Читать книгу Faith, Leadership and Public Life - Preston Manning - Страница 16

1.7 TRAINING: MANAGING CHANGE

The Leadership of Change

The leadership of change can be one of the most difficult and thankless tasks a leader undertakes—in particular when it involves the reform of entrenched practices or institutions that need to be changed because they have become outdated, deformed, counterproductive, or obsolete but to which those engaged in them are still deeply committed because of tradition, habit, familiarity, and resistance to innovation.

In the case of Jesus, he first focused his ministry of change not on the general public but on his small band of initial followers. As A. B. Bruce pointed out, it was an onerous undertaking:

At the time of their call they were exceedingly ignorant, narrow-minded, superstitious, full of … prejudices, misconceptions, and animosities. They had much to unlearn of what was bad, as well as much to learn of what was good, and they were slow both to learn and unlearn. Old beliefs already in possession of their minds made the communication of new religious ideas a difficult task.82

The three well-established religious conventions of his day that Jesus particularly addressed were the practices and institutions of fasting, ceremonial washing, and Sabbath observance. Jesus specifically addressed the reform of religious practices and institutions—those most resistant to change because they are rooted in deeply held beliefs that their adherents believe to be immutable and divinely sanctioned. But the principles and techniques Jesus utilized to induce change under such circumstances are relevant to the reform of any deeply entrenched practice or institution.

The Critique of Current Practices

In Jesus’ day, the most rigorous teachers and practitioners of fasting, ceremonial washing, and Sabbath observance were the Pharisees. As the primary teachers of the law of Moses, their instruction and example with respect to these practices were highly influential with the general public, including the members of Jesus’ initial band of followers.83 So to change the conduct of the latter in relation to these practices, Jesus first had to critique the teaching and practices of the former. His focus was on criticizing not the essence of these practices but the extremes to which the Pharisees carried them.

For example, with respect to ceremonial washing,

The aim of the rabbinical prescriptions respecting washings was not physical cleanliness, but something thought to be far higher and more sacred. Their object was to secure, not physical, but ceremonial purity; that is, to cleanse the person from such impurity as might be contracted by contact with a Gentile, or with a Jew in a ceremonially unclean state, or with an unclean animal, or with a dead body or any part thereof … Not content with purifications prescribed in the law for uncleanness actually contracted, they made provision for merely possible cases. If a man did not remain at home all day, but went out to market, he must wash his hands on his return, because it was possible that he might have touched some person or thing ceremonially unclean. Great care, it appears, had also to be taken that the water used in the process of ablution was itself perfectly pure; and it was necessary even to apply the water in a particular manner to the hands, in order to secure the desired results.84

With respect to Sabbath observance, adherence to the fourth commandment,85 Bruce again described in considerable detail the extremes to which the Pharisaic interpretation and practice of this institution had been taken.

Their habit, in all things, was to degrade God’s law by framing innumerable petty rules for its better observance, which, instead of securing that end, only made the law appear base and contemptible. In no case was this miserable micrology carried to greater lengths than in connection with the fourth commandment. With a most perverse ingenuity, the most insignificant actions were brought within the scope of the prohibition against labour. Even in the case put by our Lord, that of an animal fallen into a pit, it was deemed lawful to lift it out—so at least those learned in rabbinical lore tell us—only when to leave it there till Sabbath was past would involve risk to life. When delay was not dangerous, the rule was to give the beast food sufficient for the day; and if there was water in the bottom of the pit, to place straw and bolsters below it, that it might not be drowned.86

Jesus’ Critique of Religious Extremism

In critiquing the Pharisaic approach to teaching and enforcing adherence to the commandments of the Mosaic law, Jesus illustrated the merits of always taking a hard look at what I call “the dark side of the moon.” In other words, whatever doctrine or philosophy of life we may adhere to—be it religious, political, or cultural—in our mind’s eye we should push it to its extreme and take a hard look at what that really looks like and the results it may produce. If that image of the extreme is ugly and deformed and the results of its pursuit are evil and deplorable, as the image and products of extremism most frequently are, then that realization ought to strongly incentivize us to back away, to resist movement in that direction, to avoid association with that extreme, and to warn others to do likewise.

