Effective leaders know there will always be people who disagree with them. It is how they deal with that dissent that determines to a great extent, the quality of their leadership.
It seems to me, however, that our country is besieged by people who cannot abide dissent. From the president to pastors, people who disagree are looked at with that, “How-dare- you-disagree-with-me-look”.
Dissent is a time-honored right in our nation. We are not one of those countries that persecutes people just because they disagree with the government. Or are we?
Whether it is the president’s administration attacking Fox News because they dare to shine the light of truth on goings on in the government, or in a church, where the pastor attacks deacons for asking questions regarding his leadership, this attack on dissent is a bit scary.
The same can be said about denominational circles. I can remember during the early days of the conservative resurgence (you can’t know how I hate to use that term), anyone who questioned SBC leadership was immediately ostracized. In fact, that was the cause of the great divide between the BGCT and the SBC. The BGCT leadership had the audacity to question SBC decisions, so the punishment was to demonize the BGCT and try to make them look like a bunch of flaming liberals. A whole new convention was established on the premise of not disagreeing with the SBC. In an effort to create this new convention, lies were told to churches, basically demonizing the BGCT.
That is the way of tyranny. When someone disagrees with you, find a way to demonize them and make them look bad. That’s what president Obama is doing with Fox News (“They are not a real news agency.”) and that’s what poor leaders do in churches.
Pastors who find themselves being questioned by deacons or ordinary church members find a way to demonize those dissenters, or in some cases, just do away with them. One pastor remarked, “I am not going to have my decisions questioned by a bunch of ignorant deacons.” How arrogant can you be? But this is the way of tyrannical leadership. Shine the spotlight on the flaws of those who disagree with you. Demonize them. Minimize their influence by ridiculing them.
Many of us said in the days of the SBC takeover, that if people would just leave them alone they would begin to devour each other for not being conservative enough and that is exactly what has happened. As leaders find more and more reasons to disapprove of others, they eventually get around to some who initially agreed with them.
Look what they did to Wade Burleson, one of their own, who dared to disagree with his peers on the International Mission Board. They demonized him and ran him off the board. That is the way of tyrants, no matter how well they speak, no matter how persuasive they might be, eventually, if you disagree, they will pound you.
I believe that kind of behavior has its roots in one’s feeling that they are superior, which some call elitism. President Obama has a gift for speaking and he has been told that so often that he has started to believe that is enough. He feels he can make a speech and everyone will be back on his side. The truth is he is such a great speaker that it often works that way.
Pastors do the same thing. Many pastors have been told so often how great they are and what great sermons they preach that they have begun to believe that is enough. If someone disagrees with them, they will simply take a text and make it fit their situation and preach their way toward no dissent. At least they think they can.
We are watching that happen in government, as we always have, as the president first demonized Wall Street, then the national Chamber of Commerce, then insurance companies, and now the only news agency that dares to call his hand on some things.
Many of us have learned to recognize these tactics, because we have seen them used in our churches and our denomination. The idea that someone would dare to disagree with a leadership decision is nothing short of audacious!
4 comments:
Ken, regardless of the President's attitude toward Fox News, do you really consider them a legitimate news source? Do you not sense at least a slight preference when watching? I don't know of anyone who is totally objective, but if Fox is your primary source of information, your politics are showing.
I am able to divide the Fox opinion shows from their news shows. You tell me what the bent is for Britt Hume, Shepherd Smith, Martha McCallam, Trace Gallagher, etc. I know how O'Reilly thinks and he sometimes irks me with his attempts to be fair to both sides. Glenn Beck is a libertarian, as is Judge Napolitano. To answer your question, yes, I do consider them a viable news source. Had it not been for them we would not have known Van Jones was a Communist. Nor would we have known about some of ACORN's misbehavior. I consioder them very much as viable a news source as CNN, MSNBC, etc., whose biases are legendary. I watch ABC and CBS, but get angry at their biases. Fox has, in thirteen years, become the new3s source of choice for more people than all the opther cable news outlets together, and almost as many people watch them as watch Katy Couric. If you want to convince me that there is no media bias in favor of the president, you will have a hard time. So, just who is playing the role of an adversarial media, if not Fox. As for my politics, anyone who reads this blog knows I am conservative through and through..., and might I say, unashamedly.
Well I see the distinct similarity betwwen our politics and our denominations. I think the problem is we have set up a country so no one has absolute power. The we have a religous organization that claims a leader with absolute power - God Himself. Then man gets involved who wants power above all else...now that is a delimma.
pastorfbclptx: Indeed!
Post a Comment