1) I agree that we need to separate investigation of an incident from the restoration process, but also think we need to separate the process of spiritual restoration from leadership/ministry restoration. Sometimes when it is announced that a pastor has resigned for cause or been removed that he has entered a process of restoration, and the implication that it means restoration to ministry/leadership. But it seems premature to me to talk about that until the full process of spiritual restoration has taken place.
2) I think as a denomination we handle this better now than we have in the past. We used to hear of ministers who were "under discipline" and so were suspended from ministry for a set period of time. Now we are more focused on the process of restoration itself.
3) It grieves me that within a holiness denomination which preaches the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer to enable us to live a holy life we do not have a better track record. I've no statistical evidence, but anecdotally, holiness preachers seem to fall into sin just as much as those who don't share our theology.
Hahaha! I love online conversations. I have been actively involved in many forms of Church Discipline and personally led a restoration process for a pastor who has been back in ministry for six years and has been beautifully and powerfully restored. I wasn't receiving any of this as an attack - hahaha - you are an amazing leader, Priscilla - the Church is blessed to have you in our ranks. I simply meant that comment in the spirit of Galatians 6:1, "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted." I trust this verse brings some perspective.
* Peter, that wasn't an attack on your character. I hope you know I respect you. Sometimes things are said from a male perspective (as Dave pointed out, these are mostly males in positions of power) not knowing how they'll be perceived by females. I want to help us to have these conversations in ways that don't further women and children's reluctance to report or excuse inappropriate behavior among men because "nobody's perfect."
(I got hit with not casting stones yesterday when I said a particular pastor had committed a crime, which by law must be reported. How ironic that a verse Jesus used to protect a woman was turned to excuse a man's illegal and immoral behavior.)
"But for the grace of God" feels icky to women who have been harassed, demeaned, or abused. It allows the stereotype that men are all "that way," subject to sexual sin, and women are temptresses, so have to be careful, modest, and non-threatening (while always being submissive and agreeable). But we believe in sanctification, do we not? That by the grace of God we can be freed from sin? The verse isn't "look at me a sinner, always tempted by sin, so that any falling away is possible." It's "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me."
Most women do not see these cases and think "But for the grace of God." Most of them can point to harassment or abuse they or someone close to them received (church, work, school, home). The grace of God hits different when it's grace to cover others' sins.
Interesting perspective… yes I could see all that being loaded into anything that is a typical reaction to this subject which is so sensitive and full of heartache. My father used to say this and I think he intended it as a way to be humble and vigilant.
David, thank you for this excellent post, which reflects the great value of your broad organizational experience and wisdom! You make many important points that I could note (wow!), but one of your minor points really stands out to me. Failures accrue when organizations do not follow their own existing rules, roles, and processes to prevent and respond to bad situations.
Say an organization has published and distributed clear, time-tested, and well-communicated rules. Those rules not only ensure accountable local, regional, and central governmance, but also provide a clear pathway for reporting when the system is not working or for appealing decisions. What happens when those thoughtfully designed and proven processes get ignored?
An individual could attempt to seek local recourse for a grievance by carefully following published processes and find that for some baffling reason those very basic options do not exist because local people have neglected them or chosen not to follow them. Perhaps there's no Office A or Form B or Person C, and maybe there isn't even a functional local governing board to ask about those missing options. The aggrieved person would then logically seek help at the next level up and could find that it, too, has some gaps or compromises that make it inaccessible. By this point, the person likely feels bewildered and quite exposed (having spoken to a few people out of necessity in navigating next steps), but yet, trusting an established system, s/he would continue to take the complaint up the chain of responsibility. What a dismal day when such a person discovers that systems there at the apex of the organization are failing, too, perhaps because individual leaders don't act, standing review committees don't exist, or boards don't want to operate as they are designed. Such a person--a vulnerable David facing the multi-tiered Goliath--is ultimately unable to do the right and honorable thing by following the established process to address a real problem. Why? Because of choices at every level to innovate or compromise or sidestep established process. Whether those choices have been rooted in insecurity, carelessness, rules-don't-apply-to-me swagger, or persuasive pressure from influential people, the effect is the same. A problem doesn't get addressed, and disorder abounds.
So I have nothing but affirmation for every one of your recommendations. We certainly need the right processes, and your observations and suggestions are wise. We also have to have the will and the pain tolerance to insist that they are followed. After all, it is in such failures that we realize that all those stodgy rule-following nerds of the past--with whom we don't want to be dismissively lumped--actually foresaw these precise possibilities and thoughtfully planned ways to prevent them.
