Dealing with Sexual Abuse in the Church: Advice for Pastors, Part 2

(Read Part 1)

Shepherding the Perpetrator

Pastoring is not for the faint-hearted. It is not for those who shrink back from conflict or those who find it hard to confront. Dealing with sexual predators is not easy. Sometimes you feel like you are staring into the eyes of pure evil. Whether the perpetrator is a member of his church or not, the way a pastor deals with him has the potential to alleviate or aggravate the agony of the victim, protect or expose the church to danger, and bring healing or a cover-up to the perpetrator himself.

First, once a pastor confirms a report of sexual abuse by a victim it is important that he act. Most states have laws that require the reporting of abuse by educators, clergy and others within 24 hours. As I said before, don’t expect miracles from the local authorities. Nevertheless, reporting is the first step. This will probably involve giving an official statement, filling out detailed forms and multiple phone calls with authorities.

Second, immediately do everything in your power to protect the victim from further abuse or retaliation. This means providing a sanctuary of some kind where the victim can be cared for and protected. At my church several members have second homes hours away that can be used as sanctuaries.

Third, confront the perpetrator as soon as possible, but with caution. Do not go alone, especially if the situation might be dangerous. If it is not dangerous, demand to meet with the perpetrator that day. Do not let the issue go unaddressed for more than 24 hours. If the perpetrator is a member or attender of your church, meet with your elders or deacons and inform them that an accusation of abuse has been leveled against him.

What should you do if the accused denies the abuse? I think that this will be the reaction more often than not—sometimes because the accused is, in fact, innocent, and sometimes because the accused is attempting to hide the abuse. In the event of a denial, a pastor must exercise great wisdom. He must employ an acute sense of perception to watch the reactions of the accused. As I said before, predators are extremely proficient in deception, and Proverbs 20:5 reveals that “the purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water” which “a man of understanding will draw…out.” By asking specific, pointed questions, the Spirit of God may reveal a man who is hiding something.

If the pastor is unable to determine the truth, he may need to suspend judgment until a police investigation and trial render judgment. In such a case, unfortunately, the agony of the abused is prolonged. If the pastor doubts the truth of the accusation, and the accused can account for his whereabouts and actions, he must still provide protection for the accused by maintaining confidentiality (after reporting to the authorities, of course) and seeking to prevent gossip.

A false accusation of such magnitude is devastating, and pastors and churches should not rush to judgment. For the sake of the church, an accused member may need to step down temporarily from certain leadership positions until guilt or innocence can be established. This is an unfortunate circumstance for the innocent, but allowing a member to continue in leadership will damage the credibility of church leaders if he is later determined to be guilty.

Fourth, when confronting a known abuser, follow the biblical principles of confrontation found in Matthew 18:15-20, Galatians 6:1, and 1 Corinthians 5. The confrontation should be conducted in a calm, controlled manner, yet firmly. The response of the abuser is important. The only acceptable response is a total, heartfelt repentance that fits the seven criteria of 2 Corinthians 7:10-11. Remorse is insufficient. Excuse-making is unacceptable. Dodging, concealing, minimizing, and other forms of evasion reveal a lack of genuine repentance.

True repentance

Genuine repentance is a “godly sorrow” (2 Cor. 7:10, NASB) in contrast to remorse for getting caught or for “making a mistake.” According to verse 11, genuine repentance is characterized by “earnestness” or “zeal.” This seems to be the controlling idea of the next six characteristics. It speaks of thoroughness and initiative in setting right what one has done wrong. “Eagerness to clear” (2 Cor. 7:11, ESV) himself is willingness to follow whatever stipulations church leaders place upon the perpetrator, without resistance or resentment. This may include required counseling, a letter of apology, or whatever else is determined to be necessary. Restitution should be made willingly, whether it consists of paying medical or counseling bills, or any other kind of obligation that the abuse has incurred.

The “indignation” (2 Cor. 7:11) is anger at one’s own sin—not beating oneself up, but rather righteous anger that recognizes the extent of devastation brought upon the victim. The abuser should possess great “fear” (7:11) of chastisement and of ever committing such acts again. He should possess a lasting desire (“longing”) to make the situation as fully right as possible. He should burn with jealousy for the name of God that has been damaged through his sin. Finally, he should “punish” the sources of temptation in his life that led to this act.

Confession always accompanies repentance. To confess sin means to agree with God about the nature of it. This precludes any excuses or rationalization. A confession of sin that reflects genuine repentance will be complete and contrite, taking full responsibility for one’s actions, and recognizing the severity of the crime.

Paul’s final statement in verse 11 teaches us that any “apology” that falls short of this description is unacceptable. Forgiveness and a return to innocence can only come through this kind of repentance. Here’s where pastors often fail to properly shepherd sexual abusers. They fail to realize the complexity and depth of depravity, devious behavior and self-deception that led to the act in the first place. In an effort to avoid conflict or to show Christian love, they accept the first tearful or half-hearted apology. Now to be sure, some sexual abusers may be genuinely repentant when first confronted, but I believe these to be a small minority. A pastor needs to proceed very carefully before he begins offering clemency to abusers.

While God forgives immediately upon the occasion of genuine repentance, pastors do not see the true intent of the heart except through outward fruits of repentance (Matt. 3:8). This takes time. While God restores our relationship with Him immediately, the broken trust between a sexual abuser and other people is restored much more slowly. A pastor who accepts a hasty or half-hearted apology is robbing three people. First, he robs the victim by cheapening the high cost of forgiveness and minimizing the offense against the victim. Second, he robs the abuser of an opportunity (which he obviously needs) to learn genuine repentance. Last, he robs the church by allowing an unrepentant abuser back into fellowship. This is akin to opening the door of the henhouse to the fox.

But there’s one more who is robbed. The pastor himself is robbed of credibility, because he failed to protect the flock. If I were a member of a church where an unrepentant sexual predator was allowed to freely move within the community, I would feel betrayed by my pastor. His integrity would be severely damaged and his leadership in my life would be nullified by his negligence. He would be complicit in any future abuse by the perpetrator. Pastors have an obligation to protect the flock, whether the threat is from without or within.

If a sexual abuser is genuinely repentant, then he, too, will need pastoral care. He will need to be counseled, held accountable, and encouraged (because he will be broken-hearted and may despair). His wife and children will need encouragement. He will need someone to accompany him to court. He will need his pastor to instruct and encourage the congregation to welcome him back into fellowship (2 Cor. 2:6-8). In short, he will need ongoing care and accountability for years.

Shepherding the Church through Sexual Abuse

The perpetrator and victim of sexual abuse need pastoral care, but the church as a whole also needs careful, biblical leadership from the pastor in the wake of this sin. Pastors must regularly teach and preach the biblical truths of repentance, forgiveness, sexual purity, biblical confrontation, and church discipline. If a pastor is faithfully doing this, the church will be better equipped to deal with cases of sexual sin.

In addition, churches must develop written discipline and sexual abuse policies and must make these available to the congregation. The procedures must be followed carefully if the church hopes to retain credibility and protect itself from legal action.

According to Matthew 18, public church discipline is reserved for unrepentant members involved in serious sin after due process has been followed. This has several implications. First, victims of sexual abuse should absolutely never be put in front of the church to apologize for being abused, even if (or especially if) that abuse resulted in pregnancy. Such action is a complete failure of leadership as well as a failure to understand abuse and offense. In Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus is abundantly clear that the worst fate awaits those who offend (sin against in a significant way) children. Forcing a teenager to confess wrong for getting pregnant from abuse adds insult to injury and turns religious authority into abuse as well.

Second, a sexual abuser who does not satisfy the criterion of biblical repentance or the requirements of restoration needs to be publicly named and his sin condemned, all the while protecting the victim’s identity and dignity as much as possible. Again, a pastor who does not warn the flock of the presence of a sexual predator in their midst has failed in the most egregious manner.

Third, even if a sexual abuser clearly demonstrates fruits of repentance, and thereby avoids public naming and expulsion, he must be permanently restricted from certain activities in the church. He ought never to be involved in ministry with children and teens again. He ought to be banned from any leadership position since these inherently require influence and trust. He ought to maintain the accountability assigned by church leaders. Monitoring these matters must become a top priority for leaders for the church’s sake.

Some may wonder why this particular sin should bring such restrictions, when we might not argue for the same with other past sins such as drunkenness, assault, etc. I believe that Paul sets sexual sin in a distinct category in 1 Corinthians 6:18 when he says, “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” There is something unique about the violation of the body in sexual sin that makes it particularly offensive and devastating. A detailed discussion of this is outside the cope of this article, but I believe Paul’s theology of the body warrants this interpretation.

If these measures seem too severe, the horrific nature of abuse is still not understood. An abuser who fully understands the nature of his sin will not object to such restrictions. This is not a matter of forgiveness; it is a matter of broken trust. Paul reminded the Corinthians of their past sins, which included sexual abuse (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Now in Christ they were washed, sanctified and justified. Abusers can be truly forgiven, washed and free. Being forgiven, however, does not easily restore broken trust, especially given the magnitude of sexual abuse. A forgiven abuser ought to be able to minister in other areas, and find full fellowship in the body.

Conclusion

With sexual abuse as widespread as it is in our world today, pastors cannot afford to fail in their care and shepherding. The very lives of people, the credibility of the church, and the name of Christ are at stake. Every young man studying for the ministry should possess clarity on this issue. He must ensure that he obtains adequate biblical training in counseling cases of abuse and in pastoral leadership. He should conduct research and ask questions so that when he is confronted with sexual abuse in ministry, he will be able to handle it with confidence, competence, and courage.

Much more can be said on this critical issue, and perhaps some of my advice is debatable, but I hope that this essay will help provide a foundation for Christian thinking regarding sexual abuse. I also hope that it will start an ongoing conversation that will help bring victims of sexual abuse out of the darkness of pain and shame, and into the glorious light of God’s healing power.


Mark Farnham is Assistant Professor of Theology and New Testament at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA). He and his wife, Adrienne, grew up in Connecticut and were married after graduating from Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI). They have two daughters and a son, all teenagers. Mark served as director of youth ministries at Positive Action for Christ (Rocky Mount, NC) after seminary and pastored for seven years in New London, Connecticut. He holds an MDiv from Calvary and a ThM in New Testament from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA). He has also studied ancient manuscripts at Harvard Divinity School and philosophy at Villanova University. He is presently a doctoral student at Westminster Theological Seminary (Glenside, PA) in the field of Apologetics. These views do not necessarily reflect those of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary or its faculty and administration.

Discussion

There’s no One Size Fits All answer- every incident is going to be different. I think in cases where there is evidence supporting the accusations, it is obvious that the perpetrator needs to confess and accept whatever consequences the law and the church decide are warranted. If they are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement, plead “Guilty”, receive counseling and serve their time, then disfellowshipping that person is the only viable solution. But cut&dried is seldom how these things play out.

What if the accused declares his/her innocence and the police investigation has not turned up any corroborating evidence of guilt? What if there is a consensual relationship between two young people but the girl is just under [URL=http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm the age of consent[/URL]? What if the perpetrator is an underage child? I personally know of a case where the offender was a teen boy who was mildly retarded, acting out something he’d seen in a movie with some little boys when time and opportunity allowed.

It’s easier to think that most cases are going to be an adult male victimizing a young girl, and that all the puzzle pieces are going to fall into place. The broad general approach of the OP is helpful, but it is merely a starting point. It is on the shoulders of church leadership to find out everything they can on this topic, but we also have to realize that they can only do so much.

Church leadership doesn’t typically have the tools to investigate crimes, nor are they knowledgeable about the realities of dealing with victims of abuse. For instance, when children reveal their abuse (usually accidentally), they tend to go through a ‘process’ - denial, reluctance, gradual disclosure, recantation and reaffirmation. Is church leadership ready to deal with the ramifications of a child who is going through denial and recanting their story?

Many parents, churches, and schools warn kids about ‘stranger danger’, but this is the most misguided advise of all- about 95% of victims know their attackers (somewhere around 40% are victimized by a family member). Predators spend lots of time positioning themselves so that they have access and opportunity. They are usually charming and do not engage in sexual contact until they have already emotionally seduced the victim and desensitized them to physical contact with nonsexual touching- so warnings about someone touching a child inappropriately ignore the fact that by the time the predator engages in sexual contact, several horses have already left the corral. They are also willing to spend time charming the parents and authority so that they can continue to fly under the radar undetected. Thus when a child reveals their abuse or parents figure out that something is wrong, most people are incredulous that this ‘wonderful person’ who is so ‘good with kids’ would do such a thing.

I agree with others who have concerns about sending the victim to a safehouse. I mentioned before that it is good that a church can offer a safehouse to a victim who wishes to leave the area (if law enforcement allows this), but I think the church should be careful about encouraging a victim or the victim’s family to leave. I understand that the accused isn’t supposed to leave the area, even if they are expelled from the church, so it seems intuitive that the only person who may be able to do the ‘leaving’ is the victim. This might be the wisest course of action if their attacker is violent and vindictive, but it should never feel like the victim is being shipped off- out of sight, out of mind.

If my child came to me and told me of a case where there was sexual contact with him or her and another person that was inappropriate and/or illegal and it occurred within the context of a church congregation, I certainly would not depend on any Pastor and/or Elders to be the source of protection of my child. I am given that primary charge. A Pastor or Elders can only observe and monitor so much. They cannot, nor should be expect to, do the job of a parent.

It is rather amazing the absence of the parental figures present in the arguments being made by those who demand so much from the church and the Pastors regarding the oversight of one’s own child. If I truly felt my child was suffering further psychological harm because a suspected offender toward her was still attending the same assembly and there was nothing at the time beyond accusations and suspicions, thus not giving justification for suspending the suspect from attending, I sure as heck would not sit around crying about their presence when the solution needed lies within my own power to leave.

And I would explain to my son or daughter very clear parallels so they they understand in the case of our leaving it is for our protection. If someone in a room has a gun and you believe they have shot at you, do you stay and demand they be removed and risk further injury or do you, upon seeing their departure is not immediately, leave yourself for you own protection. And yes I would explain leaving means not getting to see some people you like as much but just like the people in the room whose company you are enjoying, do you stay just because of that knowing a man with a gun is still there, particularly one that you believe shot at you?

Sexual abuse provides so many mixed emotions in a child. Maybe the man made them feel special or maybe he threatened them with telling or any number of possibilities. When a child discloses that abuse — the turmoil and confusion is often magnified. I do not condone forcing the victim to leave the area. In a younger child, they may think they are being punished.

Also, a child often times does not fully disclose what happened to them immediately. It may take months or years for it it to all come out. So Susan, I don’t think you should be as welcoming to the perp. I’ve had some “Biblical counselors” tell me that what happened to me wasn’t a big deal, that a lot of people go through a lot worse. But, I didn’t trust them enough to share with them more of the story. That’s actually very common. And, it’s also very hard to have evidence such as you are inferring is needed to prove in your mind that it occurred. There is rarely DNA present in childhood sexual abuse because it is is often reported much later. And, there aren’t witnesses (usually). Does that mean that the crime did not occur? No. And, just because a man is spouting off that he is innocent, doesn’t mean it was a false accusation either.

