Kelly Sibthorpe

Doug,

Yes, you are semantically correct. Thank-you for bringing clarity. Authority to exercise power of course is granted by the people as we have just witnessed yesterday in the mid-terms. Correct, patriarchal authority structures is more proper, the point being, through empirical observation is that most church denominational structures are patriarchal as are the majority of business and institutional structures. Thankfully, women are gaining ground.

The key, in this church structure authority discussion is, who are the qualified givers and receivers of authority? Who are the stake-holders responsible to delegate or appoint authority? Does this authority to grant power reside equally with both genders? Traditionally, authority to grant power has been the domain of males. More recently, females have been "allowed" to hold church offices. In other words, there is wrestling going on. Who allows who to do what? Is this authority to exercise power based on gender, race, socioeconomic standing? Naturally we are to look to the scriptures for guidance and not tradition to put into place proper authority structures.

Hello Roger and all,

With due respect to your office Roger, please take the time to do your own investigation into this issue. There have been a variety of current resources cited here to read. It will be much more helpful to you if you read all the information cited in this blog in a process of discovery, rather than asking me questions. Clearly, you do not believe the information I provided.

The research and information you discover will enlighten you surrounding changes that have taken place since 1995. The changes to attitudes in society and the practical re-engineering of church order to reflect those changes  would not have resulted in the exoneration of the accused pastor nor would have judged the judgment of the elders in question as correct or disciplinary. 

Kelly

Hi Roger and all.

Thanks for attempting to answer the "power differential" question.

Power is more than having people voted into positions of authority and knowing their titles and roles. Inherent in the position of power are psychological, moral and spiritual advantages (power) that come with the office. Because of the power differential in the relation between pastor and parishioner, any sexual innuendo or act in that relationship is never consensual and therefore an abuse of power. The pastor or office bearer, through their fiduciary responsibility to protect the relationship charged to them  is responsible for placing proper boundaries to protect the relationship from harm, so "incitement" from a parishioner may never be used as a defense by the bearer of power. Any breach of safe boundaries is never consensual. There is no such thing as "incitement", because of the imbalance in power in the relationship.

Please read the following for a full explanation of this, then respond. Others please respond too :)

https://futuristguymedia.wordpress.com/clergy-sexual-misconduct-fiduciary-duty/

Kelly

Hi Roger and All,

Frank, you just made a correct observation. The penalty was staid, likely, and of course I admit conjecture, yet 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. About 75% of the time according to national statistics, charges of adult clergy abuse against the accused are dismissed in deference to "sacrifice" and minimize a less powerful congregant, usually a woman to protect against the much greater loss of a man's career, job or reputation. Bev, in her recent post outlined that the numbers of cases she's aware of ending in dismissal are probably greater than the national average.

Regarding, "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."

This is a great question and thanks for asking. Yes, it is her sole responsibility to protect the pastoral relationship by maintaining emotional, spiritual and sexual  boundaries and be able to perceive inappropriate behaviors in parishioners, i.e., "incitement".  She is responsible in her calling and profession to know, understand and respond with pastoral care to inappropriate behaviors. When she does just that, the male parishioner who is in error, will receive the spiritual care he needs to move forward in Christ.

Roger,

keep going. What is my position on this entire topic?

Kelly

Hi All,

Thank-you Roger for confirming the fact that there is an element of "circling the wagons" in times of crisis including times of accusation of sexual abuse against an office bearer. Circle, protect, hope for the best when he's let go, minimize and ostracize the accuser as being a temptress or the one who incited an incident.

You ask in which circles I run, inferring that the Christian communities, the churches and campus ministry I've served over the years, do not carry levels of integrity commensurate with the standards of progressive sanctification that you claim differentiates our contexts? Roger, I work in the same circles. I'm a commissioned  CRC pastor at present serving in Campus Ministry. I run in the same circles...Thanks for asking. One of my goals in ministry is to fight for justice for victims and survivors of sexual abuse by office bearers. You have expressed the you do not like what I do and that's your prerogative. I ask you to adopt a more curious and realistic approach to understanding the intricacies of victimization, its consequences and the terrible damage wrought on those we swear to protect from harm as ministers of the Gospel. I understand why you want to deny the facts, we do not want to believe there is this type of evil among us. "Not in My Church", is the common refrain of those who do not want to believe the reality of clergy sexual abuse. I do not hate the abusers, they need pastoral care that allows them to grow in Christ and away from this sin against the innocent. This type of pastoral care is best exemplified in David's story of his betrayal with Bathsheba. When confronted by the prophet Nathan with the truth of sexual abuse and murder, David's heart broke, he repented  and wrote Psalm 51. The goal in safe church is not to hang out to dry the guilty, its to restore them to a place of shalom within the body of Christ through proper pastoral care. The focus however must be on the victim, their right to be heard, understood, providing hope for the possibility of justice or opportunities for restorative justice with the restoration in so far as possible, God helping them, Christian human dignity. 

Hi All,

Thank-you Roger for confirming the fact that there is an element of "circling the wagons" in times of crisis including times of accusation of sexual abuse against an office bearer. Circle, protect, hope for the best when he's let go, minimize and ostracize the accuser as being a temptress or the one who incited an incident.

You ask in which circles I run, inferring that the Christian communities, the churches and campus ministry I've served over the years, do not carry levels of integrity commensurate with the standards of progressive sanctification that you claim differentiates our contexts? Roger, I work in the same circles. I'm a commissioned  CRC pastor at present serving in Campus Ministry. I run in the same circles...Thanks for asking. One of my goals in ministry is to fight for justice for victims and survivors of sexual abuse by office bearers. You have expressed you do not like what I do and that's your prerogative. I ask you to adopt a more curious and realistic approach to understanding the intricacies of victimization, its consequences and the terrible damage wrought on those we swear to protect from harm as ministers of the Gospel. I understand why you want to deny the facts, we do not want to believe there is this type of evil among us. "Not in My Church", is the common refrain of those who do not want to believe the reality of clergy sexual abuse. I do not hate the abusers, they need pastoral care that allows them to grow in Christ and away from this sin against the innocent. This type of pastoral care is best exemplified in David's story of his betrayal with Bathsheba. When confronted by the prophet Nathan with the truth of sexual abuse and murder, David's heart broke, he repented  and wrote Psalm 51. The goal in safe church is not to hang out to dry the guilty, its to restore them to a place of shalom within the body of Christ through proper pastoral care. The focus however must be on the victim, their right to be heard, understood, providing hope for the possibility of justice or opportunities for restorative justice in so far as possible, God helping them, with the goal of restoring some level of the victims' Christian dignity. 

Roger,

The CRC is in the very early stages of educating it's membership on our dedicated, organizational power structures i.e., (Classes, Counsels, Pastors, Elders and Deacons) regarding the various abuses of power that exist in our denomination. The 180,000 (plus or minus)  people who willingly subject themselves to the CRC's power structures (office bearers), do so trusting that they will be a part of a safe, and relationally accountable body.

Up until recently, there was minimal or no understanding of the power differential between the appointed powers managing the activities of the membership. The power structures themselves usually have an inherent desire to protect their upper-echelon membership and holy reputation from blame for a number of factors, not the least of which is avoiding a "disastrous" fall from grace or a "de-frocking".

The normal course of action for an office bearer crossing the boundaries into sexual harassment or abuse were labeled as those guilty of having had an "affair" with a parishioner. "Affair" was the language used in Church Article 83 prior to Synods' amendments to the same in 2016, to describe sexual misconduct. Shameful, possibly worthy of some discipline yes! However, it was just an affair, It takes two to tango you know! A short suspension will suffice and possibly after a year or two, this pastor may seek a new call. This is how the "Old Boys Club" played out back in the day. The perpetrators of office-bearer sexual harassment and abuse were simply supported back to a place of leadership following minor discipline, only to repeat the same ingrained patterns of behavior in new contexts of power.

Thankfully, those days are over and we are collectively trying to make the church a safer place for all. We must continue on the path towards relational integrity and the proper use of power that the Synodical amendments clearly dictate. Our denomination will be fully ridiculed for having not properly reformed to place of promoting, through education, relational respect and equality with a clear understanding of the proper use of delegated power in power-differentiated relationships. Until we get to that place as a body of Christ, victims will continue to take the blame, lose their faith in God and the church and become suicidal substance abusers. Do we love all of our people or not? Do we love them enough to not ever sexualize relationships of fiduciary trust, knowing that if we do, our actions have the potential to destroy that person? 

Any church denomination is fertile ground for abusers of the power they receive at ordination. The research by the Baylor School of Sociology cites the average rate of abuse is all church denominations is approximately two percent, meaning that two office bearers out of 100 are actively engaged in emotional and sexually abusive behavior. If you do the math, we have 1200 churches with an average of 6-10 office bearers per church being about 85% male. At any given time, statistically, our denomination hosts approximately 190 practitioners of sexual abuse or harassment. Here's the math: 1200 churches X 8 office bearers/church= 9600 people (more or less) in positions of power. 9600 X .02 (2%) =190  sexual abusers of power. There are, at any given time, a minimum of 24 ordained Ministers of the Word who are guilty of clergy sexual abuse, representing 100's of victims. De we need education and increased awareness of this phenomenon? I think so. Our children and grandchildren need this level of diligence for their protection.

Thank-you Safe Church for trying to educate, against a strong tide of remaining, yet thankfully diminishing misunderstanding surrounding this horrific practice found among us.

Dear Roger,

Thanks for re-stating the fact that these were gifted men, I agree. Do you agree that 2% of these "gifted" men were actively abusing their office? I am not sure what you mean by "educate away".  Please clarify.

You're exactly right, in 1995 there was no safe church ministry...so the 2% of abusers got away with a lot as I outlined. Please elaborate if you're able, on what role safe church does play, so we have a common understanding of its mission in 2018. I would like to hear your thoughts! In your opinion what does a "safe" church look and feel like for women? 

-peace,

Kelly