In a previous post, I looked at the “One-Eyed Jack” phenomenon in churches, i.e., the practice of presenting a particular image to and hiding the unacceptable aspects of one’s life from other Christians. The phrase comes from a 1961 movie starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden in which Brando says to the duplicitous Malden,

“You may be a One-Eyed Jack around here, but I’ve seen the other side of your face.”

Most readers will realize that Brando’s comment is simply a modern way of saying what Jesus had declared to the Pharisees centuries ago:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” - Mt 23.27

One of the distinctions I made in the earlier post was that being a One-Eyed Jack required conscious, careful and calculated control of one’s image: everyone will fall short and everyone will have blind spots, but One-Eyed Jacks are aware of their shortcomings and intentionally deceive or manipulate others to preserve their image. Their house of cards is propped up by fleshly rationalizations and denials. This is a problem both in the pews and in the pulpit.

The purpose of this post is to explore how One-Eyed Jacks manifest themselves in the congregation and to offer some insight into what may motivate such individuals. This will not be an exhaustive treatment, of course, and perhaps not deal with the problem in every particular locale. But if it only serves to start a discussion or an inspection of one’s own life and the life of the local church, this post will have accomplished a worthy purpose.

In the Pews

It is easy to be a One-Eyed Jack in the pews; in fact, it may be more difficult not to appear to be one if you happen to belong to a larger church. The sheer numbers and limited interactions available in a church of hundreds or thousands make it simple to produce and maintain a certain image to the masses if that is one’s desire. Smaller gatherings, such as Sunday school classes, Bible studies, or home churches, may foster an appearance of increased intimacy but One-Eyed Jacks have little difficulty in hiding the unpleasant realities of their lives and personalities in such settings

Smaller churches, in contrast, are more difficult venues for such pretension, especially when the small church is situated in an equally small town. As much as we enjoy our privacy and boundaries, small towns and small churches have a way of seeing through us and discovering the true character - or lack thereof - of individual believers. This is due in no small part to the fact that “people talk,” i.e., people gossip.

But as in the small church along with the larger congregations, however, the same opportunity for One-Eyed Jacks is present. It often takes one of two forms: the person presents either a polished silence or a positive stance concerning everything spiritual and temporal. Silence is the easy and passive way to remain hidden and be an effective One-Eyed Jack: all that is necessary is to refrain from speaking while at the same time - and this is important - displaying a pensive or insightful countenance (as a professional counselor, I have spent years honing just such a look). Other people will perceive silence as depth, spirituality, and maturity: “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is considered prudent” (Pr 17.28).

Hiding through optimism and a positive outlook is more active but equally effective: many people, when encountering such ubiquitous glee in the One-Eyed Jack, will assume all is well and marvel at the peace within the person’s soul. By always seeing the silver lining and totally ignoring the ominous clouds, these One-Eyed Jacks give the impression that there are no problems in life worth thinking about and certainly no problems that have been able to penetrate the boundaries of their personal fortresses. People who actually have problems that they want to discuss steer clear of these pretentious Pollyannas, suspecting that any disclosure of their struggles will precipitate a painful, clichéd response (the abuse of Rom 8.28 is a favorite), condescension (the One-Eyed Jack is obviously a “stronger” brother who, though commanded to yield and teach the weaker brother, may choose instead to shoot the wounded), or both.

In the Pulpit

It should not be surprising that it is even easier to maintain a One-Eyed Jack posture in the pulpit than in the pews. A little thought reveals why: the pastor delivers an intentional and (hopefully) carefully crafted sermon that has been prepared with certain goals in mind. This is a good thing, as far as it goes, but too often it can be an opportunity to hide the genuine doubts and struggles that all pastors face while at the same time giving an appearance of maturity and wisdom far exceeding what actually is possessed.

Let me hasten to repeat that not all pastors are One-Eyed Jacks. Personally, I think that most are not: they are either appropriately candid and honest about their Christian walk or (too frequently) so obtuse as to be oblivious to what is going on in their own lives that needs attention and/or repentance and confession. But ignorance is not intent; a mind lacking in insight is not the same as a One-Eyed Jack.

