 |
| There are two keys - not just one: binding and loosing, denying forgiveness and offering forgiveness. |
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Issue of Forgiveness
Written by Sharon Rose
Several months after the clergyman perpetrator at my church had been exposed, and the church covered up his deeds, allowing him to resign as if nothing happened, I was still numb from all that transpired. I was left without any recourse against the clergyman perpetrator who sexually assaulted me. A well-intentioned Christian friend tried to explain to me that I needed to forgive the clergyman perpetrator and the elders of my church for what happened to me. It was “for me,” he said. It caught me off guard. I was still going through the disbelief and shock stage of grief. I was appalled and angry at the reality that the elders were not ever going to hold the perpetrator accountable. What happened still angers me. But the individual who spoke to me of forgiveness was someone I thought I could trust. He had counseled my husband and me, and had been an advocate for all of the victims of the clergyman perpetrator in my church. But on a particular evening, he insisted that I grant forgiveness to the predator and errant elders even though the predator never confessed, even though the elders deliberately wronged me—and continue to wrong me. I was astounded. In his frustration of not being able to convince me to “forgive” my nemeses, he finally stretched out his arm, pointed his finger in my face, and proclaimed, “YOU have a spirit of unforgiveness!”
I was stunned. Did I have a “spirit of unforgiveness”? His words stabbed deep. All of my Christian life, I have strived to live a godly life. His proclamation certainly didn’t set well with my desire to please God. On the other hand, the clergyman perpetrator hadn’t confessed his sin against me, let alone ask me to forgive him. As a matter fact, no one in authority in my church would acknowledge they had done anything to hurt me. Their stance was they had done the “right” thing in covering up what the clergyman perpetrator had done. They weren’t even going to entertain the idea of asking me to forgive them. Should I just grant them forgiveness without holding them accountable? I was confused. I decided to search for answers. Was I sinning by not forgiving them?
As a child, my parents taught me to forgive those who asked for it, but the clergyman perpetrator who
hurt me brainwashed me to incorrectly believe that forgiveness was totally wiping out the offense without any confession or even asking for forgiveness. He said forgiveness was “wiping the slate clean.” Sins and offenses were to be cast “as far as the east is from the west,” he taught me. “You go back to square one with the [offending] person,” he said. “It’s as if the offense never happened,” he explained. He meant that relationships were restored by people unconditionally forgiving their offenders. He further explained that the offending party, if a believer, should be granted forgiveness whether or not any wrongdoing was confessed; that is, it was the obligation of the offended party to grant forgiveness to the offender—because Christ forgave us—and that doing so was for the benefit of the offended party. But this kind of “forgiveness” never seemed right.
Many Clergy Sexual Abuse (CSA) survivors have tried to follow the steps of Matthew 18:15-18. But too often church leaders side with the offender, not the offended. Instead of exposing the wrong and correcting it, they cover up and lie about the crimes committed by the clergyman perpetrator. Doing so is in direct opposition to Christ’s commands to the church. When church leaders refuse to listen to CSA victim/survivors, they skew the process for remedy that Christ Himself has laid out in Matthew 18. That, in itself, is offensive causing further damage and abuse of CSA survivors.
If a clergyman-perpetrator and/or the offending church leaders take steps toward forgiveness, i.e., publicly acknowledge (confess) the wrong, and offer restitution to the CSA survivor (perhaps by making arrangements to pay for pain and suffering, counseling, etc.), and then ask for forgiveness from the CSA survivor, then, and only then, would forgiveness become an issue. Depending on how deep the wounds are, even that might take many years; it would be up to the CSA survivor to determine if enough healing had occurred to grant forgiveness.
Don’t let anyone tell you that you need to ask for forgiveness in order to receive healing! While many victims feel the need to ask for forgiveness (I did), be careful. Much of that felt “need” stems from a “false guilt” which is normal for victims of sexual assault. It may be that you do need to ask forgiveness of certain people you hurt because of clergy sexual abuse. I needed to ask my husband for forgiveness, as well as my parents and the rest of my family. For years I had lived under the lie of the clergyman perpetrator. That hurt my family and especially my husband. So in that regard, I asked to be forgiven for living under a lie, not because I had committed a sexual sin with the pastor. The CSA victim/survivor is not guilty of any offense against the perpetrator or anyone in the church.
