Review – What Is a Girl Worth, by Rachel Denhollander
It’s occasionally difficult to distill any book, particularly one of this weight, into words. This is a book that should never have needed to be written, and it is one of the most powerfully affecting books that I’ve ever read. This book is deeply challenging, and it is entirely possible to experience a huge range of emotions while reading it; I routinely cycled through anger, frustration, compassion, joy, and sadness as I turned pages in it. There are more than a few times when I had to put the book down and walk away from it simply because it was too emotionally demanding to continue reading, as this subject generally is. Other passages, particularly near the end, moved me to tears.
For those who do not know the story, Rachael Denhollander was sexually abused by Larry Nassar while in her early teens during treatment for injuries received as a result of gymnastics. As someone who had previously been a victim of abuse, it did not take a long time for Rachael to realize that what Nassar had done was wrong and illegal, but she writes eloquently about how tightly she kept that secret because the entire family was fully aware that Nassar was untouchable due to his associations with MSU and especially the US Gymnastics program. She not only painstakingly documented what happened to her, but also built an entire library of information in the hopes that one day someone out there would provide an opening that would allow him to face justice. That opening was provided by the investigative team at the Indianapolis Star1 many years later, after she believed her opportunity to press charges had expired, in a story about the coverup of abuse in the US Olympic program.
I think this book will be a huge encouragement or challenge to three groups of people. The first group is for survivors2 themselves. For those who have been through the trauma of any kind of abuse, learning to vocalize what happened to themselves and even to be courageous enough to talk about it are the first two major steps in their recovery. Abuse victims come in all shapes and sizes, and many of them have learned that the best way to “deal” with their trauma is to try and will it away or to bury it under layered internal defenses, which is yet another educational aspect of the book. For Rachael in particular, it meant repeatedly testifying about what was done in graphic detail to reporters, police, court, and the media. Now she is testifying to it in excruciating and personal detail in this book. Most survivors will not ever do this, as the cost is simply too high. Rachael, on the other hand, is very forward and blunt with the description, but her pointedness is for our own good. If we couch the realities of abuse in polite language, it can diffuse the power and weight of the truth we need to know. For this reason alone I would recommend the book to anyone.
The second group of people are those of us who may be aware of the case and are interested in her story from an insider’s point of view. I know that I first heard about Rachael through the sentencing hearing and closing witness statement, which has now been seen more than a million times via different channels on YouTube.3 These people may be familiar with the case but not the dynamics of abuse or the criminal justice system, and this book should come as a shocking and eye-opening expośe into how abusers can co-opt everyone into silent complicity and erect walls of protection that not only buffer them from accusation but also prevent the victims from ever going forward and continually opens up new avenues for further exploitation.
The third group of people that this book should challenge are those charged with shepherding people4 in their local church. This is traditionally the role of pastors, elders, and deacons, but it should also include those who are responsible for children’s ministries, Sunday School, VBS leaders, and community outreach team members as well. Because the church is generally a volunteer-lead, volunteer-run ministry to the community-at-large, we are particularly susceptible to those who may appear as angels of light but who may have evil intent. Having abuse prevention policies are good, helpful, and are legally necessary but having an understanding of the methodologies of predators will help us understand our own cultural blind spots as well. This book will give you some exposure to understanding the things to look for from predators and more importantly, people who are being groomed for abuse or abused at home. This is an area that we traditionally do not cover well or in detail in our counseling materials, and many of the resources that we might look to for guidance generally do not do a good job of handling the topic of abuse.
In addition, those who lead the church must develop (if they do not already have) the necessary discernment and fortitude to engage with those who are adept at spin and misdirection. Perhaps some of our churches would not carry the reputations they do if the pastors had learned to look beyond the façade of trusting “friends” and supporters and seen the hideous realities underneath, which leads into my next point.
One major thought that went through my head as I read the book was “what would have happened if Rachael were in my church and she didn’t have the background and training that she did?” If Rachael had come into my church as an overweight mother of four that lived in a mobile home, or as an angry seventeen-year-old African American teenager who kept mouthing back to me, or a sullen and withdrawn boy who kept running away from his home…would I have listened to them? Would I have acted to get at the real issue instead of what was being presented? Would I have even known how to get past the external shell and at the heart of the issues that were really going on? To my shame, I have to say that I might not have done that. That’s a terrifying proposition, because we will receive judgment on the basis of all the works that we have done, including our thoughts. James is very clear to warn us of the dangers of being selective shepherds in James 2:1-13, and Matthew 25:40-45 reminds us of our responsibility to care for the naked, hungry, thirsty and imprisoned. How much of a prison is being abused by someone and yet unable to get someone to believe that you were? Do we really want to follow the model of the priest and Levite, who saw the beaten man on the Jericho road and callously cross over to the other side5? Are abuse victims not our neighbors too?
