Ship of Fools: Leaders unable to see another point of view

Thread: Leaders unable to see another point of view Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023848

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

Why is it that some Pastors/ Church leaders can't see another viewpoint, so totally sure that they're in the right that they can't possibly accept that they might just need to change their opinion. I wish I was so confident in myself.
It's my way or the wrong way.
I've tried addressing it, but it's taken as a personal attack.
How do you challenge such a rigid controlling viewpoint?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

It sounds bad, but I'd rather work for someone who had some courage of his convictions, than from someone so unsure of himself that he keeps moistened finger ever in the air to see which way the wind has begun blowing today, and forever changes his mind according to which carping critic he's most recently run into. At least with your kind of boss you can chart a course.

Why would you need a power monger, a control freak, or a humorless blue nose in your life? Quit. Just go to church on Sunday. If necessary, transfer your membership to another parish.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why is it that some Pastors/ Church leaders can't see another viewpoint, so totally sure that they're in the right that they can't possibly accept that they might just need to change their opinion. I wish I was so confident in myself.
It's my way or the wrong way.
I've tried addressing it, but it's taken as a personal attack.
How do you challenge such a rigid controlling viewpoint?

They're lonely. And they have probably got at least 10 people who disagree with them as deeply and profoundly about issues that the other 9 find irrelevant. In other words, they've got so many people disagreeing with them about so many different things that thet feel overwhelmed by the petty hostility of the people that God has called them to love.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

No, not petty hostility and not 10 people with differing pettiness. Genuine issues about control freakery

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
No, not petty hostility and not 10 people with differing pettiness. Genuine issues about control freakery

daronmedway's got a point. In some cases pastors suffer from information overload and they are alone, like the captain of the ship, though not to the same extent. Maybe they need better training to handle the variety of conflicting sources and the support of others in the same situation, who need not even be of the same denomination. In fact, because they will be discussing 'church leadership and management', it might help if they are not.

It's reasonable for a pastor to be sure what s/he wants to do and how to do it but just as important to ensure that the purpose and methods are communicated effectively. Any minister who operates on the basis of "Because I say so" deserves an empty church.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Some people love power (or the illusion of) and seek jobs where they get to feel powerful over others. A friend said her sister boasts of becoming a nurse so she can give orders to people (patients) who have to obey. (Not all nurses are like that, some are. Same with clergy.)

Some people truly believe they are right and there is so much at stake -- your soul, the souls of everyone in the church -- they can't in good conscience allow any disagreement because of the damage it would risk. (Doctors used to tell patients the only choice was the treatment the doctor proposed: do it or die. Some clergy believe similarly about their advice/rules. I use almost exclusively alternative med, some Shipmates are sure that's wrong, shortsighted, ignorant, foolish, dangerous, a waste of money -- no different than some clergy reactions to your doing things differently than they believe valid.)

I.e., nothing unusual, you get it in church and out. The only question is, do you accept it, put up with it but shrug it off, or go find a different more compatible service provider who shares or at least is willing to work consistently with your own value system.

Posted by watervole (# 17174) on :

I do not think it is a matter of power for most. There is an intolerance of certain things across the board both within and without the churches. One thinks of the reaction to Orthodoxy's view of women on the Pussy Riot thread as an example (although some views were wide of the mark).

The fact is that certain things are simply taken as a given. On certain issues they are simply incompatible with other views. At its best it can lead to debate, on other things it is a case of irreconcilable views.

Sorry but on some things clergy have to take a certain line, they are after all under obediance.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why is it that some Pastors/ Church leaders can't see another viewpoint, so totally sure that they're in the right that they can't possibly accept that they might just need to change their opinion. I wish I was so confident in myself.

I suppose, in one sense, it is a personal attack.

They have invested so much in one viewpoint (job, family, reputation, income, social networks etc) that to back down would, in their eyes, jeopardise it all.

They will, I expect, have a 'thin end of the wedge' mentality. Change your mind on a small point and the whole pack of cards may come tumbling down. They can't risk it, it's too personal - too much is on the line.

