The great leader never feels it is us versus them. He or she is for everybody. To be for one interest group is never to be against another. To be for those without power is surely not to be against those with power.
Provincialism occurs frequently in personal situations of conflict We hear the tale of two of our friends. One seems to be the victim. One seems to be right, the other wrong, and we easily withdraw empathy from the "villain."
Suppose our assessment of the situation is accurate, although this may be highly questionable. The villain of this moment is the victim of an earlier moment. Because I'm deeply for one, why should I be against the other? Why can't I be deeply for both? If I am absolutely unyielding in my attitude favoring one over the other, I am diminishing the freedom of attitude on the part of other people. In so doing I am limiting my capacity for leadership.
I can find ultimate meaning in my call and in that of which I am a part—and at the same time enhance other facets of the whole to which I belong. I will never hurt the particular that I'm called to by being a part of the whole and enhancing the whole. What I need for my particular will always flow back to me if I am giving myself to the whole.
We must do nothing that in any way diminishes another.
Excerpt from N. Gordon Cosby's book, By Grace Transformed.
What do you make of the idea that "the villain of this moment is the victim of an earlier moment" - that seeing someone's wrongdoing might actually be an invitation to widen our compassion rather than withdraw it? Can you share a personal story of a time when you found yourself holding space for both sides in a conflict? What helps you stay connected to the wholeness of a situation when everything in you wants to label someone as right or wrong, hero or villain?