4 seminary leaders voice concern over film critical of 'social justice'

Jay, I can see myself that at least from the statistics, there are more true abuse cases that don’t go reported than false accusations. All I’m saying is that if the cases are handed over to the civil authorities rather than being handled internally (and I agree that churches should scrupulously follow the laws on reporting, etc.), the church also has no basis to then treat the accused as guilty until the civil case comes to some sort of conclusion. Actions to keep both parties apart and protect them and the testimonies of all involved may be necessary (i.e temporary removal from church responsibilities, etc.), but they should not lead anyone to a conclusion on guilt that is officially supported by the church until the case is resolved.

In other words, in our zealousness to do right by those who suffer abuse, we cannot just tell ourselves that false accusations are so rare that any innocent accused can be safely thrown under the bus. It might seem unjust to an accuser that the accused is treated as not guilty until a resolution, but that is what must happen. We do need to make sure that accusers are loved and that we consider their charges seriously, but that support cannot include any action against the accused that would assume or imply guilt. In the end, it doesn’t matter which party is the stronger and which the weaker, and which has more authority or respect in the church. In judging, we are not to be respecters of persons. Facts matter.

As Greg mentioned, if the case ends up being resolved in a way that does not end up with a guilty verdict for the accused, perhaps all the church can do is nothing. If both accused and accuser maintain that they are telling the truth, and there are no witnesses for the church to consult before making a judgment, then the church cannot take disciplinary action (for either party). I have never seen a spousal abuse case in any church I have attended, and I hope not to, but if one ended like this, I would suspect that one or both parties would leave the church anyway, since a “cloud of suspicion” would probably never go away. But neither should have to leave because the church has violated principles of sound judgment in handling the case.

I think you and I are a lot closer, Dave, than it may appear. Let me ask you this, because I see a contradiction here that I’m not fully able to resolve either:

the church also has no basis to then treat the accused as guilty until the civil case comes to some sort of conclusion.

I agree with that. So how do you not treat the accused as guilty when you have to do things like:

Actions to keep both parties apart and protect them and the testimonies of all involved may be necessary (i.e temporary removal from church responsibilities, etc.), but they should not lead anyone to a conclusion on guilt that is officially supported by the church until the case is resolved.

So if a woman says that her husband is abusing her while he is also teaching Sunday School or working as a deacon, etc…how is it necessary to remove them from their responsibilities without indicating that he’s guilty?

I would say it’s a necessary step given the gravity of the situation, but others say that I’m really saying that he is guilty by doing that. So what is the best way to proceed?

Furthermore, your post completely sidesteps (which I don’t think is intentional) the situation that has been discussed earlier in this thread, where the pastor either refuses to get involved, insists on doing his own investigation first, or (as is most common) believes that the abusing spouse is serious and repentant and then disciplines the woman out for a hard-heart or failure to submit or failure to forgive and compounds the problems.

I don’t think we disagree on the basics (get the police involved, separate the partners, etc). I think we need to think harder about how we approach the topic, victims, and how (maybe what is a better term) the church addresses it.

[Jay]

I agree with that. So how do you not treat the accused as guilty when you have to do things like:

Actions to keep both parties apart and protect them and the testimonies of all involved may be necessary (i.e temporary removal from church responsibilities, etc.), but they should not lead anyone to a conclusion on guilt that is officially supported by the church until the case is resolved.

So if a woman says that her husband is abusing her while he is also teaching Sunday School or working as a deacon, etc…how is it necessary to remove them from their responsibilities without indicating that he’s guilty?

I would say it’s a necessary step given the gravity of the situation, but others say that I’m really saying that he is guilty by doing that. So what is the best way to proceed?

While it may seem unfair to one or both parties, I think both should be removed from special responsibilities while the case is under investigation. As I said before, this would be a lot like a police suspension, not a judgment of guilt. When this action is taken, you probably can’t get away from accusations of prejudging guilt, but really all you are doing is being extra careful to protect the testimony of the church (and the parties involved) by realizing that while accusations are in process, there is no longer perceived “blamelessness” of the parties. I think both can still function as general members of the church, but it protects everyone involved to have any leadership, teaching, childcare, etc. responsibilities be suspended until resolution. And by having a policy to treat accuser and accused equally until resolution, you are helping to protect the church from accusations of prejudgment.

