Out of the mouths of babes...

Someone sent me the following last night -- a recent post from "Solomon's" blog. You may recall "Solomon" was a frequent commenter on this blog until about a year ago when he began painting all who disagreed with him as racists (huh?) and accused me and others of lying and wishing him harm, even going so far as to say he wondered if some of us wouldn't like to see him and his family "hit by a bus." No one to my knowledge has ever wished any harm to "Sol" or his family, much less said anything remotely resembling that. I've honestly not paid any attention to anything he has written since then, but I have to admit this made me sit up and take notice.

Daddy, I want to hear about Jesus...

That link no longer works since the article has been deleted, but this was the full text:

That's what one of my daughters said to me after church. "Daddy, can we go to another church next week? I'm tired of hearing about money. I want to hear about Jesus."

Frankly, I've been wondering the same thing. I remember when Steve Gaines first came to Bellevue, he said that every January would be "stewardship month". I took that to mean that at the first of every year the sermons would be about faithfulness with one's time, talents, and giftedness. And yet here we are halfway through March, and all of the sermons have been about money, and how real Christians give at least 10% of their earnings to the church.

A lot of sermons (not just by Steve) have rubbed me the wrong way, but last Sunday's was the first time in my life I felt like getting up and walking out on one. The "lesson" began with images of Bernie Madoff on the imag screen, and a quick summary of his corruptions. A direct correlation was drawn between this corrupt financier and Christians who do not recognize tithing as a mandate for Christians (apparently, even those who give more than 10%). As I was wondering if the pastor truly meant that Christians who don't tithe deserved to spend their lives in jail, Steve quickly added that it was illegal to drive a stolen car, and many of the cars on the Bellevue lot were stolen since they had been bought with money that was stolen from God if their owners did not tithe.

My own views of tithing notwithstanding, is this really a proper way to treat the members of Bellevue? We've put up with an awful lot of unnecessary adversity over the last few years, so don't we deserve something better than to be equated with Bernie Madoff? Isn't the "per capita" giving higher than it's ever been? Aren't we supporting the ministries of the church like never before? Why in the world should we be subjected to a beatdown like that?

"No," I told my little girl. "Just because the pastor is in a slump we aren't going to abandon Bellevue. The church is bigger than one man, even the pastor. Even if he abandons the Bible from now on and lectures and derides us about giving money to Bellevue each and every week of the year instead of preaching the gospel, unless the Lord leads us elsewhere we will still attend this church. Sunday mornings aren't about us, and if it is our lot to share God's word with those who are also discouraged by hearing week after week about money instead of Jesus, then we should accept this role joyfully."

My little girl agreed with me. I wish I was as sure of my words as she was.

Well, I was with him... until the last paragraph. Here his child is crying out to go to a church where she can hear about Jesus, and daddy says, "No, dear. The pastor is just in a slump, and we are going to stay -- even if he abandons the Bible from now on and lectures and derides us about giving money to Bellevue each and every week of the year instead of preaching the gospel." Good grief, man! What's the matter with you? It seems as if you're so loyal to "Bellevue" (whatever that means in your mind) that you are letting your children suffer. You're letting loyalty to a man and an institution trump your command as the spiritual leader of your family to make sure your children are taught Scripture (which I've no doubt they are at home), not to force them to listen to their parents berated and belittled and beat over the head week after week with demands to "give."

You said you weren't as sure of your words to your daughter as she was. Good! You shouldn't be sure of your words in this case because you're misguided, and I sincerely hope this means you're being convicted. Your "role" when you experience this type of spiritual abuse in the church is not to "joyfully accept it." Your role is to warn others and get yourself and your family the heck out of there! I realize change is difficult, but believe me, there is life outside of and after Bellevue.

"Solomon" also wrote an interesting article about the now-defunct i2Memphis. (He has now deleted it. See here.)

He wrote, "My perspective [about i2Memphis] abruptly changed when my oldest daughter, recently turned 13, asked if she could go one night. I told her absolutely not, and asked why in the world she'd ever want to go to a meeting with college students and single adults. Her response was that lots of middle and high school students were going.

Errr... so you already knew about the drinking and sex in the restrooms, but it took your 13-year-old daughter asking to go to jolt you into reality?

He continues, "I was shocked, stunned, and I was scared to death. I couldn't believe that the church would actually allow children into an emotionally charged environment where they were possibly exposed to drinking and maybe even sex."

Why would a church create such an "emotionally charged" environment at all?

Then he asks, "Why on earth was this monster ever dreamed up in the first place?"

Good question. Why, indeed. An even better question might be, "Why would you allow your family to remain in an environment where such things would be allowed to happen in the first place?" Obviously the people who dream up these ridiculous programs are not the types of "spiritual leaders" I would want leading me or my children. Why would you stay in a church that could create that kind of environment and subject your children to it? After all, this isn't the only church event we've heard about where drinking was involved.

Not to dwell on "Solomon," but I can't help but be reminded of this exchange from a couple of years ago.

In a comment on this blog he wrote in response to seeing David Brown on the news discussing, not Bellevue, but the issue of the SBC's refusal to keep a database of convicted and credibly accused sexual predator "ministers."

Quotes from the above comment:

"For the record, I do not want Gaines to be pastor and I am not defending him. Frankly, as a father, such a crime [speaking of Paul Williams] is unimaginable and makes me sick to my stomach. Even though the minister came to him [Gaines] with his wife (the victim's own mother) and gave every appearance of peaceful resolution, it's beyond me how SG could even work alongside someone who'd do something like that, much less keep him on staff."

....

"I was at a circuit city, and the story came on the news about your [David Brown's] 'attack' on the SBC. My wife and daughter started crying to see our church on TV like that. My 10 year old asked if we'd have any more picnics there. My 9 year old asked who that awful man was who was mad at us (it was you). Is that what you want?"

I think people should have been a lot more concerned about Steve Gaines letting a confessed child molester/known sexual predator roam the halls of BBC for six months than the fact that David Brown was shedding light on the issue of sexual predators in the SBC and the leaders of the SBC (Steve Gaines included) turning a blind eye to it or having picnics at the church.

It's been interesting to me over the past three years what has been different people's "last straw." For some it was the way the pulpit committee "chose" Steve Gaines and basically shoved him down people's throats with no "trial period" or ever bringing in any other candidate. For some it was the reports of the new pastor's excessive salary and benefits. For some it was the fence-climbing "incident," the "information meeting" and SG's description of the "itty bitty fence," belittling his congregation at another church, the "communication committee" meetings, covering for Paul Williams for six months, SG's treatment of the victim, the 2007 "monkey business" meeting, the sheep-beating sermons, witnessing their 15-year-old daughter dragged out of a service, handcuffed, and cussed at by a church security guard, or yes, even the change in the music for some. It seems nearly everyone who left had a breaking point. A more recent group exited when they changed the church's mission statement. Amazing to me after everything else that would be the last straw for anyone, but to each his own.

"Solomon" seems like an intelligent man who cares deeply about his family and his church. I'm not trying to beat up on "Sol." He just made me think. The question I would pose to all of us is which is the most important? Hanging on to tradition and remaining "true" to an institution that will never be the same or getting off your blessed assurance and moving to a place where you and your family will be fed? If you can stay where you are and accomplish both, you are probably already in the right place. If not, it may be time to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance. Who knows? His guidance just may come through the voice of a little girl.

Bellevue says 'you're out,' gay softball coach claims.

Click on title for link to Commercial Appeal article.

I'm quickly throwing this together now so people can discuss it if they want. I want to finish reading through the comments on the Commercial Appeal's site and will post some links and further commentary later.

Update: Since I have neither the time nor the desire to read 2000+ comments, here is the follow-up article. Steve Gaines' public statement (the unedited version) is below.

Commercial Appeal >> June 23, 2010 >> Ousting gay coach necessary, Bellevue Baptist pastor says

Steve Gaines Speaks

I don't think this would have ever been an issue if someone hadn't, as indicated in the article, tipped off the church, perhaps someone who knows her or assumed she's gay based solely upon her appearance. The latter is a terribly slippery slope down which no one should be going. Besides, I saw her on the news, and her appearance didn't "scream" anything to me. She is simply, as she describes herself, athletic in appearance.

I've even wondered if there wasn't some threat against the church involved. For example, "You're letting this softball team with a gay coach play on your fields. If you don't tell her she's not welcome, we'll go public with this." If that was the case, how'd that work out, guys? Of course I don't know if that happened or not and am not suggesting it did, just wondering.

I don't think we've heard the whole story by any means. To say the "no PDA" rule prohibits gay people from playing on softball teams seems rather lame. As one CA commenter asked, "Were they having orgies on the mound when someone hit a home run?" It doesn't seem likely that was the issue, rather an excuse.

I can sort of see where the church was stuck in the middle on this one. It was a no-win situation if someone were threatening to "out" her (which apparently someone did).

However, Bellevue created these potential problems when they opened the fields up to outside teams. Just like they created the annual "Celebrate America" (excuse me) "Starlight Spectacular" monster when they invited the whole community, then wondered why they had to close the building after they found people making out inside and climbing onto the roof and had to spend the next day cleaning cigarette butts, beer bottles, cans, and trash off the grounds.

This certainly doesn't help Bellevue's witness to the Memphis they claim to "LO♥E" so much and their "God Loves You Just the Way You Are" campaign. I guess it's okay to come as long as you don't come out. But for heavens sake, they need to clean up their own house first! If a fraction of the stories I've heard are true, Bellevue has a LOT of housecleaning to do.

I'm not condoning homosexual behavior either, but apparently if you go to BBC and are "just" an adulterer, fornicator, child molester, drug addict, rapist, felon, liar, or stay in the closet, that's okay. Just don't touch alcohol or openly associate with a gay person.

Bellevue has forever blown any opportunity to be a witness not only to this woman but to her teammates and much of the rest of the community. Actually, based upon the comments I've read so far it seems the ridiculous mishandling of the Paul Williams situation already did irreparable damage to Bellevue's reputation in the eyes of many.

Oh, wait. I think I've got it! Maybe the church's defense can be this is what they meant by the "no smoking" rule.

The 2008 "Annual" Bizness Meeting

It's hard to believe a whole year has passed since that fiasco on March 25, 2007 called a "church business meeting." This morning, March 30th, the 2008 "annual church business meeting" took place. Of course, the church bylaws, abbreviated as they are, call for monthly business meetings, but who cares? Bylaws, schmylaws... rules don't apply to us. They don't even care enough to try to change the bylaws which have remained unchanged since they were penned in 1929. They just ignore them or deny they exist.

For anyone who's interested, the minutes of last year's meeting have been posted here. I believe they may have left out a few minor details... such as when they cut off the microphones while members were calling on them to "divide the house" and how several people, namely CW, were left standing at the microphones... and how non-members were allowed to vote.

Last year's budget (2007-2008) is here. This year's budget hasn't been posted on Bellevue's site yet. Maybe we'll see that soon, especially since it's been approved now.

