Forgiveness and the Pederast: A Flaw in the Theology of Forgiveness?

Last week, the sports world was rocked by the story of allegations of sexual abuse made against a Penn State assistant football coach that resulted in the firing of that coach's superior, Head Coach Joe Paterno.

Public opinion seems to be pretty much unanimous about the inappropriateness of pederasty in this case.

The public still seems divided over the question of how one should deal with a coworker or close friend when such behavior is suspected. Some think that the Head Coach should have called the police when he first heard of the accusations, and others feel that it was sufficient that he reported the accusations up the chain of command.

When it comes to sexual acts with children, the secular world is full of talk about judgement, protection of others, and punishment.
The Church however, tends to view the individual through the lens of forgiveness, and this is where the Church's vision gets blurry.

It was the scandals involving the Roman Catholic Church that most recently raised public awareness of the question of reporting, the problem of passing the buck, and the problem of allowing the pederast to persist in their chosen "ministry."
From reading the Epistles, it seems that sexual immorality has always been a problem in the Church. Ever wonder why, in two thousand years, the problem has not been solved (except perhaps by redefining what is "immoral")?

Take the Episcopal church for example. Fr. Bede Parry was a Catholic monk and was removed from his monastery because of multiple acts of sexual misconduct. Score one point for judgement to the Catholic Church. But were those accusations passed on to the police? Fr. Parry applies for work in the Episcopal church and is accepted by the then Bishop of Nevada, +Katherine Jefferts Schori. It is widely believed that Fr. Parry's sordid past and proclivities were known since after his acceptance into the church, he was supposed to be placed away from temptation in his new position in TEc, but that word seemed to have been forgotten somewhere along the way. Fortunately, we have no further accusations against Fr. Parry from his time ministering in TEc. The case in a nutshell can be found at the Anglican Curmudgeon's blog.

Was the acceptance and placement of a potentially dangerous priest into the Episcopal fold an act of Christian forgiveness? Or was it an act of stupidity?

Another factor in the equation is a fear of rendering "judgement" among modern day Christians. We can all agree about judging the pederast as a danger, but when we fail to act appropriately upon that judgement we put others at risk. Of course, there is risk involved when speaking up and trying to act against threats to the congregation. I remember what happened to Beverly Moore back in 2005. She was placed among the excommunicated for reporting her concerns about a sexual predator in the church (my comments and links here).

Maybe there is a also broken theology of Christian judgement, but I suspect a flawed theology of forgiveness is at work in the passing along of problematic priests to unsuspecting congregations.

Here is how it works:
Priest A (a female) has a problem, let's say a dalliance with a parishioner.
Bishop A hears about it and calls Priest A in to talk about it.
Priest A confesses and pledges to never do it again.
Bishop A sends Priest A to a shrink and appoints a spiritual counsellor.
Bishop A gets reports from the shrink that Priest A might do it again.
Priest A does well for a few years and applies for a position in another diocese under Bishop B.
Bishop A reports to Bishop B the earlier issue with Priest A.
Bishop B sits down with Priest A and is convinced of Priest A's repentance.
The flawed theology of forgiveness then enters into the equation and Bishop B hires Priest A.
Priest A has a problem, another dalliance with a parishioner...
Another parish wrecked,
And the cycle repeats...

A flawed theology of forgiveness assumes that the loving response to the individual sinner is to accept them as truly repentant and restored. The flaw may stem from a belief in the inherent goodness of people, a rejection of the Doctrine of the Fall. This leads to a reluctance to pass judgement and to speak the sentence, "You're fired.," or, in the case of Fr. Parry, "We cannot hire you."  A person who recognizes their fallen state should be able to accept such a sentence, but many will take it as a sign of rejection and lose faith. Such a time is a spiritual hinge point that must be handled properly. The easy way is to hire the offender with provisions, the harder way is the "tough love" approach.

A proper theology of forgiveness must include the need to protect others from the risk of the individual falling back into sin as well as the restoration of the individual to Christ. I feel that, under a proper theology (although I am not the one to work out the details), certain individuals will not be permitted to participate in active ministry. Is that denying them their rights?

The Church's unwillingness to protect the body of Christ and society as a whole leaves the responsibility of protection to be acted upon by somebody else. Since the Church can't act, the task has been passed to the civil authority, and as a result of passing along this responsibility, the authority of the Church is weakened further.

+Katherine Jefferts Schori should have refused to accept Fr. Bede Parry into ordained ministry in the Episcopal church. That would have been consistent with the existing Canons of the Episcopal church (see the Anglican Curmudgeon's most recent analysis here). The fact that she did not follow the Canons of the church and put innocent children in peril is inexcusable. There are procedures in place for dealing with clergy who violate the Canons of the Episcopal church. Will Bishop Henderson give her a pass, or will he act?

My bet is that the flawed theology of forgiveness will be invoked, and Bishop Henderson will then probably just ask her to write a report for him on 1 Corinthians Chapter 5.

A Way Out (Of Reading 1 Corinthians)

Today at ECOOS, in place of a sermon, there was a presentation by the youth about an upcoming mission trip to that den of iniquity, Washington D.C. When asked "Why Washington D.C.?," I kept waiting for someone to say "To clean up Congress!" Now that would be a real mission trip. This presentation by the youth was especially convenient because it gave everyone a way out of studying the Epistle for today, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13. This passage might be a test for some liberal minds. Here is the reading, and after you finish, there will be a short quiz.

Warnings from Israel’s History

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.
Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.’ We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put the LORD to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall. No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.

Test Questions:

1. Why are all those Bible stories important?

a. Because they are entertaining.
b. Because they help sell Bibles.
c. They are warnings from the past.
d. Some of them make great movies.

2. What does Paul mean when he says our ancestors were all under the cloud?

a. Those ancient people were not as wise as we are.
b. They were in a bad mood, and were mean and nasty people.
c. Exodus 13:21-22
d. My ancestors smoked grass?

3. What does he mean, God was not pleased with most of them?

a. Paul got it wrong, for we know that God always is pleased with us.
b. Maybe a few of them were naughty, but not most.
c. Numbers 11:1-3, Numbers 16:20-35
d. Paul can't speak for God.

4. What is wrong with sitting down to eat and drink and then getting up to play?

a. Nothing.
b. He meant you should not go swimming after eating and drinking.
c. He was quoting Exodus 32:6, and how they engaged in revelry after making a golden calf.
d. You should always ask permission before getting up from the table.

5. What does he mean by, "We must not indulge in sexual immorality?"

a. He was only referring to sex with Moabite women.
b. Paul did not know about committed homosexual relationships.
c. There are moral absolutes contained in the scripture that we should learn.
d. Paul was a prude.

6. Who were those 23,000 that fell?

a. Another old myth.
b. Paul proves the Bible is in error because it was 24,000 in my book.
c. Numbers 25:1-9
d. God didn't do it, it was just a venereal disease that we can cure now.

7. What does he mean when he writes about complaints and the destroyer?

a. He is using threats to turn us into sexually repressed people.
b. He is wrong again. We have every right to complain about these rules.
c. There he refers back to Numbers 11:1 again.
d. This whole test is an injustice, the author should be destroyed.

8. When he says these things are "examples" and "were written down to instruct us," should we listen?

a. No, he was talking to people of his time.
b. No, we have moved beyond this type of instruction.
c. Yes, time after time the people of God forget His Word and suffer the consequences.
d. No, none of this stuff will help me get through college.

9. What does he mean by "the ends of the ages have come?"

a. Another of Paul's mistakes. Proven wrong by the fact that we are here.
b. Another of Paul's mistakes. He should have put "end of the age has come."
c. Death has been conquered, our Saviour has come.
d. Ages have split ends.

10. What is that warning about standing and falling all about?

a. He is hung up on sin.
b. He had seen more falling drunks than standing ones.
c. We are just as sinful as those who were killed in the wilderness.
d. Episcopal calisthenics?

