A Deafening Silence
In her talk “The Lion and the Lamb - How the Gospel Informs Our Response to Abuse,” attorney, advocate, and sexual abuse survivor Rachael Denhollander describes the devastating effects of sexual abuse and then explains that how we respond “is either going to bring great healing or cause extensive damage.”
Denhollander also reports that in a survey conducted a few years ago, sexual abuse victims were asked to name who they thought would be the safest people to seek support from in the aftermath of their abuse. They named churches and pastors at the very top of the list. However, when asked who they found to actually be the most helpful, churches and pastors ranked dead last, after “other.”
I joined ACNAtoo in the naïve hope that somehow our denomination’s story could be different. I longed to see the Diocese of the Upper Midwest leaders humbly repent of the ways they had not cared for the victims who came to them for support and seek both forgiveness from and healing for the victims. I dearly hoped the leaders would see the need to implement extensive education about abuse and put reporting and accountability structures in place so their churches would not only be safeguarded against predators, but could serve as a haven for those already harmed. Surely this would be desired by all, I thought! If the Church is to reflect Christ’s character – His truth, justice, forgiveness, compassion, and love – this was our opportunity to live it out, to be a witness to the world.
Instead, over the past year I was given a front-row seat where I observed leaders’ acts of deception and denial, bullying and broken promises, and their use of victims as pawns for power and self-protection. It has been devastating to witness. I pray it is not the end of the story.
An Introduction
My name is Audrey Luhmann. My first Anglican home was Church of the Cross, a UMD parish in Hopkins, MN. Following this, my family and I attended CotC’s “daughter” parish, Church of the Redeemer, in St. Paul, MN. Fifteen years later, both of those churches remain very close to my heart, and my husband and I still have many dear friends there. We now reside in Chicago’s west suburbs with our eight children. Until last spring, Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton, IL was our family’s church “home.”
When Bp. Stewart published his May 4th, 2021 diocesan letter about the allegations of Mark Rivera’s abuse of a little girl, my heart ached for the victims. I was also appalled that two years had gone by before this was disclosed to us. Only a week earlier, Bp. Stewart preached a sermon entitled “Who Leads You?” He assured us we had many good shepherds, and encouraged us to trust them. How could he have claimed this, I wondered after reading the May 4th diocesan letter, after he knowingly withheld information that would have alerted us to protect our children, some of whom Mark still had access to? And what if Mark had hurt other children in the past? If so, then that was time lost when other victims could have felt safe and empowered to come forward and our church could have walked with them in their journey toward healing.
We decided to leave Rez quietly. Over the almost three years we attended, my husband and I had held growing concerns about the leadership and the culture it promoted. When we voiced our questions to leaders and fellow congregants there, the response was often some variation of, “Well, I can see how you might feel that way, but you’ve misunderstood because you haven’t been here long enough. We’ve known Bp. Stewart and Mama Katherine for a lot longer. If you knew them better, you wouldn’t think that…” On the outside, Rez seemed like a beautiful church family, but it no longer felt safe to us. We decided together to leave and seek a healthier and safer place.
Then came Bp. Stewart’s second diocesan letter on June 29th, where he referred to some of the alleged survivors publishing their grievances online.
I ventured onto Twitter for the very first time, read their words, and again my heart sank. Sure, there could be two sides to a story, but at some junctures, both could not be true. Just a few days later, I unexpectedly came across a former church intern on Facebook and his post alluding to emotionally and spiritually abusive treatment he and his wife experienced from Bp. Stewart and his wife Katherine that was enabled by others on staff.
I was nauseated. It felt as though I had turned to look back after leaving and had seen my former home on fire with people dying inside.
Didn’t Christ choose to place Himself among the vulnerable? Wasn’t he found among the broken, the hurting, and the oppressed? I could not walk away silently, ignoring the victims and pretending I had not heard their cries. Quietly, I began to advocate for survivors, to seek help and answers for all involved. Eventually this led me to joining the ACNAtoo team, where I served as one of the liaisons between our team and the ACNA COO Bp. Alan Hawkins.
