A few more things about The Meeting House Town Hall, including comments about Cavey's return to ministry and comments from victim's advocate Melodie Bissell

 

A few more things emerging from the August 14 Town Hall meeting by The Meeting House about additional substantiated allegations of sexual abuse by former pastors Bruxy Cavey and Tim Day

People on social media reacted with anger after Bruce Miller, a member of the church’s Board of Overseers, said he had told Cavey “God isn’t finished with you yet” and that maybe Cavey might have a future ministry “speaking to other ministers” about what he did wrong.

Significantly, the other members of the Board were quick to note those were Miller’s personal thoughts and did not represent the church.

Miller himself walked his comments back later, noting he was not “striving to return him [Cavey] to ministry . . . that is up to God.”

He was not advocating Cavey return to The Meeting House, he went on to say.

Miller may have been the one to say that out loud in that way, but others seemed to share his opinion.

During the Q & A period, there was pushback against the Board with some people wondering why they hadn’t had a chance to hear Cavey’s side of the story yet.

That prompted a sharp response from Jennifer Hyrniw, a member of the Board, who said: “Unless someone fully admits and fully repents, we aren’t giving them the opportunity to speak to our community.”

In fact, this meeting featured more questioning about the Board than previous Town Halls. Not everyone was satisfied with the direction or actions the Board had taken.

One person questioned the nature of the sexual abuse, whether it was only inappropriate comments.

The Board quickly responded the abuse was more than that.

Another person accused the Board of not being fully transparent by not disclosing the nature of the abuse or allowing Cavey to speak.

Noting she “spoke for many who feel this way,” she added the Board’s lack of transparency was polarizing and demoralizing the church and contributing to disunity—and to a decline in attendance and giving.

There was light applause after she finished sharing her thoughts.

In response, Hryniw noted the church was trying to respond in a trauma informed way—a way that protected and supported victims. She assured the questioner the Board dealt with the issues in a “robust” way, with the needs of the victims in mind.

If The Meeting House couldn’t handle that kind of response to the abuse—a response that put “the institution at risk”—then “maybe it shouldn’t exist as a church,” she said.

After that exchange, I contacted Melody Bissell, who is serving as an advocate for victims at The Meeting House.

“I think the focus is being shifted to the wrong thing here,” she said of the blame being cast on the Board.

“People want to blame someone,” she said of the criticism of the Board.

But the Board isn’t to blame, she noted; the abusers—Cavey and Day—are responsible for what is happening at the church.

By “pointing fingers at the Board of overseers” members of The Meeting House could lose focus on the victims—the people most in need of support.

Knowing the Board as she does, she wanted to “give credit where credit is due” for the way they have worked through the “painful and excruciating” experiences of the victims, trying to make things right.

She was quick to also credit them for changing the terminology from “sexual harassment,” as described in the first investigator’s report, to “sexual abuse” for the subsequent investigations.

“On behalf of the victims, I am very grateful for that change,” she said.

As for members who are angry with the Board for the way they are responding, “they aren’t looking at the situation through the eyes of the victims,” Bissell said.

More education about a trauma informed approach is needed, she added, noting there was more concern by some about “safeguarding” the church than “caring for the oppressed.”

There’s not point in debating the degree of the abuse, she said. “All abuse is wrong,” she stated.

As for Cavey and his future ministry, “he has lost his right to influence other pastors,” she said, adding his victims “have a lifetime of healing.”

While there is room for “genuine” repentance, Cavey’s actions may “disqualify” him from some roles in the future, she said.

She also praised The Meeting House for being “generous” in financially supporting the victims so they could participate in counselling.

Additional sexual abuse claims substantiated against former The Meeting House pastors Bruxy Cavey, Tim Day

Board of Overseers, church leaders at Aug. 14 Town Hall

Following two additional investigations into clergy sexual abuse and misconduct, The Meeting House has confirmed three more substantiated allegations against its former pastor, Bruxy Cavey.

That news was shared at an August 14 public town hall meeting held by the church.

 That brings to four the number of substantiated allegations against Cavey, who resigned from the church in March following the announcement of the first substantiated allegation.

One of the new allegations involved someone who was under the age of 18 when the abuse occurred, the church reported.

The church also announced a substantiated allegation of sexual abuse or misconduct against another former pastor, Tim Day.

The claims were substantiated by an independent investigator with experience in the field of sexual abuse and misconduct, the church said.

“In all cases, the victims suffered great harm,” said Jennifer Hryniw, a member of the church’s Board of Overseers, at the meeting.

While Cavey was involved in the additional investigations, Day chose not to participate although he was “provided multiple opportunities” to do so.

Hryniw went on to say The Meeting House had decided to clarify its language around the allegations, calling what happened “sexual abuse by a church leader”—a term it adopted from Mennonite Central Committee.

According to that definition, sexual abuse by a church leader is “any sexualized behavior that occurs within the church context where one party has more power than the other,” she said.

This marks a change from the first investigation, when The Meeting House referred to Cavey’s actions as sexual misconduct or harassment.

At the time, the church thought its language—taken directly from the first investigator’s report—was “strong enough to convey the seriousness” of the situation, Hryniw said.

By not calling it sexual abuse, some felt the church was “downplaying the harm done,” she noted.

“That was never our intention . . . we have learned a lot since then,” she said.

Hryniw went on to commend the bravery of the first victim, who “endured so much” and “deeply apologized” on behalf of the church for taking so long to name what she had experienced. 

During a question-and-answer time, Bruce Miller, a member of the Board of Overseers, acknowledged the church’s decision to provide financial support to Cavey and his family after his resignation elicited some “very strong opinions.”

That compensation, he said, “has now come to an end,” he said, adding that Day has not received any compensation.

Some victims are receiving financial support for counselling, he said.

When asked if the police have been informed about the new substantiated allegations, Miller said they have been “made aware.”

When pressed for more details about the abuse, and whether they were just “inappropriate” comments or behaviours, church leaders declined to go into specifics out of consideration for the victims and to prevent their identities from being revealed.

Hryniw clarified that none of the cases of abuse involved “misunderstood comments.”

“We had a robust investigation that was detailed and thorough . . . the victims were credible, the claims were substantiated,” she said.

When asked why Cavey had not been given a chance to speak to the congregation, Hryniw replied “unless someone fully admits and fully repents, we are not giving an opportunity to speak to our community.”

For Nour Aziz, another member of the Board of Overseers, hearing stories from victims was “heartbreaking, disappointing, inexcusable . . . we need to name it for what it is.”

Power in a church “should never be top down,” she went on to say, adding “we want to move forward in a way that doesn’t hurt people anymore.”