Posted by Helen on: 04.16.2007 /
I posted this on my own blog on Friday. Paul and I have been discussing it in the comments. He has brought up the issue of trust and said that this is no different from many things in life which are based on trust.
To me that’s hoping for the best; I don’t understand why we can’t hope for the best and yet at the same time protect people against the possibility of the worst – by setting up a structure which provides safety should the worst happen.
Last year I ran across a situation in which the pastor and founder of a large independent church resigned, after 28 years of leading it, when several men came forward and said he had inappropriately touched them. The pastor maintained his innocence; he said he was resigning because his credibility had been damaged. The elders supported his claim of innocence at the time of his resignation. About a month later the elders admitted they had not handled the charges against their pastor well – they had not shown sensitivity to those who came forward. Almost a year later they reversed their position about their former pastor’s innocence and said ‘new’ evidence showed he was guilty.
It’s very wrong that those men were inappropriately touched by a senior leader of the church; it makes it even worse that when they came forward they were called ‘liars’ by the senior pastor and the elders.
I suppose there’s no reason for me not to name the pastor and church: I’m referring to Bob Moorehead who was pastor of Overlake Church in Seattle. Here are some links about it:
What bothers me is, I know of no independent church which provides safety and protection for church members in the event that the worst happens and a leader does something inappropriate to them, that no-one else knows about. So it is their word against the leader’s. One of the roles of the elders is to protect the senior pastor and give him the benefit of the doubt; I understand that. But who protects the members? Why don’t churches have a safe objective mediator that a church member can go to in confidence and talk to, if the worst happens? Someone who will give the member a fair hearing and not brand him/her as a gossip, slanderer, liar, disruptive influence. All of which can easily happen if a member goes to the elders. They’re supposed to keep the pastor accountable; but their desire to protect the pastor and think the best of him hardly makes them objective and fair; there’s a conflict of interest there which acts to the detriment of the church member.
Why don’t churches learn from examples such as the one I mentioned and do something to make churches safer for members, in the event that the worst happens? I understand that everyone hopes for the best, but shouldn’t we also plan for the worst, just in case? I suppose church members facilitate this by accepting a power structure which could end up magnifying the hurt caused to them if a leader ever hurts them and they try to speak up about it.
This not only hurts members, but it makes it less likely that leaders who are behaving inappropriately in secret will be found out and removed from positions where they can continue the inappropriate behavior. Which is bad for the whole church.
Most people who can afford it buy insurance to protect themselves against the worst happening, even though they hope it never will. It probably doesn’t occur to them as they become increasingly drawn into independent churches, that there is no emotional insurance there; that if the worst happens, there may well be no safe place inside the church to be honest about it. That if they are ever sinned against by a leader, they likely will be sinned against more, and more publically, if they say anything about it.
I hope people wake up to how unsafe this environment is, and do something about it. If you know of any churches which have addressed this and have some sort of ‘safe mediator’ policy I’d love to hear about it. It would make me feel better.
Comment by: Paul
1Hi Helen, just to be clear I am not saying just trust and hope for the best. What I am saying is that often arrangements exist and in many cases work extremely well such as both people in the church and the pastoral staff feel treated with dignity and respect but their is a clear system of accountability and scrutiny.
My wider point is that there is no perfect system sadly. It is inevitable that at some point someone, somehow will find ways of undermining, or misapplying the system – because no one is perfect all the time.
In that small minority of cases where things go wrong I would hope that people learn how to improve the system and make it work better next time, just like in any other environment that relies on trust but protection exists for those in that arrangements. It’s where most legal case, risk managment, corporate governance best practice comes from – things going wrong and people learning the lessons afterwards and saying ok, maybe we should do it like this next time…
I think we need to look at ourselves and say do i have a predisposition for believing that i will not be able to trust so long as their are cases of systems breaking down and people being hurt as a result? Or to acknowledge that things do go wrong even in the best of environments but it is how these failures are rectified that is important?
In the example you give the pastor steps down, everyone in the world seems to know about it and the board is left to try and work out the mess – they learn through the process and are prepared to admit publically ok we didn’t handle that well, we can learn. They also just didn’t let it drop either and after what sounds like a period of thorough investigation were able to report that they had looked at the evidence and this showed that the pastor was not innocent.
Now, i can’t say how the men involved in the case feel about how they were treated as I am not one of them. But i think i would feel pleased that not only had the board been able to come out publically and say that i had not been treated as sympathetically as maybe they should have but that they didn’t sweep this under the carpet and went on to investigate and vindicate what I said.
