The Problem with Problem Children (And Adults)

I get worried when I hear a political pundit say that a certain member of the President’s cabinet needs to be fired. This isn’t because I think they are wrong and that I support the cabinet member.

My concern is whether they think this will solve the problem or at least send a wake-up call to hire a better person for the position. I don’t think that’s likely. It might make a marginal difference, or it might get worse. I do think for example that MarkWayne Mullins is slightly better for Homeland Security than Kristi Noem, simply because he has more relationships with those in Congress. I don’t think Todd Blanche is better than Pam Bondi. In fact, I think it’s actually worse. But I don’t think he’s that far off from Pam either.

We like to believe that a person is the problem, when in fact, it’s more likely how someone fits into a system, and what expectations the system has of them. People adapt to the systems they are in and learn what it means to belong by adapting to the system.

In the president’s first term, he was often stymied by the system. In his second, with help from others, he figured out how to manipulate the system into something else. How?

One he had time to prepare. We might actually not have seen as much damage, though it’s hard to say for sure, had he been reelected in 2020. But four years away allowed the time to think of a new plan. Two, he had time to find people for the new system, those he trusted and could hand-pick. Three, now the new people have a better read on how to carryout the president’s bidding.

Indeed, we’ve not only seen it here. I’ve heard several experts caution about Russia—that whoever might replace Putin is likely to be worse. I think that’s probably true in a lot of autocracies where the people outside of the front-facing sphere, who’ve been making money quietly, while having access to power, are likely to just want more power without a sense of responsibility.

We also see this in congregational life.

The most striking example came when I got a call from a minister who had been serving his congregation for a few years. He was trying to figure out some of the animosity he was receiving. He called me because I had known the congregation for decades, if from afar. Still, my memory is pretty good.

We talked for a while about some of what he was seeing and the culture of the congregation. There had been ministerial sexual misconduct back in the 1960s and fairly severely. After that the congregation had not employed a white heterosexual man until my colleague’s current call.

He told me while there hadn’t been staff misconduct of any kind that he had learned since then, the congregation still had a hard time trusting its male staff. He was also concerned about one man who seemed to want to introduce himself to every new woman who walked into the church, especially if they were by themselves and younger—this despite being older.

I asked, “Oh, is John still around doing that?”

This drew a silence and he told me the person’s name, which wasn’t John.

I then gave an explanation that I had remembered John when I’d visited the congregation in the late 1990s and described what he looked like. I had remembered the minister at the time had tipped me off as to her suspicions and John had done nothing to allay them when I met him. He had made me uneasy, particularly as his eyes darted around the room as we talked. I had no doubts he was scouting.

The minister described the person who was doing this now, and what he was doing in the congregation. It sounded much like what I’d been told years before. I learned the congregation really hadn’t addressed this in their work and had largely tried to circumvent the man by having others tell newer woman to just avoid him. Or even, as the minister told me, flirt back, laugh, and then walk away, as at least two women in the congregation did.

The minister asked what should be done. I suggested that what needed to happen was that congregation needed to own the problem and determine its own boundaries as opposed to testing his. I asked if he had a few folks in the congregation, perhaps therapists or teachers, who could function as the adults in the room who might be able to lead the congregation toward a systematic change of expectations around boundaries. He thought he did.

I suggested it was better if the lead for this came from the congregation and not from him as the congregation would ultimately more likely own it and live it. Then he could be seen as the minister supporting congregants who wanted this as opposed to the person tried to change their system. Their system would respond better to change from within as opposed to someone who they probably thought of as a bit more of an outsider, at least by some.

I asked if there had been any Our Whole Lives sexuality education that had happened recently as the program had terrific work on boundaries and helping people feel safe. He said they just completed the junior high version. I asked if they had ever done this for adults?

He said he hadn’t heard of that, but he would ask. I asked if any of this had come up with the search committee or when he had met the congregation. He told me they had mentioned the ministerial misconduct but hadn’t said much about anything since, though one person had told him she wished the congregation was better at welcoming new people when they first came but didn’t say anything specific.

I asked what happen when the man’s name, the who currently greets the woman, comes up in meetings if it all. There was quiet for a moment as the minister tried to recall. He then said it didn’t come up much, though, and he paused again, I do remember one time when it came up and several women exchanged glances with each other. No one though had said anything aloud.

I said this would be a great moment to find one of the therapists in the congregation who could be trusted and ask them why no one talked about this person’s behavior. He said there was one such person who was clearly above reproach.

Two weeks later, I heard from the minister again. He told me that he had learned that the man I mention had died some years ago. And then about a year later this man began doing the same thing that John had done. The minister wondered if the new man had been biding his time.

It sounded like that to me. Most predators were opportunists. I suspected and shared my concerns that while John had made women uncomfortable and probably kept a lot of women from return visits to the congregation, he’d only gotten to the “leery” stage and never actually done worse than that. Was that true for the current man there? As far as the minister knew it was.

I told him this was possibly why he was bearing the brunt of the mistrust. That a previous minister had done something significantly worse than either of these men and probably made the congregation “close ranks” and distrust male ministers more and give more leeway to those they saw as their own.

Focusing on a person as the problem, whether it be in a congregation or the government, rarely solves the problem. In fact, it’s easier to manipulate a system as the president has done than it is to change it. Fewer people are watching. And the system has to want to change. That takes time especially after many years of either resistance or indifference.

I did see the ministers a few years later and he told me things were better. I hope they are still getting better.

But until the system decides it needs to get change, places will likely continue to blame a person and see little long-term change. As Dorothy Parker said famously, “Life isn’t one thing after another. It’s one damned thing over and over.”

Until we decide things have to be better, which I think we are, we’ll keep doing the same things over and over as a country. It has to come from us. We may forget for a while, like we have, but the systematic problems will come back.

To change, we have to build support not only from those who know it should be better, but we also have to educate people that it could be better and how.

Hence, the important words, “We the people”. It’s up to us.