Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Criticism of Church Leaders: Is it ever a good thing? (updated)

This was supposed to be a response to a recent comment on my blog, but got far too long, so I'm pulling it out as a separate post. Please withhold judgment on the post until you have read the whole thing. I think Elder Oaks gives us some really, really good insight on how we truly can make a positive difference in the Church.

p.s. This is one of those posts that deals with the "rule" not the exception. I know some people have their horror stories about leaders, but I think there is value in focusing on the rule, not the exception. And, you will note that Elder Oaks gives guidance about how to deal with potential problems or differences that can arise, so this isn't just a post about blind following 100% of the time. Again, it contains wise counsel about how to deal with differences in an appropriate way. Lastly, I think there are different viewpoints out there of what "criticism" means. I sense that Elder Oaks' use of the word as truly speaking evil of a leader, truly (and publicly) criticizing him/her. I think it's possible that there might be a different word he would use for "feedback." I think I can believe in the value of feedback without upholding criticism as acceptable.

I submit that there may be more than meets the eye on the issue of criticism and why it is discouraged in the Church. There is more to consider than just the process of "There is an idea out there that somehow our leaders will benefit from our criticism, but there is more to consider. Elder Oaks spoke clearly on this:

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“ ‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.


Everyone will obviously take his or her own approach, but I think Elder Oaks' counsel is really significant. I have found that I don't feel the Spirit with me as much when I have a critical spirit. Of course that applies to criticism of anyone, but I feel it's particularly offensive to the Spirit when I criticize those whom I sustain and who are called of God. It affects my spirituality, without question. When I trust them, even when I don't agree or don't understand, there is a power, a confidence, that comes into my life. It becomes an anchor that makes a tremendous difference for me personally, for my family. I believe MORE good would come about in the Church if there was more sustaining of and following our leaders -- not because we think they are always right, but because we believe that sustaining them is right. Perhaps they don't need our feedback as much as they need our hearts. (Does this mean I think that everyone who ever says anything against them is an apostate? No. But I believe this is something that can and would make a difference at the individual, familial and institutional levels.)

I am particularly struck by Elder Oaks' comment that it doesn't matter if what we say is true; criticism of church leaders is always a negative.

But does that mean that feedback can never be shared, or that there aren't things to do when there really is an thought about something that can be improved? NO. Elder Oaks continues to help us understand the characteristics of appropriate behavior and how we handle differences in the Church:

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. [This isn't about being cookie cuttered people, or blind followers!] As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. [Emphasis mine.] What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” [I think this is so significant!] (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love."


Sustaining our leaders doesn't mean we won't have differences of opinion, but it does mean we will seek to handle those differences in the Lord's way.

Elder Oaks then lists five options we have:
1. Overlook the difference
2. Reserve judgment and postpone action, in a spirit of patience and trust [I like to use the phrase "benefit of the doubt"]
3. Take up differences privately with the leader (in a private meeting or a letter or other correspondence)
4. In cases of alleged wrong behavior, communicate with the person who is in a position could correct the offending party if that is needed (e.g., talk to a Stake President for issues with a bishop, etc.)
5. Pray. Pray that the Lord can correct the situation and pray for ourselves to discern if we are truly correct in our point of view.

Today's world is full of the idea that we are somehow obligated (and/or entitled) to voice our opinions: we protest, we write public letters to the editor, we rant and rave, we debate issues online, etc. etc. etc. But the Lord asks us to handle problems or perceived problems in the Church differently -- for the benefit of His work and also for our own benefit. This doesn't preclude the potential for feedback, but, can help prevent the spirit of contention, pride and unnecessary criticism from entering the situation, and keep us more open to the influence of the Spirit.

22 comments:

  1. Michelle,

    Thanks for your comprehensive and informative reply.

