Prosposed FBFI Special Resolution on Abuse

“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”

Good ideas Jay. Perhaps SI would consider soliciting the policies that member’s churches do use for child safety. Not to judge the policies but to give the starting point some churches/church leaders need.

[RPittman] There is no question that FBFI as a body abhors abuse, sexual and physical, and vehemently condemns any abuse found within our ministries. Yes, in this case, the resolution is just words on paper.

Is the FBFI you describe here the same FBFI that is putting on the conference where Dr. Phelps and his wife will be leading workshops this week?

I’m appalled at the response this is getting here. Let me argue the affirmative on a few points:

1) That resolutions don’t do much is immaterial. The FBFI will make some resolutions this week. It would be disingenuous to make resolutions condemning error in others while failing to address the elephant in the room. That’s why I think a resolution needs to be passed (note: not necessarily this one).

2) Many argue that IBs are being broad brushed. But when one finds himself within the context of the IBs, one cannot pretend that he is not in any way associated with IBs. You are. I am. We all are.

3) Many are reacting to the sickly and unhealthy lobby. There are some very twisted people campaigning against abuse. And they hurt their own cause. But that is no excuse for us to dismiss a legitimate cause.

4) This seems to be being politicised. And sure, that’s somewhat inevitable. But this is not about party politics. This is about the safety of children. This is happening in IB churches. Often.

5) This follows from the last point. This is happening. Often. Many here may have been blessed to grow up in churches where it is not happening. But many are not so lucky. This is happening. It’s happening often. I’ve watched it on TV. I’ve watched it across the counseling desk. I’ve met it time after time after time. And it’s rarely as black and white as some make it out to be. But victims are often made to feel that it is their fault. This abuse is as bad as the original abuse and it must stop. It must stop. If we make this about anything less than human decency, to say nothing of Christianity and the gospel, then we are playing political games at the expense of those who cannot defend themselves.

6) A resolution would be signed and enacted by the FBFI. Not us. You don’t need to be a Baptist to push for a resolution. You don’t need to be a Christian. You don’t need to fully agree with the wording. You don’t have to admit guilt. You don’t need to commit to do something yourself. This is a push to encourage the FBFI to take a clear, pointed stand against abuse.

There’s more I could say, and might. But here’re some things to think about. We must… we simply must protect our children.

My original post from last week is http://teaminfocus.com.au/why-im-supporting-the-proposed-fbfi-resolutio… here .

[Jay C.] 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.

Jay, not picking on you, but you mention something here that someone else mentioned (Susan?). That is the idea of churches as members of the FBFI. NO churches are members of the FBFI, it is an association of individuals, not churches.

I hope any commenting will understand what the FBFI is. It is not in any way a denominational body. It is a group of individuals who want to promote a certain kind of ethos/doctrinal/ecclesiastical approach and philosophy. Please see the FBFI mission statement posted on the front page of our website. Also please see the historical resolutions passed by the FBFI in years past. These are also available on our website, especially from the most recent years.

Also, I would also like to point out that the cowards promoting this foolish resolution are hiding in anonymity behind their website. Who are they? What credibility do they have? Why are they not putting their names up front and center? All we have here is someone who puts the name “Jonathan” at the bottom of his resolution. Who is Jonathan? Who else is involved?

