Hi Jane. I have tried twice now to respond to your last comment. It seems as though they were both removed. So be assured there was a response. I think the submitter (Safe Church Ministry) of this article was looking only for supportive feed back to this story. No room for differences of opinion.
Thanks, Kelly, for your endurance in responding to this article and the comments made here. I think we both get frustrated with each other because we are arguing in two different lanes of traffic, although they are tangential. Be advised, just because someone suggests reading outside sources doesn’t mean they will be read. I don’t consider the “Network” a research project, so I expect those who express ideas here to concisely explain their point of view and leave it at that. I try to express my thoughts from a “common sense” explanation and expect others to do the same on this website. This is a website to express opinions.
In our debate, I do recognize that in general the male psyche is different from that of a woman’s when it comes to sex. Hence the preponderance of interest in pornography by men in comparison to women. I also recognize that there is a power differential for those in authority, such as teachers, clergy, management, and those considered experts in certain lines of work. And there is a greater tendency to abuse that power for those in leadership positions.
Does that mean all those in leadership, in actuality, abuse their authority or power? Of course not. You suggested that in the role of the pastorate and elders, approximately 2% do abuse their power, a total of 190 elders and deacons in our denomination. That means that 98% do not abuse their power, or over 9,400 (of the total of 9,600) elders and pastors are upstanding as to the use of their power in matters of sex. That’s sounds pretty impressive. Although 100% would be ideal, 98% is a good standing. None of us expect a 100% in our growth toward total sanctification here on earth. Adding to the safety of our church members is the fact that all pastors in our denomination are under the supervision of the consistory (elders). Nor do our pastors hold higher authority than that of the other elders. Added to that is the mentality that those who serve in leadership in our churches, serve in the spirit of servant hood or humility, not lording it over others.
Obviously, the pastor did not fit the 98% of upstanding pastors. I’ve said this before. He admitted to pinching the lady on the bottom. But he obviously did not agree that he sexually assaulted her and would not ask for forgiveness of such charge. He may have been guilty of misconduct, but not assault. This has been my contention all along. The charge did not fit the crime. As in any trial or hearing, the plaintiff can make accusations or charges but the charge does not confirm any guilt of such charge. Nor does the defense of the defendant determine innocence. It’s the elders or jury who determine guilt or innocence. In this story no verdict was brought against the pastor by these two consistories. He was set free. For whatever reasons, these consistories did not agree with the charge brought by this woman. In trust of our leadership format we trust that a wise decision was made.
Has our denomination added precautions to its church order in considering matters of sexual misconduct by church leaders? Yes, but the consistory still governs in the spiritual well being of its members, including the consideration of sexual conduct of its leaders.
I’m wondering (you don’t have to answer) if a woman pastor takes advantage of a male member of the church, even should she have been provoked by him, is she the one who is at fault for sexual misconduct and not him? It seems that, according to your understanding, he bears no responsibility for any misconduct. As a pastor, it is solely her responsibility and any fault is on her shoulders as the one with pastoral power. This could sound like a double standard.
Thanks for the variety of responses to this post. As all the responders stand against sexual assault and abuse, not all see this particular situation through the same lense.
As I see it, this pastor was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault (title of article), seeing as the elders of two churches, after final review of this case, did not charge him. No penalty was inflicted, nor any public pronouncement of guilt.
I think there may have been more to this story than what is told here. We heard no account from the pastor involved, except that he did not ask forgiveness of the charge of sexual assault, for which he obviously did not feel guilty of. It is difficult making a final judgement without hearing the accounts of both parties involved. A balanced hearing would have been helpful to the readers of the Network. Thanks again for this story and the many comments.
