Keep Women in the kitchen

[Pinga]

I am not sure what you are getting at here, @GeoFee . Are you suggesting that any bullying situation in a church develops under the oversight and disciple of the minister and/or the presbytery?

 

[revsdd]

I am not sure what you are getting at here, @GeoFee . Are you suggesting that any bullying situation in a church develops under the oversight and disciple of the minister and/or the presbytery?

Assuming that the bullying is being done by lay people (revjohn referred to "parishioners" in Post 52 which introduced this part of the discussion) then I'd point out that lay members of the United Church are not under the oversight and discipline of ministers and/or Presbytery, but are instead under the oversight and discipline of the congregational governing body. So I'm not really sure what GeoFee is getting at here either, although in my experience I would say that most congregational governing bodies do a lousy job of holding lay members of their congregation accountable, no matter what the behaviour might be.

 

[Jaebius]

...although in my experience I would say that most congregational governing bodies do a lousy job of holding lay members of their congregation accountable, no matter what the behaviour might be.

Really revsdd. As a member of a church that operates with a congregational governing polity I'd love to hear more.

 

[Mendalla]

Really revsdd. As a member of a church that operates with a congregational governing polity I'd love to hear more.

Even in a congregational church, if a member is bullying, harassing, or abusing other members or the staff, it is the board (or similar) that is responsible for dealing with the issue as they are the ones who will be answerable to the congregation if/when the bullying, harassment, or abuse leads to a lawsuit or other action impacting the church.

 

[Jaebius]

Even in a congregational church, if a member is bullying, harassing, or abusing other members or the staff, it is the board (or similar) that is responsible for dealing with the issue as they are the ones who will be answerable to the congregation if/when the bullying, harassment, or abuse leads to a lawsuit or other action impacting the church.

Okay, if a congregational church has a board. That doesn't explain, however, why @revsdd feels that, "...most congregational governing bodies do a lousy job of holding lay members of their congregation accountable..." I trust it isn't like him to just speak unkindly of churches that operate with a different polity than his own does.

 

[Mendalla]

Okay, if a congregational church has a board. That doesn't explain, however, why @revsdd feels that, "...most congregational governing bodies do a lousy job of holding lay members of their congregation accountable..." I trust it isn't like him to just speak unkindly of churches that operate with a different polity than his own does.

You are misreading him. He is not talking about congregational churches, but the bodies that govern congregations in any church (board, council, whatever it may be called). In the UCCan, the congregation is one of the courts of the church. IOW, he is using "congregational" as a modifier for "governing bodies", not "church".

 

[Jaebius]

You are misreading him. He is not talking about congregational churches, but the bodies that govern congregations in any church (board, council, whatever it may be called). In the UCCan, the congregation is one of the courts of the church. IOW, he is using "congregational" as a modifier for "governing bodies", not "church".

Huh? Sorry - now you've really lost me. It sounds to me like @revsdd is criticizing churches that operate with a congregational polity such as mine does, as opposed to churches that have higher bodies such as the UCCanada, Presbyterian, and Anglican denominations do.

 

[Pinga]

He is referring to the governing body of the congregation. In the United Church of canada, the governing body of the congregation is the board (or similair name dependent on model used)

 

[Jaebius]

He is referring to the governing body of the congregation. In the United Church of canada, the governing body of the congregation is the board (or similair name dependent on model used)

Okay, thanks Pinga and @Mendalla - I was misreading @revsdd - my experience hasn't been the same as the good Reverend though. In the churches I've been in the leadership did hold the members to account.

 

[Pinga]

The challenge for that kind of situation is it let's the congregation's governing body (aka board) dump their responsibility.
When that happens, should the minister change and you end up with a minister who expects the congregation's board to do their work, you cnn set up the congregation for failure.

 

[Luce NDs]

How did such a culture take root and prosper among us? Under the oversight and discipline of whom?

George

Is such un common ...?

 

[Luce NDs]

Really revsdd. As a member of a church that operates with a congregational governing polity I'd love to hear more.

