Response to a Counselor's Paper on Clients and Authority Figures

By Dennis McCallum

September 20, 1992

[In 1992 and 1993, Xenos suffered a prolonged conflict over issues involved in counseling. In an effort to resolve the conflict the elders and counselors in the church convened a colloquium to study the issues involved. They discovered that they held substantially different perspectives on the issues of truth, feelings, healing, and possible leadership abuse. One counselor wrote a paper arguing that clients who feel abused will not be healed unless the leaders involved admit their error and show remorse. But here was rub. Leaders were being accused by members of their home groups, but explicitly denied the charges in many cases. Some elders felt the counselors were out of line for always accepting client's claims of abuse as true. In this paper, the question of whether or not leaders were actually guilty was explicitly put down as unimportant. The counselor argued that leaders should simply be willing to be falsely accused and show remorse accordingly for the sake of healing the client. He recounted cases were counselors summoned leaders to meet with clients for reconciliation but would not admit their fault, thus becoming self protective. This response summarized my feelings about a problem besetting many churches today—the therapeutic perspective which considers the client's memories as “reality” whether the events actually occurred or not. This view holds that we can never know what happened in the past, so that question is unimportant. As such, this perspective touches on the whole area of postmodern views of counseling and history. It also touches on recent debates over church abuse literature, which often employs the therapeutic perspective. For the most part, the claims made in the counselor's paper should be clear from my comments. For the sake of anonymity, I have called the author(who later left this church) "the counselor" in this edition of the paper.]

The counselor has given us some descriptions of "roles" typically followed by victimized clients and their victimizing leaders. Since writing this paper, he has sent out another memo which I have read along with Gary DeLashmutt's response. I was glad to see that the counselor did not feel that the clients he is seeing fall into the category of "abuse" victims, but his description does make it clear that they are nevertheless viewed as victims in some sense. I felt that Gary's response is important, and raises questions that need to be answered.

My comments, which are my own, and not those of the other elders, will be directed to the paper named above.

I am disturbed by some of the things in this paper. The main problem I would like to discuss is the sense in this paper that leaders of clients who come to the counselor are either guilty of the actions with which the clients charge them, or that the issue of guilt or innocence is unimportant. I have to reject either one of these conclusions.

In a paper I wrote earlier in response to another counselor's paper, I suggested that there are at least three important constraints that we must respect as we attempt to effect healing in any of our clients or other members. I will repeat them here.

1. We must avoid committing additional acts of abuse, which may make the cure just as bad as the disease.
2. We must effect recovery without denying the truths of our faith or the facts of history.
3. We may not do anything that is morally wrong in the hope of correcting moral wrongs from the past.

I want to press for acceptance of these constraints once again, because based on my reading of the counselor's comments, I am not sure we share these convictions.

I would like to point out several points in the paper where it would appear that the counselor may not be operating within these constraints.

1. At the bottom of page 1, the counselor outlines the three possible roles he sees for leaders in one of these conflicts to assume. They are: Denial, Conditional Admission, or Agent of healing. Unfortunately, as his later comments make clear, all of these roles assume that the leader(s) is guilty of harming the client. How can we assume this? Why isn't there more concern that we may harm one of our leaders by this assumption? (constraint #1) Why aren't we more concerned about what the facts of history are? (constraint #2)
2. The counselor sees leaders assuming the deficient role of "historian" when accused of wrong-doing. The historian "attempts, through the assembly of existing evidence and the recollection of themselves and others, to establish 'what really happened.'" The counselor sees the role of historian as "self protection," "self-serving," seeking "acquittal" and as having goals that are "not biblical." Their approach is described as "destructive" and "unproductive." (all on p. 2) The role of historian is also equated with the term "denial." It appears that an attempt to discover "what really happened" constitutes a selfish and sinful attitude, destined only to ruin the healing process.
   
   I find this position incomprehensible. How can it be selfish or sinful to discover the truth? In our definition of abuse, we determined that the word "objectifiable" belonged in the definition in order to rule out subjectivity. Here it seems like any attempt to rule out subjectivity is self-protective. The counselor complains that the historian is "unable or unwilling to absorb some initial unjust accusation" and therefore "can not play a significant role in the healing process." If we accept this proposition, we are directly rejecting my suggested constraint #2, because we are prepared to deny the facts of history. We will probably also violate constraint #1.
   
   I think the facts of the situation are exactly what we need to deal with. The suggestion that the facts don't matter is unbiblical. I would like to point out that going back to the history of a conflict to defend oneself from false accusation is exactly what the apostle Paul does in I Cor. 3:6-4:7; II Cor. 6-12; and Gal. 2. God also does so in passages like Mal. 3:1-4 and Job. 38-40. Notice God's questions of Job: "Will the faultfinder content with the almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it." (40:2) Also, "Will you condemn me that you might be justified?" 40:8). God was arguing that he had done no wrong, and that Job was projecting blame on him unjustly. Instead of patting Job on the back, God confronted his sinful emotional strategy. Many of the prophets contain similar disputes between God and his people who have forgotten the facts of the situation. Jesus asks, "Which one of you convicts me of sin?" (Jn. 8:46)
   
   As I understand it, the notion of self-protectiveness, as developed by Crabb, refers to situations where people distance themselves from relationships in order to avoid pain. I don't believe he would say it is wrong to defend your innocence if you are accused of rape, for instance. This is not what self-protectiveness means. When someone's reputation is brought under question, they have a right to defend themselves, and this is biblical.
   
   The suggestion that leaders who seek to establish the facts are in the flesh deprives our leaders of the protection of the truth. It reminds me of the situation during the Medieval period in Europe. During the inquisition, nothing more than an accusation of witchcraft or heresy was necessary for the inquisitors to arrest suspects, who were then tortured and often subjected to trials by ordeal which were impossible to pass. Historians have proven that some people were accused and killed for no reason other than the fact that the accuser hated them or wanted their property. Since then, society has moved toward a presumption of innocence in order to assure fairness. An accusation is not sufficient reason to conclude someone is guilty. I am picking an extreme case on purpose, so that we will be able to see the principle.
   
   I want us to agree that we will require authentic evidence of wrong-doing before we adopt the belief that leaders are guilty. This includes accusing them of denial.
   
   The Bible states that elders must be "just." (Tit. 1:8) I take this to mean that we are obligated to be fair in our dealings. Otherwise, we are in danger of committing abuse against innocent servants of God who are accepting added exposure to danger by trying to lead the church. I think we can also make a distinction here between believing someone is guilty and having suspicions. We may harbor suspicion, but fairness dictates that we not reach a verdict unless there is evidence.
   
   The counselor points out that people remember things differently. This is true, but there are other ways to determine the truth, including third parties and material evidence. The counselor's illustration, where he liked the weekend at the in-laws and his wife didn't, is not analogous. This illustration refers to personal taste, which is not an issue here. To be truly analogous, he would have to be claiming that the weekend at the in-laws was good, and his wife would have to be denying that they ever went to the in-laws! It is not people's emotional reactions to events that I am questioning here, but the events themselves. The one is subjective, the other is objective.
   
   I would like to point out that not only this paper, but the counselor's other memo, and earlier papers all fail to consider the possibility of innocent leaders. For instance, the counselor says being a historian leads to "unproductive questions such as 'was it abuse, or just stupidity?'" I submit that his question is not unimportant or unproductive, but I also wonder why the other question isn't also being asked. It seems that only two possibilities are present--stupidity or abuse. What about the possibility of the leader being innocent? This is not saying that leaders are innocent. But how can we claim that we are fair if we are unwilling to consider this possibility?
   
   It may be that the counselor is not necessarily denying that leaders are innocent, he is only saying that this doesn't matter. Actually, analysis of the paper reveals that both assumptions are present: that leaders are guilty and that the question of innocence doesn't matter. I think it does matter, as my illustration of a man accused of rape demonstrates. Why do we think Paul tells Timothy not to receive an accusation against an elder unless it is by two or more witnesses? (I Tim. 5:19) This restriction applies to elders, but there is also a principle here. It is well-known that people often accuse leaders, and we need an environment where leaders feel that they will be treated fairly.
   
