Social Psychology
Social Psychology from a Christian Perspective
Social Influence
Leadership
Differences
Nepotism
Social Relations
Relationships
Conflict
Forgiveness
Reconciliation
Saying Goodbye
Chapter 15 in Dewey’s introductory text is relevant.
(Chapter 18—Social Psychology, in Myers 8th edition is also relevant.)
The content area chapters in this book began with a chapter about the person as a physical/spiritual being (Chapter 2). The first section of that chapter was about how human beings are like animals physically, physiological psychology. That part of the chapter was the overlap between psychology and biology.
This last content area chapter is about the person as a social being, in relationship with other human beings. It is the overlap between psychology and sociology. Previous chapters have considered the behavior of individuals, but this one looks at the behaviors of people in relationship to others, the individual in society.
The outlines of most of the chapters in this book are similar to those in introductory psychology books. However, the outline of social psychology chapters varies widely between authors. Dewey has four sections, and Myers has three sections but with different topics. After placing social psychology in a Christian perspective, this chapter includes material covered in the last two sections of Myers text, social influence and social relations.
Social Psychology from a Christian Perspective
Social psychology fits into our Christian perspective as shown in the lower part of Figure 10:1. Some animals have status hierarchies that are very similar to what we see among human beings. For example, in a flock of five chickens, the highest status chicken can peck any of the other four. The second highest chicken cannot peck the top one but can peck any of the three below. This continues on down through the whole flock to the bottom chicken who can peck none of the others. This is so similar to such hierarchies in humans that we use the term “pecking order” to describe people in similar hierarchies. Of course, such hierarchies in primates are much more complex.
Figure 10:1 Social Psychology from a Christian perspective.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . . . Image of God
Like Animals Like God
Overt Behavior. . . . . . Definition. . . . . .Mental Processes
Understand. . . . . . . . . Goals. . . . . . . . .Make people
Creation like God
Psychoanalysis. . . . . . Systems. . . . . . .Humanistic
Behaviorism Psychology
Experimental . . . . . . .Methods . . . . . . Descriptive
Physical. . . . . . . . . . .The Person . . . . Spiritual
Immaturity. . . . . . . . .Development. . .Maturity
Sensation . . . . . . . . . .Awareness . . . .Perception
(States of Consciousness)
Learning . . . . . . . . . .Intellect . . . . . .Cognition
(Memory)
Biological . . . . . . . .Motivation. . . . .Cognitive
Physiological. . . . . .Emotion. . . . . . .Conscious
Physical . . . . . . . . . Health. . . . . . . . .Mental
Like Animals . . . . Social. . . . . . . . . Like God
Some people have made rather direct comparisons between animals and humans. In The Naked Ape: A Zoologists Study of the Human Animal Desmond Morris pointed out many parallels between humans and animals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_3116000/3116329.stm). He later went on to write Intimate Behavior in which he described twelve steps humans go through to bond just as animals form pair-bonds through elaborate rituals, such as birds do in “courting.” Donald Joy then wrote Bonding to place these steps in a Christian perspective http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~sjr/bonding.html).
As beings created in God’s image, people are also God-like. God is a trinity of persons, three in one. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This social aspect of God is revealed in the first chapter of the Bible where, before creating humans, God was a social being communing with himself when he said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”(Genesis 1:26). He then created humans, male and female, in his own image (Genesis 1:27).
The first thing in all of creation that was not good was that Adam was alone (Genesis 2:18), and this was before the Fall into sin (Genesis 3). God brought birds and animals to Adam who named them, but not one of them was adequate to satisfy his loneliness (Genesis 2:19-20). Only another person, also made in God’s image, could satisfy his loneliness.
Social Influence
Social psychologists have repeatedly demonstrated the great power of social influence. All one had to do is look around and see that generally people in given groups dress, talk, and behave almost alike. On university campuses it often looks like the dress code requires everyone to wear blue jeans and talk on the cell phone as they walk. At a corporate headquarters and on Wall Street it often looks like a dress code requires people to wear suits and to carry a blackberry. When we know how to dress, talk, and behave, life runs smoothly for us, and most of us conform to the norms. However, the same principles apply to dissenters who leave the group and form their own group of rebels who may become terrorists. In their training it may look like their dress code requires members to wear camouflage outfits and to study explosives.
Over the years social psychologists have conducted several classic experiments demonstrating the power of conformity and obedience.
· Muzafer Sherif asked people sitting in a dark room how much a point of light was moving. It was not moving at all, but people’s answers were influenced by what others reported (Sherif (1936): Group Norms and Conformity).
· Solomon Asch asked people to choose which one of three lines that was the same length as a standard line. The majority chose an obviously incorrect line if it was the one chosen by others (Asch (1951): Conformity).
· Stanley Milgram found that most people were willing to administer painful, and perhaps very dangerous, electric shocks to research participants when ordered to do so by an “experimenter” (Obedience: Milgram (1963).