These polities can be rigid ... even stone-like ... hard to crack when the fife is in Eire ... goes both ways ... not one way!

Ca deuce's ... did I say that? Nun, naught ...

 

[Seeler]

I once attended a congregation that had strong leadership from the board. They met frequently and managed the church, mainly through commitee- everything from keeping the building in good repair and managing finances to oversight of the congregation (each elder had a certain number of families to keep in touch with), Christian development. Even our marriage policy, and our baptism policy, were worked out in committee and approved by the 'Board'. The minister was called for word, sacrament and pastoral care. S/he preached, led adult study (regularly or occasionally), presided over the sacraments, and did pastoral care - supported by the Committees.

Then came a change in Pastoral relations. The minister retired, the new minister wanted a bigger role at Board meetings (more, he said, than just being there and giving his report) and gradually took over some of the responsibilities heretofore looked after by others.
A couple of years later another minister, then another. Each accepting (requesting or demanding), more control. The chair of the Board resigned. The Board was restructured to require fewer people and fewer meetings. By then the minister was one of three people on the nominating committee, recommending or vetoing people for Board positions. And, in order to have Board meetings move along efficiently (so we get out of here at a decent time), the minister would meet with the Executive (a very small group) and make 'recommendations?' to be 'approved' by the Board. Responsibility had moved almost entirely from the Congregation to the Minister.

About this time I left this congregation. Within a year there was another minister. I don't know how the Board is structured now.

 

[Luce NDs]

I once attended a congregation that had strong leadership from the board. They met frequently and managed the church, mainly through commitee- everything from keeping the building in good repair and managing finances to oversight of the congregation (each elder had a certain number of families to keep in touch with), Christian development. Even our marriage policy, and our baptism policy, were worked out in committee and approved by the 'Board'. The minister was called for word, sacrament and pastoral care. S/he preached, led adult study (regularly or occasionally), presided over the sacraments, and did pastoral care - supported by the Committees.

Then came a change in Pastoral relations. The minister retired, the new minister wanted a bigger role at Board meetings (more, he said, than just being there and giving his report) and gradually took over some of the responsibilities heretofore looked after by others.
A couple of years later another minister, then another. Each accepting (requesting or demanding), more control. The chair of the Board resigned. The Board was restructured to require fewer people and fewer meetings. By then the minister was one of three people on the nominating committee, recommending or vetoing people for Board positions. And, in order to have Board meetings move along efficiently (so we get out of here at a decent time), the minister would meet with the Executive (a very small group) and make 'recommendations?' to be 'approved' by the Board. Responsibility had moved almost entirely from the Congregation to the Minister.

About this time I left this congregation. Within a year there was another minister. I don't know how the Board is structured now.

I know the feeling Seeler ... always a monopoliser hiding in the group ...

Then there is the unseen monopoly ... particularly denied as any part of the closed/orthodox group. Does Christ spirit reach beyond that?

 

[revsdd]

I once attended a congregation that had strong leadership from the board. They met frequently and managed the church, mainly through commitee- everything from keeping the building in good repair and managing finances to oversight of the congregation (each elder had a certain number of families to keep in touch with), Christian development. Even our marriage policy, and our baptism policy, were worked out in committee and approved by the 'Board'. The minister was called for word, sacrament and pastoral care. S/he preached, led adult study (regularly or occasionally), presided over the sacraments, and did pastoral care - supported by the Committees.

Then came a change in Pastoral relations. The minister retired, the new minister wanted a bigger role at Board meetings (more, he said, than just being there and giving his report) and gradually took over some of the responsibilities heretofore looked after by others.
A couple of years later another minister, then another. Each accepting (requesting or demanding), more control. The chair of the Board resigned. The Board was restructured to require fewer people and fewer meetings. By then the minister was one of three people on the nominating committee, recommending or vetoing people for Board positions. And, in order to have Board meetings move along efficiently (so we get out of here at a decent time), the minister would meet with the Executive (a very small group) and make 'recommendations?' to be 'approved' by the Board. Responsibility had moved almost entirely from the Congregation to the Minister.

