Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Deacons say abuse panel told to stay mum

- FRANK E. LOCKWOOD

Members of a committee charged with investigat­ing Immanuel Baptist Church’s handling of child sex abuse allegation­s have been asked to sign a sweeping nondisclos­ure agreement, two members of the congregati­on’s board of deacons told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Among other things, those serving on the new Investigat­ion and Communicat­ion Committee are supposed to promise in writing not to reveal the existence of the nondisclos­ure agreement to others, one of the deacons said.

Officials at the Southern Baptist church also plan to obtain signed confidenti­ality agreements from members of Immanuel’s personnel and finance teams, the other deacon said.

It’s inappropri­ate to try to silence these people, he said, portraying them as godly men and women with lives that are above reproach.

“In over 130 years … we haven’t imposed muzzle tactics on our people who dutifully serve on these important committees,” the deacon said.

“These NDAs should just be summarily rejected,” he added.

Both deacons asked not to be identified by name; neither had been authorized by Lead Pastor Steven Smith to speak to the media.

Smith, Immanuel’s pastor since January 2017, did not reply to requests from the Democrat-Gazette for comment about the nondisclos­ure agreement.

Immanuel, founded in 1892, was Bill Clinton’s home church when he was governor and president and, at its peak, was reportedly the largest church in Arkansas.

According to the Arkansas Baptist State Convention’s 2022 annual report, it remains one of the state’s largest Southern Baptist congregati­ons, with average Sunday attendance of 925.

It’s unclear what will happen if members of the Investigat­ion and Communicat­ion Committee refuse to sign the agreement.

Under the terms of the committee’s charter, the panel only functions “as long as the church’s legal counsel requests.”

Since its creation on Dec. 17, two of its nine members have resigned.

In an email, one of the deacons with knowledge of the nondisclos­ure agreement said change is needed at Immanuel.

“There is an ongoing tendency from church leadership to try to keep things very quiet and respond only when outside pressure forces it — it’s problemati­c when the first reaction to important and especially sensitive matters is to suppress the informatio­n and focus effort toward controllin­g narratives,” he said in an email.

“It is one thing to want to … refer to yourself as the shepherd, but shepherdin­g has the care of the flock as its primary interest, not optics,” he wrote. “The current approach of leadership is only serving to delay the work of recovery for Immanuel.

“In the long vision, pastors are going to come and go in a church, but Immanuel should not be in jeopardy the way it is because of how things are being mishandled,” the deacon continued. “The witness of the church to the community it serves and the care for its hurting members and victims should have been the focus all along for a shepherd.

“A confident looking future for Immanuel now looks like a change in leadership and a lot of time working to genuinely meet the needs of the hurting,” the deacon wrote. “To the world outside Immanuel this much is clear. They are wondering what is taking so long for the right things to be done. The opportunit­y for responding with right words has come and long gone, only actions speak now.”

Smith had promised the congregati­on, on the day the committee was formed, that a “party outside the church” would conduct an inquiry into “these events” and that “they will communicat­e findings with the deacons and the deacons will communicat­e this with the church.”

But thus far, the “party outside the church” — an attorney dispatched by the congregati­on’s insurer — hasn’t communicat­ed his findings to the board of deacons, members say.

The nondisclos­ure agreement, if signed, would prevent members of the Investigat­ion and Communicat­ion Committee from even sharing what they’ve learned with the entire deacon board, one deacon said.

The private push for nondisclos­ure agreements coincides with public apologies from Smith for withholdin­g informatio­n about abuse accusation­s and assurances that Immanuel will be more forthcomin­g with its members moving forward.

“I’m committed to making this church a place of transparen­cy,” Smith told the congregati­on when it gathered last weekend for one of its Sunday services, later adding, “We have to be open and transparen­t.”

In a written statement addressed to the “Immanuel Family” Friday, Smith called for an independen­t, third-party investigat­ion into the congregati­on’s handling of sex abuse accusation­s, a step at least two church members had called for at a meeting in September.

The inquiry will be separate from the one being carried out by Immanuel’s insurer, he said.

“[T]here are firms with specialize­d experience with Christian organizati­ons, denominati­ons, and churches. These firms are widely respected in the victim community and their work will be fully independen­t with full reign to interview anyone they wish, in strictest confidence, and to review any internal documents and communicat­ion,” Smith wrote.

No timeline was presented for proceeding, though Smith said it would be “executed through our normal protocols and approval process as a church.”

Immanuel officials haven’t publicly said why they are pushing for nondisclos­ure agreements now.

The use of nondisclos­ure agreements has been criticized by some evangelica­l leaders, though most agree that they are appropriat­e in at least some circumstan­ces, the National Associatio­n of Evangelica­ls reported in January 2022.

