Dallas seminary facing lawsuit over molestation
August 26th, 2005A man who was sexually abused by a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary is suing the school. Aaron Babb says if the seminary had informed authorities of the actions of one of their students, he might never have been abused.
In 1988, DTS officials learned that one of their students, Jon Gerrit Warnshuis, had molested a 12- or 13-year-old boy. Rather than making the matter public and turning it over to authorities, the school allowed Warnshuis to undergo counseling and later graduate from the seminary.
Warnshuis went on to become pastor of Oak Hills Evangelical Free Church. The seminary never informed the congregation about Warnshius’ past, and Warnshius proceeded to molest Babb and two other boys at the church. Police suspect he may be guilty of molesting dozens of children.
This raises an interesting question. Was the seminary obligated to inform either the authorities or the church about Warnshius’ actions? They violated no law by not doing so, because mandatory reporting of such offenses weren’t required until a law was passed in 1995. And yet, if they had notified the authorities and the church, one could argue that these cases of molestation could have been prevented.
Sexual preditors should not find a safe house in the church. Sure they were right to provide counseling. But to not inform a church of this guy’s past was reckless. I hope other schools will take notice
Assuming the earlier abuse is a fact, there are a couple of issues here. However, the biggest issue is the solution the school implemented after they decided not to report this crime to the police. They consulted a psychologist, then, based on his word, allowed this man to continue seminary and to graduate and go on to pastor churches. When will the church stop being unequally yoked with psychology! This man did not have a mental problem he had a sin problem and the Bible tells us all we need to know to deal with sin problems. Attempting to deal with sin as if it is some kind of disease leads to…well, exactly what happened here.
Sigmund Freud was an athiest who was looking for a way to deal with issues of the soul and spirit without the involvement of God. Why in the world the 21st century church thinks they can learn anything from the discipline spawned by Freud is beyond me.
What should have happened here is that this man should have been subjected to church discipline for his sexual sin. He should have been told to confess to and seek forgiveness from the boy and his family as well as the elders of his church. He should then have been told that he was to go to the police and report the crime he’d committed and face the consequences of his actions. If he refused to do these things, the police and his church elders should have been contacted by the school and given the complete story. This would likely not only have saved his future victims much anguish but may have led to true repentance from this man saving his own soul as well.
I happen to believe what Warnshuis did was a HUGE sin (if there can be “degrees” of sins), an immoral act and a cyclical compulsion (yes, a mental/psychological problem — have to disagree with you on that one, Larry!). No doubt Warnshuis himself had been abused, and he obviously is continuing the pattern; it does not surprise me at all to learn that he had/has molested several other boys.
The Dallas Theological Seminary was wrong not to report what this man had done. The seminary was wrong to give Warnshuis a mere slap on the hand (counseling?!) before allowing him to graduate as if he had never done anything wrong.
No problem Di! I would just challenge you to find scriptural support for your ‘mental/psychological problem’ theory as well as the assumption that he’s doing this because of something in his own past. If he’s a believer the Apostle Paul’s direction to ‘forget what is behind’ (Philippians 3:13) comes into play. We’re new creatures in Christ if we’re saved and are not in bondage to our past. If he’s not a believer then again his past is not his problem. He needs to repent and come to Christ.
God bless…
Hmmm, I wouldn’t have a clue where to begin to look for scriptural support of my theory — which comes from personal knowledge of people who have been abused and have continued, as I mentioned, the cycle of abuse by becoming abusers themselves. Perhaps it is unfair to assume that this sexual predator had been abused, himself, in the past … but I’d still bet my rent check that he was.
And while it is indeed possible (but not probable, I fear) that he can/will repent, come to Christ, be saved/healed — IF he hasn’t already, perhaps multiple times: In the meantime, should he be allowed to have any kind of contact with children? Especially in the context of a pastor-parishioner relationship? I really don’t think so.
However, if the church thinks it’s OK, then at the very least, the parents of the children in the church should have had the opportunity to make an informed decision.