Hi Adom, I think you are asking a very important question. As you must realize there are hundreds of different Christian denominations. There’s Baptist, Reformed/Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic and the list can go on. Any one of these may look at a Bible teaching (or doctrine), like baptism a little differently from the other. As Reformed Christians we may poke holes in the Baptist perspective on baptism, just as they may poke holes in our perspective. Our perspective is a Reformed theological perspective. And by our perspective all the bits and pieces of theology, or the Bible’s teaching, fit together consistently. But the bits and pieces of Baptist theology or Catholic theology don’t fit well into our Reformed perspective. Each perspective makes the overall teaching of the Bible consistent within its own perspective. Pastor’s go to their denominational seminary to be trained in the Bible’s teaching according to their particular denominational perspective or point of view and way of understanding the Bible. That way we can claim that the Bible is perfectly consistent, as long as we stay within our Reformed perspective. So you could say that theology is an important key for having a consistent interpretation on the Bible. If you go to a Baptist church you will be looking at the Bible’s teaching from the Baptist perspective (and there’s a consistency within that system). The same will be true of each different denomination. Maybe you just have to pick the perspective that you like best.
The big problem is, why are there so many different points of view, in understanding the Bible? Why isn’t there just one perspective, the right perspective? Of course, each denomination claims they have the right perspective. It doesn’t seem as though the Holy Spirit has done a very good job of leading the church in all truth. There is so much seeming inconsistency within the Bible that it’s like a maze by which we need a particular theological perspective in order to get through this maze without becoming hopelessly lost? Well that’s what a particular theology does for a person, it helps him/her to get through the many twists and turns of the Bible without becoming thoroughly confused. That’s my take on the importance of theology.
Thanks, M Jill H, for sharing your own story and how you perceived the abuse that you experienced. I have little comment for what happened to you, except that I’m sorry. I hope that time and the love of those who surround you will contribute to your healing and comfort.
Life is full of valleys and mountain tops. The mountain tops can come from a hundred different directions, as can the valleys. Some people are struck with physical, mental, monetary, or psychological ups and downs that can be an extreme benefit or deficit upon one’s life. In this roller coaster of life, it’s hard to predict the presence or beneficence of a loving God, especially when caught in a valley (as you have suggested). The Psalmist often felt abandoned by God. “The length of our days is seventy years—or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10) The deist suggests, that God exists, he created this world as a watchmaker but is far removed from human activity. His activity might be best seen in and through the natural laws (including the laws of relationships) that we experience daily. So, to experience God’s healing and comfort in the valleys of life, it is important to avail ourselves of that which brings healing, such as counseling, understanding and loving friendships, and time. I only wish the best for you in your situation.
Throughout my posting of comments, I have focused, in my opinion, on one flaw in this story. The retribution sought by this women against this pastor far outweighed the crime. Yes, he was wrong to pinch this lady on the hiney. Even the church elders seemed to indicate this by their initial response. But to classify this as “sexual assault,” was going too far. And so the elders, of not one church, but two, dropped the charge. To remove his pastoral credentials, even for a short time, would probably bring the end (ruin) to his ministry, a ministry that he had spent years preparing for. I believe that these elders recognized this and refused to charge this minister with sexual assault, a charge that did not fit the crime of a pinch on the hiney, even with an unkind comment. That’s my opinion, and now after all these other comments, I am convinced is still valid. Thanks for stating your opinions, as well.
Thanks, Jane, for furthering the conversation. I’ve been trying to step away from this dialogue. My last comment to M Jill H was not meant to be sarcastic, as you seem to imply, but helpful if anything. Read it, again.
Perception is very important to our understanding for a variety of actions. I had suggested in an earlier comment (to Frank) that, [“In this new age of #Me too, it might be in good order to teach future pastors to never touch a woman or a man, whether on the arm or shoulder or anywhere. It can too easily be misconstrued as sexual misconduct.”] Perception can indicate to a person whether a touch is a “come on” or an expression of caring or concern. How a young person perceives the discipline of his/her parents can be entirely different from that of the parents, whether as an expression of parental abuse or as an expression of parental love. Perception is the difference. This is just plain common sense. I’ll not pursue this further.
Thanks for the suggested reading list of helpful books on the topic of abuse. No need to send a hard copy. I’m a Kindle reader and can order it from Amazon. I imagine that you and I probably agree on many things, just not in regard to this particular story. Blessings to you.
Thanks, Kelly, for the effort you have put into this last comment. There’s much to agree with and gives me reason to pause. But I think you, yourself, have hit upon the distinguishing factor. You said, [“Of course there are differing interpretations of incidents involving harassment and abuse. From a judiciary view, opinions don't count, only facts count. If the event brought forth by the courageous story teller is true, there is only one interpretation...”] But of course interpretations do matter. Our perception of an event may be entirely different from that of someone else. The lens through which we see an activity shades the truth of what actually happened. So you say, “if the event brought forth is true...” Is a pinch on the hiney considered sexual assault? What if it was a pinch on the arm? Would that make it different? What if it was a slap in the face? As I have suggested we have one accounting of an event. We don’t know what led up to it, if he was incited. We have one account. And obviously there is another accounting. The pastor’s.
A high school boy gets into a school yard fight and is hurt, a broken arm, leg or finger. He brings charges to the principal against the other boy. Does it matter who started the fight or if the other student was hurt? I would think the accounts of both boys would be equally important in finding fault. The lens through we see an event will make a difference.
Remember, also, this was a pastor’s wife. As a pastor’s wife, certainly her word carried some weight. And I would imagine that her husband (a pastor) supported her and his word as a pastor would contribute to her weight and influence in testifying. The charge was sexual assault, according to the article, a serious crime. Was the charge justified? Apparently not.
The jury (the elders of two different churches), after hearing the two sides of the story did not charge this pastor with sexual assault. You can talk about the abuse of power by 2% of pastors, that’s an average across all U.S. denominations. Some would be lower and some higher. What is the final tally for the CRC? Does that 2% percent average mean all councils, made up of men, abuse their power? Of course not. And the likelihood of these two groups of elders making a biased judgement seems very unlikely, based on a 2% average. By suggesting so, shows a bias on your part. Thanks, Kelly, for your contribution.
Thanks, Safe Church Ministry, for publishing this account of a woman who felt she was sexually harassed by a minister at a CRC ministerial retreat. I was personally offended by this account and felt an injustice was committed.
I believe the punishment sought by this women was not comparable to the wrong that was committed by this pastor. Let me explain. Petty theft and grand theft are both crimes of stealing. Petty theft might involve the stealing of a candy bar from a grocery store, whereas grand theft might involve robbing a bank of a million dollars. Grand theft might result in twenty years in prison, whereas petty theft might result in paying for the candy bar. But both involve the act of stealing. Pinching this woman on the bottom amounts to petty theft, whereas a man exposing himself to a woman, or rape, or proposing sex might be considered a more serious crime approaching grand theft. To seek the suspension of this pastor’s ministerial credentials is way beyond the seriousness of this wrong doing (pinching a women on the bottom and making an ill chosen comment).
Put the shoe on the other foot, and consider that it was the woman who pinched the man on the bottom and said, nice hiney. More than likely the man would not be offended, but see it as light hearted humor. I doubt that very few men (including pastors) would consider this as sexual harassment. And I’m almost certain that many women feel the same sentiment. It, at least, demonstrates that most men think differently than women in regard to sex. I would imagine this pastor was acting in accord with his innate male personality and saw his actions as light hearted humor.
It is often said a speaker should know their audience before speaking. Although this pastor thought he knew his audience (this woman) for a variety of possible reasons, he had misjudged her. What he intended as light hearted humor was taken as sexual harassment by her. He knew he was in trouble the minute she made his action known to her breakfast group (which, by the away, amounts to gossip). I cannot imagine this pastor had any designs on this woman sexually, especially with her husband present. Again she was going for his throat for what he intended as humor.
The fact that he would not apologize reinforces his position. Although his outward actions accorded to her statement, he would not admit to sexual harassment (her accusation), but only to an intended humor. And, also, the fact that the elders did not likely consider this incident to involve serious sexual harassment, they were willing to review the proposed course of action and reduce the charges.
As I see it, this woman overstepped reasonable bounds in wanting to destroy this man.
Has the comment section been closed down for this article? I've noticed several new comments, both pro and con, on my internet alert, that have not made it onto the website. Is the opportunity for comments closed down for this article? I won't write further comments if it has. Thanks.
Thanks, Bonnie, for your concern about me. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea or impression of me. I am definitely against sexual harassment. I read the news accounts about men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Bill Hybels, and Catholic priests taking sexual advantage of children and think such people should be prosecuted severely. And such real predators in our denomination should be taken seriously, as well. But to prosecute a man severely (take his career from him) for a pinch on the but does not make sense. My guess is that this woman needs counseling as much as this pastor, or more so. And remember, we never got to hear the pastor’s side of this story. There’s a reason that he wouldn’t apologize for sexual harassment.
Kelly, you questioned my understanding of the nature of a power differential of those in leadership, what might be the boundaries and possible abuse of such leadership of those holding office. Certainly our form of church government and even civil government protects against such abuse. A jury of twelve, or a consistory of several elders protects against placing the power in the hands of a single person. Even the pastor holds no more power or authority than the other elders in our churches. Power, authority, decision making is placed in the hands of many, not just one. An example or two might help.
In the city I live in, we are witnessing a widely publicized trial of a police officer who is being tried for first degree murder of a young man on the streets of our city. There is no doubt that this police officer shot and killed the young man. It was caught on the police dash cam and has been shown to the public many, many times. The charge against him is first degree murder. Although acknowledging that he shot and killed the young man, he pleads not guilty to the charge of first degree murder. He claims this was justifiable homicide. In this trial there have been and will be expert witnesses giving their testimony that shows, in their opinion, either innocence or guilt against this officer. Does the evidence against the defendant involve a possible abuse of power by an officer? Of course. Will he be found guilty of the charges against him? Maybe so or maybe not. It all depends whether the evidence weighs in favor or against the defendant beyond any reasonable doubt in the collective mind of the jurors. This is a trial that is taking place presently in our city. Those involved have an understanding of the possible ‘abuse of power of those in authority’ issues that are important today. If he is found innocent of the charge of first degree murder, he will be set free. He may still be guilty of murder in the mind of the plaintiff, but that is just his/her opinion and is not legally binding. Expressing his/her opinion does not determine guilt. That would have already been legally determined. So again, charges sought, or the plaintiff’s opinion (or story) does not determine guilt. The verdict will come from twelve people who equally have the power of decision. This protects against either the accuser (plaintiff) or the accused (defendant) of abusing what power they might have, and protects from either deciding the verdict.
Also, presently going on, is the sentencing of Bill Cosby, being found guilty of “sexual assault,” the same charge brought by the woman in our published story. There were many witnesses who testified against Cosby, testifying to being drugged and sexually assaulted while under the influence of drugs. The evidence was conclusive and the jury brought forth a guilty verdict of sexual assault. Although the charges are the same, does Cosby’s crime even remotely compare to the charge in our story? I can’t help but wondering if the same charge of “sexual assault” was brought against Cosby for pinching a lady on the bottom, if the case would even make it to court. My contention all along has been that what this pastor did (in 1995 or today) did not constitute sexual assault and the sought after retribution did not fit the act. The jury (elders) made their final decision in good faith and their decision would stand, whether in 1995 or today (whether considering the possible abuse of power by those in authority or not). Have a great week.
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.
Posted in: Why Does Theology Matter?
Hi Adom, I think you are asking a very important question. As you must realize there are hundreds of different Christian denominations. There’s Baptist, Reformed/Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic and the list can go on. Any one of these may look at a Bible teaching (or doctrine), like baptism a little differently from the other. As Reformed Christians we may poke holes in the Baptist perspective on baptism, just as they may poke holes in our perspective. Our perspective is a Reformed theological perspective. And by our perspective all the bits and pieces of theology, or the Bible’s teaching, fit together consistently. But the bits and pieces of Baptist theology or Catholic theology don’t fit well into our Reformed perspective. Each perspective makes the overall teaching of the Bible consistent within its own perspective. Pastor’s go to their denominational seminary to be trained in the Bible’s teaching according to their particular denominational perspective or point of view and way of understanding the Bible. That way we can claim that the Bible is perfectly consistent, as long as we stay within our Reformed perspective. So you could say that theology is an important key for having a consistent interpretation on the Bible. If you go to a Baptist church you will be looking at the Bible’s teaching from the Baptist perspective (and there’s a consistency within that system). The same will be true of each different denomination. Maybe you just have to pick the perspective that you like best.
The big problem is, why are there so many different points of view, in understanding the Bible? Why isn’t there just one perspective, the right perspective? Of course, each denomination claims they have the right perspective. It doesn’t seem as though the Holy Spirit has done a very good job of leading the church in all truth. There is so much seeming inconsistency within the Bible that it’s like a maze by which we need a particular theological perspective in order to get through this maze without becoming hopelessly lost? Well that’s what a particular theology does for a person, it helps him/her to get through the many twists and turns of the Bible without becoming thoroughly confused. That’s my take on the importance of theology.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, M Jill H, for sharing your own story and how you perceived the abuse that you experienced. I have little comment for what happened to you, except that I’m sorry. I hope that time and the love of those who surround you will contribute to your healing and comfort.
Life is full of valleys and mountain tops. The mountain tops can come from a hundred different directions, as can the valleys. Some people are struck with physical, mental, monetary, or psychological ups and downs that can be an extreme benefit or deficit upon one’s life. In this roller coaster of life, it’s hard to predict the presence or beneficence of a loving God, especially when caught in a valley (as you have suggested). The Psalmist often felt abandoned by God. “The length of our days is seventy years—or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10) The deist suggests, that God exists, he created this world as a watchmaker but is far removed from human activity. His activity might be best seen in and through the natural laws (including the laws of relationships) that we experience daily. So, to experience God’s healing and comfort in the valleys of life, it is important to avail ourselves of that which brings healing, such as counseling, understanding and loving friendships, and time. I only wish the best for you in your situation.
Throughout my posting of comments, I have focused, in my opinion, on one flaw in this story. The retribution sought by this women against this pastor far outweighed the crime. Yes, he was wrong to pinch this lady on the hiney. Even the church elders seemed to indicate this by their initial response. But to classify this as “sexual assault,” was going too far. And so the elders, of not one church, but two, dropped the charge. To remove his pastoral credentials, even for a short time, would probably bring the end (ruin) to his ministry, a ministry that he had spent years preparing for. I believe that these elders recognized this and refused to charge this minister with sexual assault, a charge that did not fit the crime of a pinch on the hiney, even with an unkind comment. That’s my opinion, and now after all these other comments, I am convinced is still valid. Thanks for stating your opinions, as well.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Jane, for furthering the conversation. I’ve been trying to step away from this dialogue. My last comment to M Jill H was not meant to be sarcastic, as you seem to imply, but helpful if anything. Read it, again.
