Recently, I discovered that some ACCN elders have changed their policy in regard to providing permanent paper copies of the brief summaries of elder meeting topics. In the past a package of photocopies of very brief summary information was provided. It didn't necessarily cover everything, but it was better than nothing.
Now, it has been said, in at least one church, that people can have the papers temporarily to look at... but nothing to keep. This struck me as odd, as if they are afraid of some hidden danger.
This leads me to think about the topic of secrecy. When is secrecy in the church a sign of prudence and good stewardship? When is it a sign of irresponsibility or bad stewardship?
One thing a while ago really caught my eye. A church leader in a non-AC denomination was brought under scrutiny by a regional elder body regarding some of his positions/beliefs. And he (his church) actually posted the whole interview/examination on the web!! In one sense, one may critique them in that this is information that the whole world doesn't necessarily have see. On the other hand, one must applaud them about being open and transparent enough to acknowledge that there is a problem and provide insider information on what is going on.
My view is that some forms of secrecy are good, necesary, and proper. The church leadership, as any organization leaderhsip, has somewhat of a right to prudently withhold some information. However, I do believe that sometimes secrecy can betray a lack of confidence, or worse yet a fear or desire to control people.
No one can doubt that secrecy in major decisions and major controversies is something we naturally desire. In many ethnic cultures, a sign of male leadership is the proclivity to NOT talk about important things, but rather keep them inside.
Do you see varying degrees of secrecy among leadership to be a problem in the ACC?
What positive moves have some leaders made in order to move away from a veil of negative secrecy?
How has secrecy among leadership been damaging within or circles?
What does one do when they feel frustration building up due to the smoke and mirrors that they perceive? (or glass and mirrors for all you bruce lee fans ;>)
Now, it has been said, in at least one church, that people can have the papers temporarily to look at... but nothing to keep. This struck me as odd, as if they are afraid of some hidden danger.
This leads me to think about the topic of secrecy. When is secrecy in the church a sign of prudence and good stewardship? When is it a sign of irresponsibility or bad stewardship?
One thing a while ago really caught my eye. A church leader in a non-AC denomination was brought under scrutiny by a regional elder body regarding some of his positions/beliefs. And he (his church) actually posted the whole interview/examination on the web!! In one sense, one may critique them in that this is information that the whole world doesn't necessarily have see. On the other hand, one must applaud them about being open and transparent enough to acknowledge that there is a problem and provide insider information on what is going on.
My view is that some forms of secrecy are good, necesary, and proper. The church leadership, as any organization leaderhsip, has somewhat of a right to prudently withhold some information. However, I do believe that sometimes secrecy can betray a lack of confidence, or worse yet a fear or desire to control people.
No one can doubt that secrecy in major decisions and major controversies is something we naturally desire. In many ethnic cultures, a sign of male leadership is the proclivity to NOT talk about important things, but rather keep them inside.
Do you see varying degrees of secrecy among leadership to be a problem in the ACC?
What positive moves have some leaders made in order to move away from a veil of negative secrecy?
How has secrecy among leadership been damaging within or circles?
What does one do when they feel frustration building up due to the smoke and mirrors that they perceive? (or glass and mirrors for all you bruce lee fans ;>)
