Dealing with Sexual Abuse in the Church: Advice for Pastors

This *so* needed to be said. Great post.

Thanks for your comments, guys.
For those who haven't been following previous threads about the Concord case, we want these discussions to focus on dealing with these problems in general in our churches vs. what happened or didn't happen in any particular case, especially the one still being sorted out in Concord.

One observation on topic: it may be helpful to note that with the law, "criminal guilt" is binary. There is a perpetrator and there is a victim. Biblically, we know that things tend to be much messier when it comes to "spiritual guilt." I'm convinced that in the case of a very young minor and an adult, that's a moot point. No meaningful guilt can be asigned to a 9 year old--to pick a random, obvious number. But surely none of us would assert that one minute before midnight on a 17 yr old's birthday, he/she is incapable of sin in the matter but one minute after, he/she is capable of being an equal partner in fornication. So what we're dealing with is the necessity of law to draw lines. Can't be avoided. At some point you have to say this age = not capable of consent, that age = capable of consent. But in the real world maturity is not tied to age so precisely.

So again, what's legally required must be honored fully by the church/pastor. Then what is spiritually needful must be discerned carefully where it isn't obvious. In many of these cases it's obvious. It becomes less obvious as the victim age is higher and the distance between the victim's age/power and the perpetrator's age/power is smaller.

There are both legal and moral/spiritual issues to consider, and accepting responsibility for one's actions does not mean accepting 'blame'. It is a fact that if one engages in risky behavior, then you increase your chances of being victimized. It is OK to analyze the situation and say "By doing A, B, and C, I placed myself at risk". This does not mean "By doing A, B, and C, I am to blame for someone else's actions" or "I deserved to be forced". At no time does this acknowledgment relieve any predator of the responsibility or blame for their crime.

I agree that most girls in our churches who are victims of abuse or sexual assault are not categorized as "high risk" victims. But a young girl who has 'flirted with danger' without understanding the consequences and ramifications of her actions still has serious spiritual issues to deal with, and unless those issues are addressed, she will continue to have problems with guilt and risky behavior. You can't completely relieve a young person of the responsibility for their actions, even if the reason was that they were ignorant or naive. If a young girl wants to feel desired by someone who seems powerful from her perspective or just enjoys the 'rush' of seeing lust in the eyes of a man twice her age, labeling her a victim and calling it a day does not help her deal with her desires.

We also have to consider that not every situation is an assault by a 50 year old lecherous creep and a 15 year old girl. How many single young men are youth pastors and workers that are only a few years older than the girls in their youth group? Lots of girls have 'crushes' on their youth pastor, and will flirt outrageously without really considering the seriousness of engaging in that kind of behavior, and many young men don't know how to effectively discourage inappropriate behavior with the kids in their charge. I think we can't ignore the youth group/leadership dynamic when talking about this topic.

I hope at some point we discuss educating our young people in how to decrease their risk and protect themselves from predators, and congregations about the realities of sexual assault/molestation. Not to mention the increased sexualization of young people in our culture- thanks so much Miley Cyrus, et al. I don't even follow the whole Hannah Montana phenomenon, but I've seen the pics of her lap-dancing some guy probably old enough to be her grandpa, posing nearly nude for some magazine, and pole dancing in her videos. Do you all really think young girls aren't affected by this stuff, and that this influence doesn't increase their risk? If you think that young girls are all precious little angels who never feel lust or the desire to be lusted after, we are not going to be able to deal with this issue head on. We must honestly deal with the influences of American culture on the hearts and minds of our girls.

I admit that I focused more on the responsibility of the seduced given the background of the churches and affiliations my wife and I have grown up in. Leadership was always defended and the children solely vilified. I support using the law to help with the "criminal guilt" and realize there is "spiritual guilt" on the part of the seducer (this also provides a window into the family life of the seducer and makes you have to ask the question, "Where did they learn this from?").

Both parties have their faults in the matter whether criminally or spiritually.

