RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Check out the following article: https://stephenkneale.com/2020/08/06/its-ok-to-disagree-sometimes/
The specific area that caught my eye was the below section but the entire article caught my eye. It made me think of how one should define Unity and Divisiveness. Here are a few quotes from the article:
"But some pastors and church leaders so dislike being disagreed with that they create polity and structures to make it very hard for anyone to disagree. Of course, they always welcome ‘feedback’ (except, they often don’t, really) but it is also clear such ‘feedback’ is merely advisory. It is for their information to do with as they will... Some go further still with much talk of ‘loyalty’. Except ‘loyalty’ typically gets defined as backing every decision the leader makes, regardless of what you feel about it. Challenging decisions is cast as disloyalty and dissent. It is not a legitimate, worthy of discussion disagreement between equals but a challenge (and a disloyal one at that) to the superior position of the apparent elder-in-charge. "
I suspect that these types of interactions, if true, would be under the guise or Unity. Anybody who disagrees would be considered divisive. How do we define these terms and when is divisiveness truly divisiveness? There are obvious examples when a church member insists on a theological framework against the churches beliefs / catechism. What if the situation isn't all that black and white? What if its related to the above scenario when church leadership has created a structure that forbids disagreeing with an Elders decisions. What if there was a conflict within the Eldership that got out to the congregation but when the congregations asks questions they provide vague answers. Would it be divisive for a member to insist on details?
Looking forward to hearing everyones thoughts on the subject.
The specific area that caught my eye was the below section but the entire article caught my eye. It made me think of how one should define Unity and Divisiveness. Here are a few quotes from the article:
"But some pastors and church leaders so dislike being disagreed with that they create polity and structures to make it very hard for anyone to disagree. Of course, they always welcome ‘feedback’ (except, they often don’t, really) but it is also clear such ‘feedback’ is merely advisory. It is for their information to do with as they will... Some go further still with much talk of ‘loyalty’. Except ‘loyalty’ typically gets defined as backing every decision the leader makes, regardless of what you feel about it. Challenging decisions is cast as disloyalty and dissent. It is not a legitimate, worthy of discussion disagreement between equals but a challenge (and a disloyal one at that) to the superior position of the apparent elder-in-charge. "
I suspect that these types of interactions, if true, would be under the guise or Unity. Anybody who disagrees would be considered divisive. How do we define these terms and when is divisiveness truly divisiveness? There are obvious examples when a church member insists on a theological framework against the churches beliefs / catechism. What if the situation isn't all that black and white? What if its related to the above scenario when church leadership has created a structure that forbids disagreeing with an Elders decisions. What if there was a conflict within the Eldership that got out to the congregation but when the congregations asks questions they provide vague answers. Would it be divisive for a member to insist on details?
Looking forward to hearing everyones thoughts on the subject.