Looking at the post from the 'Mad Priest', which I posted yesterday (hard to believe that) I have received a number of comments, some of which are published on yesterday's blog, and others which are not.
Some tell me that we need to keep the insane from ministry positions, an aspiration which I'm afraid is all too late! Others tell me that the we need to keep our ministers 'pure', but I never realised that mental illness was a state of sinful existence. Mind you, when in the pentecostal movement I was told that mental illness was the result of unconfessed sin, perhaps that will suffice?
The reality is that the Mad Priest's response is one that demonstrates a degree of anger, bitterness and resentment at those whom he considers to have removed him from ministry and whilst I might not agree with the labelling of his bishop as a bigot, I can understand the reasons. What we see is the response of someone who is hurting and this is surely another area where we need to offer sensitive support (and perhaps a little correction in the form of a more measured, less vitriolic, response).
That the man chooses to live as he does is something for him to have decided and for those who are engaged with him to dialogue over if it is a problem. The problem for me is that it is an easy task for people to decide how they think someone should live, but perhaps there are reasons for them not conforming. Again, the key is engagement and dialogue - tow elements that are rarely to be found when dealing with the mentally ill (current or past - cant guess at future).
What I am concerned at is the potential for the Church to continue to shoot its wounded in this area, even if the occurrences are limited and few and far between. Surely one, wrongly handled causes us problems? It was for this reason that I have posted Gordon's story and the comments from MP. Not to be provocative 9in the wrong sense) but to provoke some thinking and a desire to see a balanced and positive response to this issue.
So . . . please take the time to read the two pieces - ask yourself what you would do if you were them and then ask yourself what you would do if you were presented with them?
What would Jesus have us do?
The time has come when the potter no longer looks for perfect vessels, cracked pots will suffice well if they can but contain just some of the Holy Spirit. Broken, shattered but able to be used for purpose? Then what right do we have to respond badly?
Pax
4 comments:
Mental illnes in the context of the church is of vital importance to me.
I have blogged much on this topic and even on the book you allude to: Exposing the Myth that Christians Should Not Have Emotional Problems
I also featured Gordon's blog post some time back to highlight some of the problems we have in church related to mental illness.
You have mentioned 'unconfessed sin' I have also heard of suffering Christains being accused of 'lack of faith' and even 'demon oppression / possession', I kid ye not, sadly.
I am about to read and review a book published by the Royal College of Psychiatry entitled: Spirituality and Psychiatry. I'll blog my thoughts if anyone is interested.
I'll stop there as there is much I could say, but will mention this in passing. The Church should be the one place where those suffering with mental illness can find comfort and safety, free from stigma and judgement. There is much work to do to educate Christians in this regard.
Vic, I commend your courage and decision to air this subject. I have been a fan of MP for several years, and he is constantly in my prayers.
I am very much aware of the hurt that he feels and he admits himself that he has been left a bitter man, distrustful of the church establishment, particularly in the light of the number of rejections he has received for ministry in any form within the church. He feels rejected, spurned and degraded by the process which took away the ministry he loved, his home and living.
I can't find it in my heart to say that he is wrong. Only time and distance and perhaps a new vocation will heal his hurt. But acceptance by other, particular his fellow Priests within the church will go a long way to help hims regain some balance.
I know that the church is better than this. It can and must do more to support all of those in ministry who encounter difficulties of any sort. 'Casting them out' seems to me more the action of the Pharisee's in biblical time, allowing those they considered to be impure to be marginalized and ostracized by society. This goes against all Christian teaching, particularly that of Jesus who suffered from the very actions as he did not fit into their concept of 'rightness'.
I read some of the patronizing and condescending replies on your original post and felt sad that the Churches defence mechanism includes describing MP as dangerous and unfit for ministry.
I am beginning to wonder who is fit for ministry, those who toe the line or those who think for themselves and act in response to the needs of others. Self sacrifice or giving as the ABC described it in Barefoot Disciple's introduction. It seems to me that MP has given more of himself then others who denigrate his ministry.
The challenge to the church is to reach out to those vulnerable and in need. It owes a particular pastoral care and relationship to those its puts into harms way in Ministry. In MP's case, it will be seen to have failed in every way. In law it also has a 'duty of care' for its clergy, it seems to have failed in that duty in MP's case.
It's time for change in the attitude of getting rid of a problem on spurious grounds and then standing behind exemption from legislation to stop someone taking legal remedies for ill treatment. Unless it does so, it will increasingly be seen as just a citadel of prejudice and discrimination, having no worthwhile place in society.
UKV,
Thanks for your comments. I am aware that I am treading a potentially hazardous path, but also feel that this is an area I need to get to grips with, not to put the world right to to help me have a right understanding and attitude.
I am aware that I haven't always understood or even handled this area as I might and am also aware that there are a great many people who are the other side of the line who need:
1. Understanding,
2. Support, and
3. active engagement over.
So, here I am.
thanks for comments,
Vic
Thanks for this, it is an interesting area...
In the mid-90s I managed a residential home for young people with physical disabilities; the home was run by a Christian charity (tho' charged above the market rate for a place in one of its homes!). In order to get some younger volunteers in the home I asked my activities' organiser (AO) to do a roadshow around local schools, aimed at year 10 upward pupils (those doing Duke of Edinburgh awards etc.). An hour after the AO set off for the first of these, I received a phone call from the headmaster of the school asking me if I knew my AO was a convicted paedophile! I was new in post & had no knowledge of how the AO had been appointed. To cut a long story short a day or so later I interviewed the AO with the intention of dismissal. He suggested that as a Christian organisation we should give him a second chance. He'd been to prison, served his time, was 'reformed' etc. From a Christian perspective, his argument had some weight. But I sacked him, nevertheless. Sometimes, in the harsh world of the work place you have to realise there are demands etc. on individuals AND the organisation - & when people are being paid for a job there are expectations placed upon them beyond the simple ideas of forgiveness & 2nd chances.
Oddly enough 2 friends of mine are Anglican priests and both have been Sectioned under the MHA 1983; both are now in active ministry. They were deemed capable of ministry once their mental health improved (in different diocese). For several years I was a member of an Anglican monastic community and there were many examples of 'resting' priests visiting (of various flavours of Anglicanism), or even living with the community for a while, following an episode of mental ill-health: again many of these returned to active ministry. Hence one of the reasons why I think there is much more to Mad Vicar's situation than the 'easy' excuse of prejudice.
A thought that struck me, pondering your original post was how a school friend - a straight A student, keen sportsman and natural 'alpha' male - loved the idea of becoming a pilot in the RAF. From 14 onwards he was in the local RAF Corps. At 18 he went to join up and was rejected from the career he had set his heart on because he was colour blind. Was this a case of prejudice against people with Daltonism? No, he just didn't have one of the essential abilities for the job. Likewise Mad Vicar, it would seem, is in the same situation - a reading of many of his blog posts only confirms this, than the reverse!
Perhaps, in this particular case, the question should not be 'What would Jesus do?' A question that skews the responsibility toward the questioner rather than the subject. But 'How can I [on the part of the person for whom the evidence of two or more witnesses is not in his favour] be Christ-like in this situation?' Post after post of whining, self-pity, blaming others etc. does not seem very 'Christ like' - it is rather the complaint of someone who is not prepared to accept the advice and decisions of others. It is time to move on & get on with something else. But perhaps it is easier to play the victim in preference to the more demanding option of doing something else?
Regards:
P.
Post a Comment