rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_259ccac4-c686-56b8-9ab2-1d5fea1e4763">6
The problem is not just with laypeople, of course. It also exists with clergy, especially those who aspire to rise within the regional organization. Eager to ingratiate himself with his district superintendent, a member of a district committee may go along with anything the DS does, even “piling on” when the DS has decided to target someone. Piling onto a chosen scapegoat is a common technique for winning approval from higher-ups. This shows that the ancient patronage system has not disappeared; it’s still who you know, not what you know.
Self-serving careerism is probably as common in the churches as it is in other fields of employment, although it is somewhat disguised in the attempt to deny its contradiction of biblical values. Hypocrisy thrives in the gap between our declared values and our real motivations. Values (the ones really practiced) create a certain atmosphere, encouraging certain behaviors. If we value control above all else, we will be competitive and suspicious. We create an atmosphere for conflict. Bullying thrives in such an atmosphere.
Maynard’s study is quite sobering. He affirms Haugk’s observation that there are certain antagonists who intend to do harm to a pastor. Maynard makes it clear that he is not talking about those who offer constructive criticism, even sharp criticism occasionally, but about those who set out “to hurt, humiliate, destroy and remove the senior pastor.”7 What was most shocking to me in his book was the high degree of complicity of the bishops in the mistreatment of clergy. Of the twenty-five cases that form the basis of Maynard’s study, when accusations against the pastor came in, “only a couple of the bishops in our survey even bothered to check with the clergy and the healthy parish leadership to determine if the accusations of the antagonists were true.”8 Most of the bishops in the cases he examined either remained passive or actively joined with the antagonists; even worse, the leader among the antagonists was often a retired or active clergyperson, or even a retired bishop.9 It is not just in Maynard’s denomination that this goes on.
Most churches have an ethical procedure for handling grievances, and they need to use it. In most churches, however, there is not much in the way of established procedure for handling misbehavior by laity. There should also be some thoughtful teaching, preaching, and even training in the prevention of slander and bullying. Forgiveness does not mean that we protect or give free reign to the thing (bullying, in this case) that is being forgiven. There is amazing forgiveness in Jesus’ kingdom, but that does not mean that there are no consequences, no adjudication, no education, no therapy.
What about the psychology of antagonists? They seem to be people who hold on to resentment, who feel deeply wronged in their lives, but are only dimly aware of how long they have felt this way, and are even less aware of how their vengeful feelings against people in the present are fueled by how they were treated in the past. The antagonist has never taken a long hard long at himself and his psychopathology.
People who are unable to recognize their own spiritual poverty and are unwilling to exercise any reflective self-criticism are displaying the classic signs of narcissistic personality disorder, on which there will be a section at the end of this chapter, but first there is more to say about group process.
An Atmosphere for Bullying . . . or Respect
If there is immaturity and selfishness within a group, and no process for prayerfully listening to differing points of view in the congregation under wise pastoral leadership, then blaming, bullying, and territorialism will manifest themselves. The gospel solution involves teaching and learning some interpersonal skills that can limit the destructive effects of bullying, and possibly even get the bully to examine himself. Some gospel-informed techniques include learning to discern and appreciate the good motives of others, consciously showing mutual respect, seeking understanding, and cultivating a generous and forgiving attitude.
Pastors, of course, need to be wise as well as harmless (Matt 10:16), shrewd as well as kind. The principle of learning to see the good motives of others may include learning to bracket out the bad motives that the pastor thinks s/he sees, at least until such time as an evil pattern of behavior is confirmed beyond a doubt.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I would graph these problems and solutions like this:
| Problem | Solution: The Right Attitude | Practical Application |
| Factionalism | Mutual appreciation of others’ motives | Respect for differences |
| Territorialism | Mutual respect | Sharing, conferring |
| Blaming | Understanding, forgiving | Open discussion with attentive listening |
| Bullying | Empathy | Anti-bullying discourse and publicity |
Why does “love” not appear in the solution or application columns? Because all of these solutions and applications involve love. Some involve practicing forbearance and forgiveness in the present (“Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other,” Col 3:13). Some involve taking the long view: having faith that God is working within the other person (“the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ. . . . It is God who is at work in you,” Phil 1:6; 2:13).
But this is spiritual hard work, and many people strongly resist it. It is much easier to divide the world into allies and enemies, to dish out all blame to the latter, and to not do the hard work of self-critique. When enough people in a group decide to avoid inner work as well as interpersonal work, then conflicts will only get worse. When the love process breaks down, when feelings become inflamed, positions entrenched, and indignation stoked, respect is forgotten, and the group starts to look for a “fall guy” to blame. Sometimes it is the spiritual leader who becomes the target of mean-spirited political maneuvering.
There can also be pressures that come from outside the religious group. Political-religious pressures from outside Jesus’ group, and at least one disgruntled voice among his disciples, led to a conspiracy against Jesus. The religious authorities felt threatened by his liberating message and his authoritative presence. Jesus knew that he would “undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders” (Mark 8:31), as had happened to many of the prophets before him (Luke 11:49).
In fact, every honest critic, every reformer, every nonconformist undergoes rejection, usually starting within the immediate family. Jesus was even said to be “out of his mind” either by townsfolk or by his family (Mark 3:21). And he commented more than once on the sad fact that “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house” (Matt 13:57; and see Mark 6:4; John 4:44). To be a brave and original thinker is not an easy path to tread. Such a person must be ready to be treated “without honor.” It seems to be a law, a tedious, painful law of life, that those who manifest excellence and originality are usually resisted, resented, even punished “in their own country.”
Jesus was surprised that his apostles did not recognize this pattern. Did they not realize “about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased” (Mark 9:12–13). This last comment refers to the cruel treatment of John, thrown in a dungeon and then beheaded at the whim of an aristocrat’s daughter. Herod Antipas, who authorized the killing of John, was a bully from a long line of bullies. Herod represents the way of the world, the way of people when their selfishness is not restrained, when their minds are not enlightened by the gospel. It is not a Jewish characteristic or a Gentile trait; it is a common human feature. The unspiritualized human being, grasping after power and security, is a bully.
What is more surprising to many of us is to find deliberate cruelty going on in our churches, to find political maneuvering and backbiting in the board of trustees,
