Ship of Fools: Dealing with toxicity in Ecclesiantics

Thread: Dealing with toxicity in Ecclesiantics 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=027582

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

I would like to discuss how to deal appropriately with the recurring clergy-bashing that goes on in Ecclesiantics. Most recently, I am referring to comments by Albertus and Olaf in the "Ascension Day?" thread here here but that's hardly an isolated incident.

The irony - of course- is that if the posters in question had thought for a moment before indulging in their nasty, backbiting, soul-destroying-in-the-aggregate comments, they might have realized that these are the threads clergy need to read in order for these points of view to be seen. Beating up clergy for fun pretty well ensures that they will not stick around in Eccles. This seems counterproductive to me.

Could we perhaps reserve one thread in Ecclesiantics to moan about the many failings of the clergy? That might retain this to one thread instead of spilling all over. Or perhaps a dedicated Hell thread? That way, those who must complain that the servants of God are not serving them satisfactorily can have an appropriate venue to do so.

The status quo will certainly keep me from dipping my little toes in Eccles. I think that would be a shame, because I come to learn new things and consider other points of view. But I won't subject myself to this sort of shit, and I don't think other clergy should have to put up with it either.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

The following is stated with fair regularity in Ecclesiantics as well:

- Not that the laypeople will help during the week anyway
- If only we could get the people in the pews out to serve
- People just come to church for an hour and forget about it for the next six days

I'm afraid it must be difficult for a pastor to understand how a layperson can feel trapped by clericalism sometimes. I was laughed at...yes, laughed at, with an eye roll...when I requested an Ascension Day service. Perhaps you would have done so to me as well. Yes, I'm one of those people that the ordained here at Eccles often put down. The liturgy nuts. You yourself have made oblique reference to this on several occasions. As I pointed out on the Eccles thread, we laypeople are trapped in an instance like this.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I was laughed at...yes, laughed at, with an eye roll...when I requested an Ascension Day service. Perhaps you would have done so to me as well.

This is an unfair and unwarranted accusation.

quote:
Yes, I'm one of those people that the ordained here at Eccles often put down. The liturgy nuts. You yourself have made oblique reference to this on several occasions.

Citation?

Thank you for showing up and underlining my point for me.

Look, I get that clergy want to have their little moan about laypeople, and vice versa. Can this stink not permeate all the threads? Dedicate bitchfest threads if you like. All I am seeking is appropriate placement for this content, not censorship of it.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I am trying to understand this from a pastor's perspective. My comment on the thread in question was not friendly, and that even I have acknowledged there. I felt that the issue of being able to find Ascension Day liturgies was indeed germane to the discussion. While there was certainly a better way to phrase it, there is a relevance on that particular thread to the fact that I was at the mercy of clergy. The honest truth is that, in Lutheranism, there is precious little legislation to suggest when, if, or how a service takes place. I imagine you know very well how much power a pastor can wield, and how there is no authority (other than dismissal by the church council, perhaps) that can counteract it. This is something most of our Shipmates do not understand, as many have ordinaries who are required to arbitrate an issue. The thread asked about Protestants, and this is the situation we are in. Any way I would have put it, I would have undoubtedly been called out.

For my tone, I am sorry.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

You know, there's this great board for bitching about clergy, or layfolks, or whomever. and you don't even have to play nice...

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Olaf: If you are frustrated with your ecclesial structure, perhaps you might consider finding a better way of coping with it than perennially venting about the deficiencies of clergy on multiple threads in Ecclesiantics.

It isn't your tone that's the issue; it's the content.

I would appreciate if an Ecclesiantics host could provide some input on this. I don't think the threads need to be nannied, but neither do I think it is fair to be subjected to this sort of slagging everywhere on the board. A dedicated thread in Eccles or Hell (or possibly even Dead Horses, given the tenacious and unresolvable nature of these complaints) seems to me to be more useful.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

A dedicated thread in Hell would be too much.
A simple Hell call, by either of the parties (I notice that Zappa nearly made one) should be enough, if push comes to shove.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
You know, there's this great board for bitching about clergy, or layfolks, or whomever. and you don't even have to play nice...

Seconded.

I think it's around here somewhere…four letter word, relates to afterlife…ringing any bells?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
A dedicated thread in Hell would be too much.
A simple Hell call, by either of the parties (I notice that Zappa nearly made one) should be enough, if push comes to shove.

If someone starts a Hell thread and it's got enough legs, it will stick around. Simple as that, really.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
…four letter word, relates to afterlife…ringing any bells?

Beer?

