There has been a lot of discussion over the last few days about whether JD Greear was right to call the names of specific churches during his recent address to the Executive Committee. The manuscript for Greear’s entire speech has been published here at SBC Voices.
Here’s the relevant portion of the speech:
In media reports over the last week, churches who are currently in cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention were alleged to have displayed a wanton disregard for the seriousness of abuse.
In some cases, they were alleged to have directly acted in a manner that was negligent at best and malicious at worst.
Either way, if the alleged reports are correct, we’ve had churches that operated out of alignment with gospel practices articulated by our BF&M.
In the interest of being above reproach, we should perform due diligence to verify whether or not these churches are indeed operating with a faith and practice that upholds the Baptist Faith and Message, specifically Article XV, which says that we should seek to provide for the abused.
I urge the bylaws workgroup of the administrative committee to take the necessary steps to determine whether the churches named recently in the news meet the standards of having a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith as outlined in Article 3 of the SBC Constitution. And the entity heads agree with me and stand with me.
Now, I want to step aside and say something as President–not speaking on behalf of the entities, or anybody but me. I say this as a member of the EC, based on my reading, our inquiry should start with:
- Arapaho Baptist Church, Garland, Texas
- Bolivar Baptist Church, Sanger, Texas
- Brentwood Baptist Church, Houston, Texas
- Cathedral of Faith, Houston, Texas
- Eastside Baptist Church, Marietta, Georgia
- First Baptist Church, Bedford, Texas
- Second Baptist Church, Houston, Texas
- Sovereign Grace Church, Louisville, Kentucky
- Trinity Baptist Church, Ashburn, Georgia
- Turner Street Baptist Church, Springdale, Arkansas
And any other churches that receive similar allegations. Again, please note, I am not calling for disfellowshipping any of these churches at this point but these churches must be called upon to give assurance to the SBC that they have taken the necessary steps to correct their policies and procedures (if applicable) with regards to abuse and care for survivors.
It is my position that Dr. Greear was right to call the names of specific churches to be looked into by the Executive Committee bylaws work group. That has not, however, been my position all along. My thinking on this particular subject has shifted some since Dr. Greear first delivered his speech.
My first reaction was that it would have been better for Dr. Greear not to name specific churches. We definitely do not want to establish a precedent for SBC Presidents calling out specific churches whenever they decide to do so. That could become a problem very quickly. The SBC president is not the pope. He doesn’t have any authority over the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. SBC churches are fully autonomous, and convention leaders should not seek to interfere with that autonomy.
However, the fact that the Houston Chronicle had already published the names of these churches caused me to become a bit more ambivalent concerning Greear’s naming names. If pressed, it was probably still my position that it would have been best had Greear not named the churches, but he wasn’t exactly calling them out. The churches had already been named. He was just repeating the list. What’s the big deal?
Upon further reflection though, I think Greear was right to call the names of specific churches for the bylaws work group to look into. I think this was right for at least four reasons:
1) It was a sign to victims and victim advocates that things may actually be changing in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Without the naming of specific churches, Greear’s speech would have largely been viewed as empty platitudes. That’s not a reflection on Greear or the rest of the speech. It is a reflection on how the Southern Baptist Convention has dealt with this issue in the past. We talk a good game. And I believe that our talk is normally well-intentioned. But victims and victim advocates have been waiting for action. Naming names was a signal that Greear is serious about taking action rather than just talking.
2) The Houston Chronicle had already named these churches.
There was no putting the genie back in the bottle. The churches Greear named had already been called by name in a major newspaper. The Chronicle’s report had been picked up by various other news outlets. The names were already out there, and Southern Baptists need assurances that these churches have not “displayed a wanton disregard for the seriousness of abuse.”
Without Greear naming the churches that need to be looked into, how could anyone aside from a select few leaders have any assurance that due diligence was being done. Greear needed to name the specific churches. The bylaw work group needed to look into these specific churches. And they needed to issue a report about the specific churches named so that we would all know that the churches named in the Houston Chronicle story were actually examined as to whether they have a faith and practice that aligns with the BF&M2K with regard to abuse.
That leads to my third reason that it was right for Greear to name the churches.
3) The default in Southern Baptist life is to handle things behind closed doors.
