ANN MAREE:

Hello, and welcome to the Safe to Hope podcast.

Safe to Hope: Hope Renewed in Light of Eternity exists to offer women space to tell their stories of suffering and loss with care, dignity, and honesty. Though all suffering is loss, we ground that belief in a God who cares and remains present. This is our hope.

My name is Ann Maree, and I am the executive director of Help[H]er. This podcast is made possible by donors who believe faithfulness means protecting the dignity of women’s stories and creating a space for truth-telling without pressure or performance. Together, we listen for God’s redemptive thread and look for ways to join Him in His transforming work.

Before we begin, we want to take a moment and care for our listeners.

The Safe to Hope podcast typically includes discussions of abuse, and this season will as well. In particular, we’ll be talking about spiritual abuse. However, our conversations may include other abuses.

Please listen at your own pace and take breaks as needed. If at any point you need to pause or step away, that’s okay. Your well-being matters.

JULIA:

Hi, listeners. My name is Julia Fillnow, and I’m a therapist, advocate, and board chair at Help[H]er, and I’ll be hosting the Safe to Hope podcast today.

For many of us, Scripture and language have been taken and used against us. Today, we’re having a discussion about concepts like discernment and repair, and even hearing these words can stir something in us.

Words meant to bring life and clarity can become associated with harm. Part of healing can be slowly reclaiming these words and their deeper truths.

Most of us know Joseph’s story in the Book of Genesis. We remember that his brothers betrayed him, sold him into slavery, and years later, they were reconciled.

But Joseph’s life was marked by a series of betrayals: first by his own brothers, then by Potiphar’s wife, who was in a position of power over him, then by the cupbearer, a failed witness who could have spoken for him and failed to act.

Layer upon layer, Joseph experienced what many survivors know all too well: the relational, personal, familial, and even institutional betrayals that come as a package deal.

The writer of Hebrews, at the end of chapter five, tells us that spiritual maturity comes as our powers of discernment are trained to distinguish good from evil. Joseph’s wisdom wasn’t formed overnight. As he walked faithfully—not perfectly, but faithfully—with God through suffering and waiting, what was being cultivated in him was a deeper capacity to discern.

The end of Joseph’s story is often held up as one of Scripture’s great stories of forgiveness, and it is. But I wonder if we’ve sometimes moved too quickly past the discernment that made reconciliation eventually possible.

Potiphar’s wife and the cupbearer disappear from the story. There’s no portrait of forgiveness or repentance.

But years later, Joseph’s brothers stand before him in great humility and need. For the first time, Joseph isn’t powerless. God, in His providence, has given him agency and positional power, so he’s free to observe, free to ask questions, and free to wait.

Joseph doesn’t immediately reveal himself. Instead, he creates space where his brothers’ character, and not merely their words, can be revealed.

And here’s what may be the most striking thing to me: Joseph doesn’t seem to be simply looking for change, the right turn of phrase, or an emotional display, which can be fleeting and manipulative.

The fruit of change emerges in the exact place of the harm. The story goes that the brothers who once sacrificed and scapegoated the favored younger brother are now willing to sacrifice themselves for the new favored younger brother.

The very place of wounding becomes the place where he recognizes credible and observable evidence of transformation—specific, clear, and not performative.

Today, we hear public apologies and statements sounding like repentance, along with pressured calls for forgiveness and reconciliation, on a daily basis. Joseph reminds us that Scripture doesn’t ask us to discern repentance by words alone or to discern it quickly.

He patiently watches and tests specifically for transformed character located in the very place where harm was done.

Maybe that’s the invitation that Scripture gives us: a recovery of a biblical imagination that isn’t captive to some of these cultural ideas and expectations many of us have inherited from our faith communities—expectations that pressure those with less power toward easy forgiveness and quick reconciliation that give the optics of peace.

Genesis lingers: three chapters on discernment before one chapter on reconciliation.

That’s the conversation we’re having today.

Well, hi, listeners, and welcome back to our summer series. Today, we have a special bonus episode with our previous guest expert, Rachael Clinton Chen. She has graciously offered to join us again today.

Hi, Rachael.

RACHAEL:

Hello. It’s so good to be here.

JULIA:

Well, in our last episode, we spent some time talking about spiritual abuse, embodiment, and story work, and we wanted to come back together to continue the conversation because, after the last conversation, one category of questions just kept coming up for us—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—and for many of our listeners, and that is around the idea of discernment and how we can gauge and test around healthy change and repair after harm.

So, questions like: How do we know what is trustworthy after—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—trust has been broken? If someone says they’ve changed, how do I know what to do with that? And what does genuine repair actually look like?

And then perhaps maybe one of the hardest questions of all is: How do we know when trust is being rebuilt or we’re simply hoping that it is?

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

Before we jump in, I do want to acknowledge also that discernment takes time.

RACHAEL:

Yes.

