by John Suk

While Synod 2002 met, the newspapers were full of stories about the developing sex scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. As more and more cases of clergy committing pedophilia came to light, American bishops struggled to come up with an abuse-prevention policy that would make churches safe and appropriately discipline abusive clergy. The bishops’ final product was a policy that removes all abusive priests from contact with church members but does not necessarily lead to defrocking. Public reaction to the new policy was mixed, with victims complaining that it just doesn’t go far enough.

Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church has found itself in the same situation before. According to an Associated Press report, in 1992 the U.S. bishops also worked to develop a plan to stamp out clerical sex abuse in response to a well-publicized case of that time. The bishops passed voluntary guidelines, but many dioceses chose not to adopt them. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk emerged from the 1992 meetings noting that some bishops had even tried to hide abuse, and he promised that this would never happen again. Ten years later we all know what became of that promise.

In part because of the Roman Catholic sex scandal and because delegates understood that the Christian Reformed Church has its own dirty laundry—along with an admirable record of taking abuse seriously, as evidenced by our establishment of an Abuse Prevention office in 1994—synod adopted a resolution that urges all CRC congregations to adopt a zero-tolerance policy in cases of abuse.

Insist on Change
Unfortunately, like the 1992 Catholic policy, this resolution is voluntary. In fact, past synods have urged the churches to do many things when it comes to preventing abuse, but many have often failed to respond.

According to the grounds for a related synodical decision that instructs the CRC’s Board of Trustees to develop ways to ensure that classes and congregations more fully address issues of abuse, at present fewer than 25 percent of our congregations even have an abuse-prevention policy. Moreover, only 13 of the CRC’s 47 regional classes have abuse-prevention teams, which previous synods have urged the classes to appoint.

The time has come for the CRC to stop urging congregations to adopt effective abuse policies and, instead, to insist on them. Just as the denominational agencies’ abuse policies are a matter of record in employee handbooks, so too should the denominational policy for local churches be a matter of record.

If local churches can be required to properly support their ministers (Church Order Article 15), if officebearers can be required to sign the Form of Subscription (Art. 5), and if classes can be required to establish student funds (Art. 21), then synod can insist, via an addition to the Church Order of the CRC, that all churches adopt and follow zero-tolerance abuse policies. Regulations governing the content and implementation of zero-tolerance policies need to become part of the Church Order supplement.

Rev. Peter Janssens, Classis Huron: “We won’t allow this evil in our church”

Get Specific
What would such policies look like? Well in the first place they wouldn’t minimize the problem of sexual abuse by limiting it to pedophilia. According to Rev. Louis Tamminga’s excellent handbook for elders, Guiding God’s People in a Changing World, sexual abuse “is the exploitation of a person, regardless of age or circumstance, for the sexual gratification of another” (p. 57). And in her book Too Close for Comfort, CRC Abuse Prevention Director Beth Swagman reminds readers that sexual abuse can be both physical and nonphysical, and that “victims of sexual abuse can be of any age.” (Both books, and several more on related topics, are available from CRC Publications’ Faith Alive Christian Resources: 1-800-333-8300.)

Pastors and other officebearers wield spiritual authority as a means of nurturing and caring for their flock. Taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by one’s spiritual authority and power to engage in any kind of sexual intimacy is sexual abuse—no matter what the victim’s age.

Effective abuse-policy regulations should clearly spell out what the penalty for sexual abuse will be. Real zero tolerance requires that a pastor—or any officebearer—who sexually abuses any parishioner must be forbidden from ever serving as an officebearer again. Pastors who abuse and then later truly repent of that sin can, of course, be forgiven. But just as banks don’t hire former thieves to serve as tellers, the church dare not hire shepherds with a history of assaulting, rather than caring for, the sheep in their charge (see Banner editorial “No Compromise,” Nov. 5, 2001).

Any regulations regarding abuse must also provide for some sort of mutual denominational accountability to ensure that abuse policies are effective. One way to do this would be to add questions about congregational adherence to appropriate abuse-prevention policies to the guide for conducting church visiting. The findings of these annual visits would then be shared at classis meetings. Similar questions could be added to the classical credentials, which are examined at the beginning of every classes meeting.

Know the Consequences
The consequences of sexual abuse by officebearers against church members are extreme. Victims, having experienced violence and hatred instead of love, often leave the church—bringing to mind Christ’s stern warning in Luke 17:1-3: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.”

The Roman Catholic scandal illustrates how sexual abuse also brings the good name of Christ and of his bride, the church, into complete disrepute. Thus sexual abuse undermines the church’s ability to proclaim the name of Christ as the one by which we are saved. And it hurts church members’ ability to serve as God’s ambassadors of reconciliation.

So congratulations to synod for adopting its zero-tolerance resolution. But woe to all of us if we don’t soon figure out a way to translate the sentiment into enforceable policies that accomplish the goal.