A little more than a day after receiving information from J.D. Greear on the 10 churches named in the Houston Chronicle’s series of articles, the Bylaws Committee of the Executive Committee issued a wholly inadequate response that called for further inquiry into three of the churches, absolved six of them by saying that no further inquiry was needed, and pointed out that one of the churches was not SBC-affiliated. (The offender in the non-SBC church moved from an SBC church after committing the offense, so it is easy to see how the Chronicle did not figure that out.)
This report cannot stand and must be disavowed by the Executive Committee. It is an embarrassingly inadequate response to the situation. J.D. Greear stood before the EC and set a course for a new day in our response to this sexual abuse scandal that has been exposed in recent years and brought to the fore by the HC article. The timing was providential. President Greear and the Abuse workgroup have been working on a response for months and were planning to bring a report at the EC meeting. The Chronicle articles appearing a few days before the meeting can only be seen as the hand of God.
No one in the SBC supports or promotes the abuse of women and children, but there are some who resist taking the transparent, difficult, radical steps that J.D. Greear and the Abuse workgroup have recommended. Our president has signaled that it will not be business as usual, that the days of sweeping things under the rug, of making excuses for evil, of coverup, delay, and distraction is over. He is determined to lead with transparency, to deal with issues forthrightly. When the Chronicle named churches, he named them in his report. The Bylaws committee took this information and spent a day or two engaged in some conference calls and issued a report.
They were clearly out of their depth. They are not investigators and should not have attempted to engage in this. A genuine investigation would have taken weeks or months, not hours. Because they were overmatched they issued a report that is fundamentally flawed, has caused embarrassment, and must not be allowed to stand.
Case in point – they cleared Trinity Baptist Church in Ashburn, GA and recommended “no further investigation” of that church.
David Pittman claims he was molested by a youth pastor in his church many years ago. Because of Georgia’s “generous” (to the pedophile) statute of limitation, the pedophile could not be brought to justice. In his devastating article, “Pedophiles are Like Serial Killers,” written October 1, 2012, he names his abuser and tells his story. He contacted two churches who had hired the abuser, and those churches dealt properly with the situation (thank God) and dismissed the man. But he found out that Trinity Baptist in Ashburn had this man on staff (first as an employee, then as a volunteer). When he contacted Rodney Brown, the pastor, and people in the church, they refused to remove the pedophile from his position. It seems he may have gone from paid staff to volunteer, but retained his leadership role. The pastor was very angry, not with the pedophile, but with David Pittman. He reports that the pastor told him that he was a “bad person” and confronted him for “destroyed my church.” I watched a message the pastor preached after his church was named by Greear. He never mentioned the Chronicle article or the fact that their music leader was a pedophile. He cast the church and himself as victims of an unwarranted attack. He relayed that employees of the EC, the Georgia convention, and his association expressed apologies and their support for him against Greear’s attacks. He admitted to Baptist Press that the music leader had confessed long ago to molesting ONE child but said he had repented and should be forgiven. Pittman claims to know the names of at least eight others who have been molested by this man. Again, because of the statute of limitations, this man cannot be charged.
The facts, with some variation in details, do not seem to be in dispute. A Georgia church uses a known pedophile as a music minister/music leader and the Bylaws Committee said, NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS WARRANTED. If the pastor is to be believed (he left a lot of facts out of his “sermon” and shaded things to suit his story, so I have questions), he received apologies from an EC representative and support from the Georgia convention and his association.
The Bylaws Committee cleared this church though they have a KNOWN pedophile in leadership. Read that last sentence again! One more time. You read it correctly.
Here is what I think:
1. The Executive Committee must officially repudiate the Bylaws Committee report. They cannot accept a report that exonerates a church that uses a known pedophile in leadership.
2. The Bylaws Committee of the EC is unqualified to do such investigations. They may be adept at rewriting passages of our governing documents but they are not qualified to investigate allegations of abuse. They set up inadequate standards for the investigation and failed to conduct a genuine investigation. They are simply not set up to do such an investigation.
3. The EC must form or employ an outside investigation of these nine allegations and any that come in the future. Willow Creek church denied the allegations against Bill Hybels for a long time, then as pressure mounted they formed an outside group that did a thorough investigation. That group finally brought back a report this week that confirmed the allegations of the accusers.
We need a group that understands Baptist polity but is not subject to political pressure, one that will investigate Second Baptist of Houston as thoroughly as it will Trinity Baptist of Ashburn.
