Here's the thing, though, & it should be 🚩🚨. Rez & presumably other churches w/in UMD *do* require members agree to obey clergy in their extraordinarily unconventional "New Member Covenant."
It opens with a commitment to obey and support those in spiritual authority, particularly the bishop and clergy.
Nowhere in this document does it discuss informed methods of issuing a complaint about clergy, only a members responsibility to comply.
Concerns with leaders are to be kept private, not even to be discussed with friends or other leaders in the church.
Instead, the concerned layperson is to attempt to privately confront the leader, something that disregards power dynamics & safeguarding best practices.
Note this entire subsection about honoring leaders including:
-obedience & submission to their authority
-idea that obedience prevents conflicts (!!!)
-preemptive dismissal of *common & dangerous* allegations against leaders.
This is highly irregular & controlling.
Again, people who have concerns or issues are directed to privately go to someone in leadership, presumably so they can persuade them to stay.
I don't know what kind of church discipline was going on at the parish level, but the way it is addressed here is foreboding.
The signature page includes agreeing to the extensive rules on conflict (the focus itself a 🚩) and again a reminder to honor leaders.
I don't know if all UMD churches sign this membership covenant but to my knowledge they are required to include the Unity Pledge.
If you are wondering why people in UMD/Rez are not speaking about these matters directly, well, this is why.
Members have been taught this from when they joined the church, and the church culture supports it.
This is wrong & weirdly controlling.
It's also unbiblical, despite the fact that the entire document is prooftexted with Scriptures to bolster these points.
There are many NT examples of Christians confronting problematic teaching & much of it involves public discussion.
If you are in @MidwestAnglican or another @The_ACNA diocese that attempts to muffle your concerns or funnels all information through the clergy, please know this is a mark of unhealth.
When I saw the priest swipe the Ash Wednesday cross on my baby’s forehead, I cried.
“Remember that you are dust and to dust you will return,” the priest said, and I looked at my round-cheeked, bobble-headed, newly-born gift, and I was terrified. 🧵
He will die one day, I thought, and the simple truth of the human condition quickened inside me.
I spent one January in the hospital with that child when he was gravely ill, and, for a time, the doctors didn’t know how to diagnose him. 2/
If you’ve ever lingered in a children’s hospital, you know it is a hallowed place.
It rends your heart to see young bodies worn thin w/illness & bloated w/medication, to watch toddlers toting IV poles, & to find children—who should be running & jumping & laughing—bedridden. 3/
As always, it's a good idea for ACNA ppl to read through @ArlieColes' meticulous documentation.
You may think this is a non-issue, but Title IV impacts how allegations against *bishops* will be adjudicated, so here's how I see it mattering, but I'd love to hear from others too🧵
I always encourage ppl to review their *diocesan* canons b/c that is where you are going to find info re: training your clergy receives & how concerns in your parish will be handled.
This advice still holds. Find out if your diocese cares about a trauma-informed framework.+
Same with your parish. Most ppl (speaking broadly) are going to be most impacted by things at the parish & diocesan level.
That being said, what happens at the provincial level does trickle down, esp if you have concerns about a bishop, as we have ample recent evidence. +
Fr. Matt & Rev. Anne have again taken on the role of self-appointed ideological judge & jury, demanding a public apology & calling for the entire discussion to be shut down.
This is the opposite of cultivating healthy communities, let alone allowing for critical thinking. 3/
Y'all, I am not a fan of AI. But I wanted to know the percentage of words devoted to Ruch's actions, narrative capture, provincial processes, and witness testimony.
It broke it down for me & offered some interesting prompts. Make of it what you will. 🧵
Here's the breakdown: structure of the document is procedurally dominated, which AI suggests has implications of institutional protection & desire to emphasize procedural correctness. 2/
This may explain why many ppl have questions, like: Why weren't all the charges addressed? What about Matta? Why were some things omitted? 3/