Part 2: Evidence of Misconduct
July 3 2021, Twitter Thread (In Full)
Joanna’s July 3rd Twitter thread has been transcribed by #ACNAtoo volunteers so that members of ACNA and other readers outside of Twitter can have prompt access to this information in order to properly advocate for abuse survivors and hold Bishop Stewart Ruch, the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, and other ACNA leadership accountable.
You can also view a Thread reader of her twitter information here that preserves all images and screenshots.
The text of the Tweets has been slightly modified in places for clarity. When dates are mentioned, the year has been added. Twitter handles have been removed and replaced with names. The Twitter thread contained extensive screenshots of emails and meeting notes. The text captured by the screenshots has been transcribed by volunteers. Links to the original Tweets with screenshots are included. When a Tweet contained a screenshot of an email from Bishop Stewart or an employee of the Diocese, the screenshot is posted below in addition to the transcription. Names that were redacted to protect the privacy of victims, their families, and third parties in the screenshots are also redacted below.
The entire Twitter thread is transcribed below. Due to its length, we have also divided the thread into four blog posts for readers who find the entire thread posted on a single page too cumbersome. The links to the partial thread transcriptions are below:
Twitter thread begins:
Okay, concerned Anglicans have asked what they can do next.
This thread addresses that.
It’s also long, dense, and repetitive.
There’s a reason for that. Please bear with me.
(Also, screenshots are just evidence; you can skip them and come back.)
It may not be apparent to some readers why I’m providing so much documentation of the process that led to where we are now.
I will explain more at the end of the thread, but you knowing the backstory is 100% necessary to both my sanity and to getting this advocacy done right.
Note: This thread is specifically written for advocates within ACNA who understand the basic psychological dynamics of grooming, abuse, and community enabling.
Others: please read, but know this thread assumes some familiarity with those things.
Basic premise: Sexual predators accomplish serial abuse by coercing victims into silence.
In order to break this silence, come forward, and receive care, victims need a community that actively demonstrates that it protects victims and not predators.
November 19, 2020: I disclose Mark Rivera’s rapes and abuse of me to his community.
November 21, 2020: Bishop Stewart Ruch sends me a kind email with an open-ended offer of support.
I am overwhelmed and deputize my friend Eve Ahrens to communicate as my proxy with Bp. Stewart.
November 24, 2020: Eve, a professional counselor and former Church of the Resurrection member, writes Stewart and his wife on my behalf, citing among other things my serious concern that qualified professionals be brought in to educate church leadership and work with victims.
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Eve containing the following text transcribed below:
Systemic enabling and complicity. This kind of behavior never occurs in a vacuum and is impossible without a community there to lend credibility, trust and opportunity to the perpetrator. Collusion seems like a strong word, but as is evidenced, it only takes one credible adult in the community to break the group narrative in order for the whole thing to collapse. The fact that this has not happened up until now shows lockstep collusion with a group narrative, even if it is in different degrees of subtlety from different members.
Is there anyone involved in the process with specific expertise in sexual abuse, grooming, predatory patterns and the way that these patterns manifest in a community?
Are the responsibilities of complicit parties being addressed, or is everyone involved being treated as a victim (as everyone excluding the underage parties can be both)?
Are abuse victims being counseled by a professional with training specific to sexual abuse so they are being treated not just for the trauma of the event, but understand the impact of grooming and personal and community complicity?
November 24, 2020: Eve has a Zoom meeting with Stewart and his wife. Eve explains grooming, abuse, and the Diocese’ responsibility to address systems and dynamics and not allow Mark to keep controlling the community narrative.
Stewart indicates that he understands all of this well.
January 19, 2021: I write Bishop Stewart detailing how Christ Our Light Anglican (COLA) church and a pocket of Church of the Resurrection became a blatantly victim-unsafe community starting May 2019, when the first of Mark Rivera’s victims came forward and leaders and others openly supported Mark and shunned the victim’s family.
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Joanna containing the following text transcribed below:
Every survivor of sexual abuse that attends your churches already has the uphill battle to fight against the shame abusers instill in their victims. Now the ones anywhere near this situation have received the exact message that will silence most of them, indefinitely: COLA, Rez, the Anglican Church, my community will not believe me, and they will not support me, if I tell them that I have been abused. They will not believe that I was abused in the past. They will not believe someone is abusing me now. They will not believe me if someone abuses me in the future. The only way I can limit the damage of my abuse is to never, ever tell anyone.
That’s the message COLA sent the greater community, and still sends it, every day they ignore VICTIM NAME REDACTED and VICTIM NAME REDACTED and me, and make our old spaces unsafe for us to come back to, as a punishment for speaking the truth. Until you take dramatic, public action, in the face of this, as a diocese, you are helping them send this message.
Not only will the vulnerable people in your community internalize this message for themselves (“do not speak of abuse”), but as it sinks in, over the years and decades to come, they will continue to spread it, like the contagion it is. Repressing their own experiences of harm, unable to face their own trauma, they will become the adults of the future who silence their children, and other people’s children, when those children risk everything to share the story of their abuse. They may not believe those children, because they have soaked in the practice of denial for so long. Or they may believe them, but know that others will not. Expecting that their family will be discredited and ostracized, they will make the cruel decision to silence the victim, so that they do not lose their community. Meanwhile abusers, protected by this growing web of silent complicity, will continue to find new victims to abuse.
There is no end to this, Stewart. One Mark Rivera can poison an entire community, and precipitate indefinite intergenerational trauma, if left unchecked. All through cleverly pushing a twisted spiritualized narrative and playing on the sympathies and good intentions and deep fears of everyone around him, to make himself appear to be the victim, and to make the real victims disappear, or recede into perpetual silence.
Deep harm has long since been done, and is still being done, every minute, as I write you this. The only way to counteract this ongoing harm, the only way to redeem this long-rotten situation in Big Rock, and the ripple effects to the Rez community and beyond, is to take decisive, immediate action, far beyond what I see happening so far.
