Mere Sinners or Ecclesiastical Psychopaths?
Haydn Nelson, at Phil.Baker.net, points to some interesting articles regarding the Ted Haggard saga.
This from Christianity Today:
“Perhaps inability to tell the full truth is a sign that one is actually lying to himself and cannot face the full truth of the behavior in his own soul.
But then all sin begins with lies told to oneself. The cardinal lies of a failed leader? I give and give and give in this position; I deserve special privileges—perhaps even the privilege of living above the rules. Or, I have enough charm and enough smooth words that I can talk anything (even my innocence) into reality. Or, so much of my life is lived above the line of holiness that I can be excused this one little faux pas. Or, I have done so much for these people; now it’s their time to do something for me—like forgiving me and giving a second chance.
The travel, the connections, the interviews, the applause of the congregation, the organizational power, the perks and privileges, the honor: gone! The introit to people of position/power: gone! The opportunity to say an influential word each day into the lives of teachable younger people: gone! The certainty that God has anointed one for such a time as this: gone? And what will grow each day is the numbing realization of regret and loss. In time they will be approached by people who will say in one way or another, “I used to trust you, but what you’ve done has made me very angry….you’ve turned my son away from the gospel….I thought I knew you, but I guess I didn’t.” It will be a long time before either of the Haggards feel safe again. Suffering over this will last most of a lifetime even after some sort of restoration is rendered. How I wish this could all be lifted from them”
Source:
Whilst I do feel sad for Ted Haggard, and I am no better in terms of my own sin, but I can’t help but think that perhaps there is more to this than one leader’s sin but that this issue (of sexual failure) is only a symptomatic of a much larger problem.
We have been talking about Leaders within the Contemporary Church for sometime characteristically being unable to admit specific mistakes and errors, using deceptive teaching and practices raise money (tithing, channeling money to family entities set up as charities for apparent pecuniary gain) often from the scripturally naïve).
Some Senior Pastors seem to enjoy living the Good Life and enriching themselves from their flocks.
I also find it interesting that often the so-called ‘Type A’ Personalities (or Alpha males) that often thrive in and drive large organizations,’ appear to ‘be resourceful’ and get their agenda through by masterfully using people to their own ends and often exhibit traits of ‘narcissistic personality disorders’ and are profiled in the corporate environment as ‘Corporate Psychopaths’.
The signs of psychopathy / narcissism are often subtle, as sense of ‘entitlement’, finding ways to avoid queues, or talking illegal detours to avoid red traffic lights or ignoring other little ‘social conventions’ that apply to the masses and keep society orderly, but of course not to them.
You can view a ‘Catalyst’ Video report on “Corporate Psychopaths” here.
Homosexuality and sexual immorality is seen publicly as a ‘cardinal sin’ in Churches and in Ted Haggard’s case was dealt with swiftly and clinically.
But why won’t / can’t Churches deal with sins such as spiritual abuse, deceitful teaching, bullying, financial impropriety, such as profiteering in the same way. In fact other sins in the long term may be more damaging.
My guess is that in Corporate Churches, the structures and ‘annointed leadership’ culture provide and environment for Psychopaths and narcissists to thrive and “live above the law”.
It is only when the psychopath / narcissist has over-reached and his sin has come on the public radar (such as in the case of not only Haggard but also the likes of Swaggart, Bakker, Popoff and others) that the Church will deal with behavioural issues of Senior clergy people that cross the bounds of social acceptability.
Perhaps it is time that we started insisting that Churches be built upon authenticity, truth and accountability by revisiting the qualifications for Leadership as established in the Bible, focusing on unselfish, disciplined and temperate characters, as well as technical competence rather than developing cults of lies and deceit around personality, and charisma.
In addition, it is time to stop allowing Churches to remain laws unto themselves in terms of their Governance and accountability structures, disregard of orthodox doctrine and unwillingness to be transparent with their finances to both to their own Members/Partners and society at large.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Reading the last para or 2 made me think of the difference I noted in working for DCD (state welfare in WA) and Dept of Justice - Justice is heaps easier because the clients have already been sentenced, so guilt is not something we have to determine.
DCD was hard, because when I accuse someone of being a bad parent, I (sort of!) invite critique of my own parenting style. In talking with a family about alleged abuse, I would get told ‘but if you were in my circumstances, you’d do the same thing…’ and, truth be told, maybe I would?
I think spiritual abuse (which I’ve seen 1st hand and have a strong distaste for) is so close to dynamic leadership (on the surface) that it’s the thread no one wants to pull, for fear that the whole thing (leadership, that person, the church, Christendom in general maybe!) will come apart at the seams. It’s also a ‘that person is a leader because they’re stronger - I just need to be stronger too’ thing as well. Well, in my exp it was… I’d be interested to hear from those suffering spiritual abuse, particularly from larger churches where it might go unnoticed by the masses, and see if this was their thoughts also (’the leader is good, the leader is strong, the bad feelings I’m having mean I need to try harder to be good, to be strong’)
I dunno… leadership in a Christian context needs radical rethinking! The current path has too many dead bodies on it…
November 12th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
some sins are very easy to see and thus confront such as sexual immorality whereas most of the others mentioned are more problematic.
They seem to me to be all related to bad teaching.
Choosing a church is all important.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
What if someone ignores ‘good teaching’…?? Is it the fault of the teaching or of the person..??
November 15th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
If the teaching is genuinely good (ie both godly in content and well communicated) then the “problem” is the person. Classic narcissists listen to teaching or correction and nod their heads and say “oh yes, I do that” when, of course, the truth is that they do nothing of the kind! That’s why the arrogant and the unloving and the abusive etc are so hard to deal with, most of them seem to go around in complete denial that they’re doing anything wrong except when they get caught out in such flagrant wrongdoing that they run out of excuses
March 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“An elderly nun, under questioning by a lawyer, recently said she could remember almost nothing about his client, a child who had been sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest.
Lawyer Irwin Zalkin was puzzled because church records showed she had heard several complaints about the San Diego priest, and the file noted that she had reported them to higher authority.
Finally, Zalkin asked whether she was familiar with “mental reservation” — a 700-year-old doctrine by which clerics may avoid telling the truth to protect the Catholic Church.
“She explained in her own way that it is ‘to protect the church from scandal.’ She said she subscribed to the doctrine,” Zalkin said. “What are you going to do?”
Mental reservation is not sanctioned in canon law, experts say, and is infrequently invoked. But in litigation arising from clergy sex abuse cases in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, at least half a dozen lawyers representing victims report having encountered it.
The idea goes back to times when there were two separate court systems: ecclesiastical, or church courts, and civil courts run by the state. Today, all disputes are settled in civil courts.
The doctrine has been used in modern times to “claim that it is morally justifiable to lie in order to protect the reputation of the institutional church,” said Thomas P. Doyle, a Virginia priest who is an expert in canon law and has been widely consulted by lawyers for people who say they were victims of abuse.
It has been misused “to justify lying,” Doyle said last week. The doctrine is “not accepted church teaching” but has been widely discussed by scholars and moral theologians, Doyle said.
Zalkin’s experience was unusual but not unique.
A lawyer preparing one of the more than 500 claims of abuse against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles asked a priest giving a sworn statement the same question earlier this month. His lawyer quickly intervened, telling the priest not to answer.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in Los Angeles and Bishop Robert H. Brom in San Diego were asked about it while giving sworn statements.
In Boston, where the national scandal broke in 2002 and forced the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law the following year, the doctrine of mental reservation was “a major concern,” lawyer Jeffrey A. Newman said.
“Our concern was that there might have been an internal usage of the doctrine and an understanding of how it would be applied, and we would not be able to decipher it,” said Newman, the lead attorney representing a group of 500 claims against 120 priests that was settled three years ago in Boston.
Newman questioned Law under oath before the cardinal resigned and said that Law downplayed the doctrine. Newman said he had received calls from many lawyers seeking consultation about the effect of the doctrine on clergy cases nationwide.
In Northern California, where the claims of 180 people against eight dioceses were settled for about $200 million, the doctrine rarely appeared, said Rick Simons, the Hayward lawyer in charge of litigation for the victims.
“But there were a lot of [priests] up here who did believe they don’t answer to the civil authorities, that no one but the church has the power to discipline priests.
“Whether they lie because they think it is a constitutional right, whether they lie because they think it is church doctrine, or whether they lie because they think they’ll be prosecuted — I don’t care,” Simons said.
When Mahony made a sworn statement under questioning several years ago, he was asked by Irvine lawyer John Manly whether he was testifying under the doctrine. Church lawyers refused to allow Mahony to answer.
“Cardinal Mahony has always insisted and will always insist that honesty always prevails in giving testimony under oath,” his spokesman, Tod Tamberg, said Friday. Tamberg said asking the question was “insulting and unprofessional” because it suggested that Mahony wasn’t being honest.
Brom, the San Diego bishop whose diocese filed for bankruptcy protection Feb. 27, used a hypothetical to explain the doctrine during his deposition. About 140 claims of abuse are pending in San Diego, and the bankruptcy filing was designed to give the church time to settle those cases.
According to Zalkin, Brom said, “Let’s assume we were in Nazi Germany. Let’s assume I was harboring a Jewish family in my church. Some Nazis came and knocked on the door and asked me if there were Jews here. In invoking the doctrine of mental reservation, I would be able to say no, which would be a lie and a sin.
“By reserving unto my own mind that the real complete answer would be ‘No, not here at this point in time,’ or ‘No, not standing here in this room.’ With that qualification in mind, I’m not lying and I’m not a sinner.”
“You really don’t know,” Zalkin said. “You put somebody under oath; you assume they understand that under civil law they would be committing perjury to lie. It complicates that process when there is a doctrine that allows for a lie to avoid scandal to the church.”
From http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priest26mar26,1,2174214.story?coll=la-headlines-california
April 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I think this doctrine has made its way straight into the heart of the AOG. Except there it’s couched in terms of “being positive” “not tearing down a man of God” and “not holding Christ’s body up for ridicule”.