I sincerely do not understand why you are making this so public. Is this to defend victims? Is this to hold the powers that be accountable? Have you shared your viewpoints with the trustees apart from this post?
Hey Luke, thank you for reading my post. If you get a chance to read the other posts I’ve written I hope I explain my motivation in them. But yes, in part I want to identify in solidarity with the numerous victims and advocate for justice and amends on their behalf. And yes, I want the people who knew to be held accountable. And yes, I have sent emails all the way up the chain all the way to the Trustees. I have emailed with Jay, Caleb and Robb. And ultimately, as noted in this post, I want to be a part of the answer to Jay’s prayer request. Don’t we all want everything to come into the light?
I agree that everything should and will come into the light. I am thankful you went to the folks directly. What, in your opinion should have been done differently? And what, if anything, should be done in regards to accountability? Interestingly, it seems from my perspective that the current process of the reorganization is an attempt to create better checks and balances.
Great questions! And thank you for your kind words. What should have been done differently - independent investigations into allegations. In 2014 allegations of leadership abuse were made against Michael that sound almost verbatim of the conclusions in the Guidepost report. When the National Director, Phil Strout, received other allegations of abuse involving Jackson Gatlin and HLI, rather than passing it on to Michael G, an independent investigation should have been launched. There were numerous complaints of unhealthy leadership against Brenda - known to the current National team - but still, she was promoted all the way up to Super Regional Leader. BUT far more importantly in my opinion, is the poor response from Vineyard USA to the reporting victims - not only in Duluth but in other circumstances. In several, it was the reporter(s) who were removed or made to feel unwelcome in their local church and appeals to Vineyard USA leadership did not or have not led to amends or meaningful repentance. As I read the responses reporters have experienced and communications they've received from Vineyard USA leaders, it feels as though at every turn we chose the worst possible way to respond. For the sake of accountability, everyone who knew of the allegations and chose not to intervene or investigate should resign and we should start our reorganization over, beginning with education on toxic leadership, clergy abuse and trauma informed care. We need to get all the senior pastors together and have days of conversations and chart a better course together. I'm very interested to hear more about your perspective on the Reorganization. I don't see anything defined that describes checks or balances outside of the local church level. Under the new system we still have no mechanism for meaningful conversations about the behavior of the national leadership team, no ombudsperson, no way to recall leaders who are doing harm. From all I've read and heard about the ReOrg, "rogue senior pastors are the primary "problem" identified by national leadership", that and the need for the National to have authority over local churches via the Handbook. But it's possible I've missed something.
Jay Pathak knew of the DV abuse. He covered it up. It's time for Jay to step down. If the Vineyard is this corrupt at the top, how much more abuse is out there.
The foundation for any organization or system is TRUST. All elements of the organization must trust that every person at every level is working toward their common purpose and goals. When trust is fragile or absent or unevenly distributed, there is no capacity of the organization to collectively move forward toward is goals. And there is no way for corrective actions, or organization changes, to be legitimized and broadly accepted.
The full responsibility for trust is on every element of an organization. Trust does not flow down but flows up and down, operating at all levels of the system. We have lots of sayings to reflect this: “The strength of a chain is based on its weakest link”. We laugh at caps that say: “Follow me: I am your leader”. Leadership is earned; it cannot and should not be assumed based on a position in the hierarchy. Leadership requires faithfulness by all levels of the organization, including in this case, its pastors, elders, ministry leaders and parishioners.
In my extensive experience implementing organizational changes in the military, public services and education, building trust in a large system change takes time and buy-in at all levels. Any attempt to drive this down from the top, usually results in abject failure, nodding acceptance but undermining activities, or attempts to go around the leadership to boards or other oversight groups, if they are available. A strategy that works requires more time to 1) get everyone to participate in agreeing that a change is needed and 2) to establish the specific, measurable goals of the change; 3) then to put in place an implementation design for the change that has promise, 4) followed by a test of that implementation on a small section of the organization; 5) this should include an independent evaluation of the new design that involves all levels of the organization; 6) followed by a revision of the proposed plan based on the evaluation, and 7) finally, to implement the revised design only after it is widely understood to be helpful and relevant to achieving its specified goals. Does this take time, yes. I have tried to short-circuit these steps, but it has never led to a successful implementation of a needed change.
What I have observed in the VUSA reorganization violates nearly all the established and effective organizational change strategies out there. There may be good reasons to implement some or all of the changes being proposed, but without widespread trust in the leadership or the plan, moving forward, I believe, will lead to a splintered Vineyard church system or a much smaller system of churches that will be based on an outdated authoritarian leadership structure, and even more illustrations to come of church leadership failures.
