That approach conveniently overlooks several key points:
- Shunning, which is regarded by experts as psychological torture, is never acceptable, any more than would be sexual assault. Clergy like David who don’t get that simply demonstrate how clueless they are. See, i.e., http://www.sedaa.org/2016/11/the-practice-of-shunning-and-its-consequences/
- I still have heard no valid reason for Bob’s decision to include Mike in his vendetta. Having joined The Episcopal Church 16 months earlier, Mike now has renounced Christianity as a result of Bob’s conduct. And I’m supposed to smile and be nice? No thanks.
- Bob’s ongoing intimations about mental illness, etc., are highly inappropriate for a member of the clergy. Similarly, his repeated falsehoods about what has transpired are inappropriate under any circumstances.
- I love how we get the whole notion of clergy as peers when it comes to clergy misconduct, as in the whole “two sides to every story,” argument. But when Bob feels like ignoring the provisions of his letter of agreement, then he is special and treated as above criticism. You can’t have it both ways. Clergy are either held to a higher standard (which is what church canons claim), or not.
- While we’re on the topic of two sides to every story, almost 100 percent of my interaction with Bob Malm has been in writing, and that is not by happenstance. Thus, there are not two sides to this tale. There are the facts as documented in writing.
- People like David can keep their prayers. I have no desire for prayers from any organization that thinks shunning is acceptable, or from members of such an organization.
- I’m sure people in #metoo situations similarly greatly appreciate being told that they are hateful and being prayed for. Hashtag clueless.