Southern Baptist leaders covered up sex abuse, kept secret database, report says

[tabibito]

If the SBC wants to toss any pastor, let alone their most prominent pastor, the guy’s got a right to object. It’s a fact he’s been far more effective as a minister than anyone else in the SBC. That’s a reasonable defense. But to be clear here, this is tangential to the main point that the convention has indeed received media coverage, contrary to claims made elsewhere in thread. I’ll add that I had no idea there was an issue with Warren’s membership until reading those reports. It certainly wasn’t acknowledged here until after stories were linked.

I’ll also add that the response to those stories was petulant and dishonest. Attacking a fellow minister with memes of things they never said is false witness. There’s an actual commandment against that. Again, these are actions I could never imagine coming from any of my relatives or extended relatives in the ministry.

But that’s LCMS. I guess that sort of thing is okay in the SBC, so long as you’re not a woman.

Back on topic, I suspect having more women in leadership roles would have prevented much of the abuse that occurred over the last few decades. In particular, more women pastors would mean fewer men taking advantage of women. That’s tautological. But regarding the SBC leadership, I don’t think there will be any changes until women reach a critical mass. It takes rock solid courage to speak up when the odds are ten to one against. Or a willingness to own being a Jerk™.

I find the SBC's attitude toward women in leadership roles somewhat less than laudable, but it can be argued that there is enough ambiguity* in scripture to prevent making a declaration of scriptural backing for either position. It is a decision that should be left to the individual congregation.

{{* I'm not saying that it is actually ambiguous, but the pro argument can't be sustained without a consciously impartial jury. Too much depends on an understanding of Koine Greek writing conventions.}}

All that aside, a weak argument is what it is.

[Juvenal]

From the titles it looks like they are stories that used the convention as their setting and were not so much about the vote regarding the scandal.

The stories were about the entire convention and included details about the response to the scandal as well.

But Warren was the lede in both of those articles. He might be just one member in the eyes of the other attendees, but he’s the only name anyone knew before the convention, and likely the only name anyone knows afterwards. Still, the Times piece by Ruth Graham and Elizabeth Dias was all but brutal in its dismissal.
.

But on Tuesday, as infighting over weighty topics like politics and sexual abuse consumed the country’s largest Protestant denomination, Mr. Warren came to the convention he once personified to offer what sounded like a lover’s goodbye.

He is on the brink of retirement, and the denomination has been drifting from the compassionate conservatism and “seeker-sensitive” style Mr. Warren came to represent. Southern Baptists spent part of the afternoon debating whether to oust his church over its ordination of three women as pastors last year. “We have to decide if we will treat each other as allies or adversaries,” Mr. Warren said. The response in the room was tepid.

Lover’s goodbye. Tepid.

You know he read this. That had to leave a mark.

Graham and Dias portray the newly elected President Barber as the less extreme candidate running for election.
.

The choice of Mr. Barber, a pastor in rural Texas, is a victory for establishment leadership that has shown openness to making changes in the wake of a sex abuse scandal and not shied away from broader discussions of race and the role of women. It also sets up more pitched internal clashes between those who back such leadership and an energized ultraconservative wing pushing for a harder, bolder line in national culture wars.

The election, which Mr. Barber won 61 to 39 percent in a runoff election after he failed to secure more than 50 percent of the first vote, suggested that a majority of Southern Baptists were not swayed by warnings of their denomination’s leftward drift on an array of hot-button cultural and political topics. The election was held as more than 8,000 Southern Baptists gathered for their annual convention this week near Disneyland.

Barber’s opposition was unsuccessful, but well organized.
.

Mr. Barber defeated Tom Ascol, a Florida pastor who has criticized what he describes as the denomination’s leftward drift on issues including gender, sexuality, abortion and critical race theory, which the convention publicly affirmed as a potentially useful “analytical tool” in 2019.

Mr. Ascol’s supporters mobilized to ensure his voters could make the expensive trip to Anaheim and were prepared to vote as a bloc when they arrived. The Conservative Baptist Network, an influential ultraconservative group founded in 2020, texted supporters reminders for the timing of important votes, and recommendations on how to vote.

Jared Moore, a pastor in Tennessee, had volunteered to connect sympathetic voters to donors providing scholarships for travel expenses. Mr. Moore, 41, described himself as a fundamentalist, and said he saw the denomination under its recent leadership as kowtowing to secular trends by tacitly condoning female pastors and homosexuality. He was part of a visible faction of “abortion abolitionists” in Anaheim who support not just overturning Roe v. Wade, but criminalizing the procedure and prosecuting those who procure it.

