Dipping my toes in.... wrote previously:One of the reasons I left my church was that the level of accountability for our pastor was different that the level required for folks under him. And in the pastor’s book, that was fine and good. His accountability was less than that of the people below him and he didn’t see a problem with that. Members of the church were required to be in small groups like Gene’s where we were expected to share really deep details of our lives and these deep details were passed up to the pastor by the small group leader. But the pastor had no similar safety net, accountability group, whatever you want to call it in his day to day life. He told me he had accountability partners that he phoned from time to time, but to me, that’s REALLY playing with fire……
[...]
Genevieve,
I can’t remember the exact specifics, but there were certain topics that if raised during the small group meetings were expected to be passed through your various coaches to the pastor. I know this cause I asked what I was required to report when I became a small group leader. The only one I definitely remember was issues with sexual purity. I think suicidal ideations was another, but that one was more acceptable to get leadership involved, in my opinion.
I am surprised GC never found themselves in a civil or criminal legal entanglement with breaches of confidentiality. I know there are safeguards in some churches today. The church I attend has its own counseling ministry and support groups. I can vouch for the professional safety of the staff and clients.
I did find myself in an awkward place when a former member demonstrated how confidences were kept under wraps in one corner and blabbed in other corners in a 1980s vintage GC church. The intention of the disclosure was showing how confidences were routinely violated. The former member knew I had a good friend still in the church at the time. The former told me how my friend’s issues were common knowledge. Some the examples were clearly for private counseling settings. How the church escaped without legal repercussions, in retrospect, is something of a mystery. The person, who was the subject of the violations of confidences, came from an influential family. I am sure had the right buttons been pushed, it could have become rather a rather messy affair.
One may argue that the former member was engaging in gossip. Maybe and then against perhaps not. Under the circumstances, I can be forgiving. In all fairness, the former member was taken out via an intervention and was out for only a very short time. That is an abrupt and disabling paradigm shift. I can safely say the member was trying to sort out the “modi operandi” of what was going on. The information flow and control must have been disconcerting for that person. There was no attempt to malign or speak evilly of the member still in the group. The tone was out of fear and concern for the individual. I can safely say, knowing the character and integrity of the discloser, had that person been out longer, that person would have been more discrete.
I was unable to follow up with the former member. Was it the hand of Providence, I think so. That was fine. I made a decision to make a mental note of the breach and how it was done, but discarded the personal particulars. The information did clear up some nagging questions I had. I also felt I had details which were none of my business and it was my desire to find every possible way to shred, erase, delete, to get the personal details out my system. It was the right thing to do. I owed it to my friend. After I sorted out my thoughts and feelings in a safe confidential venue, I remember letting it go without any further incident. It may have taken a day or two to process; but then it was over.
With apologies to Jack Webb, the story is true. The names have been deleted to protect the innocent.
