MY VOICE BACK
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Denominational Policies
  • Shop
  • Download Study Questions
  • Product
  • About Us

She Could Have Walked Away...

8/27/2014

26 Comments

 
That's what they told her. "You could have walked away." Roughly translated, her denominational leadership was telling her that regardless of the grooming that had occurred, regardless of the fact that other women had also been targeted by this particular minister, she was to blame. She was responsible because she hadn't "walked away".

Diana Garland has written, "The reality of clergy sexual abuse of adults, usually women, is breaking on congregations and church denominations. It is a more difficult issue to understand than the abuse of children because there is the assumption that if both are adults and there is no physical coercion, then the relationship is consensual. In fact, however, when persons with power—social workers, counselors, pastors, seminary professors and administrators, pastoral and clinical supervisors, and religious employers—attempt to seduce into sexual relationships those over whom they have power, the relationship is not consensual."

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? That's the first question
that is so difficult to wrap our heads around. In reality, the process used by the offender is the same in every situation. Here's what Diana Garland says:

“Grooming” is a process whereby the religious leader breaks down a woman’s defenses, making her feel special, perhaps pointing out her spiritual gifts, or in other ways using his position as a religious leader to develop a close relationship and isolate her from others. He uses personal warmth to obscure what his true intention is. According to Patrick Carnes, some of the ways this warmth is expressed include: expressing admiration, caring, and concern; indicating that he looks forward to a long-term relationship with her; making affectionate gestures and touching; talking about a shared project; complimenting and sharing personally in ways that are inappropriate for a relationship between a religious leader and parishioner, student, or employee (Carnes, 1997). He co-opts religious and spiritual language into an agenda designed to meet his own needs. It is a gradual and subtle process, and one that has extraordinary power, desensitizing her to increasingly inappropriate behavior while rewarding the victim for tolerance of that behavior."

Unfortunately, unless there is a correct understanding of this issue and an established plan of action, the easiest and usual choice of action
on the part of denominational leaders is to label the situation as an affair, "Two people who simply fell in love." This is a misdiagnosis of convenience. It maintains distance, it's black and white, and it lacks the power to bring redemption and healing.

SHE MUST HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON!  This may be our next reaction and again, a legitimate question. Most times the victim senses something is not quite right, but it is a relationship she has been taught to trust—he is a spiritual leader, after all—so she allows him to say and do things she would not allow a man to do in a normal friendship. However this makes her feel more and more anxious, and as Patrick Carnes points out, "Anxiety escalates physiological sexual attraction and arousal (Carnes, 1997), therefore intensifying the bond between them."

The victim is now in a relationship which was originally set up and is sanctioned by the church. It is clearly understood that in order for the relationship to be successful, whether it is a counselling relationship or any kind of mentoring, there will have to be trust and openness. This provides easy access to intimate settings under profoundly intimate circumstances. “Even a woman with a firm sense of boundaries in other kinds of relationships may well stop guarding them so that her core may be seen and known by this man” (Flynn, 2003, p. 19). He has socially sanctioned and preconditioned access to her very soul (Liberty, 2001).

A victim becomes bonded to her perpetrator. Carnes defines “betrayal bonds,” as the strong attachment of a victim to someone who is destructive to him or her (1997). De Young and Lowry define trauma bonding as the emotional dependency between two persons of unequal power. “The nature of this bond is distinguished by feelings of intense attachment, cognitive distortions, and behavioral strategies of both individuals that paradoxically strengthen and maintain the bond” (De Young & Lowry, 1992, p. 165). In clergy sexual abuse, like incest, the perpetrators exploit their power over those who are most vulnerable."

AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE VICTIM? This is the question many people are afraid to ask.
And as long as we continue to cross over on the other side; as long as we draw our robes around us so we can remain untouched, we will not have to be affected by the self-blame and the shame and the confusion that victims experience. We will not have to ponder the deep sense of betrayal that causes many to leave the church. And perhaps, for awhile at least, we will be able to keep pretending this issue simply doesn't exist.