For example, the Rule of Law as given to Moses by God when genuinely followed by ancient Israelites was a noble and beneficial concept originally given as an instrument for establishing and maintaining right relationships between God and his people and among the people themselves. But pushed to the fanatical extreme to which the Pharisees pressed it—whereby the Rule of Law was transformed into an arid, crippling, and hypocritical legalism—it became a barrier, not a means, to right relations with God and a burden instead of a boon to the people—the very opposite of the results that it was originally intended to produce.

With respect to Sabbath observance, Jesus dealt with the extreme interpretations and practices of the Pharisees in three distinct ways.

First, he demonstrated his personal disapproval of and opposition to the Pharisaic teachings and practices of Sabbath observance by personally violating certain of their teachings on this subject and defending his followers for doing likewise. For example, on five separate occasions as recorded in the Gospels, Jesus deliberately and publicly performed acts of healing on the Sabbath despite the accusations and protestations of the Pharisees that this constituted Sabbath breaking.87 On another occasion, he stoutly defended the actions of his disciples, who had plucked some ears of grain on the Sabbath day to satisfy their hunger, again over the objections of the Pharisees that this constituted “work” and was therefore to be condemned.88

Second, Jesus drew a distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law, maintaining that acts of mercy (healing) and acts of necessity (satisfying hunger) were completely within the spirit of the law, which the Pharisees were violating and quenching by their extreme interpretations and extensions of the letter of the law.

Third, he taught that the proper practice of Sabbath observance required an understanding of the original design and purpose of such practices and the need for adjustments to conserve that design and purpose under changing circumstances.

Original Design and the Necessity of Change in Order to Conserve

Concerning the original purpose of the Sabbath, Jesus taught his early followers that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” and that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”89

As Bruce observed,

The key to all Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath, therefore, lies in His conception of the original design of that divine institution … His doctrine was this: The Sabbath was meant to be a boon to man, not a burden; it was not a day taken from man by God in an exacting spirit, but a day given by God in mercy to man—God’s holiday to His subject; all legislation enforcing its observance having for its end to insure that all should really get the benefit of the boon—that no man should rob himself, and still less his fellow-creatures, of the gracious boon.90

Jesus also claimed the right for himself, and ultimately for his followers, to alter the practice of the Sabbath to ensure that it continued to serve its original purpose.91 Such alterations eventually included opposing any man-made regulations that diverted the Sabbath from that purpose, expanding its observance to Gentile believers, giving it a new name, and even changing the day of its observance.

In dealing with Sabbath observance in this way, Jesus practised and illustrated one of the most important principles of managing orderly and constructive change—conserving the original rationale and purpose of a practice or institution while simultaneously changing it in certain ways to accommodate new demands and circumstances. At first blush, we may think that the idea of conserving something by changing it is illogical and contradictory. But Jesus, particularly in relation to Sabbath observance, teaches us that conservation and change can be, and in some instances must be, complementary.

In criticizing the Pharisaic approach to the law (including laws governing the Sabbath), Jesus made it clear that it was not his intention to destroy the Law; rather it was his intention, by reinterpreting and changing its application, to fulfill the Law.92 Achieving and maintaining this balance between conservation and change are more easily done if the defenders of the old and the advocates of the new recognize and appreciate their respective roles in conserving and adapting the institution to changing conditions, i.e., see their roles as complementary rather than adversarial.

As Bruce plaintively asks, “When will young men and old men, liberals and conservatives, broad Christians and narrow, learn to bear with one another; yea, to recognize each in the other the necessary complement of [their] own one-sidedness?”93

Implications for Us

1. Unlearning and learning

When we come to Jesus we should be open to unlearning and learning under his tutelage. The disciples all had their faults, but to their immense credit they were teachable, open to the unlearning and learning that Jesus had to offer. Which raises the question, are we? Most of us are much more highly and broadly educated than the disciples. This should be a blessing, but it may also render us less open to the teaching and influence of Jesus because we think we know. Unlearning often needs to precede learning on both the religious and political fronts.

In my own case, for example, I grew up with a fairly narrow conception of what the Christian faith was about, namely that it was primarily the means to my own personal spiritual well-being and salvation. If I had been one of the disciples and held this one-dimensional conception of faith, my unlearning and learning under the tutelage of Jesus would likely have included,

• Unlearning the narrowness and singularity of this vertical perspective of faith without in any way abandoning the importance and necessity of a personal relationship to God through Jesus.

• Learning to expand my conception and experience of the faith to include its horizontal and social dimensions, i.e., adding the crossbar of the cross to my vertical upright.

On the other hand, if you grew up with a conception of the faith that focused exclusively on its social and horizontal dimension but with little or no appreciation of the necessity of attending to your own personal relationship to God through Christ, your learning and unlearning experience under his tutelage might be the reverse but equally necessary.

2. Visiting the dark side of the moon

As previously mentioned, Jesus’ approach to guarding his initial followers against the extreme teachings and practices of the Pharisees illustrates the merit of taking a hard look at the dark side of the moon—the image and results of pushing any philosophy of life to its extreme—and utilizing that visualization as a warning and a caution to avoid the negative and destructive aspects of that extreme.

Jesus’ use of this approach provides us with an excellent example of how to guard religious believers today against the extremes to which we in our age are susceptible. But this approach is also highly applicable to guarding political ideologues and activists against the dangers of political extremism.

Political pragmatists, for example, proud of not being committed to any ideology or fixed set of principles and striving only to do the right thing under the circumstances, are well advised to take a hard look at what that pragmatic position looks like and leads to when pushed to its extreme. In the extreme, it can lead to a completely cynical and unprincipled politics of expediency—weathervane politics and government that merely twist and turn in response to every wind that blows. And is not that extreme pragmatic position something to resist, back away from, and avoid association with? And shouldn’t you warn others to do likewise?

Or perhaps you are of the more liberal or socialistic political persuasion and place great faith in the power and instrumentalities of the state and its capacity to protect and advance human well-being. Certainly there is merit in recognizing this positive potential of the state and the utilization of its agencies for the betterment of humanity. But liberals and social democrats are also well advised to take a hard look at what that statist position looks like and leads to when pushed to its extreme. It is the expansion and deification of the state, carried to its extreme, that has led to some of the most dictatorial, brutal, and oppressive governments the world has ever known, such as the Communist regimes of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un. Is not that extreme statist position something to resist, back away from, and avoid associating with? And shouldn’t you warn others to do likewise?

Or perhaps we are of a conservative political persuasion. We place great faith in the power and potential of markets and freedom of enterprise to advance the well-being of human beings. Or perhaps we are conservative revolutionaries who resist various aspects of modernity and advocate changes designed to restore preferred aspects of a golden past.94 These are legitimate and worthwhile positions when held and practised in moderation but dangerous when pushed to the extreme—capable of legitimizing greed, exploitation, unconstrained consumerism, environmental degradation, and even fascism—extremes that the responsible conservative will want to resist, back away from, and avoid associating with, while warning others to do likewise.

3. Balancing conservation and change

As previously mentioned, in dealing with Sabbath observance as he did, Jesus practised and illustrated yet another important principle of managing orderly and constructive change—the principle of conserving the original rationale and purpose of a practice or institution by simultaneously changing it in certain ways to accommodate new developments and circumstances.

So suppose we want to change a practice or an institution that in our judgment needs to be reformed. Using Jesus’ approach to the simultaneous preservation and reform of Sabbath observance as a model, we should identify the original purpose or rationale and whether it is still valid; identify what is still good and needs to be conserved; and also identify the changes that are required to reform or replace the original practice and institution. And then, most difficult of all, seek to implement the new while preserving the best of the old.

In the Canadian political world in which I participated, this was the approach that some of us took, however imperfectly and crudely, in the 1980s and 1990s when we attempted to “reform” Canadian conservatism at the national level.95 On a deeper and more philosophical level it is also the position taken by the great British parliamentarian and thinker Edmund Burke in his commentary on how to achieve necessary and effective political change in Britain while avoiding the extremes exemplified by the French Revolution.

According to Burke,

A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution that it wished the most religiously to preserve. The two principles of conservation and correction operated strongly [in concert] at the two critical periods of the Restoration and Revolution, when England found itself without a king.96

Burke concludes with this observation: “When the legislature altered the direction, but kept the principle, they showed that they held it [the principle] inviolable.”

Just as Jesus taught that the principles of conservation and change needed to be pursued simultaneously in order to preserve the original rationale of the Sabbath, so Burke maintained that the principles of conservation and correction (reform) needed to be applied simultaneously in order to preserve “inviolate” the original design and rationale of the British Constitution and monarchy.

In seeking to conserve the essence of a useful and valuable practice or institution by changing its application or expression, there will always be those who will maintain that any alteration at all to that practice or institution is an abandonment or betrayal of it and to be fiercely resisted. Thus, Jesus was repeatedly accused by the status quo defenders of the Sabbath of wanting to destroy the very institution he sought to preserve in a more appropriate and sustainable form.

In my own experience I sometimes combatted this accusation with the following illustration drawn from my community development days in north central Alberta. It is an illustration that may be useful to conservative reformers of today, whether in the religious or public arenas.

Along an old back road, east of Lesser Slave Lake, there once stood a huge post set in rocks with a signboard affixed to it by heavy bolts. The sign displayed one word, the name of the town of “Sawridge,” and an arrow pointing west. That sign did not change or move in over 50 years, no matter how hard the winds blew or how much snow fell. It always said the same thing, and it always pointed in the same direction.

A reliable guide, some might say. And yet, if you followed the directions on that sign you would never get to the town of Sawridge. Why? Because although the message and the direction of that signpost never changed, everything else around it had changed.

The town of Sawridge changed its name. It changed its location, moving to higher ground after a flood in the 1930s. In addition, the roads leading to it had been rerouted half a dozen times since the signpost had been planted. It was the very fact that the signpost had not changed while everything else around it had that made it an unreliable guide to anyone travelling that old road.

And so there is much to learn from Jesus of Nazareth with respect to the management of change. The importance of being open to unlearning and learning under his tutelage; the value of visiting, at least in our mind’s eye, the dark side of the moon, no matter what our religious or political philosophy of life may be; and perhaps the most important of all, learning to strike that balance between conservation and change that facilitates constructive rather than destructive change.

To paraphrase A. B. Bruce, how long will it be until young people and old, broad Christians and narrow, liberals and conservatives, the keepers of the old wine and the champions of the new, learn to bear with one another and to recognize, each in the other, the necessary complements to their own one-sidedness?

82 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 14.

83 “There are two major characteristics of the Pharisees, their meticulous observance of obligations under the Law for purity, tithing, and Sabbath observances; and their emphasis on oral law as equally binding to the Law. The New Testament witnesses to their great concern over tithing and purity … and the many disputes Jesus had with the Jews over the Sabbath day reflect their concern for that law as well … The other major characteristic of the Pharisees is the value they placed on oral traditions. ‘Oral law’ refers to traditional rules and observances that were designed to adapt the written Law to the changes of time … In the process of multiplying rulings it was easy for the Pharisees to become hypocritical because in attempting to be faithful to the letter of the Law they lost the spirit of the Law” (Allen Ross, “2. The Pharisees,” The Religious World of Jesus [Bible.org, 2016]).

84 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 80–81.

85 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns” (Exodus 20:8–10).

86 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 89.

87 Examples are the healing of a man afflicted with an abnormal swelling of his body (Luke 14:1–6); the healing of a man with a shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–6; Luke 6:6–11); the healing of a woman crippled for 18 years (Luke 13:10–17); the healing of a man at the pool of Bethesda who had been ill 38 years (John 5:1–18); and the healing of a blind man (John 9:13–17).

88 Matthew 12:1–4; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5.

89 Mark 2:27 and Matthew 12:12.

90 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 91–92.

91 Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28.

92 Matthew 5:17.

93 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 78.

94 For an insightful commentary on the extreme version of the conservative revolutionary position, see Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961). In this work, Stern investigates the 19th century ideological roots of 20th century fascism in Germany. He describes the “conservative revolutionaries” of that day as those who “sought to destroy the despised present in order to recapture an idealized past in an imaginary future” (xvi). A contemporary example of this mentality exists today at the interface of faith and politics in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, whose adherents despise modernity and seek to recapture the idealized glories of the ancient Islamic world in an imagined Islamic caliphate of the future.

95 For my personal description of and perspective on this effort, see Manning, Think Big.

96 Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1790), 18–19.