JULIA:

We can’t give anyone a simple formula for determining whether a person, an organization, or a system is—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—trustworthy again. And so, we recognize that these are often deeply complex and deeply personal questions.

That said, we just do want to share some reflections with you, our listeners, that may help you think through what healthy repair can look like.

I think it’s also fair to say that many of us have received teaching on forgiveness.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

Far fewer of us have received teaching specifically on discernment.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

How to recognize trustworthiness. How to evaluate repentance.

So, before we jump in, I’d love to begin with that kind of foundational question around discernment. What does this even mean? We use that word a lot in Christian circles, but I’m not sure we’re always talking about the same thing.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

I think it’s a word that’s become so broad and overgeneralized that it’s reduced to meaning just making a good choice or—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—the right choice.

So, Rachael, I’d kind of like to throw that question out to you.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

What are your thoughts around that? How would you define discernment, and even how do we get it wrong?

RACHAEL:

Yeah. I just want to say thank you. Such good wisdom that you’re bringing to kind of locate this in both its complexity and, like, dynamic nature.

And one of my first thoughts is just that part of what’s so hard about even the idea of discernment in the wake of spiritual harm is that we’ve lost—like, when we experience a break of trust in general, any kind of abuse, any kind of betrayal, trust is broken. Innocence is shattered.

We move toward more defensive postures, and whether that defensive posture is that we’re fawning, we’re fighting, we’re avoidant, or we’re preoccupied—whatever ways we, because of our story and our context, learn to cope—if another person brings harm, there is a breakdown of trust and a distrust of our capacity to discern what’s good.

That is amplified when spiritual abuse is involved because there’s almost, like—the setup of spiritual abuse is that we’ve already given trust to the person who’s bringing abuse based on our perception of their spiritual authority, of their trustworthiness in the eyes of God.

I think discernment gets real tricky because we don’t trust ourselves to discern. Like, our internal compass has been rattled. It’s felt exposed.

And on top of that, in a lot of spiritually abusive contexts, more fundamentalist contexts of spiritual formation, or more high-control family systems, we’re actually being told we can’t trust our own discernment.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

That we need to trust in a higher authority, a more trustworthy authority, in order to make good choices.

So, we’re up against both the way we’re wired for trust and how that gets disrupted and broken when abuse, harm, or betrayal is at play. And when we’re talking about spiritual abuse, we’re often up against theological frameworks—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—spiritual formation frameworks, and ways that the Bible is being weaponized that have literally told us we are not trustworthy discerners.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

So, yeah, I think we need to spend a little time unpacking, like, what is discernment?

And I want to just throw out a resource. I don’t know when this podcast is airing, but we just interviewed Dr. Alison Cook—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—whose newest book, The Secure Soul, is coming out August 18th. She has some beautiful language around, like, reclaiming secure inner attachment, right?

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Like, coming from this secure base with our parts and with God in our soul and our sense of self.

But the language she brings around, like, the growing of discernment when our protector parts start to be better stewards and seers is that we—discernment is moving with, the way she would put it, especially toward ourselves, right?

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

It’s kind of like allowing compassion and containment to be a part of the process, right?

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

So, there’s a truth-telling aspect of discernment that’s absolutely necessary.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

The truth and, like, a sober sense of reality—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—have to be at play. And, like, a kind of inner knowing, wisdom, and intuition of, like, can I trust my own sense of reality?

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Now, again, in spiritual abuse, both those things are under assault.

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

Like, our capacity to see and know the truth is usually being dictated by someone else. Gaslighting might be at play, where things are being twisted. Spiritual bypassing, where our inner sense of reality is being bypassed by, like, these beliefs we’re supposed to just ascribe to in order to be good and to stay in right relationships.

So, I know that’s a lot of, like, okay, let’s make this more complex. But it feels important to name—

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

—for all of us, right, that it is a slow process.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Because, in some ways, in order to discern well after spiritual harm, or just to discern what is actually good repair work, we need to be in processes where we’re reclaiming a sense of trust with ourselves—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—so that we can trust how we actually are in relationship with other people and discern what’s true. Like, we have to—

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

—kind of reclaim a sense of our own reality before we can join in, like, “And how is that reality clashing with systems, people, and processes?”

JULIA:

Yeah, that’s right. I mean, I think that a lot of times, if there’s this outward denial and rejection of the truth that you’re bringing, that seems to be much more clear than if there are expressions of regret or remorse.

It can be very, very confusing. So many people are left with the question of, “I’m noticing these things, and ultimately, should I stay or should I go?”

RACHAEL:

Yes.

JULIA:

And so their discernment—and I’m saying “their,” including myself, because I understand how this feels and what the experience—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—is like—it’s very tempting to look outward and to evaluate what you see in other people, what you’re noticing, and what changes, if any, there are.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And I’m not saying that’s not valuable, but what you’re saying is that it starts with yourself. It starts with rebuilding trust and reclaiming yourself.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

Because the nature of abuse fundamentally is a fracturing of this other person’s sense of reality—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—and their ultimate truth. And so the first step is rebuilding and reclaiming what has been fractured within us.

