Through a glass darkly: Viewing sexual abuse cases through the proposed changes to Rules of Discipline
A proposal to revise the Rules of Discipline section of the Book of Order will be considered by commissioners to the 225th General Assembly. Among other changes, the Rules of Discipline Task Force suggests a title change from Rules of Discipline to Church Discipline. As a whole, the draft is a challenging read. The disciplinary process is a dense polity world unfamiliar to most in our church. One way to explore that legalistic construct is to envision how the proposal would apply to specific types of cases. When cases of sexual abuse are viewed through the lens of the draft, the resulting images are dimmed and blurred.
Seeing through a glass darkly – Paul’s metaphor of obstructed vision in 1 Corinthians 13:12 – is an apt image for the “Principles of Church Discipline,” the first chapter of the edited Church Discipline section. Nowhere in the list of purposes of church discipline (draft D-1.0301) is the word “truth” to be seen. It is missing from the list of goals. Whether as an end or even a means to determine whether the alleged behaviors occurred, truth is excluded as an explicit purpose.
Given the opening declaration of the “Principles of Church Discipline” chapter, this exclusion is confounding. Draft D-1.01 states that discipline should be exercised “so that the great ends of the Church may be achieved.” However, this entry neither cites the six classic great ends of the church nor gives a reference. (See F-1.0304 in the current Book of Order.) Significantly, the fourth great end is “the preservation of the truth.” The practical and moral implications of excluding truth as a purpose will challenge survivors of sexual abuse who come forward with allegations. The implications are also important for the church. Given how relevant “the preservation of truth” is to a Rules of Discipline case of sexual abuse, truth deserves to be seen in its rightful place among the purposes.
Revealing the truth: A typical scenario
Before truth can be preserved, it must first be revealed. Consider a typical scenario in the case of a pastor accused of “sexual abuse of another person,” an offense defined in current D-10.0401c. The survivor testifies to how their interactions with the pastor evolved. They trace their experiences of growing emotional and spiritual intimacy during pastoral counseling during which the pastor increasingly sexualized their language and actions, eventually overcoming the survivor’s reluctance to reciprocate the pastor’s advances. In defense, the accused argues that the accuser was anything but a victim, that the accuser was a deliberate, willing and consenting partner. Descriptions of the accuser’s cooperative behaviors are presented to prove that the pastor’s acts were not assaultive, that no physical force was used and that this was “just an affair.” The pastor impugns the accuser’s motive as guilt. The pastor says that they are actually the one being victimized in this situation. Ostensibly, the question is which witness is the most reliable or accurate, and which is most credible or believable.
Guided by the principle of truth, the prosecuting committee would go beyond that question. The committee would introduce evidence of how the perpetrator misused their office of ministry to employ a grooming process. This would document how the pastor invoked bogus religious rhetoric and manipulated biblical passages to rationalize acts of exploitation and overcome the victim’s resistance. Pursuing the full truth leads to evidence that the offender’s coercive exercise of religious power, as vested in the pastoral role, negated the victim’s capacity to give informed and meaningful consent. This would illuminate the power of the pastor’s role, the survivor’s deference to the pastor’s religious status and the survivor’s personal vulnerability as a counselee who trusted their pastor to act in their best interest. The pastor’s intentional distortion of the nature of God’s love and purpose for their personal gratification at the expense of another is revealed as an abhorrent inversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The practical relevance of truth is that it works not only toward a determination of the offender’s guilt, but it also offers insight into the relevant context and dynamics which led to the abuse.
The truth would reveal that the pastor’s behaviors were more than a Book of Order rule violation. These acts of perpetration were also a relational violation, a betrayal of trust by one in a church-sanctioned role. Explicitly naming the relational betrayal assigns moral responsibility to the offender. To ascribe proper responsibility offers healing vindication to the survivor. By exposing falsehood, truth affirms the essence of our beliefs as a faith community. Preserving the larger truth of our faith in a God of love and justice is a spiritual step towards restoring the bonds of trust betrayed in the name of Jesus Christ. By revealing the significance of the acts of commission and their adverse effects, we preserve the truth. In doing so, we preserve our integrity.
