Feet of Clay

[kokopelle]

A LJ friend’s comments about a teacher’s integrity being compromised by a personal action prompted me to think about the nature of human teachers, gurus, guides and leaders. A very telling remark by my friend was “I'm glad that I only took the free seminars and didn't get too close to this teacher.” This prompted me to consider the connection between teachers, their teachings and their lives. It also got me thinking about non-human teachers, and if we hold them to similar rules.

My immediate response to the blog entry was:

“Teachers, mentors, and leaders have feet of clay. If the intentions are good but method is not, outcome is questionable. If human desires are active, outcome is questionable.

Probably the biggest question is: does their fallibility run contrary or void the message that the person was presenting? Can the message remain pure even as the human is not?”

Throughout that day I thought about this human state. I thought about the ministers that have been "caught" in behavior that was contrary to their public ministerial message. I thought about a more personal situation in which a teacher I very much respected was released from his duties because of improper behavior with a student. I desire to be a teacher. I thought about my own human frailties of lust, craving, selfishness, and desire. I thought about an old family story about my grandmother’s family turning away from the Episcopal Church because a single minister was improper in a property deal. There are so many ways to be human.

How are we to move forward in our beliefs with other humans as our teachers? Are there belief systems that can truly standalone from the human facilitators, or are we doomed, when people fail short, to throw out even the best systems because we too are human? Is it worth the "risk" of being human in the pursuit of teaching others?

I’ve previously postulated that the “Jesus is Lord” belief is promoted by people’s disenchantment with human leaders. Turn to the perfect god when humans fail. This does beg the question, are the non-human teachers so perfect? Can we fully trust the direction of other beings? Can we do so when invariably the expression of the non-human entities is channeled through humans? This brings me back to my original conundrum.

Questions and comments??? Thanks!

(x-posted to my personal blog)

Comments

[apocalypsegrrl.livejournal.com]

People are people and, damn are we fallible.

I actually used to get into a lot of fights with my Mom about this as a kid (and still some now). We'd disagree, she'd break out the "I'm your mother, you must obey" thing and I'd always answer with "So what? You're a person, you mess up too." As you can imagine, that kind of answer didn't really help matters. My mom could never understand why I didn't 'respect' her authority and I couldn't understand why she had to right all the time about everything just because she gave birth to me.

So yeah, teachers are people too. They do make mistakes, they do have dark little secrets.

However, I think that one in the position of being a teacher should be aware that they are being looked at as an example of their teachings and should conduct themselves with that in mind. Teaching peace while keeping strangled puppies in your backyard obviously kinda makes your message hard to swallow.

Can a message be separated from the person or people spreading it? Probably, but I think it's not common. I mean, would Christianity today be as powerful without the figure of Christ? Would the message of eternal, unconditional love be as alluring without a loving persona behind it? Would it be as powerful if Christ was proven to be a lush and violent gambler? I think the message and the teacher are most effective when they compliment each other, work together. When they don't - while they can certainly function independently- I think both are diminished.

Hope all that makes some kind of sense.

[r-monoxide.livejournal.com]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems like a lot of it boils down to being either an issue of abuse of power and thinking they're above the law or an issue of a disagreeable ethical system. In my case, it turns out that the teacher just seems to have an ethical system that I don't agree with. I just have no interest in getting any further in a tradition that allows the sort of behavior that is said to have happened.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

The abusively flirty gay is not an archetype I've run into before. Well, maybe I have via gay women. Additionally, I've never heard the term, "laughing up your sleeve". My new thing learned today!

The "coach" would seem to go in it's own subset of teacher. Intentionally a coach can push the person past their assumed limits, motivated by the assumption that the person would grow. The coach also can play some games to keep the person at a distance, but yet close enough to mold and shape. Colonel Hyrum Graff in the book "Ender's Game" is an example of such a person.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Good stuff for my future article on sexuality... his use of it as a tool (perhaps) and other people's (errant) perception of behavior. Just because he was gay didn't mean there wasn't the possibility that he didn't mind have a provocative relationship with women. I know of (mostly) straight women who enjoy a flirt with their lesbian counterparts. The need and enjoyment of attention stands outside of sexual orientation.

[franciscan.livejournal.com]

Sounds like he was more of a perpetrator than coach. Being a coach is no excuse for abusive behavior. It is too bad you had to experience what you did..

[lupini.livejournal.com]

We are each, at all times, both student and teacher. Some forget that.

I have often felt that a sign of maturity is understanding that one can still learn from a teacher in spite of whether one agrees with/likes/respects that teacher. Yes, I think the messages can be independent of the messenger.

I took an advanced course with one particular teacher. One of the exercises partnered us up with other students, and by the luck of the draw I got the person that most other students were avoiding. My initial thought was "Oh well, get through the exercise." However, it turned out to be a very meaningful experience, and she was able to teach me a *big* teaching/healing. This didn't, however, turn her into a different human being. She was still a flake--but the lesson found a way to be sure I learned it. And it may have been *more* powerful coming from such an unlikely direction.

[franciscan.livejournal.com]

If you set as your highest priority the well-being of the student, and have developed good boundaries, you should have no problem as a teacher.

Yes, teachers are human. The good ones will not teach if they can't do it in integrity.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of an older conversation we had on trust. I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I don't know what perfect is. But I can know what people are and trust them to be that, and learn from them.

So I've never needed to worship my teachers.

As for non-human teachers, their lesson plans (and perhaps their very existence, if you ask me) are prepared by humans. All is touched by flawed hands. So if we want to pretend that we have a perfect god's words or his son or his son's words... Why do we need perfection?

I need to go with Nietzsche here. We invent a Not-Us, a Perfect Other, in order to reject ourselves in the hopes we can better ourselves. We are temporary, He is eternal. We are flawed, incomplete, He is perfect, whole. We are bad, He is Good, and so on.

It's pretty, and it might be useful were it not for one thing--we never explain what perfection, eternity, wholeness, goodness, are. And He certainly doesn't, because He tells us to worship and obey Him but gives us human masters to worship and obey in His stead so what do we really get out of the deal? Seems a great confusion.

Why do we need a Not-Us to teach us? Why do we revere the alien in metaphysics and revile it in real life?

[greensh.livejournal.com]

"Why do we revere the alien in metaphysics and revile it in real life?"

I agree. This is where I broke with my Catholic upbringing. Having Jesus as the only way to touch a far-away God did not work for me. Now, right, wrong, or just ugly, I touch God more directly. In this place, I stand in wonderment as my fellow human beings offer undying (in theory) allegiance to a book who's statements are touched by the guiles of man. This is insanity to me. Oh well... I’d rather be insane on my own terms thank you!