Nothing in the past two weeks has changed these facts of SBC life and polity:
- The SBC (and I use “SBC” in the broad sense of the entire universe of churches, entities, committees, boards, organizations, and institutions) ordains no clergy. Only churches who voluntarily cooperate with Southern Baptist organizations ordain ministers. Neither does “the SBC” hire, supervise, and fire local church clergy.
- No body in the broader SBC – not associations, state conventions, the national convention or Executive Committee – puts clergy in churches or transfers them from church to church. Exceptions to this may be found in church plants where funding and vetting and hiring of ministers. Lots of people in SBC life, denominational leaders, megapastors, and others exert influence over churches hiring ministers but they cannot force any church to hire or fire anyone.
- The SBC Executive Committee may have taken upon themselves the task of investigating some churches for their handling of sex abuse cases but they have no authority to discipline any churches found afoul of the standards they have adopted save for recommending they be excluded from being considered a cooperating church. Such offending churches continue to be a part of a state convention and a local association unless these vote to exclude the church also.
- The Executive Committee of the SBC is not an investigatory body. They have no particular staff or skills to effectively carry out investigations of local churches. Churches have no obligation to cooperate with any investigation. The elected members of the SBC’s Executive Committee are heavily male, old, and white. Of 86 members, only 11 are female, and just 4 African-American. Many of these are recycled from other boards and such. Not a few observers find this body to be ill-equipped to handle a matter of this degree of importance.
So what, exactly, is happening?
We are seeing the beginnings of an exercise in leveraging autonomy. J. D. Greear, current elected president of the SBC, is using his position to call out particular churches for their handling of abuse. He is certainly free to use his position to try and influence matters in the greater SBC. I’m glad he is doing this.
The Executive Committee has exercised their autonomy in conducting a rudimentary investigation of ten churches named by Greear. They concluded that three of these warranted further inquiry. These three churches have no obligation to cooperate. The risk is exclusion from the national SBC.
The ERLC, I presume, is primarily responsible for the abuse training that is to be available for free in June (and did I read their website correctly a couple of days ago when the launch date for the training was going to be August?). No church has to use this. It is certainly withing the right (autonomy) of our seminaries and mission boards to require this as a prerequesite to enrollment or granting a degree, or appointment as missionary or church planter. It would be within the autonomous rights of any association, state convention, or the national SBC to require this as a prerequisite to being found “in friendly cooperation.”
There may be a requirement that trustees and elected members of SBC entities have to undergo background checks. I’m not sure the Convention or Executive Committee can impose this on all the various entities.
What is not happening is that the SBC isn’t committing to creating a database or registry of convicted or credibly accused sex abusers. Neither is the SBC Executive Committee agreeing to create and fund an independent group, composed of experts in the field, that will receive and investigate reports of abuse in SBC churches.
I don’t think anyone knows exactly where we are going on this at this point. If the EC is too aggressive, churches will simply relate directly to the SBC entities they value. If the EC fumbles and is seen to lack the capability of appropriate decisive action, then we all lose confidence in them and the view of the general public towards the SBC is further eroded.
Frankly, and this is the opinion of a semi-retired pastor in the distant SBC hinterlands, I don’t see the elected members of the Executive Committee as very well equipped to handle this. I think the EC staff is highly capable of guiding this process but don’t know if there is sufficient personnel to manage it.
__________________
JD called for ten churches to be investigated for their handling of sex abuse. All ten were named in the Houston Chronicle series on sex abuse. For better than a decade Bob Allen of Baptist News Global (formerly Associated Baptist Press) has written hundreds of news stories about abuse in SBC churches. These were done individually and many of them show far worse handling of abuse by an SBC church than those featured in the Chronicle series. It’s a shame Bob Allen can’t aggregate all of these into one grand and sordid article that lists all these churches. I’d include Baptist Press and the state Baptist papers in this paragraph but they have been completely silent on the matter until the past few years, preferring not to let scandal in a local SBC church soil the pages of their news.
I’m an autonomous free SBC agent these days, so I can make outrageous suggestions. Here’s one: cut the SBC Executive Committee in half, from 86 members to 40 or so. Use the savings from not having to pay these guys’ travel expenses to hire staff with expertise in this area. We had a committee of 70 that came up with the Septuagint, right. That’s the last big group that accomplished anything. We’ve got 83 + the ex-officios. Waste of good CP money, I’d say.
