A few weeks ago, we had one of those domestic crises which afflict all of us from time to time. Ours was a little unusual but needed to be dealt with quickly. A jackdaw had somehow got into the chimney and fallen right down into the space behind our wood burner. Luckily the fire was not lit. There was no way that the bird could escape. What were we supposed to do? We rang up the local chimney sweep who services our wood burner and asked for his help. He happened to be 100 yards away in his van and so he immediately came round and dismantled the fire so the bird could escape. Both my wife and I felt that experience of relief when you can hand over a difficult task to somebody who has expertise and knows what to do.
This experience of handing over problems to other people with specialist knowledge is something we do frequently. We look to medical professionals, financial experts, car mechanics and the like with the expectation that they will apply their expertise on our behalf. In each case there is an internal sigh of relief as we feel released from the responsibility of sorting out the particular problem we are facing. It is now their job to diagnose the illness, mend the strange noise in the car or whatever other problem we are facing. Our relationship to these experts who sort out the myriad of problems that come into our lives is one of respect. Their expertise is not one we can ever possess, however much we might like to be able to do more in the area of DIY. Realistically we know our limitations in many practical tasks. We defer to their expert decisions of what has to be done and try to sound as though we understand all that they are telling us. Allowing the expert to make decisions on our behalf is an act of trust and we do it willingly. We feel very much that in this situation, they are in charge, and we owe them deference and respect. Our part in the interaction is the ability and readiness to pay their bill promptly. Prompt payment always seems one way we can use to express our admiration for people who use skills that the rest of us do not have.
The word deference is an interesting one and it describes a particular quality of relationship. Deference implies an unequal partnership with another person. We show it to a person who is our superior in age, skill, or has some kind of authority. When we use the word in a Christian context, we are indicating that we are looking up to someone who may be placed over us in some way or is wiser spiritually and in learning. As we know, there are a variety of formal hierarchies of authority in church life. There are also many informal ones as well. In all of these we may find relationships of deference at work. Some Christians have obtained defined roles as members of the clergy after training and formation. Others have long experience or influence gained from years of Christian practice. Deference is, in short, a word that articulates the fact that we sometimes find ourselves looking up to people because of their seniority to us in rank or knowledge. They are also the people who seem to have something to give us in terms of encouragement and support. For whatever reason, these are people we respect and honour.
When I was thinking about this word deference, I realised that the English language does not have a special word to describe the individual who is acting with deference towards another person. Neither is there a word for the person who receives this attitude of respect and honour. We really need new words like ‘deferent’ and ‘deferee’ to express such a relationship. While this implied relationship often denotes something positive in the life of the church in terms of wholesome influence and teaching, we also encounter problems with the word in a church context. A year or two back, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke about deference, and he appeared to bemoan that there is too much of it in the structures of the church. We may suppose that what he was talking about was the way that it is wearisome for him to be expected to have all the answers to difficult problems. It must indeed be quite tough being at the top of a spiritual and theological hierarchy where everyone expects you to be an expert on many topics. Then, in addition, as a member of the House of Lords and chief representative of the national Church, he is expected to have opinions on every political issue that is currently in the public agenda. The place at the top of any hierarchy is a hard place to occupy.
These negative dynamics of deference are also in operation in an ordinary church congregation. People look up to their leaders to provide teaching and guidance. The clergyperson sometimes finds that he/she is expected to do the thinking and spiritual work on behalf of all. The leader may indeed possess expertise to be shared with the congregation, but the expectation that he/she will always know what to do and say can be a heavy burden. Many clergy want to encourage their congregation to think for themselves and so allow the learning and growth of each member to develop at an individual pace. Many people, by contrast, much prefer to be told what to think. They are like the house group members in an Adrian Plass book, who turn to the group leader to find out what ‘we think’ on a particular topic. Church leaders, who place the burden on each member of making a personal pilgrimage and discovering an individual faith, are not always appreciated in a parish situation. ‘What do you think?’ is not a question that is welcomed in many congregations. The dynamic of deference in some parishes is going to resemble a family dynamic where the children are still very young. The stage of total dependence on parents to solve every problem is appropriate for this first part of their lives. Many churches and congregations routinely operate within such an atmosphere of immaturity and over-dependence in spite of the best efforts of the clergy. To use a Pauline image, the congregation remain permanently satisfied with a diet of milk rather than solid food.
There is another church dynamic where deference is also a problem, but for completely different reasons. The vicar or leader openly exploits the dynamic of deference, possibly to satisfy his/her own narcissistic need to be important. Unlike the first scenario I described above, where the leader wants people to grow and mature, the people in this second congregation are deliberately kept in their infantile dependence. The leader expects everyone to accept the teaching that is offered from the pulpit without question. The training that this particular vicar received may have encouraged him/her to think that there is indeed only one version of the Christian faith. This is the one he/she intends to share with the congregation. Membership in many conservative evangelical congregations requires submission and deference to the dominant discourse and to the leader who teaches it. Within this official teaching we will find, typically, statements about biblical inerrancy and substitutionary atonement. We would not be exaggerating to speak of the ‘enforcement’ of these doctrines. Quite often we find no room for discussion, difference of opinion or the honouring of other perspectives. Clearly individuals, who do not wish to show deference to such teachings, have the option to move to a new congregation. This is not always easy or straightforward. I was hearing recently of a highly qualified reader who has been eased out of her teaching role in the parish by an incoming vicar. The reader was, in comparison with the vicar, highly educated and, as far as I can work out, the vicar was afraid that her less thorough theological education might be shown up by the excellent thoughtful teaching provided by the reader. These sermons were felt not to be showing sufficient deference to the vicar and her narrow range of theological ideas.
Deference can be an appropriate and valuable part of the way relationships are organised within a church congregation. This short reflection has also indicated that an inappropriate expression of deference can in fact foster dysfunctional relationships within congregations. A major part of the task of clergy leaders is to make sure that any tendency to over idealise the clergy or leaders is never allowed to create an environment of infantilism and immaturity. Equally, the natural idealising tendencies oof congregations towards their leaders must never be allowed to create a platform for dominant, narcissistic styles of leadership. These hold people back and even harm those who submit to their authority. All clergy need to examine the place of deference within their congregation. Is it to be used positively or is it to be allowed to hold people down in a permanent state of immaturity?
Ah yes! I’m clever. No one wants a clever woman, they want a pretty woman! And when you reach the age when nobody fancies you anyway…. They still don’t want clever! And being a clever Reader is just as great a sin as not being pretty when you’re younger! And not being ordained…. Happened to me a lot! I have met clergy who don’t mind a bit. But of course, it’s the ones that do who cause the harm.
Oh my goodness! 16 years after I bailed, your words still charged my feelings. Sadly, the underlying need for ‘deference ‘, in reality, ego propping, led to the other matter Stephen has written about, bullying. It wasn’t worth the candle in the end, but I lost a great deal in self preservation.
In another area of my life, we talk about ‘the deference of hospitality’, the giving of yourself in service to others. How Gospel! But deference should never mean self abasement or relinquishing responsibility. My Bishop told me I was too psychological, not spiritual enough, but I stand by emotional education and development as cornerstones of Christian or indeed any spiritual maturity.
The ability and willingness to think for yourself is not guaranteed by high intellectual intelligence or great education or both. One of the brightest people I knew was a feeder for a narcissistic personality.
To counter excessive deference requires strength of character, a certain fearlessness, courage. To go against the flow is rare, in my experience. Many prefer the apparent safety of sticking with the crowd and keeping their heads down. Generally I would suggest most communities operate broadly along these lines. Even when inequities become apparent, there is often significant delay, a lag before more intentional responses become acceptable.
I’m not sure it’s fair to single out conservative evangelical churches as being more prone to defence than others. Deference is certainly a feature of the Con-Eva world; but also of many Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches where the attitude is ‘Father knows best’. Then, think of the reverence in which many hold spiritual leaders such as Richard Rohr, and used to hold for Jean Vanier.
I agree. The old fashioned type of church often treats the vicar as God!
