« Resolution on Sexual Abuse of Children gains media attention | Main | Interview on The Janet Mefferd Show »



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


`Peter, God bless you, brother. God Bless Tim Rogers, too.


PETER, thank you for being a strong voice for the children

God Bless you!


peter....terrific job of sticking with it and not giving up!!!!

Rick Patrick

This was a win for children and a win for messengers holding entity leaders accountable for showing discernment in their associations. Well written. Well presented. Well done.

Job King

A most excellent job well done.


"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me."

Thank you Peter.


Thank you, Peter. You are awesome. We will link to this post tomorrow.


Way to go, Peter!

Ron Phillips, Sr.


Didn't the messengers also amend paragraph 6 from "...report any child abuse..." to something along the lines of "...report any allegation of child abuse..." or something like that?

Again, great job on this resolution!


Ron P.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: You and Tim Rogers did a wonderful job in speaking to this resolution. It was moving and masterful. It passed. No one thought it would, but I believe God had other plans. This is important and a step in the right direction.


Peter and Tim both did a wonderful job. Peter, I particularly want to compliment you on the thoughtfulness behind the amendment and the wording.

I was pleased to vote for this amendment. I thought it would pass and it did.

Too many times we think that it we are right about an issue any method that we use to try and bring out position to fruition must be correct. So many good ideas have failed because of that issue.

The idea was great. And you could have chosen many ways to present the idea.

But you combined a good idea with a thoughtful approach, and that brought success.

All of us need to learn from this example.

Jonathan Carter

Great job Peter! I am thankful for men like yourself within our denomination that serve our Lord is such a public manner! Thank you so much for the mentor-ship that you offer through your lifestyle! Blessings to you.

Craig Daliessio

As a dad and a believer...thank you! Thank you for staying on this until it came to be and for the diligence I know you will show going forward, to make sure it is enforced whenever (hopefully never) required.
God bless,

cb scott


For all the kids I know who have been abused and treated with rude behavior by a family member or someone they know, I want to thank you, Bob, and Tim for taking a strong stand at the convention itself from the floor and for your writing of the resolution.

Thank you and may God bless you. And may God bless the children everywhere who suffer at the hands of adults in so many terrible ways.

Scott Shaver


Your determination to address this issue at a more effective level among Baptist churches while respecting their cherished views on autonomy is as equally admirable as the resolution.

Perhaps (As an individual or as part of a consortium of advice)you might draft a simple outline of safeguards against and warning signs of child sexual abuse in local fellowships.

Explain specifically how churches and their leaders are to comply with legal requirements on reporting and the local church's responsibility under Christ to bind the wounds of victims while giving over to legal authorities the offender for "destruction of the flesh."

If needed, distribute it free (or the reproduction thereof)to local churches upon request as an expression of love to them, to God and to the children in our midst.

Bypass any need for arguing such resolutions and SBC imprimatur altogether.

Ron F. Hale

Good work my friend!


If anyone needs proof that we need to get control of our celebrity endorsers in the SBC they should just read over at Pravda. There's a discussion there which is basically Lumpkins is bad therefore everything he says must be a lie and Mohler is good so if he says CJ is ok than that's good enough for them. Now these people with every post demonstrate they have no clue what it is they are actually agreeing with Mohler and CJ about. At the heart what they agree with Mohler and CJ is that SGM's defense that they didn't have to report any suspected crimes to authorities because they are a church and can practice religion any way they want - they don't have to report sexual abuse because they decided they would handle that in house as a church. This is what Mohler's wonderful gift of discernment shows - he agrees with the defense that SGM is not culpable of any wrong doing because as a church they didn't have to report anything to authorities. SGM's defense wasn't nothing bad happened - SGM's defense was we didn't have to report it because we handled it in house under our 1st Amendment rights. So that's what everybody including Mohler agrees to when they declare that CJ's a great guy - SGM didn't have to report sexual abuse to authortires because churches are allowed to handle sexual abuse in house.


Let me just see if I can make this more clear. Al Mohler has endorsed SGM and CJ Mahaney. SGM and CJ Mahaney have declared they did not handle the sexual abuse in their churches wrong. Their whole defense which is documented - not up to debate, factual evidence - their defense is that SGM did not have to report allegations of sexual abuse because they are a church. Al Mohler has endorsed SGM so by his endorsement he is endorsing this idea that churches do not have to report sexual abuse allegations in churches. You can't have it both ways - if you believe churches are required by law and that it's just the right thing to do to report sexual abuse allegations to authorities than you disagree with Al Mohler, SGM, and CJ Mahaney.

When Mohler goes on CNN, people see him as the face of the SBC - the general population doesn't understand about church autonomy or issues of ecclesiology. So when Al Mohler puts his stamp of approval on CJ Mahaney - rightly or wrongly it is seen as a statement by the SBC. Al Mohler has endorsed by his public endorsement of Mahaney that churches do not have to report allegations of child abuse to authorities because of first amendment rights. So now it looks as if the SBC at large endorses this idea that churches do not have to report allegations of sexual abuse in churches - or as the world sees it the SBC believes it's ok to cover up sexual abuse in churches.

Tom Parker

Mary: I too read the comments over at Pravda. Too many there are trying to change the subject by disrespecting Peter. That is wrong on every level.


Seriously -- some people were opposed to this resolution?

Scott Shaver


You know what? That site "Voices" is nothing but a controlled breeding ground for about 50% of voting SBC messengers who attend any of these annual meetings.

Their intolerance for any Christian viewpoint contrary to that of their select Fundamentalist/Calvinist commentators is appalling. They treat laypeople like ignorant scum. The site does dabble with the input of a few diplomatic "Trads" (for lack of a better term), but for the most part, it's an inbred pep rally for denominational wannabees.

If the site really is your "One-Stop-Shop" for "All Things Southern Baptist", I can tell you the merchandise selection is slim, the shelves are bare, and there's only two or thee reluctant tellers working sixty cash registers.

I am thrilled that the resolution on sexual abuse backed some of these guys into the corner of moral hypocrisy. Let em talk and surmise all they want. They have their reward within their own tight knit little clans.

"Unity" for them, means becoming like-minded with them.

All I can say is "Happy Trails".

cb scott


I just want you to know that not everyone over at Voices is throwing Pete under the bus. There is at least one who is taking on any and all challengers to Peter's integrity over there. To give you a hint to his identity, he is the toughest, handsomest, intelligent, and most articulate of all Baptist Bloggers.


First Peter, let me apologize. I got to rolling this morning and did not give you a richly deserved atta boy for your work at the SBC.

Now CB et al (yes CB I see your defense of Peter - good job. I'm sure your wife loves you and thinks you handsome) but here's the deal about Pravda. Pravda cannot deal with a thing that most of us call FACTS. Here's some FACTS on CJ Mahaney. It's not opinion, it's not something pulled out of thin air, it's not a vision - these are real FACTS that are verifiable. SGM's defense, filed on real life papers, filed in a real life court was not "there is no evidence of anything bad like sexual abuse of children happening in these churches" their defense was "situations occurred we handled them in house because we are a church, this was a church matter and the State cannot interfere because of the 1st Amendment." Everybody with me so far on these things that are actual verifiable FACTS? OK so SGM pretty much admits stuff was horribly wrong in their churches but they handled it themselves without reporting to authorities and that's the way churches get to behave because 1st Amendment. SGM's defense is "stay out of our business because this is a church matter." SGM pretty much admits the allegations are true with their defense. So by SGM's own admission - bad things happened and they did not report the bad things as required by law and they handled all in house because they think that is their right to do.

So all these people Al Mohler, Mark Dever, The Calvinist Coalition, Together for Calvinism, Chris Roberts, Tarheel - all these people are standing up for an organization that admits bad stuff happened but people need to stay out of it because of 1st Amendment. This isn't a witch hunt because there are actually facts - from SGM's lawyers that they admit to the allegations but claim to not be at fault because of the 1st Amendment. You don't need more evidence. You don't need a court to decide because there are actually real life FACTS available right this very moment.