I think a lot of victims’ experiences and survivors’ experiences were that they sensed that something was wrong before they had language for it.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm. That’s right.

JULIA:

Their body was responding. Their emotions were responding. Something was trying to get their attention.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And at the same time, trusted—I say that in air quotes—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—trusted people and systems—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—were contradicting that.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Or dismissing it, reinterpreting it—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—or explaining away their experience.

So, I mean, and this is what you were saying too, the questions become: Can I trust myself? Can I trust—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—what I felt? Can I trust what I experienced? Can I trust my own knowing?

RACHAEL:

Yes. And so that’s a starting place.

And, you know, for some of us, that’s going to tap into early—like, that’s why I think you have to actually start doing attachment work when you’re talking about discernment.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

Because, like, I will just use myself as an example. So much of my formation was being fiercely loyal to the people, to primary caregivers, to mentors, and to the systems I was involved in. I didn’t have the luxury of, like, having my truth.

Because if I have my truth, I’m going to lose access to care, which, as a kid, feels like, “And therefore, I die.”

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

The felt sense, the nonverbal bodily sense, is, “I won’t make it.” So, in order to stay attached—I think Eli Harwood talks about this very beautifully, the Attachment Nerd—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—is her handle on Instagram. She’s got several beautiful books.

But when she says, you know, “Attachment is not, ‘Oh, we’re either attached or we’re not attached.’” It’s like, no, we’re attached. We’re attached to our people. We’re attached to our systems. We’re attached to God. It’s just, do we have a secure attachment or an insecure attachment?

So, for me, that feeling of—the way I would describe it, like, I was a really good sin-eater.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

Meaning something is screaming inside of me, “This is not right,” but it must be something wrong with me. And I can’t bear the truth that maybe this other person is not well, not trustworthy, harming, or exploiting.

So, therefore, I’m just going to push that feeling, that truth, like, really far down to the bottom of my toes.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

So, by the time I found myself set up in a relationship with my youth leader, and my good body was going, “Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding,” like, after the infatuation wore off—like, “You don’t want this. You don’t like this. You don’t feel comfortable with this. You don’t feel safe with this”—there was no way I was going to honor or feel those emotions.

Because not only does it mean something’s wrong with me in the system I’m in—that I’m bad, I’m not good at love—that’s how a lot of this, like, mind control was playing out.

Like, I’m going to the pastor saying, “I don’t want to be in this relationship. Something’s wrong with me.” No one’s going, “Well, you don’t—you’re 16. You don’t have to.” And also, like, “You should never be in a relationship with a 23-year-old or 24-year-old. Like, what is going on? There’s a power differential here. This is a person in a place of leadership.”

And so, I think I just had so much experience turning on myself in those moments.

And so, for me, the kind of, like, reclaiming a sense of discernment meant profound loss of community. Because there was no way I could stay in that—I mean, once I allowed my body to name the truth, once I got out of that relationship, once I got out of that high-control, fundamentalist, very misogynistic system, it was like the amount of terror that started to come at my body, the amount of trauma, the amount of rage, the amount of confusion—it was like—

And I would love to say, like, “Oh, I was just like, ‘Good riddance.’”

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

“I’m out.” But that was such a core place of connection. Like I said, I had my own history of, like, “I’ll eat the bad stuff and push it somewhere far away so that I can stay in connection, I can stay in belonging, and I can stay in good, right relationship.”

So, the process for me to become a person who could discern—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—what is good, right, trustworthy, transformative, and, like, repair—it was—I mean, I don’t want to discourage people, but it was a multiyear process.

Because I left that context, but then I had to, like, go to therapy.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

I had to, like, start to reckon with some of my early formational, you know, attachment styles and why this was familiar, why I would be vulnerable to this.

I had to, like, do the work of reclaiming a core sense of self—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—of, like, “I can trust what I perceive.”

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

Not fully, because none of us can trust fully what we perceive. That’s why we’re meant to be in community.

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

But when I sense danger, when I sense somebody’s being two-faced, when I sense somebody can have the right words—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—but the transformation’s not going deeper—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—because you’re absolutely right. I remember coming out of that relationship and, I think, well-intentioned people being like, “You just need to forgive.” And for them, forgive meant, “And go back and be in that community,” or, like—

And it’s just like, no. Forgiveness is a relinquishing of our vengeance.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

It doesn’t mean that the person has earned the right. No one had given me a framework of, like—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—oh, yes, forgiveness is really vital so you’re not carrying around those burdens like stones in your body—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—to keep yourself safe. But forgiveness doesn’t mean—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—reconciliation is necessarily happening, because true repair involves a rebuilding of trust.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

That the one who’s done harm is doing the internal labor, the systemic labor—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—to, like, rebuild trust over time.

