world literature.
Pharaoh’s oppressing of the Israelites was a kind of bullying, even though it happened at the level of the state and was enacted upon a whole community. He “oppress[ed] them with forced labor . . . and made their lives bitter with hard service” (Exod 1:11, 14). He felt threatened by their physical vigor and fertility. Nor are the later Jewish kings free of political bullying. King Jehoiakim had Uriah—who “prophesied against this city”—murdered (Jer 26:20–23).
We know that Jesus was bullied, as well. The Roman cohort stripped Jesus, crowned him with thorns, mocked him by saying “Hail! King of the Jews!,” spat on him, and struck him (Matt 27:28–30). But the religious leaders’ attacks on Jesus were just as bad. Besides instigating the case against Jesus in the first place, the “chief priests” and scribes mocked Jesus on the cross, saying “he saved others; he cannot save himself”; they joined the Romans and the thieves in taunting him (Matt 27:41–44; Mark 15:31–32). Whence comes this arrogance and cruelty of secular and religious authorities?
Such cruelty is all too common. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the “enlightened . . . being publicly exposed to abuse and persecution . . . suffered mocking and flogging” (Heb 10:32–33; 11:36). Paul expects apostles to be treated like the dregs of society, made “a spectacle to the world . . . beaten . . . like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things” (1 Cor 4:9, 11, 13). Will new ideas always meet such vicious opposition?
And does this abuse have to happen within the church, as well? No. We need to watch out for it, in order to prevent it. We need a behavioral ethic that works proactively against abusive behavior. We need to take the love mandate as seriously as Paul did: “Through love become slaves to one another” (Gal 5:13). This is an intense commitment, but a necessary one. Without love, we are nothing more than a social club. But if we start practicing the difficult but transformative ethics of Jesus, the church becomes a force for the only kind of social change that is deep and long-lasting—change that is based upon transformed individuals.
Instead, we see behaviors that look like the “same old same old,” and make us wonder if the church has made any difference in people’s lives. Love is the litmus test that shows whether we are serious about our faith: “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love one another. Whoever does not love abides in death” (1 John 3:14). Do we really hold ourselves up to this standard? Or do we have selfish cliques, corrupt leaders, or power bases organized to prevent certain kinds of change? Can our self-image as a loving people stand up to thoughtful examination? How honest are we with ourselves?
The Worldly Church
We should not really be shocked or surprised to encounter sinful behavior in church. The churches reflect the world, and this world is made up of flawed people who create “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels . . . factions, envy,” and more (Gal 5:20–21). The way of the world infects the church, eroding the foundations that Jesus established. People who are tenderhearted but unskilled at political infighting sometimes get swept out of the church. This turns out to be nothing new. The Apostle Paul, with some sarcasm, warns against ill will in the church: “If you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:15).
Even people who have good intentions for the welfare of the church can become very competitive and jealous when they think someone is intruding on their particular mission. Longtime church volunteers tend to develop a strong sense of ownership of the church or a particular aspect of it in which they have long been involved. Experienced volunteers can become very prickly about intrusions on “their” territory. Even if the conflict that ensues stops short of “biting and devouring,” it can easily lead to “anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions” (Gal 5:20).
Despite our religious rhetoric, we are sensitive human beings who can get our feelings hurt if we feel we are being disrespected. Also, we are often unconscious human beings who are unaware of the extent to which our narcissistic selfishness is infecting our service activities. A pastor cannot always discern beforehand just how sensitive a particular church volunteer may be, or how likely they may be to take offense at any perceived intrusion on “their” territory. Managing these relationships can be very tricky, and may require extraordinary patience on the part of the pastor.
We need to lubricate our relationships with plenty of love, so that when disagreements happen, they happen within a relationship where love already exists, and the disagreement can be discussed calmly. A healthy church will have debates and disputes, but will keep them within the enfolding presence of love and respect. Almost any problem can be solved if people remember to act respectfully toward others. But narcissism and manipulation can undermine the functionality of a church, leading to territorialism, factionalism, and various kinds of attacks. The manipulator may be skilled at cloaking his or her real motives, and the attempt to reach mutual understanding could be met with contempt. The territorialist has an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and a sense of entitlement and grandiosity. Of course, pastors can fall prey to these behaviors, as well.
Healthy respect and self-respect are legitimate needs. Genuine mutual respect is a two-way street that requires generous and forgiving attitudes on both sides of the relationship. If one side harbors a grudge or clings to territory, there will not be much progress in resolving conflict. And if the church is not a place where ethics are practiced, why would people want to join?
There are certain kinds of church members who look for ways to exercise power and pronounce judgment within the church. Thomas Bandy calls them “controllers.” They “gravitate to positions of power particularly on official boards, finance committees, trustees, property committees, personnel committees. . . They roam through the body of Christ judging, micromanaging, blocking initiative, and generally damaging the cells of the body.”1
A blog by James McGrath touches on the subject of longtime church volunteers who bully and push people around. The blogger bemoans that some churches are “held hostage by volunteers. . . . Who is going to rebuke someone who is always fixing things around the church?”2 McGrath hopes that churches can become places where “bullying instincts” can be overcome. This needs more intensive study, I think, since the tendencies of self-assertion and protective controlling or “caring” are widespread, and most churches have not made a priority of examining the psychology of bullying or the ethics of power.
Another writer sarcastically suggests that “being a church bully is good business these days. . . . Bullies are often supported in a small group that likes to keep up on the latest church gossip. . . . As a bully, you can find allies who are ready to support you, who will offer behind-the-scenes support to your behind-the-scenes bullying. . . . People will worry that challenging bullies is unkind or unchristian.”3 Parker says anyone in any position can be a bully—the hard part is that “Standing up means risking being unpopular.”4
Kenneth Haugk wrote an influential book some years ago that addressed the problem of toxic individuals and cliques in the church, whom he calls “antagonists.” He makes it clear that he does not use “antagonist” to refer to “people on different sides of an argument” or to the “Honorable Opposition”; he is referring to people who “go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up.”5
Dennis Maynard makes similar observations after interviewing forty pastors who had been hurt by antagonists in their congregations (and using twenty-five of these cases for his book): “We can no longer afford the luxury of denying that there are dysfunctional personalities
