‘I Take Full Responsibility’—SBC President Bart Barber Admits He Signed Off on the Amicus Brief; SBC Abuse Survivors Respond

“I hope to do a better job of using my voice to influence those decisions going forward,” Barber said.

Barber expressed that when he signed off on the amicus brief, he was not thinking, “How can I harm survivors of sexual abuse today?” To illustrate, he pointed out that on the same day, he spent his time “appointing people like Marshall Blalock and Todd Benkert, both of whom have publicly expressed disapproval of this brief.”

“I wasn’t appointing Todd or Marshall out of one hand while trying to thwart their efforts out of the other. I know that for sure,” he added. “I spent that day trying to support everyone on the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF) and to carry forward our work. August 9, 2022, was not a day I spent trying to hurt survivors.”

RELATED: ‘Fight Together Not Against Each Other’—SBC Abuse Reform Task Force Member Urges Unity 

Expressing his disappointment with himself, Barber admitted that his actions ended up “hurting survivors.” And although his determination “to advance abuse reform in the SBC is no less than it was when” he began, he understands that his credibility with survivors “is harmed by this, perhaps irreparably.”

In conclusion, Barber asked for prayer, saying, “I am counting on your prayers and I am counting on wisdom from above. I hope that I learn a little with every mistake that I make, and I hope that those of you who are angry with me today can find it in your hearts to forgive me.”

SBC Abuse Survivors Respond

Tiffany Thigpen, an SBC sexual abuse survivor and advocate who is one of 10 survivors listed in an SBC apology found in the 2022 resolution titled “On Lament and Repentance for Sexual Abuse,” responded to Barber’s statement, telling ChurchLeaders that “lawyers are advising their clients and it is up to the conscience of the listener to decide what they want the lawyer to do on their behalf.”

“Sometimes, lawyers have a carte blanche agreement to act on an entity’s behalf, which we have seen before,” she added, but “in this case…when Willie and Bart were asked, how much discussion had already taken place before this three-hour deadline to respond?”

Thigpen said that “motive and context also matter in making bigger decisions.” For example, “Who stands to gain the most? Who loses the most?” And in the midst of all that deliberation “is a moral/ethical decision that comes out of much thought, information gathering and soul searching—then lawyers do their job hopefully with the will and consent of the client.”

“People have been harmed. Samantha Killary’s case went before the Supreme Court [and] has been influenced by fear of ‘what will happen if,’” Thigpen said. “Christians aren’t supposed to operate in fear against justice and consequences of darkness but in light and truth.”

RELATED: What the Church Needs to Learn From Jules Woodson

Thigpen pointed out on social media that Lifeway’s continued silence on the matter provides more validity to the thread she posted over the weekend, in which she claimed that the amicus brief originated with Lifeway.