|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is the church ageist?
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This has become quite the tangent, though. Is there some reason why you're pursuing it so doggedly? Perhaps a separate thread would be in order?
It doesn't feel like a tangent (yet) to me, because it's about how a church can encourage the idea of mentorship, as one way of connecting longer-term members and more-recent members.
Lamp Chopped mentioned something that to me seemed reasonable -- longer term members acting as mentors to bring along more recent members.
To me, that's something informal that happens between people. Or the minister perhaps introduces people to each other. It seems to me that's happened before (I've certainly observed this often) -- someone alone at coffee hour, someone starts a conversation with them, says "oh, I'd like you to meet so-and-so," takes them over and introduces them to so-and-so. Perhaps there's encouragement from the pulpit -- along the same lines as encouragement to wear your nametag at coffee hour, or talk to people you don't know, or scooch over in your pew to make it easy for someone to join you. You know, general teaching about "how to be a welcoming parish." Then the two people involved work out what conversations they have, what information gets passed on, how the friendship develops, and so on.
But your first reaction to it seems to be to conceive of it as a formal program of the church.
So all these things that I thought were just part of normal church life -- making friends at church -- appear to be potentially dangerous activities that shouldn't be encouraged unless the church can officially organize them and vet everyone involved.
That saddens me, and it also makes me wonder if I've understood you correctly. Because it seems to me as if you're saying the church can't encourage longer-term members to take an interest in more-recent members, without setting up a formal program.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[QUOTE]
That saddens me, and it also makes me wonder if I've understood you correctly. Because it seems to me as if you're saying the church can't encourage longer-term members to take an interest in more-recent members, without setting up a formal program.
You DO seem to be misunderstanding me, even though I feel like I've explained it several times now. I'm not really sure how many ways to say, "no, it doesn't have to be formal, and there's all sorts of ways to have friendly encounters in public places."
And again, the kinds of precautions needed around one-on-one encounters (outside of public spaces)-- whether formal or informal-- make ALL of us sad. I've said several times, they frustrate all of us, are unnatural, and can be intrusive. That makes all of us sad. And, again, every community will parse the risks/benefits differently and draw the lines differently around all the things you're asking about. But, again, a wise community WILL be having the hard conversations.
But I'm repeating myself. Not really sure where the confusion is coming from or how to make myself clearer.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Lamp Chopped mentioned something that to me seemed reasonable -- longer term members acting as mentors to bring along more recent members.
It IS a good and reasonable idea. I'm not sure what it is I've said that makes you think otherwise. Again, my point (lost long ago) was that the need for background checks (which was raised by another member) does not need to be a barrier for such a thing, since most churches already do them fairly regularly.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
To me, that's something informal that happens between people. Or the minister perhaps introduces people to each other. It seems to me that's happened before (I've certainly observed this often) -- someone alone at coffee hour, someone starts a conversation with them, says "oh, I'd like you to meet so-and-so," takes them over and introduces them to so-and-so. Perhaps there's encouragement from the pulpit -- along the same lines as encouragement to wear your nametag at coffee hour, or talk to people you don't know, or scooch over in your pew to make it easy for someone to join you. You know, general teaching about "how to be a welcoming parish." Then the two people involved work out what conversations they have, what information gets passed on, how the friendship develops, and so on.
But your first reaction to it seems to be to conceive of it as a formal program of the church.
I specifically mentioned coffee fellowship as an example of precisely the sort of informal friendly encounters in a public area which would not need any sort of vetting. So, again, it's odd that you would raise that. I'm finding this whole conversation oddly antagonistic for no reason I can figure out.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't know when it became okay to view the older ones as such a negative problem, only justified through how they can help the young.
You're reading too much into this. Threads drift away from the original question, and really, this one hasn't drifted very far at all.
Since I suspect you're aiming at me with the "only justified through how they can help the young," I'll just tell you that you're wrong. No such thing was ever said or intended.
Actually, I was not aiming at you but at Cliffdweller in response to this: quote:
All of which goes to the point of this thread-- that we need both. We need older members who will mentor the young, including mentoring in generous giving. And we need young people who will bring new ideas and insight, energy, and, yes, longevity.
But we already discussed that.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think we're all talking past each other.
See if this works for everybody:
Anybody who wants to involve underage children in mentoring or other relationships with unrelated adults in the church would be best off to have this happen in some sort of program with formal background checks.
Adult mentoring of adults can be anything on a range from "Hey, George, could you show Lena how to make coffee? You always do it the best" which requires nothing but a thoughtful brain cell, all the way through semi-purposeful scheming on the part of a pastor or other interested person ("I wonder if I introduce Ole to Sven, if Ole might be willing to show him how the HVAC systems work around here.") to formal programs approved and run by the church leaders ("We are looking for people to serve as apprentices to the current treasurer, secretary, and Sunday School director, with the possibility of picking up this work as an officer in the future. Anyone with an interest or with nominations, please see So-and-so and we'll bring it up at the voters' assembly and run the usual checks") etc.
