An Oxford biblical scholar and child-porn: "Himpathy," patriarchy and bad theology

[Textcritic]

The shocking news of Jan Joosten's sentencing has occupied my world in recent days.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...d-abuse-images

"An Oxford University theology professor and former pastor who downloaded 28,000 child abuse images and videos has been sentenced to a year in prison and placed on the sex offender register in France.

"Jan Joosten, 61, who holds the prestigious regius professorship of Hebrew at Oxford, was suspended by the university’s Faculty of Oriental Studies and Christ Church college on Monday night. He is considered one of the most distinguished biblical scholars of his generation.

"The academic, who lives in the Bas-Rhin region of France, was sentenced by a court in the city of Saverne last week over possession of about 27,000 images and 1,000 videos after he admitted the facts of the case, Agence France-Presse reported."

The news of this hits very close to home, because I have met Jan Joosten; I have friends who have worked very closely with him, and have been mentored by him. Joosten was involved with the Museum of the Bible's annual Oxford Logos student conferences, in which I have also participated in the past. It is also a harrowing story for me because of how well acquainted I am also with the several voices who have provided responses in the past several days. Just this AM, I received the following email notice from the editor of an academic journal for which I have written and reviewed articles:

Statement from the Editorial Team of DSD:

"We the editorial team of Dead Sea Discoveries were horrified to learn this week of the conviction and sentencing of Jan Joosten for possession of child pornography. We wish to publicly express, first and foremost, our sorrow and anger at the suffering and trauma Prof. Joosten’s actions have caused to the children exploited in these images and videos. We also express sadness for the students and colleagues whose trust he has betrayed. Prof. Joosten has been removed from the DSD editorial board, effective 23 June 2020. His removal reflects our conviction that our scholarship cannot be divorced from the larger contexts of our lives and actions, and that we as scholars have a responsibility to speak forcefully for justice, equality, and safety for all persons."

The last sentence is the most important one, because it reflects a serious problem in our own culture at large, but perhaps one that infects the Christian church in a more significant way. A friend of mine shared with me a fantastic article in Religion Dispatches by Stephen Young which demonstrates what I am getting at:

Love the Scholarship but Hate the Scholar's Sin?: "Himpathy" for an Academic Pedophile Enables a Culture of Abuse

Originally Posted by Stephen Young

"In her excellent book Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, the philosopher Kate Manne coined the term Himpathy, which she defined as 'the excessive sympathy sometimes shown toward male perpetrators of sexual violence.' This tendency stems 'largely from capacities and qualities of which we’re rarely critical: such as sympathy, empathy, trust in one’s friends … their naïve deployment will tend to further privilege those already unjustly privileged over others.'

"Himpathy is powerful. It performs a double social magic: erasing the voices of those who suffer at the hands of men while also reinforcing the power of men. We call this vortex of violence patriarchy...

"The concept of Himpathy can help us think about a story unfolding right now. Jan Joosten, a senior biblical scholar at Oxford University who holds one of the most prestigious professorships in the field, was just sentenced to a year in prison...

"But, as in so many instances of men in positions of power who are outed as abusers, the story doesn’t end there. The story should end with patriarchy because that’s where the pervasive phenomenon of men abusing others begins. It’s where the violence and exploitation is nurtured, made invisible, and transformed into the normal everyone else just has to live with.

"What does Joosten have to do with patriarchy? As news of his child-rape porn began to spread through the social-media ether, a predictable but still horrifying expression of Himpathy began to percolate."

Young goes on to document a shockingly high number of sympathetic reactions on Twitter and in social media to Joosten's conviction and sentencing, and what hits home the hardest is how well I know some of these people, and how alarming and outrageous it is to see their tactic for defense.

He then goes on to show how these reactions are borne of something I have long suspected since leaving the Church: that a culture of forgiveness and redemption may actually be a poisonous enabler for the continuity of deplorable behaviour and abuse:

Originally Posted by Stephen Young

"This is the magic of Himpathy. In the case of Joosten, it mixes with traditional Christian conventions that we don’t often think of as channels of power: the instinct not to 'judge' (at least powerful men), to identify with 'sinners' (again, when they’re powerful men), to deploy narratives about the chaos wrought by abandoning conservative gender norms, and especially to love the 'sinner' (scholarship) and hate the 'sin' (bad thing a scholar did). But we must think critically about the politics of these dispositions."

