Last night, I had the immense privilege of preaching at the Christian Workers Union meeting in Magherafelt. It was a tremendous service, and we did not only assume that the Lord was present, we knew He was there. He was very gracious. While we "walk by faith, not by sight," we did not simply believe that He was really present by His Spirit, we felt His closeness, we sensed that nearness of God right throughout the meeting, the attention of the listeners was rapt, and the freedom in preaching was sweet. Yes, I had prepared well, and went armed with my notes, but very seldom referred to them. I preached for an hour, and no one felt the time passing. It was as if "heaven came down and glory filled the room." God was so good to us because God is so good.
Some of the members of my former congregations in Tobermore and Draperstown attended the service, and said it was like old times, commended me for the 'strong message' that I brought, and thanked me so warmly for what I had said. One friend said that that was the kind of preaching we should still be getting in church - the reference being to my being sacked by PCI for preaching the same kind of truthful, clear and passionate sermon, thus depriving them of my ministry.
The organisers said that they would have me back again to preach.
It was noteworthy that two elders (friends) from Union Road were also present, and one thanked me for being there, and the other said I had given him much to think about.
I was trying to address the question, Why, if "the Gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes," was its power not being felt, and experienced in the numerous evangelistic services that are held throughout our country?
Answer: Preachers are preaching to people who do not feel their need of Christ; preachers have lost their confidence in the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation...," therefore have resorted to using the many "obstacles" that have been built up around church life, and are presenting a message that is essentially parallel to Roman Catholicism's "faith+" message, only for evangelicals it is a "gospel+" message - Gospel + testimonies, Gospel + never-ending singing of often silly ditties, Gospel + jokes and frivolity and flippancy - to get people relaxed, Gospel + the active involvement of as many people as possible in the services, etc; the loss of dread at the thoughts of "the Gospel of God," "sin," "the wrath of God," "ungodliness," unrighteousness," and "suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness," (Rom.1:16-18). I confessed my own failure in this regard, and said that my lack of trembling at the very mention of these truths was evidence of the hardness of my heart.
One Church of Ireland vestry man and CWU committee member said that he thought that I had seen behind the scenes in his church, and confessed that he could identify with everything I had said.
When I got home, I collapsed into my chair, exhausted. I had given my best to the Lord in that service, and was reminded of Calvin's words: "I have given my heart as a sacrifice to God."
This had been so precious a time for us as a family, that I just wanted to tell you about the service and about God's gracious enabling of me, his most unworthy servant.
I have found my mind being filled with a growing number of sermon skeletons, which I have recorded for future use - what is God doing in me and with me?
Thank you for your prayers and your constant support and encouragement.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Saturday, 31 January 2009
More Hurt for Victims of Terrorism by Church Leader
Sir, As one of the many victims of institutional abuse, I write to you as a suffering, perplexed, at times confused, and often angry victim. I am being put through continual suffering by people like your esteemed former archbishop, Lord Eames, who, in his current report, co-authored by Denis Bradley, makes me equal with those who murdered my youngest brother in 1977, aged 22.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Terrorist Victims Offended Again by Church
SUBSTANCE OF A LETTER TO DR DONALD PATTEN, MODERATOR OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND
(Similar sentiments were also sent to the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and to Coventry Cathedral where David Porter works)
Dear Dr Patten
I read with disgust, in the Newsletter yesterday (29/01/09), the endorsement of the Eames/Bradley report which your church gave to it. It is quite clear that the service for victims that was held in Belfast by your church and at which you officiated was but a cover-up for your real orientation.
That service may have 'taken in' some Presbyterian victims (the appellation counts for nothing save in the councils of the sectarian), but it did not deceive many others. Your fraternisation with PIRA/SF over decades is enough to dispel any notion that you have any care or concern for victims.
The deafening silence of Presbyterian ministers about this institutionalised re-traumatisation of victims, mainly by senior ecumenical church people, is an affront to decency. It appears that they all endorse the position of PCI on this matter.
I am asking you to do two things, as a matter of urgency; first, to send out through the media an unqualified apology to all those decent victims whom you have insulted by your unsympathetic stance of many years, and your support for this repulsive report; and second, to bring Lesley Carrol in for questioning by Presbyterian victims who share my revulsion to this report and the church authorities for her role in this obscenity.
However, because Lesley Carrol is one of your ministers, you are by default in a conflict of interest situation, so any "considered response" will be, from the outset, invalid.
If you do these two things, and show that you really do support the innocent victims of terrorism, then you will have salvaged some semblance of credibility for your church as a caring institution.
