Welcome to Baptist Absurdia

Two SBC notes from last week. One from the convention, one from youth camp. Since I'm a firm believer that everyone creates their own reality to some degree by means of language, I'll use these two stories to illustrate how the SBC manages to ignore what might be called really real in favor of apocalyptic nonsense.

The SBC has rejected a call for a database of sex offenders within their own ranks. Wade Burleson and Christa Brown of StopBaptistPredators.org asked the executive committee to study the feasibility of a nationwide database of "credibly accused" Baptist ministers and lay leaders. Morris Chapman reported on the "study" last week at the annual convention. (You probably should know that SNAP--survivors network of those abused by priests--has challenged the existence of an actual study.) Chapman said the executive committee was rejecting the database idea for three reasons.

1. It's impossible to ensure that all sex offenders who have had a connection with a Baptist church would be included.
2. A Baptist only database would exclude sex offenders who were previously identified from other faith communities.
3. Autonomy. Of course. The SBC lacks the authority to require autonomous churches to report sex offenders in their midst.

Two observations before moving on to the funny bit. As to points one and two, isn't this like saying, "We can only cure 13 kinds of cancer, so we ain't doing shit 'til we can cure them all!"? As to point 3, somehow autonomy does not affect SBC efforts (commendable efforts) to provide disaster relief, medical missions, food, and other resources to places in need. It does not prevent cooperative money from going to missionaries. But it always prevents them from doing what they don't want to do. I think that's called an argument from convenience.

A friend was with his youth at youth camp last week. Apparently, it had been a better than average night in the service, as a young minister had challenged the youth to commit to an ethic of obedience. No one answered the altar call (I'm shocked!) so rather than manipulate the kids, he sat down. Kali bless him. He was followed on stage by a Gideon carrying a carved wooden staff. The words "Rapture Check" were carved vertically on the face of the staff, and it was topped by the carved head of an old man (I think that parts right.). He pounded the staff and shouted "Rapture check!" Since many Baptist churches no longer practice this nonsense, many of the kids were at a loss as to what to do. Appalled by the realization that the kids were unaware of the required response, the Gideon, using the oil and wedding maidens text, informed the kids that about half of them are unprepared for the Rapture. This went on for fifteen minutes. Not sure how it ended. I think my buddy took his kids out.

What we have here is a reality created by certain Southern Baptists. It's a world where protecting children from sexual predators in inconvenient, but scaring the shit out of them with threats of eternal torture is just another day in the pulpit. The reality they practice asserts that the latter is real and the former is something that needs to be parsed in closed committees. Welcome to Baptist-land. Enjoy your stay, unless you're a kid.

Comments

[Zossima]

I am not a lawyer, but I would think this position opens the door for the SBC to be sued. There is absolutely no reason why the SBC cannot create a membership requirement to (1) have criminal background checks on all church employees; (2) check predator databased from local law enforcement on all people who work with children or youth; and (3) to report that to a national db.

Greg, what is the proper response to the "Rapture Check"? I was never part of the SBC. They were too liberal for my church. (No kidding.) Ah, memories.

[sepherim]

I seriously doubt that the SBC could be sued because they have no direct connection, interest, or ownership of any individual church and they do not as an organization have any kind of placement or assignment authority for putting people into any church staff positions. That being said I find this to be one of the most despicable actions they have taken recently. For some reason I have a problem with removing a church from "friendly cooperation" for having a women in the pulpit or for doing anything that might possibly be considered affirming of any aspect of homosexuality and yet not doing what they can to help churches keep sexual predators off of their staffs. Someone needs to take Gideon's staff to the backside of Morris Chapman and the SBC Executive Board.

[sepherim]

Also I spent my entire life, with a couple of momentary lapses into sanity, attending SBC churches and have never heard of a "rapture check."

[april]

this is something i have never understood. anyone who can explain it to me would be so helpful. what is the point of view here? how does it make sense in their minds to be so damn paranoid about homosexuality, etc, but seemingly not give a crap about pedophilia or sexual violence of the heterosexual kind? is there some perspective that makes this make sense?

[Jay Kelly]

I also vote for an explanation of Rapture Check. No idea what that means.

[Leighton]

Zoss, I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that labor laws vary widely from state to state concerning what constitutes due diligence in hiring people who work with kids, and in what capacity. Colorado, for instance, requires background checks for teachers, but not for non-teaching school personnel. Depending on the state, caselaw on church employment may be a factor as well.

I think items 1 and 2 are valid concerns from the perspective of not wanting to offer a false sense of security. Imagine a church who hired a sexual predator, checked the new Baptist database, but declined to run his SSN past NSOR. My experience with church secretaries is that they're just the right combination of overworked, tired and trusting that this would happen a lot.

"Credibly accused" isn't really a good legal criterion for inclusion in such a database anyway; pastors in the database who weren't convicted of any crime could sue a church that decided not to hire them on the grounds that they're being presumed guilty of something the court system hasn't established that they've done. I appreciate that there is a problem to address, but a voluntary Baptist-only database just doesn't seem to be very helpful.

Something helpful SBC could do (maybe, depending on their bylaws--though certainly individual churches could do this) is mandate full criminal background checks on anyone who will be working in a leadership capacity or with children. This wouldn't solve the problem of some pastors not standing trial because their victims are too afraid to face them, or in cases where they've sexually abused someone who is mentally ill or otherwise not prima facie a reliable witness. But it would help, and it's certainly better than nothing.

My favorite solution of not having pastors at all isn't terribly popular, alas.

[greg]

Leighton,

doesn't create a false sense of security so long as you tell people it's not exhaustive. The SBC already encourages full background checks, but those don't help when it's a youth pastor who banged a sixteen year old and was never prosecuted because of the girl's age and the fear of embarrassment.

All,

The response to Rapture check! Right here.

[xjvpastor]

Here is another reason (to go along with your post) that we no longer go to church - http://www.30minuteworship.com/

We passed this place on our way to San Antonio for vacation. That is the name of the church. It reminded me of In and Out Burger. The only difference In and Out Burger emphasizes quality.

[Leighton]

I guess my hangup is that if churches actually did (1) a criminal background check, and (2) actually called the references in the "previous job experience" list on CVs to verify that names, dates, etc. all match, and staff at the prior churches were honest enough to say "Oh, yeah, we let him go because he behaved in sexually inappropriate ways that weren't prosecutable," then the database wouldn't be necessary. It's not clear to me that when this level of honesty between churches is missing, that a database would be an adequate substitute. It's a good idea in theory, but it seems to me that the same lack of transparency that makes such a measure necessary would also make that specific measure ineffective.

Maybe I've just been working for lawyers long enough that asking for increased accountability from a church institution seems about as useful as a white guy like me walking into Israel and Palestine and saying "Hey, have you guys ever thought about not killing each other all the time?" If this database idea looks like it's getting any traction, I don't want to say anything to discourage it; it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing an organization whose top priority is self-preservation (which implies not taking on any liability that isn't strictly necessary) would ever decide to put into practice.

[air jordan 11]

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild fllower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.