|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Clergy sex abuse and cover-up
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Probably a DH by now, since it seems quite common, but, anyway, how about The definitely-not-RC Southern Baptist Church cover-up?
Will we eventually get the huge swell of mistrust of all Baptist preachers that hit the RC church a generation ago? Or will it just be "we've kinda lost interest in being outraged, now that it is some of us"?
The Baptists have recognized the value of message control, hence the presence in their midst of former GWBush pressman Lawrence Swicegood and his militaristic take on defence.
More from Associated Baptist Press
And I'm not saying that all of the priests/ministers/preachers of any recognized church are at fault. The problem existed in the small rural churches as much as it does in the megachurches. We just have better message control in the large groups that can buy their publicity.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
One of the reasons why the reports of clergy sex abuse among Baptist preachers have stayed more at the local level is because of the loose association of the congregations. There aren't any deep pockets. Whereas, with hierarchical churches, there are higher up bodies that are culpable, especially if they move the minister around and try to keep everything hush hush.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Sex abuse and cover-up in the RCC also triggers anti-Catholic prejudice, which is still all too common in the US, and is adduced (consciously or not) as further proof of the Roman Church's non-Christianity.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One of the reasons why the reports of clergy sex abuse among Baptist preachers have stayed more at the local level is because of the loose association of the congregations. There aren't any deep pockets. Whereas, with hierarchical churches, there are higher up bodies that are culpable, especially if they move the minister around and try to keep everything hush hush.
More critically, the looseness of Baptist affiliation makes it a lot harder for them to transfer abusive clergy out of jurisdiction to avoid prosecution, something more hierarchical churches have the ability to do. This tends to make scandals smaller scale and more localized.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This particular scandal seems to implicate the management of the Southern Baptist Convention, which operates as a hierarchy in some senses, particularly in moving people to "safer" places, i.e. those places where the person in question isn't marked out as a sinner.
Just like the RCC, in fact.
The various groups (Missouri Synod, SBC, etc.) certainly act as if they are in charge.
Our local megachurch is a member of a larger group of "Wesleyan" churches, and their pastorate do move with the assistance and knowledge of the central management. How organized does the system have to be in order to be described as "hierarchical"? At least, is there any legal ramification from "the system" moving miscreants around, knowing that those miscreants have committed what anyone outside would call crimes?
ETA: Gramps: the point of the article about Swicegood and the megachurch that employs him is exactly that they have enough money to hire a spinmeister.
[ 01. June 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How organized does the system have to be in order to be described as "hierarchical"?
Unitary leadership is probably a good "rule of thumb" standard.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
At least, is there any legal ramification from "the system" moving miscreants around, knowing that those miscreants have committed what anyone outside would call crimes?
It's the kind of thing that brings the phrases "obstruction of justice" and "accessory after the fact" to mind.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's the same here in the UK. Sex abuse by non-conformist, flat pyramid clergy is a silent epidemic. Believe me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Abuse - of all sorts - by clergy is endemic and widespread everywhere.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Schroedinger's cat, but nasty, oppressive, colluded, conspiritorial, inverted, perverted, evil, dark, sexual abuse and omerta cover up, as one entity, is symptomatic. Where the victims are punished morally equivalent to burning your daughter for allowing herself to be raped.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's the same here in the UK. Sex abuse by non-conformist, flat pyramid clergy is a silent epidemic. Believe me.
Non-conformists? No Anglican clergy, then?
I did read somewhere that sexual irregularities (either abuse or consensual acts) can be a problem for clergy in a lot of churches. The obvious explanation given was that they're in a position of power, and people look up to them. This power doesn't just go to their heads, but can also be quite stressful to them, since they're expected to live their lives on a pedestal. Sexual abuse or control serves as a pressure valve for some of them.
The 'holy man' who's devoted to God can be a figure of desire for the vulnerable women in their churches. Most congregations are dominated by women, and for many of them the minister may be the only 'godly' male they know. This puts the minister in a dangerously influential situation.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
A day or so ago I read the article Quiet please: abuse in progress by Jane Grayson in Third Way Magazine - not easy reading. There is a reference in the article to an NSPCC report which, it seems, states that 24.1% of adults in the UK are survivors of childhood abuse. I don't know what proportion the abuse corresponds to sexual abuse. But even if it is only a third, that is still about one in 12 adults who were abused sexually. In addition, the majority of this happens in the child's or offender's home. It seems that the sexual abuse of children is common, and most of it is not done by pastors, workers in children's homes, media personalities, etc.
Is a minister of religion more or less likely to be a child abuser than someone who is not? One would hope that they are less likely, given their profession (in both senses of the word).
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Svitlana2, of COURSE Anglican clergy are a close second if not equal first to Roman. As Higgs Bosun more than implies, this is HUMAN, societal, rampant. In the low church intense hierarchies the abuse is VERY nastily covered up. I know of ONE case, because of family experience. Not forensic because it's second and third hand. But horribly credible.
The abused all but inevitably abuse. I was abused physically, emotionally but NOT directly sexually. Except by myself. And the odd threat. I witnessed abuse. Domestic violence. Betrayal. I therefore ... abused, starting with myself.
And I now embrace ALL of that. ALL. All of those who abused me and around me and myself as victim and victimizer. And my victims.
I acknowledge the handful of retracted fingers point back.
No cover up. No projection. No hiding from the light.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Firstly Martin who do you mean by Non-Conformist: Baptist, URC and Methodist plus other smaller denominations.
For instance here is an introduction to the URC Disciplinary Procedure. It is intriguingly shaped largely by the Congregationalist approach.
I expect that there is nothing unusual in this and that the Methodist, Congregationalist and Baptists have similar procedures.
It is not easy to find this information, it took me several google attempts and I knew it existed!
Jengie
[ 01. June 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The usual fascists Jengie Jon ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The free churches, the narrow, blind, legalistic, charismatic, control freak, evangelical, cultic. You know, many of us and our cliques at one time and another and another. The institutionalized abuse cover ups in the Anglophone Roman and Anglican-Episcopalian realms writ small.
Don't know what it's like in Denmark or Bolivia. As bad I'm sure. In their Roman or Reformed ecclesiae. And the Johnny-come-lately Evos.
Taking of the latter - the more I ponder the more I remember. From one impeccable source. A chaplain to a Chilean President.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think it's the basic clergy/laity divide that makes clergy abuse, sexual or otherwise, a potential issue in any denomination.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, the abuse of power in which the abused are complicit, compromised. Jimmy Saville and the NAZIs and Saddam and all of us who conspire against the light.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Is a minister of religion more or less likely to be a child abuser than someone who is not? One would hope that they are less likely, given their profession (in both senses of the word).
Always going to be difficult to get statistical evidence when perpetrators are entrenched and 'protected' in the way this one typically was.
The problem for the Church is that it's become tainted by association , and many of those outside of it have already answered your question in the affirmative regardless of the percentages .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Their batting average will be higher. And predators go where the prey is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Where there are positions which have trust inherently attached, their will be abusers. It is not that the position creates abusers, but draws them.
Wherever an organisation profits from trust, there will be coverup.
These will always be problems. This is especially why safeguards must be in place, to reduce occurrences.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye, the abuse of power in which the abused are complicit, compromised. Jimmy Saville and the NAZIs and Saddam and all of us who conspire against the light.
In a way, yes. The system is the system because the majority of adults consent to it or fail to challenge it. And clerical abuse can't be covered up unless, at some point in the process, laypeople collude in that process.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Abuse - of all sorts - by clergy is endemic and widespread everywhere.
Is there any basis in known fact for this absurd claim?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Abuse - of all sorts - by clergy is endemic and widespread everywhere.
Abuse happens - in any environment, the "church" included. It happened to me at school and at work. Endemic and widespread in the "church?" I don't see it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It turns out that the repressed abuse was in the house church movement. People who fell through the cracks of even 'free' churches.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Where there are positions which have trust inherently attached, there will be abusers. It is not that the position creates abusers, but draws them.
Wherever an organisation profits from trust, there will be coverup.
These will always be problems. This is especially why safeguards must be in place, to reduce occurrences.
This alas is the grim reality of child abuse within organisations.
Those who wish to work with children are now regarded as guilty until proven innocent . It wouldn't surprise me if the net result is that adults are increasingly avoiding involvement in organised children's activities for fear of being branded as 'having an interest'.
