Criticism of non-regular churchgoers

katydid

I came across an incident recently second hand, where someone I know told me about something she had witnessed after church one Sunday. It involved a regular parishioner, who would be fairly vocal and strong minded, loudly and pointedly criticising someone who would not be a regular attender. I don't know what was said, or what the tone of voice was, but my friend said it wasn't the kind of "slagging" someone might indulge in, but was quite pointed and nasty. The non-regular attender was quite upset.

This wouldn't be the first time this particular person spoke their mind - I've witnessed milder version, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I know it can be frustrating if you are very involved in something, and commit yourself, to see others less committed, but surely we should be delighted to see people coming, if only occasionally?

I'm not sure what I'm asking, or even if I'm asking anything. I'm just curious if it's commonplace, and how, if at all, a bystander should react...

Mrs OBumble

Bystander should immediately speak out in support of the person who's being treated rudely.

After that, make an incident report to the person in charge. They should investigate, offer appropriate pastoral counselling to the offender. If there are repeated incidents consider a limited trespass order or other mechanisms to make sure that their premises is free of bullying.

haveringchick

Often these incidents are rooted in mild mental illness anxiety stress etc. If you felt like it you could approach the aggressor and tell them how concrned you were to witness them acting in such a manner and ask them if there's anything you can do to help
On the other hand, if someone is a long term member of a committee, working away behind the scene for yonks, and a Johnny come lately type appears on the scene and tries to force changes, then that can be very annoying

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Bystander should immediately speak out in support of the person who's being treated rudely.

After that, make an incident report to the person in charge. They should investigate, offer appropriate pastoral counselling to the offender. If there are repeated incidents consider a limited trespass order or other mechanisms to make sure that their premises is free of bullying.

:rolleyes:

katydid

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Bystander should immediately speak out in support of the person who's being treated rudely.

After that, make an incident report to the person in charge. They should investigate, offer appropriate pastoral counselling to the offender. If there are repeated incidents consider a limited trespass order or other mechanisms to make sure that their premises is free of bullying.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a policy for this. I suppose in a church community it's more difficult, as it's a voluntary context, rather than a workplace, and nobody has ever thought of drawing up a policy. Maybe one is needed.

katydid

haveringchick wrote: »

On the other hand, if someone is a long term member of a committee, working away behind the scene for yonks, and a Johnny come lately type appears on the scene and tries to force changes, then that can be very annoying

I'm talking about church attendance rather than committees.

haveringchick

katydid wrote: »

I'm talking about church attendance rather than committees.

I see
I do think that a sympathetic approach to the aggressor is the best way to deal with these incidents
Confrontations never solve anything and this kind of finger pointing does need to be knocked on the head as its inclined to be a touch contagious

La Fenetre

Thankfully, I've never seen this happen. There's all sort of reasons why someone might not be a regular attender. I'm always glad to see even the people who seem to come only at Christmas or Easter, because it's possible they still have some little amount of faith, and therefore perhaps with a few prayers to God, there is some hope they might make it. I think God can do a lot with even small amounts of faith, and a few small short prayers.

eviltwin

It's very presumptuous. How would anyone know who is or is not a regular church goer. Erratic attendance at a particular church does not mean the person doesn't go elsewhere. I'd gently remind them it's none of their business and its not their place to lecture anyone. I'd wonder though if they feel they are entitled to give out to someone over this what other people they may be approaching. If they have form maybe a word with the priest would help.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

It's very presumptuous. How would anyone know who is or is not a regular church goer. Erratic attendance at a particular church does not mean the person doesn't go elsewhere. I'd gently remind them it's none of their business and its not their place to lecture anyone. I'd wonder though if they feel they are entitled to give out to someone over this what other people they may be approaching. If they have form maybe a word with the priest would help.

Well, you'd know if they were a regular attender at the church in question. This is a small church community; put it this way, you know the people who don't attend regularly.

I think you're right about the sense of entitlement.

The priest has been approached, and she has had a word with the individual. It shouldn't have to go that far, though...

Manach

Responding to OP. I'd draw from the work of James Martin in "Jesuit Guide to nearly everything". Here he divides the level and commitment of religious belief into various sections, where different attributes and generally be assigned to believers. Again this is with broad strokes model and so might not be directly applicable to OP, but there is at times an ever greater level of mis-understanding of actions and deeds from within the same faith community. Because there is a failure to appreciate the validity of separate ways of reaching an understanding of God this might lead to such tension. One way forward might be re-emphasis their common community and even making an occasion effort to attend church in this hectic age is to be welcomed.