About this time I left this congregation. Within a year there was another minister. I don't know how the Board is structured now.

With respect, then that congregation didn't have strong leadership from the Board if they surrendered their leadership positions so easily. Equally with respect, the minister should have had more of a role at Board meetings than just being there and giving reports (the minister is a full member of the Board) and the minister who succeeded was right to point that out, but obviously the pendulum swung in the other direction. Did the existing Board resent a new minister coming in and pointing out that s/he had a role beyond attending and giving reports? If so, why? It sounds to me that what developed was a push and pull that went from one unhealthy extreme where the minister was largely cut out to another unhealthy system where the minister was dominant. Leadership in a conciliar system is a balancing of gifts and talents and a sharing of responsibilities. No one person should dominate, but all should have a role of significance.

 

[Luce NDs]

With respect, then that congregation didn't have strong leadership from the Board if they surrendered their leadership positions so easily. Equally with respect, the minister should have had more of a role at Board meetings than just being there and giving reports (the minister is a full member of the Board) and the minister who succeeded was right to point that out, but obviously the pendulum swung in the other direction. Did the existing Board resent a new minister coming in and pointing out that s/he had a role beyond attending and giving reports? If so, why? It sounds to me that what developed was a push and pull that went from one unhealthy extreme where the minister was largely cut out to another unhealthy system where the minister was dominant. Leadership in a conciliar system is a balancing of gifts and talents and a sharing of responsibilities. No one person should dominate, but all should have a role of significance.

Everything but the unknown ideal-ism ... knowing Moor?

 

[crazyheart]

This might belong on another thread. it is hard to describe bullying of staff person by

new minister personnel.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi Pinga and revsdd...

I was simply wondering about this statement:

"If parishioners think they can get away with murder they rarely try not to commit it." revjohn

Reading it I hear a suggestion that parishioners are prone to offensive boundary violations. The congregation's board has pastoral oversight and the clergy has a mandate to instruction concerning the way of faith expressed as servants in community. The mandate of both board and clergy are to be provided pastoral oversight by the presbytery through its delegated authority.

My primary concern is located in a general failure to catch "problems" in the bud on both the congregational and presbyterial levels.

George

 

[revjohn]

Is this indicative of what they have learned through the teaching and example of those presiding over the liturgies of the church?

There are clergy who also qualify as bullies.

So, yes, it is possible that some have learned the art of bullying from their clergy.

Given the prevalence of bullying in society in general I expect any one's bullying skills have come from watching several bullies and sussing out effective strategy.

My experience, anecdotal at best, is that those laity who bully have learned from other laity.

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

Here in the Province of Ontario introduction of workplace bullying protocols provides a framework which could hold lay bullies accountable even if Official Boards or Sessions were reluctant or negligent.

Clergy, as always are under the oversight of Presbytery and the same legislation applies to them also.

If you have a bully proof liturgy I think you could find an eager market for such a project.

 

[Luce NDs]

There are clergy who also qualify as bullies.

So, yes, it is possible that some have learned the art of bullying from their clergy.

Given the prevalence of bullying in society in general I expect any one's bullying skills have come from watching several bullies and sussing out effective strategy.

My experience, anecdotal at best, is that those laity who bully have learned from other laity.

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

Here in the Province of Ontario introduction of workplace bullying protocols provides a framework which could hold lay bullies accountable even if Official Boards or Sessions were reluctant or negligent.

Clergy, as always are under the oversight of Presbytery and the same legislation applies to them also.

If you have a bully proof liturgy I think you could find an eager market for such a project.

Do the bullies on either side ... know that they are bullies? Get behind me sa*tan, or i.e. get beyond oneself some way so you can look at it from another's perspective! Is that almost an eF word of just Ephr-aim ... of a target on the bowls igh? In the reception of the roue ... if you can't say something nice about tyrants ... be silent ... and thus ballads and novels are created about "lam"!