Great post on safe churches...

Hi all, I was pointed to a great blog post about safe churches and responses to various forms of abuse. I'll leave it to you to read the article, but I will comment on some very crucial arguments made in the paper. It is a guest post on Jimmy Hinton's blog: https://jimmyhinton.org/a-safe-place-guest-post-by-pastor-gricel-medina-ryan-ashton/

Listening to so many survivors tell their stories of the horrible ways they were treated by the Church leaves no doubt that churches have become some of the most unsafe places on the planet to be a survivor of abuse. Faith communities too often hide a toxic culture where abusers thrive and victims are shunned and silenced. The dismissiveness of those in authority, the isolation of the vulnerable, the imbalance of power, and the expectation to stay silent and “forgive” are realities we all must acknowledge.

I think this really sets the tone for understanding why people are leaving institutional churches and why people who have been harmed by Christians - parents, church leaders, friends or others within the church environment - find it so difficult to return to that environment.

However, some survivors taking a break from attending church becomes a problem for many Christians. For many survivors, taking a break from church meetings is the only alternative they have if they cannot find people they can trust.

This really rings true, and not only that, but survivors of significant spiritual abuse are often chastised for leaving the VERY CHURCH where that abuse took place, and where the abuser continues to hold power. I left a church because of significant spiritual abuse. On my way out, I talked with a leader who said that the church was "aware of the issue" and was "taking positive steps" to handle it, yet that abuser continued to remain in power and further abuse. The church bemoaned the people who left without telling them what was wrong, tried to guilt them into staying, etc. All while the leadership continued to ignore and condone the abuse in their midst.

One of the worst things to say to a survivor is “there is no such thing as a perfect church.” This confusing of definitions belittle survivors. “Safe” is very different than “perfect.” People will always disappoint and hurt us in a fallen world, but enduring abuse is never an option we must settle for. Abuse or predatory behavior is never acceptable under any circumstance.

I heard many variations of this - it's an internet meme. The point here is spot on. Victims are NOT looking for a perfect church. They are looking for a church that is not going to heap on abuse after being abused. They are looking for a church that is not going to rally around the abuser, while shunning the victim. I'm not RP because the RPCNA is not a SAFE church, not because it isn't a PERFECT church. I would be happy to work alongside other sinners, but I'm not happy to submit myself to being spiritually abused week after week.

A safe church is one that does not tolerate any mistreatment of any member, whether it’s from a casual attendee to the highly-respected and gifted celebrity pastor. No one is above accountability in a safe church (cf. Matthew 18; 1 Timothy 5:19). Safe churches take every allegation seriously, report crimes immediately, do not silence or shame victims, and support victims with tangible resources. Most pastors are not equipped to counsel trauma victims and safe churches refer victims to professional therapy for their trauma. Safe churches recognize sadness and lament are appropriate responses to hurt and that anger is a correct response to injustice (cf. Psalm 82). Safe churches give space for victims to fully grieve their loss and betrayal and grieve with victims as a community (cf. Romans 12:15). Safe churches do not force people to conform to a false positivity (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26). Safe places do not just hear what a victim is saying, but truly listen with empathetic hearts that are willing to learn. Walking with survivors is a long-term process and overcoming trauma is a lifelong journey.

AMEN and AMEN! Does this sound even remotely like the RPCNA? When I reported mistreatment, I was told to be the bigger person and let it go. When I asked uncomfortable questions, I was abused. When I read Presbytery reports, I saw how abused congregants throughout the church were told to submit to and obey their elders despite the elders having no scriptural grounds to command obedience. I was called a complainer. I was called a hypocrite. I was told that whatever abuse I suffered was my own fault.

Christian institutions can become a culture of deceit because genuine spirituality is hard to measure. Image-conscious communities tend to reward the flashy, put-together people instead of standing with those who are broken. In contrast, a safe church is one where survivors are not isolated from everyone else and kept at an arm’s length, but are valued and included. We all come to Christ with baggage, and we even acquire hurts after believing in Him. Safe places understand and value the imperfections of human beings and are careful to discern the difference between someone’s involuntary trauma responses and “sin.” Safe churches do not confuse Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, hurt, or grief with sin, but have compassion. There are no accusations of “bitterness” or “unforgiveness” in a loving community. Too often, victims suffer more from their faith community’s ignorance, lack of empathy, and the rush to quickly fix things, leaving deep and lasting wounds to someone already hurting.

