Questions I'm asked about my cold response to the SBC's sexual abuse reform efforts

“Why can’t you ever just acknowledge their efforts? They’re trying.”

1. SBC leaders have HUGE communications & PR platforms funded with a seemingly endless stream of offering plate dollars. They spend MILLIONS on PR, attorneys, and crisis management experts to try to control the narrative and repair the institutional image. Meanwhile, #SBCtoo survivors have a budget of $0 for their concerns. So, whatever tiny bit of time & energy I’ve got, I’ll put it with survivors and with countering the self-serving narrative of SBC leaders.

2. The oppressed owe no obligation to elevate their oppressors or soothe their wounded egos.

3. Sometimes I DO give thanks to individuals within the SBC, but…

4. Institutionally, SBC “efforts” have been puny, paltry & pusillanimous. They aren’t efforts that are deserving of any “attaboys”

“But they’re good and nice people. Don’t they at least deserve a pat on the back?”

1. If this were only about good people vs. bad people, the problem would be a lot less complicated. But good people, too, are part of the problem. History is filled with good people who were complicit in abusive and oppressive systems.

2. I’ve seen countless #SBCtoo survivors stripped of safety & retraumatized by people who were nice & polite – by people who were no doubt viewed as “good” by everyone around them.

3. Because #SBCtoo survivors have been treated terribly for so long, it can be easy to mistake moldy breadcrumbs for sustenance. But just because religious leaders talk “nice” and don’t call survivors ugly names doesn’t mean they’re actually doing anything meaningful in terms of reform.

“Why can’t you go easy on the Task Force? After all, they’re just volunteers!”

1. It’s no criticism of the volunteers as individuals to point out that not enough is getting done institutionally.

2. If the institution was taking this seriously, it wouldn’t be putting so much reliance on volunteers and would instead be hiring more professionals. After all, the SBC Executive Committee has spent millions on its own attorney fees for its own legal protection. That’s what it does when it really cares about something. So why doesn’t it hire professionals to help restructure the SBC in a way that would prioritize the safety of kids and congregants, and the care of #SBCtoo survivors?

“But change can happen incrementally. Why can’t you just praise what’s done?”

1. While change can sometimes happen incrementally, incrementalism can also be a form of complicity and cruelty. Incrementalism can never be a legitimate excuse for turning a blind eye to abuse or refusing to care for the abused. And incrementalism, combined with hollow assurances of “wait, just wait,” amounts to more enabling and leaves more survivors crushed in the process.

2. While we wait for the next tiny incremental step, more kids and congregants will be sexually violated by pastors, and more #SBCtoo survivors will drop into despondency. The standard shouldn’t be “Is this tiny incremental step an improvement over the status quo?” Rather, the standard should be “What protects the most vulnerable?”

3. It appears that protection against institutional liability is still the primary driver behind even the minimal incremental reform efforts of the SBC. Efforts that do not center the victims and survivors will inevitably come up short.

4. An incremental pace of change so glacial as to resemble inertia is possible only if you really don’t care. This is what we are seeing in the SBC.