There are some things that are obvious risks, some things that aren't risks at all (in any reasonable sense, I mean) and some that are in the middle. And a thoughtful, intelligent church / church leadership ought to be able to figure them out and apply proper precautions (if any) to each.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
cliffdweller, thank you for the posts you've made trying to explain this to me. I appreciate your being willing to try to help me understand. I don't know where the disconnect is coming from either. I wonder if part of it is coming from this: do you see this mentoring idea as something that would primarily be between adults and children? Or perhaps very possibly between adults and children, even if not primarily so?
I was thinking of it as something between adults. (Or let us say, I was imagining non-vulnerable adults -- I did catch your reference to vulnerable adults as also needing protection, but I need to rethink everything completely to even formulate my questions about how a church does that, for which I'll start a separate thread.)
I'm not trying to be hostile; I'm trying to make sense of something that for some reason makes no sense to me. Perhaps I haven't figured out the right way to explain what has me confused; it's not the surface level of "adults working with children at church need vetting but there are lots of public areas for interaction that don't need vetting." I agree with that.
Perhaps an analogy might explain something of the disconnect as it feels on my end. Suppose I'm talking about how to recruit more tenors and basses to our adult choir. And someone says "We need to be careful because if they're going to be alone with children they need child safety vetting." And then I'm left wondering how child safety vetting came into the conversation at all. Even agreeing that child safety vetting is important if adults are going to be alone with children, I would be confused as to why it came up in a discussion about an adult choir. (But maybe I'm fearfully out of date and it should come up in connection with adult organizations in the church. But that starts getting into things I'll put on the other thread.) (I'll start it later tonight, or tomorrow; it will take me awhile to figure out how to make a concise and comprehensible OP for it.)
I'll also reread this thread and see if I can figure out where I started getting confused and reread particularly in light of what you've been saying in your later posts.
[ 17. December 2014, 01:34: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I cannot speak of other states here, but in NSW it is necessary to carry out a check for all those working with children. If the contact is only very occasional and a person who has had the check is always present, you can get away without it. For example, I took a senior sunday school class for a couple of lessons last year. As I was always accompanied by a person who had had the full check, I did not need to undergo one.
Back to AR's last post - it's important to build the idea of child safety into daily parish life. Parish members must constantly be vigilant about their own behaviour and that of others. Does X always seem to be hanging around the edges of an activity not really part of their role? Is Y making inappropriate comments? Parishes here must maintain a properly trained safe ministry officer, separate from the usual parish structure, not only to keep an eye out for that sort of behaviour, but for me to go to when I observe it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
cliffdweller, thank you for the posts you've made trying to explain this to me. I appreciate your being willing to try to help me understand. I don't know where the disconnect is coming from either. I wonder if part of it is coming from this: do you see this mentoring idea as something that would primarily be between adults and children? Or perhaps very possibly between adults and children, even if not primarily so?
Yes, obviously mentoring can happen between adults and is a useful methodology to consider. But the immediate context of the discussion (days ago) was about encouraging/developing a multi-generational church. It was in that immediate context that the mentoring suggestion was made-- which was questioned by another poster who suggested that the need for background checks might make it logistically impossible. My comment was a response to that very specific objection in that very specific context-- while I was agreeing with the poster that a mentoring program that involved minors would require background checks, I was suggesting it need not be considered a barrier to such a program, given that most churches already do background checks for any volunteers working with minors. It was a very specific and tangental comment in response to a very specific and targeted concern.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, I found the introduction of background checks kind of jarring, and I admit that, as a longtime Lifescan inductee, I felt the need to correct an apparently unresearched comment about US childcare procedures,and thus contributed to the tangent. But my first reaction was, why does someone need a background check to teach someone where the altar linens go, or how to tend the roses, or how to arrange the parish hall to seat 100.
And upthread, buried in the tangent, someone commented in the threat younger people gave to older folk," replacing their jobs." My response is that, if the older folk are given some reason to connect with younger folk wanting to help-- like being designated their patron--- they will be less intimidated by new folk.
I mentioned that a group of older women in my home church did have the attitude that younger people were out to poach their roles. Long story short, this attitude wound up driving an entire generation of youth to seek church elsewhere- a thriving, invested, close knit youth group just vaporized because when they became more of a prescence in the church's functions, people shut them down.( for example, one young lady who was eager to join the ladies' guild was jeered out of the group because she wrote hand- calligraphed invitations to a luncheon rather than sending out the routine photocopied mass mailer.)
