Category Archives: conflicts

November 13, 2007 · 5:45 am

Biblical slap therapy?


I once saw a cartoon about 1 session treatment (due to managed care) that consisted of the therapist slapping the client and saying, “Get over it!” This past weekend I had our counseling students look at the book of James. There are 50 some exhortation in just over 100 verses. And though he is writing to fellow believers he sometimes calls them brothers and others times calls them names.

What’s his beef? Empty words. Christians who talk the talk but do not engage in mercy; those who talk the talk but listen to the wisdom of the world about self-promotion. Why does he do this? He wants us to be discontent with the status quo. He wants to wake us from a slumber. While he does remind his readers that the Word is powerful and its implantation in them saves them, he wants them not to be content with being like the world.

James asks us whether we really do love mercy first. It will show if we do. If we don’t, then how we handle conflict with also reveal what we love.

Its good to sit with passages such as these that do not bring immediate comfort. They cause us to consider what the Lord might be saying to us. As a counselor, it is important to allow clients to consider hard truths in a loving environment–without providing a quick, “there, there, its all right.” However, we must also make sure that we love mercy when we sit with our client in difficult areas. Otherwise, we will be in danger of letting our own tongues start fires.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, conflicts

November 9, 2007 · 9:58 am

Stymied


If you have ever met with a couple in conflict (either together or separate), you immediately realize how difficult it is to know the truth about what happened and who did what first. Come to think of it, that is true with sibling fights as well. Each party has their own opinion of what they did and did not do. They also have a very strong opinion as to how the conflict began and why their spouse is the bigger problem. It can drive you crazy if you try to sort out who did what.

This problem exists with conflicting people groups as well. Case in point: Rwanda. We’re all familiar that a genocide tgook place there in 1994. The minority Tutsis and the majority Hutus. We’d like to say one side was the victim and the other the offender. But it is not that clear, especially since both parties have a history of aggressing against the other.

Yesterday, I read a commentary by Paul Rusesabagina (the man portrayed in Hotel Rwanda) who charges the Tutsi led government, led by President Paul Kagame, with systematic destruction of the Hutu people by imprisoning them as genocide suspects–without care for the truth. On the other side, the government charges Rusesabagina with stirring up ethnic hatred.

Who do you believe?

When you are stymied (because you aren’t there to see for yourself) what happens to you? For me, the temptation is to turn my back and throw my hands up in the air–to give up and ignore the problem, laying blame at both feet.

How do we overcome being stymied? As a therapist I attempt to get both parties to look only at themselves. But that goes against our nature, whether we are 5 or 55 years old. 

Leave a comment

Filed under conflicts

Tagged as ,

July 31, 2007 · 10:25 am

The Problem of Self Sabotage


Last night my wife and I were discussing the problems of the Middle East and specifically the Muslim on Muslim attacks in Pakistan and Iraq. If the Islamic world would like to see the world turn completely to Islam, aren’t the Sunni/Shia conflicts a form of self-sabotage? A getting caught up in a smaller goal (supremacy of a sect or tribe)?

Then I thought of the boys I worked for in a juvenile jail. They would have only 3 months to serve but instead of toeing the line for the 90 days, they often fought and stayed for 2 years because they couldn’t give up paying another back for a misdeed.

This isn’t just a problem of the Middle East. We all settle for lesser things that actually work against our larger goals. We want to do well in school but we watch TV instead of studying. We want to lose weight but eat a bunch of cookies. We want to save for a house but buy lunch out and a Starbucks every day and wonder where our money goes. Of course, self sabotage is a part of every addiction.

Why do we fail to maintain our focus on the greater goals? We lose focus? We don’t really want the greater goal? The immediate goal gives us what we want now while the greater goal doesn’t pay in the now?

—–

Plum Island Beach today as we are with friends in the Newbury area of Massachusetts. Tomorrow we’ll be in Maine and I’ll have the kayak in the lake if the weather is good.  

Leave a comment

Filed under conflicts, cultural apologetics

July 24, 2007 · 5:46 am

Getting the real news about conflicts


In our world of 24 hours news, we really do not know what is happening in the world. What we get is simplistic summaries (who is good, who is bad) with little substance. I was reminded of this fact over the weekend while listening to some stories from a survivor of the Rwandan genocide and subsequent struggles. This young man (who was in his teens during the 90s) told of what happened to him while running for his life. He also gave us insight into how America and the UN is viewed in that part of Africa. 

