Workin' Man - Part XXIX - Chain of Command

Well, I get up at seven, yeah

And I go to work at nine
I got no time for livin'
Yes, I'm workin' all the time

It seems to me
I could live my life
A lot better than I think I am
I guess that's why they call me
They call me the workin' man

'Cause I get home at five o'clock
And I take myself out an ice cold beer
Always seem to be wondering'
Why there's nothin' goin' down here

I guess that's why they call me
They call me the workin' man

"Workin' Man" - Words & Music by Lee & Lifeson 

 While I've got my time at the state on hold until after I retire, I thought I'd revisit some specific categories of previous jobs.

One of the more frustrating aspects of working for B&R Stores was the lack of any clear "chain of command". If you were hired as an entry-level employee you might think it was pretty clear -- there was a Store Director at the top of the pyramid, with an Assistant Store director and a Human Resources Coordinator the next step down, followed by department managers. If you worked in the Dairy Department you received your assignments from the Dairy Manager, who in turn reported to the Store Director. The Store Director reported to the Vice President of Operations, or later, the District Manager (and he reported to the VP of Operations) and the Operations VP reported to the President. In theory, pretty simple. But the waters were muddied by the presence of Department Directors.

Department Directors were corporate office personnel who were responsible for a single department in all stores. For example, the Produce Director was responsible for setting prices in all Produce Departments, deciding on product variety, overseeing training of department managers, and setting department standards. Every department had its own director. In theory, it wasn't a bad system, but as in most areas of life, theory and practice did not align. The authority and responsibility of the Store Director for all that happened within the four walls of a store often competed with actions by a Department Director. One area was hiring. 

If there was a department manager opening, the Store Director would interview and make the final decision for who would be hired for the position. Assistant Department Mangers from his and other stores might apply, or there might be outside candidates. For internal candidates the Store Director might seek feedback from the applicant's manager or from the Department Director. But on many occasions the Department Director would unilaterally decide to transfer Department Managers from one store to another, in which case the Store Director had no input into his new staff member. If this wasn't bad enough, when there was an opening in a high sales volume store the Department Director would transfer a Department Manager from a smaller store to the high volume store, leaving the low volume store with the opening. Did the Department Director then fill the now open position? Nope. It was up to the Store Director, who previously did not have an open position, to run ads, conduct interviews, and fill the position. This happened to me multiple times when I was the Store Director at Russ's Van Dorn, especially when corporate knew that they were closing the store. 

Things would get confusing when Department Directors would issue conflicting orders to their Department Managers. The Grocery Department Director might instruct his managers to cross-merchandise by placing some items in specific places in the Meat Department, while the Meat Director would prohibit non-meat items from being placed in those spots, leaving it up to the Store Director to mediate. Sometimes Department Directors would encourage their managers to act as if they were independent entities. I sat in on a meeting of Meat Department Managers where they were explicitly told to disregard certain orders from their Store Directors. 

Human Resources often acted as if they were completely separate from store chain of command as well. In theory, Human Resources Coordinators were responsible for hiring entry level employees, setting up interviews for management openings, processing vacation requests and payroll, and keeping the paperwork flowing. Technically within the chain of command of a store, in practice they answered to Donna, the Corporate Human Resources Director. With a few exceptions, the Human Resources people had not come up "through the ranks" and usually had limited actual hands-on retail experience. Also with few exceptions, the Human Resources Coordinators were looked at almost as spies from corporate and not fully trusted by store management. There was also a turf war waged between Corporate Human Resources and Operations. This came to a head about halfway through my time in B&R.  Tom, the Vice President of Operations decided that the position of store level Human Resources Coordinator would be eliminated and replaced by a second Assistant Store Director, who would be responsible for human resources.  Donna was implacably opposed to this, but it went forward anyway. This resulted in two related problems. You had some Human Resources Coordinators applying for Assistant Store Director positions, thinking that it was the same job with a different title, when in reality the second Assistant Store Director was responsible for Human Resources and several "center store" departments. Most of these people had no retail or department management experience. The other problem was Assistant Store Directors suddenly being in charge of human resources with no previous experience. Dan, the first Assistant Store Director to be be thrust into this role asked for help from corporate HR, but received none. Donna, the Human Resources Director, forbade any Human Resources Coordinators from helping him, setting him up for failure. It didn't help that at the same time Ron, the Operations VP's assistant, was embedded in the store and mandating how much time Dan could spend in each of his new roles. 

The worst was the lack of coordination at the corporate level. The Triumvirate at the top consisted of Pat Raybould, company President, Tom, Vice President of Operations, and Larry, whose title escapes me, but who was in charge of the various department directors. One of the three would come into the store, walk around, make some observations that required you to reorder your priorities and create extra work. An hour later another of the three would stop by and tell you something different, often contradicting what the other one had told you! When Pat's father, Russ, was still alive, he was an additional factor, often just yelling about some minor issue. Of the three, Larry usually made the most sense, but he was obsessed with dress code -- hair style, jeans versus dress pants, tattoos, facial hair. It was considered good news when all three of them showed up together, because at least we'd get one non-contradictory set of instructions. 

The way things were done encouraged a culture where no one really knew what was expected of them, since the rule book was constantly shifting.

Workin' Man - Part XXVIII - Loss Prevention

Well, I get up at seven, yeah

And I go to work at nine
I got no time for livin'
Yes, I'm workin' all the time

It seems to me
I could live my life
A lot better than I think I am
I guess that's why they call me
They call me the workin' man

'Cause I get home at five o'clock
And I take myself out an ice cold beer
Always seem to be wondering'
Why there's nothin' goin' down here

I guess that's why they call me
They call me the workin' man

"Workin' Man" - Words & Music by Lee & Lifeson 

 While I've got my time at the state on hold until after I retire, I thought I'd revisit some specific categories of previous jobs. One of the departments at B&R Stores was the Loss Prevention Department, originally known as "Security". Like most of the B&R top dogs in the early days, the head of Loss Prevention was a friend of B&R founder Russ Raybould, who kinda-sorta was qualified. The qualifications of Loss Prevention Director Bob was that he had been a guard at the State Penitentiary. If you have access to an image of "Boss Hogg" from the old television show The Dukes of Hazzard, then, minus the white western hat you know exactly what Bob looked like. Up through the nineties, retail stores weren't as concerned about lawsuits from alleged shoplifters, so the job was much more physical back then. Not for portly Bob, but his crew were a bunch of cowboys. 

Since catching shoplifters was the low hanging fruit of loss prevention, that's what they focussed on. They would wander around the stores on the lookout for thieves. One Loss Prevention Officer has a unique approach. He had thinning white hair, and looked older than his fortyish years. He would hobble around the store with a walker, waiting to spot a shoplifter and would spring into action, using his skill as a judo black belt to subdue any resistance. Most of the Loss Prevention crew just seemed to view it as an easy part-time job where they could wander around the store for a few hours, or sit in the camera room watching security video. The fact that they were outside the in-store chain of command imbued many of the them with an outsized sense of their own importance. They didn't answer to the store director, and their own boss was never on site with them. A few of them spent their shifts flirting with the high school and college girls who made up a lot of the second shift staff. When I asked that one particular Romeo refrain from talking to the female employees when they were supposed to be worked he arrogantly lectured me that he was "working sources" or some other pseudo-cop bullshit. The same guy was caught lurking in the corner of the cutting room of the meat department and when challenged by the meat cutter told him to mind his own business. I threw him out of the store. 

One night while I was working the swing shift at the Cornhusker Super Saver I couldn't find our Loss Prevention guy. The clerk in the Spirits Department, where he had last been seen, told me that he had left at 6:15, which was about a half hour earlier. I went upstairs to check out his sign in sheet and saw that he has signed out at 7:00, which was still 15 minutes in the future! I also noted that next to the time were my initials! He was fired the next day. 

During my last year at the Van Dorn Russ's Carl, the guy who had succeeded Bob aka "Boss Hogg" as the LP Director, was always doing stings, which he called "audits". There was the ever popular sending in a minor to buy alcohol, but a new one popped up one weekend. The "mission" was to have a Loss Prevention walk into areas in the store where non-employees weren't supposed to be and see if anyone stopped them. This particular afternoon I started get calls that a creepy looking guy was walking into back rooms and just staring. When asked what he wanted he would simply walk away. When challenged by a manager he flashed his little tin Loss Prevention badge. I called Carl to complain and received a condescending lecture.