This, I fear, is overly simplified. It is possible, and sometimes true, that one party is completely the victim (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). We must be careful of generalization and over-simplification. We are not able to stereotype and make rules that fit all cases. One size does not fit all. This is where godly men must exercise judgment, wisdom, and discernment on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we need widespread knowledge among Christian leaders who make the decisions for local action at the point of contact. Sexual abuse is not a venue for armchair counselors and theoreticians.

Although you may not have intended for it to sound this way but your post seems to exonerate the girl from responsibility or blame. If the minor girl seduces an adult man, then she is guilty of sexual immorality and the tempting of a man to sin the same as if she were a woman. Otherwise, we are saying that minors are exempt from the guilt of sexual sins and seductive wrongdoing. If two minors fornicate, it is sin and if a minor enters into consensual sex with an adult, it is sin for both parties as well. Before God, each is responsible for his or her own behavior. Now, we may approach the two differently from a human perspective but neither is guiltless.
BTW, sin is always the expression of the lust lurking within the heart (James 1:13-15). Before we become self-righteously indignant, we must remember that all harbor lust and lust is sin (Matthew 5:28). There's no room for self-righteousness for any of us in this.

I am sick and tired of the blame the victim mentality that I've been reading on here lately. Have you ever stopped to think how what you say affects the people of whom you are discussing. I was blamed and told that what happened to me was my fault. I was told that I seduced the guy. I was 9 when he first started abusing me. NINE!! I was raised in a typical IFB home ie very sheltered about sex so didn't even know what was happening to me. There is no way I could have seduced a guy. It was NOT consensual. Yet, the same arguments that you use are the same arguments I've heard from many pastors/biblical counselors. It is not the victim's fault. NEVER. Do I believe teen girls are capable of seducing an older man? Yeah, probably. But, that is when it is the man's place to keep his pants zipped. Nobody is forcing him to do it. But, rather than you being willing to defend the victims, you constantly throw other scenarios in there where "maybe" it was consensual.

And RPittman, it isn't always possible to fight off the perp.When you are being physically tortured while being raped (think knives and other such objects), you are in such a state of terror/fear that you can't do anything. Do you have daughters? Would you tell your little girl that it was okay for Mr. X to hurt her since she was too scared to tell you or fight it off. The emotions involved in sexual abuse are so twisted that unless you have had years of study in this area (ie a licensed counselor) or experienced it yourself -- DO NOT JUDGE or make assumptions about how a person should act or how you think they felt.

Ah, but see -- what makes you the discerner on whether there was sin involved on the part of the teen. Are you a mind reader? I've found that pastors and others will automatically judge intents/character without listening to the victim first. Engaging in risky behaviour still doesn't make it your right to be raped.

Anna, I already covered this in my first post. No one has said that the victim should be judged before they speak- it would be more helpful if you would address the points that are being made instead of arguing points that no one is advocating.

Of course you can't know someone's heart- and I'm not going to address objections to points I haven't made.

If your pastor was standing in my kitchen right now I'd hit him with a cast iron skillet, and it's tragic when cases are handled so badly by people who should know better than anyone else to protect the innocent. But you also need to understand that I'm not talking off the top of my head. I've been a girl my whole life, and several of those years as a young girl who began experiencing attempted sexual assaults as young as 6 years old. My parents, fortunately, did give me some tools and the confidence to use them, which is why those incidents remain labeled as attempted. I've spent many years educating myself on this topic, and everything I've said has been based on case studies and literature on criminal and victim psychology.

Here are some DoJ statistics-

This is what he said:

He qualifies that somewhat in a footnote, but he gives no support for his statistics - he doesn't tell us where they come from and leaves the implication that such statistics are equally applicable for a small sample group like a church as they are for society at large. There are certain communities in our area where the likelihood is that EVERY female in the community has been sexually abused. What does that prove? It proves that there are some deep deep problems in that community.

Mark seems to suggest that in the church, because of what seem to be NATIONWIDE statistics, one can thus extrapolate the number of women in an average church will have been or WILL BE abused eventually. This is absolute BALDERDASH. It is "statistical abuse". The reality is that in churches, far less abuse is likely to occur than the national average.

