There have been two occasions when I might have been on the staff at a theological college. On the first occasion I was asked to apply for a post, while, on the second occasion, I was on a short-list of four candidates after making an application for the job. Neither episode came to anything and so no ordinands ever had the dubious benefit of learning from my parish experience or my theological insights.
These two possible encounters with the world of teaching ordinands have led me to ponder the question: what do I want future clergy to learn from their training? This is partly a question to myself about what I regret never having been taught. In my day, the late sixties, there was an attempt to make us aware of our own inner processes by exposing us to the then fashionable teachings of group dynamics. One thing that was not taught then was the dynamics of institutions and the way that roles are exercised within them. To put it another way, we never learned to see how people and institutions interact. People – clergy and laity – might have psychological issues to sort out. The Church itself, as an entity of power, was not considered as a problem within the total picture. Topics like the psychoanalysis of institutions did not exist and we certainly had few insights into the nature of power and the way it exercises an important role in the life of the Church and within the personalities of those who lead it.
From the perspective of retirement, I can now look back and recall how some of the clergy I used to know, played ‘power-games’. Nothing in their training had taught them to question how they used the power that they possessed as parish priests. It is obvious now, from the perspective of thirty or forty years after the event, that perhaps only a minority of clergy knew the meaning of humility. Many used their status as Vicar, Rector or Canon as a way of boosting their self-esteem. The Church institution was being used like a giant esteem filling station. Whenever a sense of social fragility was felt inside them, they went off to refill, so that they regained once more some of the prestige that their Church role was giving them. They might act out this power in a variety of ways – raising their voice unnecessarily, showing impatience or in some way belittling another person without a word being said. This way of using the institution to define their value and meet their self-esteem needs is what I call institutional narcissism. It is not just in the Church you find it; it is equally evident elsewhere, especially in political life. It is also visible at every level in the church, from bishops downwards. It is certainly visible among celebrity preachers and leaders in the con-evo constituency. Failures here have been explored recently in the aftermath of the Jonathan Fletcher Review. Anyone using the Church in some way to promote their self-importance has made power into a problem. Such people are often not aware of any misuse of power, but this institutional narcissism has begun to corrupt all their relationships and their effectiveness as pastors is seriously compromised.
In my musings about how to reduce ‘power-games’ in the Church, I have invented for myself a fantasy role as a teacher in a theological college. I have decided in that role that there should be for every student a series of classes using role play as a way for participants to learn about power. I would write a series of sketches which show typical scenarios in a parish. Some might involve day to day encounters with parishioners going about their voluntary tasks. Other sketches might portray staff meetings or chapter meetings. There would certainly be at least one to illustrate a difficult meeting with a bishop, with a curate telling him that his Vicar was guilty of sexual offences. The one thing that all these sketches would have in common is that an issue of power is implicit in each one of them. The question for the watching group is to identify who in the scene has power and how is that power acquired? How is the power being deployed? What are the feelings of the various characters in the sketch? Is the first person aware of the feelings of the other? What is the best outcome for all concerned? I would expect that the teacher would frequently have to remind the students that there is much more going on that is evident on first watching. Certainly, after doing this exercise a few times, the student might become more aware of hidden, even subconscious, power issues. I would also want to share the insight that the place of meeting can affect the power dynamics in an encounter. If a bishop expects a young curate to share deeply personal stuff in the setting of his palace, then he will probably be disappointed. What was missing in the story of A and the Bishop of Durham in the last post, was the failure of imagination and empathy. No group of students would be allowed to watch a sketch of such a meeting without being made fully aware of all the many possible nuances contained in that encounter. To most of us they may seem obvious, but to clergy from an older generation, empathy, imagination and an awareness of power dynamics seem to have been in short supply.
One of the dramatic changes to parish life that has begun some years ago, but has now, maybe, become encoded by covid, is the end of clergy visiting parishioners in their own homes. Issues of safeguarding no doubt come into the reasoning, but I have also heard the excuse given that there is no time available for such an activity. Clergy of my generation clearly regret the loss of this parish activity but I want to raise an important factor which is nothing to do our feelings of sadness. It would seem clear that the absence of home visiting may affect the issue of power dynamics and the relationship between church leaders and the congregation. When I used to enter the home of one of my parishioners, I was always there as guest. That is, when we think about it, a power relationship, putting parishioner above priest. The host is the one in charge. If the Vicar only ever sees his/her flock in the study or having coffee after church, the priest-people power differential is fixed in one direction. Even if there is no desire for the clergyman ever to misuse his/her power, the encounter on the ‘home-turf’ of the priest will inevitably determine the dynamic of the relationship. To restore the balance, as it were, in the power dynamic between priest and parishioner, home visits perform a vital role. Home visits, in my estimation, help to put the power dynamics of the parish into a far healthier frame.
Understanding power dynamics in the Church, whether at the parish level or within the hierarchy, will always be an important task. The problem is that that powerful people do not enjoy being challenged for the way that they use that power. Sometimes one would love to challenge a pompous senior church functionary, but such behaviour might be a career wrecking move. Politeness and expedience will mean that much power abuse and narcissistic behaviour remains unchallenged. It will continue to damage the institution and the individuals within it. Perhaps my idea of role play exercises is a safe way of helping would be clergy to become aware of how the unconscious exercise of their power can harm both themselves and others for whom they have pastoral responsibility.
I remember being in a meeting of trainers and mentioning power. One new incumbent said, Oh, we don’t have any power! A sharp look from a much more experienced Methodist minister told me he understood perfectly. And I totally sympathise with the Archdeacon who said, gloomily, Not as much as you would think! But it’s really, really important. And, yes, visiting would change the dynamic. Also having Bible studies and/or prayer groups in other people’s homes.
Excellent, Stephen.
I agree about home visits for the reasons you suggest. Allowing someone to give you hospitality is important, because it puts them one up. Therefore I would always accept a cup of tea if offered. Refusing it is a kind of rejection of the host.
In addition, seeing people in their home setting gives you a much better idea of who they are, and what their circumstances, than if you only see them in the church, church hall, or vicarage. This is a great aid to pastoral ministry, especially when conducting interviews for the occasional offices (baptism, wedding, funeral) where you might not have encountered the people before. You can then give a more personal touch to the service.
Bishops meeting survivors, especially, ought always to offer go to them, to a place where the survivor feels safe. The Whitsey Report details one case where a survivor of abuse by Bishop Whitsey was taken to see the current bishop to discuss the allegation – in the same house and room where the abuse had happened. The bishop’s recollection of the meeting was that it ‘went well’ – but the survivor felt he had been re-abused. The bishop had been completely unaware of not only the power dynamic (or maybe he hadn’t?), but also the effect of re-visiting the site of the abuse to discuss it. Really crass.
It’s far easier to respect a person’s actions than their beliefs.
I recall a clergyman visiting our home unannounced, where he was welcomed in and served tea. The whole family sat with him and then he prayed with us. It was formal, yet safely intimate. I was probably around 13 maybe and still remember him positively. His actions spoke louder than his words, although I then listened more carefully when he spoke in church.
More recently, a young (to me) vicar called round to a family home in the North following a bereavement. Due to COVID, he stood at the door in the cold and chatted with us. Again, I really valued this. Doctrinal differences melted away.
I believe it is right to re-engage with your flock, if you are a minister. It’s probably a bit trickier these days, but from other experiences, plenty of opportunities are being missed, dismissed or delegated to someone else on the team.
‘God has spoken once and twice have I heard this: that power belongs to God and you O Lord are loving…’ Psalm 62 verse 11.
Note the two aspects of God referrred to in the same breath. Much of what we are talking about is power exercised without love.
Institutional narcissism holds the Church in a kind of spell. Those in it, particularly those in power, but held by it too are many ordinary parishioners, fail to see what’s happening outside.
