No basis for BGCT brag

Albert Einstein described “insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

It’s a good description of how the Baptist General Convention of Texas handles clergy sex abuse. And it’s why the recent comments of Baptist Standard editor Marv Knox are so disturbing.

He’s absolutely right, of course, that “the Southern Baptist Convention missed a great opportunity to protect its members when the SBC Executive Committee declined to create a sexual-offender database.”

But Knox is wrong to proceed with bragging about what the Baptist General Convention of Texas does.

Why? Because the BGCT has been doing the same thing over and over again, with the same sad results, and yet they don’t seem to learn. Theirs is a failed system and it’s insanity to expect different results from it in the future.

For starters, the Baptist General Convention of Texas accepts reports of clergy sex abuse only from churches, not from victims.

Yet, the BGCT’s own expert has publicly acknowledged that “churches don’t have to report abuse cases to the registry and aren’t likely to.”

“In the normal scenario, they just try to keep it secret,” he explained.

So, it’s insanity. The BGCT has seen what happens, and yet they keep doing – and not doing - the same things.

They know that, in the normal scenario, churches try to keep clergy abuse reports secret. And yet, they don't change their procedures to incorporate that reality.

It’s a Catch-22. The BGCT brags about how they keep a file of ministers reported by churches, and yet they know that, in reality, most churches don’t report their ministers.

Furthermore, the BGCT’s blindness to reality heaps enormous additional hurt onto abuse survivors. By insisting that abuse reports can come to the BGCT only from churches, the BGCT forces the wounded to try to report their abuse to the den of the very wolf who savaged them.

Most ordinary people can readily see the insanity of such a system, but not BGCT officials.

Perhaps the craziest part of all is that, even in the rare case of a child-molesting minister who actually does get reported by a church, the BGCT still doesn’t do anything to warn people in the pews where the minister is currently working. The minister’s name simply sits in a file cabinet in the Baptist Building in Dallas.

My own perpetrator’s name sat in that file cabinet while he continued to work in children’s ministry in Florida.

The BGCT knows. They keep records. They keep quiet.

How is this much different from what Cardinal Roger Mahony did?

Here’s the difference I see: BGCT officials are so mired in their own self-deception and self-delusion that they actually think they’ve done something to brag about. They are so utterly inured to their own complicity that they congratulate themselves on it.

It’s bad enough that the BGCT doesn’t warn people in the pews about credibly accused clergy child molesters, and it’s bad enough that they do nothing to help the victims in their efforts to protect others, and it’s bad enough that they provide readily available counseling for clergy-perpetrators but not for victims… but on top of all this, they think they’ve got bragging rights!

It would be comedy if only the real-world impact of their hubris were not so terribly tragic.

But before I begin to weep, let me point out a couple other interesting issues that Marv Knox’s comments bring to light.

Notice how he says that “most notably among Baptists,” it’s women who are abused. It’s as though Knox is trying to suggest that Baptist ministers are more likely to abuse women rather than children.

On this, I think Marv Knox is just pushing the party line. It’s Baptist propaganda.

How would Knox have any clue about whether Baptists are more notable for abuse of women rather than abuse of children? Who’s keeping records? Who’s keeping track of abuse reports from people molested by Baptist ministers as kids?

The limited data we have is data that shows the opposite of what Knox suggests. Based on data gathered from insurance companies by the Associated Press, we have every reason to think that clergy abuse of children is just as widespread among Baptists as it is among Catholics.

Furthermore, let’s not forget that ministerial abuse of women is indeed abuse. In fact, in Texas it’s a felony when a clergyman uses a position of spiritual trust to sexually exploit someone.

Finally, it’s important to notice how Knox says the BGCT’s file includes the names of “proven predators” and “proven abusers.” He also states that the process of getting a minister’s name into that file is “deliberate and serious,” and that “undocumented accusations are not accepted.”

This is very different from what BGCT leaders said just a few months ago when they were publicly challenged about their file. They told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that the reason the BGCT doesn’t reveal the names of ministers reported for child molestation was because the reports were nothing more than “unsubstantiated claims.”

But now, when Marv Knox talks to the BGCT’s own constituency of Texas Baptists, he says the BGCT's file contains “proven predators” with serious, documented accusations.

So which is it? “Proven predators” or “unsubstantiated claims”?

Assuming Marv Knox is telling the truth, which I believe he is, how can there be any moral basis for the BGCT to keep a file of “proven predators” without telling people in the pews who those “proven predators” are?
_______________________

Prior BGCT-related postings:

• If they really cared…
• BGCT: Stop keeping dangerous secrets!
• Niceness isn’t enough
• BGCT provides counseling for clergy perpetrators
• If only….
• Why the BGCT?
• Protecting the innocent
• BGCT’s self-delusion
• Crocodile tears or no tears?
• Denial and the BGCT
• Battered wife syndrome and the BGCT

Princeton professor says SBC prevaricates

Princeton professor Marci Hamilton hit the nail on the head in explaining why the Southern Baptist Convention’s reasons for rejecting a clergy predator database are so lame. Let me share some excerpts with you.

“The SBC prevaricates by saying that, as there is a comprehensive federal database of abusers, the creation of a Baptist database would just confuse matters.

