Pastors and theologians, writers and poets, anyone who communicates for a living—or even anyone who puts effort into a social media caption—knows all too well that words change over time. In many of our seminary language studies, we learned the phrase, “traduttore, traditore” which roughly says, “the translator is the traitor.” In short, language is fluid.
Over the course of the last few decades, society at-large has given new context to words that have routinely been applied to only its most extreme cases. “Abuse”, “predatory”, and “grooming” have taken on deeper and broader applications birthed out of changing social climates. Let me reassure you, this is good news.
RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) defines grooming as a “manipulative behavioral tool that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.” This definition is helpful, but also broad in its scope.
I’m not addressing all cases of grooming. I’m seeking to draw specific attention to how relationship dynamics within our churches leave us prone to grooming, how we might have overlooked the relationship between power and predation, and how to be the peacemakers God calls us to be.
Here are some scenarios that hit close to home. While not all scenarios scream “predatory grooming”, they do however, represent questionable points on a relationship spectrum that church leaders must be aware of:
- A volunteer youth teacher starts dating a former youth student after the student graduates from high school
- A short-term missions leader confesses attraction to a member of the mission team
- A praise leader serially dates other praise team members
- A senior student in a college ministry asks a freshman out on a date during the first semester of school
- Anyone who says, “I’ve been praying about you and God told me that he wants us to marry.”
There are varying degrees of appropriateness in each of the aforementioned scenarios, but there is one unifying factor in each of the scenarios: a power imbalance.
Dr. Diane Langberg, author of Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church often speaks of two abuse dynamics that lie at the crux of grooming culture: 1) ignoring power imbalances and 2) that power is misused to falsely represent the voice of God.
In all of the scenarios above, power imbalances exist to varying degrees. Because it operates within a religious context, specifically within an Asian American religious context, the power has even greater potential of misrepresenting the voice of God. This, according to Dr. Langberg, is a direct offense to the Third Commandment (You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God).
The potential for predatory relationship environments exists in all church settings, but there are a couple of unique factors found in our Asian American church settings that may contribute.
1. Perfunctory Deference to Elders
Our communities naturally give respect to anyone older than us. This is a noble practice that, in many ways, is also a biblical one (Ex 20:12, 1 Tim 5:1-3). Our cultures also give deference to those who are of higher status in our churches, which can also be very biblical (Num 3, Heb 5:4-10). This does, however, cause some unintentional blindspots when it comes to unchecked fealty and trust.
In the beginning stages of grooming, we often end up looking the other way. We suppress inner suspicion, while rationalizing, “He has a good heart” or “I know she means well.”
But how can we know for sure? How many times have we collectively made a habit of accepting potential predatory behavior, both overt and covert, under the “holy person of God” guise? Then, after grooming scandals are made public, we are left scratching our heads, scrambling to figure out where it went wrong and reverse-engineering our practices and policies.
2. “We don’t want to rock the boat”
I’m no expert on Confucianism but I do know it has made a lasting, generational impact on our orthodoxy/orthopraxy as Asian American Christians. In Confucian philosophy, there are five constant relationships, each fundamental to our understanding of human interactions and essential to maintaining community: parent-child, ruler-subject, elder-younger siblings, husband-wife, friend-friend. The idea behind these relationships is that in order for peace and balance to be achieved within society, all five pairings must perform their respective duties and maintain social expectations.
The result? We are communal, almost to a fault.
This is ideal when all parties are in harmony; actively pursuing and practicing Christian virtues of love, self-sacrifice, and mercy. But when predatory grooming exists, there is a prominent, often insurmountable, cultural barrier that protects the status quo.
We witness this dynamic when we hear the reasons why we continue to remain silent:
- How could I do that to the ministry?
- I don’t want to give our church a bad name
- I don’t want to ruin his family or my own family.
The ministry. Our church. Our families.
Notice the constant presence of communal language. Though this pressure towards social conformity has lessened over the last few years—spearheaded by the acumen and awareness of the younger generations—we are still intertwined to one another through duty, culture, and powerful social bonds.
In no way am I suggesting that all Asian churches are primed for grooming, nor am I suggesting we abandon our cultural norms altogether (not that it would be possible). In and of themselves, these factors are generally harmless. In many cases they are honored elements of our church culture that should be celebrated. But together,when left unchecked or ignored,they can coalesce to become optimal blindspots in a way that is unique to our ministries.
Gospel Hope
For our churches and ministries, the road to reformation has a very smooth on-ramp. Being aware of power imbalances is a crucial first step, and asking ourselves some very simple questions will benefit everyone in the community:
- Am I aware that there is a power imbalance in this relationship?
- Am I trying to selfishly take advantage of this imbalance of power?
- Am I leveraging my position in a way that accomplishes ulterior motives beyond my commitments to the church?
- Am I misrepresenting the authority of God with my position in this relationship?
- Do I have someone in my life to whom I can be accountable with these questions?
On an organizational level, simple background checks and personal reference verifications for all leaders and volunteers are an easy step that churches can readily adopt with minimal effort. Our congregants must know the goal isn’t to change outward policies, but to change the culture, and create safe spaces for the gospel to thrive without impediments.
It is our collective imperative to recognize natural power imbalances, and represent the family of God in all we do and say; to be a house of worship that takes seriously the charge to be peacemakers, not just peacekeepers.
There is a huge difference between being a peacekeeper and being a peacemaker.
A peacekeeper is passive, simply maintaining the status quo. A peacemaker is active, disrupting the status quo because they are pursuing a better way. Peacekeepers operate from fear. Peacemakers operate from love. The New Testament religious leaders were peacekeepers. Jesus Christ was the consummate Peacemaker, using his influence to protect and restore, ultimately relinquishing his power for the sake of all who find refuge in his name.
May our churches be filled with blessed peacemakers, offering a grand vision of hope for the future of our churches.