The Redemptive Power of Invitation

Nothing is reconciled until someone invites.

I am confused over two positions I often hear among believers.  People tell me they want to restore broken relationships, but then they add, “Not now.”  Excuses range from: I am not ready, they are not ready, it is not the right time, coming together will only make things worse, conflict will take care of itself, or time heals all wounds.

Here’s another excuse.  I received an email from a pastor who experienced conflict with a few church elders.  The elders eventually left the church.  The pastor invited them to come together to discuss the conflict.  The elders stated they had “prayerfully considered the suggestion for further discussion and collectively agreed that the cause and testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ in the community would be impacted in a negative manner by any more discussion.”  Instead, the ex-elders started another church.  Actually, reconciliation would have had the bigger impact in the community.

Frankly, there is a huge disconnect in what we say we believe and what we do.  This is particularly true in our approach to resolving conflict.  We know what the Scriptures teach: “go” to the other party whether we are the offender or the offended (Matthew 5:23, 24; 18:15-20); reconciliation of relationships is a prerequisite to worship (Matthew 5:23, 24); deal with today’s anger today (Ephesians 4:26); live in peace (Ephesians 4:3); and seek agreement (I Corinthians. 1:10).  We know Jesus is especially with us during the process of reconciling relationships (Matthew 18:20).  We even know that peacemakers in God’s Kingdom are blessed and identified with the Most High God of Peace (Matthew 5:9).  There is no logic to this disconnect between what we know to be true and how we actually live.

Dr. Jerry Sheveland, President of the Baptist General Conference, makes an important point regarding the best time to resolve conflict.  He simply asks, “Why wait for a harder moment than this one to begin a process of honesty and grace . . ?”

Now is the time for reconciliation.  Don’t wait for a more difficult opportunity.  There is no hope of reconciliation until someone invites the other party into a process of restoring the relationship.  Someone has to do the work of invitation.  Why not now?

Stop Lying to Yourself and Start Reconciling with Others.

Ten Guardian-Lies 
or "Why I do not have to reconcile"

Disclaimer:  There are interpersonal conflicts that are sometimes intractable based on criminal felony offenses, years of abuse, deep emotional wounds, and the like.  I am not writing about those types of complicated conflicts.  I am writing about the normal routine conflicts that people bring into New Path Center every week.

---------------------------------------------------

As a result of serving as a mediator over the last 20 years, I've noticed a pattern.  Sometimes, when I invite conflicted clients to enter a reconciliation process, the clients, along with several other clients, give amazingly similar irrational responses.  I hear the following responses over and over again.  Hence, I have learned to recognize these repeating phrases as "guardian-lies."

A guardian-lie is any belief that hinders a person from moving forward.  People are stuck NOT because of any outside force beyond his or her control.  People are stuck due to their own belief and choice.(1)

Here are some of the most common guardian-lies that I hear.  These lies keep people from moving forward to reconciliation.

I choose to remain stuck in conflict because:

1. I know the other party will not want to reconcile.
2. Even if the other party says they want to reconcile, they are not showing enough sincerity, remorse, humility, forgiveness, (and so on).
3. Reconciling will only be a waste of time.
4. We have tried to reconcile in the past but it has never worked, and it won't work this time.
5. Any more contact with the other party will only make it worse.
6. There is nothing we could possibly do to make it better
7. The other party knows what they did wrong, they need to come to me.
8. If I have wronged someone, they have the responsibility to come to me.
9. I'm just going to avoid being around the other person.
10. The other party is "crazy!"

1. Dr. Ed Smith, Theophostice Prayer Ministry, adapted by Tony Redfern

Mean Girls and Forgiveness

Some time ago, New Path Center was assigned a juvenile offender case that involved two girls, Marie and Julia.  The case was a referral from the Kingsburg Police Department. The girls had a history of not getting long including verbal attacks, name calling, and escalation with physical violence.    

Other girls knew that the two girls hated each other.  These girls even encouraged Marie and Julia to fight by starting gossip about them in the hope for seeing more drama.  The "spectators" would actually tell Marie what Julia said about her; and, of course, they would tell Julia what Marie said about her.  Then they would watch the sparks fly!

I held individual meetings with both Marie and Julia. Each girl had a parent present in that meeting.  The individual meetings went well as each girl volunteered to participate in a modified KCJC as one of four ways to address their on-going conflict. 

One of the reasons for the modification was that neither girl wanted their parents involved in the process of reconciliation.  In fact, they really didn't want me involved.  They felt they could resolve their conflict on their own.  (Hooray for Option 4!)  I told them I would not be making any decisions for them.  They would make the decisions that would shape their future relationship.  I’d be there to help them have a constructive conversation.  They agreed to meet together in the NPC office with me as their facilitator, i.e. someone to help make the process easier. 

Frankly, I was concerned about the meeting going badly without parents or community members being present.  I felt the meeting could easily turn into a violent Jerry Springer show.  I even considered having a police officer join the meeting or at least request an officer to be on stand-by.