The following is my account of what I have watched leaders do and what I have watched them refuse to do.
Failure from the Province
On August 30, 2021, ACNAtoo published Carol’s Story, written by a survivor who alleged that Fr. Keith Hartsell (now rector at Greenhouse Movement parish Cornerstone – Portage Park and de facto leader of the Greenhouse Movement) had seriously mishandled child sexual abuse many years ago while a youth leader at Church of the Resurrection. In publishing her story, “Carol” hoped to dispel the myth that sexual abuse mishandling within Church of the Resurrection and the UMD was a recent and isolated issue, and also to show the urgent need for a thorough examination of the church’s long history of mishandling abuse allegations.
As a mother, this story was devastating to me. One of my worst nightmares would be to not only find out years later that my child had experienced sexual abuse, but that they had had to carry that wound alone and silently, believing that my husband and I knew and were ashamed of them! To be prevented from surrounding our child with love and assurance and safety for their healing would be shattering. I was devastated for “Carol” and for her parents as well.
Within days of “Carol’s” story being published, Greenhouse staff received an email on Sept. 4th from Fr. Keith. He asserted that false accusations had been made against him concerning this alleged mishandling of a pastoral situation, and he invited Greenhouse staff and clergy to reach out to him personally if they had questions or concerns.
Excerpt from Fr. Keith’s Sept 4th, 2021 email:
“And finally if you saw and read “Carol’s Story” that was briefly posted on the acnatoo website last Monday and then removed, that made false allegations of “mishandling a pastoral situation” against me and have questions or concerns, I am happy to discuss with anyone to relieve any fears. Please feel free to approach me.”
The next day, Fr. Keith Hartsell publicly responded in a livestreamed announcement during Cornerstone-Portage Park’s Sunday service, stating that he was “personally attacked and slandered online.” He then explained that the Provincial Response Team (PRT) had interviewed him regarding his handling of ”Carol’s” alleged sexual abuse:
“After they heard my side of the story, they were not only relieved, they were incredibly impressed, with not only how well I was trained to handle this situation, but also how I conducted myself and how I, um, walked that process through with the authorities, what I reported to the authorities, um, and so they were not just relieved, they were super impressed.”
Keith then encouraged his congregation to come talk to him rather than be suspicious of him. He continued:
“It is really a hard season to be a pastor or a leader, um, in the United States today. There’s a lot of, uh, difficulty, and um, and because I know you all and I love you all, and I know you don’t read stuff online and believe it all, as if there isn’t, um, other sides of the story. And I know you all would never try to malign or attack anyone online, um, as that’s just not mature. It’s not the, the mature way that – I won’t just say Christians – but it’s not the mature human way, um, to address issues and concerns, we just don’t attack people on social media…”
In that announcement, Keith shifted the focus immediately from the alleged survivor and her experience to himself and his experience. He highlighted just how impressed those who questioned him were with him, how hard his job was, and then passively attacked the alleged survivor and the credibility of her story before shifting to announce that he had just been asked to fill in for the Greenhouse Executive Pastor position previously held by Fr Eirik Olsen, who was on a medical leave.
Shortly afterward, a Greenhouse employee took Fr. Keith up on his offer to speak privately. To that employee, Fr. Keith made a number of questionable or false statements, including:
That “Carol” chose the ice cream shop and that a “trusted female youth worker” accompanied Keith and was the one who actually questioned “Carol”:
According to “Carol,” these two assertions are categorically false. She insists that she met with Keith alone and had no say in the location of their meeting. She contends that there was no “female youth worker” present, and that Keith questioned “Carol” himself. (To date, after extensive investigation, our team has found no female youth worker who claims to have been present at this meeting).
That what “Carol” alleged as abuse was really a consensual dating relationship:
Evidence that Fr. Keith himself gave to Provincial leadership (which Bp. Alan Hawkins later disclosed to some members of the Provincial Response Team) directly contradicts this assertion.
That “Carol” did not disclose any abuse to him:
Although “Carol” did not at the time have tools to name her experience as sexual abuse, she alleges that she disclosed years worth of sexual touching, beginning at 11 years old, that should, at the very least, have necessitated informing her parents. Her age when this abuse began and the accompanying circumstances, which were known to Fr. Keith, made it clear that this was not a consensual dating relationship.
That “Carol” was the same age as the alleged male abuser and had therefore lied in her story:
“Carol” is over a year younger than the alleged male perpetrator and was significantly smaller than this boy when he began abusing her at the age of 11 at Church of the Resurrection.
That he had extensive training and responded to “Carol’s” situation with expert competence:
If in fact Fr. Keith questioned “Carol” privately about her abuse, made her apologize to and forgive her abuser in front of other teenagers, and did not inform her parents about what had happened, this would be evidence enough that any training he may have received was woefully inadequate. The insufficient training provided to Rez’s youth leaders is one of the things “Carol” hoped to highlight in telling her story. A sufficiently trained youth leader would have been able to identify the behavior “Carol” described as an experience of sexual abuse and would have immediately alerted her parents.
That he had called DCFS 4 times about “Carol’s” situation and that “Carol’s” parents were not informed because DCFS concluded the situation did not merit investigation:
Not only are there no DCFS records that confirm Fr. Keith ever called on “Carol’s” behalf, but “Carol” maintains that Fr. Keith met alone with her as a minor, facilitated a meeting in which he required her to forgive and apologize to her abuser, and failed to alert her parents or get their consent for any of this. As her parents explain in their September 2021 Open Letter, “Carol” had falsely believed for years that her parents were aware of all of this and were just too ashamed of her to discuss it. This is horrifying and inexcusable.
An ACNAtoo member then contacted ACNA COO Bp. Alan Hawkins to inquire into Fr. Keith’s public statement at his church about his supposed interview by PRT members. Bp. Alan responded and said that Fr. Keith’s statement was incorrect, that Fr. Keith had not spoken with the PRT team, but had had a conversation with “our Chancellor and a provincial leader.”
Excerpt from Bp. Alan’s Oct 9th, 2021 response (emphasis mine)
The only ACNA Chancellor I was aware of was Jeff Garrety. Jeff Garrety was a seated member of the PRT, but Bp. Alan had just stated that the PRT did not in fact speak with Fr. Keith. Something was not lining up.
I emailed Bp. Alan back to gain clarity. (Emphasis below has been added for this piece.)
From: ACNAtoo Advocacy Team
Date: Oct 11, 2021, 3:34 PM
To: Alan Hawkins
Subject: Additional follow-up re: Keith Hartsell
Greetings,
Thank you, Alan, for answering some of our questions in your reply to [redacted] and clarifying a little bit more what actually took place in Keith’s interactions with the Province immediately following our release of “Carol’s” story. We appreciate your honesty.
There are still a few details on which we are unclear.
Why did you choose the provincial leader (left anonymous: why?) and Chancellor (who is not Jeff Garrety?) to do the evaluation meeting with Keith regarding whether the Bishop.'s Council (BC) would need to take immediate action? Is this to uphold subsidiarity regarding disciplinary action? Obviously, it was determined by this duo that no action was necessary (at least no public one), despite not attempting to interview “Carol” as well to check the facts or challenge what Keith offered in his rebuttal. Was their purpose simply to see if the allegations merited action by the BC? If so, why was “Carol” not interviewed?
Why did these two evaluators take Keith’s statements at face value?
The information we have heard from those whom Keith has spoken to privately includes facts in his defense which cannot coincide truthfully with “Carol’s” story. I am fully aware that in some situations and events, there can be two (or more!) sides to a story; however, there are details in “Carol’s” story that cannot be both/and. For example, either Keith did or did not bring along a female youth volunteer.
