Category: News

Survivor Support Policy

Many survivors have an inner core of strength that has helped them endure a deeply damaging, sometimes ongoing, experience. This warrants acknowledgement and affirmation during the support process. This strength does not preclude ongoing symptoms, challenges and need for support.

Due to the abuse they have endured, survivors may experience:

• Re-living event(s) through flashbacks/dreams/memories, memory loss, intrusive thoughts, emotional numbness, fear, post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), dissociation, depersonalization;
• Overwhelming worry, restlessness, nervousness and hypervigilance;
• Cognitive challenges such as problems focusing, memory retention, difficulty making decisions, challenges completing tasks and assignments in school or at work;
• Mood challenges such as overwhelming sadness, loneliness, anxiety, irritability, appetite/weight changes (clinical depression), intense feelings such as anger;
• Self-esteem challenges such as shame, embarrassment, guilt, social isolation, difficulty making friends, feelings of worthlessness or emptiness;
• Substance abuse, eating disorders, self-harming behaviors and suicidality;
• Difficulty with relationships (fear of intimacy, inability to trust, sexual dysfunction, problems with spouse/family dynamics), difficulty with interpersonal communication, attachment disorders;
• Inappropriate boundaries, risky sexual behavior and risk of revictimization;
• Higher rates of chronic disease such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases;
• Being perceived as angry or aggressive while self-advocating to be heard.

Why should the fellowship provide support to survivors?

Survivors are often misunderstood and have been overlooked and shunned in the fellowship, while perpetrators have been protected, excused, and elevated to positions of trust. This bias must be recognized. One step in addressing this is to actively support survivors.

Guidelines for support will help provide consistency across regions and time.

In consideration of the above, and for the purposes of support, it is immaterial whether the survivor was abused by an individual inside or outside of this fellowship. Similarly, the level of the survivor’s participation in the fellowship should not affect support (such as currently professing or not). Christlike compassion should underpin the approach.

Recommended support for survivors

• Acknowledge the abuse and affirm the survivor by providing opportunity for the survivor to be heard by others including those in authority, in a manner that facilitates accountability;
• Support survivors in counselling. This includes both acknowledging that mental health and other services may be needed, and contributing funds for counselling to help the survivor establish a functional day to day life and emotional well-being. Some survivors may have health plans that cover part of this, while others may not;
• Support survivors in social connections. This may include supporting involvement of a social worker and connecting with other survivors;
• Support family members or others close to the survivor who may also need help to navigate survivor behaviors that can affect crucial relationships (such as parent/sibling/spouse);
• Support during subsequent hardship. Survivors may be asked to testify in court. Legal advice and accompaniment (victim’s advocate) should be supported if this situation occurs;
• Ensure survivors’ safety and prevent re-traumatization by removing perpetrators from contact with the survivor in meeting, public gatherings, or communication. Take care to avoid inadvertently pressuring survivors to make contact. In some healing processes, survivors may choose to make contact; in these cases interaction should be on the survivor’s terms;
• Extra consideration may be needed for survivors who are non-English speaking, elderly, disabled or with other demographic vulnerabilities.

Considerations for worker survivors:

In most cases, when workers enter the ministry they forgo many natural securities, including money, assets such as home/vehicle/investments, and the opportunity to pursue further education or a career. This unique reality should guide the support provided to those who leave the work temporarily or permanently.

• Open discussion to ascertain immediate needs to establish themselves first temporarily and then permanently. This may include funds for a vehicle, rent, furnishings, as well with help with finding a job;
• Support to approach change in role in the church (communication of new role to members of fellowship, elders, local workers);
• Follow-up needs assessment 3-6 months after initial transition. Some former workers have mentioned that after the receipt of basic needs funds, they were left adrift and felt isolated. This may be addressed by having a designated person check in periodically.

Support for survivors in other countries

We encourage extending support to survivors of abuse, no matter their country of residence. This is of a special concern given cases of abusers traveling to, or being sent to, other areas without full disclosure of their history. Language barriers and differences in cultural context may provide further opportunity for abuse to occur.

Individuals who have a history of abuse must not be moved without full disclosure.

Support for survivors in other countries should include open acknowledgement of survivors’ experience, sharing policies and lessons learned, and providing financial support for medical and counselling needs.

Anticipated challenges include varying degrees of trust in police and state authorities, and cultural differences in sexual norms and discussing the same. Individuals familiar with these complex dynamics, such as those local to a specific region, may be best equipped to navigate these challenges with full support from others.

July 2023

The following attributes are some of the conditions that make the Friends and Workers church ripe for abuse and deception.

Historical Belief in Exclusivity: The workers and meetings represent the“Only True Ministry” and “Only True Way”.

• The belief that the form of the church and ministry is “the Only Way” is explicitly or implicitly taught and reinforced by many workers at Gospel meetings and other gatherings such as convention. Many friends do not do their own scriptural research to test the validity of this belief.
• Workers who believe they have been called into the Only True Ministry may submit to emotional or sexual abuse so as not to lose their “place”.
• Ex-communication or separation from the Only True Way can be a real and powerful fear, and result in ignoring or minimizing immoral or criminal behaviors.

Culture of Secrecy: From its establishment in the late 1800’s, there have been divisions and scandals in the church.   

• Typically doctrinal divisions and/or scandals have been ignored, diminished, or covered up because open acknowledgment of imperfections, including immoral or criminal behavior, could reduce confidence in the Only True Ministry and the Only True Way.  
• Many F&W are ignorant or uncertain about the church’s history.

Due to a deliberate or unintentional lack of knowledge, when questioned about church history, a default position is a vague or secretive response.

This “ignorance is bliss” attitude influences their outlook on church activities and information, including CSA and SA.

Undue trust in workers. Until recently, trust in the honesty, morality, ethics and general reliability of workers, was automatic and absolute among the majority of Friends.

• A high degree of trust is one of the most effective tools of a CSA perpetrator.

The homestay system.  Perpetrator workers know that the homestay system offers them many opportunities to groom and violate victims.  The addition of the above noted “trust factor” makes for an extremely vulnerable situation.

Unaccountability.  This historical reality is systemic among the ministry and creates an environment for many levels and areas of deception.  It is related to the One True Ministry belief.

• Unaccountability by the ministry exists from the regular worker level up to overseers.
• There is a general perception that ministry decisions, including financial, movement of staff, meeting selection, and other matters that affect the friends (eg baptism, divorce and/or remarriage, how CSA is dealt with), are privileged, sacrosanct and immune from review or analysis by the friends.
• Historically, the friends rarely question teachings or decisions made by the ministry. This acceptance allows for vulnerability in church matters, including how CSA/SA is managed.
• No accountability of the ministry allows a perfect breeding ground for corruption and deceit.

A Distinct Hierarchy

• Male dominated culture.  CSA/SA is notably more active in male dominated cultures. Males adopt a privileged position. Immoral or unethical workers will take advantage of their systemic privilege. Friends may be intimidated by the perceived dominance and therefore ignore or minimize known abuse.
• Two distinct groups. A commonly used phrase like “God’s people” often refers to the general congregation, not the workers. This and other delineations creates two groups/levels of organization, an imbalance of power, and implicit subservience by the Friends.
• The uneven power system within the ministry hierarchy (male vs female, senior vs junior), has contributed to worker-to-worker abuse and at times, prevented necessary recourse.
• Reporting. Historically, reports of CSA/SA went up through the chain of worker command rather than directly from the information source worker or friend to the authorities. This allowed the senior workers and overseers discretion in what would be reported and the outcome.

Christchurch,

Sunday July 9.

Dear Wayne,

This morning I received a letter concerning CSA which had your name, among others, at the bottom.

I acknowledge that the letter is quite well-written in the main, but it also raises serious issues. Clearly, the letter is not written or sent out in good faith, as the signatories are well aware of a person currently in the Ministry who has not been – and so far, is not being – dealt with according to the stated protocols.

I refer to Craig Janke in QLD, who very clearly falls within the scope of people who should not be attending meetings and yet is being allowed to even remain in the Ministry.

