|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Oct 11, 2019 16:41:15 GMT
It's fairly ridiculous to consider how secretive Classis/Synod is. I understand keeping certain cases secretive - like when victims of abuse don't want everyone all up in their business. But as a general rule I think that church government should be as transparent as possible and everything should be public except that which is requested to be private by victims. How can church members be confident that church leaders are acting in their best interests or acting biblically if they can't hear what the leadership has decided other than vague generalities? I think pemptyr hit it on the head - it's a total power trip for those who hold these secrets. I have not ever actually been involved in synod/classis or really even heard anything more than hushed gossip so maybe there are actual good reasons for keeping things quiet that I don't know about. Think about how important it is for government and government officials to be as transparent as possible otherwise corruption begins to seep in. I don't see why church government would be any different. Since when do true victims ever make it to Classis or Synod. Of all of the abuse cases I've witnessed, they were barely "handled" by the local consistory. For a true victim case to make it to Classis, there would have to be egg on the faces of the local jerks before it ever made it to the larger spectrum. This is why the Classis/Synods stuff was just puke. It doesn't matter at all - but it keeps the buzz going as if something really hard was being discussed. True. The only abuse case I know of at classis was the recent one where the minister was deposed for abusing his wife. Other than that every other case I've heard of at classis/synod tends to be "such and such minister slightly incorrectly phrased this doctrinal truth and must thus be thrust out from this our most holy denomination". You're right though, the church really has no place handling abuse cases. They should be handled by people who are qualified, like the police and mental health professionals. Ministers don't have the time or education to adequately handle abuse cases. Further they hold the literal interpretation of the Bible above all else even though the Bible handles abuse horrifically. Any organization who does not allow you to divorce an abuser is batshit insane. The wisest man on earth, DJE, writes: "One thing is so destructive of the union of marriage, striking as it does at the heart of that institution, that it tears the two apart to the extent that the ability and calling to live together are gone: adultery. Besides this, there is no ground for divorce, not mental cruelty, not incompatibility, not a bad wife or a miserable husband — nothing. In marriage we take each other — as the old forms also stated — "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health."" |
|
|
|
Post by pemptyr on Oct 11, 2019 17:02:08 GMT
Since when do true victims ever make it to Classis or Synod. Of all of the abuse cases I've witnessed, they were barely "handled" by the local consistory. For a true victim case to make it to Classis, there would have to be egg on the faces of the local jerks before it ever made it to the larger spectrum. This is why the Classis/Synods stuff was just puke. It doesn't matter at all - but it keeps the buzz going as if something really hard was being discussed. True. The only abuse case I know of at classis was the recent one where the minister was deposed for abusing his wife. Other than that every other case I've heard of at classis/synod tends to be "such and such minister slightly incorrectly phrased this doctrinal truth and must thus be thrust out from this our most holy denomination". You're right though, the church really has no place handling abuse cases. They should be handled by people who are qualified, like the police and mental health professionals. Ministers don't have the time or education to adequately handle abuse cases. Further they hold the literal interpretation of the Bible above all else even though the Bible handles abuse horrifically. Any organization who does not allow you to divorce an abuser is batshit insane. The wisest man on earth, DJE, writes: "One thing is so destructive of the union of marriage, striking as it does at the heart of that institution, that it tears the two apart to the extent that the ability and calling to live together are gone: adultery. Besides this, there is no ground for divorce, not mental cruelty, not incompatibility, not a bad wife or a miserable husband — nothing. In marriage we take each other — as the old forms also stated — "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health."" Didn't this guy give a speech recently backtracking from what he wrote? Specifically what you have in bold letters. |
|
|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Oct 11, 2019 17:39:03 GMT
True. The only abuse case I know of at classis was the recent one where the minister was deposed for abusing his wife. Other than that every other case I've heard of at classis/synod tends to be "such and such minister slightly incorrectly phrased this doctrinal truth and must thus be thrust out from this our most holy denomination". You're right though, the church really has no place handling abuse cases. They should be handled by people who are qualified, like the police and mental health professionals. Ministers don't have the time or education to adequately handle abuse cases. Further they hold the literal interpretation of the Bible above all else even though the Bible handles abuse horrifically. Any organization who does not allow you to divorce an abuser is batshit insane. The wisest man on earth, DJE, writes: "One thing is so destructive of the union of marriage, striking as it does at the heart of that institution, that it tears the two apart to the extent that the ability and calling to live together are gone: adultery. Besides this, there is no ground for divorce, not mental cruelty, not incompatibility, not a bad wife or a miserable husband — nothing. In marriage we take each other — as the old forms also stated — "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health."" Didn't this guy give a speech recently backtracking from what he wrote? Specifically what you have in bold letters. I don't know. If he did I'm glad to hear that his views are less reprehensible than they used to be. |