Though these experiments have been dramatic, much more common among missionaries are relationships between leaders and followers and the differences between missionaries from different generations.
Leadership
At some time or other most missionaries are in a position of leadership: planting churches, directing a work team, or teaching in school (or Sunday school, or English). They may feel pressure from above to reach goals and pressure from below to help those they supervise meet their needs. What are they to do? In such a position of leadership, Nehemiah gives good answers. Who was Nehemiah? What did he do? How did he lead? When did he lead? Why did he lead? Did he succeed? Although not everyone has the same style and uses the same methods, Nehemiah is one example of Godly leadership.
Who was Nehemiah? Like missionaries, Nehemiah was living in another culture, working in a position of responsibility there. He was cupbearer to the king. When visitors arrived from his passport country, he inquired about the people back home and about the capitol city.
However, much more important than his occupational title were his personal characteristics. When he heard that the people back home were disgraced and the walls of the city were burned and broken, he wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed.
He was:
· Compassionate. He wept and mourned for his people and his country.
· Caring. He fasted, prayed, and took action, encouraging the people.
· Committed. He got the job done, cared for his people, and was faithful to God.
· Consistent. Even those he reprimanded could find nothing negative to say about him.
· Courageous. He persevered in the face of threats, ridicule, and opposition from both the outside and inside.
For nearly a century some of his people must have said, “Somebody ought to do something about those walls.” Others must have replied, “Nothing can be done.” Because of his character, Nehemiah felt responsible to take some action.
What did he do? The most obvious answer to this is that he built the wall. Although little had been accomplished in 90 years, he had the wall completed in only 52 days, less than two months.
More important than building the wall was that, as their leader, he took care of his people. He was concerned about:
· Safety. He directed them in defending themselves from people of other cultures opposed their work.
· Justice. When people of their passport culture took advantage of them back home by charging exorbitant interest rates, Nehemiah confronted the lenders.
· Spiritual renewal. He saw that someone led his people in hearing God’s word, confession, worship, celebration, and praise.
· Consolidation of his gains. Nehemiah did not leave the capitol city nearly empty but got one in ten of the families to volunteer to live there.
· Forethought. He anticipated needs and drafted plans to avoid pitfalls.
How did he lead? More important than being cupbearer to the king (who he was) or that he built the wall in 52 days (what he did) is how he did it. He did it all in ways that brought glory to God and a sense of fulfillment to those under his supervision. Here are some of the ways he did it:
· Prayed. After he first heard the bad news and reacted to it, we have recorded his prayer of adoration, confession, reminder of the covenant, and petition for success.
· Overcame his fears. Although he was very much afraid of what the king in the culture where he was living and working would say, he responded when the king asked about his problem. He knew that the king would probably not be very excited about rebuilding the capitol of a conquered nation—Nehemiah’s passport country.
· Was tactfully open to superiors. He began by appropriately addressing the king and then sharing his problem at the king’s request. He responded to each of the king’s questions by asking more and more from him, including letters of recommendation.
· Shared his vision. After deciding what should be done, he shared his vision with the local leaders in his passport country.
· Gave God the glory. From the beginning he acknowledged that his success was due to God’s grace.
· Faced ridicule. When people of other cultures mocked and ridiculed him and the people he was leading, he again affirmed his confidence in God.
· Delegated the work. He assigned people to work on various parts of the wall—often the parts in front of their own houses. What motivation—those who did poor workmanship or did not complete their part of the wall would be the first to suffer the consequences of their lack of diligence.
· Emphasized cooperation rather than competition. He had forty distinct groups working together on a project, something of a miracle for those who have tried to get even two churches or mission agencies to work together.
· Faced opposition realistically. When the people of other cultures became incensed so that they despised and ridiculed Nehemiah’s work force, he responded with prayer and the posting of guards.
· Encouraged his workers. He acknowledged their fears and reminded them of their great awesome God.
· Developed contingency plans. He had half of the people working and the others standing guard. He further arranged for defenders to come at once to the sounding of the trumpet when those at another part of the wall were threatened.
· Confronted internal dissention. When the controversy arose over people from the home country charging the workers interest, he immediately called a large meeting to resolve the issue.
· Did not take the perks. Nehemiah did not lord it over his workers but out of reverence for God did not take even the food to which he was entitled, nor did he acquire any land.
· Kept to the task. Rather than taking the perks, he said, “Instead, I devoted myself to the work on this wall.” (Nehemiah 5:16)
Notice that most of the “how he did it” things were more about his character than they were about techniques for motivating his workers to get the job done. Also note that after the wall was built Nehemiah was not the one to read God’s word to the people, but he stepped aside for Ezra to do so.
More information about leadership is at
http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_leadership.htm.
Generational Differences
Missionaries who grew up in different generations say things like, “I just don’t understand them at all.” “They are so different from me and from the missionaries who came to the field when I did.” “The way they think just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.”
This section explores questions such as, Who are we? Are we really different? If so, how are we different? Why are we different? Can we work together effectively?
