“Abuse is the mistreatment of any person by neglect, cruelty, or violence, whether spiritually, physically, or verbally as defined by the Word of God alone. God requires His people to provide compassionate and judicious care that defends true victims, and which calls for appropriate reporting, church discipline, and criminal prosecution of genuine perpetrators. Therefore, we reject all coercive or manipulative pressure or alien evaluative standards that pervert biblical justice, whether by those who would ignore true abuse or by intellectual trends that seek to weaponize victimhood, since they necessarily distort the healing grace offered to all in the gospel.” (Quoted from the CREC 2021 counsel meeting minutes, number XIII, unanimously approved first reading of the memorial.)

A friend pointed us to this statement (“memorial”) published by the CREC (Doug Wilson’s denomination). We thought it would be helpful to examine the statement, reading it in a spirit of irenic helpfulness rather than a polemic challenge. While we can recognize and applaud any efforts to address the handling of abuse in the church, this statement provides us with a useful example of how such an effort can actually have the effect of making abuse harder to address. 

As with most controversial compromises, which this appears to be, ambiguous language must be used in order to allow for various interpretations to coexist. These can be quite problematic, and there are several such points of ambiguity in this statement. The first is found in what may well seem to be the least objectionable statement, “as defined by the Word of God alone.” This ends up effectively being a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and it begs the question, whose interpretation will be followed?

The problem is that the entire definition of abuse can be effectively nullified by someone arbitrarily setting the “biblical” bar for neglect, cruelty, and violence high enough that it can eliminate most, if not all, of what could constitute spiritual and verbal abuse. Physical abuse can likewise be overlooked, as long as it can be “biblically” argued that it isn’t cruel or violent. There is too much ambiguity here to be a useful definition of abuse.

Here is the definition that we use: "Abuse is an unjust treatment of another that occurs when one misuses their own natural powers, privileges, or advantages in such a way as to oppress the other." 

In order to properly delineate what we mean by this definition, it is important to exposit briefly what is meant by both "unjust" and "oppress." With respect to justice, we are referring to the principle that all should be treated without partiality and that each should be treated with equity. Specifically, with respect to abuse, "unjust treatment" (mistreatment) is any action that causes harm to another person as a result of acting unrighteously, acting out of vengeance, or by otherwise perverting a judicial process. By oppression we are referring to a special kind of injustice that has to do with one who creates and maintains an advantage (an oppressor) over another in such a way that causes harm to the other.  

Moving forward, the second statement is effectively undermined by the ambiguity of the definition of abuse, carried into two ambiguous phrases: “true abuse” and “genuine perpetrators.” The first problem is that in order to determine either of these, a victim would have to successfully plead their case to the church first, in order to ascertain whether or not they have been truly abused or that there is a genuine abuser. The church would have to conduct an inquiry that would, ostensibly, attempt to meet such some evidentiary standard. However, as we have observed, this statement does not offer a clear definition of what it even means for something to qualify as “true” or “genuine” abuse. 

To further complicate the matter, the church lacks the investigative authority and capability to reliably achieve conviction in all but the most obvious and egregious cases. As a result, you have a situation that will in many (if not most) cases effectively provide cover for true abuse and likely protect genuine abusers. Add to this the reality that if the church fails to correctly ascertain a just outcome, any future civil case would be effectively undermined or obfuscated by the church’s actions. These realities effectively undermine the ideal that seems to be envisioned, but worse than this, it puts the church on an unjust footing. 

The final portion of the statement seems to be more political than practical, but it ends up being especially problematic if oppressive leadership is in place. Based on this statement, it would be a trivial thing for such leaders to reject any call to deal with abuse by simply labeling it as “coercive and manipulative pressure.” Ironically, such an action could only be effective in a context where partiality is assumed and accepted, where leadership holds an advantage that would allow them to bypass the consideration of a challenge on the basis of its merits by resorting to this ad-hominem accusation.    

Another related ambiguity can be found embedded in the concept of “alien evaluative standards.” This ends up being another way to say that the church sets the rules, which means the leadership defines what is abuse and then requires proof. In light of these things, an abusive church leadership becomes free to reject any challenge to their judgment in a matter. 

Along these lines, the statement also fails to describe what might be called “biblical justice.” Aside from the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, the implication is that there is such a thing as justice that is not biblical. Perhaps this is a reference to civil courts, and their responsibility to punish those who do wrong. The church cannot stand aloof from the fact that God delegates the government's authority to enforce justice. This is tacitly acknowledged in this statement with reference to "appropriate reporting" and to "criminal prosecution." The judicial process can be perverted or it can be just, but it cannot be set in opposition to a vague notion of biblical justice. 

This points to one of the most dangerous aspects of this statement. By placing the church in the role of investigative agent, this statement is likely to encourage actions that would be prone to perverting justice.

The final phrase also deserves some brief attention: “...by intellectual trends that seek to weaponize victimhood, since they necessarily distort the healing grace offered to all in the gospel.” If someone is actually a victim, then any attempt at calling for justice could easily be interpreted as a vengeful weaponized victimhood. This enables an argument against justice, in the name of forgiveness and grace. However, using these biblical values as a means to pervert justice would also undermine the gospel. The fact is that healing grace is not universally offered or applied, and sometimes justice is final, without the ability to repent.

Finally, while a good person would be able to operate under this statement with biblical integrity, a bad person would be able to exploit it without much trouble, and when that kind of person is in a position of leadership, it would be practically impossible to correct their abuse.