I guess politics and church politics can have something in common: to try and make your opposition or enemy seem like the “bad guy”, thus automatically making yourself seem like the “good guy”… This isn’t necessarily wrong – in two-way debates in democratic politics it’s accepted that there’s this kind of strategy going on. And if leaders in these debates have a certain amount of integrity, then they have a certain amount of moral authority -but if leaders are found to be lying then they may loose moral authority.
I like to watch Australian politics on TV in a show call “Question Time” which looks at debates going on in parliament. The good thing about it is both parties get a chance to speak -usually the opposition will question the government in power and the leaders involved will defend their policies or actions.
In fundamentalist religion however things are not so much on an even playing field. Sometimes beneath the surface you can sense there is a battle going on: a battle for people’s hearts and minds -their belief system and their support for the leadership. It is a kind of “moral warfare” -some leaders seem to engage in it with some truth and integrity, some leaders get disillusioned and opt out all together, and some leaders become unscrupulous and deceitful in this kind of moral warfare.
Coming from the ICOC of course there’s been controversy of some of the main players such as Kip Mckean, other leaders in the present ICOC and others who have completely disowned it. I’m not so much interested in who’s right or wrong in this entry, but rather drawing attention to the fact there is a battle going on.
Some of the tactics in moral warfare can involve things like character slurs (or character assassination) but often not directly. In sermons, articles or speeches the opponents may not be mentioned by name but alluded to as “bitter” or “emotional” etc… It becomes incorporated into the kind of propaganda machine and analogies, anecdotes and bible verses will often be geared towards this.
Another aspect of moral warfare in religious groups is where the group claims a monopoly on salvation (one of the issues of the ICOC previously, though I don’t think it’s claimed so much anymore). Whether leaders and people have good intentions or not, the monopoly on salvation can automatically drain any potential opponents within a group of moral authority -if they’re questioning things they can be labelled “critical”, if they leave in disgust they can be labelled “fall-aways”.
It’s not to say opponents are in the right necessarily, but without checks and balances and a sense of openess an oppressive leadership has a grip in power in these terms of moral warfare. They can get the congregation on their side, even isolate potential critics and resort to what I call “moral bullying”. Making them seem like the “bad guy”, or the “bitter guy” or the “emotional guy” etc…
I’ll probably look at this in more detail later…Personally I find it interesting how things have changed a lot in the post-ICOC era. Some former “persecutors” are now having fellowship with top former leaders of ICOC fellowships, and I think many of us are able to see through much of the rhetoric in the present day because we’re familiar with it, and the subtle tactics that are used.
Later I’ll try and talk more on my personal feelings about the monopoly of salvation because I think the bible is clear about how to live a righteous life. Sure you want to be part of a good church, but we’re judged on our own thoughts, words and deeds, not on the organisation we’re in. And I think claiming a monopoly of salvation can cause much damage, whether intentional or not.