The way SBC officials make it sound, the issue is now dead and individual churches should just do their own individual background checks. Never mind that such checks would be profoundly easier – and more likely to be thorough – if an intra-organizational database could be consulted.

There is a basic procedural answer to what the SBC has portrayed as an insuperable barrier – agree among all independent entities to coordinate. If Baptist churches cannot coordinate on a shared, national strategy in favor of children at risk, they rightly lose a great deal of moral capital.

Thus, the autonomy excuse is nothing more than that: an excuse.

The church-network database suggestion was visionary – and the suggestion that it would simply overlap with Megan’s Lists or federal databases is dead wrong.”

Hamilton’s words are strong. But read for yourself the “reasons” given by SBC Executive Committee president Morris Chapman. Are they really "reasons" or just excuses?

I think Chapman reveals the falsity of his reasoning when he repeatedly refers to “convicted” sexual predators. It shows that he’s making a straw man argument.

Chapman claims that a “Baptist only” database of convicted sex offenders would be less comprehensive than the federal database of convicted sex offenders. Because the federal database of convicted sex offenders is the most comprehensive one, it’s the “best resource,” says Chapman.

But this was never about creating a database of only the convicted. It was about creating a database of convicted, confessed and credibly accused clergy predators. That last part – the “credibly accused” part – is critically important.

For Chapman to focus only on the convicted shows either ignorance or disingenuousness.

Experts far and wide – scholars, law-enforcement, and child advocacy groups – universally recognize that most active child molesters have never been convicted of anything. This means they won’t show up on the federal database of convicted sex offenders.

This reality – i.e., that most child molesters have never been convicted and can’t be prosecuted - is why most other major faith groups have systems to objectively assess the credibility of abuse allegations against their clergy. Even if faith leaders can’t put such men in jail, they can at least prevent them from using their weapon of ministerial trust to molest and rape kids in some other unsuspecting congregation.

Over 700 Catholic priests have now been removed from active ministry based on “credible accusations” of child sex abuse. Only about 3 percent were ever convicted of anything. If Catholic leaders still professed the same tragically low standard as Southern Baptist leaders, about 679 of those “credibly accused” priests would still be in ministry and working with kids.

For that matter, if they took off their collar, those “credibly accused” priests could now go to work in Southern Baptist churches. After all, they aren’t going to show up on the federal database of convicted sex offenders.

In real-world effect, Southern Baptists are allowing that men may continue in ministry unless and until they show up on a federal database of convicted sex offenders. This is a terrifyingly low standard that leaves kids in harm’s way.

In that light, Morris Chapman came close to getting something right when he reiterated the SBC’s oh-so-useful autonomy excuse. “The world may never understand our polity,” he said.

What the world will never understand is how a powerful religious group that purports to be a moral beacon can possibly prioritize the protection of “polity” over the protection of kids against the clergy who prey on them.

Your voices

Thanks to EVERYONE who sent in comments and letters to newspapers and blogs about clergy sex abuse, the SBC’s rejection of a database for credibly accused clergy, and Morris Chapman’s rationalizations. (The Associated Press article was in over 200 newspapers!) Newspapers cannot publish every letter, but every letter makes a difference. With each letter and comment received, reporters and editors learn how much people care about this and they become more inclined to cover the issue again. So, kudos to ALL of you for making your voices heard! Here is a small sampling of published comments.

"Anemic? Formaldahydic!" (Percy, obviously in reaction to Chapman’s statement: “Never let it be said that we are anemic in the fight against sexual abuse”)

"The refusal of the Southern Baptist Convention to acknowledge the scope of the Southern Baptist leadership abuse problem… is driving me away from my Baptist roots. I don’t like being a member of a church and denomination where only “leadership roosters” at the local church level can protect the “hen house membership” from abusive leadership roosters that prey, not pray, upon our membership." (Brenda)

"I believe that this just goes to show that the Baptist church is more concerned about protecting its image than about protecting it’s children." (lee)

"This is surprising? People point fingers at the Catholic Church (rightfully so), but other denominations are no better, and really could care less about victims. They are more likely to blame them." (Bad Malanga)

"If a person in authority wants to sexually abuse, he will find a way. Even when windows with blinds are installed on the office doors…the blinds will be closed, the door will be closed and locked, but not without first telling the secretary that he is not to be disturbed for an hour. How do I know? I was the secretary. I myself was put in some terribly uncomfortable situations where I felt threatened and fearful because of inappropriate sexual behavior from the minister that I worked for. I tried to report it but ended up turning in my resignation, even though I loved my work. My complaints were ignored by some, laughed at by others, and blatantly denied. I was asked if I could have imagined it or dreamed it. My spouse was asked how many times I had lied. We were told not to tell what happened. I was fired… I was called divisive…" (treadwell)

"Blaming the victims anew is to re-abuse, and it does not cleanse the church. It also does not change the facts of the abuse nor protect future victims… To put a denomination and its authority, including the ones who teach to that authority, above the tenets of the God who is worshiped is, I believe, called idolatry." (Sandra)

"Not so surprising for those of us who have been through the horror of our children being molested by Baptist pastors and then having our families abused and spat upon by the church for having the audacity of reporting and requesting restitution from the churches that knowingly brought the molesters into our communities." (A Dad)

"The data base is a great idea. That being said, there are many people in churches…those in leadership, those in the pews, that don’t want to know. If they think Brother So-and-So is a great guy, they will hire him regardless of what kind of person he may be." (Suzy)

