|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Not the Sanhedrin: dealing with errant leaders
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
We've had a couple of "trouble at..." threads lately.
Over on the "Trouble at Mars Hill" thread, some poster I've never heard of with a single-digit member number ![[Biased]](wink.gif) said this: quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Like it or not, Driscoll is one of ours, and he's a bad'un, and we have to find ways of dealing with that.
To which cliffdweller responded quote:
we have to look at the bigger picture and recognize that many of our structures (e.g. encouraging one-off disconnected independent churches w/ leader-chosen, and therefore leader-dissolvable lines of accountability) and subdoctrines (e.g. rightly focusing on grace, but in a way that often romanticizes and celebrates "badness") have contributed to and enabled Driscoll to become so remarkably successful. Driscoll is also a good opportunity for evangelicals to be mindful of the ways we (as every other group) have allowed our core beliefs and doctrines to be subverted by cultural norms of consumerism, celebrity worship, false views of power, etc.
So how could we respond? I quoted Roger Forster as saying that these days the church, and especially the non-conformist evangelical wing, did not have a Sanhedrin, and cliffdweller spells out why.
I have got a few ideas about why it's important to respond and how this might be achieved. I don't want to take up too much space in this OP, but here are a few ideas:
- restorative justice: rather than see any initiative in a punitive judicial sense, the ethos should be directed at "restoring the brother" if possible
- the power of Web 2.0: it makes overnight celebrities, but properly harnessed can be a great grassroots force for anyone, too
- focusing on clearly provable misconduct rather than theological differences to provide an objective foundation for whistleblowing and establish a broad base for consensus.
Your thoughts welcome!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think somewhere the problem is one of power. the people who acquire it are often not the ones who should be allowed with it.
This applies whatever structure your church system has. It is as much a danger in Episcopal churches as independent, liberal as evangelical. Where the people who have the actual power assume that this also means they are theologically in tune, there will be trouble. Where they are "conservative" in the sense of wanting to make things as they like them, and then never to change, it is dangerous.
I don't know what the answer is. The problem is, people like Driscoll are attractive, and they attract supporters. They also tend to polarise people, so finding those who are involved but disinterested - those who could, in theory, provide the appropriate balance - is extremely difficult.
And then there is the case where a leader is opposed (however gently or rationally), and they reject this by claiming the opposer is not listening to God clearly. If they are good at what they are doing, they will probably have to consider this. So often, this is a way of saying "I hear God better than you, so you cannot judge me"
Sorry, this is a little confused, but I cannot find a way around the problems, allowing people to move and stretch the church in the right way, while keeping them in check from going in the wrong way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
What does one do when both sides of an argument say that "God has told me what is Right"?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What does one do when both sides of an argument say that "God has told me what is Right"?
"A plague on both your houses; I'm going elsewhere."
But that's a personal (and perhaps in this case rather frivolous) kind of answer; it doesn't help others who may be confused.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What does one do when both sides of an argument say that "God has told me what is Right"?
You thump down your leatherbound steelplated Bible on the table and say, "Show it to me in the Word of God." That should be enough to confuse the hell out of both sides as they both start frantically claiming special revelation. Then you can yank out the passages about testing false prophets and really scare the crap out of them...
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think somewhere the problem is one of power. the people who acquire it are often not the ones who should be allowed with it.
This applies whatever structure your church system has. It is as much a danger in Episcopal churches as independent, liberal as evangelical. Where the people who have the actual power assume that this also means they are theologically in tune, there will be trouble. Where they are "conservative" in the sense of wanting to make things as they like them, and then never to change, it is dangerous.
I don't know what the answer is. The problem is, people like Driscoll are attractive, and they attract supporters. They also tend to polarise people, so finding those who are involved but disinterested - those who could, in theory, provide the appropriate balance - is extremely difficult.
And then there is the case where a leader is opposed (however gently or rationally), and they reject this by claiming the opposer is not listening to God clearly. If they are good at what they are doing, they will probably have to consider this. So often, this is a way of saying "I hear God better than you, so you cannot judge me"
Sorry, this is a little confused, but I cannot find a way around the problems, allowing people to move and stretch the church in the right way, while keeping them in check from going in the wrong way.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The best answer I can think of is as many mutually-reinforcing checks and balances as possible.
