BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I'll be interested to see how CBF, if they make the effort, puts something like that into place without stepping all over the local church autonomy that is usually the cornerstone of any position they take. A database, or even a website, is only useful if a church decides to consult it, or decides to contribute to it when they encounter an abuser. What Christa and SNAP have been advocating is a system whereby the credentials of such clergy are removed so that they can't move on to another church. The SBC doesn't have, and never will have, that kind of authority. The registry will be difficult enough to figure out.

Instead of pawing through piles of resumes to find a pastoral candidates attendance figures, pulpit committees need to be trained in making phone calls that get around the three references provided on the resume, just below the line that tells you during his tenure, the Sunday School attendance went from 120 to 600.

Ed: Sandy, has a valid point in saying that Patterson was preaching to his own. WHY would ay one expect him to set his sail to other than a fundamentalist tact. It is further evidence that SBC Seminary presidents do know on which side their bread is buttered.

But when Sandy writes "Does CBF have a central clergy sex abuse registry? If ABP is such an excellent source on the issue, shouldn't they have prompted CBF to become pro-active in this area? Maybe they need to get their ducks in a row before badmouthing Patterson and the SBC. But I sure don't expect that to happen."

He demonstrates again that he has never understood CBF, has no authority over any one other than it's employees.
And that ABP is not owned or operated by CBF, nor does ABP have any form of control over CBF . CBF in my experience does not get involved in local church operations. And I have no idea in what "'area" Sandy feels ABP should have prompted CBF. And I am not sure where Sandy sees ABP badmouthing Patterson and the SBC.

And Sandy in the over 20 years that CBF has been around how many of the supporting churches do you know of that have experienced the problem of clergy sexual abuse?

Sandy, at the very least, you have to admit that Patterson left much not absolutely clear in his address. A chapel service is an oft-quoted forum. I remember Bill Powell having mined chapel addresses at Southern and Southeastern for out-of context statements that he thought showed liberalism, so reading chapel addresses is nothing new. Of course, Patterson is a big boy. He can take care of this himself.

Ed: Sandy since you claim "I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city" would you tell us how those cases where handled? And what in the wold did I say about CBF that makes it even "a little bit" inconsistent for ABP to bring in someone who is critical of the SBC's reasoning for not setting up not a registry of the type Christa and SNAP demand. ABP is not the only entity of the 4th Estate that frequently quotes Christa and other SNAP operatives.

Ed: Again Sandy, In the initial story that is the basis for this thread ABP did no interpretation of what President Patterson of SWBTS meant in his address to students. They simply quoted him at length. As the president of the SBC's largest of 6 seminaries and Past president of the SBC there are people ( both friends and foes) who are interested in what he has to say. ABP gives them that. Do you for some reason believe that Southern Baptist at large are not intelligent enough to know what he meant? If so you do them a disservice.

As I said in the previous post Why should any one have to ask an educator, preacher, denominational leader what he meant? He is supposed to communicate the 1st time around.

Sandy wrote "I said that the chapel message should be interpreted by the setting in which it is being given. ABP's apologists are saying that the door was left open when Patterson used the term "abused." I don't know where the open door would lead, but in the context of the message he was delivering, it wasn't clergy abuse."

Ed: It seems to me that every one who has responded realized that the setting was Southwestern's Chapel where Dr. Patterson was instructing future pastors and other church workers how they respond to curious outsiders in the future.

If he had reservations as to the type of abuse he was talking about he needed to make that clear. But are you under the impression that he meant it is OK folk to talk to the press about clergy abuse? How can you not know where the open door would lead, you have been reading about for a couple days. How does the context exclude clergy abuse.
But let's for one moment let pretend it was "janitorial" abuse, do you think Patterson would say it is Ok to talk to the press? As I understand what I heard on the replay, he was saying if it occurred in the church (among staff and/or members) it is off limits. One is to forgive and forget.

Ed: Sandy I have told you that I have listened to the chapel address and Patterson is not at all clear about what abuse he is or is not talking about. There by leaving it open to the interpretation of the listener.

And Sandy, you ignored this question from my last post "But are you under the impression that he meant it is OK folk to talk to the press about clergy abuse?

http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm/resource ... nMVIeI7CSo

There you go. Get through the whole thing, and then you tell me if he was saying anything about clergy abuse in anything close to the context that ABP attempts to set.

Well, perhaps Patterson was mistaken in at least part of his message. There are those in the church who apparently never think they make a mistake, especially if they are associated with CBF or any entity that receives support from it. Though it's clear that the series of articles ABP has run directed at criticizing Patterson for this particular chapel message completely missed his context and his meaning, they must not be criticized for their shoddy journalism or for their continued attacks on Patterson in spite of their years old promise to be something other than the anti-SBC. Trying to justify what they're doing with the excuse that "he did it first!" is a victim mentality.

There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.

If you look at the title of the chapel message, and the content, it is easy to see the context of Patterson's message. Allen tries to draw the conclusion that Patterson is advocating "covering up" church conflict issues, and ABP moves the whole context into clergy abuse. Then they use the context of Patterson's message to draw a conclusion that he clearly didn't make, in order to criticize him. Patterson correctly interpreted the scripture as it related to taking church matters to the secular courts to resolve, and included practical applications of his interpretation. The ABP piece, and their follow ups, take this out of its intended context, in order to be critical.

Of course, here, ABP, and anything else run by the Baptists who opposed the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, are perfect, and so there were no misquotes, they got it right, and Patterson needs to get his act together. Because they said so.