I respectfully disagree that the first place a member should raise serious concerns is to the council. In many cases, the "serious" concern has to do with the pastor or perhaps some other committee member.
First of all, Matthew 18 stipulates that a concerned member should go directly to the person deemed at fault and seek to resolve the issue face to face. Going directly to the council first disrespects the person deemed at fault by spreading what may be gossip. Trust is often broken because the person deemed at fault is blindsided in that he may be unaware of any dispute or concern.
Second, while it may be true true that sometimes complaints or concerns are shared in ways that are too obscure to make meaningful response possible, this is less likely to be true if conversations are face to face. Consider all the misunderstanding that occurs on social media. Putting it is writing rather than speaking face to face actually increases the risk of being misunderstood. Meeting with the person deemed at fault allows him to clarify the issue and may even make contacting the council unnecessary.
Finally, if a church member has to hide behind written communication rather than seek to resolve the issue face to face with the person deemed at fault, the concern or complaint is not important enough to bring it to the council's (or anyone else's) attention. This is almost as cowardly as writing an anonymous letter.
As stated in the article above, "Henry DeMoor is clear that church members should deal directly with their councils and not go 'over their heads' by going to classis or church visitors without the council’s knowledge. In the same way, church members should deal directly with the person deemed at fault and not go "over his head" by going to the council without the person's knowledge.
I respectfully disagree that the first place a member should raise serious concerns is to the council. In many cases, the "serious" concern has to do with the pastor or perhaps some other committee member.
First of all, Matthew 18 stipulates that a concerned member should go directly to the person deemed at fault and seek to resolve the issue face to face. Going directly to the council first disrespects the person deemed at fault by spreading what may be gossip. Trust is often broken because the person deemed at fault is blindsided in that he may be unaware of any dispute or concern.
Second, while it may be true that sometimes complaints or concerns are shared in ways that are too obscure to make meaningful response possible, this is less likely to be true if conversations are face to face. Consider all the misunderstanding that occurs on social media. Putting it in writing rather than speaking face to face actually increases the risk of being misunderstood. Meeting with the person deemed at fault allows him to clarify the issue and may even make contacting the council unnecessary.
Finally, if a church member has to hide behind written communication rather than seek to resolve the issue face to face with the person deemed at fault, the concern or complaint is not important enough to bring it to the council's (or anyone else's) attention. This is almost as cowardly as writing an anonymous letter.
As stated in the article above, "Henry DeMoor is clear that church members should deal directly with their councils and not go 'over their heads' by going to classis or church visitors without the council’s knowledge. In the same way, church members should deal directly with the person deemed at fault and not go "over his head" by going to the council without the person's knowledge.
What about all the men who have been sexually abused or harassed by women? Why no mention of them? Do we not talk about it? Posting an attachment that implies that only women can be abused is offensive to men who have experienced this. As more and more women assume positions of power, abuse of men by women is going to become more prevalent. Is our denomination prepared to deal with this?
An article entitled "Male Rape in America" and dated April 29, 2014 claims that a new study reveals that men are often the victims of sexual assault and women are the perpetrators. In fact, in asking 40,000 households about rape and sexual violence, the survey uncovered that 38% were against men. The article points out that the experience of men and women is a lot closer than we might think. And we need to completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women are always the victims. The article also points out that a recent analysis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics turned up that 46% of male victims reported a female perpetrator. That is a far different statistic than the 1 in 6 you claim. Another source claims that for men who were abused as children, 38% were women. You present as fact that we live in a culture that generally devalues women. To some extent, that may be true. But studies also show that men are often degraded in movies and television, especially sit-coms in which men are often portrayed as bumbling idiots. This, too, is a fact of our culture. You also have to admit that more and more women are assuming positions of power. And as the number of women in power increases, so is the number of men who are sexually harassed and abused by them. You imply that you don't want to diminish the severity of abuse or harassment for any person, man or women. But your focus primarily on women as victims, and men as perpetrators who abuse power, does, in fact, diminish the severity of abuse of men by women. Will the CRC in general, and Safe Church specifically, be ready to respond appropriately to men who are abused by women? Not if it diminishes, denies, or deflects the truth that it is happening already.
"If a man with significant political power can only freely meet with other men alone, but not women, that raises questions about gender discrimination." Gender discrimination? Really? Give me a break. A woman meeting alone with a male pastor has more power than you think. If she doesn't like the pastor, all she has to do is make an appointment with him and then say he was sexually inappropriate. The accusation alone would destroy him. The article above also points out that "it’s also true that in ministry a vulnerable or codependent [female] person might want a relationship with a [male] leader that crosses emotional boundaries, if not physical." If the male leader sets firm bounderies, he also sets himself to be accused by the female person who feels rejected and wants to get even. No thanks. The Billy Graham rule is there for my protection and I'm going to use it.
Posted in: Guidelines for Church Looking to Create a Scholarship Fund?
The Dispatch CRC in Kansas has a Foundation Scholarship for those attending Christian higher education. Contact the pastor there for more information.
Posted in: What to Do When Council Won't Listen
I respectfully disagree that the first place a member should raise serious concerns is to the council. In many cases, the "serious" concern has to do with the pastor or perhaps some other committee member.
