|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: More bizarre news from Mars Hill
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Not had a reply yet from Mars Hill about what Driscoll earns. Why would they be so shy ? I still don't know how much Terry Virgo earns either ?
If you run outfits where you ask for contributions and suggest God wants others to pay your salary, why is it so difficult to tell the congregation how much you pocket ?
I had no problem finding out how much the C of E pays its leaders. Why the lack of transparency ? Surely God's anointed ones aren't under a Godly gagging order ?
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Surely God's anointed ones aren't under a Godly gagging order ?
There's the rub, are they really God's annointed ones?
[ 03. July 2012, 17:55: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.
Where's my wizards hat ? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.
Where's my wizards hat ?
For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.
Of course it would be. You're a hard case, Arminian: rebellious, tragically into witchcraft, divisive, jezebellic, unsubmissive, failing to come under authority, and, worst of all, committing one of Mark's greatest identified transgressions: the "sin of questioning".
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.
Where's my wizards hat ?
For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.
Not daft at all from a marketing perspective if you're earning several hundred thousand per annum as the flock struggles to pay bills. In anything but a prosperity cult it's considered bad form for the pastor to earn much more than the flock. The church where I was a paid staffer, pastor earned about $40,000 USD per annum including benefits. It's untoward to earn much more than basic wages from the ministry.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
Ugh, Mark Driscoll. My "favorite" quote from him is when he said he couldn't worship a God that he could beat up. I'm sure Pilate and the Temple authorities felt the same way, Mark.
Clown.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Still no reply from Mars Hill about Mark Driscoll's salary. strange that they aren't rushing back to me with the information. New Frontiers don't seem to know or want to tell me what Terry Virgo earns either.
Is this good enough ?
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.
Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!
So basically that's a no !
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.
Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!
So basically that's a no !
We have the concession that those things whispered in private shall one day be shouted from rooftops (of course, that will also bite my buttocks as well).
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I always get a bit suspicious when Churches are reluctant to diclose salaries. It makes you thin they are hiding something even when they are not.
Most denominations have a clear denominational policy, and if any vestry member, or other interested party wants information on what stipendary clergy should be paid an email/letter/phonecall to district/diocesan office will give them the skinny.
However, most of our clergy are either not paid, or house for duty. The few of us who are stipendary receive unexciting salaries - I make about $3250 a month plus a small housing allowence - which is a little bit under what a clergyman with 16 years as a priest should be making in our denomination. In order to make that much I double up as a rector and a bishop! The parish is assessed as needing 0.6 of a clergyman and the bishops job is officially described as "half time."
I would suspect that with Mr Driscoll salary would be in the low six digits, but that is not the line item to watch. Look out for things like travel allowences, office expenses, housing, etc. as it is the perks and benefits column that tends to hide the fat.
PD
[ 06. July 2012, 18:02: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Wasn't Driscoll the one who, when some famous pastor was caught out with a male lover a few years back, suggested that it might be his wife's fault for letting herself go?
One and the same. Here's the quote, which was posted on his personal blog at the time of the Haggard scandal as practical suggestions for wives to avoid something similar with their husbands.
It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. [I]A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.
Does he have any awareness of the obligation of the husband to the wife? Paul was quite explicit about that in 1 Corinthians 7:3-6.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction.
In my own non-Driscoll-related story and an instance of fraud I've researched extensively (not related to NF or Mars Hill), many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".
Yes, I have experienced this in churches. (More than one).
Also in churches as elsewhere whistle blowing or rocking the boat tends to lead to the victimisation of the whistle blower/boat rocker, no holds are barred in the denigration of their character both publicly and privately. It gets very vicious.
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.
Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!
So basically that's a no !
Here, let me google that for you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.
Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!
So basically that's a no !
Here, let me google that for you.
As expected, we get a single line item: 6.7 million-- for "staffing".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
No surprises there then - hide the boss' salary in among the herd so the sheep won't tumble to the fact that they are keeping him in a style to which many of us would like to become accustomed.
Or perhaps I am being too cynical.