One of the things often bemoaned in Southern Baptist life is that major matters are quietly handled behind closed doors without any measure of transparency. Most people realize that there are some things that must be dealt with in confidence. But when it is possible to tell the people, our leaders should tell the people.
That is what JD Greear did. If Dr. Greear had merely presented a list of churches to the bylaw work group without naming them in his speech, is there really any doubt whether we would have ever heard a word about it? The work group would have taken the list. They may or may not have looked into the churches. And if they did, they surely wouldn’t have presented any kind of report. Dr. Greear forced their hand, and really that’s why they rebuked him when they issued their report.
4) Naming specific churches gives those churches an opportunity to tell their story.
The bylaws work group still made a mess of the situation even after Dr. Greear named the churches. The case of Trinity Baptist Church in Ashburn, GA is clear evidence of that. They have an admitted child molester leading the music at their church and the bylaws work group reported that “no further inquiry is warranted.” The pastor has expressed his dismay that his church was named. I’m dismayed that he’s dismayed.
However, other churches named have had the opportunity to publicly demonstrate the steps they have taken to proactively protect children and report abuse if it happens. That is a good thing. Dr. Greear was clear in his speech that he was not accusing the churches named of anything. He was certainly not calling for them to be immediately disfellowshipped. He was calling for the bylaws work group to have each church “give assurance to the SBC that they have taken the necessary steps to correct their policies and procedures (if applicable) with regards to abuse and care for survivors.” That is not an unreasonable request of any of our churches. We should all be able and willing to give such assurance. I am glad that it seems some of the churches named have done just that.
JD Greear is to be commended for his leadership during this difficult time. Sure he will make mistakes. He is human. But I am convinced that naming specific churches in his speech to the Executive Committee was not a mistake. It was a necessary step in the right direction.
Adam, thanks for laying out your case and how your mind changed over time about the question. I’ve talked to others who were not adamantly against it, but still skeptical it was the right thing to do. I’ll be sharing this with them.
One thing I noticed when I read the article from BP about the ways the churches responded: Some were thankful for J.D. taking this step, even though it meant a response would be needed, they welcomed the opportunity to answer, explain, and demonstrate that they’ve addressed real concerns.
The ones that pushed back as angry and shocked – were they not aware of the Houston Chronicle article?? Did they not already know a national publication had singled out those churches? I believe the shock and outrage that someone would take the situation seriously enough to warrant further inquiry points to a serious cultural problem in the SBC on this issue. We should be at a place where those churches EXPECTED that the SBC would follow up.
Or, if my church was named in a nationally recognized article, the church on its own starts an investigation into what happened and what the current processes are to handle and prevent abuse! What parent wouldn’t want that to be done at their church? You don’t have to wait for the SBC to call to start an investigation. I would expect the parents to demand one!
Adam, I agree for the most part and am not overtly against the naming of the churches. Your comments in #3 regarding the “behind closed door” work of the SBC is certainly true and your comment in # 4 that the “bylaws committee still made a mess” indicates to me it would have been better for the committee to have contacted the churches, which they apparently did, but not name the churches publicly. That did not really accomplish anything imo. I (my church) have dealt with some of these issues as have many. We didn’t announce names before we had conducted our “investigation” into the matter. We didn’t ignore anything. We dealt with the issue decisively and corrected the problem. In the future many more churches and individuals will be reported. Names do not need to be made public until a thorough investigation has taken place. Still not convinced the EC can effectively oversee this issue. I agree with most that their first effort needs some improvement, but this is all new to everyone. However they do see to work very quickly. Time will tell.
Imo, your #2 works against your overall argument… Since the Houston Chronicle had already called out the churches then, as you say, The cat it was already out of the bag… my thinking therefore is that calling them out was unnecessary and had he gone to the appropiate EC Committee himself and suggested an inquiry and then released a joint statement with that group relating to each of the churches (To me it would’ve even been OK had he announced that in his speech to the executive committee that he was going to be following up with the executive committee relating to the details of the article)… That would have been a much better approach, imo.
It is also my view that contacting the churches first would also have allievated much strife. Yes, the names were already out there… But it’s one thing for a secular newspaper to have called you out it’s another for the president of a convention of autonomous churches to do so. Notification seems common courtesy to me.
