Hi Jim;Thanks for your writing about leadership. I only had a chance to read your last posting.Thoughts that come to me when thinking about effective leadership are: trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, responsibility, creative, non-conformist, E.Q., problem-solver, respectful, transformational, competent, reliable, committed, sets standard of excellence, empowers, takes ownership of their work, interacts with others, good communication, influential, inspirational, handles, conflict well, and so many more.Concerns I have regarding pastors and their leadership styles are those who are: people pleasers, need acceptance and approval from others, are rigid and controlling, narcissistic, have their own agendas, argumentative, and others.How can we help pastors become better at leadership? I don’t know – but I think more work needs to be done in this area to reduce conflict between pastors and their congregations. Effective leaders can enhance a church to grow while weak and poor leaders can cause doors to close.We need to keep on encouraging our pastors to read books and take classes on effective leadership and leadership communication. Even promote such trainings via council and classis meetings is a start.Judy De Wit
In relation to how a congregation treats the next pastor - in the area of abuse ministries, he's called the afterpastor. The afterpastor's job - I think - is one of the hardest jobs to have. It's difficult because the after pastor has to reset appropriate boundaries, behavior, expectation, role, of what a pastor should be - which is very hard for congregants to do because of the dysfunction of the previous pastor (they're desensitized) ----- and deal with all of their anger that congregations target towards the afterpastor because of what the previous pastor did.
As I see it, the problems can fall on either sides or both. Dysfunctional pastors are very frustrating - but so are rigid/controlling/lack of education church leaders. I can't count the number of times I shook my head thinking, "This is not leadership. This is a hit and miss approach - elders at times are clueless about how poor of a job they are doing."
In recovery, people see the next pastor as the representative of the church institution and that is why they vent and rage to the next one. In their emotional minds, they're still dealing with the first pastor.
In a book I recently wrote - in publishing/printing stage - I address what churches need to do after the pastor has abused. It also can be expanded to work for churches that face congregation/pastor problems. Recovery is not simple, but crucial. Having the church members process their anger in recovery is paramount before the next pastor comes in. You know that, I'm sure.
I'm now in a graduate program at N'western College in TWins Cities - that trains in leadership. I have found the classes a perfect fit for what I am looking for - esp as it relates to when leadership abuses their role in the church - and how to lead effectively within the church.
While growing up I remember my dad telling us kids that --- should we ever see anyone at school who didn’t have a friend, we were to go over and befriend that person. And we were always to be kind to those who have handicaps.
So when three deaf girls joined my all hearing 6th grade class, I knew in my heart what dad would want me to do: befriend them. And that is what I set out to do. At the age of 12, I went to an evening class (which was actually taught by one of the deaf girls’ mom) to learned sign language. With one of my older sisters helping me, I went to class and learned and practiced sign language for quite some time. After lots of practice, I made three new friends.
Not long ago, I had a sign-language conversation with one of my deaf friends of forty years ago. She and I were back in our home church and we had to opportunity to reconnect our lives after all this time. What was amazing to me and to others standing nearby, (including my deaf friend’s mother) was how well I could remember how to sign. I’m sure that was a God-thing.
Why was it so important to my dad that I included and befriended persons with special needs? Although he never said it, I knew. It was about the love he had for his own son who was born severely handicapped. Joel, who now would be 59, didn’t live beyond three months of age. But his short life brings a strong and healthy message: love people, especially those who have special needs. I am still gripped by my mom’s story of how she took a five pound baby home from the hospital who died three months later --- at the same weight.
My dad met his own handicaps and disabilities during the last several years of his life. Because of Parkinson’s disease, my dad’s own ability to walk, to care for himself, and to live independently caused him to be the recipient of his own teaching: be good to those who need a friend, especially to those who have handicaps. We as family did the best we could.
Three years ago my dad was set free. His time was over – his suffering ended – his handicap was healed. Yes, God called him home. His homecoming was special, I’m sure, because he was reunited with his son – his son he hadn’t seen for 59 years.
I imagine Dad and Joel, standing tall and standing strong – reuniting – fellowshipping – and befriending each other – all the while…
Standing in the presence of the One who healed them.
Dear Readers:
Pastors and council members will inevitably be faced with abuse allegations of some sort in their future. My concern is if you as church leaders are ready and equipped in knowing how to respond when it comes to your council table. Sadly, I’ve witnessed responses by church leaders to victims to be disheartening and disappointing.
“You wouldn’t want to bring all this all up now and hurt all these people, would you?”
“He’s a family man, he’d never do that.”
“That happened several months ago, that’s water under the dam.”
“I’m not going to do anything because he’s my friend.”
“Quit making such a big deal of it.”
All of these responses say to the victim, “Go away. I don’t want to hear about it.” As one pastor said to me, “I don’t have to know anything about abuse until it comes to my desk.” To which I respond, “It already has and you missed it.”
On page 22 of the report it recommends that the Ex. Director develop a handbook that would help council members to know their function and role as council members when abuse allegations come forward. I fully support that – but also want to encourage all pastors and council members to begin now, on their own, to read, research, and get training about abuse. For by doing so, your response to a victim’s call for help will demonstrate the concern the church must have.
Evaluating and addressing the current abuse response team process and its overall functioning in responding to abuse are not new. Back in 2002-2003 the BOT was faced with concern about the effectiveness of our current process with discussions of other options of how else it could be done. Nothing ever came of it. Then three years later, in 2006, Attorney Jonker addressed the Synod by stating that there needed to be a mechanism – a vehicle - that needed to be explored to see if something better could be found to respond to abuse and abuse cases. There may be others.
Now we come to Synod 2010 and again faced with nearly the exact same question leaders have faced before: is this the most effective way for us as a church system to respond?
Part of the work of the Abuse Victims Task Force report was to invite write-ins by victims to express their experiences of coming forward with allegations and how the church responded. Understanding that write-in information was assured to be kept confidential, in a general way, I would be curious to know if the write-ins favored, were neutral, or were harmed by the abuse response process. Complaints about the process and those who lead the process are pieces of information that would be helpful for us as a denomination to make a more informed decision regarding how effective our current response process is.
Somehow the current abuse response system seems protected. Issues have been brought up in the past, but little change ever really occurs. I’ve been told by others that “there are mistakes,” but then those mistakes are excused easily. I wonder if objectivity on the effectiveness of the process hasn’t been lost. It seems that some individuals are more focused on their own acceptance and approval by the abuse response administration then honest evaluation of how well the process is working. I even observed this need for approval on the floor at Synod 2008.
If we are serious about addressing abusive leadership, then let’s use our voices at Synod 2010 to have an open and transparent discussion about the loop-holes, flaws, and breakdowns of our current system. Courageously let’s not call the current abuse response team process “good enough.” Instead let’s be sure – this time – that the process is something safer, stronger, and more objective for those who need it when they come forward with abuse allegations.
Or we will be having this discussion again in about four years.
Dear Readers:
When a pastor manipulates an abuse response team in order to get them to meet with a complainant about allegations without council knowledge or approval, there is derailment of process.
When the abuse response team meets with a complainant about allegations without the accused council’s request or knowledge, there is derailment of process.
When chair of the team requests to meet with the accused – and the chair admits to the accused this has nothing to do with sexual or physical abuse allegations – there is a derailment of process.
When the team was directed by the CIC to stop their work, but the team continued anyway –and sent out a letter of findings - process is derailed.
Now the abuse response team process is the abuser.
Sadly, this happened.
Because of this - and there may be other cases similar to it - I ask you to consider challenging the denomination about a different way to do the investigative/fact-finding process. One idea would be to go to an "Outside the Denomination" Professional Investigative/fact-finding Services. Here are some reasons why:
1. Increased objectivity. Since many of our people and churches know each other, teams often run into difficulty with objectivity because of how we are related to one another. Effective outcomes and better recommendations for both the accused and the complainant are more likely when objectivity is present. Using an outside of the denomination process could increase objectivity.
2. Reduced liability. When a professional team is hired by a church, mistakes with the process are not charged to the abuse response teams. Mistakes are instead held by those who provided the services. Therefore, this would reduce the possibility of our teams and churches from being sued. Outside the denomination process could reduce liability.
3. Reduced cost of the running of the Abuse Prevention Office. Because there would be no teams, there would be no expenses for the director to do trainings and re-trainings, including plane, car, hotel, rentals, and other. Costs for professional services would be channeled by another means. Pastoral ministries would be saving themselves some money.
4. Reduced time and energy. The maintaining of teams, with the current number at about 20 and with the potential of it being more, is too difficult to do, especially when team members change over time. Let the professionals do it and pay them for it.
5. Increased confidentiality. Because outside services are used, it is very unlikely that the investigative process would become a source of slander, libel, or breach of confidentiality. This would actually make the process safer – something we are striving to do - to make church and its processes safe.
6. Professional, competent services are needed for such crucial and critical work. A little 20-hour training does not adequately equip or prepare team members to handle the important work of investing abuse allegations. No person “gets it” by doing a little training, having a few conversations, read an article, and then be equipped to handle abuse allegations.
A different way of stating it would be:
1. Human nature wants to believe the worst. There are too many preconceived ideas about what happened before anything has been determined. Our human nature wants to quickly believe the bad and wrong of others and once that happens, ministry for the person (accused) is often over. Trust is lost for the accused even if the party never did anything wrong.
2. Teams run a high risk of being sued. Teams, because of their incompetence and ill-equipped and ill-trained background, run a high risk of being sued. Their failure to understand how liability works and what typical issues can lead to lawsuits increases their possibility of being sued. When a team (and the director) fails to follow Synod-adopted process for investigations and defamation has occurred, you can be assured litigation will soon follow.
3. Poor stewardship. Monies for training and retraining have reached a place where we need to question stewardship. Wasting money on a project that has shown itself not to meet a good enough level of success calls us as Christians to stop and evaluate about what we are really doing.
4. Abuse is a complex issue. Abuse has so many areas and avenues for understanding. Spending time and energy on something that has not met enough success is a lost cause. We could better use that time and energy to educate church leaders and members about the subject of abuse in hopes of helping a greater number of people. Let’s put our energy into something that actually has better and greater results.
5. Confidentiality in the CRC is a big problem. Confidentiality is often non-existent in the CRC. From denominational personnel to team members to pastors to councils, we struggle with silencing confidential information of others. This again can lead to defamation. This leads to the church becoming abusive again – and the betrayal of trust comes on a whole new level.
6. Investigations of allegations are a critical and crucial matter. Lives and futures are in the hands of team members who have at times shown themselves to be incompetent and ill-equipped to do this work. A little 20-hour training will never prove itself worthy of service in comparison to professionals who are trained in this field of expertise and who know what this is all about.
7. Frivolous allegations. Just as there are attempts to do frivolous lawsuits, so are there attempts by dysfunctional people, usually women, to bring forth frivolous allegations. Their need for attention and their skewed perceptions, (such as "he flirts with me or came on to me") usually from women who have been sexually abused as children, will be decreased and even eliminated when the council has to decide if they need to hire the outside resource to investigate. Along with this, if the council chooses to hire the outside investigative services, professionals can pick out a Borderline Personality Disorder Woman easily - and will be equipped to deal with her dysfunction far better and more effectively then teams would. Also chances are that there will be less attempts for Borderline Woman to manipulate the system because professionals can recognize their manipulation and address such behavior appropriately.
If the argument – and I have heard this – is that councils would more likely not use an outside source because it is not as easily accessible, then we need to ask -- - - what is better?
to use our own response system (which cannot guarantee safety and could show itself to be abusive)
vs.
using a professional service (which would be safer ) which councils may less likely utilize because of a lack of convenience
vs.
other ideas that need to be explored
Dear Readers:
I thank you Synod 2010 delegates and my Lake Superior representatives for your discussion and approval of the task force report yesterday. It brought tears to my eyes and thanksgiving to God as I heard how you were earnest in wanting these improvements in the abuse response process.
Twelve years ago my then church failed in being church to me when such hardship came my way. What happened Wednesday at Synod was another step toward for our denomination to becoming more of what God’s mandate is for His Church: being healing agents in His broken world.
As you leave Synod this year, continue to wrestle with God and with yourself about what He wants you to do to stop abuse in your faith community.
My favorite verse is: Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the abused will no longer be disabled, but rather healed. Hebrews 12: 12-13
It’s been several weeks since the close of Synod. However, my thoughts continue to swirl around the topic of abuse and the reality of it in the CRC. As varying thoughts and feelings surface, this keeps coming to mind: A narcissistic church leader.
Narcissism is a personality disorder that certain individuals have that blur and distort reality. A narcissistic person believes the world revolves around him, that he is special, that he is to be the centerpiece of every conversation, and fishes out compliments and strokes from anyone he can. He comes off as the “know it all” and denies any wrong doing he is responsible for. He is quick to blame others when confronted about his behavior and can display an emotion that is fitting for a particular moment. Narcissists are exhausting to deal with simply because they will drain every ounce of energy out of a person because of their need for all of the attention.
Now imagine a Narcissist church leader being the abuser in a church setting. It’s silly to think that anything constructive or productive could come from an investigative or fact-finding process that involves a narcissist church leader accused of abuse. His charming and manipulative approach and his sly way of shifting blame to the victim will be too difficult for most common church leaders to address. His prior work of aligning himself with the most influential and powerful church members will give him what he needs when council tries to put him in the hot seat. He will be skilled in deflecting all of the charges onto someone or something else and his persuasive responses will manipulate the thinking of most.
Sadly, I’ve seen it. Duped by his charm, council members were tripped into believing the most absurd explanations for his behavior.
It can’t be said enough: Wake up, people! Not all pastors or church leaders fall in the “normal” range of functioning. And when that is so, beware of his approach that will be used to manipulate your thinking.
Understanding the Narcissistic pastor/church leader is crucial when dealing with church leadership and administration. Should the Narcissist pastor/church leader abuse, know that he will use every distorted view to shift blame for his behavior onto the victim and others.
My concern is: restorative justice process needs careful consideration if the offender is a narcissist. Know that if he is a narcissist, he has no earnest desire to fully own his responsibility to have done harm. He can’t do it. He can’t do it because his self-esteem is near nothing and admitting his wrong would crash him. In a R.J. process, he would display the right emotion for that moment – but genuine sorrow for sin and owning his sins are nearly impossible. He does not have the ability to engage with another’s pain and his mind takes him to thinking, “She’s such a whiner.”