So, strong congregational government, but with due process and denominational accountability. Sure, it runs the risk of loudmouths calling the shots, but that's where due process and external accountability kick in.
If you have bishops, they should be elected, and have their powers tightly defined, exercisable only via the rule of law, and subject to appeal.
The guiding light: limit, so far as you are able, the power one human being has over another.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
But supposing the hapless congregation does not have these safeguards in place, and the leader attains national or international prominence through books, conference appearances and so on, so they become perceived as a spokesperson for the Church at large.
Can anything be done from within the Church at large?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I honestly don't know. Part of the problem is that these already affluent privileged white men, and it's pretty much always affluent privileged white men, who are already used to getting their way, set up their oversight-free hierarchical networks specifically to privilege themselves.
I don't think this is a conscious thing, mind. But the sort of man who has been told that he has a Special Anointing is naturally going to develop a theology of Why I Am Always Right because he's spent the last however many years being told just that. He leaves his background and strikes off in Apostolic Leadership, because that is what you do. And then, without any checks or oversight, because Apostolic Leaders with Special Anointings don't need them, he sets up an institutionally abusive organisation.
And it happens over and over again and I think that what I am saying is that the fact this happens over and over and over again until you want to die the next time you hear about it is not something that you can fix post facto.
The fundamental (no pun intended) reliance of evangelical Christianity on the power structures of our society is kind of the root cause that we have to address, and I am not sure we can do much to sort out these abuses apart from to support the victims and make people know what happened. Because kyriarchy.
Suddenly I sound like the subject of the revolutionary Marxist lightbulb joke. That's not intentional, honest.
[ 11. September 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
By the way, anyone remember the Ungodly Fear board that the Ship used to have? An entire board, more than a decade ago, just about this sort of thing.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The Tswana have a saying - "a Chief is only a Chief if he has a tribe". So if a Tswana tribe didn't like the way a chief was behaving, they would up sticks, leave him in the village alone, and either make a new village or join another village under a different chief.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
The problem is that those tribesmen over in Botswana are wise enough and smart enough to have a tradition where if the chief is a colossal gaping bumchasm they up and walk.
An abusive system such as the one at Mars Hill Seattle part of the problem is the teaching, passed on as (literally) Words From God, makes it a Sin to question like that.
[ 11. September 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think somewhere the problem is one of power. the people who acquire it are often not the ones who should be allowed with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Douglas Adams: Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped - most of these guys are preachers. Remember we're mostly talking about evangelicals. They love to thump the Bible too and they will happily point you to passages in support of their views. Scare them? I reckon they'll relish going toe-to-toe with your interpretation of Scripture versus theirs. Which is not to say don't engage with the Biblical arguments - in fact it's vital that people do point out dodgy doctrine - but don't think that it will be an easy fight. They wouldn't be where they are without being able to make a convincing sounding argument.
I think the power ultimately comes from the congregation, the resources and money they bring. So given that the "Church at large" doesn't have any direct authority to implement changes (that's kind of the issue right?) what it can do is try to influence the congregation to see the problem and hopefully they'll either try to get change from within or leave. Which seems to be beginning to happen with the Driscoll case (they're losing money due to people leaving)
Influencing the congregation from the outside I guess comes from speaking out - both about questionable doctrine and teaching but also about more practical stuff like financial issues. Supporting and at least listening to dissenting voices from people who leave so that there's an escape hatch for the truth to come out.
But I think we can't ever completely "fix" this problem as long as there's freedom of religion. As long as people are free to set up their own groups, ministries and denominations there's always going to be a place where spiritual "wolves" can come along and exploit congregations.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
An abusive system such as the one at Mars Hill Seattle part of the problem is the teaching, passed on as (literally) Words From God, makes it a Sin to question like that.
This is true.
But I'm dreaming of a platform which would give people the right tools to call misbehaviour out in a way that's effective, broad-based, and not mired in the kind of vindictive venom lots of 'survivor' sites seem to engage in.
It might not directly rescue the immediate victims, but it might be a way of isolating perpetrators and nipping others in the bud.
Ungodly Fear was before my time. Care to give a quick summary?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Descartes again - people believe their heads rather than their feelings
And more to the point, they believe what other people say and don't realise they have a duty to discriminate for themselves.
Otherwise it's not free will, is it?
