Introduction

This paper addresses Biblical ethics when the crime of child abuse (particularly sexual abuse) occurs in a Christian church, mission, or school. In many countries, including the United States, the definition and parameters of child abuse are established in criminal law. When crimes occur across jurisdictions or happened a long time ago, they are often not addressed by government authorities. Under these circumstances, an internal investigation by the religious organization becomes necessary, because it is the only accountability for the harm. Biblical disciplinary decisions must be made under the ethics and policies of the mission or religious organization involved. A number of common questions arise about Biblical ethics and the appropriateness of secular actions such as abuse reporting or employment investigations.

In particular, this paper discusses 1) general ethics undergirding investigation and punishment of child sexual abuse; 2) ethics and a Biblical worldview about children; 3) internal and governmental approaches in handling allegations of abuse; 4) questions of grace and forgiveness; 5) interpretation of Scriptures about managing conflict; and 6) use of professionals in the internal investigation process.

General Ethics Undergirding Investigation and Punishment of Child Sexual Abuse

Criminal codes define child abuse, and broad consensus exists nationally and internationally about definitions of child abuse, including child sexual abuse. Religious organizations accept or elaborate on these definitions and follow the criminal codes of their own jurisdictions. Child protection policies will have definitions of child abuse that are consistent with the responsibility of good citizens.

How should a religious organization ethically respond to allegations of child abuse? The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, a leader in research and dialog surrounding nonprofit ethics, lists four principles that help to provide a framework.¹

1. Protect the Victim and Potential Victims
2. Do Justice for the Victim
3. Bring the Accused to Justice
4. Protect the Organization

A religious organization’s first responsibility is to the alleged victim, and the first two principles reflect this. Once an allegation has been made, the alleged victim must be protected as if the allegation were true. The alleged offender must have no further access to children who may be at risk, until after an investigation either by law enforcement or within the organization, and then, only if the investigation reveals that there is not a safety risk.

Justice must be done for the alleged victim. In some countries, justice is carried out by law enforcement or child protection services. In other jurisdictions, this may not be possible because of local law, or because the crimes happened outside of jurisdiction. Enforcement may also be hindered in historical cases where the allegations are very old and the alleged victim is generally no longer a child. If government will not be involved, the organization will need to take action. Whether or not the investigation ends in a clear determination, justice can also be done for the alleged victim by providing counseling and support.

While the Markkula Center expresses the third principle as bringing the accused to justice, seeking justice for the accused is a more accurate way to express it. Religious organizations want justice for the accused whether the accused is guilty or innocent of the charge. If the former, then the accused will hopefully be brought to justice by the government, and if the latter, the accused should have an opportunity to show his innocence. Even if the government is not involved, the religious organization can make disciplinary decisions. The religious organization is also responsible for providing due process to the accused by giving the accused the opportunity to tell his story, present witnesses, and generally experience a fair procedure.

The fourth principle calls for protecting the organization. This means several things. First, the organization must protect its mission and integrity, which means preserving its high ethical standards and commitment to the safety of children. Next, the organization should protect against reputational and legal harm, meaning that it should deal with the problems responsibly in a way that protects the organization’s public image and shows that it is not negligent. A church or mission must have ethical standards for protecting the vulnerable in its care and should follow best practices and legal standards, which will also protect the organization. To have a strong Christian testimony, organizations must take allegations of child abuse seriously and act upon them.

Ethics and a Biblical Worldview About Children

Being concerned about child abuse flows from the nature of God. God defends the vulnerable.² God loves justice, and wicked acts have consequences.³ God provides the civil authorities to rule an orderly society, and believers are to be subject to the civil authorities. The authorities swing the sword as God’s servants, bringing terror to wrongdoers.⁴

God highly values children. Jesus welcomed little children.⁵ He had harsh words for anyone who would cause a child to stumble: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”⁶ As Senior Pastor Ron Hawkins stated, “If the church does not address these issues by giving biblical instruction, warning, and direction, it ignores aspects of the teaching of the Word of God and a great area of need in the culture.”⁷

While in times past, not much was known or understood about child sexual abuse, cultural and organizational knowledge has developed greatly in the last 15-20 years. If religious organizations knowingly fail to care for and protect children, they share to some degree the guilt of offenses against children. The principles that Jesus taught about children are based on the word of God from ancient times. For instance, in Ezekiel, God condemned the actions of Jerusalem in injuring God’s own children by participating in pagan child sacrifice: “And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?”⁸ Children belong to God, and their protection is so important that an adult should not be protected from punishment if he or she is guilty of child sexual abuse.

Internal and Governmental Approaches in Handling Allegations of Abuse

Religious organizations generally have two avenues for handling allegations of child abuse: governmental and internal. Both are Scripturally appropriate, as their common purpose is to expose the guilty and establish justice. Religious organizations have always had to confront evil. The writer Jude pointed this out when he noted, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”⁹

Engaging with governmental authorities in response to allegations of child abuse often begins by reporting the suspected abuse to civil authorities. Sometimes religious organizations do not report abuse, believing that problems should be handled internally. Although problems should also be handled internally, as sin produces consequences within the church, Christians are told to obey the civil authorities because God has established them.¹⁰ Reporting crimes to the governmental authorities complies with the law in the many cases where reporting is mandatory. Even if reporting is not required, reporting crimes allows the governmental authority to exercise its Scriptural role in punishing bad conduct and creating a safe environment, and is appropriate for a Christian.