Accepting the effect on the immediate victim is god-damn awful, we're inclined to forget the wider damage that the issue of child abuse is doing to modern society.
Naive of me no doubt, but if only potential perpetrators could stop and think of the whole of the consequences of their actions before they took them . I mean is this drive so strong that literally nothing will prevent it from being acted upon ?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm surprised at you Tom. I mean really. If you won't see it, you won't I suppose. The abuse is INTRINSIC.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm surprised at you Tom. I mean really. If you won't see it, you won't I suppose. The abuse is INTRINSIC.
Martin - what's your evidence for abuse being "intrinsic"?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mark (if I may). I love my vicar. Love him. He loves me. We come from different planets, we ARE different worlds now and we don't collide. But from the front he has a STRONG narrative. A charismatic evangelical Anglican narrative.
That is intrinsic abuse.
Leadership IS abuse.
Across the road is an evangelical Anglican church. The narrative is similar, a concert interrupted by a lecture. Or, the last time we went, you could wander about doing a watered down parody of the stations of the cross at contemplative points or ... go to a lecture on Ezekiel.
THAT is abuse. And we are complicit in it. Blind to it. It's ALL around us. Never mind the sharp, dark, predatory, groomed, explicit sexual predation, which is just part of the spectrum. Which is also covered by complicity and not just that of the victim.
ALL our narratives are abusive. Coercive. Silencing. Abusive.
Sex abuse is a mere symptom of our disease. Of our fear.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mark (if I may). I love my vicar. Love him. He loves me. We come from different planets, we ARE different worlds now and we don't collide. But from the front he has a STRONG narrative. A charismatic evangelical Anglican narrative.
That is intrinsic abuse.
Leadership IS abuse.
Across the road is an evangelical Anglican church. The narrative is similar, a concert interrupted by a lecture. Or, the last time we went, you could wander about doing a watered down parody of the stations of the cross at contemplative points or ... go to a lecture on Ezekiel.
THAT is abuse. And we are complicit in it. Blind to it. It's ALL around us. Never mind the sharp, dark, predatory, groomed, explicit sexual predation, which is just part of the spectrum. Which is also covered by complicity and not just that of the victim.
ALL our narratives are abusive. Coercive. Silencing. Abusive.
Sex abuse is a mere symptom of our disease. Of our fear.
OK then ..... if leadership equates to abuse in your world view, what then isn't abuse? Is every narrative (by its nature - instrinsically) abusive? What about your own narrative then?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mark (if I may). I love my vicar. Love him. He loves me.
Can real love and abuse co exist?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard
Mark (if I may). I love my vicar. Love him. He loves me.
Can real love and abuse co exist?
What Martin is partly taking about, I think, is the abuse that's embedded in our normative church structures like a stick of rock. Although he frames evangelicalism as a special problem, I think it's a reality that runs right through the church, barring rare and usually short-lived exceptions.
It may seen extreme to describe leadership as abuse, as Martin does, but there are other commentators who see human leadership in the church as detrimental to spiritual maturity, and consequently to the good, transformational possibilities for the church that might flow from greater maturity. Frank Viola and George Barna make similar accusations in the book 'Pagan Christianity?' (The concept is developed in Viola's following book, 'Reimaging Church.) The authors don't refer to leadership as 'abuse', but taking a very radical and a very long view, one could argue for the accuracy of that term.
Nevertheless, love and abuse can co-exist because for Christians love can overcome all things, can't it? Moreover, Christian leaders are Christians first and foremost, and many of them have served God in irrepressible love, hope and faith. One might say that they should be loved for that reason, not because of their titles, the letters after their names, nor the privileges that they gain as part of the church hierarchy.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard
Mark (if I may). I love my vicar. Love him. He loves me.
Can real love and abuse co exist?
What Martin is partly taking about, I think, is the abuse that's embedded in our normative church structures like a stick of rock. Although he frames evangelicalism as a special problem, I think it's a reality that runs right through the church, barring rare and usually short-lived exceptions.
It may seen extreme to describe leadership as abuse, as Martin does, but there are other commentators who see human leadership in the church as detrimental to spiritual maturity, and consequently to the good, transformational possibilities for the church that might flow from greater maturity. Frank Viola and George Barna make similar accusations in the book 'Pagan Christianity?' (The concept is developed in Viola's following book, 'Reimaging Church.) The authors don't refer to leadership as 'abuse', but taking a very radical and a very long view, one could argue for the accuracy of that term.