Perception is very important to our understanding for a variety of actions. I had suggested in an earlier comment (to Frank) that, [“In this new age of #Me too, it might be in good order to teach future pastors to never touch a woman or a man, whether on the arm or shoulder or anywhere. It can too easily be misconstrued as sexual misconduct.”] Perception can indicate to a person whether a touch is a “come on” or an expression of caring or concern. How a young person perceives the discipline of his/her parents can be entirely different from that of the parents, whether as an expression of parental abuse or as an expression of parental love. Perception is the difference. This is just plain common sense. I’ll not pursue this further.
Thanks for the suggested reading list of helpful books on the topic of abuse. No need to send a hard copy. I’m a Kindle reader and can order it from Amazon. I imagine that you and I probably agree on many things, just not in regard to this particular story. Blessings to you.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Kelly, for the effort you have put into this last comment. There’s much to agree with and gives me reason to pause. But I think you, yourself, have hit upon the distinguishing factor. You said, [“Of course there are differing interpretations of incidents involving harassment and abuse. From a judiciary view, opinions don't count, only facts count. If the event brought forth by the courageous story teller is true, there is only one interpretation...”] But of course interpretations do matter. Our perception of an event may be entirely different from that of someone else. The lens through which we see an activity shades the truth of what actually happened. So you say, “if the event brought forth is true...” Is a pinch on the hiney considered sexual assault? What if it was a pinch on the arm? Would that make it different? What if it was a slap in the face? As I have suggested we have one accounting of an event. We don’t know what led up to it, if he was incited. We have one account. And obviously there is another accounting. The pastor’s.
A high school boy gets into a school yard fight and is hurt, a broken arm, leg or finger. He brings charges to the principal against the other boy. Does it matter who started the fight or if the other student was hurt? I would think the accounts of both boys would be equally important in finding fault. The lens through we see an event will make a difference.
Remember, also, this was a pastor’s wife. As a pastor’s wife, certainly her word carried some weight. And I would imagine that her husband (a pastor) supported her and his word as a pastor would contribute to her weight and influence in testifying. The charge was sexual assault, according to the article, a serious crime. Was the charge justified? Apparently not.
The jury (the elders of two different churches), after hearing the two sides of the story did not charge this pastor with sexual assault. You can talk about the abuse of power by 2% of pastors, that’s an average across all U.S. denominations. Some would be lower and some higher. What is the final tally for the CRC? Does that 2% percent average mean all councils, made up of men, abuse their power? Of course not. And the likelihood of these two groups of elders making a biased judgement seems very unlikely, based on a 2% average. By suggesting so, shows a bias on your part. Thanks, Kelly, for your contribution.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Safe Church Ministry, for publishing this account of a woman who felt she was sexually harassed by a minister at a CRC ministerial retreat. I was personally offended by this account and felt an injustice was committed.
I believe the punishment sought by this women was not comparable to the wrong that was committed by this pastor. Let me explain. Petty theft and grand theft are both crimes of stealing. Petty theft might involve the stealing of a candy bar from a grocery store, whereas grand theft might involve robbing a bank of a million dollars. Grand theft might result in twenty years in prison, whereas petty theft might result in paying for the candy bar. But both involve the act of stealing. Pinching this woman on the bottom amounts to petty theft, whereas a man exposing himself to a woman, or rape, or proposing sex might be considered a more serious crime approaching grand theft. To seek the suspension of this pastor’s ministerial credentials is way beyond the seriousness of this wrong doing (pinching a women on the bottom and making an ill chosen comment).
Put the shoe on the other foot, and consider that it was the woman who pinched the man on the bottom and said, nice hiney. More than likely the man would not be offended, but see it as light hearted humor. I doubt that very few men (including pastors) would consider this as sexual harassment. And I’m almost certain that many women feel the same sentiment. It, at least, demonstrates that most men think differently than women in regard to sex. I would imagine this pastor was acting in accord with his innate male personality and saw his actions as light hearted humor.
It is often said a speaker should know their audience before speaking. Although this pastor thought he knew his audience (this woman) for a variety of possible reasons, he had misjudged her. What he intended as light hearted humor was taken as sexual harassment by her. He knew he was in trouble the minute she made his action known to her breakfast group (which, by the away, amounts to gossip). I cannot imagine this pastor had any designs on this woman sexually, especially with her husband present. Again she was going for his throat for what he intended as humor.