4. We must remember that we are a people of grace. There are some of these churches that have failed in the past and have done the right thing since. These churches should not be punished but honored for correcting past errors. Isn’t that what we are about? Sin. Repentance. Renewal?
I am old enough to remember when many genuinely thought it was best for everyone if we swept this stuff under the rug. That was wrong and it hurt people, but it was thought to be best for all. If people made mistakes 20 years ago (or 40 years ago, or 4 months ago) they should admit them, correct them, repent to the victims, and then enact policies that will help to prevent such mistakes in the future. Some of these churches seemed to welcome Greear’s attention as an opportunity to clear their name and explain that they had established proper policies and guidelines. In the BP article linked to above, the Arapaho Road Baptist Church of Garland, TX stands out as one that has taken intentional and definitive steps to correct past errors. They even thanked Greear for his leadership in this!
Churches that are doing right now should have no fear from the Greear recommendation.
5. The Abuse workgroup is doing great work. The EC needs to act to make it clear that it will put its full weight behind President Greear and the Abuse workgroup and that it will seek to implement recommendations as best it can. We must be faithful to our doctrinal traditions as Baptists, but in this area, we must make a clean break and begin a whole new day. J.D. Greear is leading us to do that, along with the Abuse workgroup, and we should take their recommendations seriously.
President Greear reminded us that ministering to victims is more important than defending the reputation of the SBC. Every action we take must flow from the heart of Jesus Christ, reflect his love and character, and seek to live out the demands of the gospel in this world. Literally, the world is watching us. We need to get this one right. The Bylaws Committee did not and we simply cannot let that stand.
Two developments.
1. Tom Hammond, the Executive Director of Georgia Baptists has issued a statement clarifying his statement of support for Rodney Brown and Trinity Baptist. He says he was not aware of the facts and apologizes.
https://christianindex.org/hammond-statement-trinity-baptist-church/
He also says the abuser has been dismissed from Trinity Baptist.
Excellent statement.
2. Ken Alford has resigned from the EC.
I read Thomas Hammond’s statement and as a Georgia Baptist I am VERY thankful for his clarification and statement about his response to Trinity. His transparency was humble and appreciated. It is sad that the child molesting minister on staff at Trinity was only now let go. As Hammond said (I believe) there is still work to do at Trinity. Dismissing this staff member is a good thing but the fact that it was done ONLY after public outcry shows there are deep and fundamental flaws at Trinity.
I spent most of my professional career, before entering ministry, as a child abuse investigator and I can tell you that child molesters do not change and they are expert predators. They hunt at churches because churches are easy prey for child molesters and often pastors are very easy for molesters to manipulate.
I believe as much as churches need training and policies and systems (and I wholeheartedly support the efforts to build these in.to our churches), pastors and church leaders need some real, practical training on how to respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse.
This is Dave’s take but I fully agree and would gladly cosign.
Great minds…
Or…
What most disturbed me were the leaders who were “outraged” that their churches were named publicly by Greear. (This, I suspect, had something to do with the committee’s swift response–perhaps being pressured quickly to “exonerate” as many as possible so that there would be no cloud over them.) These leaders did not seem to get that Greear was providing their churches, already named publicly, with a platform to share their sincere repentance and steps they had taken to address conditions that enabled the abuse. You are correct, Dave. We have too many who are steeped in the ethos of wanting to sweep sin under the rug and move on. We seem unwilling to share our brokenness with the world and our evangelism is paying the price for it.
Some of them actually took it as an opportunity to show they had made necessary changes.
Complete agreement. As an aside, 12 of the 15 postings on the SBC Jobs page dated 2/28/19 are for youth/student/children pastors. Is a purge underway? Is this a sign of more trouble on the horizon?
I wouldn’t go there. Youth positions are normally the most open and tons of churches are looking for full/part time people to fill them
But there is a need for careful vetting and oversight of youth pastors.
Dave, You are spot on! Thank-you for writing this carefully crafted, timely response to the EC. I pray they all read it with open minds and retract their response. The fact that unqualified men try to investigate abuse/rape is why we are in this mess in the first place. I appreciate your leadership in this and your compassion for the people who have been harmed.
A friend challenged me a bit on the question of an independent investigation or inquiry.
I want to make something clear. I am no expert on this. I know that. I think the same is true of the Bylaws group and most church leaders. We are not competent to investigate these things.