Church leaders need to be strong and non-manipulative when dealing with a narcissistic church leader who has abused. When churches hold him accountable for his actions and confront him about his abuse, be prepared to hear some of the most bizarre responses. Also know that in the R. J. process, a victim is at risk to be harmed again, simply because facilitators/moderators can’t control what comes out of the Narcissist’s mouth. And be aware that he will use that opportunity to say whatever he wants --- with no regrets – making sure he got the last word.
For easy reference, I use the three A’s when victims of church leadership abuse need to understand how to heal and start the forgiveness process: accountability, acknowledgement, and apology. Those responsible for his work need to hold the abuser accountable for his actions by confronting him and addressing the issues to him -- expecting and demanding truth about what happened. In acknowledgement, the victim needs to hear the abuser say, “Yes, I did this to you. I was the one. I wronged you and harmed you. I did not show respect for you.” And in the apology, the accuser must say to the victim, “I am sorry. What I did was wrong and I fully apologize.” (Fortune, Marie M., pp. 9-13).
From there, it’s helpful to think about the three R’s that need to occur. They are: restitution, relinquishment of power, and relief. In restitution, the victim must have some sort of pay back for the wrong that was done. It needs to be something tangible. In our society it is money. There needs to be relinquishment of power. This means the abuser must have his position in the church taken away from him and reinstatement to a church position denied. Third, the victim must feel relief about what has happened because the church leadership has invested well into the situation and has sought out protection for the victim’s safety and the safety of others (Fortune, Marie M., pp. 9-13).
(Fortune, Marie M., Sexual Abuse by Clergy: A Crisis for the Church, Decatur: Journal of Pastoral Care Publications, Inc., 1994.)
“Just forgive,” and “What would Jesus do?” are simplistic answers to handling abuse by church leaders. If these were the correct responses, there would be no jails or prisons. And now that you are informed about the Abuse Victims Task Force Report, you know there are no simplistic answers to this problem.
And remember --- by holding the abuser to the three A’s and the three R’s, you are loving him in the best way you can. This response from you to him says that he is worth every minute of your time and energy, because you want to ensure that “it is well with his soul.”
Dear Readers:Abuse always robs. It always ruins, always destroys, and always hurts. Those who have experienced abuse often have difficulties with relationships, manipulation, trust, skewed perceptions and so much more. Abuse always robs. Take the experience of abuse and now put it in the context of the church. Now the damage and the confusion from the abuse multiplies itself tenfold. For not only did the abuse itself do damage, but the very ones we trusted to be safe for us were not. The very place that was to bring us healing and comfort did not. And the very community that was designed to give us fellowship had not. Instead, we’ve been robbed. Now the going to church is not about joy and fellowship, but about anger and turmoil. Now a time of worship is not about comfort and encouragement but a time of feeling hurt and betrayed. Now the seeing of any church leadership turns into emotional implosion. Anxiety, sadness, and sleepless nights dominate. We’ve been robbed. We’ve been robbed of peace – peace with ourselves, with others and with God. Abuse never gives. It always takes. Look again at the task force report. Think through again the devastation and harm done to those who have been abused by our leadership. Then ask yourself what you need to do to strengthen your church in understanding this subject. Be a grassroots worker. Get training, go to workshops, read books. Be a leader in your faith community about the subject of abuse. Work from the bottom up. Then as you do your part, hold top management accountable to do theirs. 1) Expect the BOT to know about this subject. Communicate to them that you expect them to model good leadership when it comes to the subject of abuse. 2) Expect better leadership from the denominational offices. Tell them that you are watching them and you want to see competence and integrity in their work about addressing abuse in our churches. 3) Expect your CIC to take the lead about understanding abuse in your classis. Insist they offer abuse training for pastors and classis delegates when they meet in the spring and fall. Tell them you expect competence if/when abuse allegations come forward in your classis. We must insist on “work from the top down.” The recent task force report is missing one thing: YOU! Get involved and do something about the abuse that is happening in your church. Judy De Wit
Leadership in the context of addressing cases of abuse is no easy task. Within the resistance for pastors and church leaders to address abuse allegations is the reality that many need the acceptance and approval of their colleagues. What this means is that pastors worry about how speaking up for the complainant may hurt their name and reputation in their church, classis, or faith community. Failing to get involved when someone has been harmed by the church says pastors and church leaders would rather ignore, avoid, and minimize someone else’s abuse experience then to stand for what is right. Poor self-esteems cannot be a part of CRC leadership.
Dare to stand alone. Dare to be a voice for victims who have been abused by the church. Dare to risk your own fame and fortune for the sake of doing what is right.
Posted in: A Final Question About Leadership: Are We Looking for and Developing Leaders?
