A Southern Baptist minister in Enid, Oklahoma, (Silver Tongued Devil’s hometown) is airing the International Mission Board’s laundry on his blog, and the IMB has censured him for his posts. Â Here’s the report in the local paper, and here’s his response on his blog.
Curiously enough, one of the IMB rules he is publicly protesting is the rule that IMB trustees should not publicly dissent. It look from over here like a moderates vs. conservatives conflict—with some Bapticostalism thrown in—played out through some dirty denominational pool. The powers-that-be seem to have rigged the game against his getting a public audience for his views.
Is this the sort of thing that’s behind the recent Southern Baptist condemnation of “certain bloggers?”
What’s the right response for ministers in this sticky situation? Â Should they publicly dissent?
UPDATE:Â Just saw that the Eclectic Cleric posted about a situation that speaks directly to this issue earlier today.
Interesting question, but a difficult one to answer. I do think that when ministers blog about their congregations or faith traditions, they have a responsibility to do so in a pastoral way. I would feel a minister had crossed a line if he or she blogged in a way that denigrated an entire congregation (or faith tradition), violated appropriate expectations of confidentiality, or used the blog as a place to receive personal therapy from congregants (or otherwise treat congregants in a way that would be inappropriate in-person). Within these boundaries, it seems to me that minister bloggers can still offer constructive criticism, and receive helpful feedback.
It seems very scary to me to have any sort of rule that says that anyone in a group should not have the right to dissent in public (in blog form or in person).
That said, I agree with what Shelby suggests as examples of inappropriate sharing.
I know talking about their predecessors is a big No No for UU ministers.
A situation that seems difficult to me is congregational abuse (or neglect or whatever) of a minister. I don’t think this should be blogged about while it is going on. But isn’t it okay to say “I got a raw deal” after the fact? (That is, without being bitter or vindictive.)
I see two reasons why this would be helpful. For one, I’ve known several people who are gun shy about joining another congregation because they were a part of congregations that abused their ministers. People do not want to join toxic congregations. A public record of abuse give people a heads up.
Which leads to the second: accountability. Abusive congregations should be held accountable.
But of course this opens a space potentially for reciprocal abuse from an abused minister. That doesn’t help anyone out either.
So, chutney… “accountable.” I’m in agreement. But HOW?
Our congregations are independent. How do we hold congregations that abuse a minister (or ministers–I know of one that chewed up and spat out three… before addressing their fundamental internal problems)?
My vote is that it’s simply wrong to quash dissent. It’s wrong.
That said, it also seems incumbent on people to speak in calm, measured, rational tones, and factually. Angry rants in such situations are poisonous and destructive, and serve no good purpose.
Yeah, I don’t know how, in a congregationalist system or otherwise. Family systems theory doesn’t really get at this one.
It’s fallen out of use and custom… but it IS there in our history/culture. Admonition. Lovingly calling out another congregation for a perceived error/failing.
But as I said… it’s not familiar. I suspect the shit might well hit the fan, if done.
How would I do it? Well, I’d have to have the board in fundamental agreement–consensus. Then I’d frame the proposition carefully… and lay out Unitarian history–how and why this was done in the past. Then I’d present that at a congregational meeting and explain why the board was proposing it….
And I’d act only with congregational approval. It is, after all, a profound act that ought to come from the congregation.
I’d present it as gently as possible–with a covering document presenting the history…
And I’d expect the shit to hit the fan, even so.
But it would be interesting.
Lovingly calling out another congregation for a perceived error/failing.
Perceived errors or failiings? That’s a bit wishy washy… not exactly beyond a reasonable doubt… I’d be careful calling out anyone on a perception of mine or anyone elses… what test could a UU congregation fail? What errors could a congregation preach?
I’ll freely argue beliefs with anyone. And they should feel free to argue same with me.
A congregation calling out another for an error or failing of belief is contrary to what UU is about today.
Calling out a congregation for a specific action I suppose is a different thing. Calling out an individual for an act far more common.
A UU minister told me she doesn’t blog because, as I would put it, there’s what you write, there’s what you think you write, there’s what you read, there’s what you think you read… so she just avoids the pitfalls. Given she is in a profession where she sells her services to congregations, it makes a lot of sense that she is very careful how she packages herself, because the market includes a lot of people willing to call out failures and errors based on perceptions.
Strange for a Liberal Faith….
I don’t think anyone is talking about calling out a congregation for beliefs.
Bill, I didn’t suggest calling out a congregation for beliefs. The notion’s absurd given the diversity of the UUA, and the diversity of individual congregations’ membership.
Hell, congregations don’t often make any statement about their “beliefs.” Hysteria would ensure internally.
But ACTIONS are another thing. If a congregation’s abused and eaten a couple ministers, for example…
What would you call out a congregation for then; especially based on a perception?
Well, I gave an example–calling and chewing up three ministers. They were dysfunctional, and needed to know it and face it and deal with it. Having people know it, and veer around the issue for years did avoid awkward conversations–and served no one’s good. And in fact, split the congregation.
Or the congregation whose behavior was distinctly unfriendly to anyone who was even modestly open about being a theist (Really? Why would anyone who was be a UU?). That one needed to be talked to.
Just examples.
We’ve got principles. We affirm them and covenant to support them. What the hell does that mean if we’re not even willing to gently nudge each other and observe that we’re not living up to them?
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
I’d say principles and dysfunctionality different things.
They were dysfunctional, and needed to know it and face it and deal with it.
Are you a guest at these Churches? Do you just wander in and do an analysis?
I’d been to the one I referred to a few times, yes. But I’m not just basing it on my own experience. I’ve some insight from other members (both sides of their divide) and other ministers in the district, and the D.E.
If we’re a movement, then no church is an island.
What’s so inappropriate about a good friend (neighboring congregation) gently asking what the hell you’re doing — and pointing out how you seem to be destroying your life at the moment?
You sound like the grand inquisitor too me.
No friend….
Actually, Bill, the ministers’ guidelines suggest such an intervention when a colleague’s behavior is clearly out of bounds.