I think i would have more faith in that system and that the board would have grown as a result of the process so that next time, should there be one, it would be handled so much better. But i would bet there would still be a learning process and somethings said and done that could still be improved on.
Maybe that’s the test – where people are committed to a transparent, open, honest process of accountability, which is their in recognition that things go wrong – how do they learn from their mistakes and do so in a way where we can all grow in trust as a community?
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks Paul. Sorry if I misstated/misconstrued what you’re saying. Thanks for clarifying.
Are you saying that of all the churches with the same structure, only those whose structure has failed should add a ‘safety net’?
Why wouldn’t all the other churches learn from those where the structure failed “wow, this structure can fail – let’s put a safety net in place”.
I don’t see why trust and safety nets can’t be a both/and.
A safety net says to me “We care so much about your safety that we’re going to put this in place even though we make every effort to choose trustworthy leaders”.
It would impress me. It wouldn’t imply to me “we don’t trust ourselves”, yet it would also show a proper respect for what churches say they believe, which is “temptation is common to man”. (Man means everyone including leaders, of course)
If what you’re saying is “if/when we fail then we’ll know we need a safety net” that bothers me because if you do fail, people other than you could get very hurt. Just like they no doubt did at the Seattle church. If that’s the approach then it sounds like the only churches I’d even consider going to are ones which have already failed and have demonstrated their ability to learn from that by putting a safety net in place.
Comment by: Makeesha
3Helen, I’m not sure there really is such a thing as a “safety net”. I guess I’m confused, if a pastor is inappropriately touching people, why don’t they level charges against him? ultimately, the “law” needs to get involved don’t you think? And ultimately, that’s the only truly “uninvolved” mediator.
I think an unbiased person for someone to go to is a great idea but I’m not sure how that would work TBH. And I know how manipulative and deceptive people in churches can be when they decide to turn against their pastor so you have to be sensitive to that as well. You’re sort of assuming it sound like, that the accused is always guilty because they’re “pastors”.
Comment by: Makeesha
4I forgot to say that I think the “problem” is deeper than a lack of accountability, I think the problem has more to do with the very nature of the hierarchal structure to begin with.
Comment by: Helen
5Thanks for your comments, Makeesha.
Maybe they’re afraid no one will believe them if it’s just their word against his.
If it’s something criminal, yes, the law does need to get involved. If it’s a moral indiscretion which is considered to disqualify a leader from continuing to lead, yet isn’t criminal then that situation wouldn’t involve the law (like an affair, for example).
People like counselors are trained to keep confidences, listen, etc. Why couldn’t someone like that who doesn’t belong to a church be a safe objective listener at least to a member’s concerns? One of my related concerns about church leaders is that they often don’t seem to be trained in those sorts of skills and their natural ability plus training results in mediocre people skills at best. This is not helpful when an emotionally sensitive issue needs to be dealt with.
Maybe I should clarify: I do realize that people falsely accuse pastors – it would be just as wrong to believe everything a member said just because they said it, as it would be to disbelieve what a member said just because it’s said about a pastor that lots of people have trusted.
That seems quite possible to me.
Comment by: Makeesha
6Helen, what concerns me with the way you’re approaching this is you’re creating an even deeper and more formalized structure that has yet to protect anyone (the catholic church is a good example) any more than a less structured system does.
I’m not disagreeing with your suggestions or saying that there aren’t problems necessarily. I’m just not sure that it’s as simple as having an unbiased person available for people to go to…because ultimately, that person still doesn’t have any “authority” over the “pastor”.
the only reason denominations have power over their pastors is because they have control over their money. The same reason why a board of elders has control. Ultimately, the only thing a church can do is take away the pastor’s source of income which, again, doesn’t really do anything by way of solving problems.
and an unbiased mediator wouldn’t be able to do anything at all – -except report the accusations to the elders (or whatever other leadership structure is in place) so really, you’re just adding another person who gets to hear the dirty underbelly news of the church.
I know of denominations who have layers and layers of “accountability” and still have just as many issues as independent churches without those layers.
Comment by: Helen
7Makeesha wrote:
Isn’t it up to the elders whether that person has authority? If the elders decide to listen to him/her, then he/she does have authority over the pastors, because the elders have that authority and in effect they decide to share it with the mediator person.
Maybe I haven’t come up with a workable solution. If not I hope someone else can.