Clergy Sexual Abuse hurts. It hurts victims, it hurts the church, it hurts the perpetrator, it hurts the families most closely associated, and it hurts
the heart of the Father.

(Some material borrowed from When Wolves Wear Shepherds' Clothing
: Helping Women Survive Clergy Sexual Abuse, Diana R. Garland. Social Work and Christianity International Journal - Spring 2006. Volume 33, Number 1)
 
26 Comments
Emily
8/27/2014 04:45:09 am

Now I know what comments meant when I met with her in confidence. Now I know why we felt such discomfort and like we were intruding. Believe me, I will learn which questions to ask when I see these happen to someone I love and or who is in ministry. This is my gut first
comment. I will read again and learn.

Reply
Eileen
8/27/2014 04:55:40 am

Thanks for your courage in responding, Emily! If we all get together - who knows what could be done for the Kingdom!

Reply
Richard
8/27/2014 07:32:55 am

Keep swinging your sword for The Lord!

Reply
Eileen
8/28/2014 12:01:56 am

It was good to talk to you yesterday and realize once again that this is a battle that is "win-able"! The sword we wield is the word of TRUTH. And truth is what brings freedom in the end!

Reply
Ruth
8/27/2014 04:02:51 pm

Thanks for this. I hate those comments lie " how did she not know" or " she could have stopped it". They drive me crazy. Thanks for giving some guidelines to help defend the victims as well as key things to look for and watch for. Praying that the more we talk about this and get it out there, the less power the perpetrators will have and we as a body can help build up those that gave been hurt with better understanding on how they were hurt.

Reply
Eileen
8/28/2014 12:30:47 am

Yes, yes, and YES!! Thanks, Ruth.

Reply
Beverly Shellrude Thompson link
8/28/2014 02:55:27 am

It is very difficult to believe that one's minister can be a sexual predator. Many in faith communities believe that to even consider that their pastor may be a sexual predator is a betrayal of both their faith and of their community. This post provides important information for members of the church community to understand how it is indeed possible for an adult to be a victim, and not complicit in an "affair" with a minister.

Reply
Randy
8/31/2014 11:40:35 am

Just a couple of thoughts to maybe add to the discussion, or to maybe muddy the waters.
Allow me to quote from the blog: "That's what they told her." You could have walked away." Roughly translated, her denominational leadership was telling her that regardless of the GROOMING that had occurred, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT OTHER WOMEN HAD BEEN TARGETED BY THIS PARTICULAR MINISTER, SHE WAS TOO BLAME. She was responsible because she hadn't walked away."
Just exactly what is the alternative. "Because she no longer had a free will, because she no longer was in charge of her own faculties, because she no longer had freedom of choice, she had no choice but to submit to the will of this evil clergyman. Is it not at least possible that they both share a measure of responsibility, that they are both equally guilty, and that they both should have put on the brakes. I recognize that there is this thing called "grooming" but I have to believe that if this in fact was happening, the Lord in His infinite love would certainly put up some roadblocks, and to tell the lady in question to Flee. My personal belief is that God has given each of us the freedom of choice, and that sin no longer has dominion over me, so if I sin at any particular point in time, it is because at that point in time I choose to sin rather than choosing to be holy. If God tells me to get out of the middle of the road because there is an 18 wheeler bearing down on me, and I choose to ignore the warning, does that mean it is the truck driver's fault that I get squashed like a bug. I think not, and my God is faithful.
I'm also really curious about this statement: "Roughly translated, her denominational leadership was telling her that regardless of the grooming that had occurred, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT OTHER WOMEN HAD BEEN TARGETED BY THIS PARTICULAR MINISTER, SHE WAS TO BLAME.'
I wasn't there, I don't know what was said (obviously) but I have a hard time believing that what the denominational authorities were saying was that she was to blame. I would think instead what they were saying is that both parties were equally to blame, and they both should have stood up and said "No, no more! No further. This stops NOW!
But the part that I really struggle with is where the blog says that "other women had been targeted by this particular minister." If that is really a true statement, and not just something thrown in to solidify the fact that the woman truly was the victim, then why is this minister still a minister. If this is as common a fact as we are lead to believe, why wasn't the man disciplined after the first instance, and removed from ministry forever after the second?
I would hope that this is two people, caught up in the heat of the moment, who gave in to temptation, and are now truly repentant and seek reconciliation with their God, with their church, and eventually with one another. To point the finger of blame at the minister, while trying to absolve the lady of any responsibility, is truly a disservice to both. Nuff' said.

