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.
Look over there at the Mount of Olives. Do you see that company of weeping ppl—barefoot King David, 600 of his men & most of the royal court? The mighty man Ittai? They have left the city before Absalom returns.
Sacrifices, offered by Abiathar the priests as Zadok leads the Levites and the ark after David.
But David sends the ark back. This carries hints of the old David, the one who wouldn't raise his hand against God's anointed Saul.
David doesn't know if his rule is over. 2/
He also sends Zadok & Abiathar (and their sons) and Hushai the Arkite back...as spies.
As they go, they encounter friends (?) and foes. They meet Ziba, servant of Jonathan's son Mephibosheth & Shimei, who curses David "for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul." 3/
Delighted to see responses from ppl being like: I'm going to pick up my Bible again! For real, though, QT thread only captures a sliver of the political intrigue at play.
1/2 Samuel & books of Kings & Chronicles read like a game of thrones. 🧵
I find it so poignant to consider how the same Mary who offers her iconic "yes" to God later comes with Jesus' brothers to take Him home, because they all think He's lost His mind. 🧵
Mothers testify: you don't forget the details of birthing a new human being into the world.
We get an abridged version of Mary’s recollections on pgs of gospels—treasured details alongside other mysterious, wonder-full moments: magi & shepherds & aged prophets in the temple. 2/
Perhaps Mary spoke less about the traumatic times—the breath-stealing fleeing in the night or the panicked heart-stopping multi-day search for tween Jesus.
She herself witnessed His miraculous works beginning with her request at the wedding of Cana. 3/
Harmful Christian parenting has generational impact.
Where might Doug Wilson have learned that “Discipline must by painful...God has required us to inflict pain on those who are dear to us” (Federal Husband)? 🧵
“When I was a child, my father delivered 3 rules to me...I also remember where I was standing in the front yard when he delivered them to me, & I remember the fond & affectionate demeanor with which he delivered it (he had a fist in front of my face)....” Douglas Wilson 2/
"I remember vividly [my dad] apologizing to me for spanking me up the stairs in anger. He had to go out that evening to lead a Bible study, but he went out to the car & thought, ‘I can’t go to the study in this shape.’..." Douglas Wilson 3/
If deconstruction is a necessary stage of faith formation 🔗⬇️, why is it that Christian parents (& pastors in faith families) speak so negatively about it?
Probably many reasons, but b/c I've been reading so many Christian parenting resources, I want to talk about one 🧵
Many frameworks give little space for questions/differentiation. Parents cultivate & expect right-away-all-the-way-compliance. This may “work” when children are small but leaves parents uniquely ill-equipped to navigate relationships w/teens & adults. 2/
As young adults who were raised in the church question, reclaim spiritual autonomy, & speak honestly about their experiences, this can be unnerving for parents or pastors who expected children/congregants to simply do as they were told. 3/
As I analyze various Christian resources, I often think about the ppl who lived them. What was it like to parent according to the suggested principles? To be a child “trained up” by them? A family spiritually formed by them?
Recently finished chpt-by-chpt examination of Don’t Make Me Count to Three, a practical application of Shepherding A Child’s Heart. Both offer a nouthetic/ACBC approach to parenting—spiritual micromanagement of thoughts, behaviors, & hearts. 2/youtube.com/playlist?list=…
I've written elsewhere how a laser focus on a child’s heart trains sincere, devout parents to cultivate Christian scaffolding in every layer of family life. An understandable desire, but what if starting presuppositions are askew? What if the scaffolding is flawed? 3/