How to Discern If a Church Member Is Guilty of Gossip
“First, realize people need to talk to process…. Second, gossip is defined more by intent than content…. Third, it’s the leader’s responsibility to provide clarity.” - Church Answers
- 147 views
This post worked better in my view, with three basic questions:
- Is it true?
- Is it necessary?
- Is it kind?
In ,my experience, most of the nastiest gossip simply fails test #1. It's just not something that someone can provide good evidence for. Then test #2 eliminates a lot more, and then you've got the hardest one to establish, whether it is kind--more or less whether it is an attempt to edify, or simply to tear someone down. Generally when it's not true, though, it's pretty clear that it's not edifying, either.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The Rainer article has a lot of wisdom in it, but the title doesn’t quite fit. It’s not really about ‘how to tell if…” It’s more like how leaders can better understand the dynamics of communication to prevent gossip and/or avoid misjudging it.
Rainer is absolutely right that decision making in church life is unavoidably messy and people need space to talk. I might emphasize more strongly that they need space to feel safe talking openly. Gossip requires sneakiness. You can’t do it in front of those it concerns, so you can’t do it in front of everyone.
But leaders also have a responsibility to be open and communicative about issues/problems/rumors so that gossip has less space to operate. Gossip is sneaky but it’s also about power. The gossip is the one in the know, the one who has the dirt. He or she uses it gain leverage, esteem, or do damage, or all the above. Open communication takes away the gossip’s power.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion