The liberals in our country are known for at least nominally seeking a consensus when making a descision. The conservatives are known to be more dogmatic and uncompromising. When I thought of myself in the leadership position that I employ, I saw that I strove to be a consensus builder. I asked myself, “How can this be? I am a conservative, yet when I get down to the task of leadership, I follow what seems to be more a liberal ideology. Why is this?”
I realized that there are different sets of circumstances in which a consensus-based leadership is the best and times when a dogmatic, uncompromising leadership is best. It hinges on one very simple criteria: Is it a matter of right and wrong (absolute moral values) or is it a matter of opinion?
In my case of leadership, I am the youth leader of our church’s youth group. The matters that we deal in are not matters of right and wrong. It’s not morally wrong to chose one type of fundraiser over another. All our descisions are morally neutral. I try to work with the five people on the youth committee to reach a consensus that everyone is happy with.
Many of the descisions which most conservatives make have moral absolutes involved. It involves right and wrong. Thus they rightly tend to be dogmatic and uncompromising. That is the way we should be as Christians. It shouldn’t matter what the world around us thinks, we should dogmatically and uncompromisingly do what is right. There is no need, indeed we shouldn’t, insist upon reaching a consensus before taking action.
The liberals in this country are known to seek French, German, Russian, and Chinese consesus before moving forward with any foreign policy. This is consistent with their worldview of relative morality: It’s all right to murder babies if that’s what one believes is right. As long as there is a consensus that murdering babies is all right, it’s not a problem.
So in conclusion, consensus based leadership is entirely appropriate in cases where matters of preference are the issues and there is no right or wrong way to do things. However, when there is a right and wrong way to do things, when there are moral absolutes, our leadership should be dogmatic and uncompromising.
17 Responses
October 30th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
“Consensus-based leadership” is the foundation of the USA, period. It got the U.S. Constitution written and ratified by 13 completely different states, states that were “countries” for all intents and purposes under the faulty and ineffective Articles of Confederation. If there were no consensus, there would most probably not be a USA. The Constitutional Convention was raucous, contentious, and even violent at times. Yet there was a core of men who talked and listened to all parties, who got the thing written in such a form as to ensure its ratification. Proof of that is in our bicameral legislature. It was formed because the smaller, Northern states wanted equal representation, while the larger Southern states wanted representation based on population. Writing only one of those two ideas into the Constitution would have doomed the document to failure. Putting both forms in gave representation to both disparate views, and proved to be brilliant. The bicameral legislature is an odd, and often times inefficient, governance vehicle. However, it remains the dominant form of government in the world today, almost completely due to “consensus-based leadership” and it’s attempts to give representation to as many people as possible.
“Dogmatic leadership”, on the other hand, seems to be best suited for authoritarian rule and dictatorship. By definition, authoritarian rule eliminates all compromise and consensus; dogmatic leadership does the same, because either the dogma is followed, or it isn’t. Debating the worth, value, or efficacy of the dogma, or whether or not the dogma should grow and change, is not an option. Dogmatic leadership tends to get stale, as few or no new ideas for governance enter into the picture. Dogmatic leadership was practiced by the most evil and repressive dictators and tyrants of the world throughout the 20th century; think of any dictator in the 20th century, and you’ll see evidence of dogmatic leadership in action.
Almost none of those dogmatic leadership governments exist now. A government that cannot or will not adjust to the demands of its citizenry is doomed to failure. The quirky form of consensus-based leadership and governance practiced by the U.S. still remains, and it’s the best form of government in an increasingly changing and adapting world, despite the shortcomings of its practitioners.
Thank you for your time.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
I agree with much of what you have said. Please note that I never said that dogmatic, uncompromising leadership should be the method used for the majority, much less all, issues faced. With the examples you cited where consensus leadership was used, it was used appropriately. These were not matters of absolute right or wrong.
With many of the issues that face government, especially the day to day, there is no absolutes of right and wrong. In these cases and in most cases of day to day life, consensus-based leadership is the ideal model. That is the model that I try to emulate for the vast majority of issues in the places that I need to be a leader. I work to talk people to a consensus. I do my utmost to maintain an open channel of communications between myself and the members of the youth group. I ask for feedback and suggestions. If, however, I come accross an issue that has an absolute right or wrong, I need to stand up for the right and never put my stamp of approval on a consensus that includes morally wrong directives. Also, when I come to a situation that I believe contains absolute moral principles that I need to follow, I need to seek counsel and to research to be sure that my understanding of the moral principle at hand is not flawed.