There is a third category of pastors, however, that does qualify as One-Eyed Jacks: those who are neither candid nor ignorant. These individuals choose to reject or turn a deaf ear to the rebukes or cautions of others, even - and perhaps especially - such reproofs as inevitably come from family members or staff members who know the pastor well. For reasons perhaps - perhaps - known only to them, they have cut themselves off from the Body of Christ and the flock of which they are responsible as a shepherd. They seem to prefer the deceitful kisses of an enemy than the faithful wounds of a friend (Pr 27.6), to their and their congregation’s great loss.

In short, these pastors (like many pew-dwellers) have forgotten what it means to be teachable: they seek sychophants blind to blatant shortcomings and weaknesses rather than those who will speak the truth in love - or at least utter some well-intentioned, Spirit-motivated speech in truth and love. To a One-Eyed Jack, the latter are enemies and the former are friends. It is the foolishness of Rehoboam (1 Ki 12.1-16) and Ahab (1 Ki 22.2-8).

Whether due to willful rejection of reproof or to conscious intent to deceive, such pastors are One-Eyed Jacks and typically foster the same practice in their churches. Authenticity - the Emergent Church does not have a copyright on word - is not a value; apparent effectiveness in ministry (aka “success” as measured by numbers and dollars) is what matters. The bigger the flock of sheep, the unspoken reasoning seems to be, the more Christlike and blessed the pastor must be. Need we look any further than Joel Osteen to demonstrate the foolishness of such a standard?

OK, OK: What’s the Point?

Whether in the pew or in the pulpit, the motivation for such duplicity - for being a One-Eyed Jack - is often the same. It is the twofold craving for what is mentioned in the title of the post: power and dominion; in a word, it is a desire for control to the extent that little faith is required and the twin illusions of safety and security are maintained. That is, to clarify, little faith or trust in other people or God is necessary: everything is ordered and predictable, reigned in or ruled out, safe and sterile, neutered and spayed.

Other people are managed by restrictive programs, tight control, and the exclusion of those who seem to be uncontrollable. God is managed by reducing Him to a system of doctrines that confine Him to act in accordance with the pastor’s inclinations. This does not, of course, actually restrict God but those things outside the bounds of what is acceptable are considered not of God or at least questionable.

That this should be the case is not surprising. Consider the original mandate to Adam and Eve in the garden:

God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” - Gen 1.27

The command has two essential elements: reproduction and dominion. The Fall effected both components but removed neither: God’s people are still responsible for fulfilling their responsibilities as reproductive (when married) stewards of the creation. The impact of sin on the charge to be fruitful is horrifically evident in the genecidal practice of abortion: God loves children and has given people the opportunity to participate in the creation of new life, but we have slaughtered millions in the name of convenience and comfort.

What is not so evident is the failure of God’s people to act as faithful stewards with regard to dominion. The ravaged rainforests and senseless killing of our “natural predators” (actually, they are unnaturally predatory: if man had not sinned to begin with, neither bears, lions, tigers, wolves, nor even fire ants would find our flesh to their liking) testify to our failure. More narrowly (for the purpose of this post), attempts at dominion are especially susceptible to abuse in the local church.

It was precisely regarding this potential that Peter wrote his warning:

1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.” - 1 Pet 5

This is no easy charge: on the one hand, pastors (and elders) are to “shepherd” the flock, which involves governing or ruling, feeding, nurturing, and cherishing. But they are not to “lord it over,” i.e., not bring people under their lordship or dominion. A fine balance must be achieved and maintained, a veritable high-wire act in the spiritual realm.

The temptation is to do exactly what Peter says not to do: to lord it over the flock, masquerading as a One-Eyed Jack in order to accomplish the work. The final post in this series will look at Saruman and Denethor as illustrations of two shepherds who became predators and sought to lord it over their flocks. First, however, we’ll take a quick look at someone who resisted the lure of duplicity and another who epitomizes it.

Next: Pulpits, Pews, & One-Eyed Jacks: Húrin and Sauron



Namárië.