Child Molestation & Spiritual Abuse in the Protestant Ch

[fpcwatch]

Some years ago in my denomination, a 13 year old girl was sexually abused by several men of the church, over a two year period.

She was frightened, afraid, didn't know how to get out of it, and maybe she fell into sin herself during this time.

But who was responsible? Did she seduce these men, as has been claimed? Or are the married Christian men who had sex with her chiefly responsible.

Despite the efforts of some of the men to keep the sex going, she finally had the courage and strength to end it.

When the story came to light a few years later, when she was just turning 18, what should have happened? How should the various parties have been dealt with ?

Was it fair and reasonable of the church leaders to instruct all parties to repent of their extra-marital affairs, and leave it at that, not telling the congregation or the police?

Was it surprising that two of the men, related to the leadership, readily accepted these terms and 'repented' quietly, that one man left the fellowship abruptly, but that the girl protested that she had been victimised and had not engaged in willing 'affairs' and could not sincerely 'repent' of 'what she had done'?

Do you think that it was in any way suspicious that two of the molesters were close relatives of the leadership?

Was the fact that a critical building and fundraising programme was in full swing at all relevant?

Can we overlook this case as just an isolated case, and can we allow the leaders who reached this judgement, and blamed this child, not to have to answer for any of this, nor be expected to now pardon and apologise to this young woman, just because they are famous, international, Reformed, evangelical preachers and politicians?

After exhausting all calls for investigation, and reconsideration of the judgement, and facing a mock, kangaroo trial myself from the big-wigs of this church, and finding that the leadership were absolutely and implacably opposed to changing their judgement, and that they even slam and denounce the young woman to this day, I finally decided to resign my membership and to make the case public through a Weblog.

Am I wrong to do this?

[Jim]

Do you know the facts behind this story? And are you completely satisfied of the evidence surrounding it?

I guess my question is why you would want to pursue it? I would sound harsh for this, but I would stay away from that church and all who were in it. Leave the weblog alone, if the parties invloved want no part in coming out with it, then what concern is it of yours?

It is truly a sad thing to be sure, but I would stay away from it with my life.

Love in Christ,

Jim

[George]

In my humble opinion unless you are part of the problem or part of the solution you ought stay away from the whole thing. In other words if you are not directly involved it becomes gossip. These things are best discussed with your Pastor.

In Christ,
George

[mnwickens]

From what has been posted the men should have been dealt with in two ways. They should have faced the laws of the land through God ordained government. They also should have faced church discipline if they would not repent.

I know it happens a lot in the JW cult. They use the Scripture that speaks about an accusation only being upheld if there are witnesses. In the vial sin of child abuse, which it sounds like this was, then there would hardly be witnesses.

It sounds like a very sad situation. If it is a matter for the police let the police deal with it.

[fpcwatch]

The gist of replies so far, if I understand correctly, has three identifiable action items:

1) Abandon the girl and her family to the cruelty of having been denounced as an "adulteress" by Church leaders, who wanted to protect their own boys and their building project from any bad publicity.

It seems, then that I am NOT my brother's (or sister's) keeper after all, and everyone had better fend for themselves without ever expecting their brothers and sisters in Christ to defend them or come to their assistance in the hour of their greatest crisis.

2) Let the three men concerned hide from justice behind the protection of the church who finds it more expedient to keep it under wraps and pretend that it was a consensual immoral relationship between married men and a child whom they denounce as a slut, and 'not really a thirteen year old' etc.

(Actually, one of the three men WAS convicted of child molestation after one of the Ministers had had enough of concealment and went to the Police - but this has only served to make the FPC angrier than ever with the girl and her family. The minister has also since been booted out of the denomination.)

2) Walk away from the church. From which I conclude that it is wrong to oppose ecclesiastical tyranny and corruption in leadership, but that a man should simply to take his family, up-tent and move, every time there's a problem.

Now, are those that recommend this making a Biblical argument or a pragmatic one?

Someone asked whether I was sure of the facts. I have the facts from the Court Transcripts of one man's criminal prosecution, first hand from the detective investigating the case, who was disgusted with the church and advised me to take my own daughters far away from it, and from the victim herself, in addition to many other sources of information, including a handful of church members who had the guts and resolve to oppose the official position, and who are now largely disillusioned and disenfranchised.

This 'walk away from it' attitude is amazing to me, but that's what most of you seem to be saying.

[Raymond]

I think that yes, the leaders should have instructed the men to repent, and it should have been left up to the girl and her family to decide wether or not to press charges. If the girl herself does not want to go through a public trial then I dont think there is much you can do.

If on the other hand she has asked you to fight this for her then by all means fight. There is no excuse for what those men did. The idea of grown men being seduced by a thirteen year old girl does not fly with me.

What you do with your weblog is your business. If you think you can shame them into taking action, thats up to you. Just make sure you are not putting the victim through any more pain by doing so.

Just my opinion.

Ray

[mnwickens]

Fpc, you gave more details in the second post. I personally don't believe you should walk away from it. That was my initial reaction. However, see it from the others point of view. They were trying to give a balanced response to someone they don't know of a situation they were not fully in the know about.

There are some good guys here and I know would do the honourable and Biblically and legally right thing in the given situation.

With the further information that you have given it has made the situation a bit clearer.

It seems the family does need brothers and sisters in Christ and you are helping them. Keep it up.

The men invovled should face legal and church discipline and never ever allowed position in the ministry in any form whatsoever. The child will face lifetime repercussions and so should the men.

[fpcwatch]

Ray,

Thanks for the reality check .. I thought I was going mad. This thing may yet drive me there.

The other posts are well in keeping with 95% of all the members of this denomination who chose to "have faith in our Elders" and ignore the whole business.

The Pastor told me: "This was an internal matter of church discipline; it's none of your business. We dealt with it in house - its over"

[Which was interesting, because the Toronto Police did not see it that way, much to the anger and chagrin of the Church]

One of the Elders told me "this is not worth destroying the congregation over" even though he himself had earlier cried tears when he read what our church had done to this girl.

See:
http://www.thechristianobserver.com/?p=35
http://www.thechristianobserver.com/?p=23
http://www.thechristianobserver.com/?p=19

A senior figure in the Church told me I was "presumptuous" to stick my nose in where it wasn't wanted.

So, in response to the good points you make:

1) The girl and her family did press charges, and one man was convicted (the other two men were not investigated .. sadly .. as the molestation which lasted for two years went past her 14th birthday, the Age of Consent in Canada)

Unfortunately, the Church leaders stood solidly behind their men, nephew of the Pastor, Grandson of the Senior Elder, Son of another Elder, and denounced the family for the suit.

So rather than the trial being the occasion of justice, satisfaction, vindication and reconciliation, the Church leaders hated them for what they had done.

2) The girl and her family did not ask me to do this. The story broke, and I tracked them down, after they had been run out of the church, and I found them battered, bruised, bleeding and broken by the side of the spiritual road.

The day before I contacted them, the mother was on her knees pleading with God to raise someone up who would stand by them, after their Christian 'brothers and sisters' had all deserted them, despite serving the denomination for 30 years, and emigrating to a new country just to help the work.

[Is there a justification for my involvement? A minster friend pointed out Job 29:16 for my encouragement. Quite honestly, I did not know what other course of action I could take. I could not bring myself to walk away from it.]

3) The 'campaign' for justice IS causing the family further pain, but they see it as a necessary price to pay for perhaps one day obtainig justice.

They told me that the last eight years of their lives have virtually been a write-off in every respect, as not a single day has gone by where this does not invade their conscious experience and darken the horizon of every sunny sky.

WHY did God do this to us? they ask, not because "we don't deserve it" as such, but rather, why did He allow us to suffer in this particular way, at the hands of the 'people of God' after 30 years of happy communion and service?

You see, these folks are experienced in the faith; the father was an avid evangelist, door to door witnesser and street preacher before all this. He is just SO confused why God allowed the Church and the Leaders he loved, respected and obeyed to be his downfall and the sword which would be used to pierce him and his family.

[stoky]

I am glad to add my encouragement to FPC watch to continue on. If we don't speak up we only enable these men to do more unto others as they have already done. I am one of their victims as well and never had any one on this earth willing and able to plead my case. I will be telling my story shortly. Every blessing.

[fpcwatch]

Well thanks for the encouragement, folks.