I was pointing out one of the major reasons, that I see, for differences in leadership style between conservatives and liberals on moral issues. Liberals tend to think consensus makes right; conservatives tend to believe there are moral absolutes beyond the whims of men.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Relativity is a great thing, but it makes life ever more complex. Consensus based leadership is based in relativity, because it has to be. What works for one population may very well not work for another, or at the same time, so consensus has to be found in order to get anything done. Many of the issues facing the world today are very relative and dependent on any number of factors; participants in the situation, external influences on the participants and situation, and so on. Solving those problems, then, becomes a matter of balancing relative ideals against one another. Extrapolating that further means that more decisions have to be solved through consensus-based leadership than dogmatic-based leadership.
Even common law is based in consensus. I could make a dogmatic-based leadership statement to the effect that “Stealing is bad”. Then someone comes along and asks “What if I, a person who has never ever committed a crime, steal food and medicine to feed my starving family and give my wife the heart medication she needs to stay alive?” I now have a conundrum; do I punish the person trying to save his family to the fullest extent of the law because “Stealing is bad”? Do I weigh the circumstances surrounding the event and mete out punishment with those in mind? If I chose the former, that’s dogmatic, because I’ve now taken an intractable position that is inflexible by the definitions you gave earlier. If I choose the latter, that’s consensus-based reasoning. I’m determining that the crime may not have occurred had the circumstances been different at one point or another, or that the crime is a once-in-a-lifetime event for this particular person based on personal history. Consensus-based reasoning happens all around us, and the results can’t be too bad; the country hasn’t completely collapsed into anarchy.
Castigating one side or another for lacking moral guidance because they rely on consensus-based leadership is also not being very fair. In politics, things just happen, and you have to give or take or else nothing gets done. I could site an example such as Pres. Bush’s staunch opposition to campaign-finance reform during the 2000 campaign, then flip-flopping to make it into law. At the time, he said it was unconstitutional and that he would veto any measure in that regard if he were President. He then signs the Campaign Finance Reform bill into law when he’s President. Which style of leadership is that, consensus-based or dogmatic? The dogmatic statement was made, yet not carried through. Why not? Did he come to a consensus with members of Congress, maybe something to the tune of “if you give us Campaign Finance, we give you tax cuts”? I won’t say for certain that scenario happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if it did.
The mark of a truly excellent leader is the ability to come to consensus, period. Making two disparate sides come together to get things done without making either side seem like a sacrificial lamb or making them sacrifice on their core values is a truly remarkable thing. It’s not impossible either, it’s just difficult. All it takes is making it a priority. Sadly, that’s sorely and completely lacking amongst the Republican, Democrat, liberal, or conservative leadership in the country.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:02 pm
If it’s a place where the right thing to do is an unproven opinion, consensus leadership is definitely the way to go.
If it’s a place where the right thing is a moral absolute, we must stand our ground and do nothing but the right.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:52 pm
What, then is right? What is a moral absolute? Is it right or wrong for me to kill someone? Is it right or wrong for me to lie? Is it right or wrong to wage war? Answering dogmatically about either issue, e.g. “yes” or “no”, oversimplifies the complexities of life, the universe, it’s inhabitants, and relations therein.
Life is neither simple nor binary. Understanding how to deal with people, countries, and politics is neither simple nor binary. Asking 10 people a given question may get at least four or five different answers. Relativism, as the primary component of consensus-based leadership, means seeking solutions while accommodating opposing sides as much as possible. It means getting the majority of those 10 people to agree or disagree that Idea X is good or bad, for example, while protecting the minority form being sent away into exile for thinking otherwise. Relativism is an important component for success in any deliberations concerning life and decisions that affect it. Failing to have that concept proves a lack of reasoning ability and compassion.
Exhibiting relativism, or seeking consensus, isn’t a moral failing, as you have alluded to. If anything, relativism is a reflection of the strength of one’s moral compass. It shows that a level of thought, compassion, and reasoning went into a given decision, in the hopes of lessening the impact of that decision on the population at large as much as possible. Relativism and consensus-based leadership shouldn’t be confused with lack of focus or indecision. Those concepts are more a lack of leadership ability in general. Relativism means maintaining focus or ideals, but adjusting the path to get to those ideals as outside influences, both pro and con, dictate.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:15 pm
The Bible is the absolute moral authority.
–
Please note that I do not advocate leadership that doesn’t seek advice and get other perspectives on absolute moral issues.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
You first state “The Bible is the absolute moral authority.” Then you seem to recant to a degree and state “Please note that I do not advocate leadership that doesn’t seek advice and get other perspectives on absolute moral issues.” That smacks of relativism to me, the basis of consensus. I’m not saying that as a “gotcha”. Rather, it just seems to make the issue murkier when stated as such. Simpletons such as myself don’t need things to be any more murky in such philosophical discussions.
irst want the Bible to be the authority but then you want leaders that seek advice and get other perspectives. Which one holds more value, dogmatically adhering to one ideology, no matter what, or seeking advice and consensus to govern equitably?
Can the two concepts co-exist, where the Bible is a source of authority, but not the source of authority? God gave humans the gifts of free will, and thought. Since these are gifts from God, it is our duty to use those to their fullest potential. Confining our thinking to one ideology to explain or justify every human situation that can occur, without ever considering other perspectives, makes little use of the gifts of thought and free will. In turn, that belittles God.
People considered the enemies of the U.S. use any number of religious texts other than the Bible as the source for their political ideology, in particular hatred of us and what we do. By saying that the Bible is our source for authority, we no longer can state that we are somehow better than they are; we too have distilled our ruling philosophy down to a set of inflexible rules, much like they have.
Better would be to consider as many viewpoints as possible without causing too much gridlock. Saying one book is our source doesn’t do that at all. it merely follows the path of those who would do us harm for whatever reason. I fear though, that stating it as such will be taken as an affront to the Bible, which it shouldn’t be. It’s a statement merely pointing out how others have claimed one book or ideology as the source for their authority. By our doing the same, except for exchanging one text or ideology for another, we are no better than they are.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Regarding your first three paragraphs: While there are absolute moral principles as laid out in the Bible, there are obviously differences in interpertation. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have perfectly interperted the Bible. The Bible says, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety.” I am advocating seeking counsel in interpetation of the Bible. I am not advocating the acceptance of alternative definitions of morality (such as the Koran, humanistic thought, etc).
Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.” Either he was right and he was the Son of God or he was a repugnant liar. Like you said, you can’t have the Bible as a source, it must be the source.
The problem is not the oneness of the source, but rather the violence against innocents and the violent dogmaticism of the source. (Please note that while Christianity advocates dogmaticism, it never advocates violent or forceful dogmaticism. You can’t force someone to believe a religion.)
Along the same line of reasoning, I advocate that we all stop breathing, because that “merely follows the path of those who would do us harm for whatever reason.”
This is the misunderstanding that the moral relativists of the “many roads” ideology have. The texts are not interchangeable. Islam will not get you to heaven or forgive your sins. Hinduism won’t and Buddhism won’t.
The problem with the Koran is not sole belief in the Koran, it is rather the Koran’s content: Not inspired by God. Advocates violence against innocents. Violently dogmatic.
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
we’ve then entered the world of relativism, “moral relativism even, a cornerstone for consensus-based leadership. Dogmatic leadership cannot work with such flexibility, by your definition of it in the first post of this thread.
Christianity is also violently dogmatic. Saying someone will forever suffer intolerable pain not necessarily because of what they did 9in other words, innocent) but what they didn’t do (accept Christ) is cynical at the least, and hopelessly pessimistic and violent-prone (throwing people into the fires of Hell isn’t exactly pacifism) at the worst. People were sent to the Gulag to work in the salt-mines because they didn’t follow the dogmatic doctrine of the Soviet Union at one point in human history; I see little difference between that and some of the ideas in the Bible stated previously. It’s also little different than what the Koran says about “non-believers”.
We’ve come to an impasse, as I thought it would. I never set out to “convert” you one way or the other. You made a set of statements that I found interesting, and I offered counterpoints to them. I hope you find my counterpoints worthwhile, and at least thought about them instead of dismissing them as mere rantings of a “moral relativist”, i like that term because it explains the intricately delicate thought and reasoning needed to navigate a complicated world. I admire your efforts to at least think about topics like this. I don’t agree with your assertions or your support for them, such as it was, but I respect that you at least have them.
Once again, thank you for your time, opportunity to comment, and space.
November 4th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Not at all. There is an absolute moral standard. However, as long as we seek to abide by that absolute standard, there will be differences in interpertation of that absolute standard.
Moral relativism, on the other hand, has no absolute standard: if everyone felt cannibalism and anarchy was ok, then there is no absolute moral standard that says that is wrong.
Basically what I am saying is this: There is an absolute moral standard, whether people acknowledge it or not. On some of the not so clearly defined issues in the absolute moral code (the Bible), I am willing to cut slack as long as the reasoning plausibly fits within the framework of that absolute moral code.
There is a humongous difference between peaceably giving one’s own self up to die without resistance and going around with suicide vests strapped on. They are not even the same thing.
Revelations doesn’t so much espouse violence, as predict it. It also doesn’t advocate humans to kill humans. There’s a big difference between advocating that humans kill humans and prophecying that supernatural beings (God and angels) will kill humans in righteous judgement. If our scenario is correct and God created us, surely you would agree that he has the right to take that life away from us again, right?
The difference is, it’s not humans doing the violence.
Violence is not the difference, per se. It’s advocating that humans engage in violence. If God does it, well, like I said earlier: if God created us, surely you would agree that he has the right to take that life away from us again, right? If everything we are (including our very existence) is provided by God, then our moral context is provided by God, and it would be pretty arrogant to tell him that he’s not allowed to commit violence, eh?
November 4th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
These then, are some of the problems I have with dogmatic followings. And while I said I would be done, I find myself drawn back to the conversation. I’m not trying to be spiteful at all, even though I’m certain my tone of writing reads to the contrary. I’m genuinely interested in how you think about these issues, Mr. Mast. I try to consider other folks writing thoughtfully, and I find such exercises in logic and discussion good for the brain and soul. Thanks again for the opportunities.
November 5th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Not sure what happened to this portion; some of it got whacked up when I copy-pasted; user error completely on my part. Here’s what it *should* have stated:
November 6th, 2005 at 9:28 am
You gotta be kidding! The difference between a Christian and a suicide bomber is that in the case of a Christian’s death, you as a bystander are perfectly ok. In the case of the suicide bomber, you as a bystander are dead – or worse, hamburger for life.
Very little difference, indeed. Snort.
November 6th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
No, I’m not kidding. What’s the difference between them, sans the magnitude of destruction? Destroying God is destroying God is it not, since humans are made in his image? Does one life have more worth than 50? Do 50 lives have more worth than one? If you answer “yes” to either, then dogmatic decision making has occurred. By the irateness of the response, you don’t seem to be comfortable answering “yes” or “no” to such questions. This is one problem of many with dogmatic following or decision making.
All of the Earth and Heavens are God’s creations, some in his own image even, according to the Bible and the Koran, are they not? Is any level of destruction to God’s creations permitted, for whatever reason or benefit? Or is any destruction of God’s creations, despite the benefits or reasons, disallowed? If the answer to this last question is “yes”, then we stumble back into that “relativity” and “interpretation” thing again, e.g. some things are inherently more valuable than others. Assigning such values is an exercise in relativity, which in turn leads itself to being an exercise in consensus-based decision making, since relativity is a key component of it. Is some destruction of God’s creations tolerable, for one reason or another? Answering yes leads one directly into relativity.
In the case of the high and mighty “morality” of Christianity, Islam and other violent-prone religious thought, some deaths are “morally cheaper” than others, e.g. the deaths of non-believers over believers. That tells me that those schools of thought find some destruction of God’s creations quite tolerable, and that some of his creations are worth more than others. Wow, how “compassionate” of those schools of thought, to assign a RELATIVE value to God’s creations. Following such actions, the assignment of value to God’s creations, an exercise in relative thought, but saying you’re a “dogmatic” person is hypocritical at best…snort, harrumph, tsk, hiss…
November 6th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
User-error, yet again. Man, I need a new mouse and keyboard. That whole paragraph should read as:
November 8th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
You are purposely (or maybe not purposely) misunderstanding the meaning of the phrases “absolute morals” and “relative morals”. “Relative morals” means that there is no constant and absolute authority that governs moral behavior. “Absolute morals” does not mean that there are not different scenarios addressed within that absolute moral code. Absolute is absolute in the sense that it is a single, never-changing moral code. It is not absolute in the sense that it addresses only a single scenario; it addresses a wide range of scenarios.
I will refer to the above paragraph as the Absolute-Relative misunderstanding. You continue on that mistaken premise with much of what you say, so I’ll need to refer back to this.
Just because humans are made in the image of God does not mean the humans are God. Just because twins are nearly identical does not mean that if one of the twins murders somebody that the other twin is culpable. They are made in the image of God which means that they were made so that they shared some of the characteristics of God. (I’ll refer to this as the “image of God misunderstanding”.)
One of the main ways in which we are made in the image of God is choice. We can choose to obey him (good) or disobey him (evil).
Suicide is wrong. Giving yourself up to die is not suicide.
Would you say that a crimnal who is wanted for a capital offense, when he turns himself into the police, is committing suicide? Of course not.
When people are coming after you to kill you, letting them kill you without resistance is in no way suicide.
See image of God misunderstanding.
Far fetched is right. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “created in the image of God”. Go take a look at the original Hebrew of that passage if you care to. (Though it seems plain enough in English.)
Yup.
Yes. Where did you get the idea that it is not? If such a statement were true, we could not chop down a tree for firewood and we couldn’t kill a cow for beef.
Not at all. See the Absolute-Relative misunderstanding.
While it does become relative in the sense that it is (as Dictionary.com puts it) “considered in comparison with something else”, there is still that underlying absolute moral code that assigns the different inherent values.
Islam may find the death of non-believers of less import than the death of believers, but Christianity does not.
Dogmaticism is not intrinsically tied to either moral relativism or moral absolutism. I know many moral relativists that are quite dogmatic. I know many moral absolutists who are dogmatic. I know some of both that are not dogmatic.
November 8th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
So now it’s “scenario driven” morals, is it? Some would say that a statement to that effect is venturing into moral relativism. Using “scenarios” to define an act as “moral” is a form of comparison, is it not? If you begin to compare two or more things with each other, you’re assigning a relative value to them, each value based on that comparison, correct? The mere act of comparing is relative; the goodness, badness, or value of one thing is measured in terms of the other. That’s a good thing, BTW, for it shows that circumstances, some if not all influenced by God, have some merit as to the goodness and badness of an action. Dogmatic thinking is “this is bad, period, no discussion, no matter what happened before, during, or after, because we said so” That’s a bad thing, BTW.
A dogmatic or absolute moral is “killing is bad”. A relative moral is “most killing is bad, but there are extenuating circumstances when some killing isn’t as bad”. The sole fact you even mention “scenarios” for what is moral and what isn’t shows signs of moral relativism, unless we confuse the issue even further and start talking about “absolute relativism” or “consensus-based dogma” or other concocted terms. So which is it? Which is the moral you follow: the “killing is bad” moral or the “most killing is bad but…” moral? If you even hint at the latter with your “scenario-driven” thinking, that’s a sign of moral relativism.
What exactly does “image of God” mean then? Here’s my progression, based on some religious readings and personal observations: Man has the power to create and destroy, does he not? Who made the buildings we work in, roads we drive on, cars we drive in? Man did. Who made the children who populate the world today? Man did. Who was the first man according to the Bible? Adam. Who made that first man? God. If we’re all descendants of Adam, then we’re descendants of God, e.g. we “are” God. We have the ability to create, as God did, only on a much, much smaller scale. We also have the power to destroy, as God does, and the scale isn’t that much smaller at times unfortunately. Granted all that man-made creation and destruction are from the “blessing” of God, but they are creation and destruction by man, thereby an extension of God, nonetheless. If God is “within all things” as most religious texts state, then killing a human or picking a tomato and eating it is killing or destroying God. It then depends on a matter of magnitude, and therein lies the questions I ask. Does one life or “thing” have “more God” than another, or a group of them? Is it okay to destroy some of God but not others? If those are true, then those, too, venture into moral relativism in no small degree. A dogmatic approach is “killing or destroying God is bad because we said so.” Again, the scenario driven morals you state don’t come anywhere near that piece of dogma.
Who’s confused? I’m not, at least not what “dogmatic”, “absolute” and “moral relativism” mean. I’ve stated relevant bits of my moral relativism. I’ve defined and defended my terms. What is this all uniting, ever truthful, dogmatically followed, absolute moral standard you speak of?
Leave a Comment