The Long Journey Home

In Conversation with Andrew Schmutzer

An interview with Andrew Schmutzer about The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, and part 1 of his chapter, “A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse: Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem” as appearing in Pneuma Review Summer 2013.

 
A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse—Part 1 A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse—Part 2

Interview 2 Interview 3

Note from the Editors: Beginning a conversation about sexual abuse is uncomfortable, but we feel strongly that this topic is something the church needs to address. We believe the testimonies of authentic recovery can help us embrace the pain of the hurting and make openings for God to bring healing.

Pneuma Review: Are seminaries preparing church leaders to deal with sexual abuse?

Andrew Schmutzer:

Historically, no; but some are now trying. Abuse trauma is not simple and trying to train for the complexity of abuse—something that wasn’t even discussed in churches 15 years ago—begins to show the magnitude of this challenge. Seminaries need to start offering (requiring?) courses on a theology of sexuality and its legal and pastoral implications. Academic programs need far more team-teaching from different professionals. Just bringing in a survivor for the class to interact with would make a serious contribution toward pastoral preparation. Issues in sexuality are utterly exploding on so many fronts today: from gender-bending among youth and same-sex “rights” to the ever-present plague of sexual abuse. There are many expectations on our seminaries, and pastors are pulled in so many directions already, I understand that. But sexual abuse is a bleeder that must be tied off immediately. To be ill-equipped and ignorant of sexual abuse today is like living in tornado alley with no alarm system. It’s unacceptable. It’s a disaster itself.

More particularly, we’re going to have to network more between organizations, and frankly, embrace a more holistic anthropology that moves beyond the protracted gender wars and fear of therapy. More aggressive study of relational patterns (e.g., Family Systems Theory) and how power is heard and felt by victims is a practical issue that will have to be woven into standard leadership training and core curriculum—internships may need to become more apprentice-like. There is a complexity to the human-induced trauma of sexual abuse we’re only beginning to face. Unlike some addictions, one doesn’t choose to be a victim of sexual abuse, but the way we process this has not caught up to the complexities we’re now learning about how complex PTSD and mental health affect the entire person. Pastors need to understand: (1) the multi-factorial backdrop of sexual abuse (e.g., beliefs about sex, toxic family traditions, superficial healing rituals, cultural modes of thinking, etc.), (2) and the complex reasons that victims often go on to abuse others (i.e., trans-generational sexual abuse). Specialized training might need to look like continuing education classes or periodic seminars. It should go without saying, but church leaders need to stop avoiding passages in Scripture that address sexual perversion, rape, and standard biblical ethics.

PR: What is it about the church’s relational ecosystem that church leaders need to address to create a more safe and open environment for healing?

Andrew Schmutzer:

Great question. Well let’s be honest, church transparency has been more aggressive for those living with peanut allergies than offering proactive help and up-to-date literature for the sexually broken. With 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men being abused, which is the larger group?

When it comes to the church addressing its own relational ecosystem problems, we can take a key lesson from the PennState sexual abuse scandal: our understanding of motivated blindness. Multiple layers of leadership are not conducive to addressing authority-sensitive issues like sexual abuse. When churches view brokenness as weakness, when image is on the line, job performance is defined by more money, hierarchical structures “filter” all discussion, authority figures talk down to people, and power-plays are the norm—you have motivated blindness. The traumatized child doesn’t stand a chance when someone in the chain of command edits the reports. Let me put it this way: who will suffer more from silence, “command and control” or the abused person?

Both the corporate world and the church engage in motivated blindness. The church struggles as much with abuse of power (i.e., spiritual abuse) as the corporate sector, but faith communities handle it worse and often without the needed policies for follow-up. If information of sexual abuse has to climb numerous tiers of leadership—and it’s not spiritual to be in pain or question authority—it is not only a disincentive to honesty, but any lower tier can claim “I passed it up the chain!” I know several seminaries, for example, that now require allegations of abuse to go “outside” first (to police), then back through internal channels. This discussion is long overdue and you can see how cynical society is against authority and abuse victims against both church and structure. These groups have their reasons.

What would a more safe and open environment look like? If churches intentionally reached out to the sexually abused: April would be acknowledged as the national sexual abuse and violence month, Christian leaders would be just as concerned about the sexual “betrayal talk” for adult survivors as the sexual “purity talk” for teens, churches would incorporate written testimonies and prayers of survivors, pastors would equip the abused by teaching on a theology of the lament psalms, healing services for the abused would be as common as commissioning services for missionaries, support groups for survivors would be publicized in the bulletin right next to the conference on financial freedom, board rooms would always include some wounded leaders who actually “get it,” churches would hold seminars to train their leaders in abuse identification and care, a trained counselor would be available or on staff, crisis hotlines (for domestic violence, etc.) would be posted and available, the church or pastor’s library would have several substantive books addressing sexual abuse, different denominations would cooperate for the sake of the sexually abused in their communities, teaching and preaching on sexual violence would be as common as addressing same-sex issues, the full raft of policies and literature to address allegations and minister to pedophiles would be on record.