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on Oct 11, 2019 17:56:40 GMT
It's fairly ridiculous to consider how secretive Classis/Synod is. I understand keeping certain cases secretive - like when victims of abuse don't want everyone all up in their business. But as a general rule I think that church government should be as transparent as possible and everything should be public except that which is requested to be private by victims. How can church members be confident that church leaders are acting in their best interests or acting biblically if they can't hear what the leadership has decided other than vague generalities? I think pemptyr hit it on the head - it's a total power trip for those who hold these secrets. I have not ever actually been involved in synod/classis or really even heard anything more than hushed gossip so maybe there are actual good reasons for keeping things quiet that I don't know about. Think about how important it is for government and government officials to be as transparent as possible otherwise corruption begins to seep in. I don't see why church government would be any different. Oh, and I'll just point out once again, the local consistories are not capable of even doing any kind of abuse therapy. At all. These are local idiots voted in from the farms because they are "holy". Please. ZERO TRAINING in any type of abuse at all. So true! It's downright scary to think of the "elders" who are assigned abuse cases, of all kinds. With the steps made in treating trauma and abuse in all its forms, and its lasting effects, it is a sin to have these men carry out the "therapy". Most of them don't know the first thing about what they are doing, and all too often make it worse. Yet, again, it is another secret that billows their importance among the whispering narthex. Their processes of handling abuse are abuse in and of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Oct 14, 2019 17:35:57 GMT
Isn't that funny how that is.... It's such a huge deal when I used to read this junk in the bulletin. After all it took up so much space, and then you had some nice juicy gossip to talk about... The cult makes such a big deal of it, and much of the info is hidden "behind closed doors" anyway, so that just leads to speculation. Now that I'm out - NONE of this stuff matters at all. If anything, the cult just freed up a guy who just strayed a little bit when he had to drone on for hours. This might be a real opportunity for that guy to start a new life. After all, all of this stuff is a waste of one's life. It has to make the dude a little cynical now. He has dedicated his life to this organization. I would assume he was preaching with the best of intentions and trying to interpret the scripture in a way that made sense to him, and he was harshly treated for it - so harshly that he had to be issued an official apology. And now classis west is "suspicious" of him. This is probably as good of a chance as any for him to reevaluate what he has dedicated his life to and whether he truly agrees with everything the PRC does. Edit: It's honestly somewhat terrifying to consider that the PRC is so entrenched in "us vs them" mentality that it extends to their own ministers. They're so convinced that Satan is working to turn their ministers into false teachers that even the slightest hint of difference in opinion causes them to turn on one another in fear. They're delusional. He wasn't PR all his life. He grew up CRC. Maybe a little of that is still in him? |
|
|
|
Post by Skyfall on Oct 22, 2019 18:42:10 GMT
Oh, and I'll just point out once again, the local consistories are not capable of even doing any kind of abuse therapy. At all. These are local idiots voted in from the farms because they are "holy". Please. ZERO TRAINING in any type of abuse at all. So true! It's downright scary to think of the "elders" who are assigned abuse cases, of all kinds. With the steps made in treating trauma and abuse in all its forms, and its lasting effects, it is a sin to have these men carry out the "therapy". Most of them don't know the first thing about what they are doing, and all too often make it worse. Yet, again, it is another secret that billows their importance among the whispering narthex. Their processes of handling abuse are abuse in and of themselves. And somehow, me, as a peasant in the congregation, I need to put my trust in God that this idiot will guide me through an abuse case. No thanks. God also gave me a brain which I intend to use. |
|
|
|
Post by questioneverything on Oct 22, 2019 21:17:24 GMT
So true! It's downright scary to think of the "elders" who are assigned abuse cases, of all kinds. With the steps made in treating trauma and abuse in all its forms, and its lasting effects, it is a sin to have these men carry out the "therapy". Most of them don't know the first thing about what they are doing, and all too often make it worse. Yet, again, it is another secret that billows their importance among the whispering narthex. Their processes of handling abuse are abuse in and of themselves. And somehow, me, as a peasant in the congregation, I need to put my trust in God that this idiot will guide me through an abuse case. No thanks. God also gave me a brain which I intend to use. You are no peasant, although you offer a sentiment many prca members feel, I think. This hidden, "popularity contest", hierarchical system that is actually in place within this supposedly Presbyterian system of church governance. And, again, women have no say in this. Disgusting. |
|
|
|
Post by pemptyr on Oct 22, 2019 23:51:14 GMT
And somehow, me, as a peasant in the congregation, I need to put my trust in God that this idiot will guide me through an abuse case. No thanks. God also gave me a brain which I intend to use. You are no peasant, although you offer a sentiment many prca members feel, I think. This hidden, "popularity contest", hierarchical system that is actually in place within this supposedly Presbyterian system of church governance. And, again, women have no say in this. Disgusting. The women are as guilty as the men with the popularity contest. They don't have direct power, but they have softer power. It's really a very selfish church |
