Accountability and power

[Paidiske]

But I don't think there is a good reason to go around Jesus' and Paul's advice on how to handle issues with another person. So any attempt to spell out who to talk to and then have them talk to that person seems best.

Well, I guess part of what we're grappling with here is, is something like this an issue "with another person," or is it an issue with an organisation?

 

[tall73]

Well, I guess part of what we're grappling with here is, is something like this an issue "with another person," or is it an issue with an organisation?

If you clearly outline who is responsible for publishing such information, then any published information is the action of a person.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, but I don't think it's so simple. When you're talking about legal issues, in the extreme example, it'd be the church that would be legally culpable, not the individual.

 

[truefiction1]

I agree with going to the priest first. I think this is in accordance with the following:

Matthew 187:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

The next step per this passage is to take one or two more. This keeps it from spreading in the church unnecessarily, so that if it is resolved and no fault is found on the part of the priest, the parties can reconcile with as little damage as possible. Also it fulfills this:

17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Then once two or three witnesses have agreed and the matter is not resolved, they can bring it to the church. If the church then finds fault, per this passage they should rebuke the priest before all.

Spelling out these Scriptures as part of the policy would allow the membership to understand that there is authority greater than a church policy which instructs us on how to resolve such issues.

And to avoid the ability of the leadership to shut down the process if they are trying to hide something, make it plain in the policy that the next steps are important if the issue is not resolved.

The problem that you'll find in some parishes, which will cause this methodology to not work, is in finding two or three other brothers or sisters who are serious and have courage enough to stand against the rector (elder) alongside the one bringing the charge of wrongdoing, even if the charge is legit and important. The power structure in the Church is quite protected in various ways, (the people protect it with their sense of reverence toward the priest, and the diocesan bishop will protect it because he relies heavily upon the ministries of his priests in the many parishes under his jurisdiction) and this is not necessarily a bad thing, but when a rector is committing an intolerable offense against a particular person, and that person can not get any support from other brothers of the parish to get the rector to stop, and even bringing the matter to the Church (parish council and bishop) does nothing to make the rector cease doing that wrong thing, because even the Church will not take any disciplinary action against the guilty rector, then there is only God, Whom we all must answer to, and Lord have mercy.

 

[tall73]

Yes, but I don't think it's so simple. When you're talking about legal issues, in the extreme example, it'd be the church that would be legally culpable, not the individual.

So why not have a lawyer write this for you?

 

[Paidiske]

Honestly, because lawyer's fees are not in the budget. (We did actually discuss whether we could afford to pay to have it done).

But I think there's a bigger principle I'm trying to think about, and inviting other people to reflect on with me, and that's about whether and how we consciously set out to structure things in the most just and fair and open way possible.

I don't think expecting people to go first to the person who's done something wrong is always appropriate.

 

[tall73]

Apart from my general aversion to actually saying that what Jesus instructs doesn't work, I have found that when I don't follow what He says on this particular topic, it goes down hill.

Going to the person usually solves the issue, no law suit needed.

 

[Paidiske]

I think "go to the person" works when you're on an even playing field; when it's two equals sorting out a disagreement or misunderstanding (why Jesus talks about going to "your brother.") I don't think it works - and I don't think it was intended - for situations of a power imbalance.

 

[tall73]

I think "go to the person" works when you're on an even playing field; when it's two equals sorting out a disagreement or misunderstanding (why Jesus talks about going to "your brother.") I don't think it works - and I don't think it was intended - for situations of a power imbalance.

So you think that brother in this case is a technical term meaning those who are on the same level in the power chain? Do you have other usage in the book of Matthew to back that up?

Do you think Jesus meant only those on the same level in the power chain when he said:

Matt 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matt 7:3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

Matt 18:21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I don't think it's that technical...

But think about this. We don't expect anybody less powerful to confront the person who's wronged them without support. That would be an unreasonable and unfair situation. Why should churches refuse to acknowledge or deal with any issue before putting someone in that intolerable position?

 

[tall73]

No, I don't think it's that technical...

But think about this. We don't expect anybody less powerful to confront the person who's wronged them without support. That would be an unreasonable and unfair situation. Why should churches refuse to acknowledge or deal with any issue before putting someone in that intolerable position?

Apparently Jesus did expect people to work out issues directly with the person, or He would not have said it. If your power structure is so different than that of what Jesus' instituted you may have to rethink your power structure.

 

[joymercy]

That is a very strange situation. Why they would involve you in that I am not sure. But perhaps another location would be best for you.

And if you are a new convert, why would they ask you to teach?

Thanks for responding.

It was explained to me that by just having been received at easter vigil, now is a great time for me to turn around and become a children's catechist. because the information will be fresh in my memory and it will also keep me on my toes as far as what I remember as well.

I thought this made sense to me and I have also found that most of the cradle catholics that I know strongly feel that they have forgotten quite a lot of what they learned in confirmation classes as children.

Yes, why I would be told this among other really heavy duty stuff is my genuine concern here, and how appropriate it is to do that to someone who is not only a new member of the church, but a brand new christian as well.

