Thread: The church as 'private club' 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=026708
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
This story has hit the local press, and I believe a couple of national dailies too. I don't want to discuss the specifics of this situation, because I know the parish slightly, though not well enough for an informed debate.
What interests, and disturbs me, is the strong implication that the priest was bullied out of his job by a powerful clique who saw the church as their own private social club. (There is more about this in the official report here.) It is very reminiscent of a situation I was in about thirty years ago, where the church was controlled by an unrepresentative group who enjoyed their cliquey 'socials' but tried to freeze out any who didn't conform to their expectations. I confronted them and eventually won; I wasn't, fortunately, forced out but it was very tough.
I'm fairly sure that this sort of behaviour is not uncommon. That it rarely escalates to this extent is probably due to clergy preferring a quiet life and avoiding confrontation. And I think it stems from a very narrow vision of what the Church is on the part of many Anglicans. Unlike Roman Catholics for whom the local parish is just one among many manifestations of the universal Church, Anglicans tend to think, and act, at least in practice, as if 'the Church' as a wider entity was irrelevant. Hence the reluctance to pay diocesan shares (or in the case of this parish, to demand special consideration on the basis of paying it), the idiosyncratic nature of the liturgy in many places, and a reluctance to be challenged by insights and traditions from 'outside the box'.
This selfishness, which is what it is, also and more damagingly results in neglecting any sort of spiritual discipline. Such churches in the 'catholic' tradition will pay lip service to the sacraments, to going to confession, observing quiet days etc, but for many or most people lip service is as far as it goes. Certainly according to the report above that was the situation there.
Any comments? Especially about whether I am right in my assertion that it is a problem more endemic to Anglicanism (or at least the C of E) than Catholicism. I can't speak for any other denominations but while I can envisage the temptations to sectarianism I wonder if the 'social club' aspect is as strong and pernicious?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Any comments? Especially about whether I am right in my assertion that it is a problem more endemic to Anglicanism (or at least the C of E) than Catholicism. I can't speak for any other denominations but while I can envisage the temptations to sectarianism I wonder if the 'social club' aspect is as strong and pernicious?
I think different situations can give rise to something similar to this in different denominations. It's not unusual for big donors to assume that they can and should be able to set direction of the church - and I've seen and/or heard of this happening in Methodist (US), Baptist and independent circles.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Baptist Trainfan may be along shortly; also hatless. Just guessing of course.
There is an old joke which, apparently, came from Billy Graham, a staunch Baptist.
"Resist the devil and he will flee from you
Resist the deacons and they will fly at you".
Angloid, I think it is a problem not confined to any particular denomination. Nor is the reverse problem, of bullying and spiritual abuse by a too-dominant minister-in-charge.
They are pesky difficult to handle. From a surprising source (Joe Heller's marvellous "Catch 22") there is another insight from the hapless and hopeless Arfy, reflecting on his time in his college fraternity. "[Frat] was wonderful. We used to ostracise everyone, even each other".
I think the root cause of both bullying of and bullying by priest/ministers is the same. The seductive attraction of power and control.
And you will find it everywhere; work, golf clubs, Rotary, schools and staff rooms etc, amongst school pupils. The tendency to Lord it over others if you think you have the clout.
Jesus said "not so among you; if you want to be great, learn to be a servant".
That gets forgotten far too easily.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the root cause of both bullying of and bullying by priest/ministers is the same. The seductive attraction of power and control.
And you will find it everywhere; work, golf clubs, Rotary, schools and staff rooms etc, amongst school pupils. The tendency to Lord it over others if you think you have the clout.
From my experience working in several universities I agree. Famously academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low. And that does seem a feature of much bullying, it is the only way those with little power can get the small victories they so long for.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Interesting. Father Tibbs is cute as a button in his hiking hat so I'd like to side with him, but I think we need to know more.
quote:
Father Tibbs enforced a cutting down of alcohol consumption after church and the replacement of an elderly Sunday school leader, splits appeared amongst the laity as some members began to call for his departure from St Faith’s.
Where was all this alcohol consumption? Was it a sherry party in someone's home or inside the church itself? Was the Sunday School teacher incompetent or merely old?
I had a young priest, with a booming voice, at a church in Washington DC who used to tear us a new one from the pulpit almost every week. He particularly liked to tell his mink wearing, Cadillac driving congregation that they needed to quit being such cheapskates and give more to the poor. I loved him, but his fire was all from the pulpit, he didn't actually try to force individuals to do things his way.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Barnabas62: I'm sure you are right about the root causes of bullying. What I am interested in is the connection between Anglican parochialism (my church is The Church, aka my little club) and the way it strikes out at anyone who challenges that. I'm sure that phenomenon exists in other denominations too. But it's a different thing from bullying in general which happens in all sorts of contexts.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Wow! I just heard the Quo in my mind, singing "Rocking all Over the World"!
Strange prompt. Some folks do see themselves as defenders of the status quo ante. Anyone with any reforming agenda is bound to hit that. It's in Machiavelli's " The Prince". And that really is all over the world. It is very often the agenda of powerful cliques, this resistance of change. They are sure they know better. "Well, we tried that in 1976 ...". Maybe this is the characteristic you are thinking about, reaching for?
Another church joke. New Bishop visits a parish on his introductory rounds. Meets an ancient Churchwarden. "So, how long have you been here?" "Over 40 years, m'Lord". Well, you must have seen many changes in that time? "Yes m'Lord, and I'm proud to say I've resisted every one of them".
Think this nonconformist should bow out at this point.
BTW, it is indeed true that there can be faults on both sides, none of which excuses bullying as a decided and deliberate technique.
[ 24. January 2014, 12:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sadly, nowadays it is not uncommon to find A-C churches (both FiF and AffCath) that put tat and calendars above the Gospel. But you get the equivalent at all stages of the candle - evos who put music and strictness above the Gospel, MOTRs who put pleasing everyone and niceness above the Gospel. It is a problem in all varieties of church.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Interesting. Father Tibbs is cute as a button in his hiking hat so I'd like to side with him, but I think we need to know more.
quote:
Father Tibbs enforced a cutting down of alcohol consumption after church and the replacement of an elderly Sunday school leader, splits appeared amongst the laity as some members began to call for his departure from St Faith’s.
Where was all this alcohol consumption? Was it a sherry party in someone's home or inside the church itself? Was the Sunday School teacher incompetent or merely old?
I had a young priest, with a booming voice, at a church in Washington DC who used to tear us a new one from the pulpit almost every week. He particularly liked to tell his mink wearing, Cadillac driving congregation that they needed to quit being such cheapskates and give more to the poor. I loved him, but his fire was all from the pulpit, he didn't actually try to force individuals to do things his way.
The alcohol was (taking an educated guess) served with the refreshments after church. Not uncommon in this sort of church.
I can't comment on the SS teacher but given how long bad ones seem to stay in their role and how desperate a lot of churches are for them, it would be unheard of to fire one for a reason like their age alone. From my experience of this kind of church, I strongly suspect incompetence. Total guess, but an educated one.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Wow! I just heard the Quo in my mind, singing "Rocking all Over the World"!
Strange prompt. Some folks do see themselves as defenders of the status quo ante. Anyone with any reforming agenda is bound to hit that. It's in Machiavelli's " The Prince". And that really is all over the world. It is very often the agenda of powerful cliques, this resistance of change. They are sure they know better. "Well, we tried that in 1976 ...". Maybe this is the characteristic you are thinking about, reaching for?
Another church joke. New Bishop visits a parish on his introductory rounds. Meets an ancient Churchwarden. "So, how long have you been here?" "Over 40 years, m'Lord". Well, you must have seen many changes in that time? "Yes m'Lord, and I'm proud to say I've resisted every one of them".
Think this nonconformist should bow out at this point.
BTW, it is indeed true that there can be faults on both sides, none of which excuses bullying as a decided and deliberate technique.
I don't know what nonconformist denomination you belong to, but I certainly think the church as private club is a thing that exists in all types of church, including nonconformist ones.
I find that RC churches have it the least, but they can have the opposite problem - that they can become an impersonal 'filling station' for sacramental purposes but not a community.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Interesting. Father Tibbs is cute as a button in his hiking hat so I'd like to side with him, but I think we need to know more.
quote:
Father Tibbs enforced a cutting down of alcohol consumption after church and the replacement of an elderly Sunday school leader, splits appeared amongst the laity as some members began to call for his departure from St Faith’s.
Where was all this alcohol consumption? Was it a sherry party in someone's home or inside the church itself? Was the Sunday School teacher incompetent or merely old?
The report from the Episcopal Visitation (also linked in the OP) suggests that this was a reduction in the number of occasions when alcohol was served after church.
However, that Visitation report still leaves me uneasy. The process was interview-based but the bishop says that he made no notes of those interviews. Therefore, there can be no comeback, no challenge, no check for accuracy or fair reporting. When that is combined with the very hostile tone of the report how can we be sure that the bishop hadn't already made up his mind on the outcome and just heard what he wanted to hear?
[ 24. January 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm in an independent congo with Baptist/brethren roots, Jade. Already criticised my lot in my first post here! Baptist and Free Church groups are definitely not free from this disease.
Dropping out because Angloid is interested in bullying in a setting of which I have only limited second hand experience.
I think you misunderstood, Jade.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Baptist Trainfan may be along shortly.
Now why did he say that? Anyway, here I am, large as life! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:
New Bishop visits a parish on his introductory rounds. Meets an ancient Churchwarden. "So, how long have you been here?" "Over 40 years, m'Lord". Well, you must have seen many changes in that time? "Yes m'Lord, and I'm proud to say I've resisted every one of them".
Think this nonconformist should bow out at this point.
Oh, I don't know - it could just as easily have been a Baptist deacon. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Seriously, I do agree with others that this kind of thing can happen in all churches and societies, although the "practicalities" of how it's done will vary according to the specific structures of the organisation. The difficulty in our Congregationalist set-up is that a group of malcontents may garner other disaffected or politically unattached people to their point of view, often by presenting with very skewed information; if they don't do that, they can cause enough rumpus to make the Minister resign anyway.