Hi Jim;Thanks for your writing about leadership. I only had a chance to read your last posting.Thoughts that come to me when thinking about effective leadership are: trustworthiness, honesty, integrity, responsibility, creative, non-conformist, E.Q., problem-solver, respectful, transformational, competent, reliable, committed, sets standard of excellence, empowers, takes ownership of their work, interacts with others, good communication, influential, inspirational, handles, conflict well, and so many more.Concerns I have regarding pastors and their leadership styles are those who are: people pleasers, need acceptance and approval from others, are rigid and controlling, narcissistic, have their own agendas, argumentative, and others.How can we help pastors become better at leadership? I don’t know – but I think more work needs to be done in this area to reduce conflict between pastors and their congregations. Effective leaders can enhance a church to grow while weak and poor leaders can cause doors to close.We need to keep on encouraging our pastors to read books and take classes on effective leadership and leadership communication. Even promote such trainings via council and classis meetings is a start.Judy De Wit
Posted in: A Final Question About Leadership: Are We Looking for and Developing Leaders?
Hi Duane:
I will - pray for Thomasma and Van Niejenhuis.
In relation to how a congregation treats the next pastor - in the area of abuse ministries, he's called the afterpastor. The afterpastor's job - I think - is one of the hardest jobs to have. It's difficult because the after pastor has to reset appropriate boundaries, behavior, expectation, role, of what a pastor should be - which is very hard for congregants to do because of the dysfunction of the previous pastor (they're desensitized) ----- and deal with all of their anger that congregations target towards the afterpastor because of what the previous pastor did.
As I see it, the problems can fall on either sides or both. Dysfunctional pastors are very frustrating - but so are rigid/controlling/lack of education church leaders. I can't count the number of times I shook my head thinking, "This is not leadership. This is a hit and miss approach - elders at times are clueless about how poor of a job they are doing."
In recovery, people see the next pastor as the representative of the church institution and that is why they vent and rage to the next one. In their emotional minds, they're still dealing with the first pastor.
In a book I recently wrote - in publishing/printing stage - I address what churches need to do after the pastor has abused. It also can be expanded to work for churches that face congregation/pastor problems. Recovery is not simple, but crucial. Having the church members process their anger in recovery is paramount before the next pastor comes in. You know that, I'm sure.
I'm now in a graduate program at N'western College in TWins Cities - that trains in leadership. I have found the classes a perfect fit for what I am looking for - esp as it relates to when leadership abuses their role in the church - and how to lead effectively within the church.
Judy De Wit
Posted in: What's the best way to include people with disabilities in the full life and ministry of the congregation?
While growing up I remember my dad telling us kids that --- should we ever see anyone at school who didn’t have a friend, we were to go over and befriend that person. And we were always to be kind to those who have handicaps.
So when three deaf girls joined my all hearing 6th grade class, I knew in my heart what dad would want me to do: befriend them. And that is what I set out to do. At the age of 12, I went to an evening class (which was actually taught by one of the deaf girls’ mom) to learned sign language. With one of my older sisters helping me, I went to class and learned and practiced sign language for quite some time. After lots of practice, I made three new friends.
Not long ago, I had a sign-language conversation with one of my deaf friends of forty years ago. She and I were back in our home church and we had to opportunity to reconnect our lives after all this time. What was amazing to me and to others standing nearby, (including my deaf friend’s mother) was how well I could remember how to sign. I’m sure that was a God-thing.
Why was it so important to my dad that I included and befriended persons with special needs? Although he never said it, I knew. It was about the love he had for his own son who was born severely handicapped. Joel, who now would be 59, didn’t live beyond three months of age. But his short life brings a strong and healthy message: love people, especially those who have special needs. I am still gripped by my mom’s story of how she took a five pound baby home from the hospital who died three months later --- at the same weight.
My dad met his own handicaps and disabilities during the last several years of his life. Because of Parkinson’s disease, my dad’s own ability to walk, to care for himself, and to live independently caused him to be the recipient of his own teaching: be good to those who need a friend, especially to those who have handicaps. We as family did the best we could.
Three years ago my dad was set free. His time was over – his suffering ended – his handicap was healed. Yes, God called him home. His homecoming was special, I’m sure, because he was reunited with his son – his son he hadn’t seen for 59 years.
I imagine Dad and Joel, standing tall and standing strong – reuniting – fellowshipping – and befriending each other – all the while…
Standing in the presence of the One who healed them.
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
Pastors and council members will inevitably be faced with abuse allegations of some sort in their future. My concern is if you as church leaders are ready and equipped in knowing how to respond when it comes to your council table. Sadly, I’ve witnessed responses by church leaders to victims to be disheartening and disappointing.
“You wouldn’t want to bring all this all up now and hurt all these people, would you?”
“He’s a family man, he’d never do that.”
“That happened several months ago, that’s water under the dam.”
“I’m not going to do anything because he’s my friend.”
“Quit making such a big deal of it.”
All of these responses say to the victim, “Go away. I don’t want to hear about it.” As one pastor said to me, “I don’t have to know anything about abuse until it comes to my desk.” To which I respond, “It already has and you missed it.”
On page 22 of the report it recommends that the Ex. Director develop a handbook that would help council members to know their function and role as council members when abuse allegations come forward. I fully support that – but also want to encourage all pastors and council members to begin now, on their own, to read, research, and get training about abuse. For by doing so, your response to a victim’s call for help will demonstrate the concern the church must have.
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
Evaluating and addressing the current abuse response team process and its overall functioning in responding to abuse are not new. Back in 2002-2003 the BOT was faced with concern about the effectiveness of our current process with discussions of other options of how else it could be done. Nothing ever came of it. Then three years later, in 2006, Attorney Jonker addressed the Synod by stating that there needed to be a mechanism – a vehicle - that needed to be explored to see if something better could be found to respond to abuse and abuse cases. There may be others.
Now we come to Synod 2010 and again faced with nearly the exact same question leaders have faced before: is this the most effective way for us as a church system to respond?
Part of the work of the Abuse Victims Task Force report was to invite write-ins by victims to express their experiences of coming forward with allegations and how the church responded. Understanding that write-in information was assured to be kept confidential, in a general way, I would be curious to know if the write-ins favored, were neutral, or were harmed by the abuse response process. Complaints about the process and those who lead the process are pieces of information that would be helpful for us as a denomination to make a more informed decision regarding how effective our current response process is.
Somehow the current abuse response system seems protected. Issues have been brought up in the past, but little change ever really occurs. I’ve been told by others that “there are mistakes,” but then those mistakes are excused easily. I wonder if objectivity on the effectiveness of the process hasn’t been lost. It seems that some individuals are more focused on their own acceptance and approval by the abuse response administration then honest evaluation of how well the process is working. I even observed this need for approval on the floor at Synod 2008.
If we are serious about addressing abusive leadership, then let’s use our voices at Synod 2010 to have an open and transparent discussion about the loop-holes, flaws, and breakdowns of our current system. Courageously let’s not call the current abuse response team process “good enough.” Instead let’s be sure – this time – that the process is something safer, stronger, and more objective for those who need it when they come forward with abuse allegations.
Or we will be having this discussion again in about four years.
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
When a pastor manipulates an abuse response team in order to get them to meet with a complainant about allegations without council knowledge or approval, there is derailment of process.
When the abuse response team meets with a complainant about allegations without the accused council’s request or knowledge, there is derailment of process.
When chair of the team requests to meet with the accused – and the chair admits to the accused this has nothing to do with sexual or physical abuse allegations – there is a derailment of process.
When the team was directed by the CIC to stop their work, but the team continued anyway –and sent out a letter of findings - process is derailed.
Now the abuse response team process is the abuser.
Sadly, this happened.
Because of this - and there may be other cases similar to it - I ask you to consider challenging the denomination about a different way to do the investigative/fact-finding process. One idea would be to go to an "Outside the Denomination" Professional Investigative/fact-finding Services. Here are some reasons why:
1. Increased objectivity. Since many of our people and churches know each other, teams often run into difficulty with objectivity because of how we are related to one another. Effective outcomes and better recommendations for both the accused and the complainant are more likely when objectivity is present. Using an outside of the denomination process could increase objectivity.
2. Reduced liability. When a professional team is hired by a church, mistakes with the process are not charged to the abuse response teams. Mistakes are instead held by those who provided the services. Therefore, this would reduce the possibility of our teams and churches from being sued. Outside the denomination process could reduce liability.
3. Reduced cost of the running of the Abuse Prevention Office. Because there would be no teams, there would be no expenses for the director to do trainings and re-trainings, including plane, car, hotel, rentals, and other. Costs for professional services would be channeled by another means. Pastoral ministries would be saving themselves some money.
4. Reduced time and energy. The maintaining of teams, with the current number at about 20 and with the potential of it being more, is too difficult to do, especially when team members change over time. Let the professionals do it and pay them for it.
5. Increased confidentiality. Because outside services are used, it is very unlikely that the investigative process would become a source of slander, libel, or breach of confidentiality. This would actually make the process safer – something we are striving to do - to make church and its processes safe.
6. Professional, competent services are needed for such crucial and critical work. A little 20-hour training does not adequately equip or prepare team members to handle the important work of investing abuse allegations. No person “gets it” by doing a little training, having a few conversations, read an article, and then be equipped to handle abuse allegations.
A different way of stating it would be:
1. Human nature wants to believe the worst. There are too many preconceived ideas about what happened before anything has been determined. Our human nature wants to quickly believe the bad and wrong of others and once that happens, ministry for the person (accused) is often over. Trust is lost for the accused even if the party never did anything wrong.
2. Teams run a high risk of being sued. Teams, because of their incompetence and ill-equipped and ill-trained background, run a high risk of being sued. Their failure to understand how liability works and what typical issues can lead to lawsuits increases their possibility of being sued. When a team (and the director) fails to follow Synod-adopted process for investigations and defamation has occurred, you can be assured litigation will soon follow.
