First, the
story itself:
Evangelical
megachurch pastor John Ortberg has been placed on administrative leave after it
came out that he allowed a man who confessed to
having sexual attraction to children (aka a pedophile) to continue to work with
children at the church unsupervised - including overnight
events. Apparently, Ortberg also did not even bother to inform the elder board
of either the decision or the man’s pedophilia.
Um, that’s
pretty bad. That’s intentionally putting children at risk of abuse.
In my
book, that should be an automatic and permanent disqualification for
ministry.
But it gets
even more interesting because of how it went down, and who blew
the whistle on this.
Ortberg has
a transgender son, Daniel Lavery (formerly Mallory Ortberg) and it is he who,
after confronting his father, went to the elder board - which is when this all
blew up.
Apparently,
Daniel decided to elevate the issue after his dad basically said “you’re a
pervert too, so you have nothing useful to say on how I should handle this.” I
think it is safe to say that relationship is now over. (Daniel called it a
breach of trust - and I very much agree.)
I have some
thoughts on this whole thing because of my own experience within
Evangelicalism. Specifically, this was both thoroughly predictable, and also
symptomatic of a deep sickness within Evangelicalism that makes it impossible
for Evangelicals to think or act ethically when it comes to sexual
issues.
So here
goes:
1. Evangelicalism
protects predators
In the
ongoing meltdown of Evangelicalism over the last decade or so, this has been a
recurring problem. It is, indeed, endemic to the system. From C. J. Mahaney
to Bill Gothard to
Doug Wilson to Josh Duggar - I
could name probably two dozen more prominent cases where church leaders have
chosen to cover up child abuse and protect the perpetrators over the
victims.
There are
three factors that I believe dictate this pattern:
a. Evangelical
beliefs about gender essentialism include the belief that men cannot control
their sexual urges, which are not really their fault anyway. Thus, women need to be controlled so men don’t lust,
and women are expected to “fix” broken men by catering to their every sexual
demand. This in turn leads to a culture in which predatory men are protected
from justice. They get the benefit of the doubt in a way that women do not.
b. Evangelicals
think about sex in terms of “forbidden” or “not forbidden” rather than in terms
of ethics. Thus, there is no difference in their minds between raping children
and having consentual premarital sex - it’s all forbidden sex. This means that
they treat pedophile predators with the same “grace” that they do couples who
get ahead of things, so to speak. This prevents them from seeing sexual
predators as just that: predators. If they were recognized as predators, then
leaders would focus on protecting their prey from predation.
c. Evangelicals
(just like Catholics and other religious groups) tend to believe that sexual
predation is a “sin” problem, not a criminal problem or psychological problem.
Thus, a pedophile can “repent” and then is not considered a problem. This is at
the root of why churches cover up abuse rather than immediately report it to
law enforcement. And it is also why they allow known pedophiles to have access
to children. They genuinely believe that it is just another sin that can be repented
from and then it will just go away. (Hint: it doesn’t.)
This is one
reason why I don’t have our kids involved with church activities. The trust is
broken. I have zero confidence that my kids’ safety will be protected. It is
more likely that the hurt feelings of a predator will matter more to church
leadership.
This seems
like it really should be a no-brainer: err on the side of protecting kids. Hey,
didn’t a famous person once say something like that?
2.
Evangelicalism does not actually understand pedophilia
See above
for part of this. By treating pedophilia as just another sin - something very
much like making out with your girlfriend before marriage - they miss pretty
much everything important about it. And that includes the information needed to
help those pedophiles who can be helped (and are willing to be treated.) For
more on the psychological diagnosis and treatment, this Psychology Today
article is helpful.
For what it
is worth, Daniel is the one who seems to understand this - he is compassionate,
and expresses his admiration for anyone who seeks to get help for sexual
compulsion. (You can read his twitter thread
about the incident here - I recommend it.) He also referred the pedophile to an
appropriate counsellor.
