How can your church help your surrounding community escape life-controlling addictions and the havoc they wreak? This guest article by Sharon Torres offers practical suggestions.

According to reports, 70% of young people engage in drinking by the age of 19. This report should be worrying given that underage drinkers are likely to develop a lifelong alcoholism problem.

The impact of substance abuse and alcoholism is a problem for policymakers, church leaders, parents, and the community in general. Drug abuse and alcoholism has a huge impact on the society and reportedly costs the state $235 billion and $181 billion a year respectively.

Church leaders are aware of problems such as the opioid crisis, alcoholism and drug abuse. The challenge is to provide factual information and engage the affected people so that they can lead them to suitable treatment and recovery.

The church can tap into the community and start an outreach that will address addiction issues. This outreach can transform the community by taking preventive steps to check addiction, and at the same time help those with a problem begin their journey to recovery.

There are certain steps the church can take to address drug abuse and alcoholism in the community:

Education

One of the most important steps the church can take is to not only educate their congregation but also leaders within the church. For the fight against drug addiction to be effective, it is critical that those involved are well-equipped with the right information.

Illicit drugs and alcohol are not the only problems that the church community had to deal with. The abuse of prescription drugs is becoming a serious problem. In some places, there are more overdose deaths caused by prescription drugs than by alcoholism and illicit drugs combined.

Avoid Being Judgmental

Often when providing information on addictions such as pornography, alcoholism and drug abuse, it is not uncommon for those involved to take a judgmental tone. To be effective, counselors need to be able to relate to the problems of the recovering addict. They need to feel free to discuss these problems with counselors and other people within the church tasked with addressing drug abuse and alcoholism.

To treat substance abuse and alcoholism, they must first be recognized as illnesses. These drugs change the chemical composition of the brain and in the process, they cause tolerance and dependency. It must, therefore, be acknowledged, that continued drug use is not merely a moral issue.

A lot of unnecessary complications could arise if drug abuse is not recognized as an illness. For example, crystal meth tends to cause dependency within a short period. People with meth and opioid addiction often require medication to enable to recover from their addiction problem. Looking at it as a moral issue may act as an obstacle to providing effective treatment.

Like standing amid the broken glass and twisted metal of a car wreck, while arguing over how the accident happened, contemporary talk of abuse is too politicized to offer genuine healing. With so many resources, the Church actually has a unique healing role that survivors need. I want to assess the present state of timidity and misdirection that survivors face in the Church. Yes, I’ve lived it.

1. We cannot heal what we will not name.

We’ve heard politicians the world over stammering through absurd terms to describe the evil of radical Islamic terrorism. Yet the same pathology exists in faith communities where leaders struggle to call out the evil of sexual abuse. Ignoring 20% of a congregation (1:4 women; 1:6 men) effectively hollows out the courage of many and certainly disregards the need of victims for advocacy, especially children who have no voice. Whether it’s the spinelessness of a politically correct culture, a gritty protection for the powerful or some skewed notion of religious decorum, this sacred silence in our churches dodges a vital principle of healing—accurate naming.

Image: Jesse Bowser

When shepherds name sexual abuse among their flock, it releases a holy disgust for the betrayal of trust, develops a redemptive patience for the process of healing, and ignites a collective empathy that sanctifies profound relational wounds. This kind of naming is not stigmatizing or labeling. The motive and tone are different. Labeling confuses sociology with theology, and isn’t interested in accuracy or applying Christ’s mission to a broken world. Healing requires right names, not safe terms. Right names are well-suited to the nature of psychological, relational, and spiritual triage. Both the abused and non-abused need the tutoring of healing names.

Sexual abuse is radical internal terrorism. Sound familiar? It is a comprehensive wounding, capable of clawing at the soul. Naming is empowering, because it is reality-depicting. Abuse does not need the empty support of “victory theologies” devoid of anthropology or the nervous hush of family members who are desperate for image management. The horrors of abuse reach beyond hashtags into protected systems of power capable of shaping faith and family—without exits.

Leaders must give victims the gift of words. A wise shepherd knows that at any moment they are speaking for an abused child frozen in confusion, a muted adult locked in denial, a molesting father-in-law or 2 in 10 marriages that are suffering the effects childhood sexual abuse. Naming promotes the meaning and compassion that victims are too afraid to ask for. But the lack of supportive naming creates another problem.

