Unformed and unfinished as always...
It seems to me that leaders, including and especially Christian ones, need to seek out people who disagree with them but are prepared to do so in a constructive, creative and loving way. It is good to have loyal and reliable supporters: but uncritical loyalty is not really loyalty at all. Yes-men are in fact the worst kind of traitors. They isolate leaders from reality. And what is more, if you encourage people to be passively loyal to you in this way, you actually stunt their emotional and personal growth.
It does take enormous maturity and discernment to be able to listen to criticism of course without falling in a heap or just dismissing it. The leader who is always listening to critics will be a mess, just as the leader who never listens to them will be corrupt. But it seems to me that a critic, or a person who annoys you, is almost always telling you something about yourself. I think it is really helpful to ask 'what is it about me that makes this person so annoying to me?' The point is then not to smooth over all the difficulties or to produce a monolithic point of view but to respond with wisdom. And to invite the potential dissident to be a loyal opposition, before things get out of hand, and bridges are burnt....
11 comments:
"Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."
Proverbs 27:6
Mike, you've nailed it. Despite everything I might have said, I've always felt in my bones that Rowan Williams was the leader Anglicanism needed, and now you've given articulation to my instinct.
;-)
Gordon, what have I told you about irony on the internet?
Guilty your honour.
Anyway I can think of three verses that support what you've said, and they're all in Proverbs, so I'm forced to concede the wisdom of your words.
Perversely however, the other bit of Bible that popped into my mind was Mark 8:33.
Hi Michael. I think these thoughts are much needed - both for our leaders and for those of us who follow them. Leaders who never accept criticism create cults; leaders who always accept criticism aren't leaders.
I guess that any given leader only needs a handful of people to disagree creatively, and I have seen some great examples of this. But I think the kind of relationship in which this can happen is pretty rare. How can we make it more common?
Well it takes a leader who does not feel threatened, so is secure. Or, is able to cope with a little bit of threat. And is able to see it as an opportunity.
Sometimes we are so concerned, especially in church circles, with making sure that we have a harmonious team that we end up with a monotonous team...
"If you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people that disagree with you." - President Josiah Bartlet
I think the kind of relationship in which this can happen is pretty rare. How can we make it more common?
Michael's suggested how this might work from the leader side, but we also need skilled critics who are themselves secure enough to voice their insights without needing to burn bridges, and who trust their leader in doing so.
Yes, this is true. I have written about the sin of guruism elsewhere on this blog. It is unhealthy and immature to give all your decision making to another. Ask for advice, yes: but don't let them decide for you.
Byron, Michael: Yes, this is what I was thinking. There are two sides. The leader's position is a more difficult one, but neither is it straight-forward for a friend to say what may need to be said. Thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment