Ship of Fools: When church isn't safe

Thread: When church isn't safe 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=026130

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Church is the one place where, IMO, everyone should feel safe. But churches are made up of people, and people can and do both good or bad things. And sometimes the safe place isn't.

If you've had experiences of church, particularly with toxic or abusive leadership, then please feel free to share them on this thread. Others on the Ship have had similar experiences and may be able to provide help and support.

Please be careful not to post any details that could identify the individuals or churches involved. Thanks.

Tubbs

[ 01. September 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Have fairly recent experience of a move to toxicity but not through the PP - rather an opinionated member of the congregation (clergy child!) who decided soon after the PP came that he was a bad thing.

So, this delightful individual has, until recently, spent best part of 2 years going around accusing the PP of

being an intellectual lightweight PP has 2 degrees and can definitely hold his own with 99.9% of the population
idolatry PP has allowed a bunch of flowers to be placed in front of a statuette 10" high that his predecessor installed
maladministration the complainer's wife asked for some photocopying last minute and it wasn't done because the PP was away
censorship of the parish magazine as PP he writes the "Letter from XX" at the front of the mag and didn't let the whinger do it for him
holding illegal services PP is a supporter of the Guild of the Servants of the Sanctuary and allowed them to hold their annual celebration in church
failure to consult parishioners on liturgical matters complainer wanted to choose hymns/help with sermon when it was his turn to read the epistle (!)
generally being divisive

PP was despairing but the PCC and wardens backed him up. The moaner has taken himself off elsewhere (now on his third church in 18 months!) and harmony is almost restored.

But a frightening example that it can take only one person to make parish life go from healthy and happy to completely toxic in a very short space of time.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am in two minds on this one. On the one hand, yes churches should be safe places - because the Christian faith is a place of healing and wholeness, and people should be able to find safety and security there.

On the other hand, though, my experience of churches is that they are rarely safe places. They are filled with broken people, who often get more broken by being part of a church. they are often led by broken people, who hurt and damage the members - not deliberately, or maliciously, but because the expression of faith they have is a damaging and hurtful one.

I have been in one church with a vicar who demanded respect, and had to be in control. If you fit, it was fine, if you didn't there was no chance for you. I, of course, did not fit.

I have been in a church where the vicar was unable to deal with conflict, and so avoided it at all cost, meaning that someone like me who causes conflict, and who does not avoid difficult topics, did not fit in.

I have been in a church where adherence to the rather conservative evangelical theology was expected by the leadership - despite the fact that there were many in the congregation who didn't agree. Of course, I didn't fit in.

Incidentally, for anyone who continues to struggle with church, this is my resource web site Bored with Church with contact details for anyone who wants to discuss further.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

When she was a young woman I think my mother felt rejected by the very strict church she came from. They drove her out of the church at one point. However, none of the other churches she came across later in life offered the same level of spiritual intensity. She now worships at home with her mother, and I find myself wondering if she'll ever feel comfortable now in an institutional church environment.

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I have been in a church where adherence to the rather conservative evangelical theology was expected by the leadership - despite the fact that there were many in the congregation who didn't agree. Of course, I didn't fit in.

The obvious question is why people attend conservative evangelical churches when there are many mainstream churches around that have a more tolerant theology. The answer, ISTM, is that conservative churches often seem to be better able to maintain spiritual intensity than mainstream churches are. So people end up in conservative churches for the spiritual atmosphere and not for the theology. This is not an entirely healthy situation, IMO, but noone knows what to do about it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Not with leadership. But with people whose ideas lead them to think they are right and that their ideas are shared by all. When they are not.

Like when we've had terrible things happen and a"prayer chain" person decides to phone to inform/assert/ask (in approx that order as they learn our objections) that this group is praying about it for us. The amateur psychology coupled with the idea of prayer solving everything has raised my blood pressure to the steam whistle on a pressure cooker point several times. I 'get' the idea of a prayer group which wants to contribute something, but there is a particular view that it may advance, with intrusions into personal sorrows, and into private, personal matters. -- such things can send parishioners looking for another parish if a priest/minister doesn't gain control of it.

We have ended up with what might be called "f off conversations" but using assertion and bluntness in place of frank profanity. There is a violation of personal privacy, and something spiritual and emotional I cannot quite name.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Churches are not safe places and we should *never* tell people they are! That causes people to let down their guard and be more at risk than elsewhere.

Friend who was the best choir director I've ever sung with - broad knowledge of music, very artistic in making anthems sound interesting even from a tiny choir, inclusive of all people who sang or played an instrument tolerably, doing more than asked - started a children's choir, found bells in the closet and started a bell choir.