PD
[ 07. July 2012, 03:46: Message edited by: PD ]
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I'm guessing - only guessing, mind - that this egotistical fucktard earns a little more than yours truly. But then I don't get to cast out demons, and that deserves danger money. Though I have cleaned the toilets occasionally.
There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.
Zappa, that deserves to go into the 'Ship's Quote File'. I hope it's true, too.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.
Well said, I agree - and I repeat what I said on the first page of this thread - that he's a power hungry man who believes woman's purpose is to keep his testicles empty and his stomach full, and uses 'spiritual battle' as his vehicle.
The only thing that confuses me is why anyone goes along with it - let alone the 1000s who have joined his church.
I don't understand their motivations at all, but his are crystal clear imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thyme:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction.
In my own non-Driscoll-related story and an instance of fraud I've researched extensively (not related to NF or Mars Hill), many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".
Yes, I have experienced this in churches. (More than one).
Also in churches as elsewhere whistle blowing or rocking the boat tends to lead to the victimisation of the whistle blower/boat rocker, no holds are barred in the denigration of their character both publicly and privately. It gets very vicious.
I remember a young guy at my New Frontiers church who blew the whistle, but did so in about the nicest, most encouraging to leadership, and low key way it could've been done. For that, the head elder angrily gave a sermon against the young man (without naming him, but virtually everyone in that church knew exactly what he was talking about). Head elder also went to several in the church, including other elders, saying he hadn't "experienced persecution like this in years". At first I was incensed at the young man, but when I got the whole story and found out how easy the young man had gone on the head elder, I couldn't believe that that his relatively innocuous behavior had spawned an angry, personal sermon and cries of persecution. Of course the young man was completely marginalized and left the church within a few months.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.
Well said, I agree - and I repeat what I said on the first page of this thread - that he's a power hungry man who believes woman's purpose is to keep his testicles empty and his stomach full, and uses 'spiritual battle' as his vehicle.
The only thing that confuses me is why anyone goes along with it - let alone the 1000s who have joined his church.
I don't understand their motivations at all, but his are crystal clear imo.
A few groups I've noticed in churches that are similarly oppressive and abusive:
1). APPRENTICE-ABUSERS - Young, prideful men who want to learn how it's done at the feet of a master. These oft find their way onto the elder's team or into other forms of leadership (e.g., small groups) via flattery and apparent subservience to the leader. This is why such fellowship oft grow through church plants, not only does they spread the influence of the leader, but provide a means for apprentice abusers to create their own church bodies that they can manipulate and abuse to serve their own appetites.
2). CHRONIC VICTIMS - People who've been abused themselves, usually by parents, they know nothing else, they feel like broken glass inside, they can't imagine a world, including a church, in which they were not abused.
3). LOVERS OF MAN RATHER THAN LOVERS OF THE LORD - A lot of people will hang on in such places long after the appropriate time to leave. Seems as if some loves their friends and cliques so much that the will do whatever it takes to hang onto them regardless of the consequences to spouse, family, etc. I've seen young ladies form such cliques within a church and hang onto their friends regardless of what's coming from the pulpit, being directed towards spouse, children, etc. I remember one man who was so devoted to his buddies that he hung on in the church and ignored my pleas to get out, even though the pastor had singled out his wife for the worst abuse I've ever seen anyone receive in the church.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The only thing that confuses me is why anyone goes along with it - let alone the 1000s who have joined his church.
I don't understand their motivations at all, but his are crystal clear imo.
Well said!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Why do people join gangs with charismatic leaders? I would think there's loads of emotional satisfaction in it at first. You're part of this new hip in-crowd, you get to be tongue-whipped by this guy, who's quite attractive, and speaks a sort of vaguely street language, there are loads of thrills from hearing about hell and damnation, there are talks about sex, and how women should lie back and just suck it up, you might get a kind word from the head man, or you might even get a kind of sub-head man job, and then you get to tongue-whip some other people.
Oh hell, how do I join?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@Quetzalcoatl
The 50 shades of grey thread is over there -------->
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I've seriously wondered, but never voiced the ideal because I have no evidence, whether some of the wives who are members of churches like this really enjoy being told to submit. That in another life they may have been S&M enthusiasts. And that they may be mistaking the warm glow they get from the lifestyle the church enforces as the holy spirit letting them know they are right with god in submitting to their husbands. Ditto for some of the men who in another life may have been in charge of tying the knots so to speak. Pure speculation of course.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Quetzalcoatl
The 50 shades of grey thread is over there -------->
I've seriously wondered, but never voiced the ideal because I have no evidence, whether some of the wives who are members of churches like this really enjoy being told to submit. That in another life they may have been S&M enthusiasts. And that they may be mistaking the warm glow they get from the lifestyle the church enforces as the holy spirit letting them know they are right with god in submitting to their husbands. Ditto for some of the men who in another life may have been in charge of tying the knots so to speak. Pure speculation of course.
It's worse than that, I think. If you set up an abusive organization, you won't be short of people to play both roles, the abused and the abuser. I suppose in a church organization, this is all glossed over and rationalized like mad, so that the abuse masquerades as necessary correction, or reproof, or the like.
But I think somebody said early on in the thread, probably people don't consciously set up an abusive organization. I don't think many people actually think, 'oh good, if I announce myself as a charismatic leader, and tell people that they are sinners, and I can correct them, then we might all end up in a kind of sado-masochistic set-up'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
I've known (and known of) young men who quit their jobs, discontinued their education, abandoned family, friends, etc. and moved over a thousand miles just to serve at the feet of church leaders they know only through Youtube or a video series. Many of these young people are so desperate for a teacher, guru, king (perhaps lack of father figure in their youth?) that they'll put up with all manner of abuse to get it. The Bible says you don't need all these teachers if you have the Holy Spirit, that's what teaches you the truth, the teachers at best are mere facilitators and edifiers. At worst they are money-making enterprises who destroy and distort the truth.
The sad thing is that the historical, respectable churches, with all of their theological credentials, seem unable to reach these young men, leaving them to look for inspiration and guidance from a range of strange sources, orthodox, cultish, or otherwise. Perhaps the question isn't what makes these 'money-making enterprises' so appealing to them, but why YOUR and MY church aren't more appealing to them....
I don't know much about Mark Driscoll (seen a few Youtube videos, read the thread), but the thing about his extensive influence surely works both ways. Anyone who wants to know what he's about can just buy a book, get a video or look at a website. Apparently, his membership requirements are very strict, too! So noone can claim to be fooled - just a bit of research will tell you what you're getting into if you join his church, or use his materials!
The guy is probably very wealthy, but if you build up an independent megachurch from scratch, run a successful ministry, and then produce lots of books and resources, I suppose you would be. The alternative is to join a traditional denomination where the minister is an employee not a pioneer, earns far, far less, but the wider institution is sitting on plenty of stocks and shares, land and property, etc.; so it's just a question of where the money goes, which is an organisational, structural matter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
It's worse than that, I think. If you set up an abusive organization, you won't be short of people to play both roles, the abused and the abuser. I suppose in a church organization, this is all glossed over and rationalized like mad, so that the abuse masquerades as necessary correction, or reproof, or the like.
This is something with which I had to come to terms. I've spoken with people who were being horrifically abused by church leaders, seen them break down in shuddering tears when describing what had happened, then watched nonplussed as they went right back into the church and took more abuse. I've seen people watch mutely while their spouses and children were publicly humiliated, yet continued to support the church.
Certainly some level of abuse might be expected to be tolerated by a healthy christian (inasmuch as we're exhorted to be longsuffering, forgive 7x 70, etc.) but only for a time before you'd expect them to leave or fight back--but it often doesn't happen, people will stay in for decades and ruin their family's lives.
I can only assume a certain percentage of people simply welcome the abuse because they're masochists or are willing to put up with it for a time until they can make it up the ladder and start inflicting it themselves because they're sadists.
[code]
[ 11. July 2012, 02:26: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
CSL1
But we find the same thing in relationships. As a therapist, I had clients who'd been in physically abusive relationships half a dozen times. There is some magnet that draws people back, partly repeating early abuse, partly operating out of guilt, and the need to be punished, plus other stuff which is individual.
I don't see why organizations should not repeat these patterns. But you hope that responsible organizations offer protection - but then look at child abuse in the various churches, or indeed, in schools, children's homes, and so on.
Somehow, our culture is shot through with abuse, which is quite shocking really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
I think the reason why people stay are emotional investment and loosing friendships.
Why they join, is often because they think the place is more 'spiritual' because like all deceptions, its true motives for money and dominance of its members are carefully hidden. Instead all people see are a bunch of outwardly happy people worshipping in freedom and a charismatic 'anointed' leader who has a hotline to God.
Leaving involves separating God from the heretical views of the leader. Many simply 'stumble and fall' away from the Christian faith altogether.
I believe it is the duty of the body of Christ to stand up to these abusive church structures be it Driscoll or New Frontiers, or others, and demand change. We can see people being damaged, the deliberate lack of transparency of leaders salaries, and the potentially abusive authoritarian church structured they have set up. I don't care what sort of a hot line they think they have with God, it isn't good enough as it stands. They need to listen to the legitimate criticisms and reform.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Misplaced loyalty. There's clearly a loss involved in leaving a community you've been a member of, invested in. Plus once you leave you lose any reforming or ameliorating influence you may be able to bring.
Such choices are not at all easy for anyone, whether we're talking about personal relationships and partnerships, or community membership. And in the case of Mars Hill, it looks as though the emasculation of the checks and balances (which led to the firing of two elders) was the significant moment to "stand up and be counted".
Now I guess it's a question of leaving, or waiting to help when the inevitable "trainwreck" happens. Some brave people do that - I've seen it and deeply respected the commitment it showed.
The main lesson I've learned over the years is the simple one that once a church minister starts taking structural initiatives, look out for squalls. And if the structures look dodgy to start with, don't join, however attractive the package may seem to be.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I think the reason why people stay are emotional investment and loosing friendships.
Why they join, is often because they think the place is more 'spiritual' because like all deceptions, its true motives for money and dominance of its members are carefully hidden. Instead all people see are a bunch of outwardly happy people worshipping in freedom and a charismatic 'anointed' leader who has a hotline to God.
Why don't they see a bunch of happy people in the Methodist or the Episcopalian churches? Why should a cultish charismatic church be assumed to be 'happier'? This is the curious thing.
Yes, I'm sure that friendships are a part of it, but we all form friendships at church, and leaving a church is painful, because those friendships will change, or even end. But people leave churches all the time!
As for money, a big, new, shiny charismatic chuch is obviously going to have far more money sloshing about than the mouldy, tatty little Congregational chapel down the road. You don't need to do any secret investigative work to find that out! Money helps churches to look nice and attractive. If you don't approve of churches with money then you should be looking for a congregation with a roofing problem, not heading for a sparkly megachurch!
quote:
I believe it is the duty of the body of Christ to stand up to these abusive church structures be it Driscoll or New Frontiers, or others, and demand change.
Obviously, churches and Christians are free to criticise each other, and we should all try to learn from good advice, but independent institutions have no obligation to act on the instruction of people from outside. The RCC would like to have good relations with the Methodists and the URC, but at the end of the day, they're outsiders with no authority to change what happens within another denomination.
If the law gets involved, then that's another matter.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the law gets involved, then that's another matter.
Maybe it's another thread altogether, but I'm curious about this.
We have laws against domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and in some cases verbal abuse... why not spiritual abuse? It would have to contend with freedom of religion to an extent, but even that freedom is not absolute.
OTOH, I can hear the cries of 'persecution' already: "They're persecuting us by not letting us persecute our followers!"
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
irish lord
The problem here is that you'd have to separate 'the church' from 'the followers', with 'the church' as the persecutors and 'the followers' as the persecuted. Theologically, isn't this a problematic thing to do? Not all Christians recognise this kind of division, at least not in theory.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see why organizations should not repeat these patterns. But you hope that responsible organizations offer protection - but then look at child abuse in the various churches, or indeed, in schools, children's homes, and so on.