I sincerely do not understand why you are making this so public. Is this to defend victims? Is this to hold the powers that be accountable? Have you shared your viewpoints with the trustees apart from this post?
Hey Luke, thank you for reading my post. If you get a chance to read the other posts I’ve written I hope I explain my motivation in them. But yes, in part I want to identify in solidarity with the numerous victims and advocate for justice and amends on their behalf. And yes, I want the people who knew to be held accountable. And yes, I have sent emails all the way up the chain all the way to the Trustees. I have emailed with Jay, Caleb and Robb. And ultimately, as noted in this post, I want to be a part of the answer to Jay’s prayer request. Don’t we all want everything to come into the light?
I agree that everything should and will come into the light. I am thankful you went to the folks directly. What, in your opinion should have been done differently? And what, if anything, should be done in regards to accountability? Interestingly, it seems from my perspective that the current process of the reorganization is an attempt to create better checks and balances.
Great questions! And thank you for your kind words. What should have been done differently - independent investigations into allegations. In 2014 allegations of leadership abuse were made against Michael that sound almost verbatim of the conclusions in the Guidepost report. When the National Director, Phil Strout, received other allegations of abuse involving Jackson Gatlin and HLI, rather than passing it on to Michael G, an independent investigation should have been launched. There were numerous complaints of unhealthy leadership against Brenda - known to the current National team - but still, she was promoted all the way up to Super Regional Leader. BUT far more importantly in my opinion, is the poor response from Vineyard USA to the reporting victims - not only in Duluth but in other circumstances. In several, it was the reporter(s) who were removed or made to feel unwelcome in their local church and appeals to Vineyard USA leadership did not or have not led to amends or meaningful repentance. As I read the responses reporters have experienced and communications they've received from Vineyard USA leaders, it feels as though at every turn we chose the worst possible way to respond. For the sake of accountability, everyone who knew of the allegations and chose not to intervene or investigate should resign and we should start our reorganization over, beginning with education on toxic leadership, clergy abuse and trauma informed care. We need to get all the senior pastors together and have days of conversations and chart a better course together. I'm very interested to hear more about your perspective on the Reorganization. I don't see anything defined that describes checks or balances outside of the local church level. Under the new system we still have no mechanism for meaningful conversations about the behavior of the national leadership team, no ombudsperson, no way to recall leaders who are doing harm. From all I've read and heard about the ReOrg, "rogue senior pastors are the primary "problem" identified by national leadership", that and the need for the National to have authority over local churches via the Handbook. But it's possible I've missed something.
Jay Pathak knew of the DV abuse. He covered it up. It's time for Jay to step down. If the Vineyard is this corrupt at the top, how much more abuse is out there.
The foundation for any organization or system is TRUST. All elements of the organization must trust that every person at every level is working toward their common purpose and goals. When trust is fragile or absent or unevenly distributed, there is no capacity of the organization to collectively move forward toward is goals. And there is no way for corrective actions, or organization changes, to be legitimized and broadly accepted.
The full responsibility for trust is on every element of an organization. Trust does not flow down but flows up and down, operating at all levels of the system. We have lots of sayings to reflect this: “The strength of a chain is based on its weakest link”. We laugh at caps that say: “Follow me: I am your leader”. Leadership is earned; it cannot and should not be assumed based on a position in the hierarchy. Leadership requires faithfulness by all levels of the organization, including in this case, its pastors, elders, ministry leaders and parishioners.
In my extensive experience implementing organizational changes in the military, public services and education, building trust in a large system change takes time and buy-in at all levels. Any attempt to drive this down from the top, usually results in abject failure, nodding acceptance but undermining activities, or attempts to go around the leadership to boards or other oversight groups, if they are available. A strategy that works requires more time to 1) get everyone to participate in agreeing that a change is needed and 2) to establish the specific, measurable goals of the change; 3) then to put in place an implementation design for the change that has promise, 4) followed by a test of that implementation on a small section of the organization; 5) this should include an independent evaluation of the new design that involves all levels of the organization; 6) followed by a revision of the proposed plan based on the evaluation, and 7) finally, to implement the revised design only after it is widely understood to be helpful and relevant to achieving its specified goals. Does this take time, yes. I have tried to short-circuit these steps, but it has never led to a successful implementation of a needed change.
What I have observed in the VUSA reorganization violates nearly all the established and effective organizational change strategies out there. There may be good reasons to implement some or all of the changes being proposed, but without widespread trust in the leadership or the plan, moving forward, I believe, will lead to a splintered Vineyard church system or a much smaller system of churches that will be based on an outdated authoritarian leadership structure, and even more illustrations to come of church leadership failures.
If only there was a way to hold these people accountable.
Good thing we have a reorg to fix that!
Oh. Wait.