   The counselor's analogy of the traffic accident where a pedestrian is hit by a car is also not analogous. He points out that the question of whether the driver is at fault will not help the wounded pedestrian heal his wounds. True, and it would be fine if neither party lodged accusations, but only focused on healing. However, The counselor is prepared to allow the pedestrian to accuse, but not the driver. In fact by "absorbing baseless blame," it appears that only if the driver admits he is at fault can he play a role in healing. Why do we think police take accident information at the scene? Also, if the parties are not discussing fault, or the history of what happened, why do we need a joint counseling session with both leader and client?
3. I am particularly distressed that the counselor claims that he "kicks the beans out of" leaders who are adopting a posture he labels as self-protective. I hope this is hyperbole. Let me make my position clear: the counselors in this church are not authorized to kick the beans out of leaders or anyone else. If you, as a counselor, have a problem with a leader in this church, you should take that up with an elder. I would also like to have a list of leaders who have received this treatment. This appears to be a clear violation of constraint # 3.
4. I am wondering if the counselor may be involved in unethical failure to report wrong-doing in this church. I would like to know who the leaders are who are "in complete denial" (p.4 top). If there are leaders involved in wrong-doing in this church, and who are denying that wrong-doing, a counselor is morally obligated to report this to the elders. Counselors do not have the option of ignoring a situation like this, or handling it off the record. I am disturbed that the counselor and some of his clients have concluded that "there is nothing else they can do" because a leader "refuses to cooperate." This situation is intolerable, and is against our policy.
   
   The counselor also claims that he and his clients are assessing "the destruction currently taking place as a result of the authority figures (sic) continued actions." He is then helping them "make the determination regarding the level of contact and/or the termination of contact [with the leader]." (p.4 top) I presume this refers to deciding to leave the church. I am startled to think that any staff member would be involved in decisions like this without reporting it to the proper authorities. How are we to lead a church if unrepentant wrong-doing by our leaders is not being reported? Isn't the counselor a co-conspirator with the perpetrator of wrong-doing if he fails to disclose what he knows, especially when we work explicitly under a policy of waived confidentiality for exactly this reason?
   
   I would like to point out that the option of "termination of contact" is not open to leaders. I imagine that a number of leaders would like to terminate contact with one or two people they know. But we insist that they resist this urge in order to avoid wrongly "shunning" people in their group. A leader would have to get the approval of the elders before they could "terminate contact" with someone from their group through legitimate church discipline.
5. The counselor's section on the person in authority as a healing agent continues the scenario developed already. He appears to advocate denying the truth of history in order to heal clients (constraint #2). He states that leaders are to "encourage the client to express their feelings and their experiences without judging, correcting, or condemning. Rather, they express genuine remorse, love and concern." (p. 4 bottom) the expression of "remorse" again clearly signifies that the leader is guilty of wrong-doing. Therefore, moral judgment is happening here, but it is one-sided. The leader is guilty and must affirm this, then the client will forgive more easily and they can both return to a harmonious relationship.
   
   This section appears to argue that we can effect reconciliation only if we first dispense with truth. I think the argument that the issue of truth should be suspended in this way is alien to the Bible. This appears to be manipulation of the client by taking a position we know is dishonest for the sake of the effect it will have on the client. I would like to see biblical authority for this stand. I, for my part am ready to provide biblical evidence that love and truth are to be expressed together.
   
   I think there is a big difference between expressing empathy for someone who feels hurt, and expressing remorse, which clearly implies admitting fault.

I realize that the counselor's paper was informal, and that he may have exaggerated or used figures of speech at points. Also, he may not have had time to think everything through thoroughly. But there are so many problems here requiring attention that we really must hear answers. I hope these can be provided as quickly as possible.