Reframing Debate on Jesse Jackson Controversy

”. . . [A]nd from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”

--Jeremiah 6:13-14

*

With this biblical excerpt, Marie M. Fortune opens her analysis of the church’s response to clergy sexual misconduct in the denial-shattering 1989 article “Is Nothing Sacred?”

In his column (On Faith, Feb. 3), the Rev. Bill Sharp equates forgiveness of the Rev. Jesse Jackson with the restoration of Jackson to a position of trust. Unfortunately, Sharp’s instinct toward forgiveness would only perpetuate the injustice that has marked the tragic history of church reactions to clergy sexual misconduct.

The issue is not simply one of forgiveness of a private transgression. Jackson’s conduct raised much deeper issues of fitness for clerical office that cannot be dismissed with a forgive-and-forget policy.

For Jackson and other clergy members who have abused their sacred trust and authority, forgiveness must come in the form of an opportunity to grow past the personal demons that caused them to abuse their offices in the first place.

Only after they have demonstrated such growth can the church consider reinstating them in the pulpit.

Sharp assaulted the positions taken by the Rev. Connie Regener (On Faith, Jan. 27) in asserting that Jackson must necessarily step down for a period of healing and personal restoration, that his organization must be alert to the possibility of additional victims, and that his followers cannot simply take Jackson’s word that he is healed.

Thankfully, in the many years since truth-telling and the quest for justice began in response to clergy sexual misconduct, many major denominations stand with Regener.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) Sexual Misconduct Policy and Its Procedures, adopted in 1993, opens with its policy that “all church members, church officers, nonmember employees, and volunteers of governing bodies and entities of the church are to maintain the integrity of the ministerial, employment, and professional relationship at all times. Sexual misconduct is not only a violation of the principles set forth in Scripture, but also of the ministerial, pastoral, employment, and professional relationship.”

And the Presbyterian Church (USA) has not just mouthed the words but has begun to follow through with the message. Internal censure cases for clergy sexual misconduct lead to removal from office--either temporary or permanent--even when such misconduct is between consenting adults.

Presbyterian Church (USA) is not alone in stepping up to this challenge--nor was it the first. One of the earliest efforts by a major denomination was by the Northwest District of the American Lutheran Church in 1978, which based policies squarely on God’s word:

“Forgiveness and restoration to positions of trust for persons who have violated that trust should not be quickly or lightly given. ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another person’s sins; keep yourself pure.’ (1 Tim. 5:22.) At the same time the goal should always be to restore even the most serious offender to fellowship with God and communion with the church, even when forgiveness and reconciliation cannot be extended to include restoration to public office.”

Sharp absolves Jackson of “pastoral sexual misconduct” because the woman in question was an employee. This ignores the charismatic power position that a man such as Jackson holds throughout his many professional relationships, not just the role as pastor-parishioner. And it ignores the broad ethical responsibilities of all those in positions of power (clergy, doctors, lawyers, counselors, teachers, mentors, supervisors) to prevent the development of inappropriate relationships with those within their spheres of influence.

God’s forgiveness may be instantaneous but not necessarily provide the internal psychological and spiritual healing that ensures the transgressor sins no more.