J C

katydid wrote: »

I came across an incident recently second hand, where someone I know told me about something she had witnessed after church one Sunday. It involved a regular parishioner, who would be fairly vocal and strong minded, loudly and pointedly criticising someone who would not be a regular attender. I don't know what was said, or what the tone of voice was, but my friend said it wasn't the kind of "slagging" someone might indulge in, but was quite pointed and nasty. The non-regular attender was quite upset.

This wouldn't be the first time this particular person spoke their mind - I've witnessed milder version, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I know it can be frustrating if you are very involved in something, and commit yourself, to see others less committed, but surely we should be delighted to see people coming, if only occasionally?

I'm not sure what I'm asking, or even if I'm asking anything. I'm just curious if it's commonplace, and how, if at all, a bystander should react...

I'd give the following verses of scripture to both the regular and non-regular church attender and leave it at that:-
Matthew 20:1-16New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

antiskeptic

katydid wrote: »

I came across an incident recently second hand, where someone I know told me about something she had witnessed after church one Sunday. It involved a regular parishioner, who would be fairly vocal and strong minded, loudly and pointedly criticising someone who would not be a regular attender. I don't know what was said, or what the tone of voice was, but my friend said it wasn't the kind of "slagging" someone might indulge in, but was quite pointed and nasty. The non-regular attender was quite upset.

This wouldn't be the first time this particular person spoke their mind - I've witnessed milder version, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I know it can be frustrating if you are very involved in something, and commit yourself, to see others less committed, but surely we should be delighted to see people coming, if only occasionally?

I'm not sure what I'm asking, or even if I'm asking anything. I'm just curious if it's commonplace, and how, if at all, a bystander should react...

The expression "quantity vs quality" springs to mind as a potential fly in 'this particular persons' ointment. As does "speck and planks"

Mrs OBumble

katydid wrote: »

The priest has been approached, and she has had a word with the individual. It shouldn't have to go that far, though...

Why not?

The priest is the one with designated responsibility for what happens in his/her parish, and with the the training to offer pastoral counselling. (Which is basically what another poster described as a sympathetic approach.)

Ensuring that inappropriate behaviour is resolved is absolutely his/her responsibility.

katydid wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a policy for this. I suppose in a church community it's more difficult, as it's a voluntary context, rather than a workplace, and nobody has ever thought of drawing up a policy. Maybe one is needed.

Who mentioned policies?

Managing volunteer behaviour is a core part of managing any community organisation. It's usually handled under rules/policies about not bringing the organisation into disrepute.

Roman Catholic churches can find it more difficult to enforce behaviour standards because anyone living in the parish area is entitled to attend sacramental services - I don't know about the discipline structures in other churches, so cannot comment about them.

I've once encountered a parish situation where a person was welcome to attend Mass and other sacraments, but were not permitted to be involved in any way except as a member of the congregation, and were not permitted to engage with parishoners or socialise on parish premises at all - and that if they stepped outside of these guidelines they would be removed for trespassing. Of course this was an extreme situation, and not the desired outcome of the pastoral counselling process at all, but the person's attitudes and behaviour over a long period (most likely due to mental health difficulties) meant it was the only way to keep everyone safe.

J C

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I've once encountered a parish situation where a person was welcome to attend Mass and other sacraments, but were not permitted to be involved in any way except as a member of the congregation, and were not permitted to engage with parishoners or socialise on parish premises at all - and that if they stepped outside of these guidelines they would be removed for trespassing. Of course this was an extreme situation, and not the desired outcome of the pastoral counselling process at all, but the person's attitudes and behaviour over a long period (most likely due to mental health difficulties) meant it was the only way to keep everyone safe.

If they were suffering from mental health issues and were truly a danger to others ... and possibly themselves, why weren't they helped to seek medical treatment instead of being efffectively shunned?
This sounds like a cry for help from this person.
Anyway, I cannot see that ostracising a mentally ill person can keep anybody safe, including themselves. If they were physically ill and incapable of seeking medical assistance, would everybody also also look the other way?

The following verses of scripture provide appropriate guidance for the situation you describe:-
Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

katydid

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why not?

The priest is the one with designated responsibility for what happens in his/her parish, and with the the training to offer pastoral counselling. (Which is basically what another poster described as a sympathetic approach.)

Ensuring that inappropriate behaviour is resolved is absolutely his/her responsibility.




Who mentioned policies?

Managing volunteer behaviour is a core part of managing any community organisation. It's usually handled under rules/policies about not bringing the organisation into disrepute.

Roman Catholic churches can find it more difficult to enforce behaviour standards because anyone living in the parish area is entitled to attend sacramental services - I don't know about the discipline structures in other churches, so cannot comment about them.

