It was becoming obvious by Saturday morning that Spring's incessant rain (reign) was over and Summer had arrived. The entire weekend was one magnificently hot, blue-skied hour after another. Kara and I spent a lot of time together, too. Saturday morning we got very wet washing cars. The afternoon was spent watching Peter Pan performed on an open, outdoor stage in the heart of a state park. (Lynn-nore was a trooper, walking the quarter-mile path through field and trees to the performance. On the way back, a toad hopped across her feet, and she stopped and showed it to a passing little boy.) I dropped Lynn-nore off at youth group and put Kara to bed. Going out later to split an appetizer with Sir Walter Raleigh & Queen Elizabeth. They were both in fine spirits! Unfortunately, the former developed a migrane halfway through the meal. One could actually see the headache-cloud descend upon his head! Ouch!
Wrapping up, due largely to the need to medicate the aformentioned, the girls went off to do their thing, and Sir Walter and I got onto the topic of "transparency." Transparency in the lingo of religious leadership is meant to convey humility: I am not a golden one, perfect and sound in all ways, but a flawed human being. One has nothing to hide. What is on the inside is reflected absolutely on the outside. Everything about the self is spread abroad indiscriminately, the good with the bad. The question was, is this an appropriate goal for church leadership? I strongly believe that it is not. There is an antiseptic, thereapeutic odor to it, betraying a psychological rather than Biblical origin. Truth is always mediated (fides quaerens intellectum), there is no such thing as transparency. It is an illusion, a utopia of the psyche. To deny this, and pursue the black-and-white of transparency raises many questions of motive, none of them healthy, most of them associated with either fear or naïveté, control or servitude.
Sunday church was warm, the pews packed. Afterward, we ate under the shade trees. Lynn-nore propped herself comfortably in a beach chair beside Joanna and Queen Elizabeth. Sir Walter Raleigh, David Brainerd, myself and others threw frisbee or played whiffleball. Kara and the other, smaller children dehydrated themselves picking flowers and chasing inchworms. All in all, a fine day. I look forward to an eternity of others just like it (but cooler, if it please You).
6 comments:
Thanks for the heads-up on my blog. You'd think that I would have caught that. My only reply, "duh-oh". I'm going in for a catscan tomorrow.
I like your afternoon story. The description you give makes it seem very real and that is good writing.
I agree, Thom's full of good writing.
Really liked the part about transparency. Pop psychology threatens to be the death of critical thinking and healthy psychological distance, IMHO. By the way, I was reminded of your mini-diatribe on Maslow's Hierarchy today when my logic professor railed on it for a few minutes in unreprintable words. <G>
Isn't it interesting how ones comments can be twisted? "indiscriminately" was never intended. One of the strengths of a good leader is recognizing that the same leadership strategy does not work with all people. Some people require the strong quiet leader whom they can emulate. Others require a leader who is not afraid to be open and honest regarding his insecurities, problems, and struggles. This is not "modern psycology" nor is it "psycho-babble." If "There is no such thing as transparency" this is a fault of pride. Let us look at some of the obvious leaders in the Word. Jesus: He didn't have any struggles to admit, now did He? WWJD? Raise the dead. Moving on, Peter: Peter was clearly non-transparent during his life. Let's glance at the Gospels: He followed Christ wholly and completely, never doubted, never waivered, never hid in fear. Ooo, wait, sounds like Peter had a faith issue. Now if Mark and Luke wrote the Gospels, how would they have know those things if Peter hadn't been open with them or others? It is clear that Paul did not portray himself as righteously above reproach. He admits in his letters that he is the chief of all sinners, and that he has a thorn in his flesh. We must speculate about what it was today, but I would conjecture that there were those who heard/read his letter and knew what he was refering to. Again, do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating "blanket transparency." Just as I would not advocate "blanket insert-leadership-method-here." If one, as a leader, is in a position where people are expected to open up to him, would it not make it easier for some if it were a two way street?
If I understand your comment, Sir Walter, you disagree with me and throw your hat in with transparency. Allow me to dissuade you. I understand a great difference between leadership which pursues the gifts of the Spirit and leadership which values "transparency." The former is simply being a creature in-community with other creatures. This is perfectly ordinary and natural. There need be no attempt to divulge one's faults, everyone can see them right there, and a few may even have had words with you along the way. The latter, on the other hand, seems unnatural to me. I say this because if this sort of a leader means a leadership that desires option (a) - the simple, ordinary pursuit of the spirit and struggle with the flesh that happens in the ordinary course of community-living - then why do they need to make a point of it? To use a fancy word, this sort of claim is tautologous. To use an ordinary word, it is silly and I can't get away from thinking it is meant merely to draw attention to the self: "look at me, I'm so transparent!" If, however, they do not mean option (a) then they do mean something which derives from psychology and the therapeutic more than from the ordinary or the Biblical. I don't see how you can escape that conclusion?
I believe this has become semantics. My issue is with people who, when in community, AVOID divulging their faults because they are in a leadership position. As opposed to one who is willing to be vulnerable and offer some truth about the darker part of their lives because the occasion calls for it. Insincere "transparency" is no transparency at all, it is a type of pride, yes. However, taking the risk to communicate a part of you that you'd rather hide when the situation calls for it is true leadership. If this discussion is going to be clouded by a misunderstanding of our definition of "transparency" let's leave the word off the page.
Show a little patience. Though you may not think we have come anywhere, I think we have advanced. "Semantics" is not a pejorative any more than "communication" or "dialogue." The first part of any discussion worth having usually involves finding the edges of things.
Anyway, now that we agree that transparency as a type of pride (or self-delusion) is wrong, and we are on to the better-way of Christian leadership, namely the living out of one's humanity, good and bad, in community, now I can ask my question. You suggest that a proper leader should in humility divulge weaknesses or points of failure when "the occasion calls for it." Is this always true? Should one in a position of Christian leadership always tell, or do we need to discover some underlying principle underneath the generality?
Post a Comment