Thread by @thearmchaircom

There is some hair splitting happening about whether Tikkun was actually responsible for the response from the Pastoral Recommendation Team.

I want to point out that *they* (Dan Juster) took it upon themselves to assemble this team in the first place…

When the response was released, Tikkun could have distanced themselves from the committee’s findings from the start.

Because Tikkun was responsible for convening the committee, they bear some accountability for its findings.

I want to emphasize that, to my knowledge, no one asked them to release anything or convene anyone.

I know that I would have preferred that they had remained silent in this and merely acted in the role of housing the investigation—something they were *asked* to do.

Housing the investigation meant, essentially, that they were the organization responsible for making sure that Firefly (a separate entity that is totally independent of Tikkun) was paid. There were some other terms in their engagement letter, but that was essentially it.

Tikkun was NOT responsible for interviewing anyone, conducting any kind of investigation, reviewing evidence, handling materials—nothing. Their role was more of a legal/fiduciary thing and ultimately a formality.

Rather than keeping it this way, Tikkun took it upon themselves to convene multiple committees and to take a public facing role in this investigation and to try to position themselves as leaders.

Some of you might be like, “why are you coming for Tikkun?”

I’m not attacking them. I am simply pointing out that their response to the Firefly report was neither necessary nor helpful.

It has created more issues and done more harm than anything.

Tikkun had the opportunity to be the apostolic leaders that they claim to be. They could’ve been the watchmen on the wall and the shepherds protecting God’s flock.

Instead, they doubled down on protecting the institution of the church and not God’s children.

“But Ally, what could they have possibly said or done that would satisfy you and all the others who seem so intent on finding fault with everything that anyone does to help in this crisis?”

First of all, I want for the folks who decide to step up to actually offer constructive help. A lot of folks, particularly in the “movement” have shown up and made statements behind microphones, and their lack of understanding of clergy abuse has done harm to survivors.

I want for leaders, ministers, organizations, and ministries to place the concerns of survivors at the center and talking about caring for them first, rather than talking about whether Mike should be allowed to minister or what should happen to IHOPKC.

I want for leaders, ministers, orgs, etc. to stop feeling the need to affirm “the good” that Mike and IHOPKC has supposedly done, and to denounce and decry the harm that people experienced without making “balancing statements.”

Second, this isn’t about finding fault or picking people apart. I want the leaders who have shown up in this crisis to have humility and recognize that there is a lot they don’t know about clergy sexual abuse and spiritual abuse.

I want them to have the humility to listen to those of us who have lived through these realities and to experts who understand how these things work.

It’s not good enough that people show up and try to do “something.” What they say and do matters and it should be helpful.

If people choose to release statements or show up to this crisis in ways that aren’t constructive and that end up doing damage to survivors, that needs to be talked about.

Having a good heart and “trying” simply aren’t enough—we are talking about people’s lives.

How abuse/misconduct is handled or mishandled is an important component of justice.

Survivors cannot be healed and made whole when they are placed in situations that retraumatize them. They can’t be made whole when their experiences are invalidated.

They can’t be made whole when spiritual leaders place the concerns of ministry over their safety and healing. They can’t be made whole when the church is more concerned about restoring their perpetrators.

So when people like me stand up and say “This isn’t good enough,” it’s not coming from a place of fault finding or perfectionism. It’s coming from wanting survivors to be protected.

Perpetrators can’t be brought to justice if their survivors are too afraid or too broken to speak out.

What church leaders say matters. What they do matters.

Some people may decide not to tell their story again or ever because of leaders’ actions (or inaction).

So what could Tikkun have done different/better?

• They could’ve housed the investigation and remained silent otherwise.

•They could have listened to experts and survivors who would have told them that it would be ill-advised and harmful to recommend restoration.

•They could have listened to the IHOPKC survivor community and taken in that folks were wary of their involvement, and worked to build trust and confidence and gauge what the community needs/desires. They could have run their response by activists and advocates in the community

•They could have availed themselves of the myriad resources and knowledge bases on clergy abuse and convened experts and leaders from outside the bubble to give objective feedback and education.

•They could have considered that perhaps it wouldn’t even be fitting for them to convene anyone or make any kind of response given the controversy behind their response to the allegations on Dr. Brown. They could’ve recognized their conflict of interest and stayed quiet.

There’s a lot that Tikkun could have done differently. Convening that group was a choice. Putting out that response was a choice. At any point, they could’ve said, “This might be out of our wheelhouse,” and sat down. But they didn’t. And they ended up harming folk.

They made their choices, and those choices have consequences. Those consequences are that people are even more frustrated snd upset than they were before the statement was released.

And that’s a shame.

@threadreaderapp unroll it!