The 2022 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) scheduled in Anaheim, California is about to be underway. I'm not going. But if I were, I would unequivocally vote No on the proposed recommendations by the Sex Abuse Task Force (SATF). Not that I would be opposed to any and all reform efforts to better inform and resource churches and entities associated with the SBC about sexual abuse.
Being associated with and supportive of the SBC since I was converted in 1977, and having served SBC churches as volunteer, church planter, lead pastor, executive pastor in five states since I was ordained to gospel ministry in 1982, I have a measure of experience in dealing with sexual abuse issues. Indeed, on two different tragic occasions with which as pastor I unfortunately dealt, two men were tried and convicted in a court of law for sexual crimes, were sent to prison, and later placed on the state's registry of child sexual offenders. Hence, I know at least a measure of what it necessarily takes to adequately deal with excruciating issues like this affecting both victim and victim's family as well as the convicted offender's family. Not to mention the negative but inevitable blowback from the community, both inside and outside the church, that socially stigmatizes the entire church, and sometimes very unfairly, that they're all to blame for the crimes of the single offender. While sometimes it may be true, it's been my experience that the overwhelming majority of times, it's not.
So, why would I vote No for the SATF recommendations?
First, it's laudable the SATF acknowledges at the beginning of its recommendations respect toward historic Baptist polity informed free church believers embrace. They do so by stating, "First, with respect to Baptist polity, the Task Force addresses the following suggestions and requests…" (emphasis added).1 Unlike many Protestant denominations which historically have practiced a strong centralized ecclesiological infrastructure that, in largescale practice, decides, imposes, and enforces broad policies and procedures for every church officially connected to their denomination, from the rise of Baptists in the early 17th century, they have argued for and consistently practiced, with few, if any, exceptions, a form of church government known as congregationalism wherein each church is an independent democratic body of baptized believers under the direct Lordship of Jesus Christ as the Head of the body.
As a church under the Head of her one and only Lord, Jesus Christ, the church, through the leadership of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, calls and approves her own elders/pastors for the ministry of the Word and Ordinances; appoints her own deacons (servants); hires her own staff; and selects and appoints her own volunteers to serve in every church capacity. In addition, any known sinful matters related to Church Discipline toward any of her members including pastors, deacons, staff, and volunteer servants are handled within the church unless the church willfully and freely decides to invite or solicit assistance from outside sources. A common but rare exception to this congregational rule pertains when the issue concerns juridical matters (i.e. administration of law enforcement).2
And while Baptists have routinely sought and practiced fellowship with other like-minded Baptist churches and bodies of believers, often resulting in cooperation with one another based upon confessional agreement and global missions, it has forever been the highest "taboo," so to speak, for one church, without invitation, to pry into the internal affairs of another church whose single Head is Jesus Christ. To do so dismisses and ignores the fundamental nature of what a local New Testament church is—namely, a church as an independent democratic body of baptized believers under the direct Lordship of Jesus Christ as the Head of the body. While that's not all involved in what it means to be networked together as free and independent churches—as the Southern Baptist Convention has historically functioned—but it nonetheless captures why one group of Baptists attempting to impose a certain practice or organizational procedure upon another group of Baptists calls for the greatest caution and discernment.
In addition, the SATF recommendations are sprinkled throughout with terms that imply the recommendations the SATF will place before the SBC for action are fully consistent with and representative of historic Baptist polity as described above. Terms the SATF uses like "voluntarily seek," "voluntary implementation of reforms," "voluntary cooperation of churches," and "voluntary initiative."
While on the one hand I'm appreciative of SATF using terms fully consistent with free church ecclesiology (i.e. congregationalism), on the other I'm perceiving the old devil wiggling his way back into the details (more on that in a moment). Questions immediately rise concerning the purposeful focus on voluntary participation in the SATF recommendations. If, for example, "the effectiveness of Ministry Check"3 depends solely upon the "voluntary cooperation" of SBC affiliates as the SATF maintains, for what purpose are these ubiquitously "needed structural and meaningful changes in the SBC"? It seems dubious at best to insist on "structural and meaningful changes" in the SBC if the changes proposed depend solely upon the "voluntary cooperation" of SBC affiliates to be effective. Why? Because our present SBC structure is fundamentally based solely upon the voluntary cooperation of 47,000 churches. Every dollar each church sends the Cooperative Program, it sends solely based upon voluntary cooperation. There is no required amount.4
Yet, if I'm not mistaken, the clarion call coming from the SATF and its allies for a full year now has been to deny that local church autonomy (i.e., congregationalism) is reason enough for any or all of the 47,000 independent SBC churches to conscientiously resist SATF proposals to deal with sexual abuse in the local church. And they are right. It wouldn't.
