No one really knows the full extent of the sexual abuse crisis that has been raging in the Southern Baptist Convention for several years now, since an expose in both the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News uncovered the very tip of the problem. It had been going on for decades, primarily among the ordained pastors and leaders of local churches, as well as some of the denominational entity employees, but the denominational leadership itself failed to take any kind of action at all, even though it was aware of the full extent of the problem, and hid behind one of Baptist's polity principles, the independence and autonomy of each local church.
What that means, for those who aren't familiar with the way Baptists are structured, is that there is no ecclesiastical hierarchy which exercises authority over each local church. The denomination exists to provide an efficient means of bringing churches together to cooperate in ministry and for missionary purposes, but each local church governs its own affairs, sets its own doctrinal beliefs and statement of faith, at least in theory, and selects their own pastors and vocational church ministers. That is, until some issue comes up that its defacto leaders and influencers don't like, and then they are more than willing to interfere with local church autonomy to keep local churches in line.
So, as you might expect from what is a relatively backward, provincial culture largely based in the states of the old Confederacy and the border slave states, when it comes to keeping women in line, preventing churches from hiring them as ministers, or allowing them to serve in a pastoral ministry role, the big wigs in the denomination are bringing the hammer down, using not only it's doctrinal statement, but are also planning to insert this prohibition into their constitution and bylaws, forcing every currently affiliated church to surrender its autonomy and go along with the edict, or be kicked out of the denomination.
But when it comes to sexual abuse, it's been a completely hands off reaction, and the powers that be, in a group of people where a tight group of elites basically control everything it does, have resisted any possible resolution to the problem, making a huge mess of the effort mandated by the messengers to each annual meeting who are demanding something be done. In their eyes, it's clearly not worth protecting a woman's virtue, or considering her an equal.
This isn't a new problem, and it's not like there has not been any awareness of what has been happening. Victims have been coming forward for decades, trying to get the attention of church leaders, church members and denominational leaders to help create awareness of the problem and figure out how to put a stop to something that runs so contrary to the claims of far right wing religious zealots like Southern Baptists, who claim to have a more intimate knowledge of Biblical truth, and the ability to articulate their own version of the "clear teaching of scripture" in a very arrogant and condescending manner.
But, alas, most of the victims, with a few notable exceptions, are women, and women in the Southern Baptist Convention have little influence and virtually no voice. Relying on a literal, culturally influenced interpretation of a few very pointed and selective passages of scripture, Southern Baptists dismiss the value, intellect and identity of women, relegating them to an ancient cultural status that is not consistent with clear, biblical teaching, is taken completely out of its context and relegates women to largely subsurvient roles, both in society and in church. As a result, they do not consider sexual abuse of women as all that bad a thing, especially if it can be covered up or covered over. So those victims and victims advocates who have found ways to bring this problem front and center are seen as antagonists, not advocates for women's safety and protection as a member of a Christian church.
The denomination's leadership has already been stymied in coming up with a viable plan to deal with abuse among their clergy and denominational employees, something overwhelmingly demanded by messengers at several recent annual meetings. They've been really good at finding excuses as to why nothing they are trying is working, not so good at figuring out how to make it work in a denomination of independent, autonomous churches. That fact, they say, as they sigh and shrug their shoulders, is why they can't fix this. Because, as they say, the churches have the final say.
That is, unless the issue is a church that has called a woman to serve in a position that used the title "pastor." They are more than willing then to find ways to cross that boundary and turn into an ecclesiastical authority in order to punish churches who do this. There's no sighing or shrugging when it comes down to the business of violating a churches independence and autonomy when it comes to this issue. It's a glaring inconsistency to which most Southern Baptist leadership is blind. Women are victims in both cases.
The issue of whether a woman can serve as a pastor, or at least have a job in a church that uses that title, rests on the wording of a few sentences in the book of I Timothy, where the Apostle Paul outlines the qualifications of an overseer, or bishop, or elder, synonimous with "Pastor," and mentions that they must be the husband of one wife. On that thin piece of evidence, which actually references either polygamy or divorce, and doesn't really directly address whether a woman can preach, or be a pastor or elder, Southern Baptists declare this as the definitive verse for this doctrine, end of story.
And while they try to make that case with that particular list of qualifications, which includes a passage about women who serve the church just a few paragraphs later, they do not literally enforce some of the Apostle's more strident language about women elsewhere in this same epistle, and also in his epistle to the church at Corinth. Few Southern Baptists take passages about women wearing head coverings, or keeping silence in the church and asking their husbands about doctrine and theology literally. Like everything else they've settled on, the way they interpret the Bible is based on their own convenience and cultural bias.
The article linked at the top is just one more example of how deep this scandal goes, and how Southern Baptists are handling it. Covering things up is still at the top of the list of their priorities in such matters. And even where there's resistance to doing so, and there are a few people with integrity who are trying to do the right thing, there's always someone who comes along with the power to undo the right thing and default to the cover up. There are multiple reports of abuse cases involving employees of denominational entities, including several of its seminaries and both of its mission boards, where the leaders of the entities involved took deliberate steps to cover up the abuse.
And I'll bring this up because it is relevant, and I think it is a further illustration of just how deep this runs among conservative, Evangelical Christians like Southern Baptists, who form the largest Evangelical denomination in the United States. Look at how politicians who are Southern Baptists are lining up to defend Donald Trump's adulterous affair and all of the corrupt covering up he did, felonious cover up according to a jury of his peers. Since when has having an affair with a porn star while one's wife is taking care of an infant, and then doing illegal things to cover it up, not to protect her, but to keep things hushed because it might scare voters away, something on which Southern Baptists place a high value?
Obviously, given Mike Johnson's vocal support for Trump, as well as that of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, all of whom claim to be active members of a Southern Baptist church, it's clear that they have no respect at all for women, and it's clear that immorality trumps the Bible when it comes to politics. They wailed for decades about Roe v. Wade, but they clearly have absolutely no value for the virtue, integrity or life of a woman.
And that's an intentional pun.
No comments:
Post a Comment