Accountability etc.
Gallovidian
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I recently became aware of a newly set-up small 'house church' type gathering in a neighbouring village - a pentecostal-style ministry led by a couple who recently moved here from South Africa. I watched one of their youtube videos, which placed a big emphasis on reaching out to and supporting vulnerable people who had found it hard to feel welcome in conventional churches. Which sounds good. But - due in part to past negative experiences of a similar set up - I was concerned about the whole 'safeguarding' aspect around what they were doing. I emailed the 'pastor' with a very polite enquiry about his background and what measures they had in place to ensure vulnerable folk coming into their 'church' would be safe from any improper or exploitative intentions - and that he and his wife were not open to malicious accusations of impropriety (be that financial, emotional or sexual).
I've not had any response, which rings alarm bells, and discourages me from pointing anyone in their direction. Do you think I am right to be concerned?
I am all for supporting non-conventional ways of spreading the gospel and reaching those outside mainstream churches and structures - I'm obviously involved in that kind of thing myself in a 'virtual' way, and support a couple of other informal ministries in the area. I actually think that is how the Church needs to be developing in the coming years. But I can also see that there are dangers when people set themselves up in ministry without any kind of accountability, oversight or consideration to safeguarding vulnerable folk who may come under their care.
How do others feel about this?
I've not had any response, which rings alarm bells, and discourages me from pointing anyone in their direction. Do you think I am right to be concerned?
I am all for supporting non-conventional ways of spreading the gospel and reaching those outside mainstream churches and structures - I'm obviously involved in that kind of thing myself in a 'virtual' way, and support a couple of other informal ministries in the area. I actually think that is how the Church needs to be developing in the coming years. But I can also see that there are dangers when people set themselves up in ministry without any kind of accountability, oversight or consideration to safeguarding vulnerable folk who may come under their care.
How do others feel about this?
Comments
If they have no strong family or traditional connection to established churches, it would make sense in one way for them to start out on their own and perhaps draw in other expats or 'outsiders' from their village. Even the politest email might sound xenophobic to newcomers. Why should migrants from elsewhere make themselves to accountable to already established British groups? If South Africa expats are Afrikaans-speaking, many join the SA Gemeente fellowships and establish homeschooling arrangements connected to their UK-based home churches. I don't know that they are accountable or overseen by any other church group either.
Maybe a face to face conversation might be the way forward, Gallovidian? I appreciate your concerns.
But I think @Gallovidian's question is important, and I would be suspicious about not receiving a reply to the email, particularly since they are using YouTube to promote the church and seek attenders.
There are enough people who have experienced harm within churches, that this seems like a very important question.
But no question is "simple" on either side.
In the 70’s, the new church movement was actually pretty open about what it saw as the death of Christianity in existing denominations and the need for a new start as a result. As it turned out, that gave rise to new denominations!
However well meant such views were, if they are held secretly you can be quite sure that the leaders’ views of accountability start with “we’re right”.
My own experience was of a very similar scenario; a couple who arrived in England from South Africa and began holding church meetings in their home - which quickly grew to quite a sizeable congregation. 10 years in, the church imploded after it came to light that the 'pastor' had been systematically seducing women in the congregation for years - but this had been covered up by the odd few people in the know, and anyone asking questions was condemned as having a critical spirit and 'striking God's anointed'. It also transpired that while the guy had claimed to have been an accredited minister thro Rhema SA, he had actually never formally graduated or been put in a ministry position due to concerns about his suitability.
If folk have nothing to hide, I would have thought a reply saying 'Thank you for your concern, maybe we can meet up so we can put your mind at rest' would be the way to go (certainly that's how I would react in a similar position). I can hardly turn up uninvited on their doorstep demanding to see their credentials!
Not so far as I can see.
That sounds appalling, @Gallovidian. A number of local 'overnight success' ministries with charismatic pastors have been dogged by scandals around sexual harassment or abuse and the embezzlement of funds. To avoid law suits or law enforcement, it is suspected that church leaders move between the USA, Australia, the UK and South Africa.
At the same time, I'm not sure that the problem is necessarily to do with untrained pastors or 'new' independent ministries or unsupervised house churches. Many serious sexual and financial scandals and abuses of clerical power have taken place within long-established mainstream churches (Anglican, Roman Catholic) and the lay struggle to unmask or expose wrong-doing has been difficult. It's a deeper and more pervasive problem than many of us like to acknowledge.
Independent churches tend to be quite 'international' in the way they operate. I'm struck how the rump or remnant of some of the 'new church streams' from the 1970s/80s have contacts and connections all over the place. The presence of a new kid on the block doesn't necessarily imply they are on the run from problems elsewhere but in my experience it's generally an indication of maverick tendencies at the very least. As soon as they hit problems or opposition where you are they'll clear off and set up shop somewhere else.
Let's hope they don't leave a trail of damage and destruction in their wake.
Bearing in mind MaryLouise's earlier message:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve here?
I’d be hesitant to answer, too, I think.