It wouldn't unless "voluntary participation" like "voluntary implementation of reforms," "voluntary cooperation of churches," and "voluntary initiative" is being used to promote what, in practice, will be a fundamental change and radical reform of congregational church polity as Southern Baptists have historically practiced it for over a century and three-quarters.
And, of course, that's the rub.
When one reads the recommendations the SATF has composed, it's fairly easy to see what we've historically and consistently practiced as voluntary cooperation is not what the SATF means by voluntary cooperation. And it explicitly says so in the body of the recommendations.
So, exactly what happens when either an entity, state convention, local association, or any one of the 47,000 churches presently affiliated with the SBC does not voluntarily participate in the reforms recommended and perhaps passed by Anaheim messengers? The SATF answers in part under the duties proposed for the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF). It reads, "For example, when a church acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the Convention's beliefs regarding sexual abuse,[4] such as showing an unwillingness to cooperate in an inquiry of an accused individual, then the church shall be submitted to the SBC Credentials Committee…" (emphasis added). So much for voluntary participation, which, on its face suggests acting without restraint. However, here the local church choosing to solve an issue, distinctively a local church matter, is exclusively liable to judgment by an outside entity.
Granted we have doctrinal guardrails in place and use them when we find it necessary to do so. But the SATF recommendations are not doctrinally-driven. Nor are the proposals even about Christian behavior. Rather than distinctively reflecting either Christian belief or believers' behavior, the recommendations are proposed strategies for dealing with sexual abuse in individual entities, including 47,000 independent churches scattered all over the United States. Strategies.
Let that sink in.
Strategies.
More troubling, however, is that the proposed strategies, while presented as soliciting voluntary participation, demands each and every church or SBC affiliate accept and implement the specific one-size-fits-all strategy proposed by the SATF or else: a) withdraw from the SBC; b) stay in the SBC but risk being liable to judgment by an outside entity and subsequently publicly named as an uncooperative church dealing with sexual abuse.
What if an individual local church under the Lordship of Christ as the exclusive Head of the body conscientiously believes it possesses a better strategy—even a more biblically-driven strategy--to deal most effectively with a sexual abuse case in its faith community? It doesn't matter. The SATF proposes that the only strategy addressing sexual abuse that an independent church under the exclusive Lordship of Christ may follow is the strategy approved by an outside entity. One must ask, when has our convention of churches ever demanded all Southern Baptist churches and affiliates must follow a one-size-fits-all strategy for dealing with any conceivable issue we've faced in the last 177 years?
A far more glaring inadequacy verily burns my eye-balls out as I read through the recommendations, and it alone would cause me to vote No on the present SATF proposals. The recommendations—recommendations remember that affect every single independent church and SBC entity affiliated with Southern Baptists—woefully lack a biblical framework reflected in its proposals. Read through them yourself. Point to it if you can find it.
Know I'm not talking about proof-texting every statement or proposal in the document. A document can be filled with dozens of proof-texts and nonetheless still fail to reflect a sober biblical framework. Contrarily, a document lacking explicit proof-texts can genuinely reflect a mature understanding of biblical revelation. Unfortunately, the SATF proposals fit neither. Instead, the document seems cobbled together with terms, definitions, and images from pop culture, sex abuse advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and law-firms, etc.
Question: if Southern Baptists are being asked to vote on requiring each individual church and SBC entity to nonnegotiably follow a one-size-fits-all strategy addressing sexual abuse cases or be potentially judged liable by an outside entity if they choose not to, shouldn't the strategy reflect the most robust biblical foundation possible to demand such a tall order?
Reading through the document brought chills to my spine for the striking absence of biblical wisdom. In footnote 8, it reads "an independent third party who has been hired by any church or other Baptist body, may determine, by preponderance of the evidence following an inquiry, that a pastor, denominational worker, or ministry employee or volunteer is credibly accused." The "independent third party" presumably is the "qualified firm" defined in footnote 2:
A qualified firm is a firm which operates under the relevant state licensures and ethics codes for investigative entities in the jurisdictions where they operate, and whose members are in good standing with the ethics boards related to all professional licenses which are held (for example, private investigative licenses, attorney licenses, etc). A qualified firm maintains a dedicated practice area for investigations and assessments related to sexual abuse and harassment, and utilizes a team which is professionally trained in trauma-informed investigative techniques and practices.
Hence, the SATF demands each and every one of the 47,000 churches to farm out any or all abuse accusations potentially alleged against its pastors, staff, deacons, and/or leaders—whether volunteer or paid—to investigative firms operating under state licensures with specific experience in trauma-informed techniques and practices. Sounds really well-thought out I have to say.
Yet there's not a single thread of distinctively Christian fabric to establish such a bleached-out biblical approach. Imagine the Apostle Paul instructing the Corinthian church to let the local Roman authorities handle the tragic sexual sin going on there (1 Cor 5:1-8). Nor does it assist to suggest that unlike Paul, what we're dealing with is potentially criminal allegations. But if we're dealing with potentially criminal allegations, the first call is 911 not Nashville. Nor assisting the proposal is an appeal to potential civil allegations. Paul spared no words on that either (1 Cor 6:1-11). The fundamental point is, we have no biblical warrant for hired guns to come from the outside into our faith community and do the work that belongs to the sphere of local church discipline within its membership. No outside entity was called into the faith community to determine the moral guilt of anyone. And criminal guilt as well as civil guilt—that is, juridical matters--is be handled by the state not the church.
Moral problems within faith communities handled by the faith community itself has a long and consistent history in biblical revelation. The ancient Mosaic Law called for the faith community itself to deal with sin (including sexual sin). The working principle in Israel's court was, "One witness cannot establish any iniquity or sin against a person, whatever that person has done. A fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Dt 19:15, CSV emphasis added). At the outset, there really existed no accusation brought from a single person. It wouldn't even be heard. It took two or three witnesses to establish a potential guilt. What is more, the Mosaic Law anticipated false accusations and set judicial teeth in place to bite those who were tempted to falsely accuse another (Dt. 19:16-20). "If a malicious witness testifies against someone accusing him of a crime… The judges are to make a careful investigation, and if the witness turns out to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother." It cost something to make false or misleading allegations. Compare Moses' principle in place to discourage false or misleading statements with the way the SATF desires to set up the investigative process. Nashville may solicit allegations and charges from anonymous individuals without any consequences to individuals for false or misleading statements, what one insightful critic called a Title IX investigative approach to allegedly solving sexual abuse in the church. Here's how one victim of a Title IX investigation on a university campus described it:
This [a Title IX investigation] is no trial according to traditional due process. Witnesses are not named. Accusers cannot be cross-examined. The motives of the accusers are never explored and are assumed to be pure. Charges are amorphous and subject to change. Investigator and judge are the same person. Any country whose judicial system used such procedures would immediately be denounced by all world organizations as bogus. But not in America, when it comes to the sacred word "discrimination."
What Moses says pertaining to biblical justice is applicable to us today. If a sinful charge is made and accepted for consideration, it must have fully condemnatory evidence from multiple first-hand witnesses from the very start. Second, both accused and accusers are vigorously cross-examined. I'm sorry ladies, but there existed no "believe every woman" report (or believe every man report, for that matter). In case the accusation proved to not stand up to cross-examination by the judges, the accuser faced the very punishment that he or she sought against the accused. This latter practice discouraged false and misleading claims that would demonstrate hating one's neighbor rather than loving him or her. The Mosaic Law desired pure justice and determined to discern it— lex talionis: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (v.21). And the pure justice Israel sought was not to be farmed out to those outside the faith community.
