The Devolution of SGM: Repudiation of Hyper-Authoritarian Leadership?
You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership. Dwight D. Eisenhower
I was planning on doing a series on how the church views psychological counseling after receiving two very interesting emails, back to back, on the subject from two unconnected people. However, once again, events at SGM intrude and demand coverage as the events seem to be unfolding at a rapid pace. So, I will do the series on counseling after we cover this evolving story.
Unfortunately there appears to be a culture in which pastors are considered to be the sole arbiters of "correct" Christian behavior. If the myriad of reports are to be believed, there seems to be years of missteps in which many people have been deeply wounded by an all powerful clergy which have become quite adept at sidestepping their failures while placing the onus of "sin"on the membership.
However, I hasten to add that these problems are not endemic to the SGM culture and, in fact, are part of all churches which stress an authoritarian leadership structure. At the beginning of this debacle, none other than the SBC's Albert Mohler weighed in, leading to questions as to why the head of the leading SBC seminary would feel the need to comment. I believe this runs far deeper that Mahaney's monetary contributions to the seminary and his friendship with Mohler.
I believe it is based in the growing movement amongst those we at TWW would deem Calvinistas. These adherents would appear to assert a tightly controlled leadership which centralizes power in the hands of pastors who have been specifically anointed, as in the patriarchs of old.
For more, see:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/08/10/the-devolution-of-sgm-repudiation-of-hyper-authoritarian-leadership/
I was planning on doing a series on how the church views psychological counseling after receiving two very interesting emails, back to back, on the subject from two unconnected people. However, once again, events at SGM intrude and demand coverage as the events seem to be unfolding at a rapid pace. So, I will do the series on counseling after we cover this evolving story.
****************************************
I believe that the SGM turmoil is a lesson for the evangelical church. For years, complaints have been rife on the blogosphere of people who have been deeply wounded by churches within this sphere. Well, not necessarily wounded by the church members but by the church "leadership." Recently, a couple of SGM pastors have admitted that a few of these stories are, in essence, true. These stories include accounts of child molestation and a less than supportive response on the part of church leadership.Unfortunately there appears to be a culture in which pastors are considered to be the sole arbiters of "correct" Christian behavior. If the myriad of reports are to be believed, there seems to be years of missteps in which many people have been deeply wounded by an all powerful clergy which have become quite adept at sidestepping their failures while placing the onus of "sin"on the membership.
However, I hasten to add that these problems are not endemic to the SGM culture and, in fact, are part of all churches which stress an authoritarian leadership structure. At the beginning of this debacle, none other than the SBC's Albert Mohler weighed in, leading to questions as to why the head of the leading SBC seminary would feel the need to comment. I believe this runs far deeper that Mahaney's monetary contributions to the seminary and his friendship with Mohler.
I believe it is based in the growing movement amongst those we at TWW would deem Calvinistas. These adherents would appear to assert a tightly controlled leadership which centralizes power in the hands of pastors who have been specifically anointed, as in the patriarchs of old.
For more, see:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/08/10/the-devolution-of-sgm-repudiation-of-hyper-authoritarian-leadership/
2 comments:
Doesn't the Anglican Church hold to a fairly centralized leadership.
Yes, yes and no.
Yes, too much authority has been concentrated amongst Bishops in my view.
Yes, as a result, there certainly has been abuses in history. When there are good bishops, good things can happen. But, there have been bad, bad things also.
No, in this sense. Often, a Bishop leaves a congregation alone to manages it's own affairs. Functionally, many churches are congregational.
In my view, the power of bishops needs re-working, to wit: they need to have term limits, be elected by Presbyters and laity, and be more seriously confined to specific duties assigned by Presbyters. That's the old Celtic model.
So, a quick answer. Yes, yes, and no.
Post a Comment