Why Southern Baptists’ Social Justice Spat Is Actually About the Sufficiency of Scripture

Mark, who is my neighbor?

[dcbii]

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding “believe the accuser”, that’s more or less (IMO) an overreaction to what many have observed all over regarding sex crimes, which is “disbelieve the accuser.”

I suspect that “innocent until proven guilty” will always feel to the accuser like “disbelieve the accuser,” yet the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is writ large in both scripture, even if not by name, and our system of law, so I’m going to have to err on that side of things, if necessary. I most assuredly would not be able to lie by saying “I believe you” as a “tactical consideration.”

That last bit is why I favor “I take this seriously.”: Regarding the notion that innocent until proven guilty will often sound like disbelieve the accuser, that might be the case in some cases, but in a lot of others, including those profiled by the Houston Chronicle, the PII/ABWE report, the GRACE/BJU report, and others, what’s going on is not reasonable skepticism, but is rather outright rejection of accusations by people who really had no reason for skepticism:

• MSU coaches and Title IX staff told victims of Larry Nassar that they didn’t know what they were talking about—despite having zero evidence from anyone not professionally connected to Nassar.
• Victims are routinely accused of just being in it for the money—Jacob Denhollander joked back that it was for premium ice cream.
• How can you explain the failure to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein back in 2008 if you don’t include the hypothesis “they disbelieved them.”?
• In Minnesota, which has a very good far better than average conviction rate of 5% vs. the national 2%, only 20% of reports made to police actually get a good basic investigation, according to a report by the Star-Tribune.
• Over 250,000 rape kits (physical evidence) remain unprocessed. You can always find a speed trap or a dope bust, though. Might have something to do with the fact that police get revenue from speeding tickets and asset confiscation.
• See the BJU/GRACE and PII/ABWE reports for a lot of clear examples of victims being disbelieved. Generally the mood was “you violated student rules, so you deserved it.”
• Advocates routinely point out that in media reports, perpetrators are reported to have “had sex with” minors, when really the correct term is “raped.”
• Sum total of subpoenas issued by the FBI in the Nassar case, which crossed state and national boundaries and certainly was a federal case: zero. Known job offers entertained by FBI officers from USA Gymnastics over a beer: at least one.

If you want more examples than you can stomach, start looking at the Twitter feeds of people like John Manly, Rachael Denhollander (or her husband Jacob), or a bunch of others who have had front row seats to a lot of this nonsense. What is going on does not qualify as reasonable skepticism, but at the very least as “I don’t take this seriously”, and really more likely “I disbelieve you.”

uhh… what does that have to do with giving millions to people for suing schools because some person tangentially employed by them “supposedly” raped (I say because a court of law has not determined guilt of the accused) and then the victim says the president was “mean” to them?

Or, with TVC, the church fires the accused and cooperates with the police, but that isn’t good enough. Sue.

Now, the SBC Powers that Be produce a nebulous document called Caring Well…. which is a rather dubiously premised document that is based on the idea that pastors are too stupid to know that dad’s aren’t supposed to beat their sons to a bloody pulp, or that 15 year old girls are free targets… I ask you, WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOR?

EDIT: In other words, Jay, my gut tells me the SBC leadership plan to deal with abuse is itself a “coverup” of the poor leadership and direction of the SBC for decades, by their own admission.

When I read this thread, a few things occur to me:

* Perspective and personal experience is going to affect the way this kind of thing is perceived. I used to be more aligned with some writing here but then I went through a situation that led to a ton of research and that helped me. Many here are eventually going to go through some experiences that will change how they view this; even the most dogmatic ones.

* I think today’s conservatives are wired in such a way that they can tend to handle these things very poorly in favor of abusers. That is because conservatives generally have a bias toward historical precedent, and historically (all the way to very recent history), women (who are usually the abused) have not had equal power and rights of men. Look at divorce law all the way until the middle of the 20th Century and you will see how little power women had, even in abusive situations.

While false accusations are a serious problem, this thread reflects the reality that the church still has some growing up to do. They are behind the curve on this issue.

[Bert Perry]

What is going on does not qualify as reasonable skepticism, but at the very least as “I don’t take this seriously”, and really more likely “I disbelieve you.”

No, I don’t need more examples. I agree that many times things have been handled poorly, and it’s precisely because of that that I think accusers may hear “presumption of innocence” as “I disbelieve you.” I’m in agreement that the accusations must be taken seriously, and handled as well as possible. I’m just against an overreaction to “I believe you” because things were done poorly in the past. Handling them rightly now means trying to not swing the pendulum to wrong on the other side, but balancing it.

Unlike many today, I’m just unwilling to accept an additional 10% error rate on convicting innocents in the name of convicting more who are actually guilty. And while I absolutely agree that churches need to get the state involved immediately on charges that may be criminal, by that same standard, I’m against those who say that after a supposedly unjust state verdict of not guilty, then the church needs to take extra action to judge guilty when the state doesn’t. That’s pretty much like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

So a few days ago, I wrote this:

It continues to fascinate me how many Christians are OK with lying and slander because of incipient liberalism.

That post wasn’t aimed at anyone here, and especially not Mark Smith, who took offense. I was talking about the people who have seen the original Founders Trailer, heard/interacted with the ‘opposing’ arguments, and who continue to downplay the issue as ‘just a 1.5 second clip’ or who argue it is ‘overblown’. CrossPolitic (the firm that made the trailer for Founders) have publicly stated that those attacks were deliberate and intended.

Those people are the ones that I’m addressing. I’m sorry, Mark, that it seemed like I was attacking you personally.

[dcbii]

No, I don’t need more examples. I agree that many times things have been handled poorly, and it’s precisely because of that that I think accusers may hear “presumption of innocence” as “I disbelieve you.” I’m in agreement that the accusations must be taken seriously, and handled as well as possible. I’m just against an overreaction to “I believe you” because things were done poorly in the past. Handling them rightly now means trying to not swing the pendulum to wrong on the other side, but balancing it.

Unlike many today, I’m just unwilling to accept an additional 10% error rate on convicting innocents in the name of convicting more who are actually guilty. And while I absolutely agree that churches need to get the state involved immediately on charges that may be criminal, by that same standard, I’m against those who say that after a supposedly unjust state verdict of not guilty, then the church needs to take extra action to judge guilty when the state doesn’t. That’s pretty much like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I like what you’ve said in this post, but have a question about the part in bold. If a church feels that the state verdict of not guilty is unjust, why can they not take actions they feel are appropriate?

That is because conservatives generally have a bias toward historical precedent, and historically (all the way to very recent history), women (who are usually the abused) have not had equal power and rights of men. Look at divorce law all the way until the middle of the 20th Century and you will see how little power women had, even in abusive situations.

Not to mention that many pastors/men are not used to being challenged or questioned, and that the nature of ministry has always drawn unstable men with dangerous tendencies (Driscoll, Mahaney, MacDonald, etc) to it. We haven’t always been good about culling them from our ‘herds’, particularly if they get popular enough.

EDIT: In other words, Jay, my gut tells me the SBC leadership plan to deal with abuse is itself a “coverup” of the poor leadership and direction of the SBC for decades, by their own admission.

Oh, there’s no doubt in my mind that the SBC is guilty of poor leadership and direction. I’m not going to argue that at all.

What I do think is that they are at least awake to the issue now, and want to make the appropriate changes. That’s a great thing and I want to encourage them in that. It’s part of why I’m going hard on this topic - Founders is essentially undercutting the SBC by putting their stamp on the trailer which attacks what they are doing. They are also responsible for the malicious slander of other members and bore false witness against a few people. Those are all sin issues that should be publicly noted to bring about repentance.

There are plenty of other good churches not in the SBC who would do well to start thinking about these topics and reading more about abuse as well. This isn’t just an SBC issue, but the SBC has the tools and financial ability to do things like the “Church that Cares Well for Abuse” book. Most of our churches don’t or may be left to the advise of unsaved & possibly unscrupulous attorneys and advocates.

Jacob just put this quote on Twitter. Since it’s germane to this thread, I wanted to quote it:

When advocates say “believe women” or “believe victims,” they don’t mean “discard due process” or “accept all claims uncritically.” It’s simply a way to expose what is too often the status quo victims experience, which is “disbelieve women” and “suspect victims of lying.” And yes, I am sure there are some people who might want to do away with due process, but their existence doesn’t negate what most people mean when they use this terminology.

When advocates say “believe women” or “believe victims,” they don’t mean “discard due process” or “accept all claims uncritically.” It’s simply a way to expose what is too often the status quo victims experience, which is “disbelieve women” and “suspect victims of lying.” And yes, I am sure there are some people who might want to do away with due process, but their existence doesn’t negate what most people mean when they use this terminology.

If this is what Jacob means, then why doesn’t he say this and encourage others to say it? Saying one thing while meaning something else is always going to be a bad method of communication and sow the seeds for problems. The whole idea of “believe victims” begs the question. I can completely agree but also acknowledge that I don’t know who to believe until the investigation and adjudication has taken place. It is easy to say, “I am listening to you and I will help you. I take you seriously.” So let’s say that. It lessens the possibility of miscommunication.

[Ken S]

dcbii wrote:

Unlike many today, I’m just unwilling to accept an additional 10% error rate on convicting innocents in the name of convicting more who are actually guilty. And while I absolutely agree that churches need to get the state involved immediately on charges that may be criminal, by that same standard, I’m against those who say that after a supposedly unjust state verdict of not guilty, then the church needs to take extra action to judge guilty when the state doesn’t. That’s pretty much like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I like what you’ve said in this post, but have a question about the part in bold. If a church feels that the state verdict of not guilty is unjust, why can they not take actions they feel are appropriate?

I’m not at all against a church taking appropriate action if they so choose. I don’t like the idea that seems to be present in this new approach towards abuse that first says the church must not do its own investigation (even in parallel after notifying the state), but if the state doesn’t convict then the church must take action. Maybe I’m reading into this from the comments and various things published, but it certainly seems the church is being hung for not turning certain things over to the state, but then if they do and the state somehow “gets it wrong” (i.e., the accuser doesn’t “get justice”) then the church must act. It seems like a form of double jeopardy to me for the accused, and a double standard for the church.

If the church immediately gives the investigation to the state, then I believe they also have no obligation to investigate further or take further action if they trust that the state will take appropriate action to determine the guilt or innocence of the involved parties. What they choose to do afterwards (especially if new evidence is uncovered) is up to them, and they definitely need to consider the spiritual state of the parties involved, but they should still be careful to not get themselves into legal trouble.

Someone else noted this:

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to alleged abusers in some circles. Victims coming forward are deemed guilty of lying until proven innocent. It’s a disgusting double standard.

That’s a great and succinct way of putting one of the problems I’ve seen a lot of.

If this is what Jacob means, then why doesn’t he say this and encourage others to say it? Saying one thing while meaning something else is always going to be a bad method of communication and sow the seeds for problems. The whole idea of “believe victims” begs the question. I can completely agree but also acknowledge that I don’t know who to believe until the investigation and adjudication has taken place. It is easy to say, “I am listening to you and I will help you. I take you seriously.” So let’s say that. It lessens the possibility of miscommunication.

I think it’s just easier to say “believe the victims’ ” than it does to write out “I am listening to you and I will help you. I take you seriously.” If anyone here has read or listened to Rachael, they should have picked that exact message up from what was said. I know I did.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to alleged abusers in some circles. Victims coming forward are deemed guilty of lying until proven innocent. It’s a disgusting double standard.

Isn’t this the problem with “wokeness.” Isn’t it dead wrong?

Innocent until proven guilty is about the burden of proof when you are going to accuse someone of a crime. An accused person does not have to prove they didn’t do it. They are presumed innocent. A victim coming forward (notice the assumption that Wilson identifies that the victim has been pre-identified before any investigation) is not being accused of a crime. Therefore, there is not presumption of innocence or guilt. The presumption of innocence is for those being accuse of a crime.

There is a designed investigative and adversarial process by which the accuser’s charges are to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Short of that proof, the defendant is presumed innocent.

Now, if someone make a legal charge that an accuser is committing perjury, filing false testimony, or some other criminal act, then that accuser is entitled the presumption of innocence, that they have not committed a crime.

I think it’s just easier to say “believe the victims’ ” than it does to write out “I am listening to you and I will help you. I take you seriously.” If anyone here has read or listened to Rachael, they should have picked that exact message up from what was said. I know I did.

I agree that is easier to say one thing than to write out another. That’s the problem, isn’t it? People want to take the easy way out rather than being clear. We live in a world of sound byte sloganeering rather than clarity.

Why not simply say what we mean and be clear about it? We are talking about a private conversation. It is easy enough to say, “I hear you. I take you seriously. I will help you.”

This seems part of the absurdity of wokeness, though I have no idea who this is. Someone thinks they are so brillliant to make this point. But isn’t it dead wrong?

How is it “wokeness” to say “I hear you. I take you seriously. I will help you” and then follow up on it so that the woman gets a chance to put her assailant behind bars? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that so many will argue for “the benefit of the doubt” or a criminal conviction for the accused and then say that we can’t trust the story of the crime itself when it’s first disclosed?

We’re so close to agreement, and then you throw a description of “wokeness” out there that makes me wonder if you understand what I’m saying at all. This isn’t a “woke” issue (which, by the way, is almost exclusively used within discussions of race and prejudice, not rape or sexual harassment). Nobody is disputing that the accused [whoever they are] are entitled to due process and a legal defense; that’s what we all want. I completely agree with you when you said:

Innocent until proven guilty is about the burden of proof when you are going to accuse someone of a crime. An accused person does not have to prove they didn’t do it. They are presumed innocent. A victim coming forward (notice the assumption that Wilson identifies that the victim has been pre-identified before any investigation) is not being accused of a crime. Therefore, there is not presumption of innocence or guilt. The presumption of innocence is for those being accuse of a crime.

There is a designed investigative and adversarial process by which the accuser’s charges to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The victim is always pre-identified because they have to 1. file the police report and 2. be prepared to give detail in court. That’s part of why it’s so hard to get convictions or even criminal complaints filed.

I’ve also been very careful to separate the judicial process from ecclesiastical procedures in this thread, but you keep conflating the two as though they are the same. I don’t understand that either.

A couple of us on Twitter are looking for better phrasing, if “believe the survivors” is so problematic. So why do you keep going back to the idea that “believe the survivors” really means “cancel due process and execute them immediately”?