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.

Some Thoughts on Spiritual Pain, Harm and Healing

1) "The incorrect traditions of their fathers" doesn't apply only to those outside the Church. It applies to the Church, as an institution, and it applies to each individual in the Church, as well. (See the allegory of the vineyard in Jacob 5 for a good description of that concept.) "Incorrect traditions" are interwoven into every organization, from the largest to a single person living alone. That doesn't excuse the effects of those traditions, but it's critical to realize - since it helps blunt the natural tendency toward exclusive harshness when one is hurt by someone or something, particularly "the Church".

2) Believing in infallibility (or holding totally unrealistic expectations) hurts much more than accepting fallibility. Those with lower expectations are harmed less than those who have their unrealistic expectations shattered.

3) NOTHING is strictly an academic issue. EVERYTHING has an emotional element to someone.

4) Those who are hurt severely by someone or something have every right to be mad and want to strike back - and, in some cases, they have every right to strike back. Likewise, time and distance are necessary for healing to occur. However, when time and distance don't heal, other proactive steps must be taken. Striking back and lashing out never is the final solution, and they rarely are the best solution.

5) I personally believe that about 75%-90% of the hurt we feel was not intended by the ones who hurt us - even in many cases where the pain was deep and lasting. In many of those cases, someone was acting in a way that they felt was "right" or "necessary" - or it simply had been drilled into them over their own lifetime. In many other cases, the person actually is totally unaware of the pain or harm they caused.  I can NEVER know exactly and comprehensively why someone acts as they do, so I simply can't judge or condemn THEM - even when I am required to judge and even condemn their actions.

6) Many bad things are the choice of the lesser of two evils - or, at the very least, not a choice of one obvious good and one obvious bad.

7) Finally, time and distance can bring healing, but, conversely, time and distance also can distort and push toward extremes - to the end results of both condemnation and denial. Therefore, healing is most likely when initiated as early as possible after the original harm. Festering emotional and spiritual wounds are no different than festering physical wounds in that regard. If left untreated, they will become cancerous.

Total objectivity ultimately is impossible, but attempted objectivity is important.

Charity Thinketh No Evil: The Power of and Problem with Humming a Hymn

In discussing the idea that "charity thinketh no evil", I would be remiss if I didn't go back to the most basic interpretation of this concept and acknowledge the foundational legitimacy of the most commonly proposed "solution" or coping mechanism - along with its most fundamental flaw. I need to discuss the difference between engagement and replacement as it relates to the idea of eliminating evil thoughts from our minds.

One of the most recognized phrases within the LDS Church's mainstream culture is, "Hum your favorite hymn." This motto is part of a primary song that children learn, and the overall idea is described thus in that song:

If on occasion you have found your language is in question, Or ugly thoughts come to your mind, then here's a good suggestion: Just hum your favorite hymn. Sing out with vigor and vim, And you will find it clears your mind. Hum your favorite hymn.

Before you say an angry word, remember you'll regret it, For once it's said the harm is done, and people won't forget it. Just hum your favorite hymn. Sing out with vigor and vim, And you will find it clears your mind. Hum your favorite hymn.

First, it's important to emphasize that this is good advice to handle those times when "evil" or "improper" thoughts come to mind unbidden. It is good advice particularly for those, like children, who have not found a way to keep those thoughts at bay in the first place. It is, however, a process of engagement - not a process of replacement, so it is only a "preparatory" or "initial" activity.

By that distinction, I mean that relying on humming a hymn, while effective to a degree, assumes that there will be regular thoughts that come to mind that must be engaged - battled in some way. There is no recognition of any need to change the mind - or the environment in which the mind operates - in such a way that the mind itself generally keeps such thoughts from developing to the extent that an engagement mechanism is necessary. In other words, rather than merely engaging an alternative activity every time an improper thought crosses the stage of our minds in order to engage and reject the thought, a replacement approach would be to condition the mind to keep the doors to the stage locked and not allow the improper thoughts to walk onto the stage in the first place. After all, "idle hands are the devil's workshop" - and, likewise, idle minds are the devil's playground.

