Cooperative Problem Solving: Church Sex Scandals
December 13th, 2006 by 
soulster
In alternate dispute resolution (ADR), the conflict theory I like the best, it is the things you do not talk about that get you. Negative outcomes (war, division, predjudice, hate) are more a product of the failure of cooperation on underlying issues than of the symptomatic events themselves. For example: It is the failure to deal with a underlying economic inequality that leads to the war, not the diplomatic incident they broadcast on TV — but the economics are unlikely to become central to the dialogue, thus the conflict cannot be resolved. Because the root issues cannot be solved, at best you can expect a win-lose outcome, at worst a lose-lose, but never a win-win.
Keeping this in mind, I would like to present a sensitive issue to our community here: sexual misconduct among Christian leaders.
While it might be polite not to talk about such a "hot-button issue", I am putting some faith (if I can say that) in the participants here to do more than the usual ranting, excuse-making, and blaming. The potential devastating social effects of these behaviors leads me to believe that this process is waranted, even essential. My hope is this: that we can at least come up with a cooperative understanding of the underlying issues, covenant what our behavior will be in response to these issues in the future, and develop practical proactive action to address the situation as far as we are able.
In typical ADR process, there would be a lot of talking that I will here truncate. For example, we would begin with story telling. For the sake of space, I will let the media do that. You are aware of the scandal of Catholic priest's sexual abuse of minors. If you would like a summary of the scandal and the Church's cover-up, view Panorama's Sex Crimes and the Vatican on Google Video [warning: offensive content]. You are also likely aware of the sexual misconduct that removed Ted Haggard, once senior pastor of 14,000 member New Life Church and president of National Association of Evangelicals, a leading political organization for evangelical Christians [here]. In the news recently, Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel, a 2100 member church near Denver, resigned as details of homosexual extra-martial activity surfaced [here].
I have a personal interest in our outcome here. Yesterday I recieved a call that I may be called as a witness in a sexual assult case concerning a church leader. I was called in 1999 to pick up a friend who was interning with a small evangelical church. She was living at a church leader's house and was assualted on the way from the shower to her bedroom. I engaged the offender and his wife on the issue, which did not go well, and a mess ensued with no resolution. This is not the only sexual misconduct case I've been involved with. Several more have crossed my path, including one at a YMCA in which I worked (just to say this goes beyond the church). My conclusion is that it is an epidemic in the church and the culture at large, usually swept under the carpet and under reported. In all cases I have had involvement in, none were ever reported to the congregations where they occured or to the authorities. I feel this is a better forum than Christian circles for dialogue, since I do not think the church has been able to solve this issue "in house".
Now, to continue the process, I'd like to set some assumptions that would normally be the result of conversation, then ask some questions to the community.
- We are, in this discussion, assuming responsbility for the situation — not in the sense that we are guilty for these acts or required to clean up the mess, but in the sense that, for the sake of our society, we are interested in taking action for better outcomes. That means that blaming is not meaningful, forward motion is.
- Please assume that the removal of any party is not a practical solution. Christianity and the clergy class will likely remain with us for a while longer, so any solution must not include the removal of these things. Atheists and believers alike should seek solutions that work with the current system.
- Assume that everyone is horrified and condemns these behaviors, either because they are intrinsically wrong or because they are hypocritical. Statements of condemnation are not needed since we can assume we both start from this position.
- We will make progress by listening, helping each other uncover underlying issues from our various perspectives, and agreeing on reasonable action plans.
Questions:
- What are the underlying issues? (What is causing this misbehavior? What systemic things allow it to happen? Why is it covered up? Etc.)
- How can people agree to personally resolve these underlying issues? (What can I do to avoid such misbehavior myself? How can I subvert, resist, and deconstruct the systems that allow this to happen? What can I do to 'uncover' it up? Etc.)
- What practical proactive measures can the church and the society at large (including believers and non-believers) do to resolve this issue?
It might make the most sense to move through these sequentially, so if you would start with number 1 in your comments, we can introduce number 2 when the time seems right. Thanks up front for you help on this important issue.
Posted in atheism, belief, cooperation, current issues, ethics, how to dialogue | 
December 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
1. Christians, particularly those in evangelical or congregational churches, suck at sexual ethics. While there may be widespread agreement on doctrinal issues like the divinity of Christ, there is no widely-agreed-upon, coherent and theologically based Christian sexual ethic.
Put another way: Most Christians have rules about prohibited sexual behaviors, but because there seems to be no intellectually and emotionally compelling justification for these rules, they are impossible to follow.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Matthew:
Am I right in saying that you see one problem with regards to Christian sexual ethics has to do with systemic coherence? Is it like people are saying “don’t have illegal sex” but nobody says why not, how that ties in theologically, or how to prevent it?
December 13th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Part of the problem, to quote a much maligned and overused saying, is that rape/sexual abuse is not about sex, but about power. As soon as you have a position of authority (see Mark Foley) you have the potential to abuse it. If money, then greed/avarice is the typical abuse. If people, then sexual abuse/rape, though enslavement is also not uncommon. These are all rooted in the same cause- the ability of the powerful to abuse their power.
The big problem is the tendency to hide or cover up the occurrence of these incidents “to protect (the church/the government/the institution of power)”, with the end result that revelations are that much more salacious and damaging.
As long as religion is a source of authority, there will be abuse of that authority. A naive atheistic position might be to eliminate religion, but such an attitude would likely eliminate all (non-socratic?) education, government/politics, leadership, and this is not necessarily “a greater good” unless you also take the position of strong anarchism, and even then, the abuse of the “strong” over the “weak” is still likely.
Religious organizations, like any organization, worsen their problems when they hold/claim their leaders to a “higher standard” without enforcing these standards diligently. That’s when people naturally conflate the “sins” of the few with the organization as a whole. The better behavior of a given set of leaders is in the long term a provable assertion, and so great care should be made before such an assertion is made. Open and honest standards of oversight work extremely well in preventing abuse in finance, and similar methods should be applied to any power-invoking organization
A good system of ethics is the basis of reducing incidents like these, and a strong ethical system can and should be constructed outside of religion. My opinion is that developing a tradition of religion (whether god-based, or secular religion such as Ethical Culture) outside and on top of strong “secular” ethics (which should be universal and stuided independently by all), rather than attributing ethics to divine command, is the best route to eliminating this as a “religious” problem and converting it to a “human” problem.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
I agree with the last post. In fact, it is my biggest negatives about Christianity that all the biblical warnings about abusive leadership and the necessity of dealing in an accountable way are ignored. In fact, I think one of the most attactive venues for power seeking individuals is the position of pastor, especially in non-denominational or loosely supervised denominations. Interestingly, believers tend to flock to such churches, often because of their “hero worship” mentality as someone has mentioned on one of the threads. Since religious observance is a matter of choice, perhaps the better supervised denominations should do a better job of highlighting to the public their “quality control”. Maybe even some kind of voluntary credentialing, by a organization which is set up to inspect and monitor training and supervision. That is common in the health care system or other people serving venues. Perhaps people would find themselves more likely to attend a congregation which has the “ethics accountability seal of approval”, as opposed to “we rely on the Holy Spirit and are holier than thou”. In fact, when Kohlberg’s method of ethical analysis is applied, churches and believers are often found rated poorly, and I believe it is because of the poor teaching of ethics and moral reasoning by pastors who are not well developed in that area. Pastors are self-selected and become successful based on talent and likeability, which are poorly correlated with moral reasoning and ability to handle power in relationships. I suspect this is true in other religions, but I am not sure.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Just a quick FYI.
It is “win/lose” as opposed to “win/loose” - the words have different meanings.
But aside from that, a very interesting article. Thanks!
December 13th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
“What are the underlying issues? (What is causing this misbehavior? What systemic things allow it to happen? Why is it covered up? Etc.)”
The underlying issues can go quite deep here, but I will try to weigh in as accurately as I think I can.
Causes: Sexual deprivation is not a healthy thing (Catholic Priests are proving this) and sexual repression seems to be a root cause for sexual crimes - either denying sex all together or restricting it harshly. This in comparison with the amount of sexual imagery they see in society and you might have the potential for ‘wandering minds & hands’ - with no recourse. As for why some people pick kids to abuse, that one is beyond my comprehension (possibly they find those victims easier to persuade).
Another cause, that can play on the sexual repression idea, is the idea of the iconic leader - all powerful person of sorts. Maybe the ‘ego’ of this person also comes into play - thinking that he can get away with whatever since he is the ‘leader’ (ex: Jim Jones).
I think another cause can be
Systemic problem: The problem is there is no accountability, too much ‘in house bullsh*t hiding it’. The system is kind of set-up for the ministers/leaders to be protected (they are holy?) and that repentance is the answer. I think in these cases the ministers have to answer to the full penalty of the Law (in the country they reside). I think all congregants have the responsibility to make sure these cases are handled by proper authorities - as it is their kids/friends being abused.
Covered up: The idea’s of forgiveness and repentance seem to be the reasons for this misnomer. The churches believe that if the leader so as repents and gets help then that’s good enough - we all know that is a sham (especially in cases of child molestation). The church believes it can handle these situations ‘in-house’ and that their system is better then the law’s (or a higher system) - since God is involved in the process. I see ’shame’ as another reason for hiding it - if someone finds out then their goes the church (dies off - no new converts).
December 13th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
The 3rd cause I never finished was going to be the idea of ’sin and forgiveness’. A lot of people in Christianity have kind of a warped view of sin and forgiveness in relation to God. They figure they can sin and God will forgive them - they use this as justification for committing an act against another human (knowing forgiveness is available to them from God). Like I said, that’s a warped view but it can be a cause to why someone could ‘justify’ a sexual abuse.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
societyvs:
Sexual deprivation/repression doesn’t make sense as a cause, in part because not all (who are celibate) priests abuse.
You can be ashamed, and not commit abuse. You can be celibate, and not abuse. Granted, if you are leading an unfulfilling lifestyle, which reduces down to wanting sex and not getting it, it might increase your motive to abuse. But, it cannot be reasonably cited as the cause.
There is no logical difference between saying “catholic priests are more likely to be child abusers” as to say “atheists are less likely to be ethical”. Even if the assertion were statistically true (which is unlikely) it would be nearly impossible to prove such an assertion without demonstrating a mechanism for it happening- that is, you have to show what combination of sexual repression and triggers and whatnot which would always or nearly always directly result in abuse. Otherwise, you wind up mistaking correlation for causation.
Of course, I could apply the same logical argument to my previous post- not all people in positions of power abuse the power. But, I am trying to be careful not to say that power is the cause- rather, to find a more general situation which strips out unnecessary experimental variation, and eliminates the sort of ad hominem reasoning that is too easily applied in these kinds of circumstances.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
@soulster - “Am I right in saying that you see one problem with regards to Christian sexual ethics has to do with systemic coherence?”
Absolutely. The average Christian sexual ethic seems to be a random mashup of the biblical text and the society’s sexual mores, not based on any unifying theme or idea. The “war on gay marriage” is absolutely, appallingly incoherent.
A related problem, then, is that this ethic is not emotionally compelling, and does not tie into anything that is emotionally compelling (with the possible exception of fear of punishment). And we do what we feel like doing, right?
December 13th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
with regard to correlation vs causation:
are people in positions of power more likely to abuse, or are abusers more likely to seek positions of power?
Christianity, as a religion, has a slight neck up on this sort of situation (John 13:13-17):The decision to make it a commandment of the religion that leaders must be servants is unprovable as an ethical statement (therefore it is not in the domain of ethics) but might provide some added “leg up” with regard to the behavior of christians, making the reward for being a leader less palatable and therefore less of a reward for those attempting to use it as a forum for their abusive tendencies.
If I were to attack christians on this point, this command as praxis is so understated by many christians that they wind up falling into the sort of situation which lends itself to ad-hominem attack: if this is waht you believe, then how is it that it seems so many priests abuse?
Christians would benefit from defining their sense of religion not on ethics, nor on unprovable and theoretically illogical statements (transubstantiation and other “doesn’t quack like a duck” statements come to mind from a previous post, but it seems ok to me as long as one is not asserting one would find hemoglobin in bread) but on statements which are neither unprovable nor illogical- this is the gap in which an abundant life for gods exists.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Wanted to commend hbergeronx for great comments. Really well thought out, thanks.
But you lost me here: “A good system of ethics is the basis of reducing incidents like these,” and here, “rather than attributing ethics to divine command.”
Do you mean that we need to formulate a (new?) system of ethics without resorting to divine command? I may be misinterpreting you here.
If you don’t attribute your ethics to divine command, then you attribute them to “a good idea we can all agree on,” or “objective moral fact,” or whatever. There are many such systems that purport to to this.
In any case, it’s not the system of ethics that is lacking in any of these abuse cases, whether in religious communities or secular schools, because both “divine command ethics” and atheistic ethics strongly disapprove of these types of abuse. Rather it is the personal failings of the abusers which is to blame, a permanant problem in humanity. Where there are opportunities for abuse, there will be abuse. Remedy one abuse by the application of power, and the cost is that you open yourself up to another abuse based on that very attempt at remedy. The question is, what types of abuses are we willing to deal with? (I consider taxes a potential abuse, but it’s way better than anarchy. I consider Child Protective Services as a potential abuse, but it’s far better than the abuse some adults perpetrate on children.)
Until we can somehow convince people to live up to their own purpored ethics, then we will always have this problem.
In the meanwhile, perhaps one important thing to always ask ourselves is: What are the facts? Is there a real increase in these types of abuse? Or is it only a perceived increase? If you know the depth of the problem then you can determine what cost you are willing to incur to solve it.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
For me, whether or not there is an increase in actual cases or just an increase in reporting has little interest to me, accept where it might identify roots causes due to cutlural/systemic change. I guess I’m a zero tolerance kind of guy. I’ve spent too much time putting people and families back together from this kind of abuse. I’ll talk costs when we get to solutions, right now I’m going to assume I want the problem solved regardless of costs and talk about practicals later.
So to summarize so far, we’ve identified the following underlying issues:
Am I missing any, misunderstanding any, or would anyone like to add to this list?
December 13th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
ben:
I was probably being pompous. What I mean to say, is that there is no atheistic ethics or religious ethics, there is only ethics.
Abusing people is bad, ethically speaking, (see Kant’s categorical imperative). Religion has nothing to do with it, and should be eliminated as a straw man.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:43 am
@hbergeronx-
I think I disagree. An ethic based on an ancient religious text can usefully be called a “religious ethic.” This makes religious ethics a subset of all ethics, but it’s still a useful category … and if this approach tends to be untenable, I think it’s reasonable to attack something like “divine command ethics” as being a problem.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I would like to hear some more atheist voices here. First, this is a little experiment to see if we can work together despite differing views on the origins of morality, validity of faith, etc. This problem spills over into society in many ways, and it is unlikely that atheists and their families will remain untouched if this continues in its current course. At the very least, I think there should be interest in limiting the damage this does to society in general. There are many such issues like this, that although another sector of society might create them, they have become “everybody’s problem”.
Second, I think that an outside view might have something of real value to offer. Perhaps, since most believers have some relationship to church, at least culturally, someone who does not will help us see what we cannot.
So, please, atheists give us your insights before we move on in our little experiment here.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
soulster,
Please preemptively pardon my foul language, but I’d like to preface my tirade that I immensely dislike anyone that has power that others do not, and uses such power to further their own gains at the expense of others.
But really, the sadness I feel against such religious I have is two in fold: I wish that religious leaders or members of the clergy would just stop fucking children, pandering for money to buy all manner of goods, and generally get uppity whenever someone calls them on it, claiming a moral high ground.
I also wish that other religious leaders would not be ashamed for having consensual sex with other men. Yes, out of wedlock, it’s true. But their sex life that doesn’t entail raping minors, and is consenting between two adults, just isn’t any of my business. Their humiliation for being who they are is unfounded, and ultimately denies who they are.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
drunkentune:
Thanks for your input. Could you digest this down into the underlying issues contributing to the problem? I think I could draw out a few from your comment, but I’d rather you expressed them in your own way.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Off the top of my head here:
1. Any tendency to lump together consensual and non-consensual activity is grotesque, and should be stamped on by other believers whenever it is suggested.
2. Because much consensual activity is considered “misconduct”, this makes sexual misconduct extremely common in the general population, and this will inevitably, in many minds, blunt the seriousness of “misconduct”.
3. I do wonder whether obsessing about sexuality from the pulpit actually encourages rather than discourages the object of obsession. Your urges are probably formed in part by what tends to be uppermost in your mind. Perhaps if preachers would focus more on war or poverty or something, we would have less of this.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Joe and drunkentune:
I would agree that sexual abuse of minors is of a different magnitude than consensual sex between adults, so good point. One is a violent crime, the other is a violation of church policy, marriage covenants, and certain moral sensibilities (which not everyone agrees upon, of course). Perhaps as far as our work here, we should limit ourselves to the protection of minors. The only reason I could see not to would be that the disappointment in expectations in the adult cases is also traumatic to churches and families and erodes society’s faith in leaders and institutions in general the same way as when it happens with politicians.
December 16th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Thousands of years, and thousands of homosexual priests, ministers, pastors and reverends later, and religious people still haven’t woken up to the fact that homosexuality is a natural occurence in a natural world.
Being “natural” of course, doesn’t mean that human beings automatically approve of it, but they continue to beat their heads against the natural world and hoping that by doing so, something natural, will go away.
December 17th, 2006 at 9:59 am
I don’t think a cooperative solution is likely on the grounds of agreeing on a universal sexuality, but I don’t think that’s necessary. As far as this group, we can all agree that abuse of minors is horrible and move forward on that problem. So let’s just focues on the abuse of minors.
Has anyone run into any research that would surface underlying issues in there cases? Why do these abuses occur?
December 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
soulster,
I remember reading something in a scientific journal somewhere that a researcher was examining the ratios of supermodel’s faces. He followed the hypothesis that the most average faces were the most attractive, but it wasn’t so for models. It turns out that many of the ratios, for example, the ratio of the distance of the upper lip to the bottom of the nose, were the same ratios found in thirteen-to-fifteen-year-old girls.
I suppose sometime in our past it was best to breed early.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
drunkentune:
Interesting. I have often wondered about the “school girl” fetish in anime and some darker elements of Japanese and Western culture. I do not think it is healthy, especially for school girls. I had never tied it to anything evolutionary until now.
Given my work with families of young mothers, often made so by older men wanting to “breed early” but not support the family, and given also the complications involved, I would perhaps suggest that this “evolutionary impulse”, if it is one, should be curtailed by our culture.
I had often assumed that the school girl thing was linked to respect and power issues such as the sickening machizmo sense of a “badge” of spoiling virgins, sex myths concerning virgins, or the equally disturbing urban sensibility in my city that really young girls are easier because they are naive and eager for affirmative attention from older males.
My theory would say preditory power is the problem. But I’m not sure what the evolutionary explanation would say.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:43 am
soulster,
There are proximate and ultimate causes for such actions, as per the use of Tinbergen’s evolutionary lingo.
I seem to be looking at the ultimate cause - namely the trait to breed early and often, and therefore an evolved mechanism to consider young girls attractive, while you are arguing from a historical proximate cause - the chances of the man’s survival and reproduction are increased when he mates with a younger female.
Either way you look at it, I think we agree that it’s an outdated trait on par with tailbones, but far more distructive.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Indeed. So what practical solutions would address these underlying issues in the case of the abuse of minors? How can we address this on personal and systemic levels?
January 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Oops. Sorry for forgetting this. I suppose outlawing rape, using Megan’s Law effectively, and providing counseling to those that seek it. We’ve got prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation working together.
I personally suggest we employ the option of voluntary chemical castration to rapists. A bit of retribution, and we’re all set.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I have been involved in several conversations over the past couple of days concerning a case of this type of abuse, as I mentioned before. It has reinforced the need for prevention. Since it usually relates to psychological power problems, I suggest that the best prevention is an aggressive restructuring of cultural views of power, tools for families and groups in dealing with power issues, and structures for organizations to provide better support and accountability for those with power and access.