Conflicts of interest are a bear, and sooner or later, the bear almost always bites.
Three years ago, I wrote a mild-mannered column raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest issue involving Rachael Denhollander’s abuse-related work within the Southern Baptist Convention. Describing it as a “two-hat” issue, I pointed out that Denhollander appeared to be occupying dual roles, simultaneously acting as an advocate for people who were sexually abused within the SBC while also serving as an adviser to the SBC on its handling of sexual abuse.
Although the piece was quite measured in tone, it brought a harsh backlash. As Mark Wingfield, the publisher of Baptist News Global, described it: “To say the piece set off a firestorm would be an understatement.”
Christa Brown
It was a firestorm in which I got burned. And it was painful.
So, given that history, some might imagine I would now rejoice in seeing new reporting on how Denhollander’s alleged “conflicts of interest and dual roles undermined the SBC abuse investigation.” But I don’t.
While the latest revelations are validating of what I saw on the front end several years ago, and they needed airing, I take no joy in them. To the contrary, I grieve for the harm that’s been done.
As reported, newly released lawsuit documents paint a picture of how Denhollander “appears to have double- and triple-dipped in ways that some consider unethical.” (The defamation claims in the Sills v. SBC lawsuit have not been adjudicated; the reporting is based on pieces of the evidence from pre-trial depositions and discovery.)
“The root concerns are about blurring the lines between advocacy, consulting work for institutions accused of mishandling abuse, and personal financial gain,” the analysis piece states.
Whether the roles are paid or unpaid, this kind of “blurring the lines” raises ethical questions and erodes trust. That’s why many professionals have an obligation to affirmatively avoid conflicts of interest.
Particularly in the context of clergy sexual abuse and coverups — a context in which trust is already a fragile commodity — it doesn’t take much erosion before trust collapses completely. This is the harm.
“When someone in a position of trust sidesteps a conflict of interest, it carries a human cost.”
When someone in a position of trust sidesteps a conflict of interest, it carries a human cost. As attorney Boz Tchividjian wrote on X this week: “Too often, the cost of that conflict is borne by the survivors.” The “least of these” are further wounded by the lack of transparency, while the powerful continue with the status quo.
There also is a systems cost that comes with “blurring the lines.” Based on Denhollander’s apparent conflicts, many are now disparaging the whole of the Guidepost report — a report that revealed a much broader problem with the SBC’s mishandling of abuse. A lot of good people — survivors, witnesses and others — gave effort, energy and angst to that report. What a shame that it has come to this.
Ironically, since conflicts of interest bring an erosion of trust on all sides, this means even those with opposing aims can find themselves with common ground in the sense of distrust.
No doubt some will dismiss the conflicts concerns by saying Denhollander had good intentions. But even assuming she did, it simply doesn’t matter. Good intentions will not overcome the harm that comes from disregarding basic Ethics 101 conflict-of-interest issues.
It is arrogant and foolish for anyone, particularly an attorney, to imagine they can control the fall-out from sidestepping conflicts concerns. As an SBC observer on X succinctly explained, the reason for avoiding a conflict of interest is because “it protects everyone involved from what is happening now.”
In other words, when that bear bites, it bites hard.
But this isn’t just about Denhollander. There’s a bigger picture.
I’m a retired attorney, and in my experience, most attorneys are exceptionally attuned to conflicts issues. For some unknown reason, whether naivety, inexperience, enmeshment or something else, Denhollander wasn’t. But her dual roles were not a secret.
The SBC employs and hires plenty of attorneys, crisis management consultants and public relations professionals. Also, some members of the SBC Executive Committee are attorneys by profession, and the Guidepost team included attorneys.
Some of these other attorneys and professionals must have surely seen the ethics issue and understood the conflict of interest concerns. Yet, apparently, they were content to turn a blind eye. Why?
Why did they allow Denhollander’s apparent conflicts to persist for so long?
While it’s good to consider the ways she as an individual may have benefitted from ignoring conflicts concerns, what interests me far more is how this multi-billion-dollar institution benefitted.
What did the SBC gain by this? If we want to better understand, that’s the question we need to ponder.
I imagine some of you will have differing answers to that question, but here’s what I think.
“She gave a veneer of legitimacy to the SBC’s image-repair efforts and allowed the institution to present a public face of caring about abuse.”
Allowing Denhollander to occupy dual roles served the institutional interests. She gave a veneer of legitimacy to the SBC’s image-repair efforts and allowed the institution to present a public face of caring about abuse, even while it actually did near-nothing in the way of meaningful reform.
In essence, SBC officials used Denhollander’s credibility to bolster their own institutional reputation, to placate people in the pews and to keep the dollars flowing. Thus, Denhollander was important to them because she functioned as a prop in their charade of abuse reform.
So, they turned a blind eye to the apparent conflicts because Denhollander’s involvement allowed them to make a show of reform without having to bother with the substance of reform.
I also think they turned a blind eye to Denhollander’s dual roles because doing so helped them hold more control.
If SBC officials ever had been serious about abuse reform, full transparency would have been a given from the get-go. But it never was. Instead, SBC officials continued with their habits of non-transparency, and part of that was choosing to disregard the ethics concerns. That lack of transparency placed SBC officials in a position of having greater power and knowledge than clergy sex abuse survivors, and it served to help keep some survivors under better control. Denhollander was useful to them for that end.
Those are just my own thoughts on why so many in SBC life turned a blind eye to Denhollander’s apparent conflicts, and I’ll grant that the reasons aren’t clear.
But whatever the reasons, this part seems certain: Plenty of other people had to have recognized the ethical problem with Denhollander’s apparent conflicts of interest. If they didn’t, they should have.
So, shouldn’t that bear be biting a lot of other people, too?
Christa Brown, a retired appellate attorney, is the author of Baptistland: A Memoir of Abuse, Betrayal, and Transformation. Follow her on X @ChristaBrown777 and on Bluesky @christabrown.bsky.social.
Related articles:
Southern Baptist leaders’ duplicity betrays abuse survivors | Opinion by Christa Brown
Conflicts of interest and ‘dual roles’ undermined SBC abuse investigation | Analysis by David Bumgardner and Mark Wingfield
Court records reveal tangled trail in Sills sexual abuse case | Analysis by David Bumgardner and Mark Wingfield