Abuse is a Challenge for the Adventist Church; New Campaign is Launched to Counter It
by AT News Team
Although the number of cases has not reached the crisis level that it has in some denominations, the Seventh-day Adventist Church does face an incidence of abuse suffered by its children and teens sufficient to result in the launch of a new, world-wide campaign. In a scan of public records over the past 30 days, Adventist Today found at least four serious cases of sexual abuse, physical harm and even murder by ministers, teachers and lay leaders. This is not a scientific sample and it is not intended to imply that this is a typical period, yet it is disturbing.
A 23-year-old Fifth Grade teacher in an Adventist elementary school in St. George’s, Grenada, was arrested during the last week of July and charged with murder. According to the Jamaica Observer, the remains of a 19-year-old young woman were found in a refuse container along with a weapon and personal belongings. An autopsy showed that the woman died from strangulation and bleeding. To date, there is no report of how the young teacher pled in court.
Last week a 46-year-old man in Berrien County, Michigan, was sentenced to 15 years in prison after he pled guilty to sex crimes against a nine-year-old girl which occurred at the Niles Westside Seventh-day Adventist Church. He was also convicted of failing to register for prior convictions of criminal sexual misconduct. The prosecuting attorney was quoted by the South Bend Tribune, “He’s done this before. He said that he couldn’t control himself with children.” There was no comment about why he was allowed to have contact with children at the church.
On July 29 The Times of India reported that a female teacher at the Adventist school in Virudhunagar allegedly hit a seven-year-old girl with a wooden ruler causing injuries that made it difficult for the girl to walk home. “Police sources said they had filed a complaint under section 323” of India’s criminal law and “section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000.” An unnamed police official is quoted as stating that the teacher had “accepted that she caned the girl.”
On August 20 the tabloid London Daily Mail and the South Africa Press Association (SAPA) wire service both reported that Elder Steyn Venter, pastor of the Adventist church in Bloemfontein, South Africa, had been fired for “improper advice” in marriage counseling. The newspapers reported that he had encouraged young couples to engage in public nudity and kept photographs in which at least one couple appeared naked. Elder B. M. P. Ngwenya, president of the KwaZulu-Natal and Free State Conference, told the Die Volksblad newspaper that the pastor had been fired.
Among those who might have access to statistics on cases of this kind, no one was willing to give Adventist Today any hint if this is a typical month or not. What is widely reported is that the Adventist Risk Management (ARM) insurance company owned by the General Conference used the occasion of the recent North American Division Teacher’s Convention in Nashville to launch the Seven Campaign, a “grassroots” effort “stop child abuse.” In February ARM had launched a Child Protection Plan and it has presented recommendations that led to the adoption of strong prevention measures in the NAD Working Policy over the last decade or two.
“We want to not only make it clear that we stand against child abuse, but we want to get our members talking and actually engaged in spotting and preventing misconduct,” an ARM spokesman told the Adventist News Network (ANN), the official news service of the GC. He stressed the involvement of local church members as a major goal of the campaign in his comments to ANN.
Yet, to some observers the initiative stumbled out of the starting blocks when convention planners pulled the plug on an Adventist group that is involved in anti-bullying efforts. Someone to Talk To is an independent organization pulled together by Carol Grady, the wife of an Adventist minister, who has written a book entitled My Son, Beloved Stranger about her gay son and the problems he faced growing up in the Adventist denomination’s schools and youth ministries. Her group had applied to be one of 160 organizations that had exhibits at the convention. Because her web site does not take the official position of the denomination regarding gays and lesbians, she was told she could not participate.
An article about refusing Grady as an exhibitor appeared in The Huffington Post and a response was released by the denomination, stressing that the NAD Office of Education provide eight contact hours of in-service education on bullying during the convention, including a preview of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, “a whole-school program that has been proven to prevent or reduce bullying.”
The Church “recognizes that every human being is valuable in the sight of God, and we seek to minister to all men and women in the spirit of Jesus,” the statement quoted from the denomination’s position paper on homosexuality. “We hold that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, are children of God. We do not condone singling out any group for scorn and derision, let alone abuse.”
