More autonomy schmonomy

For Baptist leaders, the doctrine of local church autonomy is malleable. They shape it to suit their own ends, and when it doesn’t suit their ends, they essentially say “autonomy schmonomy.”

Consider just this one example.

Since about 1990, the Baptist General Convention of Texas has offered counseling services for clergy to help them "put their lives back together after sexual misconduct.” And the BGCT has repeatedly defined “sexual misconduct” as “including child molestation.”

They used to call it “restoration” counseling -- apparently based on Galations 6:1. But in mid-2007, when so many stories of Baptist clergy child molesters began to make headlines, the BGCT quit calling their service a “restoration” program. However, this was little more than a public relations maneuver and also a tricky deal to try to insulate the BGCT by making the counselors independent contractors instead of BGCT staff.

But the reality is that the BGCT still provides ministers with a referral network of counselors and financial assistance to pay for the counseling.

In fact, according to this current page on the Baptist General Convention of Texas website, they provide ministers with a counseling referral network of 100 professionals who have gone through “a lengthy approval process.” If, for any reason, the minister does not feel comfortable with the counselor provided, he is encouraged to ask for placement with a different counselor.

Gee whiz. Must be nice. The ministers get a choice of counselors. They get counselors who have been screened. And they get their counseling paid for by the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Furthermore, according to the BGCT, the privacy and confidentiality of the minister is fully protected. The counselor invoices the BGCT directly “without any identifying information of the minister or family member on the statement, and the payment is made by the BGCT Subsidy Fund directly to the counselor without knowledge of the identity of the client.”

So the Baptist General Convention of Texas provides readily available counseling for clergy perpetrators but not for the victims of clergy perpetrators. Instead, it insists that clergy abuse victims should ask for help from the church where the abuse took place, even though it knows full well that most churches “just try to keep it secret” and don’t help the victims.

Knowing the enormous struggle that most clergy abuse survivors have in getting adequate counseling, I specifically asked the Baptist General Convention of Texas to provide victims with a referral list of counselors who have experience in helping clergy sex abuse survivors. It was a very small request, but the answer was a very big “nada.”

“Baptist churches are autonomous.”

Clergy abuse survivors are relegated to finding counselors through the yellow pages, and they often have to go deep in debt to get help for healing themselves.

So here’s my question: If each church is so completely independent, how come it isn’t up to each church to provide counseling for its own minister?

Why doesn’t the Baptist General Convention of Texas tell the ministers the same thing it tells their victims? “If you want help, go to the church.”

If the doctrine of local church autonomy doesn’t preclude the statewide organization from using the pooled funds of local churches -- i.e., Cooperative Program dollars -- to provide counseling for ministers, why does the doctrine preclude the statewide organization from providing counseling for the ministers’ victims?

Why is it “autonomy schmonomy” only when a minister wants counseling? But when the ministers’ victims want counseling, it’s “Baptist churches are autonomous.”

And here’s something else I don’t understand. A Baptist clergy molestation victim wrote to the Baptist General Convention of Texas when she heard that they were no longer sponsoring a “restoration program” of counseling for ministers. She mistakenly thought this meant that the BGCT was no longer providing counseling for abusive ministers.

“So BGCT is no longer doing this,” she said. “Thank God. But why did they do this in the first place?”

Emily Prevost at the Baptist General Convention of Texas wrote back to her and said this: “You are right. This program is no longer in place.”

So . . . why didn’t Emily Prevost tell the abuse survivor the rest of the story? Why didn’t Prevost tell her that the Baptist General Convention of Texas was STILL providing ministers with a referral network of counselors and was STILL providing them with financial subsidies for counseling?

Why didn’t Prevost tell the victim that it was still “autonomy schmonomy” when it comes to providing paid counseling for ministers?