Herschel Hobbs (often called “Mr. Southern Baptist” in the decades before his death in 1995) talked of the man who whistled as he walked through the graveyard at night. Asked if he was afraid the dead would hurt him, he replied, “No. I’m afraid they’ll make me hurt myself.” He applied it to the inerrancy controversy that wracked the denomination back in the 70s and 80s, but it has broader (and better) application to SBC reaction to several Houston Chronicle articles published in 2019.

The matter was sexual abuse in the churches, and Convention leadership issued one mea culpa after another (or rather nostra culpa, implicating us all). For example, our president said the SBC “needs a cultural change” and observed that “advocates and journalists have faithfully filled the role of helping us to see things we can’t unsee.” Programmatic and constitutional initiatives were put in motion as we, collectively and with orchestrated lament, did the perp walk before the world.

Yes, of course, some heinous cases were covered/uncovered in the paper, and I’m all for throwing the book (and the anvil) at the creeps involved. But I think we fell (or rushed) into overwrought defamation festival. Let me offer some reasons for thinking that the need for a “cultural change” for the SBC was less than dire and that the journalists came short of “faithfully filling the role of helping us to see things we can’t unsee.” What we have is a case study in throwing ourselves without warrant under the bus to appease our critics and assuage our anxiety.

Here are ten observations that, I think, put things in better perspective:

1. Insurance agencies, state conventions, SBC agencies and institutions, commercial consultants, local churches, and the police had already instituted procedures and programs for identifying, training, vetting, and/or supervising  the parties who might be involved in these matters, and more and better protocols, safeguards, and courses were on the way. Of course, the media were spring loaded to expose the sins of our members in this connection, something they were not at all interested in doing back in the 1990s when homosexuality was the issue. Rather, on that matter, they were rooting for the North Carolina churches who faced exclusion for validating sexual perversion. 

2. Our 1993 action on this matter was essentially a doctrinal stand, staking out our position in the face of widespread defection from the Bible by other denominations affirming the homosexual agenda in its many forms, including ordination and marriage. Subsequently, these groups (especially the Anglicans and Methodists) suffered enormous internal conflict over apostasy on this matter. In contrast, no SBC entity, state convention, association, or church was affirming sexual abuse, so we lacked the same motive in taking a painfully obvious stand against such phenomena. Furthermore, there was the danger of shaming wonderful churches because of the behavior of a few leaders or members, when (in contrast to 1993 congregations, who voted on their policy) there had been no action taken (or inaction consciously indulged) by the local body. Apples and oranges.

3.   Some said we needed to act dramatically to cope with a “crisis” or “public relations disaster.” During my tenure as PR VP for the SBC, this was a familiar cry as first one Southern Baptist (individual, group, or agency) and then another tripped the culture’s “gotcha” wire, whether the issue was disparagement of Freemasonry; evangelization of the Jews; the HMB (NAMB) study that estimated, county by county, that most of America was going to hell; that “redneck Fundies” had driven thoughtful, “disenfranchised” moderates to start a winsome, powerful denomination in exile, the CBF; our speaking invitation to the “leprous” Vice President Quayle, who gainsaid Murphy Brown’s enthusiasm for single motherhood; and yes, our “homophobic” judgment that homosexuality was not a “valid alternative lifestyle.” While the press (print and broadcast) was having a field day generating and nurturing calumny, some within our own ranks were mortified that we had come off so badly and insistent that we should do what we could to make it right with our “friends” in the media. Yes, we did our best to clear up confusions and state our case, but we refused to let our critics and their sympathizers drive our agenda.

Secular courts insist upon the principle, “Innocent till proven guilty,” but the media is notoriously impatient with this standard. I feared that sensationalism was pushing us farther away from the judicial standard.  Every year, we saw a fresh truckload of half-baked and burned-to-a-crisp vilifications that proved unfounded. (Think, for instance, of the Olympic Park non-bomber, Richard Jewell, or, yes, the years-running “Russian collusion” rhetoric.) Scoops, awards, and causes are powerful motivators, and we need to be wary of frenetic dancing to the tunes the press is playing. Thank God for a free press; thank God even more for a free and responsible press when you can get it.

4. Stating the obvious—that the number of certifiable cases (as distinct from the horror of individual cases) is surprisingly small—will earn you the contempt of activists. How dare one downplay such a “holocaust,” when even the ruination of one teenager’s life is infinitely disgusting and deplorable! Well, what if the articles had never been run and you were asked to estimate the number of Southern Baptists who were convicted of such abuse over a twenty year period (the span of the journalists’ study)? We read that 220 people were convicted out of a pool which included not only pastors and other church staffers, but also deacons and volunteers of every stripe, which is pretty much everybody. If one of the convicted had been an usher, a publicity committee vice-chair, or a Saturday-workday lawncare coordinator, he or she would have counted. So what about the math? With a baseline of 16 million members in 1998 and an average of 600,000 new Southern Baptists each year (through baptism or transfer), we get a total of 28 million people over that period, or 130,000 members per convicted abuser. Having read the epistles, especially 1 Corinthians, I would have guessed higher than 220 out of 28 million. Which leads me to suggest that the articles, devoid of perspective, amounted to their own form of abuse.