However, if you refuse to come out in support of the innocent victims, many of whose relatives your church's ministers buried, including my youngest brother, Ken, then you will have demonstrated yet again your hypocrisy so far as your concern for the current and constant pain and suffering that many victims of terrorism still experience.
Please do not further retraumatise victims. You witnessed on Wednesday, as I did, the anger and depth of feeling that were expressed at the Europa Hotel - I must add that your refusal to even acknowledge my presence and dignified protest was noted, compared with the personal and gracious approach to me by the current President of the Methodist Conference, and a former one; do not conclude from that that those who chose not to express their anger and disgust, by that means, at the Eames/Bradley report felt any lesser degree of unfathomable emotion.
I found the launch very difficult at times, knowing that the brigadier of the Belfast Brigade of the PIRA, Gerry Adams, who was responsible for numerous terrorist outrages, not least the La Mon massacre, and for the reputation allotted to the Europa Hotel as the most bombed hotel in Europe, and a man who was welcomed into and 'preached' in at least one of your pulpits, was present, thus adding profound insult to long-standing injury on that occasion.
If you can give me any reassurance or even show me any respect as a human being, then I look forward to receiving your reply to this email that was exceedingly painful for me to write and send to you.
Still hurting.
(Similar sentiments were also sent to the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and to Coventry Cathedral where David Porter works)
Dear Dr Patten
I read with disgust, in the Newsletter yesterday (29/01/09), the endorsement of the Eames/Bradley report which your church gave to it. It is quite clear that the service for victims that was held in Belfast by your church and at which you officiated was but a cover-up for your real orientation.
That service may have 'taken in' some Presbyterian victims (the appellation counts for nothing save in the councils of the sectarian), but it did not deceive many others. Your fraternisation with PIRA/SF over decades is enough to dispel any notion that you have any care or concern for victims.
The deafening silence of Presbyterian ministers about this institutionalised re-traumatisation of victims, mainly by senior ecumenical church people, is an affront to decency. It appears that they all endorse the position of PCI on this matter.
I am asking you to do two things, as a matter of urgency; first, to send out through the media an unqualified apology to all those decent victims whom you have insulted by your unsympathetic stance of many years, and your support for this repulsive report; and second, to bring Lesley Carrol in for questioning by Presbyterian victims who share my revulsion to this report and the church authorities for her role in this obscenity.
However, because Lesley Carrol is one of your ministers, you are by default in a conflict of interest situation, so any "considered response" will be, from the outset, invalid.
If you do these two things, and show that you really do support the innocent victims of terrorism, then you will have salvaged some semblance of credibility for your church as a caring institution.
However, if you refuse to come out in support of the innocent victims, many of whose relatives your church's ministers buried, including my youngest brother, Ken, then you will have demonstrated yet again your hypocrisy so far as your concern for the current and constant pain and suffering that many victims of terrorism still experience.
Please do not further retraumatise victims. You witnessed on Wednesday, as I did, the anger and depth of feeling that were expressed at the Europa Hotel - I must add that your refusal to even acknowledge my presence and dignified protest was noted, compared with the personal and gracious approach to me by the current President of the Methodist Conference, and a former one; do not conclude from that that those who chose not to express their anger and disgust, by that means, at the Eames/Bradley report felt any lesser degree of unfathomable emotion.
I found the launch very difficult at times, knowing that the brigadier of the Belfast Brigade of the PIRA, Gerry Adams, who was responsible for numerous terrorist outrages, not least the La Mon massacre, and for the reputation allotted to the Europa Hotel as the most bombed hotel in Europe, and a man who was welcomed into and 'preached' in at least one of your pulpits, was present, thus adding profound insult to long-standing injury on that occasion.
If you can give me any reassurance or even show me any respect as a human being, then I look forward to receiving your reply to this email that was exceedingly painful for me to write and send to you.
Still hurting.
Friday, 16 January 2009
Passion for the Gospel
I have just this week completed Iain H Murray's D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The First Forty Years, and, my, what an inspiring read that was. I have not felt my heart so enlarged for some time as I did during the reading of this volume. It re-lit the flame within me once again for the preaching ministry. What a man of God DMLJ was! What a mentor for young and older ministers! What a pastor to Christian believers!
This book has had a profound effect for good on me, yet just how that effect will work itself out is another question altogether. The fire has been rekindled within my soul, and I long to have the opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ once again with greater regularity.
I am so glad that this subject will be treated at the Puritan Reformed conference to be held in Belfast on 7th February 2009, and I am looking forward to hearing what Geoff Thomas has to say about the Doc. I hope he will present the true Doctor, and not a sanitised version that satisfies the taste-buds of the high orthodox. I trust also that Geoff will deal with the data that is to hand - all of it - and not try to squeeze what he thinks DMLJ ought to have been, rather than what the data presents him as.
The dishonesty that exists within reformed evangelicalism is endemic throughout the reformed churches, and this is seen in the resolute refusal to apply the Word of the Gospel to the churches themselves, but only to non-Christians, Christians and church members. Sadly, not all can recognise this dishonesty when it presents itself. Many good men prefer to hide behind their own perception of what being 'reformed' means, rather than returning to Calvin himself, and recognising the breadth and balanced biblicism of his theology.
My next reading pleasure will be Vol.2 of the DMLJ biography, a task to which I am looking forward immensely. No Christian or minister can do better than to immerse him/herself in the Doctor's preaching, as recorded in print, and to be touched profoundly by this physician of the soul's sermons.
This book has had a profound effect for good on me, yet just how that effect will work itself out is another question altogether. The fire has been rekindled within my soul, and I long to have the opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ once again with greater regularity.
I am so glad that this subject will be treated at the Puritan Reformed conference to be held in Belfast on 7th February 2009, and I am looking forward to hearing what Geoff Thomas has to say about the Doc. I hope he will present the true Doctor, and not a sanitised version that satisfies the taste-buds of the high orthodox. I trust also that Geoff will deal with the data that is to hand - all of it - and not try to squeeze what he thinks DMLJ ought to have been, rather than what the data presents him as.
The dishonesty that exists within reformed evangelicalism is endemic throughout the reformed churches, and this is seen in the resolute refusal to apply the Word of the Gospel to the churches themselves, but only to non-Christians, Christians and church members. Sadly, not all can recognise this dishonesty when it presents itself. Many good men prefer to hide behind their own perception of what being 'reformed' means, rather than returning to Calvin himself, and recognising the breadth and balanced biblicism of his theology.
My next reading pleasure will be Vol.2 of the DMLJ biography, a task to which I am looking forward immensely. No Christian or minister can do better than to immerse him/herself in the Doctor's preaching, as recorded in print, and to be touched profoundly by this physician of the soul's sermons.
Friday, 9 January 2009
Testimonies?
Now this post is going to really get up the noses of our evangelistic brethren. It is going to question the biblical validity and necessity of giving testimonies in church services, especially evangelistic services. This is customary amongst some evangelical ministers, though the practice is largely dying out.
Why am I prepared to do this? For this reason, that the giving of testimonies can detract from the teaching of Scripture on how a sinner becomes a Christian, by going beyond what is written. The major objection to the giving of testimonies is this: they tend to reduce all conversions to a similar pattern, and to standardise experience in a way that went beyond Scripture. While this is not the intention of the testimony-giver, this impression is left on the minds of those who hear them.
How often I had heard it said by soundly converted Christians, that they almost wish they had lived a profligate life, so that they would have a story to tell like So and So. This is very sad, and undermining of faith.
Indeed, when newly converted sinners are asked to give their testimony, the pressure is on them to dramatise what their experience has been, and to include that which is noteworthy in their past lives. Further, those personal testimonies that I have heard have spent much more time on their lives before they became Christians, and precious little on their lives afterwards - surely a wrong emphasis. The story prior to conversion is all about me, while the story after conversion ought to be about what God's grace has been doing in the Christian's life; it ought to be, not self-centred, but Christ-centred.
Now I have no doubt at all that the motives of these testifiers are often well-intentioned. But as I have already stated, the effect can be carnal and man-centred. It is not the first time that Christians, on leaving a testimony meeting, were so impressed by what they had heard from the testifier, that this was all they had to talk about - not Christ, God's marvellous grace, the message. The true focus was removed from God, and placed, inevitably, on man!
A dramatic telling of the story of conversion, especially if one had a colourful life prior to this, can be most gripping. So the time is taken up with these unique features, rather than with the amazing grace of our sovereign God.
The reason why testifiers do not concentrate on the really important aspect of their conversion is this: in every conversion, it is the grace of God that is at work, therefore, it is exactly the same in every conversion. Further, their pre-conversion life is so interesting, that, in comparison, their Christian life is boring - and you can't have that!
How many times have you heard Christians say in their testimony that when they decided to become a Christian, it was "the best decision they ever made." The focus, again, is on what I did, not on what God in His grace did.