Also he uneccesarily embarrassed himself by calling out a church for Southern Baptist inquiry that is not a Southern Baptist church… A very simple search on the SBC website would have cleared that one up.
To be clear – lest I continue to be misrepresented- I don’t think JD sinned by doing this…I’m not Adamantly or even tepidly against JDG. I would like to think I have been incredibly clear about that…. I support his presidency and I respect him immensely… this is not any sort of attack on him or what he is trying to do in dealing with abuse… I think his heart is in the right place and the vast majority of his words and actions have been spot on … I just think a little better approach might have brought about results without all the controversy. I think the controversy distracts us and also unnecessarily, and once again, pits brothers and sisters against each other into camps… As if the Southern Baptist convention need some more of that!
I’m fine with JD Greear naming names. Those names were already public due to the Houston Chronicle. It simply shows that he wants to deal with this problem out in the open. I’m still wondering why “no further inquiry is warranted” in respect to Trinity Baptist Church in Georgia? They have an admitted child molester on staff……..
It is the most baffling part of this. The story of a man who, according to the man he admitted to molesting, has been out there since 2012. He claims there are at least 8 other victims of this man whose names he knows. The pastor admits that he continues to use an admitted child molester as his music leader/music minister, and yet the committee claims no further inquiry is needed. This is astonishing, and shows me that:
1)They did not even attempt to do an adequate investigation.
2) Their motives in the rushed response to JD’s call may have been other than doing a full investigation.
3) This EC committee likely cannot be trusted, at this point, to do these investigations.
4) The EC has learned *nothing* from the Catholic scandals.
I agree this case seems ridiculously obvious on its face… I don’t understand it… Perhaps the executive committee knows something we do not… Perhaps the Georgia Baptist convention or the association the church is involved know something we do not… I sure hope this is not as bad as it looks and is being reported.
I do not want to ascribe nefarious motives or incompetence to the committee… But I do think it’s reasonable to say : “do whaaaaa” and ask for clarification.
I don’t understand you on this, but it seems nothing will convince you that reality is real. I am not going to try.
Yeah. Ok Miller….I surrender. JDG can do absolutely no wrong or misstep in any way whatsoever….he’s near deity status.
The EC on the other hand is full of cowardly miscreants who only seeek to aid and abed pedophiles! Wonder why? Maybe they have something to hide too!
(Is that what you want me to say?) You “don’t understand me on this” because you have no desire to try to understand me you and your posse only want to pit me as the enemy
Seriously – I Clearly said this case seems so obvious that there must be something we don’t know… Or at least I hope so… i assure you of this ….if there’s not and it is as it appears…. I will cast a vote not to seat messengers from the church if they send them to the convention… And if a motion to remove them can be made and be in order I will vote for it.
Please attempt to comment without putting words in my mouth. I think JD did right here. I never said he can do no wrong.
I do not understand your perspective here and I have given up trying.
Clearly you do not understand me since you are putting words in my mouth and assigning motives to my words.
That is generally my signal to end things.
Assigning motives? Really!?
I disagreed with a process decision of JDG – I support his efforts and the only motives I’ve assigned to him is that I said, despite our disagreement, I believe him to be sincere and serious about this issue with his heart in the right place. Can you say that with those with whom you’ve expressed disagreement – from the EC to yours truly?
If you with a clean conscience can – then OK.
He’s a volunteer and not an employee, so he doesn’t meet rule (a). He isn’t a sex offender, either, because he’s not been convicted (and he wasn’t named in the Houston Chronicle story, I think; you’ll find the story from blogs). He’s not a volunteer in childcare, so he isn’t rule (b). The church didn’t obviously foul up the reporting, so it’s not (c) or (d).
(A little grumble: the proposed EC rule bans hiring any “sex offender.” The offender lists vary from state-to-state and aren’t just sexual abusers. There are some outlier cases, like where teens hit the offender lists for indecent exposure or texting naked pictures to each other. I’m probably in favor of even that person never being a pastor, minister(ess), elder, or deacon(ess). But does a church exit the SBC if it hires them decades later for anything? As a janitor? A sound engineer?)
