Visitors to this blog seem to be of two kinds. The first are the regulars (happily increasing) who come to read my comments and observations about some topical issue. Another group of people find the blog through a Google search. They want to know what I have said on some topic in the past. The most popular theme that is ‘googled’ is church shunning or ostracism. Many people seem to have had this experience at the hands of their Christian communities. The suffering experienced by some individuals seems to have been enormous. Such people are effectively cast out of a community which has been their spiritual home for a long time. In some cases, they are forbidden even to associate with family members who want to remain in the community. The pain experienced in this sort of situation is heart-rending.
The Christian leaders who exercise the sanction of ostracising certain congregational members will of course claim biblical authority for this action. They will refer to a passage such as Matthew 18.15-17. This appears to give a leader the authority for a leader to expel a ‘brother’ who has done something wrong. A similar power to root out a sinful member is implied in 1 Corinthians 5. ‘This man is to be consigned to Satan for the destruction of the body, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.’ The issue of discipline within any congregation is of course sometimes going to be an extremely difficult area to manage. In some congregations a lot of time has to be given to overseeing sexual abuse offenders who have spent time in prison. Marriage breakups within a congregation can also be very tricky areas to negotiate, particularly where both sides of a breakup are demanding support for their situation. It is not easy to avoid taking sides. Even more complicated is the situation is when two people become attracted to one another, when such a relationship would be adulterous. Not everyone feels the sense of shame which would here be appropriate. There is also the fact that most would acknowledge the relationship to be a cause of offence to others in the group. Applying Matthew’s instructions to these complex scenarios is no simple matter.
My reader will not be surprised when I point out that the Matthew 18 passage and others that give authority to church leaders to exclude people, can easily be inappropriately applied. Alongside the passages that demand obedience to a leader which we examined in an earlier post, these passages can also be used to maintain control. Sin is a difficult word to define. It is not difficult to imagine that some Christian leaders will include in their understanding of sin such things as disagreement, questioning and challenging decisions by the minister. It will also include sexual life-styles not approved of by the church. In short, texts from the Bible have come to be used sometimes to maintain strict control over members of the congregation to control their lives, their beliefs and behaviour. In a healthy congregation the possibility of disagreement is tolerated. There will be structures which allow debate and the opportunity to hear all sides to any question. In contrast, the authoritarian church will wish to close down all discussion on such matters. The ‘Spirit led’ decision of the leader is the one that prevails every time.
A power to exclude and ostracise an individual within a church is something of great moment. Even the thought that to argue against authority may be met with sanctions and exclusion will send a frisson of fear across a congregation. When the congregation colludes with this way of doing things, that fear may well be hidden. But when something occurs to upset the status quo, the raw power to shun and exclude becomes visible. It is that power that can quickly destroy the mental and spiritual well-being of the individual so affected.
One of the additional aspects of shutting out an individual member of a congregation is that everyone else is drawn into the process. They individually have to cut off all contact with the victim. Friendships and even family bonds are sundered in the effort by the leader to preserve a strong boundary between the ‘saved’ and those who have left the congregation. This rule would apply both to those who have been shut out and those who have excluded themselves. Of the latter group, Michael Reid, the leader of Peniel Brentwood used to quote 1 John 2.19. ‘They went out from our company but never really belonged to us’. The frequent quoting of this verse conditioned the congregation to believe that anyone who left Peniel for whatever reason was on their way to a state of damnation. Everyone had a duty to shun such people as well as collude with lies that are told about them. Children also caught up in these dynamics of exclusion. Old friendships were compulsorily broken. The pain on all sides was massive.
When we look dispassionately at the way shunning and exclusion are used in some churches, we can see that it is frequently to do with the maintenance of power by the leaders. It is felt to be necessary to have strong boundaries between those who are ‘saved’ and those who are not. This makes it easier for a church leader to exercise total control. Any softening of boundaries might undermine that control. It is a bit like the way that a government involved in a war has to demonise the enemy. Without that demonization, the necessary will to fight and kill the enemy will be weakened. President Trump is trying to bolster his own flagging authority in the States by creating new enemies – Mexicans, Muslims and most foreigners. The Brexit vote in this country seems to have fed off considerable antipathy towards foreigners, whether Europeans or people of a different colour. Demonization of those who are different is a popular gambit to play among leaders. It works in politics but sadly, to our shame, it also works among Christians.
When the Bible is used to shut out or exclude people it is being used as an instrument of harm. As with all abusive use of Bible texts, the interpreter needs to be challenged. While we know there are problems of preserving discipline within the church structure, we must always be aware of the way that certain texts can be manipulated to centralise power on an authoritarian leader. Those of us who do not belong to such congregations must be alert to the many victims of particular version of church power abuse. Gratifying the narcissistic power needs of a Christian leader can never be an excuse for cruel and vindictive behaviour towards Christian individuals. Once again it can be seen as simple bullying but with evil and sometimes tragic consequences. The ability of the bully to quote the Bible never excuses his behaviour.
Love your illustration!
We may be on opposite sides of the same sex debate but I am at one with you on this pernicious issue. Thank you for your work on power-play and abuse within the Church, much needed though I fear may not be heard in those places where it is needed.
