Clare’s blog, aka rantspace

Hollingworth has conceded he thinks the job of GG was wrong for him (see here).  Let’s hope it hasn’t taken him until now to come to that conclusion, because abuse victims could have told him that years, if not decades, ago. They could have told him that when he reassured victims he was “keeping a close eye” on how abuse complaints were being dealt with, but which later inaction he justified as “not being directly involved in”. They could have told him that when he refused to defrock a clergyman (a bishop by the time of the complaint) for underage sex, which he justified as the (14yo) victim’s instigation. They could have told him that when he appointed a clergyman against whom there were two known abuse allegations to a post on the diocesan sexual misconduct complaints committee.

And now Hollingworth tries to justify his failure based on some perceived, or unperceived (it’s not really clear which) separation of church and state. He obviously still doesn’t get it! The public disillusionment with him was nothing to do with any link or otherwise between church and state – it was simply and purely that he stood exposed as miserably inadequate in dealing with sexual immorality in his subordinates, and pitifully shameless in his attempts to wriggle out of responsibility for his poor judgement. Moreover, his supposed moral (religious) and ethical (social welfare degree) education had obviously done nothing to improve him.

Churchman or not, such qualities are not what we want to see in a GG.

Many people think that spiritual abuse only happens in cults, and if they belong to a mainstream denomination they complacently assume that it doesn’t happen at their church.  And I’ve certainly never known of or heard about a sermon being preached on it, even in more liberal churches.  As a result, the average person in the pews has no idea what constitutes spiritual abuse, and thus doesn’t recognise it when they see (or hear) it.   And, out of that ignorance, clergy abuse victims who proceed to a complaint find themselves at a loss as to how to deal with spiritual abuse when it’s used against them, as it all too often is.

One of the books recommended on my website is an excellent treatise on this subject – “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” (Johnson and vanVonderen).  Here is a quick checklist from it:
1. Power-posturing – does the leader assert their own authority?  eg. “I am the pastor of this flock”, with the implication (or overt assertion) that his word is final, or the opinion which everyone should heed most.  Sometimes this power-posturing is not actually expressed verbally, but if those who disagree with the minister are frozen out or otherwise victimised for doing so, that equates to the same thing.

2. Performance preoccupation – or “doing God’s will”.  If emphasis is placed primarily on what people do or don’t do, and particularly if this is equated with salvation or grace, this is performance preoccupation.  Obedience and submission are key words in this characteristic.  Johnson and vanVonderen make the point that obedience itself is not the problem, it’s keeping track of it that is, because that turns obedience to God into a means of earning spiritual brownie points.  Again, this can be unexpressed rather than overt, if shame is inherent in admitting to failing to measure up to a particular standard of obedience (for example, where doing “quiet times” [personal bible study and prayer] is used as a measure of a person’s holiness, and particularly if a set minimum amount of time is insisted upon.  Church attendance is another likely point).

3. Unspoken rules – often these contradict the bible, and because they’re unspoken you don’t find out about them until you break them.  Then you suffer the consequences of breaking them, whether that be open censure, or surreptitious condemnation, or ostracism.  For example, abuse victims who disclose their abuse get criticised for “not leaving it to God to deal with” or for “damaging the pastor’s ministry” or for “telling lies about the minister, who’s such a good man”.  In this case, the unspoken rules are a) don’t tell the truth if it confronts or threatens our security, b) don’t act as an instrument of God’s justice if it means asserting your own right to individual conscience, and c) if everything’s ok on the surface, then don’t tell about anything rotten underneath.
According to Johnson and vanVonderen, the most powerful unspoken rule is the “can’t talk” rule – which can be otherwise expressed as: “if you talk about the problem, you are the problem”.  They say that two typical responses to someone who exposes a problem are “everything was fine until you started stirring things up”, or (to sound super-spiritual) “you didn’t deal with it in a loving [or, mature Christian] way”.  The blame which ensues on exposure of a problem pressures the talker back into silence.  In a spiritually abusive dynamic, noticing and speaking about problems is seen as disloyal, unsubmissive, divisive and a challenge to authority (or the system), and the talker is characterised as ungodly, vengeful, a liar, or being used by Satan.

4. Lack of balance – that is, an unbalanced approach to living a Christian life.  Johnson and vanVonderen say this shows itself in either of two extremes: extreme objectivism, where the authority of the biblical text and/or theological education is elevated to the exclusion of valid subjective experience (they neatly summarise this as the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Bible!); or extreme subjectivism, where truth is given to the members solely or primarily through “revelations” or “God’s word to me for you”.  Both are used by those in authority in a church (and those who would like to be in authority!) to manipulate and control.

Other contenders for spritually abusive characteristics:
1) Loyalty to the group/minister is equated to loyalty to God.
2) Using biblical texts to assert control.
3) Pressure to convert – for example “we don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow, and it’s important you make a decision NOW”.
4) Guilt giving – that is, intimidation to give, such as “giving less than X is withholding yourself from God [or, stealing from God, according to Malachi 3:8]“.
5) Inherited leadership – such as the minister’s son becoming the youth leader, without any form of selection process.  This, in itself, is not abusive, but it certainly allows for the perpetuation of abuse by keeping the already-established patterns of behaviour in-house.  Unfortunately, in a congregation that is being systematically spiritually abused, such inherited leadership is often celebrated rather than questioned.

Abuse may be defined as “using power to control another’s actions”.  Physical abuse uses physical power, sexual abuse uses sexual power, financial abuse uses financial power, and spiritual abuse uses spiritual power.  Any time that someone is pressured into doing something by the use of religious doctrine or faith community pressure, they are being spiritually abused.

That’s a pretty broad topic heading, but I want to focus on the manipulation involved in “conversions”.  Let’s look at two scenarios:
1) Newcomers attending church on Sundays, and how the congregation behaves towards them.
2) Individual church members “witnessing” to friends/acquaintances/etc.

Scenario 1
Doubtless most church members, or former church members, will recognise the “we must be more loving [or welcoming] to visitors” angst.  But my question is, what is the purpose behind this?  In Christian doctrine, love is supposedly one of the “fruits of the Spirit”, and therefore something which grows as a result of a relationship with god.  So human efforts to act more lovingly can only – in that understanding – be seen as human attempts to create something artificially that isn’t happening naturally.  Thus the reason for being more loving/welcoming to visitors is not about being more godly, but about appearing to be more godly in order to not push visitors away, and keep them coming along to church.  Why would Christians want this?  Two reasons that I’ve heard being subtly or overtly expressed: a) because we want them to feel like we’re their friends, and b) because we want them to keep hearing “the word of god”.  And it is in the combination of these that lies the manipulation.  The more frequently a person hears a code of belief, the more likely they are to espouse it.  That’s the basic principle behind brainwashing, and it’s not limited to brainwashing practices.  It’s explicit in the Catholic Church’s boast “give me a child till they’re 7, and I’ll give you the man”.  It’s the basis of parental concern over their children being taught at school by a gay teacher.  It’s a clearly understood principle in all forms of teaching.  And when you add to that the development of a social network (in creating friendships, that is), you add pressure.  It becomes a situation (unspoken, usually) of “believe along with us, or we will not be able to maintain as deep or close a friendship with you”.  That’s manipulation through subtle emotional blackmail.

Here’s the test question as to whether a parish’s niceness is manipulation or not:  If someone comes along, and enjoys the parish’s niceness to them, but is quite outspokenly a non-believer and continues to be so, will the parish treat them just as nicely, and just as welcomingly and inclusively, for the rest of their life there?

Scenario 2
Again, church members or former church members will readily recognise the approach along the lines of  “so-and-so is having a tough time right now.  That’s just when they most need god, and so this is a god-sent opportunity to witness to them”.  And yet no-one seems to question whether this is an appropriate time to attempt to convert them.  It’s common knowledge that times of crisis are not when anyone should be making life-changing decisions, yet that’s exactly the time that Christians think most opportune for conversion.  Why?  Because it is!  When someone is vulnerable – through stress, or grief, or trauma of some kind – is exactly when they’re most likely to make a decision without fully grasping the implications.  Salesmen know that, and use it to their advantage.  Christians should not!

Here’s the test question for this scenario: in doing things for the distressed person, is the Christian doing or saying anything that carries the implication of wanting the distressed person to change their beliefs?

.

And here’s a thought for two possible overall tests as to whether there’s manipulation going on: 1) is the original thing that attracts someone to whatever-it-is the thing they ultimately have to agree to in order to belong/comply?  and 2) is the initial approach one of offering something (for free, or at a bargain price) followed by having to sign up for something you’ll pay for (in money, time, or other “currency”)?

Manipulation is bad wherever you come across it.  Manipulation by supposedly loving people is worse.  And manipulation that carries a threat of eternal damnation if you don’t comply is just plain evil.

