Some of you have noted that you saw me standing behind Juan Sanchez as he made his successful challenge to the censure motion made by Louis Cook. I had prepared to make an amendment to the motion and was next in line. Here is what I was going to say if I had been allowed to speak.
“I rise to ask the messengers to remove the name Bart Barber from this motion to censure.
I was saddened when Josh Wester gave his ARITF report yesterday, to hear his frustrations about the lack of support for robust abuse reform among the entities of the SBC. The full and unconditional support that was expressed at the annual meetings has not materialized in reality as the task force sought to accomplish its goals.
The amicus brief was a controversial decision that brought hurt to the survivor community, and has angered many.
Our failure to fully address the abuse issue is shameful for our convention, but censuring our president, Bart Barber, will do nothing to correct that issue. Bart has been a consistent and passionate, even courageous supporter of robust abuse reform.
When the effects of the amicus brief were made public, Bart made his involvement public, and apologized for the hurt it caused. He admitted that he signed it when asked, without giving it the thought he should have. He owned what he did.
Why would we censure a man who has already publicly owned his actions and apologized to those he hurt? The Christian community is built on grace and when someone asks for grace we give it, right? Censure is only an appropriate response when there is hardened, unrepentant sin.
In my opinion, we should not be censuring Bart, but seeking to clone him, to make him the model for future presidents of the SBC. He is a man of humility, of integrity, of a willingness to serve. His two years in office have been a breath of fresh air. I have argued with him enough to know his intelligence, but I have also walked with him on sandy paths through Senegalese jungles and seen him interact with people there. His passion for the lost, for Southern Baptists, for God’s kingdom, is a model. I have seen him admit his sins, his mistakes – he models transparency and humility.
I do not believe our president deserves censure. He admitted making a careless mistake and owned it in humility.
We should not be voting to censure him, but should be giving him a standing ovation to thank him for his exemplary service to Southern Baptists!”
I hope the SBC will renew our commitment to supporting “robust” abuse reform but censuring Bart Barber would not advance that cause at all! I admit that my friendship with Bart and my admiration for him colors this statement, but I am glad that his tenure did not end with a public censure.
I am not a lawyer, and I do not understand the legal justification of the amicus brief, but I hate the pain that it has caused the survivor community. I hope that entity leaders who have not given the support they promised to “robust” abuse reform will change directions and follow through on their original promises.
Again, I am passionately and completely on the side of abuse reform, but I just cannot see how censuring my friend and our president Bart Barber advances that cause.