Thanks, Frank, for the input. I admit it is somewhat unclear as what happened when this situation went before the elders of these two churches. My assumption is that this women received information from her “reliable source” before the case was closed out. Perhaps a two year suspension was only a possible alternative. I’ve witnessed church discipline cases that have gone on for over a year before being finally settled. Beside, what reliable source would divulge confidential consistory business prior to a written report being given to her at the completion of this case. If it was the decision of the elders to suspend this pastor’s ministerial credentials for any period of time, he would have been placed under a formal process of church discipline, known to the whole congregation. This obviously didn’t happen. Why? Because after further discussion, the elders came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of “sexual assault. The verdict was “not guilty.” No discipline was necessary. The elders with due deliberation completed their task of supervising the congregation and their pastors. Perhaps the elders only misstep was, as Kelly suggested, that she was not provided the spiritual care that she needed to move forward in Christ.
Kelly, you said in your last comment, I do know that dismissal or cover-up has been common practice, to protect the reputation and career of a man with power and influence.” What a surprising comment to make about the leadership of our churches in which only 2% of our leaders are guilty of abusing their power. 98% are not guilty of such abuse. And yet you suggest that such cover-up is common to protect the 2% errant ones. In my years of familiarity with our denomination, I’ve witnessed an overwhelming sense of integrity amongst our elders and pastors. I don’t know what circles you run in, or what is common in your classis (regional churches), or cases that come before Synod, but if dismissal of charges or cover-up are revealed, they are very uncommon. Such statements by you are helpful in understanding your position on this entire topic.
Thanks Kelly for your input. I agree with the idea of educating our members in regard to our dedicated, organizational power structures. And sure there are abuses of power in leadership and by individuals in our denomination, as there are in every Christian denomination. So educate away. In the past, such as when this account took place (1995), there was no “safe church ministry.” Throughout the history of the church and our denomination, we trusted men to give pastoral leadership to the church. These were gifted men chosen by their congregations to lead to the best of their ability. It was a biblical concept to trust the governing authorities (elders) of the church. This is the principle by which all our churches were and are governed. This is the principle by which this pastor (in this story) was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault in 1995. As you suggest Kelly, “our members willingly subject themselves to the CRC’s power structures (elders), do so trusting that they will be part of a safe and relationally accountable body.” And such was the case of this woman and pastor.
Frank and Kelly, greetings. Thanks again for your take on this particular story and on sexual abuse in the church by those in leadership, especially pastors and elders. I’m hoping this will be a final comment.
As to this story. My take is that there are only accusations, whether by this lady or by most of those commenting on this story. Accusations do not make a person guilty. The fact that there was no punishment states, to me, that there was no verdict of “sexual assault.” That there was no formal process of church discipline also states there was no guilt involved (as to sexual assault). I conclude that the two consistories did their job in good faith, and now there is only dissatisfaction and complaining by others after the completion of their task.
You two seem to imply that these two groups of elders, working together, was little more than an “old boys club” out to protect its own. They had no interest in getting to the truth, but only of protecting those in leadership positions. From your understanding and experience, this is common, not only in U.S. churches, but also within our CRC denomination. You, Frank, explain this as the result of living in a fallen world. Sin is rampant in the world, as well as in the church.
Your view portrays a very sick view of the church and Christianity. What you have portrayed is what the typical non Christian believes about Christianity, that it does nothing for the way Christians live their lives. Christians claim the inward working of the Holy Spirit in a process of sanctification, but such sanctification is far from evident. Even pastors, who testify to a calling from God and who are led by God’s Spirit, do not portray such a Spirit led life and are poor examples, especially when it comes to sexual misconduct. In fact, it is common for our pastors to falsely protect each other when it comes to accusations of misconduct. There is no evidence that Christianity is any different from any other religion in aiding a godly life. In evangelism, or campus ministry, is the gospel call, “Come to Christ. He will do nothing for you?” That’s what the non Christian believes and you seem to affirm this. Thanks for your input.
Thanks, Mjill H, for your further comment. I don’t know who you were quoting at the beginning of your comment, but it wasn’t me. I think you are quoting the original article.
