Andrew Schmutzer: A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation

 

Andrew J. Schmutzer, “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation” JETS 51:4 (Dec 2008).

In what follows I plan to intersperse a review of Andrew J. Schmutzer’s “A Theology of Sexual Abuse: A Reflection on Creation and Devastation,” with my own reflections as both a survivor of sexual abuse and an ordained clergyman. Salient points from Schmutzer’s article will be highlighted and then a few suggestions will be offered as to what the church can do in response toward healing the devastating effects of sexual abuse within and without its ranks.

I would like to begin with a few disclaimers: first, I am a survivor of sexual abuse; I am a survivor, not a victim, and these words are chosen with a purpose so as to emphasize the continual effects of past actions laid upon me by someone who shared (roughly) half of my genetic code. Second, I find the church to be woefully inadequate, currently, in addressing its members who have incurred sexual abuse in their past. Third, I contend that my experience of sexual abuse has profoundly impacted the trajectory of my life; although recognizing that all analogies are inadequate in the end analysis, one of the illustrations that I use to liken sexual abuse unto refers to the common game of billiards. When one plays billiards, the way that one initially hits the cue ball is the most important aspect. If one miscues, the cue ball will continue to go forward (or progress), but the initial target will invariably be missed; the trajectory of its path is altered, and the initial mistake has profound consequences on its entire voyage until it finally comes to rest. Sexual abuse functions, in many ways, just like the miscue on the billiard ball. Indeed, the survivor may continue to go forward, but they will invariably miss the initial target of their lives, with the effects of the sexual abuse permeating their entire disposition until they finally come to rest (in the grave).

Schmutzer’s study considers the fundamental realities of sexual brokenness largely through an exegetical theological analysis. He begins by admitting the severity of the problem, moves to an exegetical overview of key texts, contemplates the nature of sexual abuse in light of these texts, and closes with some practical needs for moving forward. Schmutzer argues that sexual abuse damages a spectrum of internal and external aspects of personhood. As a result of the abuse incurred, Schmutzer claims that the vision of the human being, their sexual expression, leadership, community, and family are extensively ruined.

Schmutzer correctly notes that healing for victims of abuse seeks to mend profound “fractures” within the survivor and the abusing party. As Schmutzer intimates, the traditional reconciliation paradigm may not apply to sexual abuse. I would like to more boldly state that the abused often has no desire for reconciliation with the offending party; they do not hold grudges but simply cut off that area of their lives, looking to move forward. Whether this is wrong or right, I am sure opinions exist on both sides. However, I believe that until someone is sexually abused, they have no place to speak. In sexual abuse, forgiveness may be granted, but reconciliation is usually stymied due to the deep erosion of trust and respect. It is not that one dislikes the perpetrator; the survivor is, if you will, merely indifferent to their existence. Personally, I have no desire for “reconciliation;” I just want to move onward, and that should be respected. I sense that other survivors would agree this assessment.

Schmutzer again accurately observes that sexual abuse carries a unique devastation factor precisely because sexual abuse distorts foundational realities of what it means to be human: embodied personhood is plundered, sexual expression is perverted, trust is shattered, and the metaphors for God are disfigured. I emphatically agree with Schmutzer here, in all accounts. Bringing a robust biblical understanding of sexual abuse to various ministry contexts will go a long way to create agents of healing, which is what survivors of this heinous act need most. Agents of healing are those who can come alongside, cry with the person, and show redeeming love to make the survivor understand that despite their former abuse, they are human, and are not their abuse. The abuse was merely something that happened to them, not precipitated by them, and does not constitute the sum of their being, even though the entirety of their being is impacted by it. Because sexual abuse fractures the unity of personhood, as Schmutzer recognizes, understanding and implementing healing ministries requires the cooperation of several domains. Sexual abuse victims do not often need “professional” help. Rather, they need and desire sincere understanding and agape love—an ear to hear, a shoulder to embrace, and words of consolation.

Schmutzer rightly recognizes the startling research that shows that sexually traumatized children are 10% to 15% more likely to suffer from cancer, heart disease, gastrointestinal problems, liver disease, and diabetes as adults. Although not noted by him, I will add that this is often due to behavior the abused person partakes of to proverbially dampen the pain. Moreover, survivors often become hyper-sexualized, acting out their sexual conditioning, thereby increasing the likelihood of sexually transmitted diseases. What is more, in acting-out their hypersexuality, the survivor only furthers their shame and hatred of themselves. Speaking from personal experience once more, I also recognize that if abuse was initially perpetrated upon them by a member of the same sex, the survivor often overcorrects to the opposite sex so as to “prove” to themselves and others that they are not homosexual—but this becomes a self-feeding loop of condemnation.

Sexual abuse dismembers its victim, it un-creates because it tears apart the wholeness of a person. It flays the person’s personality, and pieces of it seem to “split-off.” However, Schmutzer asserts that buried in the profound wreckage of sexual abuse lay the vestiges of a majestic plan that dignifies humankind. He recognizes that sexual abuse is alive in every city and that every church has survivors of sexual abuse within it. Unfortunately, however, a vast number of adult survivors of abuse have already abandoned the Church. I contend that this is often because their questions are not adequately addressed. Why do people prey upon the innocent? Why is abuse never mentioned in church? Why is sexuality—something created by God—never discussed by members of the clergy? Why do members of the clergy not address—at age appropriate levels—the sexual urge that is so pervasive in young adults? Clergy should say that it is normal to be sexually curious. Why do they avoid the subject? Survivors of abuse have endured silence long enough. The church needs a robust theology of personhood in general and the reality of embodiment in particular, because survivors somatize (from Greek “body”) their trauma.

The failure to support victims of sexual abuse will continue to imperil the church. Schmutzer contends that there is a need for some wounded within church leadership. Although I largely agree with this assessment, I have found that many churches are not receptive to such ministry. There is an all-too-common deception that abuse “does not happen here.” The churches that I was involved with thought the place to address these issues was at a specialized center of therapy rather than from the pulpit. Schmutzer has given a few concrete recommendations for ministering to the abused. This is a good start. Let us now continue the discussion.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

 

This article is available online at:
www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-4/JETS%2051-4%20785-812%20Schmutzer.pdf