You can bet after last year that even more controls were in place to avoid a repeat performance, but I'm sure it wasn't nearly as big a concern this year as nearly all the recalcitrants are gone, so of those remaining, either no one cares or they are all in lockstep with the administration. Or maybe they're all in lockstep about not caring. No doubt a few stragglers do have concerns but know that realistically their voices don't count.

The movement toward an "annual" business meeting (in spite of the bylaws calling for monthly meetings) is straight out of the "Transitioning" playbook. But Bellevue isn't going PD. Oh, no.

While last year's "Celebration" was pretty well packed, today's was not. I would estimate the floor crowd at about 60-65% capacity, and the balcony was perhaps 20-25% full. But that was just for the service... the only service held this morning... which didn't end until around noon. (It started at 10:00.) Note to administration: Why not just have one service every Sunday and plow the savings in utilities, etc. back into the budget?

The service was typical for Bellevue today. There was music before the service started, and boy, was it rockin'! It almost scared me away before I even entered the sanctuary. The music during the service was very loud, mostly catchy 7-11 choruses, but I thought some of the music was inspiring, especially The Old Rugged Cross which should have had everyone in the mood to worship. Beautiful harmony, soaring instrumentals, some of the most inspirational lyrics in hymndom.... Then Steve Gaines had to do what he does nearly every week and make it about him. He jumped up and immediately broke into an "impromptu" a cappella solo and the congregation soon joined him. Please, pastor, I'm trying to give you some helpful advice here. It's not about you! (Nor is it about Jamie, but The Jamie Show has become a Bellevue staple.) These little spur-of-the-moment, pastoral solos, tacked onto the end of a congregational hymn or inserted into the middle of a sermon are not "impromptu," they unnecessarily and inappropriately call attention to yourself, and IMO they are not conducive to a positive worship experience.


There were so many ovations this morning, I lost count. There was applause for the pastor's bad jokes, applause for the music, applause several times during the sermon. I've noticed lately the choir even applauds for themselves following their special numbers! I've never seen a choir anywhere do that! Very strange.

I'm not a fan of ovations in church unless it's for a really good reason, and employed in excess, as we're seeing at Bellevue, it just cheapens the whole worship service. (So does the state of dress -- or undress -- of some of the congregants, but I digress.) Some of the things people applauded for this morning were ridiculous. A couple of times -- such as when the Iraq War veteran was introduced -- it was appropriate.

We were treated to a color graphic of the church parking lot on the IMAG, a painful attempt at a stand-up comedy routine about congregational parking habits, and informed that we were sinning if we parked in the wrong lot. Heh heh heh. I wonder if that applies to the people who've been parking in Mrs. Rogers' reserved parking space? News flash: Mrs. Rogers left Bellevue over six months ago! She doesn't need a reserved parking space there now. If one didn't know better, one might think the church is trying to give the impression that Mrs. Rogers is still faithfully attending Bellevue. I'm sure it was just an oversight that the sign wasn't removed.

The sermon seemed to go on forever. I thought at one point surely he was about finished, only to look down at my fill-in-the-blank outline and realize he wasn't even halfway through. Good thing the seats are comfortable! There were two very slick video presentations during the sermon. One on "giving" (what else?) contained some especially impressive (i.e. high-priced) special effects. He made some good points, at a considerably higher decibel level than necessary. (More advice, this to preachers in general: YOU DON'T HAVE TO YELL TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS!!!) One of the best, I thought, was when he called out Barack Obama's pastor (though not by name) as "the church in Illinois that claims they're 'ethno-centric.' I think that's despicable!" Amen!

In his sermon, entitled "The House of the Lord," with special emphasis on "a house of __giving__," Steve Gaines still somehow managed to bring up the subject of alcohol. I knew the second he said, "Before I go on... I know I've brought this up before... " what was coming. I thought to myself, "Here we go again." I don't think I've heard him preach a sermon in months that something hasn't been worked in about the "eeeeeeevils of alcohol." It's as if he's obsessed with the subject. Keeping a confessed child molester and known sexual predator on staff and allowing him to freely roam the halls of the church for six months is only "a mistake of the mind" and "uncharted waters." Ho hum. But touching alcohol... verily, just having alcohol in your house (even for cooking purposes?) is one of the eight deadly sins. (And for the record, I do not drink alcohol.)

Finally, there was an invitation during which it appeared several people made decisions (and that's always good), some brief IMAG announcements, and the "business meeting" began immediately. Curiously, this year there was no announcement about people going to get their children out of the nursery or only members staying and voting in the meeting, although I seem to recall the pastor saying something along the lines of, "Let's get this over with so we can go to lunch." (So glad to know our pastor has his priorities straight!) As soon as the announcements began, people began streaming out in droves. By the time the meeting started a few minutes later, the floor capacity was probably 25% and the balcony about 10%.

Last year, Bryan Miller, 2007 deacon chairman, chaired the meeting. This year David Coombs performed the honors, there was no sign of a parliamentarian, and there was one microphone set up for people to ask questions. Only two would.

He opened by stating that, for the record, a quorum was present. (Hmmm... Since David Coombs has been ordained for over a year already, I wonder when he's going to take a turn preaching. Oops. Sorry. I digressed again.) Now, I remember last year there was some discussion here about the requirements for a quorum. I believe the number 10% was tossed out. Bryan Miller used that figure when he stated there were 3000 people present last year. Someone else said Robert's Rules of Order don't require a quorum unless one is specifically required by the organization's bylaws. (Bellevue's bylaws don't mention a quorum.) So I don't know if there was a quorum present today or not... or if one was required to be. I would guess there were maybe... I'm being generous here... 1800-2000 people present for the meeting today. If they're still insisting we have over 29,000 members (which is a joke), it wasn't close to 10%.