Pastor gave him a written note on December 23 (signed by all of the choir members, one said under duress, another refused to sign it, I and the other transplant who had followed him from a different church were not invited to sign it). The note listed all the ways he was terrible - personally, musically, socially. Not one kind word. (He showed me the note.)

I would have quit that day, let them do Christmas Eve on their own if they think me so incompetent. He is a gentleman and gave a one month notice. But he was deeply hurt. Directing choral music has been his career and his passion.

This was the third church in a row that severely dissed him, not just "it's time to part ways" but personal insults. (Are music workers are a target for church politics in general?)

The note was timed to inflict maximum pain. They could have waited a few days, until after Christmas!

He gave away his lifetime collection of choral music to a school music teacher starting out and told me he is never doing choral again. He's playing organ (not a great keyboardist but improving) in a church with no choir.

That's severe pain, that causes someone to give up a lifetime passion!

Not one kind word for an outstanding and dedicated choral director. Amazing how brutal a church can be.

(BTW, lest y'all think must be something terribly wrong with the director - they told his replacement, a graduate of Julliard who has won awards for his piano playing, that he was a lousy piano player. He quit after 6 months.)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I have been in a church where adherence to the rather conservative evangelical theology was expected by the leadership - despite the fact that there were many in the congregation who didn't agree. Of course, I didn't fit in.
The obvious question is why people attend conservative evangelical churches when there are many mainstream churches around that have a more tolerant theology. The answer, ISTM, is that conservative churches often seem to be better able to maintain spiritual intensity than mainstream churches are. So people end up in conservative churches for the spiritual atmosphere and not for the theology. This is not an entirely healthy situation, IMO, but noone knows what to do about it.

While I think you are right, the theological position of the church leaders is not always the same as that of the church as a whole. In this case, the impression was that they were reasonably tolerant, broad-minded and open. That was a perfect place for me, because I could then exert something of a challenge to the prevailing idea, provide a counter to a conservative lean.

The truth was that the core leadership were far more conservative, and were not really very tolerant of my more liberal leanings. Which is a pity, because between us, we could have made a real difference.

The church was filled with lovely people. The community was nice there, and there were opportunity to genuinely explore the faith. It was not strongly fundamentalist, just on the definitively conservative end of mainstream evangelicalism. The main problem was actually that the leadership wanted to go more conservative, while I wanted them to go less so.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The theological position of the church leaders is not always the same as that of the church as a whole. In this case, the impression was that they were reasonably tolerant, broad-minded and open. That was a perfect place for me, because I could then exert something of a challenge to the prevailing idea, provide a counter to a conservative lean.

The truth was that the core leadership were far more conservative, and were not really very tolerant of my more liberal leanings. Which is a pity, because between us, we could have made a real difference.

My experience is mostly with mainstream churches, where the clergy are usually more liberal than the congregations. This is probably a 'safer' situation to be in, because such clergy seem to be well-schooled in not offending their congregations - at least not theologically. Conservatism, though, seeks to maintain theological conformity, which must cause stress and conflict if minister and laity don't agree.

The simple answer is for theologically tolerant churchgoers not to attend conservative churches or not to hire conservative clergy, if that choice is in their hands. Where I live tolerant mainstream Anglican, Methodist and URC churches and clergy are easy to find, so there's no need to try and turn conservative clergy into liberal ones.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

This was the third church in a row that severely dissed him, not just "it's time to part ways" but personal insults. (Are music workers are a target for church politics in general?)

I fear so. Perhaps it's partly because the choice of musical style is a hot button topic for church politics.

A church with which I am familiar has so far fired two choir directors and an organist under the tenure of a relatively new priest. Each action was surrounded by considerable bitterness.

One choir director was fired because the new priest wanted to increase the frequency of modern worship songs; the director said that that wasn't his expertise, and so the priest said "OK, bye". It wasn't necessarily the wrong decision, but the choir director had given more than a decade of service to the church, and was sent packing with a couple of weeks' notice.

I think number 2 was mostly a personality clash with the priest (it appears that his leadership skills are somewhat lacking, and he can't deal with anyone else having an opinion.)

I've no idea why the organist was fired, but he was gratefully hired by a neighbouring parish. Decent organists aren't so easy to come by that firing one for stupid reasons is at all sensible.

(And for all the priest is acting like he wants to eliminate traditional music from the church, he hasn't actually followed through and done that - he still asks for traditional hymns and choral anthems most of the time - so I'm thoroughly confused by what he actually wants. It's not my regular shack, though, or I'd probably ask straight out.)