Who are we? The Pew Foundation has studied the characteristics of people born at different times in the United States. Three groups of such people are now in the missionary force and a fourth one also often serves on mission boards.
· Builders. People born between 1928 and 1945, before the end of World War II, were intent on building a comfortable lifestyle and building America into an economic and military super-power. As missionaries they were (and are) hardworking, committed, frugal, and ready to go anywhere at any time and do anything necessary to take the gospel to all people groups. Most of them are retired, but some are now on mission boards with oversight over current workers.
· Boomers. People born during the two decades following World War II (1945-1965) were the baby boom, the “war babies.” Born into prosperity, they became well-educated, questioning, protesting, idealistic, and tolerant of many different lifestyles. As missionaries they brought specialized knowledge, a desire to continue their personal and professional development, and a greater emphasis on caring for their families.
· Busters. People born during the next decade and a half (1965-1980) were called the baby busters because there were fewer of them. The baby busters (sometimes called Generation X), children of the boomers, grew up in a world different from that of any previous generation. Many who came from broken homes and were victims of violence now feel alienated, forgotten, cheated, and disillusioned with life. As missionaries looking for meaning in life, they are interested in spiritual things, open, honest, and aware of their needs. As such they make good team members.
· Millennials. People born since 1981 have been called the millennials (sometimes called Generation Y) because they were growing up at the end of the millennium. The most digitally-savvy, always-connected generation, they treat their multi-tasking, hand-held gadgets like parts of their own bodies: 80% sleep with their cell phone in or by the bed, 75% have social network sites. They are confident, connected, and open to change. As missionaries they do not want to “pay their dues” but to play an important role in important tasks now. They want access to information and immediate feedback as they strive to work in the grand scheme of things. A good summary of the characteristics of mellennials from the standpoint of leaders is at http://www.growingleaders.com/index.php/articles/127.html The most complete yet readable current report is by the Pew Foundation at http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf. Even more information is at http://pewresearch.org/millennials/.
How are we different? Builders, boomers, busters, and millennials are different in too many ways to discuss here. However, here are some of the major differences between builders and busters especially relevant to missions. Of course, the boomers are somewhere between the builders and the busters on many issues. The millennials are beyond the busters on their end, and they have additional differences. All of these differences are generalizations that are not true in every case, but they are often found in members of each group.
· Length of service. Builders are likely to be “career’ missionaries who expect to spend their lives with one people group or agency. Busters are often short-term missionaries who expect to work on a project for a few years at the most, then return home.
· Loyalty to agency. Builders are likely to stay with their mission for life no matter what. Busters may leave when they become dissatisfied with something in the mission.
· Word meanings. The missionary “family” may mean life-long commitment to certain values. Busters are more likely to think of that “family” in terms of support and relationships.
· Expected leadership. Builders usually respond well to authoritarian leadership, such as sitting in rows and accepting what the Bible expert tells them. Busters often want participatory leadership, such as sitting in a circle for Bible study, a circle in which anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is as valid as any other.
· Orientation. Builders are often task oriented and want to get the job done. Busters are likely to be socially-emotionally oriented and believe that relationships are more important than turning in a good report to headquarters at the end of the year.
· Women’s roles. Women builders usually see their role as supporting their husbands. Women busters typically want to work in equal authority with their husbands.
· Choosing an agency. Builders frequently go with an agency to which they are called or one serving a people or country to which they are called. Busters tend to go with an agency that seems the most caring—a mission that will care for them.
· Expectations of agency. Builders often ask, “What can I do for my mission?” They wonder whether the job will be big enough. Busters are more likely to ask, “What can my mission do for me?” They wonder whether the benefits package will be big enough.
· Attitude toward nationals. Builders are likely to take positions of leadership and be somewhat reluctant to turn responsibility over to the nationals. Busters often work well under the authority of the national leadership.
· Attitude toward conflict. Builders tend to deny that they are in conflict or approach the conflict indirectly. Busters usually openly acknowledge the presence of conflict and approach its resolution directly.
· Need for care. Builders tend to be independent and self-sufficient, saying they can make it on their own. Busters are much more likely to admit openly that they need help.
· Learning styles. Builders tend to be cognitive and emphasize such things as correct theology and biblical interpretation. Busters are often experiential and want time to experience God, to meditate and to relate to him.
· Spirituality and discipline. Builders are often highly disciplined and have their devotions daily. Although very interested in spiritual things, busters often find it difficult to maintain a consistent devotional life.
These differences, and many others, are not just minor ones but may be large enough to cause significant disagreement between builders and busters. On the one hand, builders may think of busters as immature, lazy, materialistic, lacking ethics or morality, disrespectful, and emotionally unstable. On the other hand busters may think of builders as rigid, inflexible, old-fashioned, cautious, predictable, boring, and more interested in the past than in the future.
Can we work together? Not only can builders, boomers, busters, and millennials work together, they must work together. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and their strengths complement each other. However, rather than seeing themselves as being complementary, they often view themselves in conflict. Rather than complimenting each other for strong points, they tend to criticize each other for weak points.
