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.
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/
It is mind-boggling to me that anyone would read these charges & be like, you know what, I think it's really important to tell the victims & those pastorally tending them that their online jokes are in poor taste. 🧵
Worrying about offending somebody w/my tone would not even make the very last page of my very long list of things to care about if a trusted leader at my church had abused my 9YO or groomed my teen or raped my friend or anything adjacent to these allegations. 2/
And if I had listened to hundreds of accounts from people who had felt unheard, dismissed, or harmed in ACNA churches & I watched bishops again & again deflect responsibility, I am guessing I probably wouldn't have very much respect for them. 3/
"Spiritual orphans. Exvangelicals. Estranged children of the church. I can think of many descriptors for the displaced and hurting Christians who are navigating moral injury, church betrayal, and the institutional inability to hold errant leaders accountable." 🧵
This week, my denomination, the Anglican Church in North America, after bungling a 4+ years investigatory process into allegations against a bishop, released a summary of their ruling of “not guilty on all counts.” 2/
Bishop Ruch, who was accused of a pattern of ordaining leaders with known predatory behavior among other things, “testified that he would not today support” the ordination of at least one of the men. The ACNA’s ecclesiastical court decided that: 3/
Some ppl seem to want to tell me why I'm angry about the @The_ACNA ecclesiastical trial
Guys, I've been angry for years. Question is: why aren't you angry?
I am *embarrassed* and *scandalized* at the incompetence on display w/the trial & I'll tell you some reasons why 🧵
The trial court scolded advocates & ppl bringing presentments; that supercilious framing resembles the leadership immaturity that has categorized the @The_ACNA every step of the way.
Using the trial summary to kind of go off on any and everyone who tried to effect any kind of change *while at the same time* acknowledging how inept, chaotic, ill-informed, and damaging ACNA responses/processes were is beyond the pale. +
Organizing my thoughts/observations in this thread.
In short: this reads like the perhaps predictable church family system version of "but we did the best we could," where parents/leaders want to be judged by their good intentions rather than the harmful impact.
I perceive a lot of "mistakes were made" vibes, e.g. the structures were in formation, there wasn't standardization, things were growing, etc.
Okay and also: that is a failure of leadership. That is the building the plane while flying it ethos writ large. Who will own this? 2/
One of the most damning things about this is that ACNA administrative involvement made a complicated situation *worse* & in the end the incompetence on display from leaders means that the court is unwilling to lay the blame at Ruch's feet.