Brilliant article Jaime, I hope every church leader reads it! As you say, covers a lot of ground already. One area to expand on is faith and spiritual support for survivors. Faith-based abuse often damages or breaks the survivor's relationship with their faith community. Some may lose faith altogether, or find it impossible to engage with their faith anymore. Yet we find in our peer support group that may are still searching to restore their faith, to find a safe faith community, to develop spiritual practices that don't cause further harm. Churches could adopt trauma -responsive theology. They could provide survivor chaplaincy, and develop groups and practices where survivors can safely explore and heal spiritually.
The presence of people with lived experience in policy-making is crucial. One thing I've noticed, and no doubt bewailed previously, is how out-of-touch abuse and FDV groups are with current, "real-world" practices. They seem to have a basic understanding and write reports regurgitating commonly-available information from several years ago.
For example, in the legions of words one Anglican group produces, not a single mention is made of coercive control. It astounds me. For how long has coercive control been recognised as a serious form of abuse and violence? Yet this Church does not seem to have caught on or caught up!
What I'm advocating is the simple adoption of standard professional practice: keeping up with current knowledge and developments. Even in a discipline as apparently mild and innocuous as librarianship, it was drummed into us that (a) we were professionals, and *therefore* (b) we needed to keep abreast of current literature, adopt a regime of ongoing professional reading and adapt this currency in our practice.
No such requirements appear to be part of this mainstream Church practice - and it shows!
So important, Alistair. No, there appear to be no such requirements - governance is lacking in so many religious spaces. This is why my ultimate goal is to advocate for external safety and governance.
I believe in freedom to worship and practice your religion - but we should not separate safety and, governance, and accountability - there should be an external body in place ensuring that there is mandatory professional development, supervision, and academic qualifications (not qualifications based on nepotism).
Brilliant article Jaime, I hope every church leader reads it! As you say, covers a lot of ground already. One area to expand on is faith and spiritual support for survivors. Faith-based abuse often damages or breaks the survivor's relationship with their faith community. Some may lose faith altogether, or find it impossible to engage with their faith anymore. Yet we find in our peer support group that may are still searching to restore their faith, to find a safe faith community, to develop spiritual practices that don't cause further harm. Churches could adopt trauma -responsive theology. They could provide survivor chaplaincy, and develop groups and practices where survivors can safely explore and heal spiritually.
Thanks Jane great points
The presence of people with lived experience in policy-making is crucial. One thing I've noticed, and no doubt bewailed previously, is how out-of-touch abuse and FDV groups are with current, "real-world" practices. They seem to have a basic understanding and write reports regurgitating commonly-available information from several years ago.
For example, in the legions of words one Anglican group produces, not a single mention is made of coercive control. It astounds me. For how long has coercive control been recognised as a serious form of abuse and violence? Yet this Church does not seem to have caught on or caught up!
What I'm advocating is the simple adoption of standard professional practice: keeping up with current knowledge and developments. Even in a discipline as apparently mild and innocuous as librarianship, it was drummed into us that (a) we were professionals, and *therefore* (b) we needed to keep abreast of current literature, adopt a regime of ongoing professional reading and adapt this currency in our practice.
No such requirements appear to be part of this mainstream Church practice - and it shows!
So important, Alistair. No, there appear to be no such requirements - governance is lacking in so many religious spaces. This is why my ultimate goal is to advocate for external safety and governance.
I believe in freedom to worship and practice your religion - but we should not separate safety and, governance, and accountability - there should be an external body in place ensuring that there is mandatory professional development, supervision, and academic qualifications (not qualifications based on nepotism).