I believe in bringing difficult topics “out there” to explore them, grapple with them, size them up and over. It is through being able to freely discuss challenging topics that we come to understand them better, absorb their implications and have meaningful conversations.
Lately, there have been some doozies. In fact, I’d describe some of the discussions in society right now as paradigm-shift-sized.
Throughout the resulting banter, I’ve had a few “aha!” moments, including one I think worth discussing today. Namely, I’ve come to see a propensity toward blaming a disappointment or hurt caused by an individual on a connected institution.
Another example might be marriage. For many, the vision they had of marriage didn’t materialize. They feel deceived, in a sense, along with hurt, rejection, disappointment. Marriage can be extremely challenging and not all marriages can remain intact. When we are hurt in this way, it’s easy to overlook the individual who hurt us and blame the institution itself.
I am seeing this happen in discussions regarding the value of traditional marriage, for example. For many, traditional marriage hasn’t lived up to its potential. Therefore, we question whether it’s worthy of protecting and upholding. The individual becomes, to some, representative of the institution.
Again, though I understand how this happens, it seems dangerous to challenge the worth of an institution based on the imperfection of an individual within it.
Yet there are countless examples. A pastor or priest falls out of line and diminishes the entire image of church. The same with marriage — something doesn’t work out and the whole thing is marred.
The night of my husband’s and my wedding rehearsal, a group of us young adults gathered for drinks, and one of our friends, who had married young and divorced, came up to us and said, “Even though it didn’t work out for me, I still believe in the goodness of marriage.”
That has stuck with me all these years. I saw in that her ability to not blame the institution for her failed marriage, and to not give up on the hope that marriage could be a positive again at some point in her future.
It was the relationship that was marred, not the institution itself, just as individuals within a church will make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean the institution has outlived its usefulness.
I bring up the point because I think it’s important to consider as we continue having public discussions about things that concern our institutions, the most recent of which has been the institution of marriage. Just because marriage as it is meant to be has failed many, can we say it’s no longer necessary? What if it’s, in fact, more useful and important than ever?
Maybe we need to work harder on healing the individuals who have been hurt by other individuals rather than dismantling the institutions to which they’ve been connected; to heal those who have been hurt by people within institutions so the institutions can, once again, be the beacon of light they were intended to be.
I’m putting this out there because if we get off course in our hurt, if we lose sight of the true source of our anger, we also stand to lose the institutions that were designed to protect us.
What are your thoughts? Do you see misplaced hurt and anger as a problem as we try to solve the moral questions of the day?
.jpg){kind=link}
Do I see misplaced hurt and anger as a problem as we try to solve the moral questions of the day? If you are an authority figure in an institution or an apologist for an institution, yes, definitely. When trust in an institution is compromised by persons in positions of trust violating the trust, the recovery for the institution has to be built on a new track record (but even reforms can go haywire). Within marriage (your prime example of an institution under attack), the trust violations for spouses are deal breakers or should be for an abused spouse or a spouse who does not abuse a child. No place to hide. Adult responsibility makes for difficult choices and consequences. Another facet of your question that we have to deal with is the tendency to either blame victims or to revictimize victims by persons who treat the reputation of the institution as more important than the personal safety of individuals. Now that is scary! A child who grows into adulthood without having experienced a supportive church and parents may indeed be collateral damage for the failures experienced in the lives of his or her parents. If honesty is to be had about the past, the young adult might actually commit to doing it different than the previous generation. I for one admire the moral courage of survivors who put in the time and effort to experience spiritual and relationship prosperity and thrive as a result better able to deal with adversity aided by supportive institutions and fellow travellers that deserve trust.
Thanks, Richard, for weighing in. I agree with you on your first point about a new track record. Trust must be regained and rebuilt. Referring in particular to the Catholic Church to which I belong, many measures have been put in place to assure protection of those who have been hurt by individuals. I also agree that the sins of those in a position of power are even more egregious. As for marriage, yes, abuse is a deal breaker. And as someone who understands abuse from several different angles, I agree the victim’s suffering shouldn’t be minimized in any way. I also agree concern for the institution’s reputation shouldn’t be higher than the victim’s need for acknowledgement. Actually, I find little here to refute. My moment of enlightenment had, at its base, the question whether we are misfiring, not recognizing the individuals within the institutions who are making poor choices need to be addressed, rather than saying the institution should go. I guess what I’m saying is I fear we are tossing out the baby with the bath water. In re-examining these things — church, marriage — and trying to find a better way, because of hurts and wounds, we may be tossing out the very aspects of each that are meant to protect us. I really don’t see where we disagree. Your points are all valid but I don’t really think they’ve gotten at the question I’m hoping to answer, or posed primarily to get us thinking. When emotions are high, we sometimes lose sight of reason, and that’s what I see happening. That said, I think are there valid reasons for the high emotion and they ought to be addressed, first and foremost, perhaps, but maybe not at the expense of something that would be a protector if the true intent of its establishment were lived out.