Welcome, Statler & Waldorf
One of the most helpful insights Jordan Peterson has brought to the fore of conversation is the importance of the disagreeable personality. It’s not that, in and of itself, there is a kind of virtue in being surly. There isn’t. The great benefit is in the virtuous aspects of a personality that ordinarily houses disagreeability. These people tend to have a low view of public opinion and, in an age of homogenizing social networks, unfriending haters, blocking high-maintenance friendships, and canceling anyone who disagrees with you, cultivating relationships with offensive personalities is often the last thing on people’s minds. The Church is no exception, despite the Bible’s clear teaching that members of the body vary as to purpose and identity.
Another way of saying agreeable personality might be people-pleaser. In this light, it’s easy to make a bee-line for what the Bible says on the issue. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul directly contrast people-pleasing with being a Christian?
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. - Galatians 1:10
A disagreeable personality is often willing to contradict group-think. He or she will often be willing stand in opposition to a crowd. Historically, these are the kinds of people who either save civilizations or at least make something other than tyranny seem like a genuine possibility. They are Orwellian heroes.
Christians need to reinterpret the value of these kinds of voices in the congregation. To be sure, God flatly condemns division and discord. A person who sows division is to be warned twice and then rejected (Titus 3:10). Discord focuses more on setting people against each other, while a disagreeable temper is more about not being easily persuaded to join the crowd. The difference is significant. There is value in having critical voices, even ones that exist in-house. Discord is to be systematically exposed as an abomination.
One way in which God uses these curmudgeons is to function as a kind of checks and balances for group think. Another way in which these voices may be used by God is as a barometer by which God’s own perspective can be seen. When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). If a voice is consistently contrary, this same voice all of a sudden going sympathetic may be sign of things being very right. Sometimes the criticism is there to function as an alternative hermeneutic by which reality may be interpreted. There will always be false prophets who say, “Peace. Peace,” when there is no peace. The presence of a Jeremiah, or a Nehemiah, or any other of the prophets who had disagreeable personalities when needed, offers the alternative view of reality that stands in direct opposition to the widely held optimistic public opinion.
This is how David treats many of the critical voices that are not necessarily sowers of discord but are peevish individuals offering scathing rebukes, whether they are right or wrong. It is not only Nathan’s harsh words that are received as having been sent from God. Remember his encounter with Shimei when he was fleeing Absalom? Shimei is cursing him and mocking him and David assumes the man to be sent from God. After all, reality corresponds more directly with Shimei’s words than it does the encouragement of his entourage:
And David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “Behold, my own son seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Leave him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look on the wrong done to me, and that the Lord will repay me with good for his cursing today.” So David and his men went on the road, while Shimei went along on the hillside opposite him and cursed as he went and threw stones at him and flung dust. - 2nd Samuel 16:11-13
The other thing that adds weight to the disagreeable personality is the clarity of position functioning as a resolute marker. You know where these people stand. This can be extremely helpful in a day like ours in which niceness is next to godliness and being offensive is punishable by death.
In addition, when people are looking for a leader to follow, the disagreeable voice will often sound out clearly above the murmuring of polite dinner conversation. Take any controversial subject as an example. It is normal for most people to have enough social wherewithal to recognize whether or not a subject will incite argument. When it does, the inclination is most often to tread lightly. This is stock thinking and it is understandable. However, when someone is looking for guidance on how to think about an issue, diplomacy and people-pleasing can be a hindrance not a help.
Everyone had a Civics teacher who refused to let on to what he personally thought about any of the issues being discussed in class. In his mind, due to the influential power he held as a teacher, he was creating an objective rather than a subjective climate in the classroom. In the end, none of the students liked him, nor did they understand the subjects well. If I’m going to learn how to think critically about trans-humanism, I will most likely learn from the people speaking most clearly about it. A firm and resolute pillar can either be used by someone as an aid to pull themselves onto the shore or as a resistance for others to push themselves from it.
The third and final thing is that a voice of criticism often functions as an antidote to becoming an echo chamber. This is helpful since centripetal momentum is the natural direction of the flesh. Every congregation is tempted to trend inward. We, as people, migrate towards the similar. Churches tend to attract people who are like the culture of the already established core. This does not accurately represent the universal Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, and so it will require purposefulness to work against this. In these contexts, notice whose voice does not generally fit in with the group and be very careful in your assessment of why that is. Perhaps this is the voice of a nay-sayer who is only interested in shooting down good ideas. Perhaps it is a man who will never be satisfied until he is running the show. But, perhaps this is the voice of a minority opinion and listening to him or her may keep you from having the fence unnecessarily moved into a tighter circle.
It is hard to receive criticism. I’ve never enjoyed it; but if we are willing to allow minority voices to be heard, to even slow down progress, or to cast a net wider than most of us think it needs to be cast, we may find that we have not only preserved a unity that houses a greater complexity, but we may even find that we are fuller and richer for it. The more Trinitarian a congregation can be, the better.
Scripture says that an enemy is someone who tells you what you want to hear, even when it’s not the truth (Galatians 4:16). Oscar Wilde said that a friend is someone who stabs you in the front. We should plan on welcoming the disagreeable personality into the Church as an essential member of the body. God forbid, but if the Church ever strayed so far into a desire for contextualization and relevance that she abandoned the hard truths of Scripture, the voices of these in-house critics would prove to be invaluable.