There is also an issue of codependent relationships - but that's quite a big topic
[ 11. September 2014, 09:05: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Lamb Chopped - most of these guys are preachers. Remember we're mostly talking about evangelicals. They love to thump the Bible too and they will happily point you to passages in support of their views.
My thinking goes along the lines of "neglecting the greater commandments" and flagging clear breaches of ethics, like provable lying.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Lamb Chopped - most of these guys are preachers. Remember we're mostly talking about evangelicals. They love to thump the Bible too and they will happily point you to passages in support of their views.
My thinking goes along the lines of "neglecting the greater commandments" and flagging clear breaches of ethics, like provable lying.
I'd agree with that. That's part of what I meant by outside influence. It's also why I said countering wrong teaching is vital.
I was just reacting a bit to the idea that it's a simple matter of opening up your bible and these problem leaders will run away whimpering. I'm not actually convinced that Lamb Chopped thinks it's that simple either, but she does seem to like to use rhetoric that makes it seem so.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But I'm dreaming of a platform which would give people the right tools to call misbehaviour out in a way that's effective, broad-based, and not mired in the kind of vindictive venom lots of 'survivor' sites seem to engage in.
It might not directly rescue the immediate victims, but it might be a way of isolating perpetrators and nipping others in the bud.
Ungodly Fear was before my time. Care to give a quick summary?
Crikey. Ungodly Fear was a board, originally set up to publicise a book about church abuse written c.2001. I believe Chris Brain's Nine O'clock Service had entered the news about then and it was topical.The board, which was by its nature short lived, was a forum where people both shared their experiences of abusive churches, supported each other and talked about ways of avoiding this. It was a long time ago, so I don't remember much about the content, other than Edward Green was (I think) a host.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
It's also why I said countering wrong teaching is vital.
It doubtless is, but I doubt whether many of us will have the chance to do this on much more than a local church, or perhaps denominational level.
Beyond that, as you know, one man's "wrong teaching" is another man's "divine prophetic insight", and many wrong teachers are inclined to resort to the nuclear "attacking my position is an attack on the Trinity" option.
So while there is scope for correcting wrong teaching, I'm looking for issues on which a broad consensus can easily be established and a case firmly rested.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
It's also why I said countering wrong teaching is vital.
It doubtless is, but I doubt whether many of us will have the chance to do this on much more than a local church, or perhaps denominational level.
Yes - though given the number of independent groups it would be nice in the ideal world if people like the EA occasionally took in this function. Though in reality they have tended to be mealy mouthed about even obvious things like the Prosperity Gospel.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes - though given the number of independent groups it would be nice in the ideal world if people like the EA occasionally took in this function. Though in reality they have tended to be mealy mouthed about even obvious things like the Prosperity Gospel.
It's a question of priorities, though, isn't it? Certain issues will get you kicked right out.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
It's also why I said countering wrong teaching is vital.
It doubtless is, but I doubt whether many of us will have the chance to do this on much more than a local church, or perhaps denominational level.
Well we can do it on a social media level. Write articles and blog posts and so on.
quote:
Beyond that, as you know, one man's "wrong teaching" is another man's "divine prophetic insight", and many wrong teachers are inclined to resort to the nuclear "attacking my position is an attack on the Trinity" option.
So while there is scope for correcting wrong teaching, I'm looking for issues on which a broad consensus can easily be established and a case firmly rested.
Again I'd agree.
The thing is, I think the degree to which you can do anything is the degree to which you can communicate to those people that are the rogue leader's power base - his congregation, his viewers, his book-buyer - and convince them he's problematic.
So yes, some things will get through more easily than others. People always disagree about teaching so that's harder to convince with. But then people often won't listen to dissenting voices about stuff like abuse, financial wrong-doing etc until the evidence is nigh-on incontrovertible. So whilst it may be strategically better to focus on that stuff first, I think it's still an uphill battle either way.
Until it's so clear that it isn't any more. Which is why it keeps happening. It's easy to hide the bad stuff for a long time when you're on the rise.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Lamb Chopped - most of these guys are preachers. Remember we're mostly talking about evangelicals. They love to thump the Bible too and they will happily point you to passages in support of their views.
My thinking goes along the lines of "neglecting the greater commandments" and flagging clear breaches of ethics, like provable lying.
I'd agree with that. That's part of what I meant by outside influence. It's also why I said countering wrong teaching is vital.