[ 02. June 2014, 06:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

My first blush reaction as an Eccles host (and in the interests of full disclosure I am also ordained) is that I'm not sure I would be happy to set up any different standards for posts about laity or clergy. The Ship already has rules against personal attacks and we will take appropriate action to enforce those. It's my judgment that a generalised remark such as Olaf made, while some may find it unpleasant, is not a personal attack and does not fall foul of the ten commandments or the board guidelines. Shipmates may well want to make a hell call and that is their prerogative.

I don't recognise the description of Eccles as anti-clerical... if anything I'd have thought that the danger was that it was too clerical.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm not sure I would be happy to set up any different standards for posts about laity or clergy.

Especially as a) we don't know who's clergy and who isn't (unless they chose to make that clearly known within that discussion) b) not all (any?) clergy who visit here want to be "on duty" here, so don't want to be singled out as different, c) many of us don't want clergy treated as somehow special or different even in real life, let alone here.

So, yes ... the same rules for all, no special treatment.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Personally I think that's just one of those things we can thrash out in hell. I bear no ad hominem resentment that Olaf made that statement, and was happy with the apology ... at the same time I am glad Pxy_e has created space to vent my spleen ... that's what hell is for, surely?

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

As a former Eccles (and MW Board before that) host, I echo Alan and Seasick--everyone would be asked to provide their vitae before posting, and clergy would be elevated to a "protected class" status, which is granted to no other group on the ship. Pull up your big girl cassocks and cope, or call someone to Hell.

[ 02. June 2014, 13:55: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

I'm with Siegfried, here. The tussles on that board of a decade ago make today's slight seem like a stuck-out tongue in a Sunday School classroom.

I propose Dual Trigger Warnings™ at the top of each and every thread: Tender Clerics Beware and Sensitive Laics Take Care.

Leaf's Doofuses do what doofuses do: And then, Pyx_e calls one of 'em to Hell. The machine, well oiled, functions as designed. Do let us move on to the next thing.

[ 02. June 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm with Siegfried, here. The tussles on that board of a decade ago make today's slight seem like a stuck-out tongue in a Sunday School classroom.

Oh,God weren't they just!!!!
[Two face]

I remember them well [Big Grin]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Ah, those were the days. [Axe murder]

I'll get me GIN.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

In fact, protected classes (thanks, Siegfried!) have already emerged in the context of facilitating discussion in Ecclesiantics: female clergy and non-C of E folks. Persistent expressions of contempt were found to inhibit discussion, so references to "priestesses" or scorn for other traditions have been limited by hostly direction.(Of course one may celebrate or mourn such a change, according to taste.) So it is hardly shocking to raise the question of whether clergy could enjoy the same civility extended to them.

I am aware that the option of Hell is always open. But my point was about directing anti-clerical hostility to an appropriate thread somewhere, rather than calling out specific posters or even their posting bias. However, if this is not a direction that hosts are willing to consider, it seems to me that this Styx thread has served its purpose.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

There's nothing special about non-CofE folks - the rulings about an atmosphere of respect for all traditions apply just as much to the CofE as they do to any other tradition.

I'd grant your point to an extent on female clergy - or rather on the use of certain terms to refer to them. I think that's a rather narrower protection, and justified by its benefits, than requiring all criticism to be restricted to one thread which to me would seem disproportionate.

[ 02. June 2014, 22:43: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I should think that blanket clergy bashing could be covered under "don't be a jerk."

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm quite surprised there isn't a 'ratemypastor.com' in the same way that there is a 'ratemyteacher.com'. Perhaps these teenagers can show churchgoers a thing or two? Of course, pastors are totally at liberty to start a 'ratemycongregation.com' site in return.

Perhaps the fact that there isn't means that, in most cases, people are just having a surface moan, rather than anything more serious.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
In fact, protected classes ... have already emerged in the context of facilitating discussion in Ecclesiantics: female clergy and non-C of E folks. Persistent expressions of contempt were found to inhibit discussion, so references to "priestesses" or scorn for other traditions have been limited by hostly direction.

Since the banning of the inflammatory word was - as you seem to agree - intended to facilitate rather than inhibit discussion, then clearly female clergy are not, in fact, a protected class.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There's nothing special about non-CofE folks - the rulings about an atmosphere of respect for all traditions apply just as much to the CofE as they do to any other tradition.

I'd grant your point to an extent on female clergy - or rather on the use of certain terms to refer to them. I think that's a rather narrower protection, and justified by its benefits, than requiring all criticism to be restricted to one thread which to me would seem disproportionate.

A short history lesson. The old MW board was dominated by High Church Anglicans and Catholics. Which worked well until it was merged with Small Fire, the discussion board for alternative worship, to form Eccles. The Crew realised fairly quickly that the board needed to change a bit. The kind of banter and snark about worship practices thar weren't High Church.was no longer appropriate for a board whose remit was to discuss worship practices from all traditions.

At the time, it probably felt that non-CofEers were getting a free pass, but it was more about creating an atmosphere of respect for all worship practices. There are only so many wisecracks about wee cuppies or rants that alt worship isn't proper worship that you can expect people to take. Now things have levelled out, those kind of Hosting reminders are less needed.

Swings and roundabouts. Some would argue that a dedicated space for discussing High Church practices was lost. OTH, it's not many places where you can discuss worship practices with people from all tradions - Baptist, Anglicans, both kinds of Catholics, Quakers, Methodists etc.

There's always going to be an element of clergy v laity on a board about worship practices. If the Hosts feel that it's causing more heat than light on a thread, they'll call it. And if someone is constantly doing it, then it'll be dealt with.

Tubbs // not clergy, but married to one!

[ 03. June 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Hold up here, Leaf. I've not been engaging in backbiting clergy-bashing. Actually I have a very great respect for the clergy in general and for almost all the clergy that I've known in particular. That's why I get cross when they seem not to be doing their jobs, or not taking their responsibilities seriously. That's what this was about. I'm not 'beating them up' and I see no fun in having to criticise them.

[ 03. June 2014, 21:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
There's nothing special about non-CofE folks - the rulings about an atmosphere of respect for all traditions apply just as much to the CofE as they do to any other tradition.

I'd grant your point to an extent on female clergy - or rather on the use of certain terms to refer to them. I think that's a rather narrower protection, and justified by its benefits, than requiring all criticism to be restricted to one thread which to me would seem disproportionate.

Is it possible to recommend an atmosphere of respect for persons of different... um, let me find appropriate jargon here... judicatory status? So whether a poster is a paid or unpaid church worker, of whatever title or none accorded by their denomination, expressions of contempt toward their particular role may be considered unproductive to discussion of the thread topic.
The recent Ascension Day thread is a good example. You yourself have gently reminded a recent poster to focus on the stated topic.

Anyone who has firmly-held opinions on the virtues (or lack thereof) about worship participants/leaders ought to be free to express this opinion, somewhere else, on some dedicated thread. I'm just not that keen on having to keep encountering this crap on threads about parish announcements, church bulletins/leaflets, Michaelmas, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Since we have already witnessed the miracle that Eccles discussions have been able to continue - even when outright expressions of contempt for female clergy and other traditions have been called out by hosts - I didn't think it that onerous to underline the atmosphere of respect.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Hold up here, Leaf. I've not been engaging in backbiting clergy-bashing. Actually I have a very great respect for the clergy in general and for almost all the clergy that I've known in particular. That's why I get cross when they seem not to be doing their jobs, or not taking their responsibilities seriously. That's what this was about. I'm not 'beating them up' and I see no fun in having to criticise them.

You "have to" criticize them? Really? Why is that?

For the record, and from the thread:

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Why would you transfer to the Sunday? Frankly, the only reason I can think of is that you [clergy] can't be arsed to have a Thursday service or your people can't be arsed to turn up to one.

quote:
But again, why transfer to Sunday? Is there any reason apart from laziness or demoralisation?

quote:
Four parishes and no Ascension Day service between them? What are your clergy doing to earn their stipends? What are your people doing?

quote:
[How do the clergy]'claim their stipends with a straight face'[?]

quote:
Yup. Put Christmas Day on a Sunday too, why don't you?
Or better still, just roll up everything onto four or five Sundays a year, all conveniently chosen not to coincide with school and public holidays, likely sunny weather, major sporting events, and so on- then nobody, clergy or laity, has to be arsed to do anything very much...

quote:
And we come back to the question- what else was the vicar celebrating, that took precedence over Ascension Day? True, Oakapple Day fell on Ascension this year, but I think it highly unlikely he would have been celebrating that and even if he was it wouldn't outrank a major feast!

quote:
[to leo's question, "Are we to expect them to add to the strains in their marriage by taking a service to which very few will come?"] Brutally, yes, because that's what they signed up to do. I mean, quite a lot of Sunday services don't have many people there either. Why not knock those on the head too? And then visiting- well, that's only reaching one or two people at a time, isn't it, so that's obviously not a good use of their time. And they can't be expected to be able to deal with all the church and building admin because that's not their primary skillset, so find someone in the parish/ diocesan office who can. Then the clergy can spend all their time, um, attending to their family lives.

In fairness, you do try to socialize the blame between the clergy and laity at the beginning. But by the last thread you target clergy with an extended sarcastic riff, attacking several aspects of ministry.

<tangent> You may be surprised to know that I could not find a single reference, anywhere within my diocese, to the celebration of Ascension Day by any clergy or any parish, from the tiniest mission to the cathedral. How deficient we must all be in your sight! How insufficiently arsed! The time-honoured way of coping with this is, of course, to blame the bishop. /<tangent>

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

Plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose (Nothing changes) We had a Hell thread and Styx thread on Eccles in 2008 - I can find evidence in the Quotes file from then, but there's nothing left in Oblivion later than 2010.

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

Damn - earlier than 2010 in Oblivion, not later

[ 04. June 2014, 07:22: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Bollocks, Leaf, if I may use a hellish expression in the Styx. Those are all specific criticisms of specific reported deficiencies in the behaviour of clergy (yes, and in some cases laity, although IME where the clergy take worship and the Calendar seriously the laity are much more likely to do so too).
And yes, if no-one in your diocese has celebrated Ascension Day, and you are Anglican / Episcopalian, there is something deficient there.

[ 04. June 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

You would not get away with "Women are like....", "Catholics always ..." or "Welsh people are all....."

You got called and called rightly the correct response in my opinion is "Sorry I will try and not do it again."

Pyx_e

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No I wouldn't get away with those generalisations, and I wouldn't make them. Nor would I make that kind of generalisation about clergy, meaning all clergy. I stand by what I said: and I mean no more than what I have actually said.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, and make sure you're not tarring me with Olaf's brush*:

quote:
Heh...I've long given up expecting clergy to do their job.

I'd never say something like that, and I'd never think it either. I have a great respect for the clergy and a high view of their (your) office. I know how hard they (you) nearly all work and am grateful for that. That's why I get so cross- actually, it goes deeper than cross, it's more offended, though that's not quite the right word either- when I hear of those who seem not to be doing what they should be.

*BTW Olaf was one of those who wanted the Ascension transferred, to go back to the original point of the thread- which is what I was originally criticising.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Ok, sorry to triple-post, but I've just looked at Leaf's extended posting again and I see that s/he describes my 'extended sarcastic riff' (a fair description) as 'attacking several aspects of ministry'. Wrong. Read the post again. It was an attack on the position that leo had proposed.

[ 04. June 2014, 08:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

You wrote: "No I wouldn't get away with those generalisations, and I wouldn't make them."

quote:
[How do the clergy]'claim their stipends with a straight face'[?]

quote:
major sporting events, and so on- then nobody, clergy or laity, has to be arsed to do anything very much...

quote:
Then the clergy can spend all their time, um, attending to their family lives.

quote:
What are your clergy doing to earn their stipends?

cough bullshit cough.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If you're going to start pulling apart what individual Shipmates have said in a personal manner you all know where Hell is.

Please try and keep things civilised and suitable for the Styx.

Thank you,

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I am sorry Alan, I could have worded that better (or in a better place).

Pyx_e

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

There is a broadness to Anglicanism just as there is a wideness to God's mercy, the result of which means that sometimes you get landed with a geographical area that doesn't suit your specific church requirements/leanings. This does not necessarily equate with clergy not doing their 'jobs'.

I actually agree with you in the sense of concern for the observance of feasts. I'm conscious too that this is due to my own thinking which does not necessarily equate to everyone else's. As I also stated on another thread, the 'blame' for the continual transfer of feasts or the non-observance of feasts is not necessarily solely and entirely down to clergy that might be labelled as lazy or not arsed to be doing their 'job'.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
You wrote: "No I wouldn't get away with those generalisations, and I wouldn't make them."

quote:
[How do the clergy]'claim their stipends with a straight face'[?]

quote:
major sporting events, and so on- then nobody, clergy or laity, has to be arsed to do anything very much...

quote:
Then the clergy can spend all their time, um, attending to their family lives.

quote:
What are your clergy doing to earn their stipends?
cough bullshit cough.

First and last are directed to (reported) clergy behaviour in particular times and places:Middle two are sarcastic / ironic in intent.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
You wrote: "No I wouldn't get away with those generalisations, and I wouldn't make them."

quote:
[How do the clergy]'claim their stipends with a straight face'[?]

quote:
major sporting events, and so on- then nobody, clergy or laity, has to be arsed to do anything very much...

quote:
Then the clergy can spend all their time, um, attending to their family lives.

quote:
What are your clergy doing to earn their stipends?
cough bullshit cough.
First and last are directed to (reported) clergy behaviour in particular times and places:Middle two are sarcastic / ironic in intent.

If you want to argue the toss with Pyx_e, then you can go to Hell. (Board-wise that is).

Personal attacks and fighting aren't permitted in the Styx. Some of the other contributors to this thread also appear to be reminding of that. So consider this and Alan's post a reminder. [Big Grin]

Tubbs
Styx Host

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

point taken and accepted (and I now see what Alan said to pyx-e on the matter).

[ 04. June 2014, 12:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0