In the space of a few weeks, in November 2024, there were (again) important developments in the area of abuse within various churches. First of all, of course, the announced resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby, which affected me extra because it concerns “my” church. The reason was the so-called Makin report.
But also in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany, around the same time, an attempt was made to draw conclusions from a report on abuse scandals. The report was published in January and concerned at least 1,259 scandals (with at least 2,225 victims) between 1945 and 2020. The Bishop of Hanover, Ralf Meister, was under fire from various sides, but did not resign yet.
And then I read that the case about former Theologian of the Fatherland Thomas Quartier had not been handled properly . He had only been transferred to an abbey in Belgium in 2020.
Naming and fighting failures
Anyone who has done even the slightest bit of research into “safeguarding” quickly saw the similarities: underestimation of the problem, trivialization, lack of transparency, postponement or cancellation of reports, biased investigations, protection of colleagues, etc. The first thing that is always done when the problems can no longer be denied is to identify them and take a number of measures, such as a reporting center, screenings and more supervision.
The article on the Evangelische Kirche does, however, give a few hints about what I think is even more important, because it deals with causes instead of consequences and measures. The fact that so little attention is paid to causes may be because dealing with the consequences is already enough work, because people are seen as “simply sinful” and because people tend to always blame others. Because of the latter, an important cause is often forgotten.
What was damaged
The article mentions the word “trust” several times, but almost always in the context of a consequence rather than a cause. For example, the title immediately mentions “damaged trust,” in response to a letter from 200 officials suing the church leadership. I have two problems with that. First, it suggests victimhood of these officials, which distracts from the real victims, even when the complaint is filed on behalf of church members, ex-members, and no longer interested outsiders.
Secondly, there is something to be said for the fact that it was only right that this trust was damaged. Everything shows that there was often too much mutual trust, and that this was precisely one of the reasons that abuse often did not come out. That excess of trust existed not only between managers, but also between various types of church officials and between clergy and so-called laymen.
In a sense, speaking about damaged trust is therefore a rather egoistic and distracting phenomenon. I understand that the work of church officials (I am one myself) does not become easier due to the negligence of the church leadership, but apparently we have also accepted for too long that the leadership put itself on a pedestal and we have not controlled it enough. Moreover, scandals also occur among officials. In fact, they often arise there and then the church leadership suffers from it.
Trust as a goal
But in both cases, just like in politics, there is very soon talk about measures that should restore confidence. When people become disappointed in a political party, such an attempt often works (at least for me) on the funny bone. Often it is more about polishing up one’s own image and persuading voters than about real change. Should we just trust (there’s that word again) that the church is more sincere and will therefore also have more real success? So far I unfortunately see no signs of that. Which is not to say that things are necessarily worse in our churches. After all, outside of them, for example in show business or the world of sports, things are often just as intense.
But the question that occurred to me was: should we actually use (the restoration of) trust as a goal? Isn’t trust actually more of a side effect when we do good and refrain from evil? And shouldn’t the latter be our goal, together with a healthy dose of distrust? It is often argued that we “must” be able to trust each other. But reality does not change because we think it should. I have already shown above that trust could well be part of the problem.
Near-miss diagnoses
In my opinion, the article about the Evangelische Kirche does not express this point clearly enough. After the publication of the shocking report in January of this year, a number of measures were taken, but the question is what the church is going to do about (1) an overly rosy self-image, (2) a compulsive desire for harmony and (3) the central function of the pastor and the administration. These would be typical Protestant factors that facilitate abuse.
Although these factors receive too little attention (despite the fact that they are also recognizable in non-Protestant churches), I think they are still only symptoms. The rosy self-image is created, for example, by a lack of transparency and “having to trust” each other. The desire for harmony is, in my opinion, a result of wrong assumptions, namely about the nature of the church and what “forgiveness” exactly entails. More about that in a moment.
And finally, the central function of the minister or priest has not become so central by itself, but by too much trust that this function encompasses just about everything. When important responsibilities are no longer or not sufficiently shared, then the priesthood of all believers no longer has any substance. Paradoxically, too much trust lays the foundation for a later lack of trust.
The author of the article, professor Jacob Joussen, also has little confidence (!) that the church can free itself from this swamp independently. “ The church cannot handle abuse cases itself. It must leave that in external hands ”. The problem is of course that it must first be able to recognize an abuse case as such, and be modest enough to hand it over. Perhaps that is why Kirsten Fehrs, bishop of Hamburg, states: “ we must develop a greater sensitivity to what boundaries and boundary violations are ”. But greater sensitivity will not work either if, at the same time, out of respect for or excessive trust in colleagues, one does not first inform oneself of the facts. Because that was what went wrong in the case of Justin Welby, not that he was an insensitive person.
Trust in the New Testament
In both Hebrew and Greek, there is a huge overlap between the concepts of faith and trust. We often think of faith as being about doctrines, but it is much more about trust. Often, “trust” is even a better translation than “faith.” However, this faith/trust is almost always directed toward God and not toward man, not even toward a fellow believer.
I have not been able to find any indication or text that says that we should have unlimited or even great trust in each other. What we do see is that we must be faithful to God and to each other on our part. It is always about our reliability and not about the trust we have in the other. Of course we may have confidence in the usefulness of being church together, otherwise we might as well stop. But that is not the same as trust in all individual fellow believers. Let us consider some relevant texts.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:11 – “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.” This call implies that we can trust that encouragement and edification will generally benefit the church. But it does not say that it will always have results. Also note that it speaks of edification. This implies that we have something to teach one another, perhaps also in the moral area. We should not assume that everything will go well for someone who has come to faith from that moment on. Nowadays we are sometimes too afraid to get involved, especially when it concerns colleagues or managers. In the past there were even church buildings that were called “the admonition.” Today we seem to have to reinvent this, just like church discipline.
- Hebrews 10:24-25 – “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another…”
This is very different from assuming that everyone has enough love and will therefore do good. It always amazes me how even churches that assume the inherent evil of man can still have blind faith in their own people. Often they emphasize outward characteristics that might indicate that a person is okay. - Galatians 6:2 – “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
This emphasizes the responsibility believers have for one another. Trust is also required when I make my burdens known to another so that he can help me bear them. But that does not mean I can trust the other person to do the same. The other person may not even see the temptation to which he is exposed as a burden to be shared. In this regard, it is unfortunate that confession plays almost no role in the church anymore. Self-examination and working on problems together seem to have become largely optional. - Philippians 2:3-4 – “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility let each esteem others better than himself. Let each look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” But this text does not say that we can always assume that the other person is acting in good faith. It is only a warning not to judge others out of a sense of one’s own superiority, without having delved into “his own interests” and “the interests of others”.
Legal factors
The above-mentioned text from Philippians is somewhat reminiscent of the legal principle “someone is innocent until proven innocent”, sometimes also loosely translated as “assume the good or a misunderstanding first”. What is easily forgotten is that these statements are intended to prevent someone from being punished for something he did not do or did not do intentionally.
They are not meant to suggest that the other person cannot be guilty, or that it would be morally better not to investigate. Yet that is often what remains with morally thinking people. And of course it is also easiest not to take action. Not by chance, a certain lack of interest in the course of the John Smyth affair was what would be considered as most reprehensible to Archbishop Justin Welby.
Psychological and sociological factors
- Being busy with positive things
Avoiding a critical and investigative attitude can be further reinforced by the mistaken idea that it is always better to occupy yourself with positive things than with negative ones. Then the negative things should eventually disappear by themselves, is the idea. Unfortunately, it almost never works that way. Sometimes it is clearly necessary to confront negativity (which can unfortunately come across as very negative) before you have the luxury of being able to occupy yourself with “positive” things. Ultimately, however, daring to expose injustice and hypocrisy is often very fruitful. It only becomes unhealthy when he or she is only concerned with correcting others. But within certain limits it is extremely useful. However, mistrust has a bad name. For example, you can suffer a lot from it with post-traumatic stress disorder. But as I said, it is only a problem when you distrust everything and everyone.
- Not wanting to polarize
Naming different points of view and behavior and defending one side of it is not polarization in itself. Polarization is the increase of differences or the creation of a new conflict. Polarization only occurs when there is no more room for a respectful mutual conversation and therefore also no room for a possible compromise. People then only associate with those who have the same opinion and they react very emotionally to the other party. Differences are magnified by misrepresenting the other’s point of view and by dishonest propaganda.
In practice, it is often difficult to say whether polarisation is taking place and by whom. It can therefore also happen that the most calm, rational and balanced party is called polarising, while it is the most “indignant” and protesting party that is actually polarising. We should not be deterred by this. In the pursuit of connection, we should not always take the easiest path, the one of almost denying any difference of opinion or giving in for the sake of an apparent peace. A trade-off must always be made between the gain of a (possibly temporary) ceasefire and that of unmasking false narratives that would otherwise become increasingly widespread.
- Having to be focused on connection
There are influential movements in our society that want to focus everything on connection. It may be because they have little to lose socially or because they feel very vulnerable. Connecting is a good thing, but often does not happen in one go. It will be a superficial connection when differences are not allowed to be discussed or when only one outcome is considered acceptable. The same applies when the past is not allowed to be discussed. Then no lessons can be learned from it either. In any case, it is not correct that everything that does not connect means polarisation.
In churches too, there is often much emphasis on professing a striving for connection. But not everything and everyone allows themselves to be connected on a deeper level. That is why not all lifestyles can be embraced from a moral point of view. The fact that we should not judge too quickly does not mean that we should adopt the opinion or lifestyle of the other as our own or that we can always be enthusiastic about it.
However, there seem to be large numbers of people who have no problem with anything except others who give the impression of being non-connective. This seems more like an indifferent kind of liberalism than Christianity. It also very easily becomes a kind of self-justification. You call yourself, whatever else you do or think, connecting. Then you can call someone who disagrees with you polarizing and therefore morally your inferior. That becomes a word game and no longer makes any sense.
- Psychology developing a life of its own
Psychology itself has probably also influenced our understanding of trust, particularly through the concept of ‘basic trust’. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson discovered that people develop better when they grow up in a safe environment. This suggests that trust is a consequence of a safe upbringing, but not necessarily a cause of safety. People who are familiar with this theory may have too much faith in trust. It is important to realise that too much trust in others, without critical reflection, can also lead to vulnerability and disappointment.
- Trust as a need
Finally, too much trust in each other can also be the result of certain personal characteristics and emotional needs. Research is needed to determine whether certain personal characteristics that can lead to too much trust tend to dominate in churches. What is certain is that there are often considerable emotional needs. They are sometimes strong enough to join a church community for that reason alone. The extent to which people think they can trust each other can be “wishful thinking”. Office bearers sometimes also have such (hidden or not) emotional needs.
Theological factors
Here we can recognise old and new influences.
- Clericalism
An old but still very much alive influence is that of clericalism, in short the tendency of senior officials to place themselves on a pedestal and/or to let themselves be placed on one. I mention this under theological factors because it is not only a general human characteristic to often feel superior, but it can also be fueled by a questionable theology. It is like a self-perpetuating disregard for the priesthood of all believers.
Where members of the same organization already tend to protect each other from criticism, this becomes even worse when clericalism is present. The difficulty is that the officials themselves are not sufficiently aware of this. In their eyes, much has already been done against clericalism and it has all but disappeared.
I have even received insulted responses when I asked a question about its role. But in the meantime, priests and pastors still form a tight network, even across churches, through which you literally cannot get. I do not want to suggest that there are no camps and differences, but those without sufficient connections (or special contributions) quickly disappear from view. This is how the system maintains itself, so “everyone” has an interest in it.
- Progressive Christianity
A new influence is the shift from norms and values derived from the Bible to mainly progressive norms and values that are in circulation in the world at large. The church has indeed sometimes lagged behind in this, but it is by definition impossible to be at the forefront and adopt everything that shows up in the secular world. Although the church sometimes tries to do so. For example, I read that a church community advertised itself with the slogan “we are a church that is in the middle of the world of today and of the future”. I ask myself how you can be in the middle of something that does not yet exist.
But if, one moment, you think you have to be more progressive before everything else, it is very difficult the next moment to measure someone against the standard of classical norms and values. Striving for inclusivity and connection does not exactly condition you to draw hard boundaries that colleagues and church members may not cross, let alone to prevent possible missteps.
- Not wanting to be judgemental
Finally, we have seen in the course of church history how the love of God has increasingly come to the fore. That is a good development, as long as attention is also paid to what God detests. But the latter seems to have disappeared into the background, except in very general terms, in very obvious cases or when a lack of diversity is perceived.
That it is not up to us to make the final judgment is not a good excuse for overlooking sin. When you address someone about their behavior, it is not a final judgment, anyway. On the contrary, it is about preventing instances of divine judgment. And for the same reason, one should never (in advance) completely trust a fellow human being or an organization.
As I write this, I think of countries that have said they “stand unconditionally behind Israel.” How do they mean, unconditionally? Does it not matter what Israel does? Apparently not. This seems to me to be a good example of too much trust. It is perfectly possible to wish Israel the very best and still have severe reservations about its current actions.
- Misunderstanding forgiveness
In principle, forgiveness can only be given by the victim. In practice, Christians often take the liberty of forgiving the perpetrator. This used to happen as part of the sacrament of reconciliation, also called penance or confession. That was something between the perpetrator and the confessor. To be fair, the intention was that the consequences of the sin would also be repaired, but that often did not happen. Or the “penance” (in Greek actually: conversion, renewal) became merely a ritual act.
I cannot help but feel that something of this habit lives on. This is also my main objection to the current text of the so-called Coventry Prayer. In it, all kinds of sins are named (not only our own), after which it is always said: “Father, forgive”. Unfortunately, the following points are often neglected:
(a) that Jesus prayed as a a victim. In fact, he forgave his own murderers (or just the soldiers forced to carry out the crucifixion);
(b) that there normally has to be repentance first;
(c) that Jesus added “for they know not what they do.” It is highly questionable whether that applies to everyone who commits crimes or dehumanizes.
I recently had to say goodbye to an influential “Christian” on social media who wrote about “a few dead sand niggers in Gaza”. Was he really unaware that every life is precious to God? And that this was not about “a few” lives? In such a case, I do pray for this person that he may see the light, but I leave it to Christ to judge whether he qualifies for forgiveness on the grounds of not knowing or not understanding something.
If we just pray “Lord forgive”, it will be too easy and unfair to the actual victims. It is true that the introduction to the Coventry litany states that all people sin. So we could pray for the whole people like Moses did, for new opportunities for example, which is also a form of forgiveness. But you cannot be general and specific at the same time. The individual sins remain a problem and should not be ignored.
Fundamental considerations
The Bible makes it clear that only God is completely trustworthy.
Some of the texts that show this are:
- Numbers 23:19 – “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. Hath he said, and will he not do it? or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?”
- Psalm 18:30 – “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is blameless; he is a shield to all who put their trust in him.”
- Hebrews 6:18 – “That by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge into the hope set before us.”
- Psalm 119:89-90 – “Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven. Your faithfulness endures from generation to generation. You have laid the foundation of the earth, and it will endure.”
- Romans 4:20-21 – “He did not stagger at the promise of God through unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was also able to perform.”
Conclusion
Various factors, mainly psychological and social, but also theological misunderstandings, have led to us perhaps not being able to notice abuse in our own circle. The many scandals may not be so much the result of higher demands that we have started to place on each other, but rather of lower demands. All kinds of procedural measures are not sufficient to combat the abuses (but can serve to hide behind them). The same applies to calls for more awareness, unless it is clearly stated what we should be aware of. I hope that in this article I have highlighted some aspects that have often remained under the radar.
In any case, let us be less afraid to confront people about possible abuse or to ask a few questions (while passing delicate cases onto professionals). We should not shy away too quickly just because the words polarization, intolerance or interference might be mentioned. However, it is always important to remain respectful, so that we do not actually polarize or violate privacy. People have a right to privacy, but unfortunately that can conflict with the rights of potential victims. Perhaps it is time for a bit more healthy distrust.
This post is also available in: Dutch
Leave A Comment