I know I’m just throwing out books left and right, but there are—

JULIA:

Please.

RACHAEL:

—just some really good resources coming out.

JULIA:

Such good work out there.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. So, like, Chuck DeGroat has a book coming out in October called Who You’re Becoming. In many ways, what I think he offers in that—and we could talk a little bit more about it—he’s offering, “What’s the work—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—to become a person of deep character capable of repair?”

JULIA:

That’s right.

RACHAEL:

And he brings a lot of stories, because so much of his work is around narcissism. So, he brings a lot of stories of, like, people waking up to the reality that they’ve done harm, but wanting the shortcut.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

Wanting to stay in pastoral roles when they haven’t—you have to step away. You have to do some deep soul-searching. You have to do some deep transformative work to become a person capable of repair.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

And to me, this is what makes this question so tricky—

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

—is that I think we’re in a culture that performs repair.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

It performs, like, forgiveness and, like, reconciliation.

I mean, you could ask any Black person in the United States of America, “Is this nation capable of true repair when it comes to the harm done through racialized violence?” And the answer is absolutely not.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

Are, like, individuals doing the work to become people who can actually move toward genuine, deep—I like your language that you brought in our notes—contrition—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—to where there is a commitment to a deeper transformation that allows us to bear lament over the harm we’ve caused, invites us to receive a kind of grace that then invites us into a healing process to understand more: Why do we participate in harm? How did that come to be? And then make movement to cease doing that—

JULIA:

Hmm.

RACHAEL:

—or to make amends or to take accountability.

We have experienced so few true experiences of repair. I mean, whether that’s happening with our families, whether that’s happening in friendships, whether that’s happening in organizational systems—on the surface, repair is actually quite simple.

But because we lack the depth of character—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—and, like, the nervous-system—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—capacity to bear contrition, it’s actually really hard for people. It is. It’s hard for me, and it’s hard for people.

JULIA:

And it takes a level of, I think, emotional maturity—

RACHAEL:

Absolutely.

JULIA:

—and spiritual maturity. And sometimes—

RACHAEL:

Absolutely.

JULIA:

—we make those things mutually exclusive.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And I think, for any of us, if we were honest, we would say that quick forgiveness feels better.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

Quick forgiveness allows us to go back to the status quo, and everybody loves a good redemption story.

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

Everyone loves something that’s inspiring, that is restorative. And, of course, of course Jesus is in the business of restoring and making new creation.

And forgiveness—I think that we like to focus on forgiveness. We like to focus on a watered-down version of forgiveness—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—at the expense of truth-telling, at the expense of justice—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—at the expense of repentance and contrition.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And that’s where we get into some trouble.

I think, for survivors, there’s the internal pressure that they’re facing of, “Can I trust my own knowing?” There’s the external pressure that they’re often feeling from the moral community that they need to forgive.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And the burden of responsibility gets placed on the person doing the forgiving—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—rather than on character change in the offender.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And I feel like Jesus has some pretty strong words for that.

RACHAEL:

Yes. I mean, the most hostile words Jesus has in the Gospels that we see are His words toward people in religious or spiritual authority who are heaping heavy burdens on already burdened people.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

And, yeah, I get it. We live in a world with power structures that do not center the marginalized or the vulnerable and seek to put the burden of responsibility on the people who actually bear responsibility—like, bear the greater responsibility.

My colleague, Dr. Lauren Sawyer, her work is in ethics, and she’s always done such a great job of naming, like, “Those who have the most power bear the most ethical responsibility.”

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

That doesn’t strip any of us of agency. It just simply says, yeah, if you’re in, like, let’s say, a church system where someone in leadership has done harm, and you’re feeling that pressure, “If I don’t, in some ways, again, eat this sin,” which is what they’re asking you to do by claiming it’s forgiveness, “if I don’t kind of make this go away, if I don’t make it okay for everyone, then I’m the bad one. I’m the disruptor of this good ministry.”

It’s like the way that Scripture gets weaponized.

When I would say, “No, you actually honor the person who’s done harm by saying there is greater work for you. And, yes, I believe in the redemption arc, but it is not a quick fix, and it doesn’t come overnight.”

JULIA:

That’s right.

RACHAEL:

And there might be a process that you need to be in that you can’t do while you’re still in leadership, because you’re not trustworthy, because you’ve done harm.

And that’s not a, you know, “You’re canceled.” It’s a, “No, there’s actually a process that has to take place.”

And I, you know, I could say for myself, I can talk the talk all day long, but the amount of times I’ve moved so quickly to let someone off the hook because I can’t bear the ways I’m being made to feel that I’m causing harm to them, the ways that my body is wanting to fawn—like, “Don’t invite greater violence. Like, you’re going to invite greater violence.”