I could easily spend a dozen more pages talking about how important and educational this book is, and still never be a line closer to finishing, and I haven’t even touched on her ability to write or many other aspects of the book. God has specifically used her grit, fortitude, and determination in our day to tear aside the veils of secrecy that shrouds this topic. You must read this book, and I’d encourage that any schools or universities that are in the business of training ministers to make it required reading for their students. I wish I had this book years ago, when I was in undergrad or seminary…but I have it now, and others can read and learn from it too. Go buy it now!
Notes
1 https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/09/12/former-usa-gymnastics-doc….
2 Abuse victims do not generally like to be called victims, but survivors.
3 291,000 views (WXYZ TV), 346,000 (CNN), 293,000 (MLive), and 72,000 (USA Today) channels. This is a small gathering completed on 8/27/19.
4 Luke 10:29-37.
5 Luke 10:25-37.
Jay Camp Bio
Jay holds a MA and a BA in Pastoral Studies from Bob Jones University and Northland Baptist Bible College (later Northland International University). He and his wife serve at a church in New York in many different capacities.
Not the sort of book I want to read… which increases my appreciation for the review.
In my “day job,” I read about what’s going on with helping victims (still the preferred term in the criminal justice system) on a pretty regular basis. There is a great deal of energy going into it. It’s not always well-informed, well-spent energy (as when Universities set up kangaroo courts to convict persons accused of sexual assault without any opportunity to cross examine witnesses, verify facts, or otherwise honor due process).
But much of it is well spent. There’s a lot of education and training energy going to helping police officers be more “victim centered” and “trauma informed” in their procedures. This is encouraging for a lot of reasons. Among them: more sensitivity to victims and the “retraumatization” of the questioning process takes longer but gets better results in terms of obtaining verifiable facts and physical evidence. That leads to more successful prosecutions of these evil-doers (no, they are not merely “offenders”). In addition, as procedures get wiser and gentler with victims—and related programs are rolled out—more victims feel emboldened to come forward.
Not all of them are going to be able to prove their claims and get somebody jailed. But as more make the attempt, more abusers (which are quite often repeat offenders) are stopped.
I hope the book helps.
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.
Was Rachel ever abused at a church or was it Nasar only? I ask due to the phrase “as someone who had previously been a victim of abuse…”
Somehow she got involved in the Sovereign Grace mess didn’t she? How did that happen?
If a child comes to you and says anything that hints at abuse, you call the appropriate reporting agency for your area. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nothing to consider there. No need to worry about if they are poor, connected, white, black, Hispanic, or the deacon’s kid. Then, you just might want to follow up on it.
Was Rachel ever abused at a church or was it Nasar only? I ask due to the phrase “as someone who had previously been a victim of abuse…”
Somehow she got involved in the Sovereign Grace mess didn’t she? How did that happen?
There was a child predator in the church she grew up in who sexually abused her and several other girls/women; he was eventually asked to leave after complaints were made. The church tried to hush it up quietly and keep it under the rug so that they wouldn’t lose their testimony to the community; it sounds like the church ended up imploding under the weight of the coverups.
Later on, once Rachael got into gymnastics, someone recommended Larry Nassar to her parents for some of the injuries that she was sustaining, where Nassar abused her again.
Finally, several years later, Jacob (her husband) and Rachael were involved in a local church that was working with SGC on a church plant. The leaders of the church they were in prayed for the accused leader (who is not named) would be able to endure all of the false accusations and lies that were being spread. When Jacob and Rachael spoke with the elders of their church about the facts of the case, they were overruled and told not to bring “division” by raising these questions. The elders of their then church told them to stop talking about the particulars of the case and Rachael had to scrub her statements and links on Facebook about the case. Jacob was stripped of his role as a care group leader and their small group was dissolved by the leadership. All of this happened around the same time that Rachael sent her personal information to the people at the Indianapolis Star. I believe it took several years, but the leadership of that church went back to the Denhollanders, apologized for how they handled it, and made the situation right.
I have edited this post to make some corrections.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
….is that at least two chapters of her book are available for free via Sports Illustrated, the Washington Post, and Time. Well worth the read! If you wonder why people don’t report, and how things are swept under the rug, read them (or the whole book). In the same way, if you want to be able to recognize the signs that someone has been abused, and how to be open to when they’re ready to talk, read the book.
(yes, authorities ought to be brought in, but for the nth time, the person needs to be ready and feel protected….)
Worth noting as well, with regards to “get it to the police”, is that there are two big paths of healing for survivors. The first, yes, is human justice, but the second path is what Valorie Kondos-Field writes in her book Life is Short; Don’t Wait to Dance. It’s well worth the read from the perspective of healing, and also to understand how people can work with victims/survivors and not quite clue into what happened—but yet provide healing.
