High crimes: an offense that the U.S. Senate deems to constitute an adequate ground for removal of the president, vice president, or any civil officer as a person unfit to hold public office and deserving of impeachment.
I was distressed today. I really tried to believe that things were going to change in the SBC, especially when it comes to dealing with sex abuse and domestic violence.
However, we saw how the Credentials Committee responded to Jules Woodson.
We have learned that the 9 members of this small committee which is tasked with one thing, and one thing only…looking at disfellowshipping churches when they do something really, really bad when it comes to mishandling sex abuse, racial situations, homosexuality and whatever else they want to explore. My guess that will also include the role of women as leaders in the SBC
Yes, the SBC has prepared the *Caring Well* curriculum which all churches should or could receive and implement. But, they don’t have to since all churches are autonomous and I doubt highly that their refusal to implement the suggestions will result in the disfellowshipping their church. In other words, there are no incentives for a church to actually learn from the material.
There is no possible way for this committee to have a massive impact on the serious problems of sexual abuse in the SBC. Maybe the mere fact that they exist will be viewed in a positive manner… the *better than nothing* approach. My prediction for the outcome of this committee is simple. Not much will be done because the task before them is poorly defined and it has no teeth.
Yesterday, I saw this post at SBC Voices: The Credentials Committee: A Call for Patience (Susan Codone & Megan Lively)I had hoped that they would be able to offer us some understanding of the process that is supposed be forthcoming.
Both of these women were molested in the SBC. Both of them have been held up as role models for the rest of the SBC. One reported her abuser after being abused and was subsequently abused by Paige Patterson who wanted her to keep quiet. The other was very young and did not report her abuser after being abused. It is my fervent hope that neither of these abusers are still wandering around the SBC Thankfully, Paige Patterson got the boot for his involvement in keeping things quiet.
Both have received enormous support from the SBC leadership. I only wish such support was available to all of the victims. So it is understandable that they would be positive about the ongoing process. I would also hope that they would be equally understanding of the ones who were not raised up and supported.
Outrage expressed by advocates and victims may not be helpful in changing this large organization.
I am a big believer is showing outrage when children experience sex abuse in the church. I think it is a true expressions of the feelings of compassionate folks. I am not interested in playing games about how to best express pain in discussing the abuse of children in the church. There should be routine outrage e3xpressed each and every time a child is molested in our churches.
For good reason, a small army has risen to protest the harm this torpor has generated. Their voices are both valid and valuable.
There is a tipping point, though, at which genuine advocacy slips into routine outrage, especially regarding a large and lumbering religious system
Since both women were molested in the SBC, they have a reason to disavow the SBC but they do not since they believe that courageous leaders are paying attention.
this season of cultural change and reform succeed, and we believe there are courageous leaders paying attention.
However, I wonder who is getting the attention because there are lots of SBC victims who are not. It is quite easy to be patient when you are the ones getting the pats on the back. So, what is going to happen to the rest of the SBC victims who were abused and who must file their documents with the the Credential Committee.
Here is a link to the SBC Portal for all of the documents.
It is difficult to actually view the documents since one has to pretend to fill out the forms to get through the pages.
The first document is the Statement of Assignment.(Click to go to the next page.)
Any report concerning an alleged abuser should first be made to law enforcement for criminal investigation. When recommended by law enforcement, it is also appropriate to make a report to the local church where the individual is a member for the local church to exercise church discipline according to the church’s adopted practice. Please remember that reporting to a church is not a substitute for reporting to law enforcement.
A submission may be made over any matter deemed appropriate by the submitter. It is important to know, however, that the Credentials Committee will not be able to consider anonymous submissions about a church. Recently, the Convention has heightened scrutiny in two significant areas of concern— discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity and sexual abuse.
The Credentials Committee bases its decisions regarding a church’s standing in the SBC based on who that church puts in a leadership role as either an employee or volunteer. Neither the Convention nor its Credentials Committee has authority to declare an individual not in good standing with a local church. Church membership is solely under the guidance and governance of each local church.
It is important to realize that a church is not officially kicked out. It is deemed *not in friendly cooperation.* One should also note that the identity of the church submitted for review will not be released until they are not longer allowed to be friends. What does this actually mean?
- The committee will not tell the one who submits their report of abuse whether or not the church will be investigated.
- Also, if they don’t kick the church out of the *friendly corporation,* no one will ever know if the reported church was investigated or even if the process was correctly followed. We just need to *trust* the process.
- The person submitting the report will need to sign this agreement. Are there any legal ramifications involved.
- The church may be informed that a report has been made against them.
There is some concern about protecting the identity of the victim. However, at this time, there is no set process to do so. The women in the SBC Voices post have some suggestion but nothing is sealed in stone at this time. Folks, be careful. Your anonymity is not, at this time, assured.
Upon receipt of a submission, the Credentials Committee may inform the church of the concerns raised against it. If necessary to adequately garner the information necessary to fully vet the concern, the identity of the individual or individuals making the allegations may be shared with the church. The Credentials Committee will seek to protect the identity of individuals who make a submission, or a church submitted for inquiry status unless and until it determines the church should be declared not in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Here are the links to the the three sorts of submission.
- If you wish to report an issue concerning a church’s relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention that addresses discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity, click here.
- If you wish to report an issue concerning a church’s relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention that addresses sexual or other forms of abuse in a church setting, click here.
- If you wish to report an issue concerning a church’s relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention that addresses any other matter of faith or practice, click here.
Sex abuse submissions: Mental health center/third party involvement
The Southern Baptist Convention’s Credentials Committee is working with a mental health center to provide a support phone call to those who have submitted a report to the Credentials Committee. This call will be from an individual trained to assist victims of sexual or other forms of abuse and will include a) information about the abuse recovery process and b) identification of resources in your local area.
It is interesting to note that there is some sort of SBC Credentials Committee cooperation with an unnamed mental health center. I would suggest finding out, a priori, which group is providing this assistance. Why is the group unnamed? How are they being reimbursed and how much?
Is it a *biblical counseling group?* What is the name of the center?
Is it a group affiliated with SBC lawyers? Be careful here, folks. The Catholic Church involved their lawyers to do intake on their hotline calls. This information was ultimately used against the victims. It is imperative that the information for this group is fully shared.
The committee recommends that the person report their abuse to law enforcement. However I recommend that the person not only report the abuse to law enforcement but also to obtain a lawyer prior to submitting any information to the SBC. You can be sure that they are discussing your information with their lawyers.
Here are some other forms that the person reporting must submit.
Back to SBC Voices:
Give the Caring Well curriculum time to *soak in.* So how long is that?
Neither Megan nor I are representatives of the Convention and we cannot defend the actions of SBC churches to protect sexual abusers, tolerate racism, or other problematic issues. But as survivors ourselves of high crimes from an SBC church and entity, we ask that the Credentials Committee be given time by SBC members and observers to refine this policy as they begin to deal with submissions. The Committee is a balanced group of our brothers and sisters, navigating a new and complex path. Megan and I also ask that the Caring Well curriculum be given time to soak into the training fabric of SBC churches. Continuing reports of predators do not negate the validity of Caring Well.
It will take years!
Training, education, and better policies are the bedrock of institutional culture change, and all take years to become established.
Here is a question I asked Megan and Susan on that post. They did not answer me.
Brent Hobbs answered:
Work your way through these forms. I am interested in hearing what you pick up.
My advice:
- Do not be patient.
- Scream at the top of your lungs as each child gets abused in the SBC.
- Do not trust the process at this time.
- Talk to a lawyer before filling out any of these forms.
- Assume that the committee is talking to lawyers about you.
- Do not assume that your information will be handled confidentially.
- Find out who is doing the mental health counseling and be very, very careful in sharing information with them. Make sure lawyers are not involved in questioning you directly.
- Assume that lawyers are being apprised of your complaint.
- You have a right to distrust the process even if some vetted victims tell you that they trust them. Your experience is not the same as their experience.
- Do not say a word to this committee until you have reported the abuse to police. There are a number of advocates who are more than willing to help you with the process. There are even ways to submit your report online. You may report to law enforcement even if the statute of limitation has passed. By doing so, you may help prevent further abuse. Way too many people refuse to report their abuser and that wretched abuser is still running around in SBC churches.
- Outrage is good. It means you have a heart and it means you care.Never get complacent or accommodating.
- Report abuse stories to the media and to bloggers who will tell your story. The SBC committee will not tell your story. There is not incentive to do so.
- I don’t care if the SBC is a big, lumbering denomination. The male leadership won’t get a break from me. Every child who is hurt has experienced serious pain/ Many of the current, courageous leaders KNEW about the stories for years and played the game. Many of them played back slap with Patterson. Courage is not an apt description of the ones who attended the conferences, pushed books, etc. Can I say Eddie Strubel and Paul Pressler or are they one and the same?
In the end, I don’t expect much will happen. Heads were supposed to roll after the Houston Chronicle investigation. The churches were exonerated before the ink was dry.
Let me predict what you might see. The committee will find one noninfluential church to be given the left boot of fellowship. The rest (especially if they are mega with lots of money) will fall by the wayside and still get front row seats at the conventions.And we will continue to wait years and years and years…
First!
“Is it a group affiliated with SBC lawyers? Be careful here, folks. The Catholic Church involved their lawyers to do intake on their hotline calls. This information was ultimately used against the victims. It is imperative that the information for this group is fully shared.”
Wow. This therefore cannon t be highlighted enough.
And their not naming who is the party providing the mental health services — in what realm of professional modern society would that be something to just cast to the wind, especially with potential legal/civil/criminal ramifications?
Dee, I continue to believe your critiques are valuable and need to be considered by the committee. I believe they’ll refine the process over the next month or two. I’ll be glad to advocate for that, as I believe many other will as well. I hope you do continue to follow this process and provide the public input you’ve been given. At the end of the day I may not agree with every suggestion, but I think there would be significant improvements if the committee listens.
Brent Hobbs,
Should be “you’ve been giving” not “you’ve been given”
“Let me predict what you might see. The committee will find one noninfluential church to be given the left boot of fellowship.”
Brings to mind the MLB commissioner’s focus on less influential Houston regarding the high-tech sign stealing scandal and leaving out other teams — one of which just happens to be much-more influential Boston whose manager was part of Houston’s team in 2017, went to Boston in 2018 and was slapped on the wrist for a high tech sign stealing issue.
Myopia on Houston narrows things to one team and one title in 2017. Including Boston would mean admitting to another tainted championship — one involving a big mover and shaker — and potentially spread calls for further dirt-digging. It presumably allows MLB to say they did something and care about the integrity of things, whether it has an effect or not.
Of course, Christian orgs are supposed to be about exposing darkness rather than covering it up (Eph. 5:11), but when you make allowances for things, the deep-rooted issues can persist. How many times was it noted that the kings of Israel and Judah would clean up to a degree but not all the way (e.g. not destroying the illicit places of pagan worship), only to have the same issues creep back up and wreak ruin?
“Do not say a word to this committee until you have reported the abuse to police.” – Definitely be sure to do this! NEVER run first to your church, pastor, or the denomination to which your church belongs.
“You can be sure that they are discussing your information with their lawyers.”
++++++++++++++++
this reminds me of the time i was working for a huge international aerospace company. i had a concern about how people were being treated by a powerful manager who was pals with the HR director. i talked to Human Resources about it. They were so kind and truly listened to me.
guess who got laid off shortly thereafter? with no explanation.
————-
why in the world should i or anyone trust the SBC, so loaded with money and power they can afford to pay inflated salaries, golden handshakes & lawyers and more lawyers, to do anything other than what protects their money and power?
there’s far too much money & power in the SBC and in too many churches.
why should churches be bastions of power and money? once you have money and power, the mission becomes protecting it.
i like the word ‘divest’.
Sex abuse submissions: Mental health center/third party involvement
The Southern Baptist Convention’s Credentials Committee is working with a mental health center to provide a support phone call to those who have submitted a report to the Credentials Committee. This call will be from an individual trained to assist victims of sexual or other forms of abuse and will include a) information about the abuse recovery process and b) identification of resources in your local area.
THIS PROTOCOL IS RIDICULOUS! – Dee, I share your wonder regarding the identification of this “mental health center.”
Again, speaking as a psychotherapist, I have helped many, many people unpack trauma issues and PTSD: you don’t do this by telephone. Giving “information about the abuse recovery process” is nebulous and unhelpful; no one process fits all persons. Such a phone call, unless handled with tact and empathy could very well keep someone from seeking help. What other “questions” is the victim going to be required to answer while they talk with the “mental health center” representative? Is this person working for the victim or the SBC? What kind of information will the “counselor” be providing to the SBC? What kind of confidentiality is guaranteed to the victim to talks with the “counselor?”
Yes, connecting someone with local resources could be helpful, but what KIND of “resources in your local area.” Is this going to be a church based “Biblical counselor” or a trained and licensed mental health professional?
This entire effort is wonderful window dressing . . .
The ONLY way that any substantive change will occur on this issue within the SBC is when and if a substantial church or group of churches take this issue so seriously that they cut their Cooperative Program giving. The CP is the vehicle through which every church gives its money to the Convention. Each church votes to send a percentage of its budget to the Cooperative Program to fund the SBC.
If enough churches took this issue seriously and voted to cut their CP giving by 10% the SBC WOULD respond. (How meaningful the response would be, of course, is questionable._
SBC life has, and always will be driven by the almighty dollar . . .
I read in the post above that: “We have learned that the 9 members of this small committee which is tasked with one thing, and one thing only…looking at disfellowshipping churches when they do something really, really bad when it comes to mishandling sex abuse, racial situations, homosexuality and whatever else they want to explore. My guess that will also include the role of women as leaders in the SBC.”
I was curious to see “homosexuality” included in the list. I would be interested to know what readers believe would constitute “really, really bad” behavior toward homosexuals in local churches.
Dee, your mission is to be a watchman ( watchwomen ?) on the wall, keep watching and screaming.
If the powers that be don’t listen, that’s on them.
I remember the build up to the election of JD Greear as SBC president, he had to inform from the pulpit to his congregation that their church was actually a member of the SBC.
It came as a surprise to many members
A lot of SBC people take great pride in their lack of knowledge
Also hang in their with all your personal challenges,
I am reminded of Eric Hoffer’s proverb that “every great cause starts as a movement, becomes a corporation, and eventually degenerates into a racket”. This is a disheartening perspective, but I think it is a basically valid “read” on the way that human nature and institutional power tend to interact.
SBC institutions have been around long enough that they could be deep into the “racket” phase. If so, the new initiative will be window-dressing more than reform.
Time will tell; until then, it would seem to be wise, as Dee counsels, to rely on other means of protest and pursuit of redress.
One of the concerning aspects of this is the lack of a specific timeline. “Timely manner” is all it says. From my experience, one of the most aggravating parts of dealing with SBC entities is their inability to act within a timely manner. My former pastor is a convicted child molester who also had a role as the Superintendent of our church preschool. It took 7 months from the time we discovered it (March 2018) and started meeting with the church leadership to getting a letter sent to the parents of our preschool. And even then, the letter didn’t name him or his crimes. Even just the action of requesting updates on the situation branded me as divisive and unsubmissive. Fast-forward to 2019, and we find a new sermon online from the child molester pastor at another local church. Between working with that church’s pastor and our state association director, it took 3 months for the parents in that church to be informed that a regular attender who had been given the honor of preaching from the pulpit was a convicted child molester. And once again, as I requested updates, people started getting mad, the molester’s family started sending threats, and the whole thing was unnecessarily dramatic. The only reason the congregation was even informed was because my friend gave a deadline of “Tell your congregation by this date, or I will.” And the day before that deadline, he told his congregation.
My point is, if it is this slow and painful to get congregations informed about a CONVICTED child molester pastor in the age of Caring Well, we need some concrete timelines. Any survivor or advocate who has dealt with the SBC knows what it is like to be ignored, deflected, put off. Emails and phone calls don’t get returned, and months go by with no action, while a DANGEROUS person continues in a position of honor. I personally will not trust a process that does not outline very specific timetables, such as “Reports will be acknowledged within 48 hours.” “Updates will be emailed weekly.” “The church in question will have one week to respond to our request for more information.” Etc, etc.
In order to trust the procesd, I would need anonymity and timelines.
Brent Hobbs,
From your lips to God’s ears!!! I pray for success but, at the same time, I also believe that victims must be wary when discussing their abuse to people who they don’t know. The Catholic Church used the process to nip reports in the bud. Because I believe that motives might be mixed (and I know mine are at times) I want to protect victims from further abuse or ill conceived responses.
JDV,
I agree. A secretive mental health group involved? That makes no sense UNLESS they know it could be perceived as controversial.
Luckyforward,
Good comment.
Proffy,
LOL. It is there to go after any church that hires a homosexual or supports an LGBTQIA agenda. When you see the women’s issue mentioned, it’s there to go after any church that hires a female pastor.
Benn,
I worry for those ho never into an SBC church without understanding the power dynamics or SBC politics. I left the SBC because I realized that the church was not serious the it comes to abuse. My goal is to warn people what to see before they dive in, expecting smooth sailing. Some folks in the Caring Well conference have given me pause in recommending going ahead with the game. There are too many questions and I believe that some people may get hurt in the process.
Whistleblower4Jesus,
So, are you interested in telling your story?
From the OP: “I recommend that the person not only report the abuse to law enforcement but also to obtain a lawyer prior to submitting any information to the SBC. You can be sure that they are discussing your information with their lawyers.”
I agree with this statement, and with the warning that the church’s lawyers might deceptively work against victims.
Retaining a lawyer is not the same thing as silencing or discrediting victims, though. Everyone involved in a criminal case should have a lawyer who understands the case, explains the law, and advises how to move forward.
An SBC church can actually do the right thing instead of just burying the case. A lawyer can help the church respond ethically. Yes, an open process that supports victims and punishes criminals might scare members off for awhile. But hiding crimes in order to preserve a false sense of security is wrong and short sighted.
dee,
It will be in the national media sometime this winter. It is such an interesting case study in how this stuff plays out in small churches.
With the rolling out of this profoundly flawed and potentially hurtful process, the SBC Credentials Committee has given survivors yet another reason for active distrust of the SBC as an institution. This seems sad. As an #SBCtoo survivor myself, I’ve been doing advocacy work re SBC clergy sex abuse for over 15 years and have seen countless examples of institutional and individual betrayals & failures ranging from hollow words to chicanery to criminality. So, yeah, I have grown pretty skeptical. But what I have watched over the past year is that all sorts of younger advocates & survivors are now becoming more skeptical as well.
While I whole-heartedly applaud their growing eyes-wide-open savvy, and I feel such gratitude & amazement for their energy & commitment, I also feel saddened. Fifteen years ago, when I began this work, I did so in the hope that younger people might be spared much of what I had encountered. Instead, the cycle repeats itself.
Much like me 15 years ago, many of the younger advocates & survivors started out with some hope that things would change. That they would be heard. But over the course of the past year, with all that they saw at SBC19 in Birmingham, the ironically-named “Caring Well” conference, the ignoring of known survivors, the propping up of known enablers, the image-polishing PR tactics, and on and on without meaningful denominational action, many of the younger advocates are now becoming every bit as skeptical as me. The SBC has effectively trained up a whole ‘nother generation to be rightfully distrustful of everything that is said by the leaders of this faith group.
And now this ugly Credentials Committee process, unsafe for survivors and also carrying little hope for effective action.
What’s needed is an outside, independent, professionally-staffed panel, with trustworthy & transparent processes, to provide survivors & others with a safe place where they can report abusive clergy with a reasonable expectation of being objectively & compassionately heard and of having their reports fairly assessed by people with the expertise to do so responsibly.
Many will say that, for “outsiders,” people should simply go to the police. And of course they should. But that is not a solution to this systemic problem, and to the contrary, for the SBC as an institution, this attitude amounts to an abdication. The reality remains that the vast majority of clergy abuse cases will not, and often cannot, be criminally prosecuted, often because of church cover-ups in the past that have allowed statutes of limitation to run. So, if kids & congregants are to be protected, there must also be an effective mechanism for institutional accountability, and hence the need for an outside, independent, professionally-staffed review panel.
This is the first step – the step that must come prior to any Credentials Committee process. Without this first step, the Credentials Committee process is near certain to fail.
An outside, independent panel could make reliable determinations about credibly-accused clergy sex abusers & enablers, and relay that information to the churches. The churches could then exercise their autonomous authority based on sound information. And if a church persisted in keeping a credibly-accused pastor in the pulpit, the Credentials Committee would then have a sound basis on which to deem a church “not in friendly cooperation.”
This proposal for the use of an outside, independent panel would be a far more expensive process than the current flawed Credentials Committee process. But at some point, the SBC must stop with trying to address things on the cheap with tactics focused more on institutional image-management & window-dressing. After all these many years of denominational do-nothingness – and after many hundreds and likely thousands of wounded clergy abuse survivors – the SBC must finally decide to do what it takes to better protect kids and congregants, and to truly care well for SBC clergy abuse survivors.
I’m not.
Ever noticed that Christians are OBSESSED with that subject?
Proffy,
“I was curious to see “homosexuality” included in the list. I would be interested to know what readers believe would constitute “really, really bad” behavior toward homosexuals in local churches.”
+++++++++++++
it’s a weird question. a sliding scale of mistreating fellow human beings…. and where on the scale is it going to far. and we’ll allow for mistreatment up to a point and still consider it christian.
but to answer your question, i say, treating them any differently than you would treat anyone else.
my son’s 3rd grade teacher was gay. he was an awesome teacher.
every year he put on a play, alternating each year between Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz. costumes, props, lighting. it was great.
on the night of the play, he was wearing a tux. he looked terrific. it was a very important event to him. he put so much into it.
as we arrived, i noticed he was being uncharacteristically reserved and emotionally closed. he hands were resolutely behind his back. i perceived that he was being very careful not to make his hands available, to prevent any opportunity for a handshake greeting.
i perceived that it was loaded with pain for him.
that in his life there had been too many times when people refused to shake his hand. or shook his hand, which he graciously offered and in hope of validation, but shook it with great reluctance and ick factor communicated — as if they couldn’t get to a sink fast enough to wash it with the hottest of water and disinfectant.
this isn’t overtly bad, like throwing explosive on his front porch because he goes against one’s doctrine.
no. it is silently bad, invisibly bad. the kind of bad that inflicts deep pain of rejection — his peers reject him as a valid human being. not valid or human being enough for even a handshake.
these are the kinds of devastating wounds a person takes with them to the grave.
is this bad enough?
Proffy,
i think i misunderstood your question. i think you were being ironic.
but all the same, i think i’ll rent a billboard across the street from the biggest church and put my comment on it.
All frivolity aside, my answer to that is: the same as would constitute abusive (that is, really really bad) behaviour towards anyone.
But stepping into character for a moment, you touch on something I’ve always found interesting. So: when a wealthy, successful, popular brand icon / preacher is caught in previously hidden, egregious behaviour, their enablers rally round and wrap them in the label “the body of Christ”. So, calling out an abusive clergyman is “attacking the body of Christ”. That is, anything that sells christian books is the body of Christ. Now, interestingly, liberal christians who don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 have also sold lots of books. Therefore, they are the body of Christ.
So, I anticipate fundagelicals repenting of their relentless tearing apart of the Body of Christ, by ceasing their attacks on homosexual and liberal christians. After all, only satan laughs when these terrible people attack the body of Christ. Jesus is the answer. For homosexuals. For liberals. For all of us. No-one should ever criticise anyone who calls himself a christian, because in doing so they’re attacking the body of Christ and destroying Christ through the divisive satanic power of satan.
The two are connected.
Male supremacist societies (invested in keeping wimmen in their place) will always have a love/hate relationship with male homosexuality. (Female homosexuality is off the radar to begin with.)
ATTRACTOR: Since women are subhuman, the only way to have sex with a REAL person is with another man.
REPULSOR: Yet this requires one of the men to be Penetrated, i.e. be used as a woman. And NO man wants to be that one on the bottom, made into a subhuman.
And these two axioms will always be in direct conflict.
The usual workaround is flat-out Power Dynamics. The rich and powerful on top (like the Anointed) have special privileges in such matters, but no mercy can be shown to those on the bottom (like victims). And it snowballs over time, to where anything even remotely related to the subject becomes Inerrant Dogma. And adding religion to the mix just amps it up further to Cosmic-level Importance and Eternal Destiny.
dee,
” It is there to go after any church that hires a homosexual or supports an LGBTQIA agenda. When you see the women’s issue mentioned, it’s there to go after any church that hires a female pastor.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
i shake my head at christian leaders…
co-opting sexual abuse, the rape and molestation of children and adults, for doctrinal gain. to shore up power.
as an opportunity to further dig the trench between the in-groups (to protect “MY group that i’m an elite member of”) and out-groups (to keep the lice-ridden riffraff as far away from me and my members-only club as possible).
it’s disgusting.
…ha, i’ve already seen Ed Stetzer co-opt sexual abuse for his own personal gain.
snatching the book deal so he can cash in on everything the advocates for the #metoo and #churchtoo movement have already worked painfully hard to uncover and articulate,
and blocking them, silencing them in the process.
what’s a word for incredibly disgusting?
i marvel, marvel at the lack of self-awareness.
(what’s a word for marvel, marvel?)
Proffy,
What would be considered to be really really bad behavior toward homosexuals?
Great question, my guess wold be that it’s in the battleground between love and affirmation .
I would say the whole nonsensical “love the sinner, hate the sin” meme, because what it really does is make pariahs out of gay and lesbian folk who need to be “fixed”.
This is a thing churches do. The Mormon church has a sex abuse hotline that rings in the offices of its pet law firm Kirton & McConkie. While victims do not use this line, their church leaders DO, in order to report the crimes and get instructions from the lawyers. Of course this is for the benefit of the church, not the victims.
The thing I would emphasize right now is that if you’re a victim or you know a victim, GO TO THE POLICE FIRST. It doesn’t matter the church, GO TO THE POLICE FIRST.
I am always available to come to conferences (like T4G) to lead an hour-long call and response of: “What do you do when child abuse is reported to you?” “Call 9-1-1.”
Or the battle is over a failure to purge long-term members who are deep in the closet, or who might merely be the objects of malicious rumors.
People on TWW have different viewpoints about this sensitive topic. But viewpoints are not the same as shunning and disciplining. Sin sniffing, denouncing, and expelling people are poor ways to uphold any standard of behavior in the church. Not so long ago, gamblers were subject to the scorn now reserved for women preachers, gay folks, et al.
elastigirl,
Thanks elastigirl for taking time to provide an example. I was asking about what constitutes really, really bad behavior in a local church. You provide a secular example.
In response to your post that immediately followed your first reply, it was not my intention to be ironic. Just wanted to clarify.
dee,
Dee, not my intention to divert the conversation to dealing with homosexuality in the church. Perhaps that would be an interesting conversation for another day when one of your posts deals directly with that issue.
Many thanks to those who replied to my post this morning.
Christa Brown,
Clear and well-considered points — thanks, Christa.
I cannot shake the conclusion that the SBC as a whole, and Caring Well and the Credentials Committee in particular, could all have avoided so much foolishness if they would just have:
* Dealt justly with abuse survivors from the past like yourself who attempted to tell them they needed to address toxic systems, and gave concrete suggestions on how to do so.
* Listened carefully to a range of survivors of abuse in SBC settings — regardless of whether they are currently inside or outside of the SBC; and regardless of whether they consider themselves SBC, evangelical, exvangelical, agnostic, atheist, none, done, gone, or other — to learn of the present destructive impact of both SBC abuse situations and toxic autonomy systems.
* Before launching their resources and documents into the future, brought in more abuse advocates with a range of expertise to offer specialized critiques of proposed items and actions, and then take on board their constructive criticism to revise flawed processes, procedures, and products.
None of these suggestions is new. I can recall multiple survivors/advocates, men and women, inside and outside SBC circles, saying essentially the same things months to years ago.
It continues to deplete any remaining reserves of trust to label survivor/advocate outcries as destructive “outrage” when truly hearing out the volumes of underlying deconstructive analysis and constructive feedback could have spared so many exasperating missteps and missed opportunities by SBC individuals and entities.
My gut feeling is that if key systemic changes aren’t addressed by the #SBC2020 annual meeting, there is small chance they ever will be. Maybe 2020 is the last chance for hearing and responding to push-back. Otherwise, maybe cries over SBC implosion will take precedence over calls for continued patience …
Here are the SBC’s go-to lawyers: Guenther, Jordan, & Price, Attorneys at Law
https://www.gjplaw.com/james-p-guenther
“James P. Guenther…He and his firm have served as outside counsel to the Southern Baptist Convention for more than fifty years.”
The SBC Executive Committee also had as its general counsel for years ‘Augie’ Boto.
Boto departed several months ago, and a replacement general counsel has not been announced.
Sample of Guenther and Boto’s work:
http://www.baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID=281
MEMORANDUM FROM:
D. August Boto and James P. Guenther
TO: The Executive Committee
DATE: January 27, 2005
…..
“Catholic dioceses with millions of dollars of assets have been forced into bankruptcy as the result of judgments against them for the conduct of Catholic priests. The Southern Baptist Convention is regularly sued by someone who claims to have been injured by a minister or employee of a church related to the Convention. And just as regularly, the Convention is sued by someone injured by an employee or agent of an entity of this Convention. The Convention has never lost one of these cases. But, it would not take a judgment against the Convention in an amount seen in the Catholic child abuse cases to put the Convention in legal peril. Even a relatively small judgment would threaten the Convention and its Cooperative Program”
Reminder that RonnieFloyd, now President of the SBC Executive Committee as well as the Treasurer of the SBC, was deeply involved in bringing CJ Mahaney into the denomination.
Posted over at SBCVoices by in 2017 by the man recruited by RonnieFloyd as a go-between:
https://sbcvoices.com/steve-gaines-on-the-cooperative-program/#comment-342101
James Forbis: “I was the ‘guy’ that Dr. Floyd appointed…tasked by him to assist Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville’s transition to become affiliated with the SBC and continue to have dual alignment with the Sovereign Grace Ministries network of churches…I hand-delivered the check to Frank Page while passing through Nashville…Sovereign Grace is actively involved in sending monies to the CP and directly to SBTS, SEBTS, NAMB,..and the IMB.”
[Floyd had an ‘assimilate churches from other denominations’ strategy during his two terms as SBC President, to mask the SBC’s declines — Harvest/James MacDonald was also added to the rolls during this time, and Floyd was also hustling for SBC recruits among the fundamentalist Baptist Bible Fellowship and African-American National Baptist Convention]
Dee, it was great to see you recognized and applauded on SBC Voices. Your hard work and advocacy is opening eyes and hopefully hearts.
Jerome,
I’m stunned that they focus solely on preserving the status quo. /sarc
Proffy,
thank you for thanking me for my comment.
actually, there is nothing limiting my example to the secular realm. i intended it to apply to church culture.
I have read many comments and heard first-hand from christian leaders and christians in general expressing their absolute revulsion for what is gay and lesbian. the strength of the reaction, compared to the secular realm, is much stronger.
if a gay or lesbian is going to be treated as unequal, as less than human, it will be in a christian church.
church culture tends to be very insular. each church has its own peculiar micro-sub-culture. having tried to integrate myself into a number of different churches, each one was kind of like minefield. i would often get looks like i had just done something really wrong (like tell a sarcastic joke — had no idea sarcasm was sin-like).
if a majority-person like myself is viewed strangely and treated as such, i can only imagine how a gay or lesbian person would be treated. all very subtle, but acutely felt.
i hope i illustrated how subtle ways of relating, things as innocuous as being reticent with a handshake (which would be the tip of the iceberg), can contribute significant pain.
but why the sliding scale of bad behavior/treatment? isn’t all bad treatment of other human beings to be abhorred, whether deemed sort of bad or really really bad?
This brings to mind the flap earlier this year when it was found that the Mormon church was routing victims’ calls through the church lawyers.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mormon-church-accused-of-shielding-itself-from-sex-abuse-claims-with-victims-hotline-report
SiteSeer,
Well, now, here’s a dirty trick! “Directing abuse-related calls to church lawyers allows the church to classify them as “attorney-client” communications, protecting them from disclosure in lawsuits and other forums, according to legal experts.”
A dirty trick?!” It’s down right evil and malicious in the worst way. And churches are further abusing victims by sending them down that road.
Bridget,
Agreed… I think most dirty tricks are evil and did not mean to understate the intent or effect.
“My prediction for the outcome of this committee is simple. Not much will be done because the task before them is poorly defined and it has no teeth.”
It’s common knowledge in SBC life that if you want something to die, you assign the task to a committee. Committee members get together, drink coffee/eat donuts, talk about their assignment, decide when the next committee meeting will be, then go home … more words than action. Some churches even have a Committee on Committees.
Last year, Baptist Blogger uncovered in Nashville’s Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives, a bizarre and galling 2002 letter of commendation from RonnieFloyd to Cardinal McCarrick [!] for bringing a ‘final resolve’ to the RCC sex abuse crisis:
https://baptistblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/img_1733.jpeg
Read about what happened with that, the RCC’s 2002 version of Caring Well:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/catholic-church-bishops-sex-abuse-coverup-pennsylvania-west-virginia-wyoming-20181103.html
“Almost as soon as the Dallas Charter was enacted, Anne Burke began questioning whether the bishops’ reforms were more about public relations than public remorse.”
“Burke, then a state appeals court judge in Illinois, stepped in to lead the National Review Board created to advise church leaders and ensure that local dioceses complied with the charter. At the same time, the bishops established review panels in each diocese — boards composed of community members, some even from law enforcement — to examine complaints about misconduct or sex abuse”
“Between 2003 and 2004, she logged complaints from local board members — about bishops destroying records, concealing claims, and generally balking at the new rules they had just endorsed in Dallas…By 2004, Anne M. Burke, the head of the board, wrote to the Vatican, saying the reform pledged by the U.S. bishops ‘appears to be nothing more than common fraud’…In correspondence to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — the man who would become Pope Benedict XVI — Burke accused America’s bishops of acting as if they had ‘dodged a bullet’.”
“Burke wrote…’At worst, we believe they were never truly serious about establishing safeguards for the protection of children and youth’.”
On a slight tangent, I didn’t realise the International Space Station was quite so big.
Less frivolously, I’ve pondered the topic of forgiveness quite a bit in the last wee while, as we ponder how to get back in touch with the friends we left behind when we left a cult years ago.
Jesus did not pray, from the cross: Father, please just drop it and move on. Remaining bitter over their sins will only hurt You in the long run. Let it go, Father: Just. Let. It. Go.
Jesus also spoke of his right, or authority, to lay his life down and take it back again; and he spoke of his authority on earth to forgive sins.
A missing element in a lot of top-down organisational exercises like these is that authority and control is invariably retained by the organisation supposedly trying to put things right. Those on the receiving end of the wrongs – historic and/or ongoing sexual abuse in this, and other, cases – are kept at arms’ length and allowed to speak only when they’re spoken to. Their authority to forgive is not recognised nor submitted to.
It’s appropriate for Susan Codone and Megan Lively to have a platform. They speak with more authority than a credentials committee. At the same time, I agree strongly with you, Dee, that all the voices need to be listened to. Including – perhaps especially – those who have not yet found support within the SBC.
Christa Brown,
If anyone has a voice that MIST be listened to, it is yours.
elastigirl,
At least Stetzer has a nice antique VW Beetle. He was a super BFF of James MacDonald. It appears to me that he has used the system to make himself well off. First, he was SBC
s church planting expert. However, things didn’t go well for him with the three churches he was involved in planting.
Than, he got. some churches to take him on as sort of pastor-he was like the circuit riders of old but appears to have gone first class. He has appointments at Wheaton and a couple of appointments at Christianity Today. I saw a picture of his house which is worth @$700,000.
And people wonder why we get up set?
Proffy,
I wrote about it several years ago. I had an interview with Justin Lee and featured some different thoughts on the matter. In the end, I take CS Lewis’ approach to divorce and apply it tp this matter. We have civil courts and Congress which represent the views of all citizens, no matter their beliefs. For this I am grateful.
I also believe that each church should decide the matter for themselves.
I am an avid read of the Bible. I think the issue must be dealt with humility. One day, I will stand before a God who knows my heart and my struggles. I am. far more concerned with how I’m going to be judged than I am about others who chose differently.
Take a look back at my posts on the matter. I think you will find them informative. I got far less pushback than I thought.
___________
Here is a part of CSL’s quote. Wade Burleson liked this approach as well.
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws.
A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.
My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to” be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
_____________
Folks, I really don’t want to go down this road at this time. I copied CSL’s quote for a reason. People like Joe Carter and other members of The Gospel Colaition have been trying to go after me for years. I think ( I know in Carter’s case) they believe they’ve put me into a *no win* box. They haven’t and they know it.
A huge discussion cropped up this weekend in twitter. There are some well known people who tried to prove that this blog was never called a discernment blog in an attempt to disparage me. Thankfully, people who have watched this blog for many years came to my aid and said that I was more than correct. I, too, put links to prove it.
As my husband said “The Internet is forever.* If you said it, it will be found in most instances.
Jerome,
I’ve put this document into draft. It’s fascinating. For those who don’t know Cardinal McCarrick, he was eventually forced to step down due to accusations of many years of sexual abuse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/us/cardinal-mccarrick-abuse-priest.html
Jerome,
Wow! I’m adding that to the draft as well. Thank you!!!
You forgot another step-the Committee on Committees then decide to have a conference in which they will drink more coffee, have some nice dinners and autograph books that no one really reads.
Friend,
My comment wasn’t meant to correct you in any way. I was just incensed when thinking about what the action actually does to victims.
I figure the Scripture presents *discernment* as a positive practice for all disciples — a hallmark, in fact, of spiritual maturity. Such as in Hebrews 5:11-14. And you’ve displayed that publicly on The Wartburg Watch for years, Dee, showing what the truth is and identifying where individuals, institutions, and theologies fall short and inflict abuse on people.
Those accusers who’ve negative-labeled you a “discernment blogger” or “watchblogger” or “daughter of S[a]tan” or whatever else over the years and misattributed evil to that status often prove themselves to be the very ones who require unconditional submission to them as leaders and uncritical conformity to their theologies as if it were the whole truth.
Meanwhile, those of us who are survivors understand the importance of TWW’s “prime directive,” in putting compassion for the victim first. Caring for the weak and wounded … that’s Christlikeness. I for one would not have found my way forward without you, Dee, so whatever the accusers may call you, I’m grateful for your discernment, your watching out for the best interests of all people, and your compassion and encouragement for abuse survivors of all kinds.
Truth. So long as all the churches that groups like Reformation Charlotte, Capstone Report, and Pulpit and Pen tout as “the big exodus” are the tiny ones that had already cut support to the bare minimum, nobody would know or care. It has to be the FBC Dallas or Prestonwood size churches to be the ones who make noise before anyone will take notice.
Best production car ever made (air-cooled beetle).
Do you reckon Al Mohler (SBC Pope) put a bug in Floyd’s ear to make sure this happened?
Dee wrote: “Folks, I really don’t want to go down this road at this time.”
I thought you might not to want to do so, so I did not reply to most of you who replied to my initial question about “really, really, bad behavior.” Thanks to those of you who did reply; it was interesting to read your points of view.
Also, thanks Dee for pointing me toward your previous post on the matter. The topic has been getting much attention lately, and I’m guessing you will return to it down the road at a later day.
dee,
Thank you, Dee. That means a lot.
And a secular example is automatically invalid because it’s Not Christian(TM)?
Two words: MONEY TALKS.
Filking Cabaret,
“Money makes the church go round,
The church go round, the church go round…”
“Discernment” is supposed to mean “seeing the reality beneath the surface appearance.”
In practice, it means “seeing DEMONS in every closet, under every bed, and especially in anyone who doesn’t completely agree with MEEEEE”.
I’d like to see it big enough to have spin gravity…
I do believe in giving credit where it’s due:
“Any report concerning an alleged abuser should first be made to law enforcement for criminal investigation…”
— From the above Statement of Assignment —
Now if they (the great SBC they) could just put some serious vetting protocols in place before you (generic you) can get anywhere near kids and teens, they’d do themselves an even bigger favor by further lessening the chances of an unfavorable court decision and a huge payout.
My original post was a question in regard to Dee’s post:
“We have learned that the 9 members of this small committee which is tasked with one thing, and one thing only…looking at disfellowshipping churches when they do something really, really bad when it comes to mishandling sex abuse, racial situations, homosexuality and whatever else they want to explore. My guess that will also include the role of women as leaders in the SBC.”
So the context for my question was “…disfellowshipping CHURCHES when THEY do something really, really bad (to homosexuals)…” I was not asking about non-church (secular) settings when people do really, really bad things to homosexuals.
For the sake of argument only, assume the pastors and elders of a particular church believe that Romans 1:26-28 clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. Based on their interpretation of Scripture, would it not be appropriate for these leaders to establish policies that do not allow people engaging in homosexual behavior to become leaders in their church? Yet, in secular society, these leaders should follow the rule of (secular) law and not discriminate against them in any manner. My argument is that our secular law or civil code does not align perfectly with Church policies.
The Apostle Paul spoke sternly against the man in the Corinthian church who was sleeping with his father’s wife. I am certainly not an expert in Roman law during that period, but suppose (for the sake of argument only) that the man’s activity was not illegal. Should Paul have just kept quiet about this? Was Paul engaging in really, really bad behavior toward this man?
My comment was not about people, specific or in general, it was about the teachings of the church, or any particular SBC church and their teachings on homosexuality.
Proffy,
My own take (from way outside the SBC) is that it’s simpler, that this is a catch-all Committee for Burying Unpleasant Reports.
Benn,
Understood, thank you.
This is a question I would definitely be asking! If they were just having someone as a sort of care manager to explain the different PTSD therapies that might be available, help them set up counseling with a competent therapist, etc, that might be great. I think the problem is one of trust…as in we don’t trust that they will operate in a way that is best for the patient. Even well meaning people will do wrong, if their ideas are bad.
Lea,
(Also any real therapy should be confidential, as should care management. Anything that isn’t would be automatically untrustworthy to me)
Indeed and not to mention the huge problem of churches retaining and employing people, repeatedly!, who *have* been charged and convicted and/or after substantiating allegations that may or may not be criminal! That’s not going to be fixed by going to the police.
I’m pretty sure the SBC is WAY more likely to disfellowship churches for *not* being mean to homosexuals, so I think you may have this flipped.
And on this note, I have heard so many stories from people who were rejected by their churches for being gay, and the deep pain that causes. They are seeking god and doing while being rejected by too many christians.
Lea, what about the poor man in the Corinthian church who merely had sexual relations with his father’s wife? Did Paul reject and mistreat him by calling him out for sexually deviant (sinful) behavior? This man was clearly not perfect, but what if he was seeking God?
In 2013, the SBC formed a Calvinism Advisory Committee to look into the proliferation of New Calvinism in SBC ranks, among concerns that a hyper-Calvinist fringe of the movement with its band of new reformers were taking over traditional SBC churches by stealth and deception. Frank Page, then President & CEO of SBC’s Executive Committee, assembled a 19-member advisory team (which included Al Mohler and other prominent SBC Calvinists at the time). Page, a staunch anti-Calvinist (he even wrote a book “Trouble With The Tulip”), reviewed the committee findings and issued a report to Southern Baptists essentially stating that denominational members needed to agree to disagree, get along to go along, and make room under the big SBC tent for diverse theologies. A lot of traditional (non-Calvinist) SBC members wondered at the time if the committee might have buried “unpleasant reports” about the trend of the denomination toward Calvinism.
(sidenote: Frank Page later resigned his executive SBC leadership position due to a “morally inappropriate relationship”)
Maybe I’m not following the discussion raptly enough, but it seems that you have been doing three things for a couple of days now:
1) Stated a goal of avoiding a discussion of homosexuality in the church: “Dee, not my intention to divert the conversation to dealing with homosexuality in the church. Perhaps that would be an interesting conversation for another day”
2) Allowed that homosexuality is ambiguously included on a list that also features racism and sexual abuse: “I would be interested to know what readers believe would constitute “really, really bad” behavior toward homosexuals in local churches.”
3) Compared intra-familial adultery with a sexual orientation that a person might not ever even act on: “what about the poor man in the Corinthian church who merely had sexual relations with his father’s wife? Did Paul reject and mistreat him by calling him out for sexually deviant (sinful) behavior? This man was clearly not perfect, but what if he was seeking God?”
Quite a few folks have offered you serious answers. I believe you are trying to force TWW readers to take sides on the exceedingly painful topic of homosexuality in the church. I cannot know your intentions. However, this is starting to feel more like a game of gotcha than a sincere exchange of viewpoints.
Friend,
I agree that you are not following the conversation raptly enough. I was prepared to drop it, but others (including you) keep directing comments or questions toward me…
Response to Point 1: I have simply been responding to comments that continue to be made to me by others. Okay? It was indeed not my intention to divert the conversation, but I weighed that against leaving some posts directed toward me unanswered.
Response to Point 2: Yes, I chose one of the several topics that Dee included in the sentence that I quoted in my first post on late Saturday afternoon? So? Maybe I don’t quite get your point here, but I am fine with dropping it.
Response to Point 3: No intention to equate homosexuality with intra-familial adultery. I just used an example about how Paul dealt with a sexual activity that he clearly deemed to be sinful and which led to church discipline. The analogy: if leaders in a church believe that homosexuality activity constitutes sinful, sexual activity by an individual within a church, would it be “really, really bad behavior” to deal with the activity by church discipline, excommunication, etc.?
Response to your last paragraph: I am not trying to force TWW readers to take any side on the painful topic. Yes, quite a few folks have offered me serious answers, and I think I have provided some serious, thoughtful responses. I think Dee welcomes thoughtful discussions.
Can we all agree to stop this discussion until a later date when or if Dee posts something that deals with it more directly? I will do my part by not replying to any more questions or comments are directed to me (at least I will do my best to not respond)…
You are conflating cheating on ones close family member with two adults perusing a relationship instead of actually understanding my meaning. I’m not interested in this response.
You also skipped over the part that was actually responding to your comment.
I will be happy to give my opinion on it personally, but I don’t know if dee wants us to get into it. I know that people have come to my church after googling ‘gay friendly churches’ and I know and love those people. That’s all I have to say on this.
Also, hard agree on your first comment. Even if you believe an orientation is a sin, I am not on the sin leveling bandwagon. It is used like a club against people on the bottom rung of whatever church we’re talking about. And discussion of orientation and trans issues is used as a club against women who want equality. I’m not here for any of it.
Proffy,
You typed a 292-word retort and are asking me not to respond.
Done.
Friend, I was just replying to your 214-word retort. Done
Lea,
Lea,
Sorry I misunderstood your point. Let’s move on from this discussion. Thanks for taking time to respond as you did.
Max,
Ha, I feel so naive sometimes! I have always assumed that the greatest vice of a church committee was to wheedle good-hearted souls into wasting their time on something innocuous, like making 9000 gold Christmas tree ornaments out of Cool Whip lids. 🙂
Yup. I used to work in a big bureaucracy. That form Dee screenshot above screamed “pretending to empathize with your problem so that you’ll just leave me alone because I don’t really have the power to fix your problem, anyway.”
Another example of the elite burying things in the SBC was an action by the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force to seal written and audio recordings of their committee meetings for 15 years (to be unsealed in 2025). What the heck could be so insidious about the activities of a Great Commission committee that would require burying their discussions for a while?!
Yeah, the more I think about it, I’m glad I entered the Done ranks after 70 years of SBC membership. This ain’t my Grandma’s denomination any longer (or is it?).
What was the best about your grandma’s denomination?
What I miss is the cherishing of little children. I felt so completely loved in that quiet dark church with its stout oaken pews. That is still the love of God to me.
Max,
Can’t believe that anyone would go along with closed meetings or sealed minutes from a church leadership organization task force. I’m not SBC, but I would have been making some waves if I were. What, pray tell, are they hiding?
That’s a pretty snarky reply. I know this isn’t the subject of this post so I just wanted to suggest that you do some research into the issue. There is a lot online that you can read about. The history of Focus on the Family and the conversion therapy that they pushed, the results of it, the experiences many went through, just for a start. The history of how churches have dealt with it and the results. It isn’t a very visible history unless you have the interest to search it up. But try to remember that these are human beings and, like everyone, they do have stories.
In those circles (focus on the family, and others) human beings do not matter, only dogma matters.
It seems like two different topics are getting mixed. One is the question of whether or not a group/club/organization/association can choose rules for membership and expected behavior. This could include both choices (e.g. required beliefs) or “born that way” distinctions (e.g. athletic apptitude for a sports club). The other is how people should be treated irrespective of the club rules.
I would think that there should be freedom for groups/clubs/organizations/associations to form their own standards, even if those standards are offensive to some. For example, I believe Dee should have the freedom to moderate her blog even if certain people don’t like it.
As for the way churches treat people, maybe the problem is too many have taken on a club mentality, with all that goes with being a club, such as deciding who is in and who is out. Still, people can choose not to associate or support groups with whom they disagree or find offensive. Hopefully, others will follow and the offensive groups will fade away. But I don’t think it is wise for one group of people to decide and enforce what all others must believe.
As for how we should treat others, does it not really boil down to what Jesus said about how he will separate the sheep and the goats?
Love for one another.
Skeletons, I suppose.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
had to look up sheep/goats/Jesus to make sure i remembered it correctly. it’s worth restating:
“for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“But I don’t think it is wise for one group of people to decide and enforce what all others must believe.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
i’m sure i agree.
but what if beliefs A & B are inherently cruel? (to others, to oneself) do we say ‘it’s not my nevermind’ and retreat to our comfortable and cozy little worlds?
seems to me those who see & understand this should speak loudly and often and in many places, explaining how and why it is cruel and what it feels like, in the honest act of seeking to curtail the cruelty by changing minds.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
sort of like the recent thing in the news where a news reporter reporting on site at a footrace in Georgia was slapped on her butt by a male runner during filming. it shocked her, she had difficulty speaking afterward.
amazingly enough, there are many blockheads out there who can’t understand what the problem is. “why is she so upset? she should just laugh it off.”
seems to me the world will be a healthier place if said blockheads begin to understand what the experience is like.
(like being suddenly covered with invisible bruises, smelling formaldehyde, and being treated as less than human all at once. you want to sob. you can’t because you are in a context where you have to remain professional. if you try to tell someone, you either won’t be believed or else belittled for being upset about something ‘done in fun’.)
that is, if such blockheads are even capable of understanding.
but how will they smart ones ever learn to understand unless it is explained to them?
(i’m sure you don’t disagree with what i’m going on about here)
i apologize for the semi-tangent.
SiteSeer,
Not a snarky reply. Not even a little bit. But thank you for your opinion. I will do my research in the Bible. I find it to be very clear, well-written, and inspired by God Himself.
I hope my last sentence does not sound snarky to you.
This is my opinion as well. That people take ‘this is cruel and hurts people’ as an opportunity to argue about whether they have the right to be cruel bothers me.
You can be cruel to people if you wish, but I’m not going to think well of you for it.
One thousand times this!
This is where it gets difficult. In many cases cruelty, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. A good example is the pro-choice/life debate. Both sides accuse the other side of cruelty. Is one side right and the other side wrong? If so, who decides and who enforces? Do we want to live in a society where every divise issue like this gets decided for us?
I think the bigger problem is human tendency to clump issues and people into generic boxes rather than relating with individual people. In every case of one of these issue divides are real people with real struggles, with probably few (if any) people who actually fit the generic stereotype. Along with this, we have a highly polarized society with scores of litmus tests that clump people into extreme categories. For example, if you tend toward a certain position it means you are an exremist who fully supports candidate X, and you must automatically hold dozens of other extreme views, and therefor we must destroy your business and your life.
As a country, we need to find a way to tone down the rhetoric and start having true dialogue with other individuals. If I recall correctly, Jesus dealt with individuals much more than he dealt with masses.
It doesn’t help us ‘have a dialogue’ if someone points out that something hurts others and you just jump to this ‘both sides/we can’t really tell what’s cruel’ thing.
Yes, then and now, He deals with each of us at a personal level. When He returns, He will deal with the masses.
Not “dogma”…
IDEOLOGY.
Just like the Communists of the last century.
If it’s as big as it looks in the fotie, it’ll need to spin to avoid collapsing under its own gravity.
“I DON’T WANT A THING TO CHANGE
NOW THAT I GOT MINE!”
— Glen Frey, “I Got Mine”
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“Both sides accuse the other side of cruelty. Is one side right and the other side wrong? If so, who decides and who enforces?”
++++++++++++++++++
i don’t exactly have an answer to this one.
—————-
“Do we want to live in a society where every divisive issue like this gets decided for us?”
++++++++++++++++
i’m not proposing that these things are decided for us by others or by a powerful institution.
i propose owning what you believe in, including the pain it brings to others. in factc i’ve just put together a brand new Doctrine of Personal-Responsibility-When-Adopting-A-Doctrine.
(yep, throwing my doctrine into the ring. but i won’t be weaponizing it with a statement to sign — by which careers, reputations, professional & personal relationships live and die)
.
.
even if no one’s curious, i’ll indulge you anyway. The Doctrine of Personal-Responsibility-When-Adopting-A-Doctrine can be summarized as:
-when you subscribe to a doctrine, consider how what you are advocating for may bring pain on many levels to others, while you may benefit from the doctrine in some way.
-it is your responsibility to find these others and hear from them what it is like to be on the painful receiving end of the doctrine(s) you embrace.
-own the fact that you are advocating for cruelty and pain towards others.
-don’t dispute it, don’t ignore it, don’t pretend it isn’t happening. including as a matter of faith.
-be wary of putting faith in doctrines.
-understand that cruelty is worthy of a strong pushback, and accept it, rather than complain about it.
-pain from cruelty-on-principle, especially when framed as ordained by God, is deeply personal. Especially when the advocates for such a doctrine are not the ones impacted by its tenets & import. the push-back will thus be personal. take the push-back with a good deal of grace.
-the meaning of cruel is best defined by those at ground zero
(these ideas aren’t unique nor original to me. just putting them in my own words)
Hi Lea,
I can always count on you to misinterpret me in the worst possible way. In this instance you perfectly illustrated the problem I was attempting to highlight. Instead of reaching out to me as an individual to have a dialogue and ask for clarification, you ratcheted up the rhetoric by clumping me into a bucket of people who just don’t get it.
Of course there different kinds and levels of cruelty that should be opposed by all appropriate means. But in the process we need to be careful that we don’t dehumanize those with whom we disagree by casting them as “one of those.”
All of your thoughts on this are very good. One of the big problems is the toxic mixture of cruelty and power, which makes the cruelty very difficult to effectively confront. This seems very true of the SBC right now. I suspect that progress against this type of power and cruelty must come through changing individuals through dialogue and relationship. Not that it’s wrong to oppose the group in a general kind if way, but there will not likely be real and lasting change until the right comination of individuals embrace that change. And those individuals are not likely to change just because other people are writing bad things about them. Hitting them in the pocketbook is good only so long as they cannot find other sources of income. I also think it is good to make them comply with laws and to take appropriate legal action when they don’t. But all of these efforts will be short lived if they don’t want to change.
Wow, what a comment! Can you not just engage with me without getting angry?
How does this help us ‘have a dialogue’ exactly? I had a whole thing typed up but go back to my original comment to that other dude, because this is my concern:
“And on this note, I have heard so many stories from people who were rejected by their churches for being gay, and the deep pain that causes. They are seeking god and doing while being rejected by too many christians.”
I talk to these people, and have heard their stories. I know them. I am merely asking others to consider, as elastigirl has said, to “own the fact that you are advocating for cruelty and pain towards others”.
Take of that what you will. I do not know your beliefs on this, but one side hurts the other. The other side complains about being called out on this fact.
Oh! This is the part I mean to respond to, because how is it dehumanization to say that something is causing pain? These are words used to shut down dialogue, not continue it. Disagreeing with someone and pointing out the impact of their beliefs on others is not ‘dehumanization’.
(and I meant to use a different quote above, because I’m not touching the abortion deal right now but your general point instead).
Why is it wrong to be angry? Why can you not engage me without being accusatory?
Here you go accusing me again. Where did I ever advocate for cruelty and pain for others?!?!? I have never advocated for such a thing. You are making up an accusation against me out of thin air. If you would have read my comment more carefully, you would have noticed that I wrote “in many cases” and not “in all cases.” My point was that deep disagreements like this are better resolved via relationship and dialogue rather than spear throwing from fortresses. My poiny was not to deny that cruelty is both real and painful. But you somehow twisted what I wrote to mean that.
I don’t know why you seem to have such an axe to grind with me. I do know that no one on TWW consistently misinterprets me and scolds me as badly as you do. This is why I normally avoid responding to you comments. I find your behavior toward me on this site cruel and abusive.
elastigirl,
Elastigirl
Ken F
In this post, it outlines – sexual abuse, racial discrimination- and homosexuality.
You two have been talking about homosexuality ( imho mostly)
I’ve enjoyed your back and forth
Can I ask both of you a question?
Since the post listed racial issues as a point of contention
Is racism a sin?
Wow, you did this to me again! You misinterpreted me and quoted me out of context to support your misinterpretation. By now I firmly believe you purposefully and maliciously misinterpret me. I said that it dehumanizes another person to clump them into a category rather than relating to them as an individual. How did you miss that?
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have not commented on homosexuality.
I would agree with you that they can have their own membership rules as they please, but I think it goes beyond that, in reality. I think it has become a litmus test, in that they believe that every person’s opinion on the issue speaks to their legitimacy, in every sphere of life.
Benn,
“Is racism a sin?”
+++++++++++++
is racism a sin…
you think anyone here would think otherwise? why the need to articulate the question?
why not just make the point you’re building up to? you don’t need my answer.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“This seems very true of the SBC right now. I suspect that progress against this type of power and cruelty must come through changing individuals through dialogue and relationship.
…But all of these efforts will be short lived if they don’t want to change.”
++++++++++++++++++++
i think of this: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”–Martin Luther King
i see it as survival of the fittest ideologies. towards survival of the species. equations with which cruelty is incompatible.
doesn’t mean society will ever be a shangri-la, but cruelty on more and more hidden levels is entering the collective conscious and conscience. and mutating away. (as i look into my crytal ball). this isn’t a recent thing, but it is speeding up.
i see that where cruelty to fellow human beings and animals is concerned, critical mass is taking hold issue by issue.
in time, those who don’t want change occupy a smaller and smaller ideological bunker.
eventually they are like self-righteous squeaking mice.
where gender and sexual equality are concerned, i hope i live long enough to hear them squeak.
As a mater of fact, yes if you qualify the question, and parse it, TWW has people that does not think racism is a sin.
So yes it was a legitimate question
Benn,
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
.
.
even though most human beings have the capacity for empathy, is a learned thing. people are at different points in the spectrum of learning. people are always learning.
i feel compassion and the ability to imagine are some of my strong suits. i have always had many friends from a wide variety of backgrounds. i hear first-hand from friends who have backgrounds different from mine what it’s like to walk in their shoes. i am continually amazed at how much i didn’t understand. my empathy is continually growing and deepening.
my view is that most people have good hearts and don’t want to hurt another human being. when they do things that are hurtful to their fellow human beings of a different race because of their race or perceived differentness, my is that it usually comes down to lack of awareness, lack of understanding, ignorance.
none of which are acceptable.
i also think that when people are frustrated with a situation, with life, with society, if there is a need to take it out on someone (even in their minds) it is not unusual that it will be on a person who is different. i think it is largely subconciously done.
which is no excuse. and it is despicable.
i think none of us are immune to these things, whether majority or minority.
just as my view in my doctrine of personal-responsibility-when-adopting-a-doctrine is that it is incumbent on a person to find out and understand how their beliefs cause pain to others, it is incumbent on a majority person to find out and learn to understand what it is like to be a minority person.
i hope i’ve said this well.
Benn,
so, yes, i believe racism is a sin.
i believe it is a complex issue, and people are clueless the extent to which their assumptions, their conduct, their casual interactions are preferential towards people who are ‘like them’.
is it sin to be clueless?
well, i don’t like the word sin. not that i don’t believe there are sins.
being clueless is sloppy. careless. self-involved. we all can take the initiative to get informed, to better understand. it will take a concerted effort and time, and will need to be a priority.
to be a sloppy in how you relate to fellow human beings is dishonorable, indecent, i think despicable.
I hope what you say is true. But I have doubts after the 20th century being the bloodiest in human history. Whenever we have a “war to end all wars” or “peace in our time” it seems there always comes some new movement of evil to prove the predictions wrong.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
i suppose i differentiate between society and geopolitical conflict.
but maybe there are connections between it all.
as far as cruelty on hidden levels entering the collective conscious and conscience (at a society level), in some categories it’s a few steps back at the present time (thinking about the far right, alt right). it’s troubling.
but i’m looking at the long view, with some logic.
Benn,
benn,
if you’re still around, i hope i’ve conveyed my thoughts well on the following:
racism is sin. it is wrong. i don’t like those words so much because they put all egregiousness in one measuring cup, leveling it off nice and even with a table knife.
(like all the particles of sugar in the christmas cookie recipes i am not baking [but wish i was])
murder with malice aforethought is the same size and shape as driving 40 mph in a 35 mph zone with speed aforethought.
ridiculous.
i’ll be brazen enough to say God agrees with me.
i like to understand — what i’m thinking, what i’m saying, what others are saying, what things mean. and so i prefer to define how and why something is sin, is wrong.
racism is despicable, in all its forms. the onus is the majority person to take the initiative to learn and understand the pain it causes, and how their own actions, assumptions, beliefs contribute to it all.
I hope you are right. As to the left/right issue, I don’t think either side has a monopoly on cruelty. For example, Facism (far right) and Communism (far left) both have a history of extreme cruelty. It seems that utopia creators all have the problem of needing a way to eliminate the ones who don’t agree on what utopia should should like.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
indeed. it’s just that the fikin-cruelty-b@$t@rd-pieces-of-$h|t right in front of me happen to represent the far right, alt right.
(you have to haven seen and enjoyed the movie As Good As It Gets a certain number of times to truly appreciate this last comment)
Pingback: SBC’s new reporting process again fails clergy sex abuse survivors. What’s needed is an independent review panel – Baptist News Global – FREEDOMbyHIM.org
Pingback: SBC’s new reporting process again fails clergy sex abuse survivors. What’s needed is an independent review panel – christian-99.com
Pingback: The ERLC’s Fundraising Blunder Causes Serious Concern in the Survivor Community. | The Wartburg Watch 2019