From: H. Keuning
Subject: Helen's Summary Thoughts + Kevin's Google Notes on Eve AnneMarie Meeting
Date: May 28, 2021 at 10:58 AM
To: Stewart Ruch, Brenda Dumper
Cc: Kevin Sheehan
Good Morning,
Kevin took detailed notes during our Zoom call and his record is below in a Google Docs. He was an asset to the conversation in multiple ways. Thank you for inviting him to join me so that I didn't have to do it alone!
I don't want to regurgitate all that was said, but, rather, to highlight two key thoughts (along with my interpretation) presented by Eve for your consideration and for the knowledge of the Diocesan Team.
#1 - ISSUES RE: COMMUNICATION & UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TWO TEAMS
I believe that our team's interpretation of J-Team's (Joanna, et. al.) response to Anne's pick was something along the lines of …"J-Team thought we should pick GRACE. Anne did not. Therefore, J-Team is packing up their marbles and going home in a huff because they want more control over who gets picked and more input into this process. But, we cannot allow them input into what is supposed to be a "neutral" process." This was not only the team's thoughts, but mine as well.
The view from J-Team’s side was something more like:
(a) We all got onto Zoom in February and expressed great concern and great empathy and great apology.
(b) We said, in effect, that we want your input into this process and into picking the right company (i.e., discussion re: Ministry Safe being "off" our list due to their aggressive legal nature).
(c) Lots and lots of vacuum + silence followed that group conversation-for many weeks. We never asked for any additional input or advice. We never reached out to have any follow-up conversations. We never truly explained what was happening on our end administratively. (SIDE NOTE: I think if this ever happens again, a victims-liaison or communications person should be put in charge of reaching out regularly.)
(d) Anne picked a group they never heard of and that doesn't seem (on internet research) to have much expertise in Sexual Abuse matters.
(e) When they asked questions via email about why she picked this group, they were met with: "you cannot know" and "we cannot give you any information whatsoever" responses.
Please note - I am NOT in any way putting Anne or anybody on our team down. I think Anne has done an exemplary job and I respect her choices wholeheartedly!
The problem is that - from their perspective - Anne is an "administrator-type" with little or no background in understanding abuse and she is talking with other "administrator-types" to pick the right investigative people. J-Team was hoping for more involvement- not so they could get “their pick” necessarily - but to feel that their voices (as the victims and the ones who fell-through-the-crack in our organization) might be heard during this process of deciding who gets to investigate this matter.
We sort of invited them in and, subsequently, told them that this was "private" and "neutral" and they could not come in.
(f) Based on our open expressions over Zoom initially and then our shutting-them-out-of-the entire-process in the months since then, I believe that J-Team lost confidence that we were listening to them at all ... and believed that we are going into the stereotypical protect-the organization-and-its-leaders-from-discomfort mode. So, yes, I think my gut instinct that they were feeling "desperate" and feeling like "their backs were against the wall" after the silence and stonewalling that they got from us after the Zoom call led to them exploring other avenues of getting their story out.
#2 - ISSUES RE: BIAS IN CHURCH CULTURE & CHURCH LEADERSHIP AS A WHOLE
It's important to state here that J-Team doesn't seem to be pointing fingers at any one person in particular. They are not blaming the Bishop or any of the leaders for not being well-versed in how to handle sexual abuse allegations.
But, what they are pointing out is that REZ/Greenhouse/Diocese fell into the "knee-jerk" or "typical" mode of circling around and supporting the sexual abuser/perpetrator ... while at the same time, ostracizing and "silencing" the victims. The victims become the "enemy" or the ones that need "handling." That's easier than looking internally and deeply at what is underlying the culture and the context that allowed this type of abuse to be carried out successfully over long periods of time - without accountability or action.
We had a discussion about how this type of knee-jerk reaction is similar to "systemic racism" in that it's not the individual acts of racism (egregious as those can be) that need to be addressed, but an acknowledgement of the fact that our culture/country has an ingrained system of racism. That is something that many people refuse to believe or acknowledge. And that refusal is something that hurts the victims as much or more than the actual incident of racism. It's saying, "We are sorry that this awful thing happened to you. But, we don't believe you that we had anything to do with it. This is a problem between you and one bad egg. We, as a society, are not part of what has hurt you or allowed this to happen to you."
