“of, relating to, or common to a system”

“systemic” in Frederick C. Mish, ed., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

The discussion on the fundamentalist blogosphere lately has been very heated over stories of scandal and sexual abuse in or connected with ministries widely viewed as fundamentalist. (I phrase it that way because some may dispute the fundie credentials of some of these ministries.)

I really don’t want to get into a “fact-finding-fault-finding” scream-a-thon here. But Bob Bixby brings the word ‘systemic’ to the discussion and others have said similar things. By systemic, Bob says he means

I think it is right to say that she was wrongly treated because of a systemic abuse of victims in fundamentalist circles. I insist on the word “systemic” because I do not think that IFB people consciously scheme about how to make people suffer.

…

I do agree that abuse is systemic in the culture of IFB. It is systemic because of the general IFB understanding of church, discipline, sin, authority, and the Bible.

So… systemic… “of, relating to, or common to a system”

(Now, before we go on, let’s note that Bob is broadening the topic from sexual abuse to ‘abuse of victims’ and that this issue is ‘systemic’ because of the IFB “understanding of church, discipline, sin, authority, and the Bible.” Bob is painting with a very broad brush and using the current scandal to attack his favorite whipping boy, independent Baptist Fundamentalism.)

But is ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘child abuse’ systemic to Christian fundamentalism?

A friend of mine sent me a few links tonight about another very very tragic and disgusting story about another independent Baptist and another scandal. I’m not going to include any links, its just a completely disgusting story. In this case, it appears there is a serious sin issue, this time on the part of a pastor. That’s all the details I’ll give.

But the story gave me pause. Not another one! And then again, this question came to mind: is ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘child abuse’ systemic to Christian fundamentalism?

Because if it is, every right thinking fundamentalist needs to GET OUT, fast.

How to test this out? I decided to do a few searches on Google. The first was for ‘evangelical underage inappropriate’; ‘fundamentalist underage inappropriate’; and ‘school teacher underage inappropriate’.

The results:

1. EUA = About 415,000 results (0.09 seconds)
2. FUA = About 319,000 results (0.26 seconds)
3. STUA = About 1,830,000 results (0.15 seconds)

Please note that the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’ are loosely used in the press, so for instance my search on ‘fundamentalist …’ picked up hits on Mormon Fundamentalism right at the top of the page.

Also, while these search terms are perhaps a little generic, if you look at the searches, you will be able to see that they pick up stories and articles of the sort we are talking about. So I think the terms are ‘good enough’. I didn’t want to get too specific for fear of picking up sites that are themselves inappropriate. It is possible that some of them are still included in the lists these searches give, so use with caution.

I certainly don’t have time to sift through 2.5 million Google hits, but I did look at one article that led me to another. The first article is entitled Sexual abuse within fundamentalist and other evangelical churches. The site is sort of religious, but not Christian. It starts off citing the Catholic scandals that came to light since 2000, mostly in North America and Europe. They make this significant statement in the second paragraph:

Sexual abuse is found throughout society. Approximately 1% of girls are so abused by their fathers before puberty, and about 1% by their step-fathers. Abuse of boys is at a lower level. There is really no reliable data which demonstrates whether religion plays a role in this phenomenon. We have never located any trustworthy evidence that sexual abuse of pre-pubertal children is higher or lower in fundamentalist/other evangelical churchees (sic) when compared to the Roman Catholic Church, other faith groups, or in society as a whole.

They go on to cite someone’s report of a Focus on the Family program and note that the vast majority of sexual scandal in evangelical churches involves inappropriate relationships of staff with adult parishioners.

Now… a caveat: I am not sure how reliable the statements on this site are. They are reasonably stated, but I have no way of verifying them.

This site also links to several lists of cases in various denominations that appear on another cite. Here are the lists:

• 147 Baptist pastors
  
• 251 fundamentalist/evangelical pastors
  
• 140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers
  
• 38 Lutheran Ministers
  
• 46 Methodist Ministers
  
• 19 Presbyterian Ministers
  
• 197 misc. Church Ministers

I think all the cases cited here are accurate, but I haven’t attempted to go through all the stories and read up on the supporting documents. I have no idea if these lists are exhaustive or if they are limited by only a certain time period.

I cite them to note that the ‘religious’ site linking to them under the heading ‘Sexual abuse within fundamentalist and other evangelical churches’ is pointing to precious few, if any, actual fundamentalist churches. Go ahead and sift through the list (if you can stomach it). I think you will see that my observation is correct.

What is the point of all this?

I think that we can say that child sexual abuse is not systemic to fundamentalism or evangelicalism or even to Catholicism.

Please note especially the number of hits I got with my searches, comparing evangelicals, fundamentalists, and school teachers. We could say, simply based on the number of hits, that such behaviour is much more systemic of the educational system, could we not?

But really, I don’t even want to say something like that. I will say that child sexual abuse seems to be systemic to the human condition. I don’t know if it is more prevalent in Europe and North America than elsewhere, who can tell? I suspect that it is on the rise because of the widespread over-sexed culture we live in. Men (and women) are immersed in sexuality, have established deep habit patterns in their souls and are twisted and perverted in their thinking.

