Usually Tuesdays are my Springboard for Your Family. Today, I want to take a little different approach and provide a springboard for your church family. The reverberations of last week’s discussions about Jody Lusk are continuing to impact me. On Sunday, I told my congregation that we need to view ourselves as a battalion of God’s army that is drawing together so we can go out and conquer sin and Satan by God’s grace. With that in mind, I’ve been continuing to study and research issues about sexual misconduct and abuse in churches and especially by preachers/clergy. It is truly a frightening prospect.
I want to share with you a particularly helpful site that was passed along to me by one of the members of the Franklin congregation. Baylor University has been conducting studies about Clergy Sexual Misconduct and their findings are amazing. Understand that the scope of this study is not about child sexual abuse, but about preachers, pastors, priests, and rabbis using their role as spiritual leader to prey on adult members. They found that 3% of women who have attended a “church service” in the past month admit to being victims of Clergy Sexual Misconduct since turning 18 years old. This should cause us to stand up and take notice.
Churches, we have got to start talking about this pink elephant in the room. I encourage you to begin by checking out the resources and stories found at Baylor’s site:
Baylor: Clergy Sexual Misconduct Awareness and Prevention
I want to share five things I have taken away from this research, though I’m sure there is much, much more we need to learn.
1. Establish healthy boundaries.
My family and I like to visit waterfalls. The danger of waterfalls is you have to have huge drop for the water to fall. Many of the waterfalls we have visited have fences and barriers along the trail. Even at the viewing area they have barriers with signs saying don’t cross. Why? Because people who go on the other side of those barriers fall to their deaths. We need to establish healthy boundaries. I don’t think this means we have to be so extreme as to have women on one side of the building and men on the other never to touch, shake hands, or even hug. But, at the same time, let’s not laugh at the extremes so much that we never build barriers allowing everyone to plunge into the ravine. I think James 2:2, 14 demonstrates a need to establish boundaries.
Especially establish healthy boundaries for those in leadership positions: pastors, preachers, deacons, teachers. Make it a boundary that they are simply not allowed to meet alone with a member of the opposite gender-not for counseling, not for teaching, not for working on a project. Make it a boundary that nobody teaches a children’s class alone where they cannot at least be monitored. Have a healthy boundary about taking children to the bathroom from class. I know in my next meeting with the elders here at Franklin, I’m going to ask for a window to be placed in my office door.
Please don’t whine to me about how you will never do these things and it upsets you that the congregation wants to put some boundaries in place as if you are a deviant. Healthy people don’t chaff at healthy boundaries. They recognize that boundaries provide two protections: 1) they protect against false accusations and 2) they protect against temptation you aren’t expecting so there will never be any true accusations. If you are going to buck against healthy boundaries, you probably need to take a closer, more honest look at your spiritual life. You may have a chink in this armor you want everyone to believe is sin proof.
***Edit: Make sure you check out Dan Allen’s suggested congregational sexual harassment policy in the comments section below and let us know what you think about it.
2. Refuse to hide behind a culture of niceness.
“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (I Corinthians 13:7). Yes, but love does not turn a blind eye to the inappropriate. Sadly, many experience things that make them feel sexually uncomfortable, but instead of expressing it, they internalize it. They even blame themselves thinking they must be overly sensitive. “That brother is just showing his care for me. Besides, this is church, no one would do anything inappropriate here. I need to give him the benefit of the doubt.” Baylor called this having a culture of niceness. Yes, we should be nice, but it is not nice to make others feel uncomfortable sexually, and it is not nice to act like their feelings on the matter don’t matter.
Here is the key in my mind. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable, you are allowed to express that. Expressing that something made you uncomfortable is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is not believing the worst about someone. It is not refusing to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It means you have a boundary and you are allowed to express it whether the boundary is an issue of personal space during a conversation or the fact that he rubs your back while talking to you or the fact that he is calling you at home. Some people are touchy-feely and that’s okay. But if their touchy-feely makes you uncomfortable, that is okay as well. You can tell them.
There is another side of this. When someone expresses that our action has made them feel uncomfortable, we don’t need to view it as an accusation. We don’t need to get defensive and angry. We definitely don’t need to make accusations back, “You’re just too sensitive. You must have a problem if you’re going to interpret what I did that way.” We need to apologize and stop the action…period.
3. Let the older women teach the younger women.
I guess this could go under the healthy boundaries section, but it stands out so strongly to me that I think we need to state it. Have you ever noticed that Paul told Titus to teach the older men some things, teach the older women some things, and teach the young men some things. But he didn’t tell him to teach the younger women anything. Rather, one of the things he was to teach the older women was to teach the younger women (Titus 2:1-6). I think there was a reason for this. Paul was a believer in healthy boundaries as well.
Perhaps the most important boundary of all is that preachers do not need to take it on themselves to counsel, teach, help, direct women, especially women their age and younger. If they think they’ve got great insight into how to help younger women, they need to train older women in how to do that.
Sadly, whenever we think about someone needing spiritual counsel we think, “Call the preacher.” Do we not have any godly women who can counsel wives to love their husbands and their children? Do we not have any godly women who can encourage younger women in the faith and teach them God’s will from the scripture? Is the preacher the only person in the congregation who can do these things? If so, then the church has more problems than Clergy Sexual Misconduct. If so, that church probably needs to close its doors and let its members join with a congregation that has a healthier more mature membership (yes, yes, I know there are exceptions).
4. Do not blame the victims.
When leaders in the church sexually pursue members, no matter the age of the members, it is not an affair as if both are equally guilty. When a person in authority starts pursuing a subordinate sexually, it is an abuse of power. The vulnerable subordinate is not to blame. I don’t care how you cut it, we just cannot take responsibility away from the person in leadership. That person is the one who is responsible for what happened.
If something like this has happened in your church, the one abused by the preacher/clergy needs support and help now more than ever. Do not turn your back on them and their families. Do not get upset as if they brought the trouble on the church. They did not. They were victims. Yes, the offender has fallen prey to Satan and sin. Yes, the offender needs our help as well. But don’t do anything that acts like the victim is at fault. Lift that victim up and support her. Help her face all her confusion, fear, doubt and walk through it into God’s arms.
If you want to turn someone away from God forever, start blaming them for what the clergy did to them. Watch them wilt. Watch them blame God. Watch them learn that nowhere is safe for them, not even the church. Yes, you might see them leave and think you were right all along, it just proved they weren’t as spiritual as you. But all you actually did was kill a soul.
If you don’t know how to provide the support the victim needs, get them in touch with professionals and be supportive of it. You probably need to get them in touch with professionals even if you think you know how to provide support.
5. Above all, keep church safe.
The local congregation needs to be a sanctuary, a safe-haven for the hurting and broken. It is not to be a place that causes more hurt and brokenness. In fact, that principle itself is what causes a great deal of confusion when Clergy Sexual Misconduct happens. The victims, thinking they are in a safe place, start to doubt their own feelings of what is inappropriate because trusted spiritual leaders are leading the way in to sin.
We need to work to keep churches safe. That is what the other four principles are about. I know that is going to be hard because if a church is doing its job, it is going to be attracting sinners. Sinners do bad things even in the church. But we need to go out of our way to provide safety for members. That means providing a safe place to confess their sins. That means providing a safe place to be broken and find helpful counsel. That means providing a safe place to express hurt that has happened between one another.
Keep it safe.
Satan is attacking us. He is attacking churches. There are all manner of sides to this and we must lean on God that Satan doesn’t destroy us at any side of these attacks. We must not stand in arrogance as if we cannot sin. We must not neglect forgiveness when even the vilest of sinners repents. We must not sweep an epidemic under the rug as if it is not really a problem. Let’s stand up and fight. Through God, we will win.
Its disturbing that this issue even needs to be addressed among God's people. People in distress or in need of spiritual guidance are very vulnerable and can easily be taken advantage of by people of authority in the church. This is important and needs to be discussed.
It is disturbing that this needs to be addressed, Brent. However, this is what sin does to us. It causes us to hurt people. I think we need to remember that becoming a Christian does not mean the battle against sin has been won. Rather, it means the person realizes there is a fight and is now fighting. Growing Christians are going to commit all manner of sins and we need to start figuring out how to teach more than just, "Here is the plan to get saved." We need to start learning and teaching, "Here is a plan for overcoming and being set free from sin." Part of that is laying out healthy boundaries that protect against temptation.
I'd like to propose the following as a draft policy statement for churches to use as a tool to address these sorts of issues. I tweaked a typical model HR Sexual Harassment policy for church language. I'm interested to hear what you and your readers think of the following:
XXXX Church of Christ Sexual Harassment Policy (DRAFT)
The Franklin Church of Christ, hereafter referred to as FCOC, prohibits sexual harassment of its members and applicants for employment by any elder, deacon, preacher, member or applicant. Such conduct may result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge. This policy covers all members and their families, as well as all visitors. The FCOC will not tolerate, condone, or allow sexual harassment, whether engaged in by fellow members, deacons, elders, teachers or other non-members who conduct business and/or interact with the FCOC.
Sexual harassment is any behavior that includes unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
• Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for promotions or other employment decisions;
• The conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual's worship or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive worship environment.
The members of the FCOC are entitled to worship in an environment free from sexual harassment and a hostile or offensive worship environment. We recognize sexual harassment as unlawful discrimination.
No elder, deacon, preacher, or member shall threaten or imply that an attendee's refusal to submit to sexual advances will adversely affect that person's salvation, assigned duties, or any other term or condition of membership or spiritual development. Sexual joking, lewd pictures, and any conduct that tends to make members of one gender "sex objects" are prohibited.
Members who have complaints of sexual harassment should (and are encouraged to) report such complaints to the elders. If one or more of the elders are the cause of the offending conduct, the member may report this matter directly to the deacons. In the event that the elders and deacons are the cause of the offending conduct, then members may report complaints to the preacher. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated by an independent group of three members appointed, as needed, by the elders. Confidentiality of reports and investigations of sexual harassment shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible. Any elder, deacon, preacher, or member who, after appropriate investigation, is found to have engaged in sexual harassment of another member shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
If any party directly involved in a sexual harassment investigation is dissatisfied with the outcome or resolution, that individual has the right to appeal the decision. The dissatisfied party should submit his or her written comments to the elders.
The FCOC will not in any way retaliate against any individual who makes a report of sexual harassment nor permit any member to do so. Retaliation is a serious violation of this sexual harassment policy and should be reported immediately. Any person found to have retaliated against another individual for reporting sexual harassment shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
Oops! One slight revision as noted below:
Sexual harassment is any behavior that includes unwelcome sexual advances and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
• Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for salvation, continued membership, and/or spiritual development
• The conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s worship or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive worship environment.
Interesting, Dan. I think I'm going to wait and hear what others have to say before I comment on this.
Thanks for putting the work into it.
Thanks for sharing this Edwin. This is very important. I have had several women tell me about being sexually harassed by preachers and Elders in what we would call conservative churches of Christ.
We need to be mindful of this and resources like you have shared are invaluable.
Thanks again.
Yes, Jim. I've heard a story just this week about this happening in a "conservative" church 30 years ago. Although, the story I heard involved a minor as the victim. 30 years ago! Imagine what a different place churches might be today if 30 years ago we had started taking actions on these issues. Imagine where we will be 30 years from now if we don't start taking actions now. Sweeping it under the rug will not make it go away.
I have been following the news reports about Jody Lusk, which brought me to this site about a week ago and since then I have enjoyed keeping up with it, which is very well done. I have read the draft proposed by Mr. Allen regarding a sexual harassment policy and it is well written. However, it makes me quite uncomfortable to think that we would need an additional piece of paper stating what the Bible already says. I think that using the Bible in classes or sermons on this topic should be the tool we Christians use to educate our brethren about such issues. I may be misunderstanding how this statement should be used practically in churches, but it seems to me that the Bible should be our only statement of policy in any matter. I look forward to reading additional comments on this matter 🙂
Thanks, Anna. I'm looking forward to hearing more reactions to Dan's suggested proposal.
I disagree with #4 up to a point. I totally agree with it when it comes to situations involving minors or when the supposed "power" of the elder/deacon, etc. is used to coeerce someone into sexual sin. There are definite situations of fornication or adultery where both parties are equally responsible. Either way, it is the duty of Christians to do our best to bring a brother/sister back into the fold by their repentance. (With a lack of repentance, then it is up to the congregation to practice biblical discipline.)
As to Dan's proposal, I think that the Bible gives us direction to flee all sin. I think that it would be interesting to take out "sexual harassment" and insert "sin." Wouldn't that get everyone's attention!
Thanks for your comment, Haley. I certainly agree there is fornication and adultery where both are at fault. However, please note that I did qualify what I was talking about with the statement "When leaders of the church sexually pursue members…" I worded it that way on purpose. I am not talking about times when members sexually pursue leaders. I think that can happen. I am also not talking about times when a church leader simply happens to fall prey to some sexual temptation. I'm talking about times when a leader in the church is pursuing members sexually.
There is an interesting psychology behind this kind of sexual misconduct that in many cases, no matter the age of the victim, makes it very much like when an adult molests a child. When the church leader pursues a congregant sexually it can establish a very confusing relationship. The vulnerable have come to one they trust and their trust is broken. When any church leader uses his role as a church leader to pursue someone sexually, he is to blame. When the whole thing is over the church shouldn't be figuring out why the sheep is to blame for the shepherd's sin. The shepherd is the one responsible to keep those relationships holy. (I'm using the sheep/shepherd analogy somewhat accommodatively referring to leaders and followers, not just elders and members.)
Interesting Policy, Dan. I guess I couldn't help think that there is already a policy in place for this–
"Any elder, deacon, preacher, or member who, after appropriate investigation, is found to have engaged in sexual harassment of another member shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge." —The problem is getting churches to enforce church discipline.
Plus, it gets a little sticky since most victims would sue their offender, so there should probably be a policy for that one too, eh?
It's probably good that the FCOC doesn't have any human creeds.
I understand that this is a sensitive issue and it is not my intent to establish a human creed. Perhaps the following will help clarify my perspective in proposing the idea.
I'm not an HR expert by any means, so I could certainly be wrong about the following. From a secular standpoint, the church is an employer of the preacher. The church is a non-profit tax-exempt organization and the preacher is an employee. Employers who do not have sexual harassment policies can be considered liable for sexual harassment cases. From the management training I have received, the settlements/rulings for these types of cases are substantial and could easily cripple a church. The following is referenced from some training material I received at work:
"It is imperative that employers establish and maintain a strong policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Under the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton an employer may successfully defend against a supervisor’s (elder, deacon, preacher would apply here) sexual harassment if it can demonstrate that:
(i) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing conduct; and
(ii) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities.
Obviously, to establish the second prong of the defense, the employer must prove that the complaining employee knew of preventative or corrective opportunities, such as a complaint procedure contained in anti-harassment policy. Generally, the employee manual is the main vehicle by which the employer disseminates its anti-harassment policy, and, therefore, an employee manual that does not contain a sexual harassment policies does an employer a disservice."
I'm not trying to make a creed. What I wrote is scriptural, at least that was the intent. Again, if I missed something and it needs to be revised, I'm certainly open to discussion about it. I am trying to close a perceived liability of the church by having a policy in place that would allow a lawsuit brought against the church to be dropped and only apply to the offender. I think we can agree this is the appropriate measure of justice. Perhaps the difference of opinion is in how this is accomplished. In that case, I would ask that someone who disagrees offer another idea.
It is important that churches take some action to address this problem. I disagree that the problem is enforcing church discipline. The problem is putting procedures in place to PREVENT this behavior from happening in the first place, and in regard to this, the churches of Christ are behind the 8 ball so to speak. These types of behaviors are mentally and emotionally damaging to the victims, often affecting them for the rest of their lives. A strong sexual harassment/misconduct policy rooted in biblical principles and supported by clear boundaries is a very real and practical way to clearly set preventative limits. It would send a clear message to all members and assuage thier fears if they found themselves in the unfortunate position of experiencing something like this. Also, it would give them a process to follow without fear of retaliation endorsed by the elders. Knowing what to do and how to work through a difficult situation makes it easier to speak up and do something about stopping the abuse. I'm not naive enough to think we can completely prevent these types of things from happening, but clear limits would certainly make it a lot more difficult, and I think most people would be hard pressed to disagree with that notion. With issues like this I think it is imperative to hope for the best and plan for the worst.
Excellent article, Edwin. This issue truly is the big, iridescent pink elephant in the church and uncomfortable as it is for many, I appreciate your continued diligence in bringing forward the good fruit of preventive education in the face of this tragedy. Historically sweeping news such as this under the rug, and assuming these acts are isolated instances of inherently"bad people" is clearly an effective instrument of Satan and in complete alignment with the definition of insanity.