As to your husband’s response to this story (and my comments), it is fine that he takes a different point of view than I did. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I don’t expect all members of the consistory (elders) to agree with each other either. That seems to be the obvious scenario in the case of this pastor and woman that came before the elders of two churches. In the end, though, he was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault. It would be interesting to know his side of the story, because in the end he was not charged in any way. So it would seem that his thoughts or opinions were relevant to this situation.
I’m not saying that what this pastor did was right. Definitely, pastors should not go around pinching parishioners on the rear end. I simply said, that this incident did not rank in the category of “sexual assault.” As to how he intended his pinch and comment, we will never really know. We haven’t and will not hear his side of the story. But the elders did, and charges were not pressed.
Thanks, Bev, for sharing those alarming statistics. 67 percent and counting!!! That’s like saying the majority of those in leadership, including pastors, are abusers of their power. And they are the example setters to the flock. Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? I think that must be worse than the secular setting. And yes, the Catholic church: abusers of children, as well as adults. The church is looking like a pretty sick place. And Christians are telling those on the other side of the fence to turn to Christ and his body (the church) for new and abundant life. It looks, Bev, like you are confirming the non-Christian’s skepticism toward Christianity. At least, you are up front, in revealing the church with all its warts. As Kelly suggests, the church is unsafe for vulnerable people.
Thanks Kelly, for trying to further this conversation. You ask if I agree that 2% of our elders and deacons are actively abusing their office, a total figure of 190 abusers annually. I suppose abuse of office could come in many forms, sexual abuse being just one form. If 2% is the is the average figure for sexual and emotional abuse in all denominations, is that average in the U.S. or the U.S. and Canada, or is it world wide? Does that include 3rd world countries, as well as 1st world countries? Your figure is pretty vague and hard to evaluate. I would guess sexual abuse in our denomination involves a much lower percentage. To get a more accurate figure, you would have to check with our denomination or maybe even Safe Church Ministry. I doubt that the number comes close to the 190 abusers that you cite. I’ve been in a number of Classes over the last 25 years and the number of reported incidents seem much lower. So I have a difficult time with your figure of 2% or 190 abusers annually amongst our elders (including pastors) and deacons.
The simplest definition of Safe Church is, “Equipping congregations in abuse awareness, prevention, and response.” A more elaborate definition is, “Safe Church Ministry equips congregations in abuse awareness, prevention, and response. We help build communities where the value of each person is honored; where people are free to worship and grow free from abuse; and where abuse has occurred, the response is compassion and justice that foster healing.” I would imagine this equipping of congregations comes, first and foremost, through education. I imagine that Safe Church is also willing to offer counsel when asked for. So when I said, educate away, I meant this as a means of encouragement to continue this educational ministry. This was a positive encouragement, in contrast to a negative, such as saying, “This is how the "Old Boys Club" played out back in the day.” Are you serious?
You ask what a safe church might look and feel like for women. Isn’t that contained in the longer definition of Safe Church Ministry? “...communities where the value of each person is honored; where people are free to worship and grow free from abuse; and where abuse has occurred, the response is compassion and justice that foster healing.”
Thanks, Kelly, for your input to an interesting conversation.
Thank you, Kelly’s husband, for your input. I take it this comment was written by Kelly’s husband because further in the comment you say, “My wife (an ordained minister of the Word and Sacraments).” You also mentioned going to the men’s washroom during a break at a Classis meeting in which you talked to other men. That would be unusual for a woman, especially at a CRC Classis meeting. It would be helpful if you would identify yourself at the beginning of your response, like everyone else. Thanks.
As to Baylor’s accuracy of + or - 3%, we are talking of 2% on average of abuse in American denominations. Wouldn’t a 3% change up or down change a 2% figure drastically? Beside that, if only one in seven incidents are ever reported, how can an accurate count be formulated? If the other six incidents are never reported how would Baylor know to include them? Something’s fishy here.