It is no surprise that such sins show up at church.

And we make no excuses for covering such sins, or allowing perpetrators to ‘get away with it’. As pastors, we must be vigilant in so many ways: vigilant over ourselves, vigilant over our church leaders, over all volunteers, over every program of the church involving children.

But can we make a plea to drop the ‘systemic’ claptrap? It is completely unhelpful to the problem in general and does nothing to provide aid for any current specific case. It is just a cheap shot at fundamentalism by several who are exploiting a tragedy currently in the news for the purpose of furthering their own animus towards fundamentalism.

UPDATE: In the comments I mention a Canadian columnist, a Catholic, defending his church against the charges of abuse. He makes some significant points that relate to the ‘systemic’ charge. Before you leap to condemn fundamentalism on this point, you should consider what he says:

The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the family, generally by step-brothers and boyfriends of mothers.

The next highest amount comes from teachers. These two institutions and people account for more than 75% of all charges, compared to less than 2% for the church.

Next are sports coaches, with some horribly infamous cases in hockey.

Other sports are equally bad, with one swimming coach in the United States being moved from team to team even after he was revealed as a pedophile.

Secular youth groups such as Scouts also experience abuse, as do synagogues, mosques and Protestant churches, foster homes, youth clubs and pretty much anywhere else.

In fact, a Catholic Church today is arguably the safest place for a young person to be. But the church is held to a higher standard and that is entirely appropriate.

What a healthy marriage culture does is encourage adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their biological parents in a common household.

and

We cannot say with any confidence that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would cause infidelity or illegitimacy to increase; we can say that it would make the countervailing norms, and the public policy of marriage itself, incoherent. The symbolic message of inclusion for same-sex couples — in an institution that makes no sense for them — would be coupled with another message: that marriage is about the desires of adults rather than the interests of children.

The article is of course written from an entirely non-Biblical perspective, but I think it has some arguments from a philosophical and practical standpoint that Bible believers can use.

Tonight, I’d like to comment on a point Bauder makes several times in the lectures, but doesn’t appear to elaborate on. (I am almost finished with lecture 8 of 10 lectures.)

The point is this: It is possible to deny the gospel by false doctrine and also by false practice. A few references in support of this teaching:

NAU Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

NAU 1 John 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

NAU 1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Clearly, Kevin Bauder is right in saying that one can deny the gospel by deeds. The Bible says it!

Recently, I have been complaining about the commendations (with disclaimers) that some want to offer for Mark Driscoll. In response, one commenter said:

From what I know of Driscoll (admittedly not a whole lot), he holds to the vital doctrines of orthodox Christianity (like those found in the BJU creed). His crass style is crass. I would warn against his style and sometimes outlandish remarks…

Perhaps Driscoll holds to the vital doctrines of orthodoxy and perhaps he doesn’t. In one of Bauder’s lectures, he makes the point that people are sometimes inconsistent with their own stated beliefs (I think this is in lecture 6 or 7). He was describing situations where someone might espouse a particular doctrine (even a false doctrine), yet in their lives act as if motivated by the opposite doctrine. In other words, human beings are often incredibly inconsistent. They can say they believe orthodox doctrines, but they can actually live as if they (in the deepest recesses of their hearts) deny them.

Even more than that, the Scriptures cited above tell us that men can actually deny the faith and deny Christ by their deeds, not just seem to.

What kinds of deeds deny the faith? What kinds of deeds deny Christ?

We might think that such deeds as adultery, sodomy, murder and such like are among the top ten in this hit parade. But what about the context of Titus 1.16, for example:

NAU Titus 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Something as ‘small’ as gluttony is, perhaps, a deed that can evidence denial of the faith? Impurity denies the faith? (Like impure speech and jokes about Christ? Does it or doesn’t it?)

1 Tim 5.8 quoted above says that the sin of failing to provide for one’s family denies the faith.

Here’s Jude (not v. 3!):

NAU Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Those “creeps” turned the grace of God into what? Licentiousness. What is that? Here’s a little bit from Thayer:

unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence

Now consider this comment from the Steve Camp post and comment thread I referenced in my earlier posts.

I am a former Acts 29 church pastor which pulled our church out because of several things which gave me grave concern reagrding Driscoll and his group.

Forst [First] there is the “sensual” language–or language which is sexual or referring to sexaul things. This permeates his ministry even though Scriputre teaches this to be the fruit of the flesh (Gal 5:19) and that which makrks false teachers (2Pe 2:1-2, 18).

There is a ‘second’ and ‘third’ in this fellow’s comments, but I have no way of verifying the accuracy (this is the internet you know…) But we have ample evidence of the truth of this first point. Driscoll’s tendency to refer to sexuality and sensuality is well documented.

I presume that no fundamentalist would dare to invite Driscoll to speak at a conference (but John Piper does). I presume that no fundamentalist would dare to encourage his church people go hear Driscoll speak (or would they?).

But. Are today’s fundamentalists prepared to say that Driscoll’s stated creed notwithstanding, he is someone we should mark and avoid?

NAU Romans 16:17 ¶ Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

KJV Romans 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

And if we are willing to say that, what does marking and avoiding look like?