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.
Non-Denoms have a serious problem with pastoral abuse. Without a denominational structure in place there is no way to remove a pastor if (or when) he goes off the rails. And that can be doctrinally, morally, or financially.
I do not know if I would paint it with quite that wide a brush; but I do agree that where ever there are people involved, you will find sin of one sort or another. It is a fact of living in a fallen world.Dave, I think what Zoii's saying is that there is no church where abuse and cover up has not happened. And while that might not be true at the individual congregation level, I think it's certainly true at an institutional level.
This is fact. It is history. We need to look at it square in the face if we're going to be able to deal with how it happened and work to minimise its chances of happening again.
I definitely can see your point. But if you reject any and all male leadership, are you not also "limiting the pool of incredible spiritual leaders?"Dave I meant to reply to this before. To me I do not care if classical or conservative denominations recognize females in leadership. At a personal level that merely sends me a danger signal to not go near them. The point I was making is that I recognize female pastors and value them. Within a church female pastors are who I seek out and a church who denies this level of service is doing a disservice to a very large section of their Congregation; but more importantly are limiting the pool of incredible spiritual leaders.
I have seen that situation also. But usually that pastor had such an emotional grip on key individuals, if not the majority of the congregation, that they were AFRAID of some negative eternal spiritual consequence for leaving. The doctrines of many groups (like the WOF) seem to lend to that form of abuse.The congregation had become very unhappy with the pastor and called a congregational meeting to get rid of him. They were shocked to find that he owned the land, the church, everything! there was no way that they had any say in anything. They voted with their feet.
Indeed. There are pentecostal NDs that are (on the surface) just like Assy of God; or evangelical NDs just like the Southern Baptist, etc.I have a great distrust of non-denoms. They all seem to have the same evangelical/fundamentalist philosophy and are indistinguishable from the major denominations of the same philosophy but do not have the same oversight or back-up.
I see your point too. I should explain that I seek out people I trust. My father is definitely someone I trust. But if I dont know people then I have to make a judgement about who I could trust, and I think thats way easier for me if the pastor is female.I definitely can see your point. But if you reject any and all male leadership, are you not also "limiting the pool of incredible spiritual leaders?"
One thing I have seen over and over again in my 55+ years of following the Lord: that He often sends His remedy via someone who is likely to be rejected or ignored. (remember at one point HE even spoke thru a donkey) THAT principle is reason enough to me to not reject female pastors; or those that have a radically different theology to my own.
As soon as I start to reject someone, that is the moment God will try to speak to me thru that person.
I get that. We all do that to some extent.I should explain that I seek out people I trust.
I understand the issue. My wife was abused from age 8 to 12 by a teen age male relative of hers. At age 60 she still carries the injuries. Her and his parents went to their graves not knowing what had happened.But sexual abuse happens in all sorts of other settings, and in fact most commonly in the home, and I do not expect that it is something that can ever be entirely removed from human experience.
And I agree that church institutions have severely fallen down on the job in regards to this issue. So have state institutions like universities. They have even covered up serial rape cases. (here in the US) It seems that the church institutions are following the world in that respect.But the issue that has made this so much more than it might have been is the utter failure of the institutions concerned to recognise what was happening or respond appropriately. If every abuser, the first time they abused, was removed from any further opportunity to access children or exercise authority in a church or para-church setting, we would not be having this discussion.
What I also find so upsetting is that those who suffered too frequently were not nurtured by the church who the victim placed so much respect and trust in. Rather in too many cases it took an adversarial approach against the victim in an effort to protect the institution.The issue with clergy sexual abuse, though, is not just that it happens (although that is bad enough). But sexual abuse happens in all sorts of other settings, and in fact most commonly in the home, and I do not expect that it is something that can ever be entirely removed from human experience.
But the issue that has made this so much more than it might have been is the utter failure of the institutions concerned to recognise what was happening or respond appropriately. If every abuser, the first time they abused, was removed from any further opportunity to access children or exercise authority in a church or para-church setting, we would not be having this discussion.
I completely agree with you.What I also find so upsetting is that those who suffered too frequently were not nurtured by the church who the victim placed so much respect and trust in. Rather in too many case it took an adversarial approach against the victim in an effort to protect the institution.
It was an interesting read. IMO the problem comes from taking translated terms from Aramaic and Greek of 2000 years ago in the mid east; and using them in 21st century english-speaking america.A link to this popped up on Facebook today, and I thought folks here might be interested:
Does teaching submission encourage abuse?
One of my biggest gripes on how scripture is taught in churches is the lack of historical, cultural and linguistic context for the texts we read. We cannot and MUST not take a term such as "submission" without understanding what the apostle was saying to people in that language (Koine Greek) and that culture (1st century diaspora Jews living in Greece). If that was properly done, there is NO WAY that it could be taken as an excuse for abuse.
Indeed. This is a lack on the part of pastors to properly educate their congregants.And there in lies the challenge, massive numbers of contemporary Christians in the US do reject historical, cultural, and linguistic context.
I get that. But my experience was when the historical context of the NT was explained (by a Conservative Jewish rabbi) the gospel stories went in my mind from grainy black and white to Hi-Def Technicolor.Yes and no. Sometimes you can say it till you're blue in the face.
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?