Also worth noting is that there is a legitimate space for schools (and churches) to take action when the police will not. Specifically, fornication and persistent violation of best practices for child protection are reasons to separate people from ministries, and most perpetrators show signs that they’re testing boundaries/violating best practices long before they get caught in a crime.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For some reason, I neglected to link to a book preorder page. Yes, you can go through Amazon to get it, but it would be better if you used a different seller, especially local and independent booksellers. This link will help you find one. We are hopeful that this will become a NYT Bestseller, so the purchase sourcing really does matter.
Personally, I’d recommend that you don’t read the excerpts. Once you start them, you’ll want to finish reading the entire book, and it’s my duty (in Christian love) to keep you from making that mistake. Just go buy it instead. :)
Finally, there is a companion book for little girls titled “How Much Is A Little Girl Worth” - you can read my review of that on GoodReads.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Its my understanding the church where the first incident occurred bullied Rachel’s parents into not going to the Police.
Correct. He was asked to leave and no charges were ever filed (that I know of). Again, it’s a common and very heartbreaking response by churches.
The leadership of the church she grew up in did not want their reputation marred so they banned discussions about it within the congregation. Unfortunately, the assailant had gone after so many people that it was impossible to keep truly secret, and the net result was that the church polarized into two sides between accuser and accused. Many people left the church as a result; her parents were not the only ones.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
or go to grand jury in some cases. Churches do not “file charges.” If Rachel’s family were intimidated, that is on them. If your pastor asks you to not file charges, or a deacon, or an elder, or the denominational president for that matter, YOU LEAVE. That is her family’s quilt for not filing charges. Only they had the power to do so. Tough love, but true.
For those back on the “how to leave a church properly” thread, does your pastor asking you to ignore a felony count as a reason to leave?
Churches do not “file charges.”
Nobody has said it was the church’s obligation to file charges. It IS the church’s obligation to help their members get justice by reporting him to the police, not covering it up and then passing the buck. The church failed in that duty, and it destroyed the church.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
So we have a church that bands together to persuade an assault victim and her family not to go to the police, and therefore….the blame for that is on the family? Seriously?
Mark, have you been sleeping every time a pastor or other church leader/member emphasizes how a church can be a family? Are you unaware of how difficult it is to leave such a family—or at least should be? Brother, what we are talking about here is crimes that are well known to induce mental illness (e.g. depression, PTSD), and you’re basically assuming is that those same people are going to be ready to jettison their biggest social network at the drop of a hat. Don’t you know that the police work with victims’ advocates for a reason? To get at what “should be”, sometimes God’s people need to lend a hand.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Pretty much with Bert on this one.
People shouldn’t allow the church to push them around, but the church has a far more serious responsibility to do right than mere human law requires. For a church to discourage right instead is especially heinous.
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.
No doubt that at a certain point, we do have some responsibility to do what’s right. Where I balk is at assuming that people who are severely injured by life experiences will be able to uniformly do so, especially in the face of church structures (cultural structures in general) which tend to push conformity rather than independent thinking.
One might assume that, in a church with no current known disasters of the type that befell Mrs. Denhollander, the first task of the church is to modify the church culture to allow and encourage people to stand up to pastors and deacons in disputable matters. Task #2 is to train church leadership and members to understand that the church’s overall reputation is best served by dealing with allegations instead of hiding them.
One thing that we don’t instinctively understand, I think, is how great the pressure is to hide things. One case with which I’m familiar involves a mother telling her own daughter not to report—because the perpetrator was the son of mom’s boyfriend. These things get messy in a way we’d never suspect.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So we have a church that bands together to persuade an assault victim and her family not to go to the police, and therefore….the blame for that is on the family? Seriously?
Mark did not say this and obviously did not mean any such thing.
Mr. LaVern G. Carpenter
Proverbs 3:1-12
[Mark_Smith]or go to grand jury in some cases. Churches do not “file charges.” If Rachel’s family were intimidated, that is on them. If your pastor asks you to not file charges, or a deacon, or an elder, or the denominational president for that matter, YOU LEAVE. That is her family’s quilt for not filing charges. Only they had the power to do so. Tough love, but true.
For those back on the “how to leave a church properly” thread, does your pastor asking you to ignore a felony count as a reason to leave?
Vern, and I quote, Mark did indeed say “This is her family’s guilt for not filing charges.” Brothers, this is a great deal of why so many people don’t come forward. On one hand, you’ve got one group of misguided people telling people not to report because it would “embarrass the church”, and when they are successfully shouted down, another group of people tell them they’re horrible because they took the advice of people who should have been their spiritual peers and leaders.
And as Mrs. Denhollander has often noted, there are countless girls out there quietly watching and suffering in silence because they don’t want to sign up for that blanket party. Let’s get a clue here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
the only person who can testify against a perpetrator is the victim (unless you are also a eyewitness). Period.