Craig was in South Australia in your time there, and you were made aware of allegations against him relating to inappropriate behaviour towards children (in fact, it seems likely that you actually knew of this before he arrived in the state). It is a known fact that you privately acknowledged that you were satisfied that the allegations against him have substance (though in a meeting of church elders in the field where Craig had been you later downplayed it and gave the impression that there was nothing in the allegations). You arranged for him to be sent back to QLD because of these matters, and I understand you made the remark that you would not have him in the ministry in your state. On his return to QLD he eventually returned to a role in the ministry and has remained there until this time. It is beyond understanding how you have dared to produce a letter which claims that you will deal with CSA matters when you are allowing this person to retain a ministry role. This is dishonest and deceitful behaviour. You need to be aware that I have begun to share these facts with everybody who raises the issue of the letter to me, and I will continue to do so.

A further matter of concern relates to the conspicuous absence of Max Goldsack’s name from the bottom of the letter, which has served to focus a spotlight on him and has caused many questions to be raised. The comment most frequently made about this is that it is likely because your overseer group are aware (as you would be) of Max’s questionable record on moral matters, including his well-known homosexual relationships. Personally, it was with jaw-dropping disbelief that I heard he was to be appointed overseer of the state of West Australia – this was an open assault on the principles of the Bible, a betrayal of the ministry and the Church, and a death-blow to the credibility of the overseer group.

These concerns are not trivial, nor may they be ignored. Please take notice that this letter will be shared, by any means, with anybody who has an interest in these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Thompson

WINGS Note: The original letter from most Australian and New Zealand overseers was posted 1st July https://wingsfortruth.info/2023/07/01/australia-nz-letter-to-the-church/ WINGS is unaware of any criminal allegations against anyone mentioned in this letter.

Ray Hoffmann:

Ira Hobbs: (overseer of Texas)

• Letter sent out by Ray about Ira in May 2008
• Ira allowed to attend meetings with children until June 2023
• Ray sent out CSA resources in 2008. Overseers claim that they didn’t know some of the facts and are only just now learning but we know that isn’t the case.
  https://wingsfortruth.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rayhoffman-2pp2.pdf
• Ray praises Ira’s spirit and says “there are too many allegations to be dismissed and disbelieved” which were only discovered when an officer investigating put out a notice for victims to come forward. Ray only wrote this letter due to the amount of victims that came forward.
• Jean’s story: https://wingsbts.proboards.com/thread/244/jeans-story

Leslie White: (Overseer of Colorado)

• Ray needed Laura (rape victim) to report to the authorities before he could remove Leslie White from the work.
• Laura raped by Leslie in 2003 at Elizabeth preps and reported in 2012 . Only then was Leslie removed from the work.
• Ray allowed Leslie to speak in his gospel meetings in recent years until April of 2023.
• Laura says: “From all I’ve heard Leslie has continued his behavior and because of Ray Hoffmann’s refusal to put him out of all meetings and Ray and other overseers’ refusal to write a letter and notify the church (the people) of Leslie’s behavior and lack of repentance, his behavior has been allowed to continued and his abuse of women and young girls has been enabled.”
• “In 2012 Ray Hoffmann looked me in the eye and promised and assured me that Leslie White would never be in the work again, yet in April of 2023, 11 years later, it was discovered that Ray himself was letting Leslie speak in gospel meetings. When asked why, Ray answered; “Maybe not the wisest choice”. ” Laura.
• Cynthia Liles (P.l) says: “I noticed online there were a couple of comments suggesting White was actually still in the work in Maine. I learned in late March or early April of 2023 that Ray Hoffmann indeed had let him back in the work by letting him speak in gospel meetings.
  This was confirmed with Ray in a phone call.”
• https://wingsfortruth.info/2023/06/24/victims-of-leslie-white-speak-out Refer here for all of Leslie’s inappropriate behaviors. Leslie spoke very inappropriately about sexual matters in gospel meetings and engaged in numerous inappropriate behaviors. Ray moved Leslie around but never removed him from the work.
• Ray made the comment to the mediator’s father (see Barry Barkley) “If not for the sister worker (Laura), Leslie would still be in the work.”
• Ray has also stated (April 2023): “Well it’s tricky because a lot of times victims who come forward are mentally unstable and while we feel for them, it’s hard to know what to do.”

