When Followers Don’t Follow: A Closer Look at Coercion

Image

Life is stewardship. In a perfect world, everyone would not only recognize that fact, but they would also recognize and accept the responsibilities that go with their individual stewardship. Perhaps people would still need to be told what to do, but they would never need to be coerced. “Do this in order to receive this short term reward” would be weird, and “Do this, or else” would be unheard of.

But that isn’t the world we live in, and people are much in need of leaders to influence, persuade, and yes, coerce.

Coercion, though, is so easily botched! As a result, leaders often lapse into acting like either bullies or beggars, and both errors tend to produce followers who don’t follow. As one who struggles to use the tools of leadership properly (and who has experienced their misuse by others), I believe it’s worth the effort to understand coercion better.

Previously, I overviewed the leadership tools of coercion, persuasion, and influence, and what I mean by these terms. Here we’ll take a closer look at coercion, its value, some of the many ways it goes wrong, and some specific harms. These observations are grouped around three principles.

1. We All Have to Coerce Sometimes.

Coercion is an occasional responsibility in many roles. Parents must coerce (Prov. 22:15, 29:15). Government authorities must coerce (Rom. 13:1, 4). Ordinary, decent human beings in general must coerce when someone we can help is being victimized by a bully or more serious attacker (e.g., Psalm 82:3-4).

In a culture that prizes individual liberty, we tend to broadly reject coercion when we’re on the receiving end. But we’re willing enough to use it on others when we think it’s warranted—and sometimes it is.

Pastors

Do pastors have coercive authority over their congregations? Though the New Testament emphasizes persuasion (2 Tim. 2:24) and influence (1 Tim. 4:12) in the pastoral role, and places only limited corrective (and coercive) action in the hands of congregations (1 Cor. 5:4-5), elders/pastors are obligated to “rebuke” at times.

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, (ESV, Titus 1:13)

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:15)

But is rebuke coercion?

2. It’s Easier to Use Coercion than We Tend to Think.

In Part 1, I explained that I’m using “coercion” to refer to any use of external leverage to achieve a desired behavior. To put it another way, it’s the tool that uses a stated or implied “or else.” This can take a great many forms.

Emotional Coercion

We all know people who use emotional coercion on a regular basis as a habitual mode of relating to people—and they scarcely seem aware of it. Since they inflict a kind of emotional pain (we wince!), nagging and scolding are forms of emotional coercion. The implied or-else is, “Do what I want you to do or I’m going to keep nagging and scolding you.”

Biblical rebuke is a close cousin to scolding but is different in a couple of crucial ways. For one, biblical rebuke is aimed at specific error. It’s not an angry tirade or laundry list of “things about you that bug me!” Second, it’s a tool used intentionally—not an emotional outburst.

Emotional coercion also often takes the form of accusations, insults, and unwarranted attacks on motives and character.

It would probably sloppy to say that nagging, scolding, and insulting are never appropriate forms of coercion, but because they tend to be self-indulgent and thoughtless, odds are good that coercion in this form fails in one or more of these ways:

  • The authority to coerce does not actually exist in the role.
  • Some other form of coercive leverage would be far more effective.
  • Coercion is unnecessary because patient teaching (persuasion) is both possible and practical.

As an example, husbands are—as far as I can tell—not authorized to coerce their wives. If less than zero is possible, wives are even less authorized to coerce husbands! Since women generally possess a higher degree of emotional skill than men, the emotionally coercive wife is not uncommon. (Curiously, this is rarely talked about.)

Results

The point here, though, is that many of us can emotionally bully people without realizing we’re doing it—and even in roles where some kind of emotional coercion is permissible, the results of this kind of coercion are nearly always counterproductive.

  • Negative emotion begets negative emotion (Proverbs 15:1).
  • Emotional coercion tends to fuel resentment and resistance (Eph. 6:5).

If your followers don’t follow, it may well be because you’re emotionally hitting them over the head all the time—and people instinctively (and correctly) feel that they are entitled to more respect than that. This is even true of children.

I have observed individuals who routinely give their fellow human beings less respect than I give my dog. What they don’t seem to realize is that using emotional battering this way erodes their personal influence. As they fail to show respect to others, others lose respect for them as well. Often, a dynamic of resentful compliance develops in which those on the receiving end determine to do only the bare minimum they can get away with—and even that with absolutely no enthusiasm. Some will actively look for ways to sabotage the overall effort.

