A concern I have with churches…

[Muffled]

I'm unfamiliar with that denomination.

I believe he probably means mainline churches.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm unfamiliar with that denomination.

I believe he probably means mainline churches.

There is an NYU Press cite dealing with Mainline Christianity, a book by Jason Latzer that I will almost certainly never read. The site promotes the book as follows ...

Since the Revolutionary War, Mainline Christianity has been comprised of the Seven Sisters of American Protestantism—the Congregational Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Convention, and the Disciples of Christ.​

​

These denominations have been the dominant cultural representatives since the nineteenth century of how and where the majority of American Christians worship. Today, however, the Seven Sisters no longer represent most American Christians. The Mainline has been shrinking while evangelical and fundamentalist churches, as well as non denominational congregations and mega churches, have been attracting more and more members.​

It is almost as if "mainline churches" is a euphemism for "not Catholic."

 

[LuisDantas]

Vetted by whom? The church? A government entity?

I stand firmly agains the government being involved in any church vetting process. They don't even do that with church leadership.

That said, I do think it's the responsibility of the church to have some sort of vetting process.

Moreover, it's the responsibility of the parent to vet the church and any if its teaching programs before enrolling their child.

Shouldn't there be the normal level of vetting that any school would require, though?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Shouldn't there be the normal level of vetting that any school would require, though?

By whom?

 

[LuisDantas]

There is an NYU Press cite dealing with Mainline Christianity, a book by Jason Latzer that I will almost certainly never read. The site promotes the book as follows ...

Since the Revolutionary War, Mainline Christianity has been comprised of the Seven Sisters of American Protestantism—the Congregational Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Convention, and the Disciples of Christ.​

​

These denominations have been the dominant cultural representatives since the nineteenth century of how and where the majority of American Christians worship. Today, however, the Seven Sisters no longer represent most American Christians. The Mainline has been shrinking while evangelical and fundamentalist churches, as well as non denominational congregations and mega churches, have been attracting more and more members.​

It is almost as if "mainline churches" is a euphemism for "not Catholic."

I don't know how similar the situation is in the USA, but here in Brazil there are many and very influential Churches that belong to neither group.

The LDS, the SDA, the Assemblies of God (a major presence here and very outspoken as well - to say nothing of politically harmful), our own delinquents the UCKG, many other neocharismatics such as our own Snowball Church.

There are more traditional churches such as the Episcopalians and Methodists, and there is a considerable presence of ethnic Orthodox churches. Besides, of course, the still very strong ICAR.

But by far the most visible non-ICAR churches are neocharismatic. Whether they fulfill the requisites of a religious group is a bit less clear.

 

[LuisDantas]

By whom?

Some combination of parents and governmental authorities, I would hope. Ideally some sort of channel for their own colleagues to notify misbehavior would be available as well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Some combination of parents and governmental authorities, I would hope. Ideally some sort of channel for their own colleagues to notify misbehavior would be available as well.

I see no reason why governmental authorities aside from a governing body of the church would have any business vetting said church's Sunday school class where the curriculum is exclusively that of the church's religion. The staff and curriculum should be vetted by both the church leadership and the parents as stated in my initial post.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see no reason why governmental authorities aside from a governing body of the church would have any business vetting said church's Sunday school class where the curriculum is exclusively that of the church's religion. The staff and curriculum should be vetted by both the church leadership and the parents as stated in my initial post.

If it is a school, in the sense of having supervision over children, it must conform to some standards and having supervision of its own.

Whether it is is (or claims to be) religious in natural is irrelevant and immaterial.

 

[ppp]

I see no reason why governmental authorities aside from a governing body of the church would have any business vetting said church's Sunday school class where the curriculum is exclusively that of the church's religion. The staff and curriculum should be vetted by both the church leadership and the parents as stated in my initial post.

Becaus church institutions are no different in nature than any other institution. They are susceptible to corruption and abuse and felonious behaviors, and they will circle their wagons hiding, protecting,and perpetuating those behaviors. All to cover their reputations, at best. Or, at worst, because they want to continue said behaviors.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If it is a school, in the sense of having supervision over children, it must conform to some standards and having supervision of its own.

Whether it is is (or claims to be) religious in natural is irrelevant and immaterial.

I never said it shouldn't be held to some standards. If fact, I said quite the opposite.

I said the government should not be involved in the vetting process.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Becaus church institutions are no different in nature than any other institution. They are susceptible to corruption and abuse and felonious behaviors, and they will circle their wagons hiding, protecting,and perpetuating those behaviors. All to cover their reputations, at best. Or, at worst, because they want to continue said behaviors.

Should we also have the government vet ballet and gymnastics classes? Or just religious ones?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Should we also have the government vet ballet and gymnastics classes? Or just religious ones?

In the UK anybody either working or volunteering with children or vulnerable adults, is required to have an advanced DBS (disclosure and barring services) check, which is carried out by a government agency. I'm pretty sure something similar applies everywhere in Europe.

 

[Eddi]

Should we also have the government vet ballet and gymnastics classes? Or just religious ones?

The government has to be involved, they operate the criminal records

 

[ppp]

Should we also have the government vet ballet and gymnastics classes? Or just religious ones?

Because church institutions are no different in nature than any other institution.

We should vet people who work with children in religious and corporate and non-profit institutions.
Adults who work with kids who wear tights and leotards should not be excluded from background checks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vetted by whom? The church? A government entity?

I stand firmly agains the government being involved in any church vetting process.

I think it would be reasonable for a government to mandate that any employee or volunteer in a position of responsibility over children or other vulnerable people must have an enhanced criminal background check done.

Churches who don't want to be involved with this process could just make sure their staff and volunteers are never in a position of responsibility over vulnerable people (e.g. by requiring that parents and guardians be present during any youth programming).

They don't even do that with church leadership.

That said, I do think it's the responsibility of the church to have some sort of vetting process.

Moreover, it's the responsibility of the parent to vet the church and any if its teaching programs before enrolling their child.

Vet them based on what, though?

Churches involved in these scandals have generally hidden information about their predators or outright lied. In a scenario where all the information about how safe a church is is controlled by the church itself, how could a parent have reliable enough information to meaningfully vet a church?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have a concern with (run of the mill American Christian) churches - the Sunday school teachers may not be properly vetted, if vetted at all. It is up to the church to vet who they place in charge of the children.

Vetted to do what? Sunday school as I remember it was a place to put children during the hymns and sermon to segregate them and their noise from the adults. It was a baby-sitting service, and as long as the kids were there, they might as well indoctrinate them. What does one have to know to do that?

For that matter, nobody's vetting independent pastors, either.

And if they did, by what standard and for what purpose? Like Sunday school teachers, they're not educators in the formal sense. They have no curriculum, just an agenda to capture minds.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The government has to be involved, they operate the criminal records

No, they don't. There are background check companies where all records are accessible. I work with one every day.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We should vet people who work with children in religious and corporate and non-profit institutions.

I never said or implied they shouldn't be vetted. I said that government has no business in the process.

Adults who work with kids who wear tights and leotards should not be excluded from background checks.

Background check companies aren't government.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Vet them based on what, though?

A background check.

Churches involved in these scandals have generally hidden information about their predators or outright lied. In a scenario where all the information about how safe a church is is controlled by the church itself, how could a parent have reliable enough information to meaningfully vet a church?

Networking and research. The onus is on the parent, not the government, to determine whether a church organization is safe for their child.

 

[ppp]

I never said or implied they shouldn't be vetted. I said that government has no business in the process.


Background check companies aren't government.

You are still depending on self vetting. We can all see the problem with self vetting.