Okay, I guess I've given everybody enough time to comment on Dan's HR proposal. Here are my thoughts.
I agree with those who say we actually already have a policy in place. The scripture points out that sexual misconduct is more than misconduct, it is sin. We also have a policy in place for how to deal with this. Matthew 18:15-20 states the policy. I don't think we need to write a separate policy statement for this or any other sinful infractions.
However, having said that, the reason I wanted this discussion to take place was because I think we need to give strong consideration to improving our congregational cultures on how to deal with this issue in particular. Because this is such a touchy and emotionally charged issue, when someone feels like they have been violated, they often are paralyzed by the conflicting emotions and self-talk. They don't think someone in the church would pursue this sin, especially an elder, deacon, or preacher. So they feel confused. (One of the best parts in the articles at Baylor's site was their question of, "Had this just been a neighbor or a co-worker and not a church leader, what would you have thought about it?") They question, "What if it was just an innocent misunderstanding?" They would hate to be the overly sensitive person who caused a stink or falsely accused someone of such an awful sin.
Because this sin particularly causes such confusing emotions, I think it should be an important part of the communication between shepherds and the congregation that if someone has been made to feel uncomfortable sexually, they are allowed and should voice that discomfort. I think they should also make it a repeated part of their communication that if someone tells you they are sexually uncomfortable with something you have done or do, that your only correct response is, "I'm sorry. I'll stop." Getting defensive, firing back with accusations, showing anger are all inappropriate responses that will be taken to mean your offending actions were not innocent mistakes.
Let's face it, if my hugging you, for example, is out of a sincere desire to provide you comfort and you let me know it is actually making you uncomfortable, what am I going to do? Am I going to rage at you? Am I going to get defensive? Am I going to accuse you of having a problem? No. My concern is comforting you. My response will simply be, "I'm so sorry. I only intended to comfort you. Thank you for being willing to let me know. I'll stop. Please let me know if anything else I do makes you feel uncomfortable."
I think there should be some very specific meetings among those in leadership roles, elders, deacons, preachers, teachers, explaining boundaries for them and training them in how to respond if someone says they have been made to feel uncomfortable.
A congregation needs to be a completely safe place for folks to come. It should not be marred by sexual discomfort and fear. We need to do everything we can to ease that discomfort.
I look forward to any more comments on this. Thanks for your involvement.
It's unnecessary and inappropriate to adopt anything written by uninspired men to a church as "policy". I realize the HR creed was a move to help shape church culture, but either the bible tells us how to handle this sin or it doesn't. Let's just enforce what the bible already says.
If someone has reached the age of accountability, then they are responsible for the sins they commit. The difficulty of the situation or the strength of temptation does not mitigate the fact that we are responsible for the sins we commit. Decisions that are made consensually are just that. Overcoming temptation from authority isn't impossible, God tells us that he will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able. Let's not discount this fact.
Hey Clay, thanks for your input and thanks for joining our discussion. (By the way, for those who follow this blog regularly, this Clay is different from the "Clay" who has made multiple comments on this blog before.)
First, I want to make sure it is clearly understood that I agree we already have a scriptural policy about sexual sin even involving preachers and we don't need a policy written. I hope there wasn't confusion about that.
Second, I do agree that we are not tempted beyond what we are able. I do agree that in some cases when sexual immorality occurs between a congregational leader and a congregational member, both are equally at fault. I'm just not sure that is always the case. I think we should not assume that just because some sexual act has involved two people, even if it wasn't violent that both are equally guilty of sin. Before dismissing me, please listen as I make my case.
I'll begin by looking at Deuteronomy 22:23-27. This passage recounts two different sexual encounters. In one, both participants were considered equally guilty. In the other, both were not. In the second, the woman was not guilty because it was considered rape. I think we would all agree that when forcible rape occurs the victim is not to blame.
In your statement, Clay, you recognize that there is an issue of accountability. If someone has reached the age of accountability they are guilty. But what is that age? We can't put a number on it. I think we would agree if the a father had sex with his six-year-old daughter (sadly, that does happen), the girl, even though she didn't holler out or resist was raped. We would point out that due to her psychological state, emotional immaturity, mental vulnerability to her assailant that she is not accountable. What would we say about a girl who has been trained by her father that this is the way things are supposed to be and it's been happening for 10 years. She's now 16. In most cases, we would believe a 16 year old has reached an age of accountability. She might even have been baptized and become a Christian. She's probably even heard sermons about sexual immorality. She may have even heard her dad preach those sermons because he is the preacher (sadly I know of this situation as well). Is this girl equally responsible along with her dad for this sexual immorality? I don't believe so. I don't believe she is accountable for what is happening to her sexually. She has been trained by her dad to be unaccountable. She is not mentally capable of dealing with this situation. Is her dad physically forcing her to have sex with him? Probably not. But the psychological, mental, and emotional force is not less a compulsion to do this than if he were tying her up and forcing her.
Let's consider another situation. What if the girl were 30, but she was mentally handicapped? If a man pursued sexual activity with this girl, she may not resist at all. Is she guilty of sexual immorality? Of course not. She is not accountable. She is not in a mental state to consent to sexual relationships. The man has taken advantage of her vulnerability. He may not have forcibly raped her, but he did rape her. She is not guilty, no matter her age.
Let's consider another situation. A king who has all authority in the land calls a woman to him. He does it in secret. He does it by sending multiple men to summon her to him. When she meets him, she finds out he wants to have sex. He doesn't tie her up. He doesn't beat her. Instead, he comes to her as her king, the man who can have people killed on a whim, the man who can kill her on a whim, the man who can kill her husband on a whim. He says he wants to have sex with her. Is she guilty? Interestingly, God didn't seem to think so. In II Samuel 12, David is "the man." Bathsheba is the ewe lamb who was stolen and killed. Unless that little ewe lamb is guilty like the thief, God viewed what David did as violating Bathsheba and her husband, but He didn't view her as guilty at all. Interestingly, David says the man should restore the lamb fourfold. Over time, he lost four sons: the baby, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah. However, Bathsheba's other son became king after David.
Alright, one final incident. A woman in the congregation is having marriage trouble. She doesn't know what to do so she turns to the person everyone says should guide her. She turns to a spiritual shepherd (I'm using this term a bit loosely-it may be a preacher, an elder, a deacon, a leading man in the congregation, a Bible class teacher). She begins to make herself emotionally vulnerable seeking counsel and aid to help her serve her husband. The shepherd then begins a process of grooming her. He uses his position as "shepherd" to engender her trust and confidence. She begins to see him as a source of what is right and wrong. He begins to speak down about her husband, building up a wall there instead of helping heal the wounds she came to him to find healing. Over time, consciously or subconsciously he grooms her, knocks down her defenses, he cajoles and confuses her. Then he starts pushing sexual boundaries. She's confused but this is her shepherd, surely he wouldn't do anything wrong. Besides, there is the emotional weight of if she makes an accusation the whole church will be against her. Finally, the immorality occurs. While I certainly recognize each case may be different, I also recognize I cannot be the judge in every case. I recognize that the psychological, emotional, mental, and spiritual forces brought to bear here are sometimes just as strong as the physical ones. While this may not have been a physically forcible rape, it is in many cases just as much a case of rape as the other and the victim is not guilty.
That is why I believe, while we have no need to write a policy by uninspired men to cover this occurrence we need to be completely open and explain how God's policy applies to this situation in order to help train and encourage those who are vulnerable to this kind of mental, emotional, spiritual, and psychological attack. We need to improve the culture of our congregations in this having expressed and clear boundaries.
I look forward to anyone's comments on this.
Your’re so right! the congregations are supose to be a safe place for god teaching .But now preachers are acting worse than the men on the streets. How I can say this? I’m now being sexually harrass by a preacher who live where I works.And it’s sickening to me. He knows I’m married and still stalks me like a love sick puppy. The funny thing about it is,he acts as if he’s not doing anything wrong.I’ve mention it to my husband, but he’s incarcerated and there’s nothing he can do about it. He does’nt seem as if he’s ever going to stop .So I’ve decided to see about filing a law suit against him. Because it’s been going on for quiet some time now.I guess in his mind he thinks he has a chance since my husband is incarcerated,but not in this life time.I think he needs someone to preach to him.
I’m terribly sorry you are enduring this. If you have told the man to stop his advances and he has refused, then I certainly think a legal boundary is appropriate. You may also need to report him to whoever he is accountable to in the church he works with.