Comment by: Makeesha
8I see what you’re saying helen and I’m sure it wouldn’t be a bad thing necessarily. I guess I just start feeling a little weird when people try to institute more layers of “authority” to try to eliminate all problems or potential for problems from the church.
churches are gatherings of flawed humans, there will be problems – - even BAD problems
gathering of christ followers can institute some layers of protection but ultimately nothing is really going to stop stuff from happening and multiple layers of authority can end up backfiring big time in other areas of faith communities.
Comment by: benjamin ady
9I’m curious if anyone knows much about the Anglican church’s take on this whole issue? Have they had the same problems as the Catholic church? I remember being enormously impressed at some of the literature regarding this whole issue which I saw in an Anglican Church I attended in Sydney a while ago. Gave me the impression they have taken some good steps to create the safety net Helen speaks of. Maybe we could learn something from them?
Comment by: JG
10Helen,
I share your concerns.
I have seen it from both sides – 1) wrongdoing on the part of one or more leaders ignored and brushed aside by the leadership as whole and 2) leaders badly treated as a result of false or misleading allegations which were used by other leaders to further their own objectives.
But in the case you quote, I note the truth appears to have been established with a year. It would have been better for the situation not to have arisen at all. It would have been better if the truth had been established immediately. But given the difficulty of these situations, acknowledgment of truth after only a year gives me encouragement.
What about those situations where the truth has still not been acknowledged, years after the event? Can you imagine what that feels like?
Comment by: Makeesha
11I’m not familiar with them. But I can think of a few “denominations” off hand who haven’t had those sort of issues to the extent that many have and they are smaller, less structured and more focused on disbursing leadership. I personally think, not to beat the proverbial dead horse, that increased layers are not going to be the answer and it hearkens back to other situations that make me wary.
Comment by: Staci
12I knew of a church that developed a “resource list” of local non-profits, government agencies, and private companies/practices. These were listed under various headings such as crisis services, mental health, food insecurity, child care, etc. Each organization gave permission for their contact information to be included on the list. While not the formal moderator idea discussed above, this did provide a way for people to find an objective and professional person to talk to. At least it sent a message that it was ok to need help and it was ok to seek outside help for that need.
The church also had a building on their property, but separate from the regular church building, dedicated to providing such services to the community. It was used as a weekly soup kitchen, AA/NA and other recovery group meeting location, etc.
Comment by: Helen
13Makeesha – I understand your concerns about adding more structure which might not help and which might backfire in other ways.
JG – I’m not sure that Bob Moorehead ever admitted he was guilty. But as you say, it’s good that the elders admitted he was one year later, though not as good as if they’d admitted it right away, or even better, if it hadn’t happened at all.
Comment by: Makeesha
14helen – - I’m concerned that there is a tendency to assume the worst of pastors too quickly and it’s important that elders or any other oversight walk the line of hearing people’s accusations but not automatically assuming the worst of the pastor…because people DO get falsely accused – - esp. high profile pastors…therein lies MY idea, don’t let pastors become high profile ;) sort of tongue in cheek since I know that’s not possible but none the less…worth considering
Comment by: Helen
15Makeesha, I respect your concern; what I’ve actually seen is imbalance the other way. I haven’t heard of an innocent pastor being fired by elders, but I’ve heard of guilty ones wrongly defended by elders.
Not letting pastors become high profile does seem like a good idea – that would be good for a number of reasons. If they weren’t high profile it would be easier for them to be human beings in all sorts of ways.
Comment by: Julie Clawson
16I think there are a handful of high profile cases where a guilty clergy was defended by the elders. But among no-name pastors I run into at conventions or online the story seems to run along the lines of get rid of the pastor at the first sign of conflict. Wrongly accused (gee the youth pastor told my dad I was smoking pot of church property, I’m going to say he molested me), suspected of impropiety (I saw the pastor near the porn section at the video store, he must be sinning), or slandered through silence (the pastor is taking a leave of absence and we aren’t allowed to ask about it, it must be sexual) are all common stories I hear. From my experience, churches hate conflict. They can easily fire a pastor, but they can’t replace the check the disgruntled tithe each week. So truth and love don’t matter. If there’s a complaint that pastor is gone.
Comment by: Helen
17Julie, I would say those churches also have a problematic power structure – they are evidently run, in practice, by people with money.
It seems odd that the pastor evidently lacked a core of people who support him in his role and will carefully assess whether accusations made against him are true or not.