The Bishop’s wife had told Eve that the church “can’t control what people think.”
So I explain how the church has already strongly influenced how people think and must now actively change course, or victims who’ve observed predators being protected will never come forward.
I emphasize that the Church of the Resurrection will need to bring in trauma-informed professionals in order to handle this situation properly, and I provide links to resources my team has discussed and endorsed, as a starting point. Here’s just one excerpt:
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Joanna containing the following text transcribed below:
The Allender Center is a Christian organization that specializes in trauma care, counseling, and trainings. They’ve been leaders in the field since long before the conversation entered the public sphere, let alone the church; their founder, Dan Allender, has been teaching on this topic since the ’80s. The Center is based in Seattle, but they have a number of trained facilitators in the Northwest Chicago suburbs, who have provided trauma training for area ministry and lay leaders, at venues such as Wheaton College. (At the moment, due to Covid, their trainings have all moved online.)
Statistically speaking, hundreds, maybe thousands, of individuals – men, women, and children – who attend your churches, are survivors of sexual trauma, whether or not their abusers operated within the church. Sexual harm is some of the deepest damage done to the human soul, and it is 100% an issue churches must address unflinchingly, and proactively, if they are to be places of healing and redemption. The current situation, for all its misery, is also an invitation, and a challenge to the diocese, to name sexual abuse for the pervasive evil it is in our society, and to make sure your leaders and your staff are trained – by a healthy, experienced outside organization – in how to address it, as it exists in your midst, already.
The Allender Center’s Effective Trauma Care training is a good place to start, and the Narrative Focused Trauma Care offers a more-in-depth follow-up to that. I’m including links so you can get a quick impression of what they offer, but I recommend that you talk with NAME REDACTED before making any decisions. NAME REDACTED has gone through their trainings, understands their philosophy and process thoroughly, and is connected with people in the organization as well as people who were trained through the organization and now offer their own training services. She recommends the Center and its graduates not just because they are excellent at what they do, but because their spiritual culture and values align closely with those of Rez, likely making them a good fit for the diocese.
February 12, 2021: Eve emails Stewart’s team expressing concern about one of their proposed investigative firms and reiterates how crucial it is that an investigator know how to search properly for victims and also provide guidance for parents:
The original tweet included two screenshots of an email by Eve containing the following text transcribed below:
Just to clarify the two pieces where a third party is necessary: I don’t think the internal investigation piece should be framed as a legal investigation with the purpose being to clarify judgments about guilt or innocence. This piece is often investigated by former members of the legal system (due to their experience in the investigative process), but the actual purpose is 1) to create safe spaces and means for truth to come forward so that other victims can receive care and legal recourse safely, and 2) to collect the most possible data (via victim’s stories) about the entire arc of the predator’s behavior, including ways that they gained access to children or vulnerable adults, established credibility through the diocese and church communities, and where other adults failed to recognize red flags of grooming behavior or allowed said access or reinforced credibility of the perpetrator. These directly serve victims who would likely not otherwise come forward as well as contributing to the thoroughness of the assessment.
The assessment piece, without this information, will be helpful in seeing where protocol was breached in the most overt ways (i.e. mandated reporters should report or perpetrators should not be informed of that report, but will not help the church to understand the systems that a serial predator nearly always creates around them to ensure they have access to victims, implied trust of victims and their families, and that their secrets will be kept or their behavior defended if it becomes known. Obviously I don’t implicate everyone in the ways they were used by a perpetrator as this is often an unwitting role (at least until the secret keeping and defense pieces), but by very nature of the care and trust that’s offered and implied in Church communities, they are a natural breeding ground for these systems to take root, so I believe it is their responsibility to be aware of them, be able to pick up on signs quickly, and act quickly and directly to self-correct and dismantle these systems as soon as it appears harm has been done. Protocol should be developed out of an understanding of these patterns and fundamental changes in thinking and culture. Procedures on their own can be helpful, but still often fail. In this case there were good procedures in place (everyone at COLA had child safety training and was a mandated reporter) and it’s important to know why the foundation was missing so that every adult that the victim went to for help failed to follow procedures.
The second screenshot of an email by Eve included in the original tweet contained the following text transcribed below:
In reading through Aequitask’s material, I can see that they are very professional and well organized and understand how you would be impressed by their responses. It seems like their specializations lean toward corporate or institutional investigations of practice and protocol (this is judging by their language, the qualifications of their staff and their apparent target market) that would be well suited to examining failures in processes at the institutional level. I am concerned that there does not appear to be any indication of trauma informed staff (investigators who don’t understand the psychology of victims will be unlikely to know the language or methods to help bring victims forward or instruct parents on how to interview children. I know we mentioned in the call how the nuances of this are crucial) or a posture that centers on victims or survivors. Assessments done without these components will run into the same issues mentioned above (protocol will be reiterated, but foundational education as to why, or a culture that knows why they support that protocol will still not be there). Obviously more information would be helpful as the scope of what they described themselves as doing seemed very broad.
February 15, 2021: I reiterate to Stewart’s team that my top investigation priority is a comprehensive victim search and an equally comprehensive, trauma-informed plan in place to field any survivors the search brings forward (1st screenshot).
Eve does the same (2nd screenshot).
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Joanna containing the following text by transcribed below:
I know this is redundant to the other things I’ve written, but I can’t emphasize this enough. It would be easy if we could find people in the whole 25-year story, who really messed up, and demote them or fire them or reeducate them. We can’t. It’s vastly deeper and broader than that.
So my top priority outcomes for the overall investigation/assessment/development process are the following:
Every one of Mark’s unknown victims that can possibly be reached feels safe to come forward, privately or publicly, and is fully facilitated to take whatever steps they need to take, to heal. (This search for additional survivors seems to be an investigative piece, which is why it is so essential that any investigator be expertly equipped to facilitate and handle this process– a.k.a. trauma-informed– by being staffed to both bring forth and properly field a possible flood of survivors.
