The communique from the latest ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) College of Bishops meeting had its surprises. Immediately noticeable was the call for a Provincial Assembly this summer to push through changes in Title IV of the Canons. Disoriented by that news, one could be forgiven for not comprehending the full import of this later paragraph:
Additionally, the Governance Task Force (GTF) has had an initial consultation with Rachael Denhollander, an attorney and leading expert in helping religious institutions properly respond to and prevent abuse. As part of the final public review cycle, the provincial office and the Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas have agreed to retain Ms. Denhollander to consult and provide additional feedback to the GTF about trauma-informed best practices.
First is the shock that a rather controversial figure, to put it mildly (Please don’t sue me!) is being consulted and retained by ACNA. Unless I missed something, this is the first time we in the pews have been informed of this.
So one could then easily miss, as I did at first, that it suddenly is already assumed that we in ACNA should and will follow “trauma-informed best practices.” The bishops’ statement invites discussion about Title IV. None is invited about this development. It is just sprung on us.
Now before I get hysterical comments about how horrible I am for noticing such things (I deleted one the other day.), of course the church should take trauma seriously and minister to those who have and are suffering from traumas of various kinds. And we should take common sense measures to prevent the trauma of abuse in the church and to discipline abusers. But “trauma-informed best practices” goes far beyond that and enables false accusations, which can also result in great trauma.
Let’s say in a hearing, an accuser changes her story or gets salient facts wrong. In a fair hearing, that would be grounds for doubting the accuser and his/her accusation. Not necessarily so under “trauma-informed best practices.” Instead, the changing of stories and the like can be evidence that abuse occurred. For that is what we expect someone who has undergone the trauma of abuse to do because trauma so disorients the mind, we are told.
See how that works? If the accuser is convincing based on the facts, well and good. If the accuser errs on the facts, well, that is all the more proof she was abused!
That is one aspect among others that tilts justice toward accusers and away from the accused, that virtually assumes accusers are victims and the accused are abusers. I find the following summary helpful:
Trauma informed.
If she changes her story multiple times, trauma.
If she can’t remember key dates or locations, trauma.
If she doesn’t present well at all whilst giving her evidence, trauma.
If she is caught lying. Oops, misremembering during cross examination, trauma.
If she is extremely emotional or shows no emotion at all, trauma.
Accused person.
If he gets angry, proof he is violent.
If he can’t remember dates and times, proof he is lying.
If he changes his story, proof he is lying.
If he is emotional, proof he is manipulative.
If he shows no emotion, proof he has no remorse.
That is what trauma informed practice in the criminal justice system looks like.
That might be a bit stark and simplifying, but it is too on target. More detailed and with a number of links for further study is this 2019 article from KC Johnson. (Some may remember Johnson did yeoman’s work exposing the Duke Lacrosse hoax.) He quotes a 2017 Atlantic article on the subject. In it, Emily Yoffe called out trauma-informed training and practices as “junk science” that “result[s in] … a system in which some men are wrongly accused and wrongly punished.”
Some are reminded of the bout of “repressed memory” junk science that resulted in many lives being ruined by false accusations in the 1990s. Why is ACNA so quickly buying another toxic species of junk science that enables false accusations? We might as well bring back witch trials. “If she floats, she’s a witch; if she drowns, oh well.” To say “if accusations of abuse are inaccurate, that’s trauma from the abuse, not lies” is not much better.
That said, I freely admit I do not know as much about “trauma-informed best practices” as I do about Critical Theory, eschatology, church history, Dallas Cowboys history and other depressing subjects. But I would bet cash money that the College of Bishops and most other ACNA officers could say the same thing.
That is part of the problem. The ACNAtoo type activists have been pushing and badgering for years. Most of the normies had better things to do and have not been paying attention. They hardly knew what was going on.
