 |
| "Reconciliation" Duke Divinity School |
Matthew
18:15-20
Jesus said, “If another member of the
church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are
alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are
not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may
be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses
to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen
even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you,
if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by
our God in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there
among them.”
Will you pray with me? Holy Three in
One, teach us how to be your beloved community of faith; give us wisdom to
understand each other; to accept each person’s unique gifts and graces which
you have given. Show us the way to speak the truth in love—not to wound or
shame but to support and guide; help us to show love without anger or vindictiveness.
Remind us of your presence wherever we may be, whoever we are with, for
wherever we are, you are there with us. In your many names we pray, amen.
One of the most important concepts I
learned in my pastoral counselling class was triangulation—that classic
communication and relationship style in which one person doesn’t express their
issues to the person they are angry with but a third person—thus creating a
triangle. I’m sure many of you are familiar with this idea! Friend A is upset with Friend B, but instead
of talking to Friend B, they complain to you…. Many organizations, whether
churches or businesses have a policy in place to deal with this and prevent the
issues it creates. It’s called a face-to-face policy. If one person is upset
with another, they are supposed to first go directly to that other person to
discuss the issue—face to face. Not to their cubicle neighbour, not to their
sister or hairdresser or best friend—that puts the other person in middle,
especially if that third person also knows the person who is the cause of
annoyance. If the issue isn’t resolved,
then they go to their supervisor or boss or human resources manager. This makes
sure—ideally, anyway—that the issue is resolved and not left to hang. It means
the community—the workplace, the organization, the church—can work more
smoothly, without hidden resentments or anger or frustration.
I’m sure some of you have been in this position.
When I served as an interne in seminary, some of members of the congregation
were unhappy with the new pastor. Rather than take their concerns to her, or to
the lay leader (like our Vice Moderator), they came to me. It was flattering, I
have to admit, and I had my own issues with her, which made me want to join
right in with their complaints. I am relieved to be able to say that I did not
give in to that impulse, and declined to discuss the pastor with
them—suggesting they talk with the lay leader if they were upset with the
pastor. Yes, I then was accused of covering up for my boss…. Monkey in the
middle isn’t just a child’s game, is it?
This is the kind of situation Jesus is
talking about—and he offers a way around it. Open dealing, one on one, rather
than a whispering campaign or rumours or innuendo—plain talking, face to face.
If the person doesn’t want to talk with you alone—or at all—try again with some
friends or other church members. If that doesn’t work either, then bring in the
congregation. And if the community can’t bring about reconciliation, then you
will know you have done all that you can.
Notice that this progression also
protects the other person—the one who upset you—you in the generic sense. If
you go to them directly and privately and ask them about it, you give them an
opportunity to apologize before anyone else knows about it—or has a chance to
comment on it. You defuse the situation. And who knows, perhaps the issue was
unintended—they didn’t realise you would be offended by the remark, or they
knew it was stupid as soon as they said it but didn’t know how to approach you
to say so, or whatever the scenario might be.
Remember Jesus said, “wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name.”
So begin with prayer—even if it’s just you praying to yourself—and God will be
present in that conversation.
But if that person denies doing or
saying anything, or says you took it the wrong way—then you bring in others,
just a couple people. Again, God will be present in that conversation. With
only a couple of people there, the other person will have to face the fact that
is not misinterpretation or over-sensitivity, but that it is a real issue. At
the same time, it’s not being dealt with in a public way—they can still save face
and make reparations.
A continued denial means, though, that
the issue has to be brought to the attention of the community—whatever that
community might be, in this case, the church. If the conflict is not dealt
with, if it remains underground, it will fester and worsen, like a hidden
infection, and reappear later in more malevolent ways.
Let’s face it, churches, and the people
in them, do not like open conflict. The truth is that we are human beings and
given a group of a large enough size-say, two people—there are bound to be
differences of opinion and things about each person that annoy the other or
others. So in churches, it is common
that people who have conflicts with another person will seek to simply avoid
that person, or won’t talk to that person about the issue. After all, it’s
church, and we are “supposed” to get along with each other, love each and
accept each other.
But there is another truth, and that is
that conflict is not necessarily a negative thing. This is difficult for many
people, including me—we want to be liked, we want to be seen as “nice,” as
friendly, and so on. But conflict, in and of itself, is not really bad or
evil—it simply is a way of dealing with a problem. What can be negative is the
way the conflict is expressed and dealt with. War, for example—or whispering
campaigns, or manipulating others to get what we want or manoeuvring the person
we oppose out of the group—whether that’s a work situation, a family, a group
of friends, a social club or a church.
There is a distinction to be made
between conflict and differences, and too often they are confused. In a face to
face conversation, we can learn what the other person is thinking, and whether
we have a difference—I think one way, you think another, it won’t affect whatever
we are trying to do together—and a conflict—it will affect what we are doing.