So, the systems themselves are certainly oriented toward protecting those with the most power. We’re seeing this across the board in how so many churches are letting people stay in power, or we’ll kick the person who got caught, but we won’t actually change the system or address the system—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—and the processes that allowed this to also happen and sustain this.

So, these are painful questions because they come with story and experience. And, like, so few—I have seen them. I have encountered faith communities that do the hard, I think, gospel work of, like, getting closer to the dirt—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—of actually taking accountability, of taking a really honest look: How did we get here? How do we prevent this from happening again? What work do we need to do to bring restoration—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—to bring justice? And so, yeah.

JULIA:

Right. Because, at the end of the day, for people who have walked through abuse, if you listen to their stories and the research out there about what survivors want, they’re not asking for perfection.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

They’re not asking for humans to meet some standard that they’re—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—incapable of meeting. They’re wanting restoration, but they’re often wanting truth to be named so that it doesn’t happen again.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

They don’t want people to be harmed again.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

I just think that’s important also just to name.

I think there are a lot of people in church spaces or communities where there’s a perception of people telling the truth that they’re out for vengeance and that they’re wanting to wreck these communities. And the furthest thing from it is that they’re wanting something better, and they’re—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—looking to the dignity and the humanity of even the person who caused them harm.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Wanting restoration.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. That’s right.

JULIA:

So, you also have been talking a lot about kind of the positive aspects of what it could look like.

RACHAEL:

Mm.

JULIA:

What true repair could look like. And I know you have a rubric or framework in mind about some of the elements in play.

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

You know, help us understand maybe what we could be looking for that would suggest healthy repair.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. It’s a great question. And probably, for me, this is more of, like, this is what I hope for. And I have seen it. I have tasted this. I have seen this—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—in my own parenting, in my marriage, in my family, and in some of the organizations and churches I’ve been a part of. So, I do actually think it’s possible.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

I have something that I call, like, a rubric or, like, locus of discernment that I use when I’m working with people who are asking a lot of the questions I think the folks you work with are asking, like, “Do I stay? Do I go?” Or, “I’ve already left. How could I ever trust again?”

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

“What am I looking for?”

And this is kind of like—some of this will feel like, “Oh, this is so general up here,” but I think it’s kind of like, “Well, but this is the framework we’re looking for.”

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

So, for me, just that acknowledgment that any community of people is going to be full of people who are both beautiful and broken. So, like, unfortunately, on this side of whatever eternity holds, we don’t have the luxury of being in contexts where everyone’s going to get it right all the time.

However, if that humility is there—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—to be people of repair, and not just the humility, but, in some ways, the muscle memory—so, like, this is something that’s being grown and developed—I think of Micah 6:8 as, like, a really good frame because it’s speaking so much to maturity, to character, and to the character, I think, of Jesus.

You know, like, what is it I’ve asked of you? That you, you know, do justice, that you love mercy, and that you walk humbly with God.

So, for me, those greater themes of, like, are these either people, or is this a community or a culture, that is committed to justice, that is committed to being merciful, and has enough humility to know there are going to be repair processes that will happen, and there are going to be places where growth will be invited?

But we do—it’s just a part of it. There are going to be seasons where there’s not enough resource within the relationship or within the community, so there’s going to need to be therapeutic help or mediators who come and help bring repair.

So, I might be looking at power structures. Like, how is power shared in leadership? How is it leveraged? Is there a commitment to accountability and transparency and self-examination?

What happens when harm or failure takes place? Is there a capacity for repair that doesn’t require scapegoating or gaslighting to be normative?

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

And how are fear and shame being utilized in relationships?

Certainly, being trauma-informed helps. And so, when I’m talking with someone about, like, what does the process of repair look like, I actually get really simple.

My three-year-old is in preschool, and she’s in a Reggio-style preschool where they are learning that not only—it’s kind of like Montessori, but it has this element of, like, you have social impact.

And so they teach them how to do repair.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

Now, it’s very simple at this stage and probably more performative for them, because—okay, I’ll give an example.

So, they’ll say, like, when there’s harm, a misattunement, or, yeah, like, a violation of trust among young people learning how to be in a relationship, they’ll say, “You need to go check on so-and-so.”

You know, like, I saw Evie get pushed down. It was an accident. Literally, they collided while running, but she got pushed down. She’s three. She’s in her feels.

I heard the teacher say, “Little person, you need to go check on Evie.” And they go, and the scripts they’re giving them—you know, they check in: “Are you okay? Very sorry that I hurt you. What can I do to make it right?”

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

Now, Evie’s response at this stage is, “Don’t do it again,” which honestly is actually the greatest cry of one who’s been harmed—

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

—when we’re talking about repair.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

“What I need from you is to not do this again.” And it’s why, when we’re just looking at how we teach our kids, forgiveness is never enough.