I'll be reading this one multiple times, I'm sure. Thank you, David.
Sorry for my delay in responding. Thanks for this thoughtful reply. So very true about not following existing rules. (and for extra leverage in a board meeting, for everyone watching: nothing quite gives a board more attentiveness than to mention that the point at which an organization is MOST vulnerable to major lawsuits is when they do not follow their own regulations and policies, and because of that protect someone who may have abused their position in the org. YIKES! -- mention that one and people start to notice and pay attention that don't care like they should)
I do think that even when people DON'T follow the policies it is important to understand that there are usually multiple levels of accountability (at least there is in a denomination.)
In our tribe, if a local staff doesn't follow what they should, the local board can be contacted. If that doesn't work the District Superintendent is next. If not that, then the DBMD. If not there, then the District Board is next. If not that, one can contact the General Superintendent. If that doesn't work, the Education and Clergy Development office is a good option. If that doesn't work one can go all the way to the Executive Board of the GB, then the General Board itself. Beyond that there is even a committee that exists to petition to that can overrule what the General Board decides.
So, I'm not saying ANY of this is easy--but there are layers for a reason, and even if 3 or 4 leaders or boards DON'T do their job there are others to go to (and in some ways, if they are not doing their job right it makes sense to raise the heat higher and higher to maybe increase awareness that people are not doing their jobs. That make sense?)
Thank you for this. As I have been recently investigating the Wesley churches judiciary I have found that the section concerning this has been largely moved outside of our discipline book. It does not appear to be readily accessible. How can we expect our members to feel empowered in the face of, sin, negligence, and abuse in our churches, if such information is not easily accessible?
Hey Tim: I’m not sure the Discipline itself is all that accessible but you are right that “Judiciary” booklet which includes many of the matters I address here is VERY difficult to find now online.
Fair enough. Thankfully the ePubs and PDFs of The Discipline are free at WPH, which I am grateful for. That aspect of things makes it easier to get it into the hands of our people.
I hope the same will be possible for this aspect as well. Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)
Thank you for writing on this!! Clear and public communication about the reporting process is sooooo important. I’ve been in the seat before of discovering matters but not having a clear understanding of what to do with them. That is not a pleasant place to be!
yes indeed-that is ROUGH. I know of others who were in that boat and weren't DIRECTLY a part of the situation but just know about it and having to report is traumatizing and exposes you to how clunky and uncertain many of these situations are.
Yes. And we should put all the pieces in place we can so that those who report don’t somehow end up feeling like they made the situation worse by trying to do the right thing without all the right information.
Thanks for taking the time to write about such an important topic. I have said for over a decade that denominations need to have organized HR practices just like the corporate world. Like the old time methodists had the "staff parish committee." Church leaders need to undergo HR training and set up employee management systems so that any and all "work incidents" are handled professionally, discretely, and followed through with including rehabilitation and restoration. Much better than the proverbial 'good ol'boy network, or the black box where so many ministers go to remain expendable and drift off into never being heard from again; when 99% just did what humans do and got caught, while the other 1% continue to run the show just as guilty.
I agree on the "expendable" part... I know several ministers who have had inappropriate relationships at some point and their repentance was real, their restitution to the other person and their family was real, and their restoration was part of how this all SHOULD work. But I have in a few occasions seen someone do all this and then they STILL remained a kind of expendable type who was forgotten for a long time.
Of course, none of us DESERVES a job as a pastor but it hurts my heart to have seen a few feel expendable even after doing all one should do after failing and repenting.
I would add that the people that feel most expendable are those who are on the other side of these relationships--women most often who were manipulated into an affair with a spiritual leader, or women and men who when they were young were molested by a spiritual leader. Those survivors/victims are the ones who are most unseen, and most treated as expendable.
Three quick reflections:
1) I agree that we need to separate investigation of an incident from the restoration process, but also think we need to separate the process of spiritual restoration from leadership/ministry restoration. Sometimes when it is announced that a pastor has resigned for cause or been removed that he has entered a process of restoration, and the implication that it means restoration to ministry/leadership. But it seems premature to me to talk about that until the full process of spiritual restoration has taken place.