I've once encountered a parish situation where a person was welcome to attend Mass and other sacraments, but were not permitted to be involved in any way except as a member of the congregation, and were not permitted to engage with parishoners or socialise on parish premises at all - and that if they stepped outside of these guidelines they would be removed for trespassing. Of course this was an extreme situation, and not the desired outcome of the pastoral counselling process at all, but the person's attitudes and behaviour over a long period (most likely due to mental health difficulties) meant it was the only way to keep everyone safe.

Surely it's better if it didn't go as far as having to be dealt with formally. Indeed, it's the job of the priest to act in this capacity should the situation call for it, but it's incumbent on all of us to take these things on board if we can, and not expect the priest or any other "designated person" to do it.

I mentioned policies...my question was whether there should be policies, and if so, what ones? We have policies in place for the protection of children, but do we have policies for the protection of adults against bullying?

Roman Catholic communities are not the only ones where anyone is welcomed and free to come to worship in the church. You can't ever turn anyone away, unless they are being violent or deliberately disruptive.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

It involved a regular parishioner,... loudly and pointedly criticising someone who would not be a regular attender.

Was the criticism about irregular attendance? You don't give enough detail.

The critic may have a point and who knows, maybe the criticism came from God? God isn't a pastime that we can give a few free minutes to whenever the more important things in life allow us to. Maybe the delivery wasn't as graceful as it could have been but whatever the reasons and who is right or wrong, the remedy is forgiveness and reconciliation.
Scripture does say that when you have an issue with another believer, you take it to them.

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Was the criticism about irregular attendance? You don't give enough detail.

The critic may have a point and who knows, maybe the criticism came from God? God isn't a pastime that we can give a few free minutes to whenever the more important things in life allow us to. Maybe the delivery wasn't as graceful as it could have been but whatever the reasons and who is right or wrong, the remedy is forgiveness and reconciliation.
Scripture does say that when you have an issue with another believer, you take it to them.

I only got it second hand, but I was told that it was something thing along the lines of "Well, it's nice to see YOU for a change" but said in a nasty tone. I know people can slag each other but this was not nice. The subject of the remark has particular reasons for not attending which I'd rather not go into, but which the person that made it knows well. There was no need for that kind of thing.

lazybones32

That's an issue?!

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

That's an issue?!

It's symptomatic of what this person consistently does. As I said, I wasn't there, but I know both people and I was told the gist of it. It IS an issue.

lazybones32

Belfast Youth 2000 had a young girl show up to the meetings drunk, in order to disrupt them and cause trouble. With some patience, prayer and love the young lady opened her heart. I don't consider a snide remark to be an issue: we all have our brokenness, some are better hidden than others.

Has anyone been praying for the 'offensive' woman?

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Belfast Youth 2000 had a young girl show up to the meetings drunk, in order to disrupt them and cause trouble. With some patience, prayer and love the young lady opened her heart. I don't consider a snide remark to be an issue: we all have our brokenness, some are better hidden than others.

Has anyone been praying for the 'offensive' woman?

Just because YOU don't consider the incident an issue is neither here nor there. It was to the person concerned, and to the person who witnessed the altercation. And to the priest who undertook to discuss it with the person said it.

Who are you to judge?

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

Who are you to judge?

Someone whose opinion was asked via an open forum - that's what right I have to "judge". A woman making a catty comment to another woman is par for the course; not an issue.
I'd jokingly remark that if St. Paul's advice about 'not letting women speak in Church' (and just outside it) were observed, this wouldn't have happened but I know that'd send you into a spin...and this day is too good for that.

La Fenetre

katydid wrote: »

Who are you to judge?

looksee

The critic may have a point and who knows, maybe the criticism came from God?

That's a handy excuse, so anytime you feel like offering any kind of criticism of someone else's behaviour, you can reason 'that's what God wants'. Funny how confident of 'what God wants' some people can be.

God isn't a pastime that we can give a few free minutes to whenever the more important things in life allow us to.

But surely God knows what capacity each individual has to go to church or do anything else - and - you know - a forgiving God makes allowances.

Maybe the delivery wasn't as graceful as it could have been but whatever the reasons and who is right or wrong, the remedy is forgiveness and reconciliation.

And maybe the complainer could consider that before commenting.

Scripture does say that when you have an issue with another believer, you take it to them

.
It also makes reference (Matthew 7:3-5) to motes and planks in various eyes.

beveragelady

katydid wrote: »

Just because YOU don't consider the incident an issue is neither here nor there. It was to the person concerned...

Who are you to judge?

Really, Katydid? Really?

Might I refer you to this thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057476763&page=4 (particularly post 59) where you repeatedly took that stance that as you weren't directly affected by the issue it wasn't really an issue at all.

