From A Friendly Letter, #130-131 (double issue) Third & Fourth Months (March-April), 1992
TWO UPDATES:
CHALLENGES FOR MINISTRY AND MISSION
"Love is the hardest lesson in Christianity," wrote William Penn, "but for that reason it should be most our care to learn it." Such learning, though, is not simply a matter of pure will or sentiment; nor are commandments, rules, advices are sufficient. In the world of real community life, there are no substitutes for judgement, insight, decision, risk, and continuing revelation.
A case in point is unfolding in Cambridge (Mass.) Meeting, where Friends are anticipating the return to the area of a former member, John Van der Meer. As reported in AFLs #76 and #81, Van der Meer is a pedophile, and in early 1987 he acknowledged having had a sexual encounter with a child in the meeting.
At the time, Van der Meer defended his action, as many pedophiles do, on the basis that sex between adults and children can be beneficial and healthy. This view was, however, explicitly condemned by the meeting in a formal minute. Further, following disclosure of his action, the meeting reported Van der Meer to the authorities and terminated his membership. Van der Meer was subsequently arrested and charged with rape of a child.
A CHANGE OF PLEA--AND HEART?
After some consideration, however, he changed his view about his action, stating to the meeting and to me that what he had done to the child was wrong and harmful. While he still thought that in theory some adult-child sexual encounters could potentially be positive, he was not able to make such a judgment and planned to avoid any further sexual involvement with children. As evidence of this shift, he changed his plea to guilty, and was sentenced to twenty years in prison; it was not his first offense.
Van der Meer also stated at the time that despite his disownment, he still identified with Friends, and felt he had been treated fairly by Cambridge Meeting, even though he did not agree with all its actions. And he asked to be allowed to continue attending worship there. The meeting directed that he not attend any meeting function where children were present, but he could attend a midweek meeting, which normally was an adult gathering. This he did with some frequency until entering prison in late 1987.
Fast forward now to 1992: Soon, perhaps in only a few weeks, John Van der Meer will be released from prison. And the question of how to deal with him is again before Cambridge Meeting, where it has evoked intense and continuing exercise, not to say debate.
Van der Meer has indicated that he still considers himself a Friend, and would like to attend meeting, but said he will defer to the meeting's decisions on the matter. He has been visited by Cambridge Friends in prison, and has written occasional letters to Friends. His current thinking regarding pedophilia is not clear; a Friend pointed out that it is neither easy nor safe to discuss such proclivities openly in a prison setting, pedophiles are very low in the prison cultural pecking order.
KEEPING IT OUT IN THE OPEN
One striking feature of this discussion is its high visibility. When the 1987 incident was revealed, it also came out that some members of Cambridge Meeting had known about Van der Meer's pedophilia for some time, but this had not been made known to others, and some Friends felt betrayed. But this time, no one is in doubt about what's going on.
Additionally, the meeting is attempting to educate itself about what is at stake. For instance, a therapist who works with sex offenders was invited to speak to Friends about his experience with pedophiles, their prospects for change, the risks of repeat offenses, and the role of a community in addressing such behavior. And a second informational session has been scheduled as well, with a counselor who deals with children who have been sexually victimized. There have been small group threshing sessions, and a committee of three Friends is preparing to meet with Van der Meer after his release.
In the discussions so far, several points have been strongly voiced. Some Friends insist that the safety of children in the meeting must be the paramount concern, and they have pointed out that there are really no meeting functions that are strictly "adults only". What happens if someone comes to midweek meeting with a child in tow?
Other Friends have said they are troubled by the focus on whether Van der Meer can attend a midweek meeting; they would rather see a discussion of how, in a meeting context, a process of healing and restoration could take place. Still others find the whole matter exhausting, and wish the meeting could get beyond it and turn its attention to other concerns.
THE PRICE OF QUAKER PROCESS
It could be months before there is any clear outcome. But perhaps more important here is the process itself. Given the emotionally-laden quality of the behavior and issues involved, the temptation to denial or panicky and reflexive responses is strong(such a case is described in AFL #49). But thus far Cambridge Friends have not yielded to this temptation, even while facing up to the strong feelings being expressed.
Even so, the meeting may pay a price for its labor. A few people quit attending in 1987 when the original incident came out. They could lose more this time, whatever is decided: Particularly cautious parents, or adults who identify as abuse survivors, and who say they would not be able to attend any meeting with Van der Meer.
But does this mean the meeting must exclude him entirely? What of his spiritual welfare?
This issue is one that crops up more often than one might think; every few months a letter comes in, asking for copies of my issues on the topic, and expressing concern about actual or potential incidents. I believe the labor in Cambridge provides an important example of a meeting attempting to cope with it concretely.
There are no simple answers here; we will see what happens next. But as Penn also said--no cross no crown.
Copyright © by Chuck Fager. All rights reserved.
