At some point in our lives, we all experience a breach in a relationship. Division happens among friends, family, acquaintances, and members of the same faith. Sometimes the breach we experience is the result of a perceived wrong, sometimes a true injustice. Sometimes we are the ones who are hurt, other times we are the offending party.
Reconciliation a bad objective?
Not convinced? Consider this example. I grow tomato plants. I have the goal of eating tomatoes by early July. I set objectives such as when to plant seeds or purchase plants; when to water, fertilize, cage, etc. But, I cannot set an objective of producing tomatoes. It is not something I can make happen. I can only cultivate the plant in ways I understand will encourage tomato production.
When a breach happens, and you want the relationship restored, it is common to seek reconciliation as the primary objective. I want to argue that reconciliation is a mis-guided objective. Even though we are called to be agents of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:16f), it is not a direct objective that any of us can accomplish. Recall from your strategic planning training that objectives ought to be tangible and obtainable. Objectives are designed to move toward an overarching goal or dream. Since reconciliation requires at least two parties to agree, it makes for a bad objective since we can’t guarantee that the other will be willing, able or ready to reconcile.
If you desire to reconcile with someone after a breach in a relationship, there are some achievable objectives you might want to consider. If you are the offending party, you might consider objectives such as,
- Offer to hear (face-to-face or through others) of the damage you have caused or allowed due to complicity
- Acknowledge the impact of your attitudes and actions, the harm done.
- Make an apology
- Provide ongoing evidence of repentance…without grumbling
- Make sacrificial amends, seek to return what was wrongfully taken
- Avoid pointing out the wrongs committed by the offended party; make no explicit or implicit demand for reconciliation
If you are the offended party, you might consider objectives such as
- Speak the truth in love
- Assert need for justice and grace
- Avoid vengeance taking
- Acknowledge evidence of repentance; point out evidence of deception
- Clarify concepts of forgiveness, grace, restitution, reconciliation
- Ask God for a heart prepared to forgive
When reconciliation isn’t possible
Notice that the above objectives can be met even when the overarching goal of reconciliation fails. There are times when reconciliation is not possible or desirable. Attempts to force the outcome will do significant damage—not only to victims but also to those who foreclose on repentance. Just as forcing a diseased tomato plant to produce fruit may result in the destruction of nearby plants, so also forcing reconciliation when repentance is not present may result in more injustice and deception.
So, the next time you find yourself in a broken relationship, focus first on objectives within your grasp and give back to God the final goal. Be open for him to do miracles but stick to the thing he has placed in front of you. Like the widow who has just enough oil and flour, bake your cake. Let God take care of the bigger picture.
2 responses to “Why reconciliation isn’t the best objective”
Nicely thorough. I’ll go with this. One slowly dawning realization for me is that rarely are these “breaches in relationship” black and white with respect to fault. So, one point to add on the aggrieved side of the ledger is, “Be prepared (humble, maybe) to utterly revise your narrative.”
Excellent and practical. Timely perspective for any of us struggling with how to demonstrate Christ in the challenging relationships of our own context.