How can builders and busters can work together to help fulfill the Great Commission? To make disciples we need to be both rational and relational. On the one hand, the modernism-influenced cognitive builders may be so intent on getting the job done that they offend the very people they are trying to reach. On the other hand, the postmodernism-influenced experiential busters may spend so much time chatting with the people they are trying to reach that they do not get the job done before they leave.
Builders may spend an entire career in a relational culture and never win enough people to produce a national church filled with disciples. Busters may spend a term making great friends with people and bring them to Christ, but never actually disciple people there to leave a strong national church. However, working together effectively, with the career builders giving stability to the procession of short-term busters, may result in a sound national church.
There have always been, and will remain, generational differences between older and younger people. However these differences between builders, boomers, busters, and millennials are much deeper (cultural) issues, and they must be resolved to some extent for maximum effectiveness in carrying out the Great Commission. As these individuals from different generations form “multicultural” teams, they will find that they have the differences in the cultural values discussed here as well as other differences (music, worship style, dress, etc). However, they will also discover that their core values are the same, and their goal is the same—making disciples of all people groups.
Nepotism
Suppose that the field director’s nephew is coming to teach at the international school for a year. Knowing that a long-term family will be returning to their passport country for a year, the field director assigns his nephew’s family to their beautiful, large home for that year. If he does this, no one else will have to move unnecessarily.
About a month later another family serving on the field is really angry that the field director showed so much favoritism to his nephew. This family had already served three years of their four-year term, and they had hoped they could move into that beautiful home which was so much larger—and it had a pool as well. They start complaining about the blatant nepotism shown by the field director.
What is nepotism? Nepotism is showing favoritism toward relatives based on that relationship rather than on objective factors such as ability or merit. For example, nepotism would be hiring a person with a master’s degree in fashion design as an elementary principal because she is the niece of the school board chairman rather than hiring an applicant with a doctoral degree in education who has taught elementary school for a decade.
This family-based favoritism over competence often leads to low morale, low productivity, and a seeming lack of integrity to some.
Did it occur in Bible times? Of course, it did. It was part of the Jewish culture in the Old Testament. In fact, it was the major factor in people becoming priests or kings.
The whole book of Leviticus details the system of laws governing the Levites. Priests had to be descendants of Aaron, brother of Moses, and of the tribe of Levi. Sometimes the children of priests were good, and at other times they were bad, unfit to be priests. The sons of Eli the priest (1 Samuel 1-4) were also serving as priests, but they treated the Lord’s offering with contempt and seduced the women serving at the entrance to God’s house. Nepotism did not lead to good.
Before Israel was ruled by kings, Gideon realized that political power should not depend on nepotism. When the Israelites asked Gideon, his son, and his grandson to rule over them, Gideon said he would not do so and neither would his son (Judges 8:22-23).
After Israel began being ruled by kings, the king’s oldest son became the next king unless there was a coup. After division of the kingdom, the Northern Kingdom (Israel) had all evil kings. Nepotism did not lead to good. Sometimes a good king in the Southern Kingdom (Judah) had a good son, but other times the son was evil. Here are some examples from over 200 years of successive rulers of Judah.
· Uzziah, good (52 years, 2 Chronicles 26)
· Jotham, good (16 years, 2 Chronicles 27)
· Ahaz, evil (16 years, 2 Chronicles 28)
· Hezekiah, good (29 years, 2 Chronicles 29-32)
· Manasseh, evil (55 years. 2 Chronicles 33)
· Amon, evil (2 years, 2 Chronicles 33)
· Josiah, good (31 years, 2 Chronicles 34-35)
Did it occur in the church? Of course it did. In fact, that is where the term “nepotism” originated. The Latin word nepos means “nephew” or “grandchild.” The suffix –ism comes from the favoritism popes showed to their relatives in appointing them to positions in the church.
Since the popes had taken vows of chastity and had no children of their own, they most often appointed their nephews (nepos) to become cardinals. The cardinals then chose a new pope when one died, and it was often another cardinal in the family—thus papal “dynasties.”
This practice began shortly after 1000 AD and continued until Pope Paul III appointed two nephews (one 14 years old and the other 16 years old) as cardinals. A papal bull in 1692 finally prohibited appointing more than one qualified relative as cardinal. The practice of promoting family members continues to some extent in many churches today.
Did it occur in missions? It has been happening in missions since the second term of Christian missionary service (Acts 15:36-41). Paul proposed a second term to Barnabas, a teammate on their first term. Barnabas wanted to take his cousin, John Mark. Paul did not think it was wise to take someone who had deserted them during their first term. Paul and Barnabas parted company, and Barnabas took John Mark with him to a different place of service.