He is part Hutu and part Tutsi. I won’t repeat his stories but this is one of his points: The massacre of 800,000 Tutsis is well known to most. The number of Hutu killed subsequently by President Paul Kagame’s government is rarely told.

Most of us are well aware that in the space of 100 days in 1994, 800,000 plus Tutsis were massacred. It was a response in the making after the then President Habyarimana was assassinated. His murder was the spark to years of hatred and distrust between the two groups. A very short synopsis can be found at this BBC site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

But this site makes my friend’s point. There is no mention as to what happened after the massacre. His story is that he was hunted down by the RPF with Kagame’s, UN’s, and the US permission and had no place to seek shelter. He survived by God’s grace alone. He was thrown on a pile of bodies, believing that he was dead. He was about to be set afire only to be saved by a Congolese police officer thinking he was Congolese. He sought refuge at a church, but was rejected. The stories are horrific. His point is many more Hutus were murdered after the genocide but these stories do not get press.

He lent me a book (Surviving the Slaughter, by Marie Umutesi) that tells about life on the run in the forest and jungle: http://www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress/books/3918.htm 

On a similar note, I am reading about the formation of Hamas. In the book, the author details how Israel forced Palestinians to be informers. Some were made to reveal secrets about Hamas leadership while others were enticed to bring weapons to a checkpoint and then were shot on site and reported as attacking Israeli soldiers. My point is this: be wary of the good guys/bad guys stories. Conflicts are rarely simple and unless we are well versed in the conflict, expect that both sides will attempt to make themselves look like victims.

Its not unlike my youngest son who came in the house crying that his brother had called him a name, “for no reason.” As we discussed the situation, a “reason” emerged that the “victim” had indeed pushed his older brother first after a wrongly perceived offense. So, whether little boys or entire cultures, we love to simplify stories in to the good guys (us) and the bad guys (them).

Leave a comment

Filed under conflicts, News and politics

April 5, 2007 · 11:02 am

Changing the relational dance


In my last post I talked about the emotional/relational dance that all couples do. Someone usually is the pursuer (who may tend to be critical as well), the other withdraws and disengages. This dance isn’t always pathological but might lead either to chronic attack or cold war.

But assume for a minute that the couple wants to develop a healthier dance. What could they do? What might be one thing that would really advance the relationship into a more positive way?  Continue reading →

2 Comments

Filed under conflicts, marriage

April 3, 2007 · 10:10 am

Do you pursue or withdraw in conflict?


I’m prepping for my part of the Advanced Marital Class which starts soon. We’ll be looking closely at Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy and its dealings with the problems of disconnection in marriages. One of the key issues this therapy tries to address is the need for a secure bond between husband and wife. One particular problem noted by Susan Johnson, one of the originators of the therapy, is the problem of the blamer-withdrawer dance that many couples go through. During conflict, one party pursues/demands/blames while the other party disconnects/withdraws/withholds. While almost every couples has hints of this pattern, distressed couples have lots of the pattern and it may lead even to abusive patterns. Some research on the pattern suggests that women are more likely to demand and men are more likely to withdraw. If this research is true, it begs the question: Why? A recent article in Counseling Psychology (2007, v. 54:2, 165-177) has tried to answer the question (Vogel et al, Sex Differences in the Use of Demand and Withdraw Behavior in Marriage…). Continue reading →

4 Comments

Filed under conflicts, marriage, Uncategorized

March 30, 2007 · 9:31 am

The art of disagreeing in public


Continuing from the previous post, I think we ought to consider how we deal in public with differences in theological viewpoints, biblical text meanings, views on Christianity, etc. Its not hard to listen to another person’s opinions and beliefs. But then what do we say to our friends? What do we say in public when describing this other person’s viewpoint? Here’s a few ideas: Continue reading →

2 Comments

Filed under Christian Apologetics, church and culture, conflicts, Doctrine/Theology

March 29, 2007 · 11:57 am

The art of Christian dialogue about theology


I’ve been thinking about how we Christians talk to, at, and about each other’s theological positions. There are two poles that we tend to be attracted to. On one side we may lean toward criticalness. The plus of this pole is that details matter. We look at the details in great depth and we run with others’ positions to their possible conclusions. The downside to this polarity is that we are inclined to read associations and ideas in their worst possible light, worst possible conclusion. We describe others in ways that they would not recognize. Further, we make divisions where there may not be any. Finally, this polarity usually elevates debate and hinders real listening and dialogue.

