‘Doing nothing is functionally equivalent to condoning violent behaviour’
The press has recently carried articles alleging bullying in the Church. For most people, bullying conjures up images of school. Many of us have experience from our school days — as bullies, victims, or witnesses. High-profile cases of child suicide after bullying have hit the headlines all too frequently.
Since the early 1990s, however, the workplace has also been identified as a significant arena for the bully. Bullying is a significant cause of workplace stress: 18.9 million working days are lost annually, a study from the Andrea Adams Trust suggests. Costs to individual companies are between eight and ten per cent of annual profits, and there is also the threat of costly litigation.
A high proportion of workplace bullies are in the caring professions, including the Church. Lay people, church officers, church workers, or clerics can behave abusively to other lay or ordained people. Herein lies the Church’s dilemma. Because people in the Church aspire to high standards of behaviour, we often find it difficult to believe that other church people fail in reaching these standards, especially as bullying typically happens in private.
Why do church people bully? There is frequently an issue of personal envy. A perceived imbalance of power makes the perpetrator feel vulnerable, and so want to undermine others. People who have themselves been abused sometimes go on to abuse others. Bullying can give perpetrators a sense of identity, especially when they feel inadequate.
Bullying has been described as one of the most common and potentially serious forms of violence. In the Archbishops’ Council’s report Promoting a Safe Church (CHP, 2006), abuse is defined as “a violation of an individual’s human and civil rights by any other person or persons. In a church context, it could be any misuse of a pastoral or managerial relationship, from the most serious to less severe behaviour, which lies at its root.”
Definitions frequently include at least weekly occurrence of one or more of these incidents:
• being humiliated in front of colleagues;
• being undermined;
• regularly being the subject of gossip;
• constant public or private criticism;
• having opinions or comments ignored;
• having responsibilities removed;
• being shouted at;
• being overloaded by work with unreasonable deadlines.
Bullied clerics have reported heartbreaking experiences:
We had the misfortune to stumble across two or three people for whom bullying was a way of life. It began with vaguely critical comments made . . . at church meetings and after services, which on their own sounded harmless and too trivial to answer, but which subtly began to undermine other people’s respect for us and our ministry. . . This was backed up with similar comments behind our backs.
Various attempts were made to discredit my wife and to blame her for the problems. . . Spiteful . . . rumours were circulated about her . . . [She] was labelled as having long-term psychiatric problems and accused of trying to destroy the church.
Bullying vocabulary has made an important change. “Victims” are now called “targets”. A victim vocabulary makes it easy to ascribe blame to the victims, and to assume that their behaviour must in some way be contributing to, if not causing, their bullying. Charlotte Rayner, Professor of HR Management at Portsmouth Business School, says: “It is recognised that the target is vulnerable merely by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and infers no complicity or interactivity in the situation.”
The damaging effects on the physical and psychological health of targets, their families, and other witnesses, coupled with the detrimental effects of bullying on the mission of the Church, mean that the Church should not ignore bullying behaviour, however difficult it might be to define, understand, or accept. Raising awareness is crucial if the problem is to be addressed. Learning how to recognise and respond to bullying should be part of ministerial formation at all levels. All allegations of bullying should be taken seriously and investigated.
One third of the cases before the Director of Professional Standards in the diocese of Melbourne, Australia, are allegations of bullying. He says: “The secular workplace has taken initiatives to prevent bullying and intimidation, but victims in the Church are often ‘left out in the cold’ to fend for themselves. If we are the Body of Christ, we have a unique responsibility as members of God’s family to not be a dysfunctional family . . . secrets must stop. Cover-ups must not be tolerated.”
Bullying thrives on secrecy. When confidentiality stops targets seeking help, it becomes abusive. We must not underestimate the cost of seeking help. Many say things such as: “I couldn’t tell anyone because she said, if I did, she would start disciplinary procedures against me.”
An organisation that allows bullying behaviour to continue unchecked is compromised in proclaiming good news. Whenever a church or church organisation refuses to answer questions, punishes those who express concerns, abuses confidentiality, covers up, coerces, threatens, or deceives, it is directly undermining gospel values.
The Church must have public anti-bullying policies and procedures; senior staff must be seen to be open and accountable; and complaints must be investigated promptly. Doing nothing is functionally equivalent to condoning violent behaviour. Independent investigations must be conducted, appropriate support must be given to targets, and perpetrators must be subjected to appropriate discipline. Justice must be done and be seen to be done.
Anne Lee is a lecturer and tutor in social psychology at the University of Oxford.
|
back to Comment
previous story
|
next story 
%231%23.jpg)
