Surprise: Amended Version of Lumpkins’ Sex Abuse Resolution Passes SBC

We are waiting for clarification. However, TWW believes that SBC leadership did not expect even an amended resolution to pass. We will update as we get information.

Comments

Surprise: Amended Version of Lumpkins’ Sex Abuse Resolution Passes SBC — 39 Comments

  1. Maybe, just maybe, it was amended to add language pointing out zero tolerance AMONG SBC’s OWN churches and pastors who like C. J. Mahaney fail to report child sex abuse to the police.

  2. justatheory wrote:

    Maybe they softened it a bit?

    I am sure they did. But, I think they know that this is a repudiation of their nonsense. It may be small but it is still a surprise that this passed. I heard Mohler did not oppose it. I think there has been tremendous pushback behind the scenes.

  3. Pingback: A nice win in Houston | Civil Commotion

  4. I am wondering out loud as to how many women attend the SBC convention and would be allowed any major input on resolutions, amendments, etc. To be clear I’m sure that if they are they are there as messengers they would be allowed to vote.

  5. dee wrote:

    I am sure they did. But, I think they know that this is a repudiation of their nonsense. It may be small but it is still a surprise that this passed. I heard Mohler did not oppose it. I think there has been tremendous pushback behind the scenes.

    Even in the form that article reported it is significant. Wow.

  6. YAY! Glad to see a step in the right direction, even if it’s only a baby step. Of course, resolutions are non-binding to individual churches, but they do give a measurement of the height of awareness.

  7. dee wrote:

    justatheory wrote:
    Maybe they softened it a bit?
    I am sure they did. But, I think they know that this is a repudiation of their nonsense. It may be small but it is still a surprise that this passed. I heard Mohler did not oppose it. I think there has been tremendous pushback behind the scenes.

    I personally don’t care for Mohler, but I thought he was more intelligent than some. I was surprised the man signed his name to such garbage to begin with.

    On the other hand, how could they NOT support this? They have already lost so much support for their actions thus far. Opposing this could cost them their seat at the table that they value way to much.

    It’s lip service until I see the first action towards an individual or church that breaks this resolution. Words are meaningless unless back up by action.

    I’m happy for the baby step of course, but lets see if they enforce it the way they should. Then we will see if it is just words on paper, or true attitude of justice.

  8. Doug wrote a comment on Voices concerning this resolution that I thought interesting. 🙂

    There were convictions a few years (maybe more) ago—one of the major issues is the number of things that were known to some people but not made known to congregations. Or, I suppose the term “allegedly” should go in there. That’s the big question: what role did the overall leadership play in the situation: did they know and say nothing, did they participate, or were they clueless and ignorant?
    There’s credible views on most sides and the final reckoning is far from done. The big question within the SBC is this: with that cloud hanging over SGM, should we see CJ Mahaney invited to speak at our seminaries and held up as an example?
    One view is that since there is no conviction/definite-proven-guilt, then it’s fine.
    The other is that there is the appearance of evil at the least here, and potential for much more, and we should not affiliate until there has been a clearing of the charges. After all, it would be pretty embarrassing to have someone speak at one of our seminaries who turned out to be an abuser or a cover-up man for abusers.
    The difficulty is this: charges, even credible charges, do not certainty make. Except we won’t ever have certainty one way or the other, so how should we handle it?
    We have been ignoring it, but that’s going to have to change.
    One can be guilty of something and not end up convicted of any specific crime, so it’s hard to say we should rely solely on Caesar to tell us what to do.

  9. I should have put the statement in italics or quotation marks. Put imaginary ones around it. 🙂

  10. Amy: “Only messengers to the Convention have a voice.” Ummm yeah right. I think they heard your voice Amy. No doubt about it. It is however why messengers such as Peter Lumpkins had to voice it as well as Tim Rogers. They actually did a good job. Bob Cleveland was good too. He suggested that the wording would make the churches the judge of what was abuse and it should be changed to “alleged sexual abuse” so that they would have to report all claims of abuse to the police. Good point I thought.

  11. You should be able to go to the SBC convention telecast and replay the resolutions to watch them for yourself either tonight or tomorrow. They have been pretty fast in putting the replays online.

  12. Bill Mac is a Southern Baptist I respect. He is reasonable and thoughtful in his comments. He said this on the SBC Voices thread “SBC 2013 What to Expect”.

    “I’m going to make a prediction that high level support for Mahaney will prove to be a huge embarrassment for the SBC. As it should, in my opinion.”

  13. Should SBC denominational leaders  now to use caution when affiliating with  Sovereign Grace Ministries, a 501c religious organization of churches that has been internationally reported as having questionable practices concerning the protecting the children entrusted into their care?

    SBC amended language now urges its denominational leaders to use such caution when affiliating with these types of groups or individuals.

    However, Some Southern Baptist leaders have continued to expressed their support for Sovereign Grace Ministries. Will their support continue under the present circumstances? Continued support, and affiliation with groups or individuals with “questionable practices” concerning the protecting the children, sends what type of message to SBC parents and children alike? Is this group of churches (SGM) safe to attend? What does continued support or affiliation with SGM say for the SBC  denominational leaders that continue  it? Are denominational leaders safe to listen to? Should we give our young men to them to train, to become future SBC pastors? Will this send the wrong message to those who wish to attend SBC houses of worship in the future?

    It has been internationally reported that that group, Sovereign Grace Ministries, has been identified as having questionable practices, and as such, faces accusations that SGM church officials covered up child sexual abuse.

    Are SBC  denominational leaders now giving strong warning to avoid sch individuals or groups with “questionable practices” concerning the protecting the children entrusted into their care?

    hmmm….

  14. Sopwith, Excellent questions. Time will tell but I tend to go with Bill on his statement. I also agree with Doug in that they will not be able to ignore it any longer.This is just my opinion of course. It is a big deal that this resolution was passed and with hardly any discussion.

  15. I might add that I doubt that anyone will announce it publicly or that outwardly one will even know that SGM has been ostracized with a big O on their chest, I think we will just not hear or see CJ or hear of SGM but from a few ardent blind supporters. That is unfortunate because that is not really taking a stand is it? But it is the usual SBC way judging from past situations of uncovering less than savory characters….I mean celebrities among the SBC.

  16. K.D.

    I want to write about the Boy Scout thing as a seperate post. My son is a 3rd generation Eagle Scout and I believe that many people identify the Scouts as being Christian. That is not the truth. They accept people of faith from all of the religions. That is why this resoution does not make sense to me.

  17. Amy Smith wrote:

    I just spoke with a Houston Chronicle reporter who called me and asked for my comments regarding the passing of the resolution.

    I wonder if HFBC is going to feel a little shame-faced for the way they treated you. Nobody else seems to view you as “fringe” as they suggested. On the contrary, you have earned respect from many who are watching this unfold. Does HFBC still view your concern for abused children within its denomination a “conflict of interest?” Do you think they’re going to wish they could take their words back? 🙂

  18. dee wrote:

    K.D.
    I want to write about the Boy Scout thing as a seperate post. My son is a 3rd generation Eagle Scout and I believe that many people identify the Scouts as being Christian. That is not the truth. They accept people of faith from all of the religions. That is why this resoution does not make sense to me.

    Looking forward to it! My family also has long history in scouting though I was never it. My impression was that BSA valued “faith” but was open to all sorts of variations of what that faith was.

  19. “SBC Denominational Life: A Few Cents Less?”

    What?

    A drop of rain?

    A seed of corn?

    A thin red cent?

    Now, by themselves, they are insignificant. 

    $ure.

    But take them away collectively, one less drop, one less seed, and one less red penny?

    Becomes a Famine….

    The drop of rain no longer nourishes the soil.

    The grains of corn no longer feeds.

    And the absence of one thin red cent, under-funds a religious church organization. Added up, and we are talking about closing church doors and rolling up the welcome mats.

    huh?

    Generally speaking, Roger S. (Sing) Oldham, you are so wrong when you speak only of approved “voices” within the Southern Baptist Convention.

    What?

    Each father, each mother, each member of the SBC family of churches has a “voice”. You hear that “voice” every Sunday when the offering plate is soberly passed person to person,

    Suppose that “voice” wishes to ensure that his or her family is safe within the walls of an SBC house of worship?  Suppose he or she does not feel it is so? Suppose SBC houses of worship continue to condone, by their neglect, certain practices that put SBC families at risk, such as not reporting sexual abuse found within the SBC church’s hollowed walls?

    What will that mean for SBC family Life?

    Will it continue?

    Will anyone be happy with the results?

    hmmm….

    There is a way that seems right unto a church….

    huh?

    There is a way which seems right to a SBC church denomination, but the end thereof are the continuated 
    ways of pedophilia, and sexual abuse among the churches? Is this honoring to Christ or His kingdom? How So?

    Where is your honor, where is your shame?

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  20. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Amy Smith wrote:
    I just spoke with a Houston Chronicle reporter who called me and asked for my comments regarding the passing of the resolution.
    I wonder if HFBC is going to feel a little shame-faced for the way they treated you. Nobody else seems to view you as “fringe” as they suggested. On the contrary, you have earned respect from many who are watching this unfold. Does HFBC still view your concern for abused children within its denomination a “conflict of interest?” Do you think they’re going to wish they could take their words back?

    I may or may not have mentioned said “conflict of interest” view to that reporter…

  21. dee wrote:

    K.D.
    I want to write about the Boy Scout thing as a seperate post. My son is a 3rd generation Eagle Scout and I believe that many people identify the Scouts as being Christian. That is not the truth. They accept people of faith from all of the religions. That is why this resoution does not make sense to me.

    Good!

  22. dee wrote:

    I want to write about the Boy Scout thing as a seperate post. My son is a 3rd generation Eagle Scout and I believe that many people identify the Scouts as being Christian. That is not the truth. They accept people of faith from all of the religions. That is why this resoution does not make sense to me.

    It’s playing TEH FAG CARD for Christianese street cred, that’s all.

    Just like playing TEH YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM card in TWW’s other coverage of the SBC Convention.

  23. mot wrote:

    I am wondering out loud as to how many women attend the SBC convention and would be allowed any major input on resolutions, amendments, etc.

    Mot, I was wondering the same thing. The photos I’ve seen show empty aisles and 90% men.

  24. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    I wonder if HFBC is going to feel a little shame-faced for the way they treated you.

    HFBC probably is a little shame-faced about Amy already. You have to understand how these things work on the inside. It’s a big honor (and personal opportunity) to be asked to lead the SBC Pastors’ Conference which precedes the convention early in the week (Sun/Mon). Leading the Pastors’ Conference puts the SBC corporate seal of approval on you and is often a trial run to higher-level SBC entity positions. It’s a chance for everyone to see your organization, management and networking skills, as well as getting a better look at your theological bent as displayed by the speakers you line up. The caliber and performance of the speakers is a direct reflection upon you. That’s how a Darrell Gilyard gets into the mix (1989). There’s tremendous personal capital on the line when you sign up to lead the SBC Pastors’ Conference, and the sponsoring pastor feels the pressure to impress his peers.

    Unless they have some SBC ambitions, most pastors won’t be interested in leading the conference at all. It takes the pastor (and a significant number of his church’s highest capacity staff) the better part of a year to plan for the SBC Pastors’ Conference. It impacts his focus. It impacts the church’s ministry. It impacts the church. What many do not realize, is that the sponsoring church is on the hook for any expenses incurred by the conference. The SBC does not cover it. If the conference doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover the expenses, the pastor’s church must cover it by contract. The other tidbit is that the sponsoring church gets to keep any excess funds and handle them as they wish. A well-run conference is a cash generator (though not like T4G), and a poorly run conference is a financial liability to the pastor’s church.

    A flop of a pastor’s conference is considered a direct reflection on its leader. A banner conference embeds him more deeply into the national SBC network and even into the broader evangelical hierarchy. It queues him for national entity leadership and provides a potential windfall for his church. The absolute last thing a conference pastor wants is controversy going into the convention. I’m sure Matte lost a lot of sleep over this. He’s probably still losing sleep. There was no easy political answer. If he allows Amy Smith to waltz uncontested to the convention, he appears to join her in implicitly questioning the judgment if not the character of high-level SBC leaders. He is toast for any future higher level considerations. If Matte speaks out against what she’s doing, he stands with child abusers, and he’s toast in the papers and blogs and maybe his church. No matter how he genuinely feels about the whole thing, he’s got a delicate and no-win situation on his hands. Such is the price of high-level leadership.

    In my mind, the only way Matte could have come out on top was if he really was unconcerned about fallout and acted according to principle. If he thought what Amy was doing was wrong, he should have clearly said so. If he thought what she was doing was right, he should have clearly said so. Either way, the other side would attack him but at least he would have left with his convictions clear and intact. As it is, it’s hard to see what he stood for, and it appears he straddled the fence by sending a subordinate. Now he’s going to have to explain the confused message to his church as well. In its best light, Pastor Matte’s actions were meant to give a benefit-of-the-doubt to leaders that many trust. In its worst light, he made a muddled attempt at self-promotion by coddling a power base. Regardless, he’s got some stress to deal with.

  25. @ Debbie Kaufman:

    SBCVoices has danced around this subject from day one. They have acted like this resolution had nothing to do with Mahaney or Mohler but we al know it came about as a result of MOhler’s ridiculous authoritarian behavior. Mohler will act like he supports it and it has nothing to do at all with his defense and protection of Mahaney nor the T4G statement.

    The trustees have not done their job. Mohler should be fired. Instead, we will all play pretend which is exactly what the Reformed pastors over at SBCVoices have done all along.

  26. Pingback: First Baptist Church – Houston – “I saw your blog” | Bene Diction Blogs On UNITED STATES

  27. @ Anon 1:
    I often wonder who many of those at SBC Voices think they really represent. They seem to be on the opposite side of many important issues of the lay people such as child abuse. They seem to be pretty wimpy about the more weighty issues.