Reply
Eileen
8/31/2014 12:32:34 pm

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Randy. First of all, let me say that one of the main reasons for this website is to encourage dialogue that will hopefully result in more churches implementing a protocol for dealing with this troubling issue. So thanks for jumping in! As you will note, there are a few churches that already have policies and we hope this number will increase. If I understand your comment I think you are wondering if it's fair to label a situation like this as Clergy Sexual Misconduct instead of an "affair".
Mark Scheffers has written an excellent article (see RESOURCES tab) and he says, "Although your abuser likely tried to make you share responsibility for what happened, you did not have the power to consent to it. When you look back to the period when you were abused, you probably feel aghast about how far things went before they finally stopped. “How could I have let it go so far?” The answer lies in the tactic your abuser used to entrap you. If he had told you
upfront what he intended to do, chances are you would have escaped. But your abuser was not that honest." It's also true that for these victims, if their next door neighbor would have tried what their pastor did, they would have sent him packing. So I completely agree that just as you wouldn't walk into the path of an oncoming truck, neither would these women knowingly set out to engage in a sexual relationship with their pastor. They are lured in and when the trap snaps shut they feel overwhelming guilt. I really don't need to go into all the reasons here, but I would love to hear your thoughts after you read some of the articles and look at a few of the websites. Again thanks for taking the time to write. Eileen

Reply
Randy
9/1/2014 12:42:27 pm

I understand your desire to have me read from some of the resources, but the problem with that is that they are written from the position that the clergyman in question is already guilty of being a repeat sexual predator, and obviously I don't know any or all of the facts, but I am not ready to accept that position.
To quote from your response, if I may: If I understand your comment I think you are wondering if it's fair to label a situation like this as Clergy Sexual Misconduct instead of an "affair".
That is exactly what l am wondering. What is it that makes this Clergy Sexual Abuse instead of two people failing, and falling into temptation?
In your original blog you say that the clergy in question has a history of this kind of misconduct, so that is what makes it Clergy abuse. If that is in fact true, then I would agree with your conclusion. However if it is not true, and this is indeed a one time indiscretion, then that sheds an entirely different light on the matter.
If the original allegation is true, then that brings me to the reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place. If the clergyman had a history of "grooming" female members of the congregation for his own personal pleasure, and if in fact this was common knowledge, then why was this allowed to continue for so long.
Personally, I have a hard time believing that the church, any church, would not have dealt with the clergyman about his previous misconducts, so I am drawn to the conclusion that this was indeed a one time indiscretion.
Allow me to quote from your response again, even though I have already addressed my main point, which is that sin in the church must be dealt with, speedily, with love and compassion, for the restoration of all involved.
But it truly amazes me,your attempt to absolve the woman of all guilt, by robbing her of her freedom of choice and will. Let me quote: "Although your abuser likely tried to make you share responsibility for what happened, you did not have the power to consent to it."
|"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Just a thought, but aren't you placing the lady in a very precarious position. If you tell her she had no choice, she was merely a victim, then you are telling her that she did nothing wrong, and therefore does not need to seek forgiveness from a loving heavenly Father. I realize that I may be offending many peoples sensibilities, because we live in a society that loves to shift the blame, but I have to wonder how God views the circumstances, seeing as how He is the One who has given us a will, who has given us the ability to choose and make wise decisions, and has given us the power through His Spirit to carry out those decisions. Let me close with this thought: If I sin, it is because at that point in time I choose to sin more than I choose to be holy. Nuff' said (for now).