If, you know, “Oh, I need you to say sorry to your brother,” well, what are you sorry for? So, maybe you have some feeling of remorse because you can see you hurt someone. Maybe you are bringing the language of apology. At that point, those movements are still all about you.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Yes, they’re extending something to the person who’s experienced harm, but they’re not actually doing something to make sure that harm doesn’t happen again.

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

So, what are the processes that we are inviting our kids to be in to grow a greater capacity to not do that kind of harm that we’ve done?

Are we going to become perfect humans? No. But are we committed to changing? Are we going to have vulnerabilities and places where we might still have familiar shortcomings? Yes.

Is there movement of growth in those shortcomings? Are we getting less volatile in moments when we’re overwhelmed?

And so, when I’m thinking about an experience of abuse or harm, sometimes repair might look like, “I’m going to remove myself from the places where I had access to you, and I’m actually going to go do some deeper healing work.”

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

“And I might step back into leadership someday when I’ve been vetted by a community that’s looking to see: Have I transformed and healed in a way where I won’t repeat these same practices of harm?”

That’s rarely going to be, like, a three-month sabbatical. It’s going to be a longer season where that care is not the responsibility of the person who’s been harmed, but other people stepping in to offer that care.

Nobody has to be without care, but we’re not asking the care to come by someone saying, “I won’t be heard anymore so that this can be okay.”

It’s going to look like part of the culture changing and being addressed, and the truth being named about what happened—not being minimized, not being sugarcoated—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—not being spiritually explained away as, like—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—“Oh, everybody sins.” Well, no, not everybody sins in that way, and not everybody bears the responsibility that the person sinning has.

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

So—

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

—genuine repair is going to feel like someone’s taking accountability—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—and they’re actually making a movement toward transformation.

JULIA:

Even hearing you describe the process at your daughter’s school—gosh, we need that in every school.

RACHAEL:

I know. I’m like, “How is it really not possible?”

JULIA:

Can we not?

RACHAEL:

I know.

JULIA:

There’s acknowledgment.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And I think that’s often the first step. It’s what we long for: for the truth to be known, for somebody to say, “This is what happened.”

A lot of people in positions of power can acknowledge the facts: “This is what happened. This is what I did. This is what we did. This is what we failed to do.”

It’s also another thing to acknowledge the impact.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

“This is what I did. This is what we did. And this is how it harmed you. These are the consequences of what I’ve done.”

And you can’t have one without the other. Well, you can have one without the other, but in terms of true repentance—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—you need to see both.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And a lot of people will hide behind their intentions in the harm, right? Well, like, “We were trying to address this thing, and, yes, we can see that this happened, but our intentions were—”

And they don’t want to feel the weight of the impact.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And, again, I think that that really is just—it’s actually showing the fragility of the system and the people. There is some narcissism at play—

RACHAEL:

Mm.

JULIA:

—when we can’t own that we are good and beautiful, and we are broken and sometimes do harm.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. And I think especially as Christians.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

Because we’re meant to be people that rest on our belovedness as the foundation, who can bear the weight of true grace. And true grace is like a fire, you know?

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

That’s like—

JULIA:

That’s right.

RACHAEL:

—yes, this harm, you did do, and here is the pain that you’ve caused. Like, this needs to be grieved. This needs to be addressed. This needs to be dealt with.

And I think what’s true is sometimes we—I’ve participated in moments, like with The Allender Center, where harm played out maybe in, like, a training or from a teaching, where our desire was to move toward repair. So, like, “Let’s do it in the next teaching publicly.”

But there wasn’t enough time for—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—an actual reparative process to be engaged, right? Like, someone is maybe performing again, “I’m so sorry I did that.” Usually they’re being scapegoated a little bit, like, where the system’s not wanting to hold, “How did we participate in this? How have we created a culture or a system—

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

—that allowed this to happen, or where we didn’t stop it when it was happening?”

And so, I think that’s the tricky part. Like, in our social media world, people can perform repair. They can say the right things and still do nothing to address what actually happened. Still kind of say, “Hey, we made that apology. Why are you still bringing this up? Why are you still asking us to do something?”

Well, because we haven’t seen that you actually understand the impact.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Because if you understood the impact, you would be doing everything in your power to never do that again.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

I think one of the maybe specifics in your rubric—you talked about accountability.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

So, there’s this acknowledgment of the harm. There’s receiving kind of the truth with humility and almost—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—a curiosity and their own moral awakening, right?

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Of, “This is who I’ve become, and I—this is what I’ve done to another person.”

But then it sounds like there’s accountability that needs to come in, maybe from the community, from others—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—who understand with specificity what has happened—

RACHAEL:

That’s right. That’s right.

JULIA:

—to make sure they’re also measuring change.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

A lot of times, I see that—and I’m sure you see this as well—that accountability is put, just like forgiveness, accountability is put in the victim’s lap.

RACHAEL:

Yes, it is.

JULIA:

Right?

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Responsibility is put in their lap. So, what would it look like for accountability to take place?

RACHAEL:

Yeah. This is a tricky one, because I think so many of us have experienced it. Like, “Well, they have external accountability that’s holding them accountable—”

JULIA:

Or personal—

RACHAEL:

And that’s why—

JULIA:

—accountability with—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—a person.

RACHAEL:

Yes, they have—

JULIA:

Or a therapist.

RACHAEL:

—and it’s, yes, they have this place. And it’s like, no, the shareholders, in some ways—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—those who share-hold the power—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—are also accountable. Otherwise, you’re just being complicit.

JULIA:

Yeah. Yeah.

RACHAEL:

And I can speak personally. It’s brutal when you are made complicit in participation in harm, because you don’t want to hold the responsibility you have to hold someone, the system, or the culture accountable to change.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

And sometimes we don’t have the power to do that, but we still—we hold more power than others do.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

And that’s a tricky place to reckon with. Like, do I stay and keep moving toward repair and accountability, knowing this will take time? Or do I say, “I don’t know if this is a trustworthy system,” because I see a lack of accountability? I see a shirking of responsibility. I see a sidestepping of the processes because of the tyranny of the now.

There will always be the tyranny of the now.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

There is actually a cost to repair.

JULIA:

Hmm.

RACHAEL:

You know? There’s a cost to making things right. You might have to give up power.

JULIA:

Hmm.

RACHAEL:

You might have to give up resources. You might have to lend resources to someone that you took, or that the system you’re a part of took.

So, you might have to do some soul work—

JULIA:

Hmm.

RACHAEL:

—that’s scary, that is getting into your wounds. To bear the impact of the harm we’ve caused other people, that’s costly work.

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

It should be a cost we feel privileged to bear—that someone is giving us the opportunity to make things right.

JULIA:

Yeah. But I think about even Zacchaeus—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—in Luke 19. Because he had a heart of repentance and restoration—and, by the way, he wasn’t told by Jesus or by others what he needed to do.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

He had that humble posture. He had that recognition of the truth of what he had done to others, and he moved to restore fourfold to those he had defrauded.

RACHAEL:

Hmm. Yeah. See, this is why people are like, “No, you’re not really—you’re not really interested in repair. You’re interested in kind of, I would say, like, peace at the expense of shalom.”

JULIA:

Oh.

RACHAEL:

You know? And we see that a lot in our world today. And that’s why I think, like, for survivors, there has to be compassion for you and for us that discernment feels tricky.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

Because, again, we’ve been told something is repair that’s not.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

“Forgive and forget.”

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

You know, “Move on.” Like, unity is more important than reparation and true reconciliation.

JULIA:

Yes.

RACHAEL:

Because if the most vulnerable are the ones suffering in a restorative process, it’s not restoration.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

It’s not. I don’t know what we want to call it, but it’s just a reenactment of the harm that, again, is requiring people to eat the sin in order to stay in community, to stay in belonging.

JULIA:

That’s such a good litmus test. If you’re in a process of restoration or peacemaking—and a lot of times churches will use the language of peacemaking as if it is a reparative process, and sometimes it’s not—but if you’re in this process with church leaders, or even if it’s an individual, if it’s within a marriage, and you’re entering into this process and finding that you’re carrying more burdens, that’s a sign that—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—something is off.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Yeah. And to begin to step back. You have permission to step away.

RACHAEL:

Absolutely.

JULIA:

If you’re in an environment or a relationship where you feel like you’re in survival mode and your nervous system is dysregulated, if you feel mental confusion and fog, then maybe you can’t even see what’s happening to you. And it requires you to step away and engage with either a third party or take some time before the Lord to figure out what’s going on.

RACHAEL:

That’s okay.

JULIA:

If you step away and you’re feeling even more burdened because the community is telling you that you shouldn’t be stepping away, that’s more of a red flag.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. To say, “Okay, they would literally rather me go insane or have autoimmune disorders, to not have to deal with what’s actually happening. They’ll be okay with me bearing the cost of this to not have to deal with what—”

RACHAEL:

That’s—

JULIA:

Yeah.

RACHAEL:

—that’s not a community or a people who have the capacity or intent to move toward repair.

JULIA:

Yes. And that is probably some of the most heartbreaking—

RACHAEL:

Yeah.

JULIA:

—places to be. When you know you’ve seen someone’s goodness, you know that somewhere in there they want to, but they just don’t have the capacity to, or enough of a desire to.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And I do think those are times when it is almost imperative to walk away.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

And sometimes we need a process to do that, and that’s okay. But it doesn’t mean there can’t be a return. People change. People go through processes of awakening.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

Sometimes repair comes later, and sometimes it doesn’t come at all.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. And all of those things are true of this. And yet, we still get to grow as people who have more discernment for what is trustworthy care and what is genuine repair.

And I will say this: When we taste experiences of true repair, it creates new neural pathways.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

It’s life-changing.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

And it changes everything for us, and it builds—it strengthens that locus of discernment, that capacity to discern.

