Twelve things the SBC could do to address clergy sex abuse

... and I predict they'll do none

Jun 08, 2024

Next week, the Southern Baptist Convention holds its big annual brouhaha in Indianapolis. Though SBC officials like to talk the talk about “progress” on addressing clergy sex abuse, the reality is this: Institutional reform isn’t happening.

They bail with a thimble—and make a show of it—while they simultaneously swing a sledgehammer and knock gaping holes in the boat.

Nevertheless — and maybe for no reason other than that I like list-making — here are twelve real and tangible steps the SBC and its Executive Committee could take if they were serious about protecting kids and congregants, and about reckoning with their wrongs. I hold zero hope that they’ll do any of them.

Still… merely because the SBC chooses to do so appallingly little does not mean that the rest of us should adjust our expectations downward so as to conform to their low standards. Just because the SBC repeatedly refuses what is good and right does not mean we should avoid asking for what is good and right.

“Bare minimum” prevention steps

1. Immediately add to the new Ministry Check database all the SBC-connected clergy abuser names on the Executive Committee’s previously secret list, which was made public in May 2022 and contained 703 names.

Nearly two years ago, Executive Committee lawyers reviewed those names and admitted that the substantiation for them was “easily verified.” So, no legitimate rationale exists for any further delay. Since the Executive Committee had the power—and exercised the power—to keep that secret list, it surely also has the power to transfer the names on the list to the new database.

In 2022, the Executive Committee’s chairman and president jointly stated that there would be more research on the many redacted names and “that some of the redacted entries will be fully released in the future.” Two years have passed—sufficient time for further research; therefore, information should now be provided about many of the redacted entries, and those too should be added to the SBC’s database.

2. Immediately add to the Ministry Check database the SBC clergy abusers shown on Christa Brown’s prior StopBaptistPredators database, the Houston Chronicle database, and the BaptistAccountability database.

None of these prior databases—made by ordinary individuals and by a newspaper—were comprehensive efforts. But they were far more than anything the SBC has done. It’s disturbing that, two years after messengers voted for the creation of a database, the SBC hasn’t managed to do even as much as these others, who unlike the SBC, bore no obligation nor any moral responsibility.

3. Immediately take action for creating, fully funding, and implementing a database that includes abusive pastors who are credibly accused as determined by a uniform and predictable system for independent assessment.

Most sexual abusers never face legal consequences, either criminal or civil. Therefore, a means of institutional accountability is essential. Without the naming of those who are “credibly accused,” most abusers will remain hidden, more kids will be violated and congregants betrayed, and the SBC will not make meaningful progress.

When the messengers voted for a list to include those “credibly accused,” the chair of the sexual abuse task force described it as “the bare minimum of what can be called reform.” Two years have passed and SBC officials have not even done “the bare minimum” that was promised.

4. Provide basic information and data about the SBC sexual abuse hotline, and establish a uniform and predictable system by which a hotline report can trigger an immediate independent investigation at the survivor’s request.

“Hundreds of unique submissions” have been made to the hotline, but in two years’ time, not a single abusive pastor’s name has been listed. This demonstrates continuing secrecy and gives rise to urgent questions. How many independent investigations, if any, have been initiated based on hotline reports? How many reported pastors have been placed on leave pending investigation? Have congregants in the reported pastors’ churches been fully informed?

In promoting the hotline, the SBC suggests that survivors should “reach out for help,” and it squarely states on its website that survivors who contact the hotline “will be put in touch with an advocate.” Who exactly is this “advocate”? What are the credentials of the “advocate.” Is the “advocate” wholly independent? Who is paying the “advocate”? And what exactly is the nature of the “help” that is being provided to survivors who summon the courage to call? Why hasn’t all of this information already been provided transparently, without survivors having to beg for it? And given that the hotline has not resulted in the outing of any abusive pastors, what exactly is the hotline accomplishing?

5. Hire an independent investigation of First Baptist Church of Woodstock’s City of Refuge program for restoring “fallen ministers,” and related programs, and disclose financial records of money spent by the North American Mission Board in supporting such restoration programs.

The pastors who entered such “restoration programs” were often referred to as having had “moral failures.” This is a term that has been frequently used to gloss over crimes and serious issues. Over the past twenty-five years, how many of the pastors and ministers in these “restoration programs” were actually there because of conduct that involved the sexual abuse of kids or congregants, or the possession of child sexual abuse materials?

Steps to show remorse and transparency

6. Waive the statute of limitations in the Kentucky lawsuit brought by Hannah-Kate Williams so that the case can be decided on the merits, rather than on a technicality, and file a motion to lift the seal so that the legal filings can be brought into the public light.

