Billy Graham's Winnipeg Connection

City was first Canadian office for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

Billy Graham at the 1967 Winnipeg
Centennial Crusade

Accolades and tributes for Billy Graham poured in from around the world when the famous evangelist passed away last month at the age of 99.

His death prompted hundreds of millions to recall their connection to Graham, either though attendance at one of his many crusades, or by watching them on TV.

For many, the connection was intensely spiritual and personal; it was Graham who helped them make a commitment to either follow Christ, or to deepen their faith.

Winnipeg can claim a special connection to Graham, too, as anyone who watched a crusade on TV from the 1960s to the early 2000s might remember.

The reference always came right at the end of the broadcast. 

That’s when Graham, after speaking to the crowd in the arena or stadium where the crusade was taking place, would turn to the camera and invite viewers to “say yes to Christ.”

If anyone did that, he invited them to write him at his headquarters in Minneapolis for more information.

If they lived in Canada, however, Graham told them to write to him at P.O. Box 841, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

You might be wondering: How did Winnipeg come to be associated that way with the most famous evangelist of the twentieth century?

Therein, as they say, lies a tale.

As Graham became more popular, people in Canada tuned into his radio and, later, TV broadcasts.

Soon, Canadians started writing in to his U.S. address, asking for information, and also sending in donations.

To help with the issuing of tax receipts, and to handle the growing volume of mail, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) decided to set up a Canadian office.

Why did they choose Winnipeg? One assumes the proximity to Minneapolis played a part.

Plus, it was easy to get here back then; you could take an overnight train between the two cities.

In 1953, the BGEA contacted a young Winnipeg lawyer named Don McCarthy and asked him to help. They sent a staffer named George Wilson from Minneapolis to Winnipeg to meet him.

I was not able to connect with McCarthy, who is now 89, but in an earlier interview he recounted what happened.

McCarthy recalled that Wilson spent just one day in Winnipeg. During that short amount of time, “we opened an office, set it up with furniture, hired the first employee and registered the charity.”

McCarthy went on to serve on the Canadian board of the BGEA, and today is a member emeritus. The Canadian office moved to Calgary in 2003.

All told, Graham spoke at 13 crusades in Canada, starting with Toronto in 1955 and concluding in Ottawa in 1998. He preached in Winnipeg from May 28 to June 4, 1967.

That event, which was called the “Centennial Canada Crusade,” was held in the old arena, although there are photos of the crowd spilling out to the nearby football stadium.

Altogether, the BGEA has held over 200 crusades, festivals and other events in Canada, with most led by Canadians such as Leighton Ford, John Wesley White and Ralph Bell.

Notably, it was in Canada that Graham’s son Franklin—who has become an extremely polarizing figure in U.S. religious life—began his public ministry. He first preached in Saskatoon in 1983.

Along with the Winnipeg, Graham’s other connection to Canada was his well-known soloist George Beverly Shea.

Shea, who died in 2013 at the age of 104, became known as “America’s beloved gospel singer.” In fact, he was born in Canada, and joined up with Graham in 1947.

In the wake of his passing, scholars and pundits are parsing his legacy. But most people remember him for the passion he brought to his mission; the millions of people he preached to around the world; for his masterful use of mass media; for his broad ecumenism as he brought together Christians from various denominations; and for his modest lifestyle and humble character.

But Winnipeggers can also remember another thing: His long-time connection to this city.

From the March 24, 2018 Winnipeg Free Press.

Passing the Peace and Passing the Germs: Can You Catch a Cold at Communion?

One hundred years ago, the Spanish Flu struck North America.

One theory has it that the outbreak started with soldiers in Kansas. Another suggests it began in China and was spread to North America by Chinese labourers who were ill with the disease, and who traveled across Canada to join the Chinese Labour Corps in Europe.

However it began, the outbreak killed between 50 million to 100 million people around the world, including between 30,000 to 50,000 in Canada.

Panic was widespread; nobody knew how to battle or prevent it except to try to limit exposure to those who were sick. 

In Winnipeg, schools, theatres, churches and other public gatherings were shut down for more than five weeks in an effort to control the spread of the disease.

Thoughts about that long ago pandemic came to mind during our current flu season. 

Unlike a century ago, we know how to limit the spread of the virus: stay home if sick, cover when you cough, and wash your hands often.  

That, and get a flu shot!

Despite taking all these precautions, sometimes I wonder if churches might not be ground zero for the flu, what with all the shaking of hands in the foyer, the ushers passing out bulletins and the passing of the peace—which is also usually accompanied by shaking hands.

Then there’s communion, also known as the Lord’s Supper or The Eucharist, depending on your tradition.

The practice varies. In some churches, the celebrant breaks off a piece of bread and puts it directly into the hands or mouth of each participant.

This is followed by drinking wine from a common cup. After each sip, the celebrant wipes the cup and turns it a bit before offering it to the next participant. 

At other churches, worshipers don’t drink directly from the cup. Instead, they dip their bread into it, a practice known as intinction.

I don’t know about you, but this all seems ripe not just for passing on a blessing, but also passing on germs—lots of them.

But what do I know? I’m not an expert in epidemiology. So I decided to ask one. I contacted Dr. Allan Ronald, Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba and Senior Advisor for the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

According to Ronald, “infection from shared vehicles like a common communion cup are difficult or impossible to prove.”

Influenza, he says, tends to be most commonly spread by respiratory means—inhalation—not sharing a communion cup, along with coming into contact with surfaces that have the virus on them, and then touching mouth, nose or eyes.

To back up his comments, he cites a 1988 study from Great Britain titled “The hazard of infection from the shared communion cup.”

The study found that “the occasional transmission of micro-organisms is unaffected by the alcoholic content of the wine, the constituent material of the cup or the practice of partially rotating it.”

It was, however “appreciably reduced when a cloth is used to wipe the lip of the cup between communicants.”

It went on to say that “no episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported” and that there is no evidence to suggest the “practice of sharing a common communion cup should be abandoned because it might spread infection.”

Although the study is 30 years old, Ronald says he has heard of nothing since to contradict it.

Then again, he doesn’t have to worry; the church he attends uses tiny individual cups for communion, like the ones I grew up using in church.

It turns out the invention of those cups can also be traced back to worries about disease. In this case, it goes back to the late nineteenth century in the U.S.

During that time of rapid urbanization, when millions of people were flocking to cities and sanitation and sanitary practices were less well developed, fears arose about what kind of germs might be lingering in the common cup during communion.

Today, it’s not fear of disease that keeps the little cups in use at some evangelical or Protestant churches; it’s more likely just tradition or convenience.

In the end, it appears we don’t need to worry about getting the influenza from communion. 

We may still want to be wary when passing the peace, though.

From the March 17, 2018 Winnipeg Free Press. Photo at top from the Daily Beast.

Presbyterians in Canada Issue Letter of Repentance to LGBTQ* Community

“We are sorry, and we repent.”

That’s the message sent last month by the Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC) to “all those harmed by homophobia and hypocrisy by and within the church.”

The letter was written by PCC moderator Peter Bush, who is also Minister at Westwood Presbyterian Church here in Winnipeg.

In it the denomination apologizes and repents for how its churches failed “to be safe and welcoming places” for people “who do not identify as heterosexual,” and for being judgmental and excluding others “based on restrictive gender definitions.”

It also says sorry for “our failure to protect” LGBTQ* people who have been “attacked and brutalized,” for failing “to hold people accountable for abuse and hatred” for not speaking up when such attacks occurred.

It also apologizes for putting “more emphasis on a person’s sexual identity than on their identity in Christ.”

The letter concludes by noting that the denomination is committed to “go in a new way and to be a welcoming church,” and to create a “safe place” where “experiences of LGBTQ* people will be told and heard.”

I called Bush. I asked him how the letter has been received.

“The reaction has been generally positive,” he said, noting that it went through a number of drafts over period of seven months and was read by “respected leaders” and others before being released.

“Some think it goes too far, while others think it doesn’t go far enough,” he added.

I noted that the PCC was called on to repent in this way 18 years ago, in 1994, when a report on human sexuality was delivered to the denomination.  What took so long?

Bush admitted it took “an embarrassingly long time” for the letter to be issued. But he didn’t think there was anything nefarious in the delay.

“It was part of a larger debate about human sexuality” in the denomination, he said.

The debate, he noted, is about whether clergy can perform same-sex weddings, or if LBGTQ* people can be ordained.

“I don’t think it was intentional, it just got lost for a while,” he said.

I asked: What does he hope the letter will accomplish?

“I hope it will help church reflect on the ways we have done wrong, and on the ways in which the church has been shaped by that wrong, and how it needs to be re-shaped,” he said.

And what will that new shape look like?

“I hope it will cause us to ask if we really are a hospitable church,” he says. “We want everyone to know they are welcome through our doors, to be a part of the life of our congregations.”

So far, there isn’t a lot of reaction to the letter on the denomination’s website. But what’s there is overwhelmingly positive; so far, only one person left a negative comment.

I contacted three Presbyterian Ministers. Two of them also felt good about it.

“It’s a good letter, we needed to do it,” said Matthew Brough, Minister at Prairie Presbyterian Church here in Winnipeg.

“It is the right thing to do,” he added, noting that “there are still bigger issues still to be discussed.”

Barbara Pilozow, Minister at Winnipeg’s St. John’s Presbyterian Church, also welcomed the letter.

“It says exactly what we need to say,” she saod, adding that “our treatment of LGBTQ* people has been embarrassing in the least, terrible at most.”

“It’s our responsibility to apologize, and to find God’s will for in all of this for us.”

But another pastor I contacted, who didn’t want to be named, is very disappointed.

For him, the letter shows how the denomination has been “hijacked” by a “liberal agenda that is so divorced from where the core of the church is.”

This issue, he said, “is killing” the denomination.

Bush acknowledged the issue is causing anxiety for some in the denomination—on both sides of the debate.

While he doesn’t think churches will leave because of the letter, what the church decides about the issue of same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ* people could cause “some seismic shifts.”

Pilozow agreed; the church, she said, is not unified on this issue, both among clergy and in congregations.

“This is a hard conversation to have, she said. But, in the end, “it’s God’s church. It will survive no matter what happens.”

Read the full letter here.

Accidental Killers and Cities of Refuge

“The Torah was talking about me”

I was driving in an unfamiliar part of the city, trying to find an address, when I missed the stop sign.

Fortunately, the driver who had the right of way at the three-way stop saw me coming. He put on the brakes.

Since it was too late for me to stop, I mouthed the word “sorry!” as I sailed through the intersection.

The near-accident stayed with me for many days. I imagined hitting the other car broadside, probably injuring or even killing the other driver.

Each time I silently thanked God nothing bad happened.

That experience came back to me when I learned of the tragic death of the eight year-old boy who was killed a few weeks ago while crossing a street in St. Vital.

My heart went out immediately to the family, and also to the driver.

From media reports, it appears to have been an accident. At this time of writing, the driver has not been charged, although police say charges could be laid.

And even if there are charges, it’s safe to say he or she never intended to kill a child.

Why do I feel for the driver? He or she has become what’s known as an “accidental killer,” a group none of us wants to belong to.

Not only does the driver now have to live with guilt and remorse, but maybe also the condemnation and opprobrium from society—and possibly without much in the way of help in dealing with the experience.

As author Alice Gregory put it in a riveting article in the New Yorker titled “The Sorrow and the Shame of the Accidental Killer,” there are self-help books written for almost every human failing, challenge or inadequacy.

