It's not about Baptists vs. Baptists

Baptist minister Timothy Mann was sentenced to 7 years for child sex abuse.

Mann was a popular music minister who worked at prominent churches:

• Shades Crest Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama.
• First Baptist Church of St. Petersburg, Florida.
• First Baptist Church of Gaithersburg, Maryland.

At the time of his arrest, he was at Shades Crest, a flagship church for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Before that, he was at First Baptist Church of St. Petersburg, which according to its website, is affiliated with both the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Southern Baptist Convention. And his prior church, First Baptist of Gaithersburg is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Mann was so well-respected that, in 2004, he was the worship leader for the entire general assembly of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. He also taught at Baptist-affiliated Samson University, and he was active in Youth Choirs, Inc., an interdenominational network promoting youth-choir ministries.

For those of you who don’t follow Baptist arcana (you lucky dogs), what all this means is that Mann worked both sides of the Baptist divide. He worked in both conservative and moderate Baptist churches. And he was a child molester.

The 30-old schism between Baptist conservatives and moderates -- commonly called the “fundamentalist take-over” -- was a civil war that so polarized Baptists that, to this day, they still tend to view almost all issues through that same old cloudy lens.

But when it comes to clergy sex abuse, Baptist conservatives and moderates share a tragic common ground. Both do far too little to protect against clergy abuse or to minister to the wounded. Both do far less than what other major faith groups are doing. Both are big on talk, but small on deeds.

So many people have told me that I should “ease up on the good guys.” Most of the time, it’s people who think “the good guys” are the guys at the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Why? Because they’re “moderates” -- or at least they carry that label.

I understand why people often try to peg the “good guys” based on little more than a label. It’s that age-old human desire to believe in the righteousness of the home-team. It’s a sort of tribalism.

But folks, I wasn’t part of the Baptist civil war, and when it comes to clergy sex abuse, I perceive the conservative/moderate labels as being meaningless. Neither side can claim high ground.

Thoughts about Baptists’ conservative/moderate schism came to mind recently when SNAP did a press event at the Baptist General Convention of Texas in Dallas. We were hand-delivering a letter to the BGCT’s new executive director, Dr. Randel Everett, calling on him to protect Baptist kids by releasing the names of ministers who have been reported by churches for sexual abuse.

SNAP’s media advisory went out all over the metroplex, and a reporter emailed his boss to tell him why he wasn’t inclined to cover the event. At least, he thought he was emailing his boss. In reality, he sent the email to a SNAP leader. Here’s what he wrote: “In my view, the Baptist General Convention of Texas has done more than any Baptist group to deal with clergy abuse.”

It’s a revealing message, and based on comments I get, it’s a view that a lot of people share. It’s a view that says, “Why go after the ‘good guys’?” It’s a view that expresses a misperception I continue to battle.

The misperception is that it’s about one Baptist group versus another Baptist group. It’s not.

Think about it this way: If the Catholic Diocese of Dallas kept a confidential file of priests who had been reported for child molestation, but didn’t take action to responsibly assess the reports, didn't remove the priests from ministry, and didn't even bother to warn people in the pews, would we praise the Dallas diocese on the ground that it was doing better than some other diocese, because at least the Dallas officials weren’t calling the victims ugly names?

Surely not. We would expect the Dallas diocese to do a lot better… AND we would expect other dioceses to do better as well.

Similarly with Baptists, the issue isn’t about whether the Baptist General Convention of Texas is doing more than other Baptist groups. The issue is about whether the Baptist General Convention of Texas is doing all that it should to protect kids in Baptist churches.

The answer is obvious: It’s not. The Baptist General Convention of Texas should do a lot better… AND other Baptist groups should do better as well.

The problem of Baptist clergy sex abuse cannot be effectively addressed by looking to the old conservative/moderate labels. This isn’t about Baptists vs. Baptists.

Regardless of what label they wear, the Baptist “good guys” will be the ones who finally step forward with courageous leadership and make kid protection more important than institutional protection.

The Baptist “good guys” will be the ones who finally bring Baptists up to speed with what other faith groups are doing by providing a safe place where victims can report clergy abuse with a reasonable expectation of being objectively heard.

So far, we haven’t seen these basic steps from either the “conservatives” or the “moderates.”

Until we do, I’m not going to pay heed to talk about how one Baptist group is doing more than another. I’m going to keep talking about how much more they ALL need to be doing.

