Your Children and ministry.

[Paidiske]

To set about and judge this particular incident as abusive was inappropriate.

I did not do that. Although I did say that to stand a minister down without establishing that there are any grounds for doing so, is "not loving," and I'll stand by that.

To dismiss Titus is also inappropriate.

I didn't do that either. I made some suggestions about how that might verse be applied in healthy and appropriate ways today, and about where we need to be careful to have good boundaries in place.

Any good church would wrap around anyone who felt to step down .

I would hope so, but that's not what you described. You described a situation where they "would not allow a brother to continue in Christian leadership."

Leadership in the church was never meant to be a commercial decision.

True. But it does have economic implications. In leaving behind other ways of making a living, and coming to rely entirely on the church, as the necessary outcome of giving our lives entirely to the church, for many of us, we are very vulnerable (economically and in other ways) to mistreatment by our churches. For example, my church is my "employer," my landlord (sort of; or at least, the owner of the house in which I live), and the community in which the vast majority of my time, energy, headspace and emotional investment is expended. The church therefore needs to realise that I am particularly vulnerable to the church in all sorts of ways; and to take its responsibility for my safety and wellbeing seriously.

That means, among other things, that codes of conduct, disciplinary processes, and so on, need to be transparent and just. Including any standards relating to our family relationships.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You described a situation where they "would not allow a brother to continue in Christian leadership."

If the matter was not resolved with Loving support which it was.

 

[Paidiske]

If the matter was not resolved with Loving support which it was.

Well, that's a fairly significant aspect of it that you didn't make clear.

Either way, I still think that's problematic.

Let me draw a hypothetical: suppose the daughter was never found. Her parents never learned what happened to her. Perhaps she was killed; perhaps she was kidnapped; perhaps some other bad thing happened to her in which she was, in no way, at fault (or "insubordinate.") Or perhaps she ran away for good reasons; or perhaps she ran away for bad reasons that would qualify as "insubordinate." But her parents and their church never know.

Is it right to punish her father by removing him from ministry, when there is absolutely nothing to say either that his daughter had been in any way "insubordinate," or that he had done anything significantly wrong in parenting her?

I say no; that's not right at all.

And that's still to hold a question mark over whether this verse should be used to punish people in ministry for the actions of their adult children, and I think that's highly questionable.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well, that's a fairly significant aspect of it that you didn't make clear.

Either way, I still think that's problematic.

Let me draw a hypothetical: suppose the daughter was never found. Her parents never learned what happened to her. Perhaps she was killed; perhaps she was kidnapped; perhaps some other bad thing happened to her in which she was, in no way, at fault (or "insubordinate.") Or perhaps she ran away for good reasons; or perhaps she ran away for bad reasons that would qualify as "insubordinate." But her parents and their church never know.

Is it right to punish her father by removing him from ministry, when there is absolutely nothing to say either that his daughter had been in any way "insubordinate," or that he had done anything significantly wrong in parenting her?

I say no; that's not right at all.

And that's still to hold a question mark over whether this verse should be used to punish people in ministry for the actions of their adult children, and I think that's highly questionable.

The man in question is a highly respected Christian worker and your comments about him and his fellowship are way off beam.

You keep raising 'red herrings' and 'what if's' that are irrelevant to the story.

I suspect the dimension of Christianity that the story represents is beyond your paygrade.

I cant abide and further criticism of a wonderful man of God and the fellowship from which he gained deep and loving support.

Please stop bagging folks you have almost no knowledge of it is seriously offensive.

 

[Paidiske]

You keep raising 'red herrings' and 'what if's' that are irrelevant to the story.

They're not irrelevant to how a similar approach might impact others, though, which is what this thread is about, no?

I cant abide and further criticism of a wonderful man of God and the fellowship from which he gained deep and loving support.

I didn't criticise him at all. My criticism is of the policy/procedure of this church, not of the people who presumably followed what they thought was right with sincerity.

Please stop bagging folks you have almost no knowledge of it is seriously offensive.

Here's the problem, Carl. You posted that as an example of how one might constructively apply the verse in your OP. Those of us who would be directly impacted by such an application, have every right to examine that example and see how it might hold up for other people, in other circumstances. I'm not "bagging folks," I'm critiquing your proposal for the life of the church and pointing out how it could be severely detrimental.
Nobody owes it to you to agree to a proposal that has the potential to be deeply harmful.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What is harmful about Lovingly standing with folks in prayer for several days and seeing a significant breakthrough ?

You seem to be in another planet.

 

[Paidiske]

What is harmful about Lovingly standing with folks in prayer for several days and seeing a significant breakthrough ?

Here are a number of points which I've already raised:
- The need to establish what counts as behaviour worthy of such intervention, so that everyone knows where they stand and parents can't be taken to task over normal, healthy or petty behaviour. In particular, the need to establish a baseline here which takes into account our best understanding of healthy relationships between parents and children and does not expect inappropriate levels of control or subordination, in an age-appropriate way.
- The need to protect children (and parents) from intrusive or controlling attitudes of a congregation.
- The need to offer those in ministry due process so that they can't be stood down without adequate grounds being shown.

Your example, from where I'm standing, fails on every single one of those grounds.

You seem to be in another planet.

As I've already pointed out, my livelihood, the roof over my head, and to a very large degree, my mental health and the wellbeing of the rest of my household, are at the mercy of my church. I have been on the wrong end of bad treatment from churches and I have seen others treated incredibly poorly as well. I'm on planet reality, where things don't always go well, and people don't always behave well, and we have to take that into account when implementing structures, processes, procedures, and policies.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Here are a number of points which I've already raised:
- The need to establish what counts as behaviour worthy of such intervention, so that everyone knows where they stand and parents can't be taken to task over normal, healthy or petty behaviour. In particular, the need to establish a baseline here which takes into account our best understanding of healthy relationships between parents and children and does not expect inappropriate levels of control or subordination, in an age-appropriate way.
- The need to protect children (and parents) from intrusive or controlling attitudes of a congregation.
- The need to offer those in ministry due process so that they can't be stood down without adequate grounds being shown.

Your example, from where I'm standing, fails on every single one of those grounds.

As I've already pointed out, my livelihood, the roof over my head, and to a very large degree, my mental health and the wellbeing of the rest of my household, are at the mercy of my church. I have been on the wrong end of bad treatment from churches and I have seen others treated incredibly poorly as well. I'm on planet reality, where things don't always go well, and people don't always behave well, and we have to take that into account when implementing structures, processes, procedures, and policies.

So I put forward an example of How God really works and you respond by emphasising sanctions to be put in place from occasions when you perceive God didn't work ?

Insurance against God not working - is that what we want the church to be?

I've been associated with mission work in the third world. In this setting one might set up a small work of Love and be robbed and loose everything.

Is our response then to accept this as a necessary part of the cost of following Jesus or beef up security?

A work of Love is often born out of persecution - Jesus said put the sword away.

While we are not called to replicate the crucifixion we are called to share in His sufferings.

Is it not better to be vulnerable to a loveless congregation and let Jesus Love be seen than go in with sophisticated protections and never really be with them?

 

[GTW27]

One can not expect to get(receive) figs from an apple tree. Perhaps it is wiser to seek figs from a fig tree.

 

[Paidiske]

Insurance against God not working - is that what we want the church to be?

Let's be real, here, Carl. The church the world over is a scandal for its failure to recognise or respond to abuse in multiple forms. Whole churches are going bankrupt in paying reparations to their victims. Ministers are leaving the ministry in droves, not least because of lack of support, unrealistic expectations, and poor treatment from their churches.

To my mind, it's not about "insurance against God not working." It's about an honest and realistic measure of human sinfulness and ability to fail. So yes; we put in place some safeguards against our own worst tendencies (for example, all of the child safety standards that our now just part of how we do ministry with children), and that will give more scope for God's work to be unhindered by human frailty and foolishness.

The Jesuits among my lecturers had a saying: What is not consciously structured, is unconsciously unjust. That is, it's better to put some well-thought-through structures in place, than leave people to make it up as they go along, because in doing that we will always do it less well than if we take the time to get it right up front.

Is it not better to be vulnerable to a loveless congregation and let Jesus Love be seen than go in with sophisticated protections and never really be with them?

You assume that some basic structures mean not really "being with" your congregation. That's not my experience. My experience is that they enable a deeper and better "being with." Lack of safety impairs relationships.

I can tell you this. I've been vulnerable to a loveless congregation. There's a grace in that. But there's also a cost; a very high cost. And most of us can't pay that cost indefinitely. My limit was three years; others might last longer.

But it's one thing to willingly choose to endure in that situation. It's quite another thing for a congregation, or a church, to deliberately structure itself in such a way as to refuse to recognise or put any protection in place for that vulnerability. That's negligent, and unloving.

So when people want to. in effect, put in place a parenting standard as part of what ministers are held accountable for, dead right I want to make sure that's done in a way which protects ministers and their families from bullying behaviour. Because I've seen the harm that can be done when we don't give thought to those matters. And I don't see why the church should be any more cavalier with the safety of its ministers, than it is with the safety of each and every member.

 

[Carl Emerson]

@GTW27 Sometimes we dialogue for the sake of the readers...

The principle in my last post is important to embrace...

 

[Paidiske]

It's a cheap shot, when you expect others to pay the price for your principles. Especially when some of those others are the young children of ministers, who never chose to be in that position.

I mean, really. "We - the congregation - should be able to treat our ministers and their families as badly as we like, and they have to take it as a model of Jesus' love."

That's the church we want?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Let's be real, here, Carl. The church the world over is a scandal for its failure to recognise or respond to abuse in multiple forms. Whole churches are going bankrupt in paying reparations to their victims. Ministers are leaving the ministry in droves, not least because of lack of support, unrealistic expectations, and poor treatment from their churches.

