Failure of Leadership

My grandfather died. When he did, my father (son-in-law to the deceased) delivered the eulogy. As is common among Jehovah's Witnesses, it was considered to be a fortunate thing because the dead man now had a reputation to speak for him. I believe it to be some incomprehensible application of Ecclesiastes 7:1.

While my father told heart-warming tales of Calvin being found working in his garden or opening his home to 50 or so children and grandchildren once a year, people began to weep openly. I was admittedly among them. We mourned for the passing of the good things that he represented to us. I had good times growing up in my otherwise disjointed clan. We had a creek to swim in, bonfires to bask in, and fields to explore. It was pretty all-American.

My grandfather had also been a raging drunk in his youth. He was a poacher, though many could let that pass as it came to feeding a family of eleven people. He was also abusive to his wife and at least one of his daughters.

Yes, that kind of abusive.

But that wasn't part of the picture being painted by my father. No one in polite company would ever mention that of course. His victimized daughter certainly wouldn't. Surprisingly, the number of people who knew about his abuse probably outweighed those who didn't. Considering that the funeral parlor was filled beyond capacity, that's some feat.

He had kindness in his history, but he also had wickedness. A lot of wickedness.

After becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses in his later years, he grew spiritually and was recommended as an elder in the congregation. There has been no shortage of references to pedophiles being cut unbelievable amounts of slack by Judicial Committees, so I won't pretend this is a surprise to some of the more jaded among you. I will, however, share that his appointment was contingent on his victim writing a letter of forgiveness to the Body of Elders and Circuit Overseer.

When I learned that, I was taken aback. It wasn't enough for them to appoint a child abuser. Arguably, his repentance should have made that history of sin a null value. But they actually pressured his daughter to put pen to paper and formally forgive him so he could pursue his own spiritual ambitions.

I can only imagine how it was impressed upon her that his value to the congregation was superlative. "Jehovah's will" could be best served if it was made perfectly clear that his victim had forgiven him. Though how that plays against the doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice leaves me a bit baffled.

I have pondered over this for some time. My gut reaction was to be disgusted, but I've found that given enough time and consideration, most emotional reactions evolve into some new understanding. This does not happen to be one of those times.

As often happens with acts of confession, the supplicant tells enough of the story to truthfully establish the error without divulging the true depth of the act. The breadth and depth of a sin, particularly child abuse, is often left undefined and secret. What it seems (from all outward appearances) that Elders do not know or take into account is that child abuse is common is families that are dysfunctional and prone to keeping secrets.

Where one secret exists, others surely follow. The aunt mentioned above was also involved in the abuse of her younger brother, who in turn abused one of their other brothers. This pattern led to instances of depression, attempted suicide, and marital infidelity among its victims over the years.

Unfortunately, this also led to the disfellowshipping of one of my uncles who himself was a victim. His emotional turmoil became so great that he committed a sin which led to his expulsion from the very religion that sought to promote the man who introduced abuse into the family into a position of spiritual leadership.

In time it became known that Calvin walked a very thin line for the rest of his life, engaging in behavior that was very close to the sin which his daughter formally forgave. Sadly, the deep and lasting impact he left on the family that he taught to follow Watchtower tenets was not a consideration in its treatment of his kin.

With almost calculated dismissal, the people most injured by his horrible flaws were disenfranchised by the Organization for their inability to recover from his abuse. With time and experience, I've come to understand the extremely unhealthy behaviors that permeated his progeny. I, being one of them, have seen the pattern of secrecy become a legacy. The capacity and inclination to lie is more ubiquitous than an appreciation for truth. Ironic considering the self-appointed superlative assigned by Witnesses.

So I have no appealing choice but to question the decision to appoint a man as an Elder when he was known to have created a criminal and spiritual prison for his children. Moreover, how can congregation leaders, in good conscience, ask a crime victim to publicly pardon their attacker so that he can be placed in a position of trust? In what other hierarchy would this be allowed to occur, or even suggested?

The questions handily outnumber the answers.

While this is all rhetoric, it still points to an institutional flaw where victims are provided no protection or justice. While Matthew 7:2 says "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you", it is worth considering that the men who appointed him must have judged him worthy. If they were wrong, such judgement will be returned.

That being said, it seems unwise to appoint a person who had demonstrated such tendencies even though they may appear to be repentant. Deuteronomy 22:8 held people blood guilty for their negligence or lack of judgement. Similarly, a lack of judgement that leads to a crime against another could make the appointing body culpable.

Either way you look at it, it's a failure of leadership.