Disruption of 1843
The Disruption of 1843 was a schism or division within the established Church of Scotland, in which 450 evangelical ministers of the Church broke away, over the issue of the Church's relationship with the State, to form the Free Church of Scotland. It came at the end of a bitter conflict within the established Church, had major effects not just within the Church, but upon Scottish civic life. "The national church of the Scottish people" as recognised by Acts of Parliament, the Church of Scotland under John Knox and Andrew Melville, had always claimed an inherent right to exercise independent spiritual jurisdiction over its own affairs. To some extent, this right was recognised by the Claim of Right of 1689, which brought to an end royal and parliamentary interference in the order and worship of the Church, it was ratified by the Act of Union in 1707. On the other hand, the right of patronage, the right of a patron of a parish to install a minister of his choice, became a point of contention.
The difference was between those who held that this right infringed on the spiritual independence of the church, those who regarded it as a matter of property under the state's jurisdiction. As early as 1712 the right of patronage had been restored in Scotland, in spite of the remonstrances of the Church. For many years afterwards the General Assembly sought redress as a grievance, but the dominant Moderate party within the church acted in such a way as to avoid any confrontation with the state. In 1834, the Evangelical party attained a majority in the General Assembly for the first time in a century. One of their actions was to pass the Veto Act, which gave parishioners the right to reject a minister nominated by their patron; the intention was to prevent the intrusion of ministers on unwilling parishioners, to restore the importance of the congregational'call'. But the effect of the act was to polarise positions in the church, set it on a collision course with the state; the first test came with the Auchterarder case of 1834.
The parish of Auchterarder unanimously rejected the patron's nominee – and the Presbytery refused to proceed with his ordination and induction. The rejected individual, Robert Young, appealed to the Court of Session which, in 1838, by an 8–5 majority, held that in passing the Veto Act, the Church had acted ultra vires, had infringed the statutory rights of patrons. If, all the Church might have rescinded the Act, but the Court of Session went on to rule that the established Church was a creation of the State and derived its legitimacy by Act of Parliament; this directly contradicted the Church's Confession of its own self-understanding. As Burleigh puts it'The notion of the Church as an independent community governed by its own officers and capable of entering into a compact with the state was repudiated'; the question now moved from the issue of patronage, to the issue of the Church's spiritual independence. An appeal to the House of Lords was rejected. Other cases exacerbated the problem; the Presbytery of Dunkeld was summoned before the Court of Session for proceeding with an ordination despite a court interdict.
In 1839, the General Assembly suspended seven ministers from Strathbogie for proceeding with an induction in Marnoch in defiance of Assembly orders. In 1841, the seven were deposed for acknowledging the superiority of the secular court in spiritual matters. In response to the threat, the Evangelicals presented to parliament a Claim and Protest anent the Encroachments of the Court of Session, it recognised the jurisdiction of the civil courts over the endowments given by the state to the established Church, but resolved to give up these privileges rather than see the'Crown Rights of the Redeemer' compromised. This was rejected in January 1843. On 18 May 1843, 121 ministers and 73 elders led by Dr David Welsh, the retiring Moderator, left the Church of Scotland General Assembly at the Church of St Andrew in George Street, Edinburgh, to form the Free Church of Scotland. After Dr Welsh read a Protest, they walked out and down the hill to the Tanfield Hall at Canonmills where their first meeting, the Disruption Assembly, was held with Thomas Chalmers the first Moderator.
A further meeting was held on 23 May for the Signing of the Act of Separation by the ministers. 474 of the about 1200 ministers adhered. In leaving the established Church, they did not reject the principle of establishment; as Chalmers declared'Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion – and we are not voluntaries.' A third of the Evangelicals, the'Middle party', remained within the established Church – wishing to preserve its unity. But for those who left, the issue was clear, it was not the democratising of the Church, but whether the Church was sovereign within its own domain. Jesus Christ and not the King or Parliament was to be its sole head; the Disruption was a spiritual phenomenon – and for its proponents it stood in a direct line with the Reformation and the National Covenants. Splitting the Church had major implications; those who left forfeited livings and pulpits, had, without the aid of the establishment, to found and finance a national Church from scratch.
This was done with remarkable energy and sacrifice. Another implication was that the church they left was more tolerant of a wider range of doctrinal views. There was th
A disruptive physician is a physician whose obnoxious behaviour upsets patients or other staff. The American Medical Association defines this in their code of medical ethics as "personal conduct, whether verbal or physical, that negatively affects or that may affect patient care"; these behaviors are noted as causing adverse effects such as morale and concentration, team work and communication. Starting in 2009, The Joint Commission which accredits hospitals in the United States requires them to have a written code of conduct addressing this issue; this code of conduct defines acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the workplace. Along with these definitions of behaviors the Joint Commission wrote ways to manage these behaviors in order to fix them. Simon Sebag Montefiore has reported a remarkable tendency for doctors to become tyrannical dictators. Historical examples include: Bashar al-Assad Hastings Banda François "Papa Doc" Duvalier Félix Houphouët-Boigny Radovan Karadžić William Walker Bullying in medicine Doc Martin Medical drama Medical malpractice The No Asshole Rule Jacob DeLaRosa.
The Disruptive Physician, How to Manage the Consequences of Being You Misner & Monroe, New York 2017 Daniel Lang, "The Disruptive Physician, The Sociopathic Physician", The Disabled Physician: Problem Solving Strategies for the Medical Staff, American Hospital Publishing, pp. 17–21 Benzer DG, Miller MM, "The Disruptive – Abusive Physician: A New Look at an Old Problem", Wisconsin Medical Journal: 455–459 Pfifferling J-H, "Managing the Unmanageable: The Disruptive Physician", Family Practice Management: 77–92
In business theory, a disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market and value network and disrupts an existing market and value network, displacing established market-leading firms and alliances. The term was defined and first analyzed by the American scholar Clayton M. Christensen and his collaborators beginning in 1995, has been called the most influential business idea of the early 21st century. Not all innovations are disruptive if they are revolutionary. For example, the first automobiles in the late 19th century were not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles; the market for transportation remained intact until the debut of the lower-priced Ford Model T in 1908. The mass-produced automobile was a disruptive innovation, because it changed the transportation market, whereas the first thirty years of automobiles did not. Disruptive innovations tend to be produced by outsiders and entrepreneurs in startups, rather than existing market-leading companies.
The business environment of market leaders does not allow them to pursue disruptive innovations when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from sustaining innovations. A disruptive process can take longer to develop than by the conventional approach and the risk associated to it is higher than the other more incremental or evolutionary forms of innovations, but once it is deployed in the market, it achieves a much faster penetration and higher degree of impact on the established markets. Beyond business and economics disruptive innovations can be considered to disrupt complex systems, including economic and business-related aspects; the term disruptive technologies was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and introduced in his 1995 article Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave, which he cowrote with Joseph Bower; the article is aimed at management executives who make the funding or purchasing decisions in companies, rather than the research community.
He describes the term further in his book The Innovator's Dilemma. Innovator's Dilemma explored the cases of the disk drive industry and the excavating equipment industry. In his sequel with Michael E. Raynor, The Innovator's Solution, Christensen replaced the term disruptive technology with disruptive innovation because he recognized that few technologies are intrinsically disruptive or sustaining in character. However, Christensen's evolution from a technological focus to a business-modelling focus is central to understanding the evolution of business at the market or industry level. Christensen and Mark W. Johnson, who cofounded the management consulting firm Innosight, described the dynamics of "business model innovation" in the 2008 Harvard Business Review article "Reinventing Your Business Model"; the concept of disruptive technology continues a long tradition of identifying radical technical change in the study of innovation by economists, the development of tools for its management at a firm or policy level.
The term “disruptive innovation” is misleading when it is used to refer to a product or service at one fixed point, rather than to the evolution of that product or service over time. In the late 1990s, the automotive sector began to embrace a perspective of "constructive disruptive technology" by working with the consultant David E. O'Ryan, whereby the use of current off-the-shelf technology was integrated with newer innovation to create what he called "an unfair advantage"; the process or technology change as a whole had to be "constructive" in improving the current method of manufacturing, yet disruptively impact the whole of the business case model, resulting in a significant reduction of waste, materials, labor, or legacy costs to the user. In keeping with the insight that what matters economically is the business model, not the technological sophistication itself, Christensen's theory explains why many disruptive innovations are not "advanced technologies", which a default hypothesis would lead one to expect.
Rather, they are novel combinations of existing off-the-shelf components, applied cleverly to a small, fledgling value network. Online news site TechRepublic proposes an end using the term, similar related terms, suggesting that it is overused jargon as of 2014; the current theoretical understanding of disruptive innovation is different from what might be expected by default, an idea that Clayton M. Christensen called the "technology mudslide hypothesis"; this is the simplistic idea that an established firm fails because it doesn't "keep up technologically" with other firms. In this hypothesis, firms are like climbers scrambling upward on crumbling footing, where it takes constant upward-climbing effort just to stay still, any break from the effort causes a rapid downhill slide. Christensen and colleagues have shown. What they have shown is that good firms are aware of the innovations, but their business environment does not allow them to pursue them when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from that of sustaining innovations.
In Christensen's terms, a fi