The original tweet included a second screenshot of an email by Eve containing the following text by transcribed below:
I would add to the needs in the assessment part, as well as providing assessment and education of patterns of grooming/abuse/predation in the context of a community, I would ask how they provide assessment and education on common community response following allegations (education on common patterns of victim blaming, maligning and abandonment) and how an organization can create safety in their community to bring allegations forward.
February 21, 2021: I email with concerns about another investigative firm, reiterating my focus on the delicate work of both finding survivors and then getting them excellent help immediately, while they are in the highly vulnerable place of just bringing forward their abuse:
The original tweet included two screenshots of an email by Joanna containing the following text transcribed below:
So unlike a Title IX situation at a university, in our case, there is nothing to adjudicate. There is a story to be told, and much more truth to be revealed, and there are unknown numbers of victims to be helped, and that is what we are looking to do, here. The story that needs telling will not be even remotely complete unless the investigating party can go to every length possible to find the rest of Mark’s victims. It does not sound like RLV will do this, nor do the delicate work of helping the diocese to craft the survivor-focused public statements it needs to craft, nor help survivors get the help they need, once they’ve come forward and exposed themselves and dredged up their trauma. RLV didn’t immediately raise up the concerns Lathrop did, for me, but unless an organization’s specific primary focus is the wellbeing of victims, we can’t trust that they will do what they are inherently incentivized monetarily against doing; focus on the truth, not on the preservation of the institution that hired them. I don’t see any indication that RLV is set up to do what we, the victims, need them to do.
Second screenshot:
We want to know the whole story, however long it takes to uncover. We want victims discovered and cared for. We want to see a church system transformed from its blind spots into a place where victims (not just of Mark, but of any perpetrator, inside or outside the church), can go in complete confidence to a well-trained, trauma-informed counselor, and get the help they need, never worrying that they will be shunned, as VICTIM NAME REDACTED and her family were, or dismissed, or pushed to stay silent, or blamed for their own abuse, or otherwise re-traumatized, whether or not the perpetrator is part of the church or diocese.
February 21, 2021: A victim’s mother also writes Stewart’s team expressing distress concerning investigators the Diocese is considering and details numerous problems with them. She carefully explains how much additional pain and trauma a poorly done investigation can cause victims.
March 15, 2021: I email the Bishop’s team again about firms they are considering, echoing the victim’s mother’s concerns that they don’t even approach the gold standard, G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), and reiterating yet again some necessary care parameters for victims.
This email is never answered.
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Joanna containing the following text by transcribed below:
Does an excellent job making victims feel safe to come forward, including providing a female interviewer for victims who may not feel comfortable disclosing their abuse to a man, and stating clearly in their outreach to potential witnesses/victims, that no one in the church will know that they have spoken to the investigator. (I picture this process involving a separate encouraging invitation from Stewart, to all members and anyone on the contact list, to please speak to the investigator if they know anything at all, emphasizing total confidentiality. I think people will feel safer and be more likely to participate, if Stewart says it publicly, as the first point of contact, rather than them hearing it first from some firm they know nothing about).
Opens up this invitation to all victims of any church mebers or leaders at any time in COLA’s or Rez’s history, not just Mark, and deals with any cases as they arise, including understanding why the victim did not come forward before, or if they did, what kind of response they received. This will help contribute essential data to the larger conversation about culture and training.
Opens up this invitation to anyone with any infomation about Mark or other grooming or abuse or mishandling of allegations, whether or not the people coming forward with information were themselves victims. I assume that this is automatically stated in the public invitation to come forward, that any investigator sends out, but just to cover my bases.)
Sets up a team of professionals to help the victims begin to address their trauma. (You mentioned this already; I’m just being thorough.)
Total silence for 6 weeks.
April 19, 2021: I reach out to check on the investigator search.
They’ve hired one. I ask basic questions.
They will not speak to us about the investigation, including the firm’s name, as this is “contrary to the independence of the investigation.”
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Joanna to Anne Kessler, a Senior Staff member at Church of the Resurrection, containing the following text by transcribed below:
Hi Anne,
We’re glad to hear that the investigation is close to getting started. We understand that the investigator will be operating independently and not communicating about their process or discoveries to either us or the diocese, while they work.
We do have some clarifying questions going into this:
Which investigator did you choose?
Will the investigator be announced publicy at Rez during services by an established leader, such as Stewart or Steve?
How long does the investigator estimate the investigation taking?
Will the final report with all their findings be provided to us?
Will the diocese be making the final report available online?
Thank you for your work on this.
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email by Anne Kessler to Joanna containing the following text by transcribed below in addition to a copy of the screenshot:
Dear Joanna,
Thank you for your email. As you mentioned, we are starting an independent investigation and the Diocese has formed a special committee of any independent persons to manage and oversee it. It is important that the investigation remain independent of anyone who has an interest in the issues being investigated or the outcome. Some of the information you seek will become known, but in the meantime, answering your questions is contrary to the independence of the investigation.
We welcome your prayer support for this effort. Likewise, your support in protecting the integrity of the investigation is greatly appreciated.
Ultimately, our hope is that truth will reign and healing brought to all in need.
Blessings,
Anne
April 30, 2021: A prominent man at Church of the Resurrection calls Stewart to advocate for us.
Stewart’s team leader then asks us to chat “informally” via phone.
We decline.
She sends a friendly email that still answers few of our questions.
May 4, 2021: Stewart launches the investigation publicly.
Bishop Stewart’s May 4, 2021 launch announcement gives parents absolutely no guidance on how to talk with children and gives zero details indicating that the Diocese of the Upper Midwest plans to provide professional trauma-informed care for victims who may come forward.
It also:
fails to define Grand River Solution’s scope and thus what stories are relevant
downplays Mark’s access to vulnerable people and his heavy 20+ year Church of the Resurrection
downplays the allegations’ number and severity
reduces 2+ years of a victim’s abuse to “several months” etc.
The announcement does promise that “one of [their] first actions will be communicating how other possible victims or their parents can find help.”
Two months later, we have seen no such communication.
The original tweet included a screenshot of an a portion of Bishop Stewart’s announcement transcribed below:
As we work with this investigative firm, one of our first actions will be communicating how other possible victims or their parents can find help. We desire to help spur truth, justice and healing throughout our diocese. I can appreciate that this letter may raise many questions for you; please know that we will be communicating from the diocese as we work with the investigator. We anticipate there are details that we do not know or have as inaccurate and these adaptations will be a part of future communications.
In the wake of Bishop Stewart’s May 4, 2021 announcement my team immediately sends crucial follow-up emails explaining to him / reminding him of multiple ways in which his process could do more harm than good to Church of the Resurrection abuse victims.
May 5, 2021: A victim’s mother emails Stewart’s team many Church of the Resurrection-and-adjacent roles Mark had in 20+ years that weren’t in the announcement (creating a false sense of security as parents assume their children didn’t cross Mark’s path, as he’s just “a former member of the diocese”).
She also challenges Stewart’s claim that the alleged abuses did not take place on church property or at church events, an unsubstantiated assertion that again serves to improperly assuage parental fears—this time by suggesting that Mark didn’t abuse children at church.
She explains how Mark constantly groomed children during church services and at church functions, sometimes while in clerical robes, hugging, kissing and snuggling them on his lap, and used the churches to shop for “godchildren” and pursue teenage girls to “mentor.”
She urges him to issue an update with this plus:
Mark living on shared property with a school Church of the Resurrection kids attend
bond violations (interacting with minors)
# of victims so far (10)
allegation types (rape, assault, abuse…)
criminal charges (9 counts child sexual assault)
The original tweet included a screenshot of an email from a victim’s mother to Bishop Stewart containing the following text by transcribed below.
If you are willing, I would feel greatly relieved if the following were added as an update to the diocese.
Accusations against Mark Rivera have been made involving 10 different victims. The allegations include child sexual abuse, rape, assault, grooming, sexual abuse, and exposure to pornography.
Mark is currently being prosecuted for 9 counts of child sexual abuse in Kane County.
Mark served at Resurrection as a prayer minister, communion minister, RL small group leader, PCM prayer minister, youth volunteer, and webmaster. He also had extensive interactions with and unsupervised exposure to Rez children during Bird and Baby Theatre productions around 2009-2011. Mark also had extensive exposure to Riverside students (many of whom attend Resurrection) at his home property, some of whom he hugged and interacted with while out on bond, in direct violation of his bond release agreement to have no contact with minors.
It’s also extremely important that Rez families, in particular, understand that seven. of the victims were attending Church of the Resurrection at the time they were victimized (4 of whom were Rez youth).
A personal question I want to ask is whether you are willing to commit to making all investigation findings and reports public? If so, please express this to the congregation and the diocese, as this means an enormous amount to anyone who participates in the investigation.
Thank you,
Importantly, also, as the mother alludes to, I am the only one of Mark’s known victims that never attended Church. of the Resurrection. Church was Mark’s primary social vehicle for accessing victims. Downplaying that reality in any way, as Stewart’s letter does here, is dishonest and dangerous:
The original tweet included a screenshot of an a portion of Bishop Stewart’s announcement transcribed below:
Mark attended Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton from the mid-nineties until Christ Our Light was founded in 2013. The only information we have regarding Mark’s involvement with our children or youth was as a youth volunteer for one summer. He also served as a prayer minister. Mark has never held a paid position of any kind in our diocese. We look forward to working with the investigators to confirm or contradict these details.
May 6, 2021: Eve, the professional counselor, backs up what the victim’s mother said, then reminds Stewart’s team yet again that it’s crucial that parents get help speaking with children about abuse, or this whole investigation could actually silence victims further.
The original tweet included two screenshots of an email by Eve containing the following text by transcribed below:
I know there’s some redunancy in what I might add (and I’m mindful that you are likely to have and will continue to have plenty of input and opinion to address a result of your announcement) but I know that everyone on our end wishes to speak from the heart on matters that are personal and specific to them and wishes for the spoken announcement and written updates to have the best possible chance of reaching potential victims. Name Redacted mentioned some other spaces you might not be aware of where Mark may have had a place of spiritual authority or access to children or adults in vulnerable positions and provided a thorough list. This isn’t a judgment on why he was there or what people ought to have known, which is why we name spaces that are Rez-adjacent but not Rez (we couldn’t have expectation for you to have influence over or knowledge of them). My concern is closer to the one discussed in our zoom call about how reticent parents already are to check in with their own children and how insufficient those conversations often are. I worry that minimization of his involvement at Rez and spaces filled with Rez families may contribute to that. Denial and wishful thinking are a common gravitational pull for a parent faced with a potentially tragic and life altering incident for their child, especially one that can so easily be swept away by silence. A framing that allows anyone but those who attended youth group for a brief window to breathe a sigh of relief and sweep away a discomfort that could have been their child’s saving grace would be crushing.
The second screenshot of Eve’s email reads:
I also don’t pretend to know what the investigators have offered in terms of resources for framing this kind of announcement, but if parents could be offered resources for these conversations, I think it would create safer spaces for stories to be shared. I only know of The Well Armored Child, but perhaps there are resources that are briefer than a book. Even offering a few questions for parents to share, such as “are there times you’ve felt really ashamed or dirty around an adult? Or because of something they did or asked you to do? Have you felt ashamed about something while they seemed to say or act like it was normal?” “Has an adult done something that made you uncomfortable but you felt like you couldn’t or shouldn’t speak up? Have they asked you or someone else to do something you didn’t feel comfortable saying no to?” “Has an adult ever asked you to keep secrets?” There are a number of reasons that the questions parents typically ask (did he do something bad to you? Have you been abused?) may actually elicit more shame, more secrecy, or simply be spoken in a language that children don’t understand or doesn’t actually describe their experience of abuse. The research says many don’t know how to name their own abuse, or will not disclose to (unknowingly) poorly framed questions. My anecdotal experience says that this often does even further harm, driving the linchpins of abuse (shame and complicity) even deeper than if the individual had never been asked. I hope the investigation team or a qualified consultant can provide resources for this.
May 7, 2021: I write Stewart asking that he please make an in-church announcement explaining crucial details his online announcement missed, including the scope and severity of the known allegations and Mark’s additional access points to vulnerable people.
The original tweet included three screenshots of an email by Joanna to Stewart containing the following text by transcribed below:
I don’t know what all you plan to announce on Sunday and realize you may only intend to encourage the congregation to read your letter. We are all hoping you will actually give a more detailed announcement, so I want to go ahead and list some specific things we hope to hear you speak to, mostly in no particular order:
First, a warning to the congregation upfront that you need to speak about something that is not appropriate for children to hear, and which may also be triggering to survivors of sexual trauma (so those who wish to can exit the sanctuary or turn off the livestream for a few minutes).
Name Redacted list of the positions Mark held at Rez. Obviously this is a provisional list that may not be entirely accurate or complete, but it serves as a starting point for people to examine connections and follow up with their children and others.
The fact that the current accusations of sexual misconduct against Mark involve 10 victims ranging in age from 9 to 41 – but predominantly teenage girls and young adult women – and range in nature from grooming to indecent exposure to abuse to rape to child sexual assault. Specifically, Mark’s pending trial is for 9 counts of criminal sexual assault of a child (that’s the official verbiage of Kane County’s prosecution), and Kane County is currently investigating him on allegations of two incidences of rape (the police investigation of my case is ongoing. People do not respond the same way to abstract, vague references (“sexual misconduct” for instance) as they do to concrete details, so the wording here is really important. The congregation needs a clear picture of the scope and severity of what we are dealing with, obviously without compromising any victim’s confidentiality, but using the ugly words that accurately represent what Mark did to his victims.
The fact that every single one of the current alleged victims was socially involved with Mark through their connections with either Rez or COLA – primarily Rez. For your reference: 9 of the 10 regularly attended one or the other or both of these churches at the time the incident(s) occurred. (I am the only exception, and I knew and generally trusted Mark due to my multiple decades-long relationships with some of his closest friends at COLA and Rez.) The social crossover between Rez and COLA can’t be overemphasized. I believe the entire membership of COLA used to attend Rez, and [redacted] and [redacted] continued attending Rez after COLA formed (Mark himself did for a year or two, as well), which served as an ongoing conduit for Mark to access victims such as [redacted] and [redacted]. Regardless of technical Greenhouse / diocesan hierarchy, COLA was socially very much an appendage of Rez, with substantial fluidity of movement and interaction between the two, both of adults and children, all the way up until COLA’s indefinite suspension this past November.
An emphasis on the fact that no one at Rez / in the Diocese will know that those who reach out to GRS have done so, that GRS will not share their names or identifying information with the Diocese or anyone else because strict confidentiality is essential for both the independence of the investigation and the protection of victims and other innocent parties.
I realize what I just proposed would be an unprecedented Rez Sunday morning announcement in every way, and that it would be incredibly uncomfortable for you to say some of these things, and for the congregation to hear them said. I realize that it involves sending children and others out of the sanctuary for an announcement, which only heightens this discomfort. I also believe everything on this list significantly contributes to the potential success of the investigation, and so needs to be said. I would just ask as you consider these proposals that you remember that the five or ten minutes of discomfort this involves for you and the adults who attend Rez is nothing compared to the discomfort of living every day as a sexual assault survivor. And I would ask you to consider how the congregation looks to you to model Jesus, and how Jesus never shied away from speaking the truth and defending and uplifting the least of these, very publicly, regardless if it caused discomfort, indignation, or even extreme anger in those listening.
May 7, 2021: Stewart replies that he’ll consider my suggestions for a future announcement. No such announcement ever happens.
(May 9, 2021: Fr. Steve Williamson delivers an in-church announcement with no details, directing congregants to the Bishop’s online letter.)
The original tweet included a screenshot posted below of an email by Stewart to Joanna. The text of the screenshot is also transcribed below:
[email dated May 7, 2021 at 11:09 AM]
Stewart Ruch III
To: Joanna [NAME REDACTED] and 8 more
Re: letter to the Diocese & Sunday announcement
Dear Joanna:
Thank you for your email and for this valuable input.
Our plan for this Sunday’s announcement is to accomplish the important first step of pointing people to the letter. It will be a more circumspect announcement. This does not mean that we are ignoring your input or that we are not open to the kind of important and detailed announcement you articulated in your email. That kind of announcement will take a great deal of careful planning and will need to involve several different leaders and their input, as well as our investigator/consultant with GRS.
We will forward your important ideas onto GRS and are ready to work closely with them as they lay out our next steps.
Also—for all on this email—I will be off email for the rest of today and through Sunday as I focus on some family commitments. I will be glad to reply to emails on Monday.
Sincerely,
+Stewart
May 7, 2021: A victim’s mother calls Grand River Solution’s head investigator.
We learn that GRS:
has no anonymous reporting option
offers no victim support
can’t guarantee victims aren’t named to the client (the Diocese)
does no outreach to find victims
The original tweet included a screenshot of a victim’s mother’s call notes which are transcribed below:
Is there an option for victims to share a story while maintaining anonymity? Right now the only option that has been made available is to email your firm, which might inherently feel unsafe to some victims.
No, the only option for reaching out is by email. “If someone is uncomfortable about disclosing their identity, they can just use a fake name and we won’t know the difference.”
If new victims come to GRS, what support will they offer to them?
They do not offer any support to victims. They simply refer participants to the church, for whatever support the church is offering.
Are victims’ names kept confidential even from the church? How do you respond if your client desires to know the identity of a particular witness?
They “typically” do not disclose names to the client, but she could do not guarantee they will keep names confidential from the diocese. I explained how a victim who has something to share about the church or its leaders will likely need assurance that their name will not be revealed to the diocese if they come forward. She said that anyone who wanted to remain anonymous could just use a different name, and the diocese would have no way of identifying them.
Will you be intentionally reaching out to victims who have already been identified or do you only speak to those who email you? How will you find other victims? Are there any steps beyond Bp. Stewart’s announcement that will be made to reach known and potential victims?
No, they will not reach out to anyone. Stewart’s letter to the diocese is the only means of reaching out to victims.
How are they showing themselves as safe to known victims who may not feel safe speaking up?
They are doing nothing.
Grand River Solutions also:
does nothing to show victims they’re safe to reach out to
doesn’t know what will be included in the final report, as that’s entirely up to the Diocese
has no protocol in place to ensure they don’t unintentionally compromise victims’ criminal cases
The original tweet included a screenshot of a victim’s mother’s call notes which are transcribed below:
How are they showing themselves as safe to known victims who may not feel safe speaking up?
They are doing nothing.
How will victims’ stories and testimonies actually be conveyed in the final report? Will you tell victims’ stories and give them a voice? What about any findings of institutional or clergy failures? Will those be specifically outlined and told in the final report?
This is totally up to the diocese. “The client dictates all of what the final report includes and what is left out and how much detail we go into.” She would not confirm whether there was a plan for what the final report would include, but seemed to suggest that the diocese had not made a decision yet about how transparent to be.
What is your procedure if someone reports a criminal offense to you? What steps do you take to ensure that your interviews or reports do not interfere with potential criminal proceedings?
They “let someone know” if a crime is disclosed to them, but do not take any steps to protect against interfering with criminal proceedings. They assume that anyone who shouldn’t talk to them, because doing so would jeopardize their criminal case, will not reach out. “Most people in that situation will not even reach out to us,” she said.
I explained that someone disclosing abuse for the first time will likely not know that they need to be careful who they talk about and asked if they would at least stop someone, as soon as they disclose abuse, and direct them to the proper channels. She said, “We do not offer any legal advice, “ and confirmed that they would keep doing the entire interview, even if someone disclosed abuse or a crime to them. They absolutely do not have any safeguards in place for this and they clearly do not understand that this is even something they need to be careful about.
Has the diocese waived attorney-client privilege in this case?
“I actually don’t know,” she said.
Will final reports be shared with participating victims?
Reports will only be released to the diocese.
May 8, 2021: The victim’s mother and I each write emails to Stewart’s team informing them that we have interviewed Grand River Solutions, are horrified by the way their process fails to center (or even marginally protect) victims, and will not be participating in the investigation.
The original tweet included two screenshots of emails. The first screenshot of the email from a victim’s mother to Anne Kessler is transcribed below.
To: Anne
Cc: Stewart Ruch, [NAME REDACTED] and 4 more
My Withdrawal
Dear Anne,
After speaking with Cherie at GRS yesterday I regretfully need to formally end my participation in our collaborative efforts with the diocese. I communicated to all of you in February that I had serious concerns over whether anyone other than GRACE could safely carry out this type of investigation, which led to me specifically urging the diocese to hire GRACE, when they were safely able to investigate Mark. I also explained that hiring someone other than GRACE would likely mean I could no longer participate in this process, as it would make it inherently unsafe for me to do so. Sadly, my conversation with Cherie confirmed that the GRS investigation is not at all what we were asking or hoping for. Parts of it are actually the opposite of what we carefully outlined to the diocese as essential and non-negotiable components of a safe, independent investigation.
One significant concern I would like to highlight is that GRS does not have any protocol or safeguards in place to protect against harming [NAME REDACTED]‘s case (or that of any new victims who come forward). This is gravely concerning, both for the sake of [NAME REDACTED]’s case against Mark, but also for any victims who might unknowingly open up to GRS. GRACE, in the instance of a new victim disclosing abuse would immediately put a stop to the interview and refer a victim to the proper authorities, to prevent any duplicate testimonies that could later be used to discredit them. GRS will not do this, and seem unaware that this is even a concern they should be aware of, which is frankly horrifying to me.
There are many additional troubling things from my talk with Cherie that I have chosen not to go into detail about. We put a great deal of effort into explaining what essential things would allow for an investigation that’s safe for victims, both known and unknown; I honestly do not have the emotional energy to go through all of this in detail, to explain why GRS does not meet the non-negotiable requirements that we carefully outlined for you.
I appreciate how hard you have worked on this, and for your desire to reach out to victims, but I need to formally express that I cannot support this investigation and I cannot take part in it. We indicated that this kind of investigation, if done wrong or carried out by an inexperienced firm, can do more harm than good for victims; I pray that is not the case here. I sincerely hope this investigation brings new victims forward and into a place where they can receive help and healing.
Sincerely,
[NAME REDACTED]
The second screenshot of an email from Joanne to the email from a victim’s mother to Anne Kessler and team is transcribed below.
Joanna
To: [NAME REDACTED] Cc: Anne, and 7 more
Re: My Withdrawal
Dear Anne and team,
[NAME REDACTED] and I have discussed her conversation with Cherie at length, and I echo her conclusions entirely. For the reasons she stated, I also will not be participating in the investigation or further collaborating with the Diocese on this, unless something changes significantly. Like [NAME REDACTED], I still hope the investigation brings forward other victims and sets them on a path to healing.
Sincerely,
Joanna
No response from Stewart.
May 11, 2021: A member of Stewart’s team, who also sits on his Bishop’s council, emails the two of us, cc’ing Stewart, to express sadness over our opting out of the investigation.
May 12, 2021: I write an impassioned reply to this woman, lamenting among much else our mounting pile of ignored communications. In this excerpt I refer yet again to the many ways the investigation and announcement have failed victims:
The original tweet included a screenshot of Joanna’s email to a member to the member of the Bishop’s council mentioned above.
Hoping until the end that our efforts might yet be rewarded, and somewhat encouraged by Stewart’s letter, on May 7 [NAME REDACTED] brought our team’s most important bullet points from our February-March emails with Anne (and your entire team) to Cherie and asked her, one by one, what GRS’ policies an procedures were, concerning these.
I am too tired, now, to write you another email explaining the many, many ways in which Cherie’s answers to [NAME REDACTED]‘s questions mean this investigation is not remotely what we needed or asked for. Or the ways in which Stewart’s letter, however glad we were he wrote it, was insufficient. Or the ways in which Steve’s announcement was insufficient. Or the ways in which the entire launch of this investigation was not only insufficient but deeply counterproductive to its own stated objectives. Perhaps someone else on my team will do this additional work, if you really want to know. Or perhaps I will find more space in the upcoming days to copy-paste bullet points form my February-March emails into yet another email, to try to explain to all of you why the investigation your team has enlisted (because I do not hold Anne solely responsible for this) does not fit our painstakingly articulated definition of “independent,” or why it does not reach out to the public in a way that makes other potential victims safe to come forward, or any of the other numerous things about it that have left us despairing.
Right now I do not have the capacity. I am not sure how I even had the capacity to express my grief as much as I have in this email (which is still quite constrained), other than that it has finally begun to flow out almost uncontrollably, after months of me keeping it carefully at bay so that I could continue to do this advocacy work, according to your team’s timeline, without being buried in the depths of the trauma that’s awaiting me as soon as I allow myself to step fully into the horror that is Mark’s depraved actions and the gratuitous enabling by the institution and community that housed him.
May 18, 2021: Eve (the counselor) reaches out to Stewart to remind him yet again about parents needing guidance to talk with children, and offers him an exceptionally qualified professional colleague of hers whom he can enlist to help with this.
The original tweet included a screenshot of Eve’s email to Stewart. The contents are transcribed below:
To: Stewart Ruch III CC: Anne Kessler and 6 more
Re: Letter from Bishop Stewart to the Diocese
Thank you Stewart, for your prompt response on what I know to be your day off. I know that parents have had or are having conversations with their children, and I’m not aware that GRS has made resources for that available. If you are working on this, a colleague of mine who is the former director of ministries at [NAME REDACTED]and oversaw their child safety programs and training as well as the process of reported abuse allegations (within children’s ministry) would be incredibly well suited to be a neutral consultant on abuse dynamics within church contexts, making safe spaces for victims and on qualified resources for them to get care (and certainly is qualified to educate one whatever else is needed). I’ve spoken with her recently and she would be willing to offer her expertise as a resource. She is currently the owner of [NAME REDACTED] and cn be reached at [REDACTED].
All the best,
Eve
Stewart passes Eve off to Church of the Resurrection’s children’s pastor. May 19, 2021: Eve writes back reminding him how time-sensitive this is, as lack of educational resources at the investigation outset will likely further harm victims.
The original tweet included a screenshot of Eve’s email to Stewart. The contents are transcribed below:
To: Stewart Ruch III and 7 more
Re: Letter from Bishop Stewart to the Diocese
Thank you, I think she would be a brilliant resource fo the children’s ministry.
I was also following up on and referencing my previous email about the announcement and investigation, that without proper framing or education could not only not reach victims but may actually do harm to victims who are not approached appropriately or who are not referred to qualified care. I haven’t seen what resources GRS has given for this, and it is time sensitive, so I hope you would consider [NAME REDACTED] as an expert resource for you and the investigative team on why this is important and how to go about it.
All the best,
Eve
May 25, 2021: Eve finally has a Zoom call with the children’s pastor and the Bishop’s council member. She re-explains how abusers silence victims and the need for trauma-informed professional guidance for parents and care for victims.
They thank her and say they learned a lot.
May 27, 2021: Stewart responds to a private email from the aforementioned mother in which she disclosed highly sensitive information about ways in which church leadership failed her in 2019.
He offers for his wife and himself to meet with the mother to discuss this.
May 28, 2021: The victim’s mother writes Stewart one final time, explaining why she does not feel emotionally safe to meet with Stewart in person, and lamenting just how much this investigation goes against everything we asked for, for months and months:
The original tweet included two screenshots of a victim’s mother’s email to Stewart. The text of those screenshots is transcribed below:
Stewart, I don’t even know what to say about GRS. Anne cut us out of the conversation and then hired them without even telling us. If we had been a part of that conversation we could have told you all what it took us less than 24 hours to find out – that GRS had recently done an investigation at Moody Bible Institute, that their investigative process and techniques were sloppy and unprofessional, and that their investigation left victims at Moody extremely hurt and angry. We also could have told you that GRS is not at all qualified for this kind of investigation, [REDACTED]. If we had been a part of that conversation I could have had my phone call with Cherie (the lead investigator at GRS) BEFORE the diocese signed a contract with them, and could have told all of you about the many ways that GRS was quite literally the opposite of a safe independent investigative firm.
Anne initially told us that she could not answer even our basic questions about this investigation because doing so would be contrary to the independence of the investigation. Later on, she admitted that our input had been making it too hard for her to make an independent decision on who to hire. You all had every right to go and hire whoever you wanted, and to do this your own way; you had no right to expect us to be okay with that, or to believe that you were in any way honoring and supporting victims by cutting us out of the process and hiring a firm that went completely against the fundamental goals we were fighting so hard for.
Transcription of the tweet’s second screenshot of the victim’s mother’s email to Stewart:
You did what we begged you, through numerous emotionally exhausting emails, NOT to do. We sent the diocese many examples and articles of other churches who did this the wrong way, and who caused enormous pain and retraumatization to victims in the process. We carefully outlined a great example of how the church could walk through this in a way that honored and supported victims, in our very first email to you, and you chose not to follow that example.
Anne seemed to think at one point that our issues with all of this were some kind of misunderstanding and told us that “things in her emails were not having the intention they were meant to have.” This is not an issue of us misunderstanding intentions. I have zero doubt about any of your intentions – I am looking at the actions that have been taken (and not taken). Stewart, you have been quick to respond to our emails with all the right words, many times, but then you failed over and over to follow through on what you said you would do. You did not follow up on the things you said you would, you failed to answer our many questions, and you never updated your announcement to the diocese. We told you that starting the GRS investigation without professional support and education in place was dangerous, that changes were needed, and that the things we named were time sensitive and critical; it has been nearly a month without any of that being addressed.
She cites specific examples of how Stewart’s vague announcement is causing confusion among Church of the Resurrection moms, who have investigation-relevant information that they don’t think is what GRS wants.
She begs him again to hire Eve’s professional colleague to come do damage control.
The original tweet included two screenshots containing more of the same victim’s mother’s email to Stewart from May 28, 2021. The text of those screenshots is transcribed below:
I realize that you have asked to share my email with the investigators because you are counting on GRS to help the church understand what they did wrong and may need to change. You are NOT going to get the story that you actually need to hear from this investigation. GRS is not equipped to do this, they do not have the understanding or experience that is necessary, and their process for gathering information is woefully inadequate and will not provide even a fraction of what you need to hear, in order to actually understand the things that are desperately broken in your church and diocese.
The GRS process of gathering information is so ineffective right now that a mom at Rez, whose daughter was intentionally groomed and pressured by Mark while he was released on bond last year, thought her daughter’s story did not qualify as relevant to this investigation, specifically because of the language in your announcement to the diocese. She also thought that GRS would be reaching out to anyone they wanted to talk to and did not know that she needed to contact GRS directly in order to share her daughter’s story. I have spoken to moms at Rez who have information and insight about how the gossip about [NAME REDACTED] and family was spreading around Rez early on, and who can speak extensively to the culture that allowed for a 9-year-old abuse victim to be blamed and her abuser protected within your church and diocese. But those moms are not speaking up right now, because parishioners in the church and diocese do not even know that GRS is investigating how the church handled this – because no one has told them.
Transcription of the tweet’s second screenshot of the victim’s mother’s email to Stewart:
The problematic and minimizing language in your announcement to the diocese, the fact that GRS is not intentionally trying to reach out even to known victims of Mark, and the failure to alert Rez to the extensive access Mark has had to their children over the years is LITERALLY SILENCING VICTIMS!!!! Stewart, this is so bad and is so wrong!! We have tried to tell all of you this so many times, in so many ways, and you just don’t seem to get it. This is why I don’t feel safe meeting with you and [NAME REDACTED] – because we are fundamentally on such different pages about what is going on here that I don’t even know where to start. I know I’ll either end up yelling at you or I will just break down weeping, if I try to explain this to you and [NAME REDACTED] in-person and still cannot get you to understand how horrible this is. I don’t know what else to say, other than to beg you to hire [NAME REDACTED], the professional resource Eve recommended to you, and allow her to take charge of this process and to direct the diocese on how to proceed. You have already hired GRS and there is potentially a lot of harm being done right now by how this situation has been minimized and by how poorly the investigation is being carried out – this needs an outside expert, with no connection to the diocese or to GRS, to come in and help minimize the potential for additional damage. I cannot make you do this, but I have now said this as clearly and forcefully as I know how to. I honestly have nothing more to say to you while the diocese continues on this trajectory.
4 weeks later, he replies.
Stewart, June 24, 2021: “I am not sure what else I can say at this point.”
And he will be out of the office for several weeks.
He writes back to reiterate how much he cares about the victim’s family but he “could understand how that may sound insincere.”
The original tweet included a screenshot of Stewart’s email from June 24, 2021 replying to the email from a victim’s mother from May 28, 2021. The screenshot along with a transcription is included below:
Stewart Ruch III
To: [NAME REDACTED] CC: Anne, and 7 more…
Re: Confidential
Dear [NAME REDACTED]:
Let me also add that I am so grieved about where we are right now. I do care so deeply for you and your family. I hesitated to say that in my previous email because I could understand how that may sound insincere to you! But I do mean it in all sincerity.
+Stewart
This sort of response is what we have come to expect.
We are grieved, but not surprised.
June 26, 2021: I write a 30-tweet thread explaining our basic story.
Bp. Stewart quickly emerges under public pressure to address my allegations that he’s mishandled this all terribly.
Conclusion: I have zero faith in this investigation.
Grand River Solutions is in no way up to the task of doing what needs to be done.
That’s a whole other thread.
Most urgently, though, GRS has no resources to help parents or victims.
Nor does the Diocese of the Upper Midwest.
Church of the Resurrection needs to hire an expert, trauma-informed team with no connection to the Diocese to go in and:
1) help parents learn how to speak with children to discover abuse (without doing further harm)
2) provide professional counseling for victims and families who come forward
This is a bare minimum.
And it is not our job to make it happen.
But we don’t want more victims silenced.
We have done this work for months.
Bp. Stewart does not take us seriously.
He has proven he will only listen if you all put pressure on him.
ACNA advocates who understand trauma-informed counseling and training: please help Stewart get this lined up.
You can contact me to get info for the person Eve recommended; I also know there are many other good options.
Thank you.
Postscript: This thread is far from comprehensive. I included what I felt was the minimum needed to effectively represent what’s led to this moment, so when you all succeed you will know that it’s due to public pressure; it is NOT Bp. Stewart listening to victims.
I wrote this long thread because I’m tired of people not knowing how hard we tried. I’m tired of being gaslit by a Diocese that constantly pays lip service to caring, but whose actions contradict this entirely.
This is what abusers do. And I am done being abused.
It is also vitally important for me to provide evidence that Bp. Stewart is not properly motivated to do this work, because this means that it will take *ongoing* oversight by people who *are* motivated, to ensure this process is seen through.
I hope it is also clear that my team and I did everything we possibly could to address these urgent matters privately and in good faith, and that we were finally left with no feasible alternative but to take all of this public and beg for your help.
End of Joanna’s July 3, 2021 Thread