Voice of the Laity - Anglican Diocese of The Murray

The Voice of the Laity - Diocese of The Murray

Thoughts from the people

Contributions from Readers

Contributions to this page are welcome.

Please click here to email us. Please include your name and contact details. These will not be published. Submissions may be edited, but we will check with you before making any changes.

New submissions are at the bottom of the page.

DG writes:

I thought these words from Eli Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech might be encouraging:

The world did know, and remained silent. That is why I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.

BK asks:

You have to be an Anglican to be on parish council or vote at vestry meetings. So how come it's OK for for priests to be licensed to act as clergy in this diocese who are not members of the Anglican church, and have left it publicly because they don't like its leadership and beliefs? Surely you should have to belong to a church before you can be a minister in it?

AK writes:

I wonder what all the clergy think about when they go to bed at night? They tell us about saints and martyrs and about courageous witness to the truth. How many of them would have been martyrs or heroes of the faith? They won't even ask the bishop questions or stick up for their lay people. The priest in our parish abused one woman publicly for going to the meeting on August 4th and reduced her to tears.

LT writes:

I found these words somewhere, I can't remember where, and thought they were relevant. Someone should keep a list of all the bullying behaviour and abuse. Even if the other bishops won't do anything, it has to be stopped somehow, and just going along with it and keeping quiet never works.

As American Airlines Flight 11 began heading toward the North Tower of the World Trade Center, Muhammad Atta announced to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK….Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.”
This has been the modus operandi of bullies and thugs throughout the ages: telling their victims, keep quiet, just go along, or things will go even worse for you. And of course, the only effective response to the bullying of the weak by the powerful has always been not to keep quiet, but to speak out, to resist, and thereby to draw attention to the bullying and make life as uncomfortable as possible for the bully unless and until he stops. But this, unfortunately, is a lesson that human beings have had to relearn again and again. The impulse to stay quiet, to appease, to give the bully what he wants, wasn’t invented by Neville Chamberlain in his Munich meeting with “Herr Hitler”: it is as old as human conflict itself, and is alive and well today despite the voluminous evidence that it only emboldens thugs, rather than pacifying them.

PL writes:

Yes, but why won't the bishops do anything? Surely it's obvious by now that there are serious problems. OK, so maybe they can't do anything legally, because the diocese is a separate legal body, or whatever, but do they have to join in sidelining and ridiculing people who do say something or try to do the right thing? And do they have to keep being publicly mates with you know who? What happened to standing with the victims?

DB asks:

If you were a church leader and a number of people said they felt bullied by your behaviour, would you:

a) Apologise immediately
b) Review your actions and try to do better in future
c) Dismiss all complaints as political campaigning

If you were a church leader caught out in a lie which had caused serious distress and embarrassment to people who had only ever treated you with kindness, would you:

a) Apologise immediately
b) Review your actions and try to do better in future
c) Complain you were being vilified

If you were a church leader and a friend pointed out privately that your some of your actions were hurtful to others and bringing discredit on the church, would you:

a) Thank them and apologise immediately
b) Review your actions and try to do better in future
c) Dismiss them as evil and try to destroy their reputation

If you answered anything other than a) or b) to any of these questions, please consider whether you are capable of witnessing to the essence of the Christian faith - love, forgiveness and truthfulness. If not, perhaps you might be more suited to some other career?

PW writes:

The problem is that some people are simply incapable of thinking about their own actions or taking responsibility for the harm their actions cause. Everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault, and people who suggest otherwise must be enemies and evil.

M. Scott Peck wrote a book called People of the Lie, which suggests that evil is not so much doing wrong things - everyone does some things which are wrong - but an unwillingness to acknowledge the evil in oneself, and therefore an inability to repent or change. Evil is projected onto others.

A defining factor is that evil people have no regard for the truth; they lie and live in a world of lies. They are masters of disguise and cloak themselves in respectability and piety. The appearance of propriety and respectability is vital. But they may also genuinely believe that they are right, good, truthful - even while they are telling vicious lies, which in their case of course, are necessary and justified.

Peck defines evil as: “The exercise of political power—that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion…”. Preserving the sense of self as righteous is paramount, so the imposition of this will upon others becomes the use “of political power to destroy others,” for the purpose of defending or preserving the integrity of one’s sick self.

This ends up as a disease of hatred. It is a kind of narcissism. Peck calls it, “enemy creation,” or “hatred of the out-group.” If something goes wrong and a person or group does not have an identifiable enemy, “it will most likely create one in short order.” Peck wrote, “Those who do not belong to the group are despised as being inferior or evil or both.” The creation of an enemy, or writing others off as evil and therefore to blame for whatever problems may exist, prevents any blame from attaching to the person.

When this is the case, it is most unlikely that the person or group will ever change. All the evil is 'out there' in other people, so why should any change be necessary? Other people should change, or go away, and all the problems would stop if they did. This inability to reflect, repent or change, means that it is almost impossible for any mediation or reconciliation to be entered into honestly or truthfully.

There is no way to be safe with such people, except to go along with them and to participate in their way of seeing the world and treating other people. But that should not be an option for a Christian, and especially should not be an option for Christian leaders. Sometimes we must risk not being safe for the sake of what is right.

JT writes:

I get a bit fed up with the claim that concern about the leadership of the diocese is an "attack on the catholic faith". I've heard this a few times. I for one eagerly welcomed the election of the present bishop because he seemed to believe the right things and to be willing to stand against the tide of liberalism that has infected the church.