_________________________

Correction: According to the Birmingham News, Timothy Mann was actually sentenced to 13 years, and will serve 7 years of prison time with the remaining 5 years to be served on probation. Thus, the Gazette headline is incorrect in stating that he was "sentenced to 7 years."

They've got the power

“We request… the establishment of an independent review board as an auxiliary to the SBC, but with adequate and assured funding from the SBC. Its purpose would be to receive and investigate reports of clergy abuse and to arrive at a determination of whether the report should be deemed credible. All reports should be archived, and as part of its investigatory powers, the review board should establish a procedure for notifying people in the pews whenever a report of abuse is made about a minister who worked in their congregation. In this way, the denomination can reach out to other possible victims… and put parents on notice so that they can talk with their kids. Whenever a report of abuse is deemed credible, the review board would also be responsible for reporting that decision to the people in the pews in every congregation in which the minister has worked. This board should be composed of independent professionals, including non-Baptists, who have extensive experience in dealing with the dynamics of clergy sex abuse....”

This was what SNAP asked for two years ago, in its letter of September 26, 2006 to Southern Baptist officials.

Look at that request. Was it so unreasonable?

• A review board where people could report clergy abuse to trained, independent professionals.
• A review board that would responsibly assess the allegations in an objective manner.
• A review board that would provide information about credible allegations to people in the pews.

No one said anything about Nashville telling local churches what to do. No one said anything about Nashville exercising authority over local churches.

The request we made was nothing radical. It was a request for action similar to what’s already being done in other major faith groups.

So why can’t Southern Baptists provide the same sorts of protective processes as other faith groups?

Because their leaders have planted their feet in cement.

It’s not because Southern Baptist leaders can’t. It’s because they won’t.

Oh sure, we’ve heard Southern Baptist officials talk about how powerless they are. We’ve heard their claim that it’s a “bottom-up” organization and that national leaders can only do what local churches tell them to do via their “messenger” votes at the convention.

And after the do-nothing debacle of the 2008 convention, I bet some of you are thinking that the SBC Executive Committee can’t even try to do anything more on this issue until someone gets still another motion passed at still another convention.

If that’s what you’re thinking, you’re wrong. The SBC Executive Committee has the power. They could take action if they wanted to.

In real life, they don’t actually sit back waiting for local churches to tell them what to do.

Remember how pastor Wade Burleson made a motion at the 2007 convention, asking that the Executive Committee study the creation of a denominational database of ministers who have been “credibly accused” of sexual abuse?

For all the fanfare that motion got, the Executive Committee itself didn’t seem to think it mattered much. They claimed they were studying the clergy sex abuse issue even BEFORE Burleson’s motion.

In other words, they claimed that they were acting on their own power.

In the first sentence of their own June 2008 report, the Executive Committee made this very clear. Here’s what they said:

“… the Bylaws Workgroup of the Convention’s Executive Committee in 2006 began studying how best to address the challenge of clergy sexual abuse in the local church. The work of the Bylaws Workgroup took on higher visibility after receiving the referral of the 2007 Wade Burleson motion relating to the issue, coupled with heightened interest by the press and special interest advocacy groups.”

So according to their own statement, they were studying the issue in 2006 -- i.e., before Burleson’s 2007 motion and without the benefit of any “marching orders” from the local churches.

Augie Boto said something similar in a 2007 email to Debbie Vasquez. Boto is vice-president for convention policy and general counsel for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. When Debbie expressed her great concern about the issue of clergy sex abuse, Boto told Debbie that the Executive Committee was "currently" assessing the issue. Later, when Debbie read about Wade Burleson’s planned motion, she wrote back to Boto and asked “Did you lie to me?” She couldn’t understand why Burleson would be making a motion on the subject if the Executive Committee was already addressing it.

But Boto wrote back and reconfirmed that “The Bylaws Workgroup of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is already looking into the issue.”

Then he went on to be completely dismissive of Burleson’s motion. Here’s how Boto explained the fact that Burleson was making a motion even though the Executive Committee was already addressing the matter: “It often happens that those who make motions are unaware of occurrences. Since anyone can make a motion about anything, we cannot account for their reasons or knowledge.”

In other words, as far as Boto was concerned, Burleson’s motion was irrelevant and immaterial.

So… if the Executive Committee could claim to be addressing the clergy abuse issue BEFORE Burleson’s motion, why can’t they still address it even now?

