"Image problem"

In Tulsa, Southern Baptist president Frank Page talked about his concern for the “image problem” of Southern Baptists. “We've apparently come across as very legalistic and mean-spirited,” he said, “and I think that's sometimes accurate, because sometimes we've acted that way.”

Amen to that! But it’s not just an “image problem;” it’s a real problem.

Of course, Southern Baptists have “acted that way” in a lot of arenas, but none more glaring and tragic than in the “legalistic” ways in which they have mishandled the clergy sex abuse issue and in the “mean-spirited” responses to abuse victims who try to report their perpetrators.

When a paid Southern Baptist spokesperson publicly places the protection of “autonomy” above the protection of kids, that’s “legalistic” in a very Pharisee-like way.

When an abuse survivor tries to report her perpetrator and gets sermonized on forgiveness, that’s “mean-spirited.” When an abuse survivor tries to report the minister who sodomized him as a kid, and gets sermonized on homosexuality, that’s not merely “mean-spirited,” it’s hateful and ignorant. When an abuse survivor tries to report her perpetrator and gets threatened with a lawsuit even while another minister substantiates her report, that’s not merely “mean-spirited,” it’s brash bullying and intimidation.

When Southern Baptist leaders use these tactics to silence clergy abuse victims, while leaving perpetrators in their pulpits, it’s not merely “mean-spirited,” it’s an abdication of moral responsibility. It’s also way more than an “image problem;” it’s a kid-safety problem.

The “mean-spirited” morally-blind treatment of clergy abuse victims isn’t just the work of a few rogue Baptist leaders. It’s happening in churches and state conventions all across the country, and at national headquarters.

Southern Baptist president Frank Page himself chose a decidedly “mean-spirited” route when he publicly trashed a support network for clergy abuse victims as being “nothing more than opportunistic persons.” (I’m still trying to figure out exactly what part of it he sees as being such a great “opportunity.” Would any decent parent choose such an “opportunity” for their own kid?)

If Frank Page is genuinely concerned about Southern Baptists’ “image problem,” he could start by making a public apology for his own “mean-spirited” statement. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

Recently, the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma presented SNAP’s national director, David Clohessy, with a lifetime achievement award, publicly recognizing his extraordinary contributions in this area. Yet, just three days before receiving this award, when Clohessy was in Nashville, the Southern Baptist Executive Committee workgroup that is charged with addressing clergy sex abuse didn’t even invite him to speak. They didn’t give him one minute of time or ask him a single question. Obviously, Southern Baptist leaders didn’t consider this lauded expert’s views to be of any importance. They were more interested in hearing themselves talk. Is it any wonder that the world outside their insular ranks winds up with a negative image?

Over and over again, SNAP has asked Southern Baptist leaders to create an objective, professionally-staffed, independent board to review reports about clergy sex abuse. There’s nothing radical about this suggestion. Virtually every other major faith group in the country has already instituted such a process in some form or fashion. Yet, Southern Baptist leaders continue to balk.

Is it any wonder that Southern Baptists “don’t have the greatest reputation” when they effectively put their denomination last in line for implementing the same sorts of child protection measures that other faith groups already have?

When Southern Baptist leaders actually make protecting kids more important than protecting their power, polity, or public image, then maybe Southern Baptists will actually be deserving of a better image.