I don't wish for that sort of confidence at all. I much prefer free, creative thinking - which is what God made us for.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Smile]

What daronmedway said a few posts back.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
They're lonely. And they have probably got at least 10 people who disagree with them as deeply and profoundly about issues that the other 9 find irrelevant. In other words, they've got so many people disagreeing with them about so many different things that thet feel overwhelmed by the petty hostility of the people that God has called them to love.

I have a friend who is a church leader in a church, where his wife worked out that if everyone in the church complained twice a year about something the church elders would be receiving eight complaints per week. None of the church members think they are moaning (after all they are only complaining twice per year) but there's a real risk the leaders start to feel like the whole church is against them. It's not a godly (but it is an understandable) response to pull up the drawbridges and go all "My way or the high way".
Are there ways that you could encourage this leader that you are "on his side?"

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Leaders who are easily swayed by other opinions do not stay leaders for long. Also those who are gritty and determined tend to be the kinds of people who become leaders.

Also you have to contend with the 'I'm the person ordained by God to this role, so if there is a disagreement we can't resolve, you should defer to me and my judgement'.

Or, depending on the denomination, the nuclear 'look, I can't do this role with all this sniping. Either you go with what I say, or you tell me to piss off and find someone else to do it. Now, which is it to be?' option.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I think the real problem here is a model of ministry which is non-collaborative. Get people involved in the decision-making process, working alongside the "leader", and they will get to know him or her, understand where he or she is coming from, and a lot more slack will be cut.

And surely, if the Holy Spirit is working in the "leader", He will be working in the "followers" too. The wise leader will recognise this, and the concomitant fact that he or she, as leader, can only truly know what the Spirit is saying to the church when he or she has heard what He is saying to the congregants.

(ETA - and if the leader has the congregation beside him, rather than behind him, he will likely feel a lot less lonely)

[ 07. September 2012, 08:46: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
They're lonely. And they have probably got at least 10 people who disagree with them as deeply and profoundly about issues that the other 9 find irrelevant. In other words, they've got so many people disagreeing with them about so many different things that thet feel overwhelmed by the petty hostility of the people that God has called them to love.
I have a friend who is a church leader in a church, where his wife worked out that if everyone in the church complained twice a year about something the church elders would be receiving eight complaints per week. None of the church members think they are moaning (after all they are only complaining twice per year) but there's a real risk the leaders start to feel like the whole church is against them. It's not a godly (but it is an understandable) response to pull up the drawbridges and go all "My way or the high way".

I agree entirely about the balance that I think you are suggesting here.

For every person who perceives the unwelcome stench of unnecessary change, there will be another person who perceives a long overdue breath of fresh air. For every person who perceives stagnation and spiritual lethargy, there will be another who perceives much-needed grounding and stability. For each person who takes one of two sides in any divisive issue, there will be another who couldn't care less and thinks that the church's time should be better spent doing other things.

Faced with people constantly coming at him with such a divergence of views a pastor must not be diverted on a whim every time somebody disagrees with something that is being done, agreeing with the last person who raised a concern and constantly being drawn hither and yon. I can imagine the very quick result being no focus, no sense of purpose or direction, and ultimate death of the church community.

By all means, listen, take on board legitimate concerns, try to accommodate people's needs, and try to ease their difficulties. Closing down all discussion will help nobody and will merely serve to hurt people and drive them away.

However, also be aware of serial complainers, and the anonymous "some people" who are reported by one or two people to be upset about the way things are done but who never actually materialise. And if, after you have bent over backwards to accommodate people's concerns within the larger framework of other people's concerns and the overall vision for the growth and development of the life of the church, people still threaten to leave if they don't get their way, the proper response is, 'We greatly value you and your contribution to the life of the parish and we shall miss you if you leave, but if that is what you feel you must do, then go with God'.

Everybody is valued; nobody is indispensible.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think the real problem here is a model of ministry which is non-collaborative. Get people involved in the decision-making process, working alongside the "leader", and they will get to know him or her, understand where he or she is coming from, and a lot more slack will be cut.

And surely, if the Holy Spirit is working in the "leader", He will be working in the "followers" too. The wise leader will recognise this, and the concomitant fact that he or she, as leader, can only truly know what the Spirit is saying to the church when he or she has heard what He is saying to the congregants.

Wise words.

The problem with the CofE is that all of this is recognised and much time is devoted to discussion, training, raising awareness and formulating guidelines for collaborative ministry. But there is no established structure, no framework to support it. The structure of ministry is non-collaborative and can easily undermine the democratic processes of church representation and synodical government.

Some churches will work in the way Jolly Jape has outlined but a change in leadership can reverse everything that's been achieved.

It would be a start if the CofE could ensure compliance with the regulations already in place for consultation and decision-making.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I think it is possible to overstate the hierarchical leadership style of the Anglican church. In some ways it appears to be top-down in that the vicar is there for life and is not employed by the congregation nor obliged to consult others on decisions.

And yet, the majority of Anglican parishes I've ever known are far more stable than the majority of Baptist/Evangelical churches I know (where the minister is directly employed by the members of the church). Indeed, the most authoritarian ministers I've ever known (who refused to allow anyone else to do anything by dint of overblown personality) have all been Baptists.

None of these systems are perfect, but the Anglican one is a lot better than some others.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
In some ways it appears to be top-down in that the vicar is there for life and is not employed by the congregation nor obliged to consult others on decisions.

Clergy with freehold might technically be 'there for life' but most clergy appointments seem to last around 8 years before there's a change. I'm not sure if common tenure allows a vicar to remain indefinitely. A vicar isobliged to consult others on decisions. The PCC and Churchwardens share responsibility with the vicar for much of the decision-making and there are regulations governing working relationships with assistant clergy, lay ministers etc. However, a major problem with the CofE is that when things go wrong, when processes are not followed, there is often no effective recourse.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@justlooking - well I never said it was perfect, just on occasion better than the alternatives. I understood (perhaps wrongly) that the only officers with any real power in an Anglican parish are the Churchwardens, and then only really during interregnums. I also understood that the vicar/priest is under no obligation to follow or consult the PCC. But again, maybe I'm wrong about that.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Yes, this is wrong and the fact that you've gained this impression says much about the way leadership can operate in the CofE.

Churchwardens are bishops' officers and carry considerable responsibility for the running of the church. The PCC is the established decision-making body within the church for all matters except worship. The incumbent has the final decision in matters of worship but must still consult the PCC. PCCs have legal responsibilities for decisions about the assets of the church and for ensuring compliance with legislation. The Church Representation Rules are statutory law, not guidelines.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
No, not petty hostility and not 10 people with differing pettiness.

Firstly, unless you're married to this particular church leader you probably won't know who else is on his case and for what reasons. Secondly, unless you are actually doing this person's job and dealing with the pastoral stuff that has to remain confidential you probably won't have a very accurate assessment of what's actually going on.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@justlooking - well I never said it was perfect, just on occasion better than the alternatives. I understood (perhaps wrongly) that the only officers with any real power in an Anglican parish are the Churchwardens, and then only really during interregnums. I also understood that the vicar/priest is under no obligation to follow or consult the PCC. But again, maybe I'm wrong about that.

According the the Church Representation Rules the minister is obliged to consult the PCC and, provided said consultation has taken place, the PCC is obliged to cooperate with the minister.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
According the the Church Representation Rules the minister is obliged to consult the PCC and, provided said consultation has taken place, the PCC is obliged to cooperate with the minister.

If by 'obliged to cooperate' you mean that the minister has the final say in everything this is not correct. Decisions made by the PCC can be decided by voting and the minister has one vote.

Information taken from 'An ABC for the PCC' John Pitchford .

The running of the parish is the joint responsibility of the incumbent and the PCC. Under the current legislation, principally the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 the PCC has the responsibility, along with the incumbent "to promote the mission of God in its parish". The PCC is responsible for the finances of the parish and the maintenance of all church buildings and their contents. Churchwardens carry out many of these duties but all PCC members share oversight. The PCC has to be consulated about forms of service used by the church. If there is disagreement between the incumbent and the PCC there are procedures set out in Canon B3(2). Consultation is required before there can be any change in the form of vesture to be used in worship and disagreements are referred to the bishop.

The incumbent is responsible for the conduct of services. Decisions about which authorised form of service are to be used are taken jointly by the incumbent and PCC. The incumbent can make decisions about occasional offices but Canon B3 provides for anyone concerned to object beforehand. If there is disagreement between the incumbent and the PCC then the default position is the Book of Common Prayer.

The incumbent may in addition to Sunday services, hold other authorised services and events in church as he/she sees fit. Also, the final decision about music rests with the incumbent.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

You haven't really shown yourself terribly capable of seeing other points of view on here yourself! Perhaps you could work on your communication skills and instead of praying for something to happen that you like, pray 'your will be done'. And maybe try and be a little vulnerable with the person you feel like going to war against. Man up and make the first move; be honest, open and vulnerable. It's a risk, but nine times out of ten it pays off. Painting a picture in a particular way on an anonymous internet forum to slander your 'opponent' isn't really the greatest way to deal with this issue.'Addressing the issue' is not best done on a public internet forum with an anonymous name. I know that's not what you want to hear, but sometimes the truth is a two-edged sword.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why is it that some Pastors/ Church leaders can't see another viewpoint, so totally sure that they're in the right that they can't possibly accept that they might just need to change their opinion. I wish I was so confident in myself.
It's my way or the wrong way.
I've tried addressing it, but it's taken as a personal attack.
How do you challenge such a rigid controlling viewpoint?

It's when they start criticising everyone else for not being exactly like them that it becomes a problem (unable to see that others may have a different calling). But you can always choose to ignore that - unless that becomes too difficult, when you can always leave. Nobody has to attend a church where their views are so at odds with the church leadership.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why is it that some Pastors/ Church leaders can't see another viewpoint, so totally sure that they're in the right that they can't possibly accept that they might just need to change their opinion.

I've been in discussions where we each thought that of the other. When the topic is politics, you take that topic off the table if you want to maintain the friendship.

When it's church, depends on how important the topic is to you. Take the topic off the table if it's minor, focus on other things to appreciate about that pastor and church. If it's centrally important, go somewhere else that shares your understanding.

There will always be topics on which (generic) you think the church leaders wrong -- mistaken, immature, incomplete, caving in to expediency, lots of different ways to be lacking full perfect truth. Our primary focus is supposed to be God, not the church.

Praying about a situation is good, but ya gotta be praying for God to help you genuinely like the person who distresses you, and for God to show you ways to improve your own understanding.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
No, not petty hostility and not 10 people with differing pettiness. Genuine issues about control freakery

In the OP you asked how to challenge such a 'rigid controlling viewpoint'. So I take it this is more about behaviour than a difference of opinion. The All Saints' thread about how to deal with cruel remarks may be relevant. Would it be helpful to put something in writing to this person?

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You haven't really shown yourself terribly capable of seeing other points of view on here yourself! Perhaps you could work on your communication skills and instead of praying for something to happen that you like, pray 'your will be done'. And maybe try and be a little vulnerable with the person you feel like going to war against. Man up and make the first move; be honest, open and vulnerable. It's a risk, but nine times out of ten it pays off. Painting a picture in a particular way on an anonymous internet forum to slander your 'opponent' isn't really the greatest way to deal with this issue.'Addressing the issue' is not best done on a public internet forum with an anonymous name. I know that's not what you want to hear, but sometimes the truth is a two-edged sword.

fletcherchristian, you are welcome to use the "two-edged sword" as needed, but your first sentence strays a little close to the boundaries of personal attack. Be careful to address the issue in a way that doesn't attack the individual, please.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
No, not petty hostility and not 10 people with differing pettiness.
Firstly, unless you're married to this particular church leader you probably won't know who else is on his case and for what reasons. Secondly, unless you are actually doing this person's job and dealing with the pastoral stuff that has to remain confidential you probably won't have a very accurate assessment of what's actually going on.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

I meant to add:

Firstly, I'm an Elder and

Secondly, I am aware of a great deal of the pastoral stuff.

Thirdly, a lot of the issues are superficially different but have the leader's control freakery at the centre. I have been asked not to even use the word 'control' as said leader doesn't like it.

The problem is that when I have recently disagreed and made my disagreement clear, it has been taken as a personal attack and I've been sent on a massive guilt trip as undermining him and his wife, rather than discussing the issues...