“Being a gay, lesbian or bisexual teenager in the United States is risky business,” pointed out Elder Ryan Bell, senior pastor of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church. “According to the 2009 National School Climate Survey nearly 85 percent of LGBT teens report being harassed in school and nearly two-thirds report feeling unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation.” Adventists and other Christians have found it difficult to balance a belief that homosexual behavior is sinful and a belief that all people should be respected and treated without discrimination.
At the same time, it is clear that there are problems of abuse and violence that do not appear to be related to tensions over sexual orientation. “Sexuality and spirituality are both powerful things,” one veteran pastor told Adventist Today. “All human beings are sinners. It is only by God’s grace that things do not go wrong more often than they do. This is why those of us who are preachers must constantly hammer on the duty of compassion and the core doctrine of grace. If we let off the emphasis, more people get hurt.”
While the article raises several important issues which are indeed interconnected (violence starts in heads and has a lot to do with misconceptions, prejudice and need for power), we should resist the temptation of jumping on what is politically the most current, correct, or hot issue. Thus I would be disappointed if discussions about a project on violence should be reduced to discussions around homosexuality. The violence (including bullying at all levels) in that area is just one small part of a far bigger picture.
The value genesis studies inform us about the violence young people in our church experience. The anecdotal evidence reported here is just the tip of the iceberg – and from the raw figures I question the blissful assumption, "the number of cases has not reached the crisis level that it has in some denominations" – it is a misleading statement, when you are "middle of the road" at best.
Thus it is good to hear the topic is being recognized; hopefully not with witch hunts and finger pointing, as our sinful nature will always have more fingers point back at us, but with true positvie educational measures. In Europe – most certainly in Germany a lot has been done in recent years around the topic within the church – but there still remains a lot to be done.
Andreas,
Thank you for your timely response. I am glad to see you on here with your expertise.
While I agree with the main points of this article, I wanted to comment on the statistic near the end – the report that 85% of LGBT teens have been harassed in school and 2/3 feeling unsafe. I would wager that most straight, normal kids have been harassed or felt unsafe in school at one time or another. Kids make fun of each other for just about anything that makes them different, including size, a funny-sounding last name, big ears…it doesn't matter what it is, they'll find something! This is true in SDA schools as well as pubic schools. Because kids are kids. Why should we make exceptions or give special attention to any one group over another? Eventually all of our children are going to grow up and have to face society on their own, so besides trying to discipline kids for harrassing each other, and rather than sheltering them, we should be teaching them how to deal with harrassment in a mature, intelligent way…not just to avoid it, but to be strong under criticism and learn how to be positive and not get their feelings hurt. The only way to completely avoid the problem is to homeschool, which I am not advocating, although that certainly is one solution.
Kenneth Comstock wonders about gay teens "Why should we make exceptions or give special attention to any one group over another?" Maybe because Suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth (US Dept. of Health and Human Services); or maybe because 50% of all gay and lesbian youth report that their parents reject them due to their sexual orientation (Pediatrics, Issue 79); Oh, wait, maybe it's because approximately 40% of homeless youth are identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual (Seattle Commission on Children and Youth). Go to pflagphoenix.org to check the citations for these horrifying statistics. Don't worry, Mr. Comstock. Ignorance is curable. Educate yourself.
Sorry for the harsh "tone" above. Meant to say "ignorance (as in lack of information) is curable." We all lack information on some topics.
You made a rational and good response.
Patti,
It's okay, harshness, anger, intolerance, namecalling and hatred (towards those of different beliefs than you) are curable.
Ken
Because homosexuals are singled out as a particular "bad" or "sinful" simply for BEING. If all the redheads were abused as a group, then there should be an education about that condition as it is not something they did; just as homosexuality is not something that someone has done.
Individuals who are subject to bullying is different than an entire group because of their race, or other inherited and genetic conditions.
Yes, we should teach all children why bullying is wrong; but small children have not yet developed the maturity to fully understand why. By the time of high school or college, they should have this ingrained into their moral standards.
I suppose violence begets violence. As a five-year-old first grader in an adventist school I was bullyed repeatedly by a fifth grader. Finally, I punched him as hard as I could in the stomach. I did not really know what I was doing, but I apparently got him just right, and he was not able to come to school the next day. There is some merit in learning how to physically defend oneself.
I had very few fights in school, but those in which I was reacting to bullying generally ended well–usually with a single punch. Bullies know that what they are doing is wrong, and most of them get the point when they feel pain and the blood comes gushing from their nose.
