The dynamics of denial

When Southern Baptist president Frank Page was interviewed by 20/20, they told him the SBC’s website had at least 6 convicted child molesters listed on the ministerial registry. How did he and other Baptist leaders respond to that information?

Ironically, they responded in much the same way that Baptist churches respond when confronted with information about clergy sex abuse. Those of you who have tried to report abuse will recognize the patterns.

Did Page immediately ask 20/20 who those convicted molesters were? As best I can tell, he didn’t. And he certainly didn’t go straight to Nashville and take care of the problem. The first response appears to have been “do nothing.” Sound familiar?

Then, when that segment of the interview actually aired on national TV, and it looked unseemly, people started scrambling. Were they scrambling to effectively address the problem or were they scrambling to protect appearances? Looks like the latter. Sound familiar?

SBC official Augie Boto immediately put out a press statement defending the inclusion of those names on the SBC’s ministerial registry. It’s a brash tactic. Just blindly insist that you’re in the right. Religious leaders carry the mantel of spiritual authority, and so they’re better at pulling this off than us ordinary folk. We’ve seen similar tactics in churches where ministerial colleagues circle the wagons and simply proclaim that Pastor John could not possibly have done anything wrong. Sound familiar?

Next, Frank Page starts pointing fingers. Instead of doing something about the problem, he blames 20/20 for “yellow journalism” and accuses the victims’ support group of being “opportunists...seeking personal gain.” It’s similar to how church leaders so often look for ways to blame the victim. “She always was a troublemaker....she wore her skirts too short...she didn’t come from a good family anyway...he got arrested on drug charges and so why should we believe him...she should learn to forgive...etc. etc.” Sound familiar?

Finally, even the faithful loyalists start finding the pettiest of ways to try to discredit the messenger who brings this unwanted news. A Baptist blogger tells people that I sent him a “flood” of unsolicited, negative email....even though I didn’t. A blogger attacks SNAP and me for “building walls,” even though it was actually the SBC who wrote SNAP that “continued discourse will not be positive or fruitful.” (Talk about a wall!) Then the blogger blames me because I personally didn’t somehow see to it that the SBC got those names off the list...as though the SBC’s website was somehow my task....and even though Boto had already defended the SBC’s inclusion of the names. (And rather than blaming me, why didn’t this Baptist man himself see to it that the names were taken off the list?) None of it makes any sense, but it’s part of the usual pattern. However contrived they may be, the more reasons the faithful loyalists and congregants can find for discrediting the outsider, the less they have to consider the much more uncomfortable question of whether their much-trusted leaders let them down. Sound familiar?

How can SBC leaders imagine that churches can appropriately handle abuse reports when they themselves demonstrate the same dynamics of denial in handling the much-easier-remedied news of perp-names on their website? If clergy sex abuse is such a difficult topic that SBC officials can’t even do a good job of handling names on a list, why do they imagine that churches can do a good job of handling reported perpetrators in the pulpit?

Thanks to Baptist minister Kevin Bussey

Ministering can sometimes happen in ways unexpected. When I saw this "na na hey hey" YouTube posting on Southern Baptist minister Kevin Bussey’s blog, I laughed and laughed. And a good laugh was exactly what I needed.

If you read Kevin’s post, I suspect he probably wasn’t feeling particularly pastoral when he posted it. Yet, from across cyberspace, that funky sound reached out to me. I’m groovin’...I’m grinnin’...I’m in gear...I’m just gettin’ started.

Many thanks, Kevin.

Are these guys for real?

Have you followed Southern Baptist leaders’ responses to the 20/20 report on clergy sex abuse? I couldn’t make this kinda stuff up if I tried. Are any of you good at political cartoons? Send me one. This stuff is well-worthy of caricature.

First, SBC official Augie Boto defends and justifies the inclusion of convicted child molesters on the SBC’s registry of Southern Baptist ministers. Huh? What planet are these guys from? (In any event, it looks like Boto was wrong about it being a local church issue. After still more media - an EthicsDaily article and a SNAP press release - the convicted perps were finally removed from the list.)

Next, SBC president Frank Page whines about “yellow journalism” and says 20/20 was “an intentional slice-and-dice effort” to portray them as “uncaring and uninformed.” Well...duhhh...when you keep convicted child molesters on your registry of ministers, it just doesn’t look very caring or informed to most ordinary people. (And a few Lifeway brochures aren’t gonna change that.)

Then, Page complains that he didn’t get enough air-time given that he had “a two hour interview.” Uhhh....that’s how these shows work. In a 16-minute segment, you can’t expect to monopolize it. You only get to do that in your own pulpit and in the Baptist Press. (Must be nice...I guess people get used to such deferential treatment and come to expect it...) I was interviewed for a couple hours as well, but you don’t hear me whining about short air-time.

But hey...Frank Page isn’t done yet. On Thursday, he talks a bit more about the 20/20 thing and publicly trashes the “advocacy” groups, calling them “opportunistic persons who are seeking...personal gain.” Huh? It’s pretty sad when the leader of the largest Protestant denomination in the land chooses to publicly attack a self-help support group for victims of child-rape and sexual assault. We’re crime victims, not opportunists. I think many good Baptist people would be appalled by such a mean-spirited kick-the-messenger statement.

And finally, just when I thought these guys couldn’t possibly dish out any more weirdness, one of the Baptist bloggers accused me personally, Christa Brown, of putting him on my email list and sending him such a flood of email that he had to block me. Yet, before yesterday when his blog posting came up on a google alert, I had never heard of the guy. Neither his name nor his email address are anywhere on my system. When I posed this mystery on his blog, he did a little side-shuffle and said he was “receiving SNAP email.” Well....geewhiz...that’s a little different, isn’t it? I have no clue who he’s getting such a flood of email from or why, but I know this. I get heaps of vitriolic emails from people who claim to be Southern Baptist ministers, and I don’t go around blaming Frank Page individually...or Art Rogers individually...for all those “Southern Baptist” emails.

What’s with these guys? When will they stop kicking the messengers and start actually doing something about the problem?

With over 101,000 Southern Baptist ministers in this country, there’s likely a kid somewhere right now who’s being groomed for abuse.

Every day, I hear the weeping of people wounded by clergy sex abuse. Why don’t Southern Baptist leaders hear that weeping? Maybe it’s because they’re too busy being politicians instead of good shepherds.

Reporting Baptist clergy sex abuse

Wonder what it's like to try to report clergy sex abuse to Southern Baptist leaders? Well...it looks sort of like this. Still wondering why Baptist abuse survivors might hesitate to speak up?

Churches need help handling clergy sex abuse reports

I’ve gotten one too many missives from this guy, Brian Robertson (CometC@centurytel.net). When someone repeatedly sends this sort of bile-spewing...and then has the authoritarian arrogance to say “this is between you and me”...well...I don’t think so.

I just love how you put pictures of people on your website and almost guarantee their destruction. "Credible allegations" are not truth. I could probably find someone to "credibly" accuse you of murder....I think any real predators should be destroyed, and I equally think that anyone that would falsely accuse or label an innocent person a predator is just as bad as the predator. In fact, the person that does this is just a predator of a different type. You need to be stopped. I’m afraid any good you might be doing is being overshadowed by the harm to innocents. Your treatment of a good and innocent friend of mine is shameful. You have destroyed his career and reputation and continue to pound on him. I bet you do not sleep well at night, Trust me, it is not because of what happened to you or other victims, it is the incredible guilt that even your small conscience must feel by knowing that you will destroy a person's life with no facts at all....This is between you and me. Do not publish this….

Based on his prior comments, I think this guy's upset that I recently posted on my website a photo of Larry Reynolds with a Denton Record-Chronicle news link. Reynolds was pastor of Southmont Baptist Church in Denton, TX. Katherine Roush sued Reynolds, alleging he had molested her when she was a 14-year old girl. Reportedly, the suit was settled with a confidentiality agreement (a secrecy tactic that Catholic bishops formally disapproved in 2002 but Baptists still use) and with Reynolds making an apology before the church. He said “I made a terrible mistake” and confessed that “proper boundaries were not kept.”

