Background

Our work first began in the early 1960s. However the research took the name Clergy Abuse_A Study on Nov. 20 1982 to better reflect the expanding focus of education and advocacy.

The study continues to keep a record of congregations and document how church courts can harm clergy. We document and monitor the incidence of what the literature calls "church fights". We examine how conflict impacts the minister (or priest, rabbi etc.). We also receive impact statements from family and friends if available.

Clergy support advocates operate on a number of assumptions:

FAIRNESS. We do not assume clergy are always in the right in conflict situations. The basic assumption upon which this ministry rests however is simple. All church professionals innocent or guilty, or somewhere in between, deserve to be treated fairly. All should receive natural justice from the Church, as that term is traditionally defined.
JUST CAUSE. We do not question any congregation's privilege to change pastors from time to time. But, it is our contention that such change must be for just cause and carried out in accordance with the rules of ...fundamental natural justice. The severance package must be fair.
LOYALTY. We feel our ministry is to call the Church back to being a Church of justice , equity and fairness. We are not the least interested in helping anyone hurt or get even with the Church. If we find our selves opposing the Church it will always be as a loyal opposition.

Our focus is on what is right rather than who is right. We are informed by the traditional teaching which teaches that there are times when clergy or the church institution may be legally right and justified, yet morally and ethically wrong.

The thesis is that church attempts at resolving conflict fail because they do not recognize four assumptions operating in their agendas. The first is simple, the victim is blamed. Two, the pastor must "go" no matter the means. Three, any resolution seldom if ever includes dealing with the local troublemakers in any significant way. Four, above all, the process must be seen to be just and officials helpful even if it seldom is.

From our early years we have pointed out that the Churches were not following the rules of natural justice in their dealings with clergy caught up in conflict situations. Then in 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada made this the law of Canada.

In an important precedent setting case for all clergy, the court found that all church decisions, and disciplinary procedures are subject to judicial review, and the rules of natural justice are to be followed in all conflict situations at every level of the Church.

We use the term supporter, advocate, helper etc. as one who lends presence to friends. Someone called to one's side to plead one's cause. Kittel Vol. V, (pp. 800-814), or see Wm. Barclay John & Jude (35-38).

What can we do? As consultants, we can help identify where a colleague is in the conflict process. We can raise some important "what if" type of questions and share what might work for you. We point out that being entitled to justice does not mean the congregations will be interested in granting justice. The system is just to the degree we insist it be so.

A go strategy is as important as a stay strategy. Increasingly, leaving a congregation unscathed is as difficult as trying to stay. Negotiating a clear "safe passage" process agenda is needed. Leaving or staying one needs to know the dangers involved and what issues to raise for discussion so that the conflict becomes a win-win situation. Family and reputation need protecting and we can help.

Colleagues are urged not only to learn the rules of fundamental justice, but insist they be followed by all parties in the dispute. Unfortunately, this insistence by itself can increase the level of the conflict. So must be done carefully.

Mediation is the method we prefer. It is a process for reconciling persons and resolving disputes out of court in a Biblically faithful manner (Matt 18:15-20). For years we have urged churches to use alternative dispute resolution methods. (ADR) For mediation to work there must be trust. However some pastors have not been able to get their Church to negotiate and found it necessary to seek legal help and are at present before the courts seeking judicial review of Church decisions. Others proceed with wrongful dismissal cases etc.

Some Christian traditions define Justice as "impartially rendering to everyone their due in conformity with the standards of God's moral law." We evaluate each situation from this supposition.

The Constitution of Canada (Section Seven) teaches that no one including clergy, can be deprived of their income unless "it is in accordance with the principles of Fundamental justice". The central focus of justice, in this context, is the protection of the minister from authority unjustly exercised. The test of justice is procedural fairness as this relates to the protection of family, professional reputation, and the opportunity to serve the present or future congregation.

"Due process", is to have the complaints in writing, face the accusers in a tribunal free of bias, know the reasons for church decisions, and have the opportunity to make a defense etc. Who can call on us? Anyone! In times of stress we all need to feel support and safe. We do not pick and choose who receives our support.

The person's innocence or guilt, the person's theology, personality, sex life, leadership style, cultural baggage, or view of scripture, is not at issue with us. We reject the "blame the victim" assumption, that a person "brought the conflict upon themselves. (Therefore deserves the pain)".

Neither do we accept the argument that the person has a history of "trouble", or that the pastor should have seen the conflict coming and moved. Nor the rationalization that the minister is abusing the congregation and so deserves the conflict. Experience has shown us that these politically correct remarks are just excuses for not helping a colleague in need.

All conflicts are different yet the same. While the conflict may be different it is still the minister who gets hurt. In this very important way they are the same. If we say our particular conflict was different, then that becomes the loop hole we use when searching for a reason not to support a colleague we may feel uncomfortable being identified with in years to come.

Please help us spread the message by telling others and sharing this back grounder with those in 'trouble'. But remember, a pastor does not have to be part of the network to consult with us.

Return to Top