Each person who approached the microphone was asked to state his or her name and how long he or she had been a member of Bellevue. (Why should the latter matter?) The first person up was a man who prefaced his motion by stating how important benevolence is and that there's not a line-item amount for that in the budget. (I'm not sure I understood his name, so I won't state it until I can confirm it.) He then proposed Bellevue designate 1% of its receipts to be used for benevolence purposes. (Given this year's budget of $24 million, this would come to $240,000.)

Aubrey Earnheart, chairman of the Finance Committee and Budget Planning Committee member, presented a brief summary of the cash receipts on hand as of the end of March. He started to address the man's question when Ed Rollins, chairman of the Budget Planning Committee, interrupted and stated that there is indeed a line-item amount in the budget for benevolence, so I gathered that meant that was the end of the discussion.

Now, I have a copy of the proposed 2008-2009 budget. I could be missing something, and I'll readily admit it if I am, but I've gone through it several times and see only one line-item entry for "benevolence" (or anything close) in the 2008-2009 budget, and that's $36,000 under "Missions" for "Benevolence - Non-member." That comes to 0.15% of the total budget (the number for 2007-2008 was zero) and includes nothing for members. They've budgeted twice that much for "ball field maintenance" alone! The man didn't press the point and returned to his seat.

The cash receipts said to be on hand (rounded by yours truly) as of the end of March were:

Restricted

Love Offering (2004-2007): $4.8 million

Other: $3.0 million

Unrestricted

$10.0 million

Total

$17.9 million (difference due to rounding)

I don't have the breakdown, but I remember they said the total on deposit this time last year was almost $19 million.

A woman named Carla then asked for clarification about whether any of the currently restricted cash deposits were going to be moved to the unrestricted category and freed up for other projects since the Love Offering projects like the prayer chapel and children's center have never materialized. The pastor interrupted and stepped to the microphone. He stated that when he first came he was asked to list some of the things he thought Bellevue should do with the Love Offering. "You know I love prayer, and I know you do, too," so he said he told them he thought we should build a prayer chapel. He said that under the direction of Carolyn Higginbothom, Minister of... er... Director of Prayer... uhhh now just "prayer coordinator," that project was turned over to the Long-Term Planning Committee for their consideration. I guess they're still "considering" because that's exactly where this project was one year ago.

Anyway, Mr. Earnheart explained that the restricted funds were not going to be reclassified and added he thought it was a good question.

Can someone tell me why a church would keep almost $18 million just sitting in the bank? Of course, there has to be a cushion, but just imagine how several million dollars could be used to further the Kingdom of Christ!

The first motion up for a vote was the Committee on Committees'... well... committees. Only Baptists could come up with a term like "Committee on Committees"! Reminds me of the age-old question... how many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: At least 15. One to change the light bulb and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.

You can see a list of all the committee heads and members here. As far as I could tell, there were no opposing votes.

Next up was the vote on the proposed 2008-2009 budget. "All in favor, stand. All opposed, likewise." From what I could tell it was unanimous. Apparently the "I don't care" votes weren't counted.

The last order of business was the selection of... actually the rubber-stamping of... the 2008 Bellevue messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention. Who knows how they were selected? You'll no doubt recognize several of the names from last year's list of messengers.

2008 SBC Messengers:

Steve and Donna Gaines
David Coombs
Bart Berretta (Men's Ministry committee chairman)
Darrell Clarke (Minister, Biblical Guidance)
Michael Day
Joe Jernigan
David Perdue (ex BOD member for MABTS & LWF)
Bob Sorrell (brought Claude Thomas to GBC)
Bill Street (Gardendale transplant & son-in-law of the Caldwells - he of fence-jumping fame, she of the pastor search committee)

And with that, the 2008 annual Bellevue church business meeting was adjourned. My, what a difference a year makes! Church life is so much simpler without all those pesky troublemakers getting in the way! I would say the whole "mood" was different this year from last. Last year there was a sense of anticipation, mixed with cautious optimism because concerned members thought they were finally getting the opportunity to be heard and the chance to affect some positive changes. Of course, we know none of that happened.

This year was entirely different. I got the sense, mainly from the mass exodus before the meeting started, but also from the relaxed demeanor of the powers-that-be lined up on the dais, that they were confident there wasn't going to be any opposition (though I'm certain they were prepared for any potential scenario) and that, in general, the people really couldn't have cared less. They knew they were rubber-stamping whatever Steve & Co. wanted to do, and they were content with that. That's fine. More power to them. They got what they deserved. Unfortunately, several thousand of the rest of us didn't. Most of us have (or will) vote with our feet. I guess it's like they say... to the victor go the spoils. Now, will someone please tell me again... who was the victor? And what exactly were the spoils?

Paul Williams Update

Does that photo send chills up your spine? Make you sick to your stomach? Well, it should!

The afternoon of April 7th someone contacted me to ask if a Paul Williams who wrote a paper for Union University back in 2002 was "the" Paul Williams. Judging from the photo and bio of the man, it was not.

However, that got me to wondering what the former Bellevue Paul Williams is up to. A quick Google search led straight to the Warren Community Church March 2011 newsletter. The story begins on page 2 and is continued on subsequent pages. I planned then to do an update, but within a few hours of forwarding this information to Christa Brown and others, Christa posted a very good article saying everything I could have said and more (and said it much better than I could have, too).

We knew he'd been hanging out at WCC several years ago, right after he left Bellevue. (He and his wife live in Somerville.) It was rumored back then that the pastor of WCC, Ken Culver, had even offered him a staff position. Several people were outraged at this news and at least one called the pastor, who eventually denied the rumor (after asking what business it was of the caller's), but he did reportedly say he wouldn't see any problem with Paul being on staff since it was all in the past (how does he know it's "all in the past"?) and how it's possible for people to be forgiven and restored. Yes. Yes, they certainly can, although that's generally preceded by repentance, confession, and asking for forgiveness, but there are consequences to our actions (ask Karla Faye Tucker), and one of the consequences of being a confessed child molester is that you are never, under any circumstances, allowed to be alone around children or, in the case of a minister or other church leader, ever be allowed to be in a position of leadership again. This is just common sense. Besides, I've never seen any evidence of repentance from Paul Williams. He never addressed the people of Bellevue and seems to have gone merrily on with his life as if nothing ever happened.


A few months later someone who lives in Somerville had taken her child to some kind of homeschooling activity they have at WCC, and she said Paul was "hanging out" there in the middle of the day during the week. Then he was spotted, alone, at a children's basketball game, just standing there watching.

Last I heard the victim still would not allow Paul to see his grandchildren, so those must be his daughter's children in the above photo.

So Paul is on the Board of Trustees of WCC now. That would be like... an "elder" or something, right? Remember what Steve Gaines said about elders?

What is an elder? It's a pastor. It's not some "super deacon." It's not some elevated lay person. An elder is a pastor is a bishop is a pastor is an elder is a bishop -- all the same stuff. There's only two offices in the New Testament -- pastor, which is also an elder and a bishop and deacons.

I realize the job of most trustees is merely to rubber-stamp whatever the pastor wants, but I'd be willing to bet there are no women on that BOT because, you know, women are excluded from "leadership" roles within the church (that don't involve only other women or young children). However, the bar must be set pretty low for men at WCC.

Paul Williams not only didn't go to jail, he was never charged with anything. (The statute of limitations in Tennessee, which has since been extended, had passed, and the victim was reportedly not willing to pursue any legal action.) Yet Paul Williams is a self-admitted pedophile! He should be listed on the sex offender registry, but he's not along with at least 95% of his fellow pedophiles.

And all this isn't even addressing what adult female victims of this man's lecherous comments (much more recent than any 17-21 years ago) have said his behavior has done to them, proving once again pedophilia and sexual abuse are rarely about "sex" but about exerting power over someone weaker. Make's 'em feel like real manly men, I guess. One of his female victims described his eyes, when he went into "pervert" mode, as "soulless."

In my opinion Paul Williams and that Hernando pastor, Eddie Prince, who was caught downloading child porn at the library should be sharing a prison cell. What would Eddie Prince's family's reaction be had it been one of their children exploited for child porn? And who knows if this guy has done more than "just look"? Besides, child porn is not a "victimless" crime. Someone's children were victimized to produce this perverted filth, and by seeking it out and watching it, you're just as guilty as the lowlife who produced it. If there wasn't a market they wouldn't do it.

Since Christa's article was published, several writers have published articles about this story, but it's no surprise we don't seem to find any mention of it in "conservative" SBC blogs or publications.

The Big Daddy Weave >> Southern Baptist church Selects Confessed Sex Offender as Trustee

Baptist Life >> SBC church names confessed sex offender as Trustee

Civil Commotion >> Pedophilia: Not a career impediment in the SBC

And shouldn't we all be ashamed that "the world" can see the problem, but so many in the church cannot?

Atheist Revolution >> Idiot of the Week: Warren Community Church, Somerville, TN

"Idiot of the Week," indeed.

You may be seen as fringe.

The Southern Baptist Convention is about to convene their 2013 annual meeting in Houston, Texas, and the Pastor's Conference begins today. In a world where the SBC is becoming more irrelevant by the year, this just might be the headline story from this year's gathering.

Since I don't seem to be able to comment on the ABP site, this is what I'd say to Doug Bischoff's rebuttal to Amy Smith's allegations:

Bischoff said the Smiths misinterpreted the conversations. "When I spoke with Amy and then with Matt, I expressed that we as a church are not -- nor have we ever been -- against them personally, their organization or their mission to protect children," he said. "Houston's First Baptist Church takes very seriously the safety and well-being of the children who attend our church, and we hope and pray that other churches -- of all denominations -- are doing the same. We applaud Amy for her dedication to SNAP and the survivors whom they serve." 

Bischoff said he did not ask them to resign from their position as teachers in the student ministry, but they suggested during conversations that he did. "The resignation from ministry was at Amy's insistence," he said.

"We hope and pray." Before I get into the "meat" of this post, I have to get something off my chest. I do believe that "praying!" is one of the most casually thrown about and overused phrases in our lexicon today, and it's not just Christians who toss it around. I've heard news anchors (who may or may not be Christians) use the phrase "our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims" in the case of natural disasters or crimes such as the Sandy Hook shootings. Really? How many times have you seen someone on Facebook write about some illness or problem in their life and seen all the "praying!" responses which often pop up within minutes? Some are likely sincere (I'm not judging who is or who isn't), but I suspect many never give the person or situation another thought.

I've always been very careful not to tell someone I'm praying for them if I know I probably won't. I always figured that was the kind of thing God might smite me for! Therefore, when I do tell someone I'm praying for them, I mean it.

I admittedly don't know you, Doug, but I have some questions for you if that's okay. Have you really prayed that other churches value the safety and well-being of children attending their churches? Or was it just the "Christian" thing to say? I consider those who sign off with "Blessings!" or "In HIS name" or "Have a Jesus filled day!"... often after professing ignorance of something you know good and well they're hiding or ripping someone a new one and accusing them of having a "Jezebel spirit"... just as disingenuous.

