This article is the first of a series of pieces which describe the way that the Bible can be used as an instrument of power abuse. Other topics that I hope to cover following this post is the issue of demonising opponents of a minister and the tactic of shunning. Both these strategies are used to by ministers across the board but the articles will focus on examples which are found at the conservative evangelical end of the church. The issue of inappropriate Bible quoting is an evil which infects many churches.
About twenty years ago I found myself in an embarrassing and unusual situation. I was taking a joint Carol Service with the local Baptist minister in the parish church. He decided bizarrely to preach about the responsibilities of ordained ministry. Instead of a reflection on St John’s gospel where Jesus talks about service and feet washing, the minister started talking to the congregation (with many children present!) about a verse in Hebrews, ch.13.17. ‘Obey your leaders and defer to them.’ Up to that point, even though I was aware of the verse, it had never crossed my mind that it applied to me or could ever define the relationship between Vicar and a congregation. After hearing him repeat several times that it was biblical for Christian leaders to expect obedience from their flock, I realised that he was occupying a different theological universe from mine in this matter. Since that day, I have discovered that there are a further cluster of ‘proof’ texts that seem to support the idea that a minister should always have control over what happens in his church. One of them is in Psalm 105: ‘Touch not the Lord’s anointed and do his prophets no harm. Another passage in I Samuel 24.6 shows David’s reluctance to kill Saul. This is because, since he was the Lord’s anointed, hostile action towards him would be a kind of blasphemy.
My Baptist colleague was on this occasion, in my estimation, using a Bible text in an aggressive, even coercive, manner. ‘This is what the Bible says and you have to follow me in the way I interpret it.’ There could be no discussion, no alternative interpretations to be entertained. On a psychological level I could see that the minister, by preaching in this way, was showing himself to be insecure. While he believed himself to be the leader of his church, he was not confident that he could exercise that authoritative leadership without reminding them of his special status from time to time. He was also working out of a very precarious world of ultra-conservative beliefs and understandings. It was precarious because he was sufficiently well educated to know that fundamentalist doctrines of scriptural inerrancy are not easy to defend. A modern inerrantist has to struggle with numerous problems of difficulties in the text, contradictions and plain discrepancies. One way round the problem is to cease to read the Bible as a connecting whole but rather to treat it as ‘mine’ of proof texts. Much of the Baptist minister’s preaching did in fact consist of leaping from one verse or section of a verse to another to illustrate the Calvinist theology that he espoused. In this way the passages that said something different could be quietly overlooked. There was never, for example, any apparent awareness of such things as the distinctiveness of each of the four gospels. The Bible was simply a large document out of which one extracted passages to support doctrine. These were then learnt by rote so that the Christian who was able to recite them correctly could be ‘saved’.
In practice I seldom preached on the nature of ordination as it applied to my own ministry. The Anglican liturgical calendar allows for a series of so-called Ember Days, and these are an opportunity for prayer and reflection on the nature of ordination. The Anglo-Catholic tradition in which I began my training has a ‘high’ view of priesthood but for most of my ministry, I have sat lightly on these ideas, preferring a fairly pragmatic approach to the nature and meaning of ordination. But it is my belief that there are also some toxic ideas of ministry around. These may be rooted in ‘proof’ texts from scripture as I have mentioned. Such ideas can have harmful even devastating consequences for those who follow them.
Let us suppose that a congregation agrees with the premises of the two quotations I have mentioned as being definitive on the way that priest/minister should relate to his congregation. Let us leave to one side the question of whether the verses mentioned have any legitimate application to a contemporary minister or priest. What has to follow is that the congregation members commit themselves both to obey and never challenge their minister. This subservience is felt to be necessary out of a respect to the word of God. It is then but a small step to regard obedience to a minister as being obedient to God himself.
Before we look further at the practical implications of obedience to a minister as being obedience to God, we should reflect on what this process may do to the minister himself. For any human being to identify with God is, by any account, an act of extreme hubris. It is one thing to have the authority to preach; it is quite another to assume this preaching will result in God-given infallible opinions. Even to entertain such an idea seems to imply that the one in charge is operating at a level of fantasy and delusion. Having expressed our doubt that any minister who seeks a high degree of control over a congregation is operating reasonably or in their best interests, we need to look further at other issues in this relationship.
Why would a humble Christian want to attach themselves to a minister who then demands their total loyalty, even worship? The answer is partly one we have already suggested. The minister is the one who reveals and preaches the word of God. To all intents and purposes, he is God. When the primary reason for churchgoing is to avoid the ‘wages of sin’ and obtain a place in heaven, then this obedience is a very serious matter indeed. To disobey is to risk hell. To disagree with the minister comes to be equally serious and potentially life changing.
From the perspective of this blog writer, the methods of interpreting scripture which apparently gives it infallibility and answers to scientific and historical questions do not stand up to scrutiny. When such infallibility is deemed to be also the exclusive possession of a church leader, the problem is magnified and becomes even more dangerous. And yet in many churches, some of them Anglican, up and down the country this is precisely what happens. The power dynamic between leader and led is not one of cooperation and mutual learning. Rather it is one of coercion and control by a leader or a small leadership team. Such a dynamic might seem strange in the world of European democratic traditions, but paradoxically this is in fact what ‘biblical’ values demand from a large segment of Christian opinion – to be subservient to the minister. The sections of the church that demand proper accountability and an informed approach to scripture from their clergy (this would apply to the majority of Church of England parishes) are probably unaware of the way others behave. Perhaps it is the task of this blog to remind each side something of what others believe, however different and even unpalatable it is.
.
It’s so important that these issues are raised. Thank you.
Perhaps we could have your thoughts sometime on what it means for a priest to take a vow of obedience to his or her Bishop – and the implications for this in terms of what we have seen emerging from the independent inquiry.
Could it be that the Church of England needs to look more closely at the idea of ‘Magisterium’?
Pope Francis and Pope Paul speak of themselves as the ‘Servant of Servants.’
Reaching out to change the condition of the poor and disempowered, not to gain converts, but to help them regain the image of God and become truly human?
Cherry picking scripture, selective use of scripture, needs to be thought about with great suspicion, ‘The devil can quote scripture’?
JOKE:
A newly ordained young catholic priest full of zeal gets on a bus in Rome, at the next stop a tramp gets on holding a dirty newspaper, the tramp sits down on the seat in front of the priest. The tramp turns and looks at the priest and asks, “What causes arthritis Sir?”
The priest loudly responds, “Sin, Lust, Adultery, Alcohol indulgence, Gluttony!”
“Oh” says the tramp, “I was just reading in my news paper, the Pope has got arthritis!”
Chris
During my training I came across the belief that if you are preaching, you are speaking God’s word. I put forward the alternative view that one does one’s best, but claiming to be speaking God’s word was to claim to be infallible. I’m afraid I have come across many infallible ministers since then, both lay and ordained, and that within the CofE.
Thanks E/A,
I’m trying to say that the great and perfect are not something that God necessarily respects. His perfection is in the;”Things that this world counts as nothing.” Obedience to elders and leaders, can only be truly achieved when we know that we are trusting absolute unconditional love. I believe Pope Paul and Francis have (And Had) that.
Chris, are you saying that Popes Paul and Francis had obedience (from Catholics), or that they had absolute unconditional love? I don’t think the latter could be claimed for any human being, other than Jesus.
And I think that’s part of the point Stephen is making.
Dear Stephen, I am wondering whether you were able to discuss these issues with your Baptist colleague? On the positive side he was being absolutely explicit, the issue was out in the open. On the other side there are many instances when a preacher is promoting the same viewpoint, but implicitly. I remember an instance many years ago when my husband and I were leading the prayers in our church. We had had a very difficult week with the death of 4 friends, one a 17 year old and another a death in an accident abroad. I said that I was there representing all those who did not know where God was. After the service I was castigated by the incumbent. We were not allowed to lead the prayers again. Interestingly we had more positive comments from other members of the congregation after the service, which included sparking some very deep conversations, than we had ever had when were were more ‘traditional’ and less vulnerable. The message from the incumbent was quite clear: we had to present a positive image at all times. But life isn’t like that. I have also discovered that with most preachers it is not possible to engage with them about the topic of their sermons; they know they are right! So I think this is a much wider problem with explicit and implicit ways of saying that we are ‘right’ ‘top dog’ or some other way of asserting that we are in some ways authorised and therefore above contradiction. The often implicit ‘Father knows best’ of the Anglo-Catholic community is in some ways more damaging than the explicit quoting of proof texts, as with the latter you do at least know what you are up against. It is much more difficult to deal with subtle forms of abuse which have a way of insinuating themselves into our deepest being and are almost impossible to engage with as human beings often assimilate the messages. eg the Minister/Priest/Incumbent etc knows better than I do, s/he is a much better Christian, and in any case is somehow ‘anointed’ to be better than I am, knows more than I do, and is, therefore, closer to God.
In a meeting of 5,000 Christians, there had been a little dissent over some logistical arrangements that had gone awry. We were told not to question the leaders.
I left feeling deeply uncomfortable over the perceived abuse of their authority. We are leaders. We are divinely right.
The misuse of scripture to justify this and many other doctrines is endemic. I have coined the term “Evangelical Book of Answers” EBA for short, to encompass such doctrines and behaviours.
The EBA has an attraction of course. Many of us like certainty, and a minister offering a set of clear answers to the conundrums of life, will often have a great following. Even less popular sub-doctrines, such as giving 10% of your income, have a certain appeal, because if you obey, it can give you a sense of commitment and belonging by playing your part. Additionally, having a clear set of beliefs, as outlined in the EBA, is a lot easier mentally than living with uncertainty. Sticking with it shows an apparent strength of character, rather than being “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching ”.
Of course the EBA is a virtual book in continuous edit, but its adherents know whom to go to or which books to read to ensure safe compliance.