Isn’t there 2 trustees from each state convention? Which explains why there’s so many?
By suggesting cutting the number of trustees in half You’d basically be suggesting one trustee per state convention, right?
Not much of a chance of doing anything. Folks love the prestige and paid travel.
Or maybe they like being a part of what is going on? Why imply ungodly motives to your brothers in Christ without cause?
Thanks for this helpful, informative article! I confess that I don’t know a lot about the procedures and rules for various SBC entities. To me it feels like Greear is going in the right direction. I’m sure it’s going to be complex and messy, so we should keep praying for all involved.
Much discussion has been held about organizational level responses. That’s important. Let’s remember our individual responsibility as well. We are all called to guard ourselves, and to guard others, from sin and evil. One practical way to do this is for individuals, and perhaps churches and some organizations, to adopt the “Billy Graham Rule.” This rule basically says that a man will not be alone in a private setting with a woman. I personally make an exception for women who are literally old enough to be my mother. I’ve written just a little bit more about this here (but you’ve already read the gist of it).
The “Billy Graham rule” is an insult against women and not the answer. This is not the problem. We are not the problem. Children are not the problem. Pedophiles are. The Billy Graham rule is useless for this.
How could Ex Comm have conducted any type of investigation in such a short period of time. They just couldn’t have.
Women aren’t the problem , and children aren’t the problem. BUT… a man alone with a woman can lead to problems, or open you up to accusations. Likewise, we do not allow adults to be alone with children, correct?
Appreciate the comment, Mark. One thing for you. We’d rather not have commenters link their own blogs. I deleted the link to be consistent with everyone. Thanks.
Greear is leading well and encountering opposition from those defending the status quo.
“Greear is leading well and encountering opposition from those defending the status quo.”
I agree.
We are autonomous. People can complain about it but it is what we are.
If churches haven’t reported to authorities and done background checks will they magically start if the EC operates a database? It is generally people who do not understand or respect the principles of autonomy who tell us to leave them behind.
But the EC has no authority to ignore autonomy. Calls for them to do that are misguided.
Whatever solutions we find have to work for US.
I believe there are solutions, such as those Greear has advanced, that respect autonomy.
In addition to the screening of leaders for issues, and training on how to handle leaders and issues with them, I would like to see the development of a program for the kids… teach them to identify problems. Teach them when to run, when to tell another adult that they are uncomfortable. This is common place in the secular marketplace, but crickets in the churches. My kids starting getting lessons from the “happy touch bear” in preschool. We need to teach teens about sex… yes, sex. Sex outside of marriage is never ok. Yes, I said it. We need to tell them leaders are not “holy men.” Leaders do not control their spiritual destiny. Only Jesus does. We need to teach them that even leaders like pastors, youth leaders, even their parents, uncles, cousins, etc., can abuse them. We need to teach them to be on the lookout for this.
Maybe reading this would help. https://twitter.com/justsabes/status/1099487608772661249
I respect and like JDG. I’m thankful he is President. I appreciate many of his statements of lament and resolve regarding issues of abuse. I think he’s both sincere and serious.
However, I think his appropiate zeal, brought on by the horrors outlined within the articles of the Houston Chronicle, led him to over step. IMO, he can certainly be forgiven this as it’s clear, to me anyway, that his heart is in the absolute right place. His processes were just flawed.
This is not just my opinion – according to the BP article attached below it seems the EC itself also makes clear in their statement, that by publicly calling out churches without proper evidence and without prior notice, the President has erred….as no one member of the EC has that authority or responsibility… (in his zeal JDG even inadvertently called out a church for Southern Baptist inquiry that is not even a Southern Baptist Church).
I’m glad the EC is taking and recommending reasoned, considered and yes, deliberate action as it relates to churches who by willful action or willfull inaction facilitate predation.
BTW, I fully support the bylaw amendment recommendations regarding abuse (and racism) Slated for messenger approval, as required by the bylaws for revisions, at the next two conventions.
I also want to make clear that I am in no way “bagging on” or “attacking” JDG. I think he erred. We all have done it and do it….it’s not the end of the world – and I happen to think it can be pointed out without being an hater.
http://bpnews.net/52467/sbc-bylaws-workgroup-releases-sexual-abuse-response
Yeah, I get your point…but he did call these out and the EC jumped right on the task of looking at them. The SBC president, the most important elected official we have, is handed a bully pulpit. He used it to good effect. We’ll see where all this goes.