Are people who tell someone to not testify bad? YYYYYEEEESSSS.
Are they criminal? No.
Is it wise to be influenced by someone to not press charges, not do so, then a decade later sue them? NO.
All of my argumentation in these cases is against the constant desire to sue churches and schools year later, claiming they caused you to not testify. Stand up for yourself and your family. My goodness, if some pastor/deacon/elder tells me to ignore the fact that some perp raped my daughter….. well, not flying here bro.
In cases like the Nassar case, it’s not true that the only person who can testify against a perpetrator is the victim or an eyewitness. It’s also very significant when people describe how the accuser responded to the situation at the time, whether they mentioned it, whether details were given, and the like. We saw that in the brouhaha over Brett Kavanaugh, really, and it’s one big reason for mandatory reporting laws. No, you didn’t see it—for obvious reasons rape happens usually in private—but what you have to say can be good for at least a subpoena, even if it’s not admissible in trial.
Regarding people suing churches, schools, and other institutions for telling them not to report or otherwise mishandling the issue, absolutely, and see above. It does great harm when a person is told, in effect, that they can either have justice, or they can have their social circle and/or spiritual home, and it does great harm when a person does not get justice that they otherwise would have had.
It’s good when a person has what it takes to tell authority figures to take a flying leap when they make idiotic demands. However, I think it’s a bit much to demand that, and those who harm people by demanding they keep things quiet are fair game for civil lawsuits.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
With all kindness, my observation stands.
So we have a church that bands together to persuade an assault victim and her family not to go to the police, and therefore….the blame for that is on the family? Seriously?
This statement implies that it is the fault of the victim’s family’s for the church’s mishandling of the situation. That is not what was said or implied.
Mr. LaVern G. Carpenter
Proverbs 3:1-12
Mark initially said this:
Churches do not “file charges.” If Rachel’s family were intimidated, that is on them…
It’s extremely callous (at a minimum) to reference the victim’s failure to report their sexual abuse immediately after I explained that the church deliberately covered up repeated sexual assaults by a member. t’s no different from hearing a woman admitting to her own rape and then immediately following that up with “well, what kind of clothes were you wearing?” or “well, you were in the wrong part of town” or something like it. Would you tell someone whose husband had been murdered that it’s not the church’s responsibility to report a murder, and that if they didn’t, it was on them? What about if the pastor’s 401(k) / 403(b) had been embezzled by the treasurer?
We are commanded to speak the truth in love. What Mark said may be true, but it was not loving to Rachael. I’m also a little nonplussed that at least two people saw fit to agree with that, although I’m not necessarily shocked by that anymore.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
To be clear, apparently her church did wrong. I have no idea. I am just going on what Jay says Rachel said. Churches should be open about abuse that occurred on their premisis.
That being said, part of the reason the abuse was covered up was Rachel’s parents apparently did not pursue justice. NO ONE can cover up if the victim themselves reports the crime (unless the police and DA are in on it…).
I am completely loving Rachel with the truth. Her parents failed to seek justice for her. Again by her own testimony as relayed by Jay. Its that simple.
Did you ever tell your parents “but all the kids are doing it…” And they said “if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you?” Same thing with church leadership telling you to cover up a felony! You immediately know those people do not care for you! They do not love you nor do they love Christ. Move on immediately. On the way, stop by the police station…
Let me say it another way. If you as a pastor are supposed to report abuse in your church (not in my state, but most), and fail to, you have committed a crime. If a church goes along and tries to cover up, that is evil. Plain and simple. BUT NO ONE can keep the victim and their family from reporting the crime themselves. So, what I am saying is, the buck stops with the family. If they fail… don’t write a book 20 years later blaming the church without blaming your parents.
The ERLC released a new episode of “The Way Home” podcast yesterday with Rachael. It’s a very powerful interview that touches on abuse from a variety of angles and is some of the best discussion that I’ve heard on the topic to date. I’d recommend that to all of you.
If anyone else is interested in reading more, I’d recommend this special report by the Courier-Journal on the personal toll this has taken on her and her family for decades now. The media interviews are also cropping up online as well, such as this one from CBS This Morning.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[LGCarpenter]So we have a church that bands together to persuade an assault victim and her family not to go to the police, and therefore….the blame for that is on the family? Seriously?
Mark did not say this and obviously did not mean any such thing.
Yes, if a group of people convince you to ignore your child being raped.. you bet the blame is on you. ALSO, the church is full of scum bags who need to be punished for covering a felony. That church has totally failed. But I am not giving a pass to the family that many of you seem to want to do. You child was abused man… step up! Protect your child! Seek justice. And if your “friend” or “pastor” tells you to “turn the cheek”, do so by leaving, and then report the crime.
And I quote:
This is her family’s guilt for not filing charges.
Guilt and blame are synonymns. Stop dodging what you said, Mark, and stop covering for this, LaVern. If you say the family is guilty, you have blamed them. It is that simple. Mark is moreover doubling and tripling down on this by ignoring how difficult it is to stand up to authorities and leave social structures, and instead simply demands that victims “flip the bird” at people they’ve loved.
Sorry, LaVern, this is not that complicated.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, I don’t think you are understanding my point. Reread my last comment. I’m not covering up for Mark and I didn’t actually say anything related to his argument. I’m pushing back on your statement that it is the fault of the victim’s family that the church is mishandling the situation.
Mr. LaVern G. Carpenter
Proverbs 3:1-12
No, I understand your claim completely, LaVern, and the trouble is that it simply happens to be false. “Guilt” and “blame” are synonymns, so when Mark says the family is “guilty”, he is blaming them. When you blame the family, you are implicitly saying it is their “fault”, to use your word. Own it, brother. (and apologize)
Reality here that I’m trying to get across to you and Mark (and others) is that victims, especially young ones, generally find themselves caught between two powerful imperatives, that if what happened to them vs. what their social and authority structures are recommending. And if you blame, or assign guilt, or say it’s their fault, what you’re telling them, in effect, is to show up cheerfully for the blanket party you and your friends have set up for them.
To put it mildly, you’re not going to be ministering to very many survivors with that attitude.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I bought the book after reading this review. It’s a real eye-opener for what some people are dealing with inside. Thanks for the recommendation.
The church can mishandle the situation AND the family be responsible for not reporting a crime at the same time.
No one at Rachel’s church MADE HER FAMILY not report the abuse. They chose to not report it. That is on the parents. Yes, is that so hard to acknowledge.
Did the church do right in apparently encouraging them to not report the abuse? NO!
Does the church’s fault mean that Rachel’s family is free and clear of their lack of support for her? No.
Can families chose not to report because they think that is better for their child? Yes.
But then don’t complain 25 years later about that choice and try to blame it all on the church.
[Bert Perry]No, I understand your claim completely, LaVern, and the trouble is that it simply happens to be false. “Guilt” and “blame” are synonymns, so when Mark says the family is “guilty”, he is blaming them. When you blame the family, you are implicitly saying it is their “fault”, to use your word. Own it, brother. (and apologize)
Bert, the fault I refer to is not reporting the crime. Not the crime itself. I would think that is obvious.
No, I understand your claim completely, LaVern, and the trouble is that it simply happens to be false. “Guilt” and “blame” are synonymns, so when Mark says the family is “guilty”, he is blaming them. When you blame the family, you are implicitly saying it is their “fault”, to use your word. Own it, brother. (and apologize)
I’m confused why you push back on something I never said. I can’t apologize for something I didn’t do. I’ll leave it at that.
Mr. LaVern G. Carpenter
Proverbs 3:1-12
Mark, it is precisely your notion that the victims and family ought to be blamed if they do not report that I am contesting. If we are held accountable for what we know, we ought to be able to point to a lot of teaching about the importance of reporting, how it’s better to air the dirty laundry, and the like.
However, reality is that we see just the opposite. Cover things up, minimize the offense, treat people harshly if they don’t do what we think is right, etc.. If people learn from what we (our institutions) teach them, what we see is exactly what we’d expect. Worth noting as well is that when I put provisions into a church child safety manual to deal with these tendencies, one deacon’s revision eliminated them. Don’t think for a minute that they don’t exist in your church or institutions you care about. These things need to be confronted.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
As for me, when a church covers up a crime like abuse, its candlestick is null and void. You can stay at one when the pastor asks you to cover it up, I’m gone, brother.
….but let’s have some compassion for those who cannot easily leave their churches, schools, and the like, especially in light of the outsized authority that many church leaders pretend and preach. It’s also worth noting that there are times when it is better to stay and fight, because there are some misguided church leaders (other leaders) who can be brought to repentance by a well-made argument.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Many of the stories like this date back to when I was child, or before I was child, so I have no first-hand adult understanding of how people thought about issues back then.
But with everything I’m reading, you’d almost think that decades ago, people thought differently about this kind of incident than they do nowadays. And you’d almost think that our bringing our 2019 understanding to the coulda-shoulda-woulda of decades ago is anachronistic.
As a father I find it inconceivable that any church ties would be strong enough for me not to report such a crime against my family, let alone to purchase a shotgun and handle it myself. While there may have been and still be “outsized authority” working against reporting, I’m wondering if back then, there wasn’t sufficient reckoning about the gravity of the crime, which also mitigated the urgency to report.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
M. Osborne, yes, things were even worse when I was a kid—my neighbors reported their sons were molested around 1980 and the police didn’t do anything, but please, please, please don’t assume that people are getting the message. Despite clear evidence of completely mishandling multiple sexual assault accusations as recently as 2015, Paige Patterson still has a host of defenders. When the Houston Chronicle did their series on wrongdoing in SBC/IBC circles, they found a lot of things a lot more recent than “decades ago”, including cases where people who had done hard time for sex crimes returned to the pulpit like Darrell Gilyard—a protege of Paige Patterson, by the way.
In the same way, a recent Minneapolis Star-Tribune report on the subject found a lot of recent cases where police did not as much as interview the accuser or the accused (when the accused’s name was known). About 80% of cases did not get even basic due diligence, let alone special effort.
Close to home for me, I’ve been writing a children’s safety manual for my church, and I made it a point to specifically proscribe the behaviors that get organizations in trouble while defining what the problem was. Guess what? When I got the first revision back from a deacon, all that had been taken out with the assumption that people would just “know” what the problem was, and know what to do with it. Worse yet, a provision was added which would allow the pastor to break the law by not reporting if he thought wise. (which could get him put in jail for failure to report, of course)
Sorry, but reality here is that far too many, including far too many on deacon boards and in pulpits, have not gotten the message. I might also add that the very fact that many people say “it was decades ago” or “our emphasis here is anachronistic” is itself a sign that we haven’t gotten the message, and that we’re not taking the risk seriously. It is, after all, to claim—wrongly as I’ve demonstrated above—“we’ve got this thing under control”.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
But with everything I’m reading, you’d almost think that decades ago, people thought differently about this kind of incident than they do nowadays. And you’d almost think that our bringing our 2019 understanding to the coulda-shoulda-woulda of decades ago is anachronistic.
Oh, this is very much a real thing. I know of a situation where marital rape was excused on the grounds of “they just have a different understanding”, as though rape was somehow OK.
I have an extremely difficult time buying the ‘anachronistic’ excuse though. At some point, rape and molestation are clearly wrong and should be known as wrong without needing to have the enlightened sensibilities and intelligence of the 21st century. The OT makes it very clear that non-consensual sex is a crime against both God and survivor (Deut. 22:25-29 and other places).
I’m wondering if back then, there wasn’t sufficient reckoning about the gravity of the crime, which also mitigated the urgency to report.
You’d probably be horrified at how common this is and how often pastors/deacons/elders will just assume that the rape or molestation is consensual or was even desired. In one case I know, multiple instances were written off as the woman being hysterical or not understanding what was going on or was wanted. “Buyer’s Remorse” is a common but perverse defense.
It’s a very, very, very common response for some reason and I will never understand why.
As an aside, Slate ran a very good review of the book as well; I’m noting this to nudge the thread back on topic.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
As a father I find it inconceivable that any church ties would be strong enough for me not to report such a crime against my family, let alone to purchase a shotgun and handle it myself.
Two thoughts -
1. You’re a man. Most men will believe you because of your gender and perceived authority within your church. We can ignore that fact or we can acknowledge it, but it remains regardless.
2. Imagine, for a few seconds, what it would be like if your church and all the relationships there suddenly vanished. You have no place to worship, no friends to support you, nothing. What would that do to you? Now what would you do if everyone in your church suddenly turned on you and you were perceived as one who “troubles Israel”. How do you think that would affect you or your relationship with God?
My point is that many have no idea how profoundly damaging this is because we haven’t gone through it ourselves, which is the value of Rachael’s book. Of course it’s easy to say that we’d do the right thing; but you don’t know how you would respond until you’ve actually been there. I would imagine that these situations are a lot harder when you aren’t tied up in a skein of personal relationships on top of the mental anguish/trauma received as a result. “Save me, O God” is great biblical preaching but takes on additional potency when you’re being rejected or ignored or silenced by people that should be helping you get justice for being victimized.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Yep, I agree, it is sufficiently clear in Scripture for all generations that this crime is an outrage against God and the survivor. And because it is sufficiently clear, no one involved in Rachel’s case can be strictly excused, whether it be her family or the church. To me the sufficiency of Scripture outweighs “outsized authority” and social pressures.
The cultural buzz today makes it hard not to hear that this crime is an outrage, and yes, Bert, apparently the message is still not getting through. But generations ago, they don’t seem to have had that cultural buzz. And from everything I hear, they seem to have had a cultural miopia as to the long-term damage that this kind of crime coul effect.
So my original comment was actually one of sympathy to Rachel’s family. Strictly speaking, her family’s failure to report would seem to be inexcusable. And I have a hard time imagining social pressures alone outweighing the decision to report. But it becomes a little more imaginable when I subtract all the more recent public discussion about how damaging such a crime is.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[Jay]As a father I find it inconceivable that any church ties would be strong enough for me not to report such a crime against my family, let alone to purchase a shotgun and handle it myself.