2) I think as a denomination we handle this better now than we have in the past. We used to hear of ministers who were "under discipline" and so were suspended from ministry for a set period of time. Now we are more focused on the process of restoration itself.
3) It grieves me that within a holiness denomination which preaches the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer to enable us to live a holy life we do not have a better track record. I've no statistical evidence, but anecdotally, holiness preachers seem to fall into sin just as much as those who don't share our theology.
Thanks for these observations and reflections.
1)I love the way you talk about how these two elements should be seen as two subsequent pathways. Would be an improvement I think.
2) yes back in the day most things were very different and often swept under the rug or “solved” by somewhat conspiratorial cross-country transfers
3) yep—people are people. SDG
Hahaha! I love online conversations. I have been actively involved in many forms of Church Discipline and personally led a restoration process for a pastor who has been back in ministry for six years and has been beautifully and powerfully restored. I wasn't receiving any of this as an attack - hahaha - you are an amazing leader, Priscilla - the Church is blessed to have you in our ranks. I simply meant that comment in the spirit of Galatians 6:1, "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted." I trust this verse brings some perspective.
Such great insights! But for the grace of God…
Amen, so glad to see so many of my own jumbled thoughts from the last few months cobbled together so cogently & helpfully. 🙏
good to know, Marc...
Thanks for responding, Peter.
* Peter, that wasn't an attack on your character. I hope you know I respect you. Sometimes things are said from a male perspective (as Dave pointed out, these are mostly males in positions of power) not knowing how they'll be perceived by females. I want to help us to have these conversations in ways that don't further women and children's reluctance to report or excuse inappropriate behavior among men because "nobody's perfect."
(I got hit with not casting stones yesterday when I said a particular pastor had committed a crime, which by law must be reported. How ironic that a verse Jesus used to protect a woman was turned to excuse a man's illegal and immoral behavior.)
"But for the grace of God" feels icky to women who have been harassed, demeaned, or abused. It allows the stereotype that men are all "that way," subject to sexual sin, and women are temptresses, so have to be careful, modest, and non-threatening (while always being submissive and agreeable). But we believe in sanctification, do we not? That by the grace of God we can be freed from sin? The verse isn't "look at me a sinner, always tempted by sin, so that any falling away is possible." It's "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me."
Most women do not see these cases and think "But for the grace of God." Most of them can point to harassment or abuse they or someone close to them received (church, work, school, home). The grace of God hits different when it's grace to cover others' sins.
Interesting perspective… yes I could see all that being loaded into anything that is a typical reaction to this subject which is so sensitive and full of heartache. My father used to say this and I think he intended it as a way to be humble and vigilant.
David, thank you for this excellent post, which reflects the great value of your broad organizational experience and wisdom! You make many important points that I could note (wow!), but one of your minor points really stands out to me. Failures accrue when organizations do not follow their own existing rules, roles, and processes to prevent and respond to bad situations.
Say an organization has published and distributed clear, time-tested, and well-communicated rules. Those rules not only ensure accountable local, regional, and central governmance, but also provide a clear pathway for reporting when the system is not working or for appealing decisions. What happens when those thoughtfully designed and proven processes get ignored?
An individual could attempt to seek local recourse for a grievance by carefully following published processes and find that for some baffling reason those very basic options do not exist because local people have neglected them or chosen not to follow them. Perhaps there's no Office A or Form B or Person C, and maybe there isn't even a functional local governing board to ask about those missing options. The aggrieved person would then logically seek help at the next level up and could find that it, too, has some gaps or compromises that make it inaccessible. By this point, the person likely feels bewildered and quite exposed (having spoken to a few people out of necessity in navigating next steps), but yet, trusting an established system, s/he would continue to take the complaint up the chain of responsibility. What a dismal day when such a person discovers that systems there at the apex of the organization are failing, too, perhaps because individual leaders don't act, standing review committees don't exist, or boards don't want to operate as they are designed. Such a person--a vulnerable David facing the multi-tiered Goliath--is ultimately unable to do the right and honorable thing by following the established process to address a real problem. Why? Because of choices at every level to innovate or compromise or sidestep established process. Whether those choices have been rooted in insecurity, carelessness, rules-don't-apply-to-me swagger, or persuasive pressure from influential people, the effect is the same. A problem doesn't get addressed, and disorder abounds.
