Evangelical Women Urging Churches to Address Abuse

[Paidiske]

I actually think every church or group of churches should hire a Christian social worker to deal with these frontline services rather than taking it on themselves.

There's a lot of merit to that but the problem is money. I said to some of the people here once that if they were really serious about some of the things they said they wanted to do, they'd make me half-time and spend the rest of the money on a half-time social worker, and we'd work as a team. But church structures and cultures revolve around the idea of a full-time minister, and few churches would be in a position to afford much more (see my earlier post).

 

[mkgal1]

This article shows (IMO) that there's a systemic problem *within* the church that really needs to be addressed (and maybe this age of Twitter is "such a time"). This backlash against #metoo can be compared to those willing to pick up the rocks at the woman caught in adultery. They are protecting a system that is working for them (but at the expense of others):


Gutsy | Christianity | Blog : The Christian Backlash Against #metoo

 

[WolfGate]

This article shows (IMO) that there's a systemic problem *within* the church that really needs to be addressed (and maybe this age of Twitter is "such a time"). This backlash against #metoo can be compared to those willing to pick up the rocks at the woman caught in adultery. They are protecting a system that is working for them (but at the expense of others):


Gutsy | Christianity | Blog : The Christian Backlash Against #metoo

In no way is me next statement indicating what the Gutsy article said doesn't exist or that the issue isn't systemic. Thankfully, however, I have not heard any of that backlash in our circle, which I take as a good thing given our long time involvement in the evangelical church. Granted, our circle does tend to be evangelical in the theological meaning and not the political/media one.

I would be curious to know the background of the people who made those post the Gutsy article referred to.

 

[teresa]

There's a lot of merit to that but the problem is money. I said to some of the people here once that if they were really serious about some of the things they said they wanted to do, they'd make me half-time and spend the rest of the money on a half-time social worker, and we'd work as a team. But church structures and cultures revolve around the idea of a full-time minister, and few churches would be in a position to afford much more (see my earlier post).

@mkgal1

There is not a lot of extra monies available to hire professional social workers here either.

So what is happening is this: Many of us older women who are widowed, alone, retired and so on, are putting our heads together and coming up with joint ministries where we pool our resources. We are all in ministry-meaning we are not paid with money. But we get paid with the pure joy we get back from being Jesus hands and feet.

Many are retired nurses, teachers and some social workers.

Ministry helps us to still feel that we have some purpose left and something to give.

The sense of community is priceless.

This involves several smaller churches closing and joining together into a bigger church in one central location with multiple out reaches/fund raising/ministries going on all week long.

We had to put aside any quibbling over this and that church having the best or better interpretation of scripture, and come together for the common good of the citizens in our community.

 

[mkgal1]

I would be curious to know the background of the people who made those post the Gutsy article referred to.

That's the beauty of social media. Do you use Facebook or Twitter? You can do a search for the conversation #metoo and ask those people directly.

 

[ValleyGal]

Re the money issue - here's an example. I know of 5 churches in my denomination and each is fully able to put $8000-$10,000 per year towards having a registered social worker attend the church's social work needs for one day a week. That is a drop in the bucket for the churches (each church has about 300-400 attendees), and 7.5 - 8 hours per day would meet the social work needs of that number of attendees per church, unless there was a serious social issue going on in that church.

Very large churches would have enough money to hire a social worker. Or the time can be divided between two churches...it just takes a little creativity to work it out.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree that it's a good model, but I disagree that many churches would have those kinds of funds.

Where I am, the vast majority of churches are family-to-pastoral sized (depends on where you put the limit, but certainly smaller than 200 people). The only time I've worked or worshipped in a church bigger than that was when I worked for the cathedral. My current congregation averages about 50 people at church on Sunday, and they don't have $8,000 spare in their annual budget.

The conversation I had was about exactly this sort of thing; local churches banding together to share funding such a role. But even shared between five or six churches, very few of us could consider making that financial commitment. We are better off raising what funds we can to support a local welfare agency who do have a social worker to whom we can refer, but that doesn't leave us needing to cover the total cost of employing that person; unless we drastically rethink how our churches structure their staff.

 

[ValleyGal]

Yes, that would be a challenge for such a small congregation, though more feasible in larger congregations. There are some churches in my area that have two full time pastoral counsellors on staff as well as a resource list for outsourcing counselling and coaching. A church like that could easily afford a half-time social worker to hold group sessions for things like healing, parenting, discipleship, etc as well as doing some intake for the purpose of referrals and counselling for things like acute grief, abuse, lack of direction, etc. This would take the burden off of some of the other staff. But...I digress from the purpose of the thread. The church would be wise to have a social worker, counsellor, and other professionals in the community to consult with when they have a specific social issue such as domestic abuse, child welfare, etc.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't know one pastor that would sweep anything like abuse of women or even men under the rug.