That is not to say that abuse does not happen, or that pastors shouldn't educate themselves on the subject, or that proper policies need to be in place in order to do everything possible to prevent even the suggestion that abuse could possibly take place in the framework of church ministry. These are serious matters and we need to be serious about them.

But Mark's use of statistics seems to be playing into the hand of a fear-mongering lobby. They suggest that the church is AS UNSAFE an environment as any other social group in our society. I think that is just wrong.

UPDATE: I see that Mark replied to some of my complaints while I was writing this. I appreciate it. I would like to see if what he thinks about the rest of my comment.

When Shoeless Joe Jackson was accused years ago of wrongdoing in baseball, the fans had a saying, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" I would like to say, "Say it ain't so, Mark" but reality makes it stick in my throat. I have worked in training, consulting, and doing workshops on prevention of child sexual abuse in Christian ministries for a number of years. It literally makes me sick to think that it happens in good churches among Fundamentalist Christians but it does. Whereas it is true that there are false allegations but there are too many substantiated accusations to deny the problem. No one can accurately give the statistics for abuse, either in society at large or in the church, because of the following factors:

1. The sin is committed in secrecy and undercover.
2. It carries an embarrassment factor that tends toward cover up and non-reporting.
3. There are incidents of false allegations that further muddy the water.
4. The collection of statistic data is difficult with no comprehensive means of collection and verification.

Much of the evidence is on anecdotal stories that are shrouded in emotional views from both sides. One is hard pressed, not wanting to receive a false allegation against an innocent person and not wanting to conceal a sexual abuser, to sift the facts and know the truth.

However, I will support Mark's statistics from my own study and research to say that he is using what is the generally accepted range in the industry. On the other hand, you are correct, Don, in questioning whether this is applicable to the church. Well, there is basic problem of what we mean by church. Do we include the Roman Catholics? Or, Baptist only? Or, Fundamentalists only? There are no statistical studies of which I am aware with these breakdowns. Yet, we do not need statistics to know that sexual abuse is a big, big problem in the church from pastoral and counseling experiences. From my own ministry, I can tell you that it is. Adults working under me in full-time Christian ministry have come and shared that they were sexually molested in a church setting as a child. There is a flood of church young people--high school and college age--who are seeking counseling with stories of sexual abuse. Don't believe me? Ask Jim Berg at BJU. Ask Rand Hummel at the Wilds. Ask anyone who is involved with counseling or pastoral ministry.

The evidence is irrefutable and I hate it! I wish that I could say, "It ain't so" but I can't. It is high time that we arise and confront the sin. No longer can we bury our heads in the sand and say, "It ain't so." We are not serving God by covering sin. The Bible is clear. We are to rebuke, confront, expose and oppose sin. On the other hand, we are NOT to foolishly make or accept false accusations without investigation, judgment, and discernment. What we desperately need is a Biblical approach that is compassionate, just, orderly, and wise. Instead of just talking, let's start working!

And so we can conclude that if a church has no one in its membership who has been sexually abused, that church probably hasn't been doing the work of the gospel. If we're bringing wounded sheep to the Good Shepherd, membership won't be uniform, and these cases will exist.

Thanks Mark. I appreciate your reply.

I don't deny that people in churches have been sexually abused. We have had more than our share of them. One poor lady is dying in the hospital right now after a lifetime of constant abuse at the hands of all sorts of wicked men, none in the church though. Thank the Lord we have never had to deal with an ongoing immediate issue involving anyone in our ministry, as some of my friends have had. I hope and pray we never have to deal with that.

I do think the clarification is important.

there is more to a church's proper functions in dealing with sin in the midst of the congregation than what our society has deemed legal/illegal. It is true that the first step is to notify the authorities. Period. But it is also reasonable for the pastor to consider how to minister to both the victim and the accused. The accused may need to be removed from office or be subject to church discipline, and the victim and both families may request counseling.

The legal system considers someone innocent until proven guilty- but should the church wait to take action until the legal wheels have stopped turning? Or should they assume the worst in order to protect children? What if the charges are found to be false- does the accused have grounds to sue the church for defamation of character because they took punitive action before the verdict was handed down by the justice system?

