Cindy Burrell on a godly response to spousal abuse

I've copied this article with permission, as I feel it is very applicable to the RPCNA study of whether divorce is permitted in abusive marriages. The original article is here: http://www.hurtbylove.com/love-a-redemptive-force-or-an-enabling-one/

Why aren't leaders taught to "suffer for the cause of righteousness"?

As I've reported before, RPCNA leaders get to wear two hats. The first is the ordinary church member, like you and me, but the second is the hat of God's ordained servant. The leaders of the church are to set a godly example for all members, and non-members for that matter, to follow. What I find interesting is that the inferiors are taught to suffer for the sake of Christ. They are pointed to examples where Christ was humiliated, mocked and rejected and did not seek retribution as being the pattern for all to follow.

Yet, somehow, when someone becomes a leader in the church, there is a different pattern to follow, and honestly, that one is not so Christ-like. In the authoritarian church, what is more important than humility and suffering is maintaining an authority structure. That's why the only humility you will see from RP elders and pastors is the humility that they claim as they are calling you to the carpet for your sin. I'm sure it is akin to the fact that people now say "I am humbled" when they used to say "I am honored" or "I am proud", because it seems the highest attainment of an RP elder is to root out this or that sin in the congregation. That pride is because that is the RP view of the church order - the leaders are higher than the members, and thus, it is natural that the leaders are going to be aware of the failings of the members than they are aware of themselves.

But, what happens when things get reversed? When a member has a legitimate complaint of mistreatment by a leader or by leaders, isn't the response for the member to submit and suffer injustice? If, on the other hand, the leader is mistreated by a mere member, does the leader submit and suffer injustice? May it never be! Such injustice inverts the authority structure of the church, and letting the injustice stand is sure to cause some sort of peasant uprising to destroy the very fabric of the church.

I've seen this before. An elder teaches some incorrect doctrine, which a member points out. If the elder doesn't immediately dig in his heels, there is usually sort of call for grace. If the elder does stick to his guns, the other elders seem to jump on the bandwagon, unless it's something blatantly wrong. This is what happened to me in a Session meeting. One elder said something outlandish - all children in the congregation should obey all adults. I said that was unscriptural and set the stage for child abuse and molestation. He dug in, and the other elders remained silent. Later, I asked the other elders whether they agreed with him, and they said, we didn't agree with either of you. Great, but they didn't speak up. By refusing to correct his doctrine, it seemingly had the weight of the church. On the other hand, if a member tries to bring up something erroneous, the congregation waits for one or the other elder to immediately point out the error.

So, whose pattern are the following? Are they following Christ who had all authority, but laid it down to suffer alongside his followers, who said the greatest must be the servant of all? Or are they following the world's model where, whether literally (e.g. Caesar) or figuratively (e.g. Kim Jong-un) the leaders claim godhood? Does "servant-leadership" really mean beating the sheep to keep them in line?

As a somewhat-aside, there was an intriguing paper that got lost amid the Synod circus of late. Professor Scipione of RPTS taught that spousal abuse was grounds for divorce as a form of physical desertion. This upset Bill and John Edgar of the Atlantic Presbytery who wrote a paper which was trying to force him to teach that only "actual physical desertion" was grounds for divorce. This last Synod, apparently, their paper was mostly upheld. So, if you are a wife in the RP church, or considering being a wife in the RP church, beware. They did say that a wife having to flee for safety was a form of physical desertion caused by the husband, in keeping with church history, but other than that, any form of physical, emotional, or spiritual violence perpetrated by a husband on his wife is not considered a violation of the marriage vows. This is not surprising, and follows the point of this article... Wives are commanded to suffer for the cause of Christ, and the RP church means that both figuratively and, in this case, literally. So, women in the RP church have fewer rights than Israelite sex slaves: "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."(Ex. 21:26-27) I wonder if the RP church would require a husband to suffer a vicious wife without allowing divorce... probably not.

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.

Semper Reformanda and the chilling effect of heavy-handed discipline

The RPCNA claims her roots in the historical Reformation, started by the nailing of the ninety-five theses on the door of the Wittenburg church by Martin Luther. Once the Reformation was in full swing, there was an overwhelming cry for the church to be open to the need for continual reformation. From Luther's initial claim that salvation was by faith alone, not by works, and that the church could not "sell" forgiveness for sins through the practice of indulgences, the Reformation led to study and insight into the sacraments, the authority structure of the church, the separation between ecclesiastical and secular authority, and many more.

It would be naive to believe that the church prayerfully and scripturally considered each issue with Christian charity towards those who held divergent views, but there was at least a concept that any stated position of the church was subject to scrutiny, no matter how strongly held.

