I confess to giving this some thought but without much in the way of an answer. The call is often heard that “the SBC” should relinquish some of its cherished autonomy in order to keep kids safe at church. Here’s how the most recent case was explained.
“The SBC views itself as a network of Baptist congregations, each of which is independent and self-governing. Abuse survivors and advocates say that this doctrine of autonomy has thwarted their attempts to fight sexual abuse in SBC churches, such as through the creation of a denomination wide sex offender database.”
“This clearly paints a picture for necessity of a stronger structure…”.
Any time the general label “the SBC” is used, one immediately senses difficulty. What part of the SBC? What SBC body? What SBC institution or entity? There is no SBC except, as SBC geeks always note, from gavel to gavel at any given annual meeting. The Southern Baptist Convention has to do with convening. Purists will even disavow the label denomination.
If Huffpo says that “The SBC views itself as a network of Baptist congregations” I wouldn’t much argue, though network is fairly new as a descriptive term for our churches. How could any informed person NOT see what we call Southern Baptists as a network, or convention, of independent and self-governing congregations? We are thus, not because we view it as such but because it is and always has been the reality of our cooperative arrangement.
How could churches be persuaded to relinquish some of their autonomy?
Would a denomination wide sex offender database be a diminution of autonomy? I don’t see how it would given that (a) no church would have to pay the least bit of attention to it, (b) no church could be required to submit names to it, and (c) the body that administers it would have no power over any church or, indeed, any minister.
Could the seminaries and other SBC entities agree among themselves to require certain credentials and standing for those whom they hire? They already do, these bodies being themselves autonomous and able to set whatever standards they wish.
Could churches choose to hand over to a state or national body the ability to choose their ministers? I suppose that any church could do so if they wished. What supra-church group would be willing to do this? None that I know of.
Could the Executive Committee in conjunction with the seminaries maintain a registry of all ordained ministers? I don’t know how they could, seeing that no church can be required to inform any SBC body that they have ordained someone. If a cooperating SBC church formally severs ties with our beloved, uh, denomination does that make all whom that church ordained over the years no longer Southern Baptist ministers? Churches ordain. Churches may call ministers with any type of ordination, or no ordination.
Could the EC and seminaries require certain things of all individuals who want to be ordained by a Southern Baptist church? No.
The only concrete proposal I have heard from the sex abuse survivors and advocates is for the SBC Executive Committee to create and fund an independent review body that would be staffed by experts in the field and would receive reports of abuse in SBC churches, review them, and make some determination about them, and maintain a permanent record of all reports. No church would have to submit any names to this group. No church would have to cooperate with any “review” by this group. No church would have to check with this group.
To use the Huffpo wording, every church I pastored viewed itself as an autonomous, independent congregation. They hired their own pastors and staff, whomever they wished for whatever reasons they wished. They supervised their staff. They disciplined or fired their staff. They had their own bank accounts. They owned their own property. They paid their own utilities.
If autonomy is a problem that needs fixing, I have no idea how it could be done. Maybe someone else has better ideas than I do.
SEBTS (and I assume other) seminaries are providing training in these matters and require for it degree completion…what that will look like exactly has not been rolled out to my knowledge.
I think this is a positive step.
I for one do not think local church autonomy is a problem that needs fixing.
Good post William.
Remove autonomy of SBC churches there will be…
Exodus & Removal
Every church I pastored would leave the SBC before giving up their autonomy.
Good thoughts William. I live in a far-far-far-leftist city and even our local SBC churches are mostly no longer holding to the SBC Statement of Faith. (Some churches are still on track, but very few,). My experience here over the past 23 years is that these “SBC in name only” churches won’t give up any of their autonomy. It might interfere with their practice of abusing Scripture. Anyway, I’m continuing to spread the Gospel without modifications….lol
There is no such thing as the “SBC Statement of Faith.” There is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which has been adopted by the executive board and by the trustee boards of the entities directly operated by the SBC. Most, not all, of the state conventions have adopted it or at least reference it. Churches do not have to adopt it or abide by it and adopting it doesn’t make a church any more “Southern Baptist” than not adopting it makes them “SBC in name only.” There is a definition of “cooperating church” in the SBC constitution and the… Read more »
I still believe a positive approach makes more sense. Churches that agree to do what the SBC requires when hiring staff would be childsafe churches and could communicate that to the community.
I’m not certain that autonomy Is the central issue. Redefining what it means to be a cooperating church and refusing to seat “messengers” from non-cooperating churches should resolve the issue without even using the term “autonomy.” It Is, after all, a Gospel issue rather than a matter of church governance.
Agreed!
What are you saying is a gospel issue and why?
What? Everything.
Why? Jesus.
Are you saying that that the gospel is divisible into infinite issues or that everything is the gospel?
No.
