Vanessa of Feministing discussing a Washington Post column about the general problem of sexual advances on parishioners (they only mention women in this story) by pastors references a particularly troubling instance (emphasis hers.)
The piece has a story of a young woman who was sexually assaulted by her pastor at her Evangelical Lutheran Church – when seeking spiritual guidance, he told her that having sex with him was ordained by God. Even after years of therapy, she still has a hard time walking into a Church.
Problems with this, none of which get a lot of discussion:
- Even as he seduced her the pastor’s message to his victim was that whatever sex meant for him, sex for her had to be a sacrifice... an obligation... something ordained to happen to her. In other words even as he was trying to have sex with her he was perpetuating the No-Sex Class paradigm’s Rule of Desire #1: it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
- What the (literal!) Hell are these guys doing, being on the one hand evangelical (with a small “e,” the WaPo article says it’s prevalent in all denominations) and on the other not just leading others into temptation but using the language of Heaven as leverage to push others into transgression. Jesus spoke to it, of the hypocrites who will not only never enter the kingdom of Heaven but will bar the way to Heaven to others through their behavior. I mean, if ever anyone should understand “hate the sin, love the sinner” it ought to be those who accuse liberals and progressives of hating religion. It’s not that we hate religion! Quite the opposite for me and many, though not all, other progressives. It’s that we can’t stomach those who shroud themselves in sanctity while reaching back and wiping their own filthy cracks on it. Setting those conscienceless examples bars the door of faith to those of conscience.
- Another thing that’s missing from all this: a complete lack of theological doctrine or protocol for this kind of stuff. It’s not new (Paul groused about in-congregation sex in his New Testament letters) and I’m… pretty sure it’s well recognized if not well understood in churches. But 2000 years of ignoring it hasn’t really made it go away. So why the continued expressions of indignation, dismay, and most of all surprise. Or it’s cynical counterpart “what did you expect?” It seems like denial, from both parishioners, clergy, seminaries, and the general public isn’t working.
In other words the scandalous part isn’t the nominal scandal of adults wrestling with different degrees of attraction, attention, pressure, and resistance. That happens every weekend in bars, backstages, banks, and bath houses every weekend. But for those other situations we tend to have scripts, narratives, experiences, and culture for dealing with it. Pretending church is different isn’t just not working, it’s putting people — pastors, congregants, and passers by who might otherwise find faith at risk.
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-09-11 21:48.
Figleaf, do you seriously think that these clergy are *literally* damning the women they coerced to hell? Are you suggesting that they'll be consigned to eternal fire if their experiences of rape turn them away from faith? And if so, how could a God of mercy - who's both omniscient and omnipotent - possibly tolerate that?
Or do you just mean that corrupt clergy have created a hell on earth for the women they've violated?
[Hi Sungold. First, I'm concerned that it's coercion by guile (a.k.a. "seduction," which is still a use of leverage and thus a form of coercion), not coercion by force, and that at least in many Protestant traditions the nature of the guile ("ordained by God," for instance) still results in loss of grace. Secondly, though, it can lead to a fall from grace as a result of alienation from the religion in general instead from the particular parson. (Personally I agree with you completely, but not all theological traditions, including the low-on-dispensations one I was first raised in, would agree.) Good questions! --fl]
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-09-11 22:36.
I attended seminary - and while I was somewhat heartened by the attempts that various officials made to raise these issues I was mostly horribly depressed by the lack of seriousness that many of my fellow (especially male sadly) students took these talks. They seemed sure that this sort of thing would only happen to someone else - someone not "righteous" enough to behave properly (i.e. follow some sort of system or rules of proper dating behavior presumably with a high emphasis on no sex before marriage). They seemed completely blind to the issues of power dynamics that make these sort of relationships problematic even if all the "rules" are followed. I worry that is the very attitude that will make it all the more likely that they will cross a line down the road.
[I totally get the "if you've got the 'Right Stuff' you're safe" mentality. I just think that after 2000 years of it not working there ought to be some other, lower-repercussion way to deal with it. Oh, and we haven't even gotten into the other side of clergy/parishioner sex which is parishioners seducing ministers -- which is, to be really, really clear is very distinct from the main subject of this post or the original WaPo article. But that same "oh I'm righteous enough to withstand it" mentality leads to similar breakdowns... that could and ought to be similarly addressed. Thanks, Rebecca. --fl]
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-12 04:37.
I understood the point to be that the bad example set by the pastors in the story legitimises sinful behaviour to other men, and also casts the Church in general into disrepute, both of which affect not the pastor's victim, but others around.
In terms of the victim, there is little in Scripture to guide us in saying whether or not she is barred from Heaven; we might turn to Job, in which under very grave circumstances the title character continues to have faith (though it is severely tested). That would seem to imply that faith is supposed to endure through all suffering. But Jesus' "Mission Statement" in Luke 4:18-19 would imply that she is among those whom he came specifically to set free.
My personal faith is that, as long as she does not turn deliberately to sin in order to "spite" God, but instead continues to carry in her heart a sense of the Spirit, then she can still be saved. Though her professed faith may be gone, it is by the Spirit alone we are saved (St Paul); and though it may seem like an impassable barrier that she no longer believes in God, yet (Luke 18:27) "What is impossible with men is possible with God".
