This week’s SBC Executive Committee meeting was dominated by the difficult, some would say disastrous, rollout of the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force’s goal of creating a private nonprofit to handle the database.
No further comment by me on that here, but I’m interested in the EC’s vote to exclude four churches. Baptist Press story here. The four churches are:
Immanuel Baptist Church in Paducah, Ky., New Hope Baptist Church in Gastonia, N.C., West Hendersonville Baptist Church in Hendersonville, N.C., and Grove Road Baptist Church in Greenville, S.C.
These churches are officially out of the SBC but have the opportunity of appealing the EC’s decision before messengers at the 2024 SBC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in June. Our rules are that we kick them out but maybe kick them back in later.
The reasons for exclusion are: one has a senior pastor who is a woman, one for lack of financial participation and for not cooperating with an EC inquiry about it’s faith and practice, one for “acting in a manner inconsistent with the Convention’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse as demonstrated by their retaining as pastor an individual who is biblically disqualified,” and one for “based on a lack of intent to cooperate in resolving a concern regarding the pastor’s mishandling of an allegation of sexual abuse,” respectively.
All of these were discussed in the EC committee behind closed doors, so we don’t know details. As a general rule, if the EC is going to exclude a church it should do so with public discussion, even in committee. If the cases involve abuse, then some discussion should be private in regard to survivors. It can get complicated. I see no reason, for example, to not have a public discussion of the church that has a female senior pastor or the church who was excluded for non-support and lack of intent to cooperate about an inquiry.
The EC often doesn’t help itself and this matter of secret discussion is one example that is often repeated.
Question about West Hendersonville Baptist Church’s exclusion and the EC ruling their pastor “biblically disqualified.”
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
Which of these, EC, biblically disqualified that pastor? They did not say.
Is this decision a not binding precedent on future churches whose pastors are similarly “biblically disqualified?” Shouldn’t we build a database of precedents for excluding churches on this basis so we can be consistent about it?
We should. But we will not. The EC, apparently, likes to take things as hoc and move on. Bad idea.
The pastor of the West Hendersonville Church was named and reported to have been on a database of teachers in NC with revoked teaching licenses. The cause was “improper emails” to a student. The license revocation was in 2004. The pastor has served six churches. It was not stated how many of these, aside from WHBC, were since the license revocation.
Question: Is the EC determining that a teaching license revocation for improper emails to a student constitutes “biblical disqualification?”
Within the past decade I am aware of two churches where inappropriate communications (text messages) were sent by the senior pastor in one case and a student pastor in another. Neither were illegal. Both led to dismissal.
Question: Are these two individuals permanently disqualified from pastoral ministry? Would any church they serve be similarly excluded?
The percentage of pastors who say child sexual abuse is permanently disqualifying is very high, somewhere above 80%. The percentage who say adultery is permanently disqualifying is much lower, about one-quarter. SBC churches with pastors who have committed adultery are not hard to find.
Is a pastor who inappropriately emailed a student permanently disqualified? It’s hard for me to say “yes, always, and permanently.” But, since details are scarce, maybe the committee decided rightly. Regardless, the EC should be aware that folks watch to see if they are picking on little guys and little churches while ignoring larger churches and more powerful pastors, i.e., those who might sue.
What do you think?
I doubt there will be an appeal on this case but, EC, if you are going to say a pastor is “disqualified” then state the reasons. You might even look into adultery. Er, lovers of money, quarrelsome. It’s an impossible task. One could make the case for the EC getting out of this business altogether.
