The sin of sitting on the fence

I recently spoke on the phone with an elder in a church where I had formally been a pastor.  He now provides much of the leadership of this Independent Church.  In the course of our discussion he mentioned a now frail and elderly lady who had been a staunch member of the congregation.  I wished to be remembered to her but was conscious that I was probably not a favourite person to her.  I made reference to this and to the cause of our loss of fellowship - the discovery that a ministry colleague in the church had been serially sexually abusing young men.  The lady concerned, as far as I was aware, had stubbornly refused to accept the truth despite the testimony of many other people, including one of her sons.  Instead, as I was the one who had "blown the whistle" on the Christian leader she idolised, she treated me as an enemy.

The elder with whom I was speaking commented that he had been careful "not to take sides".  He said it as if sitting on the fence was a virtue.  But it left me angry.  When I first heard the allegation of abuse back in 1989 I discovered how abusers find collusion within churches and the victims get ostracised.  The consequences of holding a proper investigation into the allegations was too painful for most in the leadership at that time.  I already knew of one other person who had been a victim of abuse but who had "forgiven" the abuser because he thought it the right thing to do.  Over the following days I learned of one man who when just sixteen had been obliged to strip naked and share a bed with this man who fumbled for his genitals.  I also heard of another who testified to being locked in a room, threatened with a cudgel and raped.

I was frustrated by a church leadership team that would not address the concerns and the trustees of an evangelistic mission in which the abuser was both founder and director that refused to do the same.  It was not until I co-wrote "Time for Action" some twelve years later that I realised that I had to do something, even if no one else would.  I reported the matter to the police.  With greater understanding, personally and within society today, I realise that step should have been taken straight away.  The police investigated and the CPS brought the man to trial.  He pleaded not guilty, alleging that his victims had actually requested sexual activity with him, and so forcing two of his victims to relate the sordid details in open court.  He was found guilty and sent to prison, but he has never acknowledged culpability or apologised to those he hurt.

With less understanding in 1989 when the leaders of the church refused to take action I was faced with three possibilities.  I could over-rule my colleagues and proclaim the allegation publicly from the pulpit.  But by then the young man who was the victim had denied suffering this offence having been put under pressure by the abuser who had extremely good manipulative skills.  That, it seemed to me, would only create a horrendous mess with possibly no good outcome.  The second possibility would be for me to carry on at the church regardless.  That would have meant sharing a platform with the abuser and jointly administering communion.  I could not stomach that.  The remaining course of action was for me to leave the church immediately.  I had been a minister in the church for twenty one years; it seemed probable that someone might come and ask me why.  I provided a letter to the Church Secretary explaining the cause of this sudden development.

I suspect the contents of that letter were never read.  Not one church member made contact with me.  I dread to think what spin might have been put on my departure for it to apparently become accepted without one enquiring. As I had handed in my church keys on that day, the elder to whom I was now speaking had wept.  Now it was my turn to weep.  I could understand back in 1989 why some felt powerless and confused, uncertain what to do.  But in the light of a police investigation, several witnesses, a trial and subsequent  prison sentence surely there could only be one position for any responsible Christian to take.  That could not be on a fence!

The prophet Micah tells us what the Lord requires of us.  It is to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.  All three have to be held in tension.  Where mercy denies the possibility of justice to the victims, or where the cries for justice drown out any possibility of mercy then we are not walking humbly with a God who calls us all to account for our sins, and only offers mercy where there is true repentance.

I am angry.  Angry at the abuser for what he did.  Angry for those whose lives have been messed up with the long dark shadow of sexual abuse cast over them.  Angry at Christian leaders who, like those in the church at Corinth fuss over the little things but fail to act justly against sexual sin.  I am angry because the same church leaders publicly disciplined two young Christians who were engaged and confessed that they had slept together before marriage, but when it comes to disciplining one of there own failed.

I am not so angry that I will attack my friend on the phone for what left me speechless at the time.  I do not want to create a problem for him.  The question is, if I fail to do so am I then failing him just as much as he is failing both the victims whom he should vindicate and the abuser whom he should judge?