Quite frankly, too much attention is paid to anonymous muck-rakers on the internet. Unfortunately many on SI are getting sucked in by such. How can you trust people who won’t even sign their names to their so-called activist positions. I have more respect for Jane Fonda demonstrating against the USA in public in Vietnam than I do for these people.

~~~

PS, Jay, your book is in the mail!

[Don Johnson] I hope any commenting will understand what the FBFI is. It is not in any way a denominational body. It is a group of individuals who want to promote a certain kind of ethos/doctrinal/ecclesiastical approach and philosophy. Please see the FBFI mission statement posted on the front page of our website. Also please see the historical resolutions passed by the FBFI in years past. These are also available on our website, especially from the most recent years.

That’s a fair point. I’m not sure that it is really relevant since no resolution really has any teeth. The point is that the leaders at the meeting all got together and agreed to make a point about some things. And that means something. Probably not as much as some would like to think, but it does mean something.

Also, I would also like to point out that the cowards promoting this foolish resolution are hiding in anonymity behind their website. Who are they? What credibility do they have? Why are they not putting their names up front and center? All we have here is someone who puts the name “Jonathan” at the bottom of his resolution. Who is Jonathan? Who else is involved?

Whoa Nelly… that is a strong word to use. I’ve been tempted at times to use it for those who aren’t supporting a resolution, but I’ve had to remind myself that I don’t know what motivates people and that I need to ascribe loving motives where possible. If that term is rightly applied to anyone, it is to the thugs and bullies who have hidden abuse and blamed victims.

I don’t know who these people are any more than you do. But I know about the problem and I know that I don’t want to stand before God and explain why I was part of something that did nothing in the face of this problem. Any movement is made of people who are motivated by different things. To suggest that this invalidates the cause would be to play games with a very serious issue.

[Jason] I’m appalled at the response this is getting here. Let me argue the affirmative on a few points:

Most people commenting in this thread have said they think a resolution is a good idea, just not this one. All of your affirmative arguments would equally support a better worded resolution.

I’ll be very, very surprised if they don’t have a resolution dealing with this issue, but it won’t be that one. I hope it is a good one, though, enunciating Scriptural principles on how to address abuse, including but not limited to: A) the necessity of reporting crimes (Romans 13) B) lacking significant evidence to the contrary, presumed innocence of the victim (Deut. 22:26-27) C) the need for proactive teaching (before abuse happens) that respect for adults does not mean submission to evil, and that a young person must resist sexual activity to the greatest extent they are able (this is the valid principle we should take from Deut. 22:24, that it is right and proper to resist, and young people should be taught this, since abusers will try to teach them the opposite) D) the need for strong preventive measures and policies (Matthew 18:1-10) E) to minister compassion to the brokenhearted (Luke 4:18, etc).

The value of a resolution is primarily two-fold: First, it sends a message to the world that we do not condone abuse and accept the responsibility of dealing with it rightly. There are many who will not believe us, due to many accusations that have been made. Nevertheless, a resolution which speaks rightly on the issue is a small step towards regaining trust. Secondly, it encourages FBF members and others who are paying attention to consider their policies and Biblical responsibilities.

The question of what good a resolution does is actually pretty uncharitable. Most pastors and churches want to do what is right in this area. A resolution helps to challenge, encourage, and perhaps guide them. To ask what good it does is basically to operate under the assumption that it only does any good if it has “teeth”. We might as well ask what good it does to teach, since we have no way to make people obey.

B) lacking significant evidence to the contrary, presumed innocence of the victim (Deut. 22:26-27) C) the need for proactive teaching (before abuse happens) that respect for adults does not mean submission to evil, and that a young person must resist sexual activity to the greatest extent they are able (this is the valid principle we should take from Deut. 22:24, that it is right and proper to resist, and young people should be taught this, since abusers will try to teach them the opposite)

This thread is not intended for the discussion of abuse itself, but the above comments contain some incredibly damaging ideas that are part of the Fundamentalist problem with abuse. I would encourage you to take some time to think through the implications of the things you have said.

[JG] Most people commenting in this thread have said they think a resolution is a good idea, just not this one.

I hope you’re right. But if that is the message people in this thread are trying to convey, it was almost entirely lost on me. What I’m hearing is potshots at this campaign from people who don’t seem to be supporting it and do not have any alternate campaign to push for a resolution. I totally agree that the resolution as it stands isn’t likely to be adopted and shouldn’t be. But I didn’t support the campaign to get this resolution through. I supported it to get a resolution through. If you agree with that, then please, make your voice heard in a proactive way.