I think this is a big reason why the RPCNA continues to struggle with abuse. The abusers and wolves are skilled at looking righteous and together. The victims look broken. So, who is the church going to side with? The calm, collected husband in the suit, or the wife who is angry and in tears from years of physical and emotional abuse? Or... the presbytery-endorsed pastor or the bitter, complaining congregant? (To Chris - see why calling someone "bitter" is a conversation ender rather than an offer of help?)

In some circles, the pastor has arrogantly replaced the Holy Spirit, and our expected obeisance often approaches idolatry.

Sound familiar?

Part of the sickness of spiritual abuse is that it demands an unhealthy dependence on a person, or organization, rather than on God. Taking a break from organized religion is a good way to prove to yourself that you can survive with God alone. Well-meaning believers will tell you that you must be in a fellowship of faith. It’s dangerous to isolate yourself from the Body of Christ. All kinds of problems will result if you aren’t a part of a community of believers. Nonsense. That’s like telling someone who just came out of an abusive marriage to get married right away. In both scenarios, a person needs time to reflect on what just happened. Their soul needs to be repaired before re-engaging.

Form 2B
Certificate of Dismissal for a Member Requesting to Be Removed

This is to certify that you, ______ [name of the member]_________, having been a member of the _____ [name and location of the congregation]_______ Reformed Presbyterian Church, are hereby removed from the membership at your own request. We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 

It's somewhat fascinating that the RP church here seems to deny "Unconditional Election" and "Perseverance of the Saints" in an effort to shame abused members on the way out of the fold. Especially since there is no Biblical ground for membership in a local congregation, and no grounds to say that separation from a specific local congregation is separation "from the visible church". 

Selling authoritarianism to ordinary people

One of the common accusations against the victims of abuse is... why didn't you walk away? Testing and preparing someone to submit to abuse is a long, thoughtful and involved process. It involves, not surprisingly, twisting the truth and, as I have said elsewhere, gas lighting - denying the reality of what is happening. I think there are four main points of attack in turning normal people into codependent victims.

Point 1: The one they should submit to is superior physically, intellectually and spiritually

Although RP pastors may claim when asked point blank that "superior" and "inferior" in the Westminster standards are simply positional and not a value judgment, the culture created through sermons and procedures suggests otherwise. There are a number of sermons on SermonAudio that hint that pastors, elders and deacons are somehow divinely gifted not to make mistakes when wearing their "office hat". That is underscored by a typical sessional unwillingness to override the action of an elder. That is underscored by the typical presbyterial unwillingness to override the action of a session, and so on.

When an elder is caught in sin, the typical RP response is to ignore the sin, or, if the sin is deemed significant enough, quietly usher the elder out of the position without suggesting anything amiss. It is only elders who belligerently hold to their error whose charges ever see the light of day. This is the opposite of what scripture commands, and the clear indication is that the RP church is afraid that exposing sinning elders will undermine their authority (i.e. the authority that comes from their presumed infallibility)

Much is made of the process of choosing elders, no matter how much individual sessions choose to subvert and manipulate the process by, for example, making "session nominations" for elders and refusing to allow the congregation to discuss candidates. Once the candidate is "blessed" by the session or presbytery, they are deemed worthy of our obedience and submission. Note that session and presbytery pre-approvals subvert the will of the congregation by using their authority imbalance to undermine the concept that the "sheep hear the voice of their shepherds". Hard to hear that still, small voice when the powers that be are using megaphones!

Accusations against superiors and concerns tend to be dismissed out of hand. This has happened to me many times. We were taught not to question our superiors logic or reason because, to the point, their logic and reason must be superior to our own. When we thought something was amiss, we were told to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Point 2: They are inferior physically, intellectually and spiritually to the one they should submit to.

If there is a doctrine of the church that has been repeatedly hammered home, it's TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Yet, somehow, I've never heard a sermon in all my RP years about the effect of Total Depravity on the leaders of the church. Somehow, once someone has been ordained, Total Depravity is sent far away and now these men are at a new level.

However, much is made of OUR depravity. For example, I'm familiar with a church that ended small group Bible studies. The reason (again, SermonAudio!) was that our individual interpretation of scripture was flawed. That's why we needed an elder (implication is that their interpretation is not flawed?) to lead Bible studies. Because there were not enough elders willing to support all the small groups needed, small groups were cancelled.