I volunteer at a TV station, There are high school kids volunteering there, and there are people in their eighties working there. The older folk are much beloved and very involved, and the youth work side by side with them with amazing camaraderie and affection. I think a big part of this dynamic is that we are all working on the same goal-- proletarian comeradery, if you will. But I also think it is because the older folk didn't just pick up and leave when new folk came in. But then, we have never had to worry about what to do with an excess of volunteers. I wonder how many churches have this problem.
Which also leads me to wonder how volunteers are treated in various churches. My pastor used to make snarky remarks about people"letting their Martha overtake their Mary" and it was very clear church routine was secondary to preaching and teaching. At the TV station, the General Manager practically kisses our ass-he and the regular staff tell us, over and over again, that the very exciting local programming our station provides would not happen if we didn't show up. We are treated witn respect and appreciation, therefore we respect and appreciate each other.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In the UK anyone working with children, either in a salaried or unpaid volunteer capacity has to be vetted - this used to be called a CRB check (Criminal Records Bureau) but is sometimes now referred to as a Safeguarding check.
All large organisations which involve children have to appoint someone to be responsible for safeguarding - that includes all churches.
Anyone under the age of 18 is deemed to be a child so anyone working with a group of people where one of them is under the age of 18 needs to be vetted.
There are differences of opinion as to how far the vetting should go: in some churches every single member of a choir is vetted if they have children in the choir, in others it is only the director of music.
Legal opinion obtained in two dioceses just after the publication of the first version of Protecting All God's Children was that if an under 18 year old attends any church unaccompanied by a parent or in loco parentis adult then everyone in the congregation who has not been vetted should leave. This opinion has not changed in the lifetime of the four revisions of the original document. However, most churches see that this (unintended) consequence is ridiculous and so only insist on vetting for people likely to be in a one-to-one situation with the under 18.
As you can imagine, this has had quite an effect on work with children and young people and parishes have lost youth groups, children's choirs and toddler groups because of it. Every parent wants whoever runs or helps with an activity to be checked but aren't prepared to go through the checks themselves - or you end up with a crisis (sudden illness) which means there is no one available to run the activity who has been checked.
Biggest problem is that the checks aren't portable: I have to have separate checks for each church that I work in and this can make finding a deputy at short notice impossible.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I brought up the issue of mentoring and being careful. I was thinking of a specific situation, where a church allowed a registered sex offender to join that church when that person (and their family) had been thrown out of their original church. All well and good, the church should be there for everyone and welcome all. And in that situation, rather than being persecuted, confidentiality does need respecting.
The problem then arose when that said sex offender then refused to follow the agreed contract and avoid situations with children. She was the first volunteer for any and each situation when mentoring or welcoming was requested, and was the last person who should have been allowed near children and families. I strongly suggested that anyone on the welcome team should be DBS checked (old CRB) as a way of losing that problem when it arose.
There are several immediate issues with this - firstly the church is not protecting children and secondly the access provided is likely to mean that "the nice lady from church" gained access outside the church when met elsewhere.
Now this is a known sex offender against children. What is the chance that some of the more helpful people around are unknown or just haven't told the church? How does the church know without checking?
And it's not just children - vulnerable adults also need protection.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
Somebody upthread said that they, a single female, and their friend, a single male, felt as if their church had no place for them, which is a real shame. However, I have to say that at my local church a few years ago, a man aged just under 60 and a woman a few years younger met and married, and are now very happy together and lead a Bible study, which I attend and enjoy even though I'm the youngest person there by about 10 years.
I currently attend two churches, which are similar in some ways and miles apart in others. They are similar in that they are both Anglican, fairly traditional and mid-high church, and of course are in the same diocese. However, one of them has a female priest (not a bad thing in itself), who has several other diocesan jobs besides parish obligations (a bad thing I'd say), so that she is rarely around for parish visiting, church socials (unless wine involved!) or even at the end of a telephone (answering machine notwithstanding). She goes along with the trend for attracting families, which is all very well, but I know that a lot of the older church members feel sidelined. Yes, it's time for the people aged 70+ to let younger people take over (they've been saying it for long enough!) but please don't forget the older people who've been such a help over the years.
A prime example of this was the carol service they held this year. Rather than have a traditional service of lessons and carols in the evening, the Vicar decided to have a carol service in the morning, which was aimed at children and their families. By all accounts it was very nice, but why couldn't there also be a traditional carol service? The vicar said that the choir weren't up to it, but then why couldn't we have a congregational service in the evening, where we all sing our favourite carols to candlelight?
This church also held the Christmas Midnight communion service, which people from the other churches in the town attended.
The other church I attend held a traditional carol service, with 5 carols and 4 congregational hymns and 6 readings. It was very enjoyable and afterwards we had a buffet.
The previous vicar of this church was not keen on children in church, although he used to visit the local school and was friendly enough towards young families. However, they were not particularly welcome, and the new vicar has his work cut out to attract younger people. He is very enthusiastic and we all hope (including those aged 80+) that he can attract young families as well as keep the older generation.
I've attended both churches over the Christmas period, but I suppose I must be lucky to be able to do this.
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...I strongly suggested that anyone on the welcome team should be DBS checked (old CRB) as a way of losing that problem when it arose.
Somebody more knowledgable may be able to confirm it, but my understanding is that it is illegal (in the UK) to request a DBS check unless it is legally required.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
In this case, though, a check was not necessary, because when the lady came in, it was known she was a sex offender. The problem seems to be people not sticking to their guns and restricting her when she violated the contract to keep away from kids.
As stated above, the rules seem to be that anyone working with even one person under 18 needs to be checked. That leaves a whole lot of things an elderly person can do with people 18 and up.
I wasn't even thinking of kids when I suggested mentoring-- I would call people who mentored youth "youth workers". I was thinking of young adults and older-- people who are ready for full fledged service positions, who could probably use an experienced guide.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Holy Smoke, yes, as I understand it that was the case under the old CRB system, we had some problems with that at work (people demanding CRB checks when they were not required).
I don't know whether it's the same under the VBS.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Churches can decide that certain roles require contact with children in supervisory and advisory roles and ask that volunteers should be police checked.
The problem is that the CCPAS Guidelines (pdf) Help...Sexual Offenders and Church Attendance suggest:
- An offender should not be permitted to get close to children (either physically or emotionally)
- He or she should not sit in the vicinity of children at church or attend house/cell group meetings where there are children in the home.
- An offender should never be allowed to work with children and young people.
- They should not hold positions of leadership or responsibility where seen by children within the church because a child is likely to regard them as someone they can trust.
- they should not undertake any activity where they might be seen as in a position of trust. eg giving books out at the door, greeting people, reading the lesson, leading prayers or a bible study, because a child is likely to regard them as
someone they can trust.
From the CofE document from 2010 - Protecting all God's Children (pdf)
quote:
8.7 Research has indicated that a higher proportion of convicted offenders against children may be found in church congregations than in the population generally. It is therefore probable that many congregations will have people who have abused children among their worshippers, some of whom will be known. Not all will have committed sexual offences; some will have been guilty of neglect, physical or emotional abuse. They may still present a risk to children. The church’s duty to minister to all imposes a particular responsibility to such people. However, this must not compromise the safety of children. If a congregation is generally aware of how offenders will be treated it will be easier to deal confidentially with a specific case, should one occur.
Having watched a known sex offender refuse to follow a contract for attendance (it was described as a silly bit of paper) it made me much more wary about people volunteering to do anything with children and worry about how badly churches are unprepared for abuse in the way they are encouraging involvement in the way they do.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Churches can decide that certain roles require contact with children in supervisory and advisory roles and ask that volunteers should be police checked.
Actually, no they can't, they may only request a check if the role falls within the legal criteria.
quote:
Having watched a known sex offender refuse to follow a contract for attendance (it was described as a silly bit of paper) it made me much more wary about people volunteering to do anything with children and worry about how badly churches are unprepared for abuse in the way they are encouraging involvement in the way they do.
And it makes perfectly innocent people understandably extremely wary about volunteering to do anything with children.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The biggest problem with the safeguarding routine is that it only uncovers those people who have previously been caught and convicted: it cannot - no checks can - bring to attention those who may have offended against children and/or vulnerable people but who have evaded detection.
So it all comes back to common sense and safety first: churches are at liberty to impose any rules they choose on anyone who volunteers to help with activities involving children/under 18s; anyone who objects may or may not have a case but it is up to the church to set the boundaries and to make sure that the rules it has set are kept.
In the case of a known sex offender refusing to adhere to something set out on a 'silly piece of paper' then the churchwardens and/or incumbent must act and let it be known to the person concerned that they are not welcome if they won't stick to the rules: they should communicate this in writing with copies to the bishop and archdeacon. If they're at all unsure then they can call an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee to spread the burden.
So far the CofE has escaped very lightly when it comes to claims for damages but this won't always be the case, and wardens and incumbents should be aware that they may be held personally responsible for errors of judgement or laxity in applying procedures.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's actually the responsibility of the Church Safeguarding Officer / Church Child Protection Officer who is not allowed to be a member of the clergy to enforce safeguarding issues, with the support of the PCC and parish priest.
Holy Smoke, if churches do not suggest and enforce sensible ways of working with vulnerable people then the church is neglecting its duties. And if people aren't prepared to follow safeguarding guidelines to work with children and other vulnerable people then that raises a whole long list of other questions as to why. Because we are Christian is not an answer as to why not to follow good practice.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