Or, I have heard Christians testify that they "never regretted becoming a Christian." Now think about this for a moment: what you left behind was nothing compared with what you now have in Christ, yet how can anyone say they never regretted giving up what they could not keep in order to keep what they could not lose? The very language of having 'regrets' about belonging to Christ is abhorrent, and dishonouring to our gracious Lord and Saviour. Using a weak analogy, what man in his right mind would talk about regretting having millions, after giving up poverty!
Yet this is the kind of careless language that is being used by new Christian. And I doubt if their minister took them aside and talked over with them the basic biblical theology of conversion.
When you become a Christian, you do not give up anything; rather you gain everything. That's why all this talk about people sacrificing to serve the Lord in some special way is out of order. They are sacrificing nothing, but they are gaining everything.
In my own ministry, which commenced some 34 years ago, I don't think I ever gave my testimony in any sermon, evangelistic or otherwise, throughout all those years. I don't think it is necessary, and there is no biblical mandate for doing it.
If someone is bearing testimony to their Saviour, let them do precisely that! Talk about Christ and His beauty, loveliness, and graciousness, but please talk no more about yourself. In comparison, there is nothing in your life to talk about with pride, yet so many almost gloat in their past lives, and revel in telling others how 'bad' they had been. I would be ashamed to tell the world what I was really like, so I don't do it. In fact, the parts of the story that are related in testimonies are those in which the teller has a certain pride, therefore enjoys telling them.
Are you proud of Christ? Then tell us that. Are you delighted in your Saviour? Then that's what we want to hear. Do you enjoy spending time with Him in prayer and bible study? Then, tell the world. Is serving Christ your greatest joy in this life? Then, glorify Him when you rise to speak. But keep yourself in the background; don't let your 'self' appear to mess up the testimony. Give Christ all the glory, and remember, "those who honour Me, I will honour."
Why am I prepared to do this? For this reason, that the giving of testimonies can detract from the teaching of Scripture on how a sinner becomes a Christian, by going beyond what is written. The major objection to the giving of testimonies is this: they tend to reduce all conversions to a similar pattern, and to standardise experience in a way that went beyond Scripture. While this is not the intention of the testimony-giver, this impression is left on the minds of those who hear them.
How often I had heard it said by soundly converted Christians, that they almost wish they had lived a profligate life, so that they would have a story to tell like So and So. This is very sad, and undermining of faith.
Indeed, when newly converted sinners are asked to give their testimony, the pressure is on them to dramatise what their experience has been, and to include that which is noteworthy in their past lives. Further, those personal testimonies that I have heard have spent much more time on their lives before they became Christians, and precious little on their lives afterwards - surely a wrong emphasis. The story prior to conversion is all about me, while the story after conversion ought to be about what God's grace has been doing in the Christian's life; it ought to be, not self-centred, but Christ-centred.
Now I have no doubt at all that the motives of these testifiers are often well-intentioned. But as I have already stated, the effect can be carnal and man-centred. It is not the first time that Christians, on leaving a testimony meeting, were so impressed by what they had heard from the testifier, that this was all they had to talk about - not Christ, God's marvellous grace, the message. The true focus was removed from God, and placed, inevitably, on man!
A dramatic telling of the story of conversion, especially if one had a colourful life prior to this, can be most gripping. So the time is taken up with these unique features, rather than with the amazing grace of our sovereign God.
The reason why testifiers do not concentrate on the really important aspect of their conversion is this: in every conversion, it is the grace of God that is at work, therefore, it is exactly the same in every conversion. Further, their pre-conversion life is so interesting, that, in comparison, their Christian life is boring - and you can't have that!
How many times have you heard Christians say in their testimony that when they decided to become a Christian, it was "the best decision they ever made." The focus, again, is on what I did, not on what God in His grace did.
Or, I have heard Christians testify that they "never regretted becoming a Christian." Now think about this for a moment: what you left behind was nothing compared with what you now have in Christ, yet how can anyone say they never regretted giving up what they could not keep in order to keep what they could not lose? The very language of having 'regrets' about belonging to Christ is abhorrent, and dishonouring to our gracious Lord and Saviour. Using a weak analogy, what man in his right mind would talk about regretting having millions, after giving up poverty!
Yet this is the kind of careless language that is being used by new Christian. And I doubt if their minister took them aside and talked over with them the basic biblical theology of conversion.
When you become a Christian, you do not give up anything; rather you gain everything. That's why all this talk about people sacrificing to serve the Lord in some special way is out of order. They are sacrificing nothing, but they are gaining everything.