So too, J-Team does not want to receive "pastoral care" individually or "counseling" or "prayer" or "sympathy" as individuals for what has happened to each of them. They are getting their needs met elsewhere - apart from the "system" of our church/diocese/leadership that has failed to protect or acknowledge them.
I personally felt it was a key "aha" moment to realize that they were not looking necessarily for more personal apologies from the Bishop or Father Rand or anyone else. But, what they want is for the leadership to recognize and acknowledge that there is a strong cultural/leadership pull towards circling around a male-leader who has been trusted for many years (part of the "band of brothers") and to distrust/silence any female victim (whatever her age).
They want us to look at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of our organization as say - what are the gut level responses and instinctual biases that are at play here that would allow this type of event to happen? It's not that any ONE person is to blame == not even Mark as the perpetrator. It's about how the entire system supported Mark and enabled him to succeed in grooming and violating females. And how it did not go about informing the congregation or others even after he had criminal charges filed against him…and after other victims came forward.
That is, going back to the racism analogy, our job is not just to point fingers at the "bad" police officers or "tragic incidents" but to really assess the endemic way in which the church and its people ignored or overlooked or downplayed issues that have been ongoing for a long time.
I think Eve had a good point here.
I have appreciated the opportunity to be on the Bishop's Council. But, I was acutely aware of being the minority- both in terms of race and gender - when I first stepped onto the board. And, I realize (and support) the decision to have only men be priests in our diocese. But, we need to recognize that this type of formalized structure automatically leads to the type of disparity-in-power situation we have currently.
All our top leaders and people in real authority/power in the church and diocese are male, mostly white.
Our Chancellor (and legal team) is the same way.
The Victims of this type of abuse are going to be (primarily) females and children.
Even with Brenda & Anne being on the leadership team, there is a recognition that they are "employees" and "under the authority" of males in this organization.
It makes for a very uneven sort of conversation that is happening - think back to our large group ZOOM call. All the folks on J-Team are female. All the folks on the other side are male spiritual leaders - the very "type" of person who was a sexual perpetrator in this case. The 3 females on our team include 2 subordinate employees + 1 volunteer.
Eve made the point that the victims want systemic change. They want to know that their cases were not about these particular victims or even about Mark as the abuser, but about a culture and a climate that supported an abuser succeeding with multiple victims over a number of years.
Eve did say that she remembers REZ having policies and procedures in place to protect children. And, she recognizes that REZ is not a terrible church or doesn't protect women and children.
In fact, because REZ is so successful and has a reputation for being a place of healing and caring and relationships, it attracts BOTH broken, needy people who are desperate for community AND people who are quite good at "grooming" and at offering "care" to others in exchange for getting their own needs (whether that be sexual, physical, emotional, or spiritual) needs met at the expense of the other.
She urged us to be aware of this dynamic at play. And to be critical at assessing what we are doing proactively as a church to not be an "easy target" (or the "loosest JENGA block") for perpetrators/abusers. She said that abusers are good at picking easy targets - both in terms of victims and organizations (where they can groom victims). If we recognize that we were an easy target for Mark in this case and figure out what made us that way, then we can figure out how to be a "tougher target" and fend off future predators.
Thanks for entrusting me with this task and for reading my analysis of Eve's statements. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me next.
Sincerely, Helen
Kevin’s Notes on what Eve said in the Zoom call:
The concern wasn't that it wasn't GRACE - it's that they didn't guarantee some important things:
No confidential way to contact.
No guarantee of confidentiality
No full report - just disclosure to the diocese to see what they want to do with the information.
Grace was gold standard, but there were critical components to what GRACE.
It was said in the zoom call "We want your input" - then when they asked for an update, the answer was "No." -
The trouble that churches/institutions run into is the cultural pull toward protecting those you know and protecting systems and institutions. The victim is always going to be viewed as the disruptor.
When you have a victim come forward, the natural pull is for the victim to be silenced - especially so in an insular system. Even at a place like Rez - anywhere there are a lot of close relationships, this could happen. The point is not to put people on the hook for their individual actions.
