|
Victims
of dirty tricks & friendly fire: Machiavellian tactics in
the Church militant
by Graeme J. Davidson, October
2002
|
The
Church may espouse ethical standards and teach others ethics,
but when it comes to its own organisation, clearly Machiavelli
is alive and flourishing.
|
A
few years ago a priest preached a series of sermons on understanding
the Bible in the light of modern scholarship. Five in the congregation
where disturbed by what he preached. They attracted a few others
who had a personal dislike of the priest, giving the impression
of a groundswell reaction to the sermons and complained to the
bishop.
Utilitarianism
wins
The bishop
mediated between the parties, while those cynical about the way
the church hierarchy works had already predicted the outcome.
There was no doctrinal error in the priest's teaching but because
some in the parish had a particular theological view and were
offended by the priest's teachings, he was asked to resign and
find another position.
The priest
was caught in a pincer manoeuvre. If he stayed, he would incur
the ire of his bishop and split the parish further. If he resigned,
he lost his job and carried the stigma of being a troublemaker.
As he had been faithful to his calling and taught what he had
learned at the church's own seminary, he felt that he was the
victim of dirty tricks and friendly fire.
The bishop
tried to sweeten the pill by rationalising that the priest would
be better suited in a position more amenable to his theological
interests. Yet the reality was the bishop had used a utilitarian
approach to protect the general welfare of the organisation. In
simple terms the numbers were stacked against the priest.
There are
tens of thousands of stories that can be told like this. On one
estimate, one in three clergy loses a job during their professional
life because of the actions of a small vociferous group. Every
parish can tell stories of individuals who have left or been squeezed
out because they didn't fit the prevailing social culture. And
there are plenty of senior church leaders who have surrounded
themselves with sycophants and like-minded people in the belief
that the gospel is best served by a 'cohesive team' rather than
by disruptive prophets and 'troublesome' dissenters.
Coping
with prophets and other troublesome folk
Of course there is nothing new about this. The Bible is full of
such stories. There are Old Testament prophets whose message was
unpalatable to their rulers. Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples
were regarded as blasphemers by the religious establishment of
their time, while many 'heretics' in the past have suffered torture
or even death for not fitting in with the prevailing Church structure
and theological attitudes.
Despite its
theological bases of inclusive love, faithfulness to the Gospel,
and multiple second chances to the repentant who falls short,
the Church has a habit of shooting its own wounded, sometimes
after wounding them itself. It reaches out in love to others —
that is its mission and it does it with varying degrees of success
— but when it comes to how it operates internally as an organisation,
it is like any other organisation. It operates on two general
rules and one corollary rule.
Rule
1: Those in power try to hold on to their power and extend
it on the assumption that this is for the good of the organisation.
Rule
2: Organisations use whatever means are necessary to protect
their integrity.
The corollary
rule is: Contain and minimise any threat to those in power or
to the organisation.
Those who
may be a threat to the church organisation are usually handled
in one of five ways: Ignoring, denial, changing roles, adding
an overseer, or removal.
Ignoring
Ignoring is the standard technique for handling those prophetic
types who 'cry in the wilderness'. Treating their views as a serious
threat elevates their status and draws attention to the cause.
They are best ignored by listening politely to what they have
to say and thanking them for their insight or deflecting them
on to others -- "Why don't you raise that with x, she may have
some helpful suggestions'. X then suggests Y and so on. The vociferous
few can even be encouraged to voice their views in 'safe' forums
such as a church meeting, where they are diluted by the views
of others. Putting the ideas that are a threat on the bottom of
agendas, so that there is never enough time to properly debate
them, or sending the ideas through a lengthy committee process
are also typical ignoring tactics. The church can then truthfully
say that it is democratic and encourages prophetic voices.
Denial
Denial is frequently used when dissenters can no longer be ignored.
The dissenters are gaining momentum and could create dents that
threaten the organisational fabric. It is at this stage that a
senior church leader and other experts may meet with the dissenters.
