Institutional Abuse in “The Church”

We hear of and see Institutional Abuse happening over and over again, notably and repeatedly within churches across our country. One of the challenges in discussing “Institutional Abuse” is the name alone dehumanizes the issue and allows us to separate ourselves from the humans who make up the institution. Over time, we tend to forget the individuals who chose at the expense of another, or many others, to protect themselves, the perpetrator, or the “institution.” We cannot blame this issue on a faulty machine made of metal; the institutions are comprised of humans. Accountability in these cases requires individuals to bear the liability alongside the institution. It requires someone–anyone–to assume the responsibility to repair what has been broken. 

The damage being done by institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention, Pastor John Lowe at New Life Christian Church in Indiana, the Archdiocese of Chicago – and so many other faith institutions – goes far beyond the actual victims of the abuse. Although, the victims are the ones who have been harmed the most. What the individual predators and perpetrators did to their victims is beyond horrible, and the devastating, long-lasting effects of the “institution” of leaders who colluded with these perpetrators, becoming abusers themselves, by vilifying, silencing, and shunning victims or their advocates and refusing to take action to protect them and hold the perpetrators accountable for their wrongdoings is equally egregious and likely even more damaging.

On May 23, 2022, news broke releasing the highlights of a scathing investigative report, 400 pages long, in which an independent investigation revealed the committee’s findings that top Southern Baptist Convention leaders stonewalled and denigrated survivors of clergy sex abuse over two decades while doing everything in their power to protect their own reputation. According to news stories, the report says these survivors, and other concerned Southern Baptists, repeatedly shared allegations with the Executive Committee, “only to be met, time and time again, with resistance, stonewalling, and even outright hostility from some within the EC.” (1) Years of sex scandals, rape and abuse by clergy in the SBC were made public in 2019 when the Houston Chronicle released a multi-part series detailing what they learned through reporter investigation and interviews. Those reports found many complaints had been filed as well as many requests for internal and independent investigation, which largely either fell on deaf ears or resulted in efforts to silence those making the requests. Repeated demands for an independent investigation that could confirm or refute the abuse reports and make recommendations for reparation and change were finally honored at the SBC’s 2021 annual convention. The news reports circulating about this story, and others compelled us to address this issue again. We hope this helps you understand these issues a little better and help you make decisions over time about the institutions you become a part of, either as a leader, staff member, or congregation member. No matter what institution we belong to, it’s important to remember to keep the leaders accountable for maintaining healthy and safe environments for the community, congregation, members, and staff they are supposed to represent.

What is Institutional Abuse?

Institutional Abuse is the mistreatment of a person from a system of power. Often, this form of abuse takes place in institutions charged with housing children, the elderly, or others, but that’s not all. Institutional abuse regularly happens, especially when an individual comes forward and discloses that a member of the institution’s leadership team or staff is guilty of abuse. Institutional abuse is a very powerful form of abuse and is extremely damaging to victims. As both recent and historic news reveals, it happens within secular institutions as well as in faith-based institutions.

The uniquely harmful nature of institutional abuse is due in large part to the fact that institutions carry a significant weight of responsibility and power when they become informed of maltreatment or wrongdoing within the organization. They are regarded as authoritarian, professional, and influential and, therefore, carry the ability to impact individuals and other institutions positively or harmfully. They are publicly perceived to hold high integrity; therefore, victims have a greater expectation that the institution will do the right thing. The disparity between this expectation and what actually occurs when there is Institutional Abuse significantly exacerbates the trauma the victim is already experiencing due to the original trauma. So, the potential for wide-reaching impact and influence makes an institution's response even more crucial. 

When an Institution has been informed of maltreatment and has verified it, in part or in full, it is incumbent upon the Institution to hold leadership to account, rectify the maltreatment, provide reparations to the victim commensurate to the harm done, and take steps to make sure it never happens again. Unfortunately, Institutions often deny such abuse exists, refuse to investigate the allegations to determine the truth, or know it exists and choose to ignore it, washing their hands of the problem as if it is not theirs to deal with. Sometimes, they even justify it, minimize its effects, or stall the implementation of consequences upon the abusers and reparations to the victims through various avoidance actions. All of these were involved at the very top level and down from there within SBC. 

The more secondary abuse and psychological trauma wind their way through the systems within the Institution, the more insidious and harmful the impact is on the victim. Institutional abuse, carried out to protect the abuser from taking responsibility and experiencing consequences while delaying reparation to the victim, creates Double Abuse®. Double Abuse becomes embedded in the atmosphere, activities, leadership, and reactions toward others who are routinely put into downgraded positions. It becomes an integral part of the institutional “engine.” As we said earlier on, over time, we dehumanize the institution, forgetting that it is composed of humans who choose daily whether they will allow Double Abuse to continue or if they will support the victim by seeking to end the abuse and hold the perpetrator to account for the abuse. 

The organizational structure of these types of institutions is designed to support individual members by denying, reversing blame, justifying, lying, diverting, or masking guilt by offering partial or weak apologies and exploiting the victim. Institutional abuse often presents itself as righteous indignation or hierarchical or patriarchal preferential treatment towards the abuser. Still, in actuality, the abuse equals organized immorality by a collection of people who deserve the consequence of public outcry and appropriate liability. Anything that avoids fully acknowledging the truth and the layers of harm done, including avoiding subsequent reparations to the victim, becomes Double Abuse at the highest level.

Institutional Spiritual Abuse

While these recommendations are not foolproof, we believe they would greatly reduce the risk of Institutional Abuse.

Independent Investigations for Abuse Claims

Where there are allegations of abuse, especially when the alleged perpetrator is a member of the institution’s staff or lead teams, including its elder or governance board (who may be volunteers), it would benefit the organization and the victim to have the complaint investigated by someone independent of the organization. Where the institution is not amenable to this as a starting place, if the Institution and the victim cannot come to a meeting of minds after an initial internal investigation, it is best to bring in a non-affiliated or independent Investigator to determine how best to protect the victim, identify areas of abuser culpability, and bring into better focus cultural defects and the intent behind social justice and legal protocols. This also can protect the Institution from further liability. These areas would include Title IX mandates for higher learning institutions, legal regulations for corporate institutions, and moral and social obligations in religious settings. For institutions, the primary purpose of ethics is to protect the organization from any one individual’s misdoing and to manage areas of culpability. If the Investigator is not entirely autonomous, they can become a tool of the Institution, wittingly or unwittingly. If the Investigator and the Institution are not adopting the highest legal protocol to protect victims, their motives are not of the highest caliber. When either the Investigator or the Institution has divided loyalties or is subtly or overtly pressured to take a path that serves either of them in any way, they sacrifice objectivity and impartiality, along with the priorities necessary for the victim’s safety and recovery. This lack of honoring the victim and the intent of legal and social justice heaps more injury upon the victim, and in failing the victim ultimately accommodates the abusers, leading to a covert collusion that exploits the victim and their families in extraordinary ways, while exposing the Institution to greater liability.

Far too often, institutions handle investigations of these types of claims “in-house.” In faith-based organizations, for example, the elder board often investigates claims against the lead pastor, who is usually someone with whom they are in a very close personal relationship. Their history in ministry and relationship makes it almost impossible to believe the pastor could be guilty of the alleged misconduct. By ensuring an independent team is evaluating any such claims, the institution takes an uncomfortable and potentially compromising burden off of the staff or leaders within the ministry who may or may not be under undue pressure to resolve the matter favorably to the accused.

Do Not Maintain Secrecy of the Offender

One of the recommendations made by SBC’s independent investigator was to create and maintain an Offender Information System. Far too often, faith institutions protect the privacy of the perpetrator over accountability, reconciliation, and the victim’s best interest. Perpetrators in faith institutions often move from one organization to another and while this might work to alleviate some of the liability or ongoing abuse within the first organization, it does nothing to stop the perpetrator from obtaining another position of power and finding more victims. Holding abusers accountable requires strong consequences, and it’s important that institutions seek to prevent them from acting in leadership roles within their institution or another faith institution. Moreover, those institutional leaders who spiritually abuse victims or their advocates in an effort to silence them and protect the abuser and the institution over providing redress to the victim should be held accountable for their behavior also. Their abuse of power should be stopped by taking that power away from them. 

All too often, organizations seek to protect themselves by keeping any misdeed that takes place a secret. Often, they justify the secrecy “to protect the integrity of the institution,” “to prevent harm to their overall ministry,” “to avoid liability,” and often, to deceptively “protect the privacy of the alleged victims.” True repentance requires full transparency by both the abuser and the institution. They are also making public the ways they have found their organization lacking, as well as the corrective and redemptive actions they are taking.

Along these lines is the rampant use of nondisclosure agreements (“NDA”) that keep victims from sharing their stories and possibly alerting other potential victims about the perpetrator. SBC investigators recommended SBC refuse to use NDA’s before being willing to provide redress to victims unless it is the victim requesting it. Knowing that any abuse will be made public may serve as a deterrent to abusers in these institutions.

Training, Training, Training

If you have been following The MEND Project for any time, you know how we feel about proper training of faith institutions. We could not agree more with the SBC investigator's recommendation that they provide a “comprehensive Resource Toolbox including protocols, training, education, and practical information.” One of the biggest causes of Double Abuse is the lack of training and education organizations have on how to address abuse within them. Truly, there is no excuse for remaining untrained. Many nonprofits, including ours, provide comprehensive resources to equip organizations to prevent and respond well to abuse. Training will not only protect the institution itself but will protect the victim and increase the likelihood that the faith institution will actually become the safe place its members believe it is. 

Victims reach out in desperation to Institutions (churches, temples, mosques, schools, corporations) for help when facing Original and Double Abuse because possibly no others in their immediate circles believe them, acknowledge them, or confront the abusers. Too often, rather than receiving the interventions or support they need to stop the maltreatment or to implement accountability, victims are met with Institutional judgments, systemic bias, disbelief, or worse, with another layer of abuse via inappropriate ultimatums directed at the victim that then further oppresses them while pushing them towards incorrect interventions and away from those that could be helpful. Understanding proper protocols for responding to victims of abuse will prevent these types of secondary abuses from taking place.

As a member of a faith-based institution, you can ask its leaders what policies they have in place to protect against abuse or handle allegations of abuse. Ask them if the staff, leaders, elders, and volunteers are trained to understand the various forms of abuse and to respond compassionately and effectively when a victim reaches out for help. Direct them to our website. If you feel able, stand up to any efforts by them to stonewall or silence victims or their advocates.

Resources