Interesting, because some of the organizations we've talked about here are infamous for creating a culture in which child abuse is ubiquitous and hushed up when discovered; you can find numerous testimonies of that sort on websites that catalog the abuse of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Why they join, is often because they think the place is more 'spiritual' because like all deceptions, its true motives for money and dominance of its members are carefully hidden. Instead all people see are a bunch of outwardly happy people worshipping in freedom...
This is what drew us to the New Frontiers church in the first place (though it was still a year away from becoming part of the NF network at the time we joined). Young, passionate believers, very open to newcomers, regular fellowship meals; it was a crowd of unusually nice-looking, intelligent, friendly and ambitious people. There were warning signs there from the start (the leader seemed to be a bit of a flake, the young people seemed overly competitive and eager to parade their knowledge, the hospitality was maybe a little forced) but we just chalked them up to youth and our entry into a new culture that we didn't yet grasp (we'd just moved 1,000 miles to a very different part of the country for work).
It took less than a year for the brutality of the leader and the acquiescence and/or willful ignorance of the followers to show its face, but even when we saw things for what they were, we hung around an additional 6 months. I feel bad for the few young couples who remain as followers of the leader who's now without a church. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics they're putting themselves through to rationalize the abuse they witnessed and experienced themselves that sent away a full 75% of the church; I can only imagine what that might do to their sanity.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
We have laws against domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and in some cases verbal abuse... why not spiritual abuse?
Define "spiritual abuse".
By which I mean, define it for the purpose of drafting a law, by making the definition as clear and precise as possible so that everything which you think should be criminally and civilly actionable is included, and everything that you think should not be actionable is excluded. Draft it on the basis that some people may go to jail, and their lives and careers may be ruined, depending on whether something they did falls within (somebody else's interpretation of) what you are drafting.
That's (one reason) why we shouldn't have a law against it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It would come under emotional abuse, or psychological abuse, and I don't think many Western states have any statutes in law about this.
Although, having said that, I remember that France introduced a law about psychological violence, but perhaps that was within marriage?
It would be fascinating to see a test case along these lines, but probably very difficult to bring. Just being snotty or over-bearing to someone isn't abusive really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
We have laws against domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and in some cases verbal abuse... why not spiritual abuse?
Define "spiritual abuse".
By which I mean, define it for the purpose of drafting a law, by making the definition as clear and precise as possible so that everything which you think should be criminally and civilly actionable is included, and everything that you think should not be actionable is excluded. Draft it on the basis that some people may go to jail, and their lives and careers may be ruined, depending on whether something they did falls within (somebody else's interpretation of) what you are drafting.
That's (one reason) why we shouldn't have a law against it.
I don't know if I'd say "shouldn't" but I would say that's why we
can't-- it's just not possible, much as we wish it were.
Another problem with defining spiritual abuse is that for it to actually be abusive the abuser has to be considered authoritative by the victim. If someone you felt was a buffoon, or a blow-hard, or whatever were to tell you to obey unquestionably/ give them control over your finances/ submit to their sexual advances, on threat of eternal damnation, you would laugh them off. It only rises to abusive when you believe they actually have that power-- that they are some divine representative who controls your eternal destiny. Which means you're unlikely to cross them, either in ecclesiastical or civil courts.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
I understand the desire for such a law (of course, psychological abuse can be more damaging long term than physical abuse standing alone) but my concern would be that it would invite government to intrude into private religious affairs and I could see officials misusing it to persecute churches with ideologies with which they disagreed. Too many unintended consequences possible.
On the other hand, leaders who financially defraud the flock or misreport earningsto evade taxes can and are prosecuted here in the U.S. It's just the difficulty of defining psychological abuse that would give me pause before supporting such a law.
[ 10. July 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
If a law regarding spiritual abuse isn't possible (and I can see why, I didn't really think it would be but was wondering if there was a dissenting opinion) then how about a commission or board of intra-denominational Protestants who could be on call to evaluate the spiritual health or churches.
It wouldn't have any enforcement capabilities of course, but if it were done properly I could see how such an organization's stamp of disapproval could be big deal to those out church shopping. It would take a lot of work to set up something like that properly, you'd have to make sure that it wasn't out to enforce certain theologies or doctrines, but instead aimed purely at evaluating the presence or absence of abuse in Church bodies.
This, I think, really could work if done properly.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
This, I think, really could work if done properly.
How often before you have 2 of these sorts of boards, or 4, or 10 or 100?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
This, I think, really could work if done properly.
How often before you have 2 of these sorts of boards, or 4, or 10 or 100?
"The best-laid schemes o' mice and men..."
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
This, I think, really could work if done properly.
How often before you have 2 of these sorts of boards, or 4, or 10 or 100?
Don't most mainline denominations have some sort of "board" that carries out this sort of work? Presbyterians have councils on the Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly level to give this kind of oversight. Sure, there is the possibility of abuse-- but so is doing nothing. I would agree with Chris that while a civil law is not possible, this is the best way to handle it.
....except.... most of the real abusers wouldn't belong to a mainline denomination precisely because it carries with it this sort of connectional accountability-- which they, of course, would call "bureaucratic red tape squelching the Holy Spirit yada yada yada"
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Accountability is really important in the Church, and even if one is not a small-e episcopalian like me, one can still recognize its working in the New Testament, and have a similar system in your own tradition. The trouble is that those who live in sham-guru-land isolate themselves as far as they can from such structures, Why? Because that they are feart that they will be held accountable and recognized as the miserable abusive shits they are! Even though I am top dog in denomination I know perfectly well that they College of Bishops can hold me to account if I go too far. Furthermore, I expect them to rein me in if I start to be too much of the dictator!
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
If a law regarding spiritual abuse isn't possible (and I can see why, I didn't really think it would be but was wondering if there was a dissenting opinion)
I'll throw in a dissenting opinion, albeit one based on only a little knowledge!
In the UK, emotional abuse is always listed as one of the categories of abuse in child protection training and the like. I therefore assume (correct me if I'm wrong, anybody) that there are some laws that explain what emotional abuse is, and thus the circumstances under which the authorities can, e.g., take children in to care.
So if something as ephemeral as emotional abuse can be (to some extent at least) defined and described, why not spiritual abuse?
I do agree with the point raised earlier that someone being spiritually abused may not see it that way, but I'd imagine that others could make the judgement (just like with emotional abuse). Also, the spiritually abused person might be able to complain after they have left the abusive situation, again just like a person abused in other ways might only complain when they are no longer in the situation.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.
It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.
The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.
It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.
The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
Well isn't that fraud?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
From training in child protection, I asked about emotional abuse, and the answer was that it was very difficult to prove on its own and tended to be cited with either sexual and/or physical abuse. Cases with citing just emotional abuse are least common - see this article for the problems in identifying it.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.
As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.
It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.
The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.
Well isn't that fraud?
No. For it to be fraud, you would have to prove that the lack of transparency was intentional AND for personal gain or to damage another individual.
So for example – and I am not a lawyer - if you could prove that a head of a religious organisation was being paid wildly over the odds and the lack of transparency was designed to ensure they could avoid paying the correct level of tax, then there might be a case to answer.
It’s been looked at before. US law says that Ministers have to be paid appropriately. Senator Grassley (?) wondered about what a few of the mega evangelists were getting based on articles in What Manse magazine featuring them in their lovely homes … Nothing was proved despite a fairly lengthy investigation – which featured a distinct lack of co-operation by some of the parties asked to submit accounts and explain a few things. (Others to their credit, did submit accounts). The findings suggested that some of these people were pulling in more than a CEO of an extremely large company, without the check and balances that exist there.
A lack of transparency isn't the same thing … I agree that it’s odd that Virgo isn’t one of the trustees of NFI. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear tales of private jets and marble toilet seats. (And, btw, the response about not being able to release this data under the terms of the data protection act sounds reasonable to me. Salaries and benefits packages would be covered under this legislation). Dunno about Driscoll so won’t comment or speculate.
Tubbs
[ 13. July 2012, 15:42: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
