In the extoots blog I follow and comment on ( http://extoots.blogspot.com ) a response from Finland caught my attention...or a few sentences, where the church is once removed from the congregation in times of trouble.
"The sexual abuse scandal was badly managed by the SRK leaders, it looked like they got everything wrong in communicating it to the media, right from the start. However, for those who want to go the truth behind the headlines, it is also quite obvious that there never was any institutionalised abuse (such as in e.g. the Catholic church) but the incidents occurred inside families. In those circumstances, it is difficult to hold the congregation responsible especially when the official teaching has always been that crimes do not go away by the forgiveness of sins. (Unfortunately there were exceptions to this rule, and in a few cases, the congregation lay preachers were involved in hiding such crimes and criminals from the police, and also preventing the victims from getting help. This is not acceptable and I am very sorry for this ever happening in my religion.)
What makes the FALC or other like minded religions different from the abuse within the Catholic Church, is that the abuse is happening within the families. It isn't the "leader" of the church so to speak. So, the church can't be held accountable. It isn't the institution that is doing the abusing, but rather the members of their organization, not the organization.
Like "the church" somehow gets to escape, that "the religion" isn't where the crimes are occurring, but outside of it. Like church and religion are actual entities....one stepped removed from family. Yet it is infiltrating each family with its teachings.
To me, it is like preserving the integrity of "Family" while abuse is happening by my father...as if he isn't part of family.
I can't see how they can separate one from the other.
Where in the church is there actual accountability to the law of the land, to the safety of the children, to the integrity of its message of high morals and values when it wants to keep its distance between It and the People?
It rules the people, but doesn't want to be affected by the actions of people.
It controls the people, but will not take control for the people's actions.
I am not sure if others can see this slight but wide gap between their responsibility and the lack of owning it.
While telling folks what to do, they fail to see what they are doing...and then totally disappear when $%#@ hits the fan.
The powerful energies that preach these rules become silent and apathetic in the face of tragedies...'not responsible'...when those they control go out of control.
Hard to hold the church responsible as much as it is hard not to.
How interesting that the church boards are free of all negligence, while dictating how so many live their lives.
While I wanted to blame the church, I also had to see how much of my life I had given over to the church. I just didn't know it would NOT take responsiblity for the aftermath of what it preached. It is like it is only responsible for the out flow, not the backlash.
I had to own my lack of self care and my own rights I had reliquished to the church...AND, I had to see what they did with me. They didn't care for me, they didn't protect me, they didn't even seem to notice they were holding all of me.
Again, not sure I can articulate the disappearing church we gave our self to.
Giving up our lives, our choices, our freedoms to this thing. And this thing disappearing right before our eyes and us with it.
How the church doesn't want to be seen in the families its controlled...when the church was such a large seen force that molded many families....how can it then disappear?
And what happens when it does?
A mind game at its worst.