The answer is obvious: They can. They have the power. They always did, and they still do.

Their whole “we are powerless” bit has never been anything more than a ruse for institutionalized irresponsibility.

It’s just phony baloney, folks.

SBC's conduct is "shameful," says columnist

Kudos to columnist and radio host Roland Martin!

In a CNN column today, Martin rebuked the Southern Baptist Convention for its shameful action of pulling Gospel Today from its bookstore racks because of the magazine’s cover story on female pastors.

Martin’s wife is a female pastor and a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. So Martin knows what he’s talking about. It’s obviously not the first time he’s seen this sort of hubris from the male-dominated Southern Baptist Convention.

I had the honor of being a guest on Martin’s radio talk show about a year ago. It was right after the story broke about a Chicago-area Southern Baptist church that knowingly put a convicted sex offender in the pulpit. I remember being impressed with how knowledgeable Martin was of Southern Baptist ways, and now that I know about his wife’s seminary training, it helps to explain why.

At the time, I was grateful to Martin for his willingness to use the power of his voice to shine light on the problem of Baptist clergy sex abuse. Now once again, we see Roland Martin using his media power to confront Baptist leaders with the nonsensical hypocrisy of their action in pulling the magazine.

Martin wonders about whether Lifeway might now cull through other publications to pull from their shelves. It’s a good question and one that I posed in my prior blog posting.

If Lifeway is so concerned about the doctrinal purity of their bookshelves, why don't they pull every book authored by former Southern Baptist president Paige Patterson and mega-church pastor Steve Gaines? Why should Baptist bookstores give any credence to these men as moral leaders?

Surely, Baptist leaders who cover for and keep quiet about clergy sex abuse are more of an affront to Baptist belief than smiling female pastors on the cover of a magazine.
__________________________________________

• If you want to thank Roland Martin for his fine column, it’s roland@rolandsmartin.com.


• See the CNN video on this story.

Women pastors treated "like pornography"

The Southern Baptist Convention pulled the latest issue of Gospel Today from the shelves of its bookstores. Why? Because the magazine has a picture of women pastors on the cover, and women pastors go against the SBC’s beliefs.

So they put it behind the counter and refused to display it in over 100 of the SBC’s Lifeway bookstores all over the country.

“They basically treated it like pornography,” said the magazine’s publisher, who emphasized that Gospel Today wasn’t advocating for women pastors but simply reporting on a trend.

Gospel Today is one of the largest and most widely distributed Christian publications in the country. It’s a far cry from any sort of fringe rag.

Yet, SBC honchos decided to protect people against it by removing the magazine from the shelves. I guess they thought the very sight of that cover, or the article within, might somehow corrupt people’s thoughts.

So SBC honchos leap into action to protect people against a magazine article about women pastors, but they plant their feet in cement when it comes to protecting kids against clergy child molesters.

They can mobilize fast to pull a magazine from Baptist bookstore racks, but they can’t mobilize at all to pull credibly accused child molesters from Baptist pulpits.

Does this make sense?

Where are their priorities?

If anyone had any remaining doubt, this magazine-pulling incident surely demonstrates how dreadfully disordered the SBC’s priorities actually are. Families have more to fear from clergy child molesters who remain in their pulpits than from smiling women in black who appear on a magazine cover.

And anyway, if SBC honchos want to pull from their bookstores all the publications with something that goes against Baptist belief, why don’t they pull all the books by men who have covered-up for or kept quiet about other preachers’ sexual abuse?

They could start by pulling all the books by Paige Patterson and Steve Gaines.

Surely, religious leaders who keep quiet about clergy sex abuse are as much of an affront to Baptist belief as women pastors who appear on a magazine cover.
________________________________________

Thanks to everyone who sent me the Fox News article on this!

Additional News:

• Atlanta Journal Constitution: "Gospel Today magazine pulled from Christian bookstores' shelves"
• EthicsDaily: "Lifeway pulls magazine featuring women preachers"

Accommodated to unaccountability

It was two years ago that SNAP first showed up on the doorstep of Southern Baptist headquarters in Nashville. So let’s reminisce a bit.

On September 26, 2006, we hand-delivered a letter with 5 requests for action to make kids in Baptist churches safer, and we asked for a dialogue.

The Southern Baptist Convention replied with a terse brush-off letter saying “continued discourse between us will not be positive or fruitful.”