Also, per our conversation prior to the seating of PRT members, you agreed that having Alex Cameron chairing the BC was unforeseen by the Province and problematic due to his proximity to Keith. Given that the UMD’s constitutions and canons are up for review, which would include the BC and their role as Ecclesiastical Trial Court (Art III here) of the diocese, we lack faith that the BC can actually follow through with proper disciplinary actions. (Doubtless you are seeing the reasons why action within this diocese has rarely occurred against persons who have secure connections with the governing bodies with supposed ecclesiastical power to judge.)
And finally, did these two individuals actually tell Keith that they were “relieved” and “impressed” with his handling of the events surrounding Carol’s story, or did Keith lie about this to his congregation? If the former, we are concerned that the message being sent to Keith’s church and to the larger diocese is that this evaluating team (which Keith mistakenly named as the PRT itself) has the role of both investigating as well as adjudicating all reports submitted to them; you confirmed that no third-party investigative firm has been hired yet, and that they would be responsible for determining the veracity of the reports. What you have assured us is dismantled by what Keith has already spread widely amongst the entire diocese. The effect of this is not only the confusion of congregants, but also the loss of confidence for survivors to feel safe making any contact with the PRT.
If the latter - that Keith lied to his congregation and to the larger diocesan community - then your Sept. 8th commendation to the clergy was too late. It has not prevented the dangerous spread of misinformation. What has been said publicly has already almost certainly circulated far and for over a month. The gravity and validity of victims’ stories has therefore been undermined. Should information be provided in the future that proves Keith has lied, the Province’s response will be shown to be incompetent.
At this time, a public follow-up from the PRT or Provincial leadership to correct the errors in Keith Hartsell’s Sept. 5th Cornerstone Anglican Church - Portage Park announcement would follow a best-practices approach to a thorough investigatory process. Deceptive messaging needs to be called out and corrected. Confronting this is uncomfortable, understandably, but at the same time it is not only necessary, but urgent. You have communicated to us repeatedly your desire for the current course of events to proceed with all commitment to truth and justice, with the sincere hopes that reform, growth, and preservation of the diocese and larger denomination can be achieved. There is a clear opportunity here to follow through with that desire and commitment.
Sincerely,
Audrey Luhmann and the ACNAtoo Team
Bp. Alan responded that he had asked Fr. Keith to correct his statement to the church:
“I spoke with Keith Hartsell yesterday to reiterate that his actions will be investigated. I also asked him to correct his September 5th statement.”
Bp. Alan also stated that the PRT had not interviewed Fr. Keith because doing so would have jeopardized the PRT’s integrity. Certainly, if they were conducting their own investigations, it would be a very serious conflict of interest. However, I would later find out that the PRT’s integrity was indeed jeopardized: Chancellor Jeff Garrety, a seated member of the PRT who also works in the Provincial Office as an attorney, interviewed Fr. Keith, and even other members of the PRT were not aware until after the fact that one of their members had communicated with a potential subject of the third-party investigation.
On October 31st, Fr. Keith supposedly presented a public correction regarding his misleading comments from September 5th. However, as Fr. Keith stood and spoke during the announcement time at Cornerstone – Portage Park’s Sunday service, the audio on the livestream mysteriously cut out for just under 6 minutes, only to return right as Fr. Keith walked off the stage.
Surprised and concerned, I texted Bp. Alan about the missing audio:
Alan: "I am not aware of this being done this way. If Keith had the audio turned off - then he made that choice. I will ask him what he said and see if I can get a copy of the text."
Audrey: "This means that all who saw it online [his Sept. 5th announcement] prior have no way of knowing what he said today, and what errors he corrected. It is a blatant act of deception. Not only does this look bad for him, it also looks bad for the entire provincial process. Alan, I long to see integrity and humility. If Keith refuses to speak truth publicly, I and others will expose his deception. This is heartbreaking. The ACNA - and the Church as a whole - can and must reflect Christ.
You can request a copy, but how will you know if it matches what he said today? And to whom will it be disseminated? If Keith Hartsell and the Upper Midwest Diocese have nothing to hide, why did today's audio cut out exactly (and only) when he was speaking?"