This is not so cut&dried as what folks want to make it. We don't simply punish the accused and ask questions later. These tragedies, as has been pointed out, create more than one victim. The whole flock is affected to one extent or the other, from the families involved to the inevitable rippling outward.

BTW, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was originally passed in the early 70's, but has been amended and reauthorized several times. Each state has different statutes as to who is/isn't a mandatory reporter. Some states still do not require members of the 'clergy' to report. Some states require film developers to report. It would behoove pastors to know the law in their state.

RPittman, I think the secular concepts of victiimization etc is part of what makes me react to the statistical statements so much. You said earlier that many young people are coming forward with stories of abuse, etc. I don't doubt that this is a huge problem, but I wonder how much of it is fed by the secular mindset that seems to permeate our thinking at every hand. I also wonder how healthy it is for these people to be hung up on the past. That is not to minimize how horrible these events are, but to question how healthy it is to dredge them up.

When crimes are committed, it is vital to do what we can to bring the criminals to justice, but sometimes that is impossible. In one case I have dealt with, the perpetrator was long dead. What good did it do for the victim to dwell on those past experiences? Better for her to forgive and live now to the glory of God. (Easily said, of course.) The past shouldn't be allowed to cripple the present.

Children statistically do not make false claims of sexual abuse. Most children in our IFB churches are so sheltered about sex, that if they claim abuse -- then it is very probable that it occurred simply because they wouldn't have had that knowledge otherwise. If you give kids the impression that you aren't going to believe them, then they won't tell you what is happening. I know in my situation two of the victims never shared about their abuse because they saw how badly I was punished when I told and they were afraid of getting in trouble too. My story is NOT unusual. And, I'm not running on emotions here. I'm trying to give you facts. By "ministering" to the accused, you are showing the victim that you don't believe them and care more about the perp than them. In the rare chance that a perp is falsely accused -- then deal with that on a case by case basis. I honestly don't think false accusations are nearly as common as people are led to believe. I think that the kid is usually too scared to continue with the investigations.

REPORT, REPORT, REPORT.

Then, wrap that little girl or teenage girl up in your arms and tell them that it was not their fault and keep repeating it to them. You as a pastor/shepherd have the responsibility to protect all of your sheep. And, if someone hurts one of your sheep, then you need to do everything you can to make sure it never happens again. Don't wait for the victim to request counseling -- offer it -- give them names/phone numbers of professional counselors to help. Show them you care by keeping the perp away from them and away from the church.

I agree that false claims are few and far between, but I do not believe that most children in IFB churches are sheltered about sex. I grew up in IFB churches, and the kids always knew a whole lot more about the birds and bees than they let on to the adults, and many were sexually active at a very young age. It's why my dh and I don't allow sleepovers nor do our children attend overnight church activities or go away to camp without one of us attending as a counselor. I've mentioned here at SI that I saw my first R-rated movie at a 'church' sleepover... and it certainly wasn't my last experience with a sexually charged atmosphere at a church function.

That was more than 20 years ago- and now more than ever children are being sexualized. Today elementary schools have policies that make "condoms available to all Provincetown public school students and takes effect in the fall. Under the policy, any student requesting a condom from a school nurse must first receive counseling, which includes information on abstinence....without the knowledge of their parents." If our IFB kids are attending public schools, they aren't ignorant on sexual issues. And they aren't likely ignorant even if they attend Christian schools. You really have to have a tight grip on your kids for them to be truly innocent in today's world.

We need to get a clue- not only should we educate our kids on sexual issues (before the perverts do it for us) but they need to understand what they can do to prevent their own victimization. Stating that abuse can be prevented does not mean that when a child is victimized they are at fault, but it does mean that they can reduce their risk by understanding how to listen to their instincts and by parents giving them the freedom to disobey authority when they believe authority has overstepped their bounds. I teach my kids that if anyone- be it pastor, teacher, or other authority figure- makes them feel creeped out, they are to immediately leave and come and find me or their dad- and we will protect them. Any adult who cares about kids is not going to be upset that a child left a situation where they felt uncomfortable or afraid.

