This is the third and final part of a Cambridge Paper re-published with permission. Read the first part and the second part. The full paper can be downloaded in full in pdf format here. It is the expression of a personal viewpoint by the author acting as an individual only and not as a representative of any church or organisation.

A wrong approach to sin and crime

Protestant theology rejects the Catholic distinction, drawn from 1 John 5:16–17, between venial sins and mortal sins. It rightly emphasises that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). But although all sinful actions, words and thoughts fall short of God’s absolute standards (Isaiah 64:6), in relative terms some sins are more serious than others. Some sins involve greater mistreatment of other people. This reality is reflected in Old Testament law [1]. Two of the factors which shape the seriousness of a breach of the Old Testament law are the disruption to orderly relationships within a community or in the community’s relationship to God (see, for example, Leviticus 20; 24:13–16, where this factor is prominent), and the degree of harm caused to others (Exodus 21:22–27; Leviticus 24:17–22) [2].

Reading the New Testament material on dispute resolution in the light of those two factors, we can then see how different kinds of wrongdoing are to be addressed. When the sin has not caused a breakdown in relationship or harm which demands a public response, it can be addressed through a staged process of private rebuke and attempted reconciliation, followed by mediation, and then public judgement by the church (Matthew 18:15–17). This is the process Paul seems to have in mind in 1 Corinthians 6:1–6.

Some kinds of sin involve such harm or such abuse of disparate power that the staged process in Matthew 18 is inappropriate. When someone within the Church has taken advantage of their power or position, then a public response is required, by the Church and also by the public authorities if a crime has been committed. Within the Church, leaders who commit such sins are to be rebuked publicly ‘so that the others may take warning’ (1 Timothy 5:20). Addressing serious wrongdoing publicly sets the tone that it will not be allowed [3]. Failing to investigate or to confront scandalous behaviour sends the message that it will be tolerated [4].

Another danger with a theology which fails to distinguish between the severity of different sins is that abusers and victims are treated as being on a par [5]. There is theological controversy around the extent to which it is proper to speak of God having a preference for the poor. There should be no such debate about whether God is on the side of the victims of abuse. In Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2, Jesus says that ‘If anyone causes one of these little ones … to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung round their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.’ Ezekiel is crystal clear about where God stands when it comes to abusers and their victims: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock … I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.’ (Ezekiel 34:9–10).

We also need to take more seriously in our theology the role of the public authorities. Many churches have abandoned the Reformation emphasis on church discipline. Such churches now operate in a therapeutic rather than a judicial paradigm. As communities, we need both correction and healing. Regardless of the extent to which discipline is exercised within a church context. God has ordained secular authorities to deal with those wrongs that require a public response. Paul in Romans 13:4 does not hesitate to describe the corrupt Roman authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer’; prosecution of sexual and physical assault and harassment as crimes is a proper exercise of this authority. The trustees of the Iwerne Trust and others in the Church of England made major errors of judgement when, even when they had identified that John Smyth QC’s actions included criminal offences, they failed to respond in a victim-centred way. At least in cases when victims want a criminal investigation, the matter should be handed over to the police [6].

A wrong view of the relationship between love and justice

In the twentieth century, Protestant theologies had a hard time integrating love and justice. The starkest opposition was that advanced by the Lutheran Bishop Anders Nygren who, in Agape and Eros – A Study of the Christian Idea of Love, published in Swedish in the 1930s and in English in 1953, argued that the Old Testament revealed a God of law and justice and the New Testament the God of love not law [7]. But theologies of ‘cheap grace’ have led to the widespread view that justice is dispensable or unimportant for those who are seeking to live by the commands to love. This is compounded by teachings on repentance and forgiveness which explicitly or implicitly suggest that forgiveness from God can be divorced from efforts to make amends to those we have wronged.

The teaching of the Bible on these matters is clear. The way in which we demonstrate that we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength is by loving our neighbours as ourselves [8]. The Greek word dikaiosunē combines the vertical dimension of right relationship, which is the primary referent for the English word righteousness, and the horizontal dimension of right relationship with others, which in English is called justice.

In the nineteenth century, George MacDonald wrote that: ‘Man is not made for justice from his fellow, but for love, which is greater than justice, and by including supersedes justice. Justice to be justice must be much more than justice. Love is the law of our condition, without which we can no more render justice than a man can keep a straight line, walking in the dark.’ [9]

In the twenty-first century, Nicholas Wolterstorff has reminded us of the corollary, that ‘While love sometimes requires us to treat people more than justly, love never requires us to treat people less than justly.’ [10]

Loving victims and loving abusers means naming abuse for what it is, identifying it and condemning it. There is no way round this: there must be a reckoning, a moment of truth. There is no justice without judgement, there is no peace without judgement [11], and there is no repentance without judgement. Some degree of reconciliation and restoration may be appropriate in certain cases but only if the abuse has been unequivocally condemned. Any rush to reconciliation without condemnation compounds the trauma, and pressure put on victims to ‘forgive’ before they are ready to do so reinforces the message of powerlessness the offender had relied on to abuse the victim in the first place [12].

Repentance involves, where appropriate, making amends to others [13]. A clear example of this is Zacchaeus, whose conversion encompasses making restitution to those he had cheated (Luke 19:8). An important, but often disregarded, part of Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount is that ‘if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, … go and be reconciled with them; then come and offer your gift.’ (Matthew 5:23–24).

Nonetheless, as Rachael Denhollander told Larry Nassar and the world at his sentencing hearing: ‘forgiveness does not come by doing good things, as if good deeds can erase what you have done. It comes from repentance, which requires facing and acknowledging the truth about what you have done in all of its utter depravity and horror. Without mitigation. Without excuse.’ [14] Alcoholics Anonymous requires all the members to acknowledge publicly that they are alcoholics; in the same way, abusers need, for their own sake and for the sake of all those with whom they will come into contact in future, to face their own guilt and their victims’ suffering honestly, squarely and fully.

Conclusions

Our churches have not been places where those who have spotted abuses of power feel encouraged or safe. Not only is too little done about abuses which are reported; too few reports of abuse are made in the first place. We have not spoken up; and we have done too little when people have spoken up [15]. We need to repent of this.

In confronting abuse, the Church is constantly in need of reform. Leaders need to be held accountable. The vulnerable and the powerless need to be valued more than institutional or personal reputation and financial stability. The Bible’s frankness about the reality of abuse and God’s love and concern for victims needs to be proclaimed and needs to be modelled.

We need courage to love victims and to confront abusers; perseverance in the long, slow and often only partially complete work of bringing abusers to justice and helping victims to become survivors; and wisdom, faith and hope in the God whose Son died on the cross not only for the sins we have committed but also in solidarity with all those who have been rendered powerless, silenced and violated.

In order to respond effectively to abuse, our churches need to be places which do not appoint leaders unless those leaders have demonstrated a willingness to be held to account and to hold other leaders to account. We need models which allow for repentance and forgiveness of abusers who have genuinely repented but which distinguish clearly between restoration of communion and continuing fitness for office.

We need to learn to be vigilant to watch out for signs of abuse, and to be prepared to listen to victims, to stand alongside victims and to take action on behalf of victims. We need to put in place and constantly attend to systems which reinforce accountability. 

We need to make sure that the people – especially the weak, the powerless and the vulnerable, within our parishes, churches and organisations – are the ones being served rather than their interests being sacrificed to the institution. We need to read the Bible with open eyes, learning and teaching what power looks like when it is being exercised in Christlike ways and what power looks like when it is being abused. We need to develop a theology of lament, consolation and recovery for the victims of abuse and for the congregations in which abuse has occurred.

We need to have a clear idea of which sins require public rebuke and of which actions amount to crimes which must be reported to the public authorities. We need to be committed to the pursuit of justice, peace and repentance by insisting that the truth be told and that the victims be vindicated. Finally, we need to be prepared to count the cost of challenging possible abuse instead of taking the easy option of inaction or complicity.

Paul warned the Corinthians that no ministry, no matter how charismatic, was worth anything unless it demonstrated love. Love which protects victims will, for their sake and in the name of Jesus Christ, stand up to abusers. It will not cover up evil but will bring the truth to light (1 Corinthians 13:6). It will always protect victims; always trust God’s truth rather than the lies of abusers; always hope for justice, repentance and forgiveness; and always persevere in the hard work of making sure that the Church is a place where victims find protection and space to recover and where abusers are forced to face up to the truth about themselves (1 Corinthians 13:7).

David McIlroy a practising barrister, Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame (USA) in England, and a theologian.