You say my opinion is irrelevant in regard to this particular story because it is not true. All opinions are relevant, yours included. Church councils work on the basis that all opinions count, especially when a vote is taken. Not all council members are going to vote the same, but when the tally is taken the majority wins. In this particular situation, this man was vindicated of sexual assault, plain and simple. In the CRC we trust our church councils to make the best decisions in situations they deal with, regardless of the male/female make up of our elder/deacon boards. If you don’t trust your elders and are accusing them of dishonesty, you are either in the wrong church or wrong denomination.
Everyone sees situations through different lenses or biases. Obviously this woman saw this incident through a bias of thinking she was sexually assaulted. And obviously this pastor saw it as something other than assault, significantly less. When these two groups of elders (two churches) heard their stories, in the end, they didn’t judge the situation as assault either. Pinching a person on the rear end is not good decorum or right, but is it assault? My opinion says no, as was the opinion of this church council.
You say that this case was obviously mishandled and my opinion is irrelevant. Is that your opinion, or fact? Was there ever an apology by the council to the congregation for their decision? Was the church ever reprimanded by the Classis or Synod for a wrong decision? Then I take it the church was not at fault in their decision making process.
Hi, husband of Kelly. This is awkward, not even knowing your name. How should I address you? I do like your picture, although it is a little fuzzy on this website format. Please use your name in the future. It clarifies which family member is responding, or use the personal pronoun “we.”
Art. 83 of CRC church order states, “One of the key dynamics in considering abuse of office is the imbalance and misuse of power. The power inherent in the role of officebearer represents a sacred trust and must not be misused.” There is no official documentation citing that this incident violated the new article 83. Nor do I believe that past settled and binding cases are retroactively retried according to the new legislation. Past councils (elders and deacons) did their honest best to resolve all cases in Christian love. But certainly art. 83 is a good reminder in moving forward into the future in considering cases of abuse.
So, husband, I don’t see how anyone’s opinion is invalid according to this article, mine included. Does this article also mean that your opinion is invalid? We are both simply stating opinions. Blessings to you.
Thanks, Safe Church, for your concluding statement, “ It takes all of us working together and holding each other accountable in these matters to maintain an environment that is welcoming and safe for all of God's children.” I would think that is a statement we can all agree to. Thanks.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Hi Jane. I have tried twice now to respond to your last comment. It seems as though they were both removed. So be assured there was a response. I think the submitter (Safe Church Ministry) of this article was looking only for supportive feed back to this story. No room for differences of opinion.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Kelly, for your endurance in responding to this article and the comments made here. I think we both get frustrated with each other because we are arguing in two different lanes of traffic, although they are tangential. Be advised, just because someone suggests reading outside sources doesn’t mean they will be read. I don’t consider the “Network” a research project, so I expect those who express ideas here to concisely explain their point of view and leave it at that. I try to express my thoughts from a “common sense” explanation and expect others to do the same on this website. This is a website to express opinions.
In our debate, I do recognize that in general the male psyche is different from that of a woman’s when it comes to sex. Hence the preponderance of interest in pornography by men in comparison to women. I also recognize that there is a power differential for those in authority, such as teachers, clergy, management, and those considered experts in certain lines of work. And there is a greater tendency to abuse that power for those in leadership positions.
Does that mean all those in leadership, in actuality, abuse their authority or power? Of course not. You suggested that in the role of the pastorate and elders, approximately 2% do abuse their power, a total of 190 elders and deacons in our denomination. That means that 98% do not abuse their power, or over 9,400 (of the total of 9,600) elders and pastors are upstanding as to the use of their power in matters of sex. That’s sounds pretty impressive. Although 100% would be ideal, 98% is a good standing. None of us expect a 100% in our growth toward total sanctification here on earth. Adding to the safety of our church members is the fact that all pastors in our denomination are under the supervision of the consistory (elders). Nor do our pastors hold higher authority than that of the other elders. Added to that is the mentality that those who serve in leadership in our churches, serve in the spirit of servant hood or humility, not lording it over others.