Nevertheless, love and abuse can co-exist because for Christians love can overcome all things, can't it? Moreover, Christian leaders are Christians first and foremost, and many of them have served God in irrepressible love, hope and faith. One might say that they should be loved for that reason, not because of their titles, the letters after their names, nor the privileges that they gain as part of the church hierarchy.
Thanks. Leadership (in some definitions) may be abusive - depending on how the leader seeks the vision of the group and how he/she drives it forward. Servant leadership - the type Jesus modelled - isn't abusive.
To pick up your comments about Viola's and Barna's "radical" agenda - I can't see that as any alternative (ie non abusive approach) at all. What happens in those circumstances is possibly more abusive, as there are few checks and balances in such small groups founded on common interests. What happens - almost invariably - is that a strong personality begins to determine the direction and focus of the group and becomes the controller/abuser. Brethren groups in the UK were a classic example of this - theoretically anyone could speak in a meeting - in practice it was men only and generally a few of them at that.
In fact, you could argue that this set up is more likely to encourage and to accommodate abuse as opposed to say the congregational style government of some major denominations.
In such congregational situations, if done well, everyone has an input and minister and leaders can be removed if abuse becomes a problem. [There's always the possibility of abuse, I grant you, in any system given the personality types of some people and their ability to hide things even in the most rigorous of testing].
To class all leadership as abusive, does ISTM put Christ's leadership and ministry under question too.
I can't help feeling though that there's another agenda here. Is ALL leadership abusive or is it that we don't like being directed by others - even if such direction is right and proper, and the power to lead is affirmed by and rests in those granting it. Is it that we just don't like authority?
[ 03. June 2013, 06:49: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] One might say that they should be loved for that reason, not because of their titles, the letters after their names, nor the privileges that they gain as part of the church hierarchy.
Exactly - if you have to rely on letters, privleges and titles then you have lost the plot. We are loved for who we are, not for what we "have" or presume on ourselves. Too much of the church is so far up itself that it can't see the daylight.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Leadership (in some definitions) may be abusive - depending on how the leader seeks the vision of the group and how he/she drives it forward. Servant leadership - the type Jesus modelled - isn't abusive.
To pick up your comments about Viola's and Barna's "radical" agenda - I can't see that as any alternative (ie non abusive approach) at all. What happens in those circumstances is possibly more abusive, as there are few checks and balances in such small groups founded on common interests. What happens - almost invariably - is that a strong personality begins to determine the direction and focus of the group and becomes the controller/abuser. Brethren groups in the UK were a classic example of this - theoretically anyone could speak in a meeting - in practice it was men only and generally a few of them at that.
In fact, you could argue that this set up is more likely to encourage and to accommodate abuse as opposed to say the congregational style government of some major denominations.
In such congregational situations, if done well, everyone has an input and minister and leaders can be removed if abuse becomes a problem. [There's always the possibility of abuse, I grant you, in any system given the personality types of some people and their ability to hide things even in the most rigorous of testing].
To class all leadership as abusive, does ISTM put Christ's leadership and ministry under question too.
I can't help feeling though that there's another agenda here. Is ALL leadership abusive or is it that we don't like being directed by others - even if such direction is right and proper, and the power to lead is affirmed by and rests in those granting it. Is it that we just don't like authority?
There are no doubt essays and whole books that could be written on this topic, but I'll try to be a bit briefer than that! There's certainly no consensus to be expected on this subject.
1. Viola doesn't champion all forms of house/small group church, and would agree that some models can be abusive. Neither does he suggest that small church groups should be isolated from each other, allowing abuse and bad practice to go unchecked.
2. What he might say about the Brethren groups that you mention is that, while anyone could in theory speak at their meetings, they had devoted too little time to developing the theological underpinnings of this practice, so that when certain voices began to dominate the meetings there was little the others could say to stop it. (Viola doesn't deal with gender issues.)
3. Viola claims that human leadership as is usually embodied in ordained ministry isn't modelled on Jesus' leadership so much as taking the place of Jesus' leadership. He says that our church structures generally take little from the models used by Jesus or Paul.
