Insights into Southern Baptist perspectives on abuse

[Sandy]

https://sbcvoices.com/should-we-believe-the-victim/

Discussion among Southern Baptists, post-Houston Chronicle, Birmingham SBC Convention regarding the issues of clergy abuse within the denomination. It looks to me like several perspectives are represented in the discussion....

1. If women were just relegated to the place where they were when the New Testament was written, we wouldn't have all of these cases of abuse because they'd just have to keep their mouth shut and not talk about it. They're just property anyway.
2. The ERLC is producing the first curriculum for training churches to minister to abused persons. Russ Moore is head of the ERLC. Russ Moore doesn't like Trump. So we're not going to use the material even if it doesn't cost us anything.
3. "Believe the victim" isn't consistent with Biblical mandates found in the New Testament. No matter that in a case of sexual abuse, the only other person who knows is the abuser and there is no way someone can bring two or three witnesses, scripture should still apply.
4. Yes, both of the better known architects of the conservative resurgence have their problems related to this issue but what they did was a necessary thing, no matter their other mistakes so they can't be held accountable.

[Haruo]

Southern Baptists always did sort of remind me of Roman Catholics.

Sorry. I've got some sarcasm in me.

[William Thornton]

Not sure any discussion at SBC Voices is representative of the SBC but this one features several problems and some positive developments in regard to "the SBC" and clergy/church sex abuse. I put "the SBC" in quotes because critics normally lump together every component of the separate, sprawling but related and cooperative SBC. This is done to either deliberately normalize aberrant behavior across the convention or done out of genuine lack of knowledge and understanding of SBC polity. Sometimes this matters. Sometimes not. Autonomy is a reality that must be dealt with and acknowledged.

Sandy observes these points. My comments following each

1. If women were just relegated to the place where they were when the New Testament was written, we wouldn't have all of these cases of abuse because they'd just have to keep their mouth shut and not talk about it. They're just property anyway.
No argument from me that there are individuals who are noisy and obstinate patriarchialists in the SBC. Some of these comment regularly. There is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a rump semi-independent organization connected with Southern Seminary. They are trying to find their place these days. Not a group I have a lot of confidence in. Across the board - all the seminaries, current leadership, mission boards, ERLC - there is an attitude of intolerance for sex abuse in churches and by clergy.

2. The ERLC is producing the first curriculum for training churches to minister to abused persons. Russ Moore is head of the ERLC. Russ Moore doesn't like Trump. So we're not going to use the material even if it doesn't cost us anything.

I was surprised by the depth and quality of the ERLC curriculum on this, and by the involvement of some prominent and some not so prominent abuse victims. The online curriculum is free and available to all. Moore might be the most hated man in the SBC by some. He's doing a good job.


3. "Believe the victim" isn't consistent with Biblical mandates found in the New Testament. No matter that in a case of sexual abuse, the only other person who knows is the abuser and there is no way someone can bring two or three witnesses, scripture should still apply.

"Believe the victim" has a context in the sex abuse discussion. Some of the brethren can't get past the thinking that it means false accusations are not only accepted but sought. When many pastors are brought into a discussion of clergy sex abuse they go immediately to the problem of false accusations against clergy. The percentages of accusations that are false are in single digits. The old system of hushing up an accusation and moving an offender to another church is still alive, though roundly condemned by leadership.

4. Yes, both of the better known architects of the conservative resurgence have their problems related to this issue but what they did was a necessary thing, no matter their other mistakes so they can't be held accountable.

A small number of sychophants refuse to believe the problems with Patterson and Pressler. Vines is now somewhat sullied, as well. It will get uglier, I predict.

We will see where it goes...
_____________

The problem is that no one can dictate that churches must behave in certain ways, must certify the training of their clergy, must install requirements for ordination. They have to be persuaded. We can exclude churches but that's about it. Seminaries can require certain things for their students. Mission boards can require things for their church planters and missionaries. Entities can require trustees undergo training and the like. Churches cannot be required to do anything.

[Dave Roberts]

The proof will be in how many churches get the boot over the next five years, especially if they give $500,000 or more to the SBC and/or its mission offerings.

[Sandy]