How two people interpret a passage from the Bible doesn’t prevent them from
teaching Bible study together, even if they have very different understandings
of the passage—that’s a difference. On the other hand, if one of them believes
the Bible is the inerrant, perfect, literal word of God and the other thinks
it’s a collection of folktales—that’s a conflict.
And that’s why we begin with the face to
face. Of course, how this face to face is done matters too. Remember, this is
the first stage—done with love and hope, with the knowledge that we too are
human and may have misunderstood, or that this is not really a conflict but a
difference, mindful of God’s presence.
We have to remember our basic psychological understanding, and make our
“I-statements” and so on…not confrontation and anger. That’s a sign of not only
psychological maturity but spiritual maturity as well, to recognise that we all
make mistakes, we are all imperfect people, even—even!—if we are Christian and
in a church setting.
I am willing to bet that most issues
that divide churches and other organizations could have been resolved without
all the pain or departures and alienations if this model had been truly followed.
Not all of them, of course—nor am I saying that the splits or departures would
not have happened. But they would have happened in a more positive, fruitful
way—which is the best way to begin an endeavour—in hope, not in anger.
Think of how much better it would be to
change all relationships this way. Isn’t it interesting that weddings and
commitment ceremonies are celebrated with hope and joy and celebration, with
gifts and parties and special ceremonies---but the changing of relationships
are not? There’s no divorce service or recognition of the end of a
relationship. Oh, there are official forms to be filled out and a judge to see,
in the case of divorce and many authorities that recognise commitment
ceremonies or domestic partnerships, there are also forms to fill out. But
there is no gathering of friends and family, no presiding clergy to recognise
the changing of the relationship. I say changing, because no relationship is
ever really over—in addition to children, property, shared friends and so on,
which ensure continued contact on some level, there is the fact that these
people shared a life—as friends, as partners, as co-workers, and therefore
affected each other in some way.
But there is no real recognition of
changes in relationships in society. Individual couples may put together a
ceremony, and even bring in their clergy member and family to share the
event—but that is rare. Generally, there is simply packing, some words—angry or
consoling, hurt or supportive—and everyone moves on. Perhaps it is because so few relationships
change in a way that is not hurtful to one or both people; or perhaps it’s
because it takes a while to come to a place where we recognise that the
relationship could not have continued as it was.
The closest we come, I think, is the
“farewell” when a co-worker leaves. In the US military—and perhaps the Canadian
military too—there is the tradition of the “Hail and Farewell,” at which
newcomers since the last Hail and Farewell are greeted and welcomed into the
group, often with a gift symbolic of the unit—perhaps a unit coin or a
nameplate with the unit crest on it. Those leaving are given a farewell—often a
roast by their colleagues, with a variety of gifts—a plaque commemorating their
accomplishments, joke gifts referring to events during their time with the
unit, or maybe something they will find useful in their next posting. Civilian
companies usually at least get together for lunch and maybe a couple of gifts
for the departing co-worker. These offer a time to remember the good times, let
go of issues, and move on. In pop psychology terms, it offers “closure.”
This is what we are asked to do in this
process Jesus is telling us to follow. We are to deal with each other face to
face, honestly but without hostility, and to recognise that God is present at
every conversation, in every group. In doing so, we can truly name and accept
differences and find ways to work through true conflicts to healing and
reconciliation.
And finally, Jesus is realistic in his
understanding of human nature. There are some people who do not want, are not
capable, of coming to this reconciliation, this healing. For those people,
there is nothing more to be done. But if we have done the work of reaching out,
speaking face to face in love, seeking understanding and reconciliation, then
we have done what is needful, and Jesus says, “There is only so much to be
done. You have done what you can; let go.” And I would say, too, that this is
perhaps a cycle. Sometimes it happens that someone leaves a group or
relationship angrily, with no intention of reconciliation, no desire for
healing and the group has to let them go in that way—but later, the person
changes—for whatever reason—and does desire reconciliation and healing. The
door of the group should always be open to that return, to that hope of the
prodigal coming back for healing and understanding.
I know some of you already practise this
in your life; if you don’t I would invite you to try this for a week. Just try
it—face to face, no hostility, one on one—then a small group, and only then
authority. For those who do so already, think about how and why you follow this
practise—and then do so more fully.
God is present in all our interactions.
I would suggest that the crucial point in this process is the knowledge that
God is there, and invoking the divine presence through prayer—your own or the
group together—to remind yourself and the other person of that presence.
It’s not a magic formula—it does not always bring healing and reconciliation. But it is the best hope for both.
In the name of God in community,
Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, amen.
Creed
We believe in the God who made every man and woman in God's
image. We believe in the Christ who died to reconcile every human being to God,
and to restore our common humanity. We believe in the Holy Spirit that has
always hovered over creation, and ignites love's fire in our hearts. We believe
in the community of faith that worships God, follows Jesus, and lives by the
Spirit. And we believe in the time when all things will be made new, and all things will be brought together under Christ. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment