Mincing Words: The Effects of Mislabeling Abuse
by Bree Hubbard
“Let us pray for our brother.”
“I have engaged in an affair.”
“Pastor is taking time to heal and refocus on his family.”
How many stories have we heard of religious leaders admitting to “affairs,” “moral failings,” or “shortcomings”—only to later learn that what actually occurred was an egregious crime? How often have survivors come forward to tell their stories, only to be pushed aside while the spotlight remains on the perpetrator? We have seen offenders applauded for their “honesty” and prayed over in public, while their victims sit in the same room—unseen and unheard.
When religious institutions center the abuser, the survivor is left behind. Let down once again by the very system that promised to protect them. Their bravery met with silence.
Sin Over Abuse
When someone commits a crime, it is seen legally as an assault against the state and the laws of the land. So while there might be someone who has been assaulted or victimized, legally it is the government who has been harmed. When abuse occurs in the context of religion or a faith community, focusing on only the “sin” makes God or other deity the victim, similar to the government being the victim in a criminal case. Religious communities must take extreme care to not dismiss the abuse caused to the victim by focusing only on the sin.
Survivors often fear how their communities will respond to their outcries and silencing them in this way can cause significant harm.
Seeing the abuse as sin only, can lead to questions about the victim’s culpability in the situation. Especially in cases of sexual abuse and if the abuse was same-sex, involved male victims, or other situations that are outside of stereotypical narratives. If institutions do not have a proper understanding of the power and control dynamics of abuse they can respond improperly. Furthermore, faith communities might even use their tenets to frame abuse as mutual sin and dismiss it entirely.
We as humans are biologically wired to believe people we hold in high regard, especially those with positions we believe were given by the deity we serve, over others. So when a survivor finally speaks out, we naturally want to believe that they had some culpability instead of letting our world implode over someone we trusted being untrustworthy.
Confession Over Accountability
When religious institutions see abuse as sin or minister misconduct or moral failings only, that rationale can be used to view themselves as the experts on how to respond. If it is only sin, then the experts on sin are already in house. Then law enforcement, Child Protective Services, victim advocates, or other professionals do not need to be consulted and social accountability of the group on a macro level does not need to take place. The general public does not need to know and the institution does not need to protect their reputation on a larger scale.
We must also remember the difference between confession and repentance. Confession is often the first step of repentance, but a large part of repentance is intentional change. While it is often impossible to fully restore what has been taken from the victim, someone who is truly repentant will be looking for ways to support positive healing and change.
We must be careful of lackluster confessions and performative good behavior by both the abuser and the institution that supported them. We must remember that confessions are not full accountability. Full accountability will take time, effort, and maturity from all offending parties and cannot be achieved in a solitary statement or sabbatical.
Restoration Over Healing
Many religions aim to grow people into better, holier, more actualized versions of themselves. And as humans, we love a redemption arc. But when the redeeming of an abuser becomes more important than the wellbeing of the victim, the institution has failed.
When dealing with perpetrators of crime, faith communities must admit that they are not normally the experts. For true accountability, there needs to be an openness to engaging with and trusting outside professionals. There needs to be a sober understanding that some offenders cannot and do not want to be rehabilitated.
Even if the offender has truly turned away from their past behaviors, this does not mean that they should be restored to their prior positions of authority or given platforms of influence and trustworthiness. By focusing on the rehabilitation and restoration of the perpetrator, the institution is telling the survivor that their healing and their story are less important than the testimony of a redeemed fallen leader. While a redemption arc is far more appealing to a broad audience than the hard-earned, tear-stained road of healing for many survivors, faith communities must look at how they are supporting both parties. It is possible to support the abuser in their healing, while still supporting and cheering on the survivor, but faith communities cannot turn their back on those that their religions are calling them to stand beside.
Looking Forward
Sin is a religious concept; abuse a legal and academic one. In religious communities, these two worlds must work together. As a Christian, I am called to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God. To seek justice appropriately, let us not weigh the word of one individual higher than another’s just because of their position and title. We need to encourage our communities to have protocols in place that direct people to contact professional authorities when appropriate and to ensure that those protocols are being followed. To love mercy, let us provide ways for healing and restoration to offenders in ways that are not dishonoring to the survivor and what they have gone through and further endangers the community. And to walk humbly, let us constantly be learning. Learning how to respond appropriately to survivors, learning about resources we can direct people to, learning about legislation we can be advocating for. Let us remember that we will never be fully knowledgeable about any subject and to have the humility to reach out for help.
For those of us still in religious communities, let us remember that anything worth following can stand up under scrutiny and investigation. When we call something what it truly is, when we identify abuse as abuse, we are able to start moving forward in an appropriate, victim-centered, humanity and deity honoring way.
About the Guest Author:
Bree Hubbard writes under a pen name. She earned her Masters in 2021 specializing in institutional/religious abuse and neurobiology of trauma. Bree is employed full-time in victim services, currently responding to child sexual exploitation on an international level, and has been in the non-profit industry for over a decade. She and her husband are both survivors of religious abuse and are waiting with anticipation for the day they are able to openly share their story.
Disclaimer:
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in guest blog posts are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Religious Trauma Network. We recognize that each person’s healing journey is unique, personal, and courageous. The stories shared here belong solely to the contributors, and their experiences, perspectives, and advice may not apply to everyone. We encourage readers to honor their own paths and seek professional support as needed.