But I didn’t personally receive that brush-off letter, and I didn’t know about it. Neither did David Clohessy, SNAP’s national director, and neither did any other SNAP leader. The letter just sat in a pile at SNAP headquarters in Chicago. (Apparently, a volunteer there didn’t see much significance in the letter, but of course, why would she? It was just a brush-off.)

So, since I never saw the letter and didn’t know about it, I wound up making statements to the press, saying that SBC officials hadn’t replied to SNAP’s Sept. 26th letter. That was a mistake.

It was an inconsequential mistake, because the SBC’s reply letter was nothing but a brush-off and not anything substantive, but it was still a mistake.

As soon as I got the first indication about the mistake, I looked into it and tracked down the SBC’s letter. Then Clohessy and I made a public apology in a news release. And I personally contacted every reporter I had spoken to about it and told them about the mistake. (None of them seemed to think it mattered much. They were more interested in whether the SBC had actually done anything.)

Though neither Clohessy nor I bore any personal fault, we made an apology on behalf of the organization. It’s what leaders in organizations do.

SNAP is a diffuse and dispersed organization. It is an organization comprised mostly of volunteers who exercise a large measure of autonomy and who are scattered across the country. But the local volunteers join together in a “network” for the pursuit of greater good.

Does that sound like another organization you know? Isn’t the Southern Baptist Convention also a sort of dispersed organization? And it’s comprised of local churches that voluntarily network together for the pursuit of greater good.

But however voluntary the network may be, the SBC is still an organization.

So why don’t SBC officials see the need for their own organizational apology? Do they just not believe in apologizing?

Or are they so accommodated to unaccountability that they don’t even notice when mistakes are made?

Before showing up in Nashville, SNAP had asked SBC officials to launch an investigation into the abysmal mishandling of my own abuse report so as to learn from it and make changes. My report showed that it was substantiated by another Baptist minister, who eventually made a sworn statement attesting to his knowledge of the abuse.

Yet, the SBC wrote that it had no record the perpetrator was still in ministry.

Many months later, and with no help from church or denominational leaders, I learned that my perpetrator was actually still working in children’s ministry at a Southern Baptist church in Florida. He had been in children’s ministry all along, including a long stint at the church of former SBC president Charles Stanley and a stint at the church of former Florida Baptist Convention president Dwayne Mercer.

But despite his prominent connections, I’ll simply assume for the sake of argument that no one at the SBC actually knew where the man was. Even so, wasn’t it still a mistake for the SBC to write that they had no record he was in ministry – when in fact he was?

SNAP lost a brush-off letter, and we made an organizational apology for that mistake even though neither Clohessy nor I had any personal knowledge about the letter’s existence. Our lack of knowledge didn’t alter the fact that the letter was actually there in Chicago.

Meanwhile, the SBC “loses” a reported clergy child molester, and gives out the misleading information of saying there’s no record he’s in ministry, and to this day, the SBC has made no organizational apology. Even if it’s true that SBC officials didn’t personally know about him, it doesn’t alter the fact that the man was actually there in Florida working as a Southern Baptist minister.

Do you think SBC officials even realize that a mistake was made?

Or are they so accustomed to being in a “buck-stops-nowhere” organization that they don’t even notice their organization’s mistakes?

Certainly, the SBC’s mistake was one that carried far graver potential consequences than the loss of a brush-off letter. Yet, it’s a mistake for which the organization has made no apology.

Why doesn't the SBC expect of itself the same sort of organizational accountability that it expects of other organizations?

The SBC still owes an apology, not only to me, but also to all those Florida parents whose kids they left at risk.

The SBC’s organizational apology is long over-due, of course, but better late than never.

Baptist abuse survivors envy Catholics

Baptist clergy abuse survivors often tell me how much they envy Catholic survivors.

Their feelings aren’t based on any notion that Catholic victims endure any less trauma from the abuse itself. Rather, Baptist survivors’ feelings of envy are based on what they often see in the press about how Catholic abuse survivors get treated when they report their abuse.

Consider this recent article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The wife of a 42-year old man reported to the Fort Worth Catholic diocese that her husband was abused three decades ago by a now-deceased priest.

What did the diocese do?

• The diocese forwarded the abuse report to a review board, which determined the report to be “a credible allegation.”

• The diocese immediately offered counseling to the victim.

• The diocese contacted the local newspaper in accordance with its “policy of openly airing allegations of sexual abuse.”

Thus, even when the perpetrator was dead, the diocese still made the “credible allegation” public so as to reach out to other possible victims.

The diocese’s public acknowledgement was also important because, even when a perpetrator is dead, it can still help toward the healing of the victim when he is able to unburden himself of such a horrible secret and receive help from the faith community in which the abuse happened.

But where would a Baptist abuse survivor go to unburden himself? Who in the faith community would do anything about it? Who would help him?

For this Catholic survivor, he only needed to make a single report to one office, and action on the report was immediately commenced.

Can you even imagine such a reaction for a Baptist abuse survivor? I can’t.

Typically, a Baptist survivor goes from office to office, trying to find someone who will do something. And no one will. Everyone turns away and essentially says “Not my problem.”

With Baptists, the buck stops nowhere. No one even takes responsibility for looking into clergy abuse allegations, much less for warning others or helping the victim.

Ultimately, the Baptist abuse survivor usually gives up. He gets no help from the faith community nor even any acknowledgement of the wrong that was done to him.

With such a do-nothing response, the Baptist faith community betrays the survivor all over again. Instead of helping the survivor who reports abuse, the faith community winds up deepening his wounds.

And while the Fort Worth Catholic Diocese has a “policy of openly airing allegations of sexual abuse,” the Baptist General Convention of Texas still keeps a confidential file of ministers who have been reported by churches for sexual abuse. (They don’t even bother with reports from mere victims.) There’s no such thing as any “open airing” and no one even bothers with an objective assessment of whether a victim’s allegations are credible.

Even when the clergy-perpetrators are still alive, and even when they are still in pulpits, and even when they are still ministering to children, the Baptist General Convention of Texas doesn’t even undertake to warn the congregations (much less to remove the men from ministry as other faith groups do).

And while the Baptist General Convention of Texas has long provided counseling for clergy-perpetrators, it has no policy or practice of providing readily available counseling for clergy abuse victims. Baptist clergy abuse survivors are left to struggle on their own.

Is it any wonder that Baptist abuse survivors feel envy when they read articles like this one in Fort Worth?

Baptists vet songs but not ministers

All things bright and beautiful,
All things great and small,
All things wise and wonderful;
Our Father made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings;
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.

When you see those words, do you sing along in your head? I do. It’s almost impossible not to.

“All Things Bright and Beautiful” is a song that’s been in my head for as far back as I can remember.

As a child, I sang it in countless Sunday School circles. I remember how much I liked the line about “tiny wings.” I would picture pretty birds, and then in my heart, I would say “thank-you” to God. It was the pure, unfettered gratitude of a child.

“All Things Bright and Beautiful” was a song that, in childhood, brought me closer to God. I loved the song, and I loved the feeling of God’s presence that was so often there with me when I sang it.

So I was heartbroken today to learn that Southern Baptist leaders have decided to jettison “All Things Bright and Beautiful” from the Baptist Hymnal.

According to the Nashville press release, “a committee made up of theologians and musician/theologians was compiled to look at every hymn and make certain the theology was trustworthy.”

“All Things Bright and Beautiful” didn’t meet their standards. The committee didn’t consider it to be one of the “most theologically sound songs” So they deleted it.

I’m having a hard time understanding why this pains me so much. After all, why should I give a hoot about the Baptist Hymnal? I never go to church.

Yet, it does pain me. Perhaps it is simply the power of music that it affects us in ways outside our understanding.

Of course I realize that “All Things Bright and Beautiful” may not have been a favorite hymn for most of you. But even if you don’t care about this particular hymn, there are still some questions that are raised by this whole vetting of the songs business.

If Southern Baptist leaders can vet the suitability of music for the hymnal, why can’t they vet the suitability of ministers for the pulpit?

If Southern Baptist leaders can compile a committee of expert "musician/theologians" to assess every hymn, why can’t they compile a committee of sexual abuse experts to assess every abuse allegation against a minister?

If Southern Baptist leaders care so much about which songs carry the Baptist “brand” in the hymnal, why don’t they care just as much about which ministers carry the Baptist “brand” in the pulpit?

Even with the new hymnal, any Baptist church could still get the music for “All Things Bright and Beautiful” and could still choose to sing it. The committee’s assessment of the song, and its deletion from the hymnal, doesn’t intrude on the autonomy of individual churches.

