One of the signs of emotional maturity is the ability to disagree with someone and still remain connected relationally. All too often, Christian leaders are unable to do this because they are threatened by those who do not agree with them. I have seen numerous cases, for instance, where a leader or member of a church is marginalized by the senior pastor when that individual disagrees with them.
Leaders who are unable to maintain relationship with those who disagree with them usually divide people into two camps: those that are for me and those that are against me. To live in the first camp usually means to agree with their leader. One gets moved to the second camp when one disagrees with their leader. It is a black and white, for and against world view that damages relationships, hurts the leadership potential of the leader who chooses to marginalize others and divides organizations and congregations.
Often, church boards are divided by this thinking as the pastor divides in his mind and therefore his relationships those that are for him and those that are against him. It is a toxic behavior.
Here is an interesting question: What lies behind this kind of marginalization of someone who disagrees? I would suggest two answers: insecurity and pride.
Insecurity compels many leaders to need to be right. Anything that challenges their rightness becomes a threat and thus their marginalization of those who disagree with them. The need to be right and its resulting behaviors often masks great insecurity.
Pride and at its worst, narcissism, can also be at the root of this behavior. By definition, a narcissist must be right and anyone who challenges their world view is disregarded, marginalized (ignored) or becomes the enemy. To put it in Facebook terms they are summarily defriended.
This is obviously a tricky issue to confront as the moment one does, one is likely to be marginalized. Boards, because of their authority, can, if they are willing, confront the behavior of a leader. If he or she responds, it will be the kindest thing they ever did. If the issue is narcissism, it is unlikely that there will be any change and the board then has a deeper problem to deal with.
All of us, however, should ask ourselves the question as to whether we exhibit this kind of behavior. It divides, assigns ill motives and hurts teams and organizations. Lets make sure that we are not guilty.
2 comments:
Good word - for far too long we have divided the church because of our ego, feeling that we cannot possibly be wrong about our opinion on some point of doctrine, rather than focussing on obeying all the One Anothers of scripture.
We declare that we are "preserving the integrity of the Word" and then we disregard the "weightier matters of the law."
I am privileged to serve on a board with men i disagree with on many fine points, but we have found a way to love one another in spite of our disagreements.
Thanks for this good encouragement.
Ben
Yes, your observation is right. This is our human nature... other opinions seems to be like a critique for our identity and then it is easier to fight against it than to think about it.
Otherwise it depends on the conflict... many discussions are not really impersonal. Often there are feelings behind and sometimes prejudices.
I guess, that not only the other opinion disturbs us but the subliminal messages too.
For me it is easier to have something like an impersonal discussion. But it is hard for me when I have the impression that there is a "hidden agenda". :-)
Blessings,
Dirk from Berlin.
Post a Comment