So of course the Calvinists want to distract because Mahaney is connected to big Calvinists and Mohler, Dever, et al have shown zero discernment in their support of Mahaney and have represented the SBC horrifically, but because the Calvinists cannot deal with FACTS Mohler and Mahaney et al will be protected at all costs. That's priority #1 with these people - they don't care about FACTS and they certainly don't care about victims of Calvinists. But the evidence and the FACTS are already out there and some people are waking up and some people are looking like the fools they are - they care more about their idol Calvinism than they care about doing the right thing. And understand it isn't that Calvinism is evil and all Calvinists are bad - but Calvinists in the SBC have created this culture where anything being said against a Calvinist is a lie and they will defend the Calvinists at all cost.

Scott Shaver


I'm sorry to have inadvertently included the "toughest, handsomest, and most articulate" of all baptist bloggers in my scathing assessment above.

I did see CB coming to Pete's defense in a most admirable fashion.

C.B. What is your secret for being allowed to post on that site? I've been sitting in moderation for the better part of week now. LOL.


Scott, I think Dave Miller is afraid of CB so that's why CB is allowed to post.

One thing to remember about Pravda - a lot of the commenters who are "nonCalvinist" are actually 3 - 4 point Calvinists. There are probably like 2 people over there who disagree with Calvinists on the U and T and you'll know who they are because they are the ones who are attacked by the Calvinist swarm every time they post.

cb scott

Scott Shaver,

My secret is that they know Lydia is my sister and she will jump on them if they do not let me comment there or anywhere else in the Baptist Blog World. No one can stand up to the wrath of Lydia if they have disrespected her brother. . . . and also, the fact that I do not lie is another reason.


"It is time for the LORD to act, for they have violated Your instruction." Psalm 119:126 Am praying God brings down the house of cards flatter than a pancake by Baltimore. selahV

cb scott

Thanks a lot, SelahV.

It is highly possible that I may be sitting in the crowd there in Baltimore. That's all I need, another building falling on my head. I am going to sit by Pete the whole time and if your wish comes true, I am going to grab hold of him so we will go out together.


Hey Guys,

Been keeping up by iphone on the happenings since we are traveling. We did watch Peter (Sorry CB, but I was watching with the most handsome man ever... second to you) on computer and I will admit this girl shed a few tears and my heart is filled with gratitude because I spent last week before I left town with some victims from another denomination pour out their stories of covered up molestations.

Ok, it is just a resolution but something has changed. We are turning a corner. That corner is not about words claiming we care about children. That corner is one of more people coming to realization that NO church, no organization, no image, name or celebrity ministry career is more important than the heart of one single vulnerable child.

Who are we? Are we barbarians? Are we really going to be ruthless in our pursuit of evangelism and growing our denomination? What good is our "witness" if we dismiss, as Mary has rightly pointed out, FACTS that so many were willing to ignore? We HAVE no witness if we are really honest about it until we deal with the FACTS so many of our leaders have ignored. We have no witness unless we are living as the kingdom now.

So much of what fuels evil is the ignoring, the refusal to name it, the obfuscation...the lying to ourselves about it so we can prop up the movement or systems we love more than the faceless least of these who are so easy to dismiss. You see, there are men. Then there are REAL men who stand up for right.... at a cost. To be a scorned nobody in the true kingdom is more glorious than to be a somebody in the false one. The true kingdom aims for justice and mercy for the least of these. The faceless. those who are easy to dismiss.

Harriet has it so very right. It is a house of cards and it needs to to flattened. I think of something Dr. Rogers said many years ago: I don't have to be SBC.

But I want to make sure folks out there reading about the SBC in the media as supporting what is essentially a cult like PDI/SGM--- know that guys like Peter, Max, Scott, CB and many others I know personally-- are the true face of the SBC I have loved all my life. They are representative of the men and women who have said: Enough. This is not who we are.

We are a Holy Priesthood.


CB... one word: METAPHOR :)



"But I want to make sure folks out there reading about the SBC in the media as supporting what is essentially a cult like PDI/SGM--- know that guys like Peter, Max, Scott, CB and many others I know personally-- are the true face of the SBC I have loved all my life. They are representative of the men and women who have said: Enough. This is not who we are.

We are a Holy Priesthood." ~Lydia

Exactly, dear sister, Lydia. We are saved to be different from the world, baptized in Christ, raise to walk in the newness of His calling. Praise God there are some who are standing in the gap and are willing to give their blood, sweat and tears if need be to keep the church holy and acceptable in the eyes of God. The gap keeps getting wider and wider. I was very very disappointed in some who went to the microphones and objected to the amendment Peter put forth. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. the convention should have never had a reason to count those naysayers. there shouldn't have been any. selahV


Well, if you've watched the conversation at Pravda you may notice a new level to the despicable lows some will go to continue protecting their idols. Now basically we're getting "it's not criminal to handle these issues in house." #1 YES IT IS! #2 Abortion is not criminal so I guess that means we can all just wander around all "ho hum ho hum abortion not criminal so what!" When the FACTS don't agree with you than you have to just start making stuff up. And notice gone now are all of the declarations of "of course everyone should report to authorties" now that we know the actual FACTS point to Mahaney/SGM declaring no we do not have to report anything to the authorities because we are a church. Again get this FACT - the people who are still defending Mahaney and who think Mohler et al have any kind of ability at discernment are declaring that they agree "no churches don't have to report sexual abuse allegations to authorities they should just handle that in house." Al Mohler, Dever et al - those who endorsed Mahaney are declaring they do not think churches should have to report sexual abuse allegations to authorities. You cannot be on the side of Mahaney and not agree with SGM's defense of what happened in those churches.


it just hit me - I'm slow sometime. That abortion just blows the stupid argument that we have to allow the court system to tell us how to think about any given matter like SGM. Abortion is the law of the land - declared by our highest court. Do we just wander around now "well this has been adjudicated in the courts, I guess we were wrong about abortion! The courts declared abortion is a woman's right that settles it!" If same sex marriage is declared as a right under the constitution will all these people declaring that whatever the court system says must be gospel truth - will they declare - well must have been wrong about that one too. since when do Christians allowed a secular court system tell them what is right and what is wrong.


This was my opinion earlier that the reformed believed it was correct to keep this in house! What does in the future?


Christian the way the SGM handled sexual abuse in their churches displays the same kind of attitude that we see in how the reformed want to handle mental health issues of members. These reformed leaders are set up as little gods who are given authority to determine if allegations of sexual abuse are true and than determine whether they will report the allegations or not. Then they will determine what "discipline" needs to happen or not. Now we can see in the mental health issue that reformed leaders believe themselves superior to mental health professionals and so the mental health of their members is the leaders responsibility. And the SBC through NAMB is spending millions of dollars planting SGM/Acts 29 knockoffs with these types of leaders.


(Peter, I tried to post this comment earlier and it didn't show up? Am I spam or are some comments not approved?)

And here you go with one from the reformed community declaring that he would first get with leaders to investigate and determine credibility of accusations before he considers going to authorities.

Chris Roberts June 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm It certainly would need to be passed on to the authorities. If I was told of abuse, I would inform church leaders and, if we felt the accusation were remotely credible, call the police. In the case of Mahaney, we know very little beyond allegations of something that happened a number of years in the past. And we do know there is a difference between covering up a problem and handling a problem internally, even if neither approach is the right approach. Reply - See more at: http://sbcvoices.com/resolutions/#comment-191407

cb scott


Frankly, I was surprised by that answer. . . . . and saddened. That answer prompted my post entitled: "What Would You Do?" over at Voices.


we'll see how "in-house" mr. chris will be when his daughter or son or grandchild later on is molested, raped or abused by some demented pervert to whom he has entrusted them while under their so-called teaching or leadership. it's pure stupidity to keep covering up this kind of thing. stupidity. and any person in leadership who plays "in-house" with the illegality of children being sexually abused aids and abets the perpetrators. THEY are as criminal as the those who do the acts. PERIOD. selahV


First off, I am extremely grateful to you for drafting this resolution and seeing it through.

So, if I have this straight, they completely took out the original "we want our denominational leaders to quit endorsing and supporting people who are actively being charged for covering up child abuse."

And only allowed you to add back in "we want our denominational leaders to practice the highest discernment."

They made it impossible to enforce. You can argue that someone is or is not associating with a person. You can't prove if they are being discerning or not.

I think it's sad that they are so scared of criticizing these guys in power.

This makes it impossible to enforce.

peter lumpkins


Appreciate the support. I'll try to be back engaging Monday...



For many in high positions and their followers, saving face is their most important issue. So, we pretend.

The good part is that fewer and fewer are buying it. The T4G facebook page comments had to be deleted so we can all pretend.


CB, I went over to read your post which is a great way to approach it so folks can think through their answers and we can read them. Some pretty sad stuff has surfaced concerning this issue.

First of all, whoever suspects abuse or molestation should be the one to make the call and they can do it anonymously if need be. Why the need to run to the pastor first? I simply do not understand that thinking but it is becoming more and more prevalent in the SBC with top down thinking. The pastor might be the least qualified to make any objective decision.

Secondly, no one should be claiming that CPS/police are always competent. But that should not be the criterion for making the call. They are who one calls. And even if there is not enough evidence the call is documented so if there is a next time when someone else reports suspicions, then there is a pattern. Considering peds groom victims for a long while and have many victims over time, this is very important.

Quite frankly, the SGM lawsuit should be a wake up call for the SBC but instead it has become more important to many to help protect CJ from responsibility from the cult empire he built that protected molesters and claimed the 1st Amendment in doing so. I am simply astonised at how many SBC pastors are going along with that farce.

And after reading many of the rationalizations from pastors about making the decisions on this 'inhouse', I would say SBC churches are quickly becoming very unsafe places for children. And we can thank Al Mohler for training so many young men to think like him.

Andrew Barker

While I agree with our 'guest' that it may appear " impossible to enforce" I do not think that makes it totally ineffectual. The resolution now reads that any allegation of child abuse should be reported to the authorities in addition to any in-house discipline. (subject to correction as I've not seen the amended full resolution, just the video)

The Bible states that Christians should be subject to the authorities. Any church discipline should be to matters of faith and moral conduct and should be of a higher standard than expected by the world. If one looks at the church in Corinth, the picture is none too flattering (1 Cor5:1) so the position within SGM is not exactly unique either.

Granted, the next chapter covers dealing with disputes within the church and in fact promotes it. So is this flatly contradicting the point I'm trying to make? I think not and if you read on you will see why. The judgements given are of a different nature than you would find in a secular court. The right and wrong of a situation is not the main goal but peace and harmony between believers and the way matters look to the outside world. Why not be defrauded if that leads to a better outcome? In fact the need for adjudication is already seen as a defeat in itself! 1 Cor6:7. Would that those defending Mahaney would actually take this on board. SGM and those who seek to defend it have already lost. They stand already condemned by their own words and by the way they have handled this situation.

Without wishing to stir things up, there is a good case to be made for asking church leaders to look retrospectively at their dealings with church members in respect of the terms of this resolution and to respond in a timely and pro-active manner.

Peter, it might be helpful if you could post the amended copy of the resolution with Bob Cleveland's amendment also included?

cb scott


I think maybe that in congregations, it is good for staff and workers to tell the pastor about suspected abuse. In most towns and communities the pastors of local churches has some inherent influence with those who make arrests of abusers of women and children.

I also that that a pastor should make immediate contact with the legal, governmental authorities when he is told of suspected child abuse.

In addition, I think that any pastor who fails to immediately report suspected child abuse to the legal, governmental authorities should be immediately removed from his position as pastor of a local church.

There have been a few times in my own experience, rather than to call the legal, governmental authorities to come get the abuser, I have taken the abuser to the legal, governmental authorities after having placed him carefully in my truck, usually with some slight bruising and abrasions about his head and shoulders caused by his falling down on the way to my truck. (probably caused by their becoming dizzy headed due to being so overwrought with guilt for what they had done to a child or woman.)

I have found that, in some cases, that has brought about a quicker confession and has been helpful to the legal, governmental authorities to save their valuable time spent in the interrogation process.

Jim G.


Sometimes the weight of guilt causes some awful dizzy spells, falls down stairs, black eyes, busted noses, a few teeth mising, and inexplicable soreness to the ribs. I've seen such things happen in West Virginia quite a bit. Such guilt can indeed be overwhelming at times.

Jim G.

The comments to this entry are closed.