A Survivor-Sensitive Approach to Handling Allegations
Survivor-Sensitive Approach to Handling Allegations
Pastors, priests, churches, congregants, leaders, volunteers, staff etc too often do not respond properly to allegations against church officials and others in the church. The recent example of Stewart Ruch (bishop at Wheaton’s Church of the Resurrection), which was a pastor-led, church-focused approach, pressed me into articulating a Survivor-Sensitive approach. You can read about the story @ladyjessicahaze. I apologize for the length of this newsletter today, but I think you will see why.
A Survivor-Sensitive approach needs to welcome trauma specialists to ensure the approach is trauma-sensitive. Because most church cases end up with a priest-centered, or pastor-centered, and church-centered approach to allegations, I am proposing a reformation by proposing some considerations for a Survivor-sensitive approach. (In language, I prefer “Survivor-sensitive” over “Victim-sensitive.”)
This is a proposal, a work in progress, a set of observations in need of public conversation.
So, I lay it before you for your feedback and comments.
The big thesis here is that churches have to learn to flip the script from a pastor-led approach to a Survivor-Sensitive approach.
The “First Thing” that happens
When a person makes an allegation against a pastor, priest or church, the first thing that happens is that the pastor-led response turns the situation into a legal challenge. By this I mean the church’s side becomes the Defendant and the accusing person becomes the Prosecution.
Turning the situation into a legal challenge ruins it and the church immediately begins to take a path of failing to be the church. Instead of seeing the Survivor, who has been a victim of sexual assault or harassment, as one deserving to be heard, as one in need of confession, apology, and repentance, as one in need of grace and public affirmation, the church sees the person as Accuser. Often enough the person is publicly maligned or gaslighted or silenced. The person is objectified as Accuser.
Because the church turned the situation into a legal challenge, sides are formed and the Survivor is shut out of all conversations, all plans, all discussions, and the person’s side is not heard. The priest-led church becomes Defendant v. Accuser, and a case for the Defendant is formed. Justice is not done and even more important the way of Jesus is not accomplished.
Because the church turned the situation into a legal challenge, the pastor, priest, and church determine process: it selects who will ask what, what questions will be asked of whom, and what will be done with the results. It chooses the investigation, too. Whoever chooses the investigation determines the result. When the pastor-led group chooses the investigation, the result is pre-determined in his/its favor and the Survivor remains Accuser rather than a person, a Christian, a parishioner, and a person worthy of pastoral care.
Everything, in other words, is turned into a legal challenge in which the pastor-led group’s first goal is defense of themselves and the church’s reputation. It becomes a closed system of self-investigation that becomes self-affirmation. The person in this case becomes a victim all over again and in the process becomes one to be defeated. This is why so many churches lawyer-up, ignore the person’s experience, and why the person’s voice is denied and silenced. This is also why so many Survivors choose silence, in which silence they suffer.
The “first thing” that should happen is for the pastor and his inner circle all to recuse themselves entirely from any investigation, and to turn the whole process over to an independent third party organization.
Power looms
No matter what a pastor or a priest or a bishop, or anyone else who makes decisions about allegations, the issue will be power. Who gets to make the decisions that determine how the church responds? Power looms over the entire process.
Pastors and priests with power are often unwilling to surrender to the Survivor to make decisions, or to a trauma therapist to make decisions, or to an outside organization like GRACE to make decisions.
A Christoform response to allegations is one in which the church surrenders for the good of the other (the Survivor). More often than not power is where it all breaks down: the priest-led church, or anyone making these decisions, doesn’t want to surrender power. It makes the powerful person vulnerable.
What then is a Survivor-Sensitive Approach?
The Survivor as whistleblower
I am not fond of the Survivor being called a “whistleblower” but that term is now used in many settings. I prefer Survivor. Here are my considerations for the Survivor who comes forward:
A Survivor-Sensitive Approach to allegations requires complete safety for the Survivor to tell one’s story.
It requires an absolute promise of no retaliation.
This means the Survivor determines to whom the person speaks, and how the person wants the story handled.
This means the Survivor’s person, or persons to whom the Survivor speaks is to be a strong advocate/advocates.
This requires the recusal of all who are complicit and all who could be complicit, including friends and family and any long term relations.
It requires that the person or persons to whom the Survivor speaks is independent. Again, no church person or family or friends are to be involved.
It also requires that the person or persons to whom the Survivor speaks has some measure of authority to speak into the church and its leaders.
It also means an independent, third party organization that specializes in handling sexual abuse allegations can be hired to investigate. The Survivor must approve the investigation organization that the person and this group that has heard the story chooses. The investigation organization is to be paid by the church. The point person of communication with the organization must be approved by the Survivor.
Perhaps this could be a pre-formed “listening committee.” (I’m inclined to this idea but it’s got challenges.) Composed of diverse people, more women than men, a therapist or two, and the presence of survivors who have worked through their trauma. No member can be on staff or invested in the church. No member can dominate the discussions.
The Survivor must feel safe with any such listening committee.
How could such a committee be formed in a church?
