Secrecy leads to deception

A massive Alabama insurance fraud might have been prevented had one of the accused faced criminal prosecution by the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.

Instead of pursuing criminal charges, the Mission Board settled for a judgment ordering Benton Gray Harvey to repay.

The Alabama Press-Register reports:

The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention won a judgment in Richmond, Va., in March 2005 against Harvey for $362,499.62. A spokeswoman for the Richmond-based board said that the case stemmed from Harvey's service overseas for the board as an accountant. She said she didn't know when or where Harvey served, or what he did that led the board to sue.

The mission board's reasons for failing to prosecute Harvey in 2004 are far from reasonable. They involve concealment and evasion of responsibility by the board itself.

An Associated Baptist Press article details the Baptist connection to the fraud investigation reported by the Press-Register in Mobile, Ala.

Former Mission Board trustee Wade Burleson fought the decision to not prosecute Gray Harvey, as he explains in his blog. Burleson came to the board after the decision and says that as a result he did not take the oath of secrecy to which other board members bound themselves in the case.

That such a Mission Board oath exists at all is a matter of concern.

More immediately disturbing is the board's rationale for refusing to prosecute Harvey, who had an overseas appointment, apparently in Istanbul.

According to Burleson, the mission board leadership gave three reasons for the failure to pursue criminal charges:

1. Prosecution might compromise missionaries if it took place in the country where Harvey was when the embezzlement occurred.
2. The Mission Board didn't want bad publicity while in the midst of promoting its Christmas offering.
3. Harvey had agreed to repay the money.

Let's address the reasons in inverse order.

First, Burleson argued that the mission board shouldn't trust someone who had embezzled money, and he was right. Court order notwithstanding, Harvey stopped repaying the money a couple of months after he left the board's employ.

Second, the mission board's desire to avoid bad publicity during its offering implies that good Southern Baptists would stop giving because of the embezzlement scandal. The board's cover-up and apparent contribution through neglect to the Alabama insurance fraud may, however, cause many givers to pause before opening their wallets.

Third, on close examination there is a flaw in the board's strategy of sending missionaries into the field under false pretenses.

We're well aware that some countries aren't open to missionaries, but we're not convinced that deception is an appropriate way to further a gospel which forbids deception. Moreover, in this case, secrecy abroad was used to help justify convenient concealment at home.

If the Alabama fraud had not been discovered and linked to the International Mission Board incident, good Baptists would still not know that their offerings were stolen from the mission board, and not repaid.

The incident also revives questions San Antonio messengers raised about the IMB's recent audits.

IMB President Jerry Rankin's claim that the audit procedure used last year, was adequate, no longer seems satisfactory.