11. What does he mean when he writes about common testing?

a. Always connect the ground wire first.
b. He was wrong because God does not test us.
c. All the temptations you encounter have been encountered before, read your Bible.
d. They had to take SATs back then too.

12. What does he mean by "God won't test you beyond your strength?"

a. If God tests us, then he is an "easy A."
b. I can take Him; Bring Him on!
c. God knows our strengths and weaknesses, He knows that we can pass tests such as those of sexual morality.
d. He knows that I have been using that BowFlex he gave me for Christmas.

13. What does he mean by "he will also provide the way out?"

a. He will give us a passing grade just for showing up.
b. He will look the other way when I cheat.
c. He has given us the way out through Christ's death and resurrection.
d. I can walk away from the test if I don't like it.

Correct answers: "c" to all questions.

Somewhere out there in the blogiverse, there has to be a liberal sermon that was delivered this week on 1 Corinthians during which some priestly type explains how it should be ignored. I suspect that many took the easy way out, and simply walked away from the test without mentioning this Epistle.

That sounds like a test for a search engine.

Now just how do I find my way out of here?

That Southern Obsession With Sin

I obsessed a little more than usual over this post, so it might be a little longer than average.

At this past Sunday's 10:30 service Fr. Foss preached about Baptism. There was a Baptism that day, and the readings from Acts and Mark both related to Baptism. Charlie took as his theme the difference between the "baptism of John" and Baptizing in the name of Jesus.
Acts 19:1-7 reads,

"While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They replied, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied— altogether there were about twelve of them."

Compare with Mark 1:7-11,

He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’

I agree, there is a difference. But agreement ceased when once again we were treated to Charlie's view that in the South there is too much emphasis on "Sin." Baptism should be about the positives. Yes, when Paul did the baptism in Acts, it opened the door for the Spirit to come in and transform those twelve (or so) in Ephesus, but this simple pew person can't help but feel that there is still a need for the cleansing of Sin process, and you can't remove it. Our tradition speaks to this. After all, look at the language about sin we use in the liturgy of Holy Baptism (1979 BCP),

Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.

Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.

Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.

And this,

Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.

And this,

Leader Deliver them, O Lord, from the way of sin and death.
People Lord, hear our prayer.

And here,

Now sanctify this water, we pray you, by the power of your
Holy Spirit, that those who here are cleansed from sin and
born again may continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus
Christ our Savior.

And here,

Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the
forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of
grace.

I am not sure that is "obsessing" with Sin, and I was wondering how to reconcile the three baptisms, John's, Jesus', and the Ephesians' when Kendall Harmon at T19 pointed out this nice, positive approach to a Baptism homily by Benedict XVI on Jan. 11, 2009. Here is an excerpt:

"John's baptism of repentance is certainly quite different from the one Jesus will institute. Nevertheless, at that moment, the mission of the Redeemer is glimpsed, for, when he comes out of the water, a voice from heaven resounds and the Holy Spirit descends upon him (cf. Mark 1:10). The heavenly Father proclaims him his beloved Son and publicly bears witness to his universal mission of salvation, which he will fully accomplish with his death on the cross and his resurrection. Only then, with the Paschal sacrifice, will the remission of sins be made universal and total.

With baptism we do not merely immerse ourselves in the waters of the Jordan to proclaim our commitment to conversion, but there is poured out upon us the redemptive blood of Christ that purifies us and saves us. It is the beloved Son of the Father, in whom he is well pleased, which reacquires for us the dignity and the joy of calling ourselves and truly being 'children' of God."

I guess the Ephesians, like us, might be considered "twice baptized." Washed by the water and then by the blood of Christ. Once for our renunciation of sins and once for Christ's saving remission of Sin.

I only wish that my sins, after having been washed away, would have stayed away after my baptism. I also wish that being so filled with the Spirit, I will sin no more in my new life in Christ. Unfortunately, us ordinary pewsters have to scrub behind our ears over and over again, hence all that "negative" language in the liturgy, and hence that old Southern "obsession with sin." Is that a bad thing?

(Copyright Gospel Communications International, Inc - www.reverendfun.com)