Better Coercion

Where the authority to coerce is legitimate, there is almost always a better method than emotional pressure. Rather than yelling at Johnny every time he leaves the toilet seat up (or worse yet, telling him what a lazy slob he is), inform him cheerfully that he’ll be cleaning the entire toilet next time—“to help him remember.” (If he claims innocence, cheerfully explain that you need his help to solve this problem and you are appointing him official Guardian of the Toilet Seat. His solemn duty is to ensure that everyone puts the seat down. Some recognition for success might well solve the problem permanently.)

Rather than yelling at a team for not meeting a production goal, task them with setting their own goal and throw a party when they reach it (better yet, build in a bonus-based incentive system).

Rather than harangue a congregation for not attending services often enough, help them understand why they, as believers, actually really do want to be present (and/or make sure plenty of what thriving believers crave is there for them when they do come).

Rather than scolding the entire class (again!) for the failure of many to be seated and quiet when the bell rings, cheerfully inform them that next time, you will simply begin to write down the names of those not seated and quiet the moment the bell rings, and those on the list will have additional homework. (Dramatize the list-making when the time comes, and even a room with 30 high-energy 7th graders will settle down very quickly. A few days of this and you’ll rarely have any names to take at all.) Or flip it around: the first five to be seated and silent when the bell rings receive a special exemption from a dreaded daily or weekly assignment. (What will happen, though, is that everyone will be seated and silent before the bell rings…so keeping your promise can get complicated at that point!)

3. We’re All Guilty of Using Coercion at Times When We Should Not.

Not everyone overuses coercion habitually. But I’m convinced that everyone occasionally fails to use better alternatives. The reasons for this are many. Coercion is often the fastest and simplest way to get results, superficial though those results might be. Coercion is certainly instinctive in many situations, and whatever is automatic is going to be used thoughtlessly and wrongfully at times. Anger and fear are often factors as well: the angry urge to destroy resistance and the fearful urge to have everything under control both tilt us toward coercive behavior in situations where it isn’t the best option.

Discussion

….the idea of pastor as general, or as CEO, is in my mind one of the banes of the church today. Sheep are best led, not driven.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

It can be very subtle. It’s been a long time but I used to hear pastors and “evangelists” identify themselves with Moses & the prophets. Some would imply that they had some kind of special connection with God & so it would be dangerous to cross them.

They did not seem to understand the long term ineffectiveness of making their relationship to listeners a coercion-centered one.

(One cannot really scare people into *belief* of what one is saying. This requires *persuasion*)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I remember when some dictator types would quote “Touch not my anointed.” inferring that people would be judged for disagreeing with them. I hope that has fallen by the wayside.

I’m sure they’re still around. That breed has been around since the apostle Paul’s day… including himself, before the Damascus road. But in a few of the epistles, he alludes to their ilk within the churches. They may or may not have classed themselves as “anointed,” but they definitely had a coercion-centered approach rather than a faith-centered approach. I believe I’ll explore this a bit in Part 3.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Mike Mann]

I remember when some dictator types would quote “Touch not my anointed.” inferring that people would be judged for disagreeing with them. I hope that has fallen by the wayside.

I’ve seen a touch of this, though my view is that authoritarians tend to moderate their speech in all but the most extreme, isolated settings these days. More common is to speak nicely until the pastor’s chosen direction is challenged, in my view.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

I think one of the reasons that coercion is often ineffective is that it is usually just laziness. It is much harder to teach in a way that helps the child/student/congregation internalize the cause and effect of their behavior. Coercion sounds like “Because I said so”, devoid of patience or empathy.

“More common is to speak nicely until the pastor’s chosen direction is challenged, in my view.”

Sometimes, when the leader of an organization, whatever the type, says this is the way we are you going, you have 2 choices: follow or leave. Arguing with the leadership about the direction is not your place…

Sometimes coercion is the result of lack of faithful followers.

[Mark_Smith]

“More common is to speak nicely until the pastor’s chosen direction is challenged, in my view.”

Sometimes, when the leader of an organization, whatever the type, says this is the way we are you going, you have 2 choices: follow or leave. Arguing with the leadership about the direction is not your place…

Sometimes coercion is the result of lack of faithful followers.

…is first of all whether coercion can create faithful followers. If we truly believe that we are regenerate as we repent—agree with God about what sin is—and we undergo a head and heart transformation by the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, can the imposition of a reality by the pastor do this? See Romans 12:1-2. My view is that this can not be—it may generate unregenerate people who are outwardly compliant, and it can add goats to the sheep-fold, but it cannot add sheep to the flock. Practically speaking, this is probably a big reason that so many young people leave the church. They are compliant because it’s too painful not to be when they’re under 18, but as soon as they’re outside the pastor’s and the parents’ influence, they skedaddle. See “Already Gone” by Ham & Beamer.

Regarding the comment “arguing with the leadership about the direction is not your place”, let’s take a look at Acts 17:10-13, where the Bereans specifically check everything Paul said versus the Old Testament. Now, how does the author know they did this, except that they must have approached Paul to discuss some points of confusion? In other words, the context of the passage indicates clearly that some level of debate occurred between Paul and the Bereans.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

You can, and it is obvious to me you do it really well.

At some point, you either get on board and shut up, or leave. Has anyone ever told you that Bert? I’ll bet you have several times…

And comparing the Bereans to arguing about the direction of pastoral leadership is ridiculous!

Mark, this is what you said: Arguing with the leadership about the direction is not your place. Recant if you like, but what I said is exactly what your words mean.

Since a lot of the great mileposts in church history came about from arguing with church leadership, like Nathan’s rebuke of David, Paul’s rebuke of Peter, Christ’s rebuke of Peter, Paul’s rebukes of the Judiazers (e.g. Galatians), Paul’s interaction with the Bereans, John’s rebuke of Diotrephes, the Council of Nicea (many of the early councils), Luther’s 95 theses, Hus, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Fundamentals, Calvin’s Institutes…

I can confidently assert that the Church is best served by rigorous debate on a lot of issues, and that those who would close it off really set themselves up as Popes sans Magisterium. Dangerous place, and it’s worth noting that the only place that flat out told me to leave is no longer a church, but a mosque. They were downplaying the necessity of preaching, and that’s a fight I don’t regret accepting. Other places where I didn’t “get on board” include a church that was using teaching from a guy downplaying the Trinity and accepting prosperity theology, and a place that was quietly pushing KJVO/Trail of Blood in multiple contradictory forms.

No shame in standing for the Gospel in any of those cases, really.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Much depends on who truly owns the decision-making authority. In most Baptist & similar churches, it officially belongs to the congregation, though it is unwise for them to micromanage the pastor.

There is usually a proper setting for debate to occur. After that, if a decision has been legitimately made, the right thing to do is support it, or stay out of the way, or leave. This is true for both pastor & members.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Once a decision has been made and a decision of direction made, if you are a member shut up and help it get done. If you can’t do that, LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do every one a favor.

Examples:

-The pastor decides to paint the bathroom green instead of blue. Get over it and march on. Yes I have seen a large fight over just this thing…

-The church decides to change a position on some issue. After lengthy debate they go with position B while you preferred position A. At that point, debate is OVER. If you can’t live with B. LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me help you with your selective reading. I said this “Sometimes, when the leader of an organization, whatever the type, says this is the way we are you going, you have 2 choices: follow or leave. Arguing with the leadership about the direction is not your place…”

In case you missed it, I said SOMETIMES.

That is SOMETIMES.

Did you read that? SOMETIMES.

Aaron, what a neat series! It meshes interestingly with my series on Conscience. In 1 Corinthians 7:25-28, Paul gave his reasoning for celibacy. He introduced it with, “I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.” This, I think, is a very gentle form of persuasion. He wants to persuade the persuadable. Then, in ch.10:14-22, he gave his reasoning against eating in the temple. He introduces the conclusive part of his argument with, “I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” This, I think, is a much more powerful argument, but still one that Paul recognizes is only a good argument if his readers “judge for themselves.” Here, he wants to persuade, and he wants to encourage everyone to be persuadable (“Are we stronger than He?”).

Question: What examples of coercion exist in Scripture? It seems to me that examples of persuasion and influence FAR outnumber coercion.

Numbers 22 - The experience of Balaam and his donkey.