"Spiritual" Abuse?

[Anonymous]

Hi all!

It’s been a few weeks since I’ve stopped by, but an uncomfortable question was raised the other day during a discussion with an Evangelical friend, and I thought this would be a great place to get some feedback. I hope all are well!

Anyway, I was talking about salvation with my friend, and I was explaining my previously-held belief that repentance meant identifying each and every sin you ever committed and going through all the “steps” of repentance for each one (recognize, confess, make restitution, and finally petition God for forgiveness), otherwise you couldn’t be saved. Additionally, if I committed a “major” sin (read: sexual in nature) I would have to tell my bishop.

I shared with her my discomfort over that particular doctrine, because, as a young woman I had some “issues” I felt I needed to resolve with a bishop. It was very uncomfortable and awkward as an adolescent girl to have to talk to an adult male about such personal things. I also always felt very uncomfortable when they asked sexual purity questions in interviews, even if I hadn’t “done anything” wrong.

Anyway, after I shared this with my friend, she surprised me. She became really upset and said she felt like it was totally inappropriate for male bishops to be counseling with young women about such personal things. She even went so far as to term it “spiritual abuse.” I certainly never considered myself abused in this manner, though it was a pretty miserable experience. She couldn’t understand why a female leader couldn’t handle discipline for Young Women (and women in general, I guess). I’m wondering what you all think of this?

On related note, I have since come to question the validity of the doctrine of ecclesiastical confession in general. It makes me very uncomfortable to think that someone else can mediate, or define the terms, of someone’s repentance. Isn’t that between God and the sinner? I can appreciate that in some situations, a third party like pastor or bishop is a valuable sounding board for more serious problems, but it really bothers me that someone should be able to declare another person “worthy” or not.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

She couldn’t understand why a female leader couldn’t handle discipline for Young Women (and women in general, I guess). I’m wondering what you all think of this?

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I hope the church adopts this idea of having women handle for women. Also, in church disciplinary hearings, I feel women should have a female advocate. That’s just my opinion, but I do feel it would be much more sensitive and loving to the women in the church.

Quote:

On related note, I have since come to question the validity of the doctrine of ecclesiastical confession in general. It makes me very uncomfortable to think that someone else can mediate, or define the terms, of someone’s repentance. Isn’t that between God and the sinner?

I heard this explained in a very specific way that the leader is not in any way a “mediator” but more of a “facilitator” of the process. The person who has committed a serious sin may have difficulty determining next steps, feeling the spirit, feeling worthy, or recognizing spiritual progress given the feelings that accompany sin. While that is not always the case, the “facilitator” can help them through the process. The sinner has to identify when s/he has been forgiven.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I hope the church adopts this idea of having women handle for women. Also, in church disciplinary hearings, I feel women should have a female advocate. That’s just my opinion, but I do feel it would be much more sensitive and loving to the women in the church.

Thanks, hawkgrrl. I agree.

Do you think there’s anything “abusive” about NOT providing this?

(I don’t like throwing that word around cavalierly, but that conversation has kind of gotten to me…)

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I hope the church adopts this idea of having women handle for women. Also, in church disciplinary hearings, I feel women should have a female advocate. That’s just my opinion, but I do feel it would be much more sensitive and loving to the women in the church.

Amen! That sounds good to me. I’d support female “judges in Israel” for worthiness issues, one step beyond just having an advocate. FWIW, it is still awkward as a guy to have a male Bishop quiz you about your sex life. It is an uncomfortable topic. I seriously don’t think details should be extracted unless someone wants to offer them, needing guidance on boundaries or something like that from a more “wise” person.

Quote:

On related note, I have since come to question the validity of the doctrine of ecclesiastical confession in general. It makes me very uncomfortable to think that someone else can mediate, or define the terms, of someone’s repentance. Isn’t that between God and the sinner?

The leader does not pronounce someone forgiven. That is between the person and God/Jesus. Like Hawkgrrrl said, a leader can help someone along the path and make suggestions. Yeah, it may not always come across that way. A Bishop does have some responsibility to judge “worthiness.” That is not the same as forgiveness. Worthiness relates to someone’s standing in the Church. The Bishop may not want someone officiating in priesthood ordinances or representing the Church in various ways (as a teacher, leader, etc.) if he doesn’t think a they are worthy (a good representative for the Church at the moment). I can pretty much understand that.

[Anonymous]

katielangston wrote:

Do you think there’s anything “abusive” about NOT providing this? (I don’t like throwing that word around cavalierly, but that conversation has kind of gotten to me…)

I think “abusive” implies a certain pre-meditation to the situation. I think it could be abusive if done in the wrong spirit, like the BP is really a perv and just wants to hear details. That could happen and should be reported/corrected. At best, it just doesn’t seem like an ideal situation. I think it might hit the border of what you are talking about. I just don’t think the system is setup that way to abuse people on purpose.

I’ve thought about this a lot with my daughters … actually my sons too. I would tell them it is perfectly ok to tell a Church leader they do not wish to talk about something. They can walk out, say no, not talk about it, and certainly let me know if something seems wrong. We’re pretty open about a lot of stuff in our family with the kids though.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Do you think there’s anything “abusive” about NOT providing this?

Not personally, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid if others do. For example, a woman who has been sexually or otherwise abused would probably find the setup intolerable due to her life experience. She might feel threatened or re-abused, even if there is no intent of abuse (or pervy leader behavior, thanks Valoel for that mental image–why am I picturing Mr. Furley as the bishop suddenly?) Working with a woman would probably be far less threatening for her.

There’s also the question of identification vs. differentiation. However, I doubt there is much “spiritual abuse” taking place in these situations – it is far more likely that it results in women being treated with kid gloves or getting a less rigorous, more superficial treatment than men (plus there’s the old chestnut that women are more spiritual than men). Of course, even one instance of abuse is too many, and given the desire to avoid such situations, I could really see the church making this type of change. I’m surprised they haven’t. Perhaps it just hasn’t been raised to the right leader in the right situation.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I think “abusive” implies a certain pre-meditation to the situation. … At best, it just doesn’t seem like an ideal situation. I think it might hit the border of what you are talking about. I just don’t think the system is setup that way to abuse people on purpose.

I think you’re right. “Abuse” implies something sinister and planned. This seems more thoughtless and inconsiderate than anything else. Abuse is probably an overstatement. That makes me feel better.

The more I think about it, though, the more I wonder if the whole craziness over sex in general isn’t kind of creepy anyway. Don’t get me wrong: I believe sexual purity pleases God, and sexual sin displeases Him. I think He wants us to cherish our bodies and I will teach my children to honor their bodies and the special gift God has given us.

But all this nonsense about it being “the worst thing you can do besides murder” (especially when EVERY kind of sexual sin from masturbation to “necking” [anyone ever figure out what the heck that meant?] gets lumped into the same category) is damaging. Except in those cases where addictions, abuse, or adultery are involved, and a loving third party could help the healing process, I’m not sure it’s anyone’s business–least of all an untrained volunteer bishop. You know?

Seriously not trying to sound bitter here (realize I may a little bit). I’m usually a pretty happy-go-lucky kind of gal. I just hadn’t really ever considered this question before, and now it’s kinda buggin’ me. 😡

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I heard this explained in a very specific way that the leader is not in any way a “mediator” but more of a “facilitator” of the process. The person who has committed a serious sin may have difficulty determining next steps, feeling the spirit, feeling worthy, or recognizing spiritual progress given the feelings that accompany sin. While that is not always the case, the “facilitator” can help them through the process. The sinner has to identify when s/he has been forgiven.

This is an interesting point. I really DO see the value in having a bishop there as a sounding board. I’m sure there are instances where having a bishop there to help you through the process to sort it all out is so important and valuable to people who are struggling. I guess I’m just grappling with why it’s REQUIRED.

I remember lessons in church where they told us that if we had something to confess, we better offer a whole confession–share every last detail of what we did wrong–or else it was like we weren’t really repenting. It always seemed to me that talking to the bishop was your punishment for sinning, part of the process to prove that you’re really, truly sorry and that you’re willing to do the absolute most uncomfortable thing imaginable in order to be forgiven.

Now I think there is serious danger here of denying the grace of Jesus. Confession to God makes sense, of course. Confession to those you’ve wronged, absolutely. But confession to some guy you barely know, but who looks so sternly out at the congregation each Sunday? I dunno…

(Yikes, re-reading that last sentence, I think I’m having flashbacks of being 15 again!)

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I think the whole “sexual sins are next to murder” idea is a flawed interpretation of the passage in Alma. This is what Alma actually said in 39:2-5, 13:

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

13 . . . that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly . . .

So, Corinaton did all of the following:

A) Boasted in his own strength, thus denying God’s place in his ministry (seriously not good);

Forsook his ministry (seriously not good);

C) Consorted with a harlot – while serving as a missionary (seriously not good);

D) Led others away from the Church of his father and caused them to sin (SERIOUSLY not good).

Alma said, “THESE things are an abomination” – not “THIS thing”. Remember, this is Alma the Younger – someone who would know exactly how abominable it is to actively lead others away from God. I don’t believe it was sexual sin that Alma labeled as next to murder; I think it was the entire enormity of what Corianton had done – that was close to spiritual murder, in a very real way. I think that is critical, and it gets overlooked when most people read the account without parsing the actual words carefully.

[Anonymous]

katielangston wrote:

I remember lessons in church where they told us that if we had something to confess, we better offer a whole confession–share every last detail of what we did wrong–or else it was like we weren’t really repenting. It always seemed to me that talking to the bishop was your punishment for sinning, part of the process to prove that you’re really, truly sorry and that you’re willing to do the absolute most uncomfortable thing imaginable in order to be forgiven.

Just because someone taught you that, doesn’t make it right. It just makes it that person’s belief or idea. You are realizing they were probably not correct. I know how it goes. We all have baggage like that. I do too. I get frustrated sometimes seeing things in a new light, and thinking back to what I was told growing up. It might not have even been just one person. A whole generation can get into a wrong idea about the Gospel. I think we came from a very idealistic and black/white set of generations. We are swinging in the other direction now for a couple generations (more compassion and understanding, less purity of the one-way).

I see you feeling that sense that this isn’t right. That’s because it really isn’t. Going to talk to the Bishop isn’t a punishment (it shouldn’t be). The path to forgiveness isn’t through doing some new, horrible, uncomfortable penance act. It is a sense of coming to terms with what we have done, and changing. We might feel remorse for hurting others. Most of the time we are just disappointed with ourselves when we realize we made mistakes. We are our worst enemy.

Christ doesn’t want us to suffer.

[Anonymous]

Amen, valoel. Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, guys. You’re helping me feel better.

It’s kind of jarring to realize things you always thought are probably wrong. But liberating too, especially when the things you thought are hurtful.

P.S. Ray, I really like what you said about the misinterpretation of Alma!!! (As an aside, I always like what you have to say. I’ve lurked in the Bloggernaccle for a couple of years now and you always make me pause and think. So thanks.)

[Anonymous]

OK I have had a thought here

Unfortunatly any church has stories of abuse

be it physical, mental, sexual or spiritual

This may be for any number of reasons, and because I dont want to be seen to be talking badly about any other church I will use some hypothetical situations in the LDS church

Lets say a girl of 15 goes to her bishop to confess something, such as self gratification (even at 27 i have difficulty with this subject lol)

Could there be an opening for abuse OF COURSE thats not to say it will happen but there is gonna be some opening there for it to happen because there is a man in power and a young girl there.

Now what if she said he did abuse her in any of the ways above,

we wouldnt know if it happened or not

its his word against hers

OK I KNOW its not likely to happen because MOST of the time it wouldnt happen like that BUT what if….

why leave everyone open to this

so what are the options

have the girls parents in there with her (laughable – NO girl no matter what her age wants to talk about that side of her sexuality in front of her mum or dad)

have a friend of the girls there (nope that still leaves things open and risks there)

have the YW president there INSTEAD of the bishop

not sure that she would have the right “keys” to deal with the situation

what about having the bishop there to “mediate” between the girl and God

AND the YW Pres there to just be there for the girl

emotional support and to also help stop anything from happening or stop untrue accusations

thoughts?

[Anonymous]

I’ve always been a proponent of having a parent and/or trusted leader/friend outside the office during all interviews – for multiple reasons. If the interview brings out things that are difficult or embarrassing, there should be someone right there who can help make sure the young woman or young man is as comfortable as is possible – and also to avoid any chance of false accusation.

I also believe that NO interview with ANY member should delve into specifics when it comes to sexual activity, regardless of age or gender. General categories are fine (adultery, fornication, obvious immodesty, etc.), but details – not fine. There is NOTHING that possibly can affect “degrees of worthiness” that cannot be established in general, broad terms without the specifics. If any leader started asking for specific detail, and if I was in any position for the member to tell me about it, I hope the person being interviewed would let me know – so I could talk directly with the leader. It simply shouldn’t be, but, unfortunately, especially with new leaders and supremely confident ones, it does happen occasionally.

[Anonymous]

All this makes me wonder if the Catholics aren’t on to something. If you’re going to require ecclesiastical confession at all, make it totally anonymous, with a wall between you.

…Not that the Catholics have a great track record when it comes to avoiding abuse!

(Certainly didn’t mean that maliciously. My whole family on my mom’s side is Catholic and I’ve got nothing but love and respect for Catholicism. Just given the public controversy in recent years, I realized it was kind of a funny statement after I wrote it. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of parishes do not have abuse problems.)

[Author]

Posts