Hi everyone
I was having a few flashbacks today to my time as a die-hard publisher, both when I was "reaching out" for the transition from servant to elder, and from my time as an elder. Both of those positions bring with them an often unsavoury insight into the habits and methods of elders when it comes to controlling the congregation, particularly those in higher levels of congregational responsibility whose methods aren't always popular or appreciated.
It struck me as inappropriate at the time that the "gossip card" was brandished by certain elders all too readily, especially if it was an unpopular elder who had a bad reputation for making people's lives miserable. The elder would speak in a sombre tone about the seriousness of people gossiping about him, and how this urgently needed to be brought to an end - with stern words to be meted out to anyone "caught in the act". At no point was it considered that the "gossip" might actually be justified, and might signal the need for the elder to reassess how he went about his role. The onus was always on the "gossiper" to put up or shut up.
Obviously, nobody likes to be gossiped about. However, if you're an elder, it's inevitable that people will talk about the way you wield your authority among themselves, whether the sentiments are positive or negative. Indeed, it swings both ways, and if you're doing your job properly, you have every reason to hear of nice things being said about you among congregation members.
However, I found that certain elders would hear only negative things filtering back to them, and would automatically see the problem as being external rather than inward. It seems to me slightly unbalanced that you should be perfectly willing for people to talk about your antics among themselves if the tone is positive, but loath for them to do so if they have any genuine concerns over the way you treat people.
Obviously, the first port of call, if someone has genuine concerns, should be for them to approach the person towards whom they have a grievance. However, what if that person is a harsh and domineering totalitarian, and way too intimidating to even consider approaching in such a manner? Isn't it natural for someone to think twice in such an instance and confide in a close friend? Does that really constitute "gossip"?
So, when does voicing concerns with close friends in confidence become "gossip"? I guess it very much depends on the individual circumstances. But in my experience, it isn't always so black and white as some elders would have you believe. If you reach out for positions of responsibility, and you treat people like crap, you shouldn't be surprised if they talk about it among themselves. Raising the gossip card is just further evidence that their concerns may indeed be justified.
Cedars