Nepotism still occurs in missions today, probably most often when third culture kids (TCKs) want to return to the culture where they grew up—it is home to them! Of course, their parents (and perhaps other relatives) are often still there and are likely to be in leadership roles since they are more mature and have had more experience there than most others on the field. When the TCKs arrive, they often find that being a missionary on that field is quite different from being a TCK. Many of them are rather disappointed. Their parents may then favor them in an attempt to make the experience better for their TCKs.
What is the solution? This is a very difficult problem because we want to avoid favoritism toward family members on the one hand and discrimination against family members on the other. About 40% of the states in the USA have nepotism laws against hiring people for state positions. The other 60% do not have such laws because they want to avoid discrimination.
Some corporations, educational institutions, and agencies have nepotism rules, but others do not. Treating people fairly is difficult when those making the decisions are obviously biased. Walking the fine line between favoritism and discrimination is never easy, but here are some suggestions.
· The best “solution” is to not be in a position where nepotism can occur. That is, do not serve where you are supervising a family member or one is supervising you. However, since that is not always possible, the following may help.
· Acknowledge to yourself that nepotism does happen and that you could be guilty of it yourself. It is only “natural” for people to want the best for their own family members.
· Bring up to the group the possibility of nepotism happening. This brings it out into the open where it can be discussed by everyone.
· Talk with people on all sides of the question. Tell them that you want to be fair, guilty neither of favoritism toward family members nor of discriminating against them. Ask if they think you are doing either.
· Treat all applicants exactly the same. Openly announce that positions, housing, and so forth are available and ask people to apply for them.
· Leave a paper trail. When you communicate via email or other written announcements, you have everything in writing. Follow up each oral communication (personal meeting, telephone or skype conversation) with a written summary.
· Get the opinion of a person not involved, someone outside your agency if possible. That way you have the unbiased judgments of an objective individual.
These may not prevent accusations of nepotism, but at least keep a record of attempts to avoid it.
More information about nepotism is at http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_nepotism.htm.
Social Relations
The previous section was about how we influence each other. Another important issue is how we relate to each other. The general section about relationships is first followed by sections on conflict, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Surprising as it is to some, conflict between missionaries is very common, so missionaries need to know how to forgive and reconcile. The last section is on saying goodbye, something missionaries do very frequently.
Relationships
Making and maintaining friendships on the field has been so difficult. However, missionaries who have difficulty doing so begin to wonder if there is something wrong with themselves. Why are relationships so difficult? What do relationships have to do with the Great Commission anyway? How can people make friends? What if some friendships just don’t work?
What do relationships have to do with the Great Commission? They are central to it. In the Great Commission Jesus told us to go and make disciples of all people groups. If people are going to become disciples, they have to recognize that missionaries are disciples—and want to become like them. Jesus said that people will know that people are his disciples if they love each other (John 13:35). In the previous verse, he had called his command to “love one another,” a new command, but it was really a re-newed command. It was first given back in Leviticus, then quoted by Jesus when he was asked about the Greatest Commandment. He said to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Certainly the Great Commission involves preaching and teaching people to love God. However, that may be easier than obeying that second great command, the command to love each other. When nationals look at friendships among missionaries, do they say, “Look how they love each other”? If not, perhaps friendships need some improvement so that you can better carry out the Great Commission of making disciples. If people do not recognize that you are disciples and want to become like you, your ministry may be quite fruitless.
Why are missionary friendships so difficult? Making and maintaining friendships is difficult for most people. People are different in many ways and may feel threatened or may let stereotypes keep them from forming close friendships. Some people are morning types; others evening types. Some work fast and have everything done early; others complete things at the last minute. People have different personality traits, such as some being extraverts and others introverts. Some people are quite mature; others immature. In addition to these general factors, other more specific ones make it even more difficult for missionaries to develop and maintain close friendships.
· Time. In your “home” country everyone is busy, but on the field there is even more to keep you busy. The hassles of everyday life, such as getting and preparing food, paying bills and getting things repaired all take longer. You have to maintain relationships with supporters.
· Mobility. At “home” people move, but changing your residence every few years is built into missionary life—on the field four years, home one; or perhaps on the field two years, home six months. At home, deputation keeps you on the road. On the field, you frequently move even during your term.
· Expectations. Although people back “home” disappoint you, other missionaries may do so even more often because you expect more of them. They ought to know what you need and meet that need. Where is their love?
We have a good example of this in the disciples who were an evangelism team of twelve to reach Palestine. Jesus was the field director. The disciples had been called, had gone through the selection process, had left their jobs, had gone through orientation, and had gone out in teams of two. They had gone through training and had served for nearly three years. One would certainly expect that they would have things down pretty well.
As we pick up the story in Mark 9, the disciples had been arguing about who was the greatest. Jesus calls them around and points out that whoever wants to be first has to be last and servant of all. In Mark 10 they meet the rich young man who would not give up his possessions. When Peter points out that the disciples had given up home and family to travel and spread the good news, Jesus agrees and reviews the teaching about the first being last and the last first. Even after two clear lessons, as they travel on toward Jerusalem, James and John (or their mother) ask to be first in the kingdom. When the other ten hear about this, they become indignant with James and John—those two should know better! However, rather than scolding them, Jesus calls the disciples around and again reviews the lesson: whoever wants to be great must be the servant of others.
How do we form such relationships? To live so that people will know that we are his disciples by our love for each other is not easy in today’s world, but it can be done. Of course, no person can be intimate friends with everyone, so after we have chosen people with whom we would like to develop such a relationship, try the following to form friendships.
· Time. Friendships take time. Your response may be that you just do not have time, that you have to prioritize your schedule. If you believe it is important for people to recognize that you are his disciples, you may want to start scheduling your priorities. Time allotted each week to developing missionary relationships will make you more effective, less likely to quit missionary work, more likely to be happy, and less likely to become ill.
· Affirmation. One can live for several weeks on one good compliment. However, most of us go for months without giving or receiving any. When was the last time you gave a firm compliment to build someone up and strengthen relationships?
· Trust. Spending time together in an affirming atmosphere is likely soon to lead to the development of trust. As time increases so may the trust--but you must be very careful never to betray a trust. Trust takes months or years to build, and only seconds to destroy.
· Communication. Some people have never really had someone give full attention and really listen. Sometimes we hear what people are saying with words, but not with their hearts.
· Vulnerability. When trustworthy people care and really listen, we tend to open up and become more vulnerable, more honest with each other rather than being “on guard.”
We all need a group of supporting friends. People from individualistic Western cultures often think that all they need for their ministry is “Jesus and me,” but they are suffering from “angel syndrome,” believing that they do not have the same needs as ordinary people just because they have been called into the Lord’s service.
Do it! As is so often the case, we know what we should do, we just don’t do it. In Luke 10 an expert in the law asks Jesus what he has to do for eternal life. Jesus asks him what was in the law. The man replies by giving the great commandment, including, “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus tells him he is right, “Do this and you will live.” However, trying to justify his lack of relationships, the man asks who his neighbor is. Jesus tells the story (a cross-cultural one, at that) about the Samaritan who helped after the two religious men had ignored the man in need. When Jesus asks who was the neighbor, the expert in the law answers correctly. Jesus again tells him to go and do the same.
Like the expert in the law, our problem is often not in finding out what to do, but in actually doing what we see to be right. In Mark 12 another teacher commenting on Jesus giving the great commandment observes that to love God and “to love your neighbor as you love yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (v. 33). Jesus notes that this is a wise answer. That is, loving our neighbor may be more important than many of the “professional missionary” things we do.
Spending much time in the “business” of missionary work may be a symptom that one is avoiding the hard work of building and maintaining relationships--that one is trying to fill the need for close human relationships with “busy-ness.” The single most helpful earthly resource for combating stress is social support—feeling comfortable sharing with others and then actually sharing with others who are positive and supportive.
If more missionaries developed intimate friendship relationships, they would be happier, healthier, and would require less missionary care. By the missionaries’ love for each other, nationals would recognize that they were Jesus’ disciples and may want to become disciples as well.
More information about relationships is at http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_relationships.htm
Conflict
No one has to convince missionaries that conflict exists in missions. It has been a part of missions since the very beginning in the early chapters of the book of Acts. Not only has there been conflict, but the basic issues are still the same in that there are cultural conflicts which bring disagreement between missionaries and headquarters as well as conflicts between individual missionaries on the field. Why do missionaries have conflict? What should they do about it? What steps can they take to resolve it? What do they do if you feel like we are attacked? What if it cannot be resolved?
Why do we have conflict? Conflict is normal whenever people who hold different opinions are in a close relationship. Conflict occurs whenever people who care have different opinions on important issues. The more the people care and the more important the issue, the more intense the conflict. Conflicts are simply a fact of life, and they are destructive only if not handled correctly.
An example of conflict is recorded in Acts 15. Paul and Barnabas returned from their first term of service to the local church that had commissioned them in Antioch. They held a mission conference and told about all that God had done through them. Everything went well for a long time until men from the culture in which headquarters was located visited the church in Antioch.
These men began teaching that unless the men who had responded to the message preached by Paul and Barnabas were circumcised, they were not saved. The issue was whether or not this “custom taught by Moses” was a cultural issue or a salvation issue. Thus we have a situation in which missionaries who cared deeply (Paul and Barnabas) disagreed with others on an important question (salvation). This brought the missionaries into “sharp dispute and debate with them” (v.2).
What should we do about conflict? The conflict needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. In Matthew 5, Jesus noted that if you are offering your gift to God at the altar and suddenly remember that there is an unresolved conflict with another believer, you should leave your gift there, go settle the conflict, then return to offer your gift to God. We are to settle matters quickly, but we should carefully pick the time and place to be reconciled. Sometimes the conflict is still at a high emotional pitch, and it would be best to wait a while before approaching the other person. If other people are around, it is best not to involve them in the dispute. The important thing, though, is to resolve the conflict soon because the feelings aroused by unresolved conflict soon become established and are more difficult to change.