My primary point is that the report we have is not adequate. I would ask the abuse group to devise a process for investigation.
Does the EC have SBC constitutional powers to investigate churches that do not seem to be handling sex abuse cases openly and straightforwardly? If not, should we grant them this authority with a constitutional or bylaw change? Or, do we put lawyers on retainer in all of our state conventions to investigate accusations of clergy sexual abuse? I’ve heard any number of people argue that we routinely dis-fellowship churches that call woman senior pastors or are LGTBQ-affirming. But these are different cases since a church that takes such action is usually proud of their decisions and do so openly. No SBC church is going to proudly affirm sexual abuse by a clergy/leader which makes it harder to deal with.
Like most Southern Baptists, I believe this is an evil that must be dealt with. However, are we ready to turn the SBC Executive Board into Big Brother?
Thanks for writing this, Dave. If the facts you shared are basically accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) then the by-laws committee investigation should indeed be rejected. In fact, their report is so terrible I wonder if it might be appropriate for some of them to resign? We need leaders with courage, strength and wisdom. May God help us.
The Georgia church was NOT reported in the Chronicle, was it?
Sort of. David Pittman was, but because there was no conviction they chose not to mention the church or the
pedophiles’s name.
So he publicized names nationally that the Chronicle had not. Ooof. That little detail matters.
And here’s why it matters: given that the church had not been publicly identified previously, I now suspect the speed of the report was to minimize JD’s and the EC’s exposure.
According to the transcript JD explicitly said his statements were “as a member of the EC.” And then he named churches (and implicated ministers) publicly that had not previously been reported in the Houston Chronicle. In the case of this church, especially, there is no public record to verify. The only way to determine facts would be investigation.*
And if, heaven forbid, that investigation revealed months down the road the accusation was even partly incorrect, there would be … a problem worth at least five or ten questionable Dead Sea scrolls.
Standard advice in responding to statements that *might* turn out to be wrong and damaging is to get a clarification about the statement as fast as possible. In many states, it eliminates the risk of punitive damages. https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/early-mitigation-of-defamation-damages-2012-10-23/ The BLWG report was a fast clarification in questionable cases.
I support naming names. There are ways to do it, carefully. Not looking like this was careful.
* I don’t think the Committee had the pastor’s quote to BP in making its decision, where he (apparently) admits knowing the man molested a “young teen.” That’s probably enough to reopen an investigation, but I assume even then, our goal here is never disfellowship.
The story was published, naming names, in 2012. It was a known story. As I understand it, JD had a set of documents, from the HC, with the information on the churches.
I have no doubt that the fear of lawsuits drove this but the idea that this was somehow a secret is not credible.
“Secret” has nothing to do with the legal rule here. You can still be a private figure if something isn’t secret.
The Chronicle’s (well-paid) lawyers would only let them publish convictions, and would not publish this church’s name. Do you think that’s because they were fans of covering up abuse? Poorly advised?
Jon, I’d like to understand better the point you’re making. Pittman publicly claimed back years ago that Frank Wiley had molested him, numerous others (7 or 9, I believe) had come to him (some willing to go public and their names were published), the names of other churches and a school system that had fired Wiley upon learning of his accusation, that Wiley had confessed to church leaders molesting one child, where (Trinity Baptist) Wiley was currently serving in a church leadership role, that the pastor and others at the church were aware of the accusations and confession, and they allowed him to serve as music minister.
All that is before the HC article appeared. The HC tells Pittman’s story, but doesn’t directly name the church or Wiley. You’re saying that the SBC is somehow now bound to only heed what the HC lawyers allowed them to publish? How does the HC article become the only “admissible” evidence the bylaws workgroup is allowed to review before determining if further inquiry is warranted?
There are basic facts that are not in dispute, and were even confirmed by the pastor to Baptist press (that Wiley had confessed to molesting a child “years ago” and the church, knowing that, had reinstalled him in a ministry leadership position).
The SBC isn’t allowed to act (or even speak) unless a newspaper publishes something? That’s not a standard I’m willing to accept, for exactly the reason we see here.
So, JDG has time and ability (and receives kudos here ) to find the name of a church *not* specifically mentioned by name (what does this do to the ‘cat was already out of the bag defense’, btw) in the HC article, but is given a pass for not researching whether the ones actually named in the article were even southern baptist or if they’d cleaned up their act? You Can’t have cake and eat it too. Either, as the voices editorial team is putting foward, he presented a well researched A game or he didn’t. (BTW, I don’t think it was an D or F game either)
It’s looking more and like JDG Set in motion a scrambling and rush job by what I still continue to characterize as a righteously zealous and well intentioned overstep. It’s possible to do the right thing in the wrong way. He was right to call the EC to action – he was right to convey lament and seriousness and an unwillingness to look away from an ugly and undesirable task – but it seems he erred in the way he did it and set in motion a cascading set of events that are, to say the least, regrettable.
Voices editorial team?
Who are you talking about? I have written an article. Dave has written an article. Brent has written an article. William has written an article. No article has been published by a Voices Editorial Team. When one person says something, that does not mean that every person associated with SBC Voices agrees completely.
Even when you’re all saying the same things?
Even when different members of the editorial team say “I agree”?
You ought to see our private discussions – we often disagree. We even express that publicly. We share a lot of similar opinions but disagree on a lot of issues as well.
Yes, Tarheel Dave, it’s possible to do the right thing in the wrong way.
It’s also possible to see some minor missteps (like including a church that is not SBC in the list) and then criticize and play Monday morning quarterback. I’ve been in the middle of a situation like this. It’s hard. There are lots of people involved. Lots of moving pieces. A lot is at stake. Inaction can be as bad or much worse than bold action. But in taking bold action (or any action) you are almost bound to make some mistakes, even if you’re basically doing the right thing the right way. The last thing that’s needed at a time like this is Monday morning quarterbacks. What’s needed is leaders with courage, strength, and wisdom and people to back them up instead of pulling the rug out from under their feet while they are struggling to do what’s right and basically, mostly going in the right direction.
Playing Monday Morning Quarterback is a favorite pastime for many, Mark.
It is easy to sit back, while doing nothing, and criticize and nitpick those working to make a horrible situation better.
Better to say, “Let’s get this thing fixed.”
Doing nothing?
Who is an advocate for that?
Some of us work very hard in our local churches and in our associations dealing with these very issues… Others write blogs.
If that’s your definition – then – by definition – Are not those criticizing the executive committee work group playing “Monday morning quarterback”?
And the only reason I brought up the non-SBC church in this thread… Is because on the one hand JD is being lauded for presenting a rock solid list of churches…using data “already out of the bag”..Except the name of that church that is rightly causing such angst… wasn’t a cat out of the bag… while there is absolutely no allowance for criticism of the… As you called it …. simple missteps.
It appears that to some JD must be announced and heralded to be completely in the right… Or you do not support him or you are a hater of him… Or worse you an aider and abater of predation.
> There are basic facts that are not in dispute, and were even confirmed by the pastor to Baptist press
Until that statement, though, they are just Pittman’s allegations. If the BP quote (post-BLWG) is accurate, that’s something the EC can consider. It’s a statement from the church about what it did. We’ve done the same on questions of LGBT issues, women pastors, etc.
>You’re saying that the SBC is somehow now bound to only heed what the HC lawyers allowed them to publish?
No. My point is that the EC’s reaction isn’t anti-JD or anti-victim or pro-coverup. The Chronicle is not anti-JD, or anti-victim, or pro-coverup, and it did not do what JD did. And if the Chron’s reporters did something similar, it would rush to clarify, too.
There’s no limit to what the committee receives or hears in private, just as there is no limit to what the Chronicle can consider inside. The difference is spreading damaging statements beyond those who investigate or decide for the EC.
To oversimplify, there are two rules for defamation, for public and private figures. You can say what you want about public figures as long as it isn’t with “actual malice.” But if you “oops” about a private figure, in a context without privilege, you’re on the hook. The law is murky about how one becomes a public figure. It’s not enough to be of public interest; it also asks whether you put yourself in the public. Arguably, Trinity didn’t put itself in the media on this, JD did.
And it’s easy to be not entirely correct. “Committee, David Pittmans’ allegations are worth investigating” is one thing. But “Church X hires sex offenders” is akin to handing out Publisher’s Clearinghouse checks from offering plate money.
It’s also easy to make false light associations. The EC said it would investigate situations involving convictions or clear legal violations. That’s progress, but not yet the right Baptist rule. Ben’s comments suggested the EC’s lawyers weren’t done tinkering yet, which seemed right. But at the same meeting JD publicly identified ten churches, six of them not involving these legal violations. One hadn’t appeared in mainstream press. The confluence of those two events meant the EC needed to clarify RIGHT NOW that it wasn’t accusing six churches of legal violations under its new rules.
