Review – What Is a Girl Worth, by Rachel Denhollander

Amazon Affiliate Link

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.

Discussion

[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.

[Mark_Smith]
M. Osborne wrote:

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.

I’ve highlighted the statement you’ve made; if someone is attempting to create a narrative, that implies that the narrative created is not true. Don’t try to weasel out of it by saying you didn’t say so in as many words, because you clearly implied it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

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.

Have fellowship with me? I never mentioned fellowship with me. That could not be more irrelevant. That’s a rather strange attempt on your part at … well, at something … I have no idea what.

My point was simple and, I think, really clear: If you don’t report, you are guilty of not reporting. You can’t blame someone else for that. You are the one who didn’t report. So what are they guilty of? They are guilty of not reporting. It’s fine, if that’s what they choose to do. Aside from mandatory reporters, everyone gets to make that choice. But if you want to report and you don’t report, you are guilty of not reporting.

What part of that is confusing to you? Or what part do you disagree with?

On the flip side, your repeated comment along the lines of “exposing themselves with little chance of getting justice” or “banging their heads against a wall until they get a concussion” seems to imply you think they shouldn’t report because no one will do anything. Is that your position?

[Bert Perry]

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.

Is it really “starkly different”? You said you are fine with saying “if you want justice, you are going to need to step forward.” What happens if they don’t step forward? According to what you are fine with saying, you are telling them they won’t have justice if they don’t step forward. That puts a certain level of responsibility on them to step forward if they want justice, doesn’t it? If, for whatever reason, they decide not to come forward, wouldn’t they be their decision to ignore that small level of responsibility that would needed to happen for justice to take place?

Oh mighty great one… I repent of you reading into something I said the way you interpreted it, Amen.

[Mark_Smith]

Oh mighty great one… I repent of you reading into something I said the way you interpreted it, Amen.

Yeah, keep trying to weasel out of it, Mark. The only real defense you have is that you, with an earned doctorate, do not have adequate command of the English language to know what is meant by “trying to create a narrative.” Good luck with that. Reality is that one tries to create something that does not already exist, which is why I called you on it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Kevin Miller]
Bert Perry wrote:

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.

Is it really “starkly different”? You said you are fine with saying “if you want justice, you are going to need to step forward.” What happens if they don’t step forward? According to what you are fine with saying, you are telling them they won’t have justice if they don’t step forward. That puts a certain level of responsibility on them to step forward if they want justice, doesn’t it? If, for whatever reason, they decide not to come forward, wouldn’t they be their decision to ignore that small level of responsibility that would needed to happen for justice to take place?

Absolutely, it’s a huge difference. Guilt and blame have an implication of sin. I emphatically endorse the notion “if you want justice, this is a risk you’re going to need to take”, and I emphatically reject the notion that one is sinning by not exposing themselves to more sins against themselves. The very idea that we would even talk about blame and guilt in such a situation shows that we simply do not understand the needs of victims. They didn’t ask to be in that position.

And that’s why accusing victims of having guilt or blame is indeed a breach of fellowship. Sin separates. Didn’t we used to know that as fundamentalists? So if we are indeed accusing victims of having guilt because they didn’t choose to run the gauntlet, we are simultaneously saying that fellowship is impaired as long as the person doesn’t repent of that. And yes, statistically speaking, that gauntlet includes not only harsh treatment by social networks and defense attorneys, but also the very strong (98% or more) likelihood that the perpetrator will not be punished in a meaningful way.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Is it really “starkly different”? You said you are fine with saying “if you want justice, you are going to need to step forward.” What happens if they don’t step forward? According to what you are fine with saying, you are telling them they won’t have justice if they don’t step forward. That puts a certain level of responsibility on them to step forward if they want justice, doesn’t it? If, for whatever reason, they decide not to come forward, wouldn’t they be their decision to ignore that small level of responsibility that would needed to happen for justice to take place?

Absolutely, it’s a huge difference. Guilt and blame have an implication of sin. I emphatically endorse the notion “if you want justice, this is a risk you’re going to need to take”, and I emphatically reject the notion that one is sinning by not exposing themselves to more sins against themselves. The very idea that we would even talk about blame and guilt in such a situation shows that we simply do not understand the needs of victims. They didn’t ask to be in that position.

I thought this might simply be a semantic situation. Guilt and blame refer to sin? They certainly can, in certain situations, but you seem to think they refer to sin in all situations. Not every failure to make a responsible decision is a sin.

Sometimes the failure can be an honest mistake. One of my first jobs as a teen was as a landscaper. On one job, I was sent out to fertilize a lawn. I hadn’t understood that the wheels of the fertilizer spreader had to overlap and the lawn ended up with dark green stripes. I was guilty of operating the spreader wrongly and I was person to blame, but I hadn’t sinned.

Sometimes the failure is because of reasons like fear. This is often why reporting doesn’t take place. It’s an understandable reason, but the failure still happens, and justice becomes more difficult to obtain because of that failure. I would never say, however, that the failure is a sin. The guilt and blame in that case is not guilt and blame because of sinning, It is guilt and blame simply for a totally understandable failure that doesn’t involve any sinning on the part of the victim..

[Bert Perry]

I emphatically endorse the notion “if you want justice, this is a risk you’re going to need to take”, and I emphatically reject the notion that one is sinning by not exposing themselves to more sins against themselves. The very idea that we would even talk about blame and guilt in such a situation shows that we simply do not understand the needs of victims. They didn’t ask to be in that position.

I’ll agree they didn’t ask to be in that position. But if they won’t take the responsibility on themselves (for whatever reason, legit or otherwise), then they also have no call to try to put blame or guilt on others for not taking up their cause for them when they won’t lift a finger for themselves. If someone chooses not to report, then as Larry said, no other person or organization that is not bound by mandatory reporting has to either.

As to what blame means, certainly the first definition is “to find fault with.” However, you also seem to be ignoring the second definition, “to hold responsible.” And yes, if a purported victim did not report, they do indeed bear the responsbility for that, even if they chose not to for reasons that seemed good to them at the time. Maybe the word “blame” has taken on new connotation in our overly sensitive, PC culture. The concept of responsibility stands, though.

Dave Barnhart

The accuser in the SWBTS case reported that she’d been raped at gunpoint. When this was reported to police, they did find weapons in the assailant’s apartment, which was an open and shut case of illegal storage, handling, and illegal carrying of a firearm. This open and shut case was not prosecuted.

Now, is it still the victim’s responsibility to continue with charges, knowing the assailant is free and armed and had pointed those guns at her before, or is it primarily other peoples’ responsibility to provide for her safety by prosecuting open and shut weapons charges and/or providing her with a safe house, preferably with armed guard? Or, knowing the antics of defense attorneys and defendants, in even cases where lethal force was not used to commit the crime, is it our responsibility to come alongside the victim and say “come what may, I’m in your corner” first? Is it our responsibility to say “my first concern is not whether you go forward with charges; my first concern is helping you cope with this.”

Again, if you keep talking about blame, guilt, and such with victims who refuse to sign on for more harm, you can kiss good-bye the chance to minister to them and those who care about them. It is that simple. It’s at the core of the GRACE report on BJU, and it’s at the core of PII’s report on ABWE. Let’s not be the same kind of loveless people described in those reports.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.