Wouldn’t it have been better ( I *THINK* it may have) for him to call them to action more privately and then join with them in a statement responding directly to the accusations levied by the Houston Chronicle….as it ended up the EC had to issue a statement correcting the (some incorrect) public statements of our convention President.
For goodness sakes the EC explained that one of the churches – under new pastoral leadership has been very open and transparent via their website where they unequivocally denounced the predatory actions that previously took place and shocked their body, they also announced a house cleaning and develped new and better policies – this was easily discoverable (and praiseworthy) by the computer savvy JDG before his publicly calling on the EC to “investigate”…no?
He Could have gotten the same “EC report” without the rebuke had It been handled a little differently. That’s all I’m saying.
“Rebuke” might be stronger than I intend – but I can’t think of another word to use.
Rachel Denhollander tweets tonight that the EC has now destroyed JD’s prior efforts.
I’d say we’re not anywhere close to being done with reports yet.
All this private stuff is why we’re here in part. Public pressure and publicity works. Of course, the abusers and their churches would prefer private handling. Those days are gone.
William,
I trust you’re not implying that because I’ve stated a more nuanced opinion not in lock step with one whom you agree, that I’m somehow suggesting continued silence on abuse and predatory behavior. I’m not.
For you to do that would be kinda like, well, saying “I’m on God side and you’re not” or JDG is “God’s man and you should not question him lest you oppose God.”
I’m simply stating that going public with inaccurate and incendiary public accusation doesn’t advance the cause well.
Simply put. JDG used the Chronicle as his primary (only) source regarding these ten churches and he, as President of the convention, then called them out and it turns He was wrong with regard to 70% of them.
I think knee jerk reactions make the problem worse. We need to find a balance between ignoring/silence and overly reactionary action. I think it’s possible. It looks like, in the opinion of this unknown nobody local Southern Baptist Church pastor, the EC has and is continuing to strike the right balance.
No, I’m not saying that. I get your point. I thought the naming of churches was appropriate.
You assume the factual correctness of the committee report. Where they differ from JD, you seem to assume they are right and he is wrong.
How much research did they do?
Doesn’t this seem a bit rushed for a comprehensive report?
The facts on at least one of these doesn’t support the committee. Have you read the Pittman report on Trinity in GA?
You seem predisposed to take the committee’s side but many question it. Do you have facts to support your pre-judged decision?
Dave,
I’m not wanting to argue over this.
I’ve stated my views, as they stand at this point, and I comfortable with that.
As more information comes to light and made accessible to little ole me – I may find myself reassessing – who knows.
“the abusers and their churches” So now we’re tying the church to its abuser as though the churches are as nasty and wicked as the abuser? The church is also a victim as its fellowship and reputation are destroyed by perpetrators. Many churches have been torn asunder even when handling these situations in as righteous a manner as possible.
I think we have to realize, and most of us already do, that there is a range of church guilt when there is abuse.
1. Some churches were on guard but abuse happened anyways. And once there was evidence they handled an incredibly painful situation well doing all they could with God’s help to bring healing and help to the victims and to protect others from future abuse by the abuser. In these cases the church is not any more guilty than Peter and John were guilty for Judas’ betrayal.
2. Few churches will handle such a situation perfectly, even when they are trying hard. Some churches will have not recognized the evidence of abuse as soon as they ideally should have and may have handled it basically well but not perfectly. They should humbly repent of mistakes they see they made, but they should not be treated as evil.
3. Some churches ignored evidence and cries for help until it was impossible to ignore (perhaps due to the police showing up). This is extreme negligence at the least.
4. Some churches may not have done what they should have to prevent abusers from going to other churches and continuing to abuse others. Some may even have covered up the problem and knowingly allowed and to some degree facilitated the abuser going somewhere else where abuse continued. This is evil.
Each case will be a little bit different. There are surely hundreds of variations to the four broad categories above. And within a given church some leaders and members may have fought hard to do what was right as soon as they became aware of the situation while others may be guilty of looking the other way and essentially enabling the abuse.
I do think it would be healthy for churches in situations like this to welcome and actively seek help from associations, state conventions, and perhaps others. I also think that if there are indications that a church has handled abuse poorly it is right for someone (an association or team from a state convention or other) to ask to be allowed to investigate. If a church refuses to cooperate, that could become part of a case to expel them from associations, state conventions, and the SBC.
It’s complicated. It’s messy. It’s hard. As I’ve shared elsewhere, my wife and I once discovered sexual abuse by a top leader at a Christian college (not in the SBC). Confronting that was one of the most difficult and painful experiences of my 20+ years in full time Christian ministry. It was very costly.
I know enough to know that I don’t have all the answers. But I believe strength, courage, and action are needed. I pray that God will give all our leaders (including in local churches) wisdom, strength, and courage. We need it!
Good points.
Amen Mark Corbett. Amen indeed.
It’s looking more and more like Greear’s method is calculated to put pressure on everybody. So, “ditto” to William’s comment about the ‘bully pulpit’. He may just wanting to be sure everything gets considered. This is not the moment for a tepid response and his statement was a way to try and get things moving quickly.
There is so much to say here. It’s impossible to put it all in one post or comment.
We all would have preferred that leading preachers and speakers talk about this years ago. But whether it was the Daryl Gilyard thing, the “see no evil” and joke about it approach of T4G speakers and attendees or countless other missed opportunities, now the public pressure is such that everyone is apologizing etc.
That’s a good thing.
But a few thoughts.
1. Here, here on rejecting the database.
2. JDG did well in terms of passion and some proposals.
3. Not a bad thing to follow up with the churches named in the Houston Chronicle story. Might put to follow up on the churches named in the Bob Allen story. But I didn’t think JDG’s naming them was a good idea.
4. The Sovereign Grace churches should be removed because they don’t meet the requirements for SBC churches. They are not autonomous churches. They are in an ecclesiastical Union, and have regional and national elder boards. Oh, and they have a chief apostle, like s Pope. I wrote the SBC about this a few years ago, but the YRR influence in the SBC was insistent in protecting them. I wonder if they are now? There are only 3 in the SBC.
4. Ex post facto? Not really for kicking people out for breaking rules that didn’t exist at the time. But if the keep breaking rules, or break them going forward, they should be brought before the SBC for a vote. A vote to exclude messengers from a church doesn’t require EC approval.
5. Still predicting that the future leader of the SBC will be Twitter.
Let me add that the annual meeting is going to be insufferable.
“Look at us here. We are lamenting.”
“We admit that we are really really really racist, mysoginistic, and insensitive to child abuse.”
The poor members of the 16th Street Baptist Church won’t be able to worship in their own building due to the visiting dignitaries from the SBC.
I suspect there will be bus loads of messengers visiting the old B’Ham jail, assuming it still stands. Some may even try to write letters from there so they can identify with MLK.
The resolution committee is stacked with current and former SEBTS seminary contacts. I am just hoping that the resolutions don’t sound too much like AOC and some of the other freshman members of Congress.
I plan on attending the votes on EC recommendations and officers. But will spend most of my remaining time fellowshipping in the hall or catching bike rides or runs at Oak Mountain State Park.
The EC report proves 2 things:
1. The good old boy club closes ranks to protect its own. JD isn’t a member so they Issued this “report” to attempt to slap him down and remind him he’s breaking the status quo. I doubt it will stop him, but it might result in a challenger to his election this year. Which would be ugly.
2. To quote Wu Tang “Cash rules everything around me” There is no way anyone on the EC has the courage to remove Second Baptist Houston. They give too much to the SBC and the antics of Jack Graham and Prestonwood are still fresh on the minds of the EC. Some of this quick “exoneration” is about money. Would not surprised me if there has been private pressure on the EC to report quick and exonerate churches of the good old boys club under threat of another’s CP escrowing of funds.
This whole response looks terrible from the EC. And if there is more info coming, it could very well get worse for them.
This post is an insult to faithful men and women whose motives you do not know. It ought to be deleted.
FYI….JDG is a member of the EC.
FfI 2 – there is no *current* reason anyone knows of – to justify “removing” 2nd Baptist Houston.
Danny Akin told the Houston Chronicle that Second Houston had already said enough to escape further scrutiny. Before the EC committee met.
https://twitter.com/watchkeep/status/1100157025881911296
https://twitter.com/RobDownenChron/status/1100124996926623751