[Anna Walker] Also, a child often times does not fully disclose what happened to them immediately. It may take months or years for it it to all come out. So Susan, I don’t think you should be as welcoming to the perp.
Anna, why on earth is this comment directed towards me? And where, pray tell, have I been ‘welcoming’ to the perpetrator?

Again- I don’t believe you are actually engaged in what is being posted here.

I think the comments are consistent with the topic of the thread, which is specifically directed at church leadership. It’s true that parents should be primary in any handling of a situation involving their children, but advice for parents would be a separate thread.

Fair enough Susan but I imagined that even instinctively it would have arisen more prominently simply by way of necessity when discussing the concerns of a child’s welfare. But I do note your observation and accept its validity.

[Anna Walker] And, just because a man is spouting off that he is innocent, doesn’t mean it was a false accusation either.
Correct, and it doesn’t mean he is “spouting off” either. This characterization, before the facts, of the response of the accused is quite telling. It appears your own painful experience has yet to be sufficiently resolved and prejudice your approach to the point that your objectivity is removed too greatly to properly adjudicate. I encourage you to continue in your reconciliation.

[Alex Guggenheim] Fair enough Susan but I imagined that even instinctively it would have arisen more prominently simply by way of necessity when discussing the concerns of a child’s welfare. But I do note your observation and accept its validity.
I think the lack of focus on the parents is because we are taking for granted that because of the underage status of the victim, we are by proxy talking about the parents… at least that is how my mind tracks as I am reading and posting. Every piece of advice directed at the church is relevant to parents, because they also need to educate themselves and personally vet anyone who desires to be a caretaker, teacher, or chaperone of their children. It also takes for granted that the child is from a functional home- one of the ways predators choose certain children is by grooming kids who are from broken homes or who have uninvolved parents.

IMO it’s naive to think that a church or school is doing all that is needed to prevent predators from gaining a place of trust and influence or advising their children of how to protect themselves. I posted a link in the previous thread about how schools pass on teachers who’ve been involved in incidents with kids but avoid prosecution and simply move on to another school, where their background is often buried in order to protect the public’s respect of teachers in general.

The same kind of protectionism is sometimes seen in churches, which is why ministering to someone accused of misconduct while also attempting to minister to a victim is… not impossible, but I find it highly unlikely that a church can avoid charges of catering to a criminal, cover ups, and conspiracies while trying to keep one foot on each side of this equation.

[Susan R]
[Anna Walker] Also, a child often times does not fully disclose what happened to them immediately. It may take months or years for it it to all come out. So Susan, I don’t think you should be as welcoming to the perp.
Anna, why on earth is this comment directed towards me?
It may very possibly have been intended for me Susan.

Anna, let me clarify that in my comments I was, for whatever reason, imagining a scenario where a church was dealing with the presence of an offender…but not necessarily with the victim on the same premises. Having both individuals in the same church does present additional challenges, I agree. We faced this as a family. I will not share the details in a public forum, but suffice it to say our situation was not handled well by the leadership in place (on our side or that of the offender, who was a minor), so I am thankful discussions like this are happening.

Should the offender be shunned? Is he not a member of the flock? If he has paid his debt legally, and is seeking to be a part of a fellowship of believers, should it not be offered (with the caveats I mentioned before)?

These are such complex situations. Every individual involved requires healing, sometimes on multiple levels.

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Diane,

I had a sex offender attend my church for a short period of time. I did not realize that he was one at first. Once i did, we told him he would not be aloud to be around children. We also had him always with someone in leadership. I think that if someone is really repentant they will keep themselves away from children. This is hard. But I am always going to default on the side of the one sin against (victum). We need to give the clarion call that we are going to protect the children. Yes, we need to have compassion. It’s a tightrope, but we must walk it and I think we need to default to the children.