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Church = safe? [Confused]

God isn't 'safe'. If your church is safe then God probably isn't in it.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Church = safe?

God isn't 'safe'. If your church is safe then God probably isn't in it.

I think we're talking about a different kind of safe?

God isn't kicking people out of church for inexplicable "reasons" probably related to ego of the one kicking (has happened to several friends in various churches).

God isn't refusing to visit an elderly long term member who is hospitalized with a heart attack because "the church needs to put it's time and resources into the younger people." (A friend; deeply hurt.)

God doesn't sexually assault 23 female members of the congregation (my aunt's church).

God doesn't tell a singer "you are old your voice is gone" when it's not true at all, the director feels insulted by competence like "how dare you do music well when you didn't pay your dues by going to music school like I did!"

Actually, that last one might have been God-motivated - kicked out of her rut, she's now doing music in new ways. Fun to see someone grow. OK, you get one, God is not safe; the thread topic gets three, church is not a safe collection of people.

And, just to balance things, it's not just the clergy and music directors causing pain. A friend was a bivocational pastor, was paid a few hundred per month, worked hard at preparing sermons, planning worship, attending meetings. Supported the family with a full time factory job. Church was happy for a year, then started complaining that he wasn't doing enough, by the end of the second year they were complaining that he wasn't spending week days visiting - he had to work a factory job to pay the rent! They finally got so aggressively demanding that he gave up and quit.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(And for all the priest is acting like he wants to eliminate traditional music from the church, he hasn't actually followed through and done that - he still asks for traditional hymns and choral anthems most of the time - so I'm thoroughly confused by what he actually wants.

I think what I'm seeing is some clergy or music committees don't know what they want but haven't figured out that they don't know.

Like, they want "modern relevant music to attract the younger generation" but they don't want "those sappy worship songs" and they don't want unfamiliar off-beat rhythms and they want familiar tunes. Doing the hymns you meet the "familiar" and "not off-beat" but miss the "modern relevant." Doing the praise songs you get modern relevant but it's off-beat rhythms and unfamiliar tunes with "those awful guitars."

Like wanting to live in the rural countryside close to downtown big city, there is no such place. The music that satisfies all the requirements - there is no such music. So the music director get blamed no matter what music he does.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Church = safe?

God isn't 'safe'. If your church is safe then God probably isn't in it.
I think we're talking about a different kind of safe?

God isn't kicking people out of church for inexplicable "reasons" probably related to ego of the one kicking (has happened to several friends in various churches).

God isn't refusing to visit an elderly long term member who is hospitalized with a heart attack because "the church needs to put it's time and resources into the younger people." (A friend; deeply hurt.)

God doesn't sexually assault 23 female members of the congregation (my aunt's church).

God doesn't tell a singer "you are old your voice is gone" when it's not true at all, the director feels insulted by competence like "how dare you do music well when you didn't pay your dues by going to music school like I did!"

Actually, that last one might have been God-motivated - kicked out of her rut, she's now doing music in new ways. Fun to see someone grow. OK, you get one, God is not safe; the thread topic gets three, church is not a safe collection of people.

And, just to balance things, it's not just the clergy and music directors causing pain. A friend was a bivocational pastor, was paid a few hundred per month, worked hard at preparing sermons, planning worship, attending meetings. Supported the family with a full time factory job. Church was happy for a year, then started complaining that he wasn't doing enough, by the end of the second year they were complaining that he wasn't spending week days visiting - he had to work a factory job to pay the rent! They finally got so aggressively demanding that he gave up and quit.

I expect those that got kicked out of the church were probably levered out of a rut too. Repentance isn't a safe message whatever direction it is delivered. If you don't believe me then ask the founder about that one.

Things like the sexual assault are terrible. When things seem safe then it is time to be especially wary of danger. That is when honest concerns are not expressed and evil has its way.

The yoof leaders need to take a risk by introducing their charges to pastoral care; i.e. take them to visit senior members. That not cool safe, it is an uncool risk.

I know how risky artistic differences are. And complex. I bet there are at least 6 sides to the singer story.

Same for the PT Pastor. It is a risky but necessary model for a lot of churches these days. It is time to evaluate the Universal Priesthood and every member in ministry not just those who are paid. It didn't work. Now it is time to learn from it (Pastor to manage expectations, congregation to take on some of the professional tasks or put more on the collection plate.) FYI I would favour more involvement, because the church will reach further if everyone is involved. But the hazard is of gifted or less gifted armatures cocking things up. [Paranoid]

As in the film Even Almighty God informs Even Baxter that when you pray for patience he sends incidents to test and develop your patience. If we are active and listening to God then everything we do also involves a hazard and has a risk of that hazard happening.