This is a systemic issue, not an individual failing issue. It's good if everybody sees the red flags, but if the red flag is your buddy, it might not help.
Cherin was initially shut out, and Mark is talking to people getting prayer/care etc. Once those in power set the narrative, there's almost nothing a victim can do to shift that narrative.
Silencing the victim is something that even parents do because of the potential fallout. In 10 years of counseling, I've only seen one parent react well.
The abandonment of the victim post-disclosure is more traumatizing than the abuse itself. Silence is not felt as neutral. Disengagement is experienced as abandonment.
Good skilled abusers make the victim believe they're complicit. The child is really in tune with their parents' face after they share. Parents maybe haven't dealt with enough of their own sexuality to not respond with their own children in a way that doesn't produce shame.
Shaming happens in subtle ways too - "Why were you there that late?"
People may be well-educated...but your logic often follows your emotions. which means people end up making decisions not on the data, but based on their gut response. And then they create a narrative around that response.
What do we do? If there's a pull one way, there needs to be something in place to pull the other direction.
There are some policy things that can help - announce publicly as soon as there are allegations. Then, publicly acknowledge your support of the victim and commitment to investigate. Immediately stop allowing the predator to be on the property is a way of telling the victim that they are allowed to be here.
Resources: Well-armored child. This should not be the first conversation a parent has with their child regarding sex/touch with their bodies. Training parents with that helps prevent abuse. Youth are still receptive to someone giving information about prevention.
How do you train parents not to project shame? That might be harder to do. You need to try to do it, though.
If someone is already in a grooming relationship, there's almost nothing you're going to say that's going to convince them that this is dangerous.
Even having heard a contrary voice previous to something happening, gives the victim a dissenting place to go.
These are conversations that parents need to have with their kids - but many parents aren't competent to have these conversations well. This is why training for parents is good. If you have well-trained leaders, this is a conversation that can happen ina youth group context.
Child-on-child sexual abuse is on the rise as children reproduce what has been done to them. More common than people realize and more easily dismissed.
Churches need to realize that if they're a place that's offering healing, connection, care- that's what groomers do. 1)You're drawing in people in deep need. 2) You're providing a place where they are receiving what they're craving. With child on child, there's almost always some kind of deprivation.
If you have anybody offering good care, they need to be aware of how dangerous that is.
Takeway from some training she received with a group of other caretakers: "You are all groomers" - the moment you use the influence you have for your own ends, you become an abuser. You're not doing good by giving good care, you're doing good by giving good care and not using it for your own ends."
The better the care is, the worse the trauma is when there is abuse. It poisons their experience of all the good things. The grooming itself actually messes you up.
A predator is like someone playing Jenga - pushing on weak spots. You don't need your child to be the toughest block in the tower - you just need them to push back enough to send the predator somewhere else.
As a church, you don't have to be perfect, you just have to not be the loosest block in the tower.
Taking action makes a statement to past victims, but it also sends a message to potential predators.
What can we do?
Acknowledge it as a system - not just relational reconciliation. It's not so much about what you personally did. Eve wants to know that you see the full system.
Education - e.g. You can't just make an announcement without offering people resources. Eve gave STEWART the resource because she wanted HIM to be educated on this. This is not just about equipping parents - it's about the leaders understanding the system they're part of.
"You got caught up in this system, and I wanted you to acknowledge that you got caught up in it." (Think about systemic racism vs. personal reconciliation). "You don't trust me, and you don't owe me your trust." - That would be meaningful.
It's hard to know how much of this should come out of the investigation or how much needs to happen now.
Acknowledging that we have work to do beyond relational amends to make this work.
Joanna doesn't want your care right now - you have power, and she wants your action. This is where the listening comes in. Pastors are used to being in the position of the "carers" - people are usually happy that they are getting attention from the pastor. This is different - these victims don't want care, they want you to use your power to effect change.
It's hard to know you're in the system - other people's knee-jerk reactions can affirm your own.
Helen's insight - "You're asking me to do this at a cost, and you're not even listening to what I'm saying."