Richard R. Hammar, “Child Sexual Abuse: Far too many churches are legally vulnerable” Church Law & Tax Report (March-April 2016).

Image: Dmitry Ratushny

Samuel Ogles, “Answering Church Leaders’ Common Questions About Background Checks: Looking more closely at what is needed to effectively screen volunteers and employees who work with minors” Church Law & Tax Report (June 2015).

Tara Beecham, “Screening the Screener: What to Look For in a Background Check Service: Two simple steps to reduce the risk” Church Law & Tax Report (March 2013).

Elizabeth Jackson, “What Do You Do with Volunteers Who Exhibit ‘Gray Area’ Behavior?: Three attorneys explain how churches can respond to concerning situations involving church volunteers” Church Law & Tax Report (November 2016).

Richard J. Mathews, “What I Learned from Advising the Boy Scouts of America During Their Abuse Crisis: An attorney’s advice for organizations on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse” Church Law & Tax Report (August 2016).

I would also like to point you to resources from PneumaReview.com:

Jennifer Cisney, “Healing From the Pain of Sexual Assault” Enrichment (Spring 2009). Reviewed by Mara Lief Crabtree. As appearing in the Spring 2010 issue.

Andrew J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse: Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem, Part 1.” As appearing in the Summer 2013 issue.

Andrew J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse: Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem, Part 2.” As appearing in the Fall 2013 issue.

In Conversation with Andrew Schmutzer, Part 1. As appearing in the Summer 2013 issue. An interview with Andrew Schmutzer about The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, and part 1 of his chapter, “A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse: Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem.”

In Conversation with Andrew Schmutzer, Part 2. As appearing in the Fall 2013 issue. An interview with Andrew Schmutzer about The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, and part 2 of his chapter, “A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse: Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem.”

In Conversation with Andrew Schmutzer, Part 3. As appearing in the Winter 2014 issue. An interview with Andrew Schmutzer about The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, and part 1 of the chapter, “A Charge for Church Leadership: Speaking Out Against Sexual Abuse and Ministering to Survivors.”

Nancy Nason–Clark and Stephen McMullin, “A Charge for Church Leadership: Speaking Out Against Sexual Abuse and Ministering to Survivors,” Part 1. As appearing in the Winter 2014 issue.

Nancy Nason–Clark and Stephen McMullin, “A Charge for Church Leadership: Speaking Out Against Sexual Abuse and Ministering to Survivors,” Part 2. As appearing in the Spring 2014 issue.

Andrew J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation” JETS 51:4 (Dec 2008). Reviewed by Bradford L. McCall. Appearing in the Winter 2010 issue. Editor’s note: As you might gather from the title, this is a review of an article that originally appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. This article became one of the anchor articles for the book, Andrew J. Schmutzer, ed., The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused (Resource Publications, 2011), and was later a featured excerpt in the Summer and Fall 2013 issues (see links above) at PneumaReview.com.

Read part 1 of this chapter, “A Charge for Church Leadership: Speaking Out Against Sexual Abuse and Ministering to Survivors” as appearing in Pneuma Review Winter 2014.

A Pastoral Perspective: Pastor-to-Pastor

One of the unfortunate lessons of the past few decades is that although sexual abuse within churches and church families has been well hidden, it is nevertheless a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Pastors and other church leaders (e.g., Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, women’s ministry coordinators) need to be prepared to respond to sexual abuse both proactively—by clearly addressing the problem, condemning the practice, encouraging victims to seek help and healing, and providing guidance, resources, and ac­countability for those who are at risk for abusing others—and reactively—by being ready to respond appropriately, helpfully, and scripturally to victims who come to the church for help. So how can we do that? Where can we turn? And what are some of the challenges along the way?

An excerpt from The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, edited by Andrew J. Schmutzer.
Several terms, prompted by an asterisk (*), have been defined by pastors, therapists, and theologians that contributed to the book and are included in a select glossary. Please also continue the conversation with Andrew Schmutzer as he answers questions throughout this series.

Some Serious Recommendations for Serious Realities

One of the important lessons learned by the Religion and Violence e-Learning (RAVE) team at the University of New Brunswick is that pastors feel unprepared to respond to those who have been victims of abuse. Our studies among hundreds of pastors have shown that only 8 percent believe that they are well-prepared to respond.¹⁴ In our re­search at seminaries, we have found that the rate among seminary students preparing to graduate is even lower. Additionally, we know that many pastors never address the issue of abuse from the pulpit, and our seminary research suggests that one of the reasons is the fear that if the issue is addressed publicly from the pulpit, victims will come forward and the pastor will be unprepared to deal with the aftermath. This current state has many implications. For example, if abuse is not addressed effectively from the pulpit and in men’s and women’s ministries, in youth groups and appropriately among children, there is the very real danger that victims will simply remain silent while they continue to be victimized or not receive needed care. Such silence will often be interpreted by both the victim/survivor and the broader community as complicity with the acts of violence—or at least an inability or unwillingness to confront the problem of sexual abuse head-on.

Since sexual abuse is closely related to issues of power and authority, the abuser may be able to enforce a “code of silence” that keeps the victim from speaking out. If the abuser is a church leader, the victim may feel that they have a responsibility to protect the church by keeping the abuse a secret. If the abuser is a family member, the victim may feel that to disclose the abuse would be to destroy the sacredness of a marriage or a family unit. Defining, effectively addressing, and condemning sexual abuse by naming it publicly in a sermon are important ways of disempowering the abuser and providing the victim or survivor with the permission they may feel they need to seek help and safety.

Spiritual shepherds have the potential to enhance the healing journey of a man or a woman of faith whose life has been impacted by the *trauma of *sexual abuse (SA). Often, however, pastors, priests, and other religious leaders have neither ears to hear the cries for help nor eyes to see their suffering. As a result, they become an obstacle, rather than a resource, on the road to recovery. Clerical silence is taken as complicity with the acts of terror; their dismissal of the pain and despair perceived as one more indicator of rejection. God’s rejection.

An excerpt from The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, edited by Andrew J. Schmutzer.

Several terms, prompted by an asterisk (*), have been defined by pastors, therapists, and theologians that contributed to the book and are included in a select glossary. Please also continue the conversation with Andrew Schmutzer as he answers questions throughout this series.

In this chapter, we consider the powerful opportunity that clergy have to speak out against sexual abuse and to minister with compassion and *best practices to those who have been impacted by it. Drawing on our joint experiences, Nancy’s extensive research program on abuse in families of faith and Steve’s years of pastoral ministry, we weave together what we believe is an evidence-based charge to church leaders. Offering God’s care to those who are hurting—a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus—should be natural to the followers of Christ. Sometimes, though, we need to be reminded that our actions and our words bring forth God’s healing power in the lives of others. As church leaders, we need to learn to pair the practical act (i.e., cold water) with our mission (i.e., in the name of Jesus).

An excerpt from The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused, edited by Andrew J. Schmutzer. From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

The Long Journey Home

A Theology of Sexuality and its Abuse

Creation, Evil, and the Relational Ecosystem

Part 2

 by Andrew J. Schmutzer

The Relational Ecosystem: Sexuality Amid Consequences

Christian theology has historically separated culture from nature and nature from theology, which unfortunately has dichotomized the temporal from eternal, material from the spiritual, and so creation from redemption.¹¹⁷ “Science has now stepped in as lord of the domain which man used to refer to Creation.”¹¹⁸ All this has left a fragmented universe¹¹⁹ and a truncated salvation that lacks holism and restoration (cf. Rom 8:19–22).¹²⁰ This is disconcerting at several levels.

As God’s vice-regents, people live and interact within a *relational ecosystem of dynamic proportion.¹²¹ In the garden-sanctuary, foundational bonds are established between: the human and God, humankind and the ground, human and animal, and between humans. Though somewhat distasteful to contemporary readers, in the theology of Genesis, one’s place of origin and the nature of their birth determine the core characteristics and purpose in life.¹²² In addition to humankind made in the image of God (1:26, discussed above), other significant “bindings” include: the “human” (’ādām) extracted from the “humus” (’ădāmâ, 2:7) and the “woman” (’iššâ) extracted from the “man” (’iš, 2:22). So Adam is uniquely bound to the fertility of the soil as Eve is uniquely bound to the fertility of the body.¹²³ The animals are also “formed out of the ground” (2:19) as “creatures that move on the ground” (1:30). Thus, the biblical notion of self is a relationally “embedded” self, rooted in a web of extended relationships.¹²⁴ This contrasts with the Western value of the individual as an unembedded self. It’s important to observe then, how the relational ecosystem is shattered in Genesis 3. The mistrust of rebellion breaks this web of relationships (3:5).

The “Bindings” Break Apart

Both functional and relational,¹²⁵ the compensatory judgments of 3:14–19 follow the order of transgression (serpent → woman → man; cf. 3:1–7).¹²⁶ Naham M. Sarna helpfully observes that the judgment for each party not only: (1) affects what is of central concern in the life of that entity, (2) but also regulates an external relationship.¹²⁷ Thus, there is some measure of correspondence between the offense and the judgment, point of origin, and future orientation. Relational hostility will exist between humans and the serpent (3:15).¹²⁸ The woman will pursue fertility amid relational antagonism with the man (3:16b).¹²⁹ Similarly, the man pursues the soil’s fertility amid its antagonism (3:17–18). Their points of origin no longer offer security or fulfillment. While the Creation Mandate remains, it is pain and alienation that bind relationships now (Gen 5:29; Eccl 2:23). The man’s “painful toil” (῾ṣābôn, 3:17) working the ground repeats her “pains” (etseb) enduring childbirth (3:16).¹³⁰ A final bond is ruptured when the couple is “banished” from the presence of the Lord (3:23). Once Abel’s blood soaks into “the ground” (4:10), it “will no longer yield its crops” for Cain (4:12), and ultimately a pervasive “wickedness” reigns in “the human heart” (6:6), stunningly matched by the “pain” (atsab) of the Lord’s grieving “heart” (6:6).¹³¹ Sin has ecological and cosmic effects—from creature to Creator, the entire relational ecosystem now suffers (6:7; Deut 11:13–17; Rom 8:22).

Andrew J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation” JETS 51:4 (Dec 2008).

Andrew J. Schmutzer, Professor of Biblical Studies at Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL).

In what follows I plan to intersperse a review of Andrew J. Schmutzer’s “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation,” with my own reflections as both a survivor of sexual abuse and an ordained clergyman. Salient points from Schmutzer’s article will be highlighted and then a few suggestions will be offered as to what the church can do in response toward healing the devastating effects of sexual abuse within and without its ranks.

I would like to begin with a few disclaimers: first, I am a survivor of sexual abuse; I am a survivor, not a victim, and these words are chosen with a purpose so as to emphasize the continual effects of past actions laid upon me by someone who shared (roughly) half of my genetic code. Second, I find the church to be woefully inadequate, currently, in addressing its members who have incurred sexual abuse in their past. Third, I contend that my experience of sexual abuse has profoundly impacted the trajectory of my life; although recognizing that all analogies are inadequate in the end analysis, one of the illustrations that I use to liken sexual abuse unto refers to the common game of billiards. When one plays billiards, the way that one initially hits the cue ball is the most important aspect. If one miscues, the cue ball will continue to go forward (or progress), but the initial target will invariably be missed; the trajectory of its path is altered, and the initial mistake has profound consequences on its entire voyage until it finally comes to rest. Sexual abuse functions, in many ways, just like the miscue on the billiard ball. Indeed, the survivor may continue to go forward, but they will invariably miss the initial target of their lives, with the effects of the sexual abuse permeating their entire disposition until they finally come to rest (in the grave).

Schmutzer correctly notes that healing for victims of abuse seeks to mend profound “fractures” within the survivor and the abusing party. As Schmutzer intimates, the traditional reconciliation paradigm may not apply to sexual abuse. I would like to more boldly state that the abused often has no desire for reconciliation with the offending party; they do not hold grudges but simply cut off that area of their lives, looking to move forward. Whether this is wrong or right, I am sure opinions exist on both sides. However, I believe that until someone is sexually abused, they have no place to speak. In sexual abuse, forgiveness may be granted, but reconciliation is usually stymied due to the deep erosion of trust and respect. It is not that one dislikes the perpetrator; the survivor is, if you will, merely indifferent to their existence. Personally, I have no desire for “reconciliation;” I just want to move onward, and that should be respected. I sense that other survivors would agree this assessment.