So I have nothing but affirmation for every one of your recommendations. We certainly need the right processes, and your observations and suggestions are wise. We also have to have the will and the pain tolerance to insist that they are followed. After all, it is in such failures that we realize that all those stodgy rule-following nerds of the past--with whom we don't want to be dismissively lumped--actually foresaw these precise possibilities and thoughtfully planned ways to prevent them.
I'll be reading this one multiple times, I'm sure. Thank you, David.
Sorry for my delay in responding. Thanks for this thoughtful reply. So very true about not following existing rules. (and for extra leverage in a board meeting, for everyone watching: nothing quite gives a board more attentiveness than to mention that the point at which an organization is MOST vulnerable to major lawsuits is when they do not follow their own regulations and policies, and because of that protect someone who may have abused their position in the org. YIKES! -- mention that one and people start to notice and pay attention that don't care like they should)
I do think that even when people DON'T follow the policies it is important to understand that there are usually multiple levels of accountability (at least there is in a denomination.)
In our tribe, if a local staff doesn't follow what they should, the local board can be contacted. If that doesn't work the District Superintendent is next. If not that, then the DBMD. If not there, then the District Board is next. If not that, one can contact the General Superintendent. If that doesn't work, the Education and Clergy Development office is a good option. If that doesn't work one can go all the way to the Executive Board of the GB, then the General Board itself. Beyond that there is even a committee that exists to petition to that can overrule what the General Board decides.
So, I'm not saying ANY of this is easy--but there are layers for a reason, and even if 3 or 4 leaders or boards DON'T do their job there are others to go to (and in some ways, if they are not doing their job right it makes sense to raise the heat higher and higher to maybe increase awareness that people are not doing their jobs. That make sense?)
Thank you for this. As I have been recently investigating the Wesley churches judiciary I have found that the section concerning this has been largely moved outside of our discipline book. It does not appear to be readily accessible. How can we expect our members to feel empowered in the face of, sin, negligence, and abuse in our churches, if such information is not easily accessible?
Hey Tim: I’m not sure the Discipline itself is all that accessible but you are right that “Judiciary” booklet which includes many of the matters I address here is VERY difficult to find now online.
That should be fixed and even more communicated.
Fair enough. Thankfully the ePubs and PDFs of The Discipline are free at WPH, which I am grateful for. That aspect of things makes it easier to get it into the hands of our people.
I hope the same will be possible for this aspect as well. Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)
👍
Thank you for writing on this!! Clear and public communication about the reporting process is sooooo important. I’ve been in the seat before of discovering matters but not having a clear understanding of what to do with them. That is not a pleasant place to be!
yes indeed-that is ROUGH. I know of others who were in that boat and weren't DIRECTLY a part of the situation but just know about it and having to report is traumatizing and exposes you to how clunky and uncertain many of these situations are.
Yes. And we should put all the pieces in place we can so that those who report don’t somehow end up feeling like they made the situation worse by trying to do the right thing without all the right information.
Absolutely
Thanks for taking the time to write about such an important topic. I have said for over a decade that denominations need to have organized HR practices just like the corporate world. Like the old time methodists had the "staff parish committee." Church leaders need to undergo HR training and set up employee management systems so that any and all "work incidents" are handled professionally, discretely, and followed through with including rehabilitation and restoration. Much better than the proverbial 'good ol'boy network, or the black box where so many ministers go to remain expendable and drift off into never being heard from again; when 99% just did what humans do and got caught, while the other 1% continue to run the show just as guilty.
I agree on the "expendable" part... I know several ministers who have had inappropriate relationships at some point and their repentance was real, their restitution to the other person and their family was real, and their restoration was part of how this all SHOULD work. But I have in a few occasions seen someone do all this and then they STILL remained a kind of expendable type who was forgotten for a long time.
Of course, none of us DESERVES a job as a pastor but it hurts my heart to have seen a few feel expendable even after doing all one should do after failing and repenting.
I would add that the people that feel most expendable are those who are on the other side of these relationships--women most often who were manipulated into an affair with a spiritual leader, or women and men who when they were young were molested by a spiritual leader. Those survivors/victims are the ones who are most unseen, and most treated as expendable.
For those looking where to start in drafting policies and systems to protect children start here where my denomination equipped people with this:
https://resources.wesleyan.org/guidelines-for-child-protection
This is nearly a decade old but I wrote on the more narrow subject of when someone you know has an affair here that relates to this:
https://www.daviddrury.com/2015/09/14/when-someone-has-an-affair/