A 60/40 split sounds like significant opposition, but it’d be useful to know how many of those votes were simply bought.

And finally, I can’t let this last bit go without comment.
.

… and prosecuting those who procure it.

I was wondering what they meant by “ultra-conservative,” and whether it was justified, right up to the point I read that phrase. We have what I’d call ultra-conservatives here on TWeb, but that’s beyond anything I’ve seen proposed openly here.

[Juvenal]

I find the SBC's attitude toward women in leadership roles somewhat less than laudable, but there is enough ambiguity in scripture that would prevent making a declaration of scriptural backing for either position. It is a decision that should be left to the individual congregation.

All that aside, a weak argument is what it is.

This looks like vague-posting to me. What argument are you talking about. That women should be ordained, that Warren shouldn’t be booted from the SBC, that his form of evangelism achieved results … The conclusion on the argument’s strength depends on knowing this.

[tabibito]

This looks like vague-posting to me. What argument are you talking about. That women should be ordained, that Warren shouldn’t be booted from the SBC, that his form of evangelism achieved results … The conclusion on the argument’s strength depends on knowing this.

Warren's comments regarding the number of churches he has founded doesn't have any weight. Churches can be filled by preaching false doctrine quite easily.

The argument that women are prohibited by scripture from holding authority is unsound at best. However, demonstrating the fact is no easy task, particularly in the face of tradition. The demonstrations involve understanding Koine Greek writing conventions. To an untrained observer they will seem to be mere rationalisations.

Argument that scripture actually approves the appointment of women to positions of authority (which it does) will largely seem to be a matter of pitting one set of verses in opposition to another.

The scriptures also do not prohibit leadership being restricted to either gender. Thus, I conclude that individual congregations are free to make their own decisions regarding the matter. What they are not free to do is declare another congregation, with different views, to be in violation of scriptural warrant: the matter is adiaphora.

[rogue06]

Warren's comments regarding the number of churches he has founded doesn't have any weight. Churches can be filled by preaching false doctrine quite easily.

The argument that women are prohibited by scripture from holding authority is unsound at best. However, demonstrating the fact is no easy task, particularly in the face of tradition. The demonstrations involve understanding Koine Greek writing conventions. To an untrained observer they will seem to be mere rationalisations.

Argument that scripture actually approves the appointment of women to positions of authority (which it does) will largely seem to be a matter of pitting one set of verses in opposition to another.

The scriptures also do not prohibit leadership being restricted to either gender. Thus, I conclude that individual congregations are free to make their own decisions regarding the matter. What they are not free to do is declare another congregation, with different views, to be in violation of scriptural warrant: the matter is adiaphora.

"Adiaphora." Learned a new word today.

It reminds me a lot of the concept expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to your besterest buddy -- St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held^[1] it actually seems to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in his De republica ecclesiastica in 1617^[2]. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin), in his Paraenesis votiva per Pace Ecclesia ad Theologos Augustana Confessionis auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo (A Reminder for Peace at the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Theologians), said the same thing.





1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

2. See A common quotation from "Augustine"?

[Cow Poke]

“Crickets from the media.”

Two stories, with links, from major news sources.

“You’re arguing by weblink.”

Please forgive me - I was specifically referring to the Sexual Abuse Task Force issue. You know - the topic of this whole thread?

[Cow Poke]

From the titles it looks like they are stories that used the convention as their setting and were not so much about the vote regarding the scandal.

Yeah, they were side issues, but since the Sexual Abuse thing didn't blow up as hoped, those became "the story".

[Cow Poke]

If the SBC wants to toss any pastor, let alone their most prominent pastor, the guy’s got a right to object. It’s a fact he’s been far more effective as a minister than anyone else in the SBC. That’s a reasonable defense. But to be clear here, this is tangential to the main point that the convention has indeed received media coverage, contrary to claims made elsewhere in thread. I’ll add that I had no idea there was an issue with Warren’s membership until reading those reports. It certainly wasn’t acknowledged here until after stories were linked.

Yeah, again, all the hype was the Sexual Abuse thing --- that fizzled, so they went to other much less troublesome stories.