"The message of Jesus is lost on these people. They should be forced to carry the shame, guilt, fear and emptiness of every victim, who at the hands of BAPTIST ministers, have suffered greatly." (David)

"My home church in South Carolina once had a Pastor with a habit of inappropriate touching and talking with women church members. When the Deacons investigated his past, they learned that he had been dismissed from overseas mission work, although the Mission Board could not disclose the reason. The man resigned our church rather than face a business meeting in which several accusers were ready to speak. Now he has a doctoral degree and is a part time religion professor at two colleges. The girls at these colleges are now his prey…." (Ronald Anders)

"So because the list could be incomplete it is better to have no list at all? Based on that logic, we should do away with the Department of Corrections Sex Offender Registration list because it is incomplete. I say it is better to have a partial list than no list at all. Sounds hypocritical and a rationalization to me." (Trent)

"The SBC has forever lost it's right to criticize the Catholic church for this sin. Our Pope has instituted measures that will hopefully expell these predators from our pulpits. I would have hoped that our Baptist brothers and sisters would have taken comparable action." (James)

"Does anybody else get the feeling we will need dateline 'To Catch a Predator' to start targeting Baptist Churches ? … Why should this even require any debate at all… How can the Baptist Churches look us in the eye and tell us they are serious about sexual abuse… They are more inclined to pass the buck on the issue… They would rather avoid the problem rather than face it… At this point and time, I cannot even trust anything coming out of any Southern Baptist Ministers mouth after reading this story." (Zoe1980)

"Of COURSE the Baptists don't want a national database...that would admit a problem and hold them accountable! They'd rather pray the problem away. That's their answer for everything. Fools. Hypocrites." (Goddalmighty)

"How, in the name of God, in this 21st century, can ANYONE live with themselves while ignoring sexual abuse? Unless they are a perpetrator? Those who turn a blind eye are guilty by association. PEOPLE, please think about this, think about your children, your nieces and nephews. Would you turn a blind eye if they were the victims? Traumatized for life by a trusted clergyperson? Think again about what this debate means and how your actions will impact future generations…." (Anonymous)

"I am still shocked at how we sweep this stuff under the rug.............but we’ll have a Church war over the type of music we sing. Anyone got that figured out?" (Bruce Gerencser)

"During Chapman’s speech, the audience stood six times by audience applause. We rally around words, when will we rally around reality?... Once again, we resolve to do nothing. God help us. (Alyce)

"I think its spineless of the SBC to not develop such a list. There are literally ministers and volunteers that have hopped from church to church getting away with the same violations time and again (this is for real, not just an urban legend)." (Chad Smith)

"It appears that those who made this decision for the SBC are a spineless bunch. Maybe if the sex offenders were also alcoholics they would take action more quickly." (Jim in NJ)

"Unbelievable!!! I do not understand why the Baptists are so against doing anything that will help protect lives and churches from certain people who need not be in leadership. As an individual who has been abused as a child I am completely disgusted by this move and the political crap within this denomination… All of the details could have been defined and kinks worked out once they decided to do it… They did not even want to begin the process. IGNORANT! … I am sure the world looks at this and once again thinks that another church organization is covering up for its own." (Jimmy “the church pirate”)

"In the corporate world, often the only way to get rid of a really bad employee is to give him or her good reviews so that you can get them promoted out of your department. Churches without a spine do the same thing." (Melody)

"I think it is just an excuse by the SBC to avoid doing anything… The SBC’s track record is dismal on this entire subject. The shocking lack of moral courage is truly sad." (John)

"If Baptist churches cannot coordinate on a shared, national strategy in favor of children at risk, they rightly lose a great deal of moral capital." (Pam)

"This is a mistake - a very big mistake! The Southern Baptist Convention has just unwittingly sent a loud message to every sexual predator in the country. "COME TO OUR CHURCH! WE WON'T WORK TOGETHER TO SCREEN YOU." Effectively, the convention has just absolved itself of ANY and ALL responsibility over the protection of minors from sexual predators in pastoral positions. If ever there was a time for the Southern Baptists to step up to the plate, and put some teeth into their denomination, this was it. They could have simply ruled that any local church wanting to participate in the convention would have to participate in a sexual predator database, or else drop out of the convention." (the Catholic Knight)

"Sounds like they just don’t want to reveal their true numbers." (Jennifer)

It's no home run

Outgoing Southern Baptist president Frank Page called the executive committee’s report on sexual abuse “a home run.”

He’s talking about the report where they said the denomination shouldn't create a "database to help churches identify predators or establish an office to field abuse claims.”

And Page calls THAT “a home run”???

Do you think Page has ever played baseball???

Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that, if you want to hit a home run, you have to first hit the ball. I don’t think these guys can even see the ball, much less hit it. And they sure as heck haven’t hit a homer.

These guys can’t keep their eye on the ball of protecting kids because they’re too focused on protecting themselves and the institution.

In fact, I don’t think these guys have even stepped up to the plate yet. They aren’t going to bat for clergy sex abuse victims. They haven’t even kicked the dirt. They’re still sitting in their comfortable little dugout of “autonomy,” aren’t they?

But hey - I like baseball. So let’s keep talking about it.