4. Following on from no. 3, far more measured, objective commentators than Viola have noted that the clergy have a complex and ambivalent attitude towards leadership. There's also often a mismatch between what congregations expect of ordained church leadership and what the clergy themselves feel about it.
5. People are more suspicious of authority than they used to be; that's clear. This is perhaps one good reason for the churches to interrogate their assumptions about what church leadership is for, and whether it's fit for purpose today.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] There are no doubt essays and whole books that could be written on this topic, but I'll try to be a bit briefer than that! There's certainly no consensus to be expected on this subject.
I agree but, as you may gather from my comments above, I'm not a particular cheerleader for Viola or for the emerging/emergant church in some of its manifestations. Been there - coming away from the more superficial and narcisstic theology (IMHO of course) of parts of it.
Viola is from the US and I do think his critique of leadership has more relevance for their circumstances,- there are real divergancies in leadership style, expectations and yes, rewards - as compared to the UK. It's a generalisation and its unfair (to coin Brian McClaren) but in the main, IME as a consultant in a previous life and having worked with American Companies, leadership in the US in the secular and spiritual worlds is generally more autocratic, more in yer face and more geared to results and status than that in the UK.
Viola writes from that POV and I am not convinced by his argument that says the emerging church will seif regulate to the extent that you and he claim. By its very nature - it won't - and leaves the door for greater abuse in the long run.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Viola is from the US and I do think his critique of leadership has more relevance for their circumstances,- there are real divergancies in leadership style, expectations and yes, rewards - as compared to the UK. It's a generalisation and its unfair (to coin Brian McClaren) but in the main, IME as a consultant in a previous life and having worked with American Companies, leadership in the US in the secular and spiritual worlds is generally more autocratic, more in yer face and more geared to results and status than that in the UK.
Interestingly, my take on Viola's writings is that his argument is primarily with leadership structures, not with authoritarianism; he'd say that both weak and autocratic church leadership are rooted in the same basic structural problems. Indeed, one of his complaints is that the clergy often fail to be effective under the current system.
I have no experience of the 'emergent church' (and I don't think Viola describes himself as a fan) but I do know about the challenges of leadership in mainstream churches, and I would agree that it's very tough, and that the structures don't help.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Viola is from the US and I do think his critique of leadership has more relevance for their circumstances,- there are real divergancies in leadership style, expectations and yes, rewards - as compared to the UK. It's a generalisation and its unfair (to coin Brian McClaren) but in the main, IME as a consultant in a previous life and having worked with American Companies, leadership in the US in the secular and spiritual worlds is generally more autocratic, more in yer face and more geared to results and status than that in the UK.
Interestingly, my take on Viola's writings is that his argument is primarily with leadership structures, not with authoritarianism; he'd say that both weak and autocratic church leadership are rooted in the same basic structural problems. Indeed, one of his complaints is that the clergy often fail to be effective under the current system.
I have no experience of the 'emergent church' (and I don't think Viola describes himself as a fan) but I do know about the challenges of leadership in mainstream churches, and I would agree that it's very tough, and that the structures don't help.
IMHO (and to a certain extent IME) it's easy to blame structural issues when the proble m really lies with the person. A good leader will use the structure (or mould it) to ensure that his/her leadership is servant hearted and empowering. A bad leader will either reinforce power through the structure or won't recognise the dangers of it.
As a leader in post you have a choice: to follow the structure or not to. The good leader - the caring one - will choose not to be bound by structures when it appears to be (or actually is) preventing encouragement and enabling from occuring.
If you have to hide behind "I'm the leader" either by word or status, then you aren't - a leader I mean. Leadership comes from the affirmation of those you lead.
Viola not an emergent? I rather think he is whatever he says or however he describes his poisition. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck then its a chicken? Nope, it's a duck. Viola's approach and writings are mainstream emergent whatever he loikes to call it - yes that's his perogative.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2 ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Mark, in my reaction to abuse, is abuse, yes. I don't know if I have been in the letter here. Regardless of how I feel. What do you think?
I am becoming more and more frustrated at the almost total structural abuse which we as individuals seem incapable of transcending. We don't have the language for. We're blind to. Complicit in.
