Statement from Dr. Denny Burk on Guidepost recommendations

LONG post alert:

The statement below, taken from a letter from Dr. Denny Burk to his congregation, reveals one of the major problems with the Guidepost recommendations. There are numerous and substantive problems with the report and its recommendations.

Unfortunately, opposing these Guidepost recommendations will be seen by some as supporting sexual abuse. Nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the major challenges in this hour is the “guilty until proven innocent” spirit that exists among far too many in the SBC. And it is as untenable as it is unbiblical.

That is, "Guilty until proven innocent" is an impossible standard to maintain. It's a philosophical Frankenstein concocted in the woke laboratories of the left that will eventually consume its own advocates. The voices calling for this standard will be the first to protest when they are caught in the very snare they now wish to set for others.

But more importantly, "Guilty until proven innocent" is not merely a departure from the standards of the American judicial system. It is a blatant, full-throated violation of the Word of God.

Few people want to say this. But Guidepost is not a ministry. They are not a parachurch group. They are a secular investigative group. And one that stands to profit massively from the implementation of such an unscriptural system among the largest evangelical group in America.

I support a database for those who have been PROVEN guilty in some way. But I will stand against, speak against, and work against any system that deems someone as “guilty until proven innocent.”

Especially on a subject like sexual abuse!

And especially knowing Guidepost published such a defamatory accusation against me, all on the basis of a letter I wrote, a letter that was offered to them through a blanket offer of documents, but one they did not request.

I have a sneaky suspicion for why this biased firm did not want to see a copy of the letter. It says exactly the opposite of what they accuse.

Not my opinion.
Words.
Words with meaning.

I know what it’s like to live with painful memories. I know what it’s like to toss and turn with nightmares. I know what it’s like…well, I know.

I have NEVER covered a sexual sin, much less a sexual crime.

I have NEVER counseled a minister to remain in ministry despite sexual sin. In fact, I’ve done exactly the opposite. And bluntly, there are ministers in our own region who could attest to that.

There are leaders in the Georgia Baptist Convention who know of a time that I stood ALONE in calling for an inquiry into such matters in our own state convention.

I have called the police EVERY time there was an accusation and I have cooperated fully. I cannot speak for the cooperation of witnesses and others.

I once told our local Sheriff, “We will cooperate fully. If your investigation and our cooperation puts our church’s name in the grapevine or on the front page of The Blackshear Times, so be it. I’d rather shut the place down than overlook such a crime. You do your job and let the chips fall where they may.”

NOTHING in my ministry has ever suggested otherwise except this libelous report from a biased organization that takes anonymous witness perception as more valuable than documented evidence.

EVERY matter I ever considered while on the SBCEC was already a matter of public record. The notion of “covering up” something was not even a possibility.

Unless words have no meaning, one literally cannot “cover up” a story that’s already in the paper, on the evening news, and trending on Twitter.

To say otherwise is simply to lie.

Further, the only power the EC has ever had is to look at the actions of the CHURCH involved. Not what did an individual in the church do? What did the CHURCH do?

It was never within the authority or ability of the Executive Committee or the newer Credentials Committee to determine if a crime even occurred. That determination should be left to civil authorities, those with real investigative authority and training.

The matter before the committees on which I served was simple. Did the CHURCH mishandle the matter based on the proven information available to it?

That’s not my opinion. Read the constitution and bylaws of the SBC.

This proposal, friends, is not the way.

And now this wisdom from Dr. Burk:

The principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” therefore, is not an American innovation. It is a basic principle of biblical justice, first affirmed by Moses and then endorsed by Jesus. It is the process that faithful churches will follow when carrying out church discipline. It is also the process that is the inheritance of the American legal system. Biblical due process is built on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

The recommendations proposed by Guidepost flout this biblical principle of justice. Their specific proposal shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Rather than the accused being treated as innocent until proven guilty, under the Guidepost recommendations the accused will be treated as guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Guidepost treats as guilty anyone who is “credibly accused.”

Moreover, Guidepost recommends that the SBC publish a database not only of arrests, charges, or convictions for abuse. They recommend also publishing a list of people who have been merely accused. Any person appearing on that database would then be treated as guilty as far as the SBC is concerned.

According to Guidepost, an SBC employee need not be proven guilty of abuse to be terminated. They merely need to be “credibly accused” (GR, p. 266). A Sunday School teacher need not be proven guilty to have her name listed on a public database of sex abusers. Her name could be listed among sex abusers merely for being accused. According to Guidepost, “credibly accused” does not require “proof beyond all reasonable doubt.” Nor does it require the lesser standard of “proof by a preponderance of evidence.” Credible means simply “not manifestly false or frivolous” (GR, p. 266).

To be sure, this standard would lead to the public condemnation of many actual abusers. But it will no doubt also lead to the public condemnation of many who have been falsely accused. Biblical justice cares for the rights of both the accuser and the accused. The Guidepost structure does not. If someone found themselves falsely accused under a “credibly accused” standard, how might they exonerate themselves? According to Guidepost, that “credibly accused” person would have her name listed on a public database of sex abusers unless or until she exonerates herself through an independent investigation. The independent investigator (usually an expensive law firm, not a jury of peers considering arguments from all sides with rules of evidence) will determine whether she has been “credibly accused.”

Thus the Guidepost recommendation would result in people being treated as guilty based on accusations alone, and then would require them to prove their innocence by an independent investigation that very few people could even afford.

This is not biblical justice. This is a procedure that is bound to produce a travesty of justice. It is not taught in scripture, and it would tear our convention apart if adopted. Biblical justice requires us to oppose any reform that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Biblical justice requires due process, which is built on the presumption of innocence for the accused. We shouldn’t adopt any reform that pits care for victims against biblical justice. We can and must do both—care for victims and maintain biblical justice.

This Guidepost recommendation would prevent us from doing that.”

The source for this is named and is copied from a facebook post from the FB group called #SBC issues & ministry group