Anna, I must strongly disagree with you. I have any number of verifiable situations where kids did lie. Just Google one of the most infamous cases, the Martin preschool case in CA. This made life miserable for several innocent people for about a decade. The kids told horrfic tales of SRA, underground tunnels, etc. but there was no substantiating evidence. Much was beyond credible belief but the social workers believed it because kids don't lie. Well, if they don't lie then they sure can fantasize. It is still untrue whether it is a fantasy or a lie.

As for knowledge, most of our church kids today are more knowledgeable of sexual things than their parents were as teenagers. It's all around them in the culture. You would be surprised what your kids know. Of course, they're probably not talking to you about it because they know you think they don't know. Even kiddie cartoons carry an amazing amount of sexual content. Kids talk among themselves and kids listen when adults talk. Don't be naive; the kids aren't.

Anna, your attitude of uncritical acceptance is dangerous. It is documented that even professional counselors and therapists fall into the trap of suggestion. On the other hand, I am NOT advocating disbelief or critical contradiction. One listens, encourages spontaneous revelation, and carefully questions. Judgment is reserved until enough verifiable facts are gathered to make a judgement (And I know mandatory reporting is when there is reason to believe that sexual abuse may have taken place and the reporter is not to make judgment whether or not it occurred; this is the domain of the authorities--I am well versed on the requirements).

Furthermore, counseling is not the answer of itself. After all, there are many contradictory schools of thought in counseling. The rash involvement of abused children in counseling may ensnare the person into a lifetime of ongoing psychotherapy. Many children naturally cope with the problem. This is an age-old problem but children handled it without psychotherapy for thousands of years. As humans, we are equipped with some mental tools to help us handle our emotions and hard situations. Studies show psychotherapy to be about as effective as the spontaneous remission rate. Yes, I'm saying that psychotherapy may extenuate the problem by reinforcing the emotional reactions. As believers, we have additional resources beyond the human resilience. Wise and godly parents are better counselors that most so-called professionals. In some cases, children may need pastors or Biblical counselors.

Disclaimer: Knowing how folks read into what one says or does not say, I would like to make the following statements:

1. Child sexual abuse is real and it is everywhere including the Fundamentalist churches.
2. Some individual pastors and churches have handled sexual abuse cases poorly in the past. We cannot impugn their motives without evidence because it may have been due to ignorance and lack of wisdom.
3. Christians are to obey the reporting requirements because it is the right thing to do.
4. Christians are to show compassion and support for a victim as well as insure the safety and well-being.
5. Christians ought to avoid presumptive judgments until the evidence is gathered and evaluated. There are real incidences of sexual abuse and there are false allegations.
6. Although Christians advocate punishment for the wrongdoer, they should show concern for his or her soul and welfare as well as his or her family who are victims of his or her sin as well.
7. Christians should be actively committed and working to prevent child sexual abuse.
8. Christians ought to beware of the views in the secular victim/recovery movement and realize that many of the ideas are not necessarily compatible with Biblical teaching. We must thoughtfully develop and articulate a Biblical view.
9. My passion is to work toward a Biblical response to the horrendous sin of child sexual abuse.

Just want to caution about what stats--even good ones--mean. If you have any kind of "average" calculation (as in, mean), the reality is that there are not necessarily any "average" cases. Rather, the individuals/groups involved can usually be mapped on something that resembles a bell curve so you have a fair number of exceptional cases at either end and a bunch in the middle. This is if your sample is large enough.

To be more concrete, you can have 5 people in a room and calculate that their average age 21. But it is possible that none of them are even close to 21 in age (like, roughly age 10, age 10, age 11, age 40 and age 35).

So even if the national averages are accurate, there will be some churches, towns, villages, maybe even whole states or regions that are way above or way below "average."

No one has a problem in condemning the perpetrator. He or she (Although most sexual abuse is by men, a percentage is by women. Several recent sensational incidents involve female teachers with their JHS male students.) is wrong PERIOD! However, your reasoning is specious.

