Leadership guardrails

[barnhart]

Two thoughts about Anabaptists and abuse of power...

We have an unusually strong commitment to forgiveness and restoration which is good but has it created a blind spot around supporting and restoring victims. I think it is a mistake to visualize relationships going back to original form after restoration. Forgiveness is possible but complete freedom from the damage may not be in this life. When we fail to recognize this it sends the message to the victim that you are the problem.

We see value in setting guardrails and standards for many things like not owning TVs because some programming is bad, avoiding modest clothing fashion to encourage simplicity and humility or avoiding restaurants where alcohol is served. Yet we are often blind to the danger of returning powerful roles to people who have abused power. I have known several alcoholics living in victory who purposely avoided social settings where alcohol is being consumed because they know that will never be a good place for them. Why can't Anabaptists exercise some of our practical discernment and guardrails in the area of abuse of power, we seem comfortable doing it in other areas.

[ken_sylvania]

Why can't Anabaptists exercise some of our practical discernment and guardrails in the area of abuse of power, we seem comfortable doing it in other areas.

Are you sure it's fair to say that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment and guardrails regarding possible abuse of power?

I'm sure you've seen things that I haven't, but based on what I've seen over the years I think the conservative Mennonite conference leadership model is much more effective in guarding against abuse of power compared to the independent congregational model of many community churches and some Anabaptists. Are there problems sometimes? Certainly! But I think it's dishonest to imply that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment or have any guardrails in that area.

[barnhart]

Why can't Anabaptists exercise some of our practical discernment and guardrails in the area of abuse of power, we seem comfortable doing it in other areas.

Are you sure it's fair to say that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment and guardrails regarding possible abuse of power?

I'm sure you've seen things that I haven't, but based on what I've seen over the years I think the conservative Mennonite conference leadership model is much more effective in guarding against abuse of power compared to the independent congregational model of many community churches and some Anabaptists. Are there problems sometimes? Certainly! But I think it's dishonest to imply that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment or have any guardrails in that area.

Fair enough. Why can't we exercise about the same amount as we do in other areas.

[ken_sylvania]

Why can't Anabaptists exercise some of our practical discernment and guardrails in the area of abuse of power, we seem comfortable doing it in other areas.

Are you sure it's fair to say that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment and guardrails regarding possible abuse of power?

I'm sure you've seen things that I haven't, but based on what I've seen over the years I think the conservative Mennonite conference leadership model is much more effective in guarding against abuse of power compared to the independent congregational model of many community churches and some Anabaptists. Are there problems sometimes? Certainly! But I think it's dishonest to imply that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment or have any guardrails in that area.

Fair enough. Why can't we exercise about the same amount as we do in other areas.

Care to explain how you have concluded that we don't?

I can't speak to your situation. Some conferences do a better job than others, but that's also true for just about every other area of church life.

It's also good to remember that we aren't looking to the world "government by the people for the people, consent of those governed, etc" to define the ideal leadership arrangement. In exercising discernment we are also trying to follow what the NT says about church leadership.

[barnhart]

Are you sure it's fair to say that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment and guardrails regarding possible abuse of power?

I'm sure you've seen things that I haven't, but based on what I've seen over the years I think the conservative Mennonite conference leadership model is much more effective in guarding against abuse of power compared to the independent congregational model of many community churches and some Anabaptists. Are there problems sometimes? Certainly! But I think it's dishonest to imply that Anabaptists don't exercise any practical discernment or have any guardrails in that area.

Fair enough. Why can't we exercise about the same amount as we do in other areas.

Care to explain how you have concluded that we don't?

I can't speak to your situation. Some conferences do a better job than others, but that's also true for just about every other area of church life.

It's also good to remember that we aren't looking to the world "government by the people for the people, consent of those governed, etc" to define the ideal leadership arrangement. In exercising discernment we are also trying to follow what the NT says about church leadership.

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders. If you look carefully at what I actually wrote, I think you can see I didn't say we never produce such guardrails, only we seem happier to do it in other areas. I don't understand where your accusations are coming from. Have I offended you?

[ken_sylvania]

Fair enough. Why can't we exercise about the same amount as we do in other areas.

Care to explain how you have concluded that we don't?

I can't speak to your situation. Some conferences do a better job than others, but that's also true for just about every other area of church life.

It's also good to remember that we aren't looking to the world "government by the people for the people, consent of those governed, etc" to define the ideal leadership arrangement. In exercising discernment we are also trying to follow what the NT says about church leadership.

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders. If you look carefully at what I actually wrote, I think you can see I didn't say we never produce such guardrails, only we seem happier to do it in other areas. I don't understand where your accusations are coming from. Have I offended you?

No, you haven't offended me. I (mostly) wasn't intending to be abrasive or confrontational in my reply to you.

You did initially say "Why can't Anabaptists exercise some of our practical discernment" which I understand to be saying that we don't use any discernment and guardrails at all. I did intend my reply there to be confrontational because I felt it was an unfair accusation. I think you agreed that statement was too extreme and replaced it with a statement that implies we are less discerning about abuse of power than in other areas. I'm genuinely interested in hearing more about how you come to that conclusion because I'm sure there are differences about how such things are handled.

That post was the only accusation I intended to make. Did something else I said seem like an accusation? If so, I'm sorry. I wasn't intending it, but I see how it could have been interpreted as such.

[ken_sylvania]

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders.

Is it possible that part of the challenge is that we see little danger of going to excess when we make guardrails related to alcohol, clothing and TV but it's not nearly as clear cut to say that "abusive leaders" are banned? Sort of thinking out loud here.

It's relatively easy to say "No alcohol" and "No TV", but we can't just say "no leaders" because leaders are actually a good thing. In a way the whole variety of ways of organizing congregational and conference leadership is the result of people attempting to have good leadership without abusive leadership - attempting to weigh the dangers of empowering abusive leadership against the danger of tying the hands of godly leadership.

[barnhart]

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders.

Is it possible that part of the challenge is that we see little danger of going to excess when we make guardrails related to alcohol, clothing and TV but it's not nearly as clear cut to say that "abusive leaders" are banned? Sort of thinking out loud here.

It's relatively easy to say "No alcohol" and "No TV", but we can't just say "no leaders" because leaders are actually a good thing. In a way the whole variety of ways of organizing congregational and conference leadership is the result of people attempting to have good leadership without abusive leadership - attempting to weigh the dangers of empowering abusive leadership against the danger of tying the hands of godly leadership.

When it seems clear that the percentage of conservative Anabaptists who are comfortable saying "no TV" is similar to the percentage that have written policies about "one strike policy" for leaders and power abuse, then I will agree.

[ken_sylvania]

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders.

Is it possible that part of the challenge is that we see little danger of going to excess when we make guardrails related to alcohol, clothing and TV but it's not nearly as clear cut to say that "abusive leaders" are banned? Sort of thinking out loud here.

It's relatively easy to say "No alcohol" and "No TV", but we can't just say "no leaders" because leaders are actually a good thing. In a way the whole variety of ways of organizing congregational and conference leadership is the result of people attempting to have good leadership without abusive leadership - attempting to weigh the dangers of empowering abusive leadership against the danger of tying the hands of godly leadership.

When it seems clear that the percentage of conservative Anabaptists who are comfortable saying "no TV" is similar to the percentage that have written policies about "one strike policy" for leaders and power abuse, then I will agree.

Agree with what?

[temporal1]

It seems to me we are far more consistent and comfortable making guardrails around alcohol, clothing and TV than around abusive leaders.

Is it possible that part of the challenge is that we see little danger of going to excess when we make guardrails related to alcohol, clothing and TV but it's not nearly as clear cut to say that "abusive leaders" are banned? Sort of thinking out loud here.

It's relatively easy to say "No alcohol" and "No TV", but we can't just say "no leaders" because leaders are actually a good thing.

In a way the whole variety of ways of organizing congregational and conference leadership is the result of people attempting to have good leadership without abusive leadership - attempting to weigh the dangers of empowering abusive leadership against the danger of tying the hands of godly leadership.

Leaders are more than a good thing, leadership is of God’s plan.
God doesn’t plan abuse, esp not abuse of the children or the vulnerable.

It’s important to avoid exchanging one wrong for another.