Two Baptist stories. One was a church which was "going charismatic" under the Minister (the presenting issue is unimportant, but it did involve changes to the status quo). Most folk were very happy with this, but one leading member was not. So he visited all the moribund members (sadly they hadn't pruned their membership list for years), got him round to their way of thinking and forced a vote at Church Meeting.
The Minister and all the other Deacons were forced out and started a new Church in the Community Centre next door with most of the active members. The recalcitrant Deacon was left with the building, the debt on it and a rump of elderly members - all the people he had got to vote for him vanishing straight back into the woodwork. A Pyrrhic victory indeed.
In another church, a small but vociferous minority put a "no confidence" vote in the Minister to Church Meeting. It was easily defeated; but the Minister left anyway, saying that he couldn't work in a situation where some folk were clearly against him.
For an Anglican story, there is always this one which got a lot of coverage. Sounds like an upper-class version of the tale in the OP.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm in an independent congo with Baptist/brethren roots, Jade. Already criticised my lot in my first post here! Baptist and Free Church groups are definitely not free from this disease.
Dropping out because Angloid is interested in bullying in a setting of which I have only limited second hand experience.
I think you misunderstood, Jade.
Ahh apologies then, didn't want you to feel like this was an Anglican-only private club is all
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I can see some parallels with the experiences we had in a parish church, during which the vicar was eventually removed after a very public legal dispute. Members of the faction sidelined the vicar, refused to take communion from him and I even heard one person admit to secretly recording the vicar's words at a PCC meeting in case there was anything they might be able to use against him later. The main trigger to all this was the retirement of the previous vicar who had let them run the parish and his replacement by someone who had different ideas. It was very bitter and public and many people left the church, including my own family.
As to whether this happens at other denominations, our previous Baptist church had also had a church split following a new incumbent. But that was handled better, with the minister being supported by the Baptist Union to work through it and with him eventually offering to leave on condition that the church wrote itself a constitution and sorted out what they actually wanted from a minister.
In both these situations, IMO, the ministers were bullied and did not deserve what was done to them. The parish church situation, in particular, was soul destroying and nasty.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
However, that Visitation report still leaves me uneasy. The process was interview-based but the bishop says that he made no notes of those interviews. Therefore, there can be no comeback, no challenge, no check for accuracy or fair reporting. When that is combined with the very hostile tone of the report how can we be sure that the bishop hadn't already made up his mind on the outcome and just heard what he wanted to hear?
My only real contribution here is to say that in the NHS, any report not backed up by notes made at the meetings - and o.k'd by all the participants before the report was published - wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For an Anglican story, there is always this one which got a lot of coverage. Sounds like an upper-class version of the tale in the OP.
...starts whistling nonchalantly and hope nobody notices her location ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
My Baptist situation was also similar to that you described, people who I had never seen at church would turn up every month at the church meeting to forward votes of no confidence in the minister. Two years had gone by and they were worshipping at other Baptist churches but still retaining membership at the previous church just so they could do this.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Seconded, Adeodatus. Speaking as someone who has chaired, been minutes secretary and attended more meetings re controversial situations than I care to remember, and certainly don't enjoy remembering.
Call for a vote?
(Yes I know I bowed out)
[ 24. January 2014, 13:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Hamm ... Traditionally Baptist churches used to have "Communion Cards" which said that you lost your right to vote at Church Meeting if you were absent from Communion for more than six months "without good reason". Applying that might have helped in the first situation I described, but not the one mentioned by Heavenly Anarchist.
This sort of thing is so often linked with a petty desire to manipulate and hold power ... which is very far from a genuine Christly attitude.
[ 24. January 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
I think some of these things are in the eye of the beholder.
In one case I know (years ago now), a baptist minister was removed from the pastorate by the members. He believed that it was because he preached against Freemasonry, but I never was able to get any real handle on what the sudden problem was from the Elders.
In another, the relationship between a vicar and PCC broke down, and much of the congregation left, because the bishop refused to get involved (to be fair, though, it was an awkward time as the bishop was promoted etc).
Even having been involved in both of these situation, I'm still not really sure who was to blame in either case. I think they were both problems with a clash of personality and approach.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Angloid:
quote:
I'm fairly sure that this sort of behaviour is not uncommon. That it rarely escalates to this extent is probably due to clergy preferring a quiet life and avoiding confrontation.
I fear that this isn't the case at all I would totally agree with you that it is not uncommon and would even go so far as to say it is an increasing feature of church politics, but where I would differ from you is on the 'quiet life' aspect. I know many clergy who live in what can only be described as a spiralling hell because they feel paralysed and unable to cope with it and there are not the sufficient safety nets to deal with it, or people within the diocesan structures that can be approached. Of those I know in this situation there are two compounding factors: diocesan structures which for whatever reason refuse to act even though they know what is going on, and the silence and culture of shame that surrounds the issue in what some see or class as a 'failed priest'. Of those clergy I know in this situation, many (if not most of them) take large terms of sick leave in any given year and often seek out diocesan distractions and other posts to disengage themselves from the parish concerned.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In the NHS, any report not backed up by notes made at the meetings - and o.k'd by all the participants before the report was published - wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
The Baptist Union have, for the past three or four years, had a much more carefully-structured procedure for dealing with complaints against ministers than formerly, by which one person's personal opinions are not enough to initiate action. That helps, although bullies will always try to get round any system.
[ 24. January 2014, 13:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Just a thought: in Congregationalist churches the members take the decisions together and pay the minister directly. And the Minister is not seen as "Father", ontologically different from the laity.
Does this mean that these churches are more likely to bully their Ministers than Anglicans or Catholics?
Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Just a thought: in Congregationalist churches the members take the decisions together and pay the minister directly. And the Minister is not seen as "Father", ontologically different from the laity.
Does this mean that these churches are more likely to bully their Ministers than Anglicans or Catholics?
I'm not sure they are more likely to, but as employers (not to mention judge and jury), they can. More hierarchical denominations make this much more difficult.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Just a thought: in Congregationalist churches the members take the decisions together and pay the minister directly. And the Minister is not seen as "Father", ontologically different from the laity.
Does this mean that these churches are more likely to bully their Ministers than Anglicans or Catholics?
Yes it probably does if they feel they have a greater part in their call and their (potential) dismissal. Not all Baptist churches are the same IME Trainfan ... but I've seen enough of the bad ones in my mediation/consultancy work (both freelance and on behalf of denominations) to know that the bad ones are very bad indeed.
It almost happened to me in one church but I've always tried to stand up to bullies and in this case the individual concerned over stretched himself. Instead of his usual behind the scenes, covert stuff he did something in full view and with independent witnesses, that in any other contact would be actionable. I didn't need to actually do anything he destroyed himself.
At heart its all about power and who holds it and how it's used. We all make mistakes and few of them deliberately: forgiveness covers a multitude of sins.
[ 24. January 2014, 14:21: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In the NHS, any report not backed up by notes made at the meetings - and o.k'd by all the participants before the report was published - wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
The Baptist Union have, for the past three or four years, had a much more carefully-structured procedure for dealing with complaints against ministers than formerly, by which one person's personal opinions are not enough to initiate action. That helps, although bullies will always try to get round any system.
Great idea in theory - BUGB don't have the backbone to apply it properly. Depends who it is too - some well known BUGB luminaries have pooped their cassocks when it's known that certain individuals are involved. It just perpetuates abuse - every region has one or more churches known for breaking ministers.
Mind you in one area of the UK I know well, there were major issues in every single church in a fairly big town over a short period. These ranged from adultery, division, irregularity with finance, to promiscuity - gay and hetero. And so it went on.
Two of these made the national press - perhaps the worst of the lot avoided it but goodness only knows how. The individual concerned had perpetrated spiritual and sexual abuse not in 3 congregations but 3 denominations (booted out of 2 and then ordained in the third) and then he was caught .... well the laws of libel being what they are, I can't say a lot more.
[ 24. January 2014, 14:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Angloid:
quote:
I'm fairly sure that this sort of behaviour is not uncommon. That it rarely escalates to this extent is probably due to clergy preferring a quiet life and avoiding confrontation.
I fear that this isn't the case at all I would totally agree with you that it is not uncommon and would even go so far as to say it is an increasing feature of church politics, but where I would differ from you is on the 'quiet life' aspect. I know many clergy who live in what can only be described as a spiralling hell because they feel paralysed and unable to cope with it and there are not the sufficient safety nets to deal with it, or people within the diocesan structures that can be approached.
I fear you are right in many cases. But there are also those priests who look at potential minefields and steer well clear of them, thus storing up problems for their successors. Or who encourage the cliques which is even worse. My predecessor (in the parish of 30 years ago) had cultivated his 'supporters' club' which were exactly the same lot who ganged up on me.
Adeodatus: yes, I found the 'investigating bishop's' reluctance to minute the discussions rather puzzling, if not counter-productive. He should have know that his report was bound to be challenged.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I recall reading Harry Kemelman's Rabbi detective stories, and there was stuff like this in there, so not just denominations, but whole different religions do it.
(The issue that sticks in the mind concern a wealthy but not very observant family who wanted to hold their wedding in the synagogue - with prawn cocktail!)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I've read press reports about two Creamtealand churches where a small group of people requested a private meeting with the new incumbent, in order to strongly put their case and try to get him to agree to their demands. In both cases, the new vicar only stayed a week or so, then resigned, citing this going behind backs stuff as the reason for leaving.
It's sad when people can't give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt (and maybe even some support?!) while he/she finds their feet and works out how to combine care for those already attending church with outreach to those who don't. It's going to take time.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I know of two churches which think of themselves as a social club.
One, anglo-catholic had folk during an intgerregnum telling the wardens, 'The kind of vicar I want....' Then there was a divisive issue which led to people asking others 'Are you one of us?'or 'Whose side are you on.' It was also a case of people attending it because they liked the bells and smells. Not many at daily mass or using the sacrament of reconcilation. Eventually, about half the congregation left.
The other is evangelical-ish. Their interregnum was too short and they secured a new vicar whom they thought would keep them in the manner to which they were accustomed. They didn't say much in their parish profile about what sort of incumbent they were seeking. Within a few weeks, long-established lay leaders ganged up on the poor man.
In a world where many are isolated, it is good that churches act as a social club for the lonely but not to the extent that that is the be all and end all of its existence.
We don't want 'father knows best' types any more but we also don't need 'chaplains of congregations' either. Not if we are to grow - in numbers and in discipleship.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think a new incumbent can often quite unwittingly be the catalyst which brings old tensions and disagreements to the surface. In this situation they are totally guiltless and completely flabbergasted! (I know, I've been there and can think of other churches where this has happened and the Minister has left).
[ 24. January 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes, I meant to add something similar myself.
If there's been a 'bad' vicar, they are not sure what they want as a replacement except for 'someone who isn't like the last one.'
If the last vicar was autocratic, all the dissidents who'd remained silent come to the fore.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Or of course if the last vicar was their best mate they take their 'bereavement' out on his successor. (I say 'his' because women clergy rarely seem to get caught up in these situations. I don't know if they don't have a long enough history, or have more conciliatory personalities, or just that we don't seem to hear about them in such cases.)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
That's very interesting - could it be that the women have been put into parishes where the bishops are quite sure it won't happen? Because it would seem that a woman priest would be a very likely target for that sort of thing.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I’ve seen it happen with a woman. She was put into a difficult parish, as an inexperienced incumbent and just like this case, with little support or mentoring. She has since left parish ministry
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Maybe it's just that I've not heard of examples of the bullying of women priests. I can't believe it doesn't go on so maybe my comment was irrelevant.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
there has probably not been as many - yet because of the reasons you said
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've read press reports about two Creamtealand churches where a small group of people requested a private meeting with the new incumbent, in order to strongly put their case and try to get him to agree to their demands. In both cases, the new vicar only stayed a week or so, then resigned, citing this going behind backs stuff as the reason for leaving.
How is asking for, and receiving, a meeting with the incumbent priest "going behind his back"? It would seem to be exactly the opposite of that.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
That isn't. But it's almost certain that covert plotting had been going on for a while before that.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
I've seen these sort of goings on in both the Church of England and the Baptist Church, and as a result my family felt we had to leave both particular churches. (Now back in the CofE in a much happier, more stable congregation).
In both situations the issue was a handful of powerful individuals prepared to influence those around them using whatever means necessary to get their own way, which was not necessarily to preserve the church as simply a social club.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've read press reports about two Creamtealand churches where a small group of people requested a private meeting with the new incumbent, in order to strongly put their case and try to get him to agree to their demands. In both cases, the new vicar only stayed a week or so, then resigned, citing this going behind backs stuff as the reason for leaving.
How is asking for, and receiving, a meeting with the incumbent priest "going behind his back"? It would seem to be exactly the opposite of that.
I suppose it was all the scheming and plotting it took to get to a poition of 'strongly putting their case to him' so that he would agree totheir demands
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It's when someone phones you up and says, "People are saying ..." when those people are themselves and their cronies.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I suppose it was all the scheming and plotting it took to get to a poition of 'strongly putting their case to him' so that he would agree totheir demands
I guess so. Not involved personally with either church so can only go on the press reports. Sounded like an own goal anyway, because in both cases the priest called their bluff and left them to sort themselves out before having to go through the whole process of finding
another incumbent.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I suppose it was all the scheming and plotting it took to get to a poition of 'strongly putting their case to him' so that he would agree totheir demands
A more innocent view would be that if you had a problem with something a new priest was doing, it would be reasonable to canvas the opinion of your friends at church in order to determine whether it was a generally-held view or something unique to you. If most people like innovation X, you're probably going to have to lump it, whereas if lots of people don't, it becomes reasonable to talk to the priest about it.
Whether or not it is "scheming and plotting" is rather a question of the attitudes of the parishioners rather than their behaviour. Whether the priest views it as "scheming and plotting" is also rather a question of the attitude of the priest.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think, and the stories on this thread seem to confirm, that power struggles in churches may be the norm, and that this is what Christian community is like.
Is this new? I can well believe that people today are more aware of different styles of church and worship, and that a consumerist mindset encourages them to think they should be able to have a church of the type they would prefer. People are better at working systems than they used to be, and less accepting of the status quo. I think people are less deferential towards authority than were previous generations.
But I think these trends, by and large and in society as a whole, are good ones. I don't think they've run their course, either.
I don't think church conflict is new, though I do think it's much sharper and more common. I know how painful it is, for churches as well as ministers. Your particular church can feel like the whole world, and when it's sick, or angry, or uncaring, or vindictive it is horrible.
I think we have to stop treating conflicts as if they were aberrations. I think that conflict resolution needs to be learned and used by all congregations as a normal part of daily life. Practise in the good times so you'll have the skills for the tough times.