Furthermore, it would be a mistake to think the Mosaic Law to be fully disregarded when dealing with justice issues in the New Testament church. Most certainly New Testament Christians do not relate to the Mosaic Law as did Israel. Yet there nonetheless remains a Christian application of Old Testament Law with which New Testament believers must contend. And no better example of a specific New Testament application of Old Testament Law do we have than when the Apostle Paul alludes to the Deuteronomy passage quoted above instructing the church how to deal with church elders (pastors) who are accused of sinful reproach:
"Don't accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will be afraid. I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Don't be too quick to appoint anyone as an elder, and don't share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure" (1 Tim 5: 19-22).
It seems fairly obvious Paul was thinking of the Deuteronomic passage quoted above. If so, he's certainly suggesting the continuing regard the people of God must maintain concerning the nonnegotiable necessity to seek pure justice. No single accuser could make the guilty case against an elder. Rather two perhaps three corroborating witnesses must bring charges. Moreover, Paul instructed neither prejudice nor favoritism to be shown presumably toward either the accuser or the accused. Hence, "believe every woman" (or man) like so many in American culture is negated entirely. And the process was to take place within the church itself. Again, no hint of calling in professional investigative firms or high-price lawyers or advocacy groups to mediate the process and judge the outcome. A call for pure justice by God's church was again implied in Paul's inspired wisdom.
On the other hand, the SATF demands an outside group of professional lawyers, investigators, and therapists to handle the entire investigation, and, in the end, hand the findings off to an outside group in Nashville who serve as both judge and jury for the verdict of a church and/or its employees and volunteers. The church has no sayso in the matter. Rather it is required to take the judgment of an outside entity concerning the fate of those who are a part of a democratic body of baptized believers under the one and only Head of the church Who is Jesus Christ.
Here's the bottom line…
I vote No.
I will neither have an outside group telling me what I must do under the Lordship of Christ, nor will I pay one thin nickel to the SBC to fund what may be gross negligence in another fully independent Baptist entity, payment the SATF proposes to be a perpetual amount shaved off the top of every CP dollar each church sends to Nashville. Think of it. Priority for investigation committees and negligence over church planting and global missions! I don't give money for investigations. I give money for missions.
And finally out of pure justice, neither would I ever ask another independent Baptist entity to pay any amount, no matter how small, to assist my church if tragically she, out of derelict of duty to her most honorable Savior and Lord, commits negligence in promoting and implementing the best, most provenly effective practices to secure the safety of our members and their families.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1All quotations are from the SATF recommendations accessed as of June 10, 2022.
2There are historic patterns, however, when independent Baptist churches routinely requested assistance from other Baptist churches and bodies. A consistent practice among earlier Baptist associations was to offer a “Query” during the annual associational meeting pertaining to a specific question with which the church might be dealing. For instance, a church might query, “Is footwashing to be considered as a gospel ordinance in the same way as baptism and the Lord’s Supper?” The association would offer a written answer to be recorded in the official minutes. However, the answer was not considered an official policy or creedal belief nor was it to be imposed upon the churches of the association. It was to be accepted as the collective wisdom of those presently serving as leaders. Their authority over other Baptist churches ended with the ink on the paper.
3Ministry Check is one of the key program components the SATF recommends in its proposals. The ‘“Ministry Check” website[7] and process [is] for maintaining a record of pastors, denominational workers, ministry employees, and volunteers who have at any time been credibly accused[8] of sexual abuse[9] and who have been or are associated with a cooperating Southern Baptist church or entity.’
4There is a minimum amount that governs the sending of voting messengers to the annual convention, but the giving threshold is very small.
Maybe it all comes down to whether individual SBC affiliated churches partake in a pooled or group insurance policy for churches, most of which are underwritten by GuideOne. In such a case, both the SBC and affiliated churches may be indemnified collectively.
There is not a large variety of insurance companies available from which to choose for church sex abuse insurance coverage, and GuideOne has enormous discretion in setting the bar for cooperation with its requirements, and likewise discretion to decline a policy completely, thus possibly leaving an individual congregation or entire denomination potentially exposed to bankrupting litigation in the event of an all-too-common scandal.
Posted by: L.G. | 2022.06.13 at 06:28 PM