I was just hoping to just find out a bit more out so I know better how to respond when people mention them, and so I know how to pray for them and whether or not I would want to be associated with them at some point.... there is a guy locally who is keen to get all the various groups working together.
Yes, it’s reasonable to expect them to be prepared to give some kind of account to people who are wary, but they might also expect to get to know someone at least a little before being asked to give such an account. I don’t think that’s totally unreasonable, especially in the context where an inquiry might be perceived as suspicion of outsiders.
Those are all good motives, and the questions are reasonable things to want to know about. I’d suggest the way to answer those questions is by getting to know the leaders and establishing at least some rapport with them. Get the answers to your questions through conversation.
With your background, of course I see why you went there, and right away. But they don't know this. And given that they too come from a culture different to yours, they may have felt just as taken-aback as I would have under the circumstances. (Note: The Vietnamese effort I'm involved in looked even less supervised or structured than this sounds like--we basically started visiting in people's homes, and then invited them into ours. We had no official oversight or sponsoring until six months into it, when we were overwhelmed and went begging for help from our Synodical president! We didn't even have YouTube videos.)
I'm not saying you shouldn't have enquired. I'm glad you did. The potential for harm is obviously very high. But if you've hit some very unworldly idealists like we were, well... they might not know quite how to answer you. Or be afraid that by answering, they were opening themselves up to some sort of investigation.
@Gallovidian, when I asked about the significance of their being recent arrivals from South Africa, it was because South Africa has a highly contested and troubled history; sometimes British or Australian people have encountered white South Africans who are entitled and racist, and the stereotype has stuck. It's part of the cultural baggage migrants and expats have to deal with, often unfair. It's hard on newcomers too because they're often facing xenophobia that isn't voiced or explicit. In your situation, the earlier disillusionment you experienced when the South African Rhema's pastor's abusive behaviour came to light after a decade might mean that any similar initiative involving SA expats sets off warning bells for you. Is that a justified concern? If you were to check out their meetings and then speak face-to-face with the couple involved, it might be of benefit to all of you. If your instincts still keep niggling, you might then raise concerns about vulnerable people in the area.
Out here many Christians have widespread prejudice against Nigerian pastors who arrive out of nowhere to hold huge tent rallies in disadvantaged communities for healing and 'prosperity miracles'. The risks of exploitation, deception and abuse are high. There are, however, many Nigerian pastors and refugee communities from rural Nigeria who are beginning a new life here and can't find churches that feel like home, so they start new Spirit-led ministries and have to do so in the face of hostility and cynical scepticism. Sometimes the infusion of new energy and renewal surprises the doubters and changes everything.
Equally, I've also seen the kinds of scenarios he describes - and not just from self-appointed US or South African evangelists but from indigenous British ones too.
@MaryLouise makes good points too. It's less the case now but we can certainly respond badly to white South Africans based on stereotypes and cultural differences. Heck, it isn't that long since 'Spitting Image' ran It's satirical sketch/song 'I've never met a nice South African.'
'I've never met a nice South African / And that's not bloody surprising man ...'
There's a residual element of that still with us. We take the mickey out of their accents and assume they are all going to be racist boors (or Boers).
We stereotype Australians. Americans. The French.
We are terrible for that sort of thing. Stereotypically.
But yes ... I do think Gallovidian could have approached this differently.
Whether the couple are South African, Australian, American, British or whatever else I'd bet a pound to a penny that it'll end in tears though.
I take on board Lamb Chopped's points from her own missional experience. But in her case she did have wider Synodical or denominational resources to draw on. As I understand it, hers is a Lutheran mission not an independent one with no oversight or accountability whatsoever.
I don't believe I am particularly prejudiced against South Africans as such. I probably am prejudiced against hyper-evangelical pentecostalists of any nationality, especially the 'freerange' variety - I have seen the harm they can do in more cases than the one I was closely involved with. My concern is elevated when they come into an area with an assumption that the local churches are compromised and ineffective (something which came over strongly in their youtube channel) and dismiss the idea of trying to work with them. As a relative newcomer to the area myself, I have been very pleasantly impressed by several local churches, one in particular being very open towards and supportive of other ministries emerging in the area.
In my email, I explained something of my previous experience to put my enquiry into context, so they would have an idea of where I am coming from.
I come in contact with quite a few people who do not currently have a regular church affiliation but do have an interest in Christianity, and on occasion have been asked my opinion on some of the less established ministries going on in the area, so would like to be able to overcome my reservations in this case - or alternatively have more concrete reasons not to recommend them to anyone.
Equally, though, I've heard of some Fresh Expressions initiatives that have gone horribly wrong and been badly handled by the Anglican powers-that-be. In one instance the whole sorry affair was brushed under the carpet and never spoken about again. It was if it had never happened. No review. No confab to see what lessons could be learned. Nada. It was like 1984.
This was an instance where the local clergy on the ground were canvassed beforehand and each warned against the initiative going ahead. Not because they saw it as competition but they knew their patch and knew it wouldn't be appropriate for their area.