Similarly, if a committee assessed a clergy abuse report and determined it was a credible accusation, that assessment wouldn’t intrude on the autonomy of individual churches. It would instead provide churches with the resource of objective, expert assessments.

And isn’t a hymnal, in essence, a sort of database of songs? If Southern Baptist leaders can provide for churches a database of the “most theologically sound” songs, why can’t they provide a database of ministers who have been credibly accused of molesting kids?

A database provides information; it doesn’t impose authority.

From the appearance of things, Southern Baptist leaders are more concerned with protecting children against a song like “All Things Bright and Beautiful” than they are with protecting children against ministers who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse.

They vet the soundness of songs, but not the safety of ministers.

Anger

I’m afraid my “Am I bitter?” posting may have confused some people. So let me be very clear: I am not at all critical of clergy abuse survivors who feel angry. To the contrary, I think anger can be constructive and good when it is appropriately directed.

That’s the tricky part. For many abuse survivors, their anger winds up being inappropriately self-directed.

Then, the misdirected anger toward self causes all sorts of trouble -- alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, self-cutting, self-loathing, and detachment from others. Of course, that’s just for starters. I’m sure some of you could come up with other examples.

For many abuse survivors, a significant part of the healing process is learning to direct that anger away from self and toward those who deserve it -- i.e., toward those who abused us and betrayed us.

We don’t need Baptist leaders telling us to “forgive and forget” or to “move on.” And we sure don’t need to have them chastising us for being bitter or angry.

What we need is help in learning to deal with the anger that we rightly feel. What we need is help in learning to recognize the anger for what it is and in realizing that the anger needs to be directed outward instead of inward.

In fact, if Baptist leaders actually cared about clergy abuse survivors, you might think they would be happy when they begin to see our anger directed outwards. For many of us, that means we’re further along on the rocky road of healing.

Perhaps if Baptist leaders had ever focused their attention on providing counseling for clergy abuse survivors, they would better understand this aspect of the healing process. But of course, for the past couple decades, they’ve been too occupied with providing counseling for clergy-perpetrators. (Oops… there’s that attitude again… am I bitter?)

But hey… I’m no psychologist. These are just my thoughts.

What I hope for all clergy abuse survivors is simply that they find a path toward healing. And it pains me greatly – and yes, angers me – that the faith community does so little to help with the healing of those who have been so terribly wounded within it.

I’m not ashamed of my anger, and I hope you won’t be either.

Feel your anger. Know it. Become friends with it. Own it. Learn from it. Use it.

But in the words of Bruce Springsteen, I hope you’ll also remember this: “It ain’t no sin to be glad you’re alive.”

Shine on, survivors!

Croon along

If I had a buck for every time some Baptist guy has called me “bitter,” I’d have a big pile of moolah.

That seems to be their dismissive word of choice.

What’s comical is that I have such a pathological penchant for self-doubt that I actually sit back sometimes and think about it. Obviously, their name-calling isn’t really worth even one second of my time. It’s just that I have a tendency toward second-guessing.

So I wind up asking myself: Am I bitter?

And finally, with so many of their “bitter” barbs flung my way, there was nothing left to do but stick that question into a song.

Feel free to croon along. It’s sort of to the tune of “Am I blue?”

Am I bitter?
Over this?
No I’m not.
It’s a crock.
I’m not bitter.
Just wanting better.
How ‘bout you?

Maybe in some afterlife, these bitter-barbed Baptist guys will get a bit of punishment and have to listen to me sing. Now there’s a wicked thought. Oops…. Am I bitter?
_______________________________

I couldn't figure out how to post musical notation, but if you want to carry this bit of silliness a bit further, this will give you a notion of the notes I'm singing....

gg│ D - - gg │ D# - - gg │ D - - de │ C - - cd │ B - - bc │ A - - ab │ G - -

Therapy for perps but not victims

The Baptist General Convention of Texas recently announced that it was eliminating its psychological staff and instead establishing a network of “thoroughly researched” and strongly-recommended counselors for ministers. The BGCT will provide “financial assistance for ministers who receive counseling through this network.”

When I saw this news, I thought back to April 2005, when I virtually begged BGCT directors Jan Daehnert and Sonny Spurger to set up a referral list of counselors for clergy abuse survivors.