What steps do we take to resolve it? Jesus gave a three-step procedure to use in resolving conflict in Matthew 18. In American culture as in much of Western culture where we tend to think linearly, it is usually most appropriate to take these three steps in sequence. However, if the conflict is with someone of a different culture, be sure to consult with someone raised in that culture before trying to resolve the conflict. These steps in this order may not be culturally appropriate in that situation, and the conflict may only be worsened if you do all of them in this order. The steps Jesus gave are:
· Approach the person alone. Often the two of you can resolve the conflict by yourselves and your friendship will be stronger than ever before. Of course, you must choose the time, situation, and manner of approach carefully.
· Find a mediator. If a direct approach does not work, or if it is not appropriate in the culture, you should choose a mediator. Again, choose a mediator carefully, one that you believe both parties will see as unbiased and in which both will have confidence.
· Take it to the church. If neither you nor the mediator can bring about resolution, the issue should be brought before the larger body. After the church comes to a decision, both of you are to accept the decision. The church is instructed to treat either party who does not abide by the decision as being outside the church.
As we look again at the conflict in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were in “sharp dispute and debate” with the visiting teachers but were unable to settle the conflict alone. They apparently called in mediators there in Antioch, but they were also unable to settle the conflict. So, Paul, Barnabas, and some other believers were sent to headquarters in Jerusalem to settle the conflict.
How do we go about resolving it? Assuming that the issue is an important one and that persons involved have carefully chosen the time and situation, here are some guidelines found in Acts 15 that will help resolve the conflict, whether it is two alone or it is a whole body of believers.
· Give both sides a chance to present. Paul and Barnabas presented their position, then the Pharisees presented theirs.
· Give time for adequate discussion. This was a crucial issue (salvation) so there was “much discussion.”
· Be quiet. Note that “the whole assembly became silent” as they listened to the discussion. Too often in such situations there is an undercurrent of whispering in the crowd.
· Listen. “They listened.” There is a big difference between being quiet and really listening. Put yourself in the other’s place and really try to hear and understand what the other side is saying. Too often we “turn them off,” let our minds wander, think about what we are going to say in reply, or just doze off in a long discussion.
· Allow others to finish. “When they finished, James spoke up.” Do not interrupt until others have finished.
· Keep to the issue. The issue here was whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation. Imagine all the other issues that could have been proposed from the books of the law! Also discuss the issue, not personalities.
· Express feelings appropriately. There is no report of verbal attacks or counterattacks during the discussion.
· Apply scripture. There may be differing interpretations, but certainly at least look at what the Bible has to say. James quoted from Amos 9.
· Propose a solution. James said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that…”
· Settle on essentials. They all agreed on several items and wrote a letter.
· Accept the decision. When the delegation delivered the letter back to the church at Antioch, “The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.”
· Reaffirm your friendship. “After spending some time there” for fellowship, they were sent off “with the blessing of peace.”
What if the conflict is not resolved? Sometimes conflicts cannot be resolved, and the options then are either “agree to disagree,” or part company. Just after the good conflict resolution in Acts 15, we find an irreconcilable conflict between Paul and Barnabas. In planning to go back for another term of missionary service, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them. Paul did not, and they had “a sharp disagreement.” Apparently Paul was task-oriented and did not want to take a chance on someone quitting, but Barnabas was people-oriented and did not want hurt feelings.
We are not told how they tried to resolve the conflict, but they were not able to do so, and “they parted company.” Of course, God works in all things to accomplish his purposes. He sent Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus, while Paul and Silas went to Syria. Note that later Paul changed his mind about Mark and asked to have him visit (2 Timothy 4:11). God uses our conflicts to advance his work.
More information about conflict is at http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_conflict.htm.
Forgiveness
Suppose that Bill asked fellow missionaries, his closest friends to pray for him. They prayed with Bill for the last six months as he developed a plan to reach the people in their city. It was successful beyond Bill’s wildest dreams. But now his friends had a book coming out about his plan—claiming it as their own! Of course, he was glad for the success in reaching people, but how could they have done that? Could he ever forgive them? Even if he could forgive them, could he ever forget it, or could he ever really trust them again?
How could they have done that? Being hurt by someone you love is inevitable. Sometimes the people hurting you do it intentionally, planning it carefully and then carrying out their plot. Other times they do something without forethought. Most often they do not intend to hurt you and do not even know they have done so. The Old Testament clearly distinguishes between intentional and unintentional sins.
Having a brother or sister turn on the other is as old as the human race itself, as found in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. It occurred repeatedly in the book of Genesis, as shown in the life of Joseph and his brothers who first planned to kill him, but then decided just to sell him as a slave. How could they have done that?
Sometimes missionaries are the ones who is amazed at what they themselves do. The first missionary, Paul, wrote about this in himself in Romans 7. He just did not understand why he did what he did. He did not do the things he wanted to do, but he did the things he hated. Paul was saying, “How could I have done that?”
What if I can’t forgive? When praying the Lord’s Prayer, we ask God to forgive us as we forgive others. Following that prayer in Matthew 6, Jesus said that if we forgive people who sin against us, he will forgive us. However, if we do not forgive others, he will not forgive us. He illustrated this in Matthew 18 with the parable of the unforgiving servant when Peter asked about how often to forgive. The one not forgiven was the one who did not forgive.
The goal is always forgiveness, but the time it takes to reach that goal may be very different for different offenses and for different people. We must be careful not to rush into a premature, shallow forgiveness, in which we say, “I forgive you,” but still really hold the offense against the other person. Generally the more serious the offense, the longer it takes to reach genuine forgiveness. If someone “borrows” an everyday dish without asking and breaks it, forgiveness may come quickly. If the dish was a treasured family heirloom, the forgiveness may take longer. If the offense is sexual abuse of a child or adolescent, the forgiveness may take years or decades. We must not rush into premature forgiveness.
People often cite Joseph’s clear forgiveness of his brothers in the last chapter of Genesis as an example of how we should forgive. Remember that it was more than 20 years after the offense when he first saw his brothers, and the first time he saw them (Genesis 42) he pretended to be a stranger and spoke harshly to them. By the time they came the second time, he was ready to begin to deal with forgiveness.
What if I can’t forget? We will probably never actually forget. Forgiveness does not mean that we are no longer able to remember the incident. Some people say we should “forgive and forget.” Others quote Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 10:17, pointing out that God forgives and forgets.
Of course, this does not mean that God literally cannot remember that the events ever happened. If that were the case, God would no longer be all knowing. He still knows that the sin occurred, but he no longer holds it against the person. He does not develop amnesia, but he will never bring that sin up again.
Of course, not having the memory constantly occurring as it once did may be a result of forgiveness, but it is not the means of forgiveness. Forgiveness literally means to “give up” or “give away.” The dictionary defines it as “to give up resentment against” someone. Forgiving someone frees you from being consumed with resentment about the offense, but it does not erase the memory. People may need that memory to avoid future abuses from an unrepentant person. God does not erase our memories, but he redeems them so that we can get on with our lives.
Joseph pointed out that his brothers had intended to harm him, but that God used it for good. He had not forgotten what happened 40 years earlier, but he no longer carried the resentment and wanted to punish them (Genesis 50).
What if they don’t ask for forgiveness? This is a difficult situation. It is complicated to try to come to terms with someone unwilling to accept responsibility for actions that have offended or hurt you. We are often tempted to become resentful. Unfortunately, carrying around the resentment and bitterness is a heavy burden, and that burden is on you, not the one who offended. You may be carrying such a load related to someone you will never see again; that person may even be dead. Being willing to forgive, being open to forgiving when they repent, or forgiving before God even if you cannot see the person lifts the load from you.
Thus, granting forgiveness, or turning the final judgment to God, is often more for your own sake than for those you forgive. Joseph granted forgiveness to his brothers even though they did not ask for it. The burden was taken from him, and he could get on with his life. If you continue to carry that load, many times you are granting the offender the power to continue to make you miserable and limit your effectiveness.
Why is it so hard to ask forgiveness? The basic problem is usually pride. People have to admit that they have done something wrong, and that is very difficult to do. Many people find it much easier just to sweep the matter under the rug and say that the offense did not really matter that much, but it does. Until forgiveness is sought, something remains to hinder any relationship.
Since they move so often, some missionaries find it easy to just leave, thinking that the offense will be forgotten. However, that is not the case. The matter will still be there in the relationship whenever they meet again. Asking, giving, and receiving forgiveness are especially important parts of saying good-bye when leaving the field to return home.
Why is it sometimes so hard to accept forgiveness? This also often goes back to pride. We often feel like we must do something to earn forgiveness. Forgiving others is against our concept of justice in which people should suffer for the wrong they have done. Forgiving others does not come naturally to humans. However, God gives forgiveness to everyone who asks because Christ paid the debt through his suffering on the cross. The Bible clearly states that forgiveness is by grace, through faith, and even that is God’s gift to us. Although we can repent and make restitution, we can never earn our forgiveness, only accept it.
In Genesis 50 Joseph’s brothers had not really accepted his forgiveness 17 years after Joseph had granted it to them. They were still carrying feelings of guilt and fear for an offense that was forgiven. They asked for something (forgiveness) that had been granted nearly two decades before.
More about forgiveness is at http://www.missionarycare.com/brochures/br_forgiveness.htm.
Reconciliation
Suppose that after their serious disagreement Bill and the other missionaries settled their differences. They all asked for, received, and granted forgiveness, but something still seems wrong. Although none of them sense any anger in the relationship, their friendship is not the same as it was before. Since forgiveness literally means to “give up,” to “give away,” or “to give up resentment against” someone, it is a necessary first step in reconciliation—but much more is possible. What can we do, how do we do it, and what are some possible results?