In my own ministry, which commenced some 34 years ago, I don't think I ever gave my testimony in any sermon, evangelistic or otherwise, throughout all those years. I don't think it is necessary, and there is no biblical mandate for doing it.
If someone is bearing testimony to their Saviour, let them do precisely that! Talk about Christ and His beauty, loveliness, and graciousness, but please talk no more about yourself. In comparison, there is nothing in your life to talk about with pride, yet so many almost gloat in their past lives, and revel in telling others how 'bad' they had been. I would be ashamed to tell the world what I was really like, so I don't do it. In fact, the parts of the story that are related in testimonies are those in which the teller has a certain pride, therefore enjoys telling them.
Are you proud of Christ? Then tell us that. Are you delighted in your Saviour? Then that's what we want to hear. Do you enjoy spending time with Him in prayer and bible study? Then, tell the world. Is serving Christ your greatest joy in this life? Then, glorify Him when you rise to speak. But keep yourself in the background; don't let your 'self' appear to mess up the testimony. Give Christ all the glory, and remember, "those who honour Me, I will honour."
BULLYING IN and BY the CHURCH!
As someone who also experienced the terror of workplace bullying some 18 years ago, I know something of what it is like to be picked upon by colleagues – the self-questioning, the depression, mood swings, avoidance of company, and personality change. The unanswerable “why me?” question keeps on going around your head, because there is no logical answer to it.
The sleepless nights, the overactive mind, feelings of revenge, the irritability, the inability to trust people, are all well-documented signs of the negative effects of workplace bullying.
The two professions that stand head and shoulders above all others for bullying are nursing and teaching – and by some distance. But it is also carried out in some of the most unexpected of professions, namely, charitable organisations, such as, the church.
I was a minister in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for about 14 years, and was subjected to ‘the treatment’ by colleagues at local and regional levels. Indeed, when I tell people where my bullying occurred, and who did it, they look at me with utter disbelief. But it was in the church and by the church that I was singled out for this excruciatingly painful treatment that resulted in me, the victim, losing my job, and the perpetrators being protected by the establishment.
Sadly, this is usually what happens. When a child is bullied at school, s/he usually has to leave the school and go elsewhere, and the bully can remain on at his/her school. In work situations, it is the victim who has to leave because of a work-related breakdown in his mental and/or physical health, or by his/her own choice, but the bully, who is usually a manager, is protected by the organisation, and even promoted within it.
Those who engage in such perverted logic must take a long and hard look at what they are doing, and the longer term effects of so doing on future generations. I have worked with more nurses and teachers, as well as people from other walks of life, who have been broken by their managers than I care to mention, professional people who are good at their job and who get on well with people, and the stories were quite similar.
The bullies don’t realise this, but they are damaging, sometimes beyond recovery, the best employees they have. These are committed, dependable, hard-working people that are needed in every workplace in the country. Contrast them with the bullies – incompetent, lazy, nasty, duckers and divers, boot lickers, possessing Jekyll and Hyde personality traits, at times psychopathic, people who will tramp over anyone, no matter who they are, in order to get on in their careers, nitpickers, negative people, always criticising and fault-finding, nasty pieces of work. Beside the victims, their bullies just do not stack up.
I’d be very surprised if the four men involved in the bullying of this young boy didn’t cover up for each other. In my case, other ministers, when informed by me about the immoral misbehaviour of a church elder, treated me as a liar, and protected the individual – protection that is still in place to this day – and punished me instead. At least two of those doing the protecting were promoted to the position of Moderator a few short years later.
I can identify with the situation of this young lad – the crying, the not wanting to be bothered by others, including caring family members, the depression, and in my case suicidal tendencies. Workplace bullying is a life-threatening behaviour, and it is also life-dominating – you just cannot get what these people did to you out of your mind.
One very important fact that victims of bullying need to remember is that they did not bring this on themselves. It was the bully’s decision to inflict this on them. It was not their fault that this happened to them, and when they ask the “Why me?” question, this is something they need to remember. It was not necessarily something you did, or did not do, that accounts for the bullying, but something in the bully, some deficiency or something present in them, that urged them to act in this manner. They are to be held fully responsible for their behaviour, not excused, and certainly not to be understood. What they did was WRONG.
Another thing that is important to know, is this: you are not on your own, and you are not the only person to whom kind of thing was done. It may be cold comfort now, but when you think about it, you will come to realise that there are people out there who have survived and come through this ordeal, and who can now help those who are going through it. You need their support, for this is much too big a thing for you to handle on your own.
