Child abuse and the Church

by Trevor Spratt

Child abuse: Problems of definition

To understand child abuse we need to begin by making the important point that an agreed definition does not exist. Unlike diabetes, for example, it cannot be universally diagnosed by the recognition of an accepted range of symptoms. Child abuse is rather socially constructed — it exists because it is seen to exist. In this sense, it has no independent life as a phenomenon. What we consider to be abusive to children in our time and in our place would not be recognised in this way in other times and in other places.

While particular belief systems and actions may feel self-evidently right at a particular time, they will usually erode, often to the extent where subsequent generations find it difficult to understand why their forefathers believed what they did. For example, social historians tell us that Victorian society viewed masturbation in children as a problem liable to lead to a range of physical and mental problems, including insanity. Responses ranged from surgery (including castration) and the use of elaborate anti-masturbation devices (sophisticated versions of chastity belts tailored for male or female fitting). Such was the level of disapproval of masturbation that children not yet 'treated' for the complaint understandably hid their activities — no doubt causing themselves untold anxiety and stress in the process. My point here is not to argue the rights or wrongs of masturbation in young children, it is merely to illustrate that in Victorian society there existed a particular preoccupation with this issue while everyday cruelties toward children went unremarked. Cultural factors also influence how we identify abuse. What is called abuse in one culture may not be identified as such in another. For example, the Turkish practice of rubbing babies' genitals to calm them down would probably be viewed as a form of sexual abuse in our society. Our practice, however, of leaving babies alone in their cots to sleep would be seen as barbaric in some non-western societies. The issue of circumcision provides a further interesting example of cultural relativism. Female circumcision is banned in this country while male circumcision is not. The argument is that the physical pain experienced by male infants at circumcision is acceptable, when balanced against possible emotional pain in future life if they were to remain uncircumcised and consequently not fully integrated into their cultural and religious community.

Surprising as it may seem, there appears to be almost no action taken against children which would attract universal condemnation within human society. Even infanticide is justified for economic reasons in certain peasant societies, in the instructions to the children of Israel to destroy the inhabitants of lands they sought to occupy and in the ideological policies supporting Hitler's death camps.

Identification of child abuse is, therefore, not simply a technical issue; it is intricately bound up with beliefs, values and culture and will be understood to mean different things to different people in various times and places. This is our general starting point. Indeed most textbooks and articles on the general subject of child abuse start similarly, by seeking to outline the contested and relativistic understanding of child abuse as a backdrop to the problem of definition. Professionals consequently struggle to construct a definition of child abuse which is practicable, that is, one that provides a reasonable threshold over which societal intervention in family life is considered to be valid. The challenge for the church is to construct a definition of child abuse that is rooted in God's laws and principals and is consequently robust enough to resist local constructions prevalent in time or place.

Child abuse: A short history

It may be helpful, at this point, to sketch a short history of developments in the understanding of child abuse within the United Kingdom.

It is only in the past one hundred years that there have been laws and policies developed by the state to safeguard children. This does not mean that before this children were not protected by their families and communities — most were. These arrangements, however, were not backed by law or policy. It was the Industrial Revolution that broke up traditional rural patterns of family life and created urban communities, wherein large numbers of children came to work long hours at tender ages. Legislation was subsequently drafted to protect their interests. Interestingly, it was the evangelical revival of the 1860s that led concerned individuals to create organisations whose objectives were to protect and improve the lot of children — for example, Dr Barnardos, National Childrens Homes and the Waifs and Strays Society. From 1870 the introduction of elementary education meant private lives became more visible, with children benefiting from the scrutiny of school health nurses by the early part of the twentieth century. Alongside these developments the campaign for the emancipation of women created greater interest in the rights of children.

Legislation began to be drafted which reflected a growing acceptance that children were at risk not only in the factories and on the streets, but also within their own homes. This resulted in the first prosecutions of parents for child cruelty. After the Second World War the role of the state in child protection gradually increased as the responsibility shifted from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to local authorities. As a result of a growing concern to prevent children suffering abuse within their own homes, there was considerable growth in local social services; for example, the number of social workers in England and Wales doubled between 1963 and 1969. While in this period there was still no widespread public concern with regard to child abuse, it was recognised that some children were neglected and maltreated by their own families and that it was the responsibility of the state to intervene and provide help to such families.