Yes, some say that the number of unreported and unprosecuted abusers is much larger. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. But let’s say that over 1,000 should be in jail rather than 220—multiplying the number fivefold. That would still mean one certifiable case of criminality per 26,000 members, or one for every thirteen megachurches, if we’re counting Sunday a.m. attendance. Does that really constitute a crisis? 

Yes, we were told that if we mentioned numbers, they’d “hear us to say we didn’t care that much about the victims” or something along that line. There’s a lot of that sort of concern going around these days. PR, “branding,” and marketability are virtual deities, whatever the underlying realities might be. (And, I submit, that, in a fallen world, the “full counsel of God” is a “public relations disaster.”) At a certain point, we need to say, “Let them hear what they’re determined to hear. Let’s be wary of serving sensitivity at the expense of truth and reason.” 

5. My lack of sympathy for these journalists was underscored by the fact that they made no effort to acknowledge what we might call the “Potiphar’s Wife” phenomenon. If they had wanted to provide some balance, they could have surfaced at least one case of a good man’s being slandered by a false charge. They could have sounded a note of caution, however slight, over the “MeToo” and “AlwaysBelieveTheVictim” phenomena.  

6.  In 1993, opponents warned that we were stepping onto a slippery slope. What was next? Excluding churches for providing wet bars to small group gatherings? Cancelling the evening service for the Super Bowl? (Of course, we argued that slippery slopes can go both ways. If we didn’t draw the line at homosexuality, would we eventually accommodate churches affirming adultery? incest? polygamy?) But in that 2019 context, the slippery slope seemed real. As I read in one release, a second proposal called for excluding churches countenancing racism? But how would that go? How would they draw that line? What if an 80% Anglo church had a 100% Anglo staff (or the corresponding percentage in a Black, Filipino, or Korean church)? What would the Executive Committee do with a complaint that this church was racist?  

7. The Executive Committee had already examined ten cases of negligence or perfidy with regard to sexual abuse, finding some with merit, some not. Wouldn’t a by-law change necessitate an expanding investigative and judicial role for this agency, and also a sea change in liability? When I worked for the EC, the SBC would routinely be sued for damages incurred at, for instance, a Baptist college event (e.g., a hayride) or a church activity (e.g., with a sleeping child inadvertently left in a hot van on a field trip). In every instance, the Convention would legitimately avoid financial penalties since the churches were autonomous. But if the EC gained denominational oversight in matters of sexual abuse, it also gained liability for negligence in these matters, and responsibility for looking into all claims.

8. Incidentally, we were being pushed to go where it seemed the secular press feared to tread. The articles were built around proven cases, matters of public record. We didn’t see fearless investigative probes into as-yet-undetected cases, outing, say, a deacon no one suspected in Little Hope Baptist Church, a leader caught by someone “wearing a wire” at the behest of journalists. Perhaps their lawyers told them this was too risky. Scrupulous confirmation can be expensive and time-consuming. Libel will put you in a very bad place. Better stick with court records and such. Smart move for a paper. Did the SBC really think it knew better?

9.  It was reasonable to suppose that, within our congregations, the incidence of couples’ co-habiting without benefit of marriage was more widespread and detectable than sexual abuse. Yet, there were many churches who didn’t bother to initiate church discipline. Arguably, the tacit assent of the church to such indifference (ignoring a biblical mandate) was a bigger problem for the body of Christ. And what about those parishioners engaged in shady business dealings while remaining “members in good standing”? It’s a gnats and camels questions. (And, no, don’t hold your breath for a Chronicle series on the shocking neglect of a Matthew 18:15-20 response regarding members who are “living in sin.”)

10. The journalists and the activists they represented sneered, in effect, at congregational autonomy, as though it was a cheesy dodge to avoid dealing with serious problems—some sort of irritating Miranda Warning that protected the guilty. Actually, it’s autonomy which had been our saving grace with regard to the cause of biblical inerrancy and which provided the firebreak against abuses in the hierarchy, the sort of thing that got the Catholics in trouble. And, by the way, the journalists’ comparisons between the two groups on this issue were bizarre, not only because the Catholic incidence was vastly greater (and focused on clergy rather than the entire range of the laity), but also because their insistence on priestly celibacy made them especially vulnerable to pedophilia.

Back in the 1950s, Southern Baptists anxious to please academically-sophisticated critics were susceptible to the tradeoff, “We’ll call you Christians if you’ll call us scholars.” Today, I think we’re more inclined to sell-out our integrity and good sense with “We’ll call you ‘faithfully helpful’ if you’ll call us ‘winsomely broken.’”