Whew. That’s a mouthful, isn’t it? But that’s what it says on the
letterhead: “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention.”
The Commission maintains offices at Southern Baptist Convention
headquarters in Nashville and also on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C.
Richard Land, who is the head of this lofty-sounding commission was
writing to the President to tell him that “we would like to take this
opportunity to add our voice to the discussions” on gun control.
He used that word “we” quite a lot. So who exactly is the “we” and by
what authority does Land speak for the “we”?
After all, this is a denomination that claims it cannot possibly create
a commission to consider clergy sex abuse allegations – as numerous other
denominations have done -- because the Southern Baptist Convention has no
authority to tell local churches about their ministers. Or so they say. They
claim that Baptists’ professed belief in local church autonomy precludes such a
thing.
Yet, obviously, this is a denomination that has no problem with
creating a commission to consider political issues and to tell others – including even the President –
what the Commission deems to be “sensible
proposals.”
In fact, “the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission takes positions on a broad array of moral and social
concerns.” For example, the Commission recently helped to sponsor an ad in USA Today,
urging that Boy Scouts should refuse to allow gay people into their membership.
These public acts of position-taking are paid for with dollars pooled
from local Southern Baptist churches, who contribute to the functioning of denominational
offices through their “Cooperative Program” giving.
So here’s what I don’t understand.
If Southern Baptists can create a denominational commission for taking
public positions on social issues and for telling others what they think is “moral,” why can’t
Southern Baptists create a denominational commission for responsibly assessing
abuse allegations against their own Baptist clergy and for telling Baptist congregants
about their conclusions? Why can’t Southern Baptists create a denominational commission
to offer “sensible proposals” to churches – proposals such as “this man should
not be allowed to remain in ministry” – just as they now have a commission that
offers “sensible proposals” to the President?
If Southern Baptists can create a commission empowered to tell others
who they think should and should not be allowed into the Boy Scouts, why can’t
Southern Baptists also create a commission empowered to tell their own churches
who they think should and should not be allowed to stand in Southern Baptist
pulpits? Why can’t Southern Baptists create a commission that could tell their
own Southern Baptist churches about ministers who have substantiated sex abuse
allegations?
If Southern Baptists can create an Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission – and can even allow it to have a second office on Capitol Hill –
why can’t Southern Baptists also create a Commission for Ministerial
Accountability? Why does “local church autonomy” allow for the first Commission
but preclude the second?
It is as though Baptists are saying that their religion allows them to
eat red potatoes but not russet potatoes. It makes no sense.
This nonsensical inconsistency makes apparent that there is neither
reason nor religion behind the Southern Baptist recalcitrance on clergy sex
abuse.
Most clergy molestation claims cannot be criminally prosecuted. This is
a big part of the reason why many other faith groups have begun implementing denominational
commissions to assess clergy abuse allegations. Even if denominational leaders
cannot put such men in prison, they can at least keep records on the
allegations, warn congregants, and inform churches. They can take away the
clergy-predator’s weapon of unsuspecting trust.
No doubt it may be easier for Southern Baptists to tell others
what they think is moral, but what is much needed is for Southern Baptists to turn
a mirror on themselves. They must create a Commission by which their own
clergy may be made denominationally accountable so that they cannot so easily
church-hop.
For Southern Baptists to persist in claiming
that their religion precludes this sort of accountability is nothing more than
a lame excuse and a cowardly cloak.
_______________________________
Related posts:
Autonomy schmonomy, 2/18/2009
More autonomy schmonomy, 8/16/2009
_______________________________
Related posts:
Autonomy schmonomy, 2/18/2009
More autonomy schmonomy, 8/16/2009