3. Poor stewardship. Monies for training and retraining have reached a place where we need to question stewardship. Wasting money on a project that has shown itself not to meet a good enough level of success calls us as Christians to stop and evaluate about what we are really doing.
4. Abuse is a complex issue. Abuse has so many areas and avenues for understanding. Spending time and energy on something that has not met enough success is a lost cause. We could better use that time and energy to educate church leaders and members about the subject of abuse in hopes of helping a greater number of people. Let’s put our energy into something that actually has better and greater results.
5. Confidentiality in the CRC is a big problem. Confidentiality is often non-existent in the CRC. From denominational personnel to team members to pastors to councils, we struggle with silencing confidential information of others. This again can lead to defamation. This leads to the church becoming abusive again – and the betrayal of trust comes on a whole new level.
6. Investigations of allegations are a critical and crucial matter. Lives and futures are in the hands of team members who have at times shown themselves to be incompetent and ill-equipped to do this work. A little 20-hour training will never prove itself worthy of service in comparison to professionals who are trained in this field of expertise and who know what this is all about.
7. Frivolous allegations. Just as there are attempts to do frivolous lawsuits, so are there attempts by dysfunctional people, usually women, to bring forth frivolous allegations. Their need for attention and their skewed perceptions, (such as "he flirts with me or came on to me") usually from women who have been sexually abused as children, will be decreased and even eliminated when the council has to decide if they need to hire the outside resource to investigate. Along with this, if the council chooses to hire the outside investigative services, professionals can pick out a Borderline Personality Disorder Woman easily - and will be equipped to deal with her dysfunction far better and more effectively then teams would. Also chances are that there will be less attempts for Borderline Woman to manipulate the system because professionals can recognize their manipulation and address such behavior appropriately.
If the argument – and I have heard this – is that councils would more likely not use an outside source because it is not as easily accessible, then we need to ask -- - - what is better?
to use our own response system (which cannot guarantee safety and could show itself to be abusive)
vs.
using a professional service (which would be safer ) which councils may less likely utilize because of a lack of convenience
vs.
other ideas that need to be explored
????
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
I thank you Synod 2010 delegates and my Lake Superior representatives for your discussion and approval of the task force report yesterday. It brought tears to my eyes and thanksgiving to God as I heard how you were earnest in wanting these improvements in the abuse response process.
Twelve years ago my then church failed in being church to me when such hardship came my way. What happened Wednesday at Synod was another step toward for our denomination to becoming more of what God’s mandate is for His Church: being healing agents in His broken world.
As you leave Synod this year, continue to wrestle with God and with yourself about what He wants you to do to stop abuse in your faith community.
My favorite verse is: Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the abused will no longer be disabled, but rather healed. Hebrews 12: 12-13
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
It’s been several weeks since the close of Synod. However, my thoughts continue to swirl around the topic of abuse and the reality of it in the CRC. As varying thoughts and feelings surface, this keeps coming to mind: A narcissistic church leader.
Narcissism is a personality disorder that certain individuals have that blur and distort reality. A narcissistic person believes the world revolves around him, that he is special, that he is to be the centerpiece of every conversation, and fishes out compliments and strokes from anyone he can. He comes off as the “know it all” and denies any wrong doing he is responsible for. He is quick to blame others when confronted about his behavior and can display an emotion that is fitting for a particular moment. Narcissists are exhausting to deal with simply because they will drain every ounce of energy out of a person because of their need for all of the attention.
Now imagine a Narcissist church leader being the abuser in a church setting. It’s silly to think that anything constructive or productive could come from an investigative or fact-finding process that involves a narcissist church leader accused of abuse. His charming and manipulative approach and his sly way of shifting blame to the victim will be too difficult for most common church leaders to address. His prior work of aligning himself with the most influential and powerful church members will give him what he needs when council tries to put him in the hot seat. He will be skilled in deflecting all of the charges onto someone or something else and his persuasive responses will manipulate the thinking of most.
Sadly, I’ve seen it. Duped by his charm, council members were tripped into believing the most absurd explanations for his behavior.
It can’t be said enough: Wake up, people! Not all pastors or church leaders fall in the “normal” range of functioning. And when that is so, beware of his approach that will be used to manipulate your thinking.
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
Understanding the Narcissistic pastor/church leader is crucial when dealing with church leadership and administration. Should the Narcissist pastor/church leader abuse, know that he will use every distorted view to shift blame for his behavior onto the victim and others.
My concern is: restorative justice process needs careful consideration if the offender is a narcissist. Know that if he is a narcissist, he has no earnest desire to fully own his responsibility to have done harm. He can’t do it. He can’t do it because his self-esteem is near nothing and admitting his wrong would crash him. In a R.J. process, he would display the right emotion for that moment – but genuine sorrow for sin and owning his sins are nearly impossible. He does not have the ability to engage with another’s pain and his mind takes him to thinking, “She’s such a whiner.”
