Charlotte, NC 2011: What shall it take? Somehow, the greatness of loyalty and the venom of favoritism must be kept apart in order to preserve the good. Perhaps this razor wire will keep favoritism from sneaking into loyalty’s territory.

From Trent Ling:

Somehow, though only four possible combinations exist, the masses and the heroes seem largely unable to effectuate the short title of this writing in order to generate a proper, working model for the elements of loyalty and favoritism.  The options:

Be loyal and show favoritism

Be loyal but do not show favoritism

Be disloyal and show favoritism

Be disloyal and do not show favoritism

So, what do the Scriptures say?  Job ambitiously and rightly called for the loyal devotion of friends even in egregious circumstances (Job 6:14), and the apostle Paul impressively wrote confidently and boldly to his loyal friend in the faith (Philippians 4:3).  So, loyalty stands as a Scripturally noble aspiration and imperative.  Meantime, there simply is no favoritism with God (Ephesians 6:9).  So, as tempting as it may be, favoritism remains a no-fly zone according to the Bible.  Thus, of the four possibilities outlined above, the only winning combination is:

Be loyal but do not show favoritism!

In my childhood neighborhood, there was a mother perpetually in denial over the notion that her son ever did anything wrong.  She simply rebuffed any and all such suggestions regardless of the overwhelming evidence and testimony of credible eyewitness.  Never would she willingly hear of it.  It exhibited a clear case of good loyalty being utterly ruined by favoritism.  The results aggregated into an endless series of eventual tragedies.  Alternatively, she could have and should have easily stated something along these appropriate lines:  “I am fiercely loyal to my little pumpkin, and he has messed up royally.  I am sorry.  He needs to be sorry, too. He will be making this right, learning some great lessons, and becoming much more than he is today.  In any case, I will remain his biggest fan forever, even if we all end up over the edge.  But, in such case may we pay for it, and not anybody else.”

Similarly, and even more surprisingly, Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewksi has been weighing in to say how poorly Penn State handled its firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno over the scandalous crimes against children perpetrated by assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, which Paterno astoundingly appears to have chosen to overlook.  Coach K readily shares how he has long admired Paterno, and how they got to know each other rather well in Paterno’s last year of life.  While Coach K should offer his loyalty, he  simply cannot offer his favoritism.  Ruinously, he offers both, just like the neighborhood mom run amok.  Paterno remained steadfastly mums-the-word as to what he knew, when he knew it, and about how in the world Sandusky ran child-ruining operations amidst the college football program.  Finally, Paterno begrudgingly assented to retiring (on his own terms) at season’s end, but Penn State had no choice but to fire him as the horror story continued to unfold completely out of control.  This has become the most toxic situation in sports memory.  Why would Coach K even chime in?  Favoritism, plain and simple!  Favoritism changes rules, evidence, and standards to exonerate the guilty.  It should be regarded as nothing but poison for anybody, especially for those being “favored.”  While Coach K’s loyalty shines, his favoritism damages.  Like the neighborhood mom, Coach K should have said something along these lines:  “I love JoPa; I think he’s a great man, and I am here for him if he wants or needs me.  He has some answering to do.  He cannot lead young men for over 60 years only to go dark and quiet at this tragically late hour.  We leaders must lead, regardless of the risks or costs to us.  We shall never be the ones who count.”

Earlier this year, President Obama’s treatment of Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual advisor of 20 years, became the subject of a Trent TV episode on this website.  Obama’s actions demonstrated neither loyalty nor favoritism.  Can nobody get this right?

How complicated is it to navigate the four possible scenarios outlined at the top of this letter?  Not tricky at all, really.  It simply calls for clarity and will.  First, remain loyal wherever warranted and possible.  Thereafter, do not destroy the loyalty with favoritism.  This simple formula, rooted in and backed by the Scriptures, cannot lose.  And yet it seems to have most flailing about, unsure as to whom to be, how to act, and what to say.

Set a rare yet necessary example:  rescue the world by loyally setting it straight.

Please feel free to join and further the discussion via the options below.  No email or website information is required to post comments (unless you seek the notifications offered).