Again, the RPCNA would probably consider the Westminster Assembly to be a worthy model - ministers from different beliefs and backgrounds came together to debate and agree on a common set of core principles that would establish the beliefs of the church. Yet, even the reverence that is reserved for the Westminster Confession of Faith does not preclude prayerful and scriptural consideration, and as the RP church has done, clarification and disagreement with principles held by the Assembly.

Unfortunately, the more deeply held a belief is, and the more power derived from that view, the more difficult it is to prayerfully and scripturally evaluate it. In fact, many views that have changed throughout RPCNA history have not been a result of deep, scriptural analysis, but rather a changing of the guard. This is the definition of "conservative" - a person or organization that is resistant to change - not necessarily resistant because it is true but resistant because it is change.

For example, perhaps 60 years ago, members of the RP church were not allowed to drink alcohol at all. It was also a violation to own any business that profited from the sale of alcohol. I'm not sure when that was overturned, but I do know that when I was a child in Sunday School, certain teachers were insistent that we children said the WCTU pledge - a vow not to drink alcohol - before each class.

About 30 years ago, alcohol was allowed for membership, but forbidden for ordained officers. Certain men took exception to vowing to abstain from alcohol, and war broke out, not surprisingly between the old guard - the WCTU generation who felt alcohol in any form was sinful and the new generation of elders and pastors who felt otherwise. The church had to wrestle through all sorts of issues, including whether these men who rejected these vows were appropriately ordained.

At the same time, a few women challenged the denominational position on women elders. Despite having their paper rejected and calls for church discipline, the denomination made a very interesting statement - that the church ought to have a forum to deal with controversial matters prayerfully and scripturally without the specter of church discipline.

This principle was, albeit grudgingly, applied when deeply held convictions of a capella and exclusive psalmody were challenged with papers. It was applied as "closed" session meetings were considered, when grape juice was challenged as the proper element of communion.

But... a generation passed and the need to provide an avenue for reformation was squashed by the newly minted need to enforce doctrinal purity. A doctrinal purity that was at odds with the RPCNA Constitution - specifically, rejecting the parity between pastors and elders, rejecting that deacons are non-authoritative officers, and rejecting that women can be deacons.

As a consequence, issues that are outside the "new RPCNA doctrine" have been met with strong opposition, not only in rejecting papers, but now the Diet of Worms - style recant or else...  As the world is waking up to the evil of sexual abuse, RPTS was commanded to take a strong stand - against using sexual abuse as a grounds for divorce. Not surprising, since domineering is not grounds for being deposed, but insubordination is.

More wisdom from Rachael Denhollander

This was buried deep in Rachael's response to Sovereign Grace Ministries. I think it is critically applicable to how we hear victims of institutional abuse. We see this repeated over and over. From President Trump defending his wife-beating press secretary, Rob Porter, to Sovereign Grace Ministries circling the wagons trying to justify ignoring their statutory requirements as mandatory reporters to protect their own.

I think I've gotten the same response here - just because others have had a good experience in the RP church doesn't mean that the church isn't abusive. I'm sure many, many members in SGM had a great experience, but does that really justify ignoring and denying victims of sexual abuse because that wasn't their experience?

I believe the vast majority of RP members are willfully blind to the spiritual abuse that happens in her midst.

Wisdom from Rachel below:

The Evangelical Response

This is not a case of being asked to be “judge and jury”, anymore than any of us were, or ought to have been, “judge and jury” in other instances where similar allegations and concerns were raised against other institutions. What is being asked is that we apply the same level of intellectual honesty and scrutiny that we apply to groups outside our own community where such allegations are made. Given the standard set in Scripture for what a Christian ought to be and in particular a Christian leader, I would suggest this standard ought to be even higher than we require of, say, state universities.

Put simply, what we ought to have done is treat the concerns and allegations expressed as very serious. As potentially damaging to the Gospel. As potentially deeply damaging to God’s children. We ought to have truly listened and considered that those close to us could have fallen in serious ways or made serious mistakes. We ought to have to urged and required that serious matters like this be subject to a transparent, public, independent investigation that is conducted by a group the survivors also trust, just as we expect and require such accountability for secular institutions.

Penn State University is a byword for sexual assault scandals. Yet it took Penn State a mere six days to commission a truly independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Jerry Sandusky. It took Michigan State University an excruciating seventeen months to finally request a similar investigation into the Larry Nassar case. Yet, it has been more than seven years and Sovereign Grace has steadfastly refused this sort of accountability in the face of multiple instances of abuse within the organization – even though they have been asked multiple times to clear the air.