Ordinarily, that might have quietly brought an end to the matter, but when EthicsDaily and the Chronicle began looking into it, things got messy. Another Southmont minister, James Crittenden, told the Chronicle it would be destructive to “the cause of Christ” to publish the news. Thank God for courageous and conscientious journalists. Reynolds resigned after the press coverage.

The Southmont story provides a good example of why it’s so delusional for Southern Baptist officials to think churches can handle clergy abuse reports on their own. We’re supposed to imagine that someone like Katherine Roush could have simply gone to a church like Southmont and said, “I need to tell you about what your beloved pastor Reynolds did to me when I was a kid,” and that the church would have been receptive even though she is now an outsider to them, and that it would have compassionately and conscientiously considered her report with open minds.

Given that ministerial staff apparently didn’t inform the congregation even after a lawsuit was filed, and even after EthicsDaily published news of it, why should anyone assume the staff would have attempted to bring the truth to light based on Roush’s mere report? Given that minister Crittenden tried to convince the Chronicle not to run the story, why should we assume he would have shown any concern for ferreting out the truth of a report from Roush? Given the sort of hostility shown by Brian Robertson, why should we assume that congregants would have been able to objectively consider Roush's allegations (assuming staff had ever told the congregants)? Given that this church had a resource most don’t – a member who professes to be an expert on clergy sex abuse, Joe Trull – and yet church leaders apparently didn’t bother to consult with their expert, why should anyone assume that any other church would handle it any better than Southmont did? And given that, even after all that happened, Southmont gave Reynolds a $50,000 "love offering" upon his departure and still keeps one of its buildings named after Reynolds, why should we assume that, on its own, such a congregation would be capable of seeing such a possibly dark and ugly thing about a minister whom they so revered?

A person trying to report clergy sex abuse is often doing so many years after the abuse occurred. That’s what is normal because the nature of the crime causes victims to stay silent. (Cases that get reported sooner are atypical and are usually cases in which the victims’ parents found out.) It is unrealistic to imagine that, years later, a clergy abuse victim can go before a church as an outsider and tell them something so awful about their leader, and expect to be heard. Yet, victims need to be heard, because it’s the only way clergy-perpetrators can be exposed. This is why an independent objective review board is needed.

Such a board could also be a resource for congregations. It’s a shame the people of Southmont weren’t allowed to know every bit of available information. What was in the alleged letters from Reynolds to Roush? And what was in the medical records at Roush’s rehab center where witnesses say Reynolds made an appearance? I don’t know the answer to those questions. But I think the members at Southmont were entitled to know, and that’s information a denominational review board could have possibly given them. As it is, many at Southmont are left to wonder about what was true and what wasn’t, and about who was being straight with them and who wasn’t. Better to have the truth made transparent than to be left wondering.

SBC is unresponsive to clergy sex abuse problem

will spotlight Baptist clergy
sex abuse...watch for it...
soon.

It’s been 7 weeks since the SBC Executive Committee meeting, and they’re still trying to stone the messenger instead of taking action to make kids safer. In the April issue of SBC Life, Baptist leaders once again distort SNAP’s public statement by saying SNAP apologized “for making false accusations.” This is the same garbage they threw out in the Baptist Press six weeks ago.

It must be nice to have your own well-funded press arm where you can cast whatever twisted spin you want. This blog is all we’ve got. So let us be very clear.

SNAP stands by its statement that Southern Baptist officials are unresponsive to the serious problem of clergy sex abuse. We have NOT apologized for that or backed down from it one bit. We apologized for the fact that an SBC brush-off letter was misplaced at SNAP’s Chicago office, NOT for saying that SBC officials were unresponsive to the clergy sex abuse problem. [SNAP’s press statement; SNAP’s apology]

So who’s really being “false” here? Frank Page says the SBC made “every effort to communicate with SNAP.” Yet, what the SBC actually said in that misplaced letter was this: “Continued discourse between us will not be positive or fruitful.” This is apparently Page's notion of “every effort to communicate.” Some might consider his statement “false,” but I think it simply shows him to have a one-sided notion of what it means “to communicate.”

