Cover-up Culture? Can Bethel Church Learn from First Baptist Bentonville?

Both the First Baptist Church in Bentonville, Arkansas, and Bethel Church, Redding, California, face justifiable scrutiny. First Baptist Church faces a lawsuit involving claims of “willful and wanton negligence.” The suit involves multiple defendants. The case was prompted by the misbehavior of Keenan Hord, a former youth minister, who pleaded guilty to 13 counts of sexual assault.

Against this backdrop, Bethel Church now faces credible allegations that it platformed two individuals over a span of years—Shawn Bolz and Bob Hartley—who, according to witnesses, engaged in a pattern of prophetic manipulation and sexual abuse.

This blog post is not designed to provide legal advice. But the pending litigation against the First Baptist Church of Bentonville raises troubling questions about whether Bethel Church and hundreds of other churches have been negligent in their vetting policies.

The First Baptist Church case operates as a clarion call for Bethel’s leaders and leaders of other churches to come clean, speak with their lawyers, and change their vetting practices. This is so because virtually any church that has engaged in Bethel’s alleged conduct may face damaging litigation that could threaten its reputation, even if no evidence is produced showing that the church directly employed the perpetrators who were platformed. 

First, consider the case against First Baptist in Bentonville. One report suggests that a youth minister, Keenan Hord, groomed his victims for abuse. A parent of a child victim alleges that “Southern Baptist leaders, including former convention president Steve Gaines, should have known” that the youth minister posed a grave and foreseeable danger to children.

Instead, church leaders—it is alleged—created a culture that enabled sexual abuse. It is further alleged that local, regional, state, and national Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders failed to “implement child-safety-oriented vetting and identify disqualifying risk factors.”

Provoked by the ongoing Bentonville civil litigation, every church in America faces essential questions: (1) Does the denomination or church have clear reporting protocols for instances of suspected abuse, (2) Does the denomination or church require staff or volunteers to undergo abuse prevention training, and (3) Does the denomination or church have an adequate vetting policy for speakers and leaders?

Given the litigation and allegations at First Baptist Bentonville, Arkansas, a question arises: What lessons can Bethel and hundreds of other similarly situated churches learn?

First, as a legal matter, churches typically operate as corporations under state law. Second, churches are generally free from legal liability (subject to exceptions) when they hire independent contractors. Nonetheless, litigation risk is often a ravenous, marauding beast.

This beast is driven by the infliction of harm, which can be transformed into financial damage or alternatively can result in reputational impairment. Consequently, churches, even churches that do not directly employ abusers or “prophetic” predators, should be aware of the foreseeable risk that the behavior of independent contractors poses.  

Churches typically operate as corporations under state law. As such, they are generally not liable for the torts or civil wrongs committed by their independent contractors. From this general rule view, Bethel Church could argue against liability if the evidence shows that Shawn Bolz and Bob Hartley were, in essence, independent contractors.

But of course, there are exceptions to the general rule against liability.  “The exceptions often arise when the company (church) retains a degree of control, the work itself poses specific risks, or the company’s own conduct contributes to the harm.” In such situations, liability threatens the church.

While Bethel Church and First Baptist Bentonville, as a general matter, are entitled to the presumption of innocence, churches in their situation are likely to face claims that they knew, or should have known, that individuals with predatory inclinations—whether hired or platformed—pose a risk. If the risk of harm is foreseeable, financial damage may be payable to victims. 

Against this legal backdrop, Bible teacher Mike Winger has compiled accounts that credibly accuse Shawn Bolz of sexual misconduct and  "data mining" social media for personal details, which is then presented as divine prophetic revelation. Moreover, in accounts available on YouTube, Winger brings forward alleged sexual assault claims implicating Bob Hartley, who is also accused of prophetic manipulation.

This situation raises critical questions for the modern church. First, do the allegations brought against Bethel Church advance the possibility that prophetic data mining becomes a gateway for predators to abuse children or adults? Second, the allegations raise questions about accountability, transparency, and the need to safeguard the vulnerable. Third, do churches tend to extend mercy to the perpetrators rather than sympathy and assistance to the victims?

While Bethel has now offered a formal apology for failing to take appropriate action regarding Shawn Bolz, the central moral issue remains: should Bethel and other similarly situated churches have acted more decisively and publicly when the allegations of misconduct were first raised? Failure to act swiftly creates combustible conditions that trigger a firestorm.

Prompted by commentator Alisha Childers’ observation that there is a stark difference between the pursuit of repentance and damage control, this storm calls forth a renewed commitment to repentance, a forensic investigation, and a forensic audit of the policies and practices of all churches by lawyers and theologians.

Now more than ever, the flames sparked by allegations implicating First Baptist in Bentonville and Bethel Church should serve as a wake-up call for all churches to hold their staff and visiting speakers accountable. Churches that fail to wake up may deserve to inherit the wind.