In fact, there is NO GRACE. We are told EVEN AS BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS how worthless, how sinful, how disgraceful we are and how God must hold his nose to even deal with us. Week after week in an auditorium where every person is a member of the church, the pastors continue to remind us of how inferior we are. Who is not inferior? The shepherds who watch over us!

Just with point 1 and point 2, members are set up to withstand extraordinary abuse. They are, by default, conditioned to distrust their own emotions, thoughts and opinions about what is happening, and also those of their fellow members. Conversely, they are conditioned to trust the opinions, emotions and thoughts of their leaders. If Joe left the church because the session said he was insubordinate, there was no question that he was insubordinate. If Joe told me that he was abused by the session, I would probably doubt his account of the situation. I might even close my ears to listen to his story, or listen only for ways that I could point out his mistakes. Maybe he misjudged or his emotions got out of control.

Point 3: God will bless them for staying and submitting to the authoritarian culture

Even if the church theoretically admits that some church authorities throughout history have overstepped their bounds, much is made of the blessing of staying and submitting. Members are told that they are insubordinate vow breakers if they leave without "exhausting all avenues of reform". But, if they attempt to reform, they are subjected to intense persecution and abuse. (e.g. Bruce Hemphill).

Of course, this interacts with Point 1 and Point 2. Not surprisingly, an ordinary member can rarely, if ever, effect change in the church, yet she is expected to stay and submit in a church that continues to ignore and abuse her. This is similar to the advice for wives - somehow they can transform their unbelieving and abusive husband through godly submission. This is the definition of codependency - we are blaming the lack of reformation and transformation in the church on the lack of submission of her members. This teaching also flips the relationship - somehow, the assumed inferior member is told and expected to be spiritually superior to their leadership in reforming the church. Yet because the church denies that a member could be spiritually superior, this will never happen! This then just becomes an excuse for members to submit to deep and ongoing abuse.

Point 4: God will curse them for disobeying or leaving the authoritarian culture

As a counterpoint to the third point, much is made of the decline of church members who leave. It's like a country song - their wife leaves, their truck breaks down and their dog dies. Again, this is simply another hurdle placed in the path of those who would otherwise escape abuse.

This is perhaps the most Satanic of all. It creates a caricature of a capricious and judgmental god, whom I believe is the RP god, whose desire is to slap us whenever we desire to improve our lot. A god who can only grow his children through pain and suffering and never through Exodus to the promised land. Were the Israelites cursed for wanting to leave Egypt? NO!! In fact, they were cursed for wanting to return.

It becomes and excuse to blame and shame victims for taking a stand against their abusers. A wife who claims domestic abuse is told to return and submit. So, God blesses her for her abuse, and curses  her for not desiring abuse? Is that how God's kingdom comes on Earth? When the church becomes the agent of forcing submission to abuse? Or is the church told to free the abused? Does the church feed on the sheep, or does the church deliver the sheep, bandage them and help them heal? Again, does God curse the sheep for wanting to be delivered from the mouth of the wolves, wanting to be bandaged and healed, or does God bless the sheep for struggling to free themselves from the jaws of the wolves?

Isn't that what we are societally and culturally conditioned to do? "Someone stole my car..." "Did you leave it unlocked?" "My brother hit me" "Well, what we YOU doing at the time?" - as if the wrong done to them can be excused by some mistake on their part. "I was raped..." "What were you wearing?" We don't think in terms of evil people, wolves, abusers doing what naturally comes to their minds. Instead we think of a vindictive god who waits for us to make mistakes so that he can send adversity. Yet, that's precisely what Jesus says - the actions come out of the heart. Evil people do evil things and good people do good things. When our "good" elder does evil things, we are more right in questioning whether that elder is evil, then questioning whether his victim was being punished for a mistake.

I was reminded about the warning given to members who request to be removed from RP membership. "We are deeply saddened that you have thereby separated yourself from the visible church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." This is so deeply flawed, is taken completely out of context, and primarily serves as a form of extortion to keep abused sheep from leaving. This highlights the fact that the RP church is essentially pronouncing a curse on those who dare to walk away from abuse. I don't think it is in vain that Jesus says, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them", and I don't think it's correct (as the RP church would like to suggest) that those two are three are church leaders disciplining members.

Conclusion:

It shouldn't be surprising that the sort of intellectual and rational people that the RP church can succumb to abusive and authoritarian theology. It shouldn't be surprising that abusive elders are tolerated and supported, while abused members are told they are insubordinate when they finally take a stand. It shouldn't be surprising that members are silenced when they question the elders or try to share their stories of abuse.