@Lamb Chopped ok, but I'd still maintain that your case is different from the one Gallovidian describes. Although you may have started out ad hoc and freelance, it didn't remain that way.
Independent operators like the one Gallovidian appears to have encountered don't generally have the nous or humility to involve anyone else.
Sure, back in the '70s and '80s here in the UK there were plenty of independent fellowships or 'house churches' which affiliated themselves to - or were taken over by - one or other of the 'new church' networks or 'streams' that emerged at that time. That doesn't seem to happen so much any more - mainly because most have fizzled out or morphed into something approaching a denominational structure.
What does seem to be more the case these days - and I can't speak too knowledgeably here as I'm less familiar with the independent evangelical charismatic scene than I used to be - is for there to be unaccountable couples and self-appointed pastors who blow in from somewhere or other and gather a group of disillusioned people together promising a great deal and not delivering very much. A lot of noise and sound and fury signifying very little.
Then it all goes pear-shaped and they clear off somewhere else to start the whole sorry process all over again.
That's not what you did. You stuck with things.
We aren't comparing like with like.
Yeah during the midpoint there can be very little difference, And so I agree with what both @Nick Tamen and @Lamb Chopped said above in terms of how it might come across, apart from anything else church leaders get a lot of people contacting them with all kinds of concerns, ranging from the justifiable to the truly niche and baroque and I'm not sure the model of accountability via speculative contact really works very well.
I don't get the impression the group Gallovidian has encountered is in any way bothered about checks, balances and accountability at all.
I don't think speculative contact is the way to approach this issue either, which is why, with all due respect to Gallovidian, I'm not sure his strategy was the right one to adopt.
My brother in law's father was a poorly educated and very zealous Pentecostal pastor. He set up an independent Pentecostal mission in the Cardiff docklands and gathered a multicultural congregation at a time when such things were unusual. My brother in law and his siblings grew up in a house full of waifs and strays his parents took in off the streets and where unscrupulous US evangelists regularly breezed in to fleece them good and proper. They used to send off money they could ill afford to lose to purchase special mail-order 'anointed' handkerchiefs and similar paraphernalia from TV evangelists.
They were earnest and well-intentioned folk and lived self-sacrificial lives. I take my hat off to them in many ways but the toll it took on them and their family was immense.
US Shipmates please note, I am not tarring all of US Christianity with that particular brush.
These well-intentioned people were vulnerable themselves and ministering to vulnerable people. Sure, there was grace there - and apparent 'miracles of healing' from time to time but how any of them emerged from it relatively unscathed is beyond me.
We have no way of knowing whether this group has bothered with any checks or balances or accountability are in place for this group, because we have no information beyond what @Gallovidian has told us, and he has no information from the group leaders or from anyone with direct experience with the group. Anything we draw from the lack of response from those leaders is speculation; there are red-flag reasons they may not have responded, but there are also reasonable reasons they may not have responded.
No, what is a red flag to me is what Gallovidian has said about the tone of their You Tube videos and how they appear to be positioning themselves.
Sure, it's a bit of an interpretive leap on my part but as you've said yourself, there are grounds for understandable concern.
At the risk of stereotyping and making assumptions here, I think there may be Pond and cultural differences at play here to a certain extent. I wouldn't want to exaggerate those but I think it is fair to say that religious entrepreneurialism has generally been more of a feature of the US Christian scene.
Consequently, US Shipmates may be more inclined to cut this group some slack.
But posting You Tube videos that, by Gallovidian's account, appear to position this group as the one to get involved with if you want to see that region impacted by the Gospel - implying that nobody else is doing it effectively - doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a group would do if it was open and consultative in its relations with other churches.
There are plenty of red-flag cues with this one. I've seen them before. It's got nothing to do with them being South African or blow-ins from out of the area. If they were serious about working with existing churches they wouldn't post You Tube videos making such extravagant claims.
Sorry, Nick. There's no Mr Nice Guy option here. This lot are going to cause big problems for themselves and anyone who comes within their orbit. You mark my words.
I'm no prophet but as sure asceggs are eggs I can see this thing going belly-up big time and potentially leaving devastation in its wake.
You know me. Mr Both/And.
Well, here's another one. It's both wrong-headed and dangerous.
We could move to discussing the second part of the OP, which was
I definitely am concerned about this, because in spite of our experience, it's always better IMHO to be under somebody's umbrella--and to have somebody (preferably several somebodies) watching the $ and the behavior.
As mentioned, we ourselves moved under such a structure as quickly as they would let us, which wasn't very, but still...
Truthfully, my biggest concern with the group as described is the YouTube videos they put out before apparently doing anything else at all. I'd much rather see a new ministry get started with the work--putting their elbow grease into it!--before they started tooting their own horn, if indeed they ever do. I've seen far too many grandiose plans come to nothing, and that brings a certain amount of shame to Christ (yeah, he's used to it; still, I don't want him to have to be, if you take my meaning).