The Southern Baptist Convention seems to have been frozen in time for a few decades, entrenched in doctrinal disagreements, ongoing concerns of sexual and spiritual abuse, and so focused on operational autonomy that renders it unable to police itself. For good reason, a small army has risen to protest the harm this torpor has generated. Their voices are both valid and valuable.
There is a tipping point, though, at which genuine advocacy slips into routine outrage, especially regarding a large and lumbering religious system that has managed to ride by most cultural reforms on the backs of those who have preserved a dangerous status quo.
Among the various social problems facing the Convention, sexual abuse received little attention until very recently. This has been a dangerous and costly gap. My abuse happened 35 years ago, and Megan’s 16 years. Mine was not reported. Hers was and properly so, but then horribly mismanaged. Both of us have almost a birthright reason to disavow the SBC, but we have not done so because we both want to see this season of cultural change and reform succeed, and we believe there are courageous leaders paying attention.
The SBC Credentials Committee released its first set of guidelines yesterday. For the most part, these guidelines seem appropriate for a committee guarding the credentials necessary to be a Southern Baptist church. Some have questioned the guideline that “No submission will be received that is anonymous.” By its wording, this is confusing. Of course the Credentials Committee will receive anonymous submissions; this is guaranteed. Most survivors want anonymity for many reasons. The Credentials Committee, subject to the same wordsmithing all committees face, might have stated it better this way: “Anonymous submissions will not be considered.”
In higher education and in most business organizations, anonymous submissions are received all the time but not investigated. How can an investigation occur when the complainant has no identity and no correspondence can occur? A sensible reframing of this issue would clarify that the Credentials Committee is not an Investigations Committee. Crimes should be reported to law enforcement first, where investigations belong. In sexual abuse cases, the committee can only look for fact patterns, rely on law enforcement reports, and apply criteria to disfellowship churches that do not comply with removal of abusers.
Another way to reframe this particular issue of anonymity, which has quickly become a flash point of outrage, would be for the Credentials Committee to state that if anonymous submissions are received, they will not be considered. Instead, resources could be sent to the anonymous address along with a request for a proxy point of contact. Survivors deserve protection, and a practical way for their reports to be heard anonymously would be through a proxy who can speak for them. Then, the Credentials Committee can open a dialogue to determine if credentials should be removed from a church. Survivor identities would be protected. And the immediate outrage that has emerged over this single point in a policy would dissipate.
Neither Megan nor I are representatives of the Convention and we cannot defend the actions of SBC churches to protect sexual abusers, tolerate racism, or other problematic issues. But as survivors ourselves of high crimes from an SBC church and entity, we ask that the Credentials Committee be given time by SBC members and observers to refine this policy as they begin to deal with submissions. The Committee is a balanced group of our brothers and sisters, navigating a new and complex path. Megan and I also ask that the Caring Well curriculum be given time to soak into the training fabric of SBC churches. Continuing reports of predators do not negate the validity of Caring Well. Instead, they make it even more imperative. Training, education, and better policies are the bedrock of institutional culture change, and all take years to become established.
A predictable pattern may be a rise in submissions, and then as procedures are refined and training and education become more widespread, the frequency of reports will hopefully decrease. But this may take years, not days, and especially not 24 hours. Both Megan and I have waited a long time for the Convention to attend to these problems. Both of us want SBC members and the watching world to continue kicking the tires but let the reforms have a chance to start working. In the landscape of a Convention almost 175 years old, a six-month rollout of a curriculum and a 1-day rollout of a policy calls for patience, even for an institution that has not always shown itself deserving of such grace. As two women who have been severely impacted by the SBC’s lack of action, we ask for patience from all as the system finally begins the process of change which has been needed for so long.
Thank you to Susan and Megan for the leadership you both have shown over the last year. Your conviction and grace are examples to us all. I agree with what you have written here. While it’s hard to trust the process when thing have been ignored and mishandled so horribly in the past, allowing time and showing grace is the only hope we have of working toward a better future.
A great post
Thank you.
It’s why I stay. I have faith also that there are many good leaders, men and women who desire to do the right thing. I also have faith in Christ to purify us. So many things have changed for the better that I can’t give up and don’t think evil will prevail.
Thank you for writing this piece. I agree.
I am currently writing stories of victims in 3 SBC churches. Two weeks ago, I had. to walk back my recommendation that they contact the Credentials Committee with the hope that their situations would be considered. The committee has said they will not report which churches are being considered. Given recent actions by the committee, I do not think that they are prepared to deal with the pain of current victims. Besides they have to deal with racism, homosexuality and other issues which were not named.
These victims have named their abusers and all of them have contacted law enforcement to make reports. I continue to believe that the only way to handle these situations in the autonomous SBC is to report the stories to the media. Lots of people say that the SBC is caring well but I don’t know how that works out in reality.
I am really interested in what Susan, Megan and others might suggest to these families. Is there anyone in the SBC who wants. to hear these current stories with an eye to helping these victims to get justice and receive compassion within the SBC? Where do they go? Is *being patient* the advice that I must give at. this time?
Dee, I think you bring up some great questions. From my view, there’s nothing that stops someone from contacting the media in addition to reporting to the credentials committee (and of course law enforcement if a crime has been committed). Honestly, if I were advising someone, I would recommend they do both realizing the limitations of each.
Dee, You have been “boots on the ground” for a long time. Thank you for being in the trenches in this “unjust war.”
Christian leaders shouldn’t need a denomination to tell them that a youth pastor taking a trip to Las Vegas with an 18 year old is bad… and sinful. Or having sexual relations with anyone they are not married to. Who are our leaders? I mean in the local church and at large.
Thank you, Susan and Megan, for all the good work you are doing. I am not able to articulate my strong feelings on this issue, but I wanted you both to know I appreciate what you are doing.
Susan’s “10 requests for church leaders” was a good summary of some the issues that I’ve observed as a an imperfect sefvant; still fighting the terminal illness of pride. I do believe Susan’s requests were appropriate, well informed by perspective, and offered in the right spirit. A church can do everything technically right and still fail to be a church. I’ve witnessed this firsthand in the area of sexual abuse and other areas. Churches should be driven to mourning, prayer and self reflection by abusive leadership, but they just generally aren’t in my experience. Resolution of individual dissonance is of resolved in the least incongruent fashion and collective dissonance falls victim to ecstatic visions of the future.
I concur with the thinking of Lively and others as represented in the quote from the Houston Chronicle. “Lively and others said that until the SBC confronts deeply rooted imbalances of power — whether between men and women, or pastors and congregants — the abuse will continue.” This imbalance seems to be based on a deeply flawed understanding of authority and the way the church should function; a topic big enough to generate several books. I believe that the implementation of this flawed understanding has a tendency to replace the natural senses and immunities of our Spiritual community with artificial mechanisms in compliance with and for compliance with the Law. The church simply doesn’t function like the church.