“I currently serve on the [Executive Committee] and I have served as the chair of our Sexual Abuse Prevention Task Force,” posted Craig Carlisle. “I am outraged that a decision of [this] nature was made without consulting the trustees. I stand with survivors and will continue to work on their behalf.”
Adam Wyatt, another EC member, posted, “I continue to grow very tired of seeing people speak on my behalf without ever being consulted. Today was the first time that I ever heard of an amicus brief being filed on behalf of the [Executive Committee].”
In a statement given to ChurchLeaders, members of the SBC’s Caring Well Training Team, as well as members and advisors of the ARITF and its predecessor, the Sexual Abuse Task Force (SATF), expressed shock and dismay regarding the amicus brief.
“This brief and the policy arguments made in it were made without our knowledge and without our approval,” the statement said. “Moreover, they do not represent our values and positions.”
“In any legal case, there may be valid factual questions to assess regarding individual or institutional liability, but opposing Statute of Limitations reform related to institutions is not an effort to honestly consider the facts and questions related to responsibility,” the statement went on to say. “Rather, it is a deliberate effort to ensure those questions are never asked.”
“Moreover, we are also dismayed that some leaders financed this work and chose in secret to take this stand,” the statement added. “We are deeply grieved to see this position taken, and as those who have worked alongside or in the Convention and publicly supported where positive steps have been taken, we must be equally clear in our perspective on this step.”
The statement concluded, “We remain committed to supporting leaders, survivors and individuals in the Convention who are engaged in the long process of true reform and hope to see this change spread deeper in the future.”
On Thursday, SBTS president Albert Mohler offered a brief statement regarding the role SBTS played in the filing of the amicus.
“As is often the case in questions of law, significant constitutional and legal questions arise and require arguments to be made before courts,” Mohler said. “In such cases we must refer all questions to legal counsel. We respect the rule of law and must work through the process with legal representation, who must speak for us in this case.”
RELATED: Many African American SBC Churches Have Women Pastors on Staff. Will They Be Expelled Next?
This article has been updated to include Albert Mohler’s statement.
