NASHVILLE (TN)
In Solidarity with Christa Brown
March 4, 2024
By Christa Brown
In the latest iteration of SBC abuse “reform,” we now get a proposal to create a purportedly independent nonprofit called the Abuse Response Commission (ARC).
So we add yet another acronym to the list. And I fear that’s all it will be.
It’s a fear that’s well-founded, given how little we’ve seen of any real “reform” for lo these many years.
In 2021, they gave us the Sexual Abuse Task Force (SATF); in 2022 the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF); and now in 2024 the Abuse Response Commission (ARC).
(And even before these entities with acronyms, we had the Sexual Abuse Presidential Study Group in 2019 and the Executive Committee Bylaws Workgroup in 2007-08.)
None of these prior groups managed to significantly move the needle on actual “reform.” But each time they were announced, the SBC self-applauded as though they had. They milked each new acronym for self-serving public relations and institutional image management.
In much the same way that they previously hyped an empty shell of a database as a “historic moment,” the SBC hyped the announcement of this latest commission—the ARC—as a “watershed.”
Yet, “they still need the money to run it.”
That’s why, despite all the SBC hoopla, I said that I would “wait for real-deal deeds before I cheer.”
It didn’t help any when SBC president Bart Barber made a joke about giving “Monopoly money” to fund the ARC. Later, he apologized for the quip, but it still left a foul smell, and the question hung in the air of whether the unfunded ARC was really a serious endeavor at all… or just another public relations maneuver.
Amy Smith gave what may have been the most succinct and humorous critique when she tweeted: “I have a non-funded proposal to buy a home in Kauai.”
And it doesn’t look like funding for the ARC will come together anytime soon. Less than 48 hours after their puffed-up announcement, two of the SBC’s biggest money sources said “No.” The International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board said they would not contribute funds for the ARC.
Other issues were immediately apparent as well. Though they proclaimed the ARC as being an “independent” entity, plenty of people voiced doubts. All of ARC’s incorporators are Southern Baptists, including one who is running for SBC president.
Furthermore, ARC’s primary mission is unclear. One of the incorporators, Josh Wester, plainly stated: “ARC intends to make sure that it moves forward in a manner that will protect the SBC and the Executive Committee from additional liability.”
This priority seems little changed from what the SBC’s priority has long been. As pointed out in Guidepost’s scathing investigatory report, for decades, the SBC Executive Committee was “singularly focused on avoiding liability for the SBC.”
So to me, ARC looks like a plan for more of the same. At this point, it appears as yet another maneuver for institutional self-protection rather than a real strategy for effectively protecting kids and congregants against clergy predators.
I see these kinds of nothingburger “reform” efforts as worse than doing nothing. The SBC’s incessant trailing out of some new proposal, new task force, new committee, new curriculum, new plan, new acronym lands as still more duplicity—particularly because we’ve seen that behind the scenes they’re actively working against survivors.
Their words are hollow. Their databases are empty. And their commissions are unfunded.