The results of the investigation into Canadian celebrity pastor Bruxy Cavey are out. According to Bruxy’s statement on his blog, he had an “extramarital affair.” His statement is titled “My Confession” and is ostensibly presented as a raw and honest admission of this “adulterous relationship” which is his “darkest sin” and “greatest failure”. Importantly, he claims he takes “full responsibility” for his actions.
Does he?
Alas, it appears that Cavey’s personal “confession” is really an attempt to control the messaging. When I first read his statement, I knew the truth was not being presented. After all, a church doesn’t hire a professional investigator who then takes three months to produce a report if the only matter at stake was marital infidelity.
Sure enough, Danielle Strickland then pointed out that this “extramarital affair” started when Cavey was 46 and the young woman was 23. Even worse, the relationship began after she was seeking counseling and it continued for years. According to the investigator’s findings, Cavey was found to have committed “sexual harassment” and “abuse of power” and The Meeting House (his church) has accepted these findings, though they have declined to go further and define his conduct as clergy sexual abuse because the investigator did not use that language (source).
Notably, in his “confession” Cavey never admits to sexually harassing a congregant. As for abuse of power, his statement attempts to acknowledge the reality without actually stating it. Consider his carefully chosen words:
“I was also irresponsible in my role as a spiritual leader and Christian clergy, which involves dynamics of power and influence and an expectation of exemplary conduct that makes me doubly accountable.”
Note the distancing language: he was “irresponsible” in a role that “involves dynamics of power and influence”. It would be much simpler and more honest to say he abused his power over this vulnerable woman for his own sexual gratification. Needless to say, his statement is very far from a genuine confession. As I said, it is a shameless attempt to control the messaging.
While I obviously don’t have all the facts, that which is available in the public domain supports Strickland’s conclusion: this is clergy sexual abuse. As such, one may reasonably conclude that it also consisted of sexually predatory behavior that likely involved grooming of this vulnerable woman who clearly is now suffering the pain of the sexual abuse to which she was subjected by a trusted spiritual authority.
An “extramarital affair”? An “adulterous relationship”? Such language is absolutely infuriating and only serves to perpetuate the harm against the victim and offer a quicker road to redemption for the offender.
Bruxy’s blog post “confession” has already attracted more than one hundred comments. Near the top I read this:
“Years ago a wise mentor told me, ‘No one is ever as bad as you think, and no one is ever as good as you think.’ But grace is powerful.”
Well intentioned, no doubt, but not the time and not the place. When Christians immediately appeal to the grace card the minute an abuser offers a deeply misleading “confession” that seeks to reframe his abuse as an affair, they do nothing more than undermine structures of accountability.
Grace is indeed powerful, but first there must be the full and piercing light of truth.