The value of a resolution is primarily two-fold: First, it sends a message to the world that we do not condone abuse and accept the responsibility of dealing with it rightly. There are many who will not believe us, due to many accusations that have been made. Nevertheless, a resolution which speaks rightly on the issue is a small step towards regaining trust. Secondly, it encourages FBF members and others who are paying attention to consider their policies and Biblical responsibilities.

The question of what good a resolution does is actually pretty uncharitable. Most pastors and churches want to do what is right in this area. A resolution helps to challenge, encourage, and perhaps guide them. To ask what good it does is basically to operate under the assumption that it only does any good if it has “teeth”. We might as well ask what good it does to teach, since we have no way to make people obey.

You seem to feel that I see no value in a resolution. Actually, I’ve been arguing for the opposite.

Jason, thanks for the response.

[Jason]

The value of a resolution is primarily two-fold: ….

You seem to feel that I see no value in a resolution. Actually, I’ve been arguing for the opposite.

I apologize, I wasn’t clear. The only part of my post that was directed towards you was responding to your sense that people were opposing a resolution. This part of my post was intended to answer others, not you. Your position on a resolution was clear, and we are in agreement. I communicated poorly.

[Jason]

[JG] Most people commenting in this thread have said they think a resolution is a good idea, just not this one.

I hope you’re right. But if that is the message people in this thread are trying to convey, it was almost entirely lost on me.

Let’s look at excerpts from just the first four responses:

[Ken Woodard] I think there should be one. But I’m not sure the one presented here is the one.

[Jim Peet] Odds of this resolution passing (and if I am wrong … I’ll be glad!) = ZERO(emphasis added)

[JG] a resolution condemning such is certainly appropriate — if I were a member, I’d be asking for one.

[RPittman] Here is a quick, off-the-cuff alternative with a different tone:

A few other comments:

[Shaynus] 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.

[rogercarlson] If they are going to have resolutions against some of the things that Jim mentioned certainly they should against this.

It seems to me that most people do indeed support a resolution, and several have made alternative suggestions. Few would actually oppose a resolution, even if they see limited value in it. I think you are misreading most people here.

[Jason]

B) lacking significant evidence to the contrary, presumed innocence of the victim (Deut. 22:26-27) C) the need for proactive teaching (before abuse happens) that respect for adults does not mean submission to evil, and that a young person must resist sexual activity to the greatest extent they are able (this is the valid principle we should take from Deut. 22:24, that it is right and proper to resist, and young people should be taught this, since abusers will try to teach them the opposite)

This thread is not intended for the discussion of abuse itself, but the above comments contain some incredibly damaging ideas that are part of the Fundamentalist problem with abuse. I would encourage you to take some time to think through the implications of the things you have said.

I strongly disagree. First, as to the appropriateness of the discussion, if we are going to discuss a resolution that Bible believers should make, I think looking at relevant Scriptures is entirely on-topic. Second, I believe Deuteronomy 22 speaks to the topic of rape/sexual abuse more directly than any other passage. Third, I believe it is sometimes sadly misused (and allegedly was misused in NH), so setting the record straight on what lessons it has for us today is very helpful.

Let’s look at verse 27. It immediately presumes the innocence of the victim. This is a very important lesson. We need to refute the attitude that says, “She must have done something wrong.” The entire chapter shows that there are cases where the young woman has done something wrong (and we all know that happens sometimes) but the immediate presumption should be that she has done nothing wrong. She does not have to prove her innocence. Rather, any charge that she encouraged or willingly took part would have to be proven with strong evidence. And in Deuteronomy, no one is told to go investigating looking for such evidence, either. The victim should be presumed innocent. Why you should think presuming the innocence of the victim is a damaging idea I do not know, but it is not my idea, it’s right out of Deuteronomy. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, but presumed innocence is Biblical.

Finally, verse 24 and the immediate context. One of the problems with abuse is that children are (rightly and Biblically) taught to respect adults. Abusers twist this and manipulate it to convince young people to submit to their evil actions. We cannot prevent every abuse, no matter how good our policies. If we prevent it in the church, it will happen away from the church (see the NH case, no church policy would have prevented it, unless you are going to ban baby-sitting).

The last line of defense, when all else fails, is the young person’s resistance. Resistance will stop some abusers. Our young people need to be taught proactively to resist sexual activity from anyone, until they are married. They need to be taught that God specifically tells them that this is good and right, even if the person is an adult, in a position of authority, and is to be treated respectfully. Respect and submission to sexual abuse are not the same thing, and we should teach that. That is the principle behind Deut. 22:24 — resist extra-marital sexual activity. We should teach it rightly.

Furthermore, victims need to be taught Deuteronomy 22 after the fact, too. A very high percentage of victims are victimized again. They are more vulnerable to other abusers (as happened in NH). Those who have been abused need the protection of knowing that God says that they can and should resist, that He specifically tells them to, and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. This needs to be handled sensitively, because Deuteronomy 22 should not be used to emotionally beat up a victim. But it does have proper usage in equipping them and protecting them against further abuse.

The world and the child-abuse campaigners want us to throw Deuteronomy 22 on the scrapheap. That is, in part, because it has too often been misused. We should use it rightly. If the principles from Deuteronomy 22 that I’ve outlined were taught rightly in our churches, it would prevent some cases of abuse (because our young people would be strengthened to resist, and because potential abusers would know it), and it would prevent some of the mistakes that are made when abuse happens.

[JG] It seems to me that most people do indeed support a resolution, and several have made alternative suggestions. Few would actually oppose a resolution, even if they see limited value in it. I think you are misreading most people here.

Fair enough. I’m clearly mistaken on that point. Thanks for pointing it out.

My concern is that the general tone of the thread is against this particular resolution and yet it seems the obvious next step for someone who sees the magnitude of the problem would be either to do what I’ve done (support the resolution even though I don’t agree with all of how it’s worded) or to propose an alternate resolution and take steps to promote it. Granted, there was some of the latter, but the sense of party politics is coming through strong in this thread. In other words, it seems more important to some to criticise the current proposed resolution (which they seem to perceive to be an attack on their faction) than to proactively campaign for a resolution to address this issue.

While there should be a call for a resolution with 10,000 names attached going to the FBFI leadership this week, there will be very little, very late. And I’m struggling to see any valid reason why.

I strongly disagree. First, as to the appropriateness of the discussion…

I’ll respectfully decline to engage this issue at this point. Since I haven’t actually given my critiques of your comments, I don’t feel the need to clarify how they might differ from the views you seem to be responding to.

[Jason] I’ll respectfully decline to engage this issue at this point. Since I haven’t actually given my critiques of your comments, I don’t feel the need to clarify how they might differ from the views you seem to be responding to.

You did say that the “ideas” were damaging, however. That is a critique, obviously. But if you choose not to say why they are damaging, that hardly precludes me from saying why they are not when you have challenged them.

I’m willing to be corrected, but until someone explains why I am misinterpreting or misapplying Scripture, I’ll hold to what I’ve said here.

[JG]

[Jason] I’ll respectfully decline to engage this issue at this point. Since I haven’t actually given my critiques of your comments, I don’t feel the need to clarify how they might differ from the views you seem to be responding to.

You did say that the “ideas” were damaging, however. That is a critique, obviously. But if you choose not to say why they are damaging, that hardly precludes me from saying why they are not when you have challenged them.

I’m willing to be corrected, but until someone explains why I am misinterpreting or misapplying Scripture, I’ll hold to what I’ve said here.

Yeah, it was the “why” I was referring to. I did not feel the ideas were damaging because they were too liberal. I felt they were damaging because they were too conservative. For what it’s worth.

[rogercarlson] 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.

I’m not against a group crafting resolutions, publishing their mission statements, doctrinal positions, etc… But if the purpose is to take action against the problem of abuse and molestation in churches, my knee-jerk response to resolutions is “Many clouds, much wind… no rain”. I guess I have my cynical hat on today.

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.

I totally agree that there is a ‘church culture’ problem that enables abusers, but IMO it isn’t primarily lust. Sex crimes are very, very seldom about sexual attraction, but about manipulation, domination, and control. The predator enjoys the whole process- profiling his victim, grooming and seducing… and quite often the act of molestation itself doesn’t satisfy, so they go through the whole process again, because the thrill is in the hunt. Their prey is obviously going to be someone they are comfortable trying to control- so a very inadequate person is going to go after kids. The more inadequate, the younger the victim.