Reply
Eileen
9/2/2014 01:03:02 am

I am saddened by your refusal to consider scholarly research on this topic. This is actually the hallmark of the problem in the church today - a refusal to clearly diagnose the problem which continues to cause so much pain to the many victims who have suffered and continue to suffer.

Reply
David
9/3/2014 01:54:40 am

Let’s follow through on some of this reasoning. Really, are ANY of us responsible when we do wrong? There are always factors that lead us astray. In fact, let’s go to someone far more cunning than any abuser. Let’s say Satan himself is working on getting us to go astray, to sin. Let’s say it is he that is tempting us, grooming us. If he leads us astray, how can we be considered guilty when we sin? Really, if the person in our illustration is guiltless, because she was beguiled by someone, and led astray, then surely we all must be guiltless. After all, Satan is even more cunning and beguiling than any abuser. God surely wouldn’t hold us accountable. We didn’t have any choice but to follow!
What then of concepts like repentance, and forgiveness? Thankfully, some modern professionals have now freed us from such necessity. Now we can see that we are all free to go astray, and to fall into sin, because, after all, the devil made us do it.
It's interesting how this new narrative is created, with simplistic roles that we put people into. The victim can only be a victim - that's their role. The villain can only be evil. The victim cannot be responsible, and there are no mitigating considerations allowed the villain. Both roles are necessary in creating the narrative. So, to have someone considered just a victim, we need a villain. To prove someone is a villain, we need a victim. Those placed into these roles are not allowed to be looked at in any other way. We villainize, and we victimize. Villainizing is also abusive. I have seen pastors abuse people by villainizing them, so they could not even speak in their own defense. They were voiceless, and the characterization remained, with no recourse or justice. They were victims of a pastor's power and position.
When we create victims and villains, our simplistic roles keep them from the grace they need to find. The victim is kept outside of the healing circle of repentance and forgiveness, because that is not part of their role. The villain is considered beyond its reach.
But Jesus strips away our roles. He stands us before God, our Heavenly Father, who has simply asked us to live a certain way. In God's presence, there are no villains to hide behind, and no excuses about being beyond the reach of redemption.
Some of us may feel that our sins are not as bad as the sins of others. Others may believe their sins are too great for them to be reconciled. Jesus somehow failed to notice the distinction. "Do you think the sins of these people were greater than yours? I say, rather, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". Regarding the woman who committed adultery, he said "He that is without sin, let him throw the first stone". Not "He that is without THAT sin", or "He that is without so GREAT a sin" Think about it. To Jesus, they were all guilty, whatever their sin. They all stood equally condemned. But, somehow, we think we feel better if we can make someone else's sin look worse than ours. How quickly we forget the song of forgiveness, grace, and reconciliation, which is at the heart of Christianity.
This all leads me to wonder. Do we victimize people by teaching them to think like victims, and act like victims, instead of like responsible individuals who have a relationship with God?
David

Reply
Ted Hull
9/4/2014 02:20:56 pm

A clergy member who become involved in sexual misconduct never starts out by saying "I would like to have sex with you and I hope you feel the same way." Or "I would like to see you with no clothes on so would you please undress now.” While that may be precisely his wish, the reason he doesn't say it is because (a) it is blatantly wrong, (b) he fears the answer will be "no" and (c) he could be accused of clergy sexual misconduct.

The initial comments are much more subtle and passive. "That skirt really looks nice on you”. "I like the way you do up your hair".