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church

[Anna Walker] I’ve had some “Biblical counselors” tell me that what happened to me wasn’t a big deal, that a lot of people go through a lot worse.
Regardless of who the comment was aimed at, has anyone here said that child sexual abuse is ‘no big deal’? Is anyone advocating that churches start rolling out red carpets of welcome for perpetrators of violent crime?
And, it’s also very hard to have evidence such as you are inferring is needed to prove in your mind that it occurred. There is rarely DNA present in childhood sexual abuse because it is is often reported much later. And, there aren’t witnesses (usually). Does that mean that the crime did not occur?
There are other ways to provide corroborating evidence- just the fact that a suspect has the access and opportunity is enough to raise a certain amount of suspicion. The maturity of the child comes into play- young children are less likely to be able to imagine scenarios of sexual activity, and that weighs heavily as evidence. The actions of the accused would also provide some inkling of the truth, and I think it’s been stated again and again that anyone who’s been accused and is not cooperating fully should be toast.

It’s also been noted that there are many different scenarios that might require a completely different handling of the situation, such as the one I mentioned of a young mildly retarded teenage boy who was victimizing little boys. Should he have been immediately kicked out of the church, or should the church realize where they need to have safeguards in place for all the kids and either provide or find counseling for all the families involved?

What I think we keep coming back to is prevention. Should kids go to the bathroom unaccompanied? Do teachers and staff lock the doors of their rooms when they are not in use? Are there hall monitors to make sure no one is lurking when they should be in the service? There are only about a thousand common sense things we can do to make it as hard as possible for a predator to have access and opportunity.

[rogercarlson] Diane,

I had a sex offender attend my church for a short period of time. I did not realize that he was one at first. Once i did, we told him he would not be aloud to be around children. We also had him always with someone in leadership. I think that if someone is really repentant they will keep themselves away from children. This is hard. But I am always going to default on the side of the one sin against (victum). We need to give the clarion call that we are going to protect the children. Yes, we need to have compassion. It’s a tightrope, but we must walk it and I think we need to default to the children.
I agree Roger. As I mentioned in a post above, I believe there should be strict parameters in place, and that if an individual is truly repentant he or she will willingly subject themselves to whatever is necessary. If not, you show them the door.

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Even when abuse happens within a family, I think the basic steps are the same- notify authorities and cooperate with the legal system, attempt to ensure the safety of the victim if possible (Child Protective Services may have stepped in), counsel when and where needed… but it’s true that the deviancy of a family member victimizing a child is more emotionally complex, and the pain the victim experiences because of that betrayal would be sharper and deeper.

Okay, here’s a scenario. Perp is a teenage boy — maybe 14 or 15. I don’t think he should be let off the hook simply because he’s young. Just because he’s young does not mean it was consensual or that it was not serious.

And, as I said earlier, the only reason I”m sharing my story is to say that this is a real problem and I would love if by talking about it, that another victim would be spared some of the unnecessary trauma after disclosure has occurred. Often those in authority may not realize how their actions affect the people who are trying to help. I am trying to give that viewpoint.

Here’s a question to throw out there. What would you as a pastor do if a child claims sexual abuse and you talk with the parents and the dad gives you the impression that the child is just making it up? Would you still report it to the police or would you defer to the father figure?

I think it’s pretty much been agreed by all that you have to report what the law requires you to report. If you’re not a “mandatory reporter” in your state in that scenario, I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer. It’s a huge factor if the accused is one of the parents. I’m not sure what all the laws are there, but I think just about everybody is required by law to report child abuse, so it would be moot point in almost every case. Have to report.
[RPitman] So, how do you interpret 2 Corinthians 2:10?
It appears to me that Paul is talking about the sin against the church and telling them that he accepts the decision they make in that regard. But it’s also true that though the basic idea of “forgive” is always to release or free, it’s precise meaning may vary from context to context. It may be that in that passage it’s about “releasing” the disciplined one from penalties.

Certainly, the church cannot decree that someone is forgiven of their sins in the context of their relationship with God. At best, they could recognize that God has forgiven. But the church can forgive in the context of a person’s relationship to the church.

The whole subject of who can forgive what in what sense is probably another thread. It gets quite involved if you start going through passage by passage.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.