["...legitimises sinful behaviour to other men..." I should have been more clear towards the end that while the specific cases at hand were women who felt compelled by their pastors there's a whole panoply of sexual dynamics between pastors and congregants that needs to be addressed. And so using... or possibly just twisting... scripture and canon as leverage against the unwilling (in the case at hand) or simply justification for mutual attraction-based decisions or as rationalization for the broad third case when congregants seduce their pastors (in direct "violation" of Rule of Desire #2) the bad examples... or lowering of doctrinal standards... set by pastors legitimize sinful behavior in *everybody.* Now as it happens I think the whole sex prohibition thing is to religion as Euclid's parallel postulate is to geometry. And so I think sex ought to be *theologically* moot, and therefore dealt with *conventionally* inside church instead of *doctrinally.* My point, though, is *if* you're going to adopt a "sex is sin" postulate into your theology then you can't fucking well start giving yourself dispensations without rendering your *entire* system invalid both internally (i.e. sending people to hell) and externally (alienating would-be supplicants.) Thanks, SE. --fl]
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-09-12 09:01.
Great post.
I had a lot to say in response, too much for the comments section, so I sent you an email.
Have a great weekend.
[I saw your email and I think it's great. On the origin-of-sin thing I agree with you that there are big differences between Catholic and Protestants where (really grossly simplifying here) Catholics can't go wrong if they're steered wrong by clergy since clergy are defined as intermediary between God and believer while Protestantism began with the idea that intermediation is itself a sin and that believers are directly responsible for their, well, direct relationship with God. So whereas in their own tradition someone misled by a priest may be ok, in Protestantism if a minister leads you into temptation it's still your soul on the line. As for the no-sex class component both contemporary Catholic and Protestant traditions (oh heck, and most other major religions and most secular institutions as well) perpetuate it. Thanks, MR. --fl]
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-09-13 11:55.
Hello Figleaf,
I stumbled across your blog yesterday and have been "down the rabbit hole" ever since enjoying the posts and the pics! Thanks for the great body of work! :)
On the topic of religious abusers of power for sex I'd add bullet point to your list of problems -- the unwillingness to acknowledge that victim's literal belief in a societally accepted myth is a significant contributor to the problem. Just like the societal acceptance of the "no-sex class" is used as an un-spoken given when perpetuating harmful and wrongheaded notions of what "good women" and "real men" want.
An evangelical pastor is well aware of the effects of literal damnation and promised salvation on the behavior of their flock. It is the major tool in the arsenal of controlling actions and should be no surprise that he'd use it on an individual as on an entire congregation. But without, in this case, the victim's agreement, such control it isn't possible.
To be completely clear, the woman was victimized by an asshole in preacher's clothing who should be treated as such. But more women will be helped in the future if they learn to recognize a falsehood when they see it. Strip away the nonsense from any persuasive argument and it's harder to be bamboozled.
Thanks again for the enlightening, entertaining, and heck yes, sexy posts! You've got a new fan. It's a Gr8tLife!
[Thanks, Stasha! You're welcome back any time. --fl]
Submitted by 3199 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-09-14 05:53.
It seems to me that if a pastor claims "God's will" as a reason for someone to have sex with the pastor, that isn't seduction, it's coercion. Most religious judicatories now have rules that prohibit any kind of sexual contact between a pastor and a parishioner as unethical, unless the parishioner in question is married to the pastor. Regardless of what the pastor may say or do in terms of initiating or responding to the sexual situation, it is considered sexual abuse because of the particular nature of the pastor/parish relationship. Even if the parishioner initiates the relationship, it is the pastor who has the responsibility to recognize the danger and to make sure nothing sexual happens. That may be cracking a walnut with a sledge hammer, but it seems to be better than erring on the side of not enough protection.
The more connectional the church hierarchy is (that is, the stronger the bonds between the local congregation and other denominational entities) the more likely pastors are to be held accountable for healthy relationships with parishioners. The less connectional (or more isolated) the parish, the fewer mechanisms there are for identifying and responding to clergy sexual abuse. The upshot of this is that, while the Roman Catholic church has come under fire for providing institutional cover for abusive clergy, there's an even stronger potential for abuse in non-connectional, congregationally autonomous protestant groups (independent Baptists, pentecostals, Church of Christ, etc.) who either have very weak judicatory authority or none at all.
Where does that leave single clergy who want to date? It can be difficult. Dating someone within the congregation served by the unmarried clergyperson is looked upon with great suspicion by judicatory authorities. In many of the denominations with stronger policies on sexual abuse, at the same time, there are more lenient policies on clergy divorce and remarriage, so there are likely going to be more unmarried clergy at any given moment. There has to be a way to recognize that clergy are fully sexual human beings, like everyone else, while at the same time protecting the sheep from a predatory shepherd.
[Nicely laid out and nicely concluded, Mike! The missing component, in my strong opinion, is that whereas church hierarchies often have very sophisticated protocols (Catholic policy is exploitable but also highly complex, nuanced, and humane about celibacy, for instance) there needs to be something comparable within the laity. Who are perhaps more inclined to expect superhuman qualities of their human clergy than vice versa. I'm not sure how one introduces "here's what you should expect" to one's congregation without also risking losing an important sense of awe. But it would make a huge difference if congregations were also on board. Hmm... more to think about than I can get to here so I'll just say thanks for the thoughtful, and thought-provoking comment, Mike. --fl]