
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?