I was just reacting a bit to the idea that it's a simple matter of opening up your bible and these problem leaders will run away whimpering. I'm not actually convinced that Lamb Chopped thinks it's that simple either, but she does seem to like to use rhetoric that makes it seem so.
Do I? The original post was an almost irresistible temptation (perhaps I should have resisted after all). but I'd like to think I'm usually a bit more nuanced than that.
The thing is, the only way to hold these folks accountable is to hold these folks accountable. And if they've stepped outside the structures that make that possible (e.g. denominational authorities and so forth), there's not much we can do except a) pray and b) yell about it in the media, including social media.
You can try to do an Athanasius and keep popping up to say your piece (via mail, social media, speech in assembly, whatever) as long as you expect Athanasius' reward (getting kicked the hell out umpteen times and vilified with it). Eventually you may succeed. Or you may not. I guess the real question is whether this is what God wants you to be doing right now--you in particular, I mean. He may. In which case sheer plod and faithfulness may ultimately bring the errant leader down/to his senses, whichever comes first.
But I don't think there's any easier answer than that. Stand up, say your piece, get dragged out. Go back. Stand up, say it again, get dragged out. Go back. Rinse, repeat...
It's a nasty job, but someone's got to do it. Hats off to those who DO do it, faithfully.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Always ask the question: does this person act/see themselves as leader or as servant? If the former beware, if the latter be careful.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
One of the "missed opportunities" that often saddens me is the apparent lack of criticism or even general coverage of any causes for concern in ostensibly independent but 'acceptable' media.
I don't steep myself in Christian-this and Christian-that because generally I find it bad for my mental health and my faith. This means that most of my input outside of my church fellowship is from the Ship, a few folks on Twitter, general media, and Christianity magazine - the sub for which hangs on a thread each year.
So I'll pick up on mutterings about An Issue or A Personality here, or via Twitter. And read around a bit. And think "Hrm, there's at least superficially a case to answer here". And then Christianity will thump on to the doormat, and [1] there will either be no mention, or a decidedly supportive/non-hostile[2]/only positive article or interview.
You never see articles along the lines of "Bethel: move of the Spirit, duplicitous charlatan scoundrels, or something in between?"; "Angel feathers: real manifestation or totally hat-stand bollocks".
ISTM that whilst I wouldn't expect Christianity or other such publications to suddenly become the Evangelical Police, it's an obvious and ideal platform to introduce some minor accountability. "Look at this, it's great! Look at this, it might not be quite so great!" and so on. The closest I can recall seeing is the Justin Brierley interview with Mark Driscoll which caused a big fuss at the time, but amounted to Driscoll getting huffy because Brierley said "Some people think you're a bit of a sexist tool, don't they?". It was hardly Paxman[2].
Even the odd news article which read "Ugandan Christians Seek Unholy Law To Kill Gays: This Is Not On" would be useful, rather than a neutral verging on sympathetic "Controversial new laws proposed in Uganda, liberals foaming again" with no-one quoted as saying "WTF are they thinking, have they totally missed the point of the gospel the mad hate-filled bastards?!"
I know such publications need not to piss off their readership, but I do sometimes wonder what I'm subscribing to, that almost nothing attracts censure. The best thing I can say is that they've been at least vaguely even-handed over the Steve Chalke stuff, and not cast him into the outer-darkness.
Opportunities missed.
[1] Assuming we get to it before the dog
[2] Which is fine on one level. I don't want hostile journalism. I'm sick of the adversarial, tear everything down and mock it media that we have so much of the time. But, you know, a bit of balance and wisdom chaps, wouldn't hurt.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Opportunities missed.
I think this opportunity (which was the cover story and the subject of the leading editorial) was well and truly taken by Christianity Magazine.
Sometimes they do the right thing. Props to Ruth Mawhinney for running the story. The Ship ran it too.
[ 11. September 2014, 19:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
True, it's far from exclusively a "ra! ra! ra! sheet. It's just that the overall tone is generally uncritical and accepting, and has a tendency to skip things that one would think might be of concern.
Of course, fine line and all that, and maybe I'm not exactly their target market. Plus each time I start to think "Hrm, do I want to pay out for another year?" they manage to pull a few articles out of the bag that restore my faith/confidence and so it rolls on.
<irony>At least I get to read the letters page and stoke my outraged at all the closed-minded conservative right-wing bigots who just label people and judge them</irony>
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
i live in a city and over the years we've seen a few loud n proud churches collapse, IIRC it's been over financial or fraudulent activity.
