I used to attend this church as a teen. I am not the victim mentioned in the article.
Here are some notable highlights:
To be a criminal act in Michigan, the victim either had to fall under a special class of victims or there had to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was force or coercion involved in the alleged sexual assault. — The special class of victims includes children under the age of 16, incapacitated victims, family members, students of a certain age, special education students, persons in foster care, clients of mental health professionals, prisoners, and patients of medical doctors, among others.
“In contrast, there currently are no laws in Michigan that specifically list or protect members of a religious organization as ‘status’ victims against sexual contact by religious leaders, authorities, or pastors, etc,” according to the prosecutor’s review.
While Michigan law does not state that it is illegal for clergy members to engage in sexual activity with church members, other states have amended their laws to include that language. Other states have also amended their laws to say that consent is not a defense in certain criminal sexual assault cases.
It was acknowledged that clergy in counseling roles have more power than a typical counselor or psychologist because clergy are also connecting parishioners to God, said Gary Schoener, a psychologist in Minnesota that consulted on the legislation changes in the early 1990s. Since then, Schoener has also provided testimony for other states looking to similarly update their criminal sexual assault laws in regard to clergy members.
Consent is not the issue here. The issue is the abuse of power.
Therapists & teachers are barred from dating their clients / students, even if they are of legal age. For therapists, it's straight-up illegal. For teachers/professors, it is against the set code of conduct and seen as unethical. There is a clear imbalance of power between the individuals. Ethical bosses also do not engage in dating employees.
This pastor led this woman to believe that this was part of the "ministry", the way things are done, and took advantage of her ignorance. He violated her & her trust in order to assault her, regardless of consent, because he uses his position of authority to do so.
Saying that this is a consent issue is absolutely wrong, and the very reason why this rat-fuck got away with it.
Saying that this is about "consent" puts responsibility onto the victim who was misled by the person in a high level of power. "Consent" bears little meaning in an uneven power dynamic. The person in position of power is the one responsible for not using their position to mislead/abuse. Full-stop.
Consent isn't the issue, insomuch as that's not the cause of the problem, but clearly defined consent is what will give those affected proper justice.
To be clear, I'm not and never was saying the victims gave consent or that it's their fault. But if it's codified properly (which it currently isn't), when it happens (and it will, because like you said, fucking power dynamics) the people affected will have clear recourse, and this sort of thing will hopefully happen a lot less.