Shunning and ostracism is a terrible weapon, but so can silence be. The C of E at a senior level seems committed to using silence when confronted with truths that are difficult for them to explain away. And, what is worse, because Parliament has granted the Church so many exemptions from civil law, what do you do when you have made an official complaint against a senior cleric and the Bishop’s response is one of complete silence? Where can you go to get justice in this situation? Incidentally, the senior cleric in question is one of the Bishop’s closest personal friends.
There was a case, a few years ago now, where an NSM took the church to court for constructive dismissal. And won. The judge gave as her, I think, opinion, that the NSM was employed even though not paid. The reason they had jacked it all in was bullying. The judge also said that she would be inclined to take such a case brought by a Reader in just the same way. You would need good quality evidence, but you don’t need forensic quality proof. Balance of probability is fine, it’s not a murder where beyond reasonable doubt is what is wanted. Have whip round among fellow victims by crowd funding.
Anonymous, you could try to lodge a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure if you’re C of E, but I don’t know how far you’d get. You might find someone to advise you on that. Depending on the nature of the complaint, you could try MACSAS (Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors) or Badfaithed (on Twitter or Facebook).
But we do need a much better system for complaints and grievance procedures.
I’m so sorry to hear what you have written, Anonymous. If the complaint you made was using the Clergy Discipline Measure to which the Bishop has not responded, then I suggest you seek support from your MP. Parliament passed the Clergy Discipline Measure so MPs have an interest in seeing how it is being implemented – and it sounds as if it isn’t being implemented at all in your case!
Do you have evidence that your complaint was actually received, such as for a “Signed for” postal delivery? If not, then how about sending such a letter to enquire what date your original documents were received by the Bishop? If they deny they have received them, you can re-send them, again ensuring you get receipt of delivery, and if there is still no response then approach your MP.
Also, if you approach your MP it might help to refer to Richard Scorer’s opening speech to the IICSA hearing (Chichester case study) in March, about the lack of accountability of Bishops.
I was shunned by the youth group at our church in California when I eventually told the church leaders what the youth leader was up to. I should have done it long before, but he wasn’t an easy person to defy. I still remember the loneliness of losing all my friends.
A friend who used to be a volunteer with Ellel Grange was shunned when she began to disagree with their approach; I used to know a full-time staff member with Ellel who was shunned when he left.
We are social creatures, designed by God for relationships with each other, and shunning is very damaging. It’s one of the markers of a cult.
Thank you all for your advice. The last letter was ‘Signed For’ so I do know he’s had it. I intended anyway to send a follow-up, rather more strongly worded, and I shall this time follow the procedure for compaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure which I didn’t know about but is helpfully spelled out on the C of E website, including how to appeal against the application being rejected. I may also tell him that if he continues to refuse to answer, I’ll take it up with my MP.
I can’t believe that he would treat someone ordained like this, but it’s easy to ‘swot off’ a lowly Reader
Welcome to the club! But they do treat clergy the same way. The non-stipendiaries are particularly vulnerable. It’s the caste system. The lower the caste, the worse you are treated, and the more likely you are to be ignored if you complain. Me too. I went to see the Bishop after the first batch of trouble and he managed to turn the discussion away to something else. The Archdeacon after another bout, same result. Institutional sin. Clever and cruel.
If it was clear that your original letter was a formal complaint then I can’t see that the Bishop had any good reason for failing to respond to it, either to suggest how your complaint could be resolved or to suggest that you used the CDM. It does rather suggest that the Bishop wants to ignore it!
Be prepared for your complaint to be rejected, however well-founded it may be, and try to ensure that you write it in such a way that it is “watertight” in case you then want to take it to your MP.
And general advice to anyone being abused, keep a diary. Get everything in writing if at all possible. Talk to other people. “By heck he’s in one today” counts as corroboration, and note it in the diary. “The cleaner agreed with me”.
I didn’t mention the CDM but I opened the letter stating I wanted it to be treated as a formal complaint
If there is any chance that the complaint you are about to make via the CDM could be out-of-date (1 year?) then ensure that you send a copy of your original letter too, if that was sent within the time limit. I guess the Bishop is just hoping that (s)he can ignore your letter and then if you make the complaint via the CDM say it is out of time. They seem to like to find any reason they can to reject complaints!
Thank you all for your helpful advice
Good luck. We’re right behind you!
This week I’ve been revisiting old haunts. That raises the problem of seeing old friends, without, preferably, seeing old enemies. Otherwise, you are causing the shunning of yourself. You never see your friends again through your own choice, due to fear. Bullying of course is all about fear. So you have to make some sort of accommodation with the enemy! There is one I would avoid at all costs, regardless of how many friends it cost me. Wimpy, perhaps, but there it is. Two I now know, acknowledge me and smile vaguely, but don’t attempt to speak or otherwise engage. I have diagnosed a guilty conscience. But I had to do something about the man in charge. You can’t go somewhere if the gaffer wouldn’t want you to. So the first time, I took a deep breath, squared my shoulders, and took the battle to him. I walked over and said hello with my most brilliant smile, and proffered a cheek for a peck. It worked. I’m sure he feels uncomfortable, so do I. But I can come and go and see my friends. I pay a toll of a peck on the cheek, two if he’s driving, and, sorted. I’d very much like an apology. I’m sure he knows he owes me one. But, I’m not holding my breath. Better than being excluded by my own actions? Much. But not entirely satisfactory none the less.