Supeernova/pexels

“If there is to be reconciliation, first there must be truth.” ― Timothy B. Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story.

I am sorry that I must add complaints surrounding Pastor Jelani Lewis to Gateway’s growing list of alleged abusive pastors. This post looks at two very different problems(or maybe they’re not, you decide.)

Were abuse victims forced to sit in a room with their abuser and forgive them?

I have been hearing about this off and on. Today, I talked with the person who must remain anonymous for a good reason. I know who they are. Here is the scenario. At one point, there were some sexual abuse victims on this campus. Apparently, Pastor Jelani told sexual abuse victims that they would need to meet with their abuser in a room at the church. The victims were supposed to forgive their abuser after confronting them in Matthew 18 style (Digression by Dee: I believe Matthew 18 is the most ill-understood and abused verse in the Bible.) Matthew 18:15-17 NIV:

¹⁵ “If your brother or sister^[a] sins,^[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. ¹⁶ But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’^{[c] 17} If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Pastor Jelani was also part of some, if not all, of these meetings. Forcing victims to forgive their abuser is one more form of abuse. From Stop Telling Victims to Forgive Their Abuser:

When clergy, therapists, friends, and family counsel victims to “just forgive” the abuser, they’re often ignoring the fact that the victim is experiencing significant trauma and deserves to focus on her own safety and healing, rather than channeling energy into forgiving their abuser.

“Forgiveness” usually translates to “absolution” – in other words, when victims are asked to forgive, they’re really being told to sweep the abuse under the rug so that everyone can move on.

This further traumatizes victims who need safety and support. Not trite advice.

Forcing forgiveness and reconciliation is both unbiblical as well as dangerous for the victim.

Christianity Today wrote THE DANGER OF FORCING FORGIVENESS. It makes the point that churches are weaponizing forgiveness.

Again and again, across denominations, we hear storiesabout how “forgiveness” has been used to vindicate abusers and silence the abused. Once this coerced forgiveness is offered, it seems impossible to retract, which is often why abusers use forgiveness as a silencing technique.

What is meant by true reconciliation?

we can disarm a misuse of forgiveness by properly understanding reconciliation. An emphasis on reconciliation is often used by an offender to sear the victim’s conscience and silence him or her. The proper response to such injustice is not reconciliation but repentance.

True reconciliation, when it is possible, requires fully acknowledging the evil of the abuse and the harm it causes, displaying active repentance of the evil done, and offering restitution to the victim. These actions do not impede reconciliation; they are prerequisites for it. If offenders refuse to be confronted with their abuse, it suggests they have not fully come to terms with their victims’ dignity, the evil they have done, and the pain they have caused.

The following brings home the point.

a truly repentant offender recognizes that forgiveness is an undeserved gift that must be offered freely by the injured party. The one who has committed a sin cannot demand forgiveness from God or from a fellow image-bearer. Otherwise, it would still be coercion.

And God does not coerce the vulnerable. Instead, he promises to defend them, heal them, and invite them into the fullness of his kingdom (Ps. 37:27–29). The church must bear witness to that good news, so that forgiveness will not be used to cover up sin and silence the abused.

I would imagine that many victims gritted their teeth and experienced trauma as they forced out, “I forgive you.” I have heard some have walked away from the church.

Jelani and friends should have spent time bringing healing and peace to the victims. They should have spent lots of time demanding genuine and deep repentance from the abuser, which would be demonstrated over long periods. Then, let the victim decide when, if ever, they needed to be in the same room (!) with their abuser.

If this is true, shame on Jelani and anyone else on the pastoral staff who participated in this travesty. To the victims, I am so sorry. You were led by pastors who wanted a shiny, happy church with people who quickly forgave men who abused them. They were ill-educated and should not have been allowed to have these meetings. Where were the grownups, or did the grownups dream up this nonsense?

Jane Doe’s story of alleged sexual molestation by Pastor Jelani Lewis, whom she respected and trusted.

Jane Doe is a pseudonym for the victim. I know her identity. It is an accepted practice amongst journalists not to reveal the name of a sexual abuse victim, and I agree with this practice. She made the point that “Jelani will know who I am.” She is well-spoken, and she carefully chooses her words. This happened some years ago when Jelani was a youth pastor at Gateway. The victim spent two different times at Gateway while pursuing work outside the area, but she no longer lives there.

As she recounted her story, she discussed that she has been dealing with what happened over the last 7-8 years. Recently, she heard the story of Cindy Cleminshire and admired her guts and courage, especially when some people criticized her for doing so. She decided to come forward.

She was friendly with Jelani from her first stay in the area, and the friendship resumed when she returned. This time, he would challenge her standards.

Jelani and she were friends the first time she was in Southlake. When she returned a second time, she renewed their friendship and enjoyed “hanging out” with a group of mutual friends. She volunteered at Gateway. It is important to note that Jelani knew she was only there briefly. She said he had a funny and engaging personality and immensely enjoyed him. As time progressed, Jelani began to challenge her. She told him she was looking for a partner with an eye towards marriage. Jelani criticized her for having standards that were “too high.” He continued to challenge her in that vein.

This caused her to question her standards and began to think that they were “impossible.” She began to doubt herself.

He started to “swoon” her, and she felt guilty.

He started to compliment her while taking her out for meals regularly. He held her hand and spent lots of time speaking with her by phone. She said it felt a lot like dating. They began to see each other a lot. Jane said that their contact became more sexual but stopped short of actual intercourse.

However, this made her feel guilty and condemned for her actions. She kept this from their group of friends. As the time developed, she told Jelani that she needed to talk to someone about her feelings.

Jelani told her he would lose his job if she talked.

Jelani was opposed to her speaking with anyone. When she told him she wanted to talk with someone at the church, he became upset and said:

This is my church. Can’t you go somewhere else?

She became increasingly isolated and questioned whether she was disqualified for her work and actions. She told him she would talk with the Freedom Team, an in-house ministry. Jelani became upset and said

I could lose my job.”

He then implied that it would be her fault if he lost his job. Things cooled, but it was time for her to leave the area.

Jelani blocked Jane Doe

A year or two later, Jelani got married. Jane congratulated him on Facebook. He didn’t respond and blocked her. He has never contacted her.

My thoughts:

I was impressed with Jane’s transparency. As we talked, I asked her if she thought Jelani groomed her. He knew she would be leaving after a short stay and moved quickly, telling her that her personal standards were too high. It seemed to me that she was a “sitting duck” for a gregarious guy with a ton of personality. She began to see my point. I told her that she was a victim of clerical abuse. He was a youth pastor, and she trusted him.

• He had no regard for her feelings of shame and guilt. He only wanted to protect himself.
• He knew he was behaving egregiously and told her to be quiet.
• He had no pastoral concern for her. He blocked her and has never spoken to her since she left Gateway.
• He seemed adept at “swooning” Jane, which makes me wonder if he has done this to others.

My final point on Jelani’s behavior

If he had participated in those “reconciliation meetings,” he seemed to have little regard for the survivors’ feelings. He had no respect for Jane Doe’s feelings after she felt guilty about their sexual contact. He wanted to protect himself. I believe Jelani may have a problem in this area and hope the church might intervene.

Jane Doe’s story gives readers important insight into the character of a member of Gateway’s clergy. Is it time to clean house?