Obviously, the pastor did not fit the 98% of upstanding pastors. I’ve said this before. He admitted to pinching the lady on the bottom. But he obviously did not agree that he sexually assaulted her and would not ask for forgiveness of such charge. He may have been guilty of misconduct, but not assault. This has been my contention all along. The charge did not fit the crime. As in any trial or hearing, the plaintiff can make accusations or charges but the charge does not confirm any guilt of such charge. Nor does the defense of the defendant determine innocence. It’s the elders or jury who determine guilt or innocence. In this story no verdict was brought against the pastor by these two consistories. He was set free. For whatever reasons, these consistories did not agree with the charge brought by this woman. In trust of our leadership format we trust that a wise decision was made.
Has our denomination added precautions to its church order in considering matters of sexual misconduct by church leaders? Yes, but the consistory still governs in the spiritual well being of its members, including the consideration of sexual conduct of its leaders.
I’m wondering (you don’t have to answer) if a woman pastor takes advantage of a male member of the church, even should she have been provoked by him, is she the one who is at fault for sexual misconduct and not him? It seems that, according to your understanding, he bears no responsibility for any misconduct. As a pastor, it is solely her responsibility and any fault is on her shoulders as the one with pastoral power. This could sound like a double standard.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks for the variety of responses to this post. As all the responders stand against sexual assault and abuse, not all see this particular situation through the same lense.
As I see it, this pastor was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault (title of article), seeing as the elders of two churches, after final review of this case, did not charge him. No penalty was inflicted, nor any public pronouncement of guilt.
I think there may have been more to this story than what is told here. We heard no account from the pastor involved, except that he did not ask forgiveness of the charge of sexual assault, for which he obviously did not feel guilty of. It is difficult making a final judgement without hearing the accounts of both parties involved. A balanced hearing would have been helpful to the readers of the Network. Thanks again for this story and the many comments.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Frank, for the input. I admit it is somewhat unclear as what happened when this situation went before the elders of these two churches. My assumption is that this women received information from her “reliable source” before the case was closed out. Perhaps a two year suspension was only a possible alternative. I’ve witnessed church discipline cases that have gone on for over a year before being finally settled. Beside, what reliable source would divulge confidential consistory business prior to a written report being given to her at the completion of this case. If it was the decision of the elders to suspend this pastor’s ministerial credentials for any period of time, he would have been placed under a formal process of church discipline, known to the whole congregation. This obviously didn’t happen. Why? Because after further discussion, the elders came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of “sexual assault. The verdict was “not guilty.” No discipline was necessary. The elders with due deliberation completed their task of supervising the congregation and their pastors. Perhaps the elders only misstep was, as Kelly suggested, that she was not provided the spiritual care that she needed to move forward in Christ.
Kelly, you said in your last comment, I do know that dismissal or cover-up has been common practice, to protect the reputation and career of a man with power and influence.” What a surprising comment to make about the leadership of our churches in which only 2% of our leaders are guilty of abusing their power. 98% are not guilty of such abuse. And yet you suggest that such cover-up is common to protect the 2% errant ones. In my years of familiarity with our denomination, I’ve witnessed an overwhelming sense of integrity amongst our elders and pastors. I don’t know what circles you run in, or what is common in your classis (regional churches), or cases that come before Synod, but if dismissal of charges or cover-up are revealed, they are very uncommon. Such statements by you are helpful in understanding your position on this entire topic.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks Kelly for your input. I agree with the idea of educating our members in regard to our dedicated, organizational power structures. And sure there are abuses of power in leadership and by individuals in our denomination, as there are in every Christian denomination. So educate away. In the past, such as when this account took place (1995), there was no “safe church ministry.” Throughout the history of the church and our denomination, we trusted men to give pastoral leadership to the church. These were gifted men chosen by their congregations to lead to the best of their ability. It was a biblical concept to trust the governing authorities (elders) of the church. This is the principle by which all our churches were and are governed. This is the principle by which this pastor (in this story) was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault in 1995. As you suggest Kelly, “our members willingly subject themselves to the CRC’s power structures (elders), do so trusting that they will be part of a safe and relationally accountable body.” And such was the case of this woman and pastor.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Frank and Kelly, greetings. Thanks again for your take on this particular story and on sexual abuse in the church by those in leadership, especially pastors and elders. I’m hoping this will be a final comment.