If churches really wanted to deal properly with sexual abuse by clergy and church workers, they could issue the following compulsory directives:
1. All complainants must be advised to seek police opinion on whether any part of their abuse constitutes a crime (it is neither appropriate for a church nor within the church’s areas of speciality to be providing an opinion on criminality). If police proceedings are instigated, the perpetrator should be immediately stood down for the duration of the investigation, and the parish notified as to the reason.
2. No perpetrator can be moved to another parish as part of handling the complaint.
3. No church moneys may be used to support perpetrators defending themselves against accusations of sexual abuse.
4. Victims must be offered open-ended therapy by therapists of their choice, paid for by the church until the therapist and victim deem treatment is completed.
5. All credible accusations must be made public and the perpetrators defrocked.
6. All perpetrators convicted of a crime of violence (including sexual abuse) should be immediately defrocked.
7. No perpetrator may be allowed to resign from the church during (or as a way of avoiding) an investigation into an allegation of misconduct. If the perpetrator has already resigned at the time of complaint, the investigation must still proceed, and the findings be notified to the appropriate body under Working With Children legislation.

Obviously, the directives would need to be issued by authoritative bodies, which vary according to denominational structures. In the Catholic Church, for instance, the Pope could do it. In the Anglican Church, each diocesan synod would be the relevant body. In denominations with congregational structures, each congregation would have to do it. But whoever decrees it, and however it is done, such decrees would show that they are really serious about eradicating abuse within their ranks, and providing care and concern for victims.

Any suggestions for additions to the list?

Churches often stand on the principles of “natural justice” when explaining to a clergy abuse victim why their complaint must be handled a certain way. And since victims are often seeking justice, they end up confused about why applying natural justice principles doesn’t seem to achieve justice. A closer look at the Uniting Church’s explanation makes it abundantly clear (the UCA does, at least, explain it in their policy – most other churches don’t!).

According to the UCA policy definitions:
“Natural Justice refers to a specific group of common law principles that are designed to ensure that a person is given a fair hearing before a decision is made that might adversely affect their livelihood or status. In general natural justice refers to two broad principles:
1. An adequate opportunity must be given to a person to present their case to the complaint committee before a decision is reached that might adversely affect them. This includes providing reasonable notice and time to prepare and sufficient information about the matter to be decided to enable the person to prepare their case.
2. The complaint committee must be free from bias or the appearance of bias. This requirement means that a person who has a close personal or family relationship with any of the parties is precluded from being a member of the complaint committee. It also precludes a person who might have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the decision from being involved in the decision.”

And the clue to why it isn’t justice for victims is in the opening sentence – “principles that are designed to ensure that a person is given a fair hearing before a decision is made that might adversely affect their livelihood or status”. In other words, the principles expressed (adequate opportunity to present their case, and freedom from bias in the complaint committee) apply to the perpetrator, whose livelihood and/or status are under threat, but not to the victim.

So what often happens, and the occurrence of which is actually allowed in the policy, is that perpetrators are given full details about the complaint against them, whereas victims are not given details of the perpetrator’s defence and a chance to rebut lies that might be included. Given that most victims prepare their statement as a personal account, without the aid of a lawyer, whereas perpetrators often seek legal advice to prepare their defence, and victims are not warned of this discrepancy before submitting their complaint, this is not a level playing field. And secondly, although the complaint committee members may not have a close personal or family relationship with the perpetrator, the collegiality within the clergy profession makes it likely that the complaints committee includes people with far greater connection to the perpetrator (and the perpetrator’s position) than to the victim.

For a victim seeking justice, the principles of natural justice end up being either unnatural, or unjust, or both.

Apart from the quoted amounts spent on WYD by the church ($150M) and the NSW govt ($86M+), now we find that the Federal govt (ie. John Howard, just before the last election) threw in another $22M, which is being challenged as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court (see here). And new legislation especially to “protect the Catholic pilgrims from harassment” is in force. Has anyone stopped to wonder just what sort of political manoeuvering must have gone on behind the scenes to prompt all this? And Pell says the church didn’t ask for any of it!!! Yeah right!

Not a title that narrows it down very much, really, when we’re talking about the church! But in this case, it’s about the arrogance of conservative members of the worldwide Anglican communion (about 1000 in total, a quarter of whom are bishops), who are at present in a meeting in Jerusalem which will probably see them deciding to boycott the next Lambeth Conference. There’s a nice article in The Age which more than adequately demonstrates their arrogance. Here are some excerpts, along with explanations of the arrogance for those who aren’t attuned to seeing it:

1) Peter Jensen asserts that the conference members are “the true keepers of the authority of the Bible.”
Arrogance: To suggest that just because they think (oops, sorry – know) their interpretation of the bible is right, that they are somehow “the true keepers” of its authority! Surely it’s God who is the keeper of scriptural authority??

2) Jensen also says “the Christian church has a constitution which is the Bible…it’s as if you’re a member of a [club] and you decide to break the rules…That’s understandable to the man on the street, surely.”
Arrogance no.1: Jensen and his conservative cohorts, again, are asserting that the rules they decide are the right ones actually are.
Arrogance no.2: [Unspoken translation] “Even the idiots who are just ordinary people can understand this when I’ve explained it so clearly, can’t they?”

3) Jensen said the church would not reunite until the current divisions over human sexuality were resolved. “There is no reason why we should leave the Anglican Church because we have not shifted. It is others who have shifted.”
Arrogance no.1: Knowing that because they’ve believed it for years, they must be right. (Supporters of slavery justified that from the bible, too, until Wilberforce and others worked on persuading them to a new viewpoint, which they finally found more biblical.)
Arrogance no.2: The assertion that if unity is to be restored, it’s “those others” who will have to return to the conservatives, rather than finding ways to compromise or move forward amicably. (Even given their assumption that they’re right, it’s still not the way forward in a contentious issue to just keep telling the other party that they’re wrong and they have to change!)

This all leads to another blog entry (as yet unwritten) about the need (or not) for definition of who’s “in the club” and who isn’t, and – with regard to the church – who makes the definition and how.

There are two types of sceptics, I’ve decided. There are those who debunk claims of the “miraculous” by finding and offering a rational scientific explanation, and there are those who debunk any claim they don’t understand and/or that hasn’t been proven. And many of those in the second category will describe themselves as scientists, but I contend that this is a travesty of the fundamental nature of science. True scientists ought to be a) seeking knowledge (which is, after all, what the word science means), and b) acknowledging that there are things which science hasn’t yet been able to find an explanation for – which doesn’t mean there isn’t one! In other words, a true scientist doesn’t say “I can’t prove it, therefore it isn’t true”, but rather “I can’t explain it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true; research is necessary to find out enough to be able to decide”.

How does this relate to clergy abuse or the church? Well actually, I’ve been following the news articles about Pier Giorgio Frassati (deceased) being flown out to Sydney for WYD, and noticed a claim that when they exhumed him as part of the preparation for sainthood, his body was uncorrupted. A little internet digging on the conditions of his burial turned up not only what I was looking for (entombed in the family vault), but other claims of incorruptibility among “the saints” of the church. And on another site discussing it (comprising, let it be said, one obviously devout Catholic and many sceptics), I found a link to an article in The Skeptic journal (p.35) about the whole issue. Now having previously been exposed to those who run The Skeptic, I think many of them are so keen on being sceptical that they lose sight of being rational, so I was a little reluctant to follow that link. However, it was worth reading as a quite rational counter-argument to the devout and unquestioning Catholic on the discussion site.

And that was where I began thinking about what characterises scepticism, and how it overlaps or conflicts with a truly scientific enquiring mindset. Naturally, of course, the whole thing also bore out what I have previously argued about faith: that blind belief in what the church says is a recipe for disaster. Or at least for being thought an idiot!
.

Oh, and by the way – if you had any thoughts of visiting Frassati’s dead body as it lies in state in St Mary’s Cathedral during WYD, to check out the claims of incorruptibility, don’t bother. The coffin will be closed.

It has been posited that, given the existence of god is unprovable, religious belief is caused by our own internal needs – suggestions often made are a fear of death, or an inchoate longing for something outside/beyond ourselves and our known world. But I’d like to run with a proposition made in a recent Mensa magazine (if only I could find the damn thing I could tell you by whom, and in which issue!). And that is, that belief in god is driven by a need for control. Control of ourselves (doctrine of heaven and hell gives motivation, and defined moral code gives method), but also control of events around us (propitiate things/people more powerful than us, and they hopefully won’t do bad stuff to us) and people (an established hierarchy allows control of lower ranking people by higher ranking people).

And this argument makes quite a lot of sense to me, particularly given the illogicality of some christian doctrines. Take, for instance, the idea of justifying why bad things happen to christians. If the world is purely random, there’s no dilemma, of course. But if there’s a loving all-powerful god in control, then there IS a dilemma. A god who requires that we do good automatically implies that those who do good are looked on more favourably – otherwise why bother? But a god who then allows those who do good to suffer, and has the power to intervene but chooses not to, is fundamentally inconsistent. A common explanation for that inconsistency is that we don’t understand all god’s purposes, and if we did, we’d understand why the bad thing (anything you nominate) happened. But that argument presupposes that we don’t really understand what defines love. That if only we saw the reason for something, it would make us say “oh, ok – I thought that was a non-loving action; now I see it’s actually loving”. Yet being able to recognise loving actions from non-loving is at the heart of christianity. We cannot be expected to act in a loving way (as is required by christianity) without understanding what “a loving way” is. And it doesn’t make sense to suspend that understanding when analysing our concept of god.

Take an example suggested by my uncle in a recent conversation. Remember Sophie Delezio – the little girl severely burned by a car crashing into her preschool, and later knocked flying on a pedestrian crossing? If Superman had been flying overhead when she was about to cross that road (the second incident), it seems highly likely that he would have swooped down and caught her up out of the way, thereby preventing a further round of suffering and operations for her. (We’re assuming, here, that Superman has the power to see all that would come out of either his action or non-action.) Our instinctive grasp of what would be a loving action is a protective action. Christians would probably say “ah yes, but god knows everything; he may have seen that it would be good for her to suffer”. Come again?? I thought god didn’t want us to suffer? Oh, that’s right – I forgot! Some good may come out of our suffering, such as helping others. Which is, of course, assuming that god is incapable of bring about good without making us suffer. A strange limitation for a supposedly limitless god!

Or another example – a friend of my uncle (the same one as previously mentioned) who was in a car accident, who now thanks god for [His]* protection of her, because her spinning car had a lucky escape from hitting a pole that probably would have killed her. But my reaction is – what sort of half-assed protection is that anyway? If god was out to protect her, why not prevent the accident entirely?

It seems to me that the only justification for believing in a god who can totally protect us but doesn’t, is in order to feel some measure of control over events – either directly or vicariously. And if someone wants to believe that, then they’ll find every possible logical or illogical argument to back it up when it’s called into question.

But getting back to the idea that christianity is intrinsically about control… Establishing moral codes is about control of society. Prayer is about control of events. Obedience to god is about control (through minimisation) of bad stuff happening. Conversion is about control of what our life after death will be. And church hierarchy is about control of those within the system.

And if this is so, then what alarms me is that it may be – by definition – impossible to eradicate exertion of control in church systems. And if you can’t eradicate control, you can’t eradicate abuse.

.

*Footnote: I don’t believe in a male god, nor do I ascribe a capital letter to god’s pronoun; however, I do use such a term in the context of referring to the conservative christian construct of god.

Further note: The friend of my uncle, mentioned in the fourth last paragraph as being thankful for god’s protection in a car accident, is now – about 2 years later – suffering from a fatal brain tumour.  Personally, I would rather have gone quickly in the car accident!  And her church is praying for their own sinfulness because “the devil is attacking them”.  In other words, in order to justify a doctrine of a protective god, bad happenings have to be ascribed to either our own badness or some evil external agency.  See how a doctrine of an all-powerful, all-loving god leads to a) the necessity of a devil, and b) self-criticism?

Kevin Rudd has back-pedalled on his calls for federal agencies to investigate the Brethrens (see story). Now this may be merely a tactical move, allowing him to gather forces to promote such an enquiry at a better time. But it may equally be that Rudd has discovered that Brethren influence is strong enough to stop him proceeding. And such behind-the-scenes, clout-wielding political manoeuvres are not unusual. Catholics and Anglicans both do it too (how else do you think an archbishop got to be GG??). But people don’t raise an eyebrow at that, because they’ve been around a long time and their beliefs are well-known. In other words, they’re “safe”.

People get scared about the thought of weirdos wielding power, and with good reason. But just because a religion (or a denomination) has been around a long time doesn’t make their high priests any less prone to misuse of power. Or, indeed, any less weird!

And it’s no good sitting back and thinking the government will come to our rescue, because they’re often subject to the power themselves. It takes ordinary people – mostly outside the church – to see, and keep calling attention to, the failings of churches.

***
<sigh> I said this much better at my first attempt, but that version disappeared into the ether. Don’t you hate that?