But there’s nothing for “anyone who has accidentally killed another person. An exhaustive search yielded no research on such people, and nothing in the way of therapeutic protocols, publicly listed support groups, or therapists who specialize in their treatment.”

Dr. Jason Ediger, a Winnipeg psychologist who has worked with people who have accidentally killed or injured others, says it isn’t a major subject in his profession.

“This isn't a specific topic frequently under discussion at present that I'm aware of,” he says.

“The low numbers of people in one place would make researching a therapy designed specifically for these people quite difficult,” he adds.

I asked him: How do these people cope with what they’ve done?

“They may construct narratives where they were less responsible, they may attempt some effort at penance, they may punish themselves, abuse substances to forget, attempt or complete suicide, withdraw from society and isolate themselves,” he says.

Some also “try and find meaning in it somehow,” but “it is unlikely though that they ever get to a place where they don't regret the outcome or their involvement.”

As it turns out, Manitoba Public Insurance does offers financial support so people who cause accidents can get counseling. But the support is not well known.

If the person who caused the accident was injured, a case manager would let them know about the service, says MPI spokesperson Brian Smiley.

But if they weren’t, “they would have to contact” MPI on their own, he says, adding that MPI “relies on brokers” to tell people about various services.

This is not a new issue. In the Old Testament, or what Jews call the Torah, the people of Israel were instructed by God to designate cities of refuge “so that anyone who kills someone inadvertently may flee there.” (Numbers 35:11)

In these cities, accidental murderers were to be protected from the wrath of family members of the deceased. 

While in the city of refuge, the accidental killer could not be harmed. A tribunal would rule if he or she was eligible for ongoing sanctuary.

According to Talmudic commentary, the roads leading to these cities of refuge were to be well marked so those who needed such refuge could find them easily.

In the New Yorker article, Maryann Gray, a secular Jew who accidentally killed a child in a car accident, remembers how she felt when she first learned about the cities of refuge.

“The Torah was talking about me,” she is quoted as saying. “I love that there was a way of recognizing the true devastation that’s been wrought, the harm that’s been done, without condemning the individual.”

I suspect that’s what other accidental killers are looking for—a way live in the world with acceptance, but also with the acknowledgment that something terrible occurred.

A place of refuge, in other words.

From the March 3, 2018 Winnipeg Free Press. Photo from Gerald J. Noonan website.

Update on the Canada Summer Jobs Program: Positives & Negatives, and Lawyers will be Involved

The application form. If the attestation box was not checked,
applicants could not proceed.

Incomplete.

That’s the message many church groups have received from the federal government after sending in applications for funding for the Canada Summer Jobs program.

Since the online application form couldn’t be completed without checking agreement with the attestation of support for sexual reproductive and LGBTQ* rights, a number of groups sent in paper applications.

Attached to the form was a letter indicating why they could not agree with the attestation.

According to the Christian Council of Canadian Charities, an umbrella group for church-related non-profits in Canada, groups that sent in paper applications tell them their applications have been returned with note indicating there is “missing information.”

The note states that any “alteration or modification of the attestation” will result in an incomplete application.

The Council is recommended that groups who received these letters re-submit the applications, once again without checking the attestation.

They encouraged them to include another letter requesting accommodation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act. 

Unless there is a change of heart in Ottawa, I expect these applications will also be returned as incomplete.

But while some groups are testing to see what happens if they file an incomplete application, others aren’t applying at all.

That’s what’s happening in London, Ont., where the local Catholic Diocese didn’t apply for summer jobs funding.

“I believe that we need to take a stand against the position of the government of Canada and say that we will not be bullied into even the appearance of collusion on this issue,” says Bishop Ronald Fabbro.

“We can make a powerful statement by saying ‘no’ to the conditions as set down by the government.”

I don’t know how many other groups made similar decisions. I am aware of one church organization in Winnipeg that decided not to apply.

Now that the deadline for applications has passed, what’s next? One possibility is court action. 

