<\/p>\n
\u201cSomeone who has clarity about his or her own life goals\u2026,<\/p>\n
and therefore, be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing\u201d<\/p>\n
-Edwin H. Friedman-<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Being a leader who leads sincerely is not easier than being a leader who only wants to seek his own security. During my vicariate tenure for two years before my colleagues and I was ordained pastors in 2007, one of the pieces of advice that were emphasized by our mentors was the courage to speak the truth in conveying God’s word. If yes, say yes. If not say no. In a fiery idealism (and perhaps naivety too), I see that as standard advice that applies to any mentoring process to become a pastor. All pastors can practice this advice automatically and easily.<\/p>\n When I was ordained to be a pastor and assigned to serve the Congregation, I discovered the fact that putting into practice the advice I received during my vicariate period was not as easy as I had imagined. The challenge came when I had to be present to state the truth about unrighteous practices in the Congregation (I can’t mention it here) against certain people in the Congregation, especially people who have a strong influence on church members and the wider community. I am faced with a choice, keep stating what is right and that has the potential to make me unpopular, or on the other hand, I am compromising on untruth (although this is not aligned with my conscience) but I am still in a safe and popular position.<\/p>\n Edwin Friedman mentioned several characters that he encountered in families and institutions in the American context related to leadership: A regressive, counter-evolutionary trend, A devaluation of the process of individuation, An obsession with data and technique, A widespread misunderstanding about the relational nature of destructive processes in families and institutions.[1]<\/a> In such a life situation, Friedman emphasizes the importance of having a well-differentiated leader, someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals and is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about. Someone who can manage his or her own reactivity to the automatic reactivity of others, and therefore be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Taking a quiet and unpopular path is not what anyone likes, including a priest. The temptation of being famous and being in a position of security feels more promising but it will make the congregation experience dependence and pseudo-comfort. Many pastors gave up and chose to seek security and comfort. Therefore, I agree with Friedman, leaders have to be willing to face their own selves.[3]<\/a> A mature leader will be able to present himself to meet and serve people who have gone into an emotional regression that is toxic with characteristics such as Reactivity, Herding, Blame displacement, A quick-fix mentality, Lack of well-differentiated leadership.<\/p>\n A society that is dominated by anxiety with its various characteristics creates apathy, loss of hope, and depression that is so strong. If a priest is not sensitive to this, he will only burden the situation even more, the number of which is increasing day by day. This situation is very likely to harm a pastor. Therefore, Friedman reiterated that the single most important factor distinguishing those families that became hopelessly stuck or disintegrated into a crisis from those who recovered was the presence of a well-defined leader. By leader, he doesn’t mean someone who tells others what to do, but someone who can maintain the kind of non-anxious, well-principled leader presence.[4]<\/a> I remember a sentence in a movie called “Courageous”. The sentence reads like this: “You know, if fathers just did what they’re supposed to do half of the junk that we face on the streets wouldn’t exist.” That sentence wants to say that if fathers are \u00a0present and carry out their functions and roles properly, it will have a significant impact on reducing the number of criminals. There is a valuable lesson on how a leader should present himself and carry out his responsibilities to bring change in a good direction.<\/p>\n Some of the things he\/she conveyed related to efforts to become a reliable leader were the capacity to get outside the emotional climate of the day, willingness to be exposed and vulnerable, persistence in the face of resistance and downward rejection, stamina in the face of sabotage along with the way, being \u201cheadstrong\u201d and \u201cruthless\u201d.[5]<\/a> Friedman also asserts that a major difficulty in sustaining one’s mission is that others who start out with the same enthusiasm will come to lose their nerves. Mutiny and sabotage came not from enemies who opposed the initial idea, but rather from colleagues whose will be sapped by unexpected hardships along the way.[6]<\/a> But in God, there is nothing impossible. I can do all through Christ who strengthen me.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Edwin H. Friedman,\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>, New York: SEABURY BOOKS, 2007, 12-13.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Friedman, 13-14.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid, 21.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid, 89.<\/p>\n