    You have presented some ideas for consideration. I find your experience of having the Spirit with you more if you make no criticism, interesting. And I'm not doubting it in the slightest in what I'm about to say, so please don't take this any other way than examination. My mind goes to the great criticism Christ gave to church leaders of his day. "Sons of hell," he called them. And I'm interested in your thoughts there. Also his terrible condemnation of the Jews generally. He told them that their father was the devil. Please don't be one of those who tell me that this was alright for Christ because he was some type of different being from us.

    Thanks again for your effort. It really has given some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think to say that criticism of our church leaders is always a bad thing is both dangerous and inefficient – and possibly sinful.

    God gives us leaders, but he also gives us common sense. We are held accountable for following someone over a cliff. If we follow the advice of leaders that doesn’t ring true with us, or doesn’t jive with our personal revelation, we are responsible for the consequences of it. You don’t get to opt out of thinking for yourself because you belong to the church.

    My mom had a bishop that advised her to not marry my father because he is Hispanic and she is white.

    IMO, that bishop needed a hell of a lot of criticism. Had she followed his advice, it would have been to her detriment. My parents have been happily married for over 25 years now.

    Our leaders are human, and they should be treated as such. I firmly believe that inspiration is 95 percent information. To the extent that people choose to remain ignorant, they deprive themselves of inspiration. Constructive criticism is a way of informing people that something isn’t working or isn’t correct. How is a leader to know that something is having a negative impact on the spiritual and temporal well-being of people if no one ever has the guts to TELL him? Maybe being told would inspire the leader to seek inspiration? It’s worth a shot. If no one ever hears the bad, they think things are running more smoothly than they are.

    Sure, you can be overly critical of the church, and that should be avoided. But not be critical at all makes you a sheep, and if the criticism is done with the right sprit and the right intention, I think it is far more righteous than just allowing ignorance to flourish.

    “When I trust them, even when I don't agree or don't understand, there is a power, a confidence, that comes into my life.”
    I worry about this statement.
    When I make my decisions, I know why I do so. I do them because I understand the repercussions and because I KNOW that it is the right decision, because I’ve prayed about it and felt peaceful. Again, we were given minds for a reason, and we are expected to use them. To blindly follow is to remain spiritually underdeveloped.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stephanie,

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    I would hope that it's apparent especially given my follow-ups that I have never advocated following leaders without seeking and following the Spirit.

    That said, I personally think that sometimes there is too much talk about exceptions (since there are a few examples of leaders who abuse their position, but they are not the rule) rather than upholding general principles. And, again, those general principles include following the Spirit and taking responsibility for our decisions. So I'm always a bit baffled that people want to tell me my approach is wrong (not saying you did...just speaking in generalities here). The way I live my life is what brings the Spirit. And the way I live my life is not blind following or mindless living.

    I do agree that we should teach our children to follow the Spirit and do as parents what we feel is appropriate to protect them. I think the kind of training you are talking about (re: abuse, etc.) really is ultimately the responsibility of the parents to teach, not the Church. The Church can't handle every exception that our children may run into. The Church teaches general principles and parents should be the ones to help children understand the nuances of issues. IMO. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that the vast majority of church leaders are just like us: they are doing the best they can with what they have to give. That said, I'm not naive, and I have had an "exception to the rule" leader. I did express my opinion of him privately to a few people that I trusted, but I would never make my criticism public, and I did always raise my hand to sustain him when asked. Here's why--

    His behavior was not illegal
    His behavior was not physically abusive to anyone

    So I assume that I fall into the category of what Elder Oakes is talking about. So here's the quote from the talk that I wanted to comment about specifically:

    "When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause."

    I'm not good at analysis, so I'm going to mention a couple of stories. Once there was a bishop who after interviewing some of the young men in his ward who had just returned from scout camp, felt strongly prompted to release one of the scout leaders. The leader was extremely unhappy about his release, and spent the next several months complaining to anyone who would listen to him about the bishop. He even went to the local scout counsel to try to drum up support. Of course, the bishop couldn't say anything in his own defense because of confidentiality. The man had several teenagers, and when they had some of the kinds of trials that many young people fall into, their father's criticism left them without much faith in the good man who was their bishop and who was the one in the best position to help them out of a miserable situation. Did their father impair the bishops' influence and usefulness? I say yes.

