The first rule: don’t call it shunning. In fact, don’t call it anything; pretend it’s not happening.
The second rule: nurture a shunning/abusive climate in a manner that is at arm’s length.
Shunning
Shunning is cutting off or reducing the normal social interaction with a participant, or group, in the parish’s life. When we do it in Episcopal parishes it’s usually an informal action. When it’s among a small group it’s an important pastoral concern. But when it is broader, more systematic, an expression of parish culture, it undermines the parish’s identity and integrity.
It most often takes the form of a significant reduction in the normal social exchanges and pleasant relationships of parish life. The target says, “Good morning” as usual and is met with averted eyes and a mumbled response. People who would in the past have come over to chat skitter across the room to avoid direct contact. And it happens again and again; week after week.
It gets directed at people in the parish community seen as dissidents, resisters, and whistleblowers. Anyone, who in the opinion of the priest or other key leaders, disrupts the harmony of the community may find themselves made a target. It’s only possible for leaders to nurture a shunning environment if they manage to blame the conflict or disruption on the target rather than on the response being made by the leaders.
Shunning often has severe psychological effects on the people targeted. We need to be clear shunning is a form of abuse and bullying. Leaders who facilitate it have engaged in an abuse of power.
Those who are shunned may suffer a deep sense of loneliness, helplessness, depression, and powerlessness. Some will consider suicide or other forms of self-harm. The impact may be long term, a pain carried for the remainder of the person’s life. Shunning often damages friendships and families, the economic life of the victim, and the person’s reputation. It’s a form of trauma.
When seen in an Episcopal parish shunning is most likely rooted in a desire to reduce or eliminate a person’s or group’s influence in the parish. It’s part of discrediting and isolating a person and in so doing undermining whatever the person’s actions were that caused the leaders distress.
Over the long term it also damages the well-being of the parish—a parish that shuns always lacks faithfulness and health. Parishioners and staff who participate in the shunning will suffer shame that they may later understand and acknowledge or forever carry. In the short term they are likely to justify their actions to themselves and others.
Low, middle, and high approaches to set-off shunning in the parish
Shunning is enabled in a variety of ways by parish leaders, usually the priest and/or wardens, but occasionally a long-term member with significant informal influence. They create a shunning climate that can become part of the parish’s culture.
People don’t like admitting it, but the research is rather clear--most people are inclined to obey those in authority. We seek to please the priest. We want to be approved of by the priest. People will obey even though their actions will cause suffering for the person being targeted. Their annoyance with the victim for disrupting the parish, and their inclination to do what they think the priest would approve of, justifies their behavior.
Most of us know of the experiments seeking to understand how otherwise good and reasonable people can act in abusive and even sadistic ways. Stanley Milgram’s work had instructors ordering the subjects to administer shocks to a “learner” who gave a wrong answer. The shocks started at 15 volts and went up to 450. In spite of their belief that they were seriously hurting the person 65% of the subjects would continue to administer the shocks up to the highest range. Milgram wrote, “A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.” More recent experiments suggest that people see themselves as less responsible if they are following organizational policy or obeying orders of someone in authority. Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment had some students play guards and others prisoners. The experiment was cut short when the researchers became disturbed by the extent of degrading behavior the “guards” where willing to inflict on the “prisoners.” “Zimbardo concluded that the effect of power over others can become so intoxicating that (1) power became an end in itself, (2) the power-holder developed an exalted sense of self-worth, (3) power was used increasingly for personal rather than organizational purposes, and (4) the power-holder devalued the worth of others.” By comparison it’s easy to shun people we had previously had good relations with.
Low approach to enable shunning – I’m not sure it exists. But maybe we see it in actions such as removing the person’s name from various lists that had routinely appeared on in the past. It’s a form of “disappearing” people.
Middle approach – The leaders nudge the person out of roles they have played, e.g., the person who for many years had been in charge of a feeding program for the homeless gets removed, or people who had been functioning as lectors or servers are cut from the rota, or a retired priest who had been filling in during the week in celebrating the Eucharist is dropped from the list.
High approach - This involves making direct and public comments disparaging the target. It may show up in sermons and announcements. The statements are clearly directed at particular people in the parish.
Washing your hands
It’s a trick leaders have long used as they try to avoid being blamed for an action that some might disapprove of or that after some time elapses may appear malevolent.
They profess innocence in some way. They may make a show of saying how they want the people of the parish to deal with the offenders in a courteous and kind manner. But the primary message has already been sent and received.
Options for dealing with shunning
For parish leaders --
We need to recall that major shunning doesn’t occur without some endorsement from the top leadership in a parish. So, this has to do with what can those who are responsible for setting the climate in the parish do when shunning is taking place? Sadly, the most likely option such leaders engage is to double down on what they have set loose. The shunning is ignored, and the rationalizations increased.
The other option is from Ezekiel: “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26) Leaders can open themselves to God’s grace.
For those being shunned --
You can “gird on strength,” put on your perseverance and self-care. Stop obsessing about what you may have done or not done and how hurt you are by the acts of parish leaders and former friends. Move on.
Don’t collude with the shunning. You are likely to be tempted to avoid coffee hour and other contacts with those doing the sunning. It’s understandable that you’d want to avoid the pain. Don’t do it! Continue to be present. Don’t allow them to make you invisible and silent. Continue to greet people even if they don’t respond appropriately. If they are not already doing it, ask your friends to sit with you during worship and stand with you at coffee hour.
Have a courageous conversation with those whose shunning is most hurtful. Share the behavior you see going on and the impact on you, e.g., “When you walk pass me, avoid eye contact, and give a halfhearted response to my greeting, I feel hurt and discounted. I’d really like to understand. Will you tell me what’s happening from your end of things?”
Get a lawyer and take legal action in regard to the leadership’s nurturing the climate. A case might be made on the basis of the harm being done and a court weighing the free exercise of religion rights of the person being shunned vs. the rights of the church.
Publicly challenge the shunning. Confront the parish leaders at a vestry meeting or parish meeting. Start a web site and post your experience. Communicate with the rector and wardens pointing out the impact of what they are feeding and ask that they act to turn things around. File a Title IV Complaint against the rector—the abuse of power and the harm done by nurturing a shunning climate is “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.”
Engage appropriate spiritual practices. You may find it useful to explore Henri Nouwen’s Reaching Out model (loneliness to solitude, hostility to hospitality, illusion to prayer/reality).
rag+
Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:37PM 
We always had the example of the saints and martyrs put before us: the Gates of Gold and the City of the Lamb were always glittering before our eyes... There was a consciousness of God's Saints actually around and about us, which moved and inspired us to do and to dare anything and everything. Mother Kate, SSM
The series is in memory of Brother Basil, OSB, of the Companions of Saint Luke (June 20, 1943 - March 2, 2019). William Thomas Edwards was a teacher and a physician. He specialized in Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine serving at two Seattle hospitals. His partner, Steve Long and former wife, Florence, died before him Tom had two sons - Alan and Adam. He had a vocation and gift for music and prayer. He became a postulant with the Companions of St. Luke, OSB was given the religious name 'Basil', and after six years as a novice, in 2015 he made life vow. In time he was elected abbot.