> The SBC isn’t allowed to act (or even speak) unless a newspaper publishes something?
Not what I said. The law protects internal statements as we do SBC business where it must be done. But not all our careless public statements. He could say he was picking ten churches out of the Chronicle and referring them to committee. He could say “I’m concerned about Pittman’s accusations.” Could call executive session and unload. But careless, public “name ’em and shame ’em” can reward abusers without protecting victims.
Input box says I’m too long, so let me clarify that JD did not say “Trinity Church hires sex offenders.” But I’ve seen commenters here that are careless between “offender” and “abuser.” That precision matters in some contexts, to the tune of millions of dollars.
All he did was say they needed to be examined.
I still contend, and am hoping and praying, that the missteps (I don’t think any were done with ill intentions or Gross incompetence – like I said there’s lots of scrambling going on) can be fixed – but I fear they won’t until and if several people (from JD, to the workgroup, to some bloggers) are wiling to eat some crow.
In my opinion, what has happened after the report is worse and unacceptable. The EC and Thomas Hammond apologized to Trinity Baptist who has admitted having on staff as a music direction a pedophile. Pastor Brown wants JD Greear to apologize to Trinity. This is beyond craziness. See video at 30 minute mark. Information received from SBC Explainer. https://www.facebook.com/tsbc.ashburn/videos/366278843959037/
Amen Debbie!
sOMEONE NEEDS TO ARCHIVE THIS VIDEO!!
L Lee if you ever need a copy let me know.
I referenced this video in my article but decided not to link to it. Now that you have…wow
I have watched the video. It seems from what I can tell the EC Bylaw Committee never contacted Trinity Baptist to even see what transpired. Am I the only one thinking this?
That appears to be the case. The committee spoke only of their conference calls and Trinity’s pastor made no mention of being contacted by the Bylaws committee.
If that’s true Dave, then there must be something done. How can they determine no further investigation needed when they didn’t even do any investigation?
That is an insightful question.
I am so glad that some in SBC leadership are starting to get this. People have been saying things for years. Greear was one of those who was silent for many years. He was a big Mahaney backer. I understand he has removed some previous Mahaney content and praises from his church’s website and social media.
Trashing victims who were speaking out is the thing I have never understood. I can understand legitimate debates about procedure, authority to do any investigations etc. But what you usually find is not only sweeping under the rug, but also trashing victims. I never got that.
But here we are.
I have to admit that I have not followed the details of this really closely from a legal or procedural standpoint.
I am not that interested in the “Greear is great. The EC is poop” comparisons. For obvious reasons.
Some questions/issues/points, in no particular order of importance:
A not-so-fun fact you should know. As recently as 2-3 years ago, people from Sovereign Grace were trying to convince the Maryland State legislature NOT to extend the statute of limitations. Let that sink in.
I get the fact that the EC is not qualified to do investigations. But no one in the SBC structure is. In fact, Baptists don’t, and can’t, investigate churches. We do not have tribunals, denominational courts, investigative bodies etc.
I am not bringing this up to be a stick in the mud. It’s just a fact. Our church, which has only been around 25 years, has been fortunate to have started in time when people were wiser. We have had good policies from the get go.
But having said that, if the EC contacted us and said they were going to send an investigation team – to investigate anything, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t tell them to get lost. Not because we have a bad history. Not because we against protecting children. But because we don’t recognize ecclesiastical authority that would allow anyone to investigate us.
I understand the motive and goal and agree with both.
But it seems the procedure might be getting ahead of the right to insist on a procedure.
Perhaps that’s why Greear can say good things, but when you sit down to implement them, it can get hard.
Btw, some of the churches making excuses sound awful. How in the world can you employ someone with this in his/her past? I don’t know, but some churches find a way to do it.
I recently heard of a liberal church that found out about a staff member who had been living a double life for decades. When they found out, some wanted to keep him – for the very reason given in Dave’s post – he was forgiven, and God had equipped him. So who were we to question.
I believe that putting this down in writing is going to take some effort. I would advocate for very simple, explainable tests/standards that would not require “investigations.”
Your church would have the right to tell an investigation team from the EC to get lost. But I would hope that your local association, the state convention, and the SBC would remove your church from membership. Local church autonomy is important, but there is also responsibilities, as well as benefits, to being a part of something bigger.
IMO, the SBC should do as you said if it was readily discernible from publicly available data that we had violated a clear standard.
And that’s what I am advocating for.
If the church has a guy on staff that has a criminal record of child molestation, for example.
But if the standard is discretionary in wording, or it takes true investigatory action that can’t readily be determined from facts that are disclosed by the church or readily available in the public domain, that’s when it gets difficult.
What if the EC wants to take the sworn testimony of officers or staff to assist in fact gathering?
That would be a legitimate basis for an objection.
Dave, if I m not mistaken didn’t the bylaws group use the four main criteria Greear laid out? I’m struggling to understand all this as so much is happening so fast.
They established a criterion- CONVICTED offenders- that allowed churches like Trinity to escape scrutiny. I do not believe that was the intent.
The Abuse workgroup needs to recommend a system if evaluation. This was a rush job and a bad job.
I do not know their motives but they just aren’t competent to investigate something like this.
And I suspect your last line, last word is the key. FAST. I suspect they rushed to deal with this as quickly as they could, including to make it all go away.
Haste was the enemy here. They chose doing things fast over doing things well.
Yes!
Was there any discussion of this work group being unqualified for such a task before their report?
I am not sure anyone knew they would attempt this before the report.
Was the Bylaws Committee charged by someone to do this investigation or did they take this responsibility on themselves? Did the Bylaws Committee set the criteria that they used to evaluate these churches or did someone else?
I am not sure about that
The bylaws work group is the group Greear asked to look into whether the churches listed are in friendly cooperation with the SBC. They are the right group to attempt to answer that question. The problem is that they rushed their inquiry and did a really bad job at least with reference to Trinity Baptist in Georgia.
Adam,
That’s a really good way to put it.
The EC does an inquiry into whether the church is in friendly cooperation with the Convention.
The EC does not conduct investigations.
Ron,
Those are the exactly the questions that need to be answered.
I would prefer that when information has been presented to the EC, that the EC send a letter of inquiry.
IMO the EC should not be conducting investigations, and I do not believe we should use that language.
Brother Dave, you are spot on!
I totally agree with you on this article, and wholeheartedly support each part.
Great wisdom in this.
What stirred the sudden need for action? A newspaper article caused a PR crisis that generated a generic response void of merit or credible investigative before public statements or action. The case discussed at Trinity is sickening but consistent with unwillingness to call out homosexual abuse. The culture prefers “same sex attraction” as it is more welcoming? The tragedy is the SBC has known this for years about these incidents and now wants an investigation to address? Those wanting to hide these events, or exploit for political PR points need to resign. The Methodist survived the embracement of a sick and lost culture by a narrow vote this week. Yes we need investigations but we need strong Bibilical truth to herald loud and clear from the pulpit. Stop apologizing and start with strong condemnation……abuse of young men, women, and children will continue until SBC culture bearers all loudly speak the heart of God.
Rudd:
In response to a recent post about “Who will lead the SBC in the future?”, I answered Twitter.
This episode shows that very thing.
Almost all of the chatter and action in the SBC that is negative is in response to the news and Twitter storms.
If the Houston Chronicle stories had not been published, nothing would have been done.
The sex abuse issue is but one example.
The good stuff in SBC life is the stuff that is driven by theological conviction, planning, and regular order.
The stuff that is driven by headlines and Twitter mobs is generally counterproductive.
But it feels so good to “don’t just stand there, do something.”
Louis
The absence of theological conviction produces nebulous circles of dialogue versus proclamation of Biblical truth which leads to repentance. Thanks for your response.
I hope I am not misreading you and Rudd here Louis, but you do realize we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of abused children, women don’t you. Rape? Evil? In our midst? You bet it’s a don’t just stand there do something. It’s not because it feels good. It’s hard and muddy, beyond painful listening to the stories, facing powerful people and worse, but it’s the right thing to do theologically and otherwise. As human beings with Christ in us.
I thank God every day that the view you are holding(if I am reading you and Rudd correctly) used to be the prevalent and wrong view, but now that has changed. I am so grateful and am sincerely praying daily that it continues.
Debbie:
I’ve been talking about this for a long time.
What I am for is doing things correctly.
