FINAL REPORT FOR THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF
ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST REVEREND ZHIMING YUAN
IN PARIS, FRANCE IN 2013

June 22, 2016

GRACE报告中文版链接在此

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST

REVEREND ZHIMING YUAN IN PARIS, FRANCE IN 2013

Introduction

In December 2014, a group of concerned Chinese American pastors were first informed of an allegation of possible sexual misconduct by a Chinese American preacher named Yuan Zhiming. Reverend Yuan is the Chief Director of China Soul for Christ Foundation¹, headquartered in Rohnert Park, California². In January of 2015, this group of concerned Chinese American pastors learned of additional allegations against Reverend Yuan and consequently formed an investigative committee in February of that year to review these allegations. This committee reviewed four separate allegations made against Reverend Yuan and documented their findings in an Investigative Report that was completed in February 2015, and published through Chinese Christian Life Fellowship.³

In 2015, CCLife contacted GRACE to request that GRACE conduct an independent review⁴ of specific allegations of misconduct made against Reverend Yuan in Paris, France⁵. GRACE and CCLife agreed that the scope of the review would include only allegations made against Reverend Yuan in Paris, France and would not include any other reported allegations of misconduct against Reverend Yuan.⁶

GRACE is a non-profit Christian organization that provides training, consultations and independent reviews related to faith communities and sexual misconduct or abuse⁷. GRACE’s team has extensive professional experience interviewing victims of abuse, perpetrators of abuse, and witnesses with relevant testimony.⁸

Review Background

In preparation for this review, GRACE reviewed the Investigative Report prepared by CCLife in order to obtain some background information about the matters in question. At all times, GRACE made independent decisions about which witnesses to interview and extended invitations to witnesses with relevant information pertaining to the scope of this review. ⁹These interviews were conducted face-to-face during the spring of 2016 in Paris, France with the assistance of an interpreter. The interpreter attended the in-person interviews and translated in both Chinese and English. GRACE’s selection of the interpreter was based upon skill, training, and experience.¹⁰ The interpreter used throughout this process had no prior knowledge of the allegations and had no prior relationship with any of the participants in this process.

An invitation to interview with GRACE was also extended to Reverend Yuan. He was informed that he would have the opportunity to provide GRACE with any information he believed would be helpful or relevant to this review. Reverend Yuan was also informed that he would be able to provide GRACE names of prospective witnesses to be interviewed. Through his attorney, Reverend Yuan declined to be interviewed by GRACE.¹¹

VC stated that Reverend Yuan arrived in Paris in September and had asked her to meet him at his hotel.¹⁷ She stated that she thought this seemed odd, but because he was her elder and a pastor, she wanted to be respectful and meet him where he requested. She expected that when she arrived, that they would leave to speak about the internship at another location such as a café. However when she arrived at the hotel, he invited her into his hotel room where they discussed the internship for about an hour. While in Reverend Yuan’s room, VC stated that they also discussed a documentary project his institution was going to film regarding the work of foreign missionaries in China.

Eventually, Reverend Yuan suggested that the two of them go down to the hotel restaurant for lunch. After lunch, VC requested to pay for her meal, but Reverend Yuan insisted on paying. After lunch, they returned to his hotel room where she believed they would discuss the internship further. However, upon returning to the room, Reverend Yuan informed VC that his assistant had downloaded some movies onto his computer and invited her to watch them with him. She stated that the film he turned on was a Korean film that was unfamiliar to her.¹⁸ VC recalled that she and Reverend Yuan were initially either sitting on the edge of the bed or on chairs while watching the computer, which was placed on the bed. After some time passed, Reverend Yuan suggested he and VC lie down on the bed to watch the movie. They then moved onto the bed and lay down side by side while watching the film. VC also stated that Reverend Yuan asked her to get under the covers and told her “it was better for me to get under the cover to get warm.” VC explained that she complied with his requests because “I respected him and out of courtesy I did what he asked me to.” VC stated that the film became “more and more embarrassing to watch with him” and contained sexually erotic scenes. She recalled being disturbed that Reverend Yuan did not seem embarrassed or bothered by the film because it contained sexually suggestive scenes. VC also stated that even though she was very embarrassed, she finished watching the film with him out of courtesy. At the time, VC also thought Reverend Yuan would meet with other church leaders while in Paris. However, when she asked him about this, Reverend Yuan replied that he had not told others that he was in Paris “and he especially stressed that I shouldn’t tell anyone else that he was in Paris.”

--------------------------------

After the film was over, VC informed Reverend Yuan that it was time for her to go home. He replied that it was too late and that her home was too far. He told her that he could book another room so that she could spend the night at the hotel. However, VC again stated that she wanted to leave and subsequently departed from the hotel. VC also noted that Reverend Yuan took a photograph of her while she was in his hotel room on that particular day.¹⁹

Prior to leaving the hotel that evening, Reverend Yuan asked to see VC again on the following day. When VC arrived home that evening, she called someone to go with her the next day so that she did not have to see Reverend Yuan alone. Initially, VC contacted DW, a male friend from church, who was also a university student. However, DW was unavailable to go with her the next day because of his school commitments. DW remembered asking VC why she wanted him to go with her. She told DW that Reverend Yuan had been “too friendly” with her, and “she was a bit scared.” DW recalled joking back to VC that “maybe he had a crush on you or he has feelings for you.” VC then called and asked her friend GF to go with her the next day so that she did not have to be alone with Reverend Yuan. GF agreed to go. On the following day, VC informed DW that she had found another friend to go with her to meet Reverend Yuan.

On the following day, VC met GF at the metro station on their way to Reverend Yuan’s hotel. On the way to the hotel, VC informed GF how disturbed she felt during her time with Reverend Yuan the previous day. When the two women arrived at the hotel, they waited for Reverend Yuan to come down and meet them in the lobby. When Reverend Yuan arrived, VC noted “[i]t was very obvious when Pastor Yuan saw [GF], he had a very complex expression on his face. He was surprised or upset when he saw that there was someone else [who had come with me to the hotel.]” GF similarly noted how surprised Reverend Yuan seemed upon discovering that VC had brought along a friend. At that point, the girls suggested to Reverend Yuan that they leave the hotel and walk around to see Paris. As they started to leave the hotel, Reverend Yuan mentioned that he had not notified or informed anyone from the Chinese community in Paris or Parisian church members that he was in town. GF noted, “Actually, he has a very high social status in the community, and it was very strange that he did not let others know that he was there.” The three of them left the area of the hotel, walked around Paris, and had lunch.²⁰

---------------------------------------------------------

19 VC reported that a few days after Reverend Yuan left Paris, he sent her an email containing the aforementioned image taken in his hotel room, which she forwarded to the pastors conducting the previous investigation. Since these events occurred in 2013, VC stated that she has changed phones and that she did not save any of Reverend Yuan’s communications. However VC verified the authenticity of all of the emails she received and sent to Reverend Yuan. The email dated 9/15/13 from Reverend Yuan to VC states, “Peace be with you! Please see the photo, I just picked one to send it to you. I am in Birmingham, leaving for London the day after tomorrow and following that back to U.S. I changed my plane ticket, I am flying to D.C. to attend a sister’s funeral. (The information is posted on my Facebook) How are you with everything? Looking forward to hearing back from you. Brother Yuan.” Though this particular photo has not been retrieved, the attachment sent with this email contains an icon indicating that an image was sent to VC, as she reported. See Appendix B.

20 GF specifically noted a particular comment made by Reverend Yuan during their lunch that she found “weird and inappropriate.” GF had ordered a hamburger and french fries, but could not finish all of her french fries. GF asked VC if she wanted to have any of her fries. GF recalled Reverend Yuan replying, “Don’t let her eat that because otherwise she will get fat.” GF reported, “I was pretty shocked. I don’t think that is something that a Reverend or man would say to a woman that he just met. So that made me very surprised that he said that.” VC indicated that she did not recall hearing Reverend Yuan’s comment.

After lunch, VC stated that she and GF wanted to show Reverend Yuan around the Latin Quarter of Paris and they began to walk around a bit. However, Reverend Yuan did not seem interested at all in walking around. GF stated that “[a]fter lunch, I was asked to leave because the reason why [VC] was seeing the Reverend was to talk about the internship so the Reverend asked me to leave so they could meet and discuss the internship issue.” GF further explained that she initially “insisted on staying,” however “…the pastor said that I should go now and that [he and VC would] go back to the hotel to discuss the internship issue.” Consequently, GF said she finally let the issue go and left Reverend Yuan and VC alone together in the streets of Paris. After GF departed, VC and Reverend Yuan eventually returned to Reverend Yuan’s hotel.

As VC and Reverend Yuan were waiting for the bus to return them to his hotel, Reverend Yuan asked VC why she brought GF. She recalled Reverend Yuan being very upset that she brought along someone else. VC also stated that Reverend Yuan asked, “if I was afraid that he would do something harmful to me.” VC explained that she felt very embarrassed by his questions. She also stated that because he is a pastor and because she had respect for him, she replied, “No, no, don’t worry.” During their bus ride back to his hotel, Reverend Yuan told VC that he had seen a movie theater nearby, and he wanted her to go with him to watch a movie. Shortly thereafter, the two of them exited the bus and walked to the theater. Upon arriving at the theater, Reverend Yuan suggested that VC choose the film because he did not speak French. Consequently, VC selected a movie²¹ that she had already seen because she wanted to be on guard as they were sitting alone together in a dark theater. She recalled, “I was still scared he would do something to me so I chose one I had already seen.” VC reported that Reverend Yuan did not engage in any misconduct during the film. Afterwards, VC and Reverend Yuan left the theater and returned to the hotel.

-------------------------------------

Because it was late in the afternoon and VC wanted to go home, she told Reverend Yuan that she would accompany him to the hotel lobby and then leave. However, when they arrived at the hotel, Reverend Yuan insisted that they go to his room so that they could talk and spend some time together. VC reluctantly complied with this request and returned to his room. When she entered his room, she stated that she was going to leave. He then began to ask her to stay the night with him in his room. VC stated “He was asking me to stay in his room and spend the night in his room and he said that he was leaving the next morning and we only have one more night [before Reverend Yuan was leaving Paris]. It became really strange. The whole atmosphere became very odd. He started staying that he was lonely and that he needed to have company.” At the time they were having this conversation, VC and Reverend Yuan were standing by the desk in his room. VC again stated that she needed to leave. At that point, Reverend Yuan asked VC to give him a hug to say goodbye before leaving. Believing it would be “a casual hug,” VC complied with his request thinking that it was perhaps a common American departing gesture. However, when Reverend Yuan hugged her, she recalled, “He hugged me pretty tightly and he wouldn’t let me go.” She also noted that Reverend Yuan was hugging her with the front of his body touching the front of her body for about a minute. But because Reverend Yuan was taller and she was not looking up at him, Reverend Yuan asked VC to look up into his face. VC did not do as Reverend Yuan asked and did not look up at him, fearing that he would try to kiss her. VC recalled, “….when he hugged me he had some kind of physical reaction.” VC explained that the front of his body was touching the front of her body and “he got really hard.” VC stated, “While he was hugging me he was again asking me to stay and not to go and I said, ‘No, no, no.’ I was refusing [to stay]. In the end I was struggling. I was fighting back really hard.” When asked further about this, she stated that though she did not physically fight him, she did not hug him back and finally Reverend Yuan stopped embracing VC. VC immediately prepared to depart the room, but as VC was leaving, Reverend Yuan gave her 50 euros. When she attempted to give it back, he continued to insist that she take it. VC noted that it was “very strange” and “embarrassing” as if Reverend Yuan believed he was paying VC for some type of service. Reverend Yuan then walked her outside to the bus stop in front of the hotel where she left to go home.

After VC left the hotel, she immediately called GF and told her what had occurred at the hotel with Reverend Yuan. GF noted that VC “was scared and she was in a shock” at what had just occurred. GF attempted to comfort VC, while also expressing profound disappointment with Reverend Yuan. GF described VC as “shy” and remarked that she has known her for a long time, trusts her, and that she believed everything VC told her regarding her encounters with Reverend Yuan. These disclosures were corroborated by GF’s own observations of Reverend Yuan on the day that she had accompanied VC to meet with him. She noted that Reverend Yuan seemed “weird” because he wanted to spend time with VC alone in his hotel room and had not informed anyone that he would be in Paris.

The day after Reverend Yuan left Paris, he sent VC a text message.²² She did not reply. A few days later, Reverend Yuan also emailed her the photograph he had taken of her in his hotel room on the first day they met.²³ Approximately one month later, VC also received a phone call from Reverend Yuan. VC stated that she did not recognize the call and answered the phone. Reverend Yuan was on the line and asked her if she was mad at him and why she had not replied to his previous communications. She stated that he did not raise the issue of the internship but only wanted to know if she was mad at him. VC did not recall the specifics of the conversation but remembered that though she was very upset at his misconduct, she did not want to appear rude and told Reverend Yuan on the phone that she was not angry. After everything that occurred, VC stated she no longer had any interest in the internship at CSFCF. GF remembered VC telling her about Reverend Yuan’s phone call, namely that Reverend Yuan acted as if nothing wrong had ever happened and that he did not apologize for his behavior.  

A few weeks after Reverend Yuan left Paris, VC met her friend DW to go to church. DW recalled his previous conversation with her regarding wanting him to go with her to meet with Reverend Yuan. When DW asked VC how their meeting had gone, she replied, “Let’s not talk about it.” He also remembered that VC then said, “You got it right.” DW did not initially remember or understand what VC was referring to, but then remembered the joke he had made to her at the time. DW inquired if Reverend Yuan had implied or insinuated anything to her during their meetings. At that point, VC blurted out, “He even hugged me.” DW said he was very shocked and could tell that she did not want to discuss it further. DW further noted that they had discussed the matter on a few later occasions and that VC told him that upon leaving Reverend Yuan’s hotel on the bus ride home, she had cried, prayed, and asked God why this had happened to her.

---------------------------------------------------------

Some weeks after the incident, GF sought advice from a theology teacher in her school about whether or not she should disclose to anyone what had happened to VC. GF stated that her teacher advised that it was important to provide support to VC, but that there was insufficient evidence for them to sue or to report Reverend Yuan’s behavior at that time. The teacher also noted that if additional individuals ever reported similar behavior by Reverend Yuan, VC’s experience could help others. GF explained, “I wasn’t there to see my teacher to see how we can sue him, it was more of knowing what to do at that time.” At the time, GF and VC did not know of any similar situations involving Reverend Yuan.

DW stated that he had mixed emotions about what to do regarding what he had learned about Reverend Yuan from VC. On one hand, he thought it was a serious issue, noting, “Yuan had a lot of influence and if we don’t tell this to others, there might be more victims.” However, on the other hand, DW explained that so many people in the Chinese community have a very high opinion of Reverend Yuan. He also noted that he wanted to protect VC. Consequently, DW decided not to tell anyone what had occurred at that point because he did not personally witness the misconduct. He also concluded that if VC and GF had decided not to tell anyone, it was not his place to do so.

In June 2014, DW and VC were visiting the home of a church member named OK. DW noted that OK and his wife often have students over and that they had been very kind to them. On this particular day, DW and OK were cooking together in OK’s kitchen and began speaking about a large upcoming church event in January 2015, in which Reverend Yuan had been invited to preach. OK was unhappy that Reverend Yuan had been invited because he was aware of sexual assault allegations that had been raised against Reverend Yuan.²⁴ DW stated that during this conversation in the kitchen, OK mentioned to him that Reverend Yuan had been accused of sexual assaulting a woman many years earlier. DW stated, “Then [OK] said that when he talked with other Christians about this rape or these events, others would always reply that ‘that happened before Yuan became a Christian.’” DW explained that he was already feeling badly that he and VC had not told OK and his wife about what had occurred to VC at the hotel with Reverend Yuan. Consequently upon hearing this news, DW could not contain himself and stated to OK, “But after he [Reverend Yuan] became a Christian, he didn’t stop. He didn’t behave right.” DW said he told OK that he knew of something similar that had occurred involving Reverend Yuan. DW recalled that he immediately regretted making the disclosure and consequently, would not identify the victim to OK.²⁵  OK similarly recalled this moment in the kitchen and said that DW blurted out, “And I know that in 2013, he tried again to rape someone, but he didn’t succeed, and I am not going to tell you who that person is because I shouldn’t.” OK noted, “I was really surprised. I was very shocked because I think we can forgive what Yuan did before he became a Christian, but then if something bad or immoral happened again in 2013, it was completely unforgiveable.” OK stated that he also asked GF whether she knew about the incident DW had disclosed. Initially, GF refused to identify VC as the person aggrieved by Reverend Yuan. Eventually, both GF and DW confirmed the identity of VC to OK.

------------------------------------------

25 DW also noted that though he initially regretted blurting out his statement, he was also glad to hear OK mentioning Reverend Yuan’s prior behavior. He stated, “I felt relieved to hear that- I was like, okay, finally someone had found out his true face. I really felt relieved, and I think that is why I said that.” 

Another individual named JH reported that he had been made aware of Reverend Yuan’s 1989 alleged sexual assault of a female refugee.²⁶ JH expressed disgust with Reverend Yuan and stated he knew VC and DW and was “furious” upon learning of these more recent 2013 allegations from OK. JH explained his frustration with Reverend Yuan:

I have heard of [Reverend Yuan’s] speeches. Of course he was despising his former self in his speeches that he was a bad person and all that, but now he is claiming he has become a good person because he has become a Christian and then he is doing all of these things. In a way, he is doing them in the name of God, and that is why I am furious. Okay if you are not a Christian or if you are not giving all of those glorious speeches, okay, but now you are saying something and you are doing the opposite, so that is even more unacceptable in my eyes.

After OK learned of the 2013 misconduct allegations against Reverend Yuan, he decided to publish a blog post that exposed these actions along with other abuse allegations known to him relating to Reverend Yuan. Eventually CCLife pastors contacted him and the other relevant witnesses, and CCLife’s investigation relating to these allegations ensued.  

As previously noted in the Investigative Background portion of this report, Reverend Yuan declined to participate and be interviewed for this review. The only known public response Reverend Yuan has offered regarding these allegations appeared on the CSFCF website on March 2, 2015. ²⁷ Though Reverend Yuan admitted having “weak moments,” he denied any accusations involving “rape,” “attempted seduction,” and “sexual assault.”²⁸ Reverend Yuan also indicated he had resigned from all pastoral duties and ministries.²⁹ However as of the date of this report, Reverend Yuan has resumed preaching and traveling to foreign countries.³⁰

------------------------------------------

Summary Analysis

It is not an infrequent occurrence in today’s society for some to suggest that a victim’s disclosure of abuse should be discounted (or even doubted) because it is merely a “he said/she said” scenario. This pattern of flawed thinking is problematic for two reasons. First, it marginalizes a victim’s eyewitness account of his or her own abuse. Second, reason and experience ought to remind us that offenders commonly conceal their offenses by deliberately choosing to commit them in private places. Because offenders are more likely to isolate unsuspecting victims in locations where no one else is likely to witness the offense, labeling sexual offenses as merely “he said/she said” scenarios and brushing these offenses aside without a reasoned analysis of the credibility of the evidence ignores the realities of sexual misconduct dynamics, plays into the hands of sexual offenders, and hurts victims.

While it is true that no one other than Reverend Yuan and VC were present at the time of their alleged encounter in the hotel room, it is nonetheless significant that a total of six witnesses voluntarily participated in this independent review. The testimony provided by the witnesses was detailed, consistent over time, and was often corroborated by other testimonial or extraneous evidence. In addition, all of these witnesses affirmed their belief in VC’s character and credibility.

Corroborating Evidence

Black’s Law Dictionary defines corroborating evidence as “Evidence supplementary to that already given and tending to strengthen or confirm it; additional evidence of a different character to the same point.”³¹ During the course of this review, a significant amount of corroborating evidence has been uncovered that strengthens and confirms VC’s disclosure regarding her interactions with Reverend Yuan. Below is a summary of this critical corroborative evidence:

A.  Personal Contact in Paris

The undisputed evidence is that Reverend Yuan met VC at a hotel near Paris. Apart from the alleged victim’s own eyewitness testimony, GF also provided an eyewitness account of being with VC and Reverend Yuan in Paris at both the hotel and in the Latin Quarter. In addition, Reverend Yuan’s own email corroborates his arrival at the hotel in the Paris vicinity. Lastly, the email and the image Reverend Yuan sent to VC after his departure from Paris also corroborates the eyewitness testimonies of these two young women.

-----------------------------------

B.  Troubling Behavior  

VC was not the only person who witnessed Reverend Yuan’s troubling behavior. GF also observed Reverend Yuan acting strangely when she accompanied VC on her meeting with him.  GF reported that Reverend Yuan appeared to be “surprised” when he discovered that VC had not come alone to meet with him at the hotel. GF also noted being very disturbed that Reverend Yuan commented inappropriately about VC’s physical appearance and stated that VC would “get fat” if she ate the french fries during lunch. The physical appearance of VC had nothing to do with the internship that he supposedly wanted to discuss with her. Finally, GF was uncomfortable with the insistence by Reverend Yuan that she leave him alone with VC under the pretense that they needed to discuss the internship. These troubling public behaviors of Reverend Yuan that were witnessed by GF tend to corroborate VC’s reports regarding his troubling private behaviors.  

C.  Immediate and Distressed Disclosures   

Two witnesses have corroborated the fact that shortly after her first meeting with Reverend Yuan, VC contacted them and expressed concern about his behavior. VC first contacted DW and asked if he could accompany her to the hotel for the second meeting with Reverend Yuan. When he could not go, VC reached out to GF and asked that she go with her the following day to meet with Reverend Yuan. What would prompt such persistent requests other than the fact that Reverend Yuan’s behavior made her feel uncomfortable to the point of not wanting to be alone with him? GF also corroborated that VC expressed concerns about Reverend Yuan’s prior behavior as they were traveling to meet him at the hotel on the second day. Furthermore, GF corroborated the fact that VC contacted her immediately after leaving the hotel on the second day and disclosed what had occurred in Reverend Yuan’s hotel room. GF reported that VC was in shock and sounded scared about what had just transpired.32 Two separate witnesses have corroborated the fact that VC immediately contacted them regarding Reverend Yuan’s behavior. The immediacy, consistency, and manner in which these disclosures were made contribute significantly to their underlying credibility. 

------------------------------------------

D.  Timing of Subsequent Disclosures

No evidence was uncovered that indicates VC had knowledge of any previous misconduct allegations made against Reverend Yuan until after she reported her own experience.  After GF sought advice from her teacher who advised them not to report the misconduct, the witnesses had no intention of reporting Reverend Yuan. In fact it was DW’s accidental disclosure to OK of Reverend Yuan’s alleged misconduct that eventually brought the matter to the attention of CCLife. At no time during DW’s disclosure did he intend that Reverend Yuan’s misconduct become public.³³ Furthermore, the accidental nature of DW’s disclosure about VC strongly suggests that the disclosure was not fueled by any motive to bring a false accusation.³⁴

Credibility of the Alleged Victim (“VC”)

The GRACE Investigator met with several individuals who testified about VC’s character and her reputation for truthfulness. OK described VC and his knowledge of her character over the last five to six years stating, “[s]he is a lovely person actually…. she is very simple. She doesn’t dress up and wear makeup and make herself pretty. She has been studying here for many years and she has never asked for money from her parents. She always worked …in …to support herself, so she is a very nice and lovely person.” (Information omitted from the original report in order to protect the victim)  When asked specifically about VC’s credibility, OK said that VC “is a very simple and truthful person. I have full confidence in that.” He also stated, “I completely believe in her and have trust in her,” noting that there is no reason for VC to make up something like this.³⁵ In addition, JH reported that he has known VC and DW for two years. JH described VC as “shy” and also stated that he believes both VC and DW, noting that they are “trustworthy.”

Another church member named SS who has known VC for five years stated of VC that she she is the church’s … and prepares dinner for after-fellowship gatherings. (Information omitted from the original report in order to protect the victim) SS further noted that VC is “down to earth, very timid, and quiet.” When asked about these allegations, SS stated, “based on my years of relationship with [VC and DW], I believe [VC] is honest and she would not lie on such a thing. She felt wronged by Zhiming Yuan when he deceived her in 2013, yet she did not take any actions to expose his evildoing. At the time, we didn’t know about it.” SS further explained her belief that VC’s testimony is “trustworthy” by noting that when the Chinese pastors conducted their investigation, the condition of the witnesses’ consent to provide testimony was anonymity. SS stated, “They wanted to expose Yuan to the public out of their sense of justice and their hope for a ‘cleaner’ church, not out of any personal gain.”

Spiritual Impact

Reverend Yuan’s alleged actions have had wide-ranging impact on each of the interviewees. When asked how these events impacted VC, she explained, “Of course when it happened I was disappointed and wondered why it happened to me, and I was asking myself questions. Of course [Reverend Yuan] is a pastor, and I was asking why he would do that, but I recovered very soon actually.” Rather than feeling permanently destroyed, VC stated, “It actually strengthened my faith because I realized it is not a human being that I should put my faith in, but that I should put my faith in God.” DW similarly noted that though he perceived that Reverend Yuan’s actions had initially betrayed VC, he has come to realize that VC has a strong faith and seems to be doing well now. However if VC were to have her wish regarding the result of this review, she stated, “At least he should be fired. He should not be a pastor anymore.”

GF noted, “I am not here to sue the pastor. I am not against him personally, but I think what happened, affected, or had a very negative impact on my church, so that is why I am witnessing here.” OK similarly noted that the only thing he wants from this review is truth. He stated, “What I want is truth. I want to get the truth and justice and reconciliation and repentance.” 

One participant in this review, JH, who does not identify as a Christian reported that all of these events had impacted him quite negatively over time. JH stated that one of the reasons he is not a Christian is “…because of people like Yuan. I know what kind of person he is, and I don’t really admire him, and at the same time he is preaching and he is supposed to be a good preacher. So that kind of puts me away from Christianity.” JH further explained, “[b]ut someone like me, actually [Reverend Yuan] is not putting Jesus Christ in my heart- actually he is taking Him away from me. He [Reverend Yuan] is saying that he is close to God, then of course I will be away from God because of people like him.” When asked what he would like to see happen as a result of this review, JH stated, “I don’t think it is appropriate for [Reverend Yuan] to speak in public or to preach in public, especially because maybe some people who don’t really know who he is or how he is, because he comes out with all of these beautiful words.” JH concluded his comments by hoping that this review has a positive result, stating, “If you can do a good investigation and it has a good result, it will only make me closer to God.”

Fortunately the alleged misconduct committed by Reverend Yuan against VC did not result in a more damaging consequence. VC removed herself from the hotel before Reverend Yuan had the opportunity to engage in more egregious behavior. Nonetheless Reverend Yuan’s actions betrayed the trust VC had placed in him as a leader of a Christian ministry. These events have also betrayed the trust of many who have stood ready to support this ministry.

Without complete and sincere repentance for the damage caused, healing is extremely difficult not only for the individuals harmed by these offenses, but also for any institution(s) that participated in, tolerated, minimized, or aligned itself with the offender’s actions. True repentance requires full acknowledgment of one’s abusive actions, deceptions, and the harms caused.³⁶ We also note that “repentance of habituated sin is never immediate. It is not possible for it to be immediate…. Repentance is not seen in tears; it is not seen in words; it is not seen in emotion. Repentance is long, slow, consistent change over an extended period of time because it is from the heart outward.”³⁷ We pray that Reverend Yuan will begin this process by fully disclosing the truth about what happened to VC and any others he has allegedly betrayed and victimized.

---------------------------------------

Conclusion

Some Christians fear that exposing sexual misconduct within Christian institutions will bring shame upon the name of Jesus. Consequently, offenders within these institutions are often empowered to continue hurting and destroying lives while others remain silent. In fact, Holy Scripture teaches us that the very nature of Jesus is defined as both truth and light.³⁸ Thus, sin that remains in the dark out of concern for bringing shame upon the name of Jesus is actually what brings shame upon the name of Jesus because it is contrary to His nature. As children of God, we are each called to live in truth and light, both personally and institutionally. The failure to condemn and report these offenses not only shames Jesus, but it also destroys the very institutions we were trying to protect. Dr. Diane Langberg describes the internal institutional problem this way:

We have seen it in the church, in missions, in Christian organizations or communities around the world. There is the cancer of immorality, theft, corruption or sexual abuse and all the energy of that system goes to maintaining itself and a good appearance while ignoring the disease. Thinking they are preserving the system, called God’s, they fail to see and deal with the disease hidden within. They actually think that if they acknowledge the presence of disease and work to stop it, they will in fact, destroy the work of God. It is however no step towards the recovery of a sickly system, to disguise the worst symptoms of that system to itself. We say it is the work of the Lord and that we are using the power of the system to protect that work…. No system – family, church, community or institution – is truly God’s work unless it is full of truth and love. Toleration of sin, pretense, disease, crookedness or deviation from the truth means the system is in fact not the work of God, no matter the words used to describe it. I fear we have a tendency as humans to submit ourselves to some command or idea of men, of the past, of tradition, of a systemic culture and in so doing, refuse to listen to and obey the living and ever present God.³⁹

Tragically, victims of sexual abuse and misconduct are often turned away from Jesus by the very institutions that proclaim Him because these institutions do not exemplify Christ’s love, care, and concern for them. However, CCLife has demonstrated a real concern for “the least of these”⁴⁰ by courageously initiating an independent review of allegations of a prominent leader and preacher in the Chinese American Christian community. We pray that Reverend Yuan, CSFCF, and all of the individuals within this community will be motivated by truth and love to show the same care and concern for victims, for Christ’s church, and for the watching world. We also pray that any others who may have been similarly victimized will step forward with the same courage demonstrated by VC and the other participants in this review. Remaining silent only empowers abusers and subjects others to being similarly victimized.

---------------------------------

Reverend Yuan and CSFCF stand on the threshold of a unique opportunity that could allow them to be a powerful example of authentic Christian repentance to those inside and outside of the Chinese community. It is our prayer that this Report will honor God by encouraging CSFCF and Reverend Yuan to humbly step forward in truth and transparency. It is also our prayer that this Report will help motivate and inspire others within their own respective faith communities to respond to abuse allegations with courage, transparency, and a love that reflects Jesus to those who are so often overlooked and devastated by abuse.  

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of June, 2016.

GRACE

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B