I have felt stressed and a little fragile at times and I know they know that I have had a major death to deal with recently.

I cannot understand the wisdom in placing upon me at this time, the burden of knowing so much insider stuff-that is NOT positive.

What on earth am I to do with being told they had a sexual relationship with a priest, but didnt report it...because hes such a great priest with the parish...so to save him and to save the parish and keep a good priest on....she told me she kept it quiet.

But she also told me that he had bragged to her that he got women where ever he went and had sex with any women he wanted.

I'm sitting in this staff persons office and they are telling me this.

Is this even appropriate?

(apparently, hes still practicing but he was moved)

i know nothing at all, except what people at this parish tell me, bc I dont know them or the history of this parish and I dont know whom to turn to.

I have zero idea of this being the truth or not.

As paidiski stated, what do you do when someone has made an honest mistake, like this female staffer has with me?

 

[truefiction1]

Apparently Jesus did expect people to work out issues directly with the person, or He would not have said it. If your power structure is so different than that of what Jesus' instituted you may have to rethink your power structure.

The religious power structure, which Jesus Himself approved (Matthew 23:2-3), is that same mechanism that had him crucified. This is sort of what I've been trying to say right along: There's not always going to be a resolution, in the way that might be hoped for, to the wrongs of Church leaders (at least not in this life), but all will be accountable to God in the end.

Put another way, imagine the Lord, when being falsely accused of blasphemy and such by the chief priest Caiaphas, His brother, going to Him to resolve the issue of his trying to have him killed due to the sin of envy (Matthew 27:18), then getting two or three other brothers to confront Caiaphas when he didn't repent, then going before the Sanhedrin to complain to them of the chief priest's behavior. Do you think this would have corrected the problem that the Lord was having with His brother Caiaphas, who was sinning? I don't think it would have. I think they would've altogether crucified Him, because they had become altogether corrupt (Psalms 14:3).

 

[tall73]

Thanks for responding.

It was explained to me that by just having been received at easter vigil, now is a great time for me to turn around and become a children's catechist. because the information will be fresh in my memory and it will also keep me on my toes as far as what I remember as well.

I thought this made sense to me and I have also found that most of the cradle catholics that I know strongly feel that they have forgotten quite a lot of what they learned in confirmation classes as children.

Yes, why I would be told this among other really heavy duty stuff is my genuine concern here, and how appropriate it is to do that to someone who is not only a new member of the church, but a brand new christian as well.

I have felt stressed and a little fragile at times and I know they know that I have had a major death to deal with recently.

I cannot understand the wisdom in placing upon me at this time, the burden of knowing so much insider stuff-that is NOT positive.

What on earth am I to do with being told they had a sexual relationship with a priest, but didnt report it...because hes such a great priest with the parish...so to save him and to save the parish and keep a good priest on....she told me she kept it quiet.

But she also told me that he had bragged to her that he got women where ever he went and had sex with any women he wanted.

I'm sitting in this staff persons office and they are telling me this.

Is this even appropriate?

(apparently, hes still practicing but he was moved)

i know nothing at all, except what people at this parish tell me, bc I dont know them or the history of this parish and I dont know whom to turn to.

I have zero idea of this being the truth or not.

As paidiski stated, what do you do when someone has made an honest mistake, like this female staffer has with me?

I am glad you have accepted Christ and are starting this new life. And this really is a lot to deal with all at once, with the changes in life that come with a such a decision, and with the grief of loss.

Are you getting any counseling regarding the grief you are going through?

And no, any staffer who is shielding a leader they know to be living in a way that is completely out of step with the Spirit is not acting in an appropriate way. And to add this on to you was selfishness, letting her unburden herself emotionally, but not deal with the issue. And it added an unnecessary burden to you.

If there is no issue with physical threats or anything of the sort I would consider praying about this, and then talking to the staff member to appeal to them to do what is right in pursing a process of discipline.

Who sent out the emails? Is this being talked about throughout the church? If that is the case then if there is someone who has also expressed concern, and it is already out in the open, then I would read what Paul discusses in I Corinthians 5 about a very public case of incest. There he called on the whole church to take action. If others already know about it and are concerned about it then you are past the point of going to the person just by yourself, and you may want to go with others to the staffer to urge them to take appropriate action.

Others who have experience in such can also weigh in here, so you might want to take some time to pray and see what others say as well.

 

[tall73]

The religious power structure, which Jesus Himself approved (Matthew 23:2-3), is that same mechanism that had him crucified. This is sort of what I've been trying to say right along: There's not always going to be a resolution, in the way that might be hoped for, to the wrongs of Church leaders (at least not in this life), but all will be accountable to God in the end.

Put another way, imagine the Lord, when being falsely accused of blasphemy and such by the chief priest Caiaphas, His brother, going to Him to resolve the issue of his trying to have him killed due to the sin of envy (Matthew 27:18), then getting two or three other brothers to confront Caiaphas when he didn't repent, then going before the Sanhedrin to complain to them of the chief priest's behavior. Do you think this would have corrected the problem that the Lord was having with His brother Caiaphas, who was sinning? I don't think it would have. I think they would've altogether crucified Him, because they had become altogether corrupt (Psalms 14:3).