In particular I think we have to examine much more carefully our different ideas about what the church is for. I don't believe anyone wants the church to be more like a social club. That's the derogatory comment of someone with different ideas. People may feel that the values of belonging, caring, affirming and welcoming are really important in a church, and they may have a very limited vision of how that might work out. They may indeed make it a priority to surround themselves with just the people they know well and carry on doing the same old things, but with a bit of help to unpack that I suspect they would be able to articulate a vision of the church as a place of welcome and belonging - which are clearly good things.
I think that trying to set out who the church is for, what it's purpose is, what would count as a good year, what would count as dreadful failure - agreeing a mission statement, if you like - would go some way to resolving these wretched subterranean fault lines.
Communication and honesty, too. Baptist Trainfan's remark about the person who phones you up and tells you 'A lot of people are saying such and such' rings painful bells. I always suspected that it ought to be possible to laugh this sort of thing off, or blithely ignore it. Our sensitivity to such manipulative tactics is what gives them their power. But our sensitivity is also what makes us good ministers and valued church members.
It's not impossible, though, to imagine a church where people learn to be aware of the importance of speaking for themselves, and not on behalf of invisible power groups, where people would be alert to the danger signs. 'A lot of people think ..' really is said in more or less those words. We could all learn to listen for it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
"Scheming and plotting" would also be an obvious diagnosis if the "strongly felt demands" they scheduled the private interview for turned out to be demands that the pastor do things THEIR way in opposition to the needs and wants of another group in the church. In this case the scheming takes the form of secretly trying to secure the pastor's support (read: obedience) before the other side has a chance to present their position. I can totally understand a new pastor leaving after such an interview. It would reveal not only that the church was deeply and dangerously divided, but that at least one faction was prepared to fight dirty.
[ 25. January 2014, 12:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Don't much like consumerist attitudes, hatless, but I agree about the other social trends and that on the whole they are good.
Conflicts are indeed normal. It's good for any church leadership to give more thought to conflict resolution. In a recent case I know, the church leader thought he was the right person to mediate a conflict but the truth was that he was an inherent cause of it. The result was not good.
Worth googling conflict resolution in churches. Some interesting approaches to that may be found. Not too many churches are good at mediating conflict, recognising the principles, pitfalls and best practices.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
My own experience as well as my reading suggest that churches are singularly bad at dealing with conflict.
Both priest and people tend to be drawn predominantly from certain personality types, which creates very little balance in congregations. Problems are allowed to fester because people are afraid to deal with them openly, and there may be a passive-aggressive tendency that discourages openness. It's hardly surprising that in some cases these issues blow up and create a full-scale catastrophe.
I hope this church can soon become a place of peace, kindness and Christian love.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think, and the stories on this thread seem to confirm, that power struggles in churches may be the norm, and that this is what Christian community is like.
As it was in Corinth! But that doesn't necessarily mean it's right ...
[ 25. January 2014, 14:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think church conflict is new, though I do think it's much sharper and more common.
Perhaps because we're in a less deferential age which means we are not so likely to meekly accept what "Father" says. In many ways that's a good thing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I was angered by the media's portrayal of the situation in the OP.
One TV discussion painted the following scenario:
the vicar wanted them to stop drinking
he was one of those happy clappies who wanted to get rid of the organ and play his guitar.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Oh, dear......I've just had a look at the website. The churchwardens have issued a press statement.
Doesn't look as though things are going to right themselves in a hurry, sadly
I fear the new priest in charge is not going to have an easy ride.....
What is it with the Church? Church rows seem to be far worse than anything I've seen in the secular sphere.....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
What is it with the Church? Church rows seem to be far worse than anything I've seen in the secular sphere.....
I'm not sure this is unreservedly true. However, things do tend to escalate a bit faster when the "product/service" and "job" are to do with eternal life rather than 9-5 making cheese packaging or whatever.
Plus, I think people tend to disassociate church life from work so much that they throw out any good professional values as soon as they get themselves in church mode.
The more I go on the more I think conflict in church life is absolutely normal and, as has been pointed out, has been around since the beginning. The big mistake a lot of christians make is attempting to suppress conflict (or pretend it isn't there) instead of learning (and teaching) how to deal with it and resolve it in a win-win fashion.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I fear the new priest in charge is not going to have an easy ride.....
She isn't. But she won't be beaten; I know her and she's a tough cookie.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Yes, I suppose so......there will always be tensions I suppose in how best to do things, and I'm certainly used to that in the secular sphere - I'm thinking of societies to which I belong rather than work - but as someone said to me once ' there's no row quite like a church row' and it makes it look ugly, particularly if you're preaching peace and goodwill to all.....
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Sorry Angloid, my reply was to Eutychus
I think she'll need the hide of a rhinoceros
So would anyone standing for PCC...... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 25. January 2014, 22:17: Message edited by: Stephen ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
At work, many years ago, I was on the receiving end of a concerted effort by a cabal to damage my personal credibility. Went on for about four months, made me ill, took me about two months to return to work, 2 years to fully recover my health and composure. The misdeeds of the cabal emerged independently, which did my reputation some good in the end, but it was tough to live as "damaged goods".
