Prosposed FBFI Special Resolution on Abuse
I think there should be one. But I’m not sure the one presented here is the one.
- Against new-evangelicalism
- Against “Lordship Salvation”
- Against Calvinism
- Against Wordliness
- Against CCM
and shouldn’t. Too much language implying corporate guilt. The vast majority of FBFI members have not condoned or covered up abuse, nor have they taught things that lead to abuse. That some may do so is reprehensible, and a resolution condemning such is certainly appropriate — if I were a member, I’d be asking for one.
But the corporate guilt language is largely driven by the desire of some to label everyone in IFB and tar all with the same brush. It isn’t needed, is counter-productive, and guarantees that such a resolution won’t pass.
From the first paragraph:
Many members who have done nothing wrong have only one charge being made against themselves — that they are independent Baptists, and being an independent Baptist leads to abuse. Those people will not say there is merit in that charge. This sentence alone guarantees the resolution as stated will be defeated — I’ll be shocked if it is brought to a vote.
Given all that has happened, they ought to pass a strong resolution, however. And there is much in this proposed resolution which could be included.
But the corporate guilt language is largely driven by the desire of some to label everyone in IFB and tar all with the same brush. It isn’t needed, is counter-productive, and guarantees that such a resolution won’t pass.
From the first paragraph:
We find it inconceivable that the size and scope of such dissent would gain traction without some merit being found in the charges against ourselves and our churches.
Many members who have done nothing wrong have only one charge being made against themselves — that they are independent Baptists, and being an independent Baptist leads to abuse. Those people will not say there is merit in that charge. This sentence alone guarantees the resolution as stated will be defeated — I’ll be shocked if it is brought to a vote.
Given all that has happened, they ought to pass a strong resolution, however. And there is much in this proposed resolution which could be included.
I thought this was a good idea, but now JG has brought up some exceptional points against it. I’d be interested in what Ken has to say too, if he gets the chance to elaborate on post #2.
I don’t think a resolution is a good idea - I think it might be better for the FBFI to get some legal council and produce some kind of written guidelines on handling reports of abuse for their members. Focus that energy and money in a constructive way, instead of just lining up churches and pastors for a blame session.
The other problem is that people are now expect the FBF to be the enforcer of good behavior, much like a denominational structure would. They can’t do that. At best, all they can do is expel a church from their association, and that’s it.
I don’t think a resolution is a good idea - I think it might be better for the FBFI to get some legal council and produce some kind of written guidelines on handling reports of abuse for their members. Focus that energy and money in a constructive way, instead of just lining up churches and pastors for a blame session.
The other problem is that people are now expect the FBF to be the enforcer of good behavior, much like a denominational structure would. They can’t do that. At best, all they can do is expel a church from their association, and that’s it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Is the resolution from FBFI, or is it from someone on the outside?
I think someone’s sending it in for consideration, but it’s definitely an outside thing.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
What is the purpose of a resolution if the FBFI has no enforcement power or authority over its member churches? If there is no accountability of churches to the FBFI, then such a resolution is just words on paper, isn’t it?
[Susan R] What is the purpose of a resolution if the FBFI has no enforcement power or authority over its member churches? If there is no accountability of churches to the FBFI, then such a resolution is just words on paper, isn’t it?With that in mind, why do they bother to vote on other resolutions?
The FBFI has a couple of options here.
1. Reject it
2. Accept it
3. Amend it
I think it would be good to make some sort of statement on abuse, even if the exact wording here isn’t exactly what they want. A deliberative body normally shouldn’t reject an idea outright until it considers amending the parts they don’t like. I was involved in the alumni push to have BJU issue a statement on race, and I think it was a helpful action for them to take. That statement didn’t satisfy the most vitriolic of critics. It was descriptive of the past and descriptive of their current position. But it didn’t fall too much into assuming corporate guilt (even though some wish they did). I think this would be a good and realistic template for the FBFI.
http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/race-statement.php
1. Reject it
2. Accept it
3. Amend it
I think it would be good to make some sort of statement on abuse, even if the exact wording here isn’t exactly what they want. A deliberative body normally shouldn’t reject an idea outright until it considers amending the parts they don’t like. I was involved in the alumni push to have BJU issue a statement on race, and I think it was a helpful action for them to take. That statement didn’t satisfy the most vitriolic of critics. It was descriptive of the past and descriptive of their current position. But it didn’t fall too much into assuming corporate guilt (even though some wish they did). I think this would be a good and realistic template for the FBFI.
http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/race-statement.php
[Leah Hayes][Susan R] What is the purpose of a resolution if the FBFI has no enforcement power or authority over its member churches? If there is no accountability of churches to the FBFI, then such a resolution is just words on paper, isn’t it?With that in mind, why do they bother to vote on other resolutions?
I’m am admittedly a bit of a doofus in this area. I said in another thread that I don’t know much about these associations, how they work, or what purpose they serve- at least not at the ‘national’ level. I can understand local churches in a community organizing or cooperating, but when things get too big, they become top-heavy and quite porky, IMO. It’s like steering a barge- not impossible, but you certainly can’t turn on a dime, and when things need gettin’ done, large, loosely connected associations don’t seem the most efficient or effective way to do it.
On the other hand, before someone joins a church, they should find out if the church takes the safety and security of the children in their church seriously (among other things, of course), and takes a firm stand against immorality and violence. If you are the member of a church that doesn’t have a policy on these issues, or if church leadership uses the Warm Body Method to choose teachers and staff, then perhaps you can put a bug (about the size of Nebraska?) in your pastor’s ear. Church leadership that is unresponsive, or has an unScriptural attitude about immorality and violence in the home and the church… well, IMO it’s time to kick off the dust and find someplace else to worship and serve the Lord. That is where changes are truly made- at the individual level, with persons who will take a stand and vote with their feet if no other options are viable.
A resolution is not going to accomplish much.
1. Exhort the pastors to preach against it. This sin should not be named among God’s people.
2. Expect the pastors and churches to do all they can to have a safe environment in their churches. This will mean having policies in place. This will mean that a church will have to constantly and humbly reflect upon their theology and philosophies as these things can create or prevent a culture of abuse in a church.
3. Support the victims of abuse. Stop blaming them. Love them and help them get all of the help they need. If you have never been abused, you cannot begin to imagine the horror of abuse, and that horror is magnified when it is caused by people who call themselves Christians. I have not been abused and my heart breaks for those who have.
4. Confront the abusers. Bring them to the proper authorities.
5. If sins have been committed in dealing with abuse in the past, confess it instead of defending it. If mistakes have been made in dealing with abuse in the past, then admit those mistakes - to the victims first, and then to the congregation. Lead in healing instead of letting the hurt continue to go on.
Would this not lead to a drastic reduction in the amount of abuse that is taking place in churches?
1. Exhort the pastors to preach against it. This sin should not be named among God’s people.
2. Expect the pastors and churches to do all they can to have a safe environment in their churches. This will mean having policies in place. This will mean that a church will have to constantly and humbly reflect upon their theology and philosophies as these things can create or prevent a culture of abuse in a church.
3. Support the victims of abuse. Stop blaming them. Love them and help them get all of the help they need. If you have never been abused, you cannot begin to imagine the horror of abuse, and that horror is magnified when it is caused by people who call themselves Christians. I have not been abused and my heart breaks for those who have.
4. Confront the abusers. Bring them to the proper authorities.
5. If sins have been committed in dealing with abuse in the past, confess it instead of defending it. If mistakes have been made in dealing with abuse in the past, then admit those mistakes - to the victims first, and then to the congregation. Lead in healing instead of letting the hurt continue to go on.
Would this not lead to a drastic reduction in the amount of abuse that is taking place in churches?
If you are the member of a church that doesn’t have a policy on these issues, or if church leadership uses the Warm Body Method to choose teachers and staff, then perhaps you can put a bug (about the size of Nebraska?) in your pastor’s ear. Church leadership that is unresponsive, or has an unScriptural attitude about immorality and violence in the home and the church… well, IMO it’s time to kick off the dust and find someplace else to worship and serve the Lord. That is where changes are truly made- at the individual level, with persons who will take a stand and vote with their feet if no other options are viable.
At the end of the day, what Phelps is accused of must never, ever happen again in any Bible preaching church - evangelical or Fundamental. To that end (and in expansion of Susan’s post #14), if I ever attended a church where there wasn’t SOME kind of screening policy or video system on the grounds, I’d be moving on. It’s not that expensive to prepare a good policy - take a cop or an attorney out for lunch or something, or spend a couple hours in a local library looking things up - and it’s not horribly expensive to wire up a church building with video capture stuff to prevent/deter sickos from joining the church in order to exploit kids. It’s certainly a LOT more expensive to fight through this kind of stuff post hoc than it is to lay out preventative ideas and plans ahead of time. After all - if Trinity had done their legwork pre-Tina, are we even having this discussion? Probably not.
I’d recommend that everyone involved spend some time reviewing http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-dealing-with-abusemolestation-prope…] Mike Durning’s thread on prevention rather than strictly pounding on Phelps 24x7. If one person implements some of the things talked about on that thread, or even brings it up with the church board and gets the discussion going, it will be worth it, and some good will come out of this.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m probably going to regret posting this but here goes.
We have been made out to be unindicted co-conspirators in some sort of web of perversion by a one sided television “investigation”. The proposed resolution does not communicate the true reality, we IFB’s have been and are battling sexual perversion on all fronts. Regrettably, in a few instances it has crept into both the pew and pulpit our churches.
If I were writing a resolution I would address 1. The source of the problem being the sin nature. 2. The s exually charged world we live in promotes lus t motivated behavior. 3. This is a pervasive problem in the world involving people from all walks of life and both male and female. 4. That it takes Solomon like wisdom to discern who is telling the truth and what action should be taken. 5. The “professionals” at dealing with this don’t always get it right. The police and social services may fail to investigate or can come to either the wrong or right conclusions. 6. Families and churches will be divided over the guilt or innocence of the person. They will likewise be divided over what to do about the matter. 6. Our churches need to establish policies and procedures that take the problem seriously, deals compassionately with victims, and deals biblically with the accused or even guilty perpetrator. 7. The entire thing is a serious tragedy with no winner. We only have sinners to minister to. Some of them have sin baggage that is very loathsome to the majority of us. All of the sin all of us have is equally loathsome to God.
But keep in mind, I plead guilty to accusations that I’m too blunt. I will retire to my bunker for the incoming rounds.
We have been made out to be unindicted co-conspirators in some sort of web of perversion by a one sided television “investigation”. The proposed resolution does not communicate the true reality, we IFB’s have been and are battling sexual perversion on all fronts. Regrettably, in a few instances it has crept into both the pew and pulpit our churches.
If I were writing a resolution I would address 1. The source of the problem being the sin nature. 2. The s exually charged world we live in promotes lus t motivated behavior. 3. This is a pervasive problem in the world involving people from all walks of life and both male and female. 4. That it takes Solomon like wisdom to discern who is telling the truth and what action should be taken. 5. The “professionals” at dealing with this don’t always get it right. The police and social services may fail to investigate or can come to either the wrong or right conclusions. 6. Families and churches will be divided over the guilt or innocence of the person. They will likewise be divided over what to do about the matter. 6. Our churches need to establish policies and procedures that take the problem seriously, deals compassionately with victims, and deals biblically with the accused or even guilty perpetrator. 7. The entire thing is a serious tragedy with no winner. We only have sinners to minister to. Some of them have sin baggage that is very loathsome to the majority of us. All of the sin all of us have is equally loathsome to God.
But keep in mind, I plead guilty to accusations that I’m too blunt. I will retire to my bunker for the incoming rounds.
I am really too busy to interact. But here it goes. Susan, you are right that these resolutions do not do much. But that hasn’t stopped organizations from making them all the time. If memory serves correctly, the FBFI came out with a strong resolution against the Catholic preist scandal. If they are going to have resolutions against some of the things that Jim mentioned certainly they should against this.
While, I am sure the majority of people out there are against this, I think there is a culture that we need to change. Many in our movement have a default position of assuming the victim is at fault, even if they are VERY young (younger than 15). We need to really rethink that. OK there is so much more to say. But we are in the middle of our Day Camp/ Bible School, so I will not be able to respond much.
While, I am sure the majority of people out there are against this, I think there is a culture that we need to change. Many in our movement have a default position of assuming the victim is at fault, even if they are VERY young (younger than 15). We need to really rethink that. OK there is so much more to say. But we are in the middle of our Day Camp/ Bible School, so I will not be able to respond much.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Discussion