Perhaps what is needed is simply reliable and discerning outside investigators, like GRACE.
Perhaps the one to whom the Survivor first goes is a trauma-informed therapist who can listen, discern, and then approach the church on behalf of the Survivor. This therapist then would be on a list, and the Survivor chooses.
With whom do you think the allegation begins?
Put more simply: each church needs to codify its approach to allegations. Put it in writing, make it official, make it clear, make sure some survivors are involved in the composition of the official program. Make sure the pastor does not choose who will investigate.
Begin now, before anything happens so the formation of the process isn’t tailored to a specific allegation about a specific person.
Five reminders
Remember this: the pastor-led response has a huge platform, and their platform becomes for the church the voice of God for the people of God.
Remember this: the pastor-led group will nearly always create a narrative that will be believed by the congregation. Such a narrative almost always empowers the pastor and church and disempowers the Survivor.
Remember this: Survivors are nearly always damaged by the decision to come forward and the church’s responsibility is to defeat the damage by working hard at pastoral care and public affirmations.
Remember this: about 95% of women accusers are telling the truth.
Remember this: if the pastor-led church does not do this right it will become public in social media or in other news media.
If a crime has been alleged to have been committed, it must be reported immediately to the police.
If a crime has been alleged to have been committed, the church must continue with a Survivor-sensitive approach that looks something like the following.
Ten discussion points for a Survivor-Sensitive approach
First, when the allegation is presented, in whatever form, someone safe and genuinely independent and an advocate for the Survivor is to make a quick assessment of what is to be done, and this person or persons or committee is to make recommendations: about who must be put on administration leave, who must recuse himself/herself, and who will be involved in the process. This decision entails removing everyone who could be complicit and could prejudice the case.
Second, form a place of complete safety for the Survivor to make the allegation. Then explain to the Survivor the process and what the person can expect and how the church will be communicating with the person. The Survivor should know too who will communicate to the accused, if at all, and what will be said and what will not be said. The Survivor should have a voice in what can and can’t be said.
Third, the Survivor must be provided any therapy needed and requested.
Fourth, the Survivor must be involved with the process at every stage: who investigates, how safety and silence over the investigation will be guaranteed, whom the investigation will query, how reports will be recorded, to whom and when the results will be reported, and whether or not the investigation will be made public, and when and how.
Fifth, the Survivor must be assured that the pastor/perpetrator will not be involved in any way in the investigation and will not be receiving updates and communications about the investigation. The ones who have listened to the Survivor must discipline themselves not to reveal investigation details to the pastor.
Sixth, the pastor and the family of the pastor need to be cared for, and they are to be assured that integrity and truthfulness are shaping the investigation. This is a difficult time for them and for the church.
Seventh, the investigation’s report must be read by the Survivor and any suggestions and redactions must be heard by safe counsel. A Survivor-sensitive approach does not permit the lead powers in a church to control the process or the public reporting of the results.
Eighth, a judgment is to be rendered by the investigation with clarity and recommendations, including decisions about the truthfulness of the accusations and behaviors, and then, if needed, about discipline of the pastor, about the affirmation of the Survivor, and about the path forward for the Survivor, the pastor, and the church.
Ninth, who gets to see the report is to be handled in a way that respects the wishes of the Survivor. What is publicly reported is to be done in a way that reflects the Way of Jesus.
Tenth, the independent investigation is to follow the proper administration of the decisions and intervene when necessary or to affirm publicly the church’s handling of the situation.
All of these cases are grievous to God: pastors and priests and churches are not to be agents of or complicit in violence against persons, but they are to be agents of grace, love, peace, and justice. We lament the rise of so many sexual abuse cases in the church, we repent from the hideousness of the violations and the insensitive processes that follow, and we call the church to a more Christoform Survivor-sensitive approach. The pastor- or priest- or bishop-led approach has proven itself too biased too often.
I feel like I have had a special seat for this one. My wife has been counseling survivors of sexual abuse for some 30+ years, mostly in the Protestant world. But she was also the Victim Assistance Coordinator for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. As an Episcopal priest I was called back to Pittsburgh for sexual abuse prevention training in 1995, so I have seen what the ecclesial community was doing. And now I have gone through training in three Catholic Dioceses and have seen how them implement the Dallas Accords (2002, revised in 2006). And once I was hired by an institution to replace a faculty member who was imprisoned for incest and saw how that was playing out in the denomination. What I note is that evangelicals are lagging far being Episcopalians and Catholics in this regard; And schools (especially universities and seminaries) are lagging being within those communities (at least in the Catholic Church high schools and and elementary-middle schools are often under a church or diocese, so the diocesan standards apply.
If we want to deal properly with this issue, it means mandatory training for all clergy and lay ministers and also for all volunteers working with children and youth. This needs to be renewed regularly.
Second, when one spots abuse (and we include physical abuse and elder abuse in this spectrum) the first thing one observing does is report the observation to the appropriate legal authorities if it is a reportable offense. One does that before notifying church authorities.