These guys also seem to have a one-sided notion of apologies. They don’t make them, but they expect them from others.

Where is their apology to me for writing that the SBC had no record my perpetrator was still in ministry…even though he was really in children’s ministry at a Southern Baptist church in Florida? Though I bore no personal fault, I took on the burden of organizational responsibility and apologized for the fact that the SBC’s brush-off letter sat in a pile in Chicago. Why aren’t THEY taking on any burden of organizational responsibility? I expect they would say it wasn’t their job to know where that minister was…and that the SBC only has records of what churches choose to give them (or don’t choose to give them). But it wasn’t my job to go up to Chicago and personally look for a letter either…and yet I took on organizational responsibility and made an apology for the fact that I didn’t know about it. Where is THEIR organizational apology?

And which organizational mistake had potentially greater consequences? A misplaced brush-off letter…or a misplaced child-molesting minister that people weren’t told about?

What a perfect system Baptist leaders have for avoiding accountability! The buck literally stops nowhere for these guys.

And consider Frank Page’s statement last Monday that Baptist clergy sex abuse isn’t a large-scale problem though “there have been several reported cases.” Several??? Even if you only count the last 6 months of publicly reported cases, it’s still a lot more than “several.” That’s such an understatement that some might call it “false.” But what it really shows is institutionalized denial and blindness. Tragically, it’s a blindness that leaves kids at risk. Until Baptist leaders see the full reality of the clergy sex abuse problem, they aren’t likely to effectively combat it.

Broken Trust at the BGCT

A few days ago, someone asked me about the “Broken Trust” booklet at the Baptist General Convention of Texas. “Do you think the BGCT has made at least a well-intentioned effort to address clergy sex abuse?” It’s not a simple question: here’s the gist of my answer.

Do I think some of the individuals who sat on the committee that put together that booklet were well-intentioned at the time? Yes.

Do I think the BGCT as an organization is well-intentioned in seeking to effectively address the clergy sex abuse problem? No.

Words are not the best indication of intention. At some point, you have to look at what the organization is actually doing. When I consistently see actions that are more focused on silencing victims than on exposing perpetrators, I conclude that the silencing of victims is indeed exactly what the BGCT intends. If they didn’t intend that, they wouldn’t keep acting in ways that promote that....but they do.

So the answer is “no.” An organization whose deeds show a pattern of silencing victims while leaving perpetrators in pulpits is not an organization that I consider to be “well-intentioned” in addressing clergy sex abuse.

What deeds? Using a hardball lawyer who threatens suit against a victim even while knowing that the victim’s report of abuse is substantiated by another minister...and the child-molesting perpetrator is left in the pulpit. Using a lawyer who repeatedly tries to get victims to sign secrecy contracts saying they’ll never speak of the abuse with anyone other than their therapist....and the child-molesting perpetrators are left in their pulpits. Refusing to provide victims with assistance for counseling unless they sign secrecy agreements....while using BGCT funds to provide counseling for clergy-perpetrators to “restore” them to ministry. Having an “intervention specialist” like Sonny Spurger who repeatedly gives no help when contacted by clergy abuse victims but who refers churches to the BGCT’s hardball lawyer when they need help in handling a victim.

“Well..maybe they don’t know what their lawyer is doing,” you say? They know. I made sure of that because I myself simply couldn’t believe that any Christian organization would tolerate such a hostile response to someone reporting clergy abuse. At my own expense, I flew to Dallas and sat in a room with Jan Daehnert and Sonny Spurger, and I showed them the letter from their attorney threatening recourse against me after I reported my perpetrator. Nothing changed. Not only did their lawyer continue with his hardball tactics against me and with trying to get me to sign a secrecy agreement, but even after my case was done, he continued with similar tactics against others. He didn’t lose any business over how he handled things, and he has been the BGCT’s lawyer for over a decade. I think the only reasonable assumption is that his hardball tactics against victims who report abuse are exactly what the BGCT wants. So the answer is “no.” I do not consider that to be a well-intentioned response to the problem of clergy sex abuse.

