Protecting the Church’s Reputation…?

It occurs to me that Jesus really didn’t seem to care much about protecting the reputation of the synagogues (proto-churches) or the religious leaders of his day. He pointed out their crooked financial practices, their hypocritical way of dressing, their ridiculous prayers, their pretentious religious paraphernalia, and their hard-hearted domestic lives. He called the temple a “den of thieves,” and the religious leaders “snakes,” “brood of vipers,” “sons of satan,” “white-washed tombs,” and “destined for hell.” Phew.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, were far more careful. They had a lot of private meetings about Jesus, but never called him out publicly. They were very tactful. They just asked him a lot of questions. They did not want to cause trouble or be seen as taking sides. They were very proper and correct. They would not have wanted to cause disrepute or lose esteem in the eyes of the public. They tried to deal with their problems internally, and probably would have killed Jesus secretly, if they could.

…and yet the Bible says, “The name of God is blasphemed among the unbelievers on account of you!” Whereas Jesus said, “I honour my father.”

In this day and age, I don’t think we are fooling anybody. With media shining an unfavourable light behind the doors of the church, sex scandals rocking the evening news, and situations close to home sending ripples through our communities…everyone knows that there are real people with real problems in the church.

…so tell me, what is more honourable? What brings more disrepute on the church, and glorifies God best? Being silent about abuse, sin, hypocrisy, legalism, and failures in the church, “to protect our testimony”? Or calling them out? And daring to point the way towards something better?

What do you think? What would Jesus do?

Abusers & Victims in the Church

It seems to me that the church has a much better history of protecting abusers than it does in protecting victims.

Among other things, this comes down to the fundamental nature of our religion. Showing grace, forgiveness, and “one more chance” to sinners is at the core of the Christian message. But verses about protecting the vulnerable from attack, leaving a wicked person, refusing to forgive an unrepentant sinner, and calling attention to sin — while they exist — are not front and centre in the Gospel story. It takes significant work and thought to integrate these ideas into our theology. That work is rarely done.

In the mean time, victims are made to feel that they have no voice, that they aught to just put up with abuse, (“submit”) and shamed if they end abusives relationships. If they bring up the debilitating pain of trauma, the PTSD, the flashbacks, the triggers, the anger, the confusion, the intense shame, the loss of joy, the hyper-vigilance, the loss of hope, the lost sense of sense of security, and the loss of hope in humanity that comes with trauma, they are often told to “pray through it,” and forgive. If they find forgiveness hard (especially if “forgiveness” seems to mean reconciling with the abuser, and not holding them accountable for their actions, and being placed in harms way all over again), they are at risk of being called “bitter,” even a dangerous “root of bitterness” to infect others. 😳

Our commitment to show grace and love to everyone is commendable.

But many times, our support of survivors could use some work.

[I see you. I care. Keep holding on. You’ll get through this. One day at a time. ❤️]