When I realized how difficult it had been for me to find a therapist who had experience in dealing with clergy abuse, I knew it must be a huge hurdle for other survivors as well. So I asked the BGCT to put together a referral list that they could give to clergy abuse survivors who contact them. I asked for a simple list of counselors in Texas’ major cities who had experience with the dynamics of clergy sex abuse.

With a referral list, I thought the BGCT could at least give clergy abuse survivors a starting place for getting help. And it wouldn’t have cost the BGCT one dime.

But they wouldn’t do it.

The largest statewide Baptist organization in the country wouldn’t provide so much as a bare list of counselors for clergy abuse survivors, even though it had long been providing much more than that for the ministers who committed abuse.

“Around 1990, the Baptist General Convention of Texas Ministers Counseling Service launched a restoration program to help ministers put their lives back together after sexual misconduct.”

This “restoration program” was also described in the BGCT-published booklet, Broken Trust. It was a “two-year restoration program” offered through the BGCT’s “Ministers Counseling Service.” For the first 6 months, it consisted of weekly counseling with a “prohibition” on ministry employment. After that, the man continued with less frequent counseling and advanced from volunteer ministry to full-time paid ministry. Counseling was also provided for the minister’s wife. (The BGCT apparently stopped publicly labeling it as a “restoration” program in around 2007.)

So for about 18 years, the BGCT used Cooperative Program dollars to directly fund in-house counseling services for sexually abusive ministers. And even with the BGCT’s recent budget cut-back, it’s STILL using Cooperative Program dollars to provide “financial assistance” to ministers who receive counseling through the BGCT’s network of therapists.

Meanwhile, most of the victims of abusive ministers haven’t been given any counseling services at all.

Instead, the BGCT has said that local churches should be responsible for providing counseling to the victims of abusive clergy.

This, of course, has always been a Catch-22 and a very cruel one. The BGCT has long known that most churches “just try to keep it secret.” But they tell the victim to go to the church anyway, even though the most likely scenario is that the victim will be re-traumatized by the church’s desire for secrecy and by the congregants’ inability to be objective about their beloved pastor.

It’s a sick system, but a rather efficient one for the BGCT. They get to put on a nice public face of “encouraging” churches to provide counseling, but the BGCT doesn’t actually take on any obligation. The BGCT doesn’t commit to expending any of its own resources for clergy abuse victims, because after all, their resources are being spent to restore the abusive ministers.

An abusive minister doesn’t need to beg for a counseling stipend. The BGCT provides it, along with a ready referral network for him.

But for the victims of abusive ministers, they get counseling assistance only if they beg for it from the local church and only if the local church agrees to it. This almost never happens, and it certainly doesn’t happen without additional pain for the victim.

How does this disparity make any sense?

If the autonomous polity of Baptist churches doesn’t preclude the statewide organization from funding counseling for abusive ministers all across the state, why does the autonomous polity preclude the statewide organization from funding counseling for the individual victims of abusive clergy?

Why doesn’t the Baptist General Convention of Texas tell sexually abusive ministers that they should seek a counseling stipend from their church, or former church, in the same way that the BGCT tells the victims of abusive clergy that they should seek counseling from the local church that harbored the abusive minister?

Dee Miller has stated her “strong suspicions that the resistance to providing survivors with adequate funding for therapy is not always about money.” She explained that “leaders know that the more therapy a survivor gets, the more likely she or he is to realize that there are many choices, one of which is speaking out as much and as long as one wishes to do so!”

Though it’s a sad perspective, I think Dee is probably right. It’s a perspective that suggests many Baptist leaders don’t actually want clergy abuse survivors to obtain healing. Instead, they seem to prefer that the wounded stay weak... because weak people don’t speak out.
__________________________

Prior related posts:
Why the BGCT?
Broken Trust at the BGCT
BGCT provides counseling for clergy perpetrators

"Set free"

Convicted child molester David Slone was hired as the senior pastor at Mountain View Baptist Church in Lafayette, Colorado, about a year ago. Before that, he was the church’s youth minister for several years.

As reported in the Denver Post, there were a lot of things that Slone apparently didn’t tell the church when he was hired.

He didn’t tell them about his 1986 child molestation conviction in Oklahoma. Or about the fact that he himself admitted to sexually abusing 5 boys, ages 12 and under. Or about the fact that some of the boys were children in the church where Slone taught Sunday School. Or about the fact that the Oklahoma prosecutor said Slone had molested other children, in addition to the 5 he admitted

Last month, this information came to light when someone sent anonymous letters to church deacons and local newspapers.

