One of the problems of being around churches, and in being someone who tries very hard to see the good in people is the way that bad things happen because of completely good and honourable intentions. Dealing with teenagers (but also in the wider world), there are some very fragile self-esteems involved, and it doesn’t take a lot to see a whole heap of damage done on the back of what starts as a “really nice idea”.
So something I really haven’t worked out yet though, is how to explain to people who have these lovely ideas that they are actually going to prove harmful for people, or are going to cause stagnation, or represent barriers to growth. Because ultimately, I know that if someone told me that my ideas were harmful - I’d want to whack them across the head. And I don’t know any way to approach it that would result in me having a different reaction.
3 Comments
Interesting Post Geoff… Is it a question or an observation? what kind of comments are you looking for!?
Apparently socratic questioning can be a good approach to that sort of thing… if you can see a clear harm at the end of the equation… help the person to think through the logical progression. If they realise the harm for themselves, then hopefully they won’t blame you for it.
Because there are so many values that compete for your attention with youth ministry, and so many different approaches even to the same values… it can be easy to focus on one, at the expense of the others, and not even realise what you’ve missed.
Sometimes writing down a set of core goals and values, not just about theology, but also about some of the more subjective aspects of style and approach, can make it easier to have dialogue about this stuff without being personal.
Regardless of whether you express your preferences for certain styles and approaches, or not: you will always have preferences. Since being effective is often more about unity than perfection… making those preferences clear and accesible is often helpful. Working out when to engage in debate about the subjective value of those preferences, and when to say “I’m in charge, and we’re doing it this way” is never an easy thing.
My thinking at the moment is that hopefully people can be helped to see how these conflicts emerge because genuine caring people make different choices about the priority they ascribe to competeing values. When those values can be discussed on their merit in an empathic and validating way, the final decision that a practice or attitude is “harmful” and therefore should be discontinued, is a lot less unaproachable.
Tim said what I was going to say at the beginning of his comment - I know for me, I’ve always appreciated when someone talks me though an idea and trusts me to see what they see if what they see is really “true”. of course, sometimes, being a leader means saying no regardless of whether or not people see it your way.
…and now I just outed myself as not believing in truly “flat” leadership hehe
That’s quite an interesting point.
As I see it there are a couple of ways you can go. There’s the explain carefully why it won’t work option, which I’d recommend because it also opens up discussion and on the chance that you have misassessed the situation the suggester can explain why it would work.
Then there’s the “because I say so” approach which doesn’t endear you to people who make suggestions, so you could miss valuable input.
I think the only other option is to simply do it with your eyes closed, which is certain to result in disaster.