Why, if you weren't under orders to "handle the problem," did you call Amy Smith multiple times with such a sense of urgency? Amy says she had never even met you beyond a passing nod in the halls at FBC a time or two and had never corresponded with you in any way. If you "applaud" what she's doing, then why did you call her? Oh, and why did you call her friend first if your issue was with Amy? Funny she didn't mention anything about you expressing any "support" for her activities except to say something about it being okay to point fingers at the Catholics and Penn State but not at Southern Baptists. Are Southern Baptists somehow immune from this problem? Or from any criticism at all?

When Amy informed you she and her husband were getting ready to go out to celebrate their anniversary, why didn't you do what most reasonable, considerate people would have done (unless it was an emergency) and said something along the lines of, "Oh, sure. No problem. We can talk tomorrow or whenever it's convenient for you. Happy anniversary! I hope y'all have a good time!"? Instead, you started in right then and apparently continued for nearly an hour, struggling to find the right words and, if my own experience is any indication, listening. Lots and lots of listening. I bet you got an earful you weren't bargaining for, Doug!

You asked if she (and later her husband) didn't see her blogging as "a problem." Hardly "applause" for what she's doing. For the record, her husband said no! He fully supports his wife. So much for dividing and conquering, huh, Doug? You obviously were not calling to support her! Why did you call her then, Doug? What in the world was so urgent that you couldn't seem to articulate within the space of almost an hour? As some like to say these days, let's "unpack" this.

The following excerpts are from Amy's blog:

Your comments as quoted by Amy are in italics, Doug. My response follows each.

I saw your blog.

I assume you were directed there at the behest of someone, right? I mean, you weren't just surfing the internet one day and stumbled upon it, did you?

How much of it did you actually read, Doug? Did you read about John Langworthy and how Jack Graham and other staff members at Prestonwood failed to report not only Langworthy but several other alleged (and known) perpetrators to the police? How they fired Langworthy but let him leave the state and another Southern Baptist church hire him without so much as a peep about the reason he was fired? About how that Baptist church, Morrison Heights Baptist in Clinton, MS, knew, perhaps from the beginning, what Langworthy is, and they failed to report him, too?

By the way, Hal Kitchings is a common denominator in all this. He and Langworthy are about the same age, went to Mississippi College at the same time, and Kitchings was youth and activities director at Daniel Memorial Baptist Church in Jackson, MS where Langworthy was on staff during the time he was abusing boys, and Kitchings was senior pastor of Morrison Heights Baptist when Langworthy was hired there after being allowed to quietly leave Prestonwood. Are we to believe that Kitchings knew nothing about Langworthy's "issues" during all those years?

Did you read about Eddie Struble, the former minister of music at your sister church there in Houston, Second Baptist, who was reportedly "let go" for the documented allegations of sexual abuse of a minor? About how he was relieved of his duties at his subsequent position at Humble Area First Baptist where they allegedly knew why he had left Second but had reportedly wanted to "give him another chance"? (All I could think was another chance to do what?!) It would be interesting to know why the victim's father went from seeming to be ready to press charges to... well... crickets.

Eddie Struble information

What about this Fort Bend area minister of music who was accused of assaulting a teenage girl? By the way, there's an interesting article linked at the end of that blog post about how the Florida Baptist Convention was tried and found liable for the actions of a former Southern Baptist pastor serving time in prison for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old boy.

Or were you just looking for recipes and found her Texas Chocolate Sheet Cake? (It's probably illegal to serve this in New York City.)

I'm confused. You don't see it as a problem? [Amy: speaking out about child sexual abuse by Baptist clergy, about Baptist churches that cover up such abuse, about silence from SBC leaders about this abuse, about the vocal support of another evangelical pastor C.J. Mahaney accused in a lawsuit by 11 plaintiffs of covering up child sex abuse, and planning an awareness event next week at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Houston]

What's so confusing about any of this, Doug? Are you confused (i.e. surprised) by the fact that there is an epidemic of CSA by Baptist clergy? That Baptist churches are covering it up? The silence of SBC leaders and even their denial (such as yours) that there is a problem at all except to express support for the cover-uppers and in some cases even the perpetrators themselves? Or is it just that someone actually had the cojones to draw attention to it? You guys try to convince us you're sooooo smart, and yet when confronted with concepts most 8-year-olds grasp... you go all "duhhh" on us. I'm confused by your confusion, Doug.

What good is it going to do, you standing outside the SBC?

Because that's where the public sidewalks are and they probably would try to have her arrested if she tried to stand inside? As Amy has stated, if she and others can stand peacefully outside the George R. Brown Convention Center during this year's convention, holding signs and talking to people in the hopes of shedding more light on this epidemic, and if their actions cause even a few more people to wake up, or if it gives even one victim the courage to come out of the shadows and break his or her silence and ultimately bring one more abuser to justice, then that is the "good" it will do.

On the other hand, what harm can it do? Amy has never mentioned First Baptist Church on her blog, nor has she accused Gregg Matte or anyone else there of any wrongdoing. Or is the real issue here that it might embarrass Gregg Matte and other SBC "leaders" that someone who happens to be a member of Matte's church, the "host" church for the SBC this year, has the courage to confront them about their silence?

What good will it do if the SBC president did issue a statement on abuse?

