Read the original story.

t's one of the four organizing values of the Adventist Review that help to shape each week's edition, and it's frequently referred to in staff and editorial conferences. This magazine is about spirituality, the message and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, diversity, and reader interaction--but not necessarily in that order. The vibrant dialogue between the thousands of Adventists who annually employ pen or e-mail to tell us what they think of what is printed here is in many ways the foundation of all our work. This is, and will always be, a magazine for the people of the Advent movement.

We hear both their heart cries and their gratitude, their vivid displeasure and their overflowing appreciation, and in the richness of that response we find new guidance, learn things we didn't fully grasp about the stunning complexities of a worldwide church, and make decisions about the shape of future issues. The stuff of another "magazine"--the one written by our readers--arrives in our offices each week, often longer, more passionate, more diverse in viewpoint than we could have imagined.

We read it carefully, prayerfully, and sometimes (yes, it's true) while cringing just a little. Readers are never slow to tell us where they think we've "blown" it, nor, gratefully, to let us know when something we have shared met the deep need of their hearts.

Some articles gather only modest and mild-mannered responses. Others provoke strong words and sharp emotions. Every now and again we seem to touch a vibrating nerve in the church, and the response is out of proportion to what we might have expected. Such was the response of our readers to our February AnchorPoints cover feature--"Unfaithful: When Shepherds Become Wolves." The article presented a realistic scenario of clergy sexual misconduct, as well as written responses from an Adventist psychologist, a chaplain, and a church administrator. Readers were invited to respond to several "points to ponder" and give us their insights.

Space constraints prevent our publishing all the responses we received: some that appear here have been edited to present what we judge to be the most important features of the letter. To all who wrote or e-mailed we say "Thank you." You have validated--again--our belief in the essential dialogue that undergirds and enriches the Adventist Review.
                                                                               --Editors.

was sexually abused by a well-respected Seventh-day Adventist minister when I was 10 years old. In fact, he had led some of the song services when Ellen G. White spoke. At the time it happened, this situation was not discussed or addressed. I am now 54 years old, and the damage that was done still remains.

Name Withheld

hank you so much for opening up this sealed box. Just recently we had a situation occur that parallels the one presented in the scenario so closely that we were shocked. As elders, when the young woman shared with us the "incident," we felt obligated to inform the conference officials. Content to let the conference investigate the matter, we kept our mouths sealed. To our dismay, the pastor began to share the information with other members in an effort to discredit us. Needless to say, we became objects of ridicule, but we felt that we were acting in accordance with our convictions. The pastor has since accepted a call to another conference, and we are left to rebuild our confidence in church leadership. My advice to any church that experiences that type of betrayal on the part of leadership is to pray for the affected parties. In addition, you must also admit to your own loss. Last, don't be surprised if your faith in leadership is not restored immediately. Healing takes time. God's grace is sufficient.

Ann Davis
a southeastern city of the United States

hile the subject is not pleasant, nothing is served by ignoring it any longer. The Adventist Review is to be commended for opening up the discussion this widely. Several things come to mind. As pastors occupy positions of authority and power, they are always the predators in these situations. The victim, no matter how apparently complicit or seductive, is still the victim in clergy abuse situations. . . .

We must also take steps to be sure the victims are not further victimized by our processes. While the SEC process outlined in Ms. Banks's presentation has worked well in some situations, in others it has been most unproductive. That process must not be construed as a court of law in which the accused has the right to face the accuser. It has been my experience that many victims will not come forward at all if they are forced to tell their story in the presence of their abuser.

Tom Lemon
Oregon Conference Ministerial Director

our story does not involve sexual abuse, but rather involves sexual misconduct on the part of consenting adults. Sexual abuse is vastly different in scope and context from sexual misconduct. . . .

Unfaithful: When Shepherds Become Wolves Dear Editor . . . Please Print This! Letters . . . Letters

The behavior of the scheming, unfaithful, predator pastor speaks for itself. Nevertheless, it is not sexual abuse. Sexual abuse involves the exploitation of someone unable to exert control over the situation; the most obvious example, of course, is in cases involving children, but other examples would include the mentally ill or those with physical disabilities, even if adults. The power or control of the predator is key to abuse. . . .

People (statistically males more often than females) who are sexual abusers usually do not limit their abuse to a single incident or a single victim-they are serial abusers. And, as such, they should be exposed, as completely and thoroughly as possible, to as many congregations as possible. Many jurisdictions have legislated public notification methods to warn the general community when a sexual predator has moved, and to what address. God's dear children deserve no less. Any church official or administrator who fails to warn their flock, their entire flock, about a sexual abuser is enabling the abuse to continue, and therefore are complicit in the behavior and implicated in the abuse as well. Those in the Catholic Church's cover-up and transfer of abusive priests were as guilty as the abusers. No excuses.

Deborah Toms
Adelphi, Maryland

rom the perspective of my experience as a psychotherapist, a former board chair of both a church school and a church, and a current member of a sexual ethics committee (SEC) for my local conference, I would like to share a few observations. . . .

In the scenario, a church secretary who is married to the church's head elder is informed by her husband's niece that the niece has had an affair with the pastor. It is just for such tragic, complicated, and messy situations as this that the guidelines, briefly outlined by Rosa Banks, are essential. They provide for the protection and care of the innocent, the abused, the abuser, the church, and the ethical and legal responsibility of the conference that employs the pastor in question. . . .

Conflicting loyalties make this a difficult and painful situation. In no way should the head elder be encouraged or authorized to confront the pastor and delve into the validity of the accusations. His only responsibility, initially, is to report the allegations to the appropriate conference official. Any other action could damage his ability to relate redemptively to his niece or the pastor in the future.

Additionally, the situation involves not only an alleged moral failure, but an ethical violation with legal implications. There is an assumption of inequity of power between a pastor and parishioner just as between a doctor/patient, teacher/student, or therapist/client. This puts the church and the conference in a very vulnerable legal position, since the conference is the pastor's employer. If the church does not follow its own procedures in dealing with these allegations, all parties could potentially institute lawsuits against the church. . . .

These processes will take place more effectively when initial procedures follow appropriately established guidelines. While I find that church leadership organizations suffer considerable frailty and sometimes handle situations poorly, most leaders continue to learn by experience and improve procedures for dealing with these difficult situations in a loving, fair, and ethical manner.

Ruth Christensen, Ph.D.

s a writer who has specialized in issues of violent and abusive clergy since 1993, I hear from many survivors, as well as some researchers, pastors, therapists, and administrators. We have only just begun to understand how often the abuse and mental health problems that occur in our families, along with the denial, spreads over into the congregations. It multiplies when the issues are played out by the "superparent" which a pastor is perceived to be.

Dee Ann Miller

haplain Dick Stenbakken writes: "To remain silent protects no one and risks everyone. They didn't ask to be involved, but in cases of moral indiscretion many innocent people are caught up in the web of hurt, guilt, and pain. If there is no accountability there is potential for ongoing and greater disaster" (see "Unfaithful: When Shepherds Become Wolves," p. 12).

I was impressed by these words, because I did exactly what I shouldn't have done: I remained silent for years. What do you do when your pastor is having affairs with church members and it happens to be that you are his wife? It was an incredibly painful event when I decided to talk to our administrators three years ago. By keeping quiet I did more harm than good. Our family, our friends, our church suffered. And some of those women who were new members, some very vulnerable, are out of our church today. I forgave my ex-husband, but I still sometimes feel the guilt for keeping quiet myself, because from one church to another he continued his moral indiscretions, hurting many. As the chaplain says: "Silence protects no one and risks everyone."

Name Withheld

e all have to remember that pastors are people too, and because of their job Satan probably tempts them even more than us. That doesn't mean they are not responsible for their actions, because we all are. We just need to be willing to forgive them just as we do each other.

Name Withheld

f indeed a shepherd has become a wolf, he or she must be treated like a wolf and removed from the flock wherein he or she will do ever greater damage. . . . A grave disservice is done to the body of believers when church administrators gloss over these issues in the name of mercy. God is indeed merciful, but there are consequences for our sins that He does not remove from our experience. Remove the shepherd-gone-wolf from the sheep so that they may indeed be safe.