Let the people of the Southern Baptist Convention see exactly what the allegations and evidence of this lawsuit are. These two actions—waiving limitations and moving to unseal—will not undo the enormous harm from the SBC’s filing of that awful amicus brief, which effectively told elected judges of the Kentucky Supreme Court that the whole of the 13 million member Southern Baptist Convention was against the pursuit of justice for child sex abuse survivors. But these are small, real actions—as opposed to mere talk—that the SBC could do to partially ameliorate the harm. (This is NOT legal advice; it’s human-caring advice.)

7. Disclose complete information on the money spent by the SBC, Executive Committee, and other SBC entities on attorneys for the Kentucky amicus brief and the DOJ investigation, and on attorneys, PR people and other consultants to advise on the SBC’s sexual abuse crisis.

Many have spoken of how much money the SBC and its entities are spending on “abuse reform.” As best we can tell, given the limited information provided, very few of those dollars have actually gone to benefit clergy sex abuse survivors. Instead, it appears the bulk of those dollars have gone to aid, advise, and protect SBC officials and SBC entities, and to manage institutional image.

Even with the so-called “Survivor Care Fund,” it’s not clear that the money actually goes to survivors, because even though it’s labeled as “survivor care” for SBC fundraising purposes, the fund is actually a dually-allocated fund that’s also designated to provide trainings for pastors, churches, associations, and state conventions. How much of this “survivor care” fund has really been used for these other purposes rather than directly in support to survivors?

8. Establish and fully fund a survivor restitution program to be administered by an independent special master who is not affiliated with, connected to, or allied with the SBC in any way.

Even if the SBC were to do better on addressing clergy sex abuse in the future, it would still need to earnestly reckon with the grievous harm it has already done. The SBC readily found funds for the filing of an anti-survivor amicus brief in a case in which it wasn’t even a party, and through the North American Mission Board, it has expended monies to support the restoration of pastors with “moral failures” who came from autonomous churches all across the country. Now the priority should be taking institutional accountability for the harm done by decades of systematically turning a blind eye to abuse reports, and making good-faith amends to many hundreds of SBC clergy sex abuse survivors. As Belmont University religion professor David Dark often says: “Repentance without restitution is just marketing.”

Symbolic steps that cost almost nothing

9. Publicly censure SBC president Bart Barber for authorizing the Kentucky amicus brief on behalf of the whole of the SBC.

According to his own statement, Barber likely didn’t even have the legitimate power to authorize that anti-survivor amicus brief for the SBC. Yet he did so anyway. His institutionally self-serving move inflicted further harm and demoralized many survivors, and it was also in contradiction of a June 2019 SBC resolution: “RESOLVED, That we ask civil authorities…to ensure…that statutes of limitations (criminal and civil) do not unduly protect perpetrators of sexual abuse and individuals who enabled them.”

In the absence of even a minimal consequence, the message of Barber’s action is “the ends justify the means.” And the ends are the same as always—protecting the power of SBC officials, concealing the complicit enablement of sexual abuse, and safeguarding denominational dollars. (Hello SBC messengers: Many of you said you were “outraged” by Barber’s action. Will any of you put a motion on the floor at the annual meeting to institutionally denounce what Barber did? Any messenger who gets to a microphone can propose a motion.)

10. Strip Morris Chapman of his honorary title as “president emeritus” of the SBC Executive Committee.

Chapman was president of the SBC Executive Committee during many of the years covered by the Guidepost investigatory report. He presided over the Executive Committee’s do-nothing response to clergy sex abuse reports, its callous choice to protect the institution over people, and its maltreatment of survivors (including its maltreatment of Christa Brown whose name appears over 70 times in the Guidepost report). Chapman stood before the messengers at the SBC’s 2008 annual meeting and declared the SBC couldn’t possibly keep a clergy abuser database, even as the Executive Committee was in fact doing exactly that—keeping a list of clergy abusers. Countless kids and congregants could have been spared grievous harm—both from sexual abuse and from institutional betrayal—if Chapman had acted.

If the Executive Committee will not impose even this nominal consequence on Chapman, then it sets an example of unaccountability at the highest level. And when there is no accountability for enablers of abuse, perpetrators will surely persist.

11. Institutionally disavow the use of nondisclosure agreements in the context of addressing, resolving, settling, or avoiding clergy sex abuse allegations, and publicly affirm that this use of NDAs may be considered as inconsistent for cooperation within the SBC.

Nondisclosure agreements have no place in the context of clergy sex abuse allegations. They silence survivors and obscure the truth.

12. Publicly urge all SBC-affiliated institutions to actively publicize on websites and bulletin boards the Guidepost report and the list of clergy abusers, and to make print copies readily available in libraries and church foyers.

If the SBC is truly a bottom-up organization, as often claimed, then people in the pews need ready access to this critical information about the faith group’s systemic abuses and coverups. A better future depends on people knowing the truth about the SBC’s travesties.

The bulk of this column was initially an opinion piece written by myself along with David Clohessy, Dave Pittman & Chellee Taylor, and previously published in Baptist News Global.