Engaging in an internal investigation also complies with legal and Scriptural principles. On the legal side, employers have both the right and the duty to carry out internal investigations to have a healthy and legally compliant workplace. If they do not uphold this responsibility, they may rightly be held accountable in a civil lawsuit.

On the Scriptural side, religious organizations also have the responsibility and authority to carry out internal discipline, protecting the vulnerable and holding members accountable to religious standards. Scripture gives the church the right to judge and settle disputes internally, and specifically to pronounce judgment on sexual immorality (such as child sexual abuse).¹¹ Thus, an organization should either use information from the government’s investigation or carry out its own inquiry in order to make a sound judgment. Yet we must understand that the investigations are different in nature—we are not investigating crimes, and the government is not making decisions about internal misconduct.

Questions of Grace and Forgiveness

Churches and missions sometimes bring up the idea of dispensing grace when allegations of abuse surface. Religious organizations have very frequently fallen into the trap of giving sexual predators a second chance to be in ministry around children because they have “repented.” In the past, the Roman Catholic Church often approached child sexual abuse in this way, and the consequences were devastating. Even so, some evangelical churches still argue for this approach today.

But Christians are required to be wise in handling the wolves that attack the sheep, which is a perfect description of someone who commits child sexual abuse.¹² In particular, research shows that it is difficult to be certain that those who commit child sexual abuse will not repeat the offense, as “sexual offenders are at risk of reoffending for a long period of time.”¹³ High-level professional intervention does make a difference in recidivism.¹⁴

Still, we maintain that while there may be grace in the sense of assuring a repentant person that he is forgiven, there cannot be grace in allowing him or her access to children again. The only way to keep children safe is to have zero tolerance for child sexual abuse. Repentant alcoholics should not be allowed to tend the bar, and child sexual abusers should not have access to children. Regardless of the actual risk of recidivism, once that trust has been broken, the legal risk to the organization in allowing a sex offender access to children would be enormous.

To be clear, this does not necessarily mean barring a sexual offender from church. Some churches are able to commit to discipleship programs for sex offenders that include high-level professional treatment and monitoring. Some treatment programs are effective, and can include regular polygraph maintenance, which is an option that church organization should consider if they are willing to integrate the sex offender back into their congregation. In addition, the prognosis for successful reintegration is going to be better for an offender who is willing to be open with the entire church about his offense. Admitting the offense helps keep children safe and also shows genuine repentance.

Sometimes the question is raised of what to do when the sexual abuse is not fully established. In an internal employment investigation (like a civil lawsuit), the standard of evidence is usually preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. Some argue that this standard is unjust. A person’s career may be ended because of a slightly more than 50% probability that he committed child sexual abuse.

In cases like this, where there is a potential for injustice to one or the other, the religious organization must choose whether to protect the adult or the children. A moment’s reflection shows that those who care for children will not want them exposed to someone for whom there is a 55% probability (or perhaps even a 30% probability) that he or she has sexually abused children. Where one must choose between protecting vulnerable children or the career of an adult, protecting the children must come first. This is true even if there are pre-existing loyalties to the adult.

Another aspect of this problem is that frequently the adult who is being accused—even if falsely—has engaged in behavior in violation of child safety policies or unwise behavior, creating the appearance of evil. Titus 1:6 requires that elders be above reproach. Someone may not have met this standard, even if it is not fully established that they have sexually abused a child.

Godly leaders understand that a good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.¹⁵ If someone is falsely accused, God will vindicate him or her someday, but children cannot be put at risk.

Interpretation of Scriptures About Managing Conflict

In dealing with issues of child abuse, Christians must consider the direction of Scripture on aspects of conflict resolution and disciplining religious leaders, such as Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. Matthew 18:15 describes an ecclesiastical process that requires the person offended to personally and directly confront a brother who has offended against the person as the first stage of conflict resolution. It is common, indeed almost routine, for those who have committed child sexual abuse to quote this as a mandatory Biblical process by which child sexual abuse must be addressed within the Christian community.

Accepting this interpretation misunderstands the passage. Matthew 18 describes a process by which an individual privately confronts a brother who has sinned, for handling conflict in the church. Eric Barreto, Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, describes it as a process of addressing and reconciling personal differences in love:

In short, the steps Jesus lays out here are not a mere blueprint so much as a statement of communal values and an acknowledgment of both the frailty as well as the utter necessity of communal discernment. Love requires that we address the inevitable conflicts that will arise among us. It is not enough to sweep them under the rug and thus allow them to fester. Unaddressed conflicts can render a community unable to function as God hopes. But neither is rejection our first instinct. Separation is not to be taken lightly even when it proves necessary.¹⁶

So, the context of this passage relates to reconciling miscellaneous personal differences.

