Posted by Doug Showalter on April 02, 1998 at 00:01:15:
In Reply to: forgiving the church? posted by J on March 22, 1998 at 09:13:26:
Dear J,
You raise an important concern. Here are some of my thoughts. I have been an ordained minister for nearly 25 years now. During that time I have seen a dramatic change in attitudes in BOTH our society and Christian churches regarding such issues as sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and child abuse. Years ago, such situations were often overlooked, treated with discrete silence, or responded to in only mildly corrective ways, which sometimes allowed those negative behaviors to continue, though perhaps in a different setting with different victims.
Also, in the past, there was a tendency to think that the perpetrators of such evil, could and should be given a second chance--this may have been especially true, if the perpetrator was working in a Christian setting. To the extent that such issues were dealt with, instead of overlooked, there was a great deal of optimism and hope that such victimizing behaviors could be changed.
Today, of course, I think it is a much different story. Our society is much more open about talking about such negative behaviors, and much less tolerant of them. There is also much less optimism, that such victimizing behaviors can be changed. There is a clearer sense that while perpetrators may be forgiven [and many, indeed, are not], that forgiveness does NOT also entitle them to continue in or be put into new situations where they would have an opportunity to repeat their behaviors of victimizing others.
Regarding forgiveness:
In the past, in Western Christianity, as in our culture at large, there has been a tendency to be more concerned for the well-being of the perpetrator than the victim. Victims have been told that they have a "duty" to forgive. Yet, at the same time, perpetrators have sometimes not been held accountable for their actions. I sense that this distorted view is now changing--in part through the advocacy of those with feminist and minority perspectives. I think we are now coming to a healthier balance of concern, as the well-being of victims is now often being made an important priority. I feel this is an important change, and one that should be celebrated.
You speak about forgiving "the church." It is hard to forgive any organization for wrongs committed in its name, because organizations, in and of themselves, have no real personal or moral identity. Rather, it's the particular people in a particular organization--who make the decisions, who are responsible for the organization's wrongful acts--who ultimately are the ones who are deserving of both judgment and forgiveness. I think that is a helpful distinction to keep in mind.
Also, when we are talking about the "Christian Church," it's important to recognize that even in the USA alone, there are a vast number of different organizations--on national, state, and local levels--which can be identified by that name. And each of these "churches" has different individuals in them who exercise the decision power.
I can't speak about the "Church" as a whole. But, I can speak about my own particular American Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ, which is a "mainline liberal" denomination. From what I have read and heard in recent years, my denomination--including its individual local churches and area Associations of churches--has generally taken very strong stands against clergy who abuse their parishioners. I have heard of individual clergy who were immediately dropped from their churches and their ecclesiastical standing, once it was verified that they had committed such an abuse. In one case, this even occurred 20 years after the sexual abuse took place--once the abuse was finally revealed by the victim, and the minister involved admitted it.
Also, about four years or so ago, it became a requirement in the U.C.C. that the professional profiles [resumes] of all its clergy must include sworn statements which must divulge if they ever have had any legal convictions or ecclesiastical disciplinary actions taken against them for ethical misconduct. The denomination simply will not circulate profiles without this sworn statement. It's my perception that on the various levels of my denomination, abuses are taken very seriously. They are not overlooked, and the clergy who abuse are not quietly shuffled from one unsuspecting church to another one--where they can do even more damage.
I really can't speak about other Christian churches. But my sense is that, in keeping with our society's changing views [mentioned above], many other denominations have also become quite serious in holding their clergy who abuse their parishioners, accountable.
I hope this is helpful. If I haven't addressed your specific concern, please feel free to place another message.
Doug Showalter