When we act to quell publicity, there is a great tendency to get it wrong. The problem is we don’t act for years, then the pressure hits because of publicity, and then we have a tendency to get it wrong.
We need to act, but we need to act carefully.
Hope you get what I am trying to say.
Thanks.
I have faith that JD, Mohler, Akins, etc. have not done to “quell publicity.” I do think Augie and those who put out the statement Saturday acted quickly and to quell publicity and lawsuits. That was wrong. So in this context I do think slowly per your comment is the key.
I do think the Houston Chronicle allowed many to see the horrific evil of these crimes and the numbers which are more than the HC reported, but are staggering. I have followed many of these named cases for years and yet when they were all put together I was overwhelmed by it all. I still am. That should cause us to act quickly. If it takes public pressure then so be it. I don’t think it’s wrong nor do I have a problem with it in this case. There are times when I would agree with you, but this is not the time. These are human beings, children, women, vulnerable people who have lost or almost lost their faith due to it.
I do not want a church or the SBC destroyed from this, but I do want changes, restoration, deep repentance. And your comments have merit in that things should be done properly, but that also means to me protocol and bylaws must change in order for that to happen. That will take time and should be slowly and thoughtfully done.
Debbie:
Those are great comments.
Debbie, what did you make of Danny Akin’s comments to the Chronicle? That Second Houston should not face further inquiry?
Jon: To be honest, I thought it was wrong. But did not undo his stand, he just needs to be aware that those they (Mohler, Jd, Akin) trusted cannot be trusted. They were a big part of hiding abuse cases.
I think the haste here is on the side of the Bylaws Subcommittee. JD when he was elected created a study group which is doing its work with deliberate and speed. JDG after the Houston Chronicle articles asked the group if these named churches should be disfellowshipped. On a one day turnaround the Bylaws Subcommittee gave the all clear on most of the named churches. Their haste in reacting, however intended, feels like a business as usual coverup. That option no longer exists and never should have.
I am only personally familiar with one of the churches on the list. I am quite sure the pastor and the church are embarrassed and angry to be included. I am also sure that the way forward is not for a committee with limited awareness of the facts to rush to the conclusion that all is well. This church needs a careful thoughtful examination of the steps they have taken to avoid another set of children abused by staff members or anyone else. I am tempted to include what actually happened to these little boys since our broad categories like “abuse” don’t really do justice to the actual physical acts. That examination and public report is the only thing that will resolve the situation for the church and for the community. Victims should be contacted since they may have important perspectives that have been ignored.
The SBC needs a careful, thoughtful examination of these churches whose sexual abuse problems have been made public in the sure knowledge that this will not the be the last time that such examinations will be needed. No serious person thinks that the 600 people identified by the Houston Chronicle is anything but a small fraction of the potential victims. We need a process that members and churches can rely upon not a rush to judgement.
Dave is right the report of the ByLaw’s Subcommittee must not stand. It’s bad for the SBC, for the churches in question, for the members, for the victims and for the cause of Christ.
The perception of haste is due to timing. The Abuse workgroup has been working for months. The fact that Greear’s speech came days after the 3rd HC article led many to wrongly assume this was slapped together at the last minute because of the HC.
Not so. The naming part was a response and the presentation may have been shaped by the HC articles, but his report was in the works long before the HC article came out.
If that’s so then why didn’t his workgroup provide a framework for the executive committee to work with or did he? Isn’t his group supposed to provide recommendations on how to handle these things?
If that’s the case – does it not concern anyone that JD’s advisory group could/did not determine that one of the churches was not SBC or that most of the other churches (except the one, and the three further inquiry ones) have cleaned up thier act so demonstrably?
If the EC bylaws workgroup is, as you’ve contended, grossly negligent, in over their heads and not to be trusted when scrambling and acting quickly when this was publicly dumped in their lap by JDG – what does that say about a group who had been working, as you said, for “long” before?
Dave C: Knowing that you are ignoring me, your question has been asked(by you) and answered.
The entire EC should resign.
That is an unnecessary overreaction.
There are at least 3 EC that are not a part of this vote, did not agree with it, and are listening to the victims, inviting them to contact them with their stories to take back to the whole EC on their behalf if I understand them correctly.
I stand corrected.
[…] is an embarrassingly inadequate response to the situation,” blogged Iowa pastor Dave Miller on SBC Voices. Wheaton College’s Ed Stetzer, former executive director of LifeWay Research, wrote […]