So I watched the panel that was held at the annual meeting which included Rachel Denhollander, J.D. Greear, Beth Moore and Russell Moore and from which certain clips were taken for the Founders Ministry film trailer. Matt Chandler wasn't on this panel. The clip of him in the trailer was from a separate, stand-alone interview that he gave. It started with Beth Moore talking vapid nonsense. Rachel spoke next and at this time what she said was perfectly acceptable. And I liked her focus on our unity as Christians in Christ. However one question which did spring to mind was how she actually fitted into this discussion. As far as I'm aware she wasn't abused by someone in her church. She was abused in an institution outwith the church. Did she mention it to her pastor and he ignored her? She spoke about the "survivor community" but what is this community? All victime of sexual abuse Christian and non-Christian alike? Only those within the SBC? She said that survivors have been calling out for help for decades. Does this include her, even if she wasn't abused within the church? Beth Moore turned the conversation over to attitudes towards women: she said that "our culture" makes us vulnerable to sexual abuse because there is a disparity between how we treat men and women. Is this American culture, or the culture within the church? And if in the church does she mean Biblical teaching on the differences between the sexes? Well I think she made it rather clear when she immediately quoted as an example of what she was talking about Luke 24:11. So a text which informs us of the Disciples' lack of faith in the promised resurrection of Christ is turned into a #EverydaySexism anecdote. We see here a focusing on the material which is so much a part of the social justice movement. Instead of chiding the Disciples' for their lack of faith, she chides them for their "devaluing" women. Later in the discussion one of the panellists will say that with the right approach we can not just teach salvation in eternity but we can "save" people here on Earth (in the sense of healing after abuse). I get what the person meant but, again, I'm troubled. We are not promised redress on this side of eternity. God's Word explicitly teaches us that the wicked will often prosper in this world and go to their graves without ever facing justice. That must wait until the age to come. Rachel then spoke again. She said that the SBC is happy to allow disagreement over views of the Trinity but not complementarianism. Well maybe she missed the huge storm over those teaching eternal subordination. Now if the men promoting that view have not been disciplined that is certainly wrong but to say people ignored it is also wrong. (How that controversy affected the SBC specifically I don't know.) It was suggested that not having women in even a "semi-leadership" role in the church for a victim of abuse to go to is part of the problem. There was, of course, no pushback on this. This is how it goes: trauma is used to push for unbiblical "strategies" to address the trauma and because no-one wants to be see to be uncaring they go along with them. If the response is to go against what the Bible clearly teaches it's the wrong response. Beth Moore was then asked to "give a word" to survivors: basically, to preach. Rachel made a good point about the situation at Chandler's church: apparently they alerted the police, which was good, but when they announced what had happened to the church they didn't name the individual and they didn't say that the individual had been in leadership and had had access to children. So parents weren't able to find out if their children had perhaps been victims. The anonymous aspect of the announcment hindered the investigation. Throughout the discussion we heard the buzzwords "safe spaces", "virtue signalling", "be better". These are not neutral terms. They have an ideology behind them, an ideology which has no place in the church. While we do hear Christ mentioned a bit throughout it, this discussion could have happened in a secular context with very little difference. That is worrying. The message coming from the chairman of the discussion was: "currently we are not equipped to deal with this issue. The church is not presently able to address it. Enrol in our new curriculum; come to our conference." There was no discussion about God's Holy Law. No discussion about church discipline. This was not a discussion rooted in the Biblical concept of covenant community; of what the church actually is and our identity as Christians. Rather it was a discussion saturated with the therapeutic philosophy of the world.