And I, even I, illustrate that. Thanks to my infamous friend on X, the Whistleblower, I found out only yesterday in the process of writing this that “trauma-informed” has just been written into the main proposal to revise Title IV of ACNA’s Canons. If it were not for that account, I might have missed that because, as you may remember, I really did not care about Title IV revisions. I care now!
But maybe I blame myself too much. The latest revision was posted two days ago. And if I am reading the red-line revisions right, it wasn’t until two days ago that “trauma-informed” was added. (If I am misreading it, it was still very recent. [Since posting, I’ve been informed it was added sometime in January.]) Again this has been sprung on us. From the definitions on p. 9:
“trauma informed training” means training in practical skills including, but not limited to, de-escalation techniques, the avoidance of re-traumatization, and the recognition of trauma responses;
There it is! An accuser’s testimony is not trustworthy? Well, that’s a trauma response, and you better recognize that. Blame the trauma! Which of course assumes that the accuser is actually a victim before the hearing even starts.
And key officials are required to buy into that. Canon 5, Section 1 on p. 13 (I cleaned up the strike outs and the like to make it more readable):
The Executive Committee shall appoint, or consent by majority vote to the appointment by the Archbishop of a person or persons to be Reports Administrators for the purposes of this title. Persons so appointed must be human resources practitioners or a legally qualified or otherwise suitably qualified persons and should have trauma informed training…
The requirement for trauma-informed training was apparently added on February 2nd. Likewise for Section 2 on the Reports Investigation Committee:
The Reports Investigation Committee shall consist of nine members … two members of the clergy and two lay members shall be elected by the Provincial Council, and one member of the clergy and four lay members shall be appointed by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee must ensure by its appointments that at least three members of the Reports Investigation Committee are legally qualified, at least three members have had trauma informed care training…
So it would be required in our Canons that “trauma-informed” trained people be on these important committees. And since I’ve just now become interested in Title IV and the latest revision just dropped, no telling what Easter eggs I’ve not yet noticed.
So why are they rushing us into “trauma-informed best practices” without adequate study and honest province-wide discussion?
Of course, we are not the only ones being rushed to take such measures concerning alleged victims, both in and outside the church. Frank Furedi is taking a big picture look at that.
Roots & Wings with Frank Furedi
On the industrialization of victim culture
8 days ago · 40 likes · 4 comments · Frank Furedi
This quote looks like it applies to us in ACNA:
The special status of the victim is so deeply entrenched that even critical thinkers rarely ask the question of why this has come about. Ezzat Fattah, a veteran victimologist based in Canada was one of the rare examples of a scholar prepared to raise doubts about the lack of critical thinking on this subject. He noted that ‘surprisingly, there has been very little scrutiny of the actions of the victims’ movement and very few critical assessments of its achievements’. And he added, that ‘victims’ rights legislation and programs to help victims of crime have been greeted with enthusiasm and have encountered very little or no opposition’. Fattah was clearly suspicious of the ‘exceptional speed’ with which victims were discovered and has called for the questioning about the ‘real interest and motives’ behind this process.
Well, we in ACNA are certainly experiencing some “exceptional speed” at the moment. “Trauma-informed best practices” are quickly being made the norm, and we are only told about it after the fact.
Of course, leaders in ACNA have surely heard an ear full already from activists all in favor of that. They need to hear from the rest of us, too. They need to hear from the rest of us first before proceeding further down the primrose “trauma-informed” path. And we need to make ourselves heard before it is too late and lives are damaged as they always are when junk science is treated like holy writ.
There is still a brief time to speak up. If you’re in ACNA, do so!
But will the provincial powers listen? I remember a number of us warned that the then proposed 2019 Book of Common Prayer was based too much on the 1979. Our warnings were pushed aside. And the College of Bishops and the provincial office seem already to have made up their mind for the “trauma-informed” way.
If so, they are heading ACNA toward a dark place. Ask those who have been falsely accused and unjustly punished under a regime of trendy junk science, whether that trend be witch hunting, repressed memory syndrome, Critical Theory, or “trauma-informed best practices.”