My point is that many have no idea how profoundly damaging this is because we haven’t gone through it ourselves, which is the value of Rachael’s book.
Right. And back then, they didn’t have such info, either. Which is why I’m trying to understand and extend sympathy.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
That’s a great point. Part of the difficulty in dealing with these issues is sorting out the people who are serious, who see it as a problem, and who want to effect change or do better from people who don’t want to the bothered, believe this is all a bunch of hooey, or who side with their friends and acquaintances “because they’d never hurt a fly”.
Thanks for sharing that. I wasn’t quite sure where you were coming from.
Here’s an excerpt from the Slate article I linked to earlier, which had a good explanation of the kind of hurdles that one must overcome to be believed:
When she was 12, she told her mother what happened, and learned that her parents’ protectiveness had gotten them hounded out of the church, accused of paranoia, slander, and improper reliance on secular expertise. The episode taught her a lesson that she carried with her when Nassar abused her: “If you can’t prove it, don’t speak up. Because it will cost you everything.”
At every turn in her account, Denhollander emphasizes the hurdles she faced in getting people to believe her and to advocate for her, and the costs of reporting. She told a gymnastics coach, who encouraged her to keep quiet. She told her mother, but they couldn’t figure out how to get law enforcement or media outlets to take her one story seriously. By the time she came forward 16 years later—the Indianapolis Star’s reporting on USA Gymnastics convinced her that victims were finally being believed—pursuing justice had become difficult in other ways: She had moved to a different state, and she was a mother of three with a husband in graduate school…
…But Denhollander never portrays herself as a lone figure with special powers. She praises the prosecutors, investigators, and journalists who helped bring Nassar’s crimes to light, and the family support and education that made her the kind of person with the capital to risk going public. And she emphasizes her own enormous privilege as a way of making clear that not every victim can afford to take the risks she did.
She views Nassar with special contempt, but also reserves blame for the institutions and individuals that protected him. This is not a book about bad guys and good guys. It is a book about systems—and Denhollander has bigger systems in her sights than Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics, although her advocacy has fundamentally changed both. She doesn’t use words like patriarchy or misogyny. Instead, she simply depicts them in action: teenage boys ranking girls’ bodies, a peer in her teen Bible study group pretending to grope her breast (no one cared), inescapable “locker room talk.” As an adult, she comes to see that when women with histories of abuse raise alarms, they’re viewed as “projecting” instead of being respected as experts. Church leaders called her “divisive” for publicly airing concerns about sexual abuse. And she describes how Christian teachers pressured her to forgive Nassar prematurely and even be thankful for his crimes against her.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
It seems some are missing the idea that there is shared blame. People who do not report are to blame. Period. That someone else told them not to doesn’t absolve them of blame. It adds a blameworthy party. When you are a part of mob violence, “They told me to” is not a legal defense. Nor is it a moral defense. Do right, no matter what.
Yes, power structures are real and difficult to overcome. Many have pointed that out even in this very issue in current times. Dare to suggest that an accused is not guilty simply because a charge is made and request that judgment be withheld until evidence is gathered, examined, and a trial takes place and see the powerful words that marginalize and accuse come out. Face the accusations of not “believing the victim.” It’s enough to scare a weak person into silence even though they know the truth about process and justice.
We should mourn the sin and the crimes involved and grieve for victims. We should seek justice. Actual justice, not mob justice. We should recognize the spheres of church and civil government and endeavor that both carry our their God-ordained duties. We should recognize that there shared blame and shared guilt (liability for punishment).
[M. Osborne]Right. And back then, they didn’t have such info, either. Which is why I’m trying to understand and extend sympathy.
Sympathy? Oh yes, I have full sympathy. Abuse is such a terrible thing. My problem is the special case of a person like Denhollander. Her family doesn’t report, and then she writes a book years later where she casts blame on the church without (apparently) mentioning the blame of her parents., all in an attempt to create a narrative where she is the expert on abuse. Caveat- I have not read her book, nor will I. I am simply going by the reviews I have read that describe what she wrote. If she mentions that her parents are also to blame for not reporting the crime, that is different.
People are starting to understand that reporting often ends up being quite the blanket party for the accuser and her (his) family; good. Now couple that with the fact that, due to the police not taking cases seriously and other factors, only about 2% of sexual assault accusations end with jail time for the perpetrator. Minnesota is better at about 5%, but even here, a Star-Tribune survey found only 20% of accusations got even a good basic investigation.
So again, what we have here is a person subjected to serious trauma, often resulting in lifelong mental illness, being told that her options are to (a) suffer in silence or (b) suffer even more due to the misguided “counsel” she receives from her most cherish institutions while knowing that the chances her rapist will do hard time are remote.