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

From what you've said, it sounds like you are in a church with a baptist/evangelical congregational structure. In my observation, it is not unusual that ministers feel threatened by criticising Elders.

If you can't agree, the only thing you can do is resign or take the issue to a Members' meeting. What other choices are there?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
From what you've said, it sounds like you are in a church with a baptist/evangelical congregational structure. In my observation, it is not unusual that ministers feel threatened by criticising Elders.

Sorry, but that's the second or third time you've made an assertion along those lines about Baptist/congregational churches. Can I ask on what basis you make that assumptions a) that that's the church setting Stoker is dealing with (it may be, but I don't see anything in what Stoker's written that clearly shows that's the case)and b) why this assumption that Baptist or similar church structures are susceptible to control-freak ministers.

I'm a Baptist minister in a Baptist/Congregational Local Ecumenical Project. At least three times, proposals either from myself or myself and the Deacons (we don't have Elders) have either been rejected by the Church Meeting, or have been "sent back" for further consideration. And that's fine - I don't have a problem with that at all, that's part of what our tradition is all about.

I just don't recognise the picture you're painting here.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You haven't really shown yourself terribly capable of seeing other points of view on here yourself! Perhaps you could work on your communication skills and instead of praying for something to happen that you like, pray 'your will be done'. And maybe try and be a little vulnerable with the person you feel like going to war against. Man up and make the first move; be honest, open and vulnerable. It's a risk, but nine times out of ten it pays off. Painting a picture in a particular way on an anonymous internet forum to slander your 'opponent' isn't really the greatest way to deal with this issue.'Addressing the issue' is not best done on a public internet forum with an anonymous name. I know that's not what you want to hear, but sometimes the truth is a two-edged sword.
fletcherchristian, you are welcome to use the "two-edged sword" as needed, but your first sentence strays a little close to the boundaries of personal attack. Be careful to address the issue in a way that doesn't attack the individual, please.

Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host

Mmm FC, you make a lot of assumptions there,
1. Saying 'wanting something I like to happen'. I've actually been prepared to live with some of the issues, but they've started to become an area of discord amongst other Church members. Eg: when you hear your own thoughts/ opinions repeated from at least 2 or 3 independent people, it's time to wonder...
2. Painting a picture in a particular way on an anonymous internet forum to slander your 'opponent' isn't really the greatest way to deal with this issue. Actually, it is a tool that has a use. You have no idea where or what the Church in question is, so it can't be slander and that's not my point. I have sought advice from several quarters and this is just one of them.
3. Work on your communication skills - are you some kind of lifestyle coach!? I have tried the gentle conversational approach, but to no avail..

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Stejjie well, it sounds like the baptist pastor/elder/church member model. Maybe it isn't.

With regard to your other questions, simply my experience. I was in a church where there was a dispute between the Elders and the Pastor which led to the Pastor being removed by the members meeting. I know another, smaller, evangelical church where there was a long running dispute between the Pastor, the Elders and (official and unofficial) Deacons which eventually led to the Minister leaving because of the stress. I know of several other churches where this dynamic is played out. I also have person experience of a large baptist church where the minister felt he had a special hotline to the divine and so a) refused to allow others to do anything without his permission in the services and b) attempted to bully people into his way of thinking during church meetings using a mixture of emotional blackmail and language about his ordained status. He lasted more than 20 years, eventually being forced out when he did something that the members meeting finally would not stand.

I think there is an inerrant contradiction in the Baptist congregational position. Sometimes, the meeting has more power than the minister, sometimes the minister tries to bully the congregation, sometimes there is a power conflict between Elders and Deacons and ministers.

I'm glad if you have not experienced it, maybe being part of a LEP helps, I don't know. But I've seen it happen many times.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Thanks for the response. The experiences you've had sound difficult (to say the least), ones which (mercifully!) I've avoided so far. I'm still not convinced the blame for them can be laid at the door of congregational forms of church government, though; conflicts between the leadership of the church (whatever that means in any given context) and the "laity" (for want of a better term) can grow up in any form of governance, I guess it's how they're dealt with. IMHO, Baptist/congregational churches have one very good way of doing that, the church meeting, but it takes the agreement of all sides (members, ministers, deacons/elders) to make it work. And that includes ministers making sure they use the system properly as well.