One former Moderator once asked me what I thought about ministers, and I told him, “I don’t trust any of you. The only time I will ever trust a minister again is when he first proves that he is a friend.” I have learned that you do not have friends in the ministry, only colleagues.
The sad thing is that this type of gross behaviour occurs in every religious denomination – sometimes the professedly purer denominations are the worst. How can someone in the caring profession par excellence be trusted when that profession not only treats its employees in such a despicable way, but then proceeds to cover up the immoral behaviour of the bullies?
I have spoken to ministers and their wives, and some of the stories I have heard from them are devastating. Ministries have been cut short and ruined, marriages have been placed under almost intolerable strain, and serious breakdown in health has been experienced by these good men and women.
In every bullying situation, including my own, there were the bullies, I was the victim, but there were also the by-standers, the lookers-on who saw what was happening and did nothing to stop it. Thankfully, the man who arrived at the garage and disturbed the bullies as they tortured the boy, is to be heartily commended for his compassion and pro-activity – would there were more like him in today’s workplaces.
Workplace bullying is currently a growing problem, and decisions such as the one taken recently by the courts can only act as a spur on to those currently engaged in this anti-social behaviour. In fact, incidences of this doubled in the nineties, and there is no reason to believe that this trend will stop.
I would say to the parents of this child to proceed to sue for compensation those who abused your son. This initiation ceremony went horribly wrong, but even if it hadn’t, it was still indefensible behaviour to inflict on any human being.
Sadly, the only way employers will be taught a lesson is when it hits their pockets really hard. Get the best lawyers you can and sue these bullies. You do not know what the future will be for your son, or you, what help he will need, or indeed whether he will ever work again; so he needs to be cared for, and those who inflicted such damage on him must be made to pay. Rogue employers like this one must know that workplace bullying will not be tolerated in any civilised society. A clear message must be sent out that bullying will cost you dearly if you engage in it.
Because of media coverage, the name of the company is now well known, and decent people ought not to give it any custom. Young people or even older people should look elsewhere for employment, because working for this company could seriously damage your health.
I said that bullying inflicts psychiatric damage – an invisible injury – and it does. The positive news is that it is an injury, not an illness, and like other injuries will heal given time and the proper care and support. My health crashed as a direct result of the bullying treatment meted out by the church, which necessitated me being under psychiatric care for 18 months; but I proceeded to study for a Master’s research degree at Magee in which I looked at workplace bullying.
However, it took me 14 years before I could attend a Presbyterian church again. I have not forgotten what that church did to me and to my family, showed no care whatsoever for us, never once apologised for the hurt caused, showed no remorse, made no attempts at reconciliation – these came from my side – but for my own good, I had to walk away from the hurt caused, and get on with life, a most difficult thing to do.
I am not suggesting that this ought to be done by every victim of bullying, for each one is different. What I do know is that it will take a very long time for any measure of recovery to be experienced, and the worse the ordeal, the longer it will take. ‘Moving on’ depends entirely on where you are moving on from! So we are all different, and our individuality must be recognised and respected.
If anyone reading this article is experiencing this terrible thing called workplace bullying, I am prepared to give what insight I can. I can be contacted at jehlynch [at] gmail.com and any help I can give will be made available.
CONTACT: Dr J. E. Hazlett Lynch, West Lynn, 23 Parkmore Close, MAGHERAFELT, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland, BT45 6PL. Tel. 0044 (0) 28 7963 4684. Or at JEHLynch [at] gmail.com
The sleepless nights, the overactive mind, feelings of revenge, the irritability, the inability to trust people, are all well-documented signs of the negative effects of workplace bullying.
The two professions that stand head and shoulders above all others for bullying are nursing and teaching – and by some distance. But it is also carried out in some of the most unexpected of professions, namely, charitable organisations, such as, the church.
I was a minister in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for about 14 years, and was subjected to ‘the treatment’ by colleagues at local and regional levels. Indeed, when I tell people where my bullying occurred, and who did it, they look at me with utter disbelief. But it was in the church and by the church that I was singled out for this excruciatingly painful treatment that resulted in me, the victim, losing my job, and the perpetrators being protected by the establishment.
Sadly, this is usually what happens. When a child is bullied at school, s/he usually has to leave the school and go elsewhere, and the bully can remain on at his/her school. In work situations, it is the victim who has to leave because of a work-related breakdown in his mental and/or physical health, or by his/her own choice, but the bully, who is usually a manager, is protected by the organisation, and even promoted within it.
