SBC’s Caring Well stance on abusers coddles them while keeping them hidden within the church

Abusers in church

Advocates and abuse survivors are not quite convinced that the SBC is really working to protect victims. Neither am I, especially after going through the Caring Well curriculum. To be fair, most of the content is decent. I found myself audibly Amen-ing Diane Langberg and Rachael Denhollander throughout. Those two understand abusers and what it takes to keep people safe from them. Then I came to Lesson Ten–Pastoral Care and Correction For an Abuser. The problem with this dangerous lesson is the same problem I encounter with the vast majority of churches–the theology doesn’t allow them to name people as wolves and to keep them at bay. Worse, it actually protects the wolf while leaving the sheep vulnerable.

This false theology of protecting abusers assumes that all people are capable of repenting and that the church should be a place where all are welcome, regardless of what they’ve done (or are doing). It’s driven by authoritarian leadership structures that give leaders all the power to make decisions regarding abusers, regardless of what church members or abuse survivors think. It allows leaders to keep the church in the dark about the presence of abusers and anyone who questions the leaders’ decisions are labeled as divisive trouble makers.

Foundations are vital. Get the foundation wrong and everything else we build on it will eventually crumble. When I speak places, I often ask what God’s foundation is. This is the most basic question that we all should be able to answer. Yet not one person has ever answered it correctly. The right answer is righteousness and justice: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you” (Psalm 89:14 ESV).

Righteousness–doing what is right, just, and fair (a term used for balancing scales)–and justice–the act of deciding a case and executing a sentence with righteousness as the standard of judgement–are the foundation of God. Everything-literally everything-is built on doing what is fair, just, and balanced, and meeting out justice according to one’s actions. Only in this context can Jesus make sense when John introduced him as someone whose axe is already laid at the root of the tree. John said that every tree that does not bear good fruit “is cut down and thrown into the fire” by Jesus (Matthew 3:10). John continued his introduction of Jesus: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 10:12).

Righteousness and justice are married throughout the Bible. They cannot be separated. Isaiah 59 gives a thorough description of what happens when Israel turns a blind eye to oppression. Evil increases and chaos ensues. Isaiah 59:9 sums it up perfectly:

“Therefore justice is far from us,
    and righteousness does not overtake us;
we hope for light, and behold, darkness,
    and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. “

The foundation of righteousness and justice requires an account for people who refuse to repent. If we don’t know what righteous behavior is, the scales automatically tip in one direction or the other based on what we feel about a person and justice becomes impossible. Jesus echoed John’s words in Matthew 7:19 when he said, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Over and over again Jesus named wolves and kept them away from his sheep. He overturned tables and chased oppressors out of the Temple with whips. He gave a lengthy “woe to you” sermon without ending with, “But all are welcome here.” He said that it would be better for the one who causes a little one of his to stumble to have a millstone tied around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. He said he was sending his disciples out like sheep among the wolves. Therefore, they were to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. He said that the hired hand runs away when the wolf comes because he cares not for the sheep: “He sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them” (John 10: 12).

Over and over and over again, the scriptures are clear that wolves pretend to be sheep, sneak in, and destroy. It’s not just what wolves do, it’s who they are. Never is the plea to give them community, more love, empathy, understanding, etc. Why? Because of righteousness and justice. Paul says to avoid such people. He goes on to say that evil people and impostors go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim. 3:13). Peter gives a gut wrenching description of false prophets who were sexual predators in 2 Peter 2. There is zero hint of empathy, restoration, or redemption. Why? Because of God’s foundation. Jesus doesn’t say that wolves can be saved. He says they produce thistles and are incapable of producing good fruit. Therefore they are cut down and thrown out. To be clear, those are Jesus’ words and not mine.

Consistently wolves are identified and told to get out. Make no mistake that people who pretend to be righteous in order to steal away the innocence of children and violate them in the worst possible ways are not sheep. They are not people who “mess up, slip up, or fall into temptation.” I’ve been around abusers and have been studying them for a long time. They know exactly what they are doing. They are meticulous in their planning, scheming, and execution of their plans. Very rarely do sexual predators repent, even when the words are there. This is not because they are “struggling” with sin. It is because they are deceptive wolves. They thrive on deceit and stealing that which does not belong to them.

Regardless of what one’s theology is on sheep versus wolves, what concerns me the most is that the Caring Well curriculum coddles predators, welcomes them into the church, and gives them all the secrecy and anonymity they need in order to keep abusing. As if the Lesson Ten on pastoral care for the abuser wasn’t alarming enough, the final lesson, Lesson Twelve, gives a list of follow up resources. The third resource is an article by Brad Hambrick called, “Registered Sex Offender. A Sample Church Membership and Attendance Policy.” This is the exact policy that advocates and survivors work so hard to fight against. This policy is written as a letter to the abuser and it begins with the word, “Friend.” These “friends” are given anonymity and, like usual, the only people “in the know” about the registered sex offender status are a select group of leaders.

I’ve highlighted the sections within this sample policy that are most alarming and dangerous.

First, Summit Church is touted as “a safe place for everyone.” What that means is that abusers are also kept safe within the church. If you don’t believe me, there are three priorities and the third priority is “opportunities to worship and fellowship for everyone, including those under RSO (registered sex offender) status. Very ironically, the protection and safety of abuse survivors is not mentioned in the top three priorities.

The next highlighted section assumes the abusers are “wrestling with the consequences of past actions” and that doing so “can be emotionally difficult.” The policy also rushes to offer unconditional forgiveness: “We want to reiterate throughout this process that you are offered full forgiveness because of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. We do not want you to live with a sense of shame.” Oh. My. Goodness. Can you imagine Jesus talking to the money exchangers like this? Remember, these are not people who went out drinking on a Friday night and got themselves into trouble. They are child rapists. They are predators. They are people who have many victims. They are people who deceived, tested, and groomed everyone around them in order to steal the innocence away from little boys and girls. They lived, and continue to live a double life. It’s not just what they do, it’s who they are.

It gets worse. It clearly states, “You can attend services where children are present.” Confusingly, they can attend services where children are present but then page 3 lists conditions that the abuser has to agree to. #9 says, “I acknowledge and agree that all children and student areas are off limits at all times, even if my children are attending Summit Church.” #10 says, “I will not attend a Summit Church small group or visit the home of a Summit Church family where children are present, without the parent knowing my history and giving permission for my entry into their home.” If this isn’t confusing, I don’t know what is. They can attend services where children are present without church members being aware of their presence, but not in a small group, the children’s wing, or in someone’s home.

It can’t be overstated that this policy intentionally keeps the lay church members in the dark. On page 2, under FAQ, it reads, “Who would know about this arrangement and agreement? Those who would know about this arrangement are: the pastors of the Summit Church, the lay elders at your campus, campus security teams, and the point person(s) over student and children’s ministries at your campus.” Really? So the church remains unaware of the agreement between the leadership and the person who is on the public sex offender registry? The church should always have a copy of the agreement unless there is something to hide.

This is not an exaggeration. According to the policy, the elders work with the abuser to pick his own team of individuals to “care” for him. They “do want them to be people you know, trust, and like.” Then what happens when the abuser shows up at church? Page 1 says, “This person would great (sic) you when you arrived at a Summit service or event, at a discrete location, and have you check-in via an app on their phone. . . In function, these individuals should be viewed as a supportive friend. We want you to identify people you would be ‘doing life’ with at Summit anyway and make that more intentional. Socially, there would be nothing to draw attention to this shepherding arrangement. Isn’t that cute? You can’t make this stuff up! The abuser is checked in at a discrete location by the supportive friend, and the abuser is reassured that nothing will be done to draw attention to this agreement.

So let’s recap. Abusers are our friends, we will reiterate that they are forgiven, they get to hand select who their accountability friend is that they will be “doing life” with, they can attend services where children are present, they can check into church at a discrete location, there will be nothing to draw attention to this agreement, and the only ones who know about this agreement are pastors, lay elders, campus security teams, and only the point person(s) over children’s ministries.

Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, on page 2 they state the purpose for having this secret agreement with the sex offender: “Why is this needed? How is this loving? This is a form of protection for you and provides peace of mind to the families in our church.” By now, readers may wonder how families will get peace of mind about this secret agreement if they are not even aware of it. Strangely, the policy reassures the sex offender that they will be the ones protected and that this secret policy “provides peace of mind to the families in our church.” Yet confusingly, the next paragraph states that leaders are “asking” families to sacrifice peace of mind: “We are asking families to sacrifice peace of mind that would be present if we did not allow anyone under RSO status to attend. In other words, they acknowledge that there is a peace of mind that comes with knowing that registered sex offenders are not permitted to attend church. However, the leaders are “asking” families to sacrifice that peace of mind by inviting sex offenders to attend. My jaw is literally on the floor in disbelief! I wonder how many family members have ever been approached by leaders who ask them if they are willing to sacrifice their peace of mind by having sex offenders attend.

The final page has interview questions to ask the sex offender. This is where the real coddling comes into play. They give the sex offender plenty of wiggle room to not answer questions, to only answer when they are ready, and they’re even instructed to ask the abuser permission to talk to a former church that they attended. At least they are sensitive to the abuser’s feelings and, as part of protection for the abuser, they protect their emotions too: “Do they become emotionally overwhelmed as they tell their story? Assessment: Is this person going to be able to withstand the process of joining a small group which will entail the members of the group knowing his/her RSO status?”

Gee whiz. This policy is an abuser’s paradise. It gives them everything they need to be empowered: choice, secrecy, anonymity, access to children, a “sacrifice” on the part of families by allowing the sex offender to be there, and a way to crank up their emotions in the interview process. Advocates know that written policy is very important. The policy endorsed by Caring Well as a top resource, and one that is used at JD Greear’s Summit Church, is reckless, in my opinion.

A couple of years ago I interviewed someone who works with the parole board and has worked in the prison for over 22 years. He told me that sex offenders always change character when before the board. They know the right things to say and when and how to cry. It is all faked. He described one inmate who was a serial child rapist who propped his feet on my friend’s desk. He was cocky and arrogant. A few days later he was before the parole board and was sobbing, saying he’s learned from his mistakes and promised to never hurt anyone again. He was so “ashamed” of what he had done. Here is an excerpt from my interview:

Unless someone is an abuse survivor, most Christians I interact with assume that child predators are remorseful and ashamed when they go to prison and that they pose little risk when they get out of prison.  Does this perception match the reality you see with incarcerated sex offenders?

Absolutely not.  We obviously see that remorse about every time I interview a sex offender in my room or any time a parole agent does.  I don’t interview as many as I used to but when I do remorse is always the first thing we see. They are crying and say they are so sorry for what they have done.  When they get to my department they want to sit on the tack because that’s how they’re getting out the door. In Pennsylvania, we have the Act 98 law. The law says that if you are not admitting to your crime and you are not in treatment, you are not even considered for parole.  So remorse is their ticket to get a green light to the parole board.

In my opinion, Caring Well’s Lesson Ten and this policy as a top resource undoes everything that the other survivors and advocates accomplished in the previous nine lessons. Even more important, it demonstrates that the SBC proves itself to be full of empty words when their actions and policies reflect a culture of secrecy, welcoming abusers into the church against the will of its members, and protecting those same abusers. Until the SBC develops policies that are transparent, it will be known as the organization that hides and protects abusers.

This post is not meant to criticize and wish any ill towards the SBC. Quite the opposite. I want the SBC to get it right. But remaining silent when such dangerous policies are being implemented is not an option. The SBC cannot claim it is caring well when secret agreements hide convicted sex offenders in the church against the knowledge or will of its church members. I pray that more people shine a light on these injustices. I pray that the SBC leaders who think it’s OK to embrace predators and maintain secrecy are either broken or removed. It is my plea to see the Body built upon a foundation of righteousness and justice.

What does it look like when churches choose to provide cover for child predators?

abuse cover up

“Look around the courtroom. Remember what you have witnessed these past seven days. This is what it looks like when institutions create a culture where a predator can flourish unafraid and unabated. And this is what it looks like when people in authority refuse to listen; put friendships in front of truth, fail to create or enforce proper policy, and fail to hold enablers accountable” – Rachael Denhollander speaking of the hundreds of Larry Nassar’s victims who should have been spared.

Rachael Denhollander statement at Nassar Sentencing January 24, 2018

The sad reality is that many people, myself included, see what it looks like when abusers are hidden within churches and institutions in the name of “grace.” I thought back to Rachael’s words when I spoke over the phone with Kyle Cowden a few days ago. He reached out to me after listening to one of my podcasts and wanted to share his frustration with our nation’s broken sex offender registry and the church’s covering up of abuse. He has officially lost track of the serial abuser who molested his daughter. We connected and he told me about his daughter Rena’s abuse that happened in 1995 at Webb Chapel Church of Christ in Farmer’s Branch, TX. Rena was thirteen. James Apple, her abuser, was fifteen.

When Kyle found out his young daughter was abused, he approached the elders, one of whom was the father of the perpetrator. Kyle’s family was gossiped about and Rena and other victims of James were ostracized by the congregation. Kyle only became more emboldened to fight for his little girl. The elders, despite being mandated reporters, never went to the police. It was Rena’s mom and dad who reported to police. James Apple served two years probation for Rena’s case. Kyle’s gut feeling would prove to be right. More victims were discovered and, in 2000 James was given a six year prison sentence. He is listed as a high risk offender in Texas and is a lifetime registrant-a registration that is only reserved for those deemed to be unsafe for the rest of their lives.

I used to wonder if church leaders who give abusers free reign simply don’t know how dangerous they really are. Perhaps it’s a matter of ignorance, I thought. Sadly, this isn’t the case with Rena’s abuse. She lamented, “When the elders found out, they requested that I write a letter describing what happened. It took three pages and when it wasn’t reported, I felt so betrayed.”

Of course she did. They got to read the most humiliating details of what happened to her, only to turn around and accuse her of making up allegations that weren’t true. This wasn’t the only time she had to tell humiliating details of how her abuser had forced himself onto her. The police report is only one paragraph containing details that Rena shared. After rumors kept circulating, Rena and the other girls were asked by the elders to write letters. Rena’s was three pages long. And they still didn’t report, despite being required to do so by law.

Neither did they tell the church. According to Kyle, the elders were divided. Some thought the congregation should know. Others were adamant that the leaders handle it internally. According to Kyle, “We were chastised for pressing charges even after the DA had told us we could be charged for not reporting to them as soon as we knew and reporting to the elders instead. Hubert Smith was the most vocal and had called my wife when he knew I was on shift and chastised her for trying to “ruin James’ life. We also had our advocates, Bill Keith, Dan Camp and Don Petty (eventually).”

Rena recalled, “After charges were filed, it went to court pretty quickly. His attorney asked me what I was wearing and how far my legs were spread when he was abusing me.” As is common, Rena remembers the courtroom being pretty full. When I asked if the spectators were there to support her, she said, “I don’t remember anyone besides by family coming to support me. They were either there to support James or were just curious.”

Kyle pushed and pushed, and eventually was permitted to read a letter to the church that he had written about their ordeal. James Apple’s victims and their mothers who went forward as Kyle read the letter filled two pews. When James Apple was arrested, angry church members continued pointing the finger at Rena’s family for “making up false allegations.”

Webb Chapel wasn’t the only church organization to cover up James Apple’s abusive behavior. Kyle described an event when he was at a Christian camp at about the same time his daughter was abused:

I was the camp medic assigned my own cabin as I would be seeing campers in a medical setting. James and another boy (who were like “junior counselors” to younger boys) were suddenly moved into my cabin for “inappropriate” conversations. It was later, maybe a year, that we held camp in Cisco, TX. James’ father was there and I was told that he had reassigned James because “something had occurred”. It was years later that the youth minister intern, now a pulpit minister, was tearfully telling me how awful James had been and how mad he was because he wasn’t allowed to have him removed and how his dad had intimidated him and anyone else that knew about it.

After Kyle’s letter was read to the church the Apples quit attending church. A simple announcement was made from the pulpit that “the Apples will no longer be attending Webb Chapel.” The Apples moved to Prestoncrest Church of Christ in Dallas. Much to Kyle’s surprise, “My wife saw something showing James was involved in the youth ministry and called them. She was chastised for gossiping. I read where Ron was up for an eldership there and called. Their pulpit minister and one of their elders asked me to come in. They then told me they were well aware of the “persecution” James and the Apples were receiving and I should repent of gossiping and pursuing my agenda.

Kyle and Rena have attempted to know where James is, because they feel it is their duty to warn other parents. Rena tells me that Apple had several aliases on Facebook and even attempted to friend her. A few years ago, Rena was shocked when her mom discovered a picture of her abuser at a Chuck E Cheese in Washington state. Apple, a lifetime registrant, is not on Washinton’s sex offender registry, despite being a resident there. Rena went so far as to call Washington state police and send police reports and records of her abuse. They finally told her, “Sorry, there’s nothing we can do.” Kyle also notified the local sheriff. He seemed sympathetic and asked for more information. Kyle sent James’ records along with a brief description of what happened to his daughter Rena. Nothing was ever done to put James on Washington’s sex offender registry. Rena and her father both told me that they are sick not knowing where he is or what church he may have been able to reinvent himself inside of.

If this were the only case I had come across, I’d be mortified enough. It is not. Last year I received an anonymous message from an abuse survivor who attended Downtown Church of Christ in Searcy, AR-a church that I attended for several years while in college and seminary. The survivor told me that a man had really set off all her alarms and that he stuck out like a sore thumb, in a church of well over 1,000 people. She looked up the Arkansas sex offender registry only to be mortified that he was listed as a tier 3 offender. According to the Rogers, AR government website, tier three offenders “have a history of repeat sexual offending, and/or strong antisocial, violent, or predatory personality characteristics,” and require notification throughout the community.

Mr. Smith was a minister and doubled as a youth leader when he abused multiple little girls, including his own daughter Leachelle. Leachelle bravely wrote about her story in June. Last year, as soon as I was notified anonymously, I contacted the church’s minister, a former Bible professor of mine. I informed him that a church member found out about this dangerous predator who was actively involved in the life of the church, and that she was aware that at least some of the elders knew of this sex offender but had not informed the church. I’ve been down this road many times with churches and suspected what kind of response I’d receive. An elder from that church returned an email to me informing me that they take the protection of all seriously and that they “do not require our members wear their past sin on a label or announce it to the world unless they choose to do so.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest people not hold their breath waiting for a high risk serial offender to voluntarily inform a church with hundreds of minor children that he is on the sex offender registry.

The line that jumped off the page was, “If you know of some specific current activity or behavior of the person named in your e-mail to _____, please respond directly to _____ and _____.” If I know of some specific current activity!? I live 1,000 miles away! I never met this offender, though his family members inform me that he did premarital counseling for a couple at Downtown–a direct violation of probation. He and his wife also baby sit some children who are family members. And trust that if I hear of any “current activity,” the church will be very far down my list of people I will be contacting about it. Tier 3 offenders must remain on the registry forever because of violent, predatory behavior.

Arkansas requires the public to be informed of tier 3 offenders. The Arkansas Sex Offender Assessment Committee website says of tier 3 offenders:

Notification must be made to any member of the community whom the
offender is likely to encounter, based on the offender’s prior history,
recreational or religious interests, employment, or the characteristics of
the offender’s victims.

The problem is that the website doesn’t spell out exactly who is supposed to do the notifying, when they do it, or how often. State police are supposed to, but this often does not happen. For example, we had a Tier 3 sexually violent predator move in just a few feet from my church office window. Pennsylvania law requires everyone within a one mile radius to receive a flyer from police. We were never informed. I only found out by checking the registry, which I do every few months. Another problem in Arkansas is that individuals and agencies who are notified by law are not authorized to notify people within and apparently can use their own judgment as to who “has a need to know” within the agency. This is ambiguous. Who are the ones who “have a need to know” within any agency? In most cases, this is interpreted as the leadership only.

Notification given to any individual or agency does not authorize that individual or agency to disseminate information beyond those residing with the individual, or beyond those who have a need to know within the agency.

I believe that parents of minor children within an agency have a need to know, and should always be notified when a high risk predator is a member of a church. What those parents do with that information is entirely up to them, but shouldn’t they have a right to know? Furthermore, a repentant serial offender would be completely transparent and would ask that his information be shared so that there is never a chance he or she could gain access to children again. I am not alone in this thinking. Nor am I the only one who notified Downtown with concerns. Christine Fox Parker is a survivor advocate, has 27 years ministry experience, spent several years as a therapist at a private practice where she developed a specialty in trauma stemming from abuse at the hands of church leaders, and is the founder, president and executive director of PorchSwing Ministries. She and her son, a former member at Downtown, met with an elder in person to express the urgency for parents at the congregation to be notified. Christine told me that the response was similar to what I received–the elders take the protection of everyone seriously and are monitoring the abuser.

Leachelle (the abuser’s own daughter) has sent multiple emails to the elders begging them to notify unsuspecting parents about her father and was assured that, though they empathize with her as a survivor, they will not notify the congregation.

What purpose does a public registry serve if church leaders are able to and choose to ignore it? None of us suggested that the elders remove Mr. Smith from church (though it is my stance that he shouldn’t be at a church with hundreds of minors). We simply were asking them to inform parents of young children that a high risk sex offender is among them. So how did the church respond after repeated emails from Leachelle, describing her abuse and begging elders to inform parents that they have a serial offender in their midst? They read a letter to the church about “some blogs” that created “this situation” and that, though they have a sex offender in the church, they won’t be naming him:

The major problem I have with this (and there are many) is that they continue to circumvent the sex offender registry by hiding a high risk offender’s identity. The only biblical reason they can find for publicly stating the name of a church member “caught up in sinful behavior is for continuing, deliberate sin.” Even still, naming such a person “would only be for the purpose of winning the sinner back to Christ.” I’m dumbfounded. What about protecting innocents? Is that not a biblical reason to name a serial, high risk criminal who is already on the public registry? Ezekiel 33 and John 10 come to mind as biblical reasons to speak up and warn. Parents of children often befriend abusers, not knowing they are abusers, and will spend time in their homes and vice versa. In my opinion, when leaders fail to inform churches of high risk serial predators, they are wielding a moral superiority to the rest of the church by intentionally keeping them blind. The leaders, in effect, are the ones who have the benefit of remaining in the know and they have the power to keep the rest of the congregation in the dark.

And if these two cases aren’t enough, I reported a serial predator in 2013 who was a missionary in Haiti a few years prior. Bob Valerius, who had a clean Facebook profile as a missionary, had an alias on Facebook as “Milton Hargrave” and was asking a mess of young boys to show their penises to him. I saw with my own eyes the disgusting things he was saying to these little boys. I gathered a file folder full of evidence and spoke with state police, the US Marshall Service, and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. I found out through an investigation that Cyrus Sibert conducted in Haiti, that the Southwest Church of Christ in Ada, Oklahoma–the church that funded the orphanage where Bob worked–black listed and disciplined a Haitian preacher, Pierre Ludovic, who reported that “Bob is in relationship with the little boys he help (sic).” Valerius was reported by Mr. Ludovic in 2010. Mr. Ludovic was banned from the orphanage and the Southwest church, to my knowledge, never reported it. They did, however, blacklist the preacher who did. Southwest eventually removed Valarius from his post as director of the orphanage. Three years later, I personally witnessed Valerius asking multiple minor children for pictures of their penises while saying, “You should know that makes my cock hard.”

Unlike the Southwest church, I reported immediately and fully cooperated with this investigation only to find out that Bob Valerius, who fled Haiti and is currently wanted by the Haitian justice department, was spotted by one of his victims in August while roaming the streets of Cap Haitien.

Posted by Cyrus Sibert

Translation: Saturday, August 24, 2019 Mandate to bring against the American Robert (Bob) Valerius accused of pedophilia in Haiti.- The American citizen Robert (Bob) Valerius is wanted by the Haitian justice for sexual abuse on children. Mr. Valerius picture taken by one of his victims, was noticed Saturday, August 10 in the city of Cap-Haitien, a few years after he fled Haiti. #LeReCit

What’s incredibly frustrating about all of these cases is that our governments do all they can to track serial abusers because they have a pattern of being dangerous. The church, on the other hand, works very hard to keep abusers’ identities hidden and to allow them unfettered access to children. Churches think that by putting a few restrictions on where an abuser can be inside the church building, they are keeping children safe. This simply is not true. James Apple produced several more victims after Rena was abused because the church failed to report. Bob Valerius produced many more victims after he was quietly removed from the orphanage he was employed at. He still defiantly visits a country where he violated many young boys and is wanted by the justice department. The Southwest Church of Christ failed to protect more innocent children and even blacklisted a preacher who warned them about the predator. And Chuck Smith continues to enjoy anonymity as he worships at a church with hundreds of minor children. I have to wonder, at a church that size, how many other dangerous predators are being kept hidden within the pews.

Rachael is right. This is what it looks like when institutions create a culture where a predator can flourish unafraid and unabated. And this is what it looks like when people in authority refuse to listen; put friendships in front of truth, fail to create or enforce proper policy, and fail to hold enablers accountable”

Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash

Why chaperoning abusers in church is unwise

Abusers in church

A few years ago I was home with a bad stomach bug. I was in the middle of a violent vomiting episode when I heard my dogs barking and going nuts. For ten minutes they were barking obsessively. I finally got enough energy to go inspect the issue and there stood a man, hands cupped against his face, peering into my living room window as he called out my name. I knew the guy. And didn’t like him either. He was an abuser who lived across from my church office and regularly stopped cancer patients as they were pulling into the neighboring oncology center to harass and cuss them out. He had the police called on him repeatedly. I called the police on him multiple times. I watched out my church office window one day as a police officer drew his gun on him because he was threatening to kill his girlfriend with a knife. One time he pulled a knife out at a local church and was invoking my name to get off the hook, saying that we were good friends. I had sent multiple email warnings to all the local churches about him and told them about his violence. Yet several churches told me it was their “Christian duty” to invite him in. I disagree.

This man is currently in prison for beating up his girlfriend and leaving her for dead. He routinely harassed and threatened me, sometimes calling me fifteen times a day. There is a difference between someone who has anger issues and someone who is an abuser. This man did not have anger issues. He is an abuser. He will never be invited into my home or church when he is released from prison. My elders at church will not offer a chaperone to “keep an eye on him” when he is released. They won’t do it because he is an abuser. He is violent. He has a long history of harassing, intimidating, and threatening people.

Quite often I’m told of churches who have “covenant agreements” with known serial child predators. They, too, are abusers. Churches have shared covenant agreements with me to show me how wonderful it is that the leadership extends grace while “keeping an eye” on convicted serial abusers. I’m unimpressed. If we don’t trust predators to be in our homes around our own children, why would we invite them into our churches to have access to other people’s children? To make it worse, leaders normally keep the abuse a secret from the church members.

The following is a covenant agreement that was given to me by a church that has a child rapist in the church who doubled as a minister and youth minister when he was raping multiple young girls in his youth group. He is a tier 3 offender and, against the strong recommendation of the Sex Offender Assessment Board, a judge chose not to assign a sexually violent predator status. Only a hand full of church leaders even know he is a sex offender, and the congregation was never informed. This is a large church and parents of kids have no idea that there is a serial child rapist sitting in their pews. Parents, if they knew of the terms of the covenant agreement, should be alarmed. The serial predator has a sponsor who he “may be” asked to check in with. I redacted the church name and highlighted some things that just made me shake my head in disbelief. This covenant agreement is very similar to all the others that I’ve collected over the years.

There are a host of reasons why I think chaperoning known abusers is a bad idea, but I’ll share just a few here. For one, abusers are far more sophisticated than the chaperones who “may” be watching them. They are masters of deception and the average person does not know how sophisticated their techniques are. I know, in the above mentioned case, that the abuser is not confined to areas of the building designated for adults only. I know because he attends worship, where hundreds of children surround him. The notion that there are areas of a church building “designated for adults” is absurd.

Second, churches most often are not informed that such agreements even exist and leaders intentionally keep hidden the fact that sexual predators are in the church. This agreement says, “Information about your background will only be shared with people of the congregation who need to be aware.” In this case, at a church of over 1,000, seven people were counted among those who “need to be aware.” I would like to know who makes the decision for who remains informed and who doesn’t.

Third, abusers are wolves. This particular man was masquerading as a minister of the Gospel while he was raping multiple children. He is not a “lost, injured, or weak” Christian who needs to be prayed over. He is an abuser, an impostor, and a deceiver who needs to be kept at bay.

Fourth, if an abuser can’t be trusted and has all kinds of restrictions, including having a chaperone, he is not repentant. I challenge you to find this twisted theology in the Bible that I hear so often–“He can be forgiven but that doesn’t mean we should trust him.” This statement comes from our desperation to be inclusive of everyone. Can you imagine the church saying this about the apostle Paul? Which leads me to the final point.

Abusers have a pathology. They abuse people, not because they “struggle” with sin, but because they want to abuse people. This is why they can’t ever be trusted. The Bible correctly labels abusive people as deceivers, impostors, white washed tombs, snakes, thorns, thistles, chaff, waterless mists, evil people, wolves, and so on. It’s important to note that this language is not used for sinners like you, me, or even the apostle Paul.

In fact, all of us have a pathology. While we’re talking about Paul, let’s talk about why he went from insolent opponent and persecutor of Christians to an apostle and missionary. Paul’s pathology was always to please God no matter what. Period. Wrong as he was when he persecuted Christians, Paul wasn’t deceptive and dishonest when he did it. Nor was he doing it for personal gain or pleasure. Paul was persecuting Christians for one reason and one reason only: because he thought that’s what God wanted. When Paul had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, his pathology never changed. Paul repented, was baptized, and continued to do what would please God. His pathology never changed. His actions did.

In fact, Paul told Timothy, “I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief. . . ” (1 Timothy 1:12, 13). It was because of Paul’s ignorance and unbelief that he was able to receive mercy. Paul was not intentionally deceptive. In fact, Paul talks very negatively about such wolves: “. . . while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). Paul’s advice for people who are abusive, treacherous, ungrateful, having the appearance of godliness but denying its power? . . . “Avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3:5). Why? because they have a pathology. And that pathology isn’t to please God. It’s to pretend to be godly so they can abuse, steal, deceive, and get what they came for.

Just imagine if the church in Antioch said, “Paul we’re going to have you sign a covenant saying you won’t go near Christians who are vulnerable. We’ll assign you a chaperone. There are certain areas that you’ll be restricted from going to. If you violate this covenant, you “may be” removed.” The very thought of it is absurd. Paul was trusted because Paul previously sinned in ignorance. Though he once persecuted Christians he was not pretending to be someone he wasn’t. He didn’t deceive, lie, threaten, intimidate, stalk, molest, grope, or rape people while pretending to be a godly man. But Paul sure mentions such people. In fact, he has a lot to say about deception: “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them. . . and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:6-11).

Paul never extended an invitation to deceivers and people who work in secrecy for selfish gain. He consistently said to avoid them, expose them, and keep them out of the church. Why? Because abusers’ pathology is to deceive, steal, and masquerade as someone they are not in order to get what they want.

Ask your leaders if they have a secret covenant agreement to keep wolves secretly hidden within the confines of your church. If they do, ask for a copy. Ask if there are currently any people who have signed such an agreement and who they are. My guess is that they will tell you that you will not be qualified as someone “who needs to be aware,” but ask yourself, is this something Jesus would be OK with? Would Paul be OK with wolves having a secret agreement between just them and the leaders and having a chaperone because they can’t be trusted? If the answer is no, perhaps there needs to be a serious conversation about the validity of these secret covenants.

Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash

Abusers look for opportunities more than vulnerabilities

Deception

“I turned my back for literally ONE second!!”, she lamented. My wife is Assistant Director and Preschool teacher at a daycare center. She has a few students who are a handful, to say the least. The child she was telling me about decked another kid the second my wife turned her head. This is routine behavior for this particular child. I talk a lot about “testing” vs “grooming” behaviors. Children know how to test us adults from a young age. It’s a normal part of learning, growing, and maturing. They test boundaries to know what they can and cannot get away with. Parents or caregivers who are more passive may witness children who easily test boundaries and get away with much more than children whose parents intervene quickly.

We often hear that abusers find vulnerabilities and exploit them–that they search for the vulnerable single parent to target them or their kids, or they find vulnerable institutions with weak policies, or they find vulnerable kids who have an unstable home life or low self-esteem. With this premise, training tends to focus on reducing vulnerabilities and increasing awareness. Educate people more, create more programs to help at-risk children, have seminars on better parenting, put two adults in every classroom, put windows in doors, talk to teens about self-esteem, and on the list goes. While I’m in favor for doing all of the above, I also know enough now to know that this will do very little to deter abusers. This is a defensive stance, and abusers are always on the offensive. When they see someone playing defense, they will forge a way to covertly go around that line and accomplish the goal they set out to do anyway. Like the child who saw an opportunity when my wife turned her back, abusers know how to see opportunities the second they arise. And if opportunities don’t present themselves, abusers will create opportunities.

In studying abusers, I’ve found that they wear a very different lens than we do. We think they look for vulnerabilities, and to some extent they do. But this is not their modus operandi. Looking for and creating opportunities, however, is. In fact, abusers exploit our perception of vulnerabilities to create more opportunity to abuse. For example, one of the most common and ineffective policies is where churches keep known child molesters from entering a children’s wing of the church but still allow them to be elsewhere in close proximity to children (albeit supervised–though there are serious issues with this as well). This policy, otherwise known as a “limited contact agreement,” assumes that “keeping an eye on” an abuser is enough to hold them accountable and keep them from abusing more victims. It also assumes that children in the children’s wing are more vulnerable because there is a higher concentration of them all in one area.

But an abuser will use your perception of vulnerability in order to create opportunity. Remember, he or she is always on the offensive. For example, while everyone feels safe and secure because known child molesters are not allowed in the children’s wing or in bathrooms alone, they will observe which of the children outside the children’s wing are running around unmonitored. Abusers are always watching and taking inventory. Which children are allowed to roam? Which ones have unassuming parents? How do they interact with adults? With each other? It’s important to note that abusers live, breathe, and think deception constantly. This is why Paul warns Timothy: “. . . evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). Paul rightly extends no invitation into the church for abusers. He does not tell Timothy to have an open door policy for all in the Ephesian church. Instead, Paul warns Timothy that they are “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3:5).

Paul also uses the proper terminology to describe these deceivers–impostors. I believe that part of why so many are afraid to use that language in the church is because they falsely believe that abusers sheepishly look for vulnerabilities and those vulnerabilities are what “tempt” the abuser. Once they find vulnerabilities, they “fall into sin” because they were tempted. If we remove vulnerabilities, according to this reasoning, it’s as if we are helping abusers avoid temptation. But I strongly insist that this is not the correct way to view deception. Again, abusers are not looking for vulnerabilities as much as they are creating opportunities. This is why Paul warns that they will go on from bad to worse. It’s why he is so quick to label them impostors. It’s why he warns Timothy to avoid them.

This is also why I liken abuse to other petty crimes like pick pocketing. Pick pockets are not simply polished criminals with slick hands. They also know how to read people really, really well. They do it intuitively. They are people watchers. Yes, abusers do look for vulnerabilities, but they primarily are creating opportunities. It takes tremendous practice, skill, ability to read people, ability to deceive people, and–most importantly–the heart to actually follow through and pull it off. Abusers know what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and how you will respond to what they are saying. If we think that reducing vulnerabilities will reduce the chances of an offender creating more victims, we are wrong. They will simply migrate to another person, geographic area, or church. Put another way, they will create new opportunities to keep deceiving in order to produce more victims. “They will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

When I go to churches and other organizations to train, my goal is not just to reduce vulnerabilities. While that’s important, my main goal is to train people to detect deception and intervene. Many people ask me for a checklist of things to look for in an abuser, and it really is not this simplistic. Abusers are dynamic; always changing, observing, and looking for opportunity. As soon as we create a checklist of “red flags,” they’ve already adapted and have found 100 more opportunities to abuse in 100 different ways. The good news is that if we rethink the way abusers operate, we can begin to see their “tells.”

For example, I observe people who are observing others. Who are the adults whose eyes are always roaming? Do the conversations usually turn to boasting about love for children? Are there people who, even if for a second, can’t keep their eyes from looking at children? My father once told me, from prison, that he can spot another pedophile within 30 seconds of walking into a crowded room. Asked how he can do this with such ease, he answered, “Easy! I just watch their eyes.” Are these same adults with roaming eyes able to keep their hands to themselves or are they patting kids on the head as they walk by? Do they talk out of both sides of their mouth? When they speak are they drawing people in or are they just holding normal conversations? Do they exaggerate? Do they use compliments or tell jokes in order to gain interest or divert attention? Do they flirt with women? Say inappropriate things or tell jokes that are just a little off color?

There are so many more tells, but the point for this post is that a skilled abuser won’t be deterred by churches or organizations that reduce vulnerabilities. They’re far too skilled and determined to be deterred. The best chance we have at limiting the risk of abuse is to be more proactive at observing people constantly and with consistency. We need to be far more honest when someone is making other people uncomfortable. And we need to be willing to determine who the impostors are and to name them as such.

Cancer cells in the body are impostors. They are much like normal cells in the body, but the difference is that cancer cells continue to divide, masquerading as normal cells while wreaking havoc on the cells that actually are normal. I’m not a doctor and don’t pretend to be one but oncologists, to my knowledge, never attempt to rehabilitate cancer cells and turn them back into normal ones. Rather, oncologists know the imminent danger these impostor cells pose and the goal is to identify and remove them as quickly and completely as possible. Can you imagine an oncologist using the same philosophy as most churches today? “Let’s not judge. Forgive and move on. All cells are welcome in this body. Reconcile in Jesus’ name. Let’s all be together. Please don’t call them cancer cells; they’ve repented. We’ll allow these cells here in the main part of the body, we just won’t let them in the children’s corner. We’ll keep an eye on them.” Such a response would be embarrassingly ridiculous. Yet this has become the norm for how churches respond to abuse.

Some may take issue with this analogy and think that if we take this approach with abusers there would be nothing to stop us from taking the same approach with all sinners. After all, we all sin and fall short of the glory, right? But we are not talking about sinners like you and me. We are talking about people who intentionally and serially deceive and masquerade as one of us when they are not. The Bible uses all kinds of terms to describe this class of sinner: wolves, false prophets, dogs, thorn bushes, thistles, animals, impostors, born for destruction, blots, blemishes, to name a few. The Bible not only identifies them as such, but it never recommends rehabilitation, reconciliation, or any kind of association once they’ve been identified. This is not a coincidence. It is essential for the life of the church to name the ones who are hell bent on destroying it by ruining innocent lives. A body cannot thrive when cancer is slowly eating its host away.

And, like cancer cells, abusive impostors will find opportunity where they can best cloak themselves and do the most amount of damage. They don’t do this because they are “tempted by vulnerabilities.” They do it because it is what they do and who they are.

Until we shift our thinking and begin studying and understanding deception, the church will continue to be light years behind the secular world while its impostors continue to destroy the innocence of every good, young, and healthy cell within the Body.

Photo by W A T A R I on Unsplash

Why I talk about abusers “testing” instead of grooming

deception

Groom (verb)-to get into readiness for a specific objective: Prepare

Test (verb)-to make a preliminary test or survey (as of reaction or interest) before embarking on a course of action

Prior to learning in 2011 that my dad was a very sophisticated child sexual predator, I had no reason to believe he was abusing children. Not only was he abusing many young children, he was doing it in our own home. It was my youngest sister who disclosed to me that she had been sexually abused by our dad for years. An entire family and community was clueless. We had no idea. And we are right in step with the rest of society. Dr. Gene Abel estimates that a child molester has less than a 3% chance of ever getting caught every time they create a hands-on victim. In my father’s case, he operated at a 100% success rate with every victim. In other words, he successfully abused all of his many victims without anyone ever suspecting that he was abusing children.

The one thing that kept coming up in every book I read was the concept of “grooming behavior.” It has become the universal language to describe what abusers do to both their victims and the community at large in order to sexually, physically, or emotionally abuse their victims. Darkness To Light describes grooming this way:

Grooming is a process by which offenders gradually draw victims into a sexual relationship and maintain that relationship in secrecy. At the same time, offenders may also fill roles within the victims’ families that make them trusted and valued family friends.

Darkness To Light continues:

The key is to recognize red flag behaviors and to minimize opportunity for abuse.

Here are some red flag behaviors to watch for:

  1. Targeting specific kids for special attention, activities, or gifts. Some offenders show preference for a particular gender, age, or “type.”
  2. Slowly isolating a kid from family members and friends: physically and emotionally. This could include finding reasons for isolated, one-on-one interactions (sleepovers, camping trips, day activities, etc.), or undermining relationships with parents and friends to show that “no one understands you like I do.”
  3. Gradually crossing physical boundaries. Full frontal hugs that last too long, making kids sit in their laps, “accidental” touches of private areas – all of these are causes for concern. In some cases, offenders have engaged in partially clothed tickle sessions, showered with kids, or slept in the same bed with them.
  4. Encouraging a kid to keep secrets from family members. The shame and fear associated with child sexual abuse make it easy for offenders to enforce secrecy in this area as well, keeping abuse “just between us.”

As the son of a pedophile who was learning and growing and questioning everything about my childhood, this notion of “grooming” victims into being abused just didn’t seem adequate to describe what happened between my dad and his victims. It’s close, but I think the terminology is too broad and descriptions of grooming are way too static. We can’t reduce what abusers do to a quick checklist of red flag behaviors.