Basking in your own photo-shopped reflection is a great way of keeping reality at bay. With any luck things will just continue as before and nothing will ever have to change the hopefully impregnable ramparts against the terrible outside.
This “spell” has been broken for many many people. The disillusioned generally just slip away as their own personal halcyon dream of wholesome purity evaporates.
With abuse scandal after bullying scandal after fraud scandal, few people can be unaware of the hopeless charade that remains. I read recently of Ravi Zacharias’s (poor?) widow desperately clutching on to his former reputation, strenuously denying the overwhelming evidence against him. Is she to be pitied or decried?
Certainly from the outside in, there is little support for the institution’s narcissism any more. Part of the myth that was so important in former times, was that you could join the Church and immediately be elevated in public esteem. And get a stipend. And a pension. These things too are realistically being stripped away in general perception and publicly available accounts.
Truly the emperor has no clothes.
I wonder how long it takes a true believer in the spell/myth of the (fake) tanned Church to realise there’s not much there. The swiftest way to find out is probably to be promoted to archbishop and then be fed to the press, and scapegoated for every Church malfeasance.
Narcissism needs a food source. There’s a famine out there now.
Thanks for this article.
Heard from an Archdeacon (on two separate occasions): “I’m an Archdeacon – they’ll do what I tell them!”, said in all earnestness. In some dioceses, the culture is so hierarchical and clerical that this sort of exchange is the norm and few people are brave enough, or in a suitable position, to challenge it, as explained in the article.
Hi Chris!
Thanks for this Stephen – I have taught at theological college and also taught medics- and agree with so much of what you say. Role play was a key part of teaching medics – analysing power dynamics, feedback in and out of role etc were powerful ways of enabling growth and awareness. In ordination training and in IME 2 we never once used role play ! Finding the timing of this blog interesting as well as I have just posted on facebook a suggestion for a book (or chapters from the book) Power and Interdependence in Organisations Edited by Dean Tjosvold and Barbar Wisse as an idea for deanery chapters to discuss. Would also be good core reading for bishops and archdeacons too particularly if also used with facilitated discussions. Lots of really helpful stuff that acknowledges hierarchy but looks at how context, understanding and approach to power use makes a difference.
Thanks Rhona. I have just found and bought a copy of the book you mention on line. It sounds really worth-while. I have to confess that nothing of what I wrote in this piece came from my reading, so it is good to know that my longing for role play in training is shared by medics and also desired for the Church by at least one other person. Clergy find power issues very threatening so you have to have fictional examples to allow them to think about the topic. To point out to a senior or a junior cleric that they are throwing their weight around is almost impossible! Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. You may get another dose on this topic when I have read what the experts say!
While I’m sure that these power dynamics play a part in all denominations, I do wonder if they play out differently in those with different structures and hierarchies? For instance I’m a Baptist minister; and a well-known theme in our circles is of the aggressive lay person who rules the congregational Church Meeting and browbeats the Minister into submission. Equally our Regional Ministers (the nearest we have to Archdeacons and Bishops) are very much “primus inter pares”, neither having the authority nor being treated with the deference that they have in Anglican circles. Of course power dynamics do exist – indeed my own wife said that I need to be wary of making suggestions at Church Meeting as my opinions might be considered to carry more weight than those of others. And there are churches whose minister is a very strong and charismatic character, not to be argued with. I can’t comment on the Baptist Union’s disciplinary structure nor its ways of dealing with survivors of abuse; I am not too naive to believe that abuse has not occurred although I do know that a comprehensive Past Case Review was carried out a few years ago: https://baptisttimes.co.uk/Articles/516223/Significant_progress_with.aspx.
People still want to go to church, and particularly in the less traditional congregations, some are happy to disregard the denomination and switch to somewhere else.
I did a quick review of the financial history of our three largest local churches in the £1m range of annual incomes. The Baptists are way out in front, thriving by the look of it. The big Anglican church appears to have gone into decline and the independent start up has plateaued.
My above analysis is superficial, but perhaps suggestive. Money is of course just an indicator. But I do believe it reflects underlying factors such as people voting with their feet.
Perhaps Andrew is right and the Baptists have a better, less corruptible structure?
They do tend to be more generous. They tithe, so that would warp your figures. Whereas the CofE would probably get a sudden surge at Christmas with the “not sure”. It’s that hoary old chestnut, the definition of success!
In England at least, church people are very squeamish when talking about money. It’s considered almost vulgar. But they do seem to be happy to spend it when it comes their way!
Another observation, which I’ve noted discomfort to before, is in my above example, the majority of funds are going outside the parish system and not supporting smaller Anglican churches anymore.
Certainly true of Baptist churches: much money (especially from larger churches) is I think going to parachurch organisations rather than Baptist Home Mission/Missionary Society. This is serious as the annual “subs” paid by each church are minimal and we don’t have a Parish Share system.
There seems to be a similar issue with power dynamics going on in the Tavistock Clinic at the moment.
An excellent summary by Rachel Cooke on yesterday’s Guardian / Observer website.
Exactly the same ‘bullying’ techniques being used to silence a whistle-blower.
Hi Roger, any hallowed institution can be hijacked by an ideology and overcome with fear. The Churches are no exception. Bullying is symptomatic, perhaps even pathognomic. A well balanced organisation has no need of these behaviours.
It feels sad to learn of these things.
All my adult life I’ve believed that belonging to a church with bishops and an oversight structure was safer than belonging an independent church, because clergy would be – well – overseen – to some effect. Then came the revelations of the last few years.
Why not have a good read of thirtyone:eight’s report for Emmanuel Church Wimbledon on the walkingwith.uk website? It will be well worth your time. Read its description of the Church of England’s so-called National Safeguarding Team, and the NST’s apparent decision not to investigate the Jonathan Fletcher case (see especially pages 9 and 78-79 of the Report). Note that the reviewers were told there was: ‘…no case management system..[and] records..unlikely to have been made.’
So like others I know, I’ve lost confidence that belonging to and serving the Church of England is any safer than joining a small independent church, and I’m wondering why I have trusted and supported Church of England leaders all these long years.
I guess you’ve seen the several entries on this website about the Jonathan Fletcher report. It’s worth noting that the church as a proprietary chapel it was not fully part of the normal C of E oversight.
I would argue that it is a success of the C of E system that there are public reports for people to read and a discussion to be had. There are clearly though still things for it to improve on.
By comparison would a small independent church even write a report and publish it publicly as would anyone notice if they didn’t? My experience in a house church movement is that they are able to fly under the radar with very little public scrutiny of what goes on compared to the much higher profile C of E.
Thank you Stephen, as always a thoughtful and insightful piece. With regard to visiting, I suppose it all depends on what takes place in the context of the particular encounter. I’m reminded of the story of Mervyn Stockwood when he was a parish priest here in Bristol and was approached by a rather timid lady who asked if he could find half an hour ‘for a chat’. He arrived on her doorstep saying that he hadn’t got half an hour but ‘I’ll give you as long as it takes’. She recounted how, during the rest of the afternoon, they dissected her entire life and put it back together again. Later that person became a member of our church and recalled that until her dying day. Many will be able to recall instances where a visit seems to be drawing to its close, and something is just dropped into the conversation at the last minute which turns what has seemed to be ‘a chat about the weather’ into a situation of real value. I could never emulate Stockwood’s pastoral abilities, but I’d go with the view that time spent in someone’s home changes the dynamics and leads to a more creative relationship. Of course we’re constrained now by safeguarding and other issues but I’d like to think that any attempt to be ‘Counter Cultural’ in our management obsessed Church would include an emphasis of pastoral visiting as an important part of parish ministry and not just in times of crisis.
Thanks so much for this article. It really helps to make sense of experience I have had in the past with church leadership. So much comes down to the power dynamics of the situation, but this is the part that can be hidden or overlooked.