I wonder if these guys ever actually prevented any loss. 

Christians Battlin' Over Popes

Papal elections seem to flush a lot of the anti-Catholic prejudice out of the bushes. They say they're simply pointing out the unbiblical nature of much of Catholic doctrine and practice, but the vitriol appears to be reserved exclusively for Catholics, and not fellow Protestants who, it could be argued, are equally unbiblical. (I'm not talking about legitimate criticism of the Catholic hierarchy for covering up pedophilia among the clergy, or the other abuses by the church or in its name, just doctrinal disagreements). I'm going to limit today's thoughts to the office of the papacy and whether or not it's biblical. 

There's a few verses in the Gospel of Matthew (which I will quote shortly) which the Catholics claim establish Peter as the leader of the church and imply that he will have successors who will fill the same role. Protestants have a differing interpretation. There are a number of possibilities:

1. Jesus didn't exist, so it makes no difference
2. Jesus thought that the end of the world was coming soon, so there's no way he was engaged in succession planning and the whole section was added later
3. Jesus didn't think the world was ending soon (amuse yourselves by going down the dispensationalist rabbit hole) but this section was added later to support the evolving reality of Bishops of Rome as the top leaders of the church
4. Jesus didn't think the world was ending soon and was quoted accurately -- and was engaged in succession planning (basically the Catholic position)
5. Jesus was quoted accurately but was really saying that he, Jesus, was the rock on which the church would be built (basically the Protestant position)

Since Protestants, at least the more fundamentalist flavors, believe that the Bible doesn't contain errors, or that sections were added by unauthorized hands, they're stuck with the text as it is. 

Matthew 16:18-19 New International Version

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The text looks pretty clear, although the Greek word for "Peter" is not the exact same word as "rock" (The Greek word that is translated "Peter" basically means "rock" or "stone"). Let's substitute "Rock" for "Peter": "And I tell you that you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church...". It's even clearer when you construct it like that. And that next phrase: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. -- it seems inarguable that Jesus is naming Peter as his successor. And that's what the Catholics believe it means. But wait! The Protestants disagree! 

The main Protestant argument against Peter as a Pope is presented here in a quotation from Oswald J. Smith:

The Greek word for Peter is ‘petros,’ meaning ‘a little stone.’  The word for rock is ‘petra,’ meaning ‘The Rock.’   What Jesus said was, ‘I will build my Church on The Rock.’  He himself was The Rock.  He never said He would build His Church on Peter, ‘a little stone.’  That would be too faulty a foundation.  In 1 Peter 2:5-8, Peter himself speaks of believers as stones and of Jesus as a rock.  So, in Eph. 2:19-21, Jesus is the Corner Stone, the Foundation.  The Church, therefore, is built not on Peter or his successors but on Jesus Christ Himself—The Rock.

I was exposed to this argument many years ago, and I believed it, mainly because the minister who related it sounded like he knew what he was talking about. But it all rests upon making a distinction between"petros" and "petra". I'm no Greek scholar, but I do know that word endings are much more significant in Greek than they are in English. Petra, translated "rock" is, in Greek, a feminine noun. Giving Simon (Peter's original name) a feminine nickname doesn't sound likely to me, so the "os" ending made Petros a masculine name. There's also the matter of the language that Jesus was speaking - it wasn't Greek. The word translated "Peter", as well as the word translated "rock" are both kepha in Aramaic, the common language in Jewish lands. The Protestant argument, like a lot of attempts to make the Bible coherent, twists logic into a pretzel and makes language and grammar sit up and beg. 

This doesn't mean that I think that Matthew 16:18-19 is legitimate succession planning. Even if Jesus existed (I lean toward the existence of someone upon whom the biblical Jesus is based) the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as preaching that everyone should get themselves right before God because the world would be ending very, very soon. 

