« C.J. Mahaney, The Victims, and Depths of Darkness | Main | Whatever happened to Lake Ridge Church? »

May 16, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe Blackmon

I totally agree. After reading the legal stuff yesterday I have no use for C.J Mahanney. Even though he didn't molest a child, he didn't do anything to prevent someone who did from doing it again.

The only thing that gives me pause is the whole "...who have been accused...". I still support the motion because I believe what he's done warrants us disassociating from him and his organization.


Ben Simpson


I really love aspects of this resolution, particularly the part about loving and protecting children. However, I'm not comfortable at this point calling for SBC-ers to sever all ties. The allegations are terrible, and some of the defendants have already been adjudicated for crimes, but we must keep in mind the words of Scripture, which say, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him," (Pro 18:17) and to remember the American judicial system maxim of "Innocent until proven guilty." We must keep in mind that anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Therefore, we must wait and see if the accusations are true before any relationships are cut. To call for a severing of ties at this point is too early, and I'm not sure if there are really any formal ties to cut concerning the SBC. Are there?

This is just my opinion, but I think your resolution would be stronger and more accepted at this point if you'd focus only on loving children biblically, protecting children, and reporting sex abuse. That seems more appropriate at this point because whether the allegations are true or not, those points need to be strongly reiterated.


Well, God bless you, Peter. You will probably be reviled for this and if it gets to the floor, this will probably be removed by the Mohler folks who pretty much run the SBC

RESOLVED that we strongly urge denominational servants, entity leaders and our trustee boards to sever all ties, whether official or unofficial, with any evangelical organization, fellowship of ministers, and/or celebrity leader who, presently or in the past, is facing criminal and/or civil litigation for neglecting moral or legal obligations to protect the little children whom Jesus said suffer to follow Him, ties including but not limited to speaking engagements at conferences, entities, and/or agencies supported, whether full or in part, by Cooperative Program monies; and be it finally

"Even though he didn't molest a child, he didn't do anything to prevent someone who did from doing it again."

It goes much deeper than that. SGM Pastor College trained ministers were trained NOT to report these things but to handle them in house. They viewed the civil authorites as too ungodly to handle things. Ironic, eh?

The first lawsuit has more detail on how they were handled in house including requiring 3 years olds to face their molester and forgive him and for the mother of a girl who was raped by her father to let him come home and give him more sex while putting a lock on teh daughters door to deter him. Being the head of the home was more important than a teen girl being raped by her dad. (Yes, they really are that sick)

From Brent Detwilers website concerning the 2nd Amend:

"Everything alleged at Covenant Life Church occurred while C.J. was the senior pastor. John, Grant Layman, and Gary Ricucci did not act independently of C.J.’s counsel regarding how known sex abusers should be handled. That’s why he is a co-conspirator. C.J. was also close friends with Stephen Griney and an acquaintance of Mark Hoffman.

There are also many other names left out of the amendment due to motions by the Defense that are pending before the Judge. A wide circle of people at Covenant Life Church are now alleged to have committed horrible abuses. The FBI is busy! This doesn’t end in Civil Court. I’ve said for a while. More people are going to jail."

If you read the SGM wikileaks docs, you would know CJ was a control freak. No one made a move without CJ's blessing. Yes, he had "strong leadership" as Mohler admired about him to a reporter.

The SBC needs to clean house on those who thought Shepherding cults were a good thing to partner with. It is not like there has not been a ton of evidence there were things to be suspicious of early on and then with all the blogs, wikileaks, etc. After all, not long ago CJ referred to himself as an "Apostle" and named his movement the "People of Destiny". That was an obvious clue something was not right and we should have been more circumspect about this giggly chameleon.

Rick Patrick

Excellent resolution! Who could possibly oppose this? No Southern Baptist is pro-child abuse.

Perhaps the committee will delete or reword paragraphs five and six. Personally, I like them, but people in the know will understand you are referring to Mahaney and Mohler. They may argue that the resolution can stand alone without those paragraphs and still fulfill its purpose. Then again, they may argue that we have already spoken to this issue in the past.

I have only submitted one resolution--ever. It was just prior to Obama, and opposed Socialism, primarily on the basis of religious liberty considerations. Committee Chair Russ Moore denied it, probably saving me from being targeted by the IRS.

Chris Roberts

Slash the last Whereas and the next-to-last Resolved and I could go for it. The problem with those is they assume and assert too much about the nature of relationships with organizations when focus needs to be against perpetrators. Otherwise, great resolution with a good call for churches to be intentionally diligent on this issue.

Debbie Kaufman

Ben Simpson: I'm trying to put some point of reason or even sense to your comment. I can't.



as an observor, I totally respect your efforts to have the SBC publicly repudiate those who have tolerated what can never be tolerated by a Christian people . . . my own Church has learned terrible lessons and sought course changes which, if begun sooner, might have saved many from terrible suffering.
It is SBC business, but a public statement, formal and in the presence of the whole convention, would assure many people that right is being done for the sake of the innocent. I have another concern that I hope is one day expressed by Southern Baptists: the works of people like Michael and Debi Pearl, which have led to the spanking of very tiny babies who cry. Peter, this breaks my heart. I hope some day that the SBC will take a formal stand against the extremes of discipline that are horrific for little ones. For me, it's all the same thing: little ones injured emotionally and physically.

God bless you for trying to do something positive here.


'The allegations are terrible, and some of the defendants have already been adjudicated for crimes, but we must keep in mind the words of Scripture, which say, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him," (Pro 18:17) and to remember the American judicial system maxim of "Innocent until proven guilty." '

Oh dear Ben. According to many of the survivors, that was Mahaney's favorite verse quoted all the time along with Hebrews 13:17. You might want to think about why he would constantly pull that one out on people considering what we know now from not only the lawsuit but sgmwikileaks, etc. Anytime a serous problem was brought to the leadership they whipped this one out on folks. Then called it gossip.

Are you forgetting this is a civil suit looking for damages? So what exactly must Mahaney/SGM be proven guilty or innocent of? Not reporting child molestations to the authorities? That Mahaney was a "strong leader" who had no clue what was going on in his own church and other churches for decades? That pastors who worked for SGM were required to report molestations?

The problem is you are not keeping up. Best to be ignorant of the facts though. See they had this anal rentitive guy in leadership there for years who kept every single email or documentation of any kind. he sort of fancied himself the SGM historian. Mahaney is going to have a problem arguing church autonomy when they are looking at systemic molestations which is why he floated the 1st Amendment to protect molesters.

Amazing what you guys will make excuses for and one reason I do not think our children are safe in SBC churches who promote Mahaney/SGM type of polity or thinking.

Because.............. perverts always lie both to children and adults. And you are right, it is hard to prove and many are never caught. That is why they have so many victims. In this case, it was PDI/SGM systematized protection of molesters. mainly because they were men and these 'temptations" were only natural and btw, the victim is just as big of a sinner. (see docs) The natural progression of the worm theology of Calvin.

So what I hear you saying Ben is that we should act like nothing is amiss in the wacky world of Christendom unless the COURTS say SGM should pay for not reporting child molestations? SBTS, Mohler, Dever, etc should keep right on promoting Mahaney until a civil court jury says he is not ok? That is our cue? I mean we know for a fact that there were molestations all over SGM and that some even served time because the victims family DEFIED the pastor and called the cops. Some were shunned for doing so. Or have you not read all the docs? SGM even gave the perp a heads up on it and helped pay his legal fees while the mom was in poverty.

God help us what passes for intergrity, character, love and compassion in the Reformed movement and their admiration for shepherding cults.

Amazing. Ben thinks a civil court jury gets to decide if Mahaney/SGM represents the sort of character and integrity we want the SBC to be involved with.

peter lumpkins


I appreciate the broad support. There appears to be reluctance in urging our entities/denominational employees/trustees to "sever ties" with those organizations, fellowships, and/or persons who have criminal/civil litigation baggage they presently possess. I think the resolution makes it clear that it doesn't have to be "official" ties but "unofficial" ties as well. Of course, this has nothing to do with personal friendship and/or support but deals with the entities and employees' public support as entities and employees of the SBC funded through the CP for those organizations, fellowships, and/or persons who have criminal/civil litigation pending.

Moreover, I fully understand how our justice system works so far as "innocent until proven" guilty is concerned. Nonetheless, when charges this serious are pending the outcome of the judicial due process, it seems to me we have a moral obligation to fulfill toward the purported victim--in this case, the little ones Jesus instructed us to suffer coming to Him--to at least temporarily suspend our public relationship, whether official or unofficial, with those legally accused of criminal and civil wrong-doing until the judicial due process has run its course.

In addition, to act otherwise, may only deepen, in the long run, the branding of public perception that Southern Baptists are morally complicit toward child abusers if the verdict goes for the plaintiffs; contrarily, our public severing of ties temporarily would but strengthen positive public perception that Southern Baptists erred on the side of caution if the verdict goes for the defendants. What is more, it may assist victims of abuse in restoring trust in the evangelical church's mission to suffer the little ones to follow Christ, protecting them, and positively nurturing them in a secure, safe environment.

For me, to pull out of the resolution the urging to denominational leaders and trustees to "sever ties" (official or unofficial) with those hauling litigation baggage around with them pulls from the resolution a major plank holding the structure together to support a strong statement on the sexual abuse of children.

Kyle B. Gulledge

Great resolution. Look forward to voting for it in a few weeks!

Jenn Grover

Peter, thank you. I spent 20 years with SGM, clueless about the abuse that has allegedly transpired. Mahaney and his loyal cohorts read the continued support of your popular leaders Mohler and Dever, among others as affirmation that he has walked rightly. Though at lest 25 churches and probably thousands have left SGM over the last 2 years, largely due to his refusal to repent, he remains stiff-necked.If these men love him, they must forsake him or he will continue to feel affirmed in his actions.

Ben Simpson

Oh dear Lydia, the Scripture is still true even if somebody perverts it. The civil court proceeding will certainly show if Mahaney is liable for wrong doing. You noted from Detwiler that this will end up in criminal court. Perhaps I am ignorant of all the facts that you know. That's why I'm not ready to go as far as you are yet. When I hear evidence and not just allegations, then I'll be glad to go where you are now.

Ben Simpson

Peter, with that left in there, is there a possibility your resolution will be ruled out of order since it is clearly aimed at Mahaney & SGM?


thank you. I pray this goes through the resolutions committee and passes on the SBC floor. I am sickened to death over this. I can't be there, but I am so grateful someone, SOMEONE, has taken this initiative and is going to introduce this to the messengers of our convention. Prayerfully, the entire SBC messengers will be there and there will not be a bunch out to lunch or sight-seeing when it is introduced and voted upon.

peter lumpkins

The resolution's not clearly named at Mahaney. It's rather aimed for thousands upon thousands of children in our churches and the Lord Jesus Who suffers them come unto Him. That circumstances involving some organizations and personalities occasioned the writing of it is unfortunate. Thus it can't be ruled 'out of order' since it mentions no one specifically. But even if it did, if the Resolutions Committee wanted to address and include it, they'd just expunge the names, etc. rather than kill it completely. At least that seems the way they've normally dealt with more provocative resolutions like this one...


can anybody set the record straight as to whether or not CJM is enrolled as a student at SBTS? I've been told that he is. Not allowing him to be a student (if he is) is one great first step in severing ties.

Scott Shaver


Why don't you invite Mahaney to speak at your church next Sunday? Put your reputation where your mouth and "concerns" are.

You could even protect yourself before he steps to the pulpit by offering the same disclaimer to your church and visiting reporters that you just gave to Lydia: "The civil court proceeding will certainly show if Mahaney is liable for wrong doing." Up until that time, however, we will carry on as if nothing happened.

Whether Pete's resolution lives, dies, or is ruled out of order at the upcoming annual meeting in Houston, it will be a barometer as to how much the SBC collectively shares your mentality on the matter.

Thanks for your posts.

Jennifer S

While I like Dr. Danny Akin and SEBTS I don't understand how he can bring CJ to speak at SEBTS as a model to the students and my spouse. I just don't understand this. Mark Driscoll , James Merritt, and now CJ is making me wonder about Dr.Akin and his team's level of discernment. Have I missed something ?


Ben, Your movement is deaf. Mahaney/SGM have already floated their "Proverbs" defense in a statement: The 1st Amendment defense.

The 1st Amendment for pastors to have the freedom to protect child molesters. Who woulda thought it?

