We need to talk about clergy who sexually abuse (and the people and institutions that cover for them), to be sure.

AND

We also need to talk about clergy who--even outside a SA context--manipulate. Who gaslight. Who abuse the teacher/student power dynamic.

1/x

Who do that trick of staring into your eyes, deeply, to make you feel *so seen* and then tell you what they want you to do.

Who teach that spirituality is all about the warm, fuzzy feelings and not doesn't help you do the hard, painful work (this is called spiritual bypassing btw), thanks, @velveteenrabbi https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2017/06/bypassing.html

Who connect with their congregants in ways that get into emotionally complex or fuzzy territory--not necessarily even in sexual or romantic ways (though that happens too), but even just in the *bad boundaries* way, ways that harm the congregant.

Who are energy vampires.

Who do the charismatic shtick in a way that gains them power, that is a narrative about spirituality but is really a story about ego.

Who make it about them, not their congregants, and definitely not God--not really, not actually.

Who, even if they are not sexual abusers themselves, learned how to be clergy from abusers, have abuser role models, pass on abuser approaches and tactics on to their students.

Do abuser harm.

Who talk about caring and connection with the result of lowering of boundaries around touch, around hugs. Even if they never cross the line viz legal definitions.

Who talk about connection, intimacy. Who let you in, just a little too much. Who not just encourage you to open up, but maybe push a little, prod a little. You can trust me!

Who will say things to you privately that they might deny having said in public.

Who encourage you to open up, to let them hold your tender places, and then say or do things that betray the vulnerability offered.

Whose sermons, theology, teaching all reflect the same toxic worldview into which they are trying to draw you. One that does not, first and foremost, honor your agency, selfhood, boundaries, ability to know yourself best, intuition.

In many ways it's harder to talk about this because it is less concrete, harder to put in clear words than, "This person said or did X specific thing" (and goodness knows getting to the place where we can name sexual abuse has not been simple work, silence breakers are heroes).

(And we are in no way done with the sexual abuse reckoning or the massive, massive systemic overhaul that will need to be done, that has long, long needed to be done).

AND we have to talk about these other clergy problems--for they are problems, plural, I have seen all the above issues in one leader and I've seen many leaders for whom only one or two of the above might apply--as well.

And we have to talk about community norms, and what we learn, and how we learn it. And who we learned it from. And what impact we're having.

What tricks do we (clergy) learn from a mentor who we don't know is an abuser about giving sermons to really touch people, really move them? And what impact do those tricks have on people, and is that OK?

Is the impact OK if he's not an abuser? How do we know?

What ideas have we absorbed about norms for creating connection? What ideas have we absorbed about our roles? Where did those ideas come from? From who? Who do those ideas serve? And who do they empower?

We have not begun to identify the people who cause certain kinds of harm, or even come up with a way to name it. We have not begun to ask certain kinds of questions that are critical, essential if we want our sacred spaces to be healthy, to truly serve God and our communities.

Absolutely agree with this--I haven't talked about systems and structures that enable and support all of this, but their role is key. The systems themselves--who, and how oversight happens, even--need to be checked as the first of many steps. https://twitter.com/GeorgSauerwein/status/1387838407582310408?s=20