Imagine that guy in the outfield. Do you see him? His knees are a little bent. He’s shifting his weight. He’s watching. He’s waiting. He’s got a wad of tobacco bulging in his cheek.

Next thing you know, he’s hocking a loogie onto the grass. It’s a brown, ugly, oozy loogie.

That’s the sort of image Frank Page’s “home run” remark conjures for me.

But hey – don’t hold Page’s remark against baseball. I like baseball.

Some people even think the word “loogie” derived from the name of Lou Gehrig, because of baseball players’ habit of spitting.

Lou Gehrig still holds the all-time record for the most grand slam homeruns. He was “the pride of the Yankees,” and his number 4 was the first number retired by any pro team in any sport.

I wish Lou Gehrig were still around. Maybe he could teach Frank Page a thing or two about what it takes to hit a home run.

Where's the study?

At last year’s Southern Baptist annual meeting, 8600 “messengers” directed the SBC Executive Committee to conduct a study on creating a database of “Southern Baptist ministers who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harassment or abuse.”

At this year’s annual meeting, the Executive Committee reported back. It declined to create a database “to help churches identify predators or establish an office to field abuse claims.”

So it issued a decision. But where’s the study?

Southern Baptist officials made it clear from the get-go that they didn’t like the idea of a database and didn’t want to help churches with outside assistance for determining credible accusations. But does it constitute a “study” if a group of guys do little more than churn out a document that supports a position they’ve already taken?

In the ordinary world, if someone plans to conduct a legitimate study, you expect to see a budget for the study.

Where was the budget?

In the ordinary world, if someone plans to conduct a legitimate study, you expect to see a proposal on how the research will proceed and who the sources will be.

Where was the proposal?

In the ordinary world, if someone conducts a legitimate study, you might expect to see transcripts of hearings with testimony from experts.

When were the hearings? Who were the experts? What was their testimony?

In the ordinary world, if someone conducts a legitimate study, you expect to see data, charts or graphs. For example, in this case, you might have expected to see data on what other denominations do.

Where is the data?

The sub-committee that was charged with conducting the study met 3 times. At the first meeting, they took an adversarial tone toward clergy abuse survivors. David Clohessy, SNAP’s National Director, was at that meeting, but they didn’t invite him to speak. What a missed opportunity to hear from an expert! Just two days later, David was at the podium of the Institute on Violence, Abuse & Trauma, where he was publicly recognized with a lifetime achievement award for his extraordinary contributions in the field.

At the second meeting, “there wasn’t much news to report,” and “the whole meeting was a lot of talk about why the SBC’s hands are tied.”

At the third meeting, according to their own account, “much of the discussion centered on whether it would be reasonable for a child sex offender – after accepting Christ – to be employed again in a Southern Baptist church.” So they were focused on the offenders rather than on how to help the wounded or prevent future victims.

So if that’s what they did for those 3 meetings, when was the study done? And where is the actual study?

It’s not as if these guys just don’t like studies. They’ve done recent studies and surveys on Calvinism, pastoral terminations, attendance at SBC annual meetings, unchurched Americans, and private prayer language. They even did a survey on how Southern Baptist pastors plan to vote in the presidential race.

And just last year, Southern Baptists managed to conduct a survey and compile data for a study designed to provide churches with accessible online information about how to adequately compensate their ministers. They thought it was important for denominational entities to “work together to serve our churches with information to help them adequately compensate our ministers.”

So why isn’t it equally important for denominational entities to work together to provide churches with information about credibly accused clergy child molesters? Isn’t that sort of data even MORE important than data on ministers’ salaries?

Where is the study on Baptist clergy-predators and the database of credibly accused?

Words and deeds

By now, many of you have seen the Southern Baptist Convention’s recently released special report called “Protecting our Children.” Take a look. They put some nice words on paper.

But the question remains: What will they actually DO?

Deeds are what’s needed for the protection of kids against clergy abuse.

If you ask almost anyone, they will tell you that child molestation is terribly wrong. Heck - lots of perpetrators would say that. Words are easy.

But if Southern Baptist leaders want to actually move the ball forward toward reducing clergy child molestation, they must take action to help the victims who already exist.

The only way clergy-predators are exposed is if victims speak up. But victims will speak only when they are psychologically capable of doing so and, for most, only if they feel safe in doing so.

Few clergy abuse victims feel safe in trying to report their perpetrator to his own church, the place where he rules the roost and is the most beloved person in the congregation. Victims are wary and for good reason.

For those who do try to report to the church, what they fear will happen almost invariably does happen. The church circles the wagons around the pastor and effectively stones the victim who brings such unwelcome news. The victim winds up being re-wounded and re-silenced.

This tribal pattern, of protecting the leader and stoning the outsider, occurs with such consistency that it should be considered normal human behavior. The very normalcy of this human reaction is why there must be systems in place to compensate for it. It is why other faith groups have put in place systems for independent review of clergy abuse allegations. But not Southern Baptists.

Most people will tell you that, if they knew about a minister who molested a kid, they would do something about it. But again, words are easy. In the real world, most people don’t actually see a minister molesting a kid and so they don’t know about it with their own eyes. Knowledge isn’t immediately certain and so they stay in their comfort zone of trusting their minister.

The most important question isn’t about what people will do if they know a minister molested a kid. The most important question is about what people will do if they don’t know. Action is needed even when full knowledge is absent.