Not only has there been no loving but firm pressure to submit to accountability and openness, the very dynamic I warned about in the Christianity Today article has been repeated. My gospel presentation and offer of forgiveness to my abuser was heralded nationally... until I applied those same principles to my own community of Reformed evangelicals.

The skill, precision, passion for truth and commitment to Christ that received wide acclaim was instantly denigrated as “zeal without knowledge”, “false accusations” and acting “without the facts”, damaging the gospel. Yet not a single person who levied or repeated this accusation asked, even once, what facts or research I had done, before making that judgment regarding me. As soon as I raised concerns about issues in my own community, it was immediately determined by some that none of the abilities and attention to detail I demonstrated to bring Nassar to justice had been utilized in raising concerns with Sovereign Grace. That I was carelessly and ignorantly damaging the gospel that I had been praised for articulating so well and courageously to Larry Nassar two days earlier.

This is institutional and community protectionism. Brothers and sisters, this is it. We need to realize that the reason we are gaining a reputation for handling these situations so poorly is not because people hate the gospel and make up lies about us, but because we have a real problem in how we think about sexual abuse and how we think about our leaders and institutions.

Rachael Denhollander on how the church minimizes abuse victims in Christianity Today

For those who don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, she was the first gymnast to publicly come forward, accuse Dr. Larry Nassar of sexual assault, and press charges against him. This led to a cascade of other brave women and girls coming forward to join the accusation, and ultimately, a guilty verdict and 175-year sentence.

The entire article is a great read... I think the interview is really enlightening about sexual abuse specifically, but much of what she says applies to any abuse situation. I think it also provides more color to the discussion about emotions - it's very tempting to, as Rachael says, tell the victim to simply forgive and that all the emotions will just go away, but that just doesn't happen.

I'm happy that she has been able to forgive her abuser and let go of the bitterness and anger. The answers, I think, hint at the length of the process involved for her to get there. It was not overnight. Instead it was a long process of first understanding, perhaps a different God than she was taught, using that knowledge to study scripture and put things in perspective and ultimately to be willing to trust in the God of goodness and love to provide true justice, whether it was only eternal or temporal, too.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html

A few excerpts:

Was there a particular Bible verse or passage that you felt spoke to your situation?

One was from John 6, where Jesus asks Peter, “Do you want to leave too?” Peter says, “Where else would I go, Lord? You have the words of life.” There was a point in my faith where I had to simply cling to the fact that although I didn’t understand or have the answers, I knew that God was good and that he was love. Whatever else I didn’t understand couldn’t be a contradiction to that.

Beyond that, it was learning more about God’s justice, that contrast between darkness and light, and how to properly interpret God’s sovereignty and Bible verses that command us to give thanks or reveal God’s promises of bringing goodness out of evil. When those verses are interpreted properly they are glorious and beautiful truths. More often than not, particularly in the case of sexual assault, they’re really used to mitigate and to minimize—almost as if the victim handles it “properly,” if the victim just forgives, all of the feelings are going to go away. That’s not true and that’s not what Scripture teaches.

In your impact statement, you mention that it took you a long time to reveal your own abuse with other people. Was church included in that?

Yes. Church is one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse because the way it is counseled is, more often than not, damaging to the victim. There is an abhorrent lack of knowledge for the damage and devastation that sexual assault brings. It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help. That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth. There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the church.

Given your concerns that Christians can use God’s call to forgive as a weapon against survivors, did you feel at all apprehensive telling Nassar that you forgive him?

I did to an extent, because forgiveness can really be misapplied. Taken within the context of my statement, with the call for justice and with what I have done to couple forgiveness and justice, it should not be misunderstood. But I have found it very interesting, to be honest, that every single Christian publication or speaker that has mentioned my statement has only ever focused on the aspect of forgiveness. Very few, if any of them, have recognized what else came with that statement, which was a swift and intentional pursuit of God’s justice. Both of those are biblical concepts. Both of those represent Christ. We do not do well when we focus on only one of them.

...

The damage of sexual assault is extreme and it is lifelong. As much as someone forgives their abuser, as much hope as is found in the gospel, we don’t get complete restoration this side of heaven. It does not happen—that’s why the hope of heaven is so glorious. But the suffering here on earth is very real, and it does not go away simply because you forgive and release bitterness. These women are going to live, myself included, with lifelong consequences of the sexual assault, and the vast majority of this never needed to happen.

What does it mean to you that you forgive Larry Nassar?

It means that I trust in God’s justice and I release bitterness and anger and a desire for personal vengeance. It does not mean that I minimize or mitigate or excuse what he has done. It does not mean that I pursue justice on earth any less zealously. It simply means that I release personal vengeance against him, and I trust God’s justice, whether he chooses to mete that out purely, eternally, or both in heaven and on earth.