As to this story. My take is that there are only accusations, whether by this lady or by most of those commenting on this story. Accusations do not make a person guilty. The fact that there was no punishment states, to me, that there was no verdict of “sexual assault.” That there was no formal process of church discipline also states there was no guilt involved (as to sexual assault). I conclude that the two consistories did their job in good faith, and now there is only dissatisfaction and complaining by others after the completion of their task.
You two seem to imply that these two groups of elders, working together, was little more than an “old boys club” out to protect its own. They had no interest in getting to the truth, but only of protecting those in leadership positions. From your understanding and experience, this is common, not only in U.S. churches, but also within our CRC denomination. You, Frank, explain this as the result of living in a fallen world. Sin is rampant in the world, as well as in the church.
Your view portrays a very sick view of the church and Christianity. What you have portrayed is what the typical non Christian believes about Christianity, that it does nothing for the way Christians live their lives. Christians claim the inward working of the Holy Spirit in a process of sanctification, but such sanctification is far from evident. Even pastors, who testify to a calling from God and who are led by God’s Spirit, do not portray such a Spirit led life and are poor examples, especially when it comes to sexual misconduct. In fact, it is common for our pastors to falsely protect each other when it comes to accusations of misconduct. There is no evidence that Christianity is any different from any other religion in aiding a godly life. In evangelism, or campus ministry, is the gospel call, “Come to Christ. He will do nothing for you?” That’s what the non Christian believes and you seem to affirm this. Thanks for your input.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Mjill H, for your further comment. I don’t know who you were quoting at the beginning of your comment, but it wasn’t me. I think you are quoting the original article.
As to your husband’s response to this story (and my comments), it is fine that he takes a different point of view than I did. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I don’t expect all members of the consistory (elders) to agree with each other either. That seems to be the obvious scenario in the case of this pastor and woman that came before the elders of two churches. In the end, though, he was vindicated of the charge of sexual assault. It would be interesting to know his side of the story, because in the end he was not charged in any way. So it would seem that his thoughts or opinions were relevant to this situation.
I’m not saying that what this pastor did was right. Definitely, pastors should not go around pinching parishioners on the rear end. I simply said, that this incident did not rank in the category of “sexual assault.” As to how he intended his pinch and comment, we will never really know. We haven’t and will not hear his side of the story. But the elders did, and charges were not pressed.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Bev, for sharing those alarming statistics. 67 percent and counting!!! That’s like saying the majority of those in leadership, including pastors, are abusers of their power. And they are the example setters to the flock. Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? I think that must be worse than the secular setting. And yes, the Catholic church: abusers of children, as well as adults. The church is looking like a pretty sick place. And Christians are telling those on the other side of the fence to turn to Christ and his body (the church) for new and abundant life. It looks, Bev, like you are confirming the non-Christian’s skepticism toward Christianity. At least, you are up front, in revealing the church with all its warts. As Kelly suggests, the church is unsafe for vulnerable people.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks Kelly, for trying to further this conversation. You ask if I agree that 2% of our elders and deacons are actively abusing their office, a total figure of 190 abusers annually. I suppose abuse of office could come in many forms, sexual abuse being just one form. If 2% is the is the average figure for sexual and emotional abuse in all denominations, is that average in the U.S. or the U.S. and Canada, or is it world wide? Does that include 3rd world countries, as well as 1st world countries? Your figure is pretty vague and hard to evaluate. I would guess sexual abuse in our denomination involves a much lower percentage. To get a more accurate figure, you would have to check with our denomination or maybe even Safe Church Ministry. I doubt that the number comes close to the 190 abusers that you cite. I’ve been in a number of Classes over the last 25 years and the number of reported incidents seem much lower. So I have a difficult time with your figure of 2% or 190 abusers annually amongst our elders (including pastors) and deacons.
