Keep Women in the kitchen

[revsdd]

I suspect that is so because of the general lack of oversight of lay behaviour. .

That's an interesting point. Lakeridge Presbytery (and my pastoral charge) dealt with the remit around Office of Vocations in the last few weeks. In both discussions comments were made about discipline of clergy having to be moved out of Presbytery/Regional Council (depending on the fate of the 3 Court remit) because of (1) discipline needing to be arms length (2) you can't effectively discipline your peers because it will hurt your relationship with them (3) it sounds like an "old boys club" with clergy protecting other clergy. All those comments were made and a few others. It's curious that no one sees a problem with lay people in a congregation being under the discipline of other lay people in the congregation. I mean, if we're going to be consistent and say that clergy are to be accountable to some body that they aren't part of because that makes discipline more fair and effective then shouldn't we apply the same thinking to the discipline of lay people? Except that - revjohn is right - we don't discipline lay people very effectively (if at all) in the United Church. I've known lay people who should have been disciplined. I've pointed the behaviour out and asked for action to be taken. The one case I'm specifically thinking of was of a lay person who routinely verbally abused and tried to bully staff members (including me) sometimes to their face - more often, as everyone admitted, behind their backs both within the congregation and in the wider community and who would do the same to other lay people just to get their way. My simple request was for the Board to remove this person as Chair of the bloody Flower Committee just to at least make the point that your behaviour is unacceptable and you should have no leadership position in the congregation (even a simple one.) No one denied the bad behaviour on the individual's part. Responses, though: "That's not very Christian." "We can't do that. They might leave the church." "Aren't we supposed to be about forgiveness?" (In the back of their minds I suspect: "We might lose their offering.")

 

[Luce NDs]

Val Doonicans The Marvellous Toy comes to mine ... "blurp when starts, bop when it stops ... whirr ...!"

 

[Luce NDs]

That's an interesting point. Lakeridge Presbytery (and my pastoral charge) dealt with the remit around Office of Vocations in the last few weeks. In both discussions comments were made about discipline of clergy having to be moved out of Presbytery/Regional Council (depending on the fate of the 3 Court remit) because of (1) discipline needing to be arms length (2) you can't effectively discipline your peers because it will hurt your relationship with them (3) it sounds like an "old boys club" with clergy protecting other clergy. All those comments were made and a few others. It's curious that no one sees a problem with lay people in a congregation being under the discipline of other lay people in the congregation. I mean, if we're going to be consistent and say that clergy are to be accountable to some body that they aren't part of because that makes discipline more fair and effective then shouldn't we apply the same thinking to the discipline of lay people? Except that - revjohn is right - we don't discipline lay people very effectively (if at all) in the United Church. I've known lay people who should have been disciplined. I've pointed the behaviour out and asked for action to be taken. The one case I'm specifically thinking of was of a lay person who routinely verbally abused and tried to bully staff members (including me) sometimes to their face - more often, as everyone admitted, behind their backs both within the congregation and in the wider community and who would do the same to other lay people just to get their way. My simple request was for the Board to remove this person as Chair of the bloody Flower Committee just to at least make the point that your behaviour is unacceptable and you should have no leadership position in the congregation (even a simple one.) No one denied the bad behaviour on the individual's part. Responses, though: "That's not very Christian." "We can't do that. They might leave the church." (In the back of their minds I suspect: "We might lose their offering."

Who are the powers in the church of light? Lay people or the educated ministry!

Now that creates and impossible question for the duality ... unless they can gather and Klingon Tue some thoughts ... elusive things to mortals ...

 

[revsdd]

Who are the powers in the church of light? Lay people or the educated ministry!

Now that creates and impossible question for the duality ... unless they can gather and Klingon Tue some thoughts ... elusive things to mortals ...

Luce, stop the "Klingon Tue" crap. If you want to say "cling on to" then say "cling on to." You don't look wise, witty or anything else by writing it as "Klingon Tue." Seriously. If you're going to speak to me speak plainly. If you won't do that then please stop quoting me, tagging me or replying to me. That's a formal request. Please honour it.

Now, a response to you.

Both have power. In many ways the laity have more power. Although, given the anti-clerical bias that often raises its head in the United Church many lay people don't like being reminded that they have power. If you don't think lay people have power, you should try being clergy sometime.

If you're going to respond please do so clearly or don't bother.

 

[Luce NDs]

As darkly poetic (and despised for what can't be said about powers) I fade ...

 

[revjohn]

Do the bullies on either side ... know that they are bullies?

It is possible that they do not. They may be so poorly socialized that they fail to notice their ways and means are not normative.

For the most part I believe bullies are aware of their strategies and the fact that a strong personality could be their undoing.

if you can't say something nice about tyrants ... be silent ... and thus ballads and novels are created about "lam"!

Well, that is probably the "nice" trap that some are prone to falling into. It certainly doesn't help to pull the bullies fangs.

Hard to say if it is more a matter of cannot than a matter of will not. Prolonged will not is probably very similar to can not.

 

[revjohn]

It's curious that no one sees a problem with lay people in a congregation being under the discipline of other lay people in the congregation. I mean, if we're going to be consistent and say that clergy are to be accountable to some body that they aren't part of because that makes discipline more fair and effective then shouldn't we apply the same thinking to the discipline of lay people?

I went to the mic at GC 42 in the midst of the same kind of nonsense to say that we wouldn't say the same of parents.

It appears to oblique a point.

Which in many respects might illustrate why this problem might persist.

 

[KayTheCurler]

I know several people (including myself) who quit a congregation because of the behaviour of the laity. In at least two cases a clergy person had talked to the relevant part of the congregation about the poor behaviour without managing to change it.

 

[Pinga]

Yup, I fit in that category.