Standards of Conduct

Author	Message
craigbowman 03 July 2009, 5:27pm	Welcome to this forum where we invite feedback on the three draft documents published on the Ministries page of the website. These papers seek to set down expectations of Ministers of Word and Sacraments, Church Related Community Workers and Elders within the United Reformed Church. You are invited to make comments about the three papers in general or to raise specific points about a particular paper. Comments are not only welcome about the content of the papers but also whether these standards should be binding or advisory.
Gerry Haines 03 July 2009, 7:32pm	I can't seem to find this page - we have News, Events, 'what we do' - but no ' ministries'. Please provide a link. thank you.
Gerry Haines 03 July 2009, 7:52pm	If we go to "What we do' ministries is there. One part I thought a bit odd was To respect the work of predecessors and successors and deal honourably with their record. To be honest, respect has got to be earned. if any previously had let standards lapse - or someone new was not maintaining previous standards, there should be no intent to 'cover up' for them. One should always act in the best interests of the church s a whole. But that may mean exposing malpractice. ? Also- To consider carefully the location of retirement housing and try to avoid living in the immediate area of past pastorates. I don't see the problem here, frankly. One may wish to retire among old friends, and why not?
forummoderator 06 July 2009, 10:52am	The draft Standards of Conduct documents can be found on the Ministries section of the website.
06 July 2009, 4:19pm	I welcome these as the Section O process has always seemed strange without a Code of Conduct to set against it. Good to see that there is one for Elders as well having dealt with a complaint against an Elder in which we had to make it up as we went along - although an equivalent process to Section O is required. As to content agree with the bulk of it so these are the points I would pick up 3a (i) "to live a Christian life ..." what is that? it's as subjective a statement as "to live a holy life" and will be interpreted differently by different people. One persons bit of gambling fun is another's doomed to hell - one persons sexuality ... etc 3a (v) "healthy lifestyle" :-( .... no more pies and pints for lunch then? 3a (viii) "not to undertake duties ...." Pies and Pints again - Clergy meeting in the pub banned! and Synod lunches! last two are a bit tongue in cheek, the next isn't 3a (x) "undermine spiritual health" - tricky this one - if I believe that someones interpretation needs to be challenged - don't I have to do that, OK I can try and be sensitive but If for instance someone passionately believes an incident in the bible to be true but I believe it is a parable - am I to bite my tongue for fear of undermining their spiritual health - or do I carry on, believing that actually I'm curing them of an unhealthy spiritual situation even if it undermines all they have ever understood about Creation or Jonah (to name two I've recently had debates about) when does healthy debate become undermining spiritual health? 3b (i) "to support the ministry of other ministers ...." Clearly, on the whole this is right - even if we sometimes have to bite our tongues - but there does come a time when church members are listing a host of complaints and something is clearly wrong, or a relationship has broken down - do we do nothing for fear of being accused of "interfering" In addition some of us are given the role of "interfering" whether by sitting on a Pastoral Committee or as a Moderator or being asked to help with a particular situation - sometimes it will not be possible to support the minister, or endorse the conduct of their ministry because to do so would not be for the well being of the whole church. 3b (iv) "to respect the work of predecessors ..." again on the whole yes - but there will be occasions when that is not be possible 3c (viii) "influence a pastorate in the call" The problem is that the whole call process is cloaked in secrecy, and a potential new pastorate is not told if there have been problems at the previous pastorate - there is no other job where you can move without a good reference from your previous job - if there was more openness there would be less temptation for a Minister to tell a pastorate "careful" And of course it also works the other way - on the Ministerial grapevine we can soon let it be known that this particular church is a problem. 3c (ix) "Not to enter a sexual relationship ..." that would discount a fair number of very successful marriages of Ministers to church members, or Ministers to Ministers, - clearly there needs to be something that highlights that this is very dangerous territory but a "blanket" ban is too strong. 3d (ii) Oversight of Synod - Yes, Oversight of Synod Moderator - NO!! - that would make them Bishops instead of Pastor to the pastors. Although the statement does highlight one of the difficulties of the role of Synod Moderator, they are expected to line manage and to pastor and the two are sometimes in conflict with one another - but we cannot just accept they have oversight in a document such as this - that can only come from a proper discussion about their role and I'm not sure that we have ever done that. As to whether binding or advisory. - they will inevitably become binding as these would be referred to in any process that was alleging that standards of conduct had not been maintained - so no point trying to pretend they are advisory All in all though, I don't think this document is far away from what we need. Not had chance to look at the Elders document yet but will perhaps do so with some Elders.
muir1 06 July 2009, 4:23pm	Didn't mean the above to be anonymous - but name didn't come up on it for some reason! Craig Muir
cagroschmiller 25 September 2009, 5:00pm	As convener of the Sexual Ethics Advisory Group in the URC, I'd like to address the comment about sexual relationships. It is true that many ministers have found their partners in the churches they served. The purpose of 3(c) does not mean to ban that happy possibility. Rather, it is to remind ministers that their ordination vows include the responsibility to keep a sexual boundary between themselves and those in their care to whom they are not partnered. In the last few decades, research has revealed that a significant numbeer of ministers fail to keep this responsiblity, engaging in sexual contact with adults in their care to whom they are not partnered. One expert estimates that 10-20% of ministers stumble in this way. Many of the disciplinary cases in the Church are about sexual boundaries. It is important therefore to be very clear about this matter. Perhaps a clarification would read replacing 'within a professional relationship' with 'with someone in their care, not their partner.' Carla Grosch-Miller, Convener, SEAG
Catherine L-S 07 November 2009, 2:36pm	The section in all three descriptions which reminds ministers about their duty to protect children is very narrowband in merely focussing on the importance of not being alone with a child. It is also drafted in a way which has no end of its scope. Does it really mean that as a minister (or even an elder?) I would no longer be able to babysit for friends' children when asked to do so?