OK then! Let’s just hope that we haven’t modified it’s meaning by leveraging it’s meaning as a modifier and mollifier. Maybe people really wouldn’t know what we were saying if we used a different word or just said or did that thing without using a descriptive word at all. Tozer has a great sermon online that really challenged my own tendency toward internal and external trickeration with word games.
Good for you. Congratulations.
One issue here is that dreaded word…
Liability.
Should the Convention decide to regulate, it also becomes responsible for the regulation.
So if churches agree to give up autonomy to the Convention I hope the Convention has a good lawyer and plenty of insurance.
Whoever sets the rules accepts responsibility for seeing the rules are kept. And the responsible party is also liable.
For that reason, I don’t think the SBC will touch church autonomy with a 10 foot pole.
The Roman Catholic Church does not have autonomous congregations.
Yet they have abuse problems.
So autonomy or the lack of it isn’t the key.
The problem is sinners and a lack of diligence on the part of the congregants.
Each of us has a role to play to keep abuse away.
Recently, our church ordained a young man, a seminary graduate and called to serve a church, but I did not report his ordination. To whom would I report it? The SBC and/or state conventions could set up a database of ordained ministers, but I don’t see how that would solve the problem of abuse. I am in favor of the SBC establishing a database of those convicted of child abuse. I agree with the commenter above; a positive approach is best. Award a seal and certificate to churches that are child safe, and that will motivate churches to put in… Read more »
Mark Terry I don’t know about a “Child Safe” certificate. If it turns out something happens, that is fodder for a lawyer, as well it should be. No place on the planet is “Child Safe”.
You should acknowledge the risk that results from our autonomous system. Abusers have easily moved from church-to-church without difficulty. While I don’t see a way to relinquish autonomy, abuse survivors and advocates have long seen the risks. We should to.
Good article William. First, to give up autonomy of the local church would be to cease to be Baptist in that respect, and IMO to cease to be biblical. Second… Good luck to the leaders in doing that, lol, most churches would laugh them out of the room and tell them to mind their own churches business. The SBC leadership has absolutely NO teeth to even start the process. Third, the SBC already has a system in place to dis-fellowship churches that are not cooperating churches and rarely uses it. Actually the only reasons a church would be dis-fellowshipped under… Read more »
I don’t think the SBC will ever be able to enforce doctrinal conformity as a criterion for “cooperating church.” That would violate the local church’s autonomy and it would open up a huge can of worms. There are those within the SBC, sometimes who surface on blogs like this, who would kick out all the Calvinists, or the Charismatics. Where does that stop? What doctrines, specifically, define “Southern Baptist”?
With respect to your point #3, I believe that is exactly the reason liability may eventually accrue to the SBC (state and national organizations). It does appear that leadership is not willing to demonstrate an earnest fidelity to its well defined responsibilities beyond a bit of earnest handwringing and of course, CP giving. When one makes a rule, and a failure to enforce that rule results in harm to another, then it seems that one must accept liability for that harm.
Many evangelical churches and organizations choose to submit to financial standards as certified by the ECFA, Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. As I read this post, I began to think about the possibility of a similar structure for churches and organizations to be certified as an organization that has taken serious steps to ensure child safety. Obviously, this would not solve every problem. But it seems to me that it could be a positive influence for churches to take serious steps to protect children. This could be done within the SBC structure or it could be a broader organization for… Read more »
That’s an idea I’ve seen put forward several times. I think there is an SBC big church bias in discussions like these. The average SBC church of 125 or the median church of 70 is unlikely to add a budget item for EFCA or equivalent (ignoring the obvious fact that EFCA is of little value anyway, IMO). I would admit that many small churches pay CCLI fees, so there’s that. I don’t see any issue with a third party organization having standards that churches and clergy may wish to join, like AIA or the like. Maybe and SBC professional organization,… Read more »
William,
I am agreeing with you here.
One question seems unasked though about a list of approved and/or unapproved pastor candidates or a list of those who have “credible evidence of abuse” etc. Since the “credible” mark exceeds the mark of law would it leave the institution open for civil lawsuits of defamation etc. since it is only credible and not legally proven?
I think a list would be prudent in SBC life but it may well cost the institution responsible for the “list”
Who would compile, maintain, and publicize the list? Who would judge what a “credible report” is? Who would be able to submit complaints and accusations? These are all legitimate questions. There are others.
Underlying all this is the fact that no church would have to cooperate nor use the list.
As usual, you have very good points. Thanks for helping us think through these issues.
Does not the question “How could churches be persuaded to relinquish some of their autonomy?” rest upon an implied assumption that relinquishing some autonomy should occur? A better question would be “Why do Baptist churches so strongly cling to autonomy?” Then we could have a great discussion about “What does the Bible teach about the final authority for local church decisions?” and “What is the final and only locus of authority for making local church decisions?”