Neither one of these statements can really be deemed inappropriate. If the woman is bothered or offended, a simple apology is in order. A bonus is having the offended woman apologizing for misunderstanding him. What the clergy member knows going forward is that the risk of upsetting the woman or having her mention this to someone else is greater than the potential of the conquest. However if she blushes slightly or quickly dismisses the leader's complement, he is now free to follow-up his compliment by saying something like "no really I mean that". The next time it might be an expression of concern "you look a little down today; are things okay at home”? She may have felt quite okay coming into the meeting but a reference to her despondent countenance invites her to share any concerns she may have on the home front.

The professionals refer to this as "grooming". I just referred to it as" hanging it out there". If she bites it's a signal that it is safe to move forward. If she doesn’t, any misunderstanding or misinterpretation on her part is her fault.

This is a win-win situation for the leader. There is virtually no risk. If she accuses him of being inappropriate, she has misunderstood him. If she accepts his compliments, he is just being kind. In either event he has the power because he knows what is motivating the comment. If she is even remotely uncomfortable, she still doesn't know for sure if his comment is sexually motivated. In fact his position as a "man of God" implicitly requires that she dismissed that motivation.

And the process is now well underway.

Reply
Beverly Shellrude Thompson
9/5/2014 08:01:35 am

"Grooming" is a fairly new concept to explain how predators seduce and control someone who is "off-limits" to them. Grooming is intentional and often involves predator syle behavior. The original essay in this blog explaines it well.

Reply
Charles
9/4/2014 11:09:37 pm

How easy then it is be accused of sexual predation, over nothing but a simple, innocent, well intentioned compliment!
Shall we create a society based on suspicion, and baseless fear? Would we like to ensure that women feel preyed upon, every time someone is nice to them? Is even kindness now a reason for bringing accusations against someone?

Reply
Betsy
9/5/2014 02:39:32 am

If my husband told another woman how beautiful she was, I would not approve! Telling a woman who is not your wife, that he would like to go on a trip alone with her is also not a simple, innocent compliment. Asking a woman if she would marry him should anything happen to their spouses, is not a simple, innocent compliment.

Reply
charles
9/6/2014 02:44:30 am

Ted's comments were far more general than that, Betsy, and that is what i was responding to. Now, you might not approve, and some might take exception to being complimented. That does not mean the compliment was not simple, and well intentioned, although perhaps out of place. It might have been impulsive, it might have been made out of ignorance toward how she might feel, it might even have been made out of feelings of love. None of these things of themselves constitute "grooming", and "clergy sexual abuse". Men sometimes make mistakes, or get things wrong. We are not all so well versed and competent in relating to females, whose feelings are a little more complicated than ours. I'm cautioning. Injustice does happen. People do get wrongly accused.

Reply
charles
9/6/2014 04:09:13 am

Not all situations in which people of different social standing become involved in sexual relations is properly diagnosed as abusive. It is possible for, say, a young, single man, who is pastoring a church, and an eligible female member of the congregation, to fall in love. Would his communications with her, his attempts to see if she is interested, his courtship, all be "grooming"? We could say, that, possibly, it is not, in spite of his higher institutional position. Now, if the two of them were married, all of this could be seen as completely inappropriate. However, the fact that he is in a higher institutional position does not, again, of itself, prove that it would be a case of clergy sexual abuse. It is possible for people to "fall in love", when they are of different social standing. We need a lot more than just a difference in social position to ascertain whether the position itself is being used to secure the relationship. At the very least, a thorough consideration of the actions and communications of both parties would be essential. Nothing short of this will enable us to diagnose a particular situation.