Barry Barkley:

Leslie White:

• Present for orgasm comment and later denied it happened
• Met with divorced woman and was informed of Leslie’s very inappropriate questions (wings for truth link above) and did nothing about it with a mediator present in 2009.
• Barry later told the mediator of another report from a young sister worker that felt uncomfortable with Leslie’s comments to her in front of young brother workers.
• Barry made multiple comments that he would not “surge ahead of God” when victim and mediator asked that Leslie White be removed from the work. Mediator warned Barry that there would be more victims
• Mediator and her husband were removed from field email lists. Bruce Shaw eventually told them they were not welcome to take part in meetings until the mediator had sought out Leslie and forgiven him.
• Barry was Leslie White’s overseer at the time. (IL)
• Note: Mediator was unnamed on the victim’s letters to Leslie White, but she later posted her story on AFTT and C&C so we know she is Beth Laswell Boelter.

Dale Shultz:

Robert Corfield:

• Dale knew of Robert’s CSA in Saskatchewan and moved him to Montana instead of removing him from the work.
• John Foster says: “Those who also knew of Robert’s crimes and failed to report (Dale Shultz, primarily) will also likely face criminal charges. Dale was horrible to Robert’s primary victim and needs to be held accountable for that situation and many, many others he has handled horribly and with utter disdain for victims.”
• https://wingsfortruth.info/2023/05/31/robert-corfield-circumstances/  
• Robert Corfield’s victim recently disclosed on the Advocates for Truth FB page that he was physically assaulted by Dale for disclosing his abuse to a friend.

John VandenBerg:

• John was moved back to Arizona/California from Mexico after CSA happened in Mexico that Dale was aware of.
• The P.I team says: “Since January 2023. it has been brought to our attention that at least ten workers knew of this particular crime and participated in the cover up. Dale Shultz was instrumental in preventing the reporting of John Vandenberg’s crimes to law enforcement.” This is referring to an allegation against John of CSA of a 14 year old girl in Mexico in the early 2000s.
• https://wingsfortruth.info/2023/05/l8/john-vandenberg-clarification/
• https://johnvandenberg-theworker.org/2023/05/16/mexico-incident-and-application-of-matt-18-and-implied-consent/

Milford Town Hall: (Ray and Barry present) Rays problematic comments follow:

• “The next person to speak stated that they wanted reassurance that all allegations would be reported and people in the area be informed.”
  The moderator tried to bring the mic to Ray Hoffmann to respond to this and Ray motioned the mic away and did not respond.
• Ray zeroed in on one report. He painted a picture of the reporter being untrustworthy. He said “I’m not aware of anything I’ve been involved with CSA. If people can prove that I knowingly moved a perpetrator to another field I will happily step down, I will happily step down, I will go to jail, I’m not afraid of jail. I don’t think it would be wise to step down off the suggestion of one person.”
• Ray referenced James as an overseer and that James had the last word. He also said that someone has to make the plans and organize. He then said that he used to be Catholic and he definitely won’t be going back to that and that he didn’t like the hierarchy.
  The person who asked said “there is a hierarchy of the friends, elders, sister workers, brother workers, older workers, and overseers.”
• Ray said that it’s important to have overseers who are led by God and to manage, otherwise every worker would just be doing what they think is right. (Pointing to the sisters workers) he says the sister workers are submissive in their place and are happy to be. Maybe you would like to speak on that? (Motioning for a sister worker to speak).

Michael J Dunn was convicted in 2004 of Sexual Conduct Without Consent on a 22 year old male in 2002 and sentenced to one year imprisoment.. He had a previous conviction in 1999 of Sexual Abuse-2nd Degree on a 13 year old male in 1998.

It is understood that after release from prison he was not allowed in meetings with the victim but otherwise allowed to go to fellowship meetings.