Alan: "I will speak with him and see what he said. We mandated that he had to correct his statement that he spoke with the PRT. Otherwise the integrity of the PRT is in jeopardy. I don't know why Keith did it that way. I will find out."
(text exchange between Bp. Alan Hawkins and Audrey Luhmann, October 31, emphasis added) Read the full text exchange here.
Bp. Alan followed up with me on a November 3rd, 2021 phone call to let me know that Fr. Keith had cleared everything up. I have no paper trail for this communication, as Bp. Alan almost always insisted on phone calls with me and with others instead of written communication. This is my memory of our conversation. When I asked him if Fr. Keith had submitted audio, Bp. Alan said that he had not, and that they were simply going on Fr. Keith's word. There was nothing else that the Province could do, Bp. Alan said.
"But Alan," I cried out in frustration, "What if Fr. Keith has lied?!”
"Yes," Bp. Alan replied, "he could have. There is nothing we can do about it.”
When I pushed back, pointing out that even Fr. Keith’s current acts of deception (his false statements on September 5th and his cut audio on October 31st) warranted a leave of absence, Bp. Alan said that because of subsidiarity, the Province had no authority over this matter. This was something that the Diocese of the Upper Midwest's BC would have to deal with, he told me.
Bp. Alan’s assertion that the Province had no authority to tell UMD clergy what they could or could not do is disingenuous, because on September 8th, 2021 (three days after Fr. Keith’s first public announcement), Bp. Alan was reportedly on a Zoom call with the UMD Bishop’s Council and all UMD clergy, where he instructed them not to take public action that involved any survivor stories released online. According to several BC members, this left them feeling that they were strongly discouraged by Bp. Alan from taking any disciplinary action against Fr. Keith in response to “Carol’s” story. In other words, they felt their hands were tied.
Looking back with what I know now, I believe that Fr. Keith's audio pull actually benefited Provincial leaders. If Fr. Keith had publicly explained during his correction that he had not actually spoken with the “PRT,” but rather with “Provincial leaders” (whom we now know included Chancellor Jeff Garrety), it would have exposed the fact that Garrety’s role as both a Provincial Chancellor and a seated member of the PRT presents a significant conflict of interest. Garrety was also acting without the knowledge of the rest of the PRT, effectively putting on and taking off his “PRT hat” as the situation required.
Additionally, if in Fr. Keith’s missing audio, he had maintained that he had indeed been interviewed and declared not at fault, it would have confirmed that the Provincial leaders had only sought out and were satisfied with information from one side. When Chancellor Garrety disclosed his meeting with Fr. Keith to the PRT, he told them that he was satisfied for the time being with Fr. Keith’s account. He had not sought further evidence from “Carol.” Bp. Alan told me that no Provincial action could be taken in response to an anonymous story. However, in numerous phone calls, Bp. Alan made it clear to me that he already knew “Carol’s” identity, and with “Carol’s permission, I officially disclosed it to him on a Zoom call. Yet rather than request any information from her that would possibly challenge the information gathered from Fr. Keith Hartsell, Bp. Alan told me repeatedly that he preferred that she wait and submit her information to the third-party investigative team once they were hired. In the meantime, he found no need to see her evidence.
Following the missing audio “corrective statement,” Fr. Keith’s church sent out an announcement that they were “making some changes to our livestreaming experience that will serve our church family better.”
The public livestream never returned and a former congregant emailed to share that they received no follow-up email about how to access the service livestream. This meant that now there was no way to hold Fr. Keith accountable for anything he might say publicly at his church.
Failure from the UMD
By December 2021, it became clear that the UMD BC did not consider Fr. Keith’s falsehoods and deception worthy of disciplinary action. This was sadly not surprising given the long-standing friendships and ministry partnerships between Fr. Keith and many of the BC. For example:
Fr. Keith and Dean Steve Williamson attended Wheaton College together and then worked together for years at Church of the Resurrection.
Fr. Keith is the rector of Cornerstone-Portage Park, where BC member Kyle Oesch serves as a priest.
BC member Barbara Gauthier, although serving on the BC from the Chicago Deanery, receives donations through Greenhouse Movement’s website under “Our Missionaries & Ministries.”
Fr. Keith has served as a Board Member for BC Chair Alex Cameron’s ministry organization Isaiah 40.
In addition, as has already been shown in Part 4 of Helen Keuning’s writings, Fr. Keith is the unspoken leader of Greenhouse. Of the twelve members of the UMD BC, three (a dean and two other members) represent the Greenhouse Deanery.
At the first BC meeting after “Carol’s” story was released, many BC members were quick to defend Fr. Keith, shifting the focus from the alleged survivor to supporting Fr. Keith and offering “clergy care.” Were personal and employment ties truly going to trump defense of the vulnerable and the accountability of a leader?
To answer the question about where authority rested, I reached out to a BC member to inquire about the Council’s canonical authority to address and respond to the actions of clergy members within the Diocese of the Upper Midwest. The member asked if I would give my consent for him/her to send an email of inquiry to Bp. Alan, BC Chair Fr. Alex Cameron, and Minnesota Dean Paul Calvin to explain that he/she had spoken with me and wished to seek clarification on this question of authority. Less than 24 hours later, I received a Facebook friend request from Fr. Keith Hartsell.
The BC member’s email inquiry was not addressed to Fr. Keith. Was this email that contained my name shared with him? If so, why? Since his audio pull, ACNAtoo had received a report that Fr. Keith had sought out and bullied a separate individual (a stranger to Fr. Keith) who had simply questioned his actions online. Fr. Keith also submitted a formal request to the UMD Communications Team in January, after they sent out a diocesan email to clergy to update them about the resignation of the three PRT members, whose resignation letter was given to and published by ACNAtoo. The update email to clergy gave a link to our website, and Keith immediately contacted a member of the Communications Team and told them that they should never link to our site again.
I am aware that multiple people have sent emails to the UMD BC via Brenda Dumper and BC Chair Fr. Alex Cameron in the last six months to express concern about both the UMD’s response to “Carol’s” story and Fr. Keith’s actions. Those emails went unanswered for weeks.
Fr. Alex Cameron was also asked a few months ago to have a Zoom conversation with a number of individuals concerned about or personally wounded by Fr. Keith, including several reported survivors and “Carol” herself. Fr. Alex declined, offering only to speak with the initiator by phone.
In contrast to this, I am aware that BC members Chair Alex Cameron, Dean Michael Flowers, and Dean Steve Williamson, and Church of the Resurrection Sr. and Jr. Wardens Andrew Merrick and Jill Smith did meet with Fr. Keith, and, similarly to the Provincial leaders, did not make any attempt to reach out to “Carol” to check her details against his.
Excerpt from the Oct 12th, 2021 Bishop’s Council Meeting Minutes
When UMD Deans and Acting Bp. John Miller were questioned about why the BC had chosen not to place Fr. Keith on a leave of absence, Bp. John Miller responded:
“To date, no clergy person in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest has been placed on a mandatory leave of absence by the BC or any other ecclesiastical authority. Some key diocesan leaders have chosen to take a voluntary leave of absence, based on their positions in the diocese, and their willingness to ensure that the investigative processes are not unduly influenced by them.”
Excerpt of email from Acting Bp. John Miller (used with permission from recipient)
This reply seems to stand in contrast to Bp. Alan’s disclosure to me (by phone call) that the Province "strongly encouraged" Bp. Stewart Ruch to go on leave and Missioner General William Beasely to retire immediately (these statements were further reinforced by Part 1 of Helen Keuning’s writings).
If the ecclesiastical authorities could “strongly encourage” other leaders to take a leave of absence, why would they not do the same for this leader, who not only was an investigative subject for his actions taken years ago, but was also currently abusing his priestly office and violating his ordination vows?
“Remember how great is this treasure committed to your charge. They are the sheep of Christ for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you will serve is his bride, his body. If the Church, or any of her members, is hurt or hindered by your negligence, you must know both the gravity of your fault, and the grievous judgment that will result.” 489
Bishop: “Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own life, according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make yourself a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ?”
Answer: I will, the Lord being my helper.
(Book of Common Prayer 2019, Liturgy for the Ordination of a Priest, pp 489 & 491)
Fr. Keith has not been truthful, has sought to malign alleged survivors, and is intimidating those in leadership with him. Even recently, he demanded a personal apology from former BC member Helen Keuning after she asked (during a BC meeting at which Fr. Keith was not present) which organization – GH or UMD – would be in charge of any disciplining of Fr. Keith Hartsell, should the current investigations being conducted by Husch-Blackwell and Telios indicate that he had committed any wrong-doings. This demand by Fr. Keith for an apology went progressively through Greenhouse Board Member Jens Notstad to BC Chair Alex Cameron, the UMD Assisting Bp. John Miller, and MN Dean Paul Calvin, who eventually relayed the message to Helen. All four men hold positions of power and all of them acceded to Keith’s demand rather than denying him or coming to Helen’s defense.
Conclusion
My understanding is that the Husch-Blackwell investigation will address allegations of Fr. Keith’s previous failures of leadership involving “Carol.” However, due to the lack of confidentiality for survivors, “Carol” does not feel safe being interviewed. Any material evidence used for disciplinary action is required to have identities disclosed in the final unredacted report that will be submitted to the Provincial Investigative Team.
The Provincial leaders do not demonstrate that they value survivor safety or that they understand the harmful consequences of sharing confidential information. I have now spoken with two people to whom Bp. Alan revealed the name of an anonymous Mark Rivera sexual abuse survivor. I have also been made aware that Bp. Alan reportedly disclosed “Carol’s” identity to a BC member and openly named “Carol” and her alleged abuser to other members of the PRT. This renders the investigation as it is currently set up unsafe for full participation by survivors and is therefore a failure from its onset. (I have similar concerns about the other arm of the UMD investigation being conducted by Telios, which has similar requirements for survivor identity disclosure.)
This is no longer simply about past leadership failures towards survivors. This is about current failures, along with deceptive and abusive behavior and the unwillingness of those with power to hold clergy accountable. By their actions, the clergy show no care for those whom they, as priests, are most called to serve.
Remember, the fire we are now watching began when victims of sexual abuse came forward to give their witness to the ACNA’s Upper Midwest Diocese’s mishandling of victims. Clergy leaders have continued to move the focus away from the victims and instead to their own self-defense and self-promotion.
To date, the Church’s silence toward the victims is deafening.
I wrote earlier that watching leaders’ responses and actions has been extremely disheartening. Despite this, however, I cannot shake a yet deeper hope. I John 2:1 says that, “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” Each week we Anglicans confess “the things we have done and the things that we have left undone.” It is not too late for Fr. Keith, for the UMD leaders, for the Provincial leaders, or for us to make those confessions and to take hold of what is offered because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. As King David wrote in Psalm 32, “Blessed is the one whose sins are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” In that same psalm, we find God’s promise to protect, surround, instruct, and counsel us. As a parent does not abandon their wayward child, God does not abandon us.
Church leaders, you have despised us, the ones who will not be silent. Perhaps God has placed us beside you for a purpose. If you are familiar with Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, remember that although Frodo has been chosen - ordained, if you will - to carry the incredibly powerful, evil One Ring to its final destruction, it is Samwise Gamgee, his ever-loyal companion, who enables Frodo to finish his almost impossible deed by carrying him up the last steps to the fires of Mount Doom.
Clergy, I love you. There are times that I have learned from your wisdom and have felt your loving care. Indeed, some of the truths that have driven me on in the midst of this were originally planted and cultivated by you. I want you to know that I want your very best. This has been a difficult journey for each of us; we all want it to be over.
But I - we - are not going to leave you alone. In these days we are carrying you to complete the task that God called you to: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Let go of your fear and your power. There is so much life and healing on the other side.
Audrey Luhmann can be reached at luhmann.audrey@gmail.com. She asks for your patience for any responses.