Update on IMB sex abuse and misconduct communication and investigations

Last week, a confusing IMB communication was sent out and then leaked to the media, many people, including myself, had significant concerns regarding the letter, the policies outlined in it, and the manner in which it was sent. People also contacted me saying they should have received the letter or had experienced a sexual abuse/misconduct situation and should be contacted by the IMB’s third-party firm who is looking into old cases and helping them develop new policies and procedures for the future.

This morning, I had a call with an IMB leader (staff) and a trustee who have been my point of contact over the last year. They shared with me that the firm recommended sending this email to people who could have had contact with Mr. Aderholt and encouraging them to report it. Their intention was to reach a specific group of people the best way they could, considering he was on the field 12 years ago.

I shared with them how some of the verbiage in the email could be interpreted by any potential survivors in a way that did not accurately reflect their well-meaning intentions and could actually cause additional concerns. We also discussed how the IMB could potentially better communicate in this particular situation and moving forward.

We talked about additional ways they could rebuild trust internally and publicly, encourage appropriate reporting to a third party and law enforcement and how to help care for survivors.

One specific concern we discussed was the IMB’s letter not encouraging people to report directly to authorities. They said IMB’s current practice is to report all allegations of sexual and physical abuse of children to proper authorities, and their plan is to report any allegations of abuse that are brought forward as a result of this letter.  They assured me that the IMB does not discourage victims from going straight to authorities, and it was not their intention to discourage that from taking place. They said they’re already looking at revising future letters to make that option more clear.

We talked about how having an anonymous (but still internal) reporting process could prevent people from coming forward and to maybe use an alternative process involving a fully independent third party to “triage” any reports so the IMB would not make the decision of what needs to be reported to law enforcement and a third party would also then have documentation outside of the IMB. They stand by their commitment to their policy to always report, but adding this extra layer allows for further transparency and accountabiilty.

Overall, I was encouraged by the phone call and I look forward to seeing how they move forward. Time will tell, as always, but I felt as if the conversation was positive and should they consider and consult with survivors moving forward as they rewrite policy and both internal/external communication, it would be a good step in the right direction for everyone.

I said this to a trustee at SWBTS last week and I said it on the call: I don’t want to see any entity of the SBC fail. Yes, I’ll point out weakness I see and I’ll (usually) share them out publicly if it’s a part of my story and I feel that I should have a say in it. But ultimately, I want these organizations and the convention to succeed in reforming policy, preventing abuse, and caring for survivors. Everyone wins: past, present, and future survivors and ultimately the cause of Christ.