Every denomination is proud of its abuse. I mean, seriously where ISN'T there abuse? What ISN'T abusive? That is a MUCH smaller list.
Abuse being something done to no good purpose ESPECIALLY when it's justified as otherwise.
Yep, guilty.
The enemy of abuse is implicit in the OP. DON'T cover up. Be transparent. Open. Accountable. Inclusive.
Preach the greatest sermon ever (below the plain and the mount): me too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
IMHO (and to a certain extent IME) it's easy to blame structural issues when the proble m really lies with the person. A good leader will use the structure (or mould it) to ensure that his/her leadership is servant hearted and empowering. A bad leader will either reinforce power through the structure or won't recognise the dangers of it.
As a leader in post you have a choice: to follow the structure or not to. The good leader - the caring one - will choose not to be bound by structures when it appears to be (or actually is) preventing encouragement and enabling from occuring.
If you have to hide behind "I'm the leader" either by word or status, then you aren't - a leader I mean. Leadership comes from the affirmation of those you lead.
Viola not an emergent? I rather think he is whatever he says or however he describes his poisition. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck then its a chicken? Nope, it's a duck. Viola's approach and writings are mainstream emergent whatever he loikes to call it - yes that's his perogative.
There's a contradiction here. On the one hand you say that structures have nothing to do with good leadership, but on the other you expect good leaders to defy their structures. But why should leaders have to defy their structures? Why can't the structures work for them?
Being realistic, I can't see churches willingly changing structures that are so utterly normative - not until they're driven to do so by the near complete collapse of British Christianity. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. There may be alternative models from elsewhere in the world, not just from the USA.
As for Viola, in the books I've read he hasn't mentioned the emergent church. When I last looked at his website a long time ago I think he had some criticism for it. But maybe that's all changed. To me as a complete outsider, 'emergent' = post-evangelical guys in jeans who meet up in coffee shops for laid back chats, and call it 'church'. I don't think Viola would find this kind of thing sufficiently theological, but I could be wrong.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for Viola, in the books I've read he hasn't mentioned the emergent church. When I last looked at his website a long time ago I think he had some criticism for it. But maybe that's all changed. To me as a complete outsider, 'emergent' = post-evangelical guys in jeans who meet up in coffee shops for laid back chats, and call it 'church'. I don't think Viola would find this kind of thing sufficiently theological, but I could be wrong.
Viola uses the term 'organic church' to describe his 'thing' and, yes, he does seem to avoid the terms emerging and emergent. ISTM the terms are all reasonably interchangeable though (along with 'simple church'). People all mean something a bit different by the various terms, but I suppose clear definitions will gradually develop over the coming years!
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]
1. People all mean something a bit different by the various terms,
2. but I suppose clear definitions will gradually develop over the coming years!
1. Yes but if it quacks like a duck etc etc
2. No - I don't think so, having been partly inside that movement. No one knows what's happening next and it's entirely possible that with the move to new monasticism in parts of the "conversation," we're seeing a reversion to traditional forms of church. After all, you can only have the same "conversations" for so long, before they get boring (as you resolve nothing).
That's what did for me anyway - perhaps I'm post emergent, emergent then.
It's all looks a bit like a game of follow my leader or chase the fashion - just the consumerist approach we're trying to be counter cultural against. I mean, what could be more culturally conditioned than for churches to meet in coffee shops (irony intended).
[ 04. June 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]Viola uses the term 'organic church' to describe his 'thing'
A case in point here - what church isn't organic? There's nothing new under the sun
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
clerical abuse can't be covered up unless, at some point in the process, laypeople collude in that process.
True. People don't want chaos so many prefer to ignore complaints about inappropriate behavior rather than enter that mess of dealing with it and disrupting the seemingly smooth operation of the church.
In my aunt's large Methodist church a woman said the pastor used private counseling after her husband died for sexual abuse. She was scorned, shunned, gossiped about viciously.
Then two more women said similar things. They were derided. Then a dozen more. And more.
The denomination finally investigated and removed him. I read an article in the paper but it was vague so I don't know if they retired him or moved him elsewhere on the grounds he could no longer be effective in that church. It's still he said she said even if there are lots of she's.
And many of the members blamed the complaining women for causing the church to lost a good preacher.
There are strong lay forces working against dealing with the issue.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
