about perverts, about sex trafficking, about porn, about spycams, about sexual harassment (how many 16 year old girls get their first job and then spend it being sexually harassed by pervert men) and all sorts of things like that.

    Safety is increased, for the most part, when potential victims are made more aware, more educated, more knowledgeable. Considering the statistics and how many girls and women are victimized, it should be something to which one devotes massive amounts of time. That being said, even the most informed potential victim can still be victimized if a rapist is committed enough to harming her. But her chances are better if she is well informed, if she practices assertiveness on the regular, if she is able and willing to fight to the death with an attacker, and if she is armed. But anyone can still be attacked and overtaken if the attackers have the upper hand (be it taken by surprise, etc.).

    I’d like to see churches holding educational/training sessions on how girls and women can protect themselves. Girls especially. Then, they might not be so easily harmed. Girls should know what perpetual targets/prey they really are. It’s ugly knowledge, but it’s better that girls know it, than to be kept unaware.

    1. I agree completely with all of these points. I really should do a part 2 to this blog post because you’re exactly right–not all RSO’s are created equal, on either end of the spectrum. There should not be a blanket, one-size-fits-all, policy to treat all registered sex offenders. In Pennsylvania, for example, thousands of people on the registry were removed last year as part of a lawsuit that a sex offender won against the state. Others work plea deals galore. And still others, as you mentioned, have petty misdemeanors with the RSO status but are not child predators.

      It’s definitely a complex issue. I think the major weakness with Hambrick’s policy is that it practically bends over backwards to give anonymity and to pronounce blessings over all the sex offenders. It does exactly what they need to be empowered to continue to abuse–it grants them secrecy and privacy.

      Thank you for your comment here. It is very helpful!

  5. 1 Corinthian 5:11-13 commands us to put abusers OUT of the church and treat them as unbelievers.The SBC’s CaringWell curriculum says the direct opposite.

    I hold every member of the Caring Well Teaching Panel accountable for this violation of God’s precepts. How can I respect any of them, when they have allowed this to go forth?

    1. I commend those who contributed and take a direct stance against embracing abusers. The major weakness of this process is that the individuals were contributors, not collaborators. In the end, the top rung of the SBC ladder wins again. They pull the strings to see what policies are recommended.

      1. Thank you for your reply to my comment, Jimmy. If the contributors were not collaborators, that does means they cannot be held accountable for the atrocious policy from Summit Church which you so brilliantly critiqued.

        But what will the contributors do now — now that their names and reputations have been associated with this awful policy that coddles abusers?

        In my view, the contributors were USED by the SBC. Used unscrupulously for damage control, and to delude survivors and advocates into thinking that the SBC is moving forward and getting ‘better’. To suck in the naive, keep them hanging on in hope.

        Now you have shown how ghastly that abuser-coddling policy is, the contributors to the CaringWell teaching panel need to decide whether they will stand with you in denouncing that policy or whether they just stay silent.

        Who will stand with you Jimmy? That is the question. Contributors to the CaringWell teaching panel who remain silent and don’t back you up…. well… I invite all bystanders to draw their own conclusions. Watch. Listen. Pay attention.

  6. I appreciate all these comments and the thoughtfulness of the article written above as it raises legitimate concerns as well as biblical perspective on such a painful but important issue. One question I had is how young teen sex offenders fit in this discussion. Many of these can be mentally challenged yet still cause great harm by their actions so are RSO but this status can go away after 18 if they completed the programs and don’t obviously reoffend. Should we still look at these past choices they made and never believe the “growth” or changed, socially correct behavior as they get older? Do we ever consider them safe to be around survivors?

    1. This is definitely a major concern. I know of a case of a juvenile who had a long history of violently raping young girls. Because he was a juvenile, his records were sealed. At 17 he raped another victim from church. It gets very complicated when we’re dealing with teen predators. I still haven’t thought through all the different angles of how to respond to this problem yet.

Comments are closed.