Church leaders need to be strong and non-manipulative when dealing with a narcissistic church leader who has abused. When churches hold him accountable for his actions and confront him about his abuse, be prepared to hear some of the most bizarre responses. Also know that in the R. J. process, a victim is at risk to be harmed again, simply because facilitators/moderators can’t control what comes out of the Narcissist’s mouth. And be aware that he will use that opportunity to say whatever he wants --- with no regrets – making sure he got the last word.
I’ve dealt with this – three times!
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
For easy reference, I use the three A’s when victims of church leadership abuse need to understand how to heal and start the forgiveness process: accountability, acknowledgement, and apology. Those responsible for his work need to hold the abuser accountable for his actions by confronting him and addressing the issues to him -- expecting and demanding truth about what happened. In acknowledgement, the victim needs to hear the abuser say, “Yes, I did this to you. I was the one. I wronged you and harmed you. I did not show respect for you.” And in the apology, the accuser must say to the victim, “I am sorry. What I did was wrong and I fully apologize.” (Fortune, Marie M., pp. 9-13).
From there, it’s helpful to think about the three R’s that need to occur. They are: restitution, relinquishment of power, and relief. In restitution, the victim must have some sort of pay back for the wrong that was done. It needs to be something tangible. In our society it is money. There needs to be relinquishment of power. This means the abuser must have his position in the church taken away from him and reinstatement to a church position denied. Third, the victim must feel relief about what has happened because the church leadership has invested well into the situation and has sought out protection for the victim’s safety and the safety of others (Fortune, Marie M., pp. 9-13).
(Fortune, Marie M., Sexual Abuse by Clergy: A Crisis for the Church, Decatur: Journal of Pastoral Care Publications, Inc., 1994.)
“Just forgive,” and “What would Jesus do?” are simplistic answers to handling abuse by church leaders. If these were the correct responses, there would be no jails or prisons. And now that you are informed about the Abuse Victims Task Force Report, you know there are no simplistic answers to this problem.
And remember --- by holding the abuser to the three A’s and the three R’s, you are loving him in the best way you can. This response from you to him says that he is worth every minute of your time and energy, because you want to ensure that “it is well with his soul.”
Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:Abuse always robs. It always ruins, always destroys, and always hurts. Those who have experienced abuse often have difficulties with relationships, manipulation, trust, skewed perceptions and so much more. Abuse always robs. Take the experience of abuse and now put it in the context of the church. Now the damage and the confusion from the abuse multiplies itself tenfold. For not only did the abuse itself do damage, but the very ones we trusted to be safe for us were not. The very place that was to bring us healing and comfort did not. And the very community that was designed to give us fellowship had not. Instead, we’ve been robbed. Now the going to church is not about joy and fellowship, but about anger and turmoil. Now a time of worship is not about comfort and encouragement but a time of feeling hurt and betrayed. Now the seeing of any church leadership turns into emotional implosion. Anxiety, sadness, and sleepless nights dominate. We’ve been robbed. We’ve been robbed of peace – peace with ourselves, with others and with God. Abuse never gives. It always takes. Look again at the task force report. Think through again the devastation and harm done to those who have been abused by our leadership. Then ask yourself what you need to do to strengthen your church in understanding this subject. Be a grassroots worker. Get training, go to workshops, read books. Be a leader in your faith community about the subject of abuse. Work from the bottom up. Then as you do your part, hold top management accountable to do theirs. 1) Expect the BOT to know about this subject. Communicate to them that you expect them to model good leadership when it comes to the subject of abuse. 2) Expect better leadership from the denominational offices. Tell them that you are watching them and you want to see competence and integrity in their work about addressing abuse in our churches. 3) Expect your CIC to take the lead about understanding abuse in your classis. Insist they offer abuse training for pastors and classis delegates when they meet in the spring and fall. Tell them you expect competence if/when abuse allegations come forward in your classis. We must insist on “work from the top down.” The recent task force report is missing one thing: YOU! Get involved and do something about the abuse that is happening in your church. Judy De Wit
Posted in: Abuse Victims Task Force: Discussion
Dear Readers:
Leadership in the context of addressing cases of abuse is no easy task. Within the resistance for pastors and church leaders to address abuse allegations is the reality that many need the acceptance and approval of their colleagues. What this means is that pastors worry about how speaking up for the complainant may hurt their name and reputation in their church, classis, or faith community. Failing to get involved when someone has been harmed by the church says pastors and church leaders would rather ignore, avoid, and minimize someone else’s abuse experience then to stand for what is right. Poor self-esteems cannot be a part of CRC leadership.
Dare to stand alone. Dare to be a voice for victims who have been abused by the church. Dare to risk your own fame and fortune for the sake of doing what is right.
Judy De Wit