W/regards my own experience, I've only been ordained as a minister for a year and was a minister-in-training in my current church for 3 years before that. So my experience at the moment is much more weighted to being a member than a minister. Also, the vast majority of that was in a Baptist church, not an LEP (again, that's only the last 3 years), so I'm not sure that's why I've not experienced anything so terrible so far. That said, I have seen conflict in churches and I'm sure I will encounter more of it as I go along. I just kind of think the form of church governance I've been brought up in gives the best chance, if everyone plays it with a straight bat, of at least attempting to sort it out.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

It is the *baptist* pastor/elder/church member model.
Not baptist per-say, but that kind of congregational church set up.

It's not really the set up, it's the people!

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
It is the *baptist* pastor/elder/church member model.
Not baptist per-say, but that kind of congregational church set up.

It's not really the set up, it's the people!

Fair enough (apologies, the long ranger*).

Is there anyone outside the local church you can speak to about this? Eg in the Baptist set up itself, there'd be the regional minister who could get involved - does anyone like that exist in your situation? Or would that be considered the "nuclear" option?

* Though still don't think this is inherent in our tradition... [Razz]

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
It is the *baptist* pastor/elder/church member model.
Not baptist per-say, but that kind of congregational church set up.

It's not really the set up, it's the people!
Fair enough (apologies, the long ranger*).

Is there anyone outside the local church you can speak to about this? Eg in the Baptist set up itself, there'd be the regional minister who could get involved - does anyone like that exist in your situation? Or would that be considered the "nuclear" option?

* Though still don't think this is inherent in our tradition...

Not really in an official capacity, but I have consulted an older, wiser friend from a different church and tradition.

Since then, I've written a letter which was taken v badly and we had a special meeting which was basically:
1. You are bad. Writing this letter was bad. You should feel guilty. It upset my Wife.
2. Here's why I'm not going to take any notice of your letter (except for a few superficial points which have the appearance of listening and changing)
3. All resolved and friendly, good! Let's go home!

Current plan is wait till Chrimbo and review. Nuclear option of resignation to follow in New Year if required.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

In Reformed ecclesiology (and Baptist, Congregational and Presbyterians are all forms of this) there is a power balance at the centre of governance between membership and the ordained. Where there is a balance of power, there is a tension and both sides can adopt bullying techniques to get their way. Just look at the shennanigans that happen in US politics. There are some differences on whether there is wider structure and/or whether members have the power as a body or their representatives do however the core tension remains.

There are therefore both ministers bullying members and members bullying ministers (oddly enough this often seems to happen at the same time). However I would suggest that in actual fact a working Reformed system is less open to this sort of thing precisely because of the tension. If the congregation is to prosper then the cooperation of ministers and members is made essential.

What is more is that effective church meetings actually reduce the incidence of bullying because a working one is built strongly around the practice of listening to all. This does not happen when church meeting has become the territory of a group of members or is treated as an adminstrative technicality by the minister.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Stoker

I can't help, except to say that reading some books about conflict resolution might be a good idea whilst you spend some time thinking about what to do next.

I haven't read this one, but it's had some very good reviews on Amazon:

'Make Peace with Anyone: Breakthrough Strategies to Quickly End Any Conflict, Feud or Estrangement' David J. Lieberman

Churches desperately need to learn how to deal with conflict. I think it's a huge problem.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

Read the book "A Tale of Three Kings" by Gene Edwards to understand what a godly response looks like. It was written for exactly this sort of situation.

It sounds as if the issue is actually to do with the church leader's relationship with God. Maybe he is right. Maybe he needs to learn to walk humbly before his God, but it probably isn't your place to teach that to him.

Pray for him. Love him. Be on his side and explain other people's points of view to him.

Your responsibility is how you should act in your situation, not how he should act in his.

[ 10. September 2012, 12:08: Message edited by: Custard ]

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

Thanks Custard, good advice. Your last comment on responsibility is hard to apply and is the same advice a friend gave me - "How others respond if you are acting rightly is their responsibility". It's a shame they make it my responsibility!

There are many good books out there, I sometimes wish I had enough time to read all the books that were suggested as answers to problems!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0