Third, the one observing abuse or grooming behaviors also reports it to the appropriate church authority. Grooming behaviors might be handled by a supervisor ("You know, Jack, having a child or youth in your car without another trained adult present is unethical. We need to talk about this."), but actual abuse is handled the equivalent of the diocesan level. In the Catholic Church the first thing that happens is the suspect is put on administrative leave and the pastoral/sacramental needs of the community are covered. The VAC is asked to see to it that any desired material or emotional assistance is provided to the victim (I like the term survivor, but prefer to reserve the term for those who have healed enough to have survived abuse). Notice that the VAC is caring about one thing: the well being of the reported victim. What they learn does not get communicated to the bishop or to any investigation.
The diocese will appoint an investigation team that includes professionals in social work and psychology and investigation as well as some clergy, but that team does not really start functioning until the legal authorities either indicate that the issue is outside their range of concern or else have concluded their investigation and have either brought charges or chosen not to bring charges. In other words, the diocese avoids every appearance of interfering with the legal process. When the legal process is concluded, the diocesan investigation team determines what probably took place and reports to the bishop. Notice that a clergy may have an affair with an adult volunteer or staff member and that would be of no interest to the legal authorities, but it can be abuse of power. We were clearly told in the Episcopal Church that if a single clergy person discovers themself getting romantically involved with an adult in the congregation either they must break it off or one of the two must leave for another congregation - the issue is that to make a free choice one must not have power over another.
Also notice that there are professionals in various social disciplines and well as in investigation on the committee. That limits the "he says" - "she says" issue. It is true that 95% of the sexual abuse claims are true. It is also true that to trained eyes there is more evidence than simply the victim's statement. I have a friend or two who have been falsely accused, and they deserve to be fully and thoroughly cleared.
Eventually the bishop must make a decision for the good of the church and the good of all involved. In a sexual abuse case if the person is found guilty, especially if a minor is involved, the clergy will be defrocked (in the Catholic Church the report with that recommendation goes to Rome, so there is a second level of checks) and non-clergy will be fired and their clearance revoked. The likelihood of reoffending is too great. I have also known of cases in which the bishop is convinced that the clergy person is innocent (and the legal officials have indicated that they do not have a case to pursue) in which the person is retired either because the situation under which the clergy person was accused or for the good of the church - that is, that a reasonable person would realize that even though the legal officials and the diocesan committee had done their work and cleared the clergy person, the public would claim a coverup if he were returned to ministry. Every clergy who is involved in ministry realizes that this is a cross that they may be called to bear - at least they should if they have listened to their training carefully. I am sorry I have left out details here, but I cannot put in any data that might possible be identified.
Now rather than go into the history of the stages through which at least Catholic dioceses came to this conclusion, I should simply note that this is hard for most evangelical communities. The lack of diocesan structure means that it all tends to happen within the local community where victim, clergy, volunteer, and the making the decisions are known, even known to each other. It is difficult for someone to play the role of the VAC and create a safe place for the victim, listening basically to their needs, and providing for them. And it may be difficult to find the trained professionals to serve on an investigating committee. There may not be facilities to which the accused can go while on leave of absence. Etc. I have rarely seen good handling of such situations within evangelical communities. But again, I cannot given examples.
Still the outline you give, Scott, is a starting point, even if it in my mind it is difficult to actualize in denominations without a strong, aware, and trained central leadership.
Very helpful post. As a survivor of abuse in the church from a pastor, I had no voice in decisions made concerning how my story was presented to the church. Even though staff from GRACE were involved in the initial process, and GRACE told the church that this was a clear case of abuse, even these conversations did not include me. GRACE sent our church tremendous resources, that included videos from Dr. Langberg. Church leadership watched the videos and are without excuse about what happened moving forward. Because all decisions were made by the church elders, their chief concern was protecting the reputation of the church. My husband and I were sent for counseling in another state, and while we were gone the church held a church wide meeting and invited even people who were not members to come. The elders agreed to read a statement that my counselor helped me write at the meeting which explained the former pastor's grooming process and abuse. I learned later that this letter was edited when it was read. The elders only read the parts where I apologized for any pain that I caused. People walked away from the meeting believing that there was simply an inappropriate relationship between myself and the pastor, even though I had gone to the pastor early on for counseling concerning childhood sexual abuse. My husband and I confronted the elders about not telling the truth. We were told that they were sorry that they "handled things the way they did." We were told that the matter would not be discussed anymore. Our family was so traumatized we felt we had no choice except to move several hours away to start over. I have read one story after another of these types of events happening within religious institutions. We have attempted to attend churches, but we are retraumatized when we do. I was in counseling for 5 years. I believe God is not going to stop bringing this darkness into the the light in the church. Things have got to change. If churches want to truly honor His name, they need to recuse themselves from any decisions made when abuse is reported. An objective third party like GRACE needs to do a complete investigation. I wish I had never reported the pastor's abuse to the church. But at the time, I naively believed that they would do the right thing. If you have been abused in a religious environment, please go to the police or an attorney first. Thank you for this post. It helps me to understand how things could have turned out differently. I pray the church will listen.