Skip to main content

How did this word get such a bad reputation?

Clique [klik]
noun
a small, exclusive group of people; coterie 

Every time I hear this word in any form or fashion, it's always with distain.

I've often pondered the subject of why.  

I'm a compassionate person by nature and definitely don't harbor the "us four and no more" mentality when it comes to Christianity or church.  I believe it's important for us to welcome people with open arms.

At the same time, my heart tells me that there is sometimes an appropriate setting for a clique of sorts in certain settings of life. 

Are my husband and I not in a clique by literal definition being that we are an exclusive couple, not allowing another woman or man into the inner sanctum of our relationship?

Is my family of five not a "clique" when we go on a sacred family vacation together or have a family meeting, "just us five"?

Last night and for the better part of today my husband and I have been at a denominational leadership team meeting where only the team leaders and their spouses - an exclusive group -  were invited for this special time away together.  We are spending time together away from everyone else, and receiving special appreciation.  Are we a clique? If so, or if not, WHY?


Why do cliques get such a bad rap across the board?
When does an exclusive pairing or group become a bad thing?

In my experience of pastoring all these years something I have noticed is that when someone doesn't get a friendship with a "certain person" they want one with in the church they will make an accusation of cliques.  There may be plenty of inroads to a friendship within the church, just not the "certain one" that person wants.  Or, if someone wants to be "close friends" with the pastors, and it doesn't happen all of a sudden there is an accusation of cliques in the church even though there may many others available for this person, their interest was the pastors, or no one.


The fact that someone accuses of cliques doesn't mean there ARE cliques, however, it just means the person did not experience the mutual receptivity from one or two people they were particularly interested in.


I have also noticed that when a leadership team is really in unity and is moving things forward and others in the church may not like it, the naysayers just accuse the team of being a clique.  This is an easy accusation to throw around and it is easily "proven" by the accuser when others see the team hanging out/working together.

I strongly believe it's important to welcome and include others and at the same time I believe there is  an appropriate place for a close bond between a few friends.  In one dictionary definition I found, the definition of clique was simply this:  "circle."  

When does a circle of friends become something of reproach rather than blessing?

I'm really intrigued by the idea of how the word or idea of a clique became scornful. 

What do you think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What To Do First to Make a Profit

Today on Seth Godin's blog, he said:

It's tempting to decide to make a profit first, then invest in training, people, facilities, promotion, customer service and most of all, doing important work. In general, though, it goes the other way.
Yes, it does. If you are waiting to make a profit before you do these things, in my experience you're  not going to make a profit. So many organizations, ministries and churches are struggling with financial issues. I know your pain. As anyone who follows our story knows, our ministry was in a ton of debt four years ago when I came on as director.  Since that time, we've gotten out of debt and turned a profit every year.  God has done amazing things through out team, for which we give Him the glory!

I find that what Seth is saying here is absolutely true, with one disclaimer. For Christian leaders, spiritual disciplines must always be first. Before we started investing and training and all of that, seeking God for his blessing and…

Why You Should Never Hijack a Comment Thread
Social media etiquette 101

One surefire way to kill your influence in social media and wear out your welcome fast is to become involved in derailing somebody’s comment thread with your own agenda. Networking and hijacking aren’t the same thing. It’s surprising how many people don’t understand that this is a guarantee for tearing down a platform as quickly as you build it.


Passion is good, even necessary. I appreciate people's zeal for their personal core values. What is not appreciated is the attempt at a redirection of a comment thread when the comment has little or nothing to do with an original post or is twisted at best.

Social media provides ample opportunity for all of us to share what’s important to us on our own platform. Eliciting others’ responses and developing connections largely depends on our ability to communicate and compel. Some people are open to receiving private communication from others although they aren’t always able to answer personally or at length. But hijacking a comment thread no…

I'm Just Being Transparent...

This year at the Stronger Conference, a young minister stopped me as I was walking out of the room at the conclusion of a workshop and she said, "I want to tell you something..." (I was all ears.) She said, "Do you notice how many of the speakers this weekend are saying, "Now, I'm just being transparent when I tell you..." or "I'm just keepin' it real..." I nodded yes. In fact, I mentioned that I was one of those speakers. I think I probably said a few times in both my keynote message and my workshop that I was just "keepin' it real."

After I affirmed that yes, I had noticed that -- she said, "Do you know why they have to do that? They do it...and you do it, because so many people don't keep it real. So many in leadership aren't transparent, Deanna. That's why all these people speaking here feel an urge to declare their transparency.." I let her know that usually when I say, "I'm just keeping …