You do not need to ask for forgiveness from the church. On the contrary, the church needs to ask you for forgiveness! But don’t expect them to do so. The church leaders allowed you to be hurt when they should have protected you from harm!
As one of God’s precious sheep, it was up to the church leadership to shepherd you, guide you, and protect you; not flee and allow the wolf (clergyman perpetrator) to harm you. You are not at fault for what happened. The clergyman perpetrator and the church leadership are the ones responsible for the harm. If they are living right with God, then they should be compelled to ask you to forgive them!
What is really going on when Christians, church leaders, and church-goers demand that CSA survivors “forgive” their perpetrators? Many times church leaders will use this tactic to divert attention away from holding the clergyman perpetrator accountable for his crime. They seek to somehow blame the CSA survivor so they won’t have to deal with the real issue. The real issue is accountability and responsibility. A CSA survivor is not responsible for what happened, nor should she be held accountable. The clergyman perpetrator is responsible for the crime he committed. He should be held accountable. Church leaders often err in handling CSA cases. They are responsible for their actions before God and man. They, too, should also be held accountable. The real culprits are the clergyman perpetrator and errant church leaders. Attention needs to shift back to the center of the problem: the sexually immoral crimes that were committed, and, too often, the cover up of those crimes.
Often, well-meaning Christians will tell a CSA survivor to forgive the perpetrator, as was the case with me. Laity has a hard time dealing with clergyman perpetrators. The very idea is an oxymoron. Church goers have an even harder time dealing with CSA survivors. In trying to make sense of clergy sexual abuse, many look for someone to blame. They are hoping to find an easy solution to their own pain, or the pain they see in the CSA survivor. They might be grieving knowing their church is “split” over what happened. They yearn to regain their lost sense of “normalcy” in church. They falsely believe that if the CSA survivor would just “forgive” the clergyman perpetrator everything will somehow be better, things will get back to the way they were before they learned about the abuse, and the pain they feel inside will somehow subside. Some Christians have been taught that unconditional forgiveness (without the perpetrator confessing or repenting) is the only way the CSA survivor will gain healing. Many well-meaning Bible teachers erroneously teach that unconditionally forgiving every offender (no matter what the offense) will bring peace and “freedom” to the offended. However, this teaching is not what Scripture teaches, and leads to denial and false hope. Things may never be the same in a church tainted by clergy sexual abuse. Things may never be the same again for a CSA survivor.
Rather than pointing fingers at CSA survivors, church leaders and church goers should instead reach out their hands with open arms. CSA survivors need safety and support to go through the healing process which takes years. Part of the healing process may be to allow the CSA survivor to freely opt to leave the church with honor and with the church’s blessing. It needs to be with the understanding that she did nothing wrong; that she was victimized. Whether the CSA survivor decides to leave the church or not, both leadership and laity need to humbly apologize to her for not providing a safe place for her to worship God, fellowship with other believers, and participate in the Great Commission. CSA survivors are a vital part of the body of Christ and should never be cast off like a “throw-away.”
Written by Sharon Rose
Several months after the clergyman perpetrator at my church had been exposed, and the church covered up his deeds, allowing him to resign as if nothing happened, I was still numb from all that transpired. I was left without any recourse against the clergyman perpetrator who sexually assaulted me. A well-intentioned Christian friend tried to explain to me that I needed to forgive the clergyman perpetrator and the elders of my church for what happened to me. It was “for me,” he said. It caught me off guard. I was still going through the disbelief and shock stage of grief. I was appalled and angry at the reality that the elders were not ever going to hold the perpetrator accountable. What happened still angers me. But the individual who spoke to me of forgiveness was someone I thought I could trust. He had counseled my husband and me, and had been an advocate for all of the victims of the clergyman perpetrator in my church. But on a particular evening, he insisted that I grant forgiveness to the predator and errant elders even though the predator never confessed, even though the elders deliberately wronged me—and continue to wrong me. I was astounded. In his frustration of not being able to convince me to “forgive” my nemeses, he finally stretched out his arm, pointed his finger in my face, and proclaimed, “YOU have a spirit of unforgiveness!”
I was stunned. Did I have a “spirit of unforgiveness”? His words stabbed deep. All of my Christian life, I have strived to live a godly life. His proclamation certainly didn’t set well with my desire to please God. On the other hand, the clergyman perpetrator hadn’t confessed his sin against me, let alone ask me to forgive him. As a matter fact, no one in authority in my church would acknowledge they had done anything to hurt me. Their stance was they had done the “right” thing in covering up what the clergyman perpetrator had done. They weren’t even going to entertain the idea of asking me to forgive them. Should I just grant them forgiveness without holding them accountable? I was confused. I decided to search for answers. Was I sinning by not forgiving them?
As a child, my parents taught me to forgive those who asked for it, but the clergyman perpetrator who
hurt me brainwashed me to incorrectly believe that forgiveness was totally wiping out the offense without any confession or even asking for forgiveness. He said forgiveness was “wiping the slate clean.” Sins and offenses were to be cast “as far as the east is from the west,” he taught me. “You go back to square one with the [offending] person,” he said. “It’s as if the offense never happened,” he explained. He meant that relationships were restored by people unconditionally forgiving their offenders. He further explained that the offending party, if a believer, should be granted forgiveness whether or not any wrongdoing was confessed; that is, it was the obligation of the offended party to grant forgiveness to the offender—because Christ forgave us—and that doing so was for the benefit of the offended party. But this kind of “forgiveness” never seemed right.Many Clergy Sexual Abuse (CSA) survivors have tried to follow the steps of Matthew 18:15-18. But too often church leaders side with the offender, not the offended. Instead of exposing the wrong and correcting it, they cover up and lie about the crimes committed by the clergyman perpetrator. Doing so is in direct opposition to Christ’s commands to the church. When church leaders refuse to listen to CSA victim/survivors, they skew the process for remedy that Christ Himself has laid out in Matthew 18. That, in itself, is offensive causing further damage and abuse of CSA survivors.
If a clergyman-perpetrator and/or the offending church leaders take steps toward forgiveness, i.e., publicly acknowledge (confess) the wrong, and offer restitution to the CSA survivor (perhaps by making arrangements to pay for pain and suffering, counseling, etc.), and then ask for forgiveness from the CSA survivor, then, and only then, would forgiveness become an issue. Depending on how deep the wounds are, even that might take many years; it would be up to the CSA survivor to determine if enough healing had occurred to grant forgiveness.
Don’t let anyone tell you that you need to ask for forgiveness in order to receive healing! While many victims feel the need to ask for forgiveness (I did), be careful. Much of that felt “need” stems from a “false guilt” which is normal for victims of sexual assault. It may be that you do need to ask forgiveness of certain people you hurt because of clergy sexual abuse. I needed to ask my husband for forgiveness, as well as my parents and the rest of my family. For years I had lived under the lie of the clergyman perpetrator. That hurt my family and especially my husband. So in that regard, I asked to be forgiven for living under a lie, not because I had committed a sexual sin with the pastor. The CSA victim/survivor is not guilty of any offense against the perpetrator or anyone in the church.
You do not need to ask for forgiveness from the church. On the contrary, the church needs to ask you for forgiveness! But don’t expect them to do so. The church leaders allowed you to be hurt when they should have protected you from harm!
As one of God’s precious sheep, it was up to the church leadership to shepherd you, guide you, and protect you; not flee and allow the wolf (clergyman perpetrator) to harm you. You are not at fault for what happened. The clergyman perpetrator and the church leadership are the ones responsible for the harm. If they are living right with God, then they should be compelled to ask you to forgive them!