It was not until the 1960s that child physical abuse became a public issue. This development was influenced by the work of Henry Kempe, a paediatrician. Building on the findings of radiologists in the United States who found evidence of unexplained bone injuries to children during skeletal surveys, Kempe coined the diagnostic term, 'battered baby syndrome'. The fact that some families could act against their children in ways which would cause such injuries further eroded the view of the general public that children were safe in their own homes and gave further validation to the notion that the state should have a greater role in monitoring family life. This was also the age of the expert. Dr Spock's advice on how best to raise children and John Bowbly's work on maternal deprivation were to influence a generation of parents whose own parents had relied rather on the cultural views established by local custom and practice to guide their child care. Social workers, confident in their expert status, sought to colonise child abuse work. While, however, social workers' identification with child abuse may have increased the status of social work and ensured allocation of further resources to social services departments, such responsibilities created a demand. The public now expected social workers to 'do something about child abuse'. Mistakes on the part of social workers became highly visible and were used as a basis to apportion blame. A number of public inquiries were held (for example, Kimberly Carlisle, Jasmine Beckford) into child deaths where social workers had been involved in the case. These inquiries generated enormous media attention. In response, local authorities began to develop intricate child protection systems, including joint protocols with the police and other professional groups for the investigation of child abuse. The case conference forum was also introduced, here decisions were made as to whether or not children's names should be added to child protection registers. This led to a 'safety first' approach on the part of social workers who, in common with their colleagues in other western democracies, began to apply investigatory responses to a rising number of referrals. Incidentally, rising numbers of referrals are often used to support an argument that there is more child abuse today than in the past — however, rises in the number of investigations are more readily explained by a greater awareness of the issues amongst the general public which, when combined with an anxiety not to 'miss' signs and symptoms of abuse on the part of social workers, leads to diagnostic inflation.

While the physical abuse of children had been 'discovered' in the 1960s, it was not until the 1970s that child sexual abuse began to be highlighted. This was largely due to a combination of a number of factors. The sexual revolution led to public discussion of previously repressed subjects. The family was no longer seen as a fundamentally healthy institution and the women's movement helped empower individual survivors of abuse to tell their stories for the first time. Resulting from an increased sensitivity to the possibilities of sexual abuse on the part of social workers were the events which took place in Cleveland and in Orkney in the 1980s. In Cleveland two doctors, Jeffrey Wyatt and Mariatha Higgs, developed a method called 'anal reflex dilatation' for diagnosing possible sexual abuse. As a result of examinations based on this method a large number of children were taken into the care of the local authority. In the Orkney's social workers investigating a case of suspected ritual sexual abuse took a number of children into care. Such was the public and media outcry in such cases that the whole basis for social work intervention, and indeed the relationship between the state and the family, were called into question. The Children Act 1989 sought to strike new balances between the rights and interests of families and the need for children to be protected. The legislation directs social workers to protect children at risk of suffering significant harm, but it also includes duties for them to identify families whose children's development is likely to be significantly impaired without the provision of services for them. This twin track approach, identifying risks and meeting needs, links to what we currently know about child abuse.

Child abuse: What can we agree on?

There has been a general maturation in public, press and professional attitudes in relation to the issue of child abuse. For the public there has been a reduction in the tendency to marginalise the perpetrators of abuse as 'folk devils', traditionally portrayed as men in macs in parks, seeking to lure children to uncertain fates. There is now a general acknowledgement that children are much more likely to be damaged by those whom they know and often love (over 95 per cent of all offences are perpetrated by individuals already known to the child). There is also an increased acceptance that professionals cannot always predict who is likely to be abused, or accurately read the signs that may signify abuse has occurred. Increasingly, the reputable press reflects in its coverage the dilemmas faced by professionals who work in the field of child abuse, and social workers themselves are no longer pilloried for every untoward event involving children, the culture of blame and retribution which characterised the 1980s having somewhat dissipated.

At this point I will attempt to summarise what we know about child abuse at the present time. I should add that those readers who know something of the subject will find this coverage entirely superficial. For those who know rather less, you will be left with more questions than answers. My apologies to both groups.

Physical abuse

While this article is primarily about child sexual abuse I want to make some mention of the physical abuse of children. This should help illustrate the differences between this form of abuse and sexual abuse.

