First, a little background. We've all heard of late about the whole #MeToo movement where women claim sexual harassment and guys burn to the ground. While we all agree that sexual harassment is wrong (Well, at least, we should all agree), there are still questions about what constitutes "harassment" and "abuse" because we've gotten to the point that "He made me feel uncomfortable" or "He didn't listen to my views because I'm a girl" constitute harassment. But, all of this is not my point. Among those kicked to the curb over the past year for transgressions against women, there have been more than one or two prominent Christian leaders. Paige Patterson was hauled out and executed without a trial over the claim that he had covered up a rape. A couple other pastors were shot down in flames because one person or another claimed sexual harassment. That's because we live in a world, sharply tuned after too many years of Catholic priests molesting kids, with a zero-tolerance policy for anything currently unacceptable. And sexual harassment is currently (and rightly) unacceptable.
Then I come across this.
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim 5:19)Perhaps you can immediately see my question. How is this supposed to work? Most of these recent casualties in the church from #MeToo had no "evidence", let alone "two or three witnesses." So how does this work? From my view we can 1) ignore the text and shoot down whatever pastor/elder we want if it's something bad like "sexual harassment" or 2) follow the instructions and not bring charges against a pastor/elder without a minimum of two witnesses (which, in the case of sexual harassment, would be almost never) or 3) come up with some other course of action. I suppose if, for instance, a pastor/elder receives multiple accusations of sexual harassment, it would count as "two or three witnesses". Is that good enough ... from both the sense of the text that seems to protect pastor/elders against false or frivolous accusations and the concern of having a sexually harassing pastor/elder?
How do we manage this?
Note: It would seem patently obvious from this text that the way we do not manage this is the current method of hearing the accusation and burning the accused at the stake before the sun goes down. Right?
9 comments:
For reasons I won’t go into, I’ve been following the recent Hybels situation with some interest.
In this situation, I’m not sure you’d have multiple witnesses, although there are multiple credible accusers. As well as multiple credible people who are pushing for a resolution.
So much is about the response and process, Willow has done this poorly. It’s also about having safeguards in place and (heaven forbid) practicing the Billy Graham rule.
But, it’s definitely not about presuming guilt.
My gut reaction would be to err on the side of caution, but I too believe this #MeToo movement has gone too far. But this is also supposed to be within the church and I'd say adhere to the Word. It's not saying people can't make the accusation without witnesses, but that we shouldn't accept it without corroboration. As you said, I don't think this limits it to each accusation needs witnesses, if there is an apparent pattern, then we would have to accept that as multiple witnesses, I'd think.
Indeed, it seems as if the mere suggestion is enough to crucify a guy. Constant claims against a person by multiple accusers should increase concern with every new person coming out to accuse, but then there's the question of collusion between the accusers should they all have some other grudge against the accused for righteous actions against them taken by the accused. It's tricky, to be sure. I would think that the congregation, or those on a church council or board, would have some knowledge of both parties...the accused as well as however many accusers there might be...in order to arrive at a judgement, which may or may not reflect the reality.
It is said that during the Salem witch trial days, simply accusing could be enough to have someone assumed to be guilty. We don't want that, but getting witnesses to a crime might be impossible. In those cases where a witness might be had, such as to some alleged harassment not involving rape or attempted rape, the reliability of the witness also needs to be considered, and it is incumbent upon witnesses to be as truthful and accurate as possible. Again, some judgement must take place with the hope that those tasked with judging are also objective and compelled by a sense of fairness and justice.
In the meantime, adhering to almost obsolete concepts of behaviors and human interaction will certainly keep these instances to a minimum. But then, this is problematic in an age where so few have the desire to abide those time-tested standards of virtue and character. Look at how Mike Pence was mocked for preferring not to dine alone with a woman not his wife. And the fact that the concept of "gender roles" is equally derided complicates things further.
I think for the most part, actual court judges must really tread carefully when such cases go to court, and investigators must be diligent.
Dan T, my question was what do we do in light of this Scripture. It appears that your response is "Ignore that Scripture and burn 'em to the ground if we even suspect they've done something to a female." Is that your position? (You know I can't actually post your comments. My mother reads this blog and you've adopted an increasingly and decidedly "unfriendly" use of language.)
I get your point Marshall, but that last paragraph isn't really relevant to the question. It's in fact it's own debated topic, should Christians get into secular legal disputes with each other or settle them "in-house". The question was about what we as a congregation should do about the accusations, not what legal steps should be taken.
Thank you, Dan. Got it. Not "Ignore the Bible", but "In this particular text ignore the Bible" because it is ... what ... topical, applicable to only that historical time, "It's not clear." Got it. "Common sense requires that we don't take this passage at face value." I understand. And I understand that to you if I don't agree with you I'm a misogynist. I think we're all clear here now.
Please note that I asked you a question, a chance to clarify your position. Since you've opted to slander me in return, you can feel free to stop responding (although for reasons unclear to me you've never opted to do). And you would do well to consider your own amazing double standards where "The Bible says not to consider an accusation against an elder without two or three witnesses but it's not clear and we won't do that" and "The Bible isn't a book of rules" but "The Bible says not to slander so you all are on God's bad side" is just fine.
If blogger.com had a way to block all correspondence with you (my email already does), I would enjoy the peace and quiet. It looks like the level of hatred you hold toward me and others you think are like me is so powerful that you just can't stop yourself. I will continue to pray for you, but I will once again also do my best to ignore your comments altogether.
David,
I get it. I was just trying to be comprehensive. That is, what I would recommend to the congregation, I'd also recommend to those outside it.
I'm amazed at how these things, like the "me too" movement get started. It's like there's someone pulling puppet strings. For decades women were making their way to the top on their back, and all of a sudden they all decide that they don't like that plan. But that they all decided at the same time is what puzzles me. One must wonder what is lying dormant at this very moment, waiting for the puppeteer to decide that it is unacceptable, and pull the string, and then whamo, a whole slew of new victims and victimizers are suddenly upon us. And then someone will scratch their head and say, how does this happen? And then they will be accused of being on the side of the victimizers simply because they wonder why all of a sudden the REST of the world suddenly became upset about an evil that they thought was evil all along.
You didn’t really expect an answer that made sense, did you?
Post a Comment