Even so, I decided not to “big deal” it and stayed with the modified KCJC and proceeded to meet with just the two girls.  We started with some ground rules, then talked about what happened, how to make things as right as possible, and lastly, they made some promises about the future.

This was one of the easiest conflicts I have ever facilitated.  The girls stepped up to the higher task of reconciliation.  They did not personally attack each other but shared out of their own brokenness and owned their part in their conflicted past.  At one point their dialogue become so personal, I offered to step out of the meeting to give them some privacy.  They agreed and I left them alone.  I rarely do this out of concern that things can quickly take a turn for the worse.  But the girls did very well.

At the end of the meeting, I asked the girls if they thought they had just experienced forgiveness.  They both said yes.  I asked them if they could give me a definition of forgiveness.  They both agreed that forgiveness was when they no longer held the wrongs of the past against each other.  (They got it!)

Before Marie and Julia left my office, I asked them if they wanted to meet again in a few weeks to follow-up and hopefully celebrate their new and improved relationship.  Surprisingly, they agreed to meet with me.  In fact, we agreed to meet at Baby Cakes & Ice Cream in Kingsburg.  However, when I called to follow-up, they did not return my call or, if they did take my call, they would tell me how busy they were and could not meet.  Finally, I turned back the case to the police department with a note that said, "After several attempts to make contact with the offenders and having left several messages, I am waiving the follow-up meeting.  (Perhaps, the thought of meeting with an old guy over ice cream was not appealing to two young girls.)"  Hence, I considered the case closed but not really sure if things worked out between the two.  

Several weeks went by, and one day Marie and Julia dropped by my office.  They were together, happy, giggling, and just enjoying each other's company.  They said, "We have come for our ice-cream celebration!"  I dropped everything and we walked to Baby Cakes.  The flavor of two scoops of forgiveness tasted sooooo good.

War and Peace (Defining reality)

Defining reality is the first step of redemptive transformation.  Therefore, I am also convinced, along with my national conference of churches, " . . . that war destroys all Christian values ..."

-----------------------------------------

War and Peace - Resolution Adopted 1968 by Converge Worldwide (BGC)

We are convinced that war destroys all Christian values, including the destruction of human lives, rights and properties; that the possibility of plunging the human race into unimaginable holocaust of death and destruction through nuclear warfare is ever upon us; that we share in the weakness and sinfulness of the human race, that we express our Christian love toward all mankind, since we believe that God is love and that every person is precious His sight; that ultimate peace comes only through the coming of the Prince of Peace; that any temporal hope for the solution of the problems of human society is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ which offers reconciliation and peace with God and our fellow men.

Therefore we recommend that the members of our Baptist General Conference churches-
1. Confess their sins, asking God’s forgiveness for all past failures that have contributed to misunderstanding and conflict.
2. Increase their support of world missions through which the Gospel of redemption and salvation is proclaimed to all nations.
3. Pray without ceasing for peace and good will throughout the world; for leaders and organizations which seek to bring about cooperative understanding and the alleviation of international discord, racial injustice and world hunger.
4. Support any practical program which attempts to reduce armaments thereby lessening the tensions that lead to war.

Recognize that we are a part of a world-wide fellowship of believers in Christ, that we have spiritual resources that transcend national boundaries and political differences and that link us to the power and Spirit of Almighty God and His Christ.

Source:  http://www.convergeworldwide.org/files/ww/resource/document/2012-07-19-resolutions.pdf

The Greater Love and The Greatest Love

The greater love is to give one's life for a friend. However, the greatest love has to be when one gives their life for their enemy for the purpose of reconciliation. We honor the first notion especially if the friend is at least a good person. But we rarely, if ever, celebrate someone laying down their life for their enemy, i.e. those who have committed offenses, wrongs, or even violence against us. Unthinkable!

What American would lay down their life for Osama bin Laden? Really? Consider the following mandates directed to Christ followers:

• "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."

• “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you . . ."

• "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

To die in the place of someone who deserves to die, takes the power of love. To die in the place of someone who deserves to die, even deserves to be killed, and who has treated you with hate and violence, takes the power of an amazing love.

Yes, Jesus died for even Osama, an enemy who we are also told to love. Remarkably, we are even mandated to practice a treasonous love as we do good to those who hate us.

The Easter story is about a treasonous love that offers reconciliation and redemption even to the worst of the worst . . . but then Jesus came to turn the world upside down.

“Eight Ways to Turn Disagreements into Feuds” By Ron Kraybill

1. “Easily the most potent tool for ensuring a life well-scarred by disputes is to develop and maintain a healthy fear of conflict.”

2. “If perchance you do get in a situation where you are discussing a conflict with the other party involved, be as vague as possible about the issues.”

3. “The third commandment of conflict maintenance is to assume that you know all the facts of the matter and that they (the facts) clearly indicate you are right.”

4. “An effective variation, particularly useful in those situations where a rather unassertive person is upset with you, is to announce that you will talk with anyone who wishes to discuss problems with you – then let it be known that your responsibility ends there.”

