Jules with her SBC Youth Pastor Andy Savage
“I like bats much better than bureaucrats,” CS Lewis
There is no passion like that of a functionary for his function.”— Georges Clemenceau
I have a problem. This past week, I have been working with two victim situations. Both involve sexual abuse, one of a child and another one of a teenager. Both of these occurred in Southern Baptist Churches. In both cases, I stupidly recommended that, after reporting the problem to law enforcement, etc., they consider submitting their difficult stories to the new Credentials Committee of the SBC. I learned yesterday that this was foolhardy advice and I shall spend the weekend walking back my recommendation. I would never put a victim through this cold, secretive process.
So, what happened?
Jules Woodson: The history of interactions within the SBC
Jules Woodson’s story of abuse by her former youth pastor, Andy Savage, is the most well known story of abuse in the SBC. Not only was her story covered in the Houston Chronicle, but in just about every major media outlet in the US and abroad. Andy Savage and Larry Cotton eventually stepped down from their pastoral positions in the SBC due to her testimony.
However, her former senior pastor at Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church (now known as StoneBridge Church Woodlands, Texas). This highly successful church has a senior pastor, Steve Bradley, who refuses to reach out to Jules despite many efforts, on her part, to do so.
Before the SBC convention in June 2019, some thought was given to having a messenger, at the beginning of the convention, approach the microphone and ask if Stonebridge Church had sent messengers to the meeting. If so, then the messenger would make a motion that they not be seated.
Unfortunately, no messenger was found that would do it although one would have been happy to do so but he had already submitted another statement. (Forgive me if I don’t use the correct insider SBC lingo.)
The Executive Committee and Jules Woodson: Transparency promised.
However, during the time, a member of the Executive Committee approached her and explained a plan to develop a new committee to address sex abuse. UPI posted: Southern Baptist leaders plan to remedy ‘insufficient’ approach to abuse claims
Leaders of the nation’s largest — but declining — Protestant denomination will consider an amendment that would allow the Southern Baptist Convention to remove from its ranks a church that covers up abuse. The SBC may also set up an official “Credentials Committee” to review complaints about how abuse allegations are handled at member churches.
“The new Credentials Committee would be a standing committee, which means that it will be able to operate at any point during the year to help to determine what churches are in or out of cooperation with the SBC,” said Moore, president of the denomination’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “We think this is going to be a hugely beneficial move in terms of empowering Southern Baptists to act with accountability and transparency on these matters.”
Ronnie Floyd, the extremely well paid, President and CEO of the Executive Committee, will champion the Credential Committee.
It’s all going to be transparent and victims should submit their stories to the Credentials Committee, right? Hold on to that thought.
The word went out from those who participated in the Caring Well conference and elsewhere, saying that the SBC wants to hear from victims about the abuse they have suffered. in SBC churches. A helpful member of the Executive Committee told Jules that he had submitted her story to the Credentials Committee.
Except, things did not go as. planned. Jules Woodson story is probably the most well known SBC abuse story in the last two years. I think most would be shocked if anyone who serves on this committee had not heard of her story.
So, last week, when I heard from an impeccable source that the Credentials Committee was investigating 16 churches, Jules decided to contact the committee to see if Steve Bradley and Stonebridge Church were on the docket for review. After all, transparency and accountability was to rule the day according to Russell Moore. Well, let’s see what happened.
Email Number 1 from Christy Peters of the Credentials Committee to Jules.
Note that in this email, Peters acknowledges that the Executive Committee member submitted Jules’ story to the committee. This emails occurred befot Jules contacted the committee about Stonebridge Church, See dates.
Carefully look at these words “working to put a formal process into place for receiving submissions..” Does this mean there will be more forms? Who know?
From: Christy Peters
Date: October 17, 2019 at 11:40:00 AM CDT
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jules)
Cc: XXXXX Helpful Executive committee member
Subject: Re: SBC Credentials Committee
Jules,
Thank you for contacting XXXXXXXXX (Executive Committee member) regarding your experience. He forwarded that to Stacy Bramlett, chair of the Credentials Committee, who I am assisting with submissions.
She asked that I reach out to you on her behalf.
At this time the committee is still working to put a formal process into place for receiving submissions. Until that time, please feel free to send anything you would like to share with the Credentials Committee to me at cpeters@sbc.xxxxxxx.
If you have any questions don’t hesitate to contact me.
Blessings,
Christy Peters
Convention Relations
SBC Executive Committee
901 Commerce Street
Nashville, TN 37203
Email Number 2 from Christy Peters to Jules acknowledging sending the first email to the wrong address.
From: Christy Peters
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:34:42 PM
To: Jules
Subject: Fwd: SBC Credentials CommitteeJules,
Sorry, I think I accidentally got an extra period in your email address earlier when I sent this. Please see the message below.Blessing!
Sent from my iPhone
Email Number 3: Jules contacts Peters asking if Stonebridge Church is on the list.
Given all the hoopla of transparency, this seems like a logical request by the victim involved.
From: Jules Woodson
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 10:41 AM
To: Christy Peters <
Cc: Executive Committee member
Subject: RE: SBC Credentials Committee
Hi Christy,I recently heard that the Credentials Committee is investigating 16 churches. Is this true? Is StoneBridge Church one of the churches that is being investigated for the mishandling of my abuse? Also, why has the committee not given any public updates as to what it is doing? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Jules Woodson
Email Number 4: Peters responds and Jules realized that she was being sidelined.
Read the procedure carefully. Peters will not tell Jules, or anyone else for that matter, which church is being considered until the church is dissociated. The response is as cold as ice which is odd coming from a committee that is supposed to be *Caring Well.* (I hate cutesy phrases that appear to mean nothing.) Here is a link to the current members of the committee.
To make matters worse, Peters suggests that Jules submit any church she would like to the committee. She makes no mention of the fact that Jules has already done so and that Jules I interested in one church in particular.
From: Christy Peters <cpeters@sbc.net>
Date: 11/14/19 9:15 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Jules Woodson
Subject: RE: SBC Credentials Committee
Jules,
The Credentials Committee is working very hard to formalize the process by which it will consider churches. Once a process has been formally adopted, a press release is will likely come through Baptist Press. I do need to clarify that the Credentials Committee cannot investigate churches. It is tasked with considering whether a church should be considered not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. If the committee concludes that a church should no longer be viewed in friendly cooperation with the Convention, it will make a recommendation to the SBC Executive Committee that the SBC disassociate with that particular church. The committee has determined that it will not disclose names of the churches submitted for consideration unless or until that church is recommended for disassociation to the Executive Committee.
Once the process is finalized, the committee will be ready to receive submissions. We encourage you to submit any church you feel should not be considered to be in cooperation with the Convention to the committee for consideration.
If you have any other questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Blessings,
Christy Peters
Convention Relations
SBC Executive Committee
So let’s pause and consider what’s going on here.
- They seem really concerned that the word *investigation* not be used.
- They tell the most visible SBC victim to go ahead and submit any church she believes shouldn’t be in cooperation with the SBC when she has already done so. Does this mean I can send them all a list of SBC churches that should be *considered* for dissociation? I’ve got a bunch.
- The victim will not be told if they plan to do anything with his/her information.
- In fact, the victim will be told to keep submitting more and more stuff. It appears when the *official* process occurs, the victims will be told to fill out more forms.
Worse yet…
How many times does the committee expect Jules to repeat the *I got molested by Andy Savage on a dark, dirt road?” Do these bureaucrats have any idea how painful it is for her to constantly recount her story and to keep submitting the same old forms? Jules said to me that every time she tells her story, the pain returns.
This process is not victim-centric. It’s a sign that the committee is not a safe place for victims. I don’t care who’s on the committee. This is how they actually work.
Why is the happening and what did we miss?
It’s time for all of us to read the fine print.Phillip Bethancourt wrote a helpful article: A guide to understanding the Credentials Committee proposal.This document helps me to see where we all went wrong.
This committee will not only look at churches for the mishandling of sexual abuse but will look at a myriad of other issues such as homosexuality and racism.
What this means is victims of sexual abuse will not have a committee that is dedicated to this issue.
his committee would now be responsible for handling issues arising from churches that act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Convention’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse. The committee would not just address issues of abuse but other subjects such as homosexuality or racism, in accordance with Article 3 of the SBC Constitution.
This committee will not investigate but will *inquire.”
You will see in Peters response that she chastises (or is it informs?) Jules for using the *investigate* word. I believe that the SBC is attempting to preserve the autonomy of local churches but I think that we are witnessing the dying gasps of that effort.
The Credentials Committee can conduct an inquiry process in which it would “consider the matter and review any information available to it” to assess if a church is in friendly cooperation with the convention, as established in Article 3 of the SBC Constitution.
A church can be disfellowshipped.
The purpose of this proposal is to establish a stand-alone committee that is empowered to assess and address issues such as abuse that could warrant disfellowshipping a church.
This will be a process that is supposed to foster *transparency* and *accountability.*
He reiterates that this committee works within the unique (read:autonomy of local churches) polity of the SBC.
Is this proposal a good idea?
Yes, it is an encouraging next step to address the Southern Baptist abuse crisis. The Executive Committee has sought to establish a process that fosters transparency and accountability while operating within the unique polity of the SBC.
Once again, he mention that this is only about *making inquiries* of autonomous churches.
Even he uses italics to surround this word.
This committee will “make inquiries of a church” and issue recommendations regarding friendly cooperation, in accordance with specific processes.
The proposal respects the autonomy of churches while empowering the committee to conduct an inquiry process.
This committee will not clear churches.
The proposal does not authorize the Credentials Committee to “clear” churches. The purpose of the committee is to assess disputes over a church’s friendly cooperation with the Convention. It is not tasked with certifying or clearing churches to affirm that they are in friendly cooperation.
This committee will not look at state associations.
I wonder if this involves groups like NAMB, etc.?
Other Southern Baptist organizations such as entities, state conventions, etc., have their own trustee boards who are responsible for handling this issue.
Why the secrecy has nothing to do with transparency.
Does the proposal authorize secrecy to minimize transparency? Some may be concerned by the language in section 8.C.1 that states, “Meetings and reports of the committee may be private or public in order to maintain the degree of confidentiality which is appropriate under the circumstances…” The purpose of this provision is not to create a shroud of secrecy to minimize transparency. Instead, it is to protect confidentiality that is fitting for the best interests of the Convention, churches, and others involved in the process, such as survivors in the case of an inquiry related to sexual abuse.
There will be an appeals process but that seems to be addressed to churches, not victims.
Does the proposal create a fair appeals process where people on all sides can speak into the debate?
Some may be concerned by the language in section 8.C.2 that states, “One representative of the church under consideration and one representative of the Credentials Committee shall be permitted to speak to the question, subject to the normal rules of debate.”
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that messengers will hear from the church and from the committee, but it does not foreclose the possibility of additional messengers speaking for or against the issue in accordance with the normal rules of debate.
This is not an investigative committee.
They seem to be very worried about the word *investigation.* They should be, especially because the word *inquiry* is a synonym for *investigation.* Lawyers will have fund with this one.
This provision does not limit the scope of how the committee can conduct its inquiry process; nor does it prevent or discourage law enforcement investigations from occurring. Instead, it conveys that, by nature, this committee is not an investigative body while also ensuring that the committee will respect local church autonomy while conducting its inquiry process.
Victims are not mentioned in the explanation of what is going on.
This is the real problem and it explains why Jules Woodson got the cold response that she did. Victims are just supposed to keep reporting and reporting and submitting and resubmitting information. The victims have no stated ability to appeal what is decided in the committee but churches sure do.
Given what happened with the churches mentioned in the initial expose by the Houston Chronicle, I wonder if any church would be disfellowshipped…unless they hire a woman as a pastor. The woman thing was carefully not mentioned in this report but I suspect it is floating in the background.
This 9 member committee is supposed to *investigate* (I am using the synonym of inquire) all sorts of things: racism, homosexuality, sex abuse and whatever. Given the scope of this assignment, I have serious doubts that much will be accomplished so errant churches should breathe a sigh of relief.
In the meantime, victims of sexual abuse in the SBC should be aware that they will not be told one thing about the *inquiry*/investigation process.
I would not submit any stories to the SBC Committee until they outline exactly what is going on here. Jules, I get why you were upset. For now, let’s assume we are dealing wit heartless bureaucrats. It’s safer that way.
“They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy – not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.”— The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’s entry on Vogons
Batta Batta Boom
Batta batta boom boom!
More doublespeak from SBC.
Four ply snow tires.
Back after all three kids ended up getting the stomach bug – 3/4 of my youngest child’s class was out at one point. It’s been fun, and I appreciate everyone’s well wishes and prayers.
chrrypi,
This is practically triple and quadruple speak. I was reading this and all of a sudden I had Robin William’s Genie in my head doing his William F Buckley impersonation, “Ahh…there are a few addenda, some quid pro quos…”
So the tl;dr of this is “Still don’t trust the SBC, and the blogosphere/agitators need to keep rattling cages.”
What could possibly go wrong here?
Since they can “inquire” about anything, they could dis-fellowship a church for 1) supporting TWW, 2) supporting Pulpit and Pen, or 3) fill in the blank with any reason needed to get rid of them out of our body.
Straight talk to the SBC national hierarchy:
Quit with the CYA practices. And quit using a bunch of $10 words in oddball combinations. It sounds stupid. It makes you guys look stupid. Victims and survivors should be hiring lawyers to communicate with you guys. Maybe then you’ll stop blowing smoke. Do what you promised to do for the victims and survivors of abuse and molestation.
Victims and survivors, go to the police first. The SBC hierarchy can find out what’s going on after the pastor or church employee have been arrested.
All three of the churches I have been members of, IFB and two nondenominational, never used the $10 oddball words.
Dee, you should of asked me, Benn
Prediction: the only churches disfellowshiped will have been too friendly to women or gay people.
Why (yeah, I know) are they inquiring about homosexuality in an inquiry about sexual abuse.
Too bad this committee didn’t attend the Caring Well conference. Oh, wait! This is outrageous and despicable! Thank you for pointing out how consistently impotent these leaders choose to be, Jules and Dee!
Will non-profit churches/orgs lose their status if they continue to show disregard for the victims of abuse and continue to employ known predators? If they show no efforts to remove predators from pulpits? It will take outside pressure from the government or courts to force the churches to change and only because their money is being threatened. IMO…
Another example of the way SBC leaders handle things. They hold conferences, discuss how they are going to do things differently as a denomination, hold hands and sing kumbaya, then return home to business as usual.
Because GAWD H8S FAGS, of course.
Ever noticed Christians are Completely OBSESEED by it?
should someone now submit the name of FBC Naples, FL for racism for their recent rejection of a black pastor?
One is tempted to think of this as friendly co-optation of abuse victims.
nmgirl,
If their using that logic, then their still thinking like Matt Chandler. MC thinks alcohol causes men to lose their inhibitions and molest children.
“They seem really concerned that the word *investigation* not be used.” – My guess is that’s due to a concern about possible lawsuits, coming from either victims or churches. This way they can dodge the thought that they were completing an investigation to see if accusations are true. This seems more about churches cooperating with the SBC than it does about properly handling instances of abuse.
Call Boz!!
Lois,
I think its less than even cooperation. I have decided that it is solely about trying to create some sort of protective umbrella. “SEE! We ARE trying!”
Caring Well and the Credentials Committee can clearly go down in the book of meaningless and stupid slogans like “Who’s your one”, “Jesus – Plain and Simple”, “Purpose Driven Life”, “Come and Dine in 99”, acrostics and fill in the blanks for SBC sermons and so forth.
“They seem to be very worried about the word *investigation.* They should be, especially because the word *inquiry* is a synonym for *investigation.* Lawyers will have fun with this one.”
Speaking of fun, the legal beagles behind the current congressional fun appear to have massaged a purported “investigation” to an “inquiry” as it unfolded and the former under their rules meant something more formalized while the other didn’t but sounded just as consequential. Given how some mentioned in this article run in governmental circles, one wonders if this is the reason for then distinction with or without an actual difference.
SBC to a church: We are inquiring as to how this case of abuse was handled. You are not under investigation as we’d never do that.
Church to SBC: When we heard about it, we handled it in our own way.
SBC: Church is in cooperation with the convention. Inquiry closed.
So, let me get this straight. The victim is to write out all the facts of their case on forms, submit them to nameless people behind the scenes, and then have no idea what happens from there- how their information will be used, who will talk to whom, what their intentions or what the outcome will be?
What could go wrong with that??
…old circular file?
Then Chandler needs to discourage alcohol consumption in his capacity as President of the Acts 29 Network. The A29 alcohol statement reads:
“Acts 29 is an interdenominational network of church planting churches. As a result, we have both primary issues on which we are unwavering, and secondary issues on which we allow a range of diversity. This perspective enables unity without uniformity in our network. We hold our essential distinctives in a closed hand; this includes, for example, reformed theology, Christ-like male leadership in the home and church, and commitment to church planting. We hold secondary issues in an open hand; this includes charismatic gifts, eschatology, and various areas of Christian liberty, such as alcohol.”
http://storage.cloversites.com/highpeakfellowship/documents/Acts%2029%20and%20Alcohol%20-%20Beliefs.pdf
I wonder if the CC would accept a police report in lieu of their unofficial form.
By having the committee look into racism and homosexuality also, not just abuse and molestation, isn’t that doing a bit of leveling of the impact of sin? It’s burying the issue in procedures.
Their Caring “Well” is polluted. Forget the Kool-aid, don’t drink the water!
Brian,
It’s not limited to sexual abuse, racism and homosexuality. They said there could be others.
Max,
Why don’t they just be honest and also add sexual abuse by pastors to their list of secondary issues?
So, the nation is watching…. if this “committee” does not get it “act together”, it will be worse than if they did nothing…
The New Calvinist bunch have their primary and secondary issues all jumbled up, IMO. Their leaders are confused and confuse others about the essentials of Christian faith.
I do not think the committee has clarity of scope. They may also fear legal issues on both sides of the abuse and thus get frozen in the decision making process. Given the sensitive nature of abuse, reporting and investigation, this committee needs to have task forces. One group specifically tasked with victim communications. I do see the pain in Jules efforts. I also see the current process as one that will fail to function until staffed and funded effectively.
You’ve hit the bullseye on this one Lea.
They would descend on said church like the Empire to the Hoth system.
This came to mind as far as to whom the abused would be entrusting the process:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/07/13/did-the-southern-baptist-conventions-international-missions-board-decide-not-to-report-sexual-assault-they-knew-about-for-years/
Excerpts:
“This investigation was led by the IMB attorney Derek Gaubatz, and the proceedings were documented by a certified court reporter. This took place over the course of two days in October 2007.”
“The IMB decided not to report this crime since Anne, at that time, did not want to report it herself.”
“These were hard years for Anne, who suffered from depression. It is our experience that most victims of sexual assault suffer greatly until their abuser is brought to justice. Anne told us that she had written a number of emails to Attorney Gaubatz through the years. Gaubatz’s response to one of these emails is astonishing: “Just after the investigation concluded, Miller asked if Aderholt had confessed to anything during his interview. “At this point, I would advise you to let it go,“ she wrote it in December 3, 2007, email. “Forgiveness is up to you alone – it involves a decision by you to forgive the other person of the wrongs done to you, just as Christ has forgiven you.””
“In 2011, Anne again wrote Gaubatz, asking why Aderholt was allowed to be a pastor. This time Gaubatz did not respond.”
2018: “Over a period of a few months, she bravely came to the decision that she needed some help to deal with the issues that began with her assault. She was no longer content to *let it go*. She wanted to take action, so she reported her story to the police, who began an investigation. She also contacted Atty Gaubatz one more time. At this point, Gaubatz should have realized that Anne meant business. His thoughtless response only made the situation worse. He merely repeated what he said back in 2011. (See article for email scan.) He told her not only to forgive but to reconcile with her abuser!”
Max,
I was being sarcastic. They certainly don’t treat sexual abuse and it’s prevention as a primary moral issue.
Jim,
I still don’t think they get it when it comes to childhood abuse and molestation. The after effects to survivors can lay them open alcoholism, drug abuse, and many adverse behaviors. If their chasing after the effects instead of the root problem, the abuse and molestation within the church, they’ll have nothing to pick at afterwards.
“Speaking at the SBC Annual Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama on Tuesday, Floyd told the messengers gathered that they should adopt a measure to create a “Standing Credentials Committee” that would, among other things, help to process sex abuse claims.”
=====================================
Hard to believe that the esteemed Ronnie Floyd would push to establish a committee that he likely knew he would be tagged to lead and receive a modest salary of $500,000 for his efforts..
Watch for Paige Patterson to submit his resume. He is eminently more qualified to handle sexual abuse “inquiries.” He is, after all, the master of “breaking someone down”. And Lord knows, since he was pushed out of his mansion at Southwest, he could use another high salaried job.
https://youtu.be/4yrAg8RGcxU
Hucksters all.
Max,
Acts 29 listed the one case of incest when alcohol was involved. Is that supposed to cover everything (rhetorical)?
They to are getting cause and effect backwards, incest causes the survivor to turn to alcohol for relief. Either in Exodus or Leviticus, incest is defined in more detail, alcohol not listed as a cause.
Thought:
If the SBC National, Acts 29, Harvest Bible Church and other like minded organizations can’t recognize abuse/molestation from within, how are they going to be able to help those in their congregations suffering the same fate at home?
I’m still hoping the individual SBC churches are doing better at handling it.
Another direct blunt point to SBC national and above. Some survivors commit suicide because they can’t handle the memories. Keep that in mind while you drag your feet and play “red tape” games.
Brian,
I don’t want to be blunt like you, but do you really believe these SBC leaders really care? If it doesn’t affect their paycheck, popularity, or status they just soon these folks leave (give up on getting justice or give up on life) anyway possible so they can go back to their preferred reality.
The underlying contempt toward victims or anyone who simply has questions – a pattern that has existed in the SBC for a long time. The SBC is not emotionally qualified to be doing any of this.
Burwell Stark,
Badda boom!
Dee, Todd, Samuel Conner, any SBC Pastors, and SBC Deacons:
Have any of you known members who pulled away from church, later to find out part of the reason was abuse either as a child or a battered wife? Did they go down a dark path in adulthood? Did any end up overdosing on drugs?
This is a serious question, not a challenge. As some of my past acquaintances I have described in general here on TWW, none ever mentioned attending church. Again, my own experience was attending church as a child and suffering in silence.
I think if an in depth study be done on this question…
Brian,
I can’t speak from direct experience or observation (though it’s quite possible that bad things were happening in my church contexts that I was not aware of), but I don’t doubt that trauma experienced by children in church contexts can have lifelong after-effects.
I have the impression that the state of understanding of psychological trauma is still pretty primitive even in secular research (in the military, for example, PTSD is a relatively recently accepted diagnosis and in living memory PTSD sufferers were regarded to be morally deficient rather than suffers of a not-well-understood injury). I imagine that thinking in the churches both in terms of how to prevent trauma and how to help sufferers of trauma is, for the most part, even further “behind the curve.”
I can only write about my own experience, but it’s amazing that my siblings and I survived to adulthood. We were traumatized early and might as well have worn blinking neon VULNERABLE signs on our heads.
Traumatized people sometimes lurch into a church building, looking for rules to replace the missing boundaries. Rules help some people, but they also divide people into saints and sinners instead of actually healing the wounded.
I am absolutely certain that trauma can lead to addiction.
I am also sure that love, understanding, and patient encouragement can help wounded souls find peace, strength, and wholeness. Traumatized young people can heal, and emerge as sensitive and wise adults.
Situation at Nashville church of SBC bureaucrats Augie Boto and Jonathan Howe that I noted here two months ago finally hit the local news today:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2019/11/16/forest-hills-baptist-pastor-sam-boyd-resigns-over-inappropriate-relationships/4097478002/
The reporter got stonewalled: “Church leadership declined an interview with The Tennessean. Boyd did not respond to a request for comment”
The article is apparently ‘subscriber only’ for now, but here are links to my September comments:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2019/09/27/why-didnt-the-sbc-erlc-caring-well-leadershipdesignate-survivors-jules-woodson-and-christa-brown-as-speakers/#comment-413323
“In late July of 2019, some of the Elders received concerns from Sam’s daughters…[they’d] learned that Sam Boyd had engaged in inappropriate relationships with several women, in some instances of a sexual nature, both inside and outside of our church body dating back to 2016.”
(before he came to Forest Hills Baptist in Nashville, Sam Boyd had pastored Mt. Vernon Baptist in Atlanta [whose current pastor TWW readers may recognize: 9Marksist Aaron Menikoff!])
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2019/09/12/brandi-wilson-discusses-the-devastating-pain-when-pete-wilson-chose-to-leave-their-family-and-their-church-so-why-is-he-working-as-a-long-distance-pastor-for-northridge-church/#comment-412425
[summary: significant, as it’s the home church of Jonathan Howe (denomination’s new PR guy) and Augie Boto (longtime general counsel for the SBC Executive Committee, and its acting President when #ChurchToo erupted last year)]
link with the emails the church elders sent to congregants:
https://us9.campaign-archive.com/home/?u=c4e3ef55eba77faa89dfde8f1&id=e17bae574b
The official term used by the WW2 British military was “Lacking Moral Fibre”.
I remember that from a history series I read as a kid.
Friend,
“…healing the wounded.”
“Alcoholics and substance abusers, don’t go digging in the Bible to find their sin. Look at primary causes of those sins and eventually you will not have to deal with those sins any more.”
A paraphrase from one of the church deacons, from a conversation we had tonight (Saturday night) at church.
What did the deacon mean?
I know someone who experienced traumatic childhood bereavement. The surviving adults abused and neglected the children. The children developed behavior problems, and one of them turned to substances for relief.
Where is the sin here? I’m hoping I know the answer…
How can this 501c3 scene be a good thing where sexual abuse is not if but when? That’s the story soup to nuts? No thanks.
“Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Kiss 501c3 Abuse Goodbye…” _ Sòpy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8NV2es3nGY
The SBC has apparently essentially buried itself in soft peat…
I recently watched the documentary “Roll Red Roll” on Netflix. It chronicles the Steubenville football team and the rape of a teenage girl in 2012. It strikes me when I read this article just how many similarities there are between the secular community and the church in regards to cover ups and protecting those deemed to be “important.” As Christians we throw a lot of shade on the people involved in these despicable acts but is the church establishment any different? I think not.
Some guy running for congress evidently had written at one point as he lamented his relationship shortfalls: “Obviously, the genes of women are flawed. They are poorly designed creatures”. His version of a mea culpa when this was revealed was that he wrote that 18 years ago. This came to mind as the Feltner/Savage matters also contained a heavy dose of “it was X years ago, so….”, even in the comments section.
As a psychotherapist who works daily with victims of trauma – childhood, military, acts of violence, etc., a few points.
– PTSD has been diagnosed since 1980 when it was first included in the DSM-III, the diagnostic manual for mental health professionals
– Much has progressed since the days of perceiving it as “shell shock”
– Treatment methods for all types of trauma – childhood to adult – continue to grow
– Victims of trauma often turn to many methods to deal with their pain – drugs, ETOH, etc. In many clients I treat for addiction I find trauma/abuse as a root cause.
– The traumatized often do not understand their pain because it takes time to realize they have suffered abuse, thus for some, it sometimes takes years to germinate
– I have treated persons have suffered multiple forms of “church abuse” – from sexual abuse, to being judged for their actions, from church discipline, to being horribly gossiped about and “prayed for.”
The most difficult part of counseling the abused is to help them write and speak their own trauma narrative. It is incredibly painful for them because one difficult part of trauma is that it is relative to the person; what one persons considers “traumatic” another one might not. Thus, one person may react in ways we do not understand to their past while it may barely bother another person.
Pray for grace for all who have been traumatized, and if I may selfishly ask, prayers for those of us who work with them.
Luckyforward,
From firsthand information, the person themselves a recovering substance abuse survivor, clean for nine years, gave a round figure of 60% of those using drugs were either abused physically, mentally, and/or sexually as children or adults.
If you want to read a detailed history of the (british in particular) development of ptsd as a dx there is a really good book recommended to me by a psychiatrist called A War of Nerves: Soldiers and Psychiatrists in the Twentieth Century.
Shell shock is the name most people heard of. It’s been a few years so I don’t remember ‘lacking moral fibre’ although there were definitely times when soldier who broke and ran were punished strongly for it.
If this is an accurate stat, I would be curious what the % is for the general population and how it compares.
Friend,
The sins of drunkenness (Romans 13:13; Ephesians 5:18) and stealing for one. Even though the person may be trying to block out the nightmares from their trauma or the teenager still in an abusive home may abuse substances to deal with it, it’s still a sin.
This, coming from another person in my church said that when she was abusing drugs, she would lie to your face by calling you her friend, then steal from you to feed her drug habit. And, she was unable to care for her children properly, losing custody of them, gaining custody back when she was clean.
Bringing this back to the initial post, the Credentials Committee sounds like it’s going to point out sins of individuals and organizations within the SBC and not the underlying issues that brought forth it’s creation.
Like Jim stated above, if their Credentials Committee is going to lump child molestation with fears of a church ordaining a female pastor, at least create a taskforce so they can deal with the deluge of complaints coming in. It’s not about expelling churches only. That’s just sweeping it under the rug, so to speak. It’s about combatting the abuse of children and adults in the first place. That’s the root cause.
Thanks. I am sure you’ll agree that the parents’ sin of abusing and neglecting traumatized children is an awful thing.
People do need to take responsibility for their own behavior. It’s so hard, though. One of the people I’m talking about just stayed angry forever, in addition to reaching for substances. At some point we all have to put the blame in perspective and claim our own freedom.
Easily typed.
(I feel very fortunate not to have been tempted by substances.)
Thank you for your whole comment, and especially for this. Happy to pray for you and your professional kindred, and for those you treat.
Values.
Weinstein was/is “important”. Also Cosby, Woody, Lauer, Rose, Epstein, Moonves, Ailes, & any number of politicians right up to the Executive Branch, past & present.
Quite a few women deemed Weinstein not important enough to give up their boundaries while pursuing acting. BBC interviews w/ Emma Thompson, etc., explain. Not everyone was able to get away. They all describe his manipulation & scheming.
Weinstein threathened to halt their careers. Sometimes it worked.
Ava Aaronson,
I am now reading “Catch and Kill” by Ronan Farrow. What a great investigator reporter he is. It is amazing what Weinstein and so many others got away with so much. So much power to destroy women. And men who go after the truth.
I suspect these abusers were in the same industry that Epstein was: abuse and blackmail for control.
Thanks for posting that link, that was… amazing!
I totally agree with you.
Amen, I will. Thank you for what you do.
It’s the craziest thing looking back at a time when you wondered ‘hey, why hasn’t actress X been in anything lately. She was great and won an oscar’ and realizing the answer is that they turned down somebody like weinstein and even an oscar wasn’t enough to get past it.
Lea,
Apparently, Ashley Judd was in the running for what was described (in the article I read) as a major role in the The Lord Of The Rings films. There being only three such female roles, my working hypothesis is that it was Galadriel. But Weinstein persuaded Newline Cinema, and/or Wingnut Films, and/or Peter Jackson himself, that she was difficult to work with and shouldn’t be hired. Now, of course, we ken why.
Yes, I had heard that story.
If a man tells you a woman is ‘difficult’ or ‘crazy’, pause and think about if you really believe it. I think Peter Jackson confirmed this one, and might have even apologized?
I was thinking Mira Sorvino, but apparently it was both in relation to LOTR!
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/15/peter-jackson-harvey-weinstein-ashley-judd-mira-sorvino
“On seeing Jackson’s interview, Sorvino tweeted on Friday: “I burst out crying. There it is, confirmation that Harvey Weinstein derailed my career, something I suspected but was unsure. Thank you Peter Jackson for being honest. I’m just heartsick.””
She suspected but was unsure. This is the hardest part. It’s so hard to prove, unless someone like Peter comes out and confirms it.
That may’ve depended on how rich the person’s family was.
Essentially, I agree; though I might refine that to “a rich/powerful/influential man”. But yes; if emdy says, of emdy else, that they’re a badPerson, it’s telling you that someone in this picture is a badPerson.
Eh, It seems to be very common for bad boyfriends to refer to their ex’s as ‘crazy’ for normal stuff though. So much so that it’s commonly referred to as a red flag. So I dont think it has to be a powerful/rich person.
Maybe it depends on the context.
The Church Establishment makes long prayers in justification.
(And there’s always “That’s all Under the Blood” as a fallback.)