I’d add this to the list of structure problems; I wouldn’t want to be in a church where I was ignored because I didn’t give as much money as others, any more than I’d want to be in one where it wasn’t possible to raise a concern about a leader that would achieve anything more than making people think that I was a disruptive influence and resistant to the good things God wanted to do in my life.
Comment by: benjamin ady
18Helen,
What I learned was that “church leaders” will always, eventually, decide I am “a disruptive influence”, and treat me as such (they tend to react based on what seems to me to be an underlying fear that they have). This was the rule, and there were of course (beautiful, rare) exceptions. This is part of why I quit going to church. I agree with you in a general sense in that it seems to me that church leaders in general haven’t been trained/learned to be aware of the nature/extent of the power which they possess by nature of their position, at least not not in terms of the negative side of that power.
Comment by: Makeesha
19I think there is a trend toward reactionary responses against “the church” when we have been in places of pain. I have done this, I have seen it done and I still see it done. I personally am not currently called to a “traditional church structure” either to lead or simply participate but that doesn’t mean they are inherently bad.
All organizations made up of humans have these sorts of problems and we run the risk of landing on two sides of the fence in reaction to it – - 1. get rid of organizations (which ultimately is impossible and not healthy anyway, 2 people make an organized structure) or 2. say it’s impossible and give up trying.
surely we need to address the concerns and problems but to do so in a reactionary way by instituting extreme measures or by casting blame here there and everywhere is not good.
everyone from the girl scouts to the Buddhist community center has “power issues” or structure problems. it’s the nature of things any time a gathering of flawed humans occurs.
our words and actions need to be tempered with grace and wisdom, something I fail at regularly…but none the less keep trying.
Comment by: Helen
20Benjamin, yes, I thought you’d understand.
But here, with all due respect, aren’t you doing what concerns me? Whether this was directed towards me or others, you are labelling the people who speak up about problems they see as the problem.
That IS what bothers me; that IS why the system fails.
Anyway if your comments were to me, I really don’t consider a safe mediator an extreme measure. If you do then I respectfully disagree.
Also I’m not sure where I was casting blame here there and everywhere. I’ve looked at situations where the elders themselves have confessed they messed up and agreed and I’ve wondered how we can be sure it won’t happen in other places with the same structure.
I’m trying to suggest solutions, not just complain.
I know you get angry about things too because I read this just the other day on bob’s blog (I think you wrote it):
Have my comments been more reactionary than yours, there?
Comment by: Elaine
21I agree there are problems with independent churches that have no checks and balances built into their structure. It makes it difficult if you have an issue to get an unbiased hearing from church leadership. To add to the frustration, there is no regional or national leadership for appealing their decision.
Helen – in response to your statement, “To me that’s hoping for the best; I don’t understand why we can’t hope for the best and yet at the same time protect people against the possibility of the worst – by setting up a structure which provides safety should the worst happen.”
We can’t prevent random acts of evil/sin – However,I agree we can set up a structure that provides safety. The best examples I have experienced have had structures where there is transparency in systems and processes, open communication, and dissent is a valued piece of the process.
I am personally aware of 2 situations where there was transparancy in the process. In both cases, these pastors (not senior level) – when confronted – confessed.
I would like to believe that this indicated both institutions had healthy systems.
Comment by: Helen
22Thanks for your comment, Elaine.
I know lots of Christians/followers of Jesus I enjoy being with and talking with.
Outside church, where it’s a level playing field.
I need to be respectful of my own needs for safety and if a place doesn’t feel safe for me, I need to stay away. No matter how safe other people think it is.
Comment by: Elaine
23Yes, I totally agree with you Helen.
“If a place doesn’t feel safe for me, I need to stay away”.
I know I have a tendency to discount my “feelings” when I can’t give a “logical” explanation for why I don’t feel safe around certain people or places. I also know, everytime I ignore this intuition or spiritual knowing – it comes back to haunt me. It requires my paying attention to what my spirit, tension in my body, etc. is telling me to keep myself and others (children) safe.
It is hard for me to imagine, as in the case of the Overlake pastor, that there were not some symptoms, incongruencies of behavior that might have given people around him a clue that something was awry.
If they did notice, was there a safe place for them to express their concerns?
Comment by: joe
24In what I am about to say, please do not read that I am justifying any kind of abuse by anyone in a leadership position. I also do not want to under estimate or downplay the feelings of the victims in this case, which must be very difficult.
My point is this – unfortunately the system in an Independent church cuts both ways. I know of two occasions – one of which I was closely involved in – where pastors have been removed from the role. In the latter case, the issue seems to have blown up from a dispute over whether the pastor’s wife could sing and whether she should be visiting a sick person from the congregation.