In the United Kingdom most parents smack their children and most parents believe that this is an appropriate form of punishment. In other countries, for example Sweden, smacking is prohibited under the law and within these countries there is considerably less public support for the practice. In the United Kingdom health professionals tend only to define smacking as potentially abusive if the action results in the child sustaining bruises. Of most interest to them will be an examination of the context in which the smacking has taken place. An anxious parent who over-zealously smacks their toddler's bottom after they have just run onto the road is unlikely to be thought of as abusive, whereas a ten-year-old boy whose legs are frequently left with angry red welts following punishment for minor misdemeanours is likely to attract the attention of school teachers and social workers. Most physical abuse is of a minor nature in terms of injuries sustained, longer-term damage is rarely of a physical nature. Some children, however, especially if they are vulnerable in nature, may sustain longer term emotional effects. Parents rarely set out to hurt or distress their children. More often, physical abuse occurs in the context of a stressful situation. Imagine the young parents, who lack family support — when the father loses his job, a final bill comes in and the youngest child cries day and night through illness — they may snap when their eight-year-old informs them that he has just knocked over the fish tank. Such stresses are linked to poverty. The great majority of child physical abuse cases occur amongst those families who have fewest resources and suffer most stress. Responses which pathologise individual actions in such circumstances are generally inadequate. Although one should add the important caveat that a few parents will deliberately set out to harm their child and, in extreme cases, this may result in the death of the child. Effective intervention needs to take place at a structural level that addresses the widespread socio-economic inequalities which result in families experiencing such degrees of poverty, with health professionals developing and delivering complementary family support programmes. Churches can do much to assist such efforts. Is there a sharing of resources within the local church that ensures that no one finds themselves in poverty? Are those feeling stressed and unable to cope able to talk about their experiences and receive friendship and support? Sadly, there will be occasions where children present with injuries that suggest deeper problems within their family. Such children may be the scapegoat for parental inadequacy or be caught up in repeating cycles of domestic violence. They are likely to continue to suffer physical abuse and, often long term, emotional damage if they are not helped. At such times church members need to be alert and consult with the 'designated person' responsible for issues of child abuse within the congregation (or minister where there is no designated person identified) to decide what actions need to be taken.

Child sexual abuse

While physical abuse is associated with social deprivation, sexual abuse is not. Child sexual abuse is quite unlike physical abuse. While, in one sense, the smacking/physical abuse debate is partly to do with matters of degree, there is no such continuum in operation in respect of adult/child sexual contact. Adults gaining sexual pleasure either directly, or indirectly, from children is unacceptable. A number of definitions of child sexual abuse are available in the literature, for example Baker and Duncan (1985) employ the following:

A child (anyone under 16 years) is sexually abused when another person, who is sexually mature, involves the child in any activity which the other person expects to lead to their sexual arousal. This might involve intercourse, touching, exposure of the sexual organs, showing pornographic material or talking about sexual things in an erotic way.

Child sexual abuse occurs amongst all social classes, in all ethnic groups and in all religious communities. It is not restricted to certain occupational groups. In my own career in social work I came across ministers, headmasters, social workers, skilled and unskilled workers and unemployed people, all of whom had sexually abused children. In the large majority of cases children are sexually abused by adults whom they either know and often trust, or they have learnt to fear. Sexual abuse is nearly always perpetrated by men, although there is growing evidence that women also sexually abuse children. While sexual abuse may occur anywhere, often it occurs in the child's own home or in that of a family member. Abuse within institutional settings attracts particular public and media interest. The first inquiry into institutional sexual abuse took place in 1979 and centred on the activities of a group of paedophiles working within the Kincora Boys Home in East Belfast. Since that time nearly all police authority areas in England and Wales have witnessed similar inquiries into cases of institutional abuse. In Ireland also there has been a gradual unravelling of the bonds of silence that once hid the sexual abuse of children cared for within institutions, often run by the established church. Because institutional abuse is often (although certainly not always) characterised by same-sex assaults, there may be a temptation to assume that children are in more danger from homosexuals than they are from heterosexuals. In fact this is not so. For, while homosexual perpetrators may find it easier to access children within institutions, children in the more familiar settings of home and community are more likely to attract the attentions of heterosexual perpetrators.

When we come to consider the issue of how many children are sexually abused we encounter some significant definitional problems. For example, if a man exposes himself to a class of school children, are all the children sexually abused? This example may meet the criteria set out by Baker and Duncan. However, some of the children may regard the incident as 'funny' and give it little further thought, some may be worried or confused by it for a short time, while others may become somewhat disturbed, unable to dismiss the incident as lightly as their classmates. In this analysis we are differentiating between the significance of the act for the perpetrator and the significance of the act for the children. Some of these children might grow up to describe themselves as having been sexually abused, while some would not. Studies which have sought information from adults with regard to their childhood experiences suggest that 12 per cent of women and eight per cent of men have been sexually abused as children. We need to remember, however, that because so many taboos exist around the admission that one has been sexually abused, there is likely to be under-reporting.

It is tempting to dehumanise the perpetrator of child sexual abuse by ascribing features to them which make them unlike ourselves. Perpetrators, however, cannot be reduced to a single stereotypical image. While it is true that most child sex abusers suffer from low self-esteem, have difficulty in forming relationships and experience a sense of emotional isolation, people with such personality traits cope in different ways. Some present as loners who take jobs where there is little need for human contact, often feeling more comfortable with children than they do with adults. Others mask their problems by becoming pillars of respectability within the community, acquiring a wife, children, job titles and local recognition for their public works. They are often articulate and plausible individuals, possessing many social skills. Still others may present as competitive and aggressive individuals whose desire for power and control may lead them to hold positions of influence in their chosen career. They will often also attain positions of authority within the church, youth organisation or school. Their dedication and unfailing commitment to helping out with unpopular jobs usually makes them a valuable asset to the organisation to which they belong. They usually pose no visible threat to children, such dangers only becoming apparent when they begin to abuse.

Why do some people sexually abuse? The answer to this question is complex but may be divided into two areas -a predisposition to abuse, and conditions necessary for abuse to occur. Many, but not most, child sex abusers were themselves victims of sexual abuse and/or physical and emotional abuse as a child (it is difficult to be sexually abused and not emotionally abused as a consequence). All sex abusers have a sexual orientation towards children but may be further divided into three groups; those who are exclusively orientated towards children, those who are primarily orientated towards children but may also have sex with adults, and those who are primarily orientated towards adults but, when they experience adult relationships as problematic, use children as substitutes. While sexual abuse is generally regarded as a compulsive behaviour, certain conditions must be met before actual sexual assault takes place. Finkelhor (1984) has defined these four preconditions as follows:

Motivation to sexually abuse: They must want to sexually abuse children.
Overcoming internal inhibitors: Some perpetrators see little wrong in abusing children but others may have a well developed conscience or strong religious beliefs which may prevent them from indulging in sexual fantasies involving children. Alcohol may be used as a disinhibitor to help overcome these barriers.
Overcoming external inhibitions: There are powerful societal taboos preventing child sexual abuse. These are enshrined in legislation. The child abuser who can overcome the fear of being punished will develop strategies to allow him to act out his fantasies involving children.
Overcoming the child's resistance: They may target the weak, lonely, unloved or compliant child and use strategies of seduction to build abuse upon the flattery of friendship. Alternatively they may seek to use sheer physical force or threat ('you'll end up in a children's home') to make the child submit.

Once the individual breaks these barriers once, subsequent crossings become easier; indeed most sex abusers are guilty of multiple offences against children. This underscores the compulsive nature of the activity. The basic understanding of sex is distorted and this means that it is difficult to stop offending. Those who hold distorted attitudes to food or alcohol will recognise the recurring cycle. There is an attempt to resist temptation through effort, then stresses occur and a 'slip' happens. Some then give up the controls entirely while others redouble their efforts with only a few being successful, that is they don't act on their impulse again. 'Success', however, does not mean a cure in the sense of a physical disease, this group rather live with an addictive desire, but do not act upon it. There is, of course, an important distinction to be drawn between societal attitudes to those with food or alcohol addictions, and those with a compulsion to sexually abuse. Individuals who admit a compulsion to eat or drink may talk about such matters, receive advice, counselling, even sympathy and understanding. This is largely because the victims here are primarily those with the addiction. With sex abusers, their victims are vulnerable children. What response would there be to an individual who volunteered that they were sexually orientated towards children and requested help and support to stop them acting out their fantasies? What would be the response from a church to an individual struggling with such inner demons? The necessity to help create conditions where individuals may reveal their innermost longings, however unpalatable, may be one way to help prevent abuse occurring. This priority is reinforced by an examination of the effects on victims of child sexual abuse.

Child victims experience great difficulty in disclosing abuse. The reasons include loyalty to the abuser — for example, they don't want to see their father go to prison, and fear of the abuser — for example, they will return to attack them if they disclose. For those who do disclose they may encounter reactions including disbelief, judgement or denial. This helps explain why so many child victims retract their allegations. Longer-term effects of the abuse tend to depend on a number of factors, including the amount of force used, whether the adult was known to the child, the age of the child when abuse occurred and the response of caregivers to the child's disclosure. Behaviour and relationships may be affected. There may be self-harm, drug or substance abuse, and the possibility that repressed anger towards the abuser may be generalised to include partners in adult relationships.

Child abuse: The response of the church

The problem for the church is that, historically, it has as often been a place where abuse has occurred as well as being a refuge for those who are victims. In one sense this is entirely understandable. It is only in the last thirty years that child sexual abuse has become visible as a social problem. What were once thought of as isolated occurrences of incest have been gathered and quantified by professionals and researchers who have held a mirror to society, revealing a cancer at its heart. Within churches people find acceptance and jobs to be done. This combination of trust and opportunity presents ideal conditions for those wishing to be near children to abuse them. Consequently, ministers, priests, Sunday school teachers and leaders of youth organisations have all been represented in the ranks of child sex abusers. I think that there are three areas which the church needs to pay attention to in considering how best to deal with the issue of child sexual abuse.

The church should avoid denial. Survivors of child sexual abuse often include in their stories an account of attempts to tell a trusted friend, relative or respected member of the community. Often these efforts were met with incredulity, anger or disbelief. When a child tells someone they are being sexually abused they are nearly always telling the truth. They need to be believed.
The church cannot deal with the issue on its own. We have been forgiven and we wish also to forgive. The problem here is that such motivation may seek a quick solution. We may try to rationalise the act of sexual abuse as a 'slip' or 'something out of character'. Quick repentance and absolution for the perpetrator will do neither them nor their victim any favours. The perpetrator will be encouraged to add a further layer to the already complex cocoon of denial. The victim may also feel pressurised to forgive and consequently bury deeper still their inner pain. Recent church history is littered with disastrous attempts to quietly deal with the problem of sexual abuse. In these matters churches need the assistance of relevant professionals; indeed this point has largely been recognised with most mainstream churches now adopting their own child protection policies which include links to social services.
Victims need long-term support. At times this will include an ability to see beyond apparently self- destructive and irrational behaviour, anger or distress. In addition, wise counsellors will be required to deal with profound issues of faith and meaning, for example, 'how could my Father in Heaven permit my father on Earth to do this to me?'.
Perpetrators need long-term support. Church members may feel conned, confused or angry following revelations of abuse. Grace, however, is not categorical. If the perpetrator is a Christian then they will need to be incorporated within the Christian community. This is practically problematic. It is unlikely that the perpetrator will be able to remain a member of the local congregation if their victims are also members. If they are accepted to worship elsewhere safeguards need to be put in place. It is likely that the perpetrator will continue to be sexually orientated towards children and, given this reality, it is vital that children within the church are protected. However, if the perpetrator has been less than honest with regard to the nature and extent of their offences (this is true in the majority of cases), it is probable that the church cannot contain such an individual. It is consequently important that churches liaise closely with each other and with professionals in order that they may ascertain the extent to which a particular individual has honestly faced up to their condition.

Ultimately we have to name child sexual abuse for what it is — a sin. Like most other sins it stems from a craving for satisfaction, power or acknowledgement. Unlike most other sins it is regarded by both church and society as abhorrent. It is practised by both believers and non-believers alike and is characterised by compulsion and denial. It is a problem we all have to address. In doing so darkness may become visible, but healing and containment become possible.

standard citation for this article:
Trevor Spratt, ‘Child abuse and the Church’, 16 December 2007, Gilnahirk Baptist Church Web site. http://www.gilnahirkbaptist.org.uk/resources/frontiers/4/2/spratt-child-abuse.php (accessed 31 Jul 2010).
This article first appeared in Frontiers, 4.2 (Spring 2000):17-21, and is used with permission.