1. No one is trying to defend or exonerate the adult perpetrator. It is sin and wrong! No one is denying that he or she should be punished.
2. The victim, so-called, may have culpability and guilt as well as the perpetrator. What about the soliciting of a teen prostitute? Now, back the argument up from there.
3. Your analogy of a child playing with a gun is somewhat misappropriated. If you were a NY policemen and a 12-year-old gang member was aiming a zip gun at your head, would you shoot him? Soldiers in Viet Nam shot kids who were shooting at them. Kids can pull triggers as well as have sex.

We seem to be ignoring the moral accountability of even children (Proverbs 20:11). Is it sin if a twelve year old girl offers herself for sexual relations to a twelve year old boy? (While sitting in a doctor's office waiting room, I once saw this sickening TV show interview with elementary school children who were having sex.) Well, is it sin if she does the same with a twenty-one year old man? Please explain.

Bro. Farnham mentioned the tactics predators use to exploit their victims- I think that an understanding of these tactics could be tremendously helpful when dealing with the victim of a molestation/assault. These situations don't arise out of the blue- it takes time for a predator to groom his/her victim (let's not forget that boys can be victimized as well by a man or woman). In a church situation, the element of trust is often assumed- IOW, the kids and the parents assume that the church has done it's homework in choosing Sunday School teachers, camp counselors, youth leaders and chaperones for activities. Are our churches really making sure that the people they place in charge of children are not just knowledgeable of Scripture, but also of good character? 'Cause let's face it- kids do develop intimate and affectionate relationships with their teachers and counselors, and there is nothing wrong with that on the face of it, unless the person in charge is exploiting that trust for their own ends.

In a nutshell-

Are these tactics being used because of our ignorance in our churches? What are the kids doing for entertainment at activities- are they watching movies with sexual content? Playing games like "Baby, do you love me?" Are there games where girls encouraged to smear their youth leader head to toe with shaving cream? How are youth worker/teacher relationships with children from fragile/dysfunctional families supervised? Why do some churches even have mixed gender overnight activities?

Bro. Pittman- in Bro. Duane's 'defense', I don't think he's aiming at anyone in this thread per se, but at the incidents where churches have 'circled the wagons' around the perpetrator and left the victim to fend for themselves. I think the underlying thought is that if one church leader is exposed as a lecherous creep, then the whole kit-n-caboodle will collapse. But sin unacknowledged and unpunished always seems to blossom into something pervasive and destructive.

BTW, this isn't just a problem in churches, but in schools as well. It's called "passing the trash".

I think sometimes we talk from what is statistically most probable, knowing that there are exceptions. In all the books I have on the subject, the male pronoun is used when referring to the perpetrators of sexual crimes because they are overwhelmingly adult males, but those statistics are increasingly changing. And if we think girls are further victimized because they aren't believed, just try being a boy who feels victimized by the sexual advances of an older woman.

Okay, thank you, Susan, for your observation. Duane, please forgive me if my response was overly heated (I am passionate but not malicious) or misconstrued your meaning. Please allow me to moderate and restate my intent. I basically agree with your post but I wanted to give it balance by emphasizing that even a child does bear responsibility for his or her behavior. Of course, this does NOT justify or excuse any sexual abuser. Furthermore, I am not in agreement with "circle the wagons" mentality. I wasn't in agreement when it was the accepted strategy to protect the ministry. I got myself in plenty trouble then by speaking up as I have a way of doing now.

YES, we talk and talk but we show little interest, commitment and action in working toward prevention. Whereas we cannot ignore the past abuses, there is nothing we can do to change what's already done, except comfort the victims. We can take steps for prevention!

1. Every ministry needs a written set of enforcible sexual abuse prevention policies and procedures that are periodically reviewed, assessed, and updated.
2. Each ministry should give annual training to all staff and ministry workers in organizational policies and procedures, recognition of abuse signs, mandatory reporting requirements, recognizing situations conducive to abuse, etc.
3. The ministry needs rigorous guidelines and a vigorous action plan for reports of abuse.
4. The problem of child sexual abuse needs to be kept high profile. Light and exposure drives away the vermin that love darkness.
5. Heightened awareness and eternal vigilance are the keys to prevention.

