Wow, Michael and Aimee!! Ground shaking! 1) I am so opposed to NDAs. It is as you say an evil cover-up to protect the organization. No church or seminary should even contemplate them. 2) Infallibility of the interpretation as opposed to the infallibility of the Scriptures has always been deeply concerning and confusing to me. We need a thoughtful humble consideration of differing views from all continents. 3) I was heartbroken at what happened with Ravi and numerous other church leaders. 4) Seeing Christ in the text, not my preferred interpretation, allowing a blend of the intellectual and affectional are so important. 5) Hearing the thoughts and interpretations of women and welcoming them as equal members of the body Christ is my prayer!
So much of what you talk about has, to me, strong echoes of the last few days before the crucifixion: the powerful ruling family/families, the questionable "official proceedings", the deals to try to keep the truth from getting out.
We may no longer execute people for "heresy", but how much really has changed in the last 2,000 years?
NDA's were developed for the corporate world, of course, no disclosing of corporate secrets (financial or commercial) to the competition. There is an appropriate place in the church world, e.g. the non-disclosure of information derived from counseling, which would come under professional standards in the licensed counseling world and canon law in the Catholic world ("seal of the confessional"). But, of course, in the church they seem to be used to protect the institution or senior "pastor" rather than the person disclosing personal information (in the confessional a disclosure that is seen as being made to God).
I would further comment that (1) I have long realized that "top dogs" in the evangelical hierarchy, especially in "independent" churches have played Pope in a way the Pope would not himself act and (2) that interpretations of creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith have also been use in this way. I have some very clear stories, but will leave names out of it. The reality is that as I see it someone must decide the interpretation if it is to be acted on so there must be a magisterium. That magisterium can be the general consensus through the ages and around the world or the consensus of my particular tribe within the church or of my particular pastor, but eventually one must say "the Church (or "my church") believes and does this."
Finally, when I became Director of Clergy Formation for the Ordinariate, I had to learn new vocabulary: we form priests and deacons (and others) and education is only intellectual formation, one of four areas. That was not part of my seminary education, nor part of most institutions in which I taught, although Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry had some sense of that. For us that means living in community during formation (even those being formed as deacons must meet in groups along with their wives who have agreed to participate in at least the human and spiritual parts of formation), regular (and confidential) spiritual direction, regular worship together, frequent confession (the Sisters I serve go to confession weekly and it is not intended to be superficial), expectations on prayer, individual and communal (never had any teaching on this in seminary), etc. Does this fail at times? Yes, some types of abusers are very good at hiding their predilections (I can think of a case of that), but since 2002 they are usually caught quickly if they act on the predilections they hid. My point is, that, as Institute for Priestly Formation makes clear, this four part, longer term formation is necessary if one wants godly ministers, always remembering that even those who start off godly may slip in their disciplines and "fall into the trap of the devil" later.
These reek of a Corporate Business culture seeking to protect their PR so they don’t lose market share or have their stock price tumble. It’s Spin control and is un-biblical to the core. They have no place in a church that’s seeks to proclaim and honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, how do we ever ‘speak the truth in love’ and ‘be well thought of by outsiders’?
Agree. There’s a big difference between a perfectly valid confidentiality agreement protecting company intellectual property which you accept as terms of employment and these NDAs designed to lock up victims of harassment or other worse behavior by limiting disclosure of the terms and / or reasons for which a settlement is reached. I agree they have no place in the church or parachurch org. More and more states are passing “silenced no more laws” to protect victims of discrimination and abuse
Exactly. More US states are making these kind of NDAs (non disclosure or non disparagement) illegal. In state of Washington it invalidates them retroactively if the nda was entered into at outset or during employment. so it would appear these are completely unenforceable in Washington.
Great discussion! I agree on Rick Warren. Also the Passion guys like Giglio. I really like that group and hope nothing comes out on them!
Wow, Michael and Aimee!! Ground shaking! 1) I am so opposed to NDAs. It is as you say an evil cover-up to protect the organization. No church or seminary should even contemplate them. 2) Infallibility of the interpretation as opposed to the infallibility of the Scriptures has always been deeply concerning and confusing to me. We need a thoughtful humble consideration of differing views from all continents. 3) I was heartbroken at what happened with Ravi and numerous other church leaders. 4) Seeing Christ in the text, not my preferred interpretation, allowing a blend of the intellectual and affectional are so important. 5) Hearing the thoughts and interpretations of women and welcoming them as equal members of the body Christ is my prayer!
So much of what you talk about has, to me, strong echoes of the last few days before the crucifixion: the powerful ruling family/families, the questionable "official proceedings", the deals to try to keep the truth from getting out.
We may no longer execute people for "heresy", but how much really has changed in the last 2,000 years?
Lord, have mercy.
NDA's were developed for the corporate world, of course, no disclosing of corporate secrets (financial or commercial) to the competition. There is an appropriate place in the church world, e.g. the non-disclosure of information derived from counseling, which would come under professional standards in the licensed counseling world and canon law in the Catholic world ("seal of the confessional"). But, of course, in the church they seem to be used to protect the institution or senior "pastor" rather than the person disclosing personal information (in the confessional a disclosure that is seen as being made to God).
I would further comment that (1) I have long realized that "top dogs" in the evangelical hierarchy, especially in "independent" churches have played Pope in a way the Pope would not himself act and (2) that interpretations of creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith have also been use in this way. I have some very clear stories, but will leave names out of it. The reality is that as I see it someone must decide the interpretation if it is to be acted on so there must be a magisterium. That magisterium can be the general consensus through the ages and around the world or the consensus of my particular tribe within the church or of my particular pastor, but eventually one must say "the Church (or "my church") believes and does this."
Finally, when I became Director of Clergy Formation for the Ordinariate, I had to learn new vocabulary: we form priests and deacons (and others) and education is only intellectual formation, one of four areas. That was not part of my seminary education, nor part of most institutions in which I taught, although Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry had some sense of that. For us that means living in community during formation (even those being formed as deacons must meet in groups along with their wives who have agreed to participate in at least the human and spiritual parts of formation), regular (and confidential) spiritual direction, regular worship together, frequent confession (the Sisters I serve go to confession weekly and it is not intended to be superficial), expectations on prayer, individual and communal (never had any teaching on this in seminary), etc. Does this fail at times? Yes, some types of abusers are very good at hiding their predilections (I can think of a case of that), but since 2002 they are usually caught quickly if they act on the predilections they hid. My point is, that, as Institute for Priestly Formation makes clear, this four part, longer term formation is necessary if one wants godly ministers, always remembering that even those who start off godly may slip in their disciplines and "fall into the trap of the devil" later.
Good discussion.
The issue of NDA’s in the Church is baffling.
These reek of a Corporate Business culture seeking to protect their PR so they don’t lose market share or have their stock price tumble. It’s Spin control and is un-biblical to the core. They have no place in a church that’s seeks to proclaim and honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, how do we ever ‘speak the truth in love’ and ‘be well thought of by outsiders’?
Agree. There’s a big difference between a perfectly valid confidentiality agreement protecting company intellectual property which you accept as terms of employment and these NDAs designed to lock up victims of harassment or other worse behavior by limiting disclosure of the terms and / or reasons for which a settlement is reached. I agree they have no place in the church or parachurch org. More and more states are passing “silenced no more laws” to protect victims of discrimination and abuse
Protecting intellectual property and silencing victims are two different things.
Exactly. More US states are making these kind of NDAs (non disclosure or non disparagement) illegal. In state of Washington it invalidates them retroactively if the nda was entered into at outset or during employment. so it would appear these are completely unenforceable in Washington.
Brad, very true, it baffles me too.