I’m afraid parts of this production are descending into YRR/Trad Hot Potato. Day 1, the EC adopts bylaws that no one has apparently ever reviewed before they’re on Twitter as a done deal. Day 2, Danny Akin emails JD and the Chronicle to call off an investigation of 2nd Houston that he has no business butting in on. Day 5, a committee rushes to prove just how poorly the EC works as the Baptist Bureau of Investigation. And by today, instead of buckling down to correct it, I see people on Twitter calling for SBC floor action and direct appeals by individual EC members for victim impact statements(!) It’s not going well in any quarter, frankly.
Yeah.
If the rules don’t include this man, there is something wrong with the rules.
“Yeah.
If the rules don’t include this man, there is something wrong with the rules.”
*this*
One of the problems, as Jon points out, is that before the twitter announcement of the “rules” there were no rules specific to the issue of abuse and friendly cooperation.
I will point out for sake of discussion -at lest one voices admin and several commenters (including myself) affirmed these new twitter rules here on voices and on other platforms.
https://sbcvoices.com/sbc-executive-committee-recommends-bylaw-change-disfellowshipping-on-basis-of-racism-or-indifference-to-sexual-abuse/
What twitter rules are you referring to?
I edited my comment and added a link, William.
Amen, Jon.
Missteps abound….it’s not looking good so far. Heartbreaking on a myriad of levels.
I still think it’s fixable – but not without much crow and humble pie eating all around and time may be running out for even that.
Naming names was IMO a good idea since they were named by the Houston Chronicle. I did not realize they were. Few in the SBC will read the Houston Chronicle article.
My biggest concern with the EC response is that they called it abuse vs sexual child abuse. We need to call it what it is! Policies in a church related to suspicion of child sexual abuse and other kinds abuse are different. Sexual child abuse is in many ways far worse than other kinds of abuse…and far more likely to occur within the church than physical abuse or verbal abuse. To simply call it ‘abuse’ minimizes its seriousness.
Adam-
Is anyone as eager to run the recent article from Eastside Bapt in Ga that is on “the list” that appears in The Christian Index?
We have been quick to run to the HC article for salacious details of such gross & harmful behavior, yet a bit slow to offer up where a church has demonstrated grief & change. It seems helpful to this blog to say…here’s one of the church’s timely response to the article in which the church details their corrective steps over the last ___ (time period) in response to the abuse.
I don’t think the mods at SBCV like commenters inserting links in the comments, but it’s common practice to do so as blog entries.
If it’s somewhere on SBCV, maybe I missed it.
Just curious.
This is the one you’re referring to? https://christianindex.org/more-than-its-past-eastside-baptists-steps-child-safety/
Yes it is. Thanks for posting. Maybe other churches will do likewise to show positive steps that have/are being taken.
Good article.
I don’t know what is meant by the BLWG on the ga church.
Unless someone persuades me otherwise, I’m perfectly comfortable with excluding churches that knowingly employ convicted or confessed abusers. Would rather see the local association be more aggressive in this.
We now have the potential to discover many things about a person that we might not have known in the past. Everyone has an extensive electronic and paper record that could be mined to tell us what we want to know. As a father I want to know the people who are responsible for my child’s care and safety when I’m not there. I would never knowingly and willingly leave my child in the care of someone that had known pedophilia issues, but I would apply that same standard to anyone that I’m uncomfortable with for some reason that i can’t completely explain.
As a parent, the most important thing for me in a church is that my child experience and perpetuate Spiritually free and healthy fellowship. That has not always been easy in an age when people seem to be disasssociated Spiritually from themselves, each other, their local church, and the overall body of believers. The fact that this issue is being discussed primarily from an organizational perspective is tragic evidence that we’re missing something. It seems to me that we’re missing the humility to fall on our knees in prayer and mourning when tragedy seems to exploit our Spiritually deficient assemblies.
Maybe public vindication is warranted for victims and maybe a public explanation of our organizational failures is due, but any public response needs to be organizationally complete, Spiritually self-aware, and full of grace.
The following statement would suffice at this point from Mr. Greear. “I mourn the pain caused in the midst of our fellowships and I search my heart to see how I have been complicit as a leading figure in Southern Baptist culture and life. I pray for the victims and their families and I/we ask forgiveness for the ways in which we’ve failed them. We want to truly understand each and every situation mentioned in the Houston Chronicle and others that weren’t mentioned. We’ve busied ourselves with, and spoke about many things that we felt were important, but I’m making the commitment to put a pause on social media, written commentaries, promotional activities, etc. to help fix what has been broken. I welcome anyone who would like to join me in the task of quiet humble service, but I make no demands on the consciousness of others. I will be reaching out to my brothers and sisters mentioned in the Houston Chronicle, both victims and churches, to hear their stories. I expect that I will learn much from those who have suffered and I expect that each story will break my heart. My primary concern is that victims may once again feel our love and the love of God. I/we need wisdom and strength as we seek to make sure that our member churches refleet God’s love.”
“Our greatest sin may have been trying to manage pur image individually and as a denomination. It is my recommendation that we respectfully minimize our communication with the outside world as we get our own house in order. Please pray for us and we ask your forgiveness.”
Pray for JD.
I cut him a lot of slack. Every morning he finds a fresh, steamy, hot pile of you-know-what dumped at his front door. It’s not the time to critique his shovel skills. He’s having to deal with arguably the greatest scandal with the most scrutiny of any SBC president in history.
Pray for the man.
It matters how we deal with this as a denomination both in the actions we take and in how we present those actions to the watching world. At this point the names of the churches are out there and we can debate whether JDG should have said them till the cows come home. It is heartbreaking that in the midst of this so much attention is being given to the “naming of names” instead of to the abuse that took place. These poor “dismayed” pastors need to get over themselves and accept the accountability and responsibility of shepherds and give an answer for what happened. In the case at least as it appears at Eastside in GA lay open for the world what seems to be a very thorough Response. In the case of Trinity either explain what we all are supposedly missing (I don’t believe we are missing anything) or fire your admitted child molesting music minister. Short of that kind of serious response at Trinity there local association, the GBC and the SBC need to immediately move to disfellowship them. But I don’t see that happening since the wise men of the EC have cleared them. How sad that if Trinity had hired a female senior pastor they would have found themselves booted out but the SBC has no problem with a child molester.
I don’t have a problem with him naming names of churches that had already been mentioned in the Chronicle report, which included evidence of why they were named.
I don’t think there’d have been much a fuss about him doing so if it were not for one church named among the ten. In the SBC, there are rules and standards which apply to most churches and their pastors, and there’s a separate set of rules and standards for those who are connected to the denomination’s elite. One of the elite got called out, and, well, in the backward and provincial SBC hierarchy, you just don’t do that. (TIC)
I understand some of the concern about naming names, but unlike Adam (and I’m not criticizing his initial opinion), I have been in favor of J.D.’s actions from the start. Sometimes you have to lay your cards out on the table. In order for sin to be cleansed, it must be brought to light. Sometimes, in order for that to occur, it must be brought into the light of day.
Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, spoke of openly opposing Peter for his hypocrisy (2:11). In Phil. 4:2 he called out Euodia and Syntyche for disrupting the unity of the church. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul outright condemned Hymenaeus and Alexander (whom I have delivered to Satan). He called out Phygelus and Hermogenes for deserting him (2 Tim. 15). Later (2 Tim. 4:10), he calls out Demas for the same thing. He also called out a coppersmith named Alexander. He encouraged Philemon to forgive and even free Onesimus. John (3 John 9-10) condemns the actions of Diotrephes. Finally, in Jesus’ letters to the 7 churches of Asia, he specifically condemns the Nicolaitans (whom He hates). He also scolds 5 of the 7 churches for unfaithful actions.
What we see is a pattern in the New Testament where individuals and communities are called out for their sin in one of a few ways (as a means to warn, as a means to reprimand, and finally as a means to condemn and urge others to not follow that example). J.D.’s calling out of the 10 specific churches can also be seen in the same light. It’s a reprimand. It’s a warning. If you fail to act on the warning, we can and will vote to disfellowship and let you serve as an example to other churches!
The abuse of children by Pastors is a monstrous abomination and the war that will wage must be fought in the light for all the world to see. Yes, our scars will be exposed, but so will our hearts!