5. “Latch onto whatever evidence you can find – count on it, you’ll always be able to find some – showing that the main problem is the other party is jealous of you.”

6. “Judge the motivation of the other party on the basis of one or two mistakes on their part.”

7. “If all these conflict maintaining mechanisms fail and, despite your best efforts, you find yourself engaging in discussion with your opponent, approach resolution as a strictly win/lose situation.”

8. “Your last line of recourse, if somehow a proposal is brought to you that might resolve the dispute, is to respond that you are not in a position to negotiate.”

“There you have it folks. Master these principles in one dispute, and you will find it easier to get involved in others as well. Those interested in avoiding change and growth in personal relationships should find these principles particularly helpful. A few simmering disputes will in time differentiate bland souls with obvious scars. It’ll make them real characters!”

Kingsburg Community Justice Conference

The Kingsburg Community Justice Conference (KCJC) is a community-based program of the Kingsburg Police Department and New Path Center in Kingsburg, California. This program provides an alternative process to address the needs of juvenile offenders and their victims which may not be met by the traditional justice system as we seek to build a healthy community.

At each KCJC, people from the community come together: juvenile offenders, victims, family members, faith leaders, law enforcement, city officials, local business owners and other concerned citizens. Our goal is to dialogue about difficult issues in an atmosphere of respect and concern for everyone involved: how the community was affected, how to repair the harm, and how to create a better future for all those involved.

In essence, KCJC implements a very old idea – we gather as a community to solve problems, and support and connect with one another. We acknowledge that we all need help at times, and in helping others we help ourselves at the same time.

The following is a brief overview of some essentials of the KCJC process:

• Participation is voluntary
• Respect and equality offered to all
• Recognition of shared values
• Willingness to speak truthfully
• Commitment to confidentiality
• Opportunity for everyone to be heard
• Willingness to honor all stories
• Decisions based on consensus
• Dialogue guided by a trained facilitator

In summary, KCJC works to reduce youth violence and increase the connectivity of the community. The Model Programs Guide of the OJJDP states: Teaching conflict resolution and problem solving skills has been shown to be effective in reducing overall aggression and violent behavior. KCJC literally puts this guideline into practice in a real-world classroom approach as we seek to build a healthy community for all of our citizens.

What’s in a Word?

"If you talk to a man in a language he understands,

that goes to his head.

If you talk to him in his language,

that goes to his heart."

- Nelson Mandela

(Warning: Coarse language included. Sorry, but I run with a rough crowd.)

I am learning something. Words do not always communicate. I feel I am constantly learning a new language (even foul if need be) as I try to communicate with people.

I have noticed several of the juvenile offenders, who are referred to New Path Center through Fresno County Probation, Kingsburg Police, or the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program, do not understand the meaning of the word “conflict.” So, when I use the terms “Conflict Management,” “Conflict Style,” or ask them to describe a “conflict” they have experienced, they do not have a clue what I am talking about.

I am listening and, hopefully, learning.


Definitions of "con·flict" from those I serve:


Punking: Manipulation, deceit.

Issue: A serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one

Combat: A prolonged armed struggle

Argument: An incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests

Beef: A condition in which a person experiences a clash of opposing wishes or needs

F***ed Up: Be incompatible or at variance

Drama: Having or showing confused and mutually inconsistent feelings

Gang War: A clash or disagreement, often violent, between two opposing groups or individuals; An incompatibility, as of two things that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled; To be at odds (with); to disagree or be incompatible; To overlap (with), as in a turf-war

Smack, dogging, talking s**t: Striking, or dashing together; fighting; contending; struggling to resist and overcome; Being in opposition; contrary; contradictory

Bitch: Limitations, complexities, or complications that result in a disagreement between the parties involved as to how the remediation is to be performed

Problem: Someone wants something and people and things keep getting in the way of them achieving the goal

Harassment: A situation in which opposing viewpoints have come into physical confrontation. Conflicts are more intractable than simple disputes because of the existence of institutionalized, fundamental disagreement with limited malleability of participants or the situation

Jacked-up: the clash of actions, emotions, objectives, or philosophies that inhibit or divert the agonists, either protagonist or antagonist; including innerpersonal, intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal, antisocial, cross-cultural, extrasocial, and mystical

Coarse as some of these words are, my goal is to speak to hearts; to experience communication where the words don't get in the way.

Maybe if we knew each other . . .

Sometime ago, a young teen, I will call Eric, broke into an old truck parked beside the truck owner’s home. Eric pried the lock of the passenger door and managed to open it. His intent was to steal the stereo. However, someone saw him and called the city police. As the police came into Eric’s sight, he tried to run from them. But the police caught him.

Eric was placed on probation and the case was turned over to me to serve as a VORP mediator. I facilitated a victim-offender mediation between Eric, his father and the owners of the truck, an older couple.

I’ll call the couple, Frank and Marge. Marge’s elderly father also lived in the home. Frank worked full-time and Marge was self-employed on a part-time basis.