I knew a few of their congregation members and the main problem seemed to be that so much of the church member's lives were tangled up with the church leader: household finances... time.... emotional dependancy.... choices over such matters as schooling/ healthcare/ decisions that would normally be made without recourse to one's church leader.
In the end it all became too tangled and any pretext of normality went out of the window.
Very sad....and usually a bit like boiling frogs
[ 13. September 2014, 20:47: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What does one do when both sides of an argument say that "God has told me what is Right"?
You thump down your leatherbound steelplated Bible on the table and say, "Show it to me in the Word of God." That should be enough to confuse the hell out of both sides as they both start frantically claiming special revelation. Then you can yank out the passages about testing false prophets and really scare the crap out of them...
Doubtful. More likely, both will already be well prepared to pull out some proof-text to support their side. Look at Acts 15-- both sides claimed Scripture to support their pov.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Addressed upthread. Basically, I was tempted to give the obvious reply, and I fell, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Let me do my penance:
The boring version of this is that (if you can corner them, ha ha) you call the errant leaders on their unscriptural behavior and teaching using as many and as clear passages as possible. They, naturally, either a) ignore the hell out of you, in which case you can do nothing but yell more loudly, or b) attempt to prooftext you some other misinterpreted passage. In which case you give them an excruciatingly detailed exegesis of the passage they are mangling, their particular logical flaws, and the proper standards of hermeneutics--to which they will probably a) ignore the hell out of you. But if they b) attempt to prooftext you some other misinterpreted passage (we're talking the real idiots by this point), you wash, rinse, repeat until they either a) a) ignore the hell out of you or b) repent (yeah, right, but God still does miracles occasionally).
It's a damned frustrating job, but there's really no other option if they've already put themselves beyond the control of other authorities (by leaving a denomination, for example). And if you post the stuff publicly there will at least be some resource for any confused and shaken followers who are questioning whether this guy is really on track or not. It may do them some good, if not the errant leader him/herself.
Alternately, you can hire a band of ninjas to swing into his tower of prayer, bind him with duct tape and carry him off in a UFO. Probably easier.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There's no worldwide body of Christians whose job it is to police what particular denominations teach, or how congregations function - thank goodness! But IMO it would make sense for churches to develop relationships with each other (locally, regionally, or online) before big problems arise, so they can enter into a debate from a position of genuine care and love; this is easier to display if you actually know the people involved. Despite our rhetoric about brotherly love, a stranger is still a stranger, especially if his main intention is to criticise.
Also, I think honesty is important. I.e., if your main fear is that the good name of respectable churches like yours will be tarnished by association with dodgy freelance outfits, don't pretend that your priority is unknown, gullible worshippers being led astray in the pews of faraway churches that have nothing to do with you! (This also sounds rather patronising!)
I worry too that criticism from representatives of the old established churches could easily sound like sour grapes - resentment at their own loss of cultural and/or numerical dominance, especially in the USA. No one is going to pay much attention to chastisement with that flavour about it. One way of dealing with this is for the critics to be honest (again) about the problems facing their own churches. E.g. I think most of their denominational problems started long before the Driscolls of this world started getting book deals and prime time TV slots, etc!
Criticism from within a particular tradition is probably more effective than criticism from complete outsiders. But that's just my opinion.
[ 16. September 2014, 01:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
But in the OP Eutychus was looking for exactly that sort of insider accountability-- an evangelical Sanhedrin.
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
cliffdweller
Some of the critics here are from outside the evangelical 'family', of course.
I think there are several issues here. For one, the evangelical label has been applied so broadly that its different 'tribes' have less and less in common with each other. And some are likely to be moving in a mainstream direction, i.e. gradually identifying less and less as evangelical. Moreover, evangelicalism is often about following your convictions rather than compromising, which means you're under no obligation to toe the line or to fit in with anyone else's theology or form of church governance. It's individualistic by definition, isn't it? I understand that even evangelicalism in the CofE is often perceived as chaffing against denominational structures and expectations. Independent evangelicals churches have a flexibility that often eludes denominations that are more focused on organisational control. Why, then would evangelicals, as a group, look for more organisational control?
One issue which has yet to be raised on the thread is that Christianity is increasingly becoming dominated by the developing world; and Christianity in the developing world is becoming increasingly evangelical. It's unlikely that questions about the worldwide restraint of errant leaders (many of whom are likely to be leading independent evangelical congregations) can be discussed thoroughly without acknowledging that most of them will soon be from outside the West. Western evangelicalism is also becoming highly multicultural.
[ 16. September 2014, 02:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But in the OP Eutychus was looking for exactly that sort of insider accountability-- an evangelical Sanhedrin.
I might be looking for insider accountability, but what I'm emphatically not looking for, as the thread title and OP makes clear, is a Sanhedrin - an organised body. Evangelicalism in particular makes that impossible.
Snags' post reflects where I'm coming from very much: a combination of Web 2.0, christian media, and picking the right battles with the right attitude. In my experience once these have coalesced, and only then, can one get a relevant organised body to do something.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
resurrecting this thread to link to this excellent RHE blog which gives some practical sound advice to the question of accountability within the evangelical tribe:
RHE: first steps for evangelical accountability
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped: quote:
The boring version of this is that (if you can corner them, ha ha) you call the errant leaders on their unscriptural behavior and teaching using as many and as clear passages as possible. They, naturally, either a) ignore the hell out of you, in which case you can do nothing but yell more loudly, or b) attempt to prooftext you some other misinterpreted passage. In which case you give them an excruciatingly detailed exegesis of the passage they are mangling, their particular logical flaws, and the proper standards of hermeneutics--to which they will probably a) ignore the hell out of you. But if they b) attempt to prooftext you some other misinterpreted passage (we're talking the real idiots by this point), you wash, rinse, repeat until they either a) a) ignore the hell out of you or b) repent (yeah, right, but God still does miracles occasionally).
That's job I couldn't manage in a million years. Ever consider becoming a hired gun?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You mean I could make money from this????? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
If you can find a way to corral/muzzle/exile-to-a-suitably pleasant-but-isolated-internet-deprived-island Driskoll, Robertson, Billy's son Franklin and a few others of the most disturbingly twisted members of our evangelical brethren, I personally would be happy to head up a non-profit charity to raise funds for your support. And while you'd be worth far more for such a miraculous stunt, I'm guessing you'd be willing to work for, say, half what those miscreants are making. A bargain.
--------------------
"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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
With half, at least the budget is there to buy an island specially for the job.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It would certainly make for a new twist on missionary activity.
Wait, whut? I said I'd ARGUE with them for money, not that I'd succeed in getting rid of them. Oh, woe. Another great job opportunity scuttled.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It would certainly make for a new twist on missionary activity.
Wait, whut? I said I'd ARGUE with them for money, not that I'd succeed in getting rid of them. Oh, woe. Another great job opportunity scuttled.
Dang, you noticed.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Well, if you figure out a way to get the job done, let me know. I've got a whole string of donors ready to fill out their pledge cards.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Wan't to find an end to abusive leaders, preachers and priests? Stop participating in cultures and environments that enable them. Is the main preacher at your church also the owner? Run away. Are they getting rich from owning and preaching at your church? Run away. Do they tell you that God has selected from for special revelation ('I see things' )? Run away. Run away and have nothing to do with them.
Alas, that's not what happens. What happens is that some part of the church or their segment of Christianity shrug their shoulders and say "aw shucks, you know, none of us is perfect and God chooses the imperfect [insert Bible example here] to execute his divine plan." The numbers of victims grow, the pain grows and eventually those preachers and leaders are revealed as scoundrels of one sort or another. They might then look at the body count, but only to pray that 'some good may come of this'. When will Christian cultures do something before the harm comes. The answers are so easy to predict: "oh, but he/she (usually he) does so much for charity'. "Sure, the Jesuit missions in the New World systematically abused tens of thousands of children—but they did teach a lot of people to read and write!" This is not far off from common attitudes in charismatic–evangelical circles at the moment.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
resurrecting this thread to link to this excellent RHE blog which gives some practical sound advice to the question of accountability within the evangelical tribe:
RHE: first steps for evangelical accountability
The problem exemplified by the blog above is in her point number 2. Assuming social media/web2.0 takes over the kind of distributed Sanhedrin approach that Eutychus envisages, who exactly are they accountable to themselves?
I mean, I know in theory who MHD *should* be accountable to, but what what about the average author, blogger etc?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
