News-Record.com

And the reason they decided against doing something to help catch child-raping ministers?

"... Southern Baptist principle of local church autonomy means it's up to individual churches to take action against offenders."

That has to be one of the lamest excuses EVER thought up. They might as well have put up a big, flashing red sign for religion-speaking pedophiles saying "Come and get 'em!"

Local church autonomy as the "it" does not deal with the "me" in the local church. When it deals with the ministerial leadership, local autonomy works (as it should sadly). When it deals with the membership, local autonomy gets beaten and slapped without provocation!

Shalom

Namtac, that is one of the lamest blog entries you've cranked out in a long time. Do you not know that the idea of local autonomy is indeed a key principle wiht the SBC, and Baptists generally. The idea that they would be in favor of child molestation is patently absurd. You drew a very wrong conclusion from totally false premises.

My fear for the SBC is that they will fall into the popularity trap - which so many churches and denominations have these days. They look at a bunch of disappointing stats and quickly conclude that they need to adjust their "image." Since when was Jesus or the prophets concerned about their worldy image. They are in danger of becoming "men pleasers."

I realize there is a need for all of us, including denominations, to assess our "performance." But the yardstick should ALWAYS be the Word of God, and not membership stats and media critiques. This statement about Frank Page, a former SBC president, is illustrative:

"He sought to build consensus and bring a softer image to a denomination many outsiders associate with incendiary rhetoric and boycotts.”

I assume the “incendiary rhetoric” were statements about men as “loving leaders” of their homes or admonitions to exit the public schools - and activist efforts to curb the advance of homosexuals in major American firms (Disney boycott et al.) – perhaps any strong positions on controversial topics. These statements and actions were firmly rooted in Scriptural truths and were thus more in line with the will of God than the limp-wristed, milk-sop tamer-and-gentler image they seem to be espousing now - all to “attract” people to join their churches.

This is the real problem with American Christianity: being intimidated by PC forces and abandoning the clear teachings of the Word, held captive by the secularist media Gestapo, who never fail to miss a beat in demonizing those who take the firm and un-PC stands the Bible mandates. They are caving to the “can’t we all just get along” ruse, and becoming de facto liberals by opting for a Christianity that would rather be accepted and liked than to advance the Kingdom of God and hold firm to the moral and social truths so clearly enunciated in the Scriptures.

They still hold to the Biblical position against gay marriage, for example; but would rather take the “softer image” approach of either avoiding the topic, or soft-pedaling the clear biblical rejection of it - the same with male headship, or the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, etc.

I may be jumping to conclusions regarding the SBC’s “new” MO, but I am concerned. I hope I’m wrong.

"Do you not know that the idea of local autonomy is indeed a key principle wiht the SBC, and Baptists generally. The idea that they would be in favor of child molestation is patently absurd."

So let's review here: A Southern Baptist church (Call it Church A of VA) discovers that its pastor is molesting ... oh let's say a bunch of adolescent girls in the GA's. When confronted with this discovery, the pastor tearily apologizes and promises to repent from his evil ways, that were forced upon him by a demon. The church agrees to forgive him, according to orders from Jesus in the Bible, and they send him on his way. No information about this goes to the SBC, because THEY DON'T HAVE A DATABASE to track this sort of thing.

The next state over... let's say North Carolina, this same pastor applies for a pastor position, completely failing to mention to Church B of NC that he was ever associated with Church A. Church B sees that he was ordained after studying at XYZ Seminary, and so far as the SBC is concerned there are no red flags attached to his good name at all... so they hire him on and are pleased as pie that he gets on so well with the girls of the youth group.

Nikos is perfectly understanding and happy that the SBC should have NO PART OF THIS SCENARIO. The SBC disapproves of child rape by ministers... but they are making it far easier for them to operate in their member churches. Just wonderful.

"Nikos is perfectly understanding and happy that the SBC should have NO PART OF THIS SCENARIO."

No indeed! That is not what I want or mean. I just think your first entry - and your second - is presumptuous, in that you merely assume that there are no references required, personal contacts involved, the offended church taking measures to prevent the offender gaining another position - or any number of checks besides creating a denominational database of abusers, per se. I would favor such a database myself, but SBCs have always been extremely nervous about letting the denomination get too intrusive and powerful - because of their autonomy convictions. I understand their concern; but I think itscan be counter-productive at times; as in this case.

Your accusatory statements, implying that their traditional anti-hierarchical stance necessarily MEANS that they are oblivious to child abuse, is a false deduction, based on no direct evidence of motives or intent. Besides, the grand daddy of all hierarchies, the RCC, is the most egregious offender in this regard. Which means that there are no absolute guaratees in this matter - in schools, day cares, etc. A real shame; but it seems to be the case.

I have long felt that there should be comprehensive psychological screening in all jobs where children are even tangentially involved. But it would be very expensive. But then, how much is a child's soul worth these days. As sexual sin becomes even more rampant and unbiquitous we may find that we have no choice but the above.

As I said, I think a database would be a good idea. And there are also secular law enforcement databases to consult, if one desires, background checks, etc.

My point, Nam, is simply that making summary judgments as to motive and rationale is unwarranted, just because you have a philosophical axe to grind with conservative evangelicals.

This sounds good when read; "My point, Nam, is simply that making summary judgments as to motive and rationale is unwarranted, just because you have a philosophical axe to grind with conservative evangelicals."

When rewritten it sounds just as good: My point, (whomever), is simply that making summary judgments as to motive and rationale is unwarranted, just because you have a philosophical axe to grind with (persons of differing viewpoints).

What do you think namtac?

Shalom