Unfortunately, I do.

I left my previous congregation over the senior pastor refusing to deal with an abusive situation; favoring a male non-member who had been a believer for 20+ years and a friend of his son over a female member (brand new believer) whom he had used for his own purposes.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes. I can introduce you to the one who blamed me for the abuse and told me that if I did not feel safe in the church with my abuser there, that I was welcome to find another church.

Additionally, it is okay for you as a man, to help a woman who has been abused. It can be of help for an abused woman to know that there are gentle men out there who are willing to address the men who do abuse.

While it's great you try to link her to medical help, often it's beyond that point. Iow, abused women often try to deal with it on their own before seeking help, so medical help would either have already happened or it's too late for it to happen. Something that might be helpful is to offer to escort her to police where she can file a report against her abuser, and to a social worker who can arrange a safe way to leave her abuser. As a chaplain, it would be also up to you, if the abuser is part of your congregation, to make the church safe by removing the abuser from attending the church until the issue is resolved. This may require a restraining order. This can be done quietly, without anyone else knowing, or if the abused party is open to it, then it can be shared with the board members so they can also help to keep her safe while in the church. Imo, it would also be helpful to offer to help her find Christian counselling if she prefers that to the secular counselling she may get through the social worker or victim's assistance programs. All that on the table, the most important thing you can do is offer all of the above, and ask the victim how you and the church can support her during such a traumatic time in his/her life.

I'm finding more and more that pastors are doing more social service work than pastoral services. I actually think every church or group of churches should hire a Christian social worker to deal with these frontline services rather than taking it on themselves. With weekly team meetings, the social worker can keep the clergy informed of the social trends and problems that are occurring in their churches so some of them can be addressed from the pulpit, to ensure appropriate Christian congregational responses to the social issues and to lead the congregation back onto a righteous path....after all, that is why pastors are pastors, to lead the flock into righteousness.

You think a parishioner should be kicked out of the church based on unproven allegations? Why not just ask him to sit away from the accuser or attend a different service? Even if he is an abuser, he needs Christ as much as anyone else.

 

[Paidiske]

You think a parishioner should be kicked out of the church based on unproven allegations? Why not just ask him to sit away from the accuser or attend a different service? Even if he is an abuser, he needs Christ as much as anyone else.

Yes, but probably not in the same congregation as the victim. His (or her, if the abuser is a woman) presence in the same community and physical space would be an ongoing problem.

If I had a situation like that I would also probably ask the abuser to worship in the next parish over while the matter was being worked through.

Now, I'm in an area where the next parish is within walking distance. If you're the only church within cooee it might be different. But even then the safety of the victim - emotional and physical - has to come first.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, but probably not in the same congregation as the victim. His (or her, if the abuser is a woman) presence in the same community and physical space would be an ongoing problem.

And if it's proven to be a false accusation? You just kicked an innocent person out of Church and out of communion with Christ. And like I said, even if it's true, a guilty person needs Christ just as much as anyone else, maybe even more so.

If I had a situation like that I would also probably ask the abuser to worship in the next parish over while the matter was being worked through.

Now, I'm in an area where the next parish is within walking distance. If you're the only church within cooee it might be different. But even then the safety of the victim - emotional and physical - has to come first.

What is an accused abuser going to do to someone in Church? They can sit apart or go to different Mass times. If he is actively causing problems in church, then ask him to leave. But if he's just there to worship God, then he has just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

 

[Paidiske]

And if it's proven to be a false accusation? You just kicked an innocent person out of Church and out of communion with Christ. And like I said, even if it's true, a guilty person needs Christ just as much as anyone else, maybe even more so.

What is an accused abuser going to do to someone in Church? They can sit apart or go to different Mass times. If he is actively causing problems in church, then ask him to leave. But if he's just there to worship God, then he has just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

Asking someone to worship in the next parish isn't excommunicating them.

Even if an accusation is proven to be false, the process has to be worked through. If you're talking about a DV situation, where one party has left the home, church may be the one place where the abuser can still "get to" the victim; observe the victim, approach, threaten, etc. To a traumatised person, the very presence of their abuser is incredibly distressing. This sort of stuff happens, and we need to ensure we don't make space for it.

This is exactly the sort of stuff where the church has been clueless in the past and needs to get a clue now. We need to ensure that all of our clergy and lay leaders understand the dynamics of abuse; of power and control, and how that plays out in social settings as well as the home. How clergy and church leaders are often groomed and charmed by abusers who then rely on us to allow them to perpetuate their abuse.

When faced with an accusation of abuse, we need to act as if it's true until proven otherwise. To do anything else only compounds the damage done to the victim, who has to go on disbelieved and inadequately supported.