I'm not certain at the personal level that perfect (full, complete, fully developed) elimination / replacement is possible, since I have not reached that state yet; hence, the acknowledgment that engaging by humming a hymn is a good first step and training model when unbidden thoughts come to mind. However, just as a "Fresh View of Repentance" involves "a change of mind, i.e., a fresh view about God, about oneself, and about the world", dealing with evil thinking in totality must be attempted by changing one's very mind.

How is that possible? How can a mind be changed so fundamentally that it simply ceases to think anything that is evil - either in a purely moral sense or in the sense of not being harmful in nature, as has been discussed in my previous New Year's Resolution posts this month?

Fortunately, there is a simple answer to this question - one that is almost as omni-present as the humming of a hymn. In fact, the humming of a hymn actually is one possible manifestation of this answer - namely, filling one's mind with good thoughts and leaving no room for evil thoughts to crowd in and need to be engaged. This is why humming a hymn is a good practice on those occasions when an evil thought does intrude - but there is much more that can and should fill our minds than just the words and tunes of hymns. I didn't say it is an easy way - merely that it is simple.

Any good and virtuous thought - any contemplation of a positive nature - any act of service (both in the planning stages and in implementation) - any discussion of value - any study of good books - any listening to uplifting or calming or inspiring music - ad infinitum; all these things can fill our minds and bodies with proactive good and keep unworthy thoughts from intruding.

The best approach, therefore, is not to allow "down time" in such a way that unwanted thoughts encroach upon our minds. Rather, even in those necessary down times, we can fill our minds with goodness and right.

How that is accomplished on an individual level must be, of necessity, an individual decision - since exactly what will inspire and uplift and edify and teach and expand spiritually and intellectually and emotionally (what will keep evil thoughts at bay) will vary from person to person. That, in a nutshell, is the most important reason why humming a hymn cannot be the default mechanism on which everyone relies - and it is why full replacement will not occur without proactive, intentional planning and conscious choice.

We are not robots to be programmed; we are souls that need to grow toward perfection. Humming a hymn can take us only so far - and that distance will vary for each person.

Charity Thinketh No Evil: A Totally New Thought for Me

I have to admit that it was difficult at first to wrap my mind around a New Year's Resolution lasting an entire month that consists of "thinking less evil". Generally, as each new month approaches I contemplate the wording of each upcoming resolution to gather my initial impressions prior to checking the definitions of the relevant terms and digging into the meat of the resolution. My initial reaction was, "Really - it's not like I think evil all the time" - followed by, "at least not in any way that relates directly to charity" - which meant that I got to the point of looking at definitions without much in the way of a foundation.

I realized by the time I was ready to write this post that my initial reactions and thoughts were wrong - and I am grateful for the chance to consider something that, in all honesty, I had never considered previously in quite the same way as I have this week.

So, without any profound or new insight, I turned to the dictionary for my first resolution post this month.

The noun "evil" (since that is how it is used in I Corinthians 13:4-7) is defined as each of the following:

1) the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin;

2) the wicked or immoral part of someone or something;

3) harm; mischief; misfortune;

4) anything causing injury or harm;

5) a harmful aspect, effect or consequence.

Grouped together, this initially yields two apparently distinct categories of thought to which Paul might have been referring when he said that "charity thinketh no evil":

1) "Wicked" and "immoral" thoughts;

2) Thoughts that harm or wish harm on others.

However, upon considering the context of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 in its entirety, which is focused on charity (and particularly the aspect of charity about which I wrote last month - not being easily provoked), it seemed clear to me that these two categories really are one - and the "new" thought that hit me is that perhaps "wicked" and "immoral" really don't exist in isolation - that they are directly and intimately tied to how we think about and act toward others (and, perhaps also, ourselves). Perhaps, just as sound might not exist without the ability to hear, wickedness and immorality might not exist without the ability to harm.

In other words, perhaps "thinketh no evil" might be translated more clearly as "thinketh nothing that would harm others if actually done to them" - with the next thought being the need to consider carefully what constitutes "harm" to us as humans and spirit children of God.

That thought process has brought numerous thoughts to my mind, but, frankly, I'm not ready yet to process them into a coherent post. Therefore, for this week, I simply am going to consider "harm" more carefully - and look for instances where I "think evil" in this way. I know I do so, even if not deeply and steadily, so I know there will be plenty to consider and post next week and throughout this month.