|
|
|
Post by pemptyr on Oct 23, 2019 1:51:53 GMT
And somehow, me, as a peasant in the congregation, I need to put my trust in God that this idiot will guide me through an abuse case. No thanks. God also gave me a brain which I intend to use. You are no peasant, although you offer a sentiment many prca members feel, I think. This hidden, "popularity contest", hierarchical system that is actually in place within this supposedly Presbyterian system of church governance. And, again, women have no say in this. Disgusting. What I meant to say was I think even the women have been taught to think the same way as the men, so if they could vote it wouldn't make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Skyfall on Oct 23, 2019 12:09:42 GMT
You are no peasant, although you offer a sentiment many prca members feel, I think. This hidden, "popularity contest", hierarchical system that is actually in place within this supposedly Presbyterian system of church governance. And, again, women have no say in this. Disgusting. What I meant to say was I think even the women have been taught to think the same way as the men, so if they could vote it wouldn't make a difference. Of course, they will follow their husband's decisions....in some cases, a farmer's decision on an abuse case. And round and round we turn... |
|
|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Oct 23, 2019 12:53:17 GMT
You are no peasant, although you offer a sentiment many prca members feel, I think. This hidden, "popularity contest", hierarchical system that is actually in place within this supposedly Presbyterian system of church governance. And, again, women have no say in this. Disgusting. What I meant to say was I think even the women have been taught to think the same way as the men, so if they could vote it wouldn't make a difference. Yes. If women were allowed to vote some women might vote for issues that improve their rights/stance within the church, but there will also be lots of women who vote against issues of women's rights in the church to prove how pious and righteous they are. Circumstances would only improve if the women who vote for their rights outnumber the women who would vote against them. Internalized misogyny is a very real thing even outside a group as anti-women as the PRC. At the very least though, allowing women to vote would mark a significant turn in the culture of the PRC towards treating adult women as equal human beings to adult men. |
|
|
|
Post by pemptyr on Oct 23, 2019 15:41:01 GMT
What I meant to say was I think even the women have been taught to think the same way as the men, so if they could vote it wouldn't make a difference. Yes. If women were allowed to vote some women might vote for issues that improve their rights/stance within the church, but there will also be lots of women who vote against issues of women's rights in the church to prove how pious and righteous they are. Circumstances would only improve if the women who vote for their rights outnumber the women who would vote against them. Internalized misogyny is a very real thing even outside a group as anti-women as the PRC. At the very least though, allowing women to vote would mark a significant turn in the culture of the PRC towards treating adult women as equal human beings to adult men. Are they anti women or are they stuck in mainstream American culture between 1920-1950, the glory days for the prc? I think they are against any deviations from gender roles of that era whether your a man or woman. |
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Oct 23, 2019 15:49:46 GMT
What I meant to say was I think even the women have been taught to think the same way as the men, so if they could vote it wouldn't make a difference. Yes. If women were allowed to vote some women might vote for issues that improve their rights/stance within the church, but there will also be lots of women who vote against issues of women's rights in the church to prove how pious and righteous they are. Circumstances would only improve if the women who vote for their rights outnumber the women who would vote against them. Internalized misogyny is a very real thing even outside a group as anti-women as the PRC. At the very least though, allowing women to vote would mark a significant turn in the culture of the PRC towards treating adult women as equal human beings to adult men. |
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Oct 23, 2019 15:50:17 GMT
Yes. If women were allowed to vote some women might vote for issues that improve their rights/stance within the church, but there will also be lots of women who vote against issues of women's rights in the church to prove how pious and righteous they are. Circumstances would only improve if the women who vote for their rights outnumber the women who would vote against them. Internalized misogyny is a very real thing even outside a group as anti-women as the PRC. At the very least though, allowing women to vote would mark a significant turn in the culture of the PRC towards treating adult women as equal human beings to adult men. |
|
|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Oct 23, 2019 18:54:54 GMT
Yes. If women were allowed to vote some women might vote for issues that improve their rights/stance within the church, but there will also be lots of women who vote against issues of women's rights in the church to prove how pious and righteous they are. Circumstances would only improve if the women who vote for their rights outnumber the women who would vote against them. Internalized misogyny is a very real thing even outside a group as anti-women as the PRC. At the very least though, allowing women to vote would mark a significant turn in the culture of the PRC towards treating adult women as equal human beings to adult men. Are they anti women or are they stuck in mainstream American culture between 1920-1950, the glory days for the prc? I think they are against any deviations from gender roles of that era whether your a man or woman. Mainstream American culture 1920-1950 was anti-woman. Following a literal interpretation of the Bible is anti-women. Traditional gender roles are harmful to men too, but their harm was much lesser than the harm to women due to the imbalance of power between the two genders. |
|
