SBC Delegates Urged To Be Wary Of Social Justice Agenda

[Webster]

OneNewsNow: So. Baptist delegates urged to be wary of 'social justice' agenda

Southern Baptists will be gathering next week for their annual convention. Among the issues they plan to address: sexual abuse and racism. But it's how they plan to deal with those issues that is drawing the concern of some.

Church leaders and lay people called "messengers" will gather next week (June 11-12) in Birmingham, Alabama, to consider, among other things, amendments to the Southern Baptist Convention's constitution that are meant to address charges in the media of child sexual abuse at SBC churches. Also to be considered will be the formation of a standing committee that will investigate such claims and recommend actions that could lead to breaking ties with some churches.

Messenger Rob Chambers says that committee is what's sticking in the craw of some Southern Baptists.

"[It's] kind of like the tail trying to wag the dog," he tells OneNewsNow. "Churches say We're going to handle our own issues and deal with this in our own way, and we have our own mechanism for vetting pastors. [So forming this committee] goes against the very tenet of being Baptist."

As for accountability, Chambers says safeguards are already in place to keep predators away from church children. "Pastors, teachers, Sunday School teachers, daycare workers are already compelled by state law to report any suspected abuse," he notes. "So how is a level of bureaucracy going to compel them any more than the state statute already does?"

The racism component, according to Chambers, is less clear. Baptist Press reports leadership has already adopted a proposal that "would only deem a church in friendly cooperation that 'has not acted to affirm, approve, or endorse discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity.'"

Chambers suspects liberal voices within the SBC are likely targeting churches that support President Donald Trump's immigration policies. "It appears that it's moving in that direction – more toward social justice, more toward open borders, no wall or the opposition to funding of a border wall," he offers.

The SBC messenger detects what he calls "the flavor of an expansion of social justice" within America's largest Protestant denomination.

 

[Lamb]

Do you think some of the churches that disagree will split off from SBC?

 

[psalms 91]

That seems to be what is happening in a lot of denoms. They might want to consider guidelines for the churchs in how they handle the problem rather than a committee that might divide the church. The goal is to protect and make sure safety is in place so that might work better.

 

[MennoSota]

Is the committee in place to keep the churches accountable to not hide sin? Churches who have wealthy supporters acting immorally are prone to overlooking gross actions in order to pay the bills.

 

[Albion]

The impulse towards authoritarianism is found in many different social organizations, and the church is no exception. However, if the SBC -- of all denominations -- is starting to demand political correctness in various ways, its future is shaky, just as happened with the United Methodist Church before it.

 

[tango]

Child protection is always something of a thorny issue but from what I can see of the process it creates layers of paperwork while doing very little to actually protect children.

At my previous church I was involved in a couple of the clubs aimed at teenagers so had to go through the full background checks. And in due course I got my piece of paper that proved more or less nothing. The paper was a formal document that said I was deemed safe to work with children but the value of it was debatable at best. It offered precisely zero proof that I had never harmed a child, nor did it offer any proof that I wouldn't harm a child. All it could offer was a government assurance (for what that's worth) that I wasn't known to have offended against a child. So if you take the spectrum of people, where one end comprises the people who never have and never would abuse a child and the other end comprises the most devious child abusers who manage to cover their tracks, about all the process does is weed out the middle section. Along the way it encourages parents to disregard their own gut feelings and trust Nanny State instead. Just what is a parent supposed to do if the youth worker looks at their 12-year-old daughter in a way that makes their skin crawl, but that same youth worker has the magic piece of paper that says they are safe?

Looking at how the system works it seems what it has done is close a door and bolt it fairly tightly, all the while leaving all the windows open. Without going into details on an open board that might give ideas to people who I don't want to help in any way at all, it seems there are much easier ways of getting access to children than jumping through the hoops to become a youth club leader.

As with just about anything else the process ends up being about addressing the lowest hanging fruit. Once a proverbial branch is raised so it's not the easiest one to get, focus needs to shift to whatever is now the weakest point rather than focussing on one branch and raising it ever higher. Ever-more committees are more likely to confuse the process than aid it.