How Do You Remain United in the Body of Christ When A Leader Abuses Power?

I have a good friend who was hurt quite badly by a pastor who initiated a harmful program and insisted that my friend help him administer it.  When my friend refused, he faced serious consequences at the practical level within his church community.

That friend asked me, after the fact, the following - and my response follows his question, with a nod to Mormon-speak for this blog:

The reality is that church leaders are just regular people. As such, sometimes they abuse their power in their leadership positions. Generally this is minimal or not a problem - however sometimes it can be extreme and even abusive.

How do you deal with this? How do you reconcile it with the command to be united in the body of Christ?

1) by recognizing and admitting exactly what you just said. There's nothing "magical", in and of itself, that changes someone who is in a position of leadership in a church - man or woman. The only thing that changes automatically is the power and influence they are able to wield - the scope of their potential unrighteous dominion.

2) by recognizing that increased responsibility pushes "the natural (wo)man" toward increased unrighteous dominion. It pushes "the unnatural (wo)man" forward to greater at-one-ment. It pushes most people who live somewhere between those extremes either or both ways.

3) by defining "unity in the body of Christ" as "doing my best to help the entire community" - and realizing that sometimes the best help I can provide is a different perspective - or a simple refusal to do something.

4) by not being a jerk about it or refusing to do anything for the person but continuing to do everything I feel I can do in good conscience and balance.

5) by going above the person's head in extreme situations, if possible - always calmly and meekly and humbly, but clearly and precisely (and pointing out that I take my commitment to sustain God and the overall church community above my commitment to any one person).

Within the structure of my own religion, if I were to go to a Stake President, for example, about a Bishop, High Priest Group Leader, EQ President, etc., I would make it crystal clear that I am doing so out of genuine concern for the Stake President, the other person and the LDS Church itself - that I believe the problem I am trying to address is serious enough to be talking with the Stake President AFTER I've tried to talk with the other person. Again, as I say a lot, tone, attitude and appearance mean a lot in situations like this. I won't contribute to someone being stomped on, but I'm not doing any stomping on or punch throwing at any point in the process.

How Should We Respond When People Around Us Denigrate or Condemn Mormons?

I believe remaining silent in situations like this reinforces the negative at the expense of the positive - and that it does so in one way that gets overlooked by almost everyone:

With many people who are Christian, if they respect you but don't know your religious affiliation, they will assume (because they respect you) that you are "like them". At the very least, they will believe you aren't part of a "damnable cult" like Mormonism, as they see it. Your silence reinforces that stereotype and actually contributes to the solidification of their characterization - since they will look at you as an example of someone who knows better than to associate with people who are damned to Hell, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (and, in some cases and places, Catholics).

I believe there certainly are times when it's appropriate to remain silent in the presence of someone who is railing against the Church, but the effect described above is worth considering, in my opinion - no matter how you choose to act.

Not Being Easily Provoked Does Not Mean Never Being Provoked

So far this month, my New Year's Resolution posts have focused on what it means to be provoked, how easy it is to be provoked and how easy it is to be provoked toward God. However, in looking at the aspect of charity that Paul encapsulates as being "not easily provoked", I think it is important to consider what this does NOT say about provocation(s) and charity.

1) This statement assumes that provocation will occur - and it will do so in ways that will cause improper reaction to occur easily.

As I said two weeks ago, provocation is not something I have to seek in order to become stronger as a result of finding it. In fact, I think it is obvious upon initial consideration that seeking or causing provocation is opposed to everything else related to charity - and it also is opposed to the characteristics listed in the Sermon on the Mount as leading to being blessed by their acquisition and internalization. Therefore, it is important to point out that my effort to be less easily provoked CANNOT be accomplished by seeking provocation. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

2) This phrase does not label provocation as universally bad.

One of the definitions of "provoke" is:

to incite or stimulate to action; to give rise to, induce or bring about

When looked at fully, provocation is not a bad thing - in and of itself, in isolation. Often, we talk of being provoked by something in such a way that we are inspired to do good, to uplift, to support a good cause, to reach outside our natural comfort zone, etc. Many of the most powerful social reforms in history, for example, came about as a direct result of someone being provoked by a disturbing event or situation. Conditions in the meat packing industry caused provocation within individuals who led the effort to enact badly needed quality control regulations for food; exposure to sweat shops provoked the establishment of child labor laws; confusion and anxiety over religion provoked a young man to a grove of trees to pray; repentance is understood to rely on provocation, whether internal or external.

3) How we react to provocation is more important than the nature of the provocation itself.

Perhaps the best indicator of charity is not even "how" we react, but "how quickly" we react. As I mentioned in the first post this month, it is not that we "react" automatically to provocation - but that, instead, we take the time to "act" in the face of provocation. In this sense, it is more important that we not be "EASILY" provoked - not that we be "NOT" provoked. I dare say that this injunction will not excuse overly-quick action in the face of provocation - that doing the right things too quickly is not only possible but can cause terrible consequences and be the wrong thing in the long run. That is worth a post all on its own.

4) The exact same objective provocation might not require the exact same action in each instance.

I believe, upon reflection, most people can understand that not every situation that includes provocation - even provocation that is objectively equal - should result in the exact same action. After all, the heart of our legal system is that there can be mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration in order for any of various responses to be correct, just, fair, appropriate, etc. The objective provocation might be someone being killed - but the mitigating circumstances might be so different that one person is excused without punishment of any kind, while another person might be sentenced to death. Similarly, when dealing with personal affront, insult, harm, anxiety or conflict one person who is the catalyst might be forgiven quite easily - while another person who says or does the exact same thing might be condemned harshly. Much of this depends on the provoker, but much of it depends on the timing.

5) Taking a breath and counting to ten are common approaches to avoiding acting in haste - and, as important as practices like that are, they are not utilized fully simply to avoid acting.

As I said, sometimes provocation requires action - not just letting time pass and allowing the reason for the provocation to remain unaddressed.

In light of the focus of this resolution, the key appears to be the ability to "take into consideration" the whole picture (or as close to the whole picture as is possible) and to act accordingly - which takes a degree of self-control, analysis and, most importantly, time.

Again, the command does not say, "Be not provoked." Rather, it says, "Be not easily provoked."