A leadership scandal came to light at my first church home I had as a believer. Today I can say that, yes, that sort of thing can strengthen your faith. But even for those who get to that place, it takes a long time, and I wouldn’t wish that particular path to a deeper faith on anyone.
I appreciate your thoughtful effort here on this difficult subject. The truths you bring up are definitely among those that helped me.
I realize this is a little outside the scope of what you addressed, and I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree: I’d just add that I hope we can do a better job mentoring and even vetting those we place in leadership roles. Not all church scandals are preventable but many are.
100% to everything you said. This is a long journey for people and shouldn't be rushed. Not to be that guy, but that's what just about my entire book is about, including a whole chapter that gets to the kinds of churches and pastors we develop.
I appreciate this message and resonate with much of it. I too find myself echoing Peter; to whom will I go if not Jesus? At the same time, Jesus’ very next words predict his betrayal, and Peter’s answer thus comes *before* the disciples’ share that experience of betrayal by Judas. By the end of John, even after Jesus’ first resurrection appearance, the disciples are still locking the room out of fear. Betrayal is a different category than scandal. One is intellectual, the other existential. Gerald Schlabach writes about this vis a vis John Howard Yoder: https://www.geraldschlabach.net/2014/07/10/only-those-we-need-can-betray-us-my-relationship-with-john-howard-yoder-and-his-legacy/. For what it’s worth, I wanted to share some reactions as one who is regularly in the trenches with church abuse survivors, and I try to hear material like this with my clients’ ears. I can imagine the emphasis on “giving up” on Jesus feeling like a burden to those who have been wounded by churches, pastors, spiritual leaders, in a way different than those merely scandalized by such stories. Justice for one’s abuse does not depend on one’s faith, but that’s what I hear when I read, “If I give up on Jesus, I’m giving up on justice.” I get the meaning, so I don’t mean to read uncharitably. The Gospel of John, which in my opinion is the most comprehensive biblical response to church scandal and religious trauma, ends with a similar message, but without the implication of guilt: “But these are written so that you may *continue to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (NRSVU, imho the only translation that captures John’s intent to help believers *keep on believing* after they have suffered wrongs at the hand of religion and church).
I appreciate the response, Aaron. I'll confess, I think I might be missing what you're saying. I agree there's a difference between being abused and being scandalized, but the difference is in primary and secondary effects. The abused is directly affected and the scandalized are secondarily affected, but both are affected (on a spiritual level!) but the perpetrators sin (and crime!).
Having been on both sides of this, it still seems as though Luke's point stands from an objective perspective even if it's an emotionally difficult reality to accept on a subjective level. But again, I'm completely open to the fact that I just might not be understanding what you're saying here.
I’ll try saying this differently and more succinctly (my biggest weakness as a writer). I’m not reacting to the point so much as to how it’s made (and depending on who it’s for). First, I’m guessing Luke is directing this at both the abused and the scandalized. It’s seems fair to say French is presented as both as well. Second, for me that’s the rub. It’s hard to speak to both at the same time and with the same message. I say this as a counselor and a spiritual abuse survivor myself. Your distinction between primary/secondary is general, not sure exactly what you mean there, but one way to be more specific is to say that those who are scandalized could also be secondary trauma victims depending on their proximity to the primary victim. But many who are legitimately scandalized aren’t also traumatized. Thinking some more, my reaction to this piece is about trauma and how to best speak to traumatized Christians vs scandalized Christians. A legitimate and good message for the scandalized can feel like an unhelpful burden to the traumatized (despite good intentions). That’s how some of the language hits me, especially the idea of “giving up on Jesus = giving up on _____.” I know not all will feel that way, and I’m not saying Luke’s point is wrong. And while I could say more, especially how John’s Gospel develops the distinction between scandalized and traumatized (new thought, thanks to this post!), but I’ve already failed at being succinct so gonna stop here :-).
A leadership scandal came to light at my first church home I had as a believer. Today I can say that, yes, that sort of thing can strengthen your faith. But even for those who get to that place, it takes a long time, and I wouldn’t wish that particular path to a deeper faith on anyone.
I appreciate your thoughtful effort here on this difficult subject. The truths you bring up are definitely among those that helped me.
I realize this is a little outside the scope of what you addressed, and I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree: I’d just add that I hope we can do a better job mentoring and even vetting those we place in leadership roles. Not all church scandals are preventable but many are.
100% to everything you said. This is a long journey for people and shouldn't be rushed. Not to be that guy, but that's what just about my entire book is about, including a whole chapter that gets to the kinds of churches and pastors we develop.
I appreciate this message and resonate with much of it. I too find myself echoing Peter; to whom will I go if not Jesus? At the same time, Jesus’ very next words predict his betrayal, and Peter’s answer thus comes *before* the disciples’ share that experience of betrayal by Judas. By the end of John, even after Jesus’ first resurrection appearance, the disciples are still locking the room out of fear. Betrayal is a different category than scandal. One is intellectual, the other existential. Gerald Schlabach writes about this vis a vis John Howard Yoder: https://www.geraldschlabach.net/2014/07/10/only-those-we-need-can-betray-us-my-relationship-with-john-howard-yoder-and-his-legacy/. For what it’s worth, I wanted to share some reactions as one who is regularly in the trenches with church abuse survivors, and I try to hear material like this with my clients’ ears. I can imagine the emphasis on “giving up” on Jesus feeling like a burden to those who have been wounded by churches, pastors, spiritual leaders, in a way different than those merely scandalized by such stories. Justice for one’s abuse does not depend on one’s faith, but that’s what I hear when I read, “If I give up on Jesus, I’m giving up on justice.” I get the meaning, so I don’t mean to read uncharitably. The Gospel of John, which in my opinion is the most comprehensive biblical response to church scandal and religious trauma, ends with a similar message, but without the implication of guilt: “But these are written so that you may *continue to believe* that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (NRSVU, imho the only translation that captures John’s intent to help believers *keep on believing* after they have suffered wrongs at the hand of religion and church).
I appreciate the response, Aaron. I'll confess, I think I might be missing what you're saying. I agree there's a difference between being abused and being scandalized, but the difference is in primary and secondary effects. The abused is directly affected and the scandalized are secondarily affected, but both are affected (on a spiritual level!) but the perpetrators sin (and crime!).
Having been on both sides of this, it still seems as though Luke's point stands from an objective perspective even if it's an emotionally difficult reality to accept on a subjective level. But again, I'm completely open to the fact that I just might not be understanding what you're saying here.
I’ll try saying this differently and more succinctly (my biggest weakness as a writer). I’m not reacting to the point so much as to how it’s made (and depending on who it’s for). First, I’m guessing Luke is directing this at both the abused and the scandalized. It’s seems fair to say French is presented as both as well. Second, for me that’s the rub. It’s hard to speak to both at the same time and with the same message. I say this as a counselor and a spiritual abuse survivor myself. Your distinction between primary/secondary is general, not sure exactly what you mean there, but one way to be more specific is to say that those who are scandalized could also be secondary trauma victims depending on their proximity to the primary victim. But many who are legitimately scandalized aren’t also traumatized. Thinking some more, my reaction to this piece is about trauma and how to best speak to traumatized Christians vs scandalized Christians. A legitimate and good message for the scandalized can feel like an unhelpful burden to the traumatized (despite good intentions). That’s how some of the language hits me, especially the idea of “giving up on Jesus = giving up on _____.” I know not all will feel that way, and I’m not saying Luke’s point is wrong. And while I could say more, especially how John’s Gospel develops the distinction between scandalized and traumatized (new thought, thanks to this post!), but I’ve already failed at being succinct so gonna stop here :-).
Thank you! I wish I heard this more often.