I am curious, are SGM/Mahaney "more guilty" the higher the monetary reward to victims? And, totally NOT guilty of protecting molesters if there is no monetary reward? Is that how the YRR wing view this case? It seems this is the argument you are really making.


"can anybody set the record straight as to whether or not CJM is enrolled as a student at SBTS? I've been told that he is. Not allowing him to be a student (if he is) is one great first step in severing ties:

Adam, the question is more like: Is CJ teaching, speaking or training in any capacity there. There are Mahaney family members there. His son in law (I forget his name) is enrolled there. There might be more from his entourage that got some special deals or jobs. I wish we could get information but usually one finds these things out on the sgm survivors blog from folks who know them personally.

I really do think there was a plan to plant sgm style churches with NAMB money (As we did with Acts 29) when CJ fled to Dever's church then to Mohler in Louisville. There is also some sort of SBTS partnership with SGM/Bob Kauflin. Kauflin mentioned internships with SBTS on his blog not long ago.

I do wonder if we have long time SBC people who would qualify for these sorts of privileges/partnerhships that are not shepherding cult folks? One would think?

See, SGM only has a 9 mo pastors college for indoctrination so their pastors are not really qualified for SBC type churches. I think educating some of the Mahaney entourage who fled...oops, moved to Louisville was a step toward putting them in an SBC church. I think some promises were made because you don't just move your organization and all those families to Louisville and announcing your plans to " plant a church near the seminary" just to have an adventure. I mean why not Indiana? Georgia?

What is even more interesting is who has preached at the beleagured SGM church plant in Louisville now meeting at the Marriot instead of my daughters school, thankfully, as they have a zero tolerance for protecting child molestation and swiftly got them out after a few weeks. Let us see....Bruce Ware (SBTS), John Piper, Jerry Bridges....and some more I cannot remember. Many Reformed leaders/celebs have gone all out to exonerate and prop up Mahaney. The list is long: Mohler, Dever, Ortlund, Trueman, Piper, DeYoung, Duncan, TGC, T4G, AofR and many more!

Mahaney has gotten his money's worth out of the YRR movement. Too bad the movement lacks so much discernment but then again, I think they rather agree with Mahaney's polity.

Scott Shaver


Could it be that expressed concern about "paydays" for the SGM victims is actually a fear of the legal process successfully shutting down the SGM presses, support networks and shepherding internships via financial award to plaintiffs?

Just a thought turned question since you obviously have a better handle on the history of SGM than I.



It is an extremely sad state of affairs that the resolution you propose even needed to be written, given the grave concern that "... some of our entities and/or entity heads supported by the Cooperative Program have established close relational ties with some ... who, presently or in the past, are facing criminal and/or civil litigation for neglect of moral and legal obligations."

Such alliances are not implied in "Together for the Gospel." Ministerial integrity demands tough love in such instances that would put a distance between SBC entities and the accused, while also loving and praying for the them, until the legal system settles the matter.


Bob Allen has a story up today about your resolution at the Associated Baptist Press. I'm quoted in it:


Jennifer S,

Welcome to the growing list of Southern Baptists who question the wisdom of certain SBC seminary heads in selecting who speaks to our pastors-in-training. Potty-mouth ministers of non-SBC entities and non-SBC leaders of organizations accused of sexual abuse of children should not be placed on SBC platforms.

Dwight McKissic


Why limit this resolution to children? When we look at the sexual abuse that's often been reported and highly documented in Professor Diane Garland's research on clergy sexual abuse that involve SBC pastors as well as others-wouldn't your resolution need address adults who have been victimized by Pastors and church leaders?

I have been considering submitting a resolution dealing with clergy sexual abuse that would be inclusive of all. If you amend your resolution to include adults, mine would become unnecessary. Please consider doing so.

On another subject, I saw several quotes by John Piper on your this blog a while back that I can't now find.I need to document these quotes and their source for a post I.m working on.My email is dmckissic@cbcarlington.org. Please send me your info so that I can ask your assistance in finding the Piper quotes. Thanks.

JoAnn McKinny

Reading through the comments some feel as if Lumpkin's resolution is way too hard. Watch this video and you'll see it may be way too soft


What a mess!

Ben Simpson


The blog tough guy schtick is wearing thin. Do you another gear than jab, taunt, and condescend?



Attorney Bill O'Neill on Janet Mefford show.