Reply
Charles
9/9/2014 12:15:48 am

Just a comment to add. I wonder at the idea of "She could NOT have walked away"; that no Christian woman can help but fall into sin if she is approached by someone in a higher institutional position than she has, and is, therefore, without accountability in any such situation. I understand There might be challenges.
But the worst aspect of victimization is being taught to think and behave like a victim.. To step beyond victimhood is to stand up and speak for yourself. First, by speaking to the one you feel offended by, telling them their actions are inappropriate. If it's in the past, and you want it addressed, then speak up, to them, and anyone else you need to speak to. Use your voice - your own voice.
But do remember even here that there may be more than one perspective. Many witnesses at hearings have discovered that, while their facts might be correct, they were incomplete, and their conclusions were wrong. Things are not always as cut and dried as we might think. This is why we need what is called "due process". This is a process that is due, or owed, to anybody accused of wrongdoing.
The fact is, to their own disgrace, churches are often a very poor place for situations to be handled, or even discussed. Some churches have a far lower standard of justice than what is found even in the world. In some churches, open testimony is replaced with insinuation. It's "trial by gossip". No actual substance is put forward, that the accused can answer to in their own defense. Sometimes open condemnation of someone is expected, based on testimony that the accused is not to be allowed to see, or answer to. People put forward only one perspective of a story, and try to keep the other side from being heard. The accused is considered guilty until proven innocent, but they are not allowed an opportunity for even that. In these places, you will not be allowed to clarify anything, or arrive at a fuller understanding.
This is harmful to each one, not just the accused. We need to see issues of this nature handled fairly, on all sides, and handled well. If this does not happen, the process, and even the cause, is discredited. Allegations being thrown about, and a lack of clarity, and transparency, are not helpful in helping everyone arrive at reconciliation with each other and with God. Reconciliation, and restoration to a life that is full and free, for each one, sometimes takes a little patience, openness, and reflection. The investment is worthwhile.

Reply
Eileen
9/9/2014 05:48:35 am

Your lengthy discourses are obviously your own opinion. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, this web site was created to encourage honest discussion between people who have taken the time to gain some knowledge before they go off on some tangent. For example, if you were aware of the dynamics of abuse, you would realize that the fastest way to re-victimize someone is to encourage them to try to reason with the one who victimized them in the first place! I cringed when I read your comments regarding this. This website is built around the premise (and supported by an overwhelming amount of research by Godly men and women) that Clergy Sexual Abuse is never consensual, always the responsibility of the one with the power, and can only be accomplished by carefully grooming the victim. If you cannot accept this, then perhaps it would be better to comment somewhere else!

Reply
Beverly Shellrude Thompson
9/10/2014 02:17:03 am

Charles, one of the first tactics of a predator is to disempower their target. One of the blocks many victims have in reporting abuse is the shame they experience that they were indeed disempowered by the predator and did not stop, or immediately report, what occurred.

I too have experienced "the far lower standard of justice found" in churches. When survivors report abuse churches are seldom willing to (a) report it to law enforcement when its a criminal matter; (b) turn it over to an independent investigation team when it is in a grey area that is ethically and morally wrong. I think that there are at least two primary reasons for this. The first is the desire to protect the reputation of the minister involved and/or the church. The second is the belief that in cases which involve a sexual predator both parties are at fault, esp. when the predator holds a position of power within the church.

You speak of helping everyone arrive at reconciliation and restoration with each other. I suggest that before reconciliation and restoration occurs there are more immediate goals. The first is ensuring a full investigation that encompasses all possible victims (inculding those who thawarted the aggressive advances of the accussed predator). The victim(s) should not be expected to experience reconciliation until this has been completed. Secindly, the accused predator should not be restored to a position of leadership and power until a final report of all allegations has been compliled and he has gone through an extensive healing process. This should include being cleared by professionals outside the church to again work in a capacity involving trust.
And yes, all of this is time consuming and expensive. But the investment is worthwhile.