As I said in another article, there is nothing in canonical scripture to indicate that Peter was the sole leader, or even that he was ever in Rome. Paul is documented as having much greater influence in building the church through missionary activity and James, Jesus' brother, is implied to have been the leader in Jerusalem. It seems likely to me that Matthew 16:18-19 was a later addition to lend support to the evolving reality on the ground which had the Bishops of Rome asserting themselves as first among equals, if not absolute rulers of the growing church, and retconning an unbroken line of bishops stretching back to Peter. It makes sense that creating the idea that someone was spiritually in charge was a way to reign in the various sects and the contradictory "scriptures" (at least more contradictory than the ones we ended up with) that were all competing for attention. It looks at odds with how things operated in The Acts of the Apostles, but how long could that "all things in common" small-scale churches in people's homes continued? Things change and evolve to fit changing circumstances, and somebody cooked up some quotable quotes to baptize what they already decided to do. 

Granted, there is no scriptural model for the top-down hierarchical structure with a Pope at the top. But it's in The Bible now, and the Protestants can either accept it or accept that the Bible isn't inerrant. 

Battlin' Christians

The death of Pope Francis and the upcoming election of his replacement has instigated a flood of social media chatter about Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general. Mostly the conversations revolve around how many Christians think other Christians aren't really Christians. The broad strokes come down to Protestants thinking Catholics are idolaters, worshipping Mary and the saints, and the Catholics smugly believing that the Protestants are all rebels, or possibly heretics, definitely Johnny-Come-Latelys. Catholics largely pin their superiority complex on the belief that the Catholic Church was the original church and that all others are offshoots. The Protestants claim that Catholic belief and practice contradicts scripture, which they claim that they follow -- even when various denominations disagree with each other. 

Even if we accept that Matthew 16:18 is referring to Jesus installing Peter as the leader upon which the church will be built, there is no evidence that this actually happened. I'm not even referring to secular history, but to the New Testament books that record what went on in the early years of the church. The Acts of the Apostles starts out focussing on Peter and his fellow apostles' ministry in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, but about halfway through switches the spotlight to Paul, someone who hadn't met Jesus and starts his preaching before ever meeting one of the apostles who had. There is also no reference in scripture to bishops who oversee a whole city, but to a more collegial system akin to a board of deacons. Evidently the system did eventually evolve into a single bishop model, as some of the apocryphal books make reference to it. 

There is every indication that the decades following the death of Jesus saw multiple strains of Christianity, some which would barely be recognizable as Christian today. The Bible didn't yet exist as a source, so various groups of followers were left to create their own belief systems and pictures of who and what they thought Jesus was and what following him consisted of. This should be expected -- we take for granted today's instant worldwide communication, but this was more than a millennium before the printing press. Any standards disseminated by the leaders would be in laboriously handwritten, or depended on personal visits. 

One of these groups was founded by Marcion, who believed that the God of Jesus and the God of the Hebrew scriptures were two different deities. His canon of scripture included only the gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles. For years Marcionite Christians were the dominant form of Christianity in many cities. Eventually the form of Christianity that became the Catholic Church became the overwhelming majority, and since history (including the Bible) is written by the victors, competing Christianities were tarred as heretics and false teachers. It's easy to look back 2000 years and see how some of these factions taught things that didn't line up with the Bible, but there was no Bible. The writings that make up our New Testament took decades if not centuries to become widely available. And the decision regarding what would be included in the Bible and considered Holy Scripture was made by the winning faction. It's not difficult to imagine a very different Bible if one of the other sects had prevailed. 

By Constantine's reign there was an entity which was recognizable as the ancestor of today's Catholic Church, but it still was far from obvious what form it should take. During that time there were five Patriarchs -- think of them as Super Bishops (the position of Cardinal hadn't been invented yet) who presided over the churches in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Due to Rome and Constantinople being the capital cities of the empire, the patriarchs of those cities enjoyed the greatest prestige and the greatest influence. The Bishop of Rome at some point began to claim Matthew 16:18 as the scriptural basis for his position as leader of the entire church. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed. By the 600's the other three Patriarchs were in Muslim lands and therefore didn't figure into any power plays. For the most part the Eastern and Western churches were in sync on doctrine, but began to drift apart regarding ritual. But once the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, they didn't need to take the other's opinion into consideration any longer. By this time the retconning of the early church as an unbroken line of leaders starting with Peter had become ingrained. Is it possible that Peter really was the leader of undisputed "true" church, and that there was an unbroken line of successors? Maybe, but I think it's equally likely that what we see in the Fourth Century was a result of several centuries of evolution in faith and practice, with competition for souls and power among various factions. Once Christianity became legal, the Catholic hierarchy had legal authority, as well as spiritual, to back up their views.  

Despite this surface unity, there were many so-called heresies that sprung up, mostly about the nature of Jesus. One thing is evident from reading the Bible as an historian and not a theologian is that the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus' message as one of how to act while the Pauline epistles and other New Testament books focus on what to believe. This led to heresies and schisms over deep theological issues, and relegating Christian practice to prayer and ritual, rather than to loving your neighbor and doing acts of charity. One "heresy" that had remarkable staying power was put forth by a clergyman named Arius and involved (as most of the arguments did) the nature of Jesus. The Arian teaching was condemned at the Council of Nicea, but persisted until the 800's, mostly among the Germanic people. It finally withered away when Charlemagne decided to hitch his wagon to Orthodox Catholicism. 

When the Protestant Reformation began, its leaders didn't at first reject the Catholic Church or its theology, although they gradually moved away from the idea that truth was determined by the church leaders' interpretation, and began to encourage ordinary people to read the Bible and defer to scripture first. Their position was that the Catholic Church had moved away from the ideals of the early church and that by going back to scripture Christians could recreate the atmosphere of godliness that existed back then. What they didn't consider was that the scriptures that had come down to them were the product of the embryonic Catholic Church. The early church didn't have the Bible. If they had any gospels or epistles, different cities had access to different versions. The Protestants, by claiming to obey only scripture and not human authority, were putting their stamp of approval on the Catholic version of what Truth ought to be!

Catholic doctrine is that scriptural interpretation should be filtered through the clergy, especially the head of the church -- the Pope. As mentioned earlier, there were competing versions of Christianity in the early days, each with its own epistles, gospels and acts of the apostles. Most falsely claimed to have been written by one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. (None of the canonical Gospels claim authorship within their texts, several letters attributed to Paul most certainly weren't written by him, and several other epistles attributed to Peter or John are without a doubt pseudonymous). The early church leadership claimed the authority to decide which of these numerous tracts and letters were legitimate, and how the canonical ones should be interpreted. This is related to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, which posits that Jesus taught the Twelve, who taught others, who then taught others in an unbroken chain. The assumption was that the teaching originated with Jesus and was therefore perfect, and was perfect transmitted from successor to successor. As the successors of the Apostles, and therefore of Jesus, the idea was that they were uniquely qualified to determine Biblical Truth. And they had a point. Although anyone who has played a game of "telephone" knows that information doesn't remain intact as it passes from one person to another -- someone had to sift through all myriad contradictory "scriptures" and decide what was legitimate. The idea that anyone who had access to a Bible could determine the Truth hasn't led to a return to first century paradise, with every ploughman able to discern the will of God, but to hundreds, even thousands, of competing contradictory versions of Christianity. And they all "know" that they're right. 

Some of the divisions aren't even about doctrine. There are some denominations that are organized around an "episcopal" model, with bishops overseeing large areas; some are a congregationally organized, with a board of elders or presbyters making all the decisions, still others are independent, led by a charismatic leader. Denominations split and regroup, local churches change denominations, and individuals hop from church to church. You hear people who have been raised in one church describing a change in their church as "becoming a Christian", as if they weren't really a Christian before. And they all can all point to something in the Bible to justify their opinions (except the Catholics, they just say they've been around the longest). The rise of Christian Nationalism has exacerbated the problem, although the alliances have changed. Conservative Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists have made common cause against liberal Catholics and mainstream Protestants and there appears to be a contest to see who can be the toughest sonofabitch around, rather than who can live like Jesus. 

Ironic that the faith supposedly based on "love thy neighbor" is usually of the opinion that their neighbor is destined for Hell.