A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered (Proverbs 17:27).

One of the most important lessons that I’ve learned about leadership (though it also applies to evangelism, apologetics, and relationships in general) is the importance of balance.  The Bible speaks out this principle beautifully in Ecclesiastes 7:18, where it says, "It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other.  The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."  But I also love the echoes of this thought in Proverbs 17:27 -- as it relates specifically to communication and emotion.  There it says, "A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered."

For me, these verses and this particular concept of balance is best illustrated by a ship at sea. You see, a ship never gets anywhere if it’s improperly balanced -- with all the ballast and all the power to either the port or the starboard side. If everything on the ship is stacked to one side, it’ll just go around in circles. Thus part of the job of the leader (or the captain) is to balance the ship, so that it can sail straight and actually get somewhere. Now, I don’t think this means that the "godly point of view" or sense of direction is always the split mid-point of every controversy. But I do think there’s something to be said for a leader helping to keep all the ship’s crew and cargo from bunching up on one side -- allowing for more stability and confidence in the ultimate heading that is determined. I absolutely believe it’s possible to maintain firm convictions but also hold them loosely enough (in certain settings) to allow for better dialogue and better self-realization.

This is kind of how I envision it: Pick a controversy, any controversy... say, Calvinism (predestination) versus Arminianism (free will). Typically, people will set themselves up at two opposite ends of a spectrum, like this:

So in such a situation, the trick in achieving a sense of balance is to broaden the spectrum and create a sense that maybe you’re not all that far apart from each other after all.

This is basically asking the question: "What is the extreme, unhealthy, imbalanced version of what I believe -- and how is my viewpoint different from that?" And then asking the question: "What is the extreme, unhealthy, imbalanced version of what my ‘opponent’ believes -- and how is his/her viewpoint different from that?" This is related to the classical "straw man" fallacy in logic -- with its critical distinction being that a "straw man" is also set up in one’s own camp.

At its essence, this is an exercise in looking one’s "opponent" in the eye and saying, "Listen, there are whackos out there who take what you’re saying to the extreme, and there are whackos out there who take what I’m saying to the extreme. See, we’re not as far apart from each other as it might initially seem." It’s important to follow this up with both parties saying to each other (though it usually takes one side starting off -- even though it might have the appearance of weakening one’s position!): "You know, I believe you’re a decent, reasonable person. I don’t think you’re some dangerous whacko. In fact, I respect you, and I’d like to think we could be friends, even if we don’t see 100% eye-to-eye."

From all my experience, this footing is essential to constructive dialogue and meaningful relationships. No one will respect a leader or a friend who’s not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Some Christians might say that this is "worldly thinking" or just a clever trick to win arguments. They might reference Romans 12:2 or 1 Corinthians 1-2 to say that we need to stand for our principles, no matter how at-odds those principles might be with what the rest of the world is saying.

Instead, I prefer to think of it as practicing the principles of Romans chapter 14. There, we are told to "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters (v. 1)... Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls (v. 4)... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way (v. 13)... Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of _________ (v. 19)." In Romans 14, the argument was about food, but I believe the same principles hold true for any kind of secondary issue or argument.

And even when it comes to talking about primary issues (matters that are absolutely not "disputable"), it’s still wise to not just shut someone down without trying to empathize with their point of view. Practicing such exercises in balanced leadership are, in a sense, carrying each other’s (intellectual) burdens (see Galatians 6:1-5). It’s bearing with the failings of the weak (see Romans 15:1). It’s being as shrewd as snakes in our interactions with others (Matthew 10:16). It’s wise, and it’s Biblical!

Balanced leadership is wise and Biblical... but it's not always easy. I've also learned through the years that in order to successfully achieve a good sense of balance, it can be helpful to learn how to develop a sense of detachment.

Detachment can sound like such a negative concept -- like a person who’s not in touch with her or her emotions, like a father who has distanced himself from his child, like someone who’s cold, methodical, and robotic... And yet, I’ve really come to see detachment as an essential leadership skill. Not so much on the personal level -- but more on the positional level.

What I mean is that so often, when conflict comes up in a leadership setting, it has way more to do with positional stuff than with personal stuff. I’ve often been criticized as a Christian, as an American, as an authority figure (pastor, group leader, supervisor)... But I’ve gotten myself into trouble when I’ve assumed these to be people’s issues with Eric D. Asp -- when in fact they have very little to do with me, personally, at all! Much more often, the difficulties have to do with the mistakes, sins, hurts, and dysfunctions of others than with the individuals who may actually be involved in the situation. For instance, if someone says to me, "You Christians are so darn narrow-minded and dogmatic. I hate Christians!" -- it can be tempting to feel like I’m being personally attacked. However, it could just be that this person is saying that she has had some bad experiences with Christians, or that she has noticed some points of friction with her own belief systems (more often than not, this is the case in these situations). If we respond out of defensiveness, hurt, or a stubborn insistence on winning people to our point of view, then we run the risk of simply making the situation worse. But if we can respond with a sense of detached care and curiosity, we can draw the other person out and build understanding.

The counter-balance to this, of course, is that we need to be careful not to blame-shift (in case there really is an issue in our own lives!). But we also do well to remember that it’s not all about us and making people accept us or like us! Experience has taught me that it’s usually more about people’s woundedness -- from parents, siblings, school teachers, church leaders, political figures, concepts, stereotypes, and misperceptions -- than it is about some particular argument at hand.

But, of course, you never really figure this out until you get into actual dialogue with someone. And you may never be able to get into actual dialogue with someone if you can't figure out how to position the issues in a balance way and how maintain a certain level of emotional detachment. I can imagine that some of these principles I'm outlining might be somewhat controversial -- but hey, I'm always willing to dialogue with you about it. :-)