Pedophiles are experts at deception. They are artists and therefore are incredibly creative in how they implement their strategies. They are adaptable and nimble. What they do is dynamic, always changing. Abusers are the definition of becoming all things to all people. They do heinous acts, and thousands of them to dozens or even hundreds of kids, without having anyone suspect it. In the rare case that someone does suspect it or a victim discloses, the abuser can easily explain the actions away. I know. I lived with one such abuser. They have already thought of and rehearsed every possible scenario. They think on their feet much better than most of us do. Much of the abuse pedophiles do is intentionally done right in front of us. In fact, the ultimate trophy is to be able to abuse their victims in plain sight of adults without their noticing it. Sure, they abuse in isolation. But they also abuse many of their victims within inches of our eyes. And we don’t notice!

Let me first walk through the four “red flags of grooming” mentioned by Darkness To Light above. If the key really is to recognize the red flags so we can minimize opportunity for abuse, the absolute most important question I can possibly ask is, Does it actually work?

First, targeting specific kids for special attention, activities, or gifts; showing preference to a specific gender, age or type–I have fond memories as a kid going on beach trips with just my dad and my brothers. We have a large family (11 kids) and I am the 5th boy in a row. My parents would split up vacations and the two of them would take the girls then just my dad would take only us boys on a separate vacation. None of us boys were abused.

Presents-I still remember one day my older brother Tim and I waking up to two brand new three wheelers parked outside in our driveway. One was for Tim and one was for me, bought by my dad. There was no special occasion. He was an impulse buyer and showered all kinds of people with all kinds of gifts. He was generous with his time and money. Even looking back now, I don’t think he used presents to “groom” victims into being abused. Furthermore, the segregation of kids based on gender, age, and type is too generic. This “red flag” describes my wife. It describes me. It describes just about everyone I know. This makes the needle-in-the-haystack-phenomenon even worse when we tell people that “abusers can be anyone.” Do you see why this language isn’t specific enough? I can’t overstate the fact that abusers are dynamic in the application of their techniques. What works for one victim may not work for the next. An abuser will adapt to find the proper techniques to match the specific vulnerabilities in each victim and their families. And they do this by testing.

Second, slowly isolating kids from family and friends: physically and emotionally; finding reasons for isolated, one-on-one interactions (sleepovers, camping trips, day activities)–Once again, this is too broad. Dad took us boys on camp outs often. He never abused us. He also took girls on camp outs. He did abuse some of them. I have camped out many times with just my kids and have never abused them. My wife doesn’t like camping so she happily stays behind, which could have the appearance of “isolating” my kids. There was one key difference that I can see between instances when my dad isolated kids: he acted too excited to take certain kids on trips or sleepovers. But even this is very subjective because there were plenty of times that he was excited to take us boys on camping trips. Some of my best memories are of overnight trips my dad and I took together–camping, sail boating, going to the beach, and on I could go.

Third, gradually crossing physical boundaries; hugs that last too long, sitting kids in laps, “accidental” touches of private areas–I can’t name a parent who hasn’t exhibited the above behaviors, with the exception of “accidental” touches to private areas. But still, these are considered grooming behaviors to manipulate a child into a sexual encounter. Larry Nassar is one case where we know for certain that his physical contact with victims was sexual. And he did much of it–with over 100 victims that we know of–just inches away from the parents. Kristen Chatman was one such mother who was in the room as her daughter was being sexually assaulted by Nassar. Here is her account:

She was fully covered – even wearing running shorts. I, unlike others, don’t remember him ‘blocking’ my view, but since she was covered, I was unaware of what he was doing under the sheet. After he was done, he washed his hands and I remember thinking “Did he just do what I think he did? Where are his gloves?” I immediately dismissed the thoughts as there must have been some good reason. This was Larry after all. No need to question him. I trusted him. We all trusted him.


Deb McCaul was another attentive parent who not only was in the same room as Nassar while he abused her daughter Morgan, but actually walked up to be near her daughter to comfort her during the “procedure”:

“I wasn’t somebody with, like, my nose in the phone,” McCaul says. “I was having conversations with them. And whenever Larry was doing something in that [pelvic] area, I would go up and stand by the table, because I wanted her to feel more comfortable.”

Nassar was not deterred by his victim’s mother walking up and standing right next to him! Did he groom Morgan and Deb or did he test them first to find out which deception techniques he’d use to pull this off? Sexual predators are artists of deception. They constantly test their victims and their families to see which techniques will work best. Nassar did not gradually cross physical boundaries with his victims. He knew what he wanted to do to his victims so he tested them and their parents to know how he could pull it off, then he just did it. Abusers are dynamic. When Nassar saw Deb McCaul walk up next to him, he didn’t “groom” her into believing he was trustworthy. Nassar already had her trust because he had authority as a doctor and respect as a friend. All Nassar had to do was simply test Deb to see how he could hold her spotlight of attention. Once he initiated conversation, he sexually assaulted Deb’s daughter as he was casually talking with Deb. This is the dynamic nature I talk about. Abusers test. They adapt. And they do it proficiently on the go. They never skip a beat. They can’t. Otherwise they will get caught.

Finally, encouraging kids to keep secrets from family members–Again, this is not something my dad did. Both he and his victims tell me that he never told them to keep the abuse a secret. He didn’t need to. That’s not to say that some abusers don’t because we know that many do tell their victims to keep it a secret. But should this be considered a “grooming” technique? Grooming, by definition, is preparation. Grooming gets ready or prepares someone for a specific objective. An abuser who tells the victim to keep the abuse a secret is not preparing them for abuse; he has already has obtained his objective. He is not grooming the victim into being abused; he is merely warning the victim not to disclose the abuse that has already happened.

I think it’s important that we shift our language to be more precise. The above four “grooming behaviors” miss the most important issue at hand–they don’t tell us how abusers abuse their victims. I don’t want to focus on static behaviors, I want to focus on dynamic techniques abusers use to deceive us. I confess that we are grossly inadequate at identifying abusers “out there” in the real world. Even those of us who live and breathe abuse have many vulnerabilities that abusers will see and exploit. Because they are so adaptable, they are really good at deceiving others. Yet the common phrases that are thrown around to help us “identify” abusers are:

  • Abusers can be anyone
  • It’s all about control
  • They are master manipulators
  • They groom both their victims and communities
  • They’re incredibly good at controlling narratives
  • Watch out for people who are too good to be true

The problem (and it’s a major problem!) with this is that it tells us nothing about their techniques. It tells us nothing about how they do what they do. Though some of the grooming lingo is helpful, if falls way, way short of being specific enough to pick someone out of a crowd. If we want to understand how deception works, we need to study deception. I wanted to know, step by step, how abusers test us, deceive us, and what it is that they are doing along the way. How do they adapt and blend in with the grace and natural blending of a chameleon? What I found is that they are not merely “grooming” us and their victims. Rather, the bigger part of what they are doing is testing us. They test us to know exactly what each of our vulnerabilities are and they instantly exploit those vulnerabilities.