Maybe I 'twisted your arm' a bit, but I sure do appreciate the endorsement, goodwill .. and most of all, prayers that accountability, admission and reconciliation will soon be manifest.

Blessings to you too, Stoky, with your own situation.

[Aughavey]

Is the age of consent really only 14 in Canada?

Paisley 'meeting on abuse claims'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4881100.stm

Free Presbyterian leader Ian Paisley held a meeting of ministers to hear sex abuse allegations against a lay reader, a court has heard.

The claim was made on the second day of the trial of 71-year-old James Doherty at Londonderry Crown Court.

Mr Paisley met senior clergy three years ago over claims the lay reader had sexually abused two sisters in his congregation, the court was told.

Mr Doherty denies 25 charges, including rape and indecent assault.

The offences are alleged to have been committed between 1974 and 1985, when the sisters were children.

The alleged abuse was said to date from when each girl was about six years old.

'Contacted the police'

Under cross examination, the younger of the two told the court that when she met Mr Paisley, the Reverend David McIlveen and the Reverend John Douglas in March 2003, they told her they were shocked that they had not been contacted before.

She said she made a written statement and they told her to leave the matter in their hands.

The witness said she had first contacted her local Free Presbyterian minister about the alleged abuse nine years before that, but she believed he had done nothing because he wanted to protect the defendant.

The alleged victim, who is now 35, said she hoped the matter could have been sorted out within the church, as her only concern was that children would be protected.

The woman said she eventually contacted the police in October 2004.

Mr Doherty, whose address cannot be made public to protect his alleged victims, has been remanded on bail throughout the trial.

[fpcwatch]

Yes, absolutely.

Our recently elected, minority Conservative Government (The Liberal Party has dominated the political landscape here on the whole) has promised to raise it from 14 to 16. See:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/...60207.html

As recently as last year, a private Bill proposing these changes was defeated:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.as...8&List=toc
http://fpcwatch.efirehose.net/UnitedMoth...-C-313.htm

I have written about this church's attitude to the Age of Consent here:
http://fpcwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/low...nsent.html

They have embraced the convenience and the expedient of pointing to the fact that she was ALMOST of age (14) in a hypocritical, disingenuous manner. After all, these men are strict Ulster 'conservatives', not only in their origins, but also in the majority of the ministers and leaders in N. America.

By now I have seen enough to regard them simply as Flag-of-Convenience Fascists, bent on self-preservation at all costs.

This church also runs a school as an adjunct to the church where the child in Canada was molested for two years. She actually attended that school. You would think that they would have the law and their own rules clearly understood by all their staff and workers in the aftermath of such a close shave, wouldn't you? Well, see what we were told by the Principal of the School from her own lips:
http://fpcwatch.blogspot.com/2005/11/sch...html#links

[Jim]

Wow, I didnt realize so much on this occured to day.

Quote:myself:
I guess my question is why you would want to pursue it? I would sound harsh for this, but I would stay away from that church and all who were in it. Leave the weblog alone, if the parties invloved want no part in coming out with it, then what concern is it of yours

George:
In my humble opinion unless you are part of the problem or part of the solution you ought stay away from the whole thing. In other words if you are not directly involved it becomes gossip.

Yes fpc, like brother Martin said, now that you have expounded more, hence the reply from Raymond and Martin, I will also tend to agree.

You just came in with a little explanation. That is why George and myself were curious about what your part in it was or involvement to what extent.

Do as the Lord guides you.

Love in Christ,

Jim

[fpcwatch]

Again, thank you for the understanding and counsel.

'Slice of Laodicea' has picked up on this story (and others) with a reference to it here:

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/...mic_of.php

[mnwickens]

I would be a little concerned about the wholesale rejection of the FPC. I disagree with some of their doctrine, but to write off an entire denomination because of what happened in a single church does not seem right. I have read some comments of Ian Paisleys on the matter and he is certainly against it.

The Catholic church has whole doctrines and practices that encourage such behaviour, but the FPC as a whole does not. This church is wrong for not having a Child Protection Policy, but it is a single church.

I'll not say anymore on this topic because I do not want to detract from the main point. But tarring the whole denomination with the sam brush seems a little unreasonable.