By Anna Lisa Gross
Clergy abuse, whether by Roman Catholic priests, Southern Baptist pastors, or Anabaptist seminary professors, is a betrayal–of the community of faith, the calling of ministry, and the culture of servant-leadership. While Brethren pastors haven’t made headlines for sexually abusing members of their congregations, we know clergy abuse is a reality even in our own denomination. What can we learn from other denominations whose stories have gone public? Rather than delve into details of any specific acts of abuse, two successive Messenger articles will explore the secondary violation of institutional cover-up.
We turn this month to the Mennonites, our closest faith cousins. Next month we’ll learn from the Southern Baptist Convention. You may find similarities here to what you’ve lived first-hand or heard about from others within the Church of the Brethren. We share these stories to increase awareness and invite reflection on how our own congregations and denomination should seek accountability, healing and redemption.
The most prominent Mennonite theologian is also the most infamous Mennonite perpetrator of abuse. John Howard Yoder’s book The Politics of Jesus is one of the most influential Christian texts of the 20th century, and one of about 30 books Yoder published during his lifetime (1927-1997). Is it merely ironic, or profoundly relevant, that Yoder taught and wrote on Christian ethics while abusing more than 100 women? (This article focuses on institutional responses, but you can find many reflections on Yoder’s actions – start at anabaptistworld.com and https://intoaccount.org/2016/08/08/mennonite-bodies-sexual-ethics-women-challenge-john-howard-yoder/.)
While women persistently raised concerns about Yoder’s abuse, both at Goshen Biblical Seminary and the University of Notre Dame – and Yoder himself described some of his own behavior to his seminary president in 1979 – no institutional leader took action to protect or support survivors and future victims. No one filed a criminal complaint or issued an advisory to current or potential students or colleagues. We can be certain that people were talking! But these conversations stayed private: between formal leaders seeking to minimize scandal or drama, and between women warning one another.
Eventually some church and seminary leaders quietly forced Yoder to resign from Goshen Biblical Seminary (G.B.S. Later merged with Mennonite Biblical Seminary to become Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, now called Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary, in Elkhart, Ind.) in 1984, more than a decade into his acknowledged abuses, and after four years of actively trying to convince Yoder to change his behavior in a Matthew 18 process. Even after leaving G.B.S., Yoder continued to lead, teach, write and speak, even becoming president of the Society of Christian Ethics.
In 2014 Mennonite historian Rachel Waltner Goossen was asked by the Mennonite Church USA to research Yoder’s abuse and responses to it. Her work, “‘Defanging the Beast’: Mennonite Responses to John Howard Yoder’s Sexual Abuse,” was published in 2015; the full text is available online.
In a summary published the following year, Goossen writes, “Newly accessible archival sources have shed light on the ineffective institutional processes devised in response to reports of misconduct. For two decades, Mennonite administrators, committees, and task forces responded—mostly informally—to women who sent letters of complaint, phoned, or appeared in person. No one called in law enforcement, no legal charges were brought, and although several parties consulted attorneys, no lawsuits were filed.” [Goossen, Rachel Waltner, “Mennonite bodies, sexual ethics: Women challenge John Howard Yoder” originally published in the Journal of Mennonite Studies (vol. 34, 2016, pp. 247-259) and on the Our Stories Untold blog and Anabaptist World.]
What happened between 1984’s private golden parachute and 2014’s call to pull history into the light?
Women kept talking with one another. It took a long time, because most women abused by Yoder were silenced by both church and secular cultural teachings that men are inherently lustful, and women are responsible for keeping men from giving them too much sexual attention.
Speaking up risked each woman’s relationships with family members and church community. As Yoder abused women in church, academic and church/academic settings, speaking up risked each woman’s academic success or ministerial call.
But women persisted in talking with one another.
Church and church-academic communities continued to seek Yoder’s redemption. Goossen names seven groups and periods of formal discipline:
- Covenant Group, Goshen Biblical Seminary, 1980-1984
- Confidential Task Force, Goshen Biblical Seminary, 1982
- Board of Elders, Prairie Street Mennonite Church, 1986
- Prairie Street Mennonite Church/JHY Task Force, 1991-1992
- Church Life Commission, Indiana-Michigan Mennonite Conference, 1992-1996
- Accountability and Support Group, Indiana-Michigan Mennonite Conference, 1992-1996
- Executive Board, Indiana-Michigan Mennonite Conference, 1992-1997 [Goossen “Defanging the Beast” see article for citations for each of these groups/processes. p.14]
What do you notice about this list? Perhaps you notice the word confidential.
Perhaps you notice that these groups come in clusters: two from G.B.S. Then two from Prairie Street Mennonite Church, Yoder’s congregation. Then three from the Indiana-Michigan Conference (Mennonites have Conferences as Brethren have Districts.) That might mean that no community or institution could find a way to be effective in discipline or reconciliation with Yoder. Perhaps we can also surmise that none of these communities or institutions gave up after their first try. Yoder’s behavior did not change, and presumably his belief that his behavior was acceptable also did not waver.
You may also notice the intensifying timeline pivoting on the year 1992. In June, Yoder’s credentials were suspended. One can imagine the despair that church and academic leaders felt as Yoder continually justified his behavior. Perhaps suspending his credentials was the “treat him as a Gentile or tax collector” step of Matthew 18 (second part of verse 17).
Goossen summarizes, “In all cases, people grew weary after a few months or years of engagement. Like [G.B.S. President] Miller in the beginning, each group sought to ‘counsel‛ their Christian brother rather than to have him arrested or expelled. Persons who through employment or credentials entered the fray from outside the denomination felt stonewalled, not only by Yoder himself but also by the secrecy surrounding his behavior, which served to protect Mennonite institutional interests.” [Ibid. p 14-15]
Understandings of sexual harassment evolved. More precisely, enough men in power realized that sexual harassment was not “simply flirting,” but a barrier to women working, studying and participating in society. (This is an oversimplification, as sexual harassment does not only happen to women, and men are not the only ones who have minimized sexual harassment – but these are the most common realities.)
During the period that Yoder was actively crossing relational and ethical boundaries, church and academic institutions were developing policies about sexual harassment. These new words required looking at Yoder’s ongoing behavior anew.
Are the seven groups/processes listed above “take one or two with you” (Matthew 18:16) or “take the concern to the church” (Matthew 18:17a)? The Greek ekklésia is translated “church” in this passage and Strong’s Concordance defines it as “an assembly, a (religious) congregation.”
Eight women gathered in Elkhart in 1992 to inform the Prairie Street Mennonite Church Task Force. Their testimonies were essential in the Indiana-Michigan Conference processes and actions. These eight women were the crucial ekklésia of Matthew 18:17a.
Secular press printed the story. Just like with Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, and many other religious institutions’ cover-up of abuse, a secular newspaper told – and therefore changed – the story. The Elkhart Truth printed five stories about Yoder’s abuse and the cover-ups in 1992. You can find all online. The same year, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune also shared the story, along with various Mennonite publications.
Congregations, seminaries and denominations consistently prefer to keep conflict and concern private. In the Church of the Brethren we often have a family culture in our local, district and even denominational bodies. Just as most families and households prefer to work out problems privately, our church bodies instinctively want the same. This is not inherently right or wrong, but it makes us vulnerable to many sins and pitfalls:
- Ignoring or even avoiding those who have been abused
- Treating those who have been abused as a “problem”
- Managing the story rather than changing behaviors
This list could go on and on. In the case of Mennonites and Yoder, keeping concerns about his behavior quiet allowed his behavior to continue far longer than it would have.
Once secular newspapers break these kinds of stories, the abuser’s accountability – and accountability for the whole process – are suddenly higher priorities. Even though this is largely motivated by public image, many important steps toward change and healing are finally taken.
We encourage you to read stories like:
- https://anabaptistworld.org/hesston-college-officials-vow-to-earn-back-trust-after-sexual-violence-report/
- https://anabaptistworld.org/have-we-learned-anything-from-the-john-howard-yoder-cover-up/
- https://www.mennoniteusa.org/news/historian-to-examine-churchs-response-to-john-howard-yoders-abuse-of-women/
and consider the many dimensions of Mennonite response to Yoder’s abuse. There are many terrible aspects of these stories – first and foremost the harm done through abuse. Imagine the shame and embarrassment if the most well-known Church of the Brethren thinker and teacher was found to have committed so many years of abuse with so many people? Yet the same intensity of the harm can match the intensity of the healing. Mennonites are taking this seriously. Check out intoaccount.org for powerful resources and stories.
How can the Church of the Brethren care for power dynamics, cultural expectations of masculinity and femininity, and the health of our own members? How can our processes of accountability seek redemption and transformation for the abuser, and healing and wholeness for the abused?