Restoration

In this resource, Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist have a discourse about restoration following abuse and trauma.

Part 1: Is It Even Possible? (from Brent)

Theresa, you and I regularly consult with organizations that are dealing with abuse and trauma. I would like to take the opportunity in this blog thread to look at the issues involved in bringing someone back into fellowship and connection with his or her organization. In this thread I would like to focus on the accused – the perpetrator, or alleged perpetrator.

What should our stance be for restoration? At the end of Second Corinthians, Paul gives them an admonition: “for this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” (13:10). It is quite interesting that he uses the word “severe” not only in his use of God-given authority in tearing down, which makes sense, but also for building up. This tells me that restoration is not an easy process. It hints at the reality that restoration for building up can be severe, hard, etc.

In the next verse, Paul, says “Finally, brothers, aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, and live in peace.” (13:11). So, we have an end point to aim for in our work with our people– restoration, which could be a difficult and severe process. But we still aim for it.

Is there a “but” to this? Well, yes. We cannot know with all certainty which events happened, who did what, and whether the accused is truly guilty even if we cannot prove it. We must respect the laws of our land, and we must protect the abused. We must do our investigations extremely well, so that proper and appropriate restoration can occur.

And what kind of restoration do we aim for? For our purposes here, we will look at restoration to relationship, position and location.

Theresa – let’s start with this: what are the circumstances that preclude restoration on one or more of these ways?

Part 2: When Restoration Is Not Possible (from Theresa)

Hello Brent, You ask me when restoration is precluded for the accused. First, let me say that I think that God can forgive and redeem us from all our sins, including more horrific sins like violence and sexual abuse. So we are discussing restoration in our more limited human context. Second, we want to distinguish being accused from being guilty. Simply being accused is not equivalent to being guilty, though even being accused may implicate a safety plan.

Whether restoration is limited is going to depend on our definitions of restoration. You define restoration in three ways. The first is relationship. Restoration is not possible in relationship if one person is not repentant or another person is not willing or able to forgive. I heard of one situation where a now-adult victim went back and confronted the man who had sexually abused and seduced him as a teenager. The man acknowledged that he had done it, but refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with his actions. Although the victim as willing to forgive, no restoration was possible because of lack of repentance. In other cases, victims are not able to work through the difficult process of forgiveness, or simply are not willing to. It’s important to add the caveat that even if there has been some restoration in the relationship, full restoration may not be possible. If the relationship has not been healthy, it would not be wise to have the same depth in the relationship or the same access to the person. There may even be legal liability for allowing an abusive person access to a victim.

Your second definition of restoration involves position. If a person has been involved in certain activities, it may not be appropriate for them to keep their position in the organization, either for a certain period of time under an action plan, or forever. This does not speak to God’s forgiveness, but to our practical realities. On the Scriptural side, the Bible has very specific requirements for a leader. On the legal side, an organization can be responsible for negligent supervision if it gives an abuser or someone who is guilty of destructive behaviors in other ways an opportunity to keep going. I will go on record and state that I believe religious organizations need to remove those who commit child sexual abuse, usually by termination (the kind where you fire the person by HR action, not by firing squad). Seriously, missions need to practice zero tolerance on child sexual abuse, whether or not the person appears to have repented.

Your third definition of restoration involves location. It may not be possible or wise to restore a person to a particular location. For instance, if the person’s behavior has been triggered by stressors in that location, that place might not be right for them. Or suppose that there is an allegation of abuse, but the allegation is found inconclusive. If you believe there is a 30% chance that the person has abused a child, you might not terminate the person, but you would likely remove the person from locations where he or she had access to children. This would not be a disciplinary action, but a safety plan action.

Sometimes, we hear the phrase “under the blood” used as an excuse not to deal with abusive behavior. One investigator told me that if he hears “under the blood” one more time, he is going to throw up. It is true that our sins are forgiven under Christ’s blood. That does not change the hard work of facing up to the damage that sin has done, taking care of victims, putting in place safety plans, working through one’s personality disorders, and generally doing the hard work of restoration. Christ’s blood was costly, and so is restoration on the human level. And we have to remember that spiritual restoration does not mean that the person can stay in their job.

Part 3: Grey Areas and Ambiguity (from Brent)

I like the three definitions of restoration: relationship, position, and location. I would like to pursue further here the problem of the grey area in abuse investigations.

Thanks, Theresa. I really like the three definitions of restoration: relationship, position, and location. It clarifies some of the issues we are facing. I would like to pursue further here the problem of the grey area. What are some things we might consider, if the investigation isn’t clear-cut? I think there are two major ways in which this happens. The first is that you think that there might have been some abuse, but the statute of limitations has run out for the legal side, and you can’t get to witnesses because they are unavailable, or they won’t talk to you. The other is that there are numerous witnesses who give conflicting and confusing responses. One says there was abuse, another says no, and another questions the credibility of the one who insists there was abuse.

Perhaps this also leads us into how a report is developed in these cases, and who it goes to. It seems to me that in missions investigations, there is often no middle ground. There is an assumption that if there is an allegation, then the abuse certainly happened. That really makes the follow-up messy when the facts as you are able to discover them don’t point to any abuse.

How do you handle these problems in your investigations?

Part 4: Practical Approaches and Consequences in Ambiguous Situations (from Theresa)

Brent, you propose two ways that an abuse investigation may not be clear-cut. The first is that you are not able to gather evidence. The second is that the evidence may be conflicting. This creates a difficult situation for everyone--the person bringing the accusation, the accused, and the mission.

When we start an investigation, we assume that abuse could have happened, but not necessarily that it did happen. An investigation must be impartial and open-minded. An allegation of abuse or a violation of a child safety policy can be true, can be mistaken, can be false, or can be some mix of these things. (Some missions don’t use the “abuse” word for a finding, because it sounds like a legal conclusion—and an investigation standing alone is not a legal determination by a court.) Allegations of abuse that are not factually true are fairly common, though are still a fairly small minority of abuse allegations.

If you are doing an investigation, your “finding” that certain actions happened will be either by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it more likely than not happened, or by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard. If you don’t reach your standard, you won’t take disciplinary action against the person. It is possible that you may be pretty sure that abuse did not happen. It’s also possible that the whole situation is too murky to be sure of the facts. Especially with things that happened long ago and far away, you may have to accept that you will never know.

So your real question is how do you follow up in these situations? I’d like to split the response into three areas: first, the risk of harm to children; second, the impact on the career and life of the accused; and third, the impact on the accuser.

If the investigation is inconclusive, or has concluded nothing happened, is there still a risk of harm to children? This is a key question. If you thought that there was a small chance that abuse happened—20% or 30%—you would still want to put in place a safety plan. Even if nothing can be determined in the investigation, you will not want to take a chance on child safety.

Second is the impact on the career and life of the accused. This is a difficult situation. It is morally wrong to ruin someone’s life because of an allegation that is not substantiated. (In some circumstances, it could also be illegal.) You will have the delicate task of preserving the person’s career and reputation, even though you might not be completely sure that the allegation is untrue. And of course, the safety plan itself could also have some impact on the person’s career. In addition, the investigation will be preserved in the files, in case you get more evidence or further allegations later. How you handle this depends partly on your safety plan and partly on whether the matter is really uncertain, or it’s pretty certain that the person is innocent. Child safety is more important than someone's career, but with careful thought, you will try to do justice to both.

Third is the impact on the person making the accusation, whose accusation has not been substantiated. It is fairly common that allegations cannot be substantiated. The most common occurrence would be an allegation that may have a basis of truth, but because of time and distance cannot be substantiated. Sometimes, memories of actual events have become intensified to where actions are perceived as abusive, when at the time they were more likely unwise or inappropriate. Or actions may have happened that would not have been considered abuse in the historical framework, but would be considered abusive in our time. Allegations that are deliberately untrue are fairly rare. In any of these scenarios, the person bringing the accusation is hurting, and reporting back to the person should be handled with great sensitivity. In addition, the person may need help and support (therapy or pastoral support).

Wrapping up an investigation is a tricky time because of all these issues. You want it to be restorative, but if not handled well, it can bring even more harm.

____________________________________________

"The Rock and the Hard Place" blog is a discourse between Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist on the topics of law, human resources, psychology, member care, and the theology of missions. To learn more about this blog and what it's all about, click here.

Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq.

Dr. Brent Lindquist

Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion