The Biblical Recorder reports that the new SBC Credentials Committee has announced a new online submission process to report church misconduct. This comes after the past Annual Meeting and the decisions by the messengers to rework the Credentials Committee’s process and function to allow them to conduct inquiries in the case of churches who are obviously outside of friendly cooperation with the SBC by virtue of mishandling abuse, racism, or other matters of cooperation.
The website for submitting information is http://www.sbc.net/credentials
Visiting the site you start of with two disclaimer pages and a check box to make sure you’ve read a full explanation of what the committee’s role and limitations are. That’s no small task. Even long-time Southern Baptists are likely to misunderstand aspects of the function and abilities of this committee.
There are separate forms for reporting “discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity”, “sexual or other forms of abuse in a church setting,” or “any other matter of faith or practice”.
Online forms continue the process collecting contact information about the person submitting the form as well as information about the church being considered and a description of the situation.
This is an important step for the Credentials Committee. We’ve heard very little from them since the annual meeting, but we can, and I think should, give them the benefit of the doubt that they have been working hard to get this process in place and do it the right way. The key to this is not in the details of the submission process, though I’m very glad to see that now publicly available. This is all going to come down to the committee itself as it carries out the inquiries and makes recommendations.
The main question looming in my mind is how the cautious and institutional the committee will be as they carry out their work. We saw earlier this year what I would call a protect-the-institution mindset from the Executive Committee and the Bylaws Workgroup when they said “no further inquiry needed” very quickly on most of the churches they were asked to consider. This committee was implemented in part to avoid a reoccurrence of that disaster. It will be up to the committee, which is heavily Executive Committee-oriented, to take an approach that shows the SBC is serious about addressing churches that mishandle abuse.
This sounds a lot like a version of what Wade Burleson proposed 10 or 12 years ago.
First step rollouts For big initiatives are often rough, clunky and will have to be amended aa process goes on – just ask President Obama with Obama care… LOL
Seriously, seems like an OK start… I was very pleased to see that they will not be accepting anonymous reports and that any complaint against a church will remain internal within the committee until (and if) it is forwarded to the executive committee.
I do predict that this will become very laborious and the volunteers who have full-time jobs in various parts of the country will not be able to handle all of the submissions that will be made and then our cooperative program dollars will be paying for staff to work for this committee.
I also predict that the “other“ pile will be the largest of the “three stacks” of complaints… LOL
Glad you find this all so humorous David C. It’s not. It’s very serious. Not something to be joking about. The victims don’t feel very humorous on this issue nor do I.
Wow. How you thought I was laughing at abuse is literally way beyond any semblance of reality or rationality. Wow again.
As they say, “The Devil is in the details.”
I agree with a standing Credentials Committee. And I agree with the issues they are addressing.
But this has problems.
First, churches are not legally required to abide by resolutions. Those are not binding. Churches qualify via the Constitution and Bylaws.
Second, what is the standard by which a church will be “convicted” so to speak.
I believe the intent is to have a mechanism for excluding churches where it is abundantly clear.
We have a situation right now where a church by vote under its bylaws did not vote to call an African American candidate as pastor. Some in the congregation accuse others of racism. Query, if the church didn’t call the man is the church racist and therefore excluded?
I don’t believe the Committee is or could be staffed, or should be staffed, to perform investigations like UN groups or the FBI.
I believe this only works where the position of the church is clear and well known, if not confirmed by the church itself.
Finally, do people realize that if they report individuals or churches falsely, what kind of liability they are walking into?
Those are not the problems I see Louis. In fact that is the least of my concerns. Many churches are guilty of hiding predators. Many more will surface.
Numbers show that reporting is credible and the numbers are growing. This is much too vague and confusing. There are many more problems but let’s start there.
Debbie:
Yes. This mechanism should result in the disclosure of any known predators who are in churches and should not be.
And I agree that is a very good thing.