 

[Tallguy88]

Asking someone to worship in the next parish isn't excommunicating them.

Even if an accusation is proven to be false, the process has to be worked through. If you're talking about a DV situation, where one party has left the home, church may be the one place where the abuser can still "get to" the victim; observe the victim, approach, threaten, etc. To a traumatised person, the very presence of their abuser is incredibly distressing. This sort of stuff happens, and we need to ensure we don't make space for it.

This is exactly the sort of stuff where the church has been clueless in the past and needs to get a clue now. We need to ensure that all of our clergy and lay leaders understand the dynamics of abuse; of power and control, and how that plays out in social settings as well as the home. How clergy and church leaders are often groomed and charmed by abusers who then rely on us to allow them to perpetuate their abuse.

When faced with an accusation of abuse, we need to act as if it's true until proven otherwise. To do anything else only compounds the damage done to the victim, who has to go on disbelieved and inadequately supported.

Maybe this would work in the Protestant church, but in the Catholic Church a Catholic has both an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation (under pain of mortal sin) and they also have a right to access the sacraments in a Catholic church. Prudence might indicate it would be best for the persons to go to separate churches, but if that isn't possible, then they have to go where they can. No one should be forcibly removed from the church if they aren't doing anything inappropriate at church.

 

[ValleyGal]

In my situation, I thought I was safe at church. I was wrong. He started "volunteering" on ladies' Bible study night, he sought me out and sat within close visual proximity. He bragged that because he was employed by the church that he had special rights and rubbed elbows personally with the man the church designated to counsel us. They knew he had physically attacked me, and after he behaved in these unsafe ways at church, they had ME go to another church.

If he were a child molester, would they allow him to volunteer at children's programs after he proved a risk to one of the children? I doubt it. And if the church did allow that, they are just as culpable in any wrong-doing as the molester.

Ftr, the ex admitted to "roughing me up" after I instigated. How did I instigate? I told him how much it hurt that he would resort to inappropriate content when he had me (twice) and told him that my son was afraid of him because he could come across as threatening (once). He said that breaking my hand was "an accident" and denied back-fisting me in the head. I had pictures of my injuries, and the bruises around my neck as well as went to the church and talked to the assistant pastor alone when I had no voice after the choke. There was plenty of evidence.

Yes, people like that need Jesus, but as the victim, taking away the one place I felt I should be safe was devastating, especially as an employee he faced zero church discipline. So what? Shall he go on continuing in sin so that the grace of the church might increase? NO!

 

[Tallguy88]

In my situation, I thought I was safe at church. I was wrong. He started "volunteering" on ladies' Bible study night, he sought me out and sat within close visual proximity. He bragged that because he was employed by the church that he had special rights and rubbed elbows personally with the man the church designated to counsel us. They knew he had physically attacked me, and after he behaved in these unsafe ways at church, they had ME go to another church.

If he were a child molester, would they allow him to volunteer at children's programs after he proved a risk to one of the children? I doubt it. And if the church did allow that, they are just as culpable in any wrong-doing as the molester.

Of course not. I'm not saying he should have authority in the church. But a man (or woman) accused of abuse should not be kicked out of church completely. He needs the church as much as anyone. The church should do something to accommodate the needs of both parties if they both still need/desire to go there. It sounds like your church failed in that regard and that's what these sorts of discussions can hopefully begin to correct.

Ftr, the ex admitted to "roughing me up" after I instigated. How did I instigate? I told him how much it hurt that he would resort to inappropriate content when he had me (twice) and told him that my son was afraid of him because he could come across as threatening (once). He said that breaking my hand was "an accident" and denied back-fisting me in the head. I had pictures of my injuries, and the bruises around my neck as well as went to the church and talked to the assistant pastor alone when I had no voice after the choke. There was plenty of evidence.

Yes, people like that need Jesus, but as the victim, taking away the one place I felt I should be safe was devastating, especially as an employee he faced zero church discipline. So what? Shall he go on continuing in sin so that the grace of the church might increase? NO!

They absolutely shouldn't have done that, either. Was this an insular church?

 

[Paidiske]

Maybe this would work in the Protestant church, but in the Catholic Church a Catholic has both an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation (under pain of mortal sin) and they also have a right to access the sacraments in a Catholic church. Prudence might indicate it would be best for the persons to go to separate churches, but if that isn't possible, then they have to go where they can. No one should be forcibly removed from the church if they aren't doing anything inappropriate at church.

But surely not an absolute right to access the sacraments, when and where they choose, when that is damaging to someone else?

It's not just the victim who suffers. When the church knows that one person has abused another, and there has been no repentance and amendment of life, is it not a scandal to communicate them side by side at the same rail? What does that say to the church community in that place about how the church views this sin?

And yes, there are situations where people should be removed from the church for behaviour that occurs off church property. Of course there are.

 

[Tallguy88]

But surely not an absolute right to access the sacraments, when and where they choose, when that is damaging to someone else?

My understanding is that, barring excommunication, a Catholic has a right to the sacraments whenever they are celebrated, following the various rules for receiving the specific sacraments of course.

It's not just the victim who suffers. When the church knows that one person has abused another, and there has been no repentance and amendment of life, is it not a scandal to communicate them side by side at the same rail? What does that say to the church community in that place about how the church views this sin?

How would you know if an accused abuser had repented? If it was a false accusation, he would not need to repent at all. Would you hold that against him as evidence of being unrepentant?

Basically in the RCC, if he confessed his sin and received absolution, then he is good to receive communion. A priest wouldn't be able to deny communion based on an assumption that they needed to go to confession. He could have confessed to a different priest, if nothing else.

And yes, there are situations where people should be removed from the church for behaviour that occurs off church property. Of course there are.

So some people should be barred from receiving the saving grace of the sacraments and barred from the grace of attending Church? Who makes that decision? What's the criteria? What if he turns out to be innocent?

 

[ValleyGal]

Mr. Tall, I'm not denying that the abuser needs Jesus, and also support from "the [global] church". There are certainly ways to make that happen, for example, through outreach, by providing an older mentor, attending programming specific to dealing with abusive behaviour, etc. But imo, the church also has an obligation to keep their other congregants safe while they are on church property. Imo, the church ignores many social problems that occur in the church - the stats for abusive marriages are not far off from secular marriages. There are people in the church who have addictions that no one knows about, there are those who have deep hurts from childhood traumas, those who have committed unspeakable crimes and never been caught, those who are committing adultery by making regular use of inappropriate content, those who abuse their children. So many of these things are happening in the church, but the church is not [necessarily] a safe place to be vulnerable with whatever is in the congregations' closets.

One of the things I've learned is that the church does not have a comprehensive code of ethics or standard of practice. I audited part of a course in a local Bible college, and the whole course was focused on sexual purity as the code of ethics. If, however, there was a universal pastoral code of ethics, it would go much further than sexual conduct. In fact, it would demand policies on how to deal with social issues in the church for both the victim and the abuser - both on staff and not on staff. I've heard that the reason for lack of ethics and standards is that the Bible is the code of ethics; however, the Bible is an impossible ideal to live up to all the time, and does not specifically deal with these kinds of issues in the context of our culture, our laws, or our social landscape.

I also understand your trepidation to discipline in the church, but ime, there are very few who make false claims about things like physical abuse and sexual assault and child abuse. In fact, most people who go through some of these problems actually try to hide the fact they are being abused. False claims are far and few between. Men in particular, are more likely to hide spousal abuse from a wife.

Why? It's not a safe place to be vulnerable. Especially in a Catholic church, where all he has to do is admit it in confidence to a Priest, receive absolution, and then they all just go on as though nothing happened - meanwhile, the abused person is suffering week by week either in the same church or the fact that s/he has to leave her home church and find a new one - why? Because the church protects the abuser.

 

[Paidiske]

How would you know if an accused abuser had repented? If it was a false accusation, he would not need to repent at all. Would you hold that against him as evidence of being unrepentant?

If there is an unresolved accusation of abuse, then we cannot unequivocally treat that person as being in good standing. He needs to resolve the matter not only with God but also with the abused person (and proper use of confession ought to require that as part of penance).

This is a situation where I would strongly consider denying communion, because of the public scandal of abuse (although I would seek my bishop's advice before making that a firm decision).

So some people should be barred from receiving the saving grace of the sacraments and barred from the grace of attending Church? Who makes that decision? What's the criteria? What if he turns out to be innocent?

Not entirely barred, but certainly have restrictions placed upon them. Of course.

One example is if someone has been accused of child abuse. Under no circumstances should that person attend a congregation with children.

And until the arrangements for attending an appropriate place and time, with careful supervision, are put in place, that person can be given communion by home visit, rather than run the risk of having a predator in the congregation.

Who makes that decision? I'd consult with my bishop and diocesan director of professional standards. I don't think Catholics have anything like that, so it'd probably be the bishop's call for you. But there comes a point where someone has to be prepared to make that call.

If he turns out to be innocent, then he should understand and be grateful that we're vigilant about protecting people. And of course these things should be handled discreetly rather than made the subject of gossip and slander.

But the fact is, a false accusation is extremely unlikely, and our first priority has to be prevention of any further abuse, and care for the abused.

We can't provide a safe haven for people who abuse others any more.