“Broken Trust” is broken...and I think it probably was from the beginning. The BGCT never really got behind it. They put together a committee who put some nice words on paper, and that was all the BGCT needed for the sake of appearances. But for the sake of ridding the ranks of perpetrators and caring about victims, it will take more than words on paper.

Prayer of a clergy abuse survivor

Help me
To stitch
The pieces of my life
Into a many-colored quilt
That will cover kids
Against clergy evil.

CB

Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome

Studies estimate that 30 % of people sexually abused as kids NEVER disclose the abuse to anyone, not even in adulthood. So great is the distorted psychological weight of shame and self-blame. When victims do report, they often do so many years after the abuse occurred. If the perpetrator was someone the kid trusted, such as a minister, disclosure of the abuse is even less likely.

Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome is a model that is sometimes used to explain the hindrance to disclosure. It is not a diagnostic tool but rather a clinical tool to assist in putting abuse victim behavior in context. As explained in the 2004 John Jay study, the Syndrome is used in discussing those abused at ages younger than 18. And, contrary to what many might think, a couple studies indicate that older child sex abuse victims may be less likely to disclose than their younger counterparts. Why? Because the younger kids sometimes disclose accidentally, and because the older kids may be better able to "anticipate unsupportive reactions."

Here are the components of Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome: Secrecy (the abuse occurs when the victim and perpetrator are alone, and the perpetrator encourages the victim to maintain secrecy); Helplessness (kids are obedient to adults and will usually obey the perpetrator who encourages secrecy); Entrapment and Accomodation (once the kid is helplessly entrenched in the abusive situation, he or she assumes responsibility for the abuse and begins to dissociate from it); Delayed Disclosure (because the victims who report child sexual abuse often wait long periods of time to disclose, their disclosures are subsequently questioned).

Sound familiar to some of you?

Happy St. Patrick's Day! The Irish endure. So do clergy abuse survivors. Keep on healing and raise heck when you can!

Gutless wonders

Here's an example of the sort of emails I get these days, apparently from men who don't like my speaking out about Baptist clergy sex abuse. This one isn't the worst, but it’s typical.

Of course, almost none give their names. Gutless wonders. If they want to stone me, they should at least take off their hoods and do it with some integrity. This charming little lecture is from wild62mustang@yahoo.com - and my responses are below.

"From what I have read from your web page and Baptist Press, you certainly did represent yourself and SNAP with a vengeance. Your way of expressing yourself just made everyone angry. You do not conduct yourself with dignity and kindness. You are abrasive.

Everyone knows by now that you were a victim of sexual molestation by a Baptist pastor… But nothing is going to help you recover until you can forgive this man….Evidently you feed off that anger and that is what keeps you going each day. (1)

From your writing and decorum (if there was any), you even show anger and hatred toward those who would want to hear from you and, at least, try to help. You parse words and sentences from letters you adamantly stated you didn’t receive…but DID receive. (2)

…You were granted the privilege to address the meeting. But your website still puts you at odds with the very ones from whom you desire assistance and action. Have you ever read the child story..”give a mouse a cookie”? You need to..You are never satisfied with each step..you want more, more, more… RIGHT NOW!!! (3)

You are an angry activist. Have you ever heard ..”you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? Try it sometime…(4)

…I agree with you that child molestation is awful….Yes, there needs to be a way of warning other churches of this when it has happened….Unfortunately, most SBC churches don’t do background checks and no one can make them do that. (5)

Like I told you before….there is no hierarchy in the SBC. You can’t get that through your head. (6)

…If I had been in that meeting, I would be so angry at you I wouldn’t want to give you the time of day." (7)

1. No amount of my forgiveness will serve to make kids any safer, and I'm content to leave forgiveness in God's hands. It’s actually two things that keep me going: (a) wanting to know that church kids in the future will be safer than I was, and (b) the constant emails from other Baptist abuse survivors whose stories haunt me, who remind me of how pervasive the problem is, and who express gratitude for my speaking out about it.

2. If anyone wants to read something other than the Baptist Press version, here’s a start. And here is SNAP’s actual apology, the SBC’s response letter of 9/29 and SNAP’s letter of 9/26. I think most people could simply compare the tone of SNAP’s 9/26 letter with the tone of the SBC’s 9/29 letter and get a pretty clear picture.

3. At the meeting, I expressed my appreciation for being allowed to speak, but I also made very plain that I was looking for deeds on their part. I have indeed read the children’s story “Give a mouse a cookie.” And what I don’t understand is why every other Baptist parent who has had the privilege of reading that story – or any other story to a kid – doesn’t see the urgency of doing everything possible to protect kids. You’re absolutely right on this point, mustang,….I want more….I want real and effective action to make church kids safer…and yes….I want it RIGHT NOW!!! And furthermore, I won’t apologize for wanting that.

4. Oh yes…I get the “catch more flies with honey” line rather redundantly these days. I wish you guys could come up with some different clichés.

5. The fact that most churches don’t do background checks is more than “unfortunate.” It’s dangerous. But even that is just one small part of what needs to happen. As you rightly recognize, “there needs to be a way of warning other churches” when child molestation has happened.

6. I've heard the "no hierarchy" bit plenty of times from you and plenty of others. But what I just can’t get through my head is how it could ever be possible in any moral world for the ecclesiological legalism of congregational autonomy to preclude effective action to rid the ranks of clergy predators who use spiritual authority to savage the souls and bodies of kids in ways that are unspeakable. Besides, I don’t see how it would violate congregational autonomy if the SBC were to provide congregations with the resource of an objective independent review board.

7. Well, you weren’t at that meeting, mustang. That much is obvious. In any event, your rather ridiculous anger is the least of my concerns.

Ministering requires deeds - so does protecting kids against abuse

Dr. Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, tells the Commercial Appeal, "We are committed to protecting our children and ministering to those who have been hurt by abuse."

To minister: to give aid or service / to attend to the wants or needs of others. By definition, "ministering" requires deeds, not merely words. I have seen no "ministering" on the part of the SBC to those hurt by clergy sex abuse.

And as for Dr. Page's suggestion that SNAP should let SBC leaders know about reports of abuse that SNAP receives. Why??? What track record does the SBC have for responsibly dealing with such reports? What did SBC leaders do with the substantiated report they got from me? They wrote that they had no record the man was still in ministry. Yet, I myself found him at a prominent mega-church in Florida. I wrote the SBC a second time. Still no help. Months after my report, the man was delivering a sermon talking from the pulpit about his children's ministry, and not until 15 months later was he finally made to resign....only after I myself took action. Contrary to Dr. Page's words, this doesn't show any genuine effort on the part of the SBC "to prevent our precious children from ever being hurt." What it shows is institutionalized blindness.

Until the SBC shows that it has a legitimate and effective system for independently, objectively and professionally investigating and considering clergy abuse reports, I have no reason to think that any clergy abuse victim would be well-served by talking to any SBC official. I myself wasted way too much time believing that there would be someone at the SBC who would indeed want to take action to prevent other kids from being hurt. I was very, very mistaken in that belief. And for every minute of that mistaken belief, other kids remained at risk. It's not a mistake I'll choose to make again.

Words of my mouth and meditations of my heart

For those of you who know how averse I can be to Bible verses - they were so often used as weapons against me - this will seem out of character. Yet, in recent days, from morning to night, my mind is flooded with a single thought. It is the first thought in my mind on awakening and the last thought before sleeping (on those precious nights when sleep actually arrives). Is it a prayer? I don't know. I don't know if what I do even constitutes prayer. I think it would be more true to simply say that I feel prayerful. It's Psalms 19:14....

"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,
be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer."

"Recois favorablement les paroles de ma bouche, et les sentiments de mon coeur, O Eternel, mon rocher et mon liberateur!"

Friends....please keep me in your thoughts, prayers, and/or incantations in the days to come. Thank you.