God only knows why he chose to work through the church. You have to love it but couldn't he just hung around as Messiah for a few millennia more? No. ITSTM growth is risky and therefore Church is risky.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Church = safe?

God isn't 'safe'. If your church is safe then God probably isn't in it.
I think we're talking about a different kind of safe?

God is not safe, because he constantly challenges, pushes to growth, because he doesn't allow people to stay comfortable.

The church is not safe because it abuses people.

I think there is a world of difference here.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Some people need church to be a safe haven, eg. if they have been very badly hurt, or are autistic and cannot cope with constant uncertainty.

No doubt there are also others who could do with a bit of a shake up now and again, but it is very important for the church not to mistake these with the people already mentioned.

Otherwise, all you get is yet more hurting people and very empty churches....

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

And perhaps, just perhaps, those who most need shaking up are the very same ones who so delight in shaking up others....?

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Church is the one place where, IMO, everyone should feel safe. But churches are made up of people, and people can and do both good or bad things. And sometimes the safe place isn't.

If you've had experiences of church, particularly with toxic or abusive leadership, then please feel free to share them on this thread. Others on the Ship have had similar experiences and may be able to provide help and support.

Please be careful not to post any details that could identify the individuals or churches involved. Thanks.

Tubbs

Thank you for this thread, Tubbs. I had some health issues which were pulling me down. I think they are resolved now, but we will see.

I would dearly love to 'out' the church which treated me so badly, but I won't. I will just dream of doing so; telling everyone here who exactly Father is, and what exactly he did, and how the congregation went from total shock to pretending that I never even existed. Nice people. None of them actually evil, of course; far from it, but all of them pretending, I think, that it is not their problem.

But dreams of revenge have to make way for Christian forgiveness and mercy. Particularly when a new home is so much better than the old one.

I drove past the other place this morning, on my way to my new church, which is poles apart in terms of spirituality and Christian love. My new church has a loving congregation, has a very humble, quiet and calm vicar who is very tolerant of my strange little ways, and who says that I am a gift to his church, regardless of what I do for them.

It is still not safe, but it is just possible to go on a Sunday, sit in the far corner of the back pew, and remain for the Eucharist. For now that is enough.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Church = safe?

God isn't 'safe'. If your church is safe then God probably isn't in it.

What a very silly thing to say.

If the church is not a safe place for Christians to be, then that is not indicative of God's presence, but the exact opposite, imo.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Perhaps 'a place of refuge' is a better term than 'safe'. In the 'Rock of Ages cleft for me' type of meaning.

My church has been described by a significant number as a place of refuge for those who have gone through traumatic life experiences that their own church (if any) of a different theological understanding cannot really cope with or help with. The sort of church which can only understand the Christian life as being all sweetness, joy and sunshine, which doesn't help the seriously hurt to understand what is happening to them at all. So people come to us for a period of time, to take refuge while they take stock and decide which way they want to head in the next stage of their lives. That's hardly a soft option - but a very necessary one in the midst of some difficult heart-searching and decisions.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My church "no longer being a healthy or safe place to be" was the reason I gave for leaving it.

Many people here know my story, and since there was a measure of resolution a few years ago I've removed the direct link from my Ship profile, but now this thread is here I'll leave another one. Quite a few of the external links are broken, but from time to time I still get people who have found the site e-mailing me saying things along the lines of "I'm so glad you posted that, I thought I was the only one" [Votive]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We were members of a church which imploded, and we eventually left/ were forced out as it had become toxic for us.

It was a large congregation with an extremely popular minister. When he was arrested on a charge of having taken indecent photographs of young girls in the congregation there was widespread disbelief, especially as he denied the charges vigorously. The congregation started to take sides pre-trial. The day of the trial he changed his plea to guilty and was sent to prison. The church spiralled down - people left, organisations contracted, more people left, givings were down, financial problems arose, more people left, there was bitter in-fighting as what to do. And eventually we left / felt forced out.

Individually, I'm sure everyone in the congregation was lovely. But everyone was bewildered, many felt hurt and betrayed, and some people were lashing out at any convenient target.

The extent to which a basically good congregation collapsed and became toxic still shocks me, many years later.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

My previous two churches, a middle of the road Baptist and a Trad Anglican, both experienced extreme church splits which resulted in a large section of the congregation leaving. In both cases there were things that the leadership might have handled better, but it was the actions of groups within the churches which exacerbated the situation. For instance, some people who left the Baptist church during this situation retained their membership for years afterwards and repeatedly came back to meetings to forward votes of no confidence, despite not attending this church and regularly attended another church for at least 2 years. The bitterness continued despite mediation, which mainly highlighted the minister being blamed for decisions made before he came, and was very disruptive. In the end the situation was settled with the minister moving on but ensuring that the church prepared itself better for the next minister. He was a lovely man who received good support from his leadership and we stayed to see out the changeover.
The Parish church experience was similar but far more distressing on a weekly basis; we had members of the PCC refusing to take communion from the vicar, he had a nervous breakdown and then we had the legal case where members of the church succeeded in getting the vicar sacked [Frown]

And so much more. It was all very public, talked about in the village, appearing in the papers and also on TV. We left because it just seemed so nasty and unlike a church. We had some good friends there, everyone on all sides still talks to us and we ourselves did not experience any personality hostility but the toxic atmosphere made us so deeply unhappy.
I hasten to add that in both cases the churches appear to be healing well, the new Parish vicar, especially, is doing good work.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

I was a church officer and had a nervous breakdown due to several months of overwork. At the same time half the church was bitching about me behind my back. I returned to church three weeks later and was sacked by the Vicar, in public. I am a vulnerable adult.

None of the PCC wanted this; they were as shocked as I was, but it happened.

I have not wanted anything to go public; I have said repeatedly I want it to remain in our town and be dealt with in our town. I have not wanted even to tell the bishop, and have said I will not make a formal complaint.

In my capacity as church officer I was on a deanery committee which only meets once a year. I emailed the Chair of that committee yesterday to ask whether that goes as well, and was told yes, sadly the rules say it goes with the former position so I am no longer on that committee either. I was told to stay at home that evening.

I stay at home every evening; staying home is nothing new.

If I had been Chair of that committee (which is advisory only, not decision making) I would have left the person on it ex officio, for at least one year. But there is no compassion in the church any more, as far as I can see. By losing that role as well, then in my view the deanery condones what the Vicar did.

All of which tells me that the church will follow the rules when it suits them, but ignore the rules when it means protecting a vulnerable person who has been hurt, or indeed making any steps towards helping to heal that hurt. Bullying policies, clergy standards, the HR Act; all have been ignored. But the deanery committee rules are followed. Ironic, isn't it?

It will probably come as no surprise that I am now reconsidering whether Anglicanism has any place at all for me any more. I think probably not. The problem is knowing where to go, when I have been an Anglican my whole life, and when I truly love my communion. It just seems not to know how to love me in return.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Quite a few of the external links are broken, but from time to time I still get people who have found the site e-mailing me saying things along the lines of "I'm so glad you posted that, I thought I was the only one"

Thank you, Eutychus. It certainly helps to read another person's story, although I am very sorry it happened to you.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

If you have kept it secret and not made a complaint and not told the bishop, how do you know that there is "no compassion in the church any more" or that "Bullying policies, clergy standards, the HR Act; all have been ignored"? Maybe they would take action if they were given the chance.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you have kept it secret and not made a complaint and not told the bishop, how do you know that there is "no compassion in the church any more" or that "Bullying policies, clergy standards, the HR Act; all have been ignored"? Maybe they would take action if they were given the chance.

You’re caught between a rock and a hard place … You want the situation dealt with and the clergy involved disciplined, but after a bad church experience you might not feel strong enough to make a formal complaint and go through due process … Whilst there’s no guarantee that making a formal complaint will give you the outcome you want, there will be no investigation at all unless you’re willing to do that.

Having been in that position once, I decided that due to other circumstances, that making a formal complaint wasn’t appropriate. As well as my anger about the situation, I had to let go of my anger that No One Had Done Anything About It ™.

(ETA: So much easier to type than to do. It took me a long time and, fortunately, my theoretical forgiveness has never been put to a practical test as I've not seen them since)

Tubbs

[ 17. September 2013, 11:23: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The complaint thing is very difficult - i know of an instance where someone was recovering enough to make a complaint, only to have the powers that be close ranks against him and sending him back into deep depression.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It's really difficult belonging to a church and working for the same church. Getting time to worship becomes a real challenge. And when you stop working / volunteering for that church, for whatever reason, unless you take a big step back and let whoever has taken over those roles get on with it in peace you can either get dragged into church politics or make the new person's role harder, just by being there.

Maybe you can put a positive cast on moving on and reframe it as allowing other people to take these roles without you breathing down their necks. So if asked, that's what you say, which makes it a positive reason and could dissipate the anger some?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Being a whistle-blower is usually pretty thank-less. It is a generous thing to do for the community, but not a great idea if you are "vulnerable" -emotionally, socially, or economically.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have learnt the hard way that there are certain things that churches do not do.