That’s what Lorna Dueck, CEO of Crossroads Christian Communications, told supporters in a letter earlier this month.

In the letter, she asks: “Is our Prime Minister and his government creating a climate of discrimination against Christianity in Canada?”

She notes that in the past ministries she has headed applied for funding from the program.

“Sometimes I got a grant, sometimes I didn't, but I always felt the process was fair,” she says.

But now, she states, “if we don't attest, our applications will be denied . . . we must now deny our own biblical beliefs to access the tax-payer-funded summer jobs program.”

Unless the policy changes, she says, “you can expect to see Canada's Christian leadership take the Canada Summer Jobs controversy to court to fight for our constitutional right of not being discriminated against for our Christian beliefs.”

Indeed, that is what’s happening; the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Christian Legal Fellowship have announced they are “contemplating commencing litigation” against the government over the attestation requirement.

In order for there to be a meaningful challenge, they are a calling on “willing organizations” to lend their names to the  proposed litigation.

Meantime, at least one Parliamentarian has picked up the cause. Conservative MP Harold Albrecht of Kitchener-Conestoga has launched a petition calling on the government “to remove this discriminatory requirement.”

As of this posting, over 5,900 people had signed it.

While this situation has upset many faith-based charities, my own feeling is it will not financially hurt those that are rejected, or that didn’t apply, at least in the short term.

I expect that their supporters, and maybe others, will step up to make up any gap in funding out of need, principle, or in protest against the government’s action—or all three.

They might even come out of it stronger with new donors and higher brand awareness.

Another positive from the issue is how it has highlighted the role faith groups play in serving Canada’s neediest citizens.

To take one example, from here in Winnipeg.

At Winnipeg Harvest, the city’s food bank, about 58 percent of the groups that distribute food it provides are faith-based.

That number would be higher if programs outside of Winnipeg were included, according to Harvest spokesperson Donald Benham.

“We continue to count on those [faith-based] groups and those volunteers to provide a vital link to the people we serve, in the neighbourhoods in which they live,” Benham says.

In the weeks ahead, it’s going to be interesting to see the impact of the new policy. How many fewer groups received funding? Were services cut? And where will things go from here?

No matter what happens, I expect lawyers will be involved.  

From the Feb. 24, 2018 Winnipeg Free Press. For more on this subject, see previous posts: Faith Groups and Change to Government Summer Jobs Program: "A New Era We're Into" and For Religious Groups, Change to Summer Jobs Program Shows a Changed Canada

Religion a Way to Combat Epidemic of Loneliness?

Last month, the British government created a new portfolio called the Minister for Loneliness.

The idea for the new ministry arose out of research that found about nine million Britons—14% of the population—are lonely.

Loneliness cuts across all age groups, but it is particularly hard on the elderly.

More than a third of older people in Great Britain reported being overwhelmed by loneliness. About half of people over 75 live alone, with many saying they can go days or even weeks with no meaningful social interaction.

The situation is similar in Canada, where as many as 1.4 million elderly Canadians say they are lonely.

Overall, between 25% to 30% of Canadians describe themselves as lonely, young and old alike.

Being lonely is hard on mental health, but also on physical health. Researchers say being lonely increases the chance of premature death by 14 percent.

What’s behind the epidemic of loneliness?

Some blame our high rates of mobility—people move a lot today, disrupting long-term relationships. And when children move to faraway cities, parents are left behind and on their own.

Others blame social media. Although it’s never been easier to connect with people, it can also lead to fewer physical encounters with actual human beings.  

And then there’s the general decline in participation in civic life—decreasing involvement in service groups, parent-teacher associations, labour unions, political parties and the like, as outlined in Robert Putnam’s groundbreaking book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

Thinking about the epidemic of loneliness, I wonder: Could the decrease in participation in faith groups also be part of the problem?

Many studies show that regular participation in worship services and other religious activities can protect against loneliness.

And being part of a worshipping community is associated with higher levels of social integration and support—things that help people feel less lonely.

