Why hiding abusers in the church is dishonest

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.

Photo by Bram van Baal on Unsplash

9 Replies to “Why hiding abusers in the church is dishonest”

  1. Thank you so much for writing this. I hope people read and are convicted, leading to true repentance and change

  2. The scriptural commandment that all these churches ignore is 1 Cor 5:11-13.

    For years I have been urging churches to obey 1 Cor 5:11-13, but very few seem to listen.

    1. I often wonder about that Scripture you referenced. It’s scary to read, as who has not ever been any of those things? Who has not temporarily idolized some entertainer in their youth? There’s even a show called America Idol, geared towards younger audiences, and trivializes idolatry with it’s name. Suppose a youth falls susceptible to celebrity/stardom worship?

      Who has never been the slightest bit greedy at any point in their life? At what point does a person become a drunkard? One night of drinking to excess? Two nights? Ten or more experiences being intoxicated?

      What about sexual immorality? There are many abused wives who were pressured and coerced into premarital sexual activity and thus married their abusers. Many people could easily pass all these items, but what about the ones who cannot? Is there a chance for repentance? Or are they eternally damned?

      The “do not even eat with one” seems to be very rigid and so I find such to be terrifying to read, as though any one of those sins are almost approaching unforgivable. I’m not sure how to read such passages. Are they stern warnings? Are they for unrepentant persons only? Or does it not matter if the person repents and wishes they had never sinned?

      I also think there are many sex offenders who are never arrested and thus people should be encouraged to still keep their guard up, even if a church policy bans sex offenders and does background checks on every individual who walks through their doors, as a condition of entry into the church building.

      So many rapists and perverts are never brought to any justice on earth because the reporting of such crimes is so harrowing and damaging for victims. Girls and women see what happens to other women who report and then are chewed up by the criminal justice process, which has been called, the second rape. Plus, money, power, and connections lend themselves to ensuring impunity for certain people.

      Thanks, Pastor and Clara, for your podcasts and the youtube videos of the podcasts are great.

      1. Hi Reader,

        1 Corinthians 5:11 tells the congregation (the church) what to do with someone who has been passing himself off as a brother but who is committing any one or more of the six sins listed in verse 11. It applies ONLY to the unrepentant: those who are hypocritically practising those heinous sins while passing themselves as believers in the congregation.

        If a person committed one or more of those sins in the past but has repented and is no longer practicising those sins, that person is forgiven. The church is not commanded to expel such a person.

        It is important to note that repentance is not just words. Repentance is evidenced by reformed behaviour. In the case of those six heinous sins listed in 1 Cor 5:11, the reformed behaviour should to be evidenced and tested over quite a period of time before the person could be safely received into the congregation as a fellow Christian.

        If you want to read more about my thoughts on 1 Corinthians 5 you can read the following articles. In order to avoid my comment going to spam, I have changed .blog to DOTblog

        cryingoutforjusticeDOTblog/2013/10/04/church-discipline-and-church-permission-for-divorce-how-my-mind-has-changed/

        Some people argue that the rapid-excommunication instruction in 1 Corinthians 5:11 applies only for publicly known, notorious sins. Their argument is not provable. And their argment puts abuse victims at risk of further harm.

        cryingoutforjusticeDOTblog/2015/12/02/does-1-corinthians-511-apply-only-if-there-is-common-knowledge-of-the-persons-sin/

        1. Thank you, Barbara, for a wonderful response. Glad you linked your blog. And they are heinous sins. And repentance must be evidenced by reformed behavior over the course of time. Holy Scripture is inerrant. All sin separates us from God but some sins are more heinous than others, necessitating greater action and greater evidence of repentance.

  3. As I read this, I couldn’t help but think how church leaders respond if member were exposed to covid-19, a dangerous virus. Persons would be informed and informed quickly! And yet, when a predator comes in to the flock, all to often the response is eerily silent. As someone who works with survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault every day, the suffering I witness is deep and lifelong.

    1. Excellent analogy! Yes, most church leaders I know gladly disbanded church services because “love of neighbor” requires it. I lost count of how many times I heard that phrase. I agree with it, but doesn’t love of neighbor also require us to purge abusers? I sense a new post coming up!

  4. One of the first things I thought of when reading the first few paragraphs was ” why didnt the owner of the oil changing shop simply say ‘we know what you are doing and we arent going to be held liable for your choices ?” Why was there no reporting to where he worked ? I am NOT blaming Jimmy because I am guessing that he was young and didnt have authority. BUT that mindset that the garage had of washing their hands off of whatever they guy asked them to do – is exactly what the sex offender is looking for. and those are the type of people he knows WON’T report and that he can get away with. also he can then use that to blackmail them ” I know this about you ” I think thats what keep a lot of people silent about reporting.

    1. We reported to our boss. Without divulging details, we workers did all we had the power to do. Eventually, it was swept under the rug. It’s frustrating, for sure.

Comments are closed.