We have to be careful with this line of reasoning, because for every child who comes forward (or adult who was abused as a child), it was in "the past." Certainly we want to prevent such abuse. But we also have to have an answer better than "forgive and forget or you'll become bitter" for those who finally, maybe even decades later, come forward with past abuse against them. For some, just the simple statement, "You sinned against me" gets them labeled bitter and vindictive. We need something much better than just a reverse recrimination against the person who comes forward to say they were abused.

Prevention is key

• Training
• Controls
• Criminal background checks for all who work with youth
• Reporting all abuse cases to legal authorities

Also suggest that pulpit committees require criminal background checks on prospective pastor before extending a call

I don't think that I said what you think I said or implied. I was just trying to counterbalance the excessive wallowing in anger and pity. Of course, I believe that we must punish the offenders and comfort the offended. Having worked in this area for a number of years, I think that I have a much more detailed counseling perspective than "simply forgive and forget." Do I appear that naive and clueless? Give me credit for some intelligence, please. I was simply expressing my frustration with the blame game that goes nowhere. That was it. Read the fifty plus posts and see that few addressed prevention. The scenarios that you describe in your post do NOT reflect my views or practice at all.

Jim, these are good steps in prevention. The criminal background checks are essential but I recommend going beyond them because many abusers have not been caught and convicted. Asking for knowledge of sexual abuse allegations on references and a personal worker's statement of no abuse allegations are supportive materials. However, it would surprise you, or perhaps not, that some churches do not even follow through on references. Churches are legally liable only for negligence because they are not guarantors of a child's safety. Negligence comes in the form of negligent hiring (i.e. failure to do background checks, follow up references, etc.) and negligent supervision. Negligent supervision is two-pronged in that it involves negligent supervision resulting in adult-on-child abuse as well as negligent supervision of children resulting in child-on-child abuse.

There are basically two type of sexual abusers, the serial abuser and the opportunistic abuser. Just checking references and criminal backgrounds will usually drive away the serial offender from one's ministry. These serial predators or pedophiles look for easy access to children in ministries that are slack and loosely run. On the other hand, opportunistic offenders are discouraged by a well organized and functional prevention program. A good prevention program minimizes opportunities for abuse. It utilizes everything from engineering controls, such as view windows in doors, to procedural requirements, such as the two adult rule. A well-trained staff recognizes potential situations as opportunities for abusive and takes appropriate preemptive action. ( "Kids, you can't play in that dark area underneath the stairs--come out and play in the open, lighted areas.")

I've read blogs and comments here and there by women who've been abused/attacked at some point in their life, and it seems many of the more vocal have become 'man-haters'. They spew hatred toward men in general, but mostly men in authority. They appear to view the world as a place where there is a pervert behind every pulpit or staff position in a church, and any question of their emotional balance or skepticism of their portrayal of events as tantamount to being an accessory to their victimization.

Jumping off an emotional cliff does nothing to help other victims or prevent abuse. IMO it just furthers the victimization to define oneself as a victim for the rest of one's life. Christ calls us to victory over sin, death, and Hell itself. Let's continue to seek justice and judgment, but not forget the comfort and victory offered us through Christ.

Susan, as usual, you've made a good, sensible observation. In the victim-recovery industry, this is actually the outworking of a philosophical position spawned by feminism. They view sex as male domination forced upon females for the male pleasure, domination, and control. It is the violation of the female self, identity, autonomy, and freedom. This outlook mitigates against the establishmentarian marriage concept and procreation. The presumption is that every male is an abuser. It can trend away from heterosexuality toward homosexuality. The driving energy behind this concept is anger, hatred, and desire for empowerment to strike back. Unfortunately, many people fall into this trap because it coincides with the pain, hurt, and emotional traumatic from a sexually abusive experience.