The average age of a sexual abuse victim is 12. The average age of disclosure is 42.

This means that the typical reporting scenario is a 42 year old who says he was molested by the minister when he was 12. That 42 year old has probably been long-gone from the church and is a stranger to them. If the victim had to track the perpetrator to a new church, or a different state, he may be even more of an outsider.

Do you see the difficulty?

In Southern Baptist circles, who will take responsibility for conscientiously considering these more typical sorts of clergy abuse reports? Who will take responsibility for objectively looking into such allegations with the grave seriousness they deserve? And who will take responsibility for informing people in the pews?

In Southern Baptist circles, the answer is almost invariably, “No one.”

Southern Baptist officials must take action to counteract that reality. Nice words and glossy brochures won’t do the job.

Most child molesters have multiple victims, and many victims never, ever speak of it. That’s a reflection of how great the trauma is. And contrary to what many might think, studies show that the more severe the abuse, the less likely the victim is to disclose it. And older victims, such as teens and preteens, are less likely to disclose than younger ones, who sometimes disclose accidentally.

The best way to prevent more clergy molestation victims is to provide a safe and welcoming place where those already abused may report their perpetrators with some reasonable expectation of being objectively heard. Until that exists, there should be no peace of mind for families in Southern Baptist churches. You won’t find out about the perpetrators unless the victims feel safe in reporting them.

Southern Baptist officials must stop feigning powerlessness and must put in place systems for independent review of clergy abuse allegations.

They must put the safety and well-being of kids first… in words AND deeds.

Low expectations

The first step for dealing with a problem is admitting there IS a problem.

That’s what I think we may see from Southern Baptist leaders at this year’s annual meeting June 10-11. Maybe they’ll publicly acknowledge that there’s a real problem with clergy abuse and cover-ups in Southern Baptist churches.

Oh, I know it’s not much, and it’s not nearly enough. Perhaps I’ve set my expectations too low. But Southern Baptist leaders have taught me that. When it comes to clergy sex abuse, they’ve shown a pattern of being big on words but terribly puny on deeds.

So, while I always hope for more, the reality is that I’ve seen too much of a pattern to let hope give way to expectation.

Yes, I know… the Executive Committee is supposed to have conducted a study on the feasibility of creating a database of “Southern Baptist ministers who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harrassment or abuse.” That’s what over 8000 “messengers” instructed them to do at last year’s annual meeting. (The photo is of SNAP members at last year’s SBC annual meeting.)

If they actually created such a database, it would necessarily mean creating a system for assessing whether ministers are “credibly accused.” This is what other major faith groups are already doing -- assessing credible accusations from victims. But of course, Southern Baptists are far behind the curve, and at this point, it looks as though their leaders are determined to stay there.

Despite last years’ vote by the delegates, I’m not optimistic that we’ll actually see much meaningful action on the database this June. I wish I thought otherwise, but Southern Baptist leaders have given us no reason for optimistic expectations on this. None.

I hope I’m wrong. If I am, I’ll be the first to shout “Hallelujah!”

But even if all they do is to clearly acknowledge the problem, progress will have been made.

After all, it was just a year ago that SBC spokesperson Will Hall suggested that there had been only about 40 incidents of Southern Baptist clergy sex abuse in the past 15 years. Hall told WKRN-TV that the relatively low number of cases showed that the way Baptists deal with the problem is working. [On WKRN reporter Jamey Tucker’s blog, you can still see some of the heart-wrenching comments from abuse survivors who wrote in that day.]

It was an outrageous statement. 40 incidents in 15 years!?!? Hall was either deliberately pushing propaganda or he was shamefully clueless. Either way, it was grotesquely insensitive and oblivious. He effectively negated the horrific harm that countless more kids have endured in Baptist churches.

EthicsDaily called on Hall to issue a correction, but of course, that never happened.

Southern Baptist president Frank Page also chose to publicly minimize the problem by characterizing it as merely “several reported cases.”

Of course, Page was wrong. There were way more than “several” reported cases and, of all people, Page should have known that and acknowledged it.

There were way more than “several” even if you counted only the reported criminal convictions of Baptist clergy. And criminal convictions are just the bare tip of the iceberg.

There were also many more cases of abuse survivors who reported their clergy-perpetrators to church and denominational leaders… only to be ignored while their perpetrators stayed in their pulpits.

As Southern Baptist president, Page should have also been gravely concerned about these sorts of abuse reports. But apparently he was too focused on kicking the messengers to give much attention to the reality of the problem.

Remember? Just a year ago, Page publicly proclaimed that the victims’ support groups were “nothing more than opportunistic persons.”

Sad, huh? Such mean-spirited words came straight from the mouth of the president of the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

Even sadder is the fact that Page’s “minimize and kick” reaction was so remarkably similar to what we see in local churches when people attempt to report clergy abuse. Staff, deacons, and often congregants as well, find all manner of ways to minimize the unwelcome news brought by the victim and to convince themselves that it couldn’t possibly be so bad. Then they typically set out to kick the messenger.

Why do Southern Baptist leaders imagine that churches will do any better than they themselves do in addressing clergy abuse? When even the denomination’s president sets an example of minimizing the problem and kicking the messenger, why should people imagine that local church leaders will do any better?

If Page wanted to now show leadership and decency on this issue, he would apologize for the hurtfulness of his own prior words, for the dreadful example he set in minimizing the problem, and for his own “kick the messenger” reaction. THAT would be something that would set a very different sort of example for Baptist churches.

But, of course, I’m not holding my breath for that. I hope for it, but I don’t expect it.

I figure it will be progress if Southern Baptist leaders like Page do nothing more than to bite their tongues and refrain from kicking the victims any further.

And it will be progress even if Southern Baptist leaders do nothing more than to squarely acknowledge the seriousness of the problem in Southern Baptist churches.

One thing for sure…. they can no longer get away with telling people that there’s been only 40 cases in 15 years.

Priesthood of the unaccountable

I’m still pondering Suzii Paynter’s explanation for why Southern Baptists can’t institute the same sorts of pro-active protective measures as other faith groups.

Remember? She said “because there are no bishops.”

What’s sad is that I think Paynter actually believes this blasphemous Baptist spin. I think she actually believes that words such as these can somehow excuse the reality of a powerful religious organization that leaves clergy child molesters in their pulpits without warning people in the pews. She says the words like a loyal foot soldier for Baptist power-brokers.

Baptists have a truly amazing capacity for denial when it comes to the consequences of their own acts and beliefs. As long as they can couch it in the rule-based language of “autonomy,” they can even convince themselves that it’s O.K. to leave kids in harm’s way of clergy-predators.

Paynter’s “because there are no bishops” explanation reminded me of something a high-level official from the Baptist General Convention of Texas said to me at last year’s SBC annual meeting. I was trying to tell him about how desperately clergy abuse survivors need a safe place to report abuse -- a place that is outside the church of the pastor-perpetrator.

He said “maybe so” but insisted that, for Baptists to implement such a system “would make us into slaves.” Baptists aren’t subject to bishops, he explained. “What we lose in safety, we gain in freedom.”

Apparently, this seemed like a fair trade-off to him -- the safety of kids for the freedom of a free-wheeling polity that renders clergy unaccountable.

I realized then that we were having parallel conversations. His abstract words about religious slavery seemed meaningless to me as I tried to tell him about the real problems of real people who have been terribly wounded by real Baptist preachers, many of whom still stand in real Baptist pulpits. But from his vantage of religious nobility, it seemed that my talk about real people was equally meaningless to him.

Perhaps this is how it has always been. The religious high-honchos talk high-falutin’ religious talk, but they are blind to the real-world human beings who are hurt by their religiousity.

Baptist leaders toss out rote words - “because there are no bishops” - to displace the emotional immediacy of real people raped and molested by Baptist clergy. Abuse survivors ask for bread, and Baptist leaders give them only the stone of wrong-headed religious talk.

They wall themselves off behind their “no bishops” excuse and use it to proclaim their own powerlessness. Powerlessness to prevent reported Baptist clergy child molesters from abusing others. Powerlessness to warn congregants. Powerlessness to minister to the wounded.

With all their self-proclaimed powerlessness, it seems to me that Southern Baptists are already slaves.

They are slaves to a belief system that says it is better to protect the status-quo than to protect kids. They are slaves to a belief system that says it is better to allow credibly accused clergy child molesters to stay in their pulpits than to do anything about it. They are slaves to a belief system that spews forth religious rhetoric at the cost of kids’ safety.

Southern Baptist leaders have turned “priesthood of the believer” into “priesthood of the unaccountable.”

Memorial Day

On Memorial Day a year ago, I posted the column below about my dad. A few days later, the long-time attorney for the Baptist General Convention of Texas phoned up an attorney friend of mine, suggesting that he might slap a lawsuit against me or drag me up before a State Bar disciplinary review board.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? However baseless his complaint, this guy had the possibility of threatening to haul me before an independent disciplinary board for lawyers. But there doesn’t even exist such a thing as a board for reviewing the conduct of Southern Baptist clergy. And of course, the complaints of clergy abuse survivors are typically far more troubling and of far greater concern to the safety of others than the complaint of a guy who doesn’t like a blog posting.

Lawyers, police, doctors, cosmetologists, other clergy, and people in all sorts of other occupations are subject to review boards. But not Southern Baptist clergy.

Though this guy’s complaint never made much sense, from what I heard, he seemed to think that, since I’m a lawyer myself, I should have realized that he was just giving legal advice and didn’t do anything out of bounds. He also complained that he didn’t know anything about my father’s military service.

So, let me be excessively clear about a few things.

One: I have no reason to think this guy knew my father was a veteran. But though he seemed to think his non-knowledge of my father’s military service was something that mattered, I can’t see how. What I consider contemptible is that he would twist what he did know to try to further shame myself and my family (presumably as another silencing tactic), and meanwhile, no one was doing anything about the child-molesting clergy-perpetrator.

Two: I believe responsibility for the horror and harm in how the Baptist General Convention of Texas mishandles clergy sex abuse reports should rest at the doorstep of BGCT leaders. The attorney works for THEM (and for churches the BGCT refers him to), and presumably he is handling clergy sex abuse reports in the manner that the BGCT wants. (But fyi…for his post-Memorial Day threat, I don’t actually know who he was purporting to represent. Though he made an earlier threat on behalf of the church, it’s possible that, on the post-Memorial Day occasion, he was simply being a jerk all on his own.)

Three: When it comes to how religious leaders handle clergy sex abuse reports, there is a big difference between acting within the bare bounds of the law and acting in a morally responsible manner. The two are not one and the same, and if anyone should realize that, it ought to be leaders of a religious organization. So what if they are within the bounds of the law? Big deal. That does NOT mean they are within the bounds of moral behavior or Christian behavior.
_______

MEMORIAL DAY

My father had chronic post-traumatic stress symptoms from his service in World War II. He was wounded in the liberation of Luzon and survived by playing dead while they bayoneted bodies around him. When night fell, he crawled through the darkness and over bodies and back to allied troops.

As a kid, I didn't understand, and sometimes my father seemed terrifying. As an adult, I know that we were probably like a great many families of those stoic men who never spoke of their ordeals. Families simply coped as best they could with the psychological wounds so many of those men had.

After one particularly bad incident, the police were called to our house. They just talked a bit and then called our pastor, who came to the house and prayed. He said we should think about others in the church and how upsetting it would be if people found out that a good Christian family like ours had such problems. He told us not to talk about it.

A week or two later, the youth and education minister approached me. He said he knew what had happened in my family and that he’d like to talk with me about it. He asked me to come to his office.

I guess the pastor’s “don’t talk about it” message didn’t apply to him. He obviously breached our trust and told the youth and education minister about the trouble in my family. But I didn’t see that hypocrisy at the time. I saw only that the youth and education minister seemed to care about me. In hindsight, I now see that this was when the grooming for abuse really began. He used my family’s difficulties to move in on his prey.....me.

Years later, when I again tried to report that clergy child molester, I mentioned that the abuse began shortly after this incident of family violence. Naively, I thought this information would help to educate church and denominational leaders on how predatory clergy work. Instead, long-time attorney for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Stephen Wakefield, tried to use that information against me. He wrote back that because I had “suffered from abuse at home” this would have been what caused my distress.

Then he threatened to seek recourse against me if I pursued the reporting of my perpetrator. (Yeah – that’s right – he threatened to sue ME.)

Wakefield brought it up when he spoke with me in person too. In effect, he tried to use my dead father’s mental illness against me to say that I was emotionally damaged anyway, as though no greater harm was done by the sexual abuse of the church’s minister. This attitude offended me beyond all words. And this Memorial Day, I’m still angry about it.

In yesterday’s sermons, I imagine lots of Baptist ministers paid tribute to servicemen and said some nice words. But when it comes to deeds, the reality of what I encountered, both as a kid and as an adult, were Baptist leaders who used my father’s war wound to exploit his family, savage his adolescent daughter, and intimidate her once again as an adult.

Stephen Wakefield isn’t just some rogue attorney. He has been attorney for the largest statewide Southern Baptist organization in the country for over a decade. And this is how he treats those who attempt to report clergy child molestation (even when another minister who knew about the abuse when I was a kid substantiated the report). I think you have to assume that the BGCT approves of his tactics.

My father was a hero, both at war and at home. He worked double and triple shifts his whole life to put Big Chief tablets in his kids’ hands and shoes on their feet. He literally wore his body out trying to provide for his family.

That a know-nothing like Stephen Wakefield would effectively suggest that my father’s psychological war wound was a form of “abuse” in any way akin to the devastating sexual savagery of a Southern Baptist minister is something I will not forget anytime soon. That he would use my family's difficulties to try to minimize the great harm done by a Baptist minister’s sexual abuse is unconscionable.

Over the past couple years, as I have worked at trying to bring the Baptist clergy sex abuse problem to light, I have been kicked countless times by Southern Baptist men. In person, in emails, in letters, on blogs, and even in the Baptist Press, they have said outrageous things, mean things and even hateful things. On a good day, I could probably find it within myself to forgive almost all of it. But for the likes of Stephen Wakefield to effectively degrade my father and try to use his war wound against me is something I don’t know if I will ever be able to forgive.

My father was far from perfect, but he was more honest, hard-working, courageous and decent than any Southern Baptist leader I have yet encountered. I honor the memory of my father in continuing to speak truth about Baptist clergy sex abuse and about the horror in how this denomination handles it.

Gracepoint Baptist wants "fresh start"

Walnut Grove Baptist Church has changed its name to Gracepoint Baptist Church.

Why? Because they want “a fresh start.” They’re hoping a new name will help them move on from the ugliness of their recent past.

This is the Memphis church where accused child molester Steven Haney was pastor for 20 years.

This is the church that kept Haney as its pastor even after allegations that he sexually abused a teen in the mid-1990s. Reportedly, 30 families left the church at that time. But Haney stayed the church’s pastor… with the result that at least one more kid has been hurt and probably more.

Just last fall, Haney was charged with the sexual assault of another teen. He has also been recently indicted on federal charges of child pornography.

According to the now-grown young man who testified against Haney, this church’s former pastor called the sexual abuse a “test of faith.”

One of the women who left Walnut Grove after the mid-90s allegations said “thank God” when she learned that Haney had finally been brought up on criminal charges. She also stated her belief that the young men bringing forward accounts of abuse “have gone through hell.”

So why the new name for this church that harbored a man like Haney as its pastor? Is it just a whitewash of the past? Or did the church really work at reconciliation of the past?

How much effort have they made to extend help and healing for the victims of Haney?

How much effort have they made to reach out to other possible victims of Haney?

Perpetrators almost always have multiple victims, and so there could be still more victims who remain mired in quiet shame and self-blame.

What’s particularly sad in this case is that more recent victims might have been spared if only the church had treated more seriously the accusations against Haney a decade ago.

Given the church’s dreadful failure, it should now do everything within its power to reach out to other possible victims and to help them.

A new name may be nice for the congregants. But what about the victims? The church’s new name won’t give them a fresh start.

What would be nicer would be for the church to extend a strong hand of healing for those who were so horribly wounded behind its doors.

And what would be still nicer would be for this church to use the example of its own failure as a reason to work for change within the Southern Baptist denomination so that other kids might be better protected.

Gracepoint’s desire for “a fresh start” is similar to Prestonwood’s desire to put it in “the rearview mirror.” But before they simply move on, churches need to learn and impart lessons so that others can be safer.

Unless Gracepoint takes pro-active measures to deal with its past, learn from its past, and reconcile its past, I can’t help but wonder if the new name is just one more way of sweeping the ugliness of clergy child molestation under the rug.

This name-changing incident also illustrates still another reason for why clergy abuse among Southern Baptists is so much harder to get a handle on than it is with Catholics.

Imagine that another Haney victim may have moved away from Memphis and decided to never look back – a not-unusual response for a person so utterly betrayed by his faith community. Many years later, he decides to try to report the abuse that was done to him in that church.

But where’s the church?

Unlike Catholic dioceses, which typically endure for generations, autonomous churches can readily rename themselves and restructure. It makes it all the easier for them to avoid accountability.

Prestonwood hit by sex sting arrest

No church is immune from the scourge of clergy sex abuse.

A minister at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas has been charged with online solicitation of sex from a kid.

This is one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in the nation. It’s the church pastored by former Southern Baptist president Jack Graham.

It’s a church with a highly-affluent and highly-educated congregation. It’s a church with ample resources.

The arrested minister, Joe Barron, was previously the pastor at Northrich Baptist Church in Richardson, Texas, and before that, he was at the First Baptist Church of Lewisville, Texas.

Barron had two weeks’ worth of sexually explicit conversations with a person he believed to be a 13-year old girl. She turned out to be a police officer.

According to police, Barron was arrested when he drove three hours to meet with his intended child-victim. He had a box of 10 condoms in his car, along with a web-camera and headset that police believe he was going to give to the girl.

Police are now investigating whether Barron may have previously engaged in sexual contact with minors.

Meanwhile, pastor Jack Graham told church members, “We want to put this in our rearview mirror.”

Sad, isn’t it? Rather than focusing on the perceived need of his church to move on, Graham should instead be focusing on the needs of children who may have been hurt.

Instead of talking about putting it in the “rearview mirror,” Graham could do a lot more good if he would use his powerful voice to reach out to other possible victims and to urge anyone with any information to bring it forward to police.

Instead of putting it in the “rearview mirror,” Graham himself should seek to learn from this tragedy. If Graham would begin to understand how easily a child predator can infiltrate a church’s ministerial staff, then perhaps he could also use his powerful voice to urge change within the denomination so that ALL Southern Baptist kids might be made safer.

But I doubt that’s going to happen.

The tendency to hastily put clergy sex abuse in the “rearview mirror” is deeply entrenched in this denomination.

Religion writer Terry Mattingly picked up on the Prestonwood story and pointed to it as providing a clue to the scope of the larger story about clergy sex abuse among Southern Baptists and about why it is so difficult to bring much-needed attention to the Southern Baptist abuse story.

“This is an important – although frustrating – story worthy of more coverage,” he says.

Mattingly should know. Five years ago, Mattingly was one of the first journalists to write about the difficulty that Southern Baptists have in cracking down on clergy sex abuse. Mattingly recognized how unrealistic it was to think that a Southern Baptist church could investigate and discipline its own pastor, and he also saw the easy shield that the “free-wheeling and autonomous” polity provided to Baptist leaders.

“Where does the buck stop?” he asked. For Southern Baptists, the buck seems to stop nowhere.

No bishops is no excuse

"Because there are no bishops...."

That´s what you hear Suzii Paynter saying in this news video.

Paynter, of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, is apparently explaining why Baptists CAN´T institute the same sorts of preventive measures as other faith groups to protect kids against clergy sex abuse.

It´s the standard "can´t - won´t - won´t even try" response that Baptist leaders make when confronted with clergy child molestation.

How much longer will Baptist leaders keep telling us why they CAN´T?

When will Baptist leaders start telling us how they WILL?

Maybe someone should give Paynter a copy of "The Little Engine That Could." Remember? "I think I can - I think I can - I think I can...." And over the hill the little engine went.

If Baptist leaders would stop clicking replay on their rote "we can´t" excuse and instead start thinking "we can", then maybe they would find a way.

Until then, their standard "because there are no bishops excuse" is self-defeating. It assures that they WON´T institute effective measures to address Baptist clergy sex abuse.

This means that kids in Baptist churches won´t receive the same sorts of protections as kids in Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist churches.

Why?

"Because there are no bishops."

It´s their standard line, but Baptist leaders are making a dreadful mistake when they keep saying it. "Because there are no bishops" can never be a good enough excuse for failing to protect kids against credibly accused clergy child molesters.