Thread by @katierouquine

"Speaking truth is not bitterness.
Telling your story is not gossip.
Calling out leaders for mishandling abuse is not damaging the testimony of Christ.
Christ brings healing when there’s truth, justice, transparency and humility." @NotinOurChurch1

I was at Church of the Resurrection for 20 years before I left, serving in a variety of capacities over the years. In the last six weeks, since Joanna Laurel's first Twitter thread was posted, I've been trying to find the words – they vacillate between plentiful and scarce.

This recent story of sexual abuse(s) within the diocese has continued to rapidly unfold and so each time I've attempted to draft this, I've paused to wrap my head around the newest gutting information.

I've debated what is fruitful to say? What is beneficial? What is fair? Is it even my place to chime in? There are people I care about on both sides of this situation. I do not claim to have all the pieces of the puzzle.

I imagine there are particulars that will come out if an independent investigation is conducted that will shed light on things I can't foresee right now – I'm open to revising my perspective as new details surface.

That said, I recognize the patterns many of the victims have named: gaslighting, spiritual abuse, enmeshment, powering-up, improper prioritizing, "soft" misogyny, lack of follow through on promises/care – and control.

In the 20 years I was at Rez, I saw an ever-increasing amount of control over members and staff. It became so frequent and rampant that it was one of several reasons I finally left.

This is why I was dismayed, but not surprised, to see it confirmed that there are little to no checks & balances within Rez's leadership and within the diocese's leadership.

No church is perfect and all churches are in process – which is why the initial yellow flags I observed stayed yellow in my mind for literally years...until I finally knew too many examples of the same behavior to excuse it anymore. It's subtle until it's glaring.

If you're close to the inner circle you have a very different experience and lens. I've seen this pattern play out multiple times too. People who have been long-shepherded by Rez and chosen for various roles and opportunities tend to think only the best of its leadership,

as that's typically all they've experienced and seen. That's understandable and yet also risky. They don't rock the boat and so they maintain their status as those who are doted on, in some fashion – and thus, this cycle of perception feeds itself.

People close to the inner circle often downplay and dismiss those who raise questions and critiques in the same way Rez leadership does – usually something along the lines of a matter being misunderstood or the critic being bitter/divisive.

The problem at Rez – primarily – isn't sexual abuse. The problem is a culture, supported by an enmeshed structure, of ever-increasing control and a consolidation of power. The sexual abuse that has recently come to light is the most egregious limb of a tree rooted in these things

That root is what allowed this situation to dwindle and linger and not be prioritized appropriately. How can I say this, when I don't know what's gone on behind the scenes? Because I do know the following:

A priest at Rez said if someone posted something contrary to Rez/Anglican theology on social media, he would ask them to take it down.

A priest at Rez, upon hearing the news that a married member had romantically come on to a single member, responded (in part) that while he was so sorry, there was the married man's family to think of.

Rez leadership – unintentionally or not – led on a woman who was a key member of a church planting team and continually shifted leadership tasks (even ones she had come up with!) to men on the plant team.

Rez leadership sat down with someone on the verge of moving in with a platonic, opposite-sex friend and warned that doing so could jeopardize future volunteer opportunities at Rez.

Rez leadership reacted and behaved dismissively and invalidatingly when people came to talk to them about concerns that were leading them to a decision to leave Rez (I know multiple stories of this).

Bishop Stewart requested that things "be kept in the family" or "kept between us" and not posted or discussed on social media at heightened times, such as when Rez did its Fully Alive series on gender, sexuality, and marriage in the winter of 2017.

I never understood this, given that anyone can walk into a church service at any time – one shouldn't presume a Sunday morning service is somehow private (and this begs the question of what within Christian teaching ought to be kept under wraps anyway?).

Rez leadership, alongside Greenhouse leadership, fumbled situations where women came to them with relational concerns about boyfriends who mistreated them (not physically, but emotionally/mentally) – several of these men went on to the ordination track shortly thereafter.

Rez leadership continually changed the rules and expectations for people on staff, poorly communicated about such things, and then became defensive and short-tempered when those under their care asked for clarity at the ensuing confusion.

Rez leadership has grown less able to be questioned. People who do – in the beginning – are nicely told to trust the leadership. If they persist, it does not tend to go well – they become problem children to tamp down.