SBC Executive Committee plans don't quite comply with the messengers and task force

Although sexual abuse is certainly an important concern, the SBC has other problems which they are ignoring. I was recently in Kenya, and the SBC churches in Kenya and other countries routinely allow speaking in tongues and female pastors. What you see in the SBC in America is different from the SBC in other countries.

Wally, I don’t think you’re intending to imply that someone speaking in tongues or a woman preaching is worse than sexual abuse, but your post certainly does that.

Rachael Denhollander has been commenting on this a bit on her Twitter feed. For her, it boils down to the question “what is more important—insurance coverage or people?”

The way I’m reading her comments is that if you don’t fight a claim to the bitter end, no matter how clear your organization’s fault is, then the insurance company doesn’t cover your loss. I don’t know how to fix that—more or less, if one waives privilege, and those documents reveal a wrong committed (say sexual assault/rape) against someone who wants to sue, that means the organization (church/association/whatever) is on the hook for the settlement.

That may be exactly the right decision, and what I’ve seen from following these things over the past few years does seem to indicate that people might be willing to settle for a lot less money if a real apology and corrective action were provided. But there does appear to be a risk there.

Perhaps one way to start addressing things is to persuade insurers that their liabilities could actually be less if they back off from “scorched earth” in these regards—it still might require churches to assume a bigger deductible, but long term, unless we get these things out in the open, this is going to fester and worsen for a while.

I am simply saying that the SBC has a wide range of problems it must confront Biblically. A denomination/church can have a perfect record/position on abuse, but if it also approves speaking in tongues and female pastors, then that church/denomination is violating Scripture in other areas. Strong tendency today to make how a church handles abuse THE determining factor in societal approval. I suggest there is much more to consider.

Wally, let’s suppose that the subject at hand was in fact women preachers at SBC churches in Africa. What would your response be if I brought up the SBC’s sexual abuse scandals?

I would hope (no kidding!) that you would point out that I was diverting attention from the subject at hand. We really don’t need to say “squirrel” when there are any number of serious issues at the SBC that deserve attention, do we? We might lump a couple of issues together if we believe they’re related, but often, it’s really better to deal with things one at a time.

I’m not diverting attention from “the subject”. I specifically mentioned that “the subject” is certainly an important concern. Simply stating that the SBC has several serious problems it must confront, especially in other countries where churches are part of the SBC.

Mrs. Denhollander is having a lot more good stuff to say. The bummer is that she’s limited to 280 characters per comment on Twitter. Question for the SBC is whether they want to clean things up now, or whether they want to wait and go full BSA.

(the second choice is not recommended for obvious reasons)

Dr. Pettit doesn’t have anything to do with this.

My guess about this is that the top 3 or 4 names on the EC (Floyd, Stone, Martin and someone I can’t recall) are the ones who are the real issue and who have a ton to hide. The adamant opposition to ANY work being done on this front is indicative that they would like nothing more than for this to go away.

As for penalties and liability…those are the consequences for your sin. They’ll get little sympathy from me considering the things that women like Jen Lyell have alleged and documented. As I learned in college and seminary - “You can choose your sin, but you cannot choose the consequences of your sin.”

It’s a high stakes round for sure, and it reminds me of Joshua’s charge to Achan:

“Now Joshua said to Achan, “My son, I beg you, give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession to Him, and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.”

‭‭Joshua‬ ‭7:19‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Interesting that some people make how people respond to sexual abuse THE number 1 criteria for Biblical orthodoxy, while ignoring other problems.

Interesting that some people make how people respond to sexual abuse THE number 1 criteria for Biblical orthodoxy, while ignoring other problems.

I seem to recall something Jesus said about pulling motes out of people’s eyes when there are logs in our own. Maybe I read that wrong.

When the association between “Southern Baptists” and “rape” and “abuse” in society is higher than “Southern Baptists” and “gospel”, we should probably try to do something about that.

I’m watching this very closely as I’m considering pastoring a local SBC church in a nearby town. The church elders asked me about my familiarity with the SBC. I told them I was somewhat familiar with the SBC, but that I despised the politics that went on in the convention and abhorred how the SBC has handled past sexual abuse issues.

The elders agreed, but they were most interested in learning my position on Proposition 9.

Wally, since when does Scripture tell us we can only address what you think is the most important issue? As I seem to remember things, Moses and Paul actually gave us lists of unacceptable behaviors that were worth taking action on, and if Israel and the Church did not take action, God would judge them. God does not go the Pareto Principle plus and say that we have to figure out what our biggest problem is and then devote resources to only that problem.

And then you’ve got “little” matters like “people aren’t going to come to your churches and come ot Christ if they believe their kids are likely to be raped by the leadership while other leaders look the other way”. Like Jay says (welcome back, Jay), sexual assault is a capital crime in the Old Testament, and if the world starts to associate our churches (SBC or otherwise) more with sexual assault than with the Gospel, we have a problem we need to fix.

Fascinating how people misunderstand plain English. My first post in this discussion stated that sexual abuse is certainly an important concern. Anyone who doesn’t understand that statement should take an English refresher course. My point is very simple: I find it interesting and disturbing that many who focus so much on sexual abuse seem uninterested and unconcerned about other significant problems, such as the growing number of female pastors/preachers in the SBC (especially in other countries) and the growing acceptance of speaking in tongues in the SBC. Contrary to Bert, I never said the topics I mentioned were “the most important issue”. Paul also gave “lists” of pastoral qualifications, so if someone wishes to debate the number and type of “lists”, I am sure we can find many of them. I also find it disturbing that many who post opinions about sexual assault in SBC churches seem to think they know all the facts and don’t mind pontificating about the “evil SBC”. It seems that people are very selective about what they call “evil”.

Wally, three people on this thread, myself included, have confronted you on this. Reality is that the understanding of any language, even English, is that if you bring up topics B & C when the discussion is about topic A, that would ordinarily indicate that you want to divert attention from topic A, and that you most likely think topics B & C are more important.

That’s simply how the English language is understood, Wally, and a pastor like yourself ought to understand this instinctively. There are numerous places in Scripture where the tactic is used—one being where the rich young man wants to justify himself. You really can’t understand many places in Scripture without understanding this basic rule of conversational etiquette.

And really, your most recent comment justifies the assertion that you really consider things like people in Africa speaking in tongues and preaching without a Y chromosome to be as, or more, important than this. Brother, that is in itself evidence that too many people in our circles really don’t take this kind of thing seriously. It’s a sign that there are a bunch of people in our own associations who are going to take IFBs, the GARBC, Converge, and the SBC to go “full BSA”.

And that perceived “full BSA” is leading to a “theological deconstruction” movement where thousands are saying “enough of this, I’m an ‘ex-vangelical’ now….if the Gospel doesn’t compel us to take these things seriously, what good is it?”. It’s a 21st century case of Romans 2:24.

Doesn’t get much bigger than that, Wally. Let’s try to keep on topic. Yes, there is a reason I take this more seriously than someone pretending to preach in Africa without a Y chromosome. Yes, there is a reason I take this more seriously than someone speaking in tongues in Africa.

Mrs. Denhollander is on something of a “rant” today, and it’s a work of beauty. Brothers, read this. Understand a little bit about something that 25% of girls and 16% of boys (by best estimate) are going through. Those who have not been through it very often know people who have.

She’s telling us that the biggest thing for a lot of victims is NOT a big cash payout. It’s repentance and change.