Lloyd Mallory

say "Praise the Lord" that I have never had to deal with this in my own church, and I pray that I don't.

Carol Benton

large part of Helen's evidence was the "caller ID" area code that had been stored in her telephone by the call from Pastor Rick. Helen and Jim may have made some unwarranted assumptions about this. An area code picked up by caller ID can be unrelated to the physical location of the caller.

Example 1: Pastor Rick is in San Diego, calling from his hotel with a calling card sold to him by the BigPhone Telephone Company. BigPhone happens to have its calling card service based in the 314 area code. This means that all calls made with a BigPhone card, if they produce a caller ID at all, will produce a caller ID with area code 314. This will happen no matter which city the caller happens to be standing in at the moment.

Example 2: Pastor Rick makes the call on a cell phone borrowed from Pastor Joe, who happens to live in the 314 area code. Cell phones, as we all know, supply the caller ID area code of their "home," not the area code of the caller's current location. . . .

The caller ID stored in the telephone is indeed evidence against Pastor Rick, but it is merely circumstantial. . . . I was happy to note that one of your commentators allowed for the fact that evidence in these situations may not be what it seems.

Bill Ludwig
Auburn, Washington

wish I'd read this article a few years ago. It would have helped me deal with a situation involving a church worker. As it was, I did almost nothing because there was no one who I felt I could trust to believe me at HQ. So to a certain extent I feel guilty that I didn't do the right thing.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the church-appointed committee to deal with these matters is as professional as it should be, but rather is more in the business of trying to exonerate than getting to the truth. I also wish that administrators would treat staff with professionalism when dealing with a colleague's misconduct. It is very hard to give loyalty to those who one feels are hiding behind "legal reasons" or a "confidentiality agreement." Staff don't need all the details, but need to be given sufficient facts to be able to feel that they are being dealt with in a professional way.

Name Withheld

or years I conducted seminars on domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and yes, adult sexual misconduct. I must admit that while I find all these acts unacceptable and inappropriate, my tolerance level plunges when I hear of these behaviors among the faith community and particularly when the perpetrators are authority figures. I believe it is the highest level of violation of one's trust and gross misrepresentation of the character of God. . . .

I find it very interesting how the psychologist carefully prescribed the steps toward reparation much to the satisfaction of the perpetrator, with no reference to needs of the victims. This therapeutic approach, although heavily decorated with scriptural references, has laid the foundation for nonreporting of incidences among the faith community for years. Confess; pray about it; forgive. While in themselves worthwhile acts, they tend to require more of the victim and frequently infer blame.

I commend the chaplain for his no-nonsense approach of handling this case and the recognition of the true victims in this scenario. I would suggest that he follow his own counsel, though: "Don't become the investigator." While I do believe in the Matthew principle, I'm afraid that as outlined here it is very abrasive and would not produce the intended results.

Dr. Banks did an excellent job briefly outlining the administrative approach governing such cases in the North American Division. My observation over the years, though, is that these guidelines never seem to find their way to the local churches. Second, there is no consistency in their application. Third, most of the individuals conducting the hearing have no experience or training in the subject matter. When all of these issues are present, the results have been prejudice against the victims and revictimization.

Amelia Rose
Certified Family Life Educator

ongratulations for the long-overdue article on sexual immorality among the male clergy. . . . Regarding the hypothetical case in the Review, it would be realistic for the divorced woman to complain to the minister about her marital problems. We have explicit direction from God about how to prevent such tragedies. . . .

"When a woman is in trouble, let her take her trouble to women. If this woman who has come to you has cause of complaint against her husband, she should take her trouble to some other woman" (Evangelism, p. 460).

One study at the noteworthy Fuller Theological Seminary by R. A. Blackmon in 1984 indicated 13 percent, or about one in eight male ministers, became involved and had sexual intercourse with their female parishioners. . . .

An indisputable solution to this problem: ordained women ministers should counsel women parishioners.