I’ll also add that the response to those stories was petulant and dishonest. Attacking a fellow minister with memes of things they never said is false witness. There’s an actual commandment against that. Again, these are actions I could never imagine coming from any of my relatives or extended relatives in the ministry.

The tone with which Warren addressed the Convention was received by many as "you're about to throw me out, but lookie how very important I am....."

But that’s LCMS. I guess that sort of thing is okay in the SBC, so long as you’re not a woman.

You've guessed quite a bit that has been shown to be wrong, so....

Back on topic, I suspect having more women in leadership roles

This is dishonest - it's not "women in leadership roles", and I think you know that.

would have prevented much of the abuse that occurred over the last few decades. In particular, more women pastors would mean fewer men taking advantage of women. That’s tautological. But regarding the SBC leadership, I don’t think there will be any changes until women reach a critical mass. It takes rock solid courage to speak up when the odds are ten to one against. Or a willingness to own being a Jerk™.

Currently, the SBC does not recognize women as lead pastors. Over time, that may change if the SBC becomes more liberal. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other places for women to serve, including transgendered non-binary persons serving as high ranking Bishops.

[Cow Poke]

Warren's comments regarding the number of churches he has founded doesn't have any weight. Churches can be filled by preaching false doctrine quite easily.

The argument that women are prohibited by scripture from holding authority is unsound at best. However, demonstrating the fact is no easy task, particularly in the face of tradition. The demonstrations involve understanding Koine Greek writing conventions. To an untrained observer they will seem to be mere rationalisations.

Argument that scripture actually approves the appointment of women to positions of authority (which it does) will largely seem to be a matter of pitting one set of verses in opposition to another.

The scriptures also do not prohibit leadership being restricted to either gender. Thus, I conclude that individual congregations are free to make their own decisions regarding the matter. What they are not free to do is declare another congregation, with different views, to be in violation of scriptural warrant: the matter is adiaphora.

So, the issue is not "women in authority", as we have thousands and thousands. Or women in ministry, as those are quite prevalent, particularly in Missions.
What is not accepted, as mentioned in the Baptist Faith & Message, is a woman as lead pastor, though there is obviously some disagreement about that section.

Article 6, The Church, of the BF&M 2000, says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

So, here's the problem -- If a church, in voluntary cooperation with the SBC, affirming the BF&M, wishes to have women pastors, it creates a point of division contrary to NT teachings.

If a church - regardless of size - wants to ordain women as pastors, they don't have to do it as a Southern Baptist Church, knowing full well that the BF&M doesn't support it.

[One Bad Pig]

Prickly Presby Jack Lee belches bile about pastorizing wimmens. It showed up in my Inbox. My reply was, predictably, aggressive, and they keep deleting it. (I have several smaller sub-replies to other commentators that have been allowed.)

Here is my original in all its glory:

First, creeds, catechisms, and confessions are not themselves inspired. They are, AT MOST, "aids," in your terminology.

...in your opinion. Nowhere within Scripture itself does it say that only Scripture is inspired.

Second, you are reading Matt. 22:36-40 bass-ackwards, as we say in Pennsyltucky. Your emphasis is on the "Law and Prophets" part, while the emphasis of our Lord was on the overriding importance of the simple "love" portion. Notably, Matthew elsewhere (7:12) quoted Jesus as saying that the entire Law and Prophets could be summed up as "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." Additionally, Paul *repeatedly* (Rom. 13 and Gal. 5) stated bluntly that "Love your neighbor as yourself," in and of itself, fulfills the *whole* Law.

None of the barrage of verses you marshal after that can supersede the simple command of love.

This is a dangerously wrong-headed argument. Love does not invalidate the "Law and Prophets" part. Further, I dare say that no one is saying that women should not be pastors out of a lack of love.

[Cow Poke]

This is a dangerously wrong-headed argument. Love does not invalidate the "Law and Prophets" part. Further, I dare say that no one is saying that women should not be pastors out of a lack of love.

But, when Jesus released the woman caught in adultery, didn't He say, "aw, shucks, just live however you want, as long as you do it in love"?

[rogue06]

But, when Jesus released the woman caught in adultery, didn't He say, "aw, shucks, just live however you want, as long as you do it in love"?

According to the government sanctioned translation in China it ends

Jesus once said to the angry crowd who was trying to stone a woman who had sinned, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her." When his words came to their ears, they stopped moving forward. When everyone went out, Jesus stoned the woman himself, and said "I am also a sinner."

[Cow Poke]

So, back to the current sexual abuse scandal that was so outrageous and problematic that the media had to focus on stuff like Rick Warren making an "I love you" speech to the Convention.

Much of the bloviation, speculation and supposition expressed here was based on stuff that was anticipated happening, but never did.

All in all, the Convention overwhelmingly voted to address the sexual abuse problem and shine a glaring light on it.

Did it take a while, and was there fierce opposition from powers that were? Sure.
Were there attempts to push it down the road to the next year's convention? Yup.
Were those attempts nearly unanimously rejected? Oh yeah!

I believe the pronouncements of the death of the SBC are way premature.

[tabibito]

If a church - regardless of size - wants to ordain women as pastors, they don't have to do it as a Southern Baptist Church, knowing full well that the BF&M doesn't support it.

On that I agree.

But, when Jesus released the woman caught in adultery, didn't He say, "aw, shucks, just live however you want, as long as you do it in love"?

And on this also.

[Darth Executor]

The stories were about the entire convention and included details about the response to the scandal as well.

But Warren was the lede in both of those articles. He might be just one member in the eyes of the other attendees, but he’s the only name anyone knew before the convention, and likely the only name anyone knows afterwards. Still, the Times piece by Ruth Graham and Elizabeth Dias was all but brutal in its dismissal.
.

But on Tuesday, as infighting over weighty topics like politics and sexual abuse consumed the country’s largest Protestant denomination, Mr. Warren came to the convention he once personified to offer what sounded like a lover’s goodbye.

He is on the brink of retirement, and the denomination has been drifting from the compassionate conservatism and “seeker-sensitive” style Mr. Warren came to represent. Southern Baptists spent part of the afternoon debating whether to oust his church over its ordination of three women as pastors last year. “We have to decide if we will treat each other as allies or adversaries,” Mr. Warren said. The response in the room was tepid.

Lover’s goodbye. Tepid.

You know he read this. That had to leave a mark.

Graham and Dias portray the newly elected President Barber as the less extreme candidate running for election.
.

The choice of Mr. Barber, a pastor in rural Texas, is a victory for establishment leadership that has shown openness to making changes in the wake of a sex abuse scandal and not shied away from broader discussions of race and the role of women. It also sets up more pitched internal clashes between those who back such leadership and an energized ultraconservative wing pushing for a harder, bolder line in national culture wars.

The election, which Mr. Barber won 61 to 39 percent in a runoff election after he failed to secure more than 50 percent of the first vote, suggested that a majority of Southern Baptists were not swayed by warnings of their denomination’s leftward drift on an array of hot-button cultural and political topics. The election was held as more than 8,000 Southern Baptists gathered for their annual convention this week near Disneyland.

Barber’s opposition was unsuccessful, but well organized.
.

Mr. Barber defeated Tom Ascol, a Florida pastor who has criticized what he describes as the denomination’s leftward drift on issues including gender, sexuality, abortion and critical race theory, which the convention publicly affirmed as a potentially useful “analytical tool” in 2019.

Mr. Ascol’s supporters mobilized to ensure his voters could make the expensive trip to Anaheim and were prepared to vote as a bloc when they arrived. The Conservative Baptist Network, an influential ultraconservative group founded in 2020, texted supporters reminders for the timing of important votes, and recommendations on how to vote.

Jared Moore, a pastor in Tennessee, had volunteered to connect sympathetic voters to donors providing scholarships for travel expenses. Mr. Moore, 41, described himself as a fundamentalist, and said he saw the denomination under its recent leadership as kowtowing to secular trends by tacitly condoning female pastors and homosexuality. He was part of a visible faction of “abortion abolitionists” in Anaheim who support not just overturning Roe v. Wade, but criminalizing the procedure and prosecuting those who procure it.

A 60/40 split sounds like significant opposition, but it’d be useful to know how many of those votes were simply bought.

And finally, I can’t let this last bit go without comment.
.

… and prosecuting those who procure it.

I was wondering what they meant by “ultra-conservative,” and whether it was justified, right up to the point I read that phrase. We have what I’d call ultra-conservatives here on TWeb, but that’s beyond anything I’ve seen proposed openly here.

Prosecuting women who get abortions isn't "ultraconservative", it's the standard pro-life position. The fact that the pro-life movement has been invaded by feminists who want to blame abortions on men and pretend every woman who gets an abortion is a victim is a different issue altogether.