In that case, the pastor was removed at a church meeting. He says he had no right to reply. This cut his only income and made him effectively homeless. There was nobody to appeal to and nothing anyone could do to remedy the situation.
I was so disgusted that the next time I moved towns I started to attend the Episcopal church.
Yes, our churches need to be aware of the way that power corrupts and take allegations of abuse seriously. But equally, they need to appreciate that Pastors are human beings and accord to them at least the same rights of disciplinary hearings and so on that one would expect as a right in any other profession.
Comment by: Helen
25Joe, insofar as the system fails for pastors I’d like to see that addressed also.
I can’t help thinking, wow, why are people in church so mean to each other? Seems like they are missing the point somewhere along the line.
I don’t want a mediator so I can be mean. I just want to feel safe. Maybe this is selfish, but I want to feel like, wow, this place cares about me enough to protect my safety. When I walk into a church I’d like to feel like – “this is a community where I will be safe” rather than “I get involved here at my own risk because these people aren’t necessarily safe”.
If the community has people who will unfairly dismiss the pastor then it doesn’t sound safer than one where leaders don’t take concerns of members seriously. The same problem of power being in the wrong hands/being wrongly used combined with a lack of genuine love exists.
Elaine, thanks for your comments about safety.
Comment by: JG
26Helen,
Very much agree with much of what you say on this topic.
Two thoughts.
1) Safe. My view is that the only truly safe position is one where you are not relating to anyone. Simon and Garfunkel, I am a Rock I am an Island. Relationship involves risk. Yes, we will feel more at ease with some relationships than with others. But the more you trust someone, the more you open yourself up to hurt if they then let you down.
If we ever managed to find a truly safe environment, would it remain safe if we joined it?
2) For me, the focus on whether it was the Pastor or the church at fault misses the point. If a problem, dispute or allegation arises then you have two sides, probably with an element of right and wrong on both sides and a degree of hurt on both sides.
Where these situations are dealt with well is were both sides are looked after rather than where things are proprayed as black and white and which ever side is labelled as being black gets clobbered.
Often the truth can’t truly be established. It is one person’s word against another. Care needs to be taken in such situations not to leave the accuser feeling they are not believed and not to find the accused guilty when there really is not the clear evidence to support it. Where there is genuine cause for concern, it is probably right for the person to step down, not because they are guilty but because there is cause for concern. Great sensitivity is required.
Comment by: Helen
27Hi JG, thanks for your comments.
I agree – in fact that’s why I tried to make the distinction that I like relationships, but not relationships framed by an unequal power structure (unless I voluntarily agree to that because there’s a definite payoff for me – like a job where I’m being paid to do what my employer asks for). I suppose the problem is me not seeing a payoff from the church unequal power structure that makes it worthwhile for me. I see downside risk but not enough offsetting benefit to make me interested in the structure rather than just having Christian friends.
If I joined it, of course it would! ;-)
Ok, maybe not – but I would be happily say yes if asked “would you like structural protection against the possibility that your own weaknesses hurt other people”? Yes, we might need to negotiate what that would look like. I wouldn’t say, hey, trust me, what’s wrong with you? (Maybe other people don’t say that either but I can’t help feeling that’s the implication when I can’t see something that looks safe to me)
Exactly.
Comment by: Helen
28Hi JG, thanks for your comments.
I agree – in fact that’s why I tried to make the distinction that I like relationships, but not relationships framed by an unequal power structure (unless I voluntarily agree to that because there’s a definite payoff for me – like a job where I’m being paid to do what my employer asks for). I suppose the problem is me not seeing a payoff from the church unequal power structure that makes it worthwhile for me. I see downside risk but not enough offsetting benefit to make me interested in the structure rather than just having Christian friends.
If I joined it, of course it would! ;-)
Ok, maybe not – but I would be happily say yes if asked “would you like structural protection against the possibility that your own weaknesses hurt other people”? Yes, we might need to negotiate what that would look like. I wouldn’t say, hey, trust me, what’s wrong with you? (Maybe other people don’t say that either but I can’t help feeling that’s the implication when I can’t see something that looks safe to me)
Exactly.
Comment by: Helen
29A couple of general thoughts:
1) It seems to me that the opinions expressed here are very correlated with whether the person expressing them a) is a lay person who has been hurt by leadership structure and/or has lay friends who have b) is a leader who has been hurt by false accusations or has friends who have.
2) I don’t want to invalidate anyone else’s experiences of being hurt, or seeing their friends hurt – if I have inadvertently done that with anything I’ve written, I apologize. In turn, I would respectfully request that those who choose to comment not invalidate mine.
Comment by: Paul
30Hi Helen, after letting this brew for awhile and not wishing to invalidate your feelings my Q is what is your safety net that you think should be in place? You mention some mediator is this what you are saying would make you feel safe – a church where people have access to a mediating person? In other words this would be your safety net rather than the only form of safety net?
Comment by: Helen
31Paul, I guess I would like people not to say the safety problem is all in my head; but on the other hand I expect lots of people are happy with the current system – so that indicates safety is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (or rather the feelings of the person seeking safety). So I see both a subjective and objective component to this.
I would like a mediating person like Jesus with skin on, I guess – and that’s actually a serious comment, considering the theological model of Jesus as the one who absolutely guarantees me ‘safety’ in God’s presence in which – in conservative theology – I absolutely couldn’t even enter without a mediator. In Jesus I am 100% accepted by God, so the theology goes.
I would like that level of safety in the room when I talk to a leader who is not even a supreme all-powerful authority like God.
And since every church leader claims to be a Jesus follower it seems like it’s not an unreasonable thing to wish for, inside a church?
I once was in a situation where I naively thought a third person was coming specially to be a mediator between me and someone else. Instead they came to back up the someone else by telling me how out of line I was. They did it so well that the someone else ended up defending me somewhat to the third person.
I never discussed with them afterwards; and sure I can forgive anyone who needs forgiving. If they need forgiving – whatever; sometimes people never even agree on that, if they all thought what they did was the best course of action. But I won’t ever forget what it felt like.
I trusted that system until that happened so of course I recognize that lots of other people trust systems that I can’t imagine myself ever trusting again.
Comment by: Makeesha
32Helen, I wasn’t commenting directly to you sweetie, I was commenting on the issue in general. Your comments and concerns are completely valid and I’ve mentioned that at least twice in this conversation. There ARE problems, there ARE concerns.
You know me. You know where I’ve been. But because I’m a leader and someone hurt by leaders I really try to walk that line. I’m not saying you’re doing or saying anything wrong. But I am challenging some of your ideas and premises.
challenging those things does not mean I’m invalidating you.
Comment by: Makeesha
33I’m sorry I made you feel invalidated Helen. I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I have been a leader and hurt by a leader and hear my words through that lens. That is my fault for assuming. please forgive me
Comment by: Helen
34Makeesha, I’m not sure you need forgiving but of course I do, if you do…I realize I am touchy about these things. Please forgive me too if I jumped to any conclusions. And please continue to challenge my ideas and premises – otherwise it will get very boring around here :)
I don’t know much about your history but I’m beginning to think there is some hurt in most peoples’ history and if I’m going to assume anything that’s a good place to start!
Comment by: Makeesha
35it’s a love fest! join in the hugging ;)
Comment by: Julie Clawson
36Helen. I wasn’t trying to invalidate your experience, just sharing from my experience as you pointed out. I respect your concerns, but still have reservations as to your suggestion.
I think part of my issue is that in appointing a mediator the church is assuming that there will be issues. It says we don’t trust our members or the pastor.
I’m not naive and know that there can/will be issues in some places. But I would feel more safe in a situation where I was trusted to be a decent human being from the get go instead of look upon with suspicion just because I held the position of pastor.
I liked the idea of knowing that outside resources for mediation exist and being willing to use them if the need ever arose. Because honestly I don’t see the possibility for there being an unbiased third party in the church.
Comment by: Makeesha
37that’s a good way of putting how I feel too julie
Comment by: Helen
38Thanks Julie and Makeesha.
I suppose the way I feel is, would I like you to be my friend? Yes. Does it bother me that you’re a pastor? No – I find it interesting, actually. Would I like you to be my pastor? No thanks.
Comment by: seekingsomething
39Sorry to be joining in so late, but I’ve been lurking a while and mulling over this very interesting conversation. :)
I’m not currently in a Church and don’t currently call myself a Christian (though I used to do both and am re-engaging with a few ‘old’ issues right now).
I fall neither into the category of
a) a lay person who has been hurt by leadership structure and/or has lay friends who have
b) a leader who has been hurt by false accusations or has friends who have.
I’m really interested in your idea Helen, but I don’t think I yet understand and I’d be really grateful if you could explain further – what sort of framework would the ‘safety net’ exist within?
So, for example, if you were to draw the structure, what would it look like?
As I see it there would be a Church (the people) at the bottom and above them the leadership – and the church would in many cases though not all belong to some sort of denomination which may or may not have its own authority structure. What specifically would be the role and relationship of the ‘safety net’ person. Would it be just one person, or would it be a body. Who would appoint them? Who would support them? Would they themselves belong to another church nearby? Of the same or different denomination? would they be paid/unpaid? What systems/structure/procedures would be needed to ensure that the saftey net actually worked?
But I can personally see that this might be a good idea. I don’t necessarily think that having a safety net means that we are mis-trusting of the specific pastor – to me it just acknowledges that things CAN go wrong. I would see this as a safety net for both sides. It says to the Church member that the church cares enough to put a safety net in place for them; it says to the pastor that the church cares enough to protect everybody – including them – and promises that problems will be dealt with promptly and thoroughly so that a conclusion is reached ASAP and with minimal damage all round.
To draw on the analogy with auditors earlier – in my organisation audit (both internal and external) has several functions -it gives a strong message that irregularities WILL be picked up on and dealt with (so we’d better be careful!); but it also gives out the message: we are so confident in our squaeky cleanness that we are happy to have measures in place that WOULD show up our faults IF we had them – but hey it also advertises that we don’t!
I can’t speak as a church employee, but as a secular employee I feel relieved, not burdened, that there are processes in place that my colleagues/clients can use to air any grievances that they may have with me. I’m sure I’d hate it if those processes were used, but I can be sure that if problems do arise they will be dealt with formally, which leaves a lower likelihood that colleagues/clients will stew unnecessarily over matters that should be resolved or resort to informal means such as slander/backstabbing/gossip to deal with me….
So for my part, I’d see this as a good thing Helen – I just am curious as to how it would work out in detail?
Comment by: Helen
40Hi seekingsomething,
I have to say I don’t know exactly how it would work out in detail. I was hoping someone else could figure that out for me ;-)
I was actually thinking of churches which are completely stand-alone; they have no denomination. I’d like to hope that denominational churches have some place people can go other than their local leadership to raise concerns about their local leadership – but I don’t actually know. Denominational churches I assume would need to have anything they want to do approved by the denomination’s leadership.
But I can personally see that this might be a good idea. I don’t necessarily think that having a safety net means that we are mis-trusting of the specific pastor – to me it just acknowledges that things CAN go wrong. I would see this as a safety net for both sides. It says to the Church member that the church cares enough to put a safety net in place for them; it says to the pastor that the church cares enough to protect everybody – including them – and promises that problems will be dealt with promptly and thoroughly so that a conclusion is reached ASAP and with minimal damage all round.
Yes, this is exactly how I see it. I guess I’m a little surprised more people don’t see it this way. I wonder if it’s because of some underlying difference in the way Christians view the world compared to other people (I expect I had better brace myself to get in trouble for that egregious generalization). I was thinking about this last week as I wrote the review of Hemant’s book – how ‘trust’ is so core to the Christian belief system, I think it can flow over into the way (some) Christians think about everything and make them see various things in a more negative light than they actually need to be seen.
It seems to me that there are two big-picture approaches when something goes wrong in a system that is not one’s own, but is structured largely like one’s own. One is to say “That could never happen here – our system works fine. On the other hand, if it ever does, sure we’d make changes!” The other is to say “Wow, is there anything we can do to make that less likely to occur here? Let’s think about if there is and if there is, let’s do it”
I heard on the radio this morning that a local college is stepping up their security. Why? No-one has ever been shot on their campus – or most other campuses. Why don’t they say “Hey, it could never happen here/but if it does, then we’ll change our security procedures.” Is it simply a matter of degree – a shooting on campus is more serious than most things that go wrong in churches?
Comment by: seekingsomething
41Thanks for clarifying about your intention that this structure should be in place for independednt churches Helen. Hmm, lots to think on there.
As an aside, this reminds me of a (vaguely-related) situation back in the 90s when I attended a church where I felt very secure.
At a time when child abuse was big in the news, the Church brought in a new policy that meant that every church member who had contact with children had to complete an application form, provide references and undergo (externally provided) training on child abuse and safety (including teachers of sunday school classes, those that drove the minibus and even those that served the juice and cleaned the kitchen after Sunday School. Everyone had to do this at the start of the policy even if they had taught Sunday School for 40 years. Everyone was trained and told frankly that if they suspected abuse they were to report it directly to the authorities. They would be allowed to ask for support from the elders, but the elders would not form a ‘gateway’ to the authorities or help in the decision-making – everything must be reported and investigated thoroughly and independently.
