Bethel Church’s Dawna De Silva On CSA Victim Care
Controversy continues to swirl around Bethel Church in Redding, California.
I have written already about one situation involving their now former senior leader, Ben Armstrong, and the allegations–that I believe to be true–that he engaged in Clergy Sexual Abuse (CSA) of “Sarah.” He was restored years ago (although, he is currently on administrative leave), and Bethel Church treated this situation–inappropriately–like an affair for over a decade despite knowing “Sarah” was BA’s intern when the relationship turned admittedly inappropriate.
This past week I had the opportunity to attend a regional gathering of leaders connected to the Bethel network as I am a member of this network. Dawna De Silva was the keynote speaker for this gathering. She is the founder and co-leader of the inner healing and deliverance ministry for Bethel Church called Bethel Sozo. During her time with us, we were able to ask questions of her and get her perspective on a variety of topics.
Below is an exchange I had with her on the topic of care for CSA victims:
DM: So, the question I have is, uh, a follow up to you mentioning basically a lot of things being in the news. Leaders falling. Um, examples of clergy sexual abuse. Um, abuse of power. And my question is I’d like to give you the opportunity just to talk about caring for those victims. How, how have we as a church failed to care for the victims in those situations? And how can we do better as a family?
De Silva: Awesome! Um. That’s a really good question. Um. So, the first thing I want to say is this: There has to be a way for perpetrators to find redemption. And we swing between two extremes.
… We can’t just be for the victim, and we can’t just be for the perpetrator to restore.
The more I ponder De Silva’s response to my questions, the more disturbed I become:
1. My questions were about Clergy Sexual Abuse victims and their care or (lack thereof), NOT perpetrators!
De Silva responds by literally making care for the abuser–aka perpetrators–the most important thing–i.e. “the first thing”–to consider when it comes to care for CSA victims. If your friend or family member was abused by a member of the clergy, would you be alright with this response from leadership?
My question was designed to give De Silva an opportunity to demonstrate compassion for CSA victims. Instead, she chose to use it to focus our compassion initially on abusers as if compassion for victims means no compassion for abusers. That response is very scary coming from a leader in charge of inner healing ministry.
She raises the concern about swinging the pendulum too far in either direction. However, the church has failed CSA victims by swinging the pendulum too far to protect predators. This answer is evidence of that very problem, sadly.
2. De Silva has life experiences that she could have drawn from for a very good answer to my questions, but she did not do this.
In a answer to another question later posed to her, De Silva shared about how she would not allow her children or grandchildren to be around a family member convicted of child molestation even after he was released from prison. She did not talk about a redemption path for this abuser but rather–appropriately–she spoke about keeping her children and grandchildren safe.
Also, she mentioned how her husband had been abused by this family member and reported it to someone else in the family who did not believe him. Knowing that this history exists, when specifically asked “How can we do better as a family towards victims of sexual abuse?” Why did De Silva not respond with “we need to believe survivors and set good, firm boundaries that prioritize the safety of survivors and the community?”
3. A path to redemption is not the primary concern highlighted by Scripture in situations of flagrant, unrepentant sin.
The Apostle Paul tells us to judge these individuals and kick them out of fellowship (I Corinthians 5). As long as they are unrepentant, a path does not exist for their redemption, and the church must be protected from their sinful behaviors.
Furthermore, elders engaged in such sin are to be publicly rebuked (see I Timothy 5:20). Stopping the sin is the primary focus here, not redemption stories.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”
Is Jesus’ primary concern in this warning for the religious wolves or the sheep? Do we believe wolves exist in our churches today or was that only in Jesus’ time?
I do not think it was by accident that Jesus names them “ferocious wolves”–aka “predators.”
Individuals who prey on the sheep do so with deliberation and calculation. They groom their victims and the community around them. This is to insulate themselves from the consequences.
If you do a search for Clergy Sexual Abuse news articles, you will see a pattern:
A survivor comes forward (often years after the abuse occurred). The community does not believe them as they have been groomed to see the perpetrator as such “a great man of God.” They cannot fathom him doing such a thing. Next, the community turns on the survivor and vilifies them for daring to say such wicked things about their beloved pastor. When it no longer can be denied, the predator pastor then confesses to ‘making a mistake,’ and the congregation immediately embraces what they think is a redemption story; returning the pastor to a pedestal, framing the victim, the survivor, as the villain.
It is hard to hold someone accountable when we count them as friends and failed in our discernment regarding them. Predators know this and turn this to their advantage as far as avoiding consequences are concerned. We–as in the Church–need to stop being blind to this dynamic.
Predators count on our naivete.
Are we willing to see this, or is believing this wolf has changed more important to us than protecting the vulnerable? How many more sheep are we willing to sacrifice in our rush to have a redemption story? When will we start listening to Jesus’ warning and take action accordingly?
