“Leaders use their authority to accuse.” This general statement is a condensation of a sentence I read about particular leaders. At question is whether such a generalization can stand on its own, given our desire to have a hero tucked away in a leadership position who will, one day, take up our cause and shepherd it into being the cause for all.
There is a sense, here, of Leadership being a proactive state. Leaders gather information from experts and their gut. Such gathered data is enacted through public mechanisms of policy, treasure, and enforcement. If only my good heart had these resources! Could Heaven on Earth be far behind? Obviously, not.
Were we to tar all leaders with this brush, we would not be able to look back and be grateful that helpful decisions were sometimes made.
In stories like those about Jesus, we can see both religious and governmental leaders working in cahoots to accuse both one and many. Eventually, this led directly to the death of one and many. This is not what the storytellers desired to have been the outcome. They claim Jesus would have been a different leader than Herod or Pilate – both of whom are portrayed as sympathizing with Baptizer John or Prophet Jesus. In both cases, they put their leadership in the service of the loudest accusers. Their accumulated moral injury could do no other.
I tend to agree with the opening accusation of this jotting. Unfortunately, I also tend to agree with this reformulation – “Storytellers use their authority to accuse.”
We each carry an authority of some weight. Leaders, Storytellers, and each one of us needs the old button, “Question Authority.” Note: this button need not generically accuse all leaders and storytellers or leave everything at loose ends by calling everything into question, but asks if there is a better option than decision-making through accusation, counter-accusation, or acceding to accusation.