To my mind, it's not about "insurance against God not working." It's about an honest and realistic measure of human sinfulness and ability to fail. So yes; we put in place some safeguards against our own worst tendencies (for example, all of the child safety standards that our now just part of how we do ministry with children), and that will give more scope for God's work to be unhindered by human frailty and foolishness.

The Jesuits among my lecturers had a saying: What is not consciously structured, is unconsciously unjust. That is, it's better to put some well-thought-through structures in place, than leave people to make it up as they go along, because in doing that we will always do it less well than if we take the time to get it right up front.

You assume that some basic structures mean not really "being with" your congregation. That's not my experience. My experience is that they enable a deeper and better "being with." Lack of safety impairs relationships.

I can tell you this. I've been vulnerable to a loveless congregation. There's a grace in that. But there's also a cost; a very high cost. And most of us can't pay that cost indefinitely. My limit was three years; others might last longer.

But it's one thing to willingly choose to endure in that situation. It's quite another thing for a congregation, or a church, to deliberately structure itself in such a way as to refuse to recognise or put any protection in place for that vulnerability. That's negligent, and unloving.

So when people want to. in effect, put in place a parenting standard as part of what ministers are held accountable for, dead right I want to make sure that's done in a way which protects ministers and their families from bullying behaviour. Because I've seen the harm that can be done when we don't give thought to those matters. And I don't see why the church should be any more cavalier with the safety of its ministers, than it is with the safety of each and every member.

Appreciate your response...

My example was from a healthy fellowship - Maybe they had such considerations in place... Maybe they had a pool of wisdom in the leadership that guided their response.

But yes I sympathise with your battling with a dysfunctional Church culture - lets hope for better things.

Generally I believe that the answer is not in better legislation but better people - being among them demonstrating what Love is.

And yes it comes with a cost - we were warned about this - these aren't easy times.

Maranatha...

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's a cheap shot, when you expect others to pay the price for your principles. Especially when some of those others are the young children of ministers, who never chose to be in that position.

I mean, really. "We - the congregation - should be able to treat our ministers and their families as badly as we like, and they have to take it as a model of Jesus' love."

That's the church we want?

Who said that ???

 

[GTW27]

@GTW27 Sometimes we dialogue for the sake of the readers...

The principle in my last post is important to embrace...

Indeed.

 

[Paidiske]

lets hope for better things.

Generally I believe that the answer is not in better legislation but better people - being among them demonstrating what Love is.

You need both. For sure we need to pray and work to build a community of "better people," (myself included!). But we can do that while also having some basic safeguards in place, and that hurts no one.

Who said that ???

Isn't that what the refusal to consider any safeguards can amount to? Why object to safeguards unless people don't want to be held to basic standards of behaviour?

 

[archer75]

Not sure if I am allowed to participate here.

For what it's worth...

It is certainly true that there is an unbearable efficiency to "influence" on children these days (phones, peers with phones).

That said, if someone in ministry with children is expected to have such superhuman protective powers against such influence, that expectation should be communicated clearly, before the beginning of employment / service. And I assume that the church should pay the pastor enough that the pastor's spouse will not have to work outside the home.

Further, if "sinfulness" of an adult or physically mature child of someone in ministry is grounds for removal from ministry, what constitutes sinfulness and how it is to be detected must be outlined with perfect clarity from before the beginning of employment / service.

It would still be true that the children didn't ask for this situation, but that is always true of every kind of employment a parent might have.

So it seems to me. To do otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Paidiske]

And I assume that the church should pay the pastor enough that the pastor's spouse will not have to work outside the home.

Great post overall, that I think sees some of the pitfalls I'm trying to highlight.

This bit, though... whole other can of worms!

 

[Carl Emerson]

You need both. For sure we need to pray and work to build a community of "better people," (myself included!). But we can do that while also having some basic safeguards in place, and that hurts no one.


Isn't that what the refusal to consider any safeguards can amount to? Why object to safeguards unless people don't want to be held to basic standards of behaviour?

The catch is when the safeguards are forced onto the Body of Christ by 'secular priests' but that is another story...

We have a biblical foundation and our safeguards should align with that...

 

[Paidiske]

The catch is when the safeguards are forced onto the Body of Christ by 'secular priests' but that is another story...

Generally, the term "secular priest" means one who is not a monastic, but my guess is that you mean something more pejorative here.

However, for what it's worth, I agree that good church governance is not a matter of priests forcing such things onto the church. I highly value deliberative and synodical processes which include robust lay participation. There also needs to be room for the voices of clergy spouses and their (grown) children!

We have a biblical foundation and our safeguards should align with that...

Sure. But nothing I suggested above in post #47 is out of alignment with a Biblical foundation. Sometimes we do need to go beyond what the text says.