Thread by @R_Denhollander

The idea that SBC theology and polity prevents following best standards practices related to sexual and domestic violence is absolute nonsense, always has been, and that's well known. How do I know? Because I've gone through the legal and polity questions repeatedly...(thread)

Way back when I was first asked to work on the Caring Well curriculum I began discussing with several leaders and staff what could be done under SBC polity and exactly how to do it, and why. Over the time I've walked with the SBC, I've urged for the following:

A denominational audit to simply get a better picture of precisely what is taking place. An entirely voluntary mechanism for collecting data which can be done without requiring any church to be investigated, but which can inform trends, patterns and practical needed steps.

An investigation into allegations of mishandling abuse by denominational leaders in their official capacity for the convention. This has nothing whatsoever to do with church autonomy, it is restricted to what your own elected leaders do on your behalf in that official role.

When Baptist Press defamed Jen Lyell I pushed for an investigation simply into that official action. Wholly limited to official convention leaders and entirely unconnected to a local church.

That step alone would have provided a disturbing picture of the views of the EC.

At the request of an EC staff member I drafted basic model guidelines for the reporting and assessment model of the credentialing committee and repeatedly offered to recommend multiple qualified groups or individuals to train the CC in basic trauma and best standards practices.

None of these recommendations, not one, had anything at all to do with invalidating local church autonomy. All of them could have been implemented at any time.

So if SBC leaders are incorrectly and repeatedly using "autonomy" to tell people they can't do things they can actually do, everyone should be asking what the real reason is.

This is a pattern by the EC. Repeatedly individuals and survivors would contact me and tell me that when they appealed for a better process the EC and CC would tell them how frustrated they were, being demonized as not caring when, in fact, there was nothing they could do...

Their hands were tied, these EC and CC leaders told survivors and other SBC leaders, because the policies just did not allow for anything to be done. Frequently they would tell survivors how hard it was for them to be unable to do anything and yet vilified as not caring.

Survivors and other figures in the SBC would bring me these messages, trying to figure out if, in fact, the EC and CC was also just a victim of the system.

What these EC and CC leaders somehow never told anyone was that...

The policies which made it impossible to do anything, were actually created by them. And of course, they had the power to change them at any point.

Instead, they repeatedly made themselves out to these survivors, to be the real victims. Pastors who agreed to serve because they wanted to help, but found themselves in a no-win situation, trapped between policies that prevented real change and unfairly maligned.

One man went so far as to say that he didn't even want to tell people he was on the CC anymore because it was so stressful to deal with the ire from other pastors.

He said this to a survivor of childhood pastoral rape who was then targeted by PP followers for online harassment.

Imagine being so convinced of your own victimhood that you tell a victim of childhood pastoral rape and online harassment by pastors, that you're too afraid of other pastors, to even admit you're in the leadership position you asked for, but then fail to mention...

That these policies you're blaming for your inability to help, were in fact drafted by your team, or that you've refused all outside input.

The pattern of dishonestly blaming others and policies for entirely fixable problems that you have the power to fix, is well-established.

Let me be clear again: It is entirely possible to follow best standards practices and enact meaningful steps to reform, with zero infringement on SBC theology and polity. It always has been. It has never been true that this can't be done.

And this is actually well known to the people asserting it, because I've shown how to do it repeatedly. I couldn't even get past their staff.

So start asking why they need to lie to you about SBC doctrine.