"Shoots" Its Leaders

When I was a little boy growing up in a small town south of Brandon just after the war, I can recall my father saying that Brandon was known as the "graveyard of Ministers". Things have not changed all that much in the intervening years. For about a ten year period, I ran informal support to ministers who had run afoul of their congregations, which I jokingly referred to as the "Fricasseed Friars Association...an association of barbecued ministers." They came from every sort of denomination, and ran into trouble for any number of reasons. I came to believe that it had little to do with whatever they had done or not done, it had more to do with the way the town deals with its leadership. My message to each of them was, "whatever you have done is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with you, just don't inhale this stuff, it is bad for one's health".

This work broke off when I started working out of town, and when I returned home, I focused my energies on my University studies. Towards the end, I was talking with lay leaders in the community as well, trying to give them a bit of perspective. There seems to be a "floating crap-game" of shoot the leader which slowly rotates between the larger institutions in town. The Hospital (and Mental Hospital when it was here), the Police Station, The Community College, The University, The larger businesses in town, the school system, and the Churches.

It is as though the town does not ask, "what went wrong?" so that it can be fixed, it asks, "who went wrong?" so that s/he can be removed. One counselor in town noted the parallel of such behavior to that of any dysfunctional group or family. The object is to cast about for a "designated patient" who can be labeled as being the cause of all its woes. The idea is to either fix, or remove that "patient" from the system, so that all will be well. Of course, it does not work, so they cast about for the next one, and so on until the last one out turns out the lights.

Part of the reason that the issue is not addressed is that it occurs just infrequently enough so as not to attract attention. It is like the hands of the clock moving. They move, but not fast enough for one to be consciously aware of the movement. In one denomination in town, there are three churches. One of them threshed out or removed three ministers in a row, and then the other two removed three in two weeks. That has to be the record. It was about that time when the (then separate) conservative wing of the ministerial was faced with a removal of one of its own, and decided enough was enough. They sent representation to the denomination involved and requested that the Ministerial be involved in the situation because it was bigger than any single church. The outside-based denomination told them to take a hike, as it was an internal matter. Though the attempt was unsuccessful, it does at least indicate that a general awareness had surfaced at last in one group that there is a problem in this city.

The manner in which these coups take place is in itself interesting. It usually starts with someone with a problem. Using what one leader in the community termed "triangulated speech", ( I don't tell you what is one my mind, I tell someone else who will tell you), they start the rounds with their problem. If it is worth their while, they start to build up an "army" of support, by "ear-bending". Nothing of this is known by the designated target, though as things build up, a great number of people have heard a great deal about it, usually very indirectly. If someone with stature gets wind of it and firmly (and sometimes publicly) puts a stop to it, the movement dies down and the search moves elsewhere for a designated patient. It is a process which always seems to be brewing just under the surface.

One of the primary weapons in all of this is the removal of financial or personal support by participants or those in control of the resources. Conversation dries up, people absent themselves, the person is left out of the loop, and is hung out to dry. Like most small towns, decisions are made over the garden fence and the public processes are used only to confirm decisions already arrived at. Oustings are usually a surprise to the incumbent, who is the last one to find out about the problem. The problems do not have to be serious, and in fact, most are of the "banal" variety. However, as mentioned above, it is not about the issue involved, it is about the town, and a much deeper social dynamic in it.

Media Based Solutions

Further Resources