As more and more people drop out of religious groups, perhaps loneliness is an unintended consequence.

But the studies about the positive effects of being part of a religious group only evaluate and measure how it feels to have someone to talk to, to be part of a group, or what it means to get a casserole when you’re sick.

There must be more to it than that; what about the spiritual dimension?

That’s the question I posed to Dr. Delmar Epp, associate professor of psychology at Canadian Mennonite University.

From a psychological perspective, he says, people do “have a need to belong.”

People of faith would call that “being created by God with a need to be in relationship with others . . . its fundamental to who we are as human beings,” he says.

But where does God fit in? His answer was to point me to Lee Kirkpatrick’s work on attachment theory as it pertains to religion.

I am not going to pretend I can do a good job of explaining attachment theory in a short column like this.

In short, it is that idea that humans form deep and abiding bonds with their caregivers when they are young. This provides us with a sense we are secure because someone who is strong will keep us safe.

In Kirkpatrick’s view, for believers God becomes an attachment figure—someone to have a relationship with, and to turn to when we feel unsafe or distressed.

“People can view God as their friend and companion, a comforter and protector,” Epp says.

Through prayer, worship and meditation, people can feel close to God and not so alone, he adds.

Of course, it doesn’t always work out so neatly. People who have bad experiences with caregivers when young can struggle to form an attachment to God when older.

And if your own parents were harsh and neglectful, it can be tough to believe in a heavenly parent who cares for you.

Places of worship aren’t perfect, either. They can be lonely experiences for those who don’t feel they can be open and honest with others about their struggles for fear of being judged.

Yet there’s still something about religion that seems to make a big difference in loneliness and overall health.

At a time when millions of people are looking for a wonder drug, therapy, treatment program or workout routine that will lead to better mental and physical health, it seems that one might already exist: Religion.

But I don’t expect it any western government to create a Minister for Religion and Health anytime soon.

From the Feb. 17 Winnipeg Free Press. Image from the Daily Express.

Rachael Denhollander's New Mission: Stop Child Sex Abuse in Evangelical Churches

Sexual abuse in U.S. evangelical churches "every bit as prevalent" as what happened in the Catholic Church

Like so many others in the U.S. and Canada, I was profoundly moved by Rachael Denhollander’s powerful victim impact statement at the trial of convicted sexual abuser Dr. Larry Nassar.

But as I listened to Denhollander—the first woman to go public with accusations against the former USA Gymnastics national team doctor—one short phrase caught me.

In a list of things she lost through the experience, she said, was “my church.”

Lost her church? What was up with that? I wanted to know more.

So I sent Denhollander a Facebook message, asking if she would like to elaborate.

Since messages between people who aren’t friends on Facebook disappear into a junk file, I didn’t really expect a reply.

But she answered back.

“I would be happy to speak to you,” she wrote.

It wasn’t long into our conversation last Monday before I understood why.

For Denhollander, a deeply committed evangelical Christian, the way evangelical churches are letting down victims of sexual abuse is deeply disturbing and profoundly disappointing.

Churches, she believes, should be havens for people who have been abused. All too often, however, the opposite happens; instead of protecting children, churches enable and protect their abusers.

She wants to see it stop.

*      *      *

Denhollander was first abused by Nassar in 2000. She was 15 years-old.

She was not the first victim; she discovered later he had been reported by four other gymnasts before her. But nothing was done to stop him.

She was sure she wasn’t the only victim. “It was clear to me at 15 that this was something Larry did regularly,” she says.

She told someone in authority about her abuse in 2004. Again, nothing happened.

It wasn’t until she went public in 2016 that a tidal wave of accusations joined in a chorus against the now-disgraced and convicted doctor. 

While angered by the abuse she suffered, she was equally upset that Nassar’s other victims weren’t believed or ignored.

So when her own church in Louisville, Kentucky began to actively support a prominent national evangelical ministry network that had been accused of covering up child sex abuse, she was very concerned.