What is really going on when Christians, church leaders, and church-goers demand that CSA survivors “forgive” their perpetrators? Many times church leaders will use this tactic to divert attention away from holding the clergyman perpetrator accountable for his crime. They seek to somehow blame the CSA survivor so they won’t have to deal with the real issue. The real issue is accountability and responsibility. A CSA survivor is not responsible for what happened, nor should she be held accountable. The clergyman perpetrator is responsible for the crime he committed. He should be held accountable. Church leaders often err in handling CSA cases. They are responsible for their actions before God and man. They, too, should also be held accountable. The real culprits are the clergyman perpetrator and errant church leaders. Attention needs to shift back to the center of the problem: the sexually immoral crimes that were committed, and, too often, the cover up of those crimes.
Often, well-meaning Christians will tell a CSA survivor to forgive the perpetrator, as was the case with me. Laity has a hard time dealing with clergyman perpetrators. The very idea is an oxymoron. Church goers have an even harder time dealing with CSA survivors. In trying to make sense of clergy sexual abuse, many look for someone to blame. They are hoping to find an easy solution to their own pain, or the pain they see in the CSA survivor. They might be grieving knowing their church is “split” over what happened. They yearn to regain their lost sense of “normalcy” in church. They falsely believe that if the CSA survivor would just “forgive” the clergyman perpetrator everything will somehow be better, things will get back to the way they were before they learned about the abuse, and the pain they feel inside will somehow subside. Some Christians have been taught that unconditional forgiveness (without the perpetrator confessing or repenting) is the only way the CSA survivor will gain healing. Many well-meaning Bible teachers erroneously teach that unconditionally forgiving every offender (no matter what the offense) will bring peace and “freedom” to the offended. However, this teaching is not what Scripture teaches, and leads to denial and false hope. Things may never be the same in a church tainted by clergy sexual abuse. Things may never be the same again for a CSA survivor.
Rather than pointing fingers at CSA survivors, church leaders and church goers should instead reach out their hands with open arms. CSA survivors need safety and support to go through the healing process which takes years. Part of the healing process may be to allow the CSA survivor to freely opt to leave the church with honor and with the church’s blessing. It needs to be with the understanding that she did nothing wrong; that she was victimized. Whether the CSA survivor decides to leave the church or not, both leadership and laity need to humbly apologize to her for not providing a safe place for her to worship God, fellowship with other believers, and participate in the Great Commission. CSA survivors are a vital part of the body of Christ and should never be cast off like a “throw-away.”
Written by Sharon Rose
***
 |
| ELCA uses this accusation too. |
GJ - Forgiveness is the lame excuse offered in covering up the crimes of the unrepentant. If a pastor is kicked out of the ministry for adultery and divorced by his wife, but lies about having a "Scriptural" divorce, WELS calls the cover-up Evangelical. But they are really evan-jellyfish, slippery and poisonous.
I lost track of how many evan-jellyfish pointed their "forgiving" fingers at me and called me various names for saying that an unrepentant adulterer did not have a right to be a pastor.
In corporate life, this is called push-back. Let's say an educational leader wants to protect an obvious and unrepentant plagiarist--who is furious for being called a cheat--even though the URL is printed on the essay or class speech. Push-back involves saying:
- You didn't handle this right.
- This person has connections to the leadership.
- This student is close to graduation.
- Many don't realize this is wrong.
- You should have phoned me.
- You have to document this - hand over all the materials.
The cheat becomes the victim of injustice - with various implied and obvious threats. The person doing his job is now the criminal, so the issue of plagiarism has disappeared.
I tell those who are abused in various ways by the synod officials, "You are dealing with unbelievers. They may go through the motions and act very pious at times, but they hate the Gospel, even though they use their version of the Gospel to bash and trash you."
As Walther said - and he should have this known this well - offering forgiveness to the unrepentant hardens their hearts. Far from being Evangelical, it is guaranteed to make matters worse and to multiply the miseries of the victims and the victimizer.
Soon, as Stephanite mob showed, everyone participates in the Great Deception and the pious cover-up.