And it also strengthens our capacity to be bold and repair with others, to see that the brokenness or the failure doesn’t have to be the end of the story.

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

That there is more possible, and it will be painful, and it will be costly, as it should.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. Yeah, as it should.

You talked about humility. You talked about accountability, self-examination, acknowledgment of the harm, and willingness to bear the cost—

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

—of repair. Is there anything we’re missing? Is there anything we haven’t touched on?

RACHAEL:

I don’t know. You tell me. I’m sure there are things missing.

JULIA:

Oh. Well, I think, as you were talking about humility, it also brought back that word of contrition for me.

RACHAEL:

Mm-hmm.

JULIA:

There’s a link there. Humility requires a willingness to be broken and to admit that you don’t have the answers.

And contrition—there’s, I think, the Hebrew word describes contrition as not just a brokenness, but almost like a pulverization.

RACHAEL:

Yes.

JULIA:

Which is not shame.

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

And it shouldn’t lead to shameful responses, but it is this sense of brokenness that, “This is what I’ve done. This is how I’ve hurt somebody else, and I’m so broken inside because of that.”

And that leads to a movement—

RACHAEL:

That’s right.

JULIA:

—a moving toward. So, I just wanted to name that in reference to humility, that that is something that you’re looking for—that humility that is contrition, that does lead to repentance.

RACHAEL:

Yeah. And that also doesn’t require that you reenter a relationship.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

You get to watch and see as they grow into a more trustworthy person.

And I think so much a part of this is, like, growing a greater capacity for grief, to allow grief to be present even as something new is being made and being built.

Like, there can actually be a reparative relationship that grows and blossoms, and there will always be, like, a part that’s watching—

JULIA:

Mm.

RACHAEL:

—to see if this is genuine, if this is real. Is this lasting? Is this staying?

I love that language of contrition, that image of contrition, because it’s coming out of a place of being securely held by God that we can face the truth. Because even that truth, as horrific as it might be, doesn’t have the power to separate us from the love of God.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm.

RACHAEL:

And therefore, we get to be a participant in a new story.

That doesn’t always mean the person we’re moving toward repair with has to receive it, accept it, or want it. We still need to be in that reparative posture of becoming the person who would be worthy of it, of making sure we don’t reenact that harm toward someone else.

JULIA:

So, I know we’ve talked about a lot of concepts and ideas that will no doubt be helpful to our listeners as they’re examining who they’re in relationship with and what system they’re in relationship to.

What would you say to any listener out there who is in that in-between stage, who has experienced harm but maybe hasn’t made a decision quite yet?

How might you encourage them? Like, they haven’t made a decision whether they’re wanting to stay in the relationship or leave.

RACHAEL:

I think back to what you put words to, like, your safety—like, your flourishing, your having a safe-enough space to mend and to tend—to me, is, like, the number-one priority.

And I think sometimes we feel like we don’t get to do that unless the situation has been resolved, or if we do that, it might mean we live into a deeper truth that might make things untenable.

And so, I would say have courage and deep compassion that, yes, there might be—in your deeper healing, your restoration is not contingent upon whether someone moves toward repair with you or not.

You get to seek the healing that you are worthy of and meant for, and at the same time, continue to discern and make decisions about this process.

But if you are in, like, direct harm that is not ceasing, I want to say it is okay to walk away.

If you feel like you have good resourcing that buoys you and allows you to have sobriety, and you have enough safety, but you’re staying close to something to see what happens, I don’t think that means you’re, like—you know, it’s just pathological that you’re staying. Like, I don’t think those labels have to be put on it.

But I do think prioritizing your healing, your safety, and your nervous-system regulation has to come, in some ways, even before a reparative process can happen—unless you’re in the midst of just really good people who can simultaneously be a part of that work.

And it feels counterintuitive, and it feels scary, and it feels sad.

JULIA:

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, thank you so much, Rachael. Thank you for your time. You’ve been so generous to us, and we’ve gleaned so much of your wisdom. So, we’ll have you back, I’m sure.

RACHAEL:

Well, I so enjoy being with you, and I’m just so grateful for the work you’re doing and for your wisdom and the healing space that you’re creating. So, I’m very honored to join you.

JULIA:

Thank you.

ANN MAREE:

Safe to Hope is made possible by donors who believe faithfulness means protecting survivors and honoring the dignity of their stories.

Their support allows us to remain independent, trauma-specialized, and committed to truth-telling without pressure or performance. We are deeply grateful to our donors for their partnership.

If this conversation stirred something for you, please know you do not have to carry it alone. Support resources are listed in the show notes, and you’re welcome to reach out in the ways that feel safest for you.

Safe to Hope is a production of Help[H]er. The podcast is executive produced by Ann Maree Goudzwaard, with audio production, mixing, and editing provided by Forward Agency in Raleigh, North Carolina.