Honest Acknowledgment — The SBC's Abuse of Faith Reckoning
When confronted with the Australian Royal Commission data or the two-witness
rule concern, many Witnesses will (rightly) point out that Protestant
denominations have had their own abuse scandals. The Southern Baptist
Convention's Abuse of Faith crisis is the most common counter-example
raised. The implicit argument is that all religious institutions fail on
this issue, so singling out the Watchtower is unfair.
This is a defensive argument that doubles as an offensive one. The move is to acknowledge the SBC failure fully and by name — do not minimise, do not deflect, do not say "but." Name the Houston Chronicle investigation. Name Robert Downen. Name the survivors: Jules Woodson, Christa Brown, Debbie Vasquez. Then trace the direction of the institutional response: the Chronicle exposed it, the SBC's own General Convention voted to commission Guidepost Solutions, Guidepost published a scathing report, and the SBC voted to create a public database of credibly accused ministers. Only then, gently, pose the contrast question: what is the comparable sequence in the Watchtower? Has there been an independent investigation commissioned by the organisation? Has a public database been created? Has court-compelled disclosure been welcomed or litigated? These are not rhetorical questions — leave space for the Witness to think. The goal is not to win the scandal comparison; it is to surface the asymmetry in institutional response. The single sharpest contrast is the SBC's Credibly Accused database, published in 2022 and freely searchable, set against the Watchtower's "blue envelope" internal abuser records — which have only been released under court order, and only after years of litigation resisting disclosure.
Both failures are real. The meaningful difference is not the body count but the direction of institutional response. The SBC was forced by its own members and its own annual meeting into independent investigation and public disclosure. The Watchtower has continued to litigate against court-compelled disclosure. One response suggests capacity for reform; the other suggests structural inability to self-correct.
So you admit your own church is just as bad as you are saying we are.
I admit my tradition has failed badly, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the question I am asking is not "whose body count is higher." It is "what happens when the failure is exposed?" The SBC's own General Convention voted to hire Guidepost Solutions to investigate them. The resulting report was harsh, and the SBC published it anyway. A public database of credibly accused ministers was created. What I am asking is whether the comparable sequence has happened in the Watchtower — an independent investigation, a published report, a public database. That is the question, not whose sins are worse.
The SBC still has new cases every year.
That is true, and it grieves me. No institutional reform eliminates evil instantly. But there is a difference between "evil persists despite reform" and "the institution refuses reform." The question is about direction. Over the last five years the SBC has moved toward disclosure, database, survivor engagement. Over the same period the Watchtower has continued to litigate against court-compelled disclosure of internal records. Both institutions are imperfect. Only one is moving toward the light on this issue.
Guidepost is just a secular firm with an agenda.
Guidepost was chosen and paid by the Southern Baptist Convention itself, at the direction of messengers at the 2021 annual meeting. If the SBC had wanted a friendly report, they had every opportunity to commission one. Instead the messengers voted to commission an investigation that they had no control over, and they published the result even though it was devastating. That is what accountability looks like when an institution is capable of it.
The SBC is a loose confederation; the Watchtower is a unified theocratic body.
That is a fair structural point, and I will grant it. But the implication cuts the opposite way from the one you might expect. A loose confederation is harder to reform — the SBC Executive Committee could not compel autonomous churches to do anything. And yet the SBC managed a public database and a commissioned investigation. A unified theocratic body, where the Governing Body speaks with full authority, should find such reforms easier, not harder. The structural excuse cannot run both ways.
These survivors are traumatised — of course they say bad things about their former churches.
Please do not dismiss them like that. Jules Woodson, Christa Brown, Debbie Vasquez — these are real women, and I want to say their names to you the way I would want my own daughter's name said. Their testimony was corroborated, investigated, and ultimately vindicated by the SBC's own commissioned report. The category "traumatised therefore unreliable" does not survive contact with Jesus speaks tenderly of little ones. We are called to listen, not to dismiss.
Why are you telling me about your own church's sins?
Because I do not want to stand at your door pretending my tradition is clean. Paul rebuked Peter to his face in because the gospel was at stake, and he did it openly. Honesty about our own failures is the price of credibility when we raise concerns about anyone else's. The question I am asking is not "who is holier." It is "whose structures permit repentance, and whose do not." That is a question worth asking about any church, including mine.
I cannot research this because apostate sites are not allowed.
The Houston Chronicle is not an apostate site — it is a mainstream American newspaper. Guidepost Solutions is not an apostate firm — it is a corporate compliance company. The SBC's own website publishes the Guidepost report. And commends the Bereans precisely because they "examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Checking the facts is what Bereans do. That is not apostasy; that is Luke's definition of noble-minded faith.
The SBC's structure made it impossible for them to control individual congregations — that's why the abuse spread. The Watchtower's centralised structure prevents that. Our governance is better, not worse.
That is exactly the comparison I want to make. Yes, the SBC's "loose confederation" of autonomous congregations made catching abusers harder — there was no central body to track them. And yes, that is a real weakness. But here is what their structure did allow them to do, that yours did not: when the General Convention voted in June 2021 to commission Guidepost Solutions, every Southern Baptist congregation had a seat at that vote. The lay delegates — ordinary members like you — could force their leadership to investigate themselves. They produced a database of credibly accused ministers in 2022. They named the failures publicly. The Watchtower's centralised structure, by contrast, means there is no equivalent vote. Members cannot petition the Governing Body to commission an independent investigation; there is no general assembly with binding authority. So the SBC's structural weakness enabled their reform, while the Watchtower's structural strength prevents it. The honest question is not "which structure is purer in theory" but "which structure produced institutional repentance when the failure was discovered" — and the answer is the one with a vote.
Do not say "but" after acknowledging the SBC failure. Do not rush from acknowledgment to contrast — sit in the acknowledgment long enough for it to land. Do not give the impression you are using SBC survivors as debate ammunition; name them with honour. Do not pretend Protestantism has a clean record overall. Do not let the conversation become a scandal scorecard — the point is the direction of response, not the absolute counts.
Read the Houston Chronicle's February 2019 "Abuse of Faith" series and the Guidepost Solutions report of May 2022 for yourself — slowly and with care, because these are real people's stories and some readers carry similar ones. Learn the names Jules Woodson, Christa Brown and Debbie Vasquez well enough to say them with honour, not as evidence. Look at the SBC's credibly accused database so you can describe it accurately. Then read and . Practise the doorstep question aloud, and practise acknowledging the failure without adding the word "but". Prepare for "Guidepost is just a secular firm with an agenda": be ready to explain that the SBC's own messengers commissioned it and that the SBC published the result.