U. J. Underwood, M.D.

he first thing that occurred to me after reading the story and the responses is that we do think that sexual abuse is a much more serious affront to God than are other types of aberrant behavior. I could almost hear Jim saying, "Why could Rick not have chosen to do something more benign, such as dipping into the church treasury, or maybe sipping some wine in the privacy of his church office? Why did he have to put me on the spot by doing this?" I could not help wondering if these "misdeeds" would have brought tears to Helen's eyes or beads of sweat to Jim's brow. The fact that Rick lied to cover up his tryst causes no serious waves of anguish, for it is mentioned only in the context of verifying the affair.

As a sign of social aberrancy, sexual abuse is more serious than many other types of social dysfunction, but it is not more serious than other types of sin. When we perpetuate this level of thinking among our people, we find that the church is reduced to making the world a better place, instead of being dedicated to returning the world back to God. . . .

We should not be influenced by the opinions of those who are not of the fold. Before the church a pastor who is accused of sexual abuse should not be considered and treated differently from one who engages in gossip or misappropriates church funds, for all sins come from the same source. The church is not in the business of punishing sin, so there is no need "for the punishment to fit the crime." The church cannot teach a hierarchy of sins by adopting a hierarchy of punishments. We have not served our people well if we get them to believe that some sins are acceptable while others are not, for they will make their own classifications with disastrous consequences for the witness of the body of Christ.

Darius A. Lecointe
Centerville, Ohio

eading "Unfaithful: When Shepherds Become Wolves," I experienced a sense of déjà vu. As a clinical psychologist in a correctional setting, where the majority of my clients are convicted sex offenders, I have heard most of the themes presented in the scenario virtually every working day over the past 25 years. That experience has taught me that persons who are, or have been, engaged in illicit sexual relationships for which discovery has a steep price generally process their feelings in predictable, characteristic ways. A similar assertion may safely be made by others with knowledge of the events, but less directly connected to them. . . .

There were some things about both the story and some of the responders' comments that concern me. First, I am concerned that we have no information regarding where the pastor stands in the matter. Although the handling of his situation is in some respects more clearly defined in conference/church policy and procedure, complete, equable response to the situation will not be possible until he is heard from.

Further, I am concerned by what I perceive on the part of both author and responders as a willingness to assign role/responsibility labels to the principal actors in the situation. While it is appropriate to label the pastor as a perpetrator in the sense that he carried out actions that impacted the lives of both Cherie and the congregation at large, he is not, on the basis of the information provided, guilty of sexual abuse. He is at least guilty of improper conduct and possibly of abuse of his pastoral station, which in this case would probably justify his removal from his current pastorate and potentially from the ministry, if investigation substantiates the allegations.

On the other hand, I find the labeling of Cherie as the victim somewhat harder to accept. . . .The real victims in this scenario are the pastor's wife and the church congregation. The integrity of her marriage and the trust relationship between pastor and congregation have been compromised. The emotional and social residue of these realities will remain long after the principals in the situation have gone on to other climes and other relationships.

Bruce R. Wright, Ed.D.

e as a church need to address this topic more openly. With all that is happening in other denominations in regard to sexual abuse of children we should be taking the forefront in prevention, and public disclosures of what our standards are. From past experience has our denomination gone from brushing things under the table to what should be immediate reporting of abuse to local authorities? Should old wounds be opened up by the local church and conferences, or should we wait until the victim comes forward to press charges on allegations that are years or even decades old? Do we make large cash settlements to victims and hope these problems go away? And what help and support do we give to the victims and abusers from the past? Do we have predators of children still within the ranks of our denomination? Also, it seems that we worry only about the clergy and their abuse of children. Do we worry about our educators as much? They are the ones who are around our children and have the potential to be abusers as much as or more than the clergy. Do we move our educators around from school to school and conference to conference to avoid problems of reporting people to the authorities?

These are the real questions that need to be addressed. I believe that forgiveness for sins is warranted if a person truly repents. But forgiveness comes from the heart controlled by Christ. We can forgive the sinner but not the sin. Forgiveness does not negate what has been done. People have to be judged for crimes that they have committed.

Jim Lynaugh
Madison, Wisconsin

on't even think of using Matthew 18 on this "wolf" pastor. The Uzzah model of discipline is much more appropriate. The man touched something sacred--a daughter of God who is part of the body of Christ. Instant death to his ministry should be the only result. "Whatever a man sows, that will he also reap" (Gal. 6:7, NKJV).

Yet it would do no good simply to deal with the pastor. Get in touch with someone from the local conference that oversees the churches and go on record with a complaint. Maybe his bosses will have enough clues to put a few red flags together. He's probably done offense to others in the past and has been slippery enough to deceive victims, their families, and church officials (nothing against the wisdom of church officials, but some wolves are really good at covering themselves up with a sheep's skin).

An untrained person confronting the wolf will easily be manipulated by this calculating character. If his conscience doesn't enable him to keep him from touching his parishioners, how can it ever be provoked into truth-telling and genuine repentance?

Once the conference is informed and does an investigation, the local church can take some sort of disciplinary action. Remember, a congregationalist check-and-balance aspect of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is that a local church body is the one that makes decisions on membership. If the church itself disciplines its pastor . . . well, it will speak volumes. Chances are, though, the conference will ask the minister to resign before such a situation takes place.

Andrew V. Marttinen
Chatham, Ontario, Canada

e must accept the reality that sexual misconduct has not escaped the Adventist community. Because of the pedestal on which we are encouraged to place pastors, Jim's initial response of questioning and denial is probably more normal than abnormal. I disagree with the chaplain's response of confronting the pastor first (and alone). Oftentimes when this happens, the pastor, knowing his career is likely over and feeling that he has nothing to lose, will behave proactively, pursuing behavior such as threatening Cherie, attempting to destroy her reputation to take the spotlight off him, going into deep denial by trying to unite as many of the congregation as possible on his side, besmirching the name of the first elder, Jim, etc. Go to the conference first.

Linda Smith

hanks for the article on sexual abuse by clergy. I (and probably numerous other Adventists as well) have several questions on this issue.

1. What have been the decisions of the SEC for similar cases in the past? Will the cleric be removed from office and stripped of his ministerial credentials if the SEC determines that there is truth in the allegations? Or will a "confession" simply remove him from that particular church and he be given the care of another distant one?

2. How can anyone (including the SEC) determine whether the "confession" (if any) from the accused pastor is genuine or simply a result of the exposure of his sin?

3. What does a member do when he/she alone has been the witness to sexual misconduct of the cleric that neither the cleric nor the other "consenting adult participant" will admit to? What can the church administration do in this case.

Jovitta Thomas
Kosovo

Dr. Rosa Taylor Banks, director of the North American
Division Office of Human Relations, responds:

1. When the Sexual Misconduct Policy is followed as outlined, after the SEC decides that the abuse more than likely occurred (terms we use rather than beyond a reasonable doubt), the decision is not overturned by the administrative committee that issues the discipline. In cases that have come to my attention the minister has been terminated if the committee ruled that he more likely than not committed the offense. When terminated, he is not insurable in another local or distant conference. What the writer is alluding to has taken place too much in the past, but conferences are getting tougher with this process now. And with offenders not being insurable by Adventist Risk Management (our insurance company), this helps, for no conference wishes to employ an abuser that is not going to be insured by the Church's insurance company. Too much risk is involved.

2. No one can be certain of heart issues like genuine repentance but God. Most times a pastor will not confess that he/she is guilty of sexual abuse even when he/she may be. The committee does as careful an examination of the issues, the testimony of both parties and the witnesses as it can, and makes a determination to the best of its ability. Nothing is perfect, but I believe the system is the best that we have come across at this time.

3. When an allegation is made and both parties deny it, there is little that can be done if there is no other evidence. It could be that someone else knows about it, as well. How to locate some other witnesses might be difficult, however. Church administration can receive the complaint and contact the parties to inform them of the allegation. However, if the parties deny it, all administration can do is be on the watch for more evidence in the future. If the member wishes to go to the parties (or the one he/she feels more comfortable with) in the spirit of Matthew 18, that is their call. But in our estimation, when an allegation is denied, a little more evidence is needed before the process can begin that puts the employees on administrative leave in advance of a full investigation. Finally, if the member continues to pursue the allegation without any other support, the accused parties may take action themselves claiming character assassination. One has to be careful here. You don't have to give up; hidden, illicit relationships usually become public before too long.