SEXUAL ABUSE
RESPONDING TO
AN ALLEGATION
How to navigate a sexual abuse
crisis at your church
By Gregory Love & Kimberlee Norris
The headline stunned the congregation of a
large Protestant church: Church Rocked by
Sexual Abuse Allegations.
Church leaders took hundreds of phone calls from members, media
representatives and advocacy groups. Social media coverage was
immediate and savage, assuming the worst possible motives for church
leaders’ actions.
It was instantly apparent that the church had no plan in place to
address the risk of sexual abuse, nor did it have an appropriate response
to an allegation. Membership suffered. A year later, the church
contemplated selling its property and moving to a smaller location to
pay ongoing legal fees and litigation costs.
Many ministry leaders do not understand sexual abuse, sexual
abusers, or what an appropriate response to an allegation looks like.
Consequently, wrong responses abound.
YOUR RESPONSE SHOULD BE VICTIM-CENTRIC
In any allegation response, adopting a ‘victim-centric’ approach
is fundamental. The perspective a ministry adopts in handling an
allegation will shape its actions and priorities and might determine
whether subsequent civil litigation ensues.
In our experience — three decades of law practice addressing sexual
abuse issues — the majority of litigants bring suit based upon how they
are treated POST-allegation ... AFTER the allegation becomes known to
leaders. Abuse survivors who are treated with dignity and care are far
less likely to consider subsequent litigation.
While safety of children in the program is clearly the primary
concern, the risk of subsequent litigation is real and compelling.
False allegations are rare
False allegations are rare; academic studies indicate 92% to 98% of
outcries are real and factual. Your church should assume the allegation
received is likely factual, and multiple (unknown) victims might exist,
whether the alleged victim is male or female.
Prioritize a victim-centric response
When receiving an allegation or outcry, a ministry’s priority (and
therefore what it says and does) should be ‘victim-centric’. The priority
should be protecting and caring for the alleged victim and his or her
family and determining if other victims exist in the ministry program.
Make no mistake: when an allegation is received, there are very
few ‘neutral’ statements or positions. The ministry’s response will be
either victim-centric or other-centric (actions and statements that clearly
demonstrate a priority for something or someone other than the victim).
Avoid a ministry-centric response
Too often, a ministry adopts a ministry-centric response:
communicating and acting in a defensive manner meant to serve the
best interests of the ministry, rather than the victim.
This defensive posture tends to appear self-serving, self-protective,
self-justifying, blame-shifting, and self-righteous. The message of
this defensive posture is that the alleged abuse is unfortunate and
inconvenient to the otherwise good work or service provided by the
ministry. The expressed (or unexpressed) concern is that ongoing
ministry work continues without disruption, including building
campaigns and donation drives. The welfare of the alleged victim is
secondary. The service has become more important than the served.
Above all, steer clear of an abuser-centric response
A truly harmful ministry response is abuser-centric: communicating
and acting in a manner meant to protect the alleged abuser.
Typically, this includes public statements focusing on the risk to the
alleged abuser — his or her marriage, career, reputation or future. This
defensive response is common when the alleged abuser is influential or
in upper leadership.
FACTS THAT OUGHT TO FRAME ANY RESPONSE
With more than 60 million sexual abuse survivors living in the
United States, nearly 1 in 5 Americans have experienced child sexual
abuse personally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
18 CHURCH EXECUTIVE | JULY / AUG 2020