The simplest definition of Safe Church is, “Equipping congregations in abuse awareness, prevention, and response.” A more elaborate definition is, “Safe Church Ministry equips congregations in abuse awareness, prevention, and response. We help build communities where the value of each person is honored; where people are free to worship and grow free from abuse; and where abuse has occurred, the response is compassion and justice that foster healing.” I would imagine this equipping of congregations comes, first and foremost, through education. I imagine that Safe Church is also willing to offer counsel when asked for. So when I said, educate away, I meant this as a means of encouragement to continue this educational ministry. This was a positive encouragement, in contrast to a negative, such as saying, “This is how the "Old Boys Club" played out back in the day.” Are you serious?
You ask what a safe church might look and feel like for women. Isn’t that contained in the longer definition of Safe Church Ministry? “...communities where the value of each person is honored; where people are free to worship and grow free from abuse; and where abuse has occurred, the response is compassion and justice that foster healing.”
Thanks, Kelly, for your input to an interesting conversation.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thank you, Kelly’s husband, for your input. I take it this comment was written by Kelly’s husband because further in the comment you say, “My wife (an ordained minister of the Word and Sacraments).” You also mentioned going to the men’s washroom during a break at a Classis meeting in which you talked to other men. That would be unusual for a woman, especially at a CRC Classis meeting. It would be helpful if you would identify yourself at the beginning of your response, like everyone else. Thanks.
As to Baylor’s accuracy of + or - 3%, we are talking of 2% on average of abuse in American denominations. Wouldn’t a 3% change up or down change a 2% figure drastically? Beside that, if only one in seven incidents are ever reported, how can an accurate count be formulated? If the other six incidents are never reported how would Baylor know to include them? Something’s fishy here.
You say my opinion is irrelevant in regard to this particular story because it is not true. All opinions are relevant, yours included. Church councils work on the basis that all opinions count, especially when a vote is taken. Not all council members are going to vote the same, but when the tally is taken the majority wins. In this particular situation, this man was vindicated of sexual assault, plain and simple. In the CRC we trust our church councils to make the best decisions in situations they deal with, regardless of the male/female make up of our elder/deacon boards. If you don’t trust your elders and are accusing them of dishonesty, you are either in the wrong church or wrong denomination.
Everyone sees situations through different lenses or biases. Obviously this woman saw this incident through a bias of thinking she was sexually assaulted. And obviously this pastor saw it as something other than assault, significantly less. When these two groups of elders (two churches) heard their stories, in the end, they didn’t judge the situation as assault either. Pinching a person on the rear end is not good decorum or right, but is it assault? My opinion says no, as was the opinion of this church council.
You say that this case was obviously mishandled and my opinion is irrelevant. Is that your opinion, or fact? Was there ever an apology by the council to the congregation for their decision? Was the church ever reprimanded by the Classis or Synod for a wrong decision? Then I take it the church was not at fault in their decision making process.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Hi, husband of Kelly. This is awkward, not even knowing your name. How should I address you? I do like your picture, although it is a little fuzzy on this website format. Please use your name in the future. It clarifies which family member is responding, or use the personal pronoun “we.”
Art. 83 of CRC church order states, “One of the key dynamics in considering abuse of office is the imbalance and misuse of power. The power inherent in the role of officebearer represents a sacred trust and must not be misused.” There is no official documentation citing that this incident violated the new article 83. Nor do I believe that past settled and binding cases are retroactively retried according to the new legislation. Past councils (elders and deacons) did their honest best to resolve all cases in Christian love. But certainly art. 83 is a good reminder in moving forward into the future in considering cases of abuse.
So, husband, I don’t see how anyone’s opinion is invalid according to this article, mine included. Does this article also mean that your opinion is invalid? We are both simply stating opinions. Blessings to you.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Safe Church, for your concluding statement, “ It takes all of us working together and holding each other accountable in these matters to maintain an environment that is welcoming and safe for all of God's children.” I would think that is a statement we can all agree to. Thanks.