I call it unfortunate because I have never seen this path lead to improvement for the individual. They usually become unhappy, miserably confused people mired in a morass of damaging emotions. I've know women who have successfully coped with their hurt for many years become dysfunctional individuals when they became involved with this movement and its ideas. Although I'm sometimes criticized, my counseling approach is to compassionately deal with the hurt and pain, achieve forgiveness that brings closure, and move on to a positive and productive life for the Lord. I'm not saying this is quick and easy. It takes effort--lots of effort--and it requires some things that go against human nature and our emotions.

Wow, Alex, I wish that I had said it this way. You have articulated my own views better than myself. I'm envious. I was wasting my time writing my own previous post while you were doing this. Good job!

No.

Well, Louise, you are right about our teaching of obedience. Obedience to legitimate authority is correct, proper, and Biblical. However, there is a strain of aberrant teaching on authority stemming from the Bill Gothard craze a quarter century ago. Gothard and his followers believed that one obeys the authority (i.e. an adult) regardless of the command. His umbrella of authority concept taught that one was protected from judgment by God as long as he or she was under the authority's umbrella. The outworking would be that a child should lie if his parent, the authority, told him to lie. The child would not bear responsibility for lying but his responsibility was to obey the authority. This is patently untrue, wrong and not Biblical. All authority ultimately comes from God and one never has the God-given authority to command another to sin because God does not lead us into sin (James 1:13-15). Parents, pastors, and others in authority only have what authority God has delegated to them. Although Gothard's popularity has waned, his influence is continues in Fundamentalism through his warped teaching on authority. Again, we are to be subject where the person has legitimate, God-given authority but we are NOT commanded to obey when the person, although an authority figure, steps outside his God-delegated authority. The answer, I think, lies in how we teach obedience. We must teach our kids to discern the difference between legitimate, God-given authority and usurped, illegitimate authority. No one, even an authority figure, can command one to do wrong.

The problem is that sex ed advocates see their agenda as a panacea for all sex-related problems. It's wrongheaded thinking to say, "If the kids are properly educated, it will solve our many problems related to sex." They are so short-sighted that they cannot see the ramifications. If anything, this type of proposed program will extenuate the sex-related problems. We already know from a couple of decades of data that sexual activity is being pushed lower and lower into the elementary school partially due to the curiosity aroused by sex education. If the kids know about it, then they want to experiment. Also, sexual stimuli, such as visual images and talk about sex, advances the onset of puberty in girls. Finally, it's ironic that an adult showing sexually explicit images to a minor is guilty of child sexual abuse but the government can authorize its educators to show sexually explicit pictures in the name of education. (BTW, I know the purposes are supposedly different but the actions are similar. Also, how do we know that some of these educators are not pedophiles?)

That's my point. The veracity of a child's testimony in this area has often been predicated on the idea that a child would not make this stuff up, and could not because they didn't have access to sexually explicit information. The kind of sex ed that many schools are proposing is very explicit, and will completely negate this premise.

It also concerns me when a school admin is talking about how kids (and we are talking kids UNDER 10) need to know this information in order to make informed decisions- well, if they can't legally consent, what is the point of giving the information so they can intelligently consent? Doesn't this sound like a setup to anyone but me? I mean, we can say all the livelong day that it shouldn't make a difference, but the fact remains that schools have parental notification policies that often allow them to counsel and treat children without parental consent when it concerns sexual activity. They can give out birth control and advice on safe sexual practices, as well as transporting girls to clinics for abortions- but they don't treat any other physical problem in this manner. I mean, if a child presents with lower right quadrant abdominal pain, does the school diagnose appendicitis, transport the child to the hospital, perform an appendectomy, and send the kid home without notifying the parents? No sirreee- but they sure as shootin' do when it involves removing an unborn child from the body of a young girl.

I'm tellin' ya'll, my Spidey sense is tingling, and when you play connect the dots on this, it creates a very disturbing pattern. Someone is planning on letting this horse out of the corral, and they are removing the fence posts one by one.

Someone.... they.... maybe I should dig that tinfoil helmet outta my closet and see if it still fits.