Agreed. My Bishop expected or hoped for deference when he wrote effectively saying I am a Bishop and I am telling you not to complain when I made a formal complaint against my former vicar. My vicar later admitted guilt. Why my Bishop should expect deference and compliance whilst he is committing what he would term a sin, and going right against HB guidelines I cannot say, but he obviously did. Despite filing cdm against my current Rector on Friday for abusive and controlling behaviour, discrimination, and a failure to follow safeguarding guidelines as explained to him by the safeguarding advisor to Bishop Jonathan Gibbs, I do feel very sorry for him. His need for admiration and approval, is so great, I cannot help but feel sorry for a man who frightens me. He is desperate for us to admire what he considers an outstanding singing voice, to admire his mastery of the degree he never took – history – to the extent of denigrating the scholarship of Rowan Williams during a communion service, parading ludicrously round about and up and down in an almost empty church for weekday communion, etc. He is the adult equivalent of a small child shouting look at me to his parents when first mastering a skill. As my vocation is caring for others, I simply cannot switch this off because of his abuse and control, and wish his Bishop and mine would offer him the help he is crying out for. Nevertheless I must protect myself and others. I was forced to file cdm by email because my disability precludes me from filling in the form and separately also filed a request to be given assistance pointing out that as the previous assistance consisted of not including complaints I wished to make it did not satisfy the provisions of the Equality Act. Of course no selection process is perfect and it is inevitable that some unfit candidates will be ordained. However I believe there is a close relationship with the high number of narcissistic clergy in the upper echelons and a selection process that frequently duplicates their personality flaws. Being blind I walk to the nearest church whether evangelical or Anglo Catholic. from personal experience alone, it is my belief that any type of structure can be infiltrated by narcissistic and controlling personalities, and no type of churchmanship is safe from such infiltration. Sadly the need of some people for certainty makes them prey for this type of personality. And of course politeness and deference to those wearing a dog collar is still uppermost for some church attendees whatever the behaviour of the wearer. I fear that as the circle of churchgoers grows ever smaller, limiting the amount of deference given to Bishops and clergy they will flex their muscles even more.
Trust, and being able to receive support and guidance (even correction) from others is important, especially those who can share their expertise – maybe ‘wholesale’ deference in a relationship is not? The examples you gave of mechanics, doctors etc. – I put myself in their hands for this one particular thing and I’m very grateful for their help, but I don’t ask them to set an agenda for my life, nor assume that they know more about me than I know about myself. Hero-worship is often a way of giving away a responsibility and even a power that should be mine … ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’ – I think we have a natural resistance to the difficulty of this – and we can get into a symbiotic relationship with a leader who either needs our adulation because of their own inner deficit and so grooms us, or who so wants to be liked that they try to fulfil our projections. It’s tricky to know how to improve this – sometimes we think we have found spiritual depth, when we are really just experiencing coercion – by the leader and/or the community.
There’s a tendency with “expertise”, and Rachel Nicholls helpfully refers, by to assume when we have it in one or two areas, that we are then experts on everything.
At one time the vicar was likely the only educated person in the village, and maybe then automatic deference was more likely to be appropriate. Obviously this hasn’t applied in many places now for many decades here. Moreover, if a church leader gives inaccurate guidance in areas of relative ignorance, it tends to have a repelling effect, at least on this listener. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
But it still surprises me the rush to deference even when easily researchable facts would refute the trend. Partly I suspect, this is due to the human desire to belong, and partly to rely on stuff told to us as children, which we prefer to stick with and assume to be true. I’m still editing my belief system a large number of decades later.
I was thinking that if the chimney sweep was incompetent, unprofessional, or unreliable, you would have considerably less deference to him.
I think the reason that healthy attitude doesn’t carry over into the world of church is exactly the family discourse. You used the idea of families with young children but sometimes churches are like dysfunctional, abusive or even incestuous families.
And the reason church behaves like a family rather than a business is most people have no problem firing an incompetent chimney sweep but it takes real guts to conclude that you’re better without your family and walk away.
I’ve heard of the jackdaw of Rheims but now we have the jackdaw of dreams. Thank you Stephen. I like your way of reflecting on matters that affect us.
My Rector clearly feels I should be more deferential towards him. I think but am not sure that my Diocese, after many months of asking, are finally dealing with my cdm in regard to his abuse, discrimination and misconduct. I During our midweek communion service this morning he prayed about those who bring complaints using words such as sin. There was no context given. This seemed both unwise as well as unseemly and a clear abuse of his position, power and authority. Does he really expect me to back down I wonder when I have his letters etc as evidence? First he conducts a Sunday communion service by interrupting the service with votes for churchwarden then interrupts the service after the Gospel by conducting the Apcm before carrying on with the communion service. Now he prays about those who complain about his misconduct during midweek communion. Still I suppose as he previously disrupted a service of communion to bellow disparagingly at an elderly parishioner, we should be ready for anything when turning up for what used to be normal church services before our Rector began his ministry amongst us. I, for one, would not be at all surprised if hard hats are given out at the next service for the safety of parishioners. You simply could not make it up.