We know what can be done within the churches relational ecosystem, but do we have the moral will? It’s easier to write a check for trafficking ministries in Bangkok than reach out to the abused teen in our church balcony. As a ministry, trafficking saddens us, but abuse scares us because there’s always a power shake-up. There’s always triggered leaders who’ve not faced their own stories of abuse, so they project their frustration on those who are addressing it. Face it, who typically has the powerful public profile, the abused or abuser? Talk to survivors. Ask them if they feel the abuse topic has been normalized in their church. Ask them if they feel believed by those closest to them. So here are some points I would say build a profile of healthy church ready to minister to its victims of sexual abuse. Here is the relational ecosystem of a safe church:

• Has an integrative policy (of theology and mental health) addressing both prevention and healing.
• Has consistent training for all staff and volunteers,.
• Holistically addresses broken image-bearers, not broken genders.
• Addresses the strengths and weaknesses of 21^st century media.
• Normalizes the discussion of abuse to promote support for the broken—working on the victim’s time-table.
• Routinely address “actual” sin, not just reminders of original sin.
• Is looking out for pedophiles that attend, and has a redemptive plan for them, too.
• Has “wounded” leaders (men and women) in positions of leadership.
• Has a developing policy for sex offenders in their congregation.
• Has checks and balances for the abuse of power in leadership.
• Has publicized support groups for survivors.
• Is cognizant of the language and tone delivered from the pulpit.
• Teaches on biblical texts that validate the experience of survivors.
• Has a reputation in the community for honesty, respect, and care.

PR: You quote Neil Plantinga, “Sin is disruption of created harmony and then resistance to divine restoration of that harmony.” What are some of the resistances happening in churches preventing or thwarting the restoration that God wants to bring?

Andrew Schmutzer:

We can identify several kinds of church resistance that are thwarting restoration and healing:

The resistance of … “sacred silence” (e.g., a faith-culture of selectively discussing the sins we want to face; ironically, this is accompanied by an avoidance of preaching and teaching biblical passages that already address rape, incest, and sexual betrayal; this resistance forces a teen to out their story first because the leadership won’t break the silence for victims).

The resistance of … happy-worship (e.g., a one-sided kind of praise that withholds the opportunity for survivors to engage in redemptive naming, lamenting, and weeping; this forces the sexually broken to worship in spite of pain rather than in pain—creating dishonesty and superficiality—and does not teach the larger faith-community to shoulder collective grief on behalf of their sexually broken brothers and sisters).

The resistance of … minimization (e.g., claiming that “all sin is the same” is a post-modern mantra that actually trivializes the evil of sexual abuse and does not understand that all sin is not equally devastating; this is particularly painful when the non-abused tell the abused how they should feel and respond; would we tell a returning soldier how to deal with their phantom limb?)

The resistance of … mandated forgiveness (e.g., while it sounds spiritual, it is a re-victimization for survivors that stems from not understanding the layers of trauma in sexual abuse, coupled with the common mistake of equating forgiveness with reconciliation; a jewel thief can be forgiven but should that person return to work for the store owner?)

The resistance of … avoiding wounded leaders (e.g., sometimes it takes wounds to heal wounds, but withholding wounded leaders from shepherding positions can leave the wounded sheep with no “safe” model to connect to  their form of sexual brokenness).

The resistance of … “victory” theologies (e.g., such theologies are not capable of addressing horrendous evil, have little patience for healing as a process, blame too much on the devil, typically search for some “silver bullet” to eliminate suffering, dismisses the candor of lament theology, and lack adequate integration with the disciplines of psychology and medicine that also speak into the trauma of sexual abuse; behind “victory” theologies is often a misunderstanding of how sexual abuse lives on within the relational ecosystem).

Like addressing obesity, only some groups are taking sexual abuse seriously. Abuse is an issue people don’t want to face till it hits their family or faith community, and even then some won’t go there. For many churches, it has been too easy to dismiss the epidemic of sexual abuse when their church doesn’t have priests, a tall hierarchy or a magisterium to follow. “Social justice,” particularly in its faddish forms, often appeals to issues “outside” its own group, but can be callous to difficulty within its own ranks.

There has always been a current within protestant church culture that delights in its independent or escapist identity. Abuse thrives where transparency doesn’t. Obviously, I don’t need to explain how primed for abuse such a church culture is: the isolated pastor, personality cult or the secluded community. It is one thing when the abusing priest speaks for God and is also called “Father,” yet protestant churches mimic this when obedience is enforced, evil is only mystical, and questioning of authority is punished. Abuse thrives when image management trumps accountability. The effect is similar among the insular Amish and Hasidic Jewish communities. Google such stories of abuse—the names can be easily traded out for other churches. The truth is, isolated churches lack: (1) the knowledge for adequate policies, (2) the mechanisms for accountability, (3) and the grace necessary for restoration. So unless pastors preach on abuse and seize the teachable moments in society, the sexually traumatized won’t hear this ancient sin named and God’s desired healing gets short-changed by servants who lack moral vision.

PR