Matthew 18 also describes a process between persons of equal status—in that day, men (“your brother”)—who made decisions and judgments, served as witnesses, and so forth. It would not have been a culturally appropriate approach for persons of lesser power—in that day, woman, children, or slaves. Even today, approaching conflicts with love and communication discernment requires creating a safe approach for persons of little power, like children—which does not include a direct confrontation with persons of greater power.

Also, Matthew 18 does not address criminal activity or dangers to the public. Child abuse is not a personal conflict, but a serious crime that is “an urgent public concern.”¹⁷ Most churches would not consider Matthew 18 an appropriate process for handling robbery, rape, or murder. In each case, one could face criminal charges for covering up these crimes. Why would informal conflict resolution be considered appropriate for the crime of child sexual abuse? Child sexual abuse is a crime in all fifty states and most other countries—and failure to report it is also frequently a crime. As good citizens, we have an obligation to allow the authorities to do their job.

Matthew 18 goes on to warn against causing little ones to stumble and despising them, because their angels in heaven see the face of God.¹⁸ To the contrary, it is appropriate for the leaders in the organization to step forth on behalf of the child, confront the individual, investigate the matter, and make a judgment that is spiritually sound and compliant with secular law.

Some religious organizations also misunderstand 1 Timothy 5:19, which says, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses,” or Deuteronomy 19:15, which requires at least two witnesses for conviction of a crime. Under this theory, those accused in religious organizations claim that they can never be disciplined for child sexual abuse (a crime that rarely happens in front of witnesses).

But even in Scripture, there are exceptions to this rule. The Mosaic Law has an example of a sexually abused young person trapped by a predator: “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”¹⁹ In this example, although there were no witnesses, the man could be disciplined for the rape. Similarly, the guilt of Achan in stealing holy or “devoted” treasure in the time of Joshua was established by casting lots, because there were no witnesses to his theft.²⁰ And the guilt of Amnon in raping his half-sister, Tamar, was assumed though there were no witnesses.²¹

Thus, religious leaders should not accept proof text arguments that crimes committed in secret cannot be subject to discipline by religious organizations if an investigation supports the allegation.

Use of Professionals in the Internal Investigation Process

When a church or mission organization responds to a complaint of child abuse, sometimes people complain when professionals are used, because this is “legal” and not “Scriptural.” Why would an organization use professionals such as attorneys, investigators, psychologists, and child forensic investigators?

First, the interpretation of doctrine lies with the religious leaders. Professionals are brought in not as a substitute for this expertise and spiritual authority, but instead, serve a different role, bringing in expertise that helps to reveal truth. Ultimately, this results in a better outcome.

How do these professionals work? In the context of the workplace, the internal employment investigation came about as a tool to sort through allegations about employees. Those investigating may be trained employees of the organization or outside professionals. And, following best practices, they bring particular skills to the investigative task. Since non-professionals do not have these skills, they often make significant mistakes based on their own understanding or expectations, which can cause serious harm to victims and put others at risk.

For example, for accuracy and reliability, interviewing a child usually requires someone with training in child forensic interviewing. Investigators must possess sufficient training to capture needed and valuable evidence from witnesses and to press with questions that will help evaluate credibility. For situations that involve alleged sexual offenders, a forensic psychologist with specialized expertise may be able to evaluate the alleged offender much more accurately than a lay person. Bias is another potential problem. Typically, organizations will involve an outside investigator, attorney, or both to avoid bias either in favor of the alleged victim or the accused. Religious leaders may seek outside counsel to advise them as they make spiritual decisions and disciplinary determinations so they can apply best practices, comply with legal standards, and protect the organization.

Using professionals to help reach the best decision is not an abdication of spiritual authority. All of these professionals are used to help the leaders of the organization make wise and godly decisions. Typically, these professionals are themselves believers and trained in Scriptural approaches. But even if they are not, Christians use wise counsel in all sorts of endeavors, from medicine to education. It makes sense that organizations would use qualified and objective professionals to assist in these very difficult inquiries. The final decisions still rest with the spiritual leaders of the organization, but they will make better decisions when they receive the best possible information.

Conclusion

Biblical ethics are closely tied to general ethics when it comes to protecting children and punishing predators. Religious organizations ought to obey secular authorities regarding public duties, such as reporting crimes, while also conducting internal religious discipline through their own procedures. Both the public and internal responses to child sexual abuse must be handled well to ensure the safety of the children and keep the organization above reproach.

About the Authors

Dr. Roger L. Dixon served on the mission field for 34 years. In addition to his theological work, he was an early adopter of homeschooling for MKs and mentored young missionary families on how to protect their children from child sexual abuse.

Theresa Lynn Sidebotham founded Telios Law PLLC, which serves mission and other religious organizations, in 2012. As an MK, a mother to four MKs of her own, and an attorney, she is deeply involved in child protection issues. Biblical worldview informs the legal and business ethics of Telios Law and is the basis of our policies, procedures, and outcomes.