Careful Camouflage

I was so sad to hear about the plight of one of my friends, who had been giving herself fully for the mission entrusted to her, for the past 10 years. From a silent spectator, she had grown to be an organizer par excellence, single-handedly putting up two buildings with help from donor agencies, and not taking even a single rupee from her congregation. It was indeed a matter of prestige that she was able to contribute so much for the mission of her congregation. Unfortunately those who are at the helm of this local congregation cannot look at her kindly; bias and prejudice were to be blamed for the way she was treated all along. In fact, it was all because of one person, who wished to decide the fate of all her subjects, which led to silent anarchy in the congregation.

But who cares for the simple voiceless sisters, who only knew how to take orders, and knew not how to put their points across, how to argue convincingly with the people who mattered in the administration of the congregation, or how to refuse the high-handedness of a handful of people who wished to wield control over all the rest. Selfishness of a small group of ‘bourgeoisie’ mattered more than the interest and welfare of the entire congregation and their mission. The person who was supposed to be at the top of the administrative structure was made into a dummy horse, while the previous head continued to wield power over others. But there were too few to disregard the autocratic high-handedness of this person, others were too frightened to confront her.

My friend had been known as a person who would not dare talk anything in return for the orders she was given, but over the years, she had learned to speak, and today when she questions the unilateral decisions of the higher-ups, they cannot think that she could speak so boldly. They are awe-stuck that she was talking so boldly. But she is not the kind who would demand something unreasonable, but she has learned that she cannot let herself be taken for a royal ride by anyone; she knows she has to fight for her own rights and would not let anyone snatch from her hands, something which is due to her, which is her right. I am happy that today she is able to speak her mind loudly and clearly, and is ready to face the consequences.

What was more painful for me was that when my friend had informed her administrative heads that she could not accept the transfer for some serious reasons, the head had reminded her that it was her religious obedience which bound her to accept the decision of her superiors. But my first question is, if the transfer has been decided through the process of serious communal discernment; for all practical purposes, it was one person who had decided about this transfer. Can the whims and fancies of one particular autocratic person be guarded and shielded by religious notions and ideologies? It is wrong to protect one’s decisions in the name of religious obedience, because the Spirit cannot prompt anything which is illogical and irrational.

It is sad that there are still religious men and women who cannot accept the fact that in this fast changing world, they would love to cling to the age-old ideologies. Any discernment process in matters relating to transfers and changes are to take into consideration the wishes and desires of the persons concerned, and this is something very vital to the very process of discernment. If a discernment process does not take into account the aspirations and desires of the persons concerned, then it could be just the wrong way of doing the discernment, and it may be in all probability contrary to the will of God, and contrary to the promptings of the Spirit. I wish the local congregations understand the importance of taking into confidence the aspirations of the persons discussed. Times when one could be blindly ordered to take up an unknown assignment without any preparation whatsoever is gone, and we are living in a world which demands that we approach persons with certain amount of compassion and humanism, as opposed to hard, insensitive religious dogmatism.