The difference between grooming and testing may seem like a trivial difference, but I assure you it’s the most important distinction. If someone is skilled at testing their subjects and they know what works for different people, they will learn deception techniques and adjust them from person to person. They not only know who to exploit, but they know how to exploit each person and what technique works best to pull it off. This describes abusers much better. When people say that, for abusers, “it’s all about control,” my response is, “No, it’s all about technique.” You can tell me that someone is controlling but what does that actually tell me about how he maintained control?

My theory led me to the brilliant work of neuroscientists and deception experts Dr. Stephen Macknick and Dr. Susana Martinez-Conde. I ran my theories by them and we ended up collaborating and putting on a training together in my hometown last year. The videos below show how and why our human brains are constantly making up information and how abusers hack and exploit our brains.

Drs. Macknik and Martinez-Conde collaborated with magicians to understand how the human brain is so easily fooled. What is it about us that makes us so susceptible to abuse? Magicians and abusers alike know how to exploit our vulnerabilities. Magicians make a living fooling people and abusers spend a lifetime abusing children by fooling adults. Magicians don’t need to groom us into being deceived any more than abusers need to. Because it’s not so much about grooming. It’s more about testing and adapting. Magicians are experts at deception. And so are abusers. For both, it’s about testing people, reading them, feeling them out, and knowing which techniques work best for each individual. Once a deceiver knows how this all works, they don’t need to slowly groom someone along. They simply test each of us, then use whatever techniques are best suited for us. Below is one example of how Apollo Robbins exploits this woman’s confidence. And watch how quickly he does it:

I am not knocking our current training here. What I am saying is that I’m hopeful for where our research is headed. There is so much to explore and learn when it comes to deception and the testing techniques abusers use. If we want to keep pace with abusers, we need to understand deception as good as they do. And that’s not going to happen if we keep assuming that abusers simply groom people into being abused. No–there’s so much more to what they do and I hope to link arms with more people who have the same desire to understand deception techniques.

Photo by Gareth Newstead on Unsplash

Our “Jesus accepts all” theology empowers abusers, big time

hippie Jesus

John 3:16. According to the popular Bible app YouVersion, that timeless verse ranked #2 for the most searched verse in 2018. And according to Christian Post, of the top ten trending Bible searches on Google in early 2018, John 3:16 ranked #3, Forgiveness at #8, and Love #10. It only takes a quick glance at my inbox to realize that survivors of abuse know all too well that church leaders have fully embraced a theology of love and forgiveness–at any cost. And these leaders demand forgiveness for abusers, including themselves. This poor theology has eroded God’s foundation of justice and righteousness (Psalm 89:14) and replaced it with a laid back Jesus who is carefree and embraces all equally (unless you are a victim of oppression, of course).

I’ve not taken the time to count the number of e-mails and private messages I received over the past few years from survivors who were rebuked by church leaders, but my best guess is that I have gotten at least a couple hundred. So what are they rebuked or thrown out of the church for? The answer is that they’re not forgiving or loving enough of their abusers–that Jesus was a free spirited, kind model of turning the other cheek no matter what. The irony is not lost on me that the church leaders who rally around real abusive criminals–men and women who habitually strike, humiliate, rape, or verbally assault their victims–are the same leaders who bar the victims of these crimes from coming to church for speaking up about their abuse.

I’ve written before that the number one question I get asked by church leaders who know of an abusive person in their congregation is, “How do we surround this ‘brother’ and encourage him to continue to be a part of the church body?”. Bad theology leads to bad practices. I’ve been saying this for years.

Last January, Rachael Denhollander was interviewed for Christianity Today by Morgan Lee for a piece titled, “My Larry Nassar Testimony Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than Forgiveness.” The article was a response to the religious community’s gushing over Rachael’s one liner about forgiveness. They chose to focus on the forgiveness aspect even though, in her 37 minute testimony, she mostly spoke about God’s justice and the need to repent. In the interview, Rachael rightly said that “the church is one of the worst places to go for help.” Rachael also rightly pinpoints the problem of bad theology leading to bad practices:

One of the dynamics that you see in a Christian church that is particularly devastating is poor theology. The reason that most institutional cover-ups happen in the church is not simple institutional protectionism. When you’re dealing with something like MSU or USA Gymnastics, they’ve got medals and money and their institutional reputation on the line.


You have that dynamic with evangelical churches where you have the reputation on the line and the perceived reputation of the gospel of Christ. But often, if not always, people are motivated by poor theology and a poor understanding of grace and repentance and that causes them to handle sexual assault in a way where that a lot of predators go unchecked, often for decades. When you see a theological commitment to handling sexual assault inappropriately, you have the least hope of ever changing it.

So was Jesus really all warm and fuzzy towards all people or did justice demand a more protective approach for the abused? John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus Christ, could have introduced him a billion different ways. John could have spoken about love, peace, acceptance. . . anything! Instead, listen to John’s introduction of the Messiah. When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:7-8 ESV). He continues: “Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. . . he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (vs. 10-12).

Now that’s an introduction to Jesus! When is the last time any of you heard Jesus introduced this way to anyone ever? John’s message was inseparably rooted in God’s foundation of righteousness and justice. John’s message was good news to the oppressed and offensive news to the religious leaders who were oppressing their victims. Yet today we have invented a false Jesus who welcomes the abusers and shuns the abused.

Lest you feel that I’ve left the reservation, let’s listen to Jesus himself. He constantly and consistently warned people of the religious frauds. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. . . A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15, 17-20 ESV). Notice that false prophets are just that-people who are prophesying but who are frauds. Jesus doesn’t tell his followers to give them a second chance, to give them food or water, to clothe them, or to turn the other cheek. For the class of fraudulent, abusive leaders Jesus says to beware. Warn others. Nowhere is there a hint of extending grace and forgiveness (and certainly not fellowship or a platform to keep preaching!) to these abusive wolves. Why? Because they are ravenous. They are bad trees who produce bad fruit. They don’t change because they don’t want to change.

To be clear, Jesus isn’t talking about sinful people who have fallen into a trap. He’s talking about false prophets who willfully, intentionally, and habitually deceive others in order to abuse them for their own selfish gain. These are religious leaders who know better. They are people who have been tasked with guarding the flock but instead are preying on them.

Again, the irony is that the soft Jesus we’ve created has produced a sea of oppressed people who have either fled unsafe churches or they’ve been banned from them. At the same time, abusive leaders have grown in power and influence with the full protection and blessing of their fellow leaders. The reason I write and speak about this so much is not to prove I’m right and others are wrong. The real reason is to plead with my fellow church leaders to have an ounce of humility and to revisit the scriptures with a heightened awareness that their bad theology is ruining the very lives of the people Jesus came to rescue.

We need to do better. I will shout this from the rooftops. We need to teach better. We need to study better. We need to pray better. And, most importantly, we need to pray for the wisdom to discern who the ravenous wolves are and take action to remove them while protecting those who are like sheep without a shepherd.

Photo by Vasilios Muselimis on Unsplash