
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in the States is, after the Roman Catholics, the largest denominational church in the country. It claims a membership total of some 14 million members, mainly in the southern states. By British standards, the prevailing denominational structure is a very loose one. The Convention to which Southern Baptists congregations are affiliated, possesses no hierarchical structure as we would understand it. The SBC can best be described as a confederation of independent self-governing congregations, united only by their adherence to a common doctrinal statement. In practical terms this doctrinal unity allows all ministers in the denomination to train in one of the approved centrally funded colleges and also to cooperate in missional efforts overseas. Real power or authority is located within each local congregation. Somehow this loose confederation of what we would describe as conservative evangelical congregations has held together for 170 years. The ‘Southern’ part of its title emerged as the result of 19th century theological arguments over the position of the church with regard to slavery. Those in the southern regions of the States decided that they could not retain fellowship with the northerners who had taken up arms to abolish the institution of slavery.
In spite of what we in Britain would consider to be a very loose denominational structure, Southern Baptists have maintained over the decades some aspects of system of a centralised bureaucracy, based at their headquarters in Nashville Tennessee. SBC congregations send to the centre the dues needed to finance some administration, missions and educational projects. Representatives of the entire SBC family also gather annually in June for a huge assembly or Convention. Here doctrinal matters are discussed and voted on by congregational representatives known as messengers. Such a gathering is of course enormously cumbersome as a decision-making body, so it has not been difficult for an Executive Committee (EC) to control the agenda. It took considerable effort and lobbying for the issue of sexual abuse to become a topic for the Convention but eventually it broke through into the awareness of the entire gathering and an investigation ordered. It is this investigation by a professional body called Guidepost Solutions that produced a substantial detailed report in May this year. Although some of the story of cover-up and abuse had been earlier covered by the Press, notably the Houston Chronicle, the tale that is contained in the 288-page report is still shocking. One commentator described it as apocalyptic. I have skim read the entire document but much of what I write here, to be truthful, is more indebted to the excellent summary put out by the magazine Christianity Today.
In many ways the most predictable parts of the Guidepost Solutions report are the shocking and disturbing accounts of abuse. The common theme of powerful men, even a President of the entire organisation, exploiting their power in order to sexually abuse women and children is something that, tragically, we have often met before. It seems that nothing had prepared the SBC for these kinds of revelations. What is perhaps of more immediate interest to us on this blog is the way that some of the EC, especially its leaders, had known that something was going on. Those in the know had failed to deal with the problem over twenty or more years because of the legal advice they received. The frequent stories and disclosures of abuse had been received, but the lawyers working for the SBC at the centre warned the leaders against getting involved. The EC is a group of around 70 that met throughout the year, but it seems that there was an inner clique that exercised the real power in the committee. It was this small sub-group, headed up by an elected President that bears much responsibility for the cover-ups that took place.
The EC, encouraged by the in-house lawyers, was always keen to emphasise that they had no executive power over the SBC congregations. All the real authority in the SBC structure belonged to the individual congregations. This claim of official powerlessness provided a convenient excuse for doing absolutely nothing when disclosures were received about sexual abuse in Baptist congregations around the country. Briefed by their lawyers, the EC fended away complaints and disclosures by saying that they had no means to intervene with the affairs of local congregations. This failure even to make any record even when ministers were sent to prison for abuse offences meant that abusing ministers and lay workers were able to flit from congregation to congregation without anyone in a position of authority keeping an eye on them. In fact, the SBC did possess a secret list of reports of abuse committed by affiliated ministers and paid officers, but this information was never made available to congregations wanting to appoint a new member of staff.
If there are ‘villains’ to be found in the narrative of the abuses uncovered by Guidepost, they are numbered not only among the actual abusers and those ignored the abuse stories, but among the legal teams who advised the SBC and the EC over 60 years. One particular firm that was giving obstructive legal advice is named as Guenther, Jordan and Price. The lawyers in this firm were consistently advising against any action on the part of the EC. They feared that the EC might become legally liable if it in any way involved itself in any of the affiliated local Baptist congregations. Even when the incidence of sexual abuses in the SBC were becoming widely known across the nation, the same mantra-like legal advice was being put forward as sound legal counsel. It took the bravery of individuals like Rachel Delhollander to tell the church and the nation what was going on. http://survivingchurch.org/2018/02/02/the-rachael-delhollander-story-abuse-forgiveness-and-church-exclusion/ She and others had to endure years of vilification, shunning and shame for their valiant attempts to draw the attention of the whole country to the problem. The culture of the EC was one where any report of abusive behaviour was treated like a threat. Every episode was seen, not as a cry for help, but as an attack on the institution of the SBC. Thus, it had to be resisted by all means available. It was only when a chorus of voices from outside, shared through the internet, eventually became impossible to ignore, that something had to give.
The task of survivors and advocates in trying to bring accountability to the SBC was in many ways harder than for those undertaking the same task in Britain. Such whistle-blowers were constantly told that they did not understand the legal basis of the SBC or its organisational structure. Alternatively, they were accused of being out to destroy the denomination. Two lawyers in particular, Augie Boto and Jim Guenther were successfully peddling this narrative to successive presidents who, with their close circle, heard many abuse stories. Any intervention on their part would create massive liabilities for the whole denomination. Like the three wise monkeys, it was better for the presidents and their advisers neither to see, hear or speak anything on the topic of abuse. Ignoring the pain and harm that came to hundreds of abuse victims at the hands of their predators was considered a price worth paying for the protection of the reputation of this denomination. Time will tell whether this wickedly inappropriate advice has contributed a single thing of value for the SBC or whether it has fatally undermined the cause of Baptist churches, not only in America but right across the world.
I am sure my readers can think of a number of parallels in the UK. Legal advice is offered to protect an institution, like the CofE, but it ends up causing serious damage to individuals. The SBC scandal, if we can call it that, will take several decades to heal, if it ever does. In Britain too we have seen attempts to resolve issues relating to abuses of power by the use of ecclesiastical legal tools. These often do little to help individuals. The use of legal processes in church life may sometimes be necessary, but quite often they increase a sense of stress among all concerned. Many of us would like to feel that the legal cases that the church gets involved in will become fewer in number. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. The use of legal protocols and processes seem to increase, adding to the sense of fear and fragility among those who work for the Church in a variety of capacities.
In a final addendum, the BBC website reported that the SBC is to face an investigation by the American Department of Justice. One wonders whether our own Church will face the possibility of a secular judge-led investigation of its internal processes. Currently we are waiting to see if the Charity Commission will recommend any outside intervention in the Church’s affairs. Certainly, a sense of incoherence in church business over safeguarding and similar activities appears to be getting greater. Perhaps we are closer to the SBC situation of being investigated by outside authority than we might have thought possible.