People fight. People argue. It's inevitable. Some people just don't get along, and some people just plain don't like each other. When it happens in the "family," what do we do about it?
It seems this issue gets overlooked in many church circles. We *know* what the "bad" sins are. Drugs. Felony offenses. And the sexual ones that involve naked body parts, obviously. But Christians seem to be notoriously bad communicators. We often gossip like it's our national pastime. And then if someone stabs us in the back, we hold stuff inside. Because we know that, at church, it's our job to smile and shake hands and look like everything is A-OK, lest we rock the Boat Of Christian Community.
Besides, if someone hurts us, there are plenty of other Christians out there. We can just mark that person off the list. Keep our kids away from his kids, honey, that's the bad seed.
The unChurch, though, desires to see something different. "Throwing our lives in together" means the good and the bad. It means transparency, vulnerability, and overcoming the isolation of suburban sprawl. Sharing the yucky stuff isn't too bad when it's our boss or our distant cousin that wrongs us. The rubber really meets the road, though, when it's another Christian brother or sister.
My good friend Craig says it something like this:
Being the kind of creatures that we are, it is inevitable that we will 'rub each other wrong', maybe even pretty often, depending on the specific personalities involved. What is NOT inevitable is that any given pair of Christians will be committed enough to each other, and to loving each other even when it's hard, to do the 'relationship work' to preserve the 'brotherliness' of their relationship. It really has a lot of aspects in common with marriage; except that, in our culture, it's not a given anymore that people will do the hard work to preserve and strengthen their marriages, much less for something as 'abstract' as brotherhood in Christ.
I've read that it was fairly scandalous -- or at least quite weird -- that first-century Christians called each other brother and sister. It wasn't just a quaint thing to say. It was a new family, a new way of living. Living and loving together.
Learning to confront and communicate with each other in love is not an easy task. Most people don't LIKE confrontation. But without any confrontation, you just have... avoidance. It's way too easy in our current society to avoid each other. I imagine it was probably much harder to avoid ANYONE 2000 years ago. You didn't have people retreating behind the garage doors of the suburbs. Today, we have to proactively make an effort to love and keep those relationships healthy.
I don't want to go all "Dr. Phil" here, but it is mostly a matter of communication. Learning to confront in love. Learning to argue in love. Learning to live and love different personality types.
I think it's really a lost art, being able to confront each other and argue in love. You've got to have some trust in each other as a family to hash things out like that. It seems like the disciples were always arguing with each other, but Jesus and love were the common threads that held them together.
Right relationships of brotherly love. That's what the "community" aspect of the unChurch is all about.
Posts
17 comments:
Over the years I've learned that those people who annoy me the most have typically been annoyed by me to an equal if not greater degree.
This discovery has led me to understand that in many cases where I thought I was being noble and considerate by overlooking "their" personality traits, they in fact were more noble and considerate; such a revelation is quite disquieting.
Thanks for this, Scott. Good stuff. . .
You're really hit it square with the idea that it really takes a large level of trust to work thru our, um, 'differences'. And, by and large in our culture, we don't have anything near that level of trust in most of our relationships. Heck, large numbers of us don't WANT that kind of trust, maybe not even with our spouses. . .
In our community, we talk about 'The Sandpaper Ministry' that we have with each other, where we rub against each other, and become smooth and polished in the process. But of course, it takes a lot of getting 'banged around' before we're as 'polished' as we ought to be. And getting 'banged around' ain't always so pleasant.
Of course, it's also a function of the fact that 'ain't nobody here but us sinners' in the Church (or the un-Church; I forget which one we're talking about, sometimes). We 'bump into' each other's sinfulness, and, over the long haul, we help each other get more holy (at least, that's the theory). Partly because you are impacted by my sins (and I by yours), and partly as we learn to forbear one another out of love for Christ.
Either way, it takes a degree of love, and trust, and commitment, that ain't common in our society, and it ends up being a pretty hard thing to do. Me being a sinner, and all that (and yeah, so are you. . .)
But you know, "All discipline for the moment seems painful; but afterward, it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness, for those who have been trained by it. . ."
And may God have mercy. . .
Great insight about how "the are plenty of other Christians out there, just mark that person off the list."
Shallow, expendable relationships; Cheap paper plates; easy come, easy go.
Those relationships that are refined by the real "love stuff" of working it out are the ones that matter most.
Q: Have you ever had to learn to appreciate and admire somebody who doesn't really like you? That's an acid test of humility. And it can even be a building block of the best kind of relationship--people like secure people!
Oooooh, I have two different trains of thought, and one is traveling from Chicago at 60 miles an hour, while the other is coming from New York at 85 miles an hour.
How long will it take for them to collide in my brain?
(Yet another reason to hate story problems.)
I'll go with the general idea and save the more specific one for later (that's the one coming from New York, btw).
Our society has not taught us how to be good communicators, nor have we embraced the concept of graciously defeating our foes (and by "foes" I mean anyone who we are directly opposing at any given moment - this includes spouses, parents, etc).
There's a terrible need to protect our pride and some perverse and twisted subconscious belief that triumphing over someone else makes us stronger or better.
I believe that people wouldn't mind admitting they were wrong IF they could do so without losing their pride / dignity / self-esteem / personal power (whatever you want to call it).
But if the "winner" makes the "loser" regret s/he apologized or conceded, then it'll be a cold day down below before s/he'll do it again. Meanwhile, the next time the roles are reversed, the "loser" will be extracting some heavy payback.
Now how senseless is THAT? There's a self-perpetuating cycle I know I want to be a part of.
NOT!
The first time I ever remember putting my theory into practice still sticks with me because it was so powerful. I had this boyfriend who behaved like a real jerk over something he misinterpreted. When he got over being an idiot, he was really sorry, but he didn't want to apologize because he really, really didn't want to put himself into the position of being verbally "punished" by yours truly.
I just looked at his face - all that misery and defensiveness and anger and shame - and said, "You know, I've done and said plenty of stupid and hurtful things in my life. And the hardest part was always apologizing afterward. I understand where you are, and I promise that I won't make you regret doing the right thing here."
The minute he realized I felt sorrow for his sorrow - that he meant more to me than punishing him did, he was immediately and completely contrite. Which made forgiving him a pleasure. And the end result was perfect, instant healing of a wound that could have very easily festered into something ugly and painful.
It wasn't until later that it dawned on me that this is what Jesus meant - why he humbled himself over and over and over again. When you willingly make yourself a servant to your brother, you give a gift of love so powerful that he cannot help but retaliate.
Now that's part of a self-perpetuating cycle that I can life with!
Do, Deborah, have you figured out how you'll get your pound of flesh?
"Have you ever had to learn to appreciate and admire somebody who doesn't really like you?"
I'd like to, but I just can't find anyone that doesn't like me.
A joke! That was a joke! :-)
I'll admit that I don't always do a very good job of going out of my way to do what Joe is saying. Because usually people that don't like each other much have very few common interests -- or any desire to spend time together. But I know it should be about more than just TOLERATING someone. There can be love and respect even among people who seem to naturally rub each other the wrong way.
But I imagine it would take some work, and in many people (perhaps myself included), an internal rewiring.
RMW alludes to the fact that people who dislike each other DO share a common interest. Not liking each other!
I think it is generally some sense of competition that breeds "dislike". What they are competing for represents a common interest. What they are contending against is generally a charade.
I think I may have given the wrong impression with that story. I am in agreement with Craig about trust being key to our ability to work through our differences, and I thought this story was a good example of how to build trust.
I never wanted to take a pound of flesh from my boyfriend - I just wanted both of us to stop hurting. I used that story because it was the first time I ever tried that approach - one that I have adopted because I believe it's what Christ would want me to do.
When you're in the "right" it doesn't cost you anything to humble yourself, and it reassures the other person that s/he isn't going to lose face if s/he apologizes. When neither person is feeling humiliated, you get a speedier and more genuine healing - there is no lingering resentment beneath the surface.
This builds trust. Once you go through that process, you both learn that apologizing and forgiveness are only as difficult and painful as you allow them to be. If we follow Christ's example of humility and placing the other person first, it's usually reciprocated - and this starts a cycle of trust and service that can become incredibly powerful as time goes by.
"I think it is generally some sense of competition that breeds "dislike". What they are competing for represents a common interest. What they are contending against is generally a charade."
I think that's very insightful!
It occurs to me that, just as Trust is key, so is Commitment.
The commitment that spouses make to each other when they marry, helps provide them with the necessary motivation to 'work thru' their conflicts (at least, that's the theory). Absent that commitment, it's much easier just to say, "See ya!"
And, without meaning to be all snarky, I wonder how many Christians (especially American Christians) think of the Church, and their brothers/sisters in Christ, in those terms?
If we really came to see our brothers and sisters in Christ as people to whom we are irrevocably and unavoidably connected, by virtue of our common connection to Christ - people with whom we are in this Christian thing together, whether we like it (or each other) or not. . . Well, the Church would look quite a bit different, I think. . .
"When it happens in the "family," what do we do about it?"
Great question Scott. Good topic and excellent follow-up discussion.
"Because we know that, at church, it's our job to smile and shake hands and look like everything is A-OK, lest we rock the Boat Of Christian Community."
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt...
Besides, if someone hurts us, there are plenty of other Christians out there. We can just mark that person off the list.
Guilty as charged. It wasn't quite as easy as that makes it sound - it was more like an amputation...
"What is NOT inevitable is that any given pair of Christians will be committed enough to each other, and to loving each other even when it's hard, to do the 'relationship work' to preserve the 'brotherliness' of their relationship. It really has a lot of aspects in common with marriage; except that, in our culture, it's not a given anymore that people will do the hard work to preserve and strengthen their marriages, much less for something as 'abstract' as brotherhood in Christ."