First of all, Matthew 18 stipulates that a concerned member should go directly to the person deemed at fault and seek to resolve the issue face to face. Going directly to the council first disrespects the person deemed at fault by spreading what may be gossip. Trust is often broken because the person deemed at fault is blindsided in that he may be unaware of any dispute or concern.
Second, while it may be true true that sometimes complaints or concerns are shared in ways that are too obscure to make meaningful response possible, this is less likely to be true if conversations are face to face. Consider all the misunderstanding that occurs on social media. Putting it is writing rather than speaking face to face actually increases the risk of being misunderstood. Meeting with the person deemed at fault allows him to clarify the issue and may even make contacting the council unnecessary.
Finally, if a church member has to hide behind written communication rather than seek to resolve the issue face to face with the person deemed at fault, the concern or complaint is not important enough to bring it to the council's (or anyone else's) attention. This is almost as cowardly as writing an anonymous letter.
As stated in the article above, "Henry DeMoor is clear that church members should deal directly with their councils and not go 'over their heads' by going to classis or church visitors without the council’s knowledge. In the same way, church members should deal directly with the person deemed at fault and not go "over his head" by going to the council without the person's knowledge.
Posted in: What to Do When Council Won't Listen
I respectfully disagree that the first place a member should raise serious concerns is to the council. In many cases, the "serious" concern has to do with the pastor or perhaps some other committee member.
First of all, Matthew 18 stipulates that a concerned member should go directly to the person deemed at fault and seek to resolve the issue face to face. Going directly to the council first disrespects the person deemed at fault by spreading what may be gossip. Trust is often broken because the person deemed at fault is blindsided in that he may be unaware of any dispute or concern.
Second, while it may be true that sometimes complaints or concerns are shared in ways that are too obscure to make meaningful response possible, this is less likely to be true if conversations are face to face. Consider all the misunderstanding that occurs on social media. Putting it in writing rather than speaking face to face actually increases the risk of being misunderstood. Meeting with the person deemed at fault allows him to clarify the issue and may even make contacting the council unnecessary.
Finally, if a church member has to hide behind written communication rather than seek to resolve the issue face to face with the person deemed at fault, the concern or complaint is not important enough to bring it to the council's (or anyone else's) attention. This is almost as cowardly as writing an anonymous letter.
As stated in the article above, "Henry DeMoor is clear that church members should deal directly with their councils and not go 'over their heads' by going to classis or church visitors without the council’s knowledge. In the same way, church members should deal directly with the person deemed at fault and not go "over his head" by going to the council without the person's knowledge.
Posted in: #MeToo and #ChurchToo
What about all the men who have been sexually abused or harassed by women? Why no mention of them? Do we not talk about it? Posting an attachment that implies that only women can be abused is offensive to men who have experienced this. As more and more women assume positions of power, abuse of men by women is going to become more prevalent. Is our denomination prepared to deal with this?
Posted in: #MeToo and #ChurchToo
An article entitled "Male Rape in America" and dated April 29, 2014 claims that a new study reveals that men are often the victims of sexual assault and women are the perpetrators. In fact, in asking 40,000 households about rape and sexual violence, the survey uncovered that 38% were against men. The article points out that the experience of men and women is a lot closer than we might think. And we need to completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women are always the victims. The article also points out that a recent analysis of the Bureau of Justice Statistics turned up that 46% of male victims reported a female perpetrator. That is a far different statistic than the 1 in 6 you claim. Another source claims that for men who were abused as children, 38% were women. You present as fact that we live in a culture that generally devalues women. To some extent, that may be true. But studies also show that men are often degraded in movies and television, especially sit-coms in which men are often portrayed as bumbling idiots. This, too, is a fact of our culture. You also have to admit that more and more women are assuming positions of power. And as the number of women in power increases, so is the number of men who are sexually harassed and abused by them. You imply that you don't want to diminish the severity of abuse or harassment for any person, man or women. But your focus primarily on women as victims, and men as perpetrators who abuse power, does, in fact, diminish the severity of abuse of men by women. Will the CRC in general, and Safe Church specifically, be ready to respond appropriately to men who are abused by women? Not if it diminishes, denies, or deflects the truth that it is happening already.
Posted in: Healthy Boundaries and the Billy Graham Rule
"If a man with significant political power can only freely meet with other men alone, but not women, that raises questions about gender discrimination." Gender discrimination? Really? Give me a break. A woman meeting alone with a male pastor has more power than you think. If she doesn't like the pastor, all she has to do is make an appointment with him and then say he was sexually inappropriate. The accusation alone would destroy him. The article above also points out that "it’s also true that in ministry a vulnerable or codependent [female] person might want a relationship with a [male] leader that crosses emotional boundaries, if not physical." If the male leader sets firm bounderies, he also sets himself to be accused by the female person who feels rejected and wants to get even. No thanks. The Billy Graham rule is there for my protection and I'm going to use it.
Posted in: Help for Pastors (and Their Families) After Article 17
It's often too late to help pastors (and their families) after an Article 17. The damage has already been done to the pastor.