The Biblical principles IMO that have been skewed the most are authority structures and submission- the basic notion that those under authority must always submit is at the heart a serious problem. JG explained this very well.

One of the problems with abuse is that children are (rightly and Biblically) taught to respect adults. Abusers twist this and manipulate it to convince young people to submit to their evil actions …

The last line of defense, when all else fails, is the young person’s resistance. Resistance will stop some abusers. Our young people need to be taught proactively to resist sexual activity from anyone, until they are married. They need to be taught that God specifically tells them that this is good and right, even if the person is an adult, in a position of authority, and is to be treated respectfully. Respect and submission to sexual abuse are not the same thing, and we should teach that. That is the principle behind Deut. 22:24 — resist extra-marital sexual activity. We should teach it rightly.

emphasis mine
This is the basic premise in all the literature you will read about how to teach kids to reduce their risk. Some people confuse teaching children to defend themselves with blaming them for a perpetrator’s actions. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve explained that no victim is to blame for the actions of their attacker. Sheesh! But each of us can do things to reduce our chances of being victimized, and we MUST teach these to our children. My 9 yob knows the difference- I don’t understand why some adults can’t grasp that. The alternative is to not teach our kids anything, which is horrifying and neglectful.

My kids have my permission to disobey any adult any time they are uncomfortable with the situation. They are not required to do something they feel is inappropriate, dangerous, suspect, or pointless. Any adult who interacts with my kids who has a problem with that can take a flying bite at Mars. Adults are supposed to protect children, not use them, abuse them, manipulate, humiliate, or oppress them because they aren’t supposed to ‘fight back’.

My kids know that any kind of sexual activity before marriage is sin. Period. When we start allowing kids to be alone, and accepting advances from their peers, we open the door of opportunity to rape and abuse. It isn’t just grown men who victimize girls- I have a childhood friend whose boyfriend raped and beat the snot out of her regularly for over a year- he was 17, she was 15. He was just as much a predator as an adult man would have been. She never thought that danger could come from someone in her peer group. And now we have to be concerned about same-sex abuse. Boys/Girls abusing other children is becoming more prevalent as well, and many boys/girls have their first sexual experience with another child of the same sex at camp or at a sleepover.

A well-crafted resolution put together by people knowledgeable in these areas would be a good thing, because I imagine many pastors don’t have the time or resources or maybe even the know-how to put something together. It would give them a valuable tool. But it needs to be done right to be effective. I’m concerned about vague, toothless ‘statements’ being used as pacifiers- “Look, we’re doing something, we passed a resolution!” Well, yahoo.

[Don Johnson] I hope any commenting will understand what the FBFI is. It is not in any way a denominational body. It is a group of individuals who want to promote a certain kind of ethos/doctrinal/ecclesiastical approach and philosophy. Please see the FBFI mission statement posted on the front page of our website. Also please see the historical resolutions passed by the FBFI in years past.

So, just out of curiousity, what happens if a dissenting individual member who happens to be a pastor leads his flock in a direction inconsistent with a resolution. Take beverage alcohol. What if a pastor and his congregation modified thier constitution that once stated all use was prohibited to state that drunkeness was prohibited and dropped teetotalling as requirement for pastor/deacons?

Could the FBFI “separate” from him? Confront him? How would that work?

Does the board pass the resolutions or the whole assembly of members?

[Don Johnson]

[Jay C.] 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.

Jay, not picking on you, but you mention something here that someone else mentioned (Susan?). That is the idea of churches as members of the FBFI. NO churches are members of the FBFI, it is an association of individuals, not churches.

I hope any commenting will understand what the FBFI is. It is not in any way a denominational body. It is a group of individuals who want to promote a certain kind of ethos/doctrinal/ecclesiastical approach and philosophy. Please see the FBFI mission statement posted on the front page of our website. Also please see the historical resolutions passed by the FBFI in years past. These are also available on our website, especially from the most recent years.

OK, I didn’t know that. I thought membership (or whatever their term is) was limited to pastors and/or churches, but I was wrong. Thanks for the info.

[JG] I’ll be very, very surprised if they don’t have a resolution dealing with this issue, but it won’t be that one.

The process, as I understand it, is that resolutions are proposed and passed at the board level first, then proposed to the membership at the annual meeting. I don’t think there is an attempt to give instant responses to current events, rather to work carefully on resolutions over a period of time.

I do agree, if there is an FBF resolution on this topic in the future, it won’t be this one.