Revealing the truth: A horrific case
Does the prior scenario seem too hypothetical or too abstract? Consider the painful but ultimately redeeming experience of the Donaldina Cameron House in Chinatown, San Francisco, California. (Cameron House, founded in 1874 as a mission of the Presbyterian Church, has served generations of Chinese American individuals and families.) Cameron House’s excellent educational account, Healing Journey, is now posted on their website as a profound witness and resource for the church.
In 1987, multiple witnesses made public allegations of sexual misconduct against F. S. Dick Wichman, an ordained Presbyterian minister and Cameron House’s former executive director. Before his presbytery filed formal charges that he abused and molested boys and young men, Wichman renounced the jurisdiction of the church thus terminating disciplinary action against him. Later, Cameron House and the Presbyterian Church of Chinatown, San Francisco, created a Healing Task Force as a follow-up. In 2004, the task force released its final report and found that Wichman, since deceased, had victimized 18 people, both minors and young adults, from Cameron and the Church of Chinatown.
An eloquent section of the report is devoted to theological reflection. It notes that one purpose of the task force was “to explore the truth of the charges,” an exploration going beyond enumeration of Wichman’s rule violations. Seeking the truth included “provid[ing] opportunity for those who were victimized to witness to the truth, to prevent harm from occurring to others, to seek healing, and to work for justice.” (Final Report, p. 8) This reflection names the instrumental value of truth by citing the fourth of the historic principles of church order:
“‘That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule … there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.’” (Book of Order, F-3.0104)
It was Cameron House’s continuing pursuit of truth that overcame years of a minister’s deceit, lies and abuse of authority. Cameron House’s pursuit of the truth revealed Wichman’s relational betrayals and the horrific consequences. Documenting those realities promoted individual and collective healing.
That the draft revision of the Rules of Discipline excludes truth as a purpose is a failure to learn from the painfully distilled lessons revealed by Cameron House and one of our historic congregations. Excluding truth from incidents of sexual abuse does not eliminate the full nature of those incidents; exclusion only renders the truth cloudy and opaque.
Practical contributions of truth
A commitment to truth as a purpose also yields practical outcomes. Church committees that investigate and prosecute formal disciplinary cases must comply with the many clearly defined procedural requirements. However, other issues and questions will arise which require prayerful clarification such as: “We believe we know what happened, but can we prove it at trial with the evidence we have so far? Should we try to contact more possible leads who might give us more information? Do we risk the disruption it creates if we pursue a witness who is reluctant to participate? Do we stop our investigation to spare more financial expense in the name of good stewardship?” Including truth as a dedicated purpose enriches the scope and depth of these questions.
Note that the draft introduces a recurring provision, the presumption that the investigation is confidential and that disseminating information is subject to “a need to know basis as determined by the investigating committee in consultation with the clerk or stated clerk of the council” (draft D-7.1103). Without truth as a purpose before these gatekeepers, other factors will compete for priority in deciding what to disclose. Omitting truth as an intrinsic touchstone may result in unintended, adverse consequences by being too guarded. History tells us that when the church has erred on the side of secrecy, others are placed at risk. A purpose of truth broadens the discussion of factors regarding who needs to know, for what reasons, and what should be disclosed.
The draft revision continues the current procedure in a case in which the accused person is guilty of the offense. Draft D-8.0903 applies the implicit value of seeking truth beyond a determination of guilt. This section directs the presiding session or permanent judicial commission to hear evidence of “the extent of the injury suffered, mitigation, rehabilitation, and redemption.” For the person who was sexually abused, this means being able to “submit a victim impact statement, which shall become part of the record.” Conceptually, such evidence establishes a clearer and more complete picture of the nature of sexual abuse and permits us to better understand the needs of survivors. In practice, D-8.0903 honors the unstated purpose of truth as making a fundamental contribution to our disciplinary process. Why not codify this purpose in the “Principles of Church Discipline” chapter?