This new policy raised huge amounts of discussion and some upset over issues of trust and suspicion, along the lines of the discussion here. Surprisingly to me, the people who accepted it and promoted it the best were the ‘old-timers’ – the very people who I would have expected to be most upset over trust issues. The older generation in that church set a fine example in their graciousness and understanding that the issue wasn’t about them -it was about the safety of the children first and the reputation of the church second.
Personally I would expect that part of the maturity required to be a church leader would be demonstrated by an ability to accept that because the world is fallen, because the worst SOMETIMES happens, then it is a responsibility of a leader to show the necessary humility to subject themselves to an accountability structure.
Comment by: Helen
42seekingsomething wrote:
Again, I feel that way too – although I don’t want to come across as judgmental or superior (maybe it’s too late for that now though).
Comment by: seekingsomething
43To me, Helen, you don’t sound judgmental or superior and I sincerely didn’t mean to either :)
Although I agree with you about the desirability of such a system, possibly more than others who have responded, I still am not sure exactly what this safety net system would look like, or whether it would necessarily be ‘do-able’.
I really liked your description of what you’d like to see:
“I would like a mediating person like Jesus with skin on”
That’s a great description. I have trust issues with church too, though not particularly with the leadership… my issues are more broadly related to the difficulty of investing personal energy and trust in regular church members – calling them ‘family’ but then over time coming to realise that their only really strong allegiances are to their own biological family…. so if I were to describe my ideal church co-member, I’d also use the description: a family member like Jesus with skin on.
But realistically there was only one Jesus with skin on, wasn’t there… the rest of us are fallible as each other.
My point is, even if somehow we put a mediator in place, how can any human being be relied upon to be perfectly objective and trustworthy. Might not the mediator be subconsciosly swayed towards the side of the leadership – after a lifetime of being brought up to submit to authority. Or be swayed because ultimately the Church, in some form pays the mediator’s expenses/wages?
I just don’t know. I guess, it still wouldn’t hurt to try to put something in place – and we SHOULD do all that we can – but maybe ultimately we have to accept that all we can do is decrease the probability of bad things happening… but probably never remove the probability altogether???
Comment by: Makeesha
44we are all to submit one to another. so ideally, anyone in a faith community would be interdependent not independent. Interdependence calls for all to rise to a level of maturity to guard and guide one another.
For example, my husband and I are leaders of an organic/simple church community. We have 3 ex pastor couples who we talk to on a regular basis and who know just about everything about where we’ve been and where we’re hoping to go. We also have a missions association that we’re in contact with and they make sure we, our family and our community is healthy and strong and they are available to anyone if there are questions or concerns.
We also connect on a personal level with several of our “core members” (traditionally called elders I guess).
But our community also is not hierarchical in any traditional sense so we don’t “control” what goes on any more than any other members of our core team. We guide and guard the vision and direction of our community and we lead in so far as we serve but we are not the only leaders.
Because of this interdependence, we really couldn’t get away with anything nor would we want to.
accusations could be brought to any of those people in our lives and because of the “balance”, there would be the caution of due process but there would also be people involved who aren’t necessarily our “friends” and would be less biased.
We’re doing a lot of this as we go so I don’t claim superiority but perhaps something like this is what you’re thinking about?
Comment by: Helen
45seekingsomething, yes, I don’t think we could remove all risk.
Re: church relationships being/not being ‘family’ – I had a hard time with my expectations of evangelical Christians in general until I started to doubt that they had the Holy Spirit empowering them and other people didn’t. That doubt resulted in me deciding to think of them as just like everyone else and after that I didn’t have particular problems with my expectations of evangelical Christians any more.
It was very damaging to my conservative evangelical Christian faith though, that ‘they’re just like everyone else’ fitted what I experienced of evangelical Christians much better than ‘they’re uniquely empowered by God’s Holy Spirit’. (Yes, they were different because they spoken in Christianese and went to church – but I was looking for something radical and deep and which would bring me to my knees and which I couldn’t find an exact copy of (less the Christianese) among non-evangelical Christians.)
I never found it so…here I am. Almost an atheist. Wondering if it’s even fair of me to critique churches since it’s unlikely I’d go anyway even if one tried to do something along the lines I’d like.