    And one more example:
    I was sitting in Sunday School one day next to my husband, the bishop. Suddenly without saying a word to me, he stood up and walked right out of the room. I didn't see him again until later that night, and I asked him where he had gone in such a hurry. He told me that he had had a strong prompting that he needed to speak to a certain member of the ward and so he decided to go look for that person (He didn't tell me who it was if anyone is wondering). He said that as soon as he walked out of the RS room where the class was being held, the person who was on his mind was standing in the hall right outside the door. They went down to the bishop's office and took care of whatever it was that was needed. He also told me that he didn't think that he was able to 'hear' those kinds of promptings as well when there was contention going on-- when people were expressing criticism of him or even his counselors or second guessing decisions that had been made, etc.
    So does even the run-of-the-mill kind of criticism that goes on fall under the label of working against the Lord's cause? I think it can.

    ReplyDelete
  5. m&m--I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, but I will point out that it can be hazardous to generalize from one's personal spiritual experience to arrive at conclusions about what will work for everyone. Temperaments, personalities, and spirits are individual enough that what works perfectly well for you might be a disaster for me.

    As for the utility of complaint, I could multiply examples, but the one I know best is me--I would long since have ceased to be able to participate at church if I did not know of the existence of Dialogue, Sunstone, and forums like some of the ones in the Bloggernacle that allow for a slightly less upbeat discussion of the Church than the sites that work for you. It can be argued, of course, that I should be a better and more cheerful person, or that it would be no harm if I were out of the church (many people, I think, would prefer that outcome!), but I know that I am not alone in feeling like a steam valve is essential and that being forced into a relentlessly cheerful and constructive engagement with the words and actions of all church leaders would spell the effective end of my activity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just a practical example, once again involving Elder Oaks--I'm sure that you would find the current discussion on modesty at Zelophehad's Daughters extremely upsetting. Nobody's being deferential to Elder Oaks' talk at all. For me, it's really important to be able to read such a rough-and-tumble argument over his words. If I had to just quietly go over and over his "YW dressing immodestly make themselves into pornography" sentence over and over again in my head, trying to make it somehow not seem offensive and misogynist, I would go crazy! Knowing that other people find that comment equally disturbing but manage to keep living their lives as Mormons and keep having testimonies is very, very important for me.

    Your mileage undoubtedly varies :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I find it particularly troublesome when those we are supposed to sustain become the personal targets or are held somehow personally responsible for the things that may cause frustration."

    But sometimes they *are* responsible. Sometimes it is their ill-chosen words or mistaken ideas that cause pain, and I believe we may say so without failing in our duty to sustain. Sustain does not mean to obey unquestioningly or to engage in intellectual dishonesty for the sake of being nice to one's leaders.

    I think your model of discussion, m&m, is one that can't go anywhere, because it assumes a conclusion--the leader is right, I am wrong--from the outset, and asks people to cut off their own feet to fit the bed.

    Moreover, your view (whicy may be the same as Elder Oaks')absolutely requires that I be converted or silenced. There really isn't any way you can understand me in the framework you've outlined--my feelings are predefined as unacceptable. If criticism is disallowed, then your role in the bloggernacle is necessarily going to be that of trying to get people to stop saying what they think in the ways they feel comfortable saying it. In that case, it's no wonder that people respond badly.
    The terrible thing is that it's not your fault--accepting some of the discussion in the 'nacle would require you to compromise what you view as your duty in sustaining the Brethren. You probably shouldn't do that. But if you choose to engage anyway, then you have to accept the likelihood of making people who think some forms of criticism are acceptable very angry. I think there is an irreducible difference there, and all the charity in the world can't satisfy the requirements of an absolute belief that criticism is always wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kristine said:
    "If I had to just quietly go over and over his "YW dressing immodestly make themselves into pornography" sentence over and over again in my head, trying to make it somehow not seem offensive and misogynist, I would go crazy!"