Fred Luter

Uh... because he's the president of the SBC? No question it's a figurehead position, but any statement he makes would be covered by the news media.  Just think, Doug. What if the president of the... largest... protestant... denomination... in the United States were to issue a statement condemning the silence and cover-up of clergy sex abuse and say something along the lines of this:

"Once and for all, guys, enough is enough. Stop covering for these perverts, passing them along to other unsuspecting congregations in the middle of the night, and do the right thing! This should not be 'uncharted waters' for us, folks. Most people in 'the world' know exactly what to do when faced with the possibility that a child (or former child) has been sexually abused by someone they know or employ. Why then should we, as a denomination, as churches, and as Christian individuals, not care more about the welfare of 'the least of these' than the 'the world' does? Ladies and gentlemen, have we become so proud, so enamored with our own 'image,' and so desperate to keep the pews warm and the money flowing that we've completely... lost... sight... of what the 'Jesus' we profess to love and follow would do? It is time for us as a denomination, as churches, and as Christians to get our heads out of the sand and to do the right thing regardless of the consequences! As our former president, Charles Stanley, always says, "Obey God and leave the consequences to Him." Folks already see through the image we've worked so hard to maintain and they're leaving our churches in droves. Our numbers are declining every year.  [Insert statistics about baptisms, lost churches, memberships, and the decline in giving.] Just because individual Baptist churches are autonomous doesn't mean we can't cooperate in helping to make it difficult for abusers to easily move from church to church. We cooperate as a convention for missions. We cooperate for disaster relief. We cooperate to support children's homes and seminaries. So why not this?  I propose we immediately appoint a committee (we Baptists like committees) to work to compile and maintain a database of convicted and credibly accused sexual abusers who have been employed by or are currently employed by Southern Baptist churches. I also propose that we invite other denominations and non-denominational churches to contribute their data so as to help increase the chances that a perpetrator doesn't hop in and out of different denominations.  Unlike the do-nothing committee appointed in 2007, this committee will begin work immediately, and this issue will never be allowed to 'die on the vine' again. Anyone who is currently aiding an abuser by covering for him or has let an abuser leave his church's employ without notifying the authorities needs to call the police without delay. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not next month. Now! The 'church' is NOT equipped, legally or otherwise, to 'investigate' the alleged sexual abuse of a child (or an adult). Sexual abuse is not simply a 'matter for church discipline.' It is a crime. By not reporting cases of abuse or alleged abuse we are breaking the law. Your obligation as pastors is not to investigate. It's to report possible crimes to the proper authorities. It's time for us to do the right thing! We should all pledge this day to do everything in our power to make our churches a safe place for everyone, and the first step is to stop covering for the abusers and supporting those who do. We should encourage victims, not to contact us or to let us 'take care of it,' but to contact the authorities. No longer will we usurp the duties of God-ordained law enforcement agencies. Rather we will recognize and admit that this sort of soul-sucking abuse is indeed epidemic in our convention and churches and do everything in our power to eradicate it, not hide it. I pledge to support the victims of these crimes, not only in word but action. Will you join me?"

I don't know, Doug, but I think something like that (and truly following up on it) would be a good place to start, don't you?  Southern Baptists are already a joke anyway with their infamous boycott of Disney (and the repeal thereof before the convention returned to Orlando), their treatment of women, and their attitudes towards minorities, gays, and other groups.  Electing "the... first... black... SBC... president... ever... " and ensuring that he ran unopposed... wasn't the answer. Was this the only way he was going to have a chance to be elected? By running unopposed? Frankly, if I were Fred Luter, I would have wanted at least one opponent because I would consider it insulting that no one ran against me, thus risking giving some people the impression I couldn't have won otherwise.

Anyway, I believe that such a statement by Fred Luter AND the action of pastors in the convention would go a long way towards raising awareness of the problem of child sex abuse in our churches and that a stern word to those covering up the problem might cause some of them to do the right thing.  Unfortunately, I believe there are some whose pride will never permit them to admit their inaction exposed another whole generation of youth to wolves like John Langworthy. People like that, short of an act of God, will always put image, power, and money above all else. I'd like to think there are many others who are willing to support victims over perpetrators.

Fred Luter also has the power to allow representatives of SNAP to address the convention this week.  Do I think he will?  No.  But he could.  They're asking to speak, but so far no one has responded to them.

We're not like the Methodists. [each Baptist church is locally autonomous]

See above, Doug. Southern Baptists are quick to "cooperate" in missions, disaster relief, etc. And heaven forbid a Southern Baptist church call a female pastor, welcome gay people, hire missionaries who admit they practice a "private prayer language" (key word there should be "private"), fail to condemn drinking alcohol, or accept for membership anyone who hasn't been properly dunked the Baptist way. The Southern Baptists, from the local associations and state conventions to the national convention burst out of their blissful, autonomous bubbles in a hurry to condemn the actions of a non-compliant congregation when faced with scenarios like the above. Why, then, can we not "cooperate" to protect children? Just because you ignore the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Actually, though, the Southern Baptists are a lot like the Methodists in this regard. While the Methodists have set up a website regarding this subject, their very first advice to victims or those who witness or become aware of potential abuse is to "tell your pastor, the Staff-Parish Relations chairperson, or the District Superintendent." No, no, NO!!! The Methodists have it wrong, too! Your first (I would argue your only) obligation is to call the police. Period. Too often we've seen what happens when victims go to the "church" for help. They're frequently intimidated, demonized, ostracized, and believe it or not, even blamed for their perpetrators' crimes, while the "poor" perps are embraced and "loved on."

Wade Burleson had a good take on SBC polity and the issue of autonomy. Apparently Southern Baptists are "autonomous" only when it's convenient.

How can you say that? [that child sexual abuse within Baptist churches is a systemic problem]

When confronted with reams of evidence, how can you say it's not, Doug? Statistics indicate that one in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused by an adult (or another minor) before the age of 18. How many potential victims are there in your church alone? Have you seen Christa Brown's blog and the Stop Baptist Predators website? There's a veritable rogue's gallery of Southern Baptist perverts there, Doug, and you and I both know that's just the tip of the iceberg. You really should take the time to educate yourself a little, Doug. Crimes against children happen everywhere in the world and seem to thrive through a conspiracy of silence and intimidation. The SBC is not immune to this phenomenon, Doug. Oh, no. Check out the statistics.

Sexual Assault Reporting Rates

Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals (The section on "Ministers" is particularly interesting. Note the stats on Southern Baptist ministers.)

Are you convinced there's a problem yet, Doug?  If not, here are some more resources. Note how old some of them are. Here we are almost halfway through 2013, and nothing has been done beyond a feel-good list of resources issued by the SBC in 2008. (This was a small step in the right direction, but it should not have stopped there.)

News flash! Only about 1% of child sexual abusers make it onto the national sex offender registry. Thankfully, John Langworthy is now one of them, but look what it took to get him there and how many children he victimized before someone finally reported him. It's been estimated that fewer than 10% of cases of child sexual abuse are ever reported.

The Wartburg Watch >> Southern Baptist Pastors Continue Making Headlines for Sex Abuse – Caveat Emptor!

USA Today >> Southern Baptists elect a president, reject sex-abuse database (This was 2008. It's five years later, and not much has changed. If anything it's gotten worse.)

Responding to the Evil of Sexual Abuse, Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention 2008

The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life (book)

You may be seen as fringe.

Wow, Doug. Is that the reason for your urgent call to Amy? Because you were concerned she "may be seen as fringe"? Or did someone, perhaps someone higher up, say in Nashville, catch wind of Amy's (and SNAP's) plans and alert Gregg Matte that "Houston, we have a problem!"

It really doesn't matter. However high up this thing may have originated, you admitted you were acting on the orders of Gregg Matte. Apparently Matte had a problem with Amy's activities, so why didn't Gregg Matte contact her personally? After all, many of your colleagues like to trot out (and misuse) Matthew 18. I understand the concept of delegation and how in an organization the size yours that's often necessary, but some things don't need to be delegated. This was one of them.

Why, if you wanted to discuss such an apparently sensitive matter, did you not at least invite Amy along with her husband to meet with you in person? I think we all know the answer to that, don't we, Doug? You didn't want her husband present. You thought you, a "manly" man, could intimidate a woman. You wouldn't dare talk to a man the way Amy said you spoke to her!

Let me tell you something about Amy, Doug. This gutsy woman doesn't back down that easily. She didn't let her own parents intimidate her when they cruelly and inexplicably chose John Langworthy, a (more or less) confessed and now CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER over their own daughter and granddaughters. She didn't let Philip Gunn, an "elder" at Morrison Heights Baptist Church and now speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, propose a "resolution" to the John Langworthy mess.  (It would be interesting to know what he had in mind, but I suspect it involved money.) She's also not married to one of those men who will keep the little woman in line when men like you say "boo!" (if you know what I mean, and I'm sure you do). So she's not about to cave to you, Doug. Quite the contrary. She... no you... you, Doug, have made a fool and a laughingstock out of yourself, your "senior" pastor, and sadly, your church and the SBC. This is one anthill you should have never kicked, Doug.

So... who am I going to believe? Hmmm. A woman I've known for the past two years who has proven herself to be a person of her word? Or some paid staff weenie who was so nervous-acting and awkward that Amy finally told you she was just going to save you the embarrassment and awkwardness of having to verbalize what she knew you were trying to express and said she and her husband would just resign their positions and save you the trouble? I pick... the woman.

It was bad enough, but then you had to make it worse by speaking with the ABP. How dare you say it wasn't our idea, that it was at Amy's "insistence" that they resigned! Surely you could come up with something more believable than that, Doug. Here is Amy's version of your conversation which, interestingly, is almost verbatim the version she told me three days ago.

After almost an hour on the phone with Doug challenging me about my efforts to raise awareness about abuse within the SBC, I was in tears and finally said to him, "I'm going to save you the awkardness of having to ask me to step down and I will step down." His reply was, "Let's take a few weeks.... " The next day in a meeting with my husband Doug brought up the subject about us stepping down and he [Doug] said, "I told Amy I would think about it, but I've thought about it overnight, and I think it's best that she step down."

What a far cry from saying it was "at their insistence."

Amy... 1, paid staff weenie... 0

When I heard Amy didn't wait you out (her one mistake IMO) and force you to "fire" them, I knew you would spin it this way. I just didn't think you'd do it in the national press. You guys are so predictable it's funny. Except that it's so pathetic. It's pathetic that Southern Baptist "leaders" like you, Gregg Matte, Jack Graham, Steve Gaines, and Greg Belser, to name but a few, have, by continuing to ignore the elephant in the room, given all Southern Baptist ministers a black eye. That's sad because there are still good, sincere Southern Baptist pastors out there. But thanks to "manly" men who are more concerned about protecting their "images" and squelching anything they think "the world" might perceive as negative than doing what's right, they've just turned what would have been a small, likely unreported peaceful protest into a national news story. Way to go, boys!

In closing, Doug, I would just like to say if Amy Smith is considered by the likes of men like you "fringe," then I'm proud to stand beside her and identify as "fringe," too! I believe Amy prefers "frilly fringe."