Romans 3:22–26 says:

there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

I used to champion the idea that God's grace was sufficient to remove all sin, and that his forgiveness was total and exhaustive: that there was nothing so terrible that anyone could ever do to disqualify them from God's love, provided their own repentance. I was relentlessly prodded about the virtues of total forgiveness—parables of the widows of savagely martyred missionaries who forgave their murderers were often repeated to lionise this behaviour. "It doesn't matter what anyone has done to offend me; if Jesus can forgive them, then I should too."

Is this virtuous behaviour? or is it more accurately a caricature of genuine empathy that denigrates the beauty of true compassion?

In one of the responses I read—this one from a close colleague of one of my one most beloved mentors—the stinging reality of the stakes in retribution and forgiveness came to roost:

"I don't abandon my friends, even when they've done heinous wrong. I don't condone Jan's actions, and his loss of status and employment is richly deserved. But I don't modify my compassion to fit someone else's opinion."

Forgiveness is tricky. The cheap kind is available to everyone and can used to gloss over any abominable act. That's the kind that is attributed too God for those who follow Christ. But I am coming around to thinking that the best sort of forgiveness is the kind that is more virtually unobtainable. It is not always deserved, and to extend it for coverage of every sin is to invalidate it altogether. This may actually be one of the most dangerous aspects of Christian theology because of how it threatens to empower tyrants and enable abuse.

There are some sins that are unforgivable.
There are some people who are beyond redemption.
In contravention to my Christian upbringing, my forgiveness is something that is not so easily obtained.

[Textcritic]

I just received the following statement by Jan Joosten in my Academia.edu feed...

Originally Posted by Jan Joosten

"J’ai été condamné pour détention et importation d’images et de vidéos pédopornographiques. Je regrette profondément d’avoir participé à un système qui a fait un mal irréparable à des enfants. Je me sens coupable également envers vous, mes maîtres, collègues, étudiants et amis. Je garde l’espoir que vous pourrez un jour me pardonner. Je me fais aider par un psychiatre et espère me libérer de mon addiction. Je suis reconnaissant de ce que ma famille me soutient. L’université d’Oxford m’a suspendu de mes fonctions et mon adresse électronique n’est plusvalide. Ce qu’apportera l’avenir je ne sais pas. J’espère pouvoir améliorer la situation, mais je n’ai pas la capacité de la rendre parfaite."

"I have been convicted in France of possession and downloading of child pornography, both images and videos. I deeply regret participating in a process that has brought terrible harm to children. I sincerely apologize to all of you : teachers, colleagues, students and friends. My hope is that one day I will be able to earn your forgiveness. I'm getting psychiatric help and hope to break free from my addiction. I am so grateful that my family stands with me. The University of Oxford has suspended me and my email account has been closed down. What will happen next I don't know. I’m hoping I can make things better, though I lack the ability to make them right."

[You Need a Thneed]

Thanks Kipp, fantastic post.

I don't have much to add. The church has long been unknowingly encouraging abuse by forgiving abusers and taking away meaningful consequences from perpetrators of all kinds. Victims have been shamed and/or ignored.

I've been part of a church/christianity my whole life, and I know many to most people have a personal story of some kind of abuse. Some cases are subtle, and some not so subtle. Some have left the church because of it, and some have continued on.

It's a big problem that needs to be addressed. Patriarchal thinking is a large part of it, and this MUST be stopped.

[Fuzz]

Ya, it's one aspect I've never really understood. If you can be forgiven for everything and still get in "Heaven" what is the point of living a morally good life?

[afc wimbledon]

I have spent a chunk of my life supervising sex offenders, I am good at it because it is hard to walk the line in between loathing them or ignoring what they have done depending on whether you wish to like them or not, the hard part is treating them like a human being while also being clear they are a pedophile.

That said I do believe there are things people do that mean I do not wish to be there friend anymore, this would be high on a list of things that would cause me to not be answering someones calls, I will happily supervise someone to the best of my ability in order to keep my society safe from their actions but I do not choose to be friends with someone who behaves like that

[You Need a Thneed]

My hope is that one day I will be able to earn your forgiveness.

Earned forgiveness is possible, but obviously cannot be forced, and almost certainly takes a LONG time, if ever. It definitely takes hard work.

[FunkMasterFlame]

I'm a hardliner on this subject. Child molesters, pedophiles, and the people who enable them by collecting child pornography deserve a quick and fair trial, and then need to be taken out back and shot.

I believe anybody who sexually abuses children forfeits their right to live in our society. No forgiveness. No redemption.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Earned forgiveness is possible, but obviously cannot be forced, and almost certainly takes a LONG time, if ever. It definitely takes hard work.

I think a pertinent question worth exploration is "what does such forgiveness look like"?

Setting aside for the moment what Joosten might possibly do to earn the forgiveness of his peers, what does that even mean? An ongoing debate taking place right now in my community is what to do with Joosten's past scholarship. Do his deplorable crimes disqualify his scholarly work? By continuing to consult his past publications, do we—even unintentionally—validate his consumption of child abuse images?

I am conflicted. I suppose there is a level of forgiveness that I can aspire to by which the works of Joosten are sanctioned for consultation and citation. But I continue to be bothered by the notion that I am implicitly promoting a horrible person in the process.

Retribution for his actions will likely result in the ruin of his natural life. If he never gets another job, if he never publishes another paper, if he is never again positioned to teach—that seems like a reasonable consequence. Is there still a level of "forgiveness" by which a person must also continue to suffer the effects of his sins forever?

[troutman]

What is the current science on this? Is it an addiction that can be treated, or an unacceptable orientation?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think a pertinent question worth exploration is "what does such forgiveness look like"?

Setting aside for the moment what Joopsten might possibly do to earn the forgiveness of his peers, what does that even mean? An ongoing debate taking place right now in my community is what to do with Joosten's past scholarship. Do his deplorable crimes disqualify his scholarly work? By continuing to consult his past publications, do we—even unintentionally—validate his consumption of child abuse images?

I am conflicted. I suppose there is a level of forgiveness that I can aspire to by which the works of Joosten are sanctioned for consultation and citation. But I continue to be bothered by the notion that I am implicitly promoting a horrible person in the process.

Retribution for his actions will likely result in the ruin of his natural life. If he never gets another job, if he never publishes another paper, if he is never again positioned to teach—that seems like a reasonable consequence. Is there still a level of "forgiveness" by which a person must also continue to suffer the effects of his sins forever?

Absolutely.

How should we view works of all kinds of people who produce academic, artistic, etc work, but are deeply flawed people?

For example, in music, how are we to look at the works of Tchaikovsky, or Michael Jackson, both pedophiles - but great at music of different kinds?

But where do we draw the line? Every one of us has flaws, and has hurt other people at some point in our life. Where is the line where the sin becomes unforgivable? It's not an easy question to answer.

Certainly there are cases where the action is "unforgivable", and for most of us, the things we have done are forgivable. There must be a line somewhere inbetween.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I'm a hardliner on this subject. Child molesters, pedophiles, and the people who enable them by collecting child pornography deserve a quick and fair trial, and then need to be taken out back and shot.

Not to get semantic, but the bolded is not an action. It's a mental health disorder. You would not take someone out back and shoot them for having schizophrenia, would you? And you wouldn't label every schizophrenic a mass-murderer, right?

You can't clump a mental health disorder with actions of child abuse. The reason I am pointing this out is that in misusing that term, you (and society in general) are actually preventing and discouraging the medical treatment of said disorder, which increases the prevalence of those actions. Would someone who has never harmed a child, but had thoughts of doing so, willingly come forward and get therapy if they "need to be taken out back and shot"?

In such a society, this doesn't keep children safe. If people begin to use this term properly as the mental health disorder that is, treatment can be encouraged, and in turn, future tragedies prevented.

[troutman]

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/741146427

Emily Nussbaum, welcome to FRESH AIR.

EMILY NUSSBAUM: Thank you for having me.

GROSS: So you've written one of the most interesting essays I've read that is about, quote, "what should we do with the art of terrible men?" And it's become an inescapable question in this era when we're learning about so many men who've behaved inappropriately, including sexual assault. So what is the question you're asking yourself when we say, what should we do with the art of terrible men?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by troutman

What is the current science on this? Is it an addiction that can be treated, or an unacceptable orientation?

Ironically most of what the public think about sex offenders is the opposite of the reality as we currently understand it, we know some come to their offences as a result of prior abuse and some are just born with deviant desires, the irony is we have much better success treating (with techniques learnt form treating addictions primarily) those who have not been abused although almost every offender claims prior abuse as a reason they should be released earlier.

Treatment is very similar to addictions treatment, group work and practical steps to reduce the impulse, we try to change offenders habits in the same way we would teach an alcoholic not to go to a bar or hang out with heavy drinkers we teach sex offenders not to live near a school or drink or make what we call SUDS, 'seemingly unimportant decisions' that lead to reoffending, like all addictions we can say statistically that so many offenders will not reoffend but on an individual level it is impossible to predict who will or wont

[afc wimbledon]

I would also draw a distinction between making music and some form of work or art that relies on some level of moral compass, if you dont know enough not to abuse anyone, let alone children you clearly have no idea of what is and isnt moral and so how can you comment on moral issues?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I An ongoing debate taking place right now in my community is what to do with Joosten's past scholarship. Do his deplorable crimes disqualify his scholarly work? By continuing to consult his past publications, do we—even unintentionally—validate his consumption of child abuse images?

In an objective field could you can’t just discount the work of someone. If whoever is primarily responsible for the Covid Vaccine is child abuser we would still all line up to get the vaccine. If a provable Grand Unification Theory was created by a child abuser you couldn’t undiscover the theory.

So where science is correct it is correct regardless of the acts of the person who discovered it.

As scholarship becomes more subjective and based in philosophy and argumentation then the merits and biases of the author matter. Therefore the character of the author also matters. You probably see this most in history where interpretation of the same evidence is framed with the biases of the culture one comes from. So if the scholarly work relies on the subjective interpretation of evidence then anyone relying on that work should understand the bias and flaws of the author.

Then you get to the artist where there is even more intertwining of the art and the circumstances it was created and who it was created by. I don’t believe that Art exists without context so for me it is much easier to dismiss the are of a horrible person.

I don’t know anything about this guys work to know where it would fit but that his how I would approach the question.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

In an objective field could you can’t just discount the work of someone. If whoever is primarily responsible for the Covid Vaccine is child abuser we would still all line up to get the vaccine. If a provable Grand Unification Theory was created by a child abuser you couldn’t undiscover the theory.

So where science is correct it is correct regardless of the acts of the person who discovered it.

As scholarship becomes more subjective and based in philosophy and argumentation then the merits and biases of the author matter. Therefore the character of the author also matters. You probably see this most in history where interpretation of the same evidence is framed with the biases of the culture one comes from. So if the scholarly work relies on the subjective interpretation of evidence then anyone relying on that work should understand the bias and flaws of the author.

Then you get to the artist where there is even more intertwining of the art and the circumstances it was created and who it was created by. I don’t believe that Art exists without context so for me it is much easier to dismiss the are of a horrible person.

I don’t know anything about this guys work to know where it would fit but that his how I would approach the question.

That sounded really smart.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, it's one aspect I've never really understood. If you can be forgiven for everything and still get in "Heaven" what is the point of living a morally good life?

There's different ways to get around that, most churches I belonged to hand waved this with some form of "if you do it with the intent of sinning because you can just ask for forgiveness then you can't get forgiveness" and "ultimately God will judge". There's no way to know if you've crossed the line and "lost" your salvation so better be good!

Different groups have different beliefs about salvation itself (saved by good works, saved by grace through faith, etc), so it'll be related to that.

Originally Posted by troutman

What is the current science on this? Is it an addiction that can be treated, or an unacceptable orientation?

I think it's becoming more common to view it as something that can't be treated (i.e. cured) but something that has to be managed to not go from attraction to acting out on it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

How should we view works of all kinds of people who produce academic, artistic, etc work, but are deeply flawed people?

For example, in music, how are we to look at the works of Tchaikovsky, or Michael Jackson, both pedophiles - but great at music of different kinds?

Sorry to split hairs, but I'd really like to see some sources about Tchaikovsky being a pedophile.

[photon]

Very interesting topic btw, I think I would also find it a challenging situation. Forgiveness has always been too vague a concept for me, even when I was in church. Ultimately the question of "have I forgiven someone" doesn't mean anything, what means something is what my actions going forward are going to be. If I feel someone has regained my trust that doesn't mean I've forgiven them, it means they've demonstrated they can act differently to meet whatever criteria I feel is meaningful. EDIT: I guess is that the definition of forgiveness for some? Maybe I'm just stuck on the God kind of forgiveness.

Forgiveness made more sense to me in terms of God and humanity than it ever did in terms of people to each other.

I'd find this situation very challenging.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by photon

Very interesting topic btw, I think I would also find it a challenging situation. Forgiveness has always been too vague a concept for me, even when I was in church. Ultimately the question of "have I forgiven someone" doesn't mean anything, what means something is what my actions going forward are going to be. If I feel someone has regained my trust that doesn't mean I've forgiven them, it means they've demonstrated they can act differently to meet whatever criteria I feel is meaningful. EDIT: I guess is that the definition of forgiveness for some? Maybe I'm just stuck on the God kind of forgiveness.

Forgiveness made more sense to me in terms of God and humanity than it ever did in terms of people to each other.

I'd find this situation very challenging.

Interesting you word it this way, as for me I can forgive someone for being terrible, but I probably won't ever trust them again. I'm more likely to forgive than trust, whereas you worded it the opposite.