After wrongdoing occurs, the intent of the fourth purpose in the draft is “to bring members to repentance and restoration” (draft D-1.0301). Honoring truth has the potential to further the offender’s best spiritual interests. Confessing one’s sins as an act of acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility is a means for the sinner’s healing, according to James 5:15 and 1 John 1:9. Authentic, full confession rooted in truth is a step in the process of an offender’s repentance (metanoia in the New Testament’s Koine Greek), a turning away from sin and a turning toward faithful discipleship as a follower of Jesus Christ. Adding truth as a purpose would reinforce the intention of achieving the outcome of the offender’s repentance.
The presence of truth in the “Principles of Church Discipline” list of purposes will add support and assurance to people who can contribute relevant information to the disciplinary case. Inclusion sends the signal that we care to receive what a potential witness has to offer. Exclusion can be interpreted that we are less than open to discovery, which raises the stakes for a hesitant witness.
Truth and the purpose of justice
The draft’s “Principles of Church Discipline” chapter lists seven purposes, the third of which is “to achieve justice and compassion for all participants involved” (draft D-1.0301). The integral relationship of truth to justice is articulated in the ethical framework featured by the PC(USA) on its web page entitled, “Rebuild Trust” in the context of sexual misconduct. The page states in bold: “There can no healing without justice-making.” That is immediately followed by a list of seven elements of justice-making developed by Marie Fortune, the founder of FaithTrust Institute, Seattle, Washington. Truth-telling is the first element. This PC(USA) web page is part of a dedicated section entitled “Creating Safe Ministries,” which is part of a larger, parent section “Legal Resources.” If truth-telling as part of justice-making in the context of sexual misconduct is endorsed by national church staff as a means of healing and a preferred risk management practice, is there a reason not to include truth as a purpose of church discipline?
Truth and alternative resolution
The draft introduces three forms of alternative resolution: “restorative justice, mediation, or other negotiated agreements” (draft D-7.1602). It’s instructive to note that in describing the model of restorative justice, the draft identifies the need of those who were harmed to have an “opportunity for truth-telling by sharing their stores.” (draft D-7.1603b.(1)) Also noted is the need of affected communities “to attend to the harm and trauma experienced” (draft D-7.1603b(3). This recognizes the secondary or indirect victimization incurred by congregations and presbyteries. The possibilities envisioned in the draft are wise insofar as they permit attention to matters of healing and recovery which go beyond the capacity of the rule- and offender-oriented emphasis of the Rules of Discipline, both as it exists on paper and as practiced.
Considering the recognition of survivors’ and communities’ needs, it is instructive to revisit the widely affirmed work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, chaired by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Volume 1, chapter 5, “Concepts and Principles,” identifies four types of truth received by the commission (paragraphs 29-45, pp. 110-114).
The first was factual or forensic truth regarding individual acts and “the contexts, causes and patterns of violations.” The second was personal and narrative truth as presented by both victims and perpetrators which “gave meaning to the multi-layered experiences” and “provided unique insights into the pain of South Africa’s past.” The third was social truth which recognized the importance of dialogue, “participation and transparency … so all possible views could be considered and weighed.” The fourth was healing and restorative truth, “the kind of truth that places facts and what they mean within the context of human relationships … This kind of truth was central to the Commission.”
Are these types of truths relevant to incidents in the context of Presbyterian communities? Without qualification, yes. Read Cameron House’s Healing Journey cited above with an eye to the individual and community outcomes manifested when truth in its fulness is embraced. See how the purpose of truth was a way to invite God’s Spirit to be present and guide the people of Cameron House to reclaim desecrated lives and spaces.
It is time to add the purpose of truth to the “Principles of Church Discipline” in the newly-edited Church Discipline document.
