DIM Thinking U*Us "Ostrichize" Clergy Misconduct Complainants
The following paragraphs about how U*Us "ostrichize" people who dare to complain about clergy sexual misconduct by U*U ministers are excerpted from an excellent post by uugrrl on her 'Speaking Truth To Power' blog that deals with how the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee mishandles clergy sexual misconduct complaints. Of course the very same DIM Thinking social dynamic applies to pretty much anyone who brings any kind of serious complaint against a U*U minister for conduct unbecoming a minister, not just clergy sexual misconduct complaints. Certainly I have experienced most of the DIM Thinking "ostrichization" by U*Us that uugrrl talks about in her post. I will create links for her words to examples from my own experience to underline that point.
To speak out about misconduct in a church community is to quickly become hated and marginalized -- to become an outcast, as well as a casualty of abuse. It doesn't matter that the minister clearly violated the code of ethics, that you didn't go trumpeting the problem (from the pulpit, to the press, in a lawsuit, etc.), or even that a large number of others experienced something similar. It turns out, and is now well documented, that some people will do anything to protect a beloved minister. It's cruel, and to condone such behavior (directly or indirectly) is shameful. Unfortunately, that's what our current processes can do.
The UUA's director of ministry told me a few years ago of a case where seven women wrote alleging misconduct of minister. The minister circulated their letters around the congregation, the director said, and by the time the UUA was ready to follow-up, all of the women had left. End of case? I don't know, but I think so from the way it was told to me. The minister should have been defellowshipped for this act alone, but the rules about confidentiality don't make that a clear consequence.
Whatever the outcome, the thought of these women haunts me. Does the UUA realize what they lost? People who care enough about their faith to speak up in its midst, rather than just "suing the bastard" or simply walking away, are not your run-of-the-mill congregants. They demonstrate a deep trust in our larger faith. Their trust has already been shattered at least once, but still they believe UUs will do the right thing by them. Instead, it seems we destroy yet another layer of trust. How long can someone remain under such circumstances?
To speak out about misconduct in a church community is to quickly become hated and marginalized -- to become an outcast, as well as a casualty of abuse. It doesn't matter that the minister clearly violated the code of ethics, that you didn't go trumpeting the problem (from the pulpit, to the press, in a lawsuit, etc.), or even that a large number of others experienced something similar. It turns out, and is now well documented, that some people will do anything to protect a beloved minister. It's cruel, and to condone such behavior (directly or indirectly) is shameful. Unfortunately, that's what our current processes can do.
The UUA's director of ministry told me a few years ago of a case where seven women wrote alleging misconduct of minister. The minister circulated their letters around the congregation, the director said, and by the time the UUA was ready to follow-up, all of the women had left. End of case? I don't know, but I think so from the way it was told to me. The minister should have been defellowshipped for this act alone, but the rules about confidentiality don't make that a clear consequence.
Whatever the outcome, the thought of these women haunts me. Does the UUA realize what they lost? People who care enough about their faith to speak up in its midst, rather than just "suing the bastard" or simply walking away, are not your run-of-the-mill congregants. They demonstrate a deep trust in our larger faith. Their trust has already been shattered at least once, but still they believe UUs will do the right thing by them. Instead, it seems we destroy yet another layer of trust. How long can someone remain under such circumstances?
Comments