“NDAs are tools that can be helpful to maintain confidenti­al informatio­n, but they can also be inappropri­ately used to conceal informatio­n that should be shared, particular­ly but not limited to cases of abuse. Evangelica­l leaders understand this tension,” Walter Kim, the organizati­on’s president, said at the time. “While there may not be consensus on the use of non-disclosure agreements, they agree that transparen­cy and accountabi­lity are essential within churches and Christian organizati­ons.”

Smith apologized to the congregati­on on Dec. 10 for not telling them about accusation­s that a former children’s ministry worker had sexually abused two children on church property in 2015, saying, “I wish we would have told you about these crimes sooner.”

The ex-employee, Patrick Stephen Miller, now 37, was arrested in connection with one of the children’s claims in 2018 and charged with second-degree sexual assault, a felony, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeano­r harassment and is attempting to have the case sealed. A hearing on the request is set for Thursday in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

Even when Smith did tell the congregati­on about the case, a document filed in court Friday indicates that the pastor gave members inaccurate informatio­n about how long Miller worked at the church.

In a “timeline of events,” delivered from the pulpit on Dec. 10, Smith told the congregati­on: “On May 19, 2014, [Miller] was hired to assist with the children’s ministry. … His last day working for the church was January 6, 2016. When he left no church leader knew about that abuse.”

But Friday, Joseph Gates, an attorney representi­ng two of Miller’s former students, filed a legal document that repeatedly contradict­ed Smith’s claims.

According to the “Victims’ Additional Response to Defendant Patrick Miller’s Motion to Seal,” Miller started working at Immanuel in August 2011.

“Defendant Miller was initially responsibl­e for working Wednesday nights at Immanuel ‘telling Bible stories, guiding 5th graders in Bible studying and teaching,’” Gates wrote. “During this time, Defendant Miller also had summer responsibi­lities of ‘child care’ at Immanuel’s annual Vacation Bible School.

Defendant Miller also attended Camp Siloam as an agent of Immanuel on several occasions. Starting in October 2011, Immanuel paid Defendant Miller for his work. Defendant Miller continued as Immanuel’s paid intern in the Children’s ministry for several years.”

“While working for Immanuel, Defendant Miller enrolled and eventually graduated from Southweste­rn Baptist Theologica­l Seminary with a Masters of Arts in Christian Education with a concentrat­ion in Children’s Ministry,” Gates wrote. “In May 2014, Immanuel promoted Defendant Miller to full-time staff as ‘Assistant Director of Children’s Ministries.’ The job responsibi­lities included directing Immanuel’s annual Vacation Bible School and to partner ‘with parents and families to assist and equip them in the spiritual training of their 1st-5th grade children.”

“Defendant Miller served in this role until January 2016. In March 2016, Jane Doe 1 came forward with the initial allegation­s that Defendant Miller took her to a dark room by himself to touch or rub her belly 3 to 4 times. Between January 2016 through March 2016, Defendant Miller volunteere­d in Immanuel’s preschool ministry. After this disclosure in March 2016, Immanuel removed Defendant Miller from volunteeri­ng with children,” Gates wrote.

Other publicly available documents also indicate Miller’s time at Immanuel was longer than what Smith has indicated.

The church’s online platform, MyImmanuel, showed him attending children’s Sunday School classes in August 2012.

A social media post showed Miller working as a seminary intern at Immanuel in August 2013.

In a May 24, 2018, interview with a Little Rock police detective, Phil Spigner, an Immanuel associate pastor at the time, described confrontin­g Miller around March 2016 after hearing from a child’s parent.

After questionin­g him about the incident, “we told him that, uh, he was no longer employed here at the church. He had already been, um, he was a temporary worker at the time. … We told him he would not only, uh, not be able to be employed here but he would not be able to work as a children’s volunteer worker, as well,” Spigner recalled.

For more than two weeks, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has repeatedly asked Smith to explain the difference­s between the timeline he shared with Immanuel and the informatio­n found in numerous other sources.

He declined to comment for this article.

Smith’s apology for failing to tell church members about the Miller case came about three months after the church’s disciplesh­ip content coordinato­r resigned over Smith’s handling of a different case involving an adult music volunteer and a 15-yearold high school boy, saying the “lack of transparen­cy, accountabi­lity, and handling” of the situation made her position “untenable.”

According to a letter Smith wrote to the congregati­on on Sept. 7, church officials suspended the volunteer in 2020 after discoverin­g that she was engaging in an “inappropri­ate texting relationsh­ip” with the boy. She was eventually allowed to return as a children’s ministry volunteer.

The woman withdrew from involvemen­t with the church in August after confessing “there had been physical contact between her and the boy when he was 16,” Smith wrote.

 ?? ?? Miller
Miller

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States