They diplomatically state how important the dissenters' views
are to the church, and may concede an inconsequential or token
point to appease them. They will then proceed to refute and deflect
the dissenters. There is always one example somewhere that can
be used to contradict the dissenters' claims.
If all else
fails the church leaders can fall back on the standard excuse
of why it is not appropriate to implement what the dissenters'
want 'at this stage'. A pastoral letter or similar statement may
also be used to reinforce the official position, in the hope that
this imprimatur from the leadership will undermine support for
the dissenters. Such statements typically follow the standard
PR practice of emphasising the positive before the ominous 'but'
that heralds the end of discussion.
Changing
the role
Changing the role of 'troublemakers' is a favourite. One highly
effective technique is to promote those who threaten the status
quo to a committee or other position where their views can be
expressed and 'given due consideration' within a wider context.
Thus they are given a taste of power from within the organisation,
which often results in their doing a 180° turn on their original
views. Like St. Paul after his conversion they become ardent in
their support of the organisation as they now have a vested interest
in keeping the status quo.
But usually
the change of roles takes the form of finding a sideways position
where the troublemaker can be rendered harmless and the truth
may be disguised as a 'special challenge' or as something more
suitable for the person's experience, skills and personality.
Examples of this are the priest who publicly protested the expense
of cathedral renovations. He had no impact on the renovations
but was given a job working with the poor. The parishioner who
complained of the parish prayers being too narrow in their focus
was put in charge of organising the prayer roster. This technique
can help in silencing others as the implicit message is don't
say anything unless you are prepared to suffer the consequences.
Overseer
Despite the 'sinners are especially welcome' advertising, some
sinners are more welcome than others. Church employees who have
'sinned' — substance abuse, sexual misdemeanour, abuse of
position or are incompetent in some important aspects of their
work — are regarded as a serious threat to the organisation.
This poses
a dilemma for the church. There is usually strong pressure to
demote offenders or to sacrifice them for the good of the organisation.
But adopting these measures can backfire against the church and
exacerbate the problem. A married parish pastor who had an affair
with an unmarried woman he subsequently married after he had divorced
his wife, was defrocked by his bishop. This caused an outcry from
the parishioners who regarded the church as practising a double
standard towards its clergy compared with its laity and many left.
Unless the
church employee resigns (which may be encouraged as a sign of
'true repentance'), the church tries to avoid the accusation of
shooting its own wounded by providing an overseer in the form
of a senior clergy person, therapist, or other expert who can
treat, train or supervises them. This may also be coupled with
removing the person from temptation or area of incompetence. These
procedures may satisfy the organisation that a middle course has
been adopted to help the individual and at the same time protect
the organisation. Yet it may be very humiliating to the individuals,
who can feel that they have been unduly singled out as pariahs
when they are typical sinners and have limitations like others.
In contrast,
the often repeated 'sins' of senior church management are rarely
highlighted or seen as requiring correction through counselling.
These can include: making certain the best organisation positions
go to those who support the current management, refusing to use
people's skills and talents appropriately, missing opportunities
for pastoral care or to promote the Gospel and enjoying and taking
advantage of status and power.
Removal
The technique of last resort is to remove individuals. This occurs
when their staying will cause the potential for greater damage.
If the individual is an employee of the church, the usual method
is to send them for a 'sabbatical' trip, not renew a contract
when it comes up for renewal, to evaluate the person's work and
find them wanting in some area or other, or to re-evaluate the
job description.
Another technique,
sometimes called 'constructive dismissal' is to remove work from
an individual or give them difficult or boring work so that they
leave of their own accord. Parishioners on the other hand are
often made unwelcome by being frozen out, although there are cases
where strong individuals are considered too disruptive and asked
to consider joining another congregation.
The Church
often seems to have inherited feudal attitudes to its management
from the middle ages. This is overlaid with the worst of corporate
practices without many of the safeguards companies have to have
in place because of employment law, union membership and the need
to respond swiftly to staff needs and customer demand.
The Church
may espouse ethical standards and teach others ethics, but when
it comes to its own organisation, clearly Machiavelli is alive
and flourishing.
|