Reply
Charles
9/9/2014 11:45:13 am

"We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those that don't" Frank A. Clark
Thank you for allowing me to express some thoughts, Eileen! They are my opinions, as you have yours, and opinions can be true. The fact that I don't agree does not make me dishonest, or uninformed. There are professionals who would take exception to your views, and cases in law that disagree profoundly. The point of discussion is to see things from different perspectives, and gain a better understanding.
I actually didn't say anything about reasoning with a perpetrator. A simple "That makes me uncomfortable" can change everything. Keeping women in "victimhood" by suggesting that even when they speak up for themselves, they are still being "victims", whether in the moment or afterward, is a position I disagree with. I believe women need to stand up for themselves, and I believe in their capability, to do so. This is my position, honestly stated.
Thank you again!
Charles

Reply
David
9/10/2014 01:28:58 pm

I can see the depth of your concerns as I read from those that have created this website. I'm trying to grasp something right now. As much as I can understand many of the concerns you have raised, you present me with this moral dilemma that I can't resolve. If, indeed, the responsibility for sexual misconduct is never shared, and is "always the responsibility of the one with the power", how do we answer individual situations? Let's say there is a man who pastors a small church. He has no pastoral team. He greets guests at the door. A woman from the neighbourhood decides to attend, and takes a fancy to him. She begins to dress more attractively, and always addresses him on a very personal level. She comments on things she likes about him. One day she calls, very upset, and pleads with him to come and see her. He is concerned - she sounds very distraught. He hurries over, and enters to find her sobbing. She is scantily clad, sitting on the couch. He tries to ascertain what is wrong. She talks about her unhappy circumstances, and, in the course of their time together, she feels a deep need for affection. In her desire for this, she seduces him. How do I conclude that she bears no responsibility for her actions? I can't see how the fact that he has a higher institutional position automatically absolves her from any accountability. I just can't quite get it.
David

Reply
David
9/10/2014 09:33:58 pm

It's early, and i should be resting, but this is on my mind. I would like to walk with you in your concerns, but I can't get past this problem. If she pursues, and entraps him, she is not responsible, just because he has a position. Did he do wrong? Yes. But to conclude she did not - that she has no accountability - I can't see it. Is it because she is a woman? If it had been her next door neighbor, she would be accountable, but if he happens to have a position, she is not? I somehow feel like your whole area of concern loses some credibility because of this imbalance.
I leave that with you to perhaps clarify, for those that want to support you in your area of concern, but see a need for more balance. It seems there are circumstances of various kinds, where responsibility must be, perhaps in varying degrees, shared.
Thank you. David

Reply
Beverly Shellrude Thompson
9/11/2014 06:59:37 am

David, if the Associate Pastor were a woman, and aggressively seduced a male staff member who reported to her, using her position of power to control and then silence him when he began to be uncomfortable with the developing relationship, the response would be the same as in the situation being discussed on the blog. Particularly if the female Assoicate Pastor had showed predatory behaviour towards other men as well. The issue is not one of male / female roles. The use of power and predatory behaviour are two of the determining factors in this case; and of course the crossing of boundaries; but gender is not a determing factor.

In the scenario you described, it seems to me that the woman is the aggressor, using a great deal of emotional manipulation. And she also has predatory behavior.

(And by the way, I'm glad you brought this issue up. There needs to be more awareness that women too can be sexual predators. The female school nurse in the school I grew up in sexually assaulted many of us.)

Reply
Jerry
9/28/2014 04:10:10 pm

I think most churches don’t recognize abuse because there are no policies in place to define, what is bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, and spiritual abuse. Most work places have very stringent policies in place to protect employees. The churches I have attended don’t have these policies in place to protect the congregation. I’m thinking they don’t think they have a problem or in denial of the problem. I have experienced many of the abuses out lined above for many years.
I want to address these comments to Charles as I read your post, I am cringing, and it sounds like you are defending yourself? Your hypothetical examples are not reality. I sense no empathy in your posts.
This site is for victims to learn and find the courage to find someone they can trust to speak out and stop these painful atrocities.
Jerry

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

    Please click on RSS Feed to subscribe to the BLOG.

    Archives

    September 2019
    December 2017
    May 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.