The catholic movement has been betrayed, but not by lay people and clergy who simply ask their church leaders to treat them fairly, truthfully and with dignity. One of the reasons the catholic movement in the Australian church is in such disarray is that its so called leaders have failed abjectly to commend the faith they say they hold. People can be Christian leaders whatever views they have about the ordination of women. They cannot be Christian leaders if they lie, bully, refuse to forgive, and condemn and mock those who don't see things exactly as they do.

If Anglo-catholics are to have any credibility, we must demand from our leaders that they not just talk about, but live, the catholic faith - love, service, truth, respect for others, following the example of Jesus and the apostles. If we don't insist that our leaders behave with integrity, and replace them if they won't or can't, we will have no voice at all in the Church, and we won't deserve to.

BK writes:

I agree. People aren't launching a spiritual attack on you if they ask you to behave decently and honestly. It's people who behave badly who are betraying the catholic faith, not those who ask them to be accountable.

TN writes:

I just saw this on the website of the TAC newspaper:
In a letter to the international College of Bishop of the worldwide Communion, Archbishop Hewporth wrote, "When the consecration of Father Chislett was mooted three years ago, it was resolved that the TAC and Forward in Faith Australia would act, with the Anglican Diocese of the Murray, as a single sacramental community for orthodox Anglicans in Australia.

So we are in communion with the TAC and Forward in Faith. When was that decided?

GW writes:

As a victim of the dangerous fundamentalism which is supported by the leadership of the diocese I am aware of the problems we face.

Living close to the diocesan boundary I am fortunate in as much as I can worship in the next parish, which is in the Archdiocese, where a truly Christian attitude seems to prevail. I am disgusted at the way that church property has been handled in my former parish. I pray that the time will come when true Anglicanism is restored in the Murray and I can again attend my local church.

BK asks some questions:

The Bishop was aware of accusations of sexual abuse against the former Vicar-General before he was elected Bishop. Both the present Bishop and the Vicar-General were on the Bishop Election Committee which appointed the Bishop, who then appointed the Vicar-General. Was there an agreement between them – you get me appointed Bishop, I’ll make you Vicar-General, and all will be well?

Did the Bishop and the Vicar-General manipulate the bishop election process by character assassinating other candidates until the present Bishop was the only candidate remaining?

What was the nature of the agreement between the Bishop and the Vicar-General which enabled the Bishop to purchase from the Diocese a late model Magna station wagon worth several thousand dollars for $750?

Why was the writing off of a loan of $400,000 to the Vicar-General’s parish not reported in the Synod accounts?

Further allegations of sexual abuse by the Vicar-General were known to the Bishop soon after his consecration. While these allegations were being received, the Vicar-General arranged a home loan for the personal use of the Bishop for 100% of the value of a unit at Plympton. This money came from Diocesan trust funds, and is still not fully secured by a registered mortgage (editor's note - VOL has heard that this is now being done). Was this part of another deal in place when the Bishop terminated the Professional Standards Committee?

TH asks:

If diocesan council and the other bishops know about the bullying and abuse in the diocese and don't do anything about it, are they legally liable if anyone makes a complaint? Aren't diocesan councillors like the company directors?

PL writes:

I am really sorry to hear about the bishop's breakdown. I pray for him every day. But he cannot stay. He has been treated with a lot more respect and courtesy than he has treated other people. The whole diocese is having a breakdown.

TR writes:

I agree. It's alright to say, well the bishop's right about the ordination of women, so we need to support him. But it's got nothing to do with that. It's about the way he treats people, and especially the vindictiveness and dishonesty. He won't or can't, more to the point, lead the diocese in a way that encourages people in worship or mission. It's not about not liking him either. He just cannot do the job, the diocese will continue to fall apart while he is in charge, and it's not fair to him either.

PW writes:

I think the lying and distortion is a bit like the one ring in The Lord of the Rings. You do it once, in an emergency, and tell yourself you had to, it was the only way to achieve what you needed to do. But every time you use it, the enemy gains a little ground - it is the enemy's tool and cannot be used for good. If you continue to use it, you become corrupted by it, so that eventually you become the enemy's tool as well, still justifying its use as necessary, and unable to see the harm it and you are doing.

I still believe the bishop has great abilities and could be a good bishop. But so much harm has been done that the only way for healing to take place now is a full and open acknowledgement of all the lies, bullying and manipulation. If this happened, I think people would forgive (after all, they know the reality anyway), and want and help him to be the bishop he could be.

BK writes:

I'd like that to happen, but past and present actions make it seem unlikely. I am fed up with hearing about how no bishop in the Anglican Church in Australia has been so persecuted. He has always been treated with respect that I've seen. But no bishop in the Australian church has ever treated his people in the way this man has. He could change what's happening in the diocese any time he wanted, by simply saying sorry and meaning it enough to try and fix the problems he's created.

TH writes

I know I've said this before, but if the Church is liable for the damage done by clergy and church workers who commit sex abuse, won't it be just as liable for damage done by a clergyman who commits verbal and emotional abuse? Especially if it knew this was happening and did nothing? Couldn't someone sue the diocese? I don't see why not. I'd really like an answer to this question.

From the Scriptures

Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock?

You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.

"Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.
Ezekiel 34:2-4

I lift up my eyes to the hills— where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Psalm 121:1-2

The Lord says: I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
Ezekiel 34:16

Links

Printing pages from this website

You are welcome to print and distribute pages from this website. Proper attribution should be given, including the web address.

Pages are designed for ease of reading online. For correct layout on a printed page, you may need to check your 'Print Preview' and adjust by checking 'Fit to Page' or some similar command. The latest version of Internet Explorer will fit to your print page size while keeping most of the onscreen page layout. It can be downloaded by clicking on the link above.

Alternatively, simply select the text you want, and copy it to your word processing program.