Reply Ready to Fly

My reply to Reg is finally written and will soon be in the mail. I have been waiting on my pastor, Tom's, input and he was out of town. When I saw him at church yesterday, he gave his go, said I did not need a letter from him to accompany mine because he had already done some behind the scenes work. He expects my letter to be received well.

As to what behind the scenes work Tom has done, I am trusting him and his heart. He seemed hesitant to fill me in on the details and I didn't push. If Tom won't tell me, it is usually because he is protecting someone else's confidence as I would want him to protect mine.

My husband wrote a letter to accompany mine, advocating for my voice to be heard. I will include it in a later post.

The highlights of my letter include a response to his "acceptance" of the differences in mine and Bob's story:

You are right that we both probably believe our own statement is true and that this should lead to a great deal of discomfort on the part of the hearer. However only one rendition is true and your statement that this must simply be accepted is completely unacceptable to me.

Much of my proposal is based on the premise that the discrepancies in our testimonies are reason for many red flags. It is a fact that few victims lie. It is also a fact, actually stated in the Church’s present policy, that many accused do lie. What is not stated and is even more disturbing is the fact that perpetrators exist who can so compartmentalize their memories that they display complete denial of the truth. With a denial of truth comes an inability to find repentance or internal change. Looking toward the future, this type of discrepancy must be dealt with, and the many ways I proposed dealing with it need to be heard, wrestled with, and done so by the whole commission.

In another paragraph I address the shocking revelation that the current file contains my agreement to the monitoring of Bob that was to occur:

Your statement that the file contains my approval of the monitoring process was shocking and grievous. I was unaware that I had held any voice or right to agree or disagree with this setup. I was unaware that my reticent and weak “ok” was being viewed as an official statement of agreement with the decision. No one sat down with me, as I now know the policy states, and I was not informed in the conversation that my agreement was being sought. Instead in an unannounced phone conversation from Tom Neal, I was informed that some type of monitoring would occur but was denied further information as to the form or extent of the monitoring. I remember Tom Neal repeating his statement and my feeling a sense of pressure from him to give some statement of agreement. I reluctantly and half heartedly gave an “ok”. I believe the exact words to his question of my agreement was “I guess,” not exactly a resounding agreement. Tom’s pressure now seems one more use of a pastor’s power to get what they need at my expense. This realization that my approval was sought in a less than forthright way is disturbing.

I also wrote a heartfelt appeal to Reg's evident decision that my voice not be heard by the state ministerial committee.

In the first and last paragraph, you state: “I assure you that your concerns will be presented to the Ministry Commission when they get going on revising the documents for ministry,” and “Again I assure you that I will make sure your input is received.” These statements appear to be a response to my request to present my own suggestions to the ministry commission. I am not content with your response. I have the unique ability to explain the needs of the victim from an experiential perspective. Though I appreciate your willingness to try, you, nor anyone else, can share with the passion or illumination that originates in my experience.

I have decided that in some way, my voice will be heard by the leadership of the Church. My desire is that this would happen in a similar setting and atmosphere as my conversation with you occurred. I desire to sit down and work with the Commission on Ministry as an invited individual with important experiences and strategies to suggest. I would like to be involved with a task force that is looking at and forming a newly revised policy. I am offering to give rather than to take.

If you remember, I asked (the previous state minister), via email, to be allowed to speak to the commission members, but my request never received a reply and the ministry commission met without me. I felt dishonored and silenced by this lack of acknowledgement. I need the present commission to offer me an opportunity to speak, as evidence of their good faith. I am requesting that you reconsider this decision and that you talk further with (the chair of the ministerial group) and other leaders on the commission before providing me with a clear answer to my request.

While other points are discussed, such as the role of an advocate, these 3 areas are the main thrust of my letter. Tom seems to think the road is paved for my reception. I remain in doubt, and by keeping my hopes at bay, prepare myself for the next step if I my request to speak is rejected.

I have to wonder if the state realizes that I probably have a valid law suit over the policy not being followed as it was written. While I have no desire to hold this over their head, it seems evident to me that I am offering a win-win scenario here. They have nothing to lose by accepting my input and a lot to lose if they do not. Out of my request, they gain important input and I gain the hearing of my voice by the region in which I was abused. They gain a strong and protective policy while I see powerfully positive results proceding from my pain. I believe God truly desires to turn the darkness into His light for all of us and I believe my chosen path is the path of God's desire for all. Pray that they will see this.