But successful defense must be well-timed and selected to ensure victory. While in the army working in a hospital, one of the noncom supervisors used the opportunity of grabbing my behind while I was rinsing bed pans. It happened several times. I was afraid that if I hit him I would be in trouble for hitting a supervisor. So I went to the head nurse, Major Soper, an told her what was happening. She instructed me to hit him the next time it happened, I did, and it never happened again.
Hmm. Letting the full bedpan slip on him would have been a great "oops" moment.
Yes, a great and appropriate notion. 😎
I've read some of Grady's posts and it is evident to me that she was legitimately barred from the Education confab. In fact, I firmly believe there should be much more careful vetting of persons and groups who are permitted to exhibit at SDA church functions at *all* levels.
I agree that kids will be kids and there need not be misguided efforts to grant special attention to certain groups. That likely was the impetus for "hate crime" laws which is an absurdity. If someone kills my nephew in cold blood with malice aforethought whether it be for $$ or other matters the law should be administered in an equitable manner with no special attention to a special interest group's propaganda.
Abuse, whether of defenseless children, men or women should be dealt with summarily and never excused.
To some degree "how the church should relate to devout homosexuals in its midst" is not altogether unlike the question, "how should the church relate to women who show evidence of the full pastoral range of Holy Spirit gifts?" While some (like Sister Grady) believe that gays should not be bullied or held in contempt, her views are not shared by significant sectors of the church. The chuch is by no means "pro-bullying" but is very uncomfortable with an issue for which it knows it does not yet have a "unifying" answer. It comes back to our overwhelming concern (an issue that trumps all others) of a defined "unity" or better and safer yet, uniformity. I hope we grow up and grow out of the narrow definitions of unity to which some are holding us. A less brittle church on some of these inconvenient issues would help keep us from splitting and let us mature naturally on questions that need a great deal of discussion. Sister Grady is doing a great service for the church in helping so many of us carry on this important dialogue. May God bless her for her dedication.
There is perhaps a link between homosexuality, child abuse and the Bible – but not in the way people usually think.
Just looking at ‘The New Testament’ by Denis C. Duling at pages 252-254, he notes the point that in the ancient Greco-Roman culture, there weren’t really many (or any recorded) same-sex relations in the modern sense between consenting adult males. Rather, so-called homosexuality usually involved relations between adult men and young boys, which Plato described as the highest form of love. Often, it was slave boys who had no choice in the matter.
Duling argues that Paul’s condemnation against homosexuality (which should be noted are pretty fleeting and certainly not his main concern) are probably actually condemning paedophilia. Furthermore, when Paul uses the word malakoi (those who are soft or effeminate), Duling argues Paul is probably talking about ‘call boys.’
On that basis, I would assume the modern homosexual community would heartedly agree with Paul! They too would condemn paedophilia and any form of sexual exploitation against people who cannot give consent – whether it be children in our churches or sex-slave heterosexual women trapped in strip clubs and brothels of modern Western cities.
The true iron re all this is the Churches, especially the RC Church, has been very slow tackling the issue of paedophilia – the very thing Paul was probably focused on. Instead, the Churches, again including the RC Church, have been focused on adult-adult homosexuality, something pretty unusual in Greco-Roman culture (at least publicly) and thus not something Paul was probably addressing.
I'd suggest you read some more recent works. And go to the historians and social scientists rather than theologians. Strange things happen to ideas as they pass from the solcial sciences to theologians.
Sex between men and children was and is virtually universally condemned. The 'young boys' you mention would, in many if not most cases, be considered over the age of consent in Australia and most of Western Europe. The age of consent in Europe was historically around 12-14 up until a couple of centuries ago. In the Greek case, they were considered adults, not children, and were the sons of citizens, not slaves. Chrysostom preached a sermon castigating his congregation for spending too much time choosing suitable adult lovers for their young sons. Romans were more inclined to slaves, but age of consent has no meaning when you are owned. There is plenty of evidence for same-sex relationships between adult males in both Greek and Roman records. What the Greeks were against (apart form sex with children) was sex that did not respect the proper social conventions. There was nothing wrong with sex between two adult men, as long as the socially superior took the active role. It wasn't just, or even primarily, about age.
You are a braver man than I if you are prepared to speak for 'the modern homosexual community'. A bit like choosing to speak for 'modern women'.
Homosexuality may be a psychobiological reality, but how we concieve of it and talk about it is very much part of the cultural imagination. The idea of two men or two women being interchangeable with a man and a woman as a mating/breeding dyad simply does not make sense outside modern Western culture. I am sure Paul – like everyone in Greco-Roman society – knew about men who has sex with other men, with teenage boys, with little boys, with slave boys, with call boys, and no doubt other variations, but I am not sure he would equate any of his categories with modern homosexuality. In fact, I am pretty sure he wouldn't. Nor would any of the Bible writers. The churches have historically been focused on any sex outside marriage. That has had to be narrowed down as it becomes less acceptable to condemn adultery and fornication. In a sense, the stand against homosexuality is an arbitrary line drawn in what little sand the churches have left to draw in.
Paul, like Moses, chose not to use any of the readily available language to condemn same-sex behaviour. We can speculate on why, but so far very little of that speculation is defensible historically, linguistically or theologically. Until we do know why, perhaps a little humility in thinking we know the answers would go a long way. Especially if we are going to impose those answers on others.
Ok Kevin you're the expert. Happy to stand corrected.
"but I am not sure he [Paul] would equate any of his categories with modern homosexuality. In fact, I am pretty sure he wouldn't."
Happy to agree with you here. That was largely the point I was trying to make.
"Paul, like Moses, chose not to use any of the readily available language to condemn same-sex behaviour. We can speculate on why, but so far very little of that speculation is defensible historically, linguistically or theologically."
I would be interested to hear more about this.
I am not an expert, just had to do quite a bit of reading for a couple of uni subjects. I am also interested in Greek literature both as literature and as historical documents. What is interesting recently is that there are a number of perspectives being put forward by historians, classicists and social scientists. All fail to toally support either side in the debate within the Christian churches. The quality is variable -as always 🙂
Look at the way Moses refers to any sexual activity in Leviticus and Deuternomy. The only time that the usual language ('lay with', 'uncover teh nakedness of') is used for any same-sex activity is father-son incest. Why is the one reference to what we assume is homosexual activity not similar? There were a number of ways to refer to same-sex activity in Greek – ranging from crude to literary – yet Paul avoids all that language. If he simply meant to say 'no sex with other men/boys', why didn't he say so? And it seems arsenokoitai was used in its verbal form with women as object. I find it hard to imagine how to commit male homosexuality with women.
The Israelites, under Moses, had been slaves with no restraint on their private and personal lives, that we know of, just as all masters care only about the work they do. When they joined the Exodus, it was imperative that they be given laws to corral their behavior. The Hammarubi code was certainly a template as some read all most word for word with the Laws by Moses.
Sex was proscribed and described in every possible imaginative way; sex has always been treated similarly since Christianity began, also. The pagan cultures had no particular restraints placed on the private sexual lives, so for the Israelites they were to be completely different: separate because they were God's Chosen People (self-declared). The Puritans were the masters of controlling sex in the early 17th century, and that strain is still with some religions today, although culture and practices, do change the concept of what is permitted: when it becomes so widespread that it is impossible to excommunicate all those who have transgressed.
Homosexuality will one day gradually become acceptable in the church just as it is in the secular world, when just like adulterers it becomes too great a digression to "examine" as they formerly did with adulterers, and simply overlook it.
Moderator,
You posted the following warning:
“Nic Samojluk
Off topic post removed.
There is a forum section you are free to post about topics other than the topics in blogs or columns here.
We welcome you to register in the 'simple updates' forums section of AToday to do so.”
I did a search for said forum section you made reference to without success. Can you provide me a link for it and for the 'simple updates' section of AT?
Have you checked on teh forum site recently? Since May there have been only SPAM posts in the general discussion forum. There has been no legitimate activity anywhere in the forum for so long I don't bother checking any more. Why bother having a forum if it is not moderated or used?
I agree! If you want to allow serious and responsible discussion to take place in said forum, you will need to delete all spam and porn. Most of the material in that forum is either span or porn. I even detected Russian porn advertized here. If you have no one to do the deletion and cleaning of undesirable material there, I could probably volunteer. Said forum could be used for God's glory instead of spam and porn!
I noticed that someone did delete all the Spam and Porn ads from the Forum. Praise the Lord. Now it can be use for God's glory and the benefit of humanity!