A. All things happened to Jesus as appointed, and His death was necessary.

B. Yes, some things will not be resolved in this world. However, if there are opportunities to follow the instructions given, we should try. And in cases where the leadership has simply made a mistake, they can be worked out quite charitably by talking together. In more serious cases there are times where the leadership will repent when confronted. Other times not. Churches can still take action according to the Scriptures with two or three witnesses. If the church fails to address it completely or covers it up, then yes, that will be judged by God.

C. If it gets to the point where people are ready to go to the law over a privacy breech then their lawyer will likely send paperwork to the church office and the policy will be requested in discovery to find out where you didn't follow the policy you set in place.

If you can work it all out through forgiveness in the meantime one on one, that is far better.

 

[Sketcher]

So this post is sparked by a specific incident, but it reflects on themes which have been recurring a lot for me lately.

The specific incident is that our parish is revising our (extremely dated) privacy policy, and one of the things we need to include, which was not explicitly included before, is a clear complaints process for people to follow if they feel we have breached their privacy. My feeling is that I should not be part of that process, because the likelihood is that I will have been involved in any breach of privacy; and I shouldn't be policing or responding to complaints about my own mistakes!

But what has surprised me is that not everyone involved in the policy review agrees with me, or even sees the issue.

My fundamental assumptions are:

- Humans inevitably get things wrong, make mistakes, and mishandle power (even in churches).
- We should acknowledge upfront that this is possible and put in place robust and transparent systems and policies to prevent it..
- We should have in place robust and transparent systems of accountability for when these things occur.

To my mind, if you're not doing those things, in any area of ministry, that's dangerous. It runs the risk of people protecting their own power and control rather than acting and responding appropriately. At the extreme end of this avoidance of accountability, we see the clergy sexual abuse crises, but there are countless smaller instances played out over all sorts of churches (and other organisations) every day.

Because of this, I think it is good and necessary that there should be avenues for people to complain about me (or those in various roles more generally) to others who can hold us accountable in various ways; but it is surprising, and even distressing, to me to realise how many churches and powerful Christians within churches don't seem to see the issue or the need for structures and processes which provide that kind of oversight and accountability.

So I guess I'm wondering, how much are churches having these conversations? How aware are you of processes for accountability and oversight in your own churches, and do you think they are robust enough? Do you really feel safe somewhere if you don't know how things will be handled if someone is exploitative or abusive or inappropriate? (Am I the only one surprised or disturbed that this isn't just a no-brainer for us all now?)

Whom do you report to? And who reports to you?

 

[Paidiske]

Whom do you report to? And who reports to you?

I don't strictly speaking report to anyone, in the usual corporate sense. I work collaboratively with lay people in the parish, and I'm under the oversight of my bishop, but that's a pretty long-distance oversight. I took a vow to obey him ("in all things lawful and honest") but it's not as if I see him very often.

I have no staff reporting to me (small parish, I'm the only paid staff person) although there are lay people who do various things under my oversight on a voluntary basis. I take a pretty permissive approach to that in most respects. (As in, I let them do their thing and only intervene if I see a problem).

I do have an external supervisor but that's not a reporting relationship either.

I don't know if that quite answers your question?

 

[Sketcher]

I don't strictly speaking report to anyone, in the usual corporate sense. I work collaboratively with lay people in the parish, and I'm under the oversight of my bishop, but that's a pretty long-distance oversight. I took a vow to obey him ("in all things lawful and honest") but it's not as if I see him very often.

I have no staff reporting to me (small parish, I'm the only paid staff person) although there are lay people who do various things under my oversight on a voluntary basis. I take a pretty permissive approach to that in most respects. (As in, I let them do their thing and only intervene if I see a problem).

I do have an external supervisor but that's not a reporting relationship either.

I don't know if that quite answers your question?

Part of it.

No board of elders?

 

[Paidiske]

No board of elders?

That's not an Anglican structure. We have a parish council, which I chair, and which has half a dozen lay people elected to it by parishioners. It has particular responsibilities for the finances, property, and mission of the parish, but the parish council does not "manage" me.

 

[Sketcher]

That's not an Anglican structure. We have a parish council, which I chair, and which has half a dozen lay people elected to it by parishioners. It has particular responsibilities for the finances, property, and mission of the parish, but the parish council does not "manage" me.

Hmm, OK.

The challenge to me is:

1) Having a clear structure and escalation path for when a minister does wrong.
2) Having checks within that structure to protect against false accusations, while also ensuring that actual victims remain protected.
3) Harmonizing this with Matthew 18:15-20 and having a way to explain this that makes sense.
4) Making this known to everyone in the church.

I thought I may have had a suggestion earlier, but given what you've told me, I don't. I have seen good ministers falsely accused via abuses of a reporting system, and I've read about unconscionable clergy who would abuse every protection in place against false accusation. I hope this does help you a little bit with threading that needle.