And then in the remote likelihood the case goes to trial, they have the privilege of sharing the intimate details of their worst sexual experience to the entire courtroom (and anyone who wants to get the court reporter’s notes) while a defense attorney casts aspersions on their character, motives, and the like.
If you want to cast blame on victims/survivors for not signing on to repeated blanket parties with little hope of punishment for the perp, be my guest, but don’t be surprised when their response is “not exactly positive.”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Mark, Mrs. Denhollander is an attorney who from her youth has been involved in the legislative process, and when she reported her abuse by Larry Nassar to both authorities and the Indianapolis Star, she put on a clinic for “this is how to make an accusation stick”. You see, she had her testimony, the testimony of family and friends, her medical records, copies of presentations Nassar had made to the MSU school of osteopathy, copies of medical papers about how the procedure Nassar was pretending to do is supposed to be done, and more. She knew that abusers tend to have multiple victims as well, so it was important for her to go to the press so victims out there would know they weren’t alone—this is a critical factor in getting people to report. She also was in consistent contact with the investigators to make sure they were getting key things done.
In other words, she was modeling the kind of behavior you and I ought to have if someone should come up to us and mention they’d been abused. She’s also encouraged and counseled a fair number of fellow survivors to help them come to terms with what they’d endured, and she continues work to try and improve laws regarding sexual assault, especially in the area of lengthening statutes of limitations.
Yes, Mark, she’s an expert, and responding rationally to the signals she was receiving does not change that fact.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
This is my last post on this topic. I never said she was not an expert. I said she was writing to make a narrative as an expert. You are so focused on gottchas all the time… annoying.
Not sure what a blanket party is, but we know why people don’t report. You have told us many times even though we already knew. That doesn’t change the fact that they don’t report, and when you don’t report, you can’t then claim no one did anything. You are to blame, to one degree or another, for failing to report. Because you didn’t do anything, nothing else could be done. So if people don’t report, there is no one to blame but themselves. That would be hard to hear from someone in a difficult situation, and it may be that others should have reported. And it is not always the right time to say that, but we must face reality, mustn’t we? For all the talk of holding people accountable, let’s hold people accountable.
For current and future victims: reporting may or may not get you justice; but consider that it can help prevent the abuser from getting away with it again, and again. Come forward now, for their sake if not for your own. And don’t wait until your abuser is nominated for a high court position, because by then you’ll have an entire political party predisposed against you.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[M. Osborne]For current and future victims: reporting may or may not get you justice; but consider that it can help prevent the abuser from getting away with it again, and again. Come forward now, for their sake if not for your own. And don’t wait until your abuser is nominated for a high court position, because by then you’ll have an entire political party predisposed against you.
Seriously… Ford has no corroboration at all. The newest NYT story has none either. ‘Nuff said. I just could not let that pass.
For the record…I don’t find Ford’s accusations credible on many levels. That being said, can you imagine a worse time to seek justice for a 30-year-old crime? People may be predisposed to think it’s a political hit job. Further, if Ford’s allegations were found to be not-credible because they were in fact not-credible, think of the damage she’s done for future people who would report.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[Larry]Not sure what a blanket party is, but we know why people don’t report. You have told us many times even though we already knew. That doesn’t change the fact that they don’t report, and when you don’t report, you can’t then claim no one did anything. You are to blame, to one degree or another, for failing to report. Because you didn’t do anything, nothing else could be done. So if people don’t report, there is no one to blame but themselves. That would be hard to hear from someone in a difficult situation, and it may be that others should have reported. And it is not always the right time to say that, but we must face reality, mustn’t we? For all the talk of holding people accountable, let’s hold people accountable.
Blanket party; throw a blanket over the victim’s head so he can’t see and a group of people beat the snot out of him.
Regarding you understand; no, you don’t. Not in the least. I can see this because you are still telling victims that they need to sign on for another round of abuse with minimal chance of getting justice. You don’t understand at all.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Regarding you understand; no, you don’t. Not in the least. I can see this because you are still telling victims that they need to sign on for another round of abuse with minimal chance of getting justice. You don’t understand at all.
So you are saying they should not report because most crimes don’t get adequately investigated?
[Larry]Regarding you understand; no, you don’t. Not in the least. I can see this because you are still telling victims that they need to sign on for another round of abuse with minimal chance of getting justice. You don’t understand at all.
So you are saying they should not report because most crimes don’t get adequately investigated?
Is that your insistence that they have “guilt” for not reporting more or less assumes that for them to have fellowship with you, they need to expose themselves to more assaults with little chance of getting justice. That’s repulsive. What’s next, require they bang their heads against a wall until they get a concussion? That is, really, analagous to the harm that is being done. I’m 100% fine with someone saying “you know, if you want justice here, you are going to need to step forward—and I’ll go with you if you like.” That is, however, starkly different from saying that they are “guilty” by not coming forward.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion