Disagreeing Wisely
In previous posts about cultural issues in general and transgender pronouns in particular, I have addressed ways in which Christians can conscientiously object to policies that would cause them to sin. This will undoubtedly lead to conflicts in the workplace between Christians objecting to these policies and their leaders who are charged with enforcing them, which brings up a leadership topic that is not often discussed but definitely important: followership. Every leader is a follower, but not all followers are leaders, so it is just as important (if not more important) to know how to be a good follower as a good leader.
Followership
So what is a good follower? We often associate good followership with blind obedience or unquestioning agreement, but these are actually not traits of effective followers. Instead, Robert Kelley said that effective followers “think for themselves and carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness. Because they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers, they get consistently high ratings from peers and many superiors….Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership”.[1] He goes on to describe the qualities of effective followers: self-management, commitment to the organization and to purposes outside of themselves, ever-increasing competence, effective focus of effort, courage, honesty, and credibility.[2] For Christians, this aligns with commands for servants to respect their leaders while working heartily as ultimately working for God (Ephesians 6:5-8). Its proactive nature and sense of greater underlying purpose also fit well with my definition of submission based on Philippians 2:3-4 from my leadership paper: “choosing to live sacrificially by putting the needs of others and their ultimate good ahead of ourselves motivated by a healthy fear of God and following the example of Christ”. This means that good followers develop a reputation of trustworthiness, diligence, and competence such that when they disagree with their leaders, those leaders are willing not only to listen to them but even take certain risks in order to accommodate them. Therefore, Christian workers should endeavor to build just such a reputation before conscientiously objecting to policies.
With this reputation, a good follower can also strongly yet respectfully disagree with their leaders. This needs to happen behind closed doors before a decision is made. The follower makes the case to the leader why a different course of action would be better and the two can debate it. Since these discussions can get passionate, the military term to describe them is “cussing and discussing”. This term does not necessitate the use of foul language—which the Christian is forbidden from using (Ephesians 4:29)—but speaks to how a leader and follower can passionately disagree about what is best for the organization and debate the topic in a heated manner while still maintaining respect for each other. At the end, the leader makes the decision then the two exit the room on the same page. If the leader ends up still deciding to follow the course of action the follower opposed, a good follower will own that decision and work hard to make it successful. Regardless of the outcome, the private nature of the discussion means that the two can disagree and resolve that disagreement without undermining the reputation of either in the eyes of others. However, this only applies when the leader’s decision does not cause the Christian follower to do something unethical. If a prospective leadership decision would cause a Christian to sin, the Christian follower must find a way to avoid sin while still obeying the leader. It is to this challenge we now turn.
Daniel as an Effective Follower
A wonderful example of this is found throughout the life of the prophet Daniel. Taken from Jerusalem as a teenager, he was forced to serve the kings of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires. This he and his friends did with such distinction that they became trusted advisers and thus some of the most influential men in the world at the time. Throughout this time, they also had to confront the most powerful men in the world at the time. His friends had to confront Nebuchadnezzar’s self-absorbed idolatry by refusing to worship his statue (chapter 3). Daniel then had to tell Nebuchadnezzar that he would be humiliated by God as a punishment for his pride and self-confidence (chapter 4). He also had to declare impending doom to Belshazzar by interpreting the writing on the wall (chapter 5) before refusing to commit idolatry by praying to Darius (chapter 6). In all of this, he had such a reputation for impeccable character that his enemies literally had to invent an unethical law in an attempt to bring him down. This makes him perhaps the best merely human example of being above reproach that we see in Scripture. All Christians should seek to emulate his example such that if our enemies want to dig up dirt on us, they will need to provide that dirt themselves.
Daniel and his friends developed this reputation from the beginning of their time in Babylon, giving us an excellent example of how to conscientiously object well with their refusal to eat the king’s food. With all of the remarkable stories and prophecies recorded in Daniel, the story of the “Daniel diet” in Daniel 1:8-16 appears unremarkable, but this amazing event would set the tone for his entire seventy years of service while teaching us how to maintain obedience to God while serving our secular bosses well. From Daniel 1:3-7, we learn that Daniel and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the Jewish youths taken from Jerusalem to Babylon to serve in the royal court. This began with three years of indoctrination in the Babylonian language, literature, culture, practices, and religion to turn them from Jews to Babylonians ready for service. Part of this process was changing their names from names that reflected their devotion to the God of Israel to names that honored the false gods of Babylon: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.[3] It also entailed a change from the diet required in the Law to eating food forbidden by the Law. It was to this that Daniel objected, since obedience to the authorities over him in eating the food provided would have meant disobeying God. So Daniel went to the chief of the eunuchs who was over him and asked not to eat the food and drink the wine provided but to keep a diet of vegetables and water that would obey the Law. After Daniel and his friends successfully tested this diet for ten days, they were allowed to continue it indefinitely. Thus, they successfully objected to a policy that would have forced them to sin without any negative impact on their careers. We can take several lessons from this.
Lesson 1: Develop a Reputation for Trustworthiness and Excellence
Successful conscientious objection is greatly aided by a good reputation. Daniel clearly established a reputation for both character and excellence early, which bought him an audience with the chief of the eunuchs. There is no telling how many boys were part of this program, but it was likely enough that someone of less reputation would have been ignored or punished. No doubt some level of attrition was expected in this program, meaning that without that reputation Daniel could have easily been removed. It was at least partially due to his good reputation that the chief of the eunuchs was willing not only to listen to him but also to allow his alternate diet. Daniel and his friends had clearly established a good reputation as both honorable and competent young men such that their removal would have been detrimental to the program, meaning the chief of the eunuchs had a vested interest in listening to them and even accommodating them. When we conscientiously object, we should have established a reputation such that our leaders are willing to do what they can to accommodate us and even fight for us to their superiors if necessary. Without such a reputation, it will be much easier for our leaders to either ignore us or fire us for our objections since they wouldn’t have a vested interest in keeping us.
Lesson 2: Choose Your Battles
Just as the boy who cried wolf was not taken seriously when the actual wolf arrived, so conscientiously objecting Christians will not be taken seriously if they develop a reputation of objecting to nearly everything. It is easy to focus on what Daniel objected to while forgetting what he did not object to. First and foremost, his name was changed from one honoring God to one honoring pagan gods, which he could have objected to on the basis of the probation of idolatry, but he did not. Instead, it appears he found a workaround by using both his given and new names, as he is referred to several times in the book by both names together (Daniel 2:26, 4:8, 4:19, 5:12, 10:1). He was thus able to use the new name while still ensuring it was clear that he retained his identity as a worshipper of the One True God. Even if he was not able to use both names, there was no law forbidding someone being called by such names, only against practicing the idolatry that often accompanied them. Thus, he was able to use the new name without sinning. On those same grounds, he could have objected to learning the language, culture, and literature of Babylon, which undoubtedly including its mythology of false gods, but he did not, likely reasoning that he could learn them without adopting sinful aspects of them. Instead, it was only the diet to which he objected, since he could not adopt this diet without sinning.
This means that Christians should only object to policies and practices that would force them to sin. This obviously begins with direct violations of God’s Law. While the dietary laws are part of the ceremonial law and thus no longer binding on Christians, we can find numerous examples of policies and practices that would force us to violate the moral law that is still just as applicable today as it was then. Modern examples would include mandatory support for Pride Month activities that celebrate homosexuality, required use of pronouns clearly inconsistent with biology, compulsory performance or support of abortion or “gender affirming care”, and required allegiance to anything or anyone above Christ. Additionally Christians are commanded to love their neighbors, which means doing them no wrong (Romans 13:10), so we should object to policies or practices that would force us to harm others in ways that God has not explicitly allowed. There is Scriptural precedent for justified use of military force, the administration of justice, and medical procedures that harm for the purpose of healing, but other forms of harm (such as cheating people, lying, taking bribes, and promoting addictive or harmful behavior) are prohibited for Christians. This means that we should not object due to personal preference, political disagreement, inconvenience, or fears that a course of action that is still ethical would be suboptimal. The point is that, like Daniel, we need to restrict our objections to that which is actually sin. Before the decision is made or policy put in place, we can and should respectfully voice our disagreement and argue that the decision or policy not be made. But once the decision or policy is in place, if it is of the latter category we have no conscientious ground upon which to object to it since obedience would not be sin, but if it is an issue of sin we have an obligation to object to it.
Lesson 3: Begin with Prayer and Counsel
When faced with a situation in which you may need to conscientiously object, it is important to approach it with substantial prayer and consideration, including seeking counsel from other believers. While the situation likely confronted Daniel immediately upon arriving in Babylon, that does not mean he did not have time to consider his response beforehand. There were obviously no direct flights from Jerusalem to Babylon at the time, so Daniel would have had time to consider his options on the long journey. It took Ezra four full months to make the journey in the opposite direction under what he described as favorable conditions (Ezra 7:8-9), so Daniel would have had at least that long to pray and ponder before the choice food and wine of Babylon became available and the issue presented itself. He would have also had opportunities to discuss it with his three friends and seek their counsel. When he went to the chief of the eunuchs, it is clear he was coming on behalf of his three friends as well, meaning that they had talked together and resolved together that they would have to conscientiously object to the food. They likely anticipated the various ways in which their faith would be challenged and determined where they could compromise without sin and where they could not. If the chief of the eunuchs in verse 3 is the same man Daniel spoke to in verse 8, he would have been with them for that entire journey as well, giving them an opportunity to build the aforementioned reputation with him that Daniel would leverage with his request. Similarly, we rarely have to address such situations immediately, so we usually have time to pray and seek counsel before we have to approach our leaders with the issue.
Lesson 4: Consider the Leader’s Perspective
When we do approach our leaders with conscientious objections, it is important to understand their perspective and the challenge our objection creates for them. We must remember that all leaders are responsible for enforcing the organization’s standards and policies, so our refusal to follow any policy has the potential to reflect poorly on them. This means that no matter how lovingly, winsomely, and respectfully we approach them with the issue, we are putting our leaders in a difficult position. This was certainly the case for Daniel. The chief of the eunuchs had been directed by the king himself to choose, educate, and prepare these boys for service in the royal court. A major factor in that was their physical condition (verse 4), which was threatened if they refused to eat the king’s food. It was likely by this point that Daniel and his three friends had already distinguished themselves above their peers, so if they as the star pupils were to appear before the king thin and sickly after the three-year program, the chief’s life would be at stake. Daniel likely understood this before making his request, but regardless the chief of the eunuchs makes it clear to him in verse 10: “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” The fact that he answered Daniel this way rather than responding harshly indicates that he trusted Daniel enough to be vulnerable with him, sharing his own fears and apprehensions. We should all endeavor to develop such trust so that our own leaders would be comfortable sharing their concerns and vulnerabilities openly with us in a similar manner. Our leaders are often under immense pressure, so they should see us as both trusted confidants and advocates.
Lesson 5: Offer the Leader Palatable Options
With the leader’s concerns in mind, we then need to offer options that would be acceptable to them. Very rarely do we need to flatly reject a policy without doing anything toward meeting the spirit of that policy. This means that rather than an attitude of outright refusal, we need to approach our leaders with proposed solutions. Daniel asked the chief of the eunuchs for an alternate diet rather than defiantly declaring a hunger strike. He also knew that asking the chief of the eunuchs to approve a permanent diet change would be too risky, so he proposed a ten-day test of it. This was much more palatable, allowing him to prove that the diet would not be detrimental to their health in a way that did not put the chief of the eunuchs at risk. If their test was unsuccessful, they would have nearly three years to regain their health, which was acceptable to the chief of the eunuchs. We should offer similar solutions when we must conscientiously object. In a previous post, I proposed to resolve a compulsion to vocalize support for Pride Month activities by vocalizing the need to respect all people while pointing to a calendar of cultural events in general. In another post, I recommended using preferred names and genderless titles rather than preferred pronouns and gendered titles when the latter clearly differs from biology. I’m sure that for both cases there are many other possible solutions as well. And while we are prohibited from facilitating or endorsing the sins of others, we are not required to prevent unbelievers from those sins or rebuke them, so we can often avoid sin through inaction, refraining from advocating for sin while also not interfering with those who partake in that sin. Christian liberty gives us immense flexibility in how we can specifically address such situations, allowing us to both obey God and respect those around us.
Lesson 6: Trust God with the Outcome
Finally, we must never forget that God is in control of the outcome. While Daniel’s reputation, demeanor, wisdom, and tact doubtless contributed significantly to his successful conscientious objection, verse 9 makes clear that it was ultimately God who brought that success: “God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs”. The fact that the experiment was a resounding success (verse 15) shows that it was also wrought by God. Since verse 15 describes them as not merely healthier but actually fatter than their counterparts who ate the rich royal food, we can conclude that this nourishment was at least partially divinely enacted. Such divine intervention is seen throughout the book of Daniel as these four men continue to rise through the Babylonian ranks despite (and in some cases because of) opposition to their God. Since God causes kings to do whatever He wills (Proverbs 21:1), we must trust God with the outcome of our objection. While Daniel and his friends suffered no major consequences for their refusal to eat the king’s food, not all of their objections were met with such favor. The only other objection of his friends recorded in the book is their refusal to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in chapter 3, which ended with them being thrown into the furnace and only surviving due to divine intervention. Similarly, Daniel’s refusal to pray to Darius in chapter 6 resulted in him being thrown into the lion’s den, from which he too was only spared by divine intervention. As remarkable as these stories are, we must never forget that these men did not know that they would be miraculously spared. When they chose to defy orders that would cause them to sin, they were trusting God and accepting whatever consequences would come. We must approach these situations—and every other circumstance in life—with similar faith in the sovereignty and goodness of God. God never promises that our objections to policies that would cause us to sin will have positive results. For every miraculous Daniel ending there are thousands if not millions of examples of Christians lovingly and respectfully defying sinful policies and suffering as a result. Instead of continued employment, we may have to resign. In the future, we may face situations in which fines, imprisonment, and even death are very real possibilities—just as our brothers and sisters in Christ are experiencing right now in other parts of the world. While Peter was miraculously rescued in Acts 12, James was executed, joining Stephen and the prophets who had died for obeying God in a sinful world. Many thousands of saints have joined them since then, along with most of the apostles, many early church Fathers, numerous Reformers, and a myriad of others known but to God. Additionally, millions more have suffered for their faith in various ways, all joining the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 11. So if we suffer for refusing to sin, we are in good company. We must say with Job, “though He slay me, I will put my hope in Him” (Job 13:15).
While it is certainly possible that conscientious objection will cost us dearly, I think we would be surprised how many times it does not. I am reminded of the story of a friend who as part of his job was faced with a situation in which he would have to knowing promote heresy. After prayer and consideration, he went to his supervisor, prepared to lose his job if needed. Instead, his supervisor helped him come up with a way to complete his duties in general without having to promote heresy. I think we will similarly find that when we humbly and respectfully object to such policies from an established reputation of trustworthiness and competence, more often than not we will be able to find favorable solutions. Regardless, God has promised to take care of His people, which includes enabling us to obey Him in any circumstance. He used the conscientious objections of Daniel and his friends to glorify Himself amongst pagan kings, and he will use us to glorify Himself to those around us.
Conclusions
God has called us to engage with culture rather than isolating ourselves from it, which means that we should expect that there will be times we have to conscientiously object to policies and practices that would cause us to sin. By following Daniel’s example for these interactions, we can positively impact our culture in the context that God has placed us in. Daniel did this on a grand scale, as Don Howell states: “Daniel engages the culture in which he lives rather than isolating himself from it…He serves with distinction for nearly seventy years in the upper echelons of secular, indeed idolatrous, governments. Yet he retains the cutting edge of his faith and so impacts the culture for God’s glory”.[4] While his example is extraordinary, all Christians are called to similarly engage with the fallen world into which God has placed us. That is how Christianity transforms culture: one interaction at a time. That influence is really what effective followership is about, and since leadership is influence, effective followership is simply leadership by another name. This means that as Christians, we are called to be effective followers both of Christ and of the secular authorities God has placed over us.
Notes:
[1] Robert E. Kelley, “In Praise of Followers”, Harvard Business Review 66 (November 1988): 143-144.
[2] Ibid, 144-146.
[3] Don N. Howell, Jr., Servants of the Servant: A Biblical Theology of Leadership, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers: 2003: 112-113.
[4] Ibid, 121.