Those who engage in such perverted logic must take a long and hard look at what they are doing, and the longer term effects of so doing on future generations. I have worked with more nurses and teachers, as well as people from other walks of life, who have been broken by their managers than I care to mention, professional people who are good at their job and who get on well with people, and the stories were quite similar.
The bullies don’t realise this, but they are damaging, sometimes beyond recovery, the best employees they have. These are committed, dependable, hard-working people that are needed in every workplace in the country. Contrast them with the bullies – incompetent, lazy, nasty, duckers and divers, boot lickers, possessing Jekyll and Hyde personality traits, at times psychopathic, people who will tramp over anyone, no matter who they are, in order to get on in their careers, nitpickers, negative people, always criticising and fault-finding, nasty pieces of work. Beside the victims, their bullies just do not stack up.
I’d be very surprised if the four men involved in the bullying of this young boy didn’t cover up for each other. In my case, other ministers, when informed by me about the immoral misbehaviour of a church elder, treated me as a liar, and protected the individual – protection that is still in place to this day – and punished me instead. At least two of those doing the protecting were promoted to the position of Moderator a few short years later.
I can identify with the situation of this young lad – the crying, the not wanting to be bothered by others, including caring family members, the depression, and in my case suicidal tendencies. Workplace bullying is a life-threatening behaviour, and it is also life-dominating – you just cannot get what these people did to you out of your mind.
One very important fact that victims of bullying need to remember is that they did not bring this on themselves. It was the bully’s decision to inflict this on them. It was not their fault that this happened to them, and when they ask the “Why me?” question, this is something they need to remember. It was not necessarily something you did, or did not do, that accounts for the bullying, but something in the bully, some deficiency or something present in them, that urged them to act in this manner. They are to be held fully responsible for their behaviour, not excused, and certainly not to be understood. What they did was WRONG.
Another thing that is important to know, is this: you are not on your own, and you are not the only person to whom kind of thing was done. It may be cold comfort now, but when you think about it, you will come to realise that there are people out there who have survived and come through this ordeal, and who can now help those who are going through it. You need their support, for this is much too big a thing for you to handle on your own.
One former Moderator once asked me what I thought about ministers, and I told him, “I don’t trust any of you. The only time I will ever trust a minister again is when he first proves that he is a friend.” I have learned that you do not have friends in the ministry, only colleagues.
The sad thing is that this type of gross behaviour occurs in every religious denomination – sometimes the professedly purer denominations are the worst. How can someone in the caring profession par excellence be trusted when that profession not only treats its employees in such a despicable way, but then proceeds to cover up the immoral behaviour of the bullies?
I have spoken to ministers and their wives, and some of the stories I have heard from them are devastating. Ministries have been cut short and ruined, marriages have been placed under almost intolerable strain, and serious breakdown in health has been experienced by these good men and women.
In every bullying situation, including my own, there were the bullies, I was the victim, but there were also the by-standers, the lookers-on who saw what was happening and did nothing to stop it. Thankfully, the man who arrived at the garage and disturbed the bullies as they tortured the boy, is to be heartily commended for his compassion and pro-activity – would there were more like him in today’s workplaces.
Workplace bullying is currently a growing problem, and decisions such as the one taken recently by the courts can only act as a spur on to those currently engaged in this anti-social behaviour. In fact, incidences of this doubled in the nineties, and there is no reason to believe that this trend will stop.
I would say to the parents of this child to proceed to sue for compensation those who abused your son. This initiation ceremony went horribly wrong, but even if it hadn’t, it was still indefensible behaviour to inflict on any human being.
Sadly, the only way employers will be taught a lesson is when it hits their pockets really hard. Get the best lawyers you can and sue these bullies. You do not know what the future will be for your son, or you, what help he will need, or indeed whether he will ever work again; so he needs to be cared for, and those who inflicted such damage on him must be made to pay. Rogue employers like this one must know that workplace bullying will not be tolerated in any civilised society. A clear message must be sent out that bullying will cost you dearly if you engage in it.
Because of media coverage, the name of the company is now well known, and decent people ought not to give it any custom. Young people or even older people should look elsewhere for employment, because working for this company could seriously damage your health.
I said that bullying inflicts psychiatric damage – an invisible injury – and it does. The positive news is that it is an injury, not an illness, and like other injuries will heal given time and the proper care and support. My health crashed as a direct result of the bullying treatment meted out by the church, which necessitated me being under psychiatric care for 18 months; but I proceeded to study for a Master’s research degree at Magee in which I looked at workplace bullying.
However, it took me 14 years before I could attend a Presbyterian church again. I have not forgotten what that church did to me and to my family, showed no care whatsoever for us, never once apologised for the hurt caused, showed no remorse, made no attempts at reconciliation – these came from my side – but for my own good, I had to walk away from the hurt caused, and get on with life, a most difficult thing to do.
I am not suggesting that this ought to be done by every victim of bullying, for each one is different. What I do know is that it will take a very long time for any measure of recovery to be experienced, and the worse the ordeal, the longer it will take. ‘Moving on’ depends entirely on where you are moving on from! So we are all different, and our individuality must be recognised and respected.
If anyone reading this article is experiencing this terrible thing called workplace bullying, I am prepared to give what insight I can. I can be contacted at jehlynch [at] gmail.com and any help I can give will be made available.
CONTACT: Dr J. E. Hazlett Lynch, West Lynn, 23 Parkmore Close, MAGHERAFELT, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland, BT45 6PL. Tel. 0044 (0) 28 7963 4684. Or at JEHLynch [at] gmail.com
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Full-time Christian service?
This is a term that we hear mentioned from time to time in Christian churches, and seems to refer only to those who are paid or supported by someone else in order to do their service for God.
I feel I must challenge this viewpoint, because if you can explain how a Christian can be a part-time Christian, I'll accept this viewpoint. Surely, from the moment a Christian is born into the family of God, he is from that very instant a full-time Christian, and therefore in full-time service for Christ.
What has brought this to my attention was the practice that the church was to pray for doctors, nurses and teachers, et al, who were doing this work in a country other than their own, but the same care is not taken to pray for Christians who are doing these same jobs at home. What is different about these situations? Only location. These Christians are doing what they are doing as their service for Christ, even if the Department of Health and Social Services, or the Department of Education, is paying their salaries.
I think that this false distinction has a discouraging effect on Christians who are serving Christ at home, and tends to place a halo above the heads of those who do the same work overseas.
The church must begin to see things through more biblical eyes, and not get involved in Roman-like halo placing for some Christians, and not for all. Why ought it to be thought a great thing for a Christian to serve Christ overseas, yet it is not so great a thing to serve Him at home? Why is a nurse or a teacher working at home not prayed for with the same enthusiasm as the same professional is who is working abroad? This does not stand to biblical sense.
What a mighty difference it would make to the effectiveness of Christian service were the church to pray as fervently for Christians working at home as she does for those working abroad! Surely we do a massive dis-service to all those good Christians who serve Christ faithfully at home, and depreciate and discredit their service for Christ.
As a Christian, I serve Christ in a full-time capacity, and it is when I believe that I am not in His service that I go astray. I would find it very difficult to argue from Scripture or from experience that Christians can serve Christ casually.
We need to take a fresh look at this aspect of church life, and hopefully be drawn to more biblical conclusions.
I feel I must challenge this viewpoint, because if you can explain how a Christian can be a part-time Christian, I'll accept this viewpoint. Surely, from the moment a Christian is born into the family of God, he is from that very instant a full-time Christian, and therefore in full-time service for Christ.
What has brought this to my attention was the practice that the church was to pray for doctors, nurses and teachers, et al, who were doing this work in a country other than their own, but the same care is not taken to pray for Christians who are doing these same jobs at home. What is different about these situations? Only location. These Christians are doing what they are doing as their service for Christ, even if the Department of Health and Social Services, or the Department of Education, is paying their salaries.
I think that this false distinction has a discouraging effect on Christians who are serving Christ at home, and tends to place a halo above the heads of those who do the same work overseas.
The church must begin to see things through more biblical eyes, and not get involved in Roman-like halo placing for some Christians, and not for all. Why ought it to be thought a great thing for a Christian to serve Christ overseas, yet it is not so great a thing to serve Him at home? Why is a nurse or a teacher working at home not prayed for with the same enthusiasm as the same professional is who is working abroad? This does not stand to biblical sense.
What a mighty difference it would make to the effectiveness of Christian service were the church to pray as fervently for Christians working at home as she does for those working abroad! Surely we do a massive dis-service to all those good Christians who serve Christ faithfully at home, and depreciate and discredit their service for Christ.
As a Christian, I serve Christ in a full-time capacity, and it is when I believe that I am not in His service that I go astray. I would find it very difficult to argue from Scripture or from experience that Christians can serve Christ casually.
We need to take a fresh look at this aspect of church life, and hopefully be drawn to more biblical conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)