Jude 1 : 16
Matthew 7 : 1-7
Romans 16 : 18
Luke 12 : 2
Romans 2 : 1-5

lazybones32

looksee wrote: »

That's a handy excuse, so anytime you feel like offering any kind of criticism of someone else's behaviour, you can reason 'that's what God wants'. Funny how confident of 'what God wants' some people can be.

Didn't excuse her behaviour; just questioned if she should look beyond the critic and see if there is truth in the criticism. Try get it straight before accusing.
The closer one gets to God, yes, the more you know what He wants.

looksee wrote: »

But surely God knows what capacity each individual has to go to church or do anything else - and - you know - a forgiving God makes allowances.

He sure does. However, the poster didn't detail whether the infrequent attendee's reasons for not attending could be considered valid.

looksee wrote: »

And maybe the complainer could consider that before commenting.

Doctor, heal thyself.

.

looksee wrote: »

It also makes reference (Matthew 7:3-5) to motes and planks in various eyes.

Maybe she has taken the plank out of her eye and wants to remove the speck from her sisters eye? Jesus tells us to take the plank out of our own eye first, then remove the speck from the eye of the other. Does looksee see?

J C

katydid wrote: »

I only got it second hand, but I was told that it was something thing along the lines of "Well, it's nice to see YOU for a change" but said in a nasty tone.

She said 'hello' to me ... it was the tone of the 'hello' that I didn't like!!!:eek:
... a storm in a proverbial teacup ... if ever I saw one. Mountains and molehills also come to mind.

... and that is my judgement of the 'issue'.:)

Would it all have been OK, if she had said 'Nice the see YOU ... to see YOU nice'!!:D

... time for hugs and make up all round, methinks !!!;)

... Love, love, love ... love is all you need - you hum it and I'll sing it!!!

Mrs OBumble

katydid wrote: »

I mentioned policies...my question was whether there should be policies, and if so, what ones? We have policies in place for the protection of children, but do we have policies for the protection of adults against bullying?

No, you didn't.

You said

I'm not sure what I'm asking, or even if I'm asking anything. I'm just curious if it's commonplace, and how, if at all, a bystander should react...

And as requested, I gave my opinion about how a bystander should react - which is of course informed by my church's authority structures, the training I've received in child protection and the experiences I've had in applying them.

Questions about do "we have policies in place for ...." need to be directed to the authority structures in your church, whatever they may be, not to randomers on the internet.

katydid

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No, you didn't.

You said



And as requested, I gave my opinion about how a bystander should react - which is of course informed by my church's authority structures, the training I've received in child protection and the experiences I've had in applying them.

Questions about do "we have policies in place for ...." need to be directed to the authority structures in your church, whatever they may be, not to randomers on the internet.

Actually I did, in post 5, in response to a comment about policies. But nit pick if you must.

If the authority structures in the CofI are reading this thread, I'm sure they can respond. I was kind of basing my question on the assumption they have better things to do.

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Someone whose opinion was asked via an open forum - that's what right I have to "judge". A woman making a catty comment to another woman is par for the course; not an issue.
I'd jokingly remark that if St. Paul's advice about 'not letting women speak in Church' (and just outside it) were observed, this wouldn't have happened but I know that'd send you into a spin...and this day is too good for that.

I didn't say it was a woman on either end of the incident. But your assumption is interesting, as is your language.

katydid

La Fenetre wrote: »

???

katydid

beveragelady wrote: »

Really, Katydid? Really?

Might I refer you to this thread, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057476763&page=4 (particularly post 59) where you repeatedly took that stance that as you weren't directly affected by the issue it wasn't really an issue at all.

Jude 1 : 16
Matthew 7 : 1-7
Romans 16 : 18
Luke 12 : 2
Romans 2 : 1-5

What??????????

katydid

J C wrote: »

She said 'hello' to me ... it was the tone of the 'hello' that I didn't like!!!:eek:
... a storm in a proverbial teacup ... if ever I saw one. Mountains and molehills also come to mind.

... and that is my judgement of the 'issue'.:)

Would it all have been OK, if she had said 'Nice the see YOU ... to see YOU nice'!!:D

... time for hugs and make up all round, methinks !!!;)

... Love, love, love ... love is all you need - you hum it and I'll sing it!!!

I don't think it's something to joke about..

Jellybaby1

If it happened in my church as the OP said it did then I would say some parishioner might have taken that person to task for being so nasty, and some other parishioner would have consoled the second party. I would also say that the insulted party probably would not return again as words can really hurt. The comment was unchristian and uncharitable. And the other thing about forgiveness…….I believe that God can forgive anything, but he only forgives where there is true repentance. A quick throwaway ‘sorry’ don’t get you no forgiveness from God or anyone else.