Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.
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?
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).
Whom do you report to? And who reports to you?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?
Part of it.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?
No board of elders?
Hmm, OK.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?