As one raised in an SBC church(es), sadly, not a surprise.
Earle is correct, though, in the sense that I HAVE been in Baptist churches where it was exposed and confronted in the way it SHOULD be. My dad was a deacon in one - and after that initial shock (and it's still always a shock) - they sought both legal counsel for protection and followed the best they could.
Just note this - as a reminder, I AM a seminary grad (if not a very good one). And we discussed things that were very uncomfortable, all of them rooted in events that had actually happened - there was even a "how do you handle this" test.
One of my profs stated very clearly - it was one of the clearest lines in the sand drawn during my time in seminary academia. And you have to understand that the SEMINARY (if it's a good one) is what college used to be at one time. YES, you have agreed to a very minimal set of priors (in our case, I'm sure that list is quite long at some place like Liberty), but you are expected (particularly as an academic, which I was) to grapple with the text and seeming contradictions and "this in the OT, this in the NT" and those kinds of subjects. Forgiveness, redemption, etc.
One of my profs said it clearly as possible. We as Christians are to forgive, absolutely. We are to restore when possible. "But there's one exception: you can forgive the known pedophile, but he doesn't need to be in your church. And spare me the redemption part, I've not seen it happen. Ever." I will admit that was a bit jarring but also refreshing and based on what I've seen since that day in 2009, quite obviously correct.
"We'll forgive what you did. It doesn't mean we won't prosecute you. And it doesn't mean we will ever let you around our kids ever again, either."
I'd say it's sad in the sense of seeing the church do that. Unfortunately, there is a rigidity in the SBC that functions ostrich-like among what appeared to my simple mind to be the vast majority of people. They're absolutely certain of the six-day Creation account (for example) because if that was wrong then Jesus shouldn't have appealed to it. None of these folks ever seems to know that the idea of an OLD EARTH was the majority view AMONG CHRISTIANS long before Darwin was ever even born. Granted, they didn't go into things like carbon dating, etc, because those didn't exist at that time - but that the vast majority of Bible commentators thought the earth was MUCH OLDER than 6,000 years is both true and a shock to so many people.
And I've found when you point that out - they just get mad at you rather than accepting the challenge to their worldview. It doesn't mean the Resurrection didn't happen; it just means you're assuming a fundamentalism that is based solely on your assumption. Calvinism is another bogeyman in the SBC. Whether you agree with that position or not (and most mis-state it just like most mis-state Arminianism), does anyone with a brain think "but 1 John 2:2 says the whole world" was never addressed by any Calvinist in history? Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty arrogant to be a layperson and go with, "But mah bobble says rot hare....."
And what I see here is that same arrogance spills over into this.
Sadly, I find myself in agreement with what the most cynical non-Christian would say: "And when you look at when it was covered up and when it wasn't, you're going to find that the BIGGEST DONORS TO THE CHURCH were the ones that got covered up."
I mean, more often than not that's exactly right.
One more post on another thread and I've got to head into work. 15 work days left here.
www.ajc.com