I can’t speak for others, but as I am currently a deacon, if I were accused of something criminal, even if I staunchly believe in and maintain my innocence, I would not only step down if asked, I would proactively resign from that position or any other leadership responsibilities, to make sure that everything is above board for the church. If someone wants to take that as an admission of guilt, they can, but I can’t help what they would think. Until I was judged not guilty or the case is dropped, I would not be able to claim blamelessness as I understand it from scripture.

Furthermore, your post completely sidesteps (which I don’t think is intentional) the situation that has been discussed earlier in this thread, where the pastor either refuses to get involved, insists on doing his own investigation first, or (as is most common) believes that the abusing spouse is serious and repentant and then disciplines the woman out for a hard-heart or failure to submit or failure to forgive and compounds the problems.

I don’t think I’m sidestepping that at all. The pastor/church should not insist on doing the investigation first, if to follow the law, the civil authorities must be immediately involved. However, that shouldn’t prevent the church from fulfilling its biblical duties to attempt to find out what happened in any ways that do not impede or run afoul of the governmental authorities doing their jobs. And believing only one side before the facts are in is foolish, as we are told in Proverbs.

As far as repentance, everyone has to make their own judgment call as to whether they believe true repentance has taken place, but any judgment made by the church is not at all in place of whatever civil judgment is required by law. Both civil and church authorities have their places. And I would say that while we are commanded to forgive someone who asks genuine forgiveness, for some serious crimes and/or breaking of relationships (i.e. abuse, adultery), then I don’t personally believe that forgiveness requires trust or resumption of a relationship, and I personally would not be part of a church that required that relationship to immediately be treated as restored simply due to the offender asking for forgiveness.

Then again, I also don’t believe a church should require someone judged not guilty of abuse who maintained their innocence to immediately resume a relationship where the accuser either never admits to false accusation, or admits to false accusation and simply asks for forgiveness. Trust is earned, not simply required, and broken relationships are not fixed by simply jamming them back together.

To argue that “believing the victim” is to align yourself with demonic powers and principalities and also demands summary judgment without evidence and without a fair trial is specious and deceitful. It’s a sinful misrepresentation of their position that automatically assumes not just evil intent, but Satanic influence.

I am not sure you are being fair to Wilson’s position. I know you don’t like him so I think that might color your view a bit. His position appears clearly to be that he believes that people like Rachel and Boz are arguing for a system of justice that is not just. The the accused are considered guilty by virtue of accusation rather than evaluation of the evidence. “Believe the victim” requires that, does it not? His “principalities and powers” seems a reference to a system of justice that ignores biblical guidelines for establishing guilt. Is it satanic? Yes, in the sense that is not a biblical system of justice.

What do you say about a system to justice that declares someone to be guilty without discovering evidence, without interviewing people, and without cross examination? Surely you would agree that is not just. You have said as much. Yet when Wilson says that, it seems you reject it.

What “believing the victim” means is that we act in accordance that the abuse happened and that we get the police and courts involved so that the crime can be properly adjudicated.

I think this is exactly the problem. By “act[ing] in accordance that the abuse happened” you are assuming what should have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “Believing the victim,” as you say here, does not establish one fact until there has been an investigation. This is what Wilson is saying. You actually have to investigate and pursue the case before you can declare that “the abuse happened” and determine who the victim is. Once the accusation has been made, there is a victim. It is necessary to determine who that victim is—whether the accuser who was abused or the alleged perpetrator who was falsely accused. There is a victim. It takes work to figure out who it is. What part of that do you disagree with?

haven’t heard CP on this, so i won’t comment on them.

I think what we should tell victims is “I hear you and I take you seriously. Let’s report this to the police.” To believe before you hear the other side is one of the Proverbs indications of being a fool.

I haven’t looked into it {the TVC case] too much, but Denhollander has very little to do with that case.

Did you see the video? Rachel injected herself into it by condemning TVC for doing what the police detective apparently told them to do. (I say “apparently” in case Chandler is mispeaking). Denhollander said TVC failed to do right because they didn’t identify the person. Chandler says that the detective told them not to identify the person because it could jeopardize the investigation. That video is an interesting juxtaposition. Since Rachel is an attorney and a victim, she should know that you follow police instructions. If Chandler is correct in what he is saying, Rachel is wrong on that case, I believe. I don’t think you reject the instructions of the police and do you own thing anyway.

BTW, isn’t that the problem from the other side? That people blame churches for rejecting law enforcement and handling it themelves? Now, you have a leading advocate telling a church that they should have rejected law enforcement and handled it themselves.

I symphathize with Rachel and grieve for the sin against her. I am grateful for her testimony. However, that doesn’t give her a free pass.