Here’s the
thing: on the one hand, not all pedophiles are predators. And the recidivism
rate is actually fairly low - most people do the right thing. But on the other,
there are the predators, who generally share common traits, such as narcissism,
charm, and the ability to avoid detection. These predators generally have
dozens of victims before they are caught.
This
suggests something pretty damn obvious: a decent human being who finds himself
(it’s mostly men) sexually attracted to children would decide to never work
with children. It’s no different than a person with uncontrolled epilepsy:
that person has no business driving a car, and a decent human being with that
problem would never get behind the wheel knowing the damage he or she could
cause. This isn’t rocket science.
So, a person
who expresses sexual attraction to children should not work with children. Period.
If they are not a predator (and there is no indication at this time that this
man ever acted on his urges), then I have no problem with them serving in other
capacities or being treated with decency. But they shouldn’t be around
children. And if they wanted to be around children knowing their urges,
that in itself is a pretty good indication that they are in fact a
predator.
In light of
this, just how horrifying is Ortberg’s decision? He literally encouraged a
pedophile to continue to work unsupervised with children! What the actual
fuck?!! Of all the things to do, that was literally the worst possible
choice.
And he
couldn’t have asked for advice from his elder board? That’s problematic. (And
also pretty much par for the course with Evangelical pastors in my experience.)
Better yet, he might have asked advice from the mothers of small children in
his congregation. But, well, women don’t really matter in Evangelical culture -
they believe God wants only men to lead.
3.
Ortberg’s treatment of his son is thoroughly sickening
When I read
Daniel’s thread, my jaw hit the floor and I felt nauseated. Because what
Ortberg said was thoroughly sickening and disgusting.
Let me be
blunt:
Ortberg
repeated the LGBTQ version of the “blood libel.”
Let me
explain that one. During most of the Middle Ages, one of the nastiest
antisemitic belief was the “blood libel.” The
church, sadly, encouraged a belief that an important Jewish ritual was
murdering and draining the blood of Christian children to use in making
matzah.
Evangelicals
have their own version of this, which is that LGBTQ people are all sexual
predators who want to rape and molest children and turn them gay. (And, of
course, the related idea that transgender people only do what they do so they can get into the “wrong”
bathroom and rape innocent women.) Just as in the case of
antisemitism, this gross slander of LGBTQ people is used as justification to
persecute and perpetrate violence against them. And to legislate their rights
out of existence.
So look at
that again: Ortberg told Daniel that because he was a “pervert” too that he had
no standing to suggest an alternative. Oh, and also said that homosexuality and
pedophilia are similar. Yep, “you’re transgender which is similar to pedophilia
so you are just as much of a threat as the pedophile is.”
Seriously
sickening.
Daniel’s
statement that this breaks the trust he once had with his family is an
understatement. This is more like using a thermonuclear weapon to burn a
bridge. If my parents ever did that, I would never be in their presence again -
and they would not be around my children.
This also
illustrates the reasons that Evangelicalism finds itself completely unable to
discuss sex in an ethical way.
When you
conflate the sexual assault and abuse of children with a loving and consensual
same-sex relationship, you have already failed to make the most important
ethical distinction. Consensual sex is NOT the same thing as rape and
predation. It is not. And Evangelicals wonder why nobody gives a fuck about
what they say about sex? Maybe because they show more sympathy for predators
than for victims? Maybe because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that
consent matters?
And maybe
because they insist on slandering LGBTQ people, who are no more likely to be
predators than cishet people.
Side note: I
cannot help but feel that there is also an element of misogyny at work here
too. I’ve spent enough time in Evangelicalism (4 decades!) to have seen time
and time again a woman’s legitimate concerns pushed aside by a man who knows
better. Women are (in practice and sometimes in theory too) expected to sit
down, shut up, and know their place.
So in this
case, “You are really a woman, no matter what you say, and God speaks to me as
a leader, not to people like you.” One of my theories about why Evangelicalism
has gone so far off the moral rails is that they have systematically excluded
women from decision-making at the higher levels. I cannot imagine that an elder
board with equal representation for women would have supported Ortberg’s
decision.
4. Daniel
Lavery deserves nothing but praise for his actions in this matter.
Seriously.
At the cost of his relationship with his parents, he did the right thing.
Multiple right things.
First, he
gave outstanding advice to the pedophile (who seems to have wanted to do the
right thing himself): get treatment, get out of situations where you might be a
risk to children.
Second, he
gave his father the chance to do the right thing.
Third, when
that didn’t work, he elevated the issue. Fortunately that worked. I hope Menlo
Church does the right thing and permanently removes Ortberg from ministry - he
is clearly unfit for leadership. [Note: I’m not holding my breath.]
Fourth, his
statement on twitter is outstanding. He was clear about the situation, but
without hyperbole.
I don’t know
if he will run across this blog, but if he does: Daniel, I admire you and support
you one hundred percent. The world is a better place because of what you
did.
Having had a
difficult relationship with my own parents over religious and political
differences, I feel the pain too, although obviously not to that extent. It
hurts when those you love choose toxic religious dogma over relationship and
understanding.
***
Note on
Daniel Lavery:
Daniel
Lavery has written for Slate.com, first as Mallory
Ortberg, then Daniel Mallory Ortberg, and now Danny M. Lavery. I first ran
across him there.
In addition,
he has written a few books, including The Merry Spinster,
which I read last year. It is an enjoyable and bizarre mashup of fairy tales
and other stories, with a decidedly gender-bending flavor. If you want to
support him, why not buy one of his books?
Update: The Washington Post did a piece on Lavery recently.
UPDATE JULY 2020:
Well, it turns out to be even worse. The pedophile in questions is....wait for it.....another of John Ortberg's sons.
So this isn't just bad judgment, it is nepotism and hypocrisy. One set of rules for the leaders, another for everyone else. And a bit of sibling favoritism in the bargain. Color me unsurprised. My own experience in my family is that theological and gender orthodoxy are valued above any virtues, and that following those rules entitles certain family members to a pass for psychopathic and abusive behavior.
Update: The Washington Post did a piece on Lavery recently.
UPDATE JULY 2020:
Well, it turns out to be even worse. The pedophile in questions is....wait for it.....another of John Ortberg's sons.
So this isn't just bad judgment, it is nepotism and hypocrisy. One set of rules for the leaders, another for everyone else. And a bit of sibling favoritism in the bargain. Color me unsurprised. My own experience in my family is that theological and gender orthodoxy are valued above any virtues, and that following those rules entitles certain family members to a pass for psychopathic and abusive behavior.
Note on the use of the “Dead Name”:
It has been brought to my attention that it is problematic to refer to
the former name of a transgender person - the old name is their “dead name.” In
this particular case, I am uncertain how to handle things, because Daniel
Lavery is a very new name for someone who has written a lot under both the
actual dead name, and under his “maiden” name (for lack of a better term - I
propose the use of “swain name” for those men who buck tradition and take their
wives’ surname). In fact, his latest book, Something That May Shock and
Discredit You, which comes out later this year, is
published under “Daniel Mallory Ortberg.” Lavery does not have an official
author website, alas, or I would just link to that.
Anyway, this is an uncomfortable compromise no matter what, and I would
prefer that readers be able to locate Lavery’s writing under all pen names,
past and present.
As is always the case, to the extent that I can, I try to accommodate
the wishes of the author as to names and pronouns. Daniel, if you run across
this post, feel free to contact me and help me out here.
I read the Dear Prudence column regularly. I knew Daniel had transitioned, but had wondered about the change of surname. I'm very sorry to learn that this evil is the reason why.
ReplyDeleteI believe the change in surname is because he got married.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is correct. He married his fiancee Grace Lavery back in December.
Delete