“My own church was actively supporting a ministry whose leaders had been very credibly accused of failing to report child predators,” she says.

“They did not report him [the abuser], did not put any restrictions on him. He was allowed to continue abusing.”

She and her husband, Jacob, brought their concerns to leadership at their church. It went nowhere.

“This caused division between me and my church,” she says. “Even though this was one of the most well-documented cases of institutional cover-up I have ever seen, there was a complete refusal to engage.”

Instead, some of the leaders at her church raised questions about the quality of her character, and about her faith.

So in 2016, when Denhollander decided to go public with her story of abuse, she did not expect her church to offer much in the way of help.  

“We did not receive any support from the church when my story came out,” she says.

Her previous advocacy for other victims was “wielded like a weapon” by some of the church’s leaders in an effort to discredit her accusations against Nassar, she says.

“They essentially said I was imposing my own perspective or that my judgement was clouded,” she shares.

Within six months, she and her husband left the congregation.

“We were told it wasn’t the place for us,” she says.

*      *      *

In the two years since she went public, Denhollander has learned that the problem of child sexual abuse in American evangelical churches—and the subsequent cover-up—is more widespread than she thought.

“It’s absolutely heartbreaking,” she says.

In conversations with experts in the field, she was told that sexual abuse in U.S.evangelical churches is “every bit as prevalent, if not worse, than what happened in the Catholic Church.”

The problem is compounded by an unwillingness to hold abusers accountable and report their abuse, she adds.

“If you talk to prosecutors, to trauma counselors, and to activists on behalf of victims of sexual assault, they will all tell you that the Catholic Church and the evangelical church are two of the most difficult groups to deal with,” she states.

Instead of supporting victims, like people would expect, “they are supporting the perpetrators,” she says.

Why does she think so many evangelical churches are reluctant to report abusers in their midst?  

A big factor, she says, is “institutional protectionism”—churches believe that they have to protect their reputations as being holy, and not like the world.

This is especially true when ministries, churches and leaders that are prominent on the national scene are involved.

The problem with this approach, she says, is that perpetrators can continue their assaults.

“Research shows the average pedophile is reported approximately seven times before he’s finally caught,” she says. “The average number of victims a pedophile has is about 250.”

Not holding enablers accountable “is the foundational reason for why we have such an epidemic of sexual abuse, particularly child sexual abuse,” she says.

“People don’t understand that if you do not treat the failure to report sexual assault as a very serious thing, it creates a system where perpetrators know they are safe to prey on children.”

The result, she says, is that churches are often “one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse.”

For her, that’s a tough admission to make.

“That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth. There are very, very few [abuse victims] who have ever found true help in the church . . . It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help.”

If churches really want to be positive witnesses in their communities when it comes to protecting children from abuse, “they must be “willing to deal with enablers,” she says. “They must be willing to deal with the failure to report sexual abuse as the very serious and critical issue that it is.”

*      *      *

Despite all this, Denhollander—a lawyer and mother of three children, with a fourth on the way—has not given up on her faith.

Today she and her family have found another church where they “feel blessed.” And she wants it to be noted that some people at her old church have apologized for how she was treated—something she is grateful for.

As for the wider evangelical church in the U.S., she still believes it can be better.

The church, she says, “should be the safest place” for those who have been sexually abused.

“Christ is the greatest hope, he is the greatest refuge for someone who has been wounded and betrayed. He defines what trust and security and love and compassion should look like for sexual assault victims.”

As for her own experience, she says that sometimes “obedience costs,” especially if you have to “speak out against your own church community . . . it will cost to stand up for the oppressed, and it should.

“If we’re not speaking out when it costs, then it doesn’t matter to us enough.”

Does this ring true for Canadians, too? Your comments are welcome on this blog or by e-mailing me at jdl562000@yahoo.com 

From the Feb. 10, 2018 Winnipeg Free Press. One source of information for how churches and other faith groups can respond to child sex abuse is Dove's Nest.