Scott Shaver

Sorry Ben:

I'm really a pussycat. How about we meet and have coffee?

Debbie Kaufman

Ben: I would highly recommend you listening to the interview with Attorney Bill O'Neill on the Janet Mefford show. You do realize this is the biggest sex scandal that I know I have ever seen in one place. 11 victims plus more who are coming forward. I think the scripture you have given is out of place. This involved children who went through horrific sexual rape. What does the scriptures say about hurting children? It's pretty tough on those who do and it has nothing to do with the courts. I and so many others have read the stories. I believe each and every one of those who put everything on the line to come forward.


I'm not as famaliar with this as some others so correct if what I'm about to say doesn't line up with the facts.

1. There's no debate crimes against children were committed. That's already bend adjudicated. Not up for debate serious crimes were committed and proven in the courts.

2. What's happening now is the civil part going after the people who failed to report those crimes.

3. The defense is not "we did report those crimes!" The defense is basically "we don't have to report those crimes"

Basically it seems like SGM is admitting that they did not report criminal activity because they didn't think as a church they had to. They admit they did the thing they are accused of doing.

Why do you have to wait for the courts to smack this down when they admit to not reporting these crimes?

Is protecting Mohler, Dever, and Akin that important?

scott shaffer

1. There's no debate crimes against children were committed. That's already bend adjudicated. Not up for debate serious crimes were committed and proven in the courts.

I wasn't aware that these had been settled in criminal court. I believe one youth pastor was indicted last December, but nothing beyond that had been brought to criminal court. Can you post links to the cases you mention? I'd like to read about them. Thanks.

Ben Simpson

Debbie, thanks for the recommendation. I'll listen to it soon.

Mary, thanks for the summary. I appreciate the insight here as I come to understand the situation.


Scott and Ben, this is where I need Lydia to help me out here. I've read the summaries from other places. Just this morning I read over at Wartburg about one of the cases where a convicted abuser was welcomed back into the church - having sleep overs with kids and the church was not told about his conviction. A lot if this stuff has been talked about for years and I'm pretty sure there have been several convictions. What the current class action is about is the SGM system that covered up these crimes.

The question for the SBC is this - Does the SBC agree crimes against anybody should be reported immediately to the governing authorities or should churches get a pass because of 1st Amendment. That's SGMs defense - 1st Amend entitles them to handle these things in hous as church matters.

BUT facts are already established that SGM did not report criminal activities. The lawsuit is about whether this was a concerted coordinated policy of SGM that caused damages to the victims.

Based on the already established facts we should all agree that the SBC should denounce these people and this whole horrible horrible mess. Peter's resolution DOES NOT need changes because facts are already out there. Unless someone can point to CJ Mahaney denouncing this ideal that churches should not report crimes to the authorities then the SBC should have nothing to do with him. Of course being Al Mohler's friend goes a long way in the SBC.

But there is year's of stuff and links at SGM Survivors and Wartburg Watch for those who want to dig deeper.

I am open to correction if I've spun something the wrong way here so anyone please correct me if I've gotten any bit wrong.


Scott, some of this stuff goes back 20 years or so. There is not really one link that will lay it out the convictions over the last 20 years.

one guy who was convicted and served time (sgm helped him with legal counsel but shunned the victims) and came back to sgm. He was pictured on the news report recently. There are others who were convicted simply because the family DEFIED the pastors and called the police.

There was even one powerful dad who they were told raped his daughter who ended up paying for an island vacation for the pastors. There is some weird stuff. I mean really inbred weird stuff. It is like Jim Jones without the kool aid but with middle class clothes and homes.

You gotta remember PDI/SGM is a shepherding cult. They tend to isolate people and your 'care group leader' and pastor are the people you look to and go to for all your problems. They are very authoritarian top down in polity. These folks never questioned their leaders and if they did, they got shunned really bad.

When when they planted churches, several families would quit their jobs and move together to the place. (Not unlike what they did in Louisville so they have an instant church) The families would all get homes near each other, school their children together, etc. Things that sound good but that environment is isolating to where people did not think for themselves and really believed the pastor/care group leader was really in care of their soul.

These are people who really bought into the 'elder really knows best for you'.

Who knows, they might have even obstructed justice inserting themselves into manipulating the process. Listen to the Mefford program I linked to on another thread. There were instances that it is claimed the pastors told the victim different court dates so they would not show up while they were helping the molester with legal defense. That might be hard to prove but isn't that horribly sinister and obstructing justice for those molested children? There are also some news pieces that get into some of it.

The adult parents are responsible for being involved ina cult. But SGM uses the "love bombing" cult tactic and people really do get sucked in and before they know it they are immersed.

I personally think CJ will walk away from this untouched and that is one reason the RBD stay silent. CJ will be the "duped" leader and will write a book on "grace" that the RBD will endorse. It hardly matters if any of the Reformed speak up at this point or cancel Mahaney stage appearances. it will only look like what it obviously is at this late time: a PR move not concern for molested children.

But keep in mind, the FBI is very busy on this one. If you read the lawsuit there are still quite a few things pending before the judge.

Mary does a good job with what this is really about. That is why they floated the 1st Amendment.

Scott, for some interesting reading on how shepherding cults operate at the top, read the SGMwikileaks (google that) docs. You will read men with the emotional mentality of 13 year old boys who have way too much time and money on their hands. It is so cheesy and fake you will need a barf bag.

Debbie Kaufman

Ben and all: Here is the first television interview from one of the victims on the site Spiritual Sounding Board.



I appreciate the sentiment, but the resolution, as drafted, reads too much like a Bill of Attainder.

If the whereas section talking about some evangelicals finding themselves sued etc. and the paragraph about SBC leaders associating with such people were reworked, and the resolved paragraph talking about severing ties were reworked, I could support it.

I also think that you could make it stronger. Instead of saying that churches should adopt policies, it should say that churches should adopt policies that require contacting the police authorities as a first step.

Most importantly, I believe the resolved paragraph should say something about helping the victims. All of the attention seems to go to the perps. Nothing for the victims. The resolution should say that the victims and their families should be given the highest priority.

But it's a good sentiment and start.


A big big issue in the SBC is that NAMB is now planning on spending millions of SBC money planting churches that are clones of SGM/Acts 29. These churches are cultic in their structure. Various "groups" are used to control what people think and who they are associated with. Members are isolated from those outside the group. Shunning is used to shame and control members. The SBC should never have gotten mixed up with these people but Mohler wants to build a coalition with Calvinists and that's all that matters.

pam knight

Theo and I totally agree with addressing this issue and we appreciate your effort to bring it to the attention of others. We pray that this issue will not be swept under a rug. Thanks Peter for for your thoughtful efforts on this.
In Christ
Theo & Pam Knight

Julie Anne

Peter: Thank you for speaking out on this horrific situation. It needs to be exposed and discussed. I tried to comment on the ABP article and last I checked it was stuck in moderation (it may be there now), but wanted to thank you here for proposing the resolutions for the SBC. I can see Jesus doing something like that. I think he probably liked to protect little ones. It's shameful that some of these so-called pastors protect their brand of doctrine before defenseless children. You would think protecting children would be part of their doctrine? I'm tired of thinking about the whys. I just want something done to stop this insanity.


"The detonation of the Penn State scandal must shake the entire nation into a new moral awareness. Any failure to report and to stop the sexual abuse of children must be made inconceivable ... What about churches, Christian institutions, and Christian schools? The Penn State disaster must serve as a warning to us as well, for we bear an even higher moral responsibility." (Al Mohler) http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/10/the-tragic-lessons-of-penn-state-a-call-to-action/

Debbie Kaufman

I still hold to the TULIP and believe it to be in scripture. But it's not about all Calvinists or even Calvinism. This is about horrific acts perpetrated by a cult who sneaked into the SBC disguised as a sheep. SGM doesn't just need to be disassociated with, they need to be totally shut down and exposed for what they are. The devil in disguise with many destroyed people as proof.


Max, how hypocritical is it that people in the SBC freely spoke out about Penn State before any trial/conviction but now refuse to make any statement despite all the overwhelming years of evidence against SGM.

People aren't evil and horrible because of their Soteriology but a big part of why Mahaney gets a pass is because of his Soteriology. Mohler would have had nothing to do with Apostle CJ if he weren't a Calvinist. It's all about sticking Together for Calvinism and The Calvinist Coalition with people like Mohler and Dever. Gotta keep the tribe together.

peter lumpkins

Brother Dwight,

Thanks. You ask "Why limit this resolution to children?" Simple. Because the ignored white elephant in the room presently is sexual abuse of children and the possible cover-up of it. Southern Baptists should state and state in the clearest terms we: a) detest any form of child abuse and especially the sexual abuse of children; b) and we're not going to tolerate or 'cover-up' any abuse of children.

As for the Piper quotes, brother, I'm not sure what quotes you are referencing. They must have been in a comment thread for I don't think I quoted Piper lately...

Always good to hear from you brother.

Scott Shaver


If that's a quote from Mohler how come we don't hear any gems of wisdom on this matter right now from Louisville?

peter lumpkins


Well, the resolution is more than "sentiment" I assure. And as for reading like a "bill of attainder" I haven't a clue to what you refer. It's easy enough to know what a "bill of attainder" is but what you mean when you say it reads like one--as if "bills of attainder" are common sources of reading enjoyment for vanilla Joes like me--again, curious but confused. The resolution above no more cites contemporary occasions as sources which spawned its driving "sentiment" than any number of other resolutions I could cite over the last few years.

And, the reason for mentioning the lawsuits and prosecutions was because that's reality, Louis. SBs continue to parade some of these guys around our denominational dog and pony shows and it's time to stop it. Many churches and pastors express the exact "sentiment" about that I again assure.

Yes, I agree it could have been stronger. No argument. But your suggestion that policies should include absolute directives is, I think, much too specific. Local churches working this out with their own local authorities will find out soon enough when they should call lawful authorities and what is expected from them pertaining to possible breaches of the law. And, frankly, I'm not sure the local authorities is the first call. Parents would need to be called first it seems to me.

Finally, you may be correct it focuses more on perps than victims. But I think you're judgement that "Nothing for the victims" is included hardly reflects a fair reading of the resolved:

--renew "our allegiance to our Lord Jesus to love children as He loves children"

--implement sound policies to develop "our spiritual, moral and legal obligations in nurturing loving care for our children"

--protect the "rightful interests" of children as "members of the human family made in God's image"

--"sever ties" with groups and/or individuals who appear callous toward protecting children

--"urge all Southern Baptists to pray for and financially support healthy children's ministries"

Thus, while a more detailed description of victims' rights, ministry needs, and the church's obligation to the families of abused children could surely have been proposed (though personally I'm not sure that's the purpose of resolutions; i.e. to spell out in detail solutions to problems rather than raise the awareness and propose general guidelines or solutions) to suggest "nothing" for the victims is present as you do is just not well taken, Louis.

Thanks again. Always learn from our encounters...



You are welcome. I wasn't really trying to be critical of your effort. Was just providing my thoughts.

And by "sentiment" I meant intent.

So, I agree with the goal, the intent, even the idea, just disagree on some of the particulars. Plus, I would like to see the resolution survive and be voted on affirmatively. My suggestions reflected only my thoughts on what would attract me to vote for it.

I always learn from you, too.

Hope to meet you in Houston.


Well no wonder the Reformed big dogs have been silent.


Dr. R. Richard Tribble, Jr.


Under the provisions of the last sentence of the third paragraph of Bylaw 20, entitled, ‘Committee on Resolutions’ a messenger may bring his resolution to the floor of the Convention if the committee refuses to do so. The messengers decide whether to hear the resolution by a 2/3 vote.

Under the provisions of Roberts Rules of Order (RONR) when the Resolution Committee makes its report not to recommend or submit your resolution to the convention you would need to rise to a microphone and indicate a ‘Point of Order.” When recognized indicate that you rise to appeal the Committee’s decision to not present your submitted resolution to the assembled messengers under the provisions of SBC Bylaw #20.

The Chair will then present the issue to the messengers who must approve it by a two-thirds margin for the resolution to be presented and debated on the floor. One problem I've noticed is that in the past the Chair hasn't always been able to correctly determine a two-thirds majority when it was on something they didn't agree with.

Hope this can be of some help.

peter lumpkins

Dr. Tribble,

Thank you, brother. Yes it helps very much. Since I've never presented a resolution before, there's much I've got to get settled into my thinking before the convention. You've given me a great start!

The comments to this entry are closed.