The fact that he would not apologize reinforces his position. Although his outward actions accorded to her statement, he would not admit to sexual harassment (her accusation), but only to an intended humor. And, also, the fact that the elders did not likely consider this incident to involve serious sexual harassment, they were willing to review the proposed course of action and reduce the charges.
As I see it, this woman overstepped reasonable bounds in wanting to destroy this man.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Has the comment section been closed down for this article? I've noticed several new comments, both pro and con, on my internet alert, that have not made it onto the website. Is the opportunity for comments closed down for this article? I won't write further comments if it has. Thanks.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Thanks, Bonnie, for your concern about me. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea or impression of me. I am definitely against sexual harassment. I read the news accounts about men like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Bill Hybels, and Catholic priests taking sexual advantage of children and think such people should be prosecuted severely. And such real predators in our denomination should be taken seriously, as well. But to prosecute a man severely (take his career from him) for a pinch on the but does not make sense. My guess is that this woman needs counseling as much as this pastor, or more so. And remember, we never got to hear the pastor’s side of this story. There’s a reason that he wouldn’t apologize for sexual harassment.
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Kelly, you questioned my understanding of the nature of a power differential of those in leadership, what might be the boundaries and possible abuse of such leadership of those holding office. Certainly our form of church government and even civil government protects against such abuse. A jury of twelve, or a consistory of several elders protects against placing the power in the hands of a single person. Even the pastor holds no more power or authority than the other elders in our churches. Power, authority, decision making is placed in the hands of many, not just one. An example or two might help.
In the city I live in, we are witnessing a widely publicized trial of a police officer who is being tried for first degree murder of a young man on the streets of our city. There is no doubt that this police officer shot and killed the young man. It was caught on the police dash cam and has been shown to the public many, many times. The charge against him is first degree murder. Although acknowledging that he shot and killed the young man, he pleads not guilty to the charge of first degree murder. He claims this was justifiable homicide. In this trial there have been and will be expert witnesses giving their testimony that shows, in their opinion, either innocence or guilt against this officer. Does the evidence against the defendant involve a possible abuse of power by an officer? Of course. Will he be found guilty of the charges against him? Maybe so or maybe not. It all depends whether the evidence weighs in favor or against the defendant beyond any reasonable doubt in the collective mind of the jurors. This is a trial that is taking place presently in our city. Those involved have an understanding of the possible ‘abuse of power of those in authority’ issues that are important today. If he is found innocent of the charge of first degree murder, he will be set free. He may still be guilty of murder in the mind of the plaintiff, but that is just his/her opinion and is not legally binding. Expressing his/her opinion does not determine guilt. That would have already been legally determined. So again, charges sought, or the plaintiff’s opinion (or story) does not determine guilt. The verdict will come from twelve people who equally have the power of decision. This protects against either the accuser (plaintiff) or the accused (defendant) of abusing what power they might have, and protects from either deciding the verdict.
Also, presently going on, is the sentencing of Bill Cosby, being found guilty of “sexual assault,” the same charge brought by the woman in our published story. There were many witnesses who testified against Cosby, testifying to being drugged and sexually assaulted while under the influence of drugs. The evidence was conclusive and the jury brought forth a guilty verdict of sexual assault. Although the charges are the same, does Cosby’s crime even remotely compare to the charge in our story? I can’t help but wondering if the same charge of “sexual assault” was brought against Cosby for pinching a lady on the bottom, if the case would even make it to court. My contention all along has been that what this pastor did (in 1995 or today) did not constitute sexual assault and the sought after retribution did not fit the act. The jury (elders) made their final decision in good faith and their decision would stand, whether in 1995 or today (whether considering the possible abuse of power by those in authority or not). Have a great week.
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.