They do not manage time of volunteers responsibly, actually they do not do it for paid staff either. Thus volunteers need to set their own limits
People in churches are often not good at seeing past their own activity. Therefore if you are not involved in that you are not involved. You can work for seven hours and then get back to what you should have been doing afterwards only for people to complain that you did not come to their thing.
Churches will not keep to even clearly set boundaries unless you maintain them. Maintaining them means not doing things.
Churches are not good at hearing "No" and respecting that. They will often pretend you have not said it. You need to stick to your guns.

Basically,churches as a whole behave like a desperately needy person. You need to put in the same coping skills as you would with such a person.

I am not good enough at this yet.

Jengie

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you have kept it secret and not made a complaint and not told the bishop, how do you know that there is "no compassion in the church any more" or that "Bullying policies, clergy standards, the HR Act; all have been ignored"? Maybe they would take action if they were given the chance.
You’re caught between a rock and a hard place … You want the situation dealt with and the clergy involved disciplined, but after a bad church experience you might feel strong enough to make a formal complaint and go through due process … Whilst there’s no guarantee that making a formal complaint will give you the outcome you want, there will be no investigation at all unless you’re willing to do that.

Having been in that position once, I decided that due to other circumstances, that making a formal complaint wasn’t appropriate. As well as my anger about the situation, I had to let go of my anger that No One Had Done Anything About It ™.

(ETA: So much easier to type than to do. It took me a long time and, fortunately, my theoretical forgiveness has never been put to a practical test as I've not seen them since)

Tubbs

I agree with all of that - and having moderated/mediated in a number of churches across the denominations I can see where you're coming from.

Trouble is that unless and until someone does something, then the abuse will continue - perhaps at an even more extreme level than you have had to suffer. Abusers are rarely the character type who have one go and then never re offend - they are repeaters and need to be stopped.

I agree - sometimes no one listens but more and more somebody does. tell the truth if you can, stick to the facts, beware of opinions but get it out there and bring it into the open if you can.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If you have kept it secret and not made a complaint and not told the bishop, how do you know that there is "no compassion in the church any more" or that "Bullying policies, clergy standards, the HR Act; all have been ignored"? Maybe they would take action if they were given the chance.

I did not say it is secret. I said I wanted it kept within this town.

I have spoken and written to several people. I can't say who because that would identify too much, but I have told people who have responsibility to do something. They have chosen to do nothing.

I absolutely did not want to pursue vengeance or punishment of any kind, or make any formal complaint because that would be counter productive; I need to find a way to belong, not to alienate myself further.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
You’re caught between a rock and a hard place … You want the situation dealt with and the clergy involved disciplined, but after a bad church experience you might feel strong enough to make a formal complaint and go through due process … Whilst there’s no guarantee that making a formal complaint will give you the outcome you want, there will be no investigation at all unless you’re willing to do that.

Well, you really have to consider what the probable outcome would be. I do not want to hurt anyone, or cause anyone distress. I do not even want the Vicar to be disciplined; at most taken to one side and told informally what he can and cannot get away with.

I don't want anything formal, or anything on his record. I just wanted him to know that he cannot treat people the way he treated me; that he is under authority.

None of that is really my business, or my concern, though. My primary aim is to find somewhere that I can feel safe, and where I can eventually feel as if I belong. That will not be achieved by making a formal complaint. It will be achieved by learning how to serve in a different way, with new people.

The problem is learning how to trust again, when trust has been destroyed.

quote:
Having been in that position once, I decided that due to other circumstances, that making a formal complaint wasn’t appropriate. As well as my anger about the situation, I had to let go of my anger that No One Had Done Anything About It ™.

Yes, that is the real challenge. Just when I think I am beginning to learn acceptance and let go of the anger, something else happens to remind me, and it all returns, as has happened today.

This is a very slow process. It certainly would not be helped by any acts of vengeance from my part at this point. I am trying to find ways of behaving in a loving, Christian spirit, but it is not easy.

quote:

(ETA: So much easier to type than to do. It took me a long time and, fortunately, my theoretical forgiveness has never been put to a practical test as I've not seen them since)

Tubbs

Yes, I think it will take a long time. At present nowhere is safe, and I am struggling with a compulsion to remain home and become a recluse. I have done this before; once for 7 years, once for 2. I don't want to go the same way again, but it is becoming increasingly likely.

[ 17. September 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The complaint thing is very difficult - i know of an instance where someone was recovering enough to make a complaint, only to have the powers that be close ranks against him and sending him back into deep depression.