Slone resigned as pastor, even though some church members asked him to remain.

So now that the truth has been brought to light by others, Slone says he hopes that “the truth will set me free.”

But what about the boys he molested? Are they “set free”?

That’s what I keep wondering about.

Those boys would be in their early thirties now. They might have children who are the same age they were when Slone molested them. Do their own children’s faces remind them of the confusion, anguish, and quiet terror they felt at that age?

I wonder whether all of Slone’s victims are even still alive. Given the strong correlation between sexual abuse in childhood and suicide in adulthood, I can’t help but wonder whether one of Slone’s victims may have tragically chosen such a terrible means to be “set free.”

Or perhaps some of Slone’s victims are now accustomed to being “set free” from psychic pain with drugs and alcohol. Those addictions are quite common among clergy abuse survivors.

Do you think Slone even knows what became of his victims? Does he care? Has he sought them out to try to help them?

Slone himself received counseling, which started during his one-year stint in prison. I’m guessing that at least part of his counseling came at taxpayer expense, and I don’t begrudge that one bit. Counseling for child molesters is a good thing, if for no other reason than because it may help to protect other kids. Some experts say that previously convicted child molesters are the least likely to re-offend. Why? Because they were finally dealt some consequences for their conduct and because prison time often comes with mandatory professional counseling.

But what I’m wondering about is counseling for his victims. Did they ever receive adequate counseling? Were they able to afford it? Or did trying to heal themselves drive them into bankruptcy, like some other clergy abuse survivors?

Do you think Slone ever offered to pay the counseling costs of his victims? A child molester can never undo the harm, but if he were genuinely remorseful, wouldn’t he at least attempt to ameliorate it?

Do you think any of Slone’s Oklahoma victims knew that he was pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Colorado? I wonder whether seeing their perpetrator in the pulpit made them feel “set free.” Or did it make them feel as though no one cared about what this man did to them as kids?

Slone says God has “transformed” his life.

But I wonder whether Slone’s victims would have thought Slone was “transformed” if they saw him taking kids to baseball games and football games. Or would they worry desperately about what he might be able to do to those kids behind the mask of pastoral trust?

Most of all, I wonder whether anyone else even wonders about Slone’s victims. Or are the victims just forgotten?

Do all those church members who are “very supportive” of Slone ever wonder what became of his victims?

Do the church members who want to “forgive him and let it go” ever wonder about Slone’s victims?

Slone even reaps praise now for “learning how to stand up and tell” about his past.

Do you think his victims are now able “to stand up and tell” about what Slone did to them as kids? Or are they still mired in the shame and self-blame that are the long-enduring hallmarks of sexual abuse?

Of course, even if Slone’s victims wanted “to stand up and tell,” who in Southern Baptist circles would actually listen to them? Who would care?

Slone continues to have the support of his faith community. He doesn’t have to bear his burden alone.

But what about his victims? Do they have the support of a faith community? Or did they see enough of the faith’s falsity that they forever guard against it?

Post-trauma haikus

In a comment under a prior posting, Gmommy talked about her feelings when she read what accused child molester Darrell Gilyard reportedly told detectives. He claimed he got the girl to get better grades, and so “it wasn’t all bad.”

His words “sting my soul and turn my stomach” said Gmommy. “Why do perps all use the same script?”

As Gmommy continued to describe the way Gilyard’s words affected her, I realized she was probably describing post-traumatic stress symptoms, something that many clergy abuse survivors experience in one form or another. And strangely, despite the painfulness of Gmommy’s description, I also saw poetry in it.

So I took Gmommy’s description and shaped it into this haiku.

Words bring unsought smells
Taste of vomit in my throat
Weight on my body.

Remember haikus from your high-school English class? Three lines of 5, 7 and 5 syllables that paint a small picture or that convey a feeling or sensory impression. The lines don’t need to rhyme.

Or you can forget about counting syllables and just do three lines – short, long, short. That works too.

Try it for yourself. Try to put your post-trauma feelings, images, experiences or symptoms into a haiku. Or put the anguish you feel from Baptist leaders’ blindness into a haiku. See what you come up with.

Good or bad, I’d love to see them. Post your haikus here.
____________________________

Thanks to gmommy for the inspiration!