ABUSE & DUBIOUS GOALS
Crossing the Line
It is good to see Evangelicals Now (EN) publishing articles that touch on the abuse scandals in UK conservative evangelical circles. Far too many ministers have remained silent in their wake. In the January edition, John Benton draws a striking parallel between the recent advent of safeguarding officers and the teething troubles associated with the introduction of video assistant referees (VAR) in English Premier League (EPL) football. As so much has changed over the last year, his enigmatic article presents a welcome opportunity to consider where we find ourselves when it comes to addressing the intractable issue of abuse.
John begins by enthusiastically endorsing safeguarding’s general role in protecting both children and adults. I trust we can all agree that safeguarding is to be praised for monitoring where important lines have been crossed. Indeed, if we trace the history of John’s central metaphor, we will note that – despite its early implementation issues – goal-line technology is now universally accepted and approved in top level football, whilst its equivalents have been equally embraced in tennis, rugby and cricket. With so much at stake, the world has come to welcome innovative approaches for establishing what’s in and what’s unmistakably out.
Virtual Insanity?
What has been contentious in the Premier League of late, is seeking to extend the undoubted benefits of goal-line technology to infringements across the field of play through VAR. Intriguingly, John chooses to transpose the initial, lumbering use of VAR (seen as “petty”, “unjust” and “dominant”) with the worst case scenario of safeguarding officers subverting their roles to wrest authority from local church elders. Such one-sided and alarmist characterisation, by one of conservative evangelicalism’s old pros, reveals palpable anxiety.
At the ‘Avoiding Spiritual Abuse as a Pastor’ study day he led in November, John legitimately noted that safeguarding officers don’t explicitly feature in ecclesiological structures within New Testament norms. On the other hand, he raised the menacing spectre of elevating them to ‘a higher tier of church authority, above the eldership’. In between, John sought to dissuade church members from raising concerns regarding coercive control with designated safeguarding officers, except as the very last resort. Surely, we must be more careful not to set ‘honouring the authority of elders’ against caring well for the abused – by depriving them of well-informed advocates?
Decision: No Offside
It seems the anxiety is largely about where power resides when it comes to exposing spiritual abuse. John insisted he just wants ‘leaderships to be functioning in a robust way and for leaderships to make that decision [about whether to involve a safeguarding officer]’ regarding accusations … against their own leadership. Disregarding the catalogue of recent scandals, he anticipated, ‘Hopefully, spiritual abuse would be dealt with within the eldership’ because ‘it is possible some leaderships may be able to honestly deal with things within themselves’ [emphasis mine]. For abuse survivors, like myself, whose unmonitored and unreported allegations have been concealed and unaddressed by church leadership for years, the lifeline John offered was ‘perhaps one of the elders is going to say: the other elders aren’t taking this seriously – I need to go to the safeguarding officer.’
In the same vein, many good conservative evangelicals have naively acquiesced with senior leaders (and leaderships) that amass great power and influence, centralize finances and control, short-circuit checks and balances, and – all the while – condition people to think ‘we’re with the good guys; we can leave it with them; they’ll let us know if there’s anything to worry about.’ If you want to understand why we’re in the mess we’re in and why things are unlikely to change quickly, this is a good place to start. Our supposed theological precision should have resulted in humility. All too often, it has been expressed in hubris.
Level Playing Field?
Professional safeguarding agencies and independent reviews are the next to be similarly fêted, then fatally undermined in the EN article. This time, the list of unsubstantiated fears comprises: purported lack of accountability to a local church; non-denominational nature; and the possibility of ulterior agendas. For the sake of argument, such weighted objections could easily be levelled at mission agencies, the police and EN. If we are to be even-handed, John’s calling into question the credibility and impartiality of independent reviews on the eve of a report concerning the abuse of his longstanding friend, Jonathan Fletcher, must also prompt his agenda to be scrutinized. The appropriately named Dubious Goals Committee is the EPL counterpart. Many will recall that, even after John left his post as editor, EN published a manipulative “apology" from Fletcher, which had some of their writers contemplating their resignation.*
Self-refereeing
In place of inter-denominational, independent and dedicated expertise, networked sister churches are suggested as the more appropriate authors of abuse inquiries. However, whilst good elders have decent procedures, they do not generally possess the professional insight – not to mention the slack in their schedules – to handle the complexities of abuse. Moreover, friendly local churches from the same stable lack the genuine independence of being outside of the situation. In much the same way, few would advocate opposing EPL clubs supplying their own assistant referees for top flight matches.
To take one recent example, spiritual abuse in Sheffield was not adequately dealt with by the leadership of the TCH network of churches for years. It was not until external pressure resulted in the elders correctly exercising their oversight to bring in thirtyone:eight, to skillfully and impartially investigate on their behalf and without usurping their pastoral authority, that help and healing arrived. Such para-church organisations, like good mission agencies, seek to draw alongside the local church with specialized know-how, rather than to dominate elderships. As the integrity of their published reports is transparently exposed and examined against their terms of reference, their accountability is ensured and their agenda can be evaluated by all.
Team Building
Whether independent reviews and safeguarding officers are special measures for the current abuse crisis or the godly appropriation of corporate gifting and common grace, now is not the time to forward conspiracy theories about coercive control by safeguarding. Instead, we need to make the most of the expertise and advocacy available to us in order to form safer cultures and healthier churches.
*edited for chronology
