Stephen
Terry, Director
Little
Times of Trouble
Commentary
for the June 8, 2019 Sabbath School Lesson
“My dear brothers and
sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak
and slow to become angry,” James 1:19, NIV
Many years