I've seen lobbying and serious disagreements in my local church setting, and it got a bit sharp sometimes. But the factions were pussycats compared with the crap I experienced at work. However, I also know of some good people whose church experiences were pretty much the same as my work experiences.
The dark side of human nature at work, I'm afraid, wherever it happens. You don't want to be on the receiving end. Once was more than enough for me.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Oh, dear......I've just had a look at the website. The churchwardens have issued a press statement.
Doesn't look as though things are going to right themselves in a hurry, sadly
I fear the new priest in charge is not going to have an easy ride.....
What is it with the Church? Church rows seem to be far worse than anything I've seen in the secular sphere.....
You are right... oh dear, oh dear..... it doesn't look like the wardens are going to acecpt any reponsibility for what happened at all.
I think the investigating bishop is going to regret not having an independent note taker in those meetings
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Oh boy, that is worrying.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Sorry Angloid, my reply was to Eutychus
I think she'll need the hide of a rhinoceros
Metaphorically, I think she has. Physically, she's much better looking!
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
I was just thinking of the thread in Eccles - it certainly gives a certain context to the Sign of Peace, don't you think?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
There's a discussion about this on Thinking Anglicans which suggests that, entirely apart from what may or may not have happened in the parish, the investigating bishop and the diocese have made a series of disastrous mistakes that are going to damn any attempt to bring this situation to a positive conclusion for anyone. They seem to have totally forgotten about the concept of due process and have totally ignored the rights of various parties in this. For example, by publishing the names of people without their consent (not even asking for it), by ignoring completely the parish's response to the draft, and by publishing the report without telling the PCC it was going out.
I suspect the debate on this is going to be far less about the departed vicar and how the parish treated him, and far more about the diocese's abuse of process. And, if there is any substance to what the report is about, that's a pity, because there are/may be real issues.
I commend that discussion to everyone who is interested in this.
John
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
John has a very good point, based on the evidence in the public domain, as Pro-cambrian and Adeodatus have drawn to our attention. This is what happens when due process is treated too lightly. The real truth, whatever that is, just gets obscured by the subsequent procedural row.
It is a very great shame.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
John Holding is probably right. I hope it doesn't end up with the bishop having shot himself in the foot, but it certainly looks like that. A decisive move cocked up by bad tactics. This might partly be explained by the fact that this whole thing blew up just after the diocesan bishop had retired, though I can't see that he would have handled it any better.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
My bitter experience of the church is that any mention of due process results in a prolonged bout of head scratching, as if it were a phrase in a foreign language, rather than a fundamental priciple of natural justice.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I'd go so far as to say that conflict in any parish is an absolute necessity. If it's not there it is usually an indicator of two possible things (which also may be combined): either the parish doesn't care at all what happens in it, or the priest in charge is too dominant and domineering a character to engage with meaningfully. It doesn't always have to be the priest though - you can have a lay person who basically dominates a parish in the same way as a 'larger than life' sort of character.
I think there is a definite change in recent years in terms of how people act and be part of a church community and there are many and varied reasons for it. The crumbling of authority (which I don't see as a bad thing, but it's a very threatening change for the old guard), the break down of community life and how people understand it (which I do see as a bad thing, and a major factor), as someone else has pointed out - the desire to see church as a consumable product, the lack of safeguards for both a community and its priest, and sadly, the lack of civility that is creeping into church. It's this last point that I think is partly key. I have witnessed first hand things done or said to a priest (and it works the other way too), that in any other line of work would have very serious consequences, that really does boil down to bullying, harassment or abuse. Why the church has a high tolerance for this type of activity I'm not really sure, but I suspect it has something to do with the 'spiritualisation' of bad behaviour and misdemeanour. Essentially, sone clergy and lay have this very odd notion that becoming targets for abusive behaviour is somehow their 'cross to bear'.
[ 27. January 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My bitter experience of the church is that any mention of due process results in a prolonged bout of head scratching, as if it were a phrase in a foreign language, rather than a fundamental priciple of natural justice.
That's a problem. All churches recognise the ministry of reconciliation, for which we are given the role of "ambassadors". That's about reconciling people to God, not the other way round. But we seem to have blind spots about the ongoing need to be reconciled to one another.
Conflict resolution, whether applied to family, extended family e.g. church, marriage, business, industrial disputes, legal disagreement, is a pretty well worked out discipline "out there in the world". Maybe it "should not be so among us". But when it is, maybe we'd better get humble and recognise that the "world" might have something to teach us about this. Speaking as someone who, in a long and varied career, also spent some time in industrial relations conflict resolution (on both sides of the fence).
I agree with fletcher christian too. I think fletcher may also have had this point in mind. Conflicts are indeed inevitable. But, properly handled, they can produce creative and better outcomes, not just uneasy compromises. Well worth trying to do that, rather than go for an easy apportionment of blame.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Fletcher Christian..
I agree it exists but I am not sure whether it is new or we are just more aware of it.
I was part of a church nearly 30 years ago which when the vicar left he felt the need to say for the future parish profile that it was a ‘very confrontational church.’ I wasn’t sure what he meant, until my involvement as a female lay person was no longer protected by the vicars presence.
That was when I found that the church was run by a small group of older men, who had been church members since boyhood and were determined to run things the way that they wanted, which was the way that they always had been.
I found that committees I was a member of would meet and people would ‘forget’ to tell me that it was happening. I was by-passed,insulted and confrontations reduced me to tears many times.
There was one telling time when these men were planning something and were asked well what about the curate? The answer was ‘he’ll do as he’s told.
I think that this sort of behaviour was very common just not understood as unacceptible
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear. It's not that I think it is new, just that it is a more common experience than it maybe used to be.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Conflicts are indeed inevitable. But, properly handled, they can produce creative and better outcomes, not just uneasy compromises.
That sounds like the classic Hegelian/Marxist argument - but I actually agree. And we've certainly had some "issues" in our church when people feel that due process has not been followed; it can be a pain but it's there for a reason!
[ 27. January 2014, 11:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
There's a discussion about this on Thinking Anglicans which suggests that, entirely apart from what may or may not have happened in the parish, the investigating bishop and the diocese have made a series of disastrous mistakes
Is there a link to this? I regularly visit that website but haven't seen anything about this, despite having looked twice today.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Leo - try this one
Link to Thinking Anglicans
(nice to see you back, by the way....)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Thank you.
And also thanks!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Re - Bp. Stephen Lowe, he is 'a good egg' and, if i remember correctly, did a good report on the shortcomings and possible ways forward for Sheffield's 9 o' clock service.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Reading the thinking Anglicans thread a PCC member from St Faith’s posted about the report from Bishop Stephen Lowe
‘I can say it is one-sided because St. Faith's findings were not read out’
As far as I know Fr Tibbs did not have any sort of report of his own included either. Surely the whole point of an outsider is actually to publish his own report and not that of any of the parties involved?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re - Bp. Stephen Lowe, he is 'a good egg' and, if i remember correctly, did a good report on the shortcomings and possible ways forward for Sheffield's 9 o' clock service.
Whether or not he is a 'good egg' in anyone's estimation is beside the point when it comes to his role in investigating the problems in this church. I'm not impressed with his report. From what I've read of his involvement with the NOS I don't find that impressive either. He investigated complaints about NOS before the final collapse and ISTM he took the position of concentrating exclusively on what he saw as the main problem without giving any attention to the context in which the problem had arisen. Chris Brain's mother-in-law for example had complained about the cult-like atmosphere of NOS and the effect it was having on her daughter. Lowe dealt with the issue entirely as a personal rift between mother and daughter and failed to address the context of NOS culture. He acted only when there were specific allegations of sexual misconduct and although he arranged counselling in the months following the fall-out he refused to engage with cult-abuse experts.
In his current report I see a similar failure to engage with the context in which the problems are set. And the context is a common one in the CofE. It comes from a failure to take seriously the legal structures and processes governing church affairs. It results in people acting in ignorance of their responsibilities, or in exceeding their authority .e.gReport on the PCC (pdf) shows there was a lack of understanding about the Church Representation Rules and a practice of allowing sub-committees, notably the Finance Committee, to take decisions without PCC authorisation. This kind of thing may be common, I've come across it in the past, and it may seem petty but it can lead to mistakes, and even abuses going unchecked.
[ 31. January 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's a well known report writer's dilemma. If you can't prove it, but you do have grounds for suspicion, should you nevertheless assert it. My view re a published report was always "no".
That's not the same as advice given in private to a boss you had trust in. In that sort of relationship, you can reveal your suspicions and why you don't think they can be used safely. He may know more than you are entitled to know.
Anything else arrogates the proper application of any due process. That's the way I was taught, anyhow.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
This is the statement from the churchwardens published on the church's website.:
quote:
The report of Stephen Lowe purports to be ‘independent’, but is clearly subjective and opinion based. The overwhelming majority of those present at the Congregational Meeting on January 20th felt that his was a grossly distorted and one-sided view of the situation. His report made sparse reference to the carefully considered answers submitted by the PCC to the Diocese’s Articles of Enquiry. A report detailing the responses of the congregation to Stephen Lowe’s ‘findings’ is being submitted to the Diocese and we shall be requesting that this is also published on their website as a matter of public record.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
This is the statement from the churchwardens published on the church's website.:
quote:
The report of Stephen Lowe purports to be ‘independent’, but is clearly subjective and opinion based. The overwhelming majority of those present at the Congregational Meeting on January 20th felt that his was a grossly distorted and one-sided view of the situation. His report made sparse reference to the carefully considered answers submitted by the PCC to the Diocese’s Articles of Enquiry. A report detailing the responses of the congregation to Stephen Lowe’s ‘findings’ is being submitted to the Diocese and we shall be requesting that this is also published on their website as a matter of public record.
Then surely if they were to consider doing that then they would have to consider publishing the full allegations by Fr Tibbs.... back into he said/she said....
It will be interesting to see where the diocese go on this
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0