The other polarity is apathy. This polarity attracts folks who think theological discussion isn’t all that important. On the plus side, folks over here tend to be pragmatic, relationship oriented, application oriented, etc. However, sloppy thinking and unwillingness to own the logical conclusions of a position are a downside. On this pole, some may elevate questions over answers and decisions. This leaves some really hanging and their faith threatened.

Notice that both poles encourage pride. 

Whenever you describe two poles, many will comment that they are either on both sides at the same time or they choose a completely different pole. Fair enough. Also, when a writer presents two bad poles, the obvious answer is always in the middle, right? No, not always.

But what should Christian dialogue about theology look like? That is the big question in seminaries, churches and other christian organizations. So, maybe we should first talk about some parameters.

1. Do I have the right to be picking the speck out of my brother or sister’s eye if I have significant problem with my own fruit of the spirit? (especially peace and patience) 
2. Do I give the best possible reading to the other’s position? Do I list multiple possible logical conclusions as there may be more than one (or do I just list the worst?)?
3. Do I love this person, even if they are wrong? Do I seek them out privately to dialogue (true dialogue!)?
4. Do I ask them to answer questions that I won’t answer myself? Do I demand black/white answers when I allow my own to have nuances?
5. Am I looking for proof of what I already believe rather than looking for true dialogue and growth on both sides?
6. Am I wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove?
7. Do I engage in guilt by association?
8. When someone is off-base, do I show gentleness in my teaching? Humility? Desire to restore? Recognition that, “there but for grace go I”?

3 Comments

Filed under Christian Apologetics, conflicts, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals

January 26, 2007 · 6:17 am

No hope for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine


I apologize for the delay in posting on the next chapter of Volf’s End of Memory. I’ve put it down briefly and am doing quick reads on two other books on the topic of division between people groups (Israel/Palestine; American Blacks/Whites). Volf has been exploring the matter of dealing with painful memories of past abuse. But what if the offenses continue, not just in the memory but in real life? How does one ever stop the cycle of hurt, hate, protectionism?

Carter’s new book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Simon and Schuster), explores his involvement with trying to broker peace from the 70’s til more recently. If you are looking for a detailed historical analysis, look elsewhere, But if you have a good understanding the parties, he does have some interesting info and perspective and inside stories. I’ve read the first 4 chapters. However, he has a throw-away line in chapter one (p. 15) that really sticks in my craw, It has always b een clear that the antagonists cannot be expected to take the initiative to resolve their own differences. Hatred and distrust in the Middle East are too ingrained and pride is too great for any of the disputing parties to offer invitations or concessions that they know will almost inevitably be rejected.

While I agree that what he says has been true. The most progress has been made when the US has brokered and shuttled between the two and almost no progress has been made when outside pressures have been released. And yet, it is a sad day to say that a people group (or their leaders) are so unwilling to put aside pride and demands for autonomy/safety for the greater good of the world.

Seems true in Iraq today as well. Shia and Sunni leaders seem hellbent on giving up nothing for a greater good. There is no trust. So, the real question is how does one build/risk trust when there has been almost no space for it to the present. Does South Africa and the Truth and Reconciliation project have any capacity to teach us that victims give up rights and offenders give up silence and any pretense of being righteous?

I’m looking to see what Carter will suggest as the solution and whether he lays much blame at Israel’s feet. That’s the third rail of politics… 

Leave a comment

Filed under conflicts, Cultural Anthropology, Forgiveness, News and politics

December 8, 2006 · 6:19 am

What makes for a great apology?


Last Sunday my small group used the story of Zaccheus to launch a discussion about what makes for a great apology. We know it when we see one and we definitely know when someone’s “I’m sorry” falls far short. But what are the things that make an apology meaningful? Here are some phrases I suggested we might hear in a great apology (order intended). Continue reading →

4 Comments

Filed under conflicts, Repentance, sin