Can't argue with that assessment at all. Just did a lousy job of trying to live it personally.
"Learning to confront and communicate with each other in love is not an easy task. Most people don't LIKE confrontation. But without any confrontation, you just have... avoidance."
It's not a dislike of confrontation - for me it is almost hatred. I have known people that seem to enjoy confrontation even to the point of driving people away from, rather than closer to, Christ. Did I confront when I felt God prompting me to do so? The answer is yes. Do I think that he expected me to enjoy it? That would be a resounding NO.
I heard a couple of concepts in some of the follow-up commentaries - contrition and trust.
Here is where I personally failed the teaching in Matthew 18:22. I asked for forgiveness, and offered forgiveness to a fellow Christian at several different milestones in our relationship. My apology was always accepted, but none was ever tendered nor was my forgiveness needed (because they felt they had done nothing wrong). I never witnessed a contrite spirit or a repentant heart at anytime during the entire process. Behaviors continued to repeat themselves, and I lost trust, respect, and count on my way to seventy-seven. That is when I finally walked. Is that what Christ had called me to do? Not if you look at how He answered Peter's question, "Lord how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
I have never been a quitter, and it was one of the hardest things I have ever done. What was the cost? A friend compared it to going through a divorce...
In retrospect, what would I have done differently? I can honestly say, I don't know.
What beautiful transparency (well, in a bloggo-anonymous kind of way. ;-))
"In retrospect, what would I have done differently?"
Under the shroud of bloggo-anonymnity, Eutychus makes this recommendation:
Don't think as you wrote, all in the past tense.
Grains of wheat fall to the ground, that's life. Bear fruit from it. Life is now. Life is forever.
Some of these comments are reminding me that this is often even a major problem among church staff and leadership. So THEN what do you do? This kind of stuff tears churches apart.
It's manageable when both parties can come together and talk. It's not so easy when one party refuses to be repentant, or refuses to WANT to do the relationship work.
It's a luxury if your "personal conflicts" are completely disconnected from "weightier" matters, like politics or, ahem, church agendas. In these cases people generally see the issues as "bigger than personal issues", and therefore somehow too important for the laws of love.
I have a firm policy on this kind of thing (which I know leaves me wide open for criticism, what's new): "If you want to play king of the hill, do it without me."
The truly important issues of faith and of the missio dei have nothing to do with the hill and who crowns themselves as king of it. Even a cursory reading of the gospels tells us this, but men must unLearn carnal ways to walk in the way of Jesus.
Good point, Scott, regarding relationship conflicts among leaders. Been there, done that.
One of the keys is for the leaders to actually HAVE relationships with each other. In our community, the group of 'elders' function as a 'men's group' more-or-less unto themselves, so that they have ongoing relationships on a 'social/brotherly' level, beyond the simple duties of leading and administering the community. It's a real benefit for them all to know each other as brothers first-and-foremost; helps foster trust, and all that. Doesn't mean that it's impossible for their relationships to get out-of-whack, or for one or more of them to engage in 'empire-building'. But it's certainly a helpful thing. . .
And Joe, you make a good point about things that are too easily perceived as 'too important to fall under the Law of Love'. And of course, put that way, the absurdity of it is self-evident. . .
Craig, that's the beauty of "intentional community", of which yours is the best example I've heard of. The relationships are personal first, and functional after.
In any church or unchurch thingy, there will always be a group of people who gravitate together based on a kindred, passionate faith.
In my mind, these are the true elders in the ekklesia. In my observation, they seldom "run things."
Scott, Joe, Fiber_tech and Eutycus: It has been a while since I have had a chance to weigh in. I hope I'm not intruding.
What a thought provoking writing you have here. Thanks for sharing it.
Many times I have been guilty of pulling the plug on a relationship that I should have 'done the right thing' and attempted to heal it instead. I can only hope for and in God's grace.
Joe's question, "can I appreciate and admire someone who doesn't like me?" Probably not. I might be able to respect their ability or their accomplishment if I really want to and try. That is hugely different than admiring the person. If I give it 'grudgingly' does that count?
Fiber_tech, I know and understand. It was not just you who struggled, you know that. I have come to realize though, that in these kinds of strife, one person can do everthing, I mean EVERYTHING according to scripture, Miss Manners and Hoyle and it won't yield the result that God desires to bring forth. That doesn't add to your responsibility for the outcome. If a man chooses to harden his heart, you can't change that.
It is similar to parenting, we can love our children the best we know how, we can provide them with every good example and Godly instruction available and the result can still be a rebelious child because of their individual will and choice.
So it is in your relationship that was broken and you were unable to repair. It had to do more with the other man's decision to do or not to do what was right. I think that if your heart does not convict you, you did what was right and that is all that really matters, you should be confident in Christ.
If you have that, you don't need to wonder about doing anything different. Different is not necessarily better.
I love you guys, thanks for letting me be a part.
Post a Comment