I have written three letters. The reply each time had this exact effect, so I gave up writing any more.

And today's email did the same.

Vulnerable people are not resilient enough to make a complaint. We rely on church policy being followed.

In my case it has not been followed.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I agree with all of that - and having moderated/mediated in a number of churches across the denominations I can see where you're coming from.

Trouble is that unless and until someone does something, then the abuse will continue - perhaps at an even more extreme level than you have had to suffer. Abusers are rarely the character type who have one go and then never re offend - they are repeaters and need to be stopped.

I agree - sometimes no one listens but more and more somebody does. tell the truth if you can, stick to the facts, beware of opinions but get it out there and bring it into the open if you can.

I did that. I rang Someone and said what had happened. He said he would talk to the Vicar. I heard nothing. Two weeks later I wrote and gave the facts.

A reply came six weeks later. It said move on.

I wrote again. A reply came and said what more do you expect me to be able to do? Move on.

I wrote again. A reply came; it said I did not realise you would want to see me; make an appointment with my secretary.

I gave up writing. I have not yet found the strength to make an appointment with that secretary. I probably never will.

I asked through my Vicar to see the SOVA. He came, listened, apologised and then said move on. He told me the church is afraid of litigation. I emailed him some written evidence, and he said again, move on.

In each of my letters I asked for support from an Anglo Catholic priest to help me to undo the harm that my former Vicar has caused to me, and to help me to move on. This has not been offered. I also asked for an assurance that what I did for my church was valued, and that I am valued as a person. This has also not been said.

My new Vicar is lovely and is doing what he can, and I am very grateful for him; without him I would not still be attending church at all. Other than him, it feels as if the church has built a stone wall around itself, with me on the outside.

If other church officers knew how I have been treated, I honestly think nobody would ever want to take on any such role ever again. It is that bad.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Some advice from my experience …

Leaving a much loved church in unhappy circumstances is a bit like a divorce, beavement etc. The grieving and moving on process takes time - and is a bit one step forward, two steps back.

The only person who can give you the kind of peace of mind and safety that you crave is God. People can and will help you along the way, but people are fallible. God isn’t. (Or, the short version – God is great, but Christians maybe not so much! )

But … But … But … The things that you think you need and the things that God knows you need aren’t always the same. You want an Anglo Catholic Priest and church to support you – but right now the Anglican vicar and church down the road might be what you need. From what you say, it sounds like they’re doing a great job. Focusing on what you have might help with the moving on process. Counselling might also help if you can find the right person.

You might find that making a formal complaint and seeing it through might give you the closure you seek. I am, forgive me, completely confused about what you’re expecting from the Powers That Be. It’s possible that everything that can be done given that you don’t want to go down formal channels has been done – vicar spoken to and warned etc. There’s only so much they can tell you about what’s happened other than it’s been dealt with, now try and move on. (I'd have gone for heads on pikes myself, but I'm vengful like that!) I appreciate how much that sucks, but it is what it is. It can feel like they’re closing ranks, but in some cases, an investigation is on-going and nothing can be said until it’s completed. (I found out my Boss From Hell ™ was being paid to go away the day after it happened).

Tubbs

[ 17. September 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some advice from my experience …

There’s only so much they can tell you about what’s happened other than it’s been dealt with, now try and move on. (I'd have gone for heads on pikes myself, but I'm vengful like that!) I appreciate how much that sucks, but it is what it is. It can feel like they’re closing ranks, but in some cases, an investigation is on-going and nothing can be said until it’s completed. (I found out my Boss From Hell ™ was being paid to go away the day after it happened).

Tubbs

Thank you, Tubbs, that all helps.

I suppose what I want is for the focus to be on helping me, rather than protecting the church from what I might do.

I have ptsd (inter alia). I can't just get over this.

[ 17. September 2013, 14:01: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Some advice from my experience …

There’s only so much they can tell you about what’s happened other than it’s been dealt with, now try and move on. (I'd have gone for heads on pikes myself, but I'm vengful like that!) I appreciate how much that sucks, but it is what it is. It can feel like they’re closing ranks, but in some cases, an investigation is on-going and nothing can be said until it’s completed. (I found out my Boss From Hell ™ was being paid to go away the day after it happened).

Tubbs
Thank you, Tubbs, that all helps.

I suppose what I want is for the focus to be on helping me, rather than protecting the church from what I might do.

I have ptsd (inter alia). I can't just get over this.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive, but looking for support in the wrong places only leads to disappointment IME. Family, friends and my new church were great sources of support. I got some therapy as well.

People from the church I'd fled from were hopeless - the glue that held us together was the church and once that had gone, there wasn't anything left. Those in charge weren't great either, but their priority was sorting out the stuff that had gone wrong, not those who'd been wronged.

As I said before though, getting stiffed by church isn't something you just get over. Takes time!

If you can get hold of a copy, you might find reading Stephen Parson's Ungodly Fear extremely helpful.

Tubbs

[ 17. September 2013, 20:20: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
You’re caught between a rock and a hard place … You want the situation dealt with and the clergy involved disciplined, but after a bad church experience you might not feel strong enough to make a formal complaint and go through due process … Whilst there’s no guarantee that making a formal complaint will give you the outcome you want, there will be no investigation at all unless you’re willing to do that.

There is a complaints procedure in the C of E. I know that Pete173 of this parish is not an unqualified admirer (someone ought to drag him over here) but the possibility of an Anglican layperson complaining about an abusive clergyperson exists in canon law and basically, for the good of all the other potential victims out there. If someone done you wrong you ought to bring it to the attention of his boss. As a C of E priest I am grateful for the forbearance of the laity in not pointing out those occasions when we are crap as often as they might, but there are limits and sometimes someone ought to go to the Bishop and say, actually, this is not on.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

We are so seriously bad at being church together, I'm amazed we still attempt to do this. But we do. And there are no happy endings this side of eternity as far as I can make it out. Perhaps all churches should have an "Enter at own Risk" sign over their doors.

It seems to me that trying to be a community of faith is a highly risky business. Sadly, most often, for all the wrong reasons. Sigh.

Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
We are so seriously bad at being church together, I'm amazed we still attempt to do this. But we do. And there are no happy endings this side of eternity as far as I can make it out. Perhaps all churches should have an "Enter at own Risk" sign over their doors.

It seems to me that trying to be a community of faith is a highly risky business. Sadly, most often, for all the wrong reasons. Sigh.

If so many people are getting seiously hurt in church, maybe we should give up trying to do it? Christians could exist as individuals (if single) or as couples(if married) or as family groups or maybe groups of friends, bringing the Gospel to their workplaces, communities, gyms, golf clubs etc.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The big problem is that the central message of Christianity is communal, not individual. We can not love our neighbour in abstract, we have to get out and do. Church is the place where we get to practice with other people who are hopefully trying to do it as well.

We fail. Yeh.

That is normal for a place where you are learning how to do a skill.

Jengie

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The big problem is that the central message of Christianity is communal, not individual. We can not love our neighbour in abstract, we have to get out and do. Church is the place where we get to practice with other people who are hopefully trying to do it as well.

We fail. Yeh.

That is normal for a place where you are learning how to do a skill.

Jengie

Part of the problem is that we come to church with unrealistic expectations of how it’s going to be - full of mighty, wise Saints who behave brilliantly in all situations. It isn’t. It’s full of fallen human beings who behave that way – good, bad and indifferent. And you're expected to love and serve them as God does nd they're expected to love you in the same way. Radical stuff.

Tubbs

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
If so many people are getting seiously hurt in church, maybe we should give up trying to do it? Christians could exist as individuals (if single) or as couples(if married) or as family groups or maybe groups of friends, bringing the Gospel to their workplaces, communities, gyms, golf clubs etc.

I suspect you come from a tradition different to mine, but we are commanded by Christ that when we come together, we celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of Him. As for a meeting place, if you are going to have the places you suggest, why not also meet in a building that is called a church?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
We are so seriously bad at being church together, I'm amazed we still attempt to do this. But we do. And there are no happy endings this side of eternity as far as I can make it out. Perhaps all churches should have an "Enter at own Risk" sign over their doors.

It seems to me that trying to be a community of faith is a highly risky business. Sadly, most often, for all the wrong reasons. Sigh.
If so many people are getting seiously hurt in church, maybe we should give up trying to do it? Christians could exist as individuals (if single) or as couples(if married) or as family groups or maybe groups of friends, bringing the Gospel to their workplaces, communities, gyms, golf clubs etc.

I think this is a good general point. Putting aside those groups and denominations for whom church tradition is of central importance, I'm not convinced that it's sensible or viable to keep doing church in a way that obviously hurts a lot of people. In the past people would have tolerated the situation due to a greater culture of deference or due to the social and spiritual advantages of churchgoing balancing out the psychological risks. But fewer of us are willing to put up with this kind of thing now.

All ways of being church will be challenging of course, because the gospel is challenging. But that doesn't mean our current structures are unchangeable. The structures should serve us, not own us.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0