    I'm sorry, but it seems a bit disingenuous to place "YW dressing immodestly make themselves into pornography" in quotes in your comment since it is not what Elder Oaks actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. cjones--fair enough. I should have looked up the exact quote. Here it is: "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."

    ReplyDelete
  10. p.s. I didn't articulate myself very well. If our perceptions of what our leaders say is different, it's not possible for either of us to convince the other that our perception is right. Therefore, the best we can do is seek to understand each other's point of view. If the desire is for understanding, then I think that is really our best hope.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Either that or we really just see things night-and-day differently."

    We do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kristine,
    I'm sorry if that means that we can't have a good dialogue. I hope that you can know that I do care about how you feel, even if that doesn't come across very well.

    ReplyDelete
  13. m&m, it doesn't mean we can't have a productive dialogue. It does mean, I think, that we are unlikely to agree about much of anything. Ultimately, as I tried to say earlier, I think your commitment to the notion that authoritative pronouncements are the ultimate source of truth is going to make it difficult, if not impossible for you to either understand or accept my sense that truth is mediated through multiple sources, including personal revelation and intellectual engagement with authoritative pronouncements. Doesn't mean we can't be friends...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we can seek to understand each other without having to agree. That is really all I was trying to say. :) But just realize that I, too, engage intellectually with the authoritative statements. My point of view and feelings and convictions aren't a package deal straight from the Ensign, bypassing my brain or heart. I spend a lot of time thinking and pondering and chewing on things as well. One can still be "intellectual" and basically and generally agree with authoritative statements. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course. I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't also intellectually engaged. Agreement is a perfectly legitimate conclusion, only, alas, one I reach less frequently than you do!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kristine and m&m - this is a wonderful discussion. Thank you very much for sharing it with us. As I read through your exchange, I wondered if the solution to the impasse may be to distinguish between criticizing the leaders personally and criticizing what they say. Do you think there is there a difference?

    As one of the main criticizers of Elder Oaks' words on the Zelophehad's Daughters' thread, I tried to make it clear that I was criticizing what Elder Oaks said (i.e, my interpretation of what he said) - not him personally. I do believe that our Church leaders have our best interests at heart.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ECS,
    Thanks for stopping by. I'm must confess that I'm afraid to try to answer your question because on one hand, that is one thing I have been trying to say all along but on the other hand, I still think we need to be careful about how we engage ideas put forth by our leaders. It's one thing for someone to say "I don't understand this idea put forth"; it's another thing to say "I don't agree with this idea"; it's yet another to say "I think the church and/or its leaders are wrong with regard to this idea." I don't think we have to be personally attacking an individual's character to potentially do harm to the Lord's work and perhaps to ourselves. But obviously, I have a different approach than some, and nothing I say will change that, so.... :) Yet another place to agree to disagree. :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. p.s., ECS, I have only glanced at the ZD discussion, so I have no idea what you have said over there. Just so you know that my comments are still general and not directed at you or anyone in particular. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. m&m--I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said, but I will point out that it can be hazardous to generalize from one's personal spiritual experience to arrive at conclusions about what will work for everyone. Temperaments, personalities, and spirits are individual enough that what works perfectly well for you might be a disaster for me.

    I agree with this general principle. That is why I seek to back up my personal point of view with words from the prophets, which I believe are more generally applicable (or at least I believe should be). ;)

    As for the utility of complaint, I could multiply examples, but the one I know best is me--I would long since have ceased to be able to participate at church if I did not know of the existence of Dialogue, Sunstone, and forums like some of the ones in the Bloggernacle that allow for a slightly less upbeat discussion of the Church than the sites that work for you. It can be argued, of course, that I should be a better and more cheerful person, or that it would be no harm if I were out of the church (many people, I think, would prefer that outcome!), but I know that I am not alone in feeling like a steam valve is essential and that being forced into a relentlessly cheerful and constructive engagement with the words and actions of all church leaders would spell the effective end of my activity.

    You have to do what works for you. I try to speak in generalities. I can't tell you what should work for you. That is between you and the Lord.

    And I'm sorry if you feel that people feel the church would be better off without you. I'm grateful to hear that amidst the struggle, you want to do what you can to stay engaged. I do hope you can find more peace within the church someday, and not feel the need to find your help elsewhere. But in the meantime, let's continue to try to make sure there is a place in this hospital for spiritually ailing souls (that would be all of us) for all of us who care enough to stay. :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. m&m

    I was rereading your post and I came to thinking of those people who have been excommunicated that were not guilty of the things exed for. If they make a complaint to SLC the complaint is sent to the area president who then passes it back to the very same stake president who made the bad decision. Caesar is left to judge Caesar. Complaints by the truckload have gone in on this I'm sure. Yet nothing is done. I believe this should be complained about in some way that someone is going to actually be forced to do the right thing about.

    The church isn't a theocracy. It is called the Church of Jesus Christ (theocracy) of Latter-Day Saints (democracy). We sustain the leaders. We have a right to expect, and if not get, demand, sensible government. If you lived in the time of Caiaphas would you have condoned his action purely because he was the Prophet of the church? I know that no one was inspired to make such a ridiculous system. God is not that stupid.

    So while I share your feelings overall, I think that some things need more than subtle hints about.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was rereading your post and I came to thinking of those people who have been excommunicated that were not guilty of the things exed for.

    There are two possibilities I see here in such a situation:

    1. Maybe there is something we don't know that the leaders do.

    2. Maybe mistakes are made. I know that that may happen on occasion (although you will never hear me making such an assertion because I don't think we can ever really know as outsiders). In that case, I say that we can know that the Lord will judge perfectly. We can hold onto the faith that He will make all things right in the end. I know, I know, that is not really what helps people now. But even as this is the Savior's church, HE is the one who allows it to be managed by imperfect people! He sees the big picture. He won't let anything go permanently wrong.

    I think sometimes we need to remember that we are ALL imperfect, even as members of the Church. All the Lord asks is our best, fallible though we are. If we demand infallibility from anyone, including the people who are leading the Church or all the processes that go on, might we not be expecting that kind of judgment to come back at us someday? Are we beamless enough to determine what the Church "should" be doing? My personal viewpoint is that we aren't, and so I'm content to accept the imperfections of the people and try to do my best within the organization where we are. And guess what? It works for me. :) I think it's too easy to be critical rather than grateful. I prefer the latter approach. Like I said before, a critical spirit FOR ME is harmful.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Michelle

    Believe it or not, I do eat up a lot of the things you say. It's just wonderful stuff. And I felt that same thing in reading most of what you have just said in your comment. I totally agree that God will sort it all out. But I feel there are areas where pushing at a flaw in a system is constructive. For an innocent person to get rebaptism they must lie to God's institution. Can you understand the feeling of the person having to do so? That isn't what it is supposed to be. It is God's church. Why should the person have to lie? It's almost like lying to God. A person may see the difference slightly. But it isn't fair (I hate to use that word as it is so abused).

    I KNOW that two exed people were not guilty. The leaders were wrong. The leaders didn't know some hidden things because the claims didn't happen. I've had a claimant admit to me that her claims against a man were false, in such a way that I would know but couldn't state that she had admitted it. I know God doesn't hold them guiltless, but it doesn't help them not having the blessings of church membership. Not having the priesthood (where males). Nor their families.

    In the end all will be well. But as a people we need to attempt to improve things, even though we don't anticipate perfection - as you say.

    ReplyDelete