Category Archives: Sexual purity

#MeToo must be #WeToo

1 Reply

I think the #MeToo hashtag campaign is healthy. If you’re not familiar with the movement, it arose in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, with Alyssa Milano asking women to share the hashtag #metoo if they’d been victims of sexual harassment or abuse.* I think it’s healthy for society in general to be made aware of this problem.

Beyond society in general, I think the church needs to increase efforts to make church a safe haven and a refuge for those who have been abused. To do such, I think that we need to:

  • Condemn any and all abuse of power in the church. We have to communicate that not only is such abuse anti-Christian, but it is something that will be actively opposed in the church.
  • Condemn any and all sexual abuse in the church. It will not be covered up. It will not be hushed for “the good of the church” nor “the reputation of the offender.” It will be denounced.
  • Stop the ridicule of safety measures. I’m talking about things like the Billy Graham rule. Like it or not, allowing men and women to meet behind closed doors opens up a world of problems. I’ll admit that it shouldn’t be like that as long as you admit that it is like that. We live in a fallen world. Christians of all people should be able to accept that.
  • Reject all questioning of a victim’s complicity in the abuse. I’m not saying that we encourage false accusations against church leaders. I am saying that we offer unconditional love and support to those who have been abused. We don’t ask whether they invited or encouraged the abuse. We offer compassion.

Those are some initial steps that I can think of. What else would you suggest?

Something I wasn’t aware of: Nick Gill pointed out this article that describes how the #metoo hashtag movement actually started 10 years ago.

The 100-year flood

1 Reply

I mentioned this the other day as part of what I was going to present at the Leaders Conference in Daytona. But I wanted to dig a bit deeper. It’s the idea of being prepared for temptation.

I’m painfully aware of the ravages of sexual temptation, especially in the church. Few sins seem to impact a Christian community the way sexual sin does. I guess there are feelings of violation of trust that hit everyone. To some degree, there’s often, “Wow, if it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone.”

That’s part of the awareness that the church needs to have. It COULD happen to anyone. Especially in a close, caring community. People find themselves in vulnerable situations and reach out to people that show compassion… which is hopefully what church people do. That compassion needs to have safeguards around it, or good people can get into trouble.

My friend and colleague, Steve Ridgell, has developed what he calls “Ridgell’s Rules,” limits as to the interaction between people. These rules are too strict for everyday situations. And they need to be. We have to have limits in place that go beyond what is normally required.

My mom’s house backs up to a flood plain. Zoning restrictions limit what can be built there. We moved into that house when I was about to begin first grade, and I’ve never seen a flood come through there. But I respect the wisdom of the engineers who designated that as a flood plain. You don’t want to discover that your house is built in a spot that floods every few decades.

Engineers have to plan for the 100-year flood, the once-a-century rainfall that sends water where it doesn’t normally go. I think we have to do the same with our relationships. We need guidelines that seem overly strict to prepare us for those once-in-a-lifetime moments when an especially strong temptation comes.

Firm limits need to be placed on one-to-one contact with members of the opposite sex. (Admittedly, I’m not addressing those who experience same-sex attraction). For example, members of the opposite sex should not travel together alone. Exceptions would be made for close family members, but shouldn’t be made otherwise. When I started work at Herald of Truth I let them know that was a “deal breaker” for me. I wouldn’t travel alone with a woman that was not my wife. I feel strongly about that one, even for people who “don’t have trouble with that.”

Other similar restrictions need to be put in place. If someone says, “Isn’t this a bit legalistic?”, I tell them that I’m also legalistic about not sticking a fork into an electrical outlet. We’re talking precautions, not eternal judgment.

We need to have strict enough codes of behavior that someone will complain that they are too strict. If not, we haven’t gone far enough. And we’ll be swept away in the 100-year flood.

What do you think?