ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

National

Southern Baptist Convention: What’s wrong with the proposed sexual abuse amendment to the SBC constitution

[baptistnews.com – 3/8/19]

The Southern Baptist Convention’s executive committee has proposed an amendment to the SBC constitution that would allow for churches to be disfellowshipped when they are determined to have “evidenced indifference in addressing sexual abuse.”

Sounds good, right?

But take a closer look.

The amendment sets forth four examples of conduct the committee can consider as evidence of church indifference:

(a) employing a convicted sex offender,
(b) allowing a convicted sex offender to work as a volunteer in contact with minors,
(c) continuing to employ a person who unlawfully concealed from law enforcement information regarding the sexual abuse of any person by an employee or volunteer of the church, or
(d) willfully disregarding compliance with mandatory child abuse reporting laws.

 

Read more about how this church denomination might deal with registrants

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Satan has done a very fine job of dividing and conquering the church. Bans of LGBTQ and sex offenders has now officially judged and condemned even those that have repent. I always liked the bumper sticker “Jesus is coming and boy is he pissed”

If you look at the 4 restrictions, they are NOT unreasonable. (a) concerns “employment” of a convicted sex offender — does not restrict attendance or membership. (b) concerns working as a volunteer in contact with children — not volunteering in the many forms of adult ministry; (d) concerns the church covering up a “current” act of misconduct that has not been reported to authorities; and (c) concerns the continuing employment of persons who cover up the potential criminal sexual misconduct of others. (c and d) are interrelated. Regarding (b): In my opinion, any registrant who would put him or herself… Read more »

@Concerned Registrant:
(a) employing a convicted sex offender,
(b) allowing a convicted sex offender to work as a volunteer in contact with minors,
(c) continuing to employ a person who unlawfully concealed from law enforcement information regarding the sexual abuse of any person by an employee or volunteer of the church, or
(d) willfully disregarding compliance with mandatory child abuse reporting laws.

Are you nuts? They ALL assume a registrant will commit another sex offense and btw, not all sex offenses involve children and NONE of them support the so called bible of morality.

They are unreasonable because they say “$EX”. They should have policies regarding anyone convicted of any significant crime. Once they say “$EX” we know people are surely pandering to stupidity, PCness, and group-think. And I’ll always say to them that I don’t give a flip what you are *supposedly* trying to do, F you.

I am not going to defend the SBC, but when one looks at these, they are insurance issues, optics issues, hypocritical people issues, and what could be seen as potential liability issues (where an assessment needs to be take place before IMO). Yes, Jesus would be pissed given all things considered in doctrine, but in this fallen world, man has made laws that need to be followed as stated in Romans in addition to what the business side of the world says for those who work with churches. Does that make it right? No, not necessarily. These four could be… Read more »

TS — I think you and I are in agreement. Of course, these are decisions geared towards protection against liability due to the current hysteria. I also am not defending their decisions, only stating that they are not unreasonable. They are not stating that a convicted sex offender cannot attend church or serve in any capacity in a church. And my (b) qualifier, as I stated, was my opinion. Sorry if I was vague. I thought it was understood that my statement was meant regarding someone with a sex offense on their record. To me, anyone with a sex offense… Read more »

I mentioned the 18 and up church and it has more to do with giving those with restrictions on being around minors a safe place to worship. I agree someone should avoid the appearance of evil but I don’t believe we have to avoid churches with young people. Nothing wrong with worshipping with your loved ones.

RegistrantNotAnOffender, Again, you and I are also in agreement. I mentioned the “no one under 18” church to demonstrate that they recognize the dangers, and for the comfort to worship for those with offenses with children (or even if the offense was not child-related), they have the rule. The age restriction is a policy they have set, and I am okay with their decision. That may be exactly the kind of church that some need to attend. Personally, I think it is better to be part of a church with all ages of attendees. That is the kind of church… Read more »

You get it, God Bless You

United States v. Hernandez, 209 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding that a condition prohibiting a person convicted of possessing child pornography from attending a church service was unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment).

@Bob:
Just so we’re all clear, US v Hernandez prevented the *Government* from barring someone. There is absolutely nothing illegal about a private entity (here, a church) barring someone who is not part of a protected class (race, religion, age, ethnicity, etc.). Criminality is not a protected class and can be blanket banned. This is the exact same logic and reasoning behind the Packingham decision: NC couldn’t ban him, but social media (i.e. FB) can–for now. 😉

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.