As Stephen points out, perhaps the adoption of this approach is driven by insecurity in leaders. I suggest that both leaders and followers share in the same potentially toxic phantasy of certainties.
But really what are we going to do about this? Are we right and they wrong? Are we sure? Should the EBA be thrown out completely?
I accept it is important to challenge. If doctrines appear wrong or abusive, then we do have a moral, ethical and spiritual responsibility to do something about it.
It can be satisfying to demolish another’s argument; entertaining even. But where is our concern for a wounded brother? What do we offer to the sister damaged by a dogmatic fellowship? Can we nurture leaders who have fallen?
“Shepherding” may be discredited, but are we even aware of the people around us in need of listening ear and a cup of tea?
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these…, you did for me.”
Oh Steve, love it. The Evangelical Book of Answers! I’ve been beaten over the head with that particular tome a few times! You’re absolutely right. But your penultimate sentence is more important to me. We all have different regrets and hurts. The people who couldn’t be bothered with tea and sympathy are mine.
Thanks EA. A painful and lonely place.
Thank you Anne for your thoughtful response. Like you I am also aware of many examples of implicit control which are rooted in a culture of Father/Pastor knows best. At least when a minister quotes the bible, you know they are up front with their desire to control. My problem is and has been that when a fundamentalist quotes scripture, that closes all discussion down as far as they are concerned. You can’t argue with the text. Of course you and I know that such attempts at closing down the discussion are not really valid but at a human level, it is too hard to tell them that. The minister genuinely believed that his congregation had a duty to obey him. Had I been even in a small way been able to shift his view that would have unsettled him and undermined the black white world in which he lived. It was not a battle that I had the energy to fight. He was also much better at throwing texts into the discussion that I was. Dialogue as we would understand it was not really on the cards.
Like you, Stephen, I have attempted to work with my congregations rather than expect obedience from them. That hasn’t always been the approach they wanted!
I’m wondering, though, what do you think is the modern application of Heb. 13:17? If it was appropriate for the church of the writer’s day, what makes it inappropriate now? Is it ever right to demand obedience in a church context? Bearing in mind , of course, that clergy have to swear an oath of canonical obedience to the Queen and to their bishop; and bishops to the archbishop.
The important thing is that ‘obedience’ is a topic for discussion and interpretation. I fear that those who refer to it in sermons probably want to close down that discussion because of rigid beliefs and interpretation. I am open to a wide ranging reflection on clerical authority as long as it never descends to a state of this is what I say and there will be no argument. Somewhere in my preferred interpretation is the word mutual and interdependent. Perhaps I also look to St John and what he was on about when he spoke of ‘friends’.
And Readers are expected to obey their incumbents. If you’re taking a service alone, you could change all the hymns, preach something other than the church’s doctrine. Sometimes obedience is just about keeping things in good order. Sometimes of course it isn’t.
When I was at Bradford Cathedral, the precentor gave me the topic ‘Obedience’ to preach on for my last sermon there. I chose the text ‘Judge for yourselves, is it right that we obey God rather than men.’ Not what he expected!
I agree about discussion. I would take the approach that we consider the whole teaching of scripture. or, as my father used to say, ‘A text out of context is a pretext.’
Janet, thank you for another letter to the Church Times. I do hope the slight flow of the tide we have detected changes something. And I have found a second settings menu which might have cleared the blockage in re commenting on my blog.
Janet:
Speaking as a victim of abuse, I would not wish to impute infallibility to any human being.
The difficulty comes when we try to make a doctrine out of what should come naturally, from the regained image of God in us?
Therefore setting the bar high, (Too high if you like) and finding the graces to constantly attempt that love can only be a good thing. In Catholic thinking
Even Mary, who is regarded as the highest example of love, is seen as ‘full of grace’ purely on the merits of Christ.
I’m attempting to suggest that the Church of England needs to set the bar far higher in the selection process, for future ministers.
This is not an Apologetic for the Catholic Church, just thinking out loud.
Obedience to Love is as St Paul puts it is, “A Better way”.
Peace And Love
Chris
I think there is perhaps some nuance needed in this understanding of leadership in certain evangelical circles. Having been in this kind of church back in the 1980s, my recollection is that in no sense did we understand the calling of leadership to confer any kind of infallibility on that leader. This would have been seen as the error of Roman Catholicism. Rather it was a question of them being “God’s anointed”, and if we wanted to remain under the blessing of God, it was necessary to obey that leader. If they did make mistakes, God would somehow reward us for our obedience despite the mistakes. You could argue that this confers infallibility by default, but I think that the understanding was different.
I think to some degree this understanding is how American evangelicals manage to justify their support for Donald Trump, using scriptures such as Rom. 13:1, despite his clear moral failings.
I feel that if we are doing our best, but we are led astray, God does understand we are doing our best. And presumably punishes those who have led us! That’s Biblical. But we cannot abdicate our responsibility. There is no Nuremberg defence. So we cannot shelter behind orders we may have been given.