Hi everyone
I've recently had opportunity to examine certain sections of the 2010 "Shepherd the Flock of God" book, which is published exclusively for elders. There are strict rules in place to prevent its disclosure to those who aren't appointed as elders.
I was particularly interested in what the book had to say on the subject of child abuse, given recent developments in Victoria, Australia.
On first glance, it strikes one that perhaps some small improvements have been made in as much as the contacting of police or the authorities by the victims is not to be discouraged whatsoever - however, it isn't necessarily encouraged either, and it is regarded as a purely 'personal decision' with no congregational repercussions. However, a glaring ommission in this advice remains that elders are NOT advised to proactively encourage victims or their parents to contact the police, which is clearly what they should do in any case. The "first point of call" for elders continues to be the branch office.
Here is what it says (bold is theirs):
18. You should immediately call the branch office for direction if you learn of an accusation of child abuse, regardless of the age of the victim now or at the time of the alleged abuse, even if it occurred before the alleged perpetrator’s baptism. The branch office will then give direction based on the circumstances involved in each situation.
19. Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. Elders will not criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities. If the victim wishes to make a report, it is his or her absolute right to do so.-Gal. 6:5
What was truly shocking about this book was the advice given regarding "one witness" accusations of child abuse. As has been noted by almost everyone, there are hardly EVER any scenarios involving child abuse where two witnesses are present. The two witness rule give elders 'carte blanche' to dismiss any accusations of events that occurred behind closed doors. So what happens if someone who has been the subject of a "one witness" accusation of child abuse decides to move congregation? Again, the branch office is the first point of call.
Here is the direction (underlined is mine):
21. In a case in which a brother denies an allegation of child abuse and he has been accused by only one witness, the following direction is given if he moves to another congregation. The elders should consult the branch office before sending any information regarding the accusation to the elders in the new congregation. It would be helpful if your letter to the branch office provided a detailed summary of the matter and explained the spiritual condition and personal circumstances of the accused and the accuser. With regard to the accused, the following questions should be answered: (1) What is his interaction with children? (2) Does he admit to any activity with the accuser that could have been misinterpreted by the accuser as sexual abuse, or does he claim to have a poor memory of the accusation? (3) What is his response to why the accuser has made the allegation? (4) Has he had to be counselled for any other matters of a sexual nature, such as inappropriate conduct with adult sisters or pornography? (5) What is the level of his spirituality? (6) Do all the elders on the body believe that he can be trusted with children? The following questions should be answered with regard to the accuser: (1) What is the level of maturity of the child or youth? (2) Is he (or she) describing conduct that one his age would not normally know about? (3) Is the child or his parents known to be serious, mature? (4) Is his memory consistent, or is it intermittent, or does it involve repressed memories? (w95 11/1 pp. 25-26) (5) What is the reputation of the parents? (6) Are they spiritually and emotionally mature? After carefully considering the matter, the branch office will then give you direction as to what information about the allegation should be shared, if any, with the elders of the new congregation.
This direction obviously raises more questions than answers! First off...
- Why isn't the new congregation automatically entitled to receive information that someone has been at least accused of child abuse in the past?
- Why should the branch office be consulted AT ALL in such a situation, given that they have no personal knowledge of the alleged wrongdoer, and they are not a legal authority?
We then have the bizarre criteria for information to be included in the letter to the branch office about the ACCUSED:
- How can the congregation elders possibly have full details of all of the alleged abuser's interractions with children? Are they to follow them around 24 hours a day? And as far as the branch is concerned, what does this have to do with whether or not information should be passed to the new congregation?
- What difference does it make whether or not he admits the incident - shouldn't the new congregation be made aware regardless?
- How are his feelings about possible motives behind the accusation relevant to the branch office in deciding whether information should be disclosed to the new congregation?
- Again, why is this relevant in making a decision that shouldn't be theirs to make in the first place?
- What does the level of one's spirituality have to do with his or her propensity to abuse children? Does this mean that if the accused is reporting hours in double figures each month and regularly commenting at meetings then he would not be considered a risk?
- Surely it is irrelevant whether or not the elders believe he would abuse children again. If he has abused and succesfully 'covered up' with only his victim having knowledge of the incident, then surely the instincts and gut feelings of his local elders are superfluous?
The questions regarding ACCUSERS are even more ridiculous, and give you the impression that the Society are actively looking to discredit their claims, irrespective of how truthful they may be:
- What does the level of maturity have to do in considering any accusation? Does this mean that an "immature child" is fair game? The last time I checked, children were immature by definition.
- How can the conduct being described by the victim be classed as something that he or she should "not normally know about"? Is this an attempt at insinuating that the alleged claims are fictitious, and have been suggested to them by their parents for nefarious purposes? Why would any parent do this? Surely MOST instances of child abuse, particularly with very young children, would involve things that they were previously unfamiliar with? Just what planet are the Society on??!
- Why does it matter whether the parents of the child are known to be serious or mature? Does this mean that if they are immature or care-free then the attack probably never took place?
- Why is it down to the branch office to deliberate over the "repressed memories" of former probable victims?
- Again, what does the reputation of the parents have to do with anything? If they have a terrible reputation, does this mean that the child is making it all up?
- What does the spiritual and emotional maturity of the child have to do with whether or not they were abused?
I could scarcely believe what I was reading when I first read the above. The more I mull it over, the more shocking it gets. I feel it just serves to demonstrate how hopelessly disconnected the Society are from the seriousness of child abuse, and how obviously under-qualified they are to assume any role in the investigation of child abuse claims, let alone the prominent role on which they insist.
Thoughts please!
Cedars