The mediation went well until Eric tried to minimize the damages to the truck. “It was only a seven dollar lock,” he said. Taking that moment, I decided to account for all the damages. I questioned Frank and Marge about how Eric’s offense affected them in terms of hard dollars (out-of-pocket expenses and losses) and soft dollars (other non-direct costs and losses):

“It may have been a $7.00 lock but there was body damage also. We had to take the truck to a body shop and it cost us $250 to have the lock replaced and the body damage repaired,” Marge explained.

Marge also said, “When I had to go to the courthouse to file paperwork, I had to cancel all my appointments. I lost a $100 of income.”

Marge continued, “Plus, I could not leave my 95 year old father alone when I went to the courthouse, so I had to hire a caregiver at $100 for the day.”

Frank added, “With all the police and insurance paperwork, body shop estimates, and running around, I had to take a vacation day time just to handle all the details.” ($250 cost)

Marge said, “We have had other things happen around here; things taken or broken. We began to think that we were singled-out in the neighborhood. We don’t feel safe.”

Frank and Marge went on to tell about all the work, stress, fear, and hassles they had to endure. Soon, the $7.00 lock turned into nearly a thousand dollars. I looked at the seventeen year old and he started to cry. “I had no idea,” Eric said.

Once we talked about the offense and all the hurt that Eric caused, I moved the mediation to a discussion about how to make things as right as possible. Eric was quick to apologize but he did not have the money to pay for all the damages.

This is the point in a mediation where typically restitution and grace start to come together. This is where an amazing expression of grace took place in this mediation.

Frank and Marge offered for Eric to work-off the damages. They asked Eric if he could come over to their house and do yard work, minor repairs, and wash their cars.

Amazing, the victims invited their offender into their private space and to be around their things. This situation started because Eric violated their private space and tried to steal their things!

Eric humbly accepted their offer. We then moved to the last part of the mediation. We talked about the future and how it would look for Eric, Eric’s father, Frank and Marge. Eric promised that this would never happen again and that he had learned his lesson.

Frank and Marge were pleased with Eric’s promises. But then Frank offered something that is rarely offered to an offender; another amazing expression of grace. “Eric, why don’t you and your folks come over to our place for a barbeque? Maybe if we knew each other, these things wouldn’t happen.”

Amazing.

Got Conflict? Got Salt? Got Peace?

"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness,
how can you make it salty again?
Have salt in yourselves,
and be at peace with each other." - Jesus

It is interesting that salt and peace are linked in this teaching. Salt is a mineral that is useful as it not only preserves food but it also enhances the flavor of food. Looking at the salt metaphor and relating it to constructive relationships, Dr. Tim Geddert writes, “This saying is a call to be genuine, the real thing, the kind of disciple that preserves and enhances the community.”

The twelfth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Roman followers of Jesus is one of those classic passages of scripture that speaks into our everyday relational lives. The teachings that strike me the most in this passage are Paul’s reflections of life in a redemptive faith community. While he writes about how to live with each other and the connectedness of community, he also places a responsibility on each and every member of the community when he writes, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” We may see in this verse a loop-hole and declare,

“It is not possible! Peace is not possible because the other person is evil, won’t cooperate, and only wants to argue and win. They are out to control me and to destroy me!”

But notice the possibility of peace does not hinge on the other person; it depends on you and me and our willingness to be at peace with one another.

So, what needs to happen when the other parties just won’t cooperate? Are there resources available? How do you know you are doing everything possible to live at peace with this other person?

Besides my work as a mediator addressing interpersonal conflict and facilitating reconciliation for two or more people, I am increasingly called on to work with just one person and to help them constructively deal with the conflict they are experiencing. This is called Conflict Coaching (CC). CC is a process in which the individual and I communicate one-on-one for the purpose of

• developing the individual’s understanding of the conflict;
• determining what they can constructively do about it;
• and empowering them with effective relational skills.

CC is available when the other parties won’t engage in a mediation or reject a personal invitation to come together to talk through hurts and/or disagreements.

CC is available for those who want to be the kind of "salty" person that preserves and enhances the possibility of peace, i.e. “salt” for a positive change in a broken relationship.

We got issues!

.
What exactly are we fighting about? Our ability to clearly state what the issues are will help us to determine a redemptive outcome. Broadcasting a generalized judgment or labeling can bring more confusion, tension, and escalation to the conflict.

If we can determine the kind(s) of conflict we have entered, we will have a better chance to realistically resolve the conflict.

Dr. Ron Claassen brings the following insights to help us define our conflicts.

Ron writes, "As we move down the list, it will likely be more difficult to resolve the conflict constructively. It is not impossible, but will require more planning and perhaps outside help."

Space

Schedule

Methods

Procedures

Personal Preferences

Traditions

Customs

Values

Beliefs

What are we fighting about? Determining the level of conflict on the above continuum will help us to determine a strategy to find resolution.
.

When we talk, are we using a hammer or a saw?

.
Debate v. Dialogue is like a sledge hammer v. a logging saw.

In a debate, one person uses debate like a sledge hammer against the other person. Then the other person reacts and does the same thing.

In a dialogue, they use dialogue like a two-person logging saw that takes cooperation to work.

Here's a quick contrast between Debate and Dialogue:

The goal is to "win" the argument by affirming one's own views and discrediting other views. v. The goal is to understand different perspectives and learn about other views.

People listen to others to find flaws in their auguments. v. People listen to others to understand how their experiences shape their beliefs.

People critique the experiences of others as distorted and invalid. v. People accept the experiences of others as real and valid.

People appear to be determined not to change their own views on the issue. v. People appear to be somewhat open to expanding their understanding of the issue.

People speak based on assumptions made about others' positions and motivations. v. People speak primarily from their own understanding and experience.

People oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. v. People work together toward common understanding.

Strong emotions like anger are often used to intimidate the other side. v. Strong emotions like anger and sadness are appropriate when they convey the intensity of an experience or belief.

Excerpt taken from The Little Book of Dialogue for Difficult Subjects, A Practical, Hands-On Guide, by Lisa Schirch & David Campt., Page 9.

Constructive Confrontation

Constructive Confrontation (CC) is used to bring people face-to-face with reality and to say a difficult statement in a redemptive way.

• CC helps bring consistency between what a person says and what a person does.

• CC promotes open and direct communication.

• CC helps initiate action plans and behavior changes.

• CC is not lecturing, judging, or acting in some punitive manner.

• CC should not contain an accusation, evaluation, or problem solution.

CC requires self-exploration/preparation on the part of the one who is constructively confronting:

• How do you describe the messages from the other party (i.e. the party who you want to confront)?

• What observations do you have about the other party’s behavior?

• What evidence do you have that supports the messages and behavior?

CC statements often follow this pattern: “you said/but look”
• “You said . . .” repeats a message of the other party.
• “But look . . .” presents the contradiction or discrepancy.

For example:

“I hear you say you want life to be better, yet you have given reasons why you feel life will never be better.”

“You say you want to get back together, but you keep seeing someone else.”

“You say you want to go to college after high school, but you are not doing your homework.

“You say you don’t feel appreciated for what you do, yet you don’t let anyone know this is how you feel.”

“You say you want to get well, but you are not getting help.”

Finish off the statement with, “I’m confused by this, help me understand.” Or “I seem to be lost by what I hear and what I observe, can tell me more about what is happening.” (Of course, do this without sarcasm and be sure to watch your non-verbals.)

Adapted from Dr. Alan Wolfelt, Counseling Skills Fundamentals, 2001, Center for Loss and Life Transitions

Redemptive Reality-Check and Divorce

When You Are Thinking of Divorce:

The following is a collection of questions and statements regarding divorce. I offer them as a resource to those who are thinking of divorce. Please consider the depth and impact of your decision. These questions and statements help define a reality-check that may be the basis for redeeming your marriage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts taken from “Are You Really Ready for Divorce? The 8 Questions You Need to Ask” by Bruce Derman and Wendy Gregson, May 2008, http://www.mediate.com/articles/dermanGregson1.cfm?nl=159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The overall question is, “Are you ready for divorce?”

Why is this question important?

“The decision to obtain a divorce is one of the most crucial decisions a person can make with consequences that last for years or a lifetime.”

“Couples who make rushed decisions to leave the marriage have had no time to evaluate their feelings, thoughts or options.”

“If people have not resolved their dilemmas before the divorce, they go through the process trying to manage their fear in different ways by hiding their doubt, responsibility; vulnerability, or dependency.”

“For divorce to be a collaborative and respectful process, the couple must be prepared and ready to separate their lives on all levels; legally, practically and emotionally.”

“To do this each person must face their divorce dilemma by answering the following 8 questions.”

1. Do you still have feelings for your partner?

2. Were you ever really married?

NOTE: Professionally, I (Tony Redfern) question the validity of this question because it allows people to re-write their marriage history:
“I never loved him/her in the first place.”
“I was forced into the marriage.”
“I loved him/her, but I was not in love.”
“I don't know why I ever married him/her in the first place.”

3. Are you truly ready for divorce or are you just threatening?

4. Is this a sincere decision based on self awareness or is it an emotionally reactive decision?

Good question. “People who divorce out of anger stay angry even after the divorce is over.”

5. What is your intent in wanting a divorce?

“Divorce has no power to right wrongs nor change people's hearts and minds.”

“Divorce can only do one thing, end a marriage, and in so doing free each person to make new attachments to new people.”

6. Have you resolved your internal conflict over the divorce?

“Recognizing the conflict and owning that different parts of you will be struggling with the impact of divorce, at different times, is part of the process of getting ready for divorce.”

7. Can you handle the unpleasant consequences of divorce?

“Divorce brings change and grief because it is the loss of the ‘happy family’ dream. Hurts, disappointments, loneliness, failure, rejection, inadequacy can all take hold of the psyche when we are in this extremely vulnerable passage.”

“To be ready for the ups and downs of divorce it is necessary to have a support system of family and friends who will be there to help you emotionally and practically when needed.”

“One of the hardest consequences of divorce is needing to face another person's pain, be it your children's, your family or friends because divorce affects so many people's lives.”

“To know if you are ready, ask yourself if you are prepared for the following changes:

If you don't want changes to your finances, lifestyle or traditions then you are not ready for divorce.
If you cannot accept your children's sadness and anger then you are not ready for divorce.
If you cannot acceptance times of insecurity, fear and the unknown then you are not ready for divorce.
If you are not willing to let go of your spouse mentally, emotionally and spiritually then you are not ready for divorce.

8. Are you willing to take control of your life in a responsible and mature way?

“How people respond to this fact determines the type of divorce and future they will have. They can come from a position of bitterness, revenge or helplessness or they can negotiate for their future from a position of strength, understanding and respect.”

“The attitude you choose will determine the type of divorce you have. Your options are as follows. You can make Agreements that:

Protect your rights only or Respect your spouse's rights too
Are only good for you or Are good for everyone
Give your spouse less or Give your spouse what is rightfully theirs
Do not inconvenience you or Work well for everyone
Need frequent court hearings to enforce or Need no court hearings to enforce

For those who follow a Christian faith-tradition, please consider the following.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts based on a portion of the chapter entitled, "Church Discipline: God's Tool to Heal and Restore Marriages," written by Ken Sande. This chapter is included in the book Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood (edited by Wayne Grudem and Dennis Rainey, Crossway Publishing, 2003)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myths of Divorce

"Do not be deceived." (e.g., James 1:16, Gal. 6:7).

Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

“Popular divorce mythology:”

Myth #1, “When the love has gone out of a marriage, it's better to get divorced.”

However, “The basis of marriage is not feelings of love--in God's design, commitment is the basis of marriage, and love is the fruit.”

Myth #2, “It's better for the children to go through a divorce than to live with parents who fight all the time.”

However, divorcing couples “usually have to admit that it's not the children they are looking out for, but their own selfish desires.”

Myth #3, “God led me to this divorce. I repeatedly hear people say, ‘I know the Bible teaches that divorce usually isn't God's will, but in this case God has given me a real peace that this is right.’”

However, a sense of inner peace is not a conclusive sign of God's approval. Do you think Jesus felt inner peace in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Divorce may promise immediate relief, but in the long run, it too is usually contrary to the will of God.

Myth #4, “Surely a loving God would not want someone to stay in such an unhappy situation.”

However, this myth is based on a humanistic presupposition that God's purpose in life revolves around me and my happiness.

It is crucial to help suffering people understand that God has something far more important in mind for His people than pleasant lives. His purpose is to conform us to the likeness of His Son (Rom. 8:28-29).

Myth #5, “I know it's wrong, but God is forgiving.”

However, Deuteronomy 29:19-21 says, "If you presume that you can sin deliberately and then just say magic words and God will forgive you, how great will His wrath be upon you!" (Sande paraphrase)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from BreakPoint. © Prison Fellowship Ministries. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Christians Divorce

How could a man or woman, committed to both their spouse and their Lord, fall in love with another person?

"It seemed so good, so right. That's when we knew we had to get the divorces. We belonged together."

"It was just so good and right with Roger that I knew it would be wrong to go on with Paul."

Each are "invoking a higher law: the feeling of goodness and rightness. A feeling so powerful that it swept away whatever guilt they would otherwise have felt" for what they were doing to their families.

When Christian couples marry, they often say, "till death us do part." But what many unconsciously mean is, "till failing love do us part."

In reality, many people love their spouse, not as a person but as someone who evokes certain feelings. Their wedding vow was not so much to the person as to that feeling. So when such people fall in love with someone else, they transfer that vow to the other person. And why not? - "If vows are nothing but feelings?"

These thrilling emotions are called "The Sanction of Eros." This is an appeal to something higher than judgment, higher even than desires.

But "the sacred approval felt could not possibly have come from God, whose disapproval of divorce is explicit in Scripture. It is Eros, the pagan god of lovers, who confers this sanction upon the worshippers at his altar."

"The pronouncement of Eros that this love is so good and so right that all betrayals are justified is simply a lie,"

Couples need to know that it is only when Christ is at the heart of their marriage that they will be able to resist this ancient pagan call.

Relationship Management: A Pledge to a Totally Positive Approach.

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Romans 12:18

“I will do only those things that are both good for the relationship and good for us, whether or not they return my goodwill.”

1. I will balance reason with emotion.

Even if they are acting only emotionally or with indifferent reason, I will balance emotions and reason.

2. I will work at understanding.

Even if they misunderstand me, I will try to understand them.

3. I will work at good communication.

Even if they are not listening, I will listen to them and talk to them on matters that affect them.

4. I will be trustworthy.

Even if they are trying to lie to me or deceive me, I will be trustworthy.

5. I will use persuasion rather than bullying or force.

Even if they are trying to bully me or force me, I will be open to persuasion and try to persuade them.

6. I will work at acceptance.

Even if they reject me and my concerns as unworthy of their consideration, I will accept them as worthy of my consideration, care about them, and be open to learning from them.

Adapted by Tony Redfern; Prepared by Ron Claassen; Adapted from Getting Together: Building Relationships that Get to Yes, by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown.

Breaking the ties that keep binding us in conflict . . .

“Eight Ways to Turn Disagreements into Feuds” By Ron Kraybill



1. “Easily the most potent tool for ensuring a life well-scarred by disputes is to develop and maintain a healthy fear of conflict.”

2. “If perchance you do get in a situation where you are discussing a conflict with the other party involved, be as vague as possible about the issues.”

3. “The third commandment of conflict maintenance is to assume that you know all the facts of the matter and that they (the facts) clearly indicate you are right.”

4. “An effective variation, particularly useful in those situations where a rather unassertive person is upset with you, is to announce that you will talk with anyone who wishes to discuss problems with you – then let it be known that your responsibility ends there.”

5. “Latch onto whatever evidence you can find – count on it, you’ll always be able to find some – showing that the main problem is the other party is jealous of you.”

6. “Judge the motivation of the other party on the basis of one or two mistakes on their part.”

7. “If all these conflict maintaining mechanisms fail and, despite your best efforts, you find yourself engaging in discussion with your opponent, approach resolution as a strictly win/lose situation.”

8. “Your last line of recourse, if somehow a proposal is brought to you that might resolve the dispute, is to respond that you are not in a position to negotiate.”

“There you have it folks. Master these principles in one dispute, and you will find it easier to get involved in others as well. Those interested in avoiding change and growth in personal relationships should find these principles particularly helpful. A few simmering disputes will in time differentiate bland souls with obvious scars. It’ll make them real characters!”

How to have a redemptive conversation

Relationship skills and emotional intelligence keep hitting the "must know" list for success. Also, our communities are defined as healthy based on how constructively we can dialogue with each other.

Could it be that our success and the health of our communities, families, marriages, and relationships boil down to how we talk with each other?

Here are the basic communication skills that give the greatest relationship return: Click here

Redeeming Apology: Growing Redemptive Community

Restoring the Church, Meta•noia Ministries.

Restoring the Church offers you a collection of resources to . . .
reconcile conflict,
equip leaders, and
grow biblical community in your church for the glory of Jesus Christ.

http://www.restoringthechurch.org/index.html

Excellent articles on apology, brokenness, courage, integrity, and justice:

How to say, “I’m sorry,” and really mean it. The first in a series of four articles on authentic confession: http://www.restoringthechurch.org/resources/newsletter/archive/documents/41HowsayImSorry.pdf

The courage to say, “I was wrong.” Part two of four on How to say, “I’m sorry,” and really mean it: http://www.restoringthechurch.org/resources/newsletter/archive/documents/42CouragetosayImwrong.pdf

Integrity: considering others as the Other would. Part three of four on How to say, “I’m sorry,” and really mean it: http://www.restoringthechurch.org/resources/newsletter/archive/43IntegrityConfession_000.pdf.pdf

To act justly. The final of four articles on How to say, “I’m sorry,” and really mean it: http://www.restoringthechurch.org/resources/newsletter/archive/44JusticeConfession_000.pdf.pdf

[Restorative] Street Justice

During the high school lunch break, a freshman decided to kick the backside of the Kingsburg First Baptist's marquee.

Long story short, he was caught, in the act, by the police. The police called the church office and our Youth Minister, Chris Miller walked down to the scene of the crime. A KPD officer called me on my cell and I stopped by the scene. (I mediate with juvenile offenders and their victims in the Kingsburg area.)

There in front of us was a clueless young man standing on the curb with two uniformed officers asking him questions as they jotted down notes. One of the officers asked me if I had any questions for the young man. I just asked the classic victim question, "Why?" To which he answered with the classic offender response, "I don't know." With a little more coaxing, he sheepishly said he had the idea that maybe he could create some new words on the sign by kicking it with his foot and knocking letters off the sign. [Maybe this was a new way to cite "footnotes." :-) Sorry.]

One of the officers implied that the church could press trespassing charges if we wanted. He also said that maybe the youth could do something to right the wrong - like replace the letters on the sign. We talked for a moment and it was mutually agreed that the young man would return after school and fix the sign. Chris Miller told the young man to come to the church office.

That afternoon, the "offender" came to the office just as he promised. Chris and the young man walked down to the sign, replaced the letters, and talked about what happened.

Pastor Chris pointed out the obvious. We are a product of our decisions, think before acting, and everyone has made poor decisions. But he also reminded the youth that he deserved a second chance and that he was not totally defined by this immature act.

The young man broke a law, but he also broke a relationship that needed mending. As a church, we are always looking for ways to give away the church to the community. Faithful church members serve the high-school students lunch. Our basketball court is available to the public - true, we have had to set some boundaries, but it is available. Students use our picnic tables and even the church's front steps as a place to eat lunch. All in all, there is an invitation to students from the church to use church property and all we ask for is respect. This agreement really is an unspoken "social contract" based on trust.

So, this freshman broke a trusting relationship with the church. Graciously, instead of punishing the child, the police and the church decided to give him an opportunity to make it right. This was an act of grace - a step of restorative "street justice" that placed a higher value on restoring the relationship than the law being broken.

This is a modest example of living in redemptive community.

The Power and Reality of Forgiveness

Having a forgiving spirit may be one of the most difficult character traits to live out. When one considers the atrocities humanity has experienced as a result of its own deeds, it may even sound reasonable to say that some injustices cannot be forgiven. But Christians are called to forgive just as God forgives. The following is a real life story of a bereaved mother who tells of how she was able to forgive because of her knowledge of God.

When it comes to being victimized, perhaps there is no greater loss than when a child is murdered. Marietta Jaeger’s seven-year-old daughter, Susie, was abducted while enjoying a family vacation and later murdered by her abductor. Jaeger (1998) writes of this experience in the book, Exploring Forgiveness, edited by Robert Enright and Joanna North. Jaeger’s chapter is entitled, “The Power and Reality of Forgiveness: Forgiving the Murderer of One’s Child.”

Jaeger’s initial response to her loss was rage and the strong desire for revenge, even to the point of wanting to kill the murderer with her own bare hands. Jaeger found another option of how to respond to her loss. She found she could respond to her daughter’s murder through her knowledge of what God is like and what God does. Without knowing the final outcome for Susie, Jaeger waited for months in the balance of uncertainty for Susie’s return or death. As she waited, Jaeger reflected on her moral training and reached for the “highest moral ground.” Jaeger writes, “I surrendered. I made a decision to forgive this person, whoever he was” (p. 11). Her decision was based on her theology. Jaeger writes the following thoughts about God and how her theology impacts her life and character.

I had reminded myself repeatedly . . .

. . . that, however I felt about the kidnapper, in God’s eyes he was just as precious as my little girl. I claim to believe in a God who is crazy about each of us, no matter who we are and what we’ve done, and I had to be unremitting to calling myself to that.

. . . that, even if he wasn’t behaving like one, this man was a son of God, and, as such, just by virtue of his membership in the human family, he had dignity and worth, which meant for me that I had to think and speak of him with respect and not use the derogatory terms that came so easily to mind as I went month after month without knowing where my little girl was.

. . . that, as a Christian, I am called to pray for my enemies, a category for which he certainly qualified. In the beginning, that was the last thing I felt like doing, but as I sought to desire his well-being authentically and sincerely, the easier it became to do so. I realized how important it was that he experience good fortune and affirmation – the love of God – in this life. If he still had Susie, I wanted him to be good to her, and if he didn’t have her, I wanted him to have the courage it would take to come forth and tell what had happened (p. 12).

As Jaeger reflects on her thoughts about God, she translates her theology to character, and then to skills, and finally to praxis. Her theology is evident when she says, “in God’s eyes he [the abductor] was just as precious as my little girl.” As a reflection of her theology, her character becomes visible, “and I had to be unremitting to calling myself to that.”

Her statement, “this man was a son of God, and, as such, just by virtue of his membership in the human family, he had dignity and worth,” evidences another example of Jaeger’s theology. She reflects on the impact of her theology when she writes, “which meant for me that I had to think and speak of him with respect and not use the derogatory terms that came so easily to mind as I went month after month without knowing where my little girl was.”

Notice how she even speaks of the skills that support her character as she reflects on her theology. She thinks and speaks of her daughter’s abductor with respect and not in derogatory terms. She prays for him. “I am called to pray for my enemies, a category for which he certainly qualified.”

She also comments on her new praxis, “In the beginning, that was the last thing I felt like doing [to pray for him], but as I sought to desire his well-being authentically and sincerely, the easier it became to do so.” Her praxis reflects her theology. “I realized how important it was that he experience good fortune and affirmation – the love of God – in this life.”

Jaeger was looking for justice, but not in the form of punishment. She wanted restoration. She wanted something that she saw in her God. Her theology proclaimed a reflection of God as “a God who seeks not to punish, destroy or put us to death, but a God who works unceasingly to help and heal us, rehabilitate and reconcile us, restore us to the richness and fullness of life for which we have been created” (p. 13). She offers a wonderful comment on character and praxis as she reflects on the the very nature of God. “This, now, was the justice I wanted for this man who had taken my little girl” (p. 13). Just as God is a God of justice, so be a people of justice, the kind of justice one would see in God.

At the end of Jaeger’s chapter she writes, “Though I would never have chosen it so, the first person to receive a gift of life from the death of my daughter . . . was me” (p. 14). The gift originates from her theology that empowers her to make forgiveness a part of her character. This character leads her to a praxis that ultimately frees her from the powers of what she calls the “death dealing spirits” of anger, hatred, resentment, bitterness and revenge that can destroy one’s very life (p. 14).

The power and reality of forgiveness, indeed!