Tag: reconcilliation

Occupy whatever… The problem of protests & morality

· Leave a comment ·

News and discussions about the Occupy Wall Street abound. It brings up larger issues in my mind. I’m a bit fearful of political leaning posts as they tend to be polarizing, so as in all things I ask that we listen. My point is simply this: Protests rarely if ever lead to reconciliation and forcing morality rarely leads to real change.

He who whispers speaks loudest
The biggest problem with protests is they’re not heard. That’s right, not heard. “A soft answer turns away wrath.” Very few people, especially strong leaders, respond favorably to in your face, vehement approaches. We ignore those who nag or shout at us. Protesting is both of these things. It lacks civility. While I’m glad I live in a country that we can protest I do not think we should.

We’re all hypocrites
Occupy Wall Street is protesting itself. The protesters are just as broken as those they are protesting. We’re all broken and we’re all guilty. Wall Street and our government. It seems the greater injustice is how many of us have remained naive at how our society works. We elected officials based on rhetoric then truth. The way we made our lives complex propelled the consumerism and greed. It seems one side greeds for money the other for things. While one side decries income disparity, it seems the other can decry coveting. It’s the same sin.

Legislating morality
Legislating morality often doesn’t work. People choose what moral issue they wish to legislate. Why is legislating how one uses money more important than protecting life? Yes, bringing abortion into this is bringing in another polarizing issue. But, one of the criticisms of the pro-life movement is you shouldn’t legislate morality. Dealing with life, those who are anti-death penalty argue that the death penalty isn’t a deterrent. That’s not the issue, justice is. Why is justice more important with money than with life? Why is it ok to legislate morality of money?

We the people…
The problem isn’t the 99% vs 1%, its the 100%. The role of government is to maintain a just and peaceful society. It is a key reason why Paul instructs us to pray for our leaders in 1 Timothy 2. A key aspect and provision in our society is innocent until proven guilty. Are we affording that protected right in our country to Wall Street? The real question shouldn’t be aimed at Wall Street but the role and effectiveness of our government.

Pawns & being played…
When people are shouting they are not listening. When no one listens you have chaos and not reconciliation. As Christians our aim should be reconciliation. Chaos creates a large avenue for more injustice. When we read on totalitarian movements siding with the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the bigoted statements that are coming from the movement it gives me great pause. Getting even is a lousy motivator and leads to injustice. Often it brings out the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Life isn’t fair & income mobility
There is evil in the world, and not everyone is dealt the ideal hand in life. The freedom we have in our country can allow a poor orphan to become one of the greatest CEO’s. While one may say that is an acceptation, I disagree. The Bible says if one does not work one does not eat. Hard work, making wise decisions and not giving up plays a big role. We have a choice to be a victim or to embrace obstacles as challenges. We have a choice to blame someone else, or to take responsibility for our own lives.

The bottom line
Seek to whisper and be heard. Seek to live a quiet and simple life. The problem is really us. When everyone is shouting no one is listening. When everyone is seeking their own rights, the path to reconciliation is blocked.

Conflict Part 3: A method of carefronting

· Leave a comment ·

I carefronted two boys who were fighting. Going through the three questions of the last post, it was a clear and urgent matter to carefront them. The story turns out they were just playing like they do at home. They were not scared or rattled because they were carefronted. I avoided a mountain. Here is how it went down: O.I.C.: Observation, Interpretation, Clarification.

While I am using an example involving older children, I find the difference between adults and children is smaller than we would like to admit. I had similar conversations with adults.

Observation
Observation is stating the facts of what we saw or heard. Not what we think the facts are, but exactly the facts as we have observed. Stating what we observe is foundation for our interpretation. This is critical because we may not have all the facts, or we may be wrong in how we interpret the facts.

“Boys, I saw that you were fighting. Punching, hitting, pushing, and you looked mad at each other.”

Interpretation
Interpretation is what we believe based on the facts we observed. Even if we have all the facts, we may be wrong. It is important to differentiate the facts from what we believe. If I am sure of the situation, I only give what I believe- the negative situation. If I am not as sure or if it is not a huge deal, I give both a positive and a negative interpretation. In this step state what you believe, why you believe it, and the possible consequences of this. This is about care.

“Boys, from what I saw it leads me to believe something is wrong that caused you to fight in anger. Fighting is an wrong way to handle these issues. It is grounds for being suspended or can create a negative view of you.”

Clarification
Clarification is the side door. It starts the conversation by putting the ball in the other person’s court. It allows the person to have a voice and speak to the situation. Clarification makes it about the person and not the issue. It seeks to understand and help, not point out and accuse. Clarification starts with a question followed by careful listening followed by a conversation. The key to clarification is to listening, not proving your point.

“Boys, could you clarify this, please?”
“We fight like this at home.”
“Yeah, we always play rough. We weren’t fighting, we were just playing.”
“Seriously? You were just playing?”
“Yes, sir,” they replied.
“Could you explain to me how this is playing and not fighting?”
“We were playing army.”
“Do you see how I and others believed you were fighting?”vI asked with arms folded.
“Uh-huh.”
“What should or could you do differently next time.”
“Not punch each other….” (Their feedback was much longer.)
“Alright. I get boys often like to play rough, but you need to be wise in how you play. You demonstrated poor discernment here. I’ll need to talk with you parents to verify this. You’re not in trouble… What have you learned?”
“We need to be aware of others around us…”
“You’re smart boys. I’m glad you’re here. Let’s get back outside.”

I talked with both the parents and the story checked out. They liked to play rough, the parents were also working on what was appropriate with them and were thankful for how the situation was handled.

Bottom line:
Even with relying on God, being completely solid in the importance of the issue and I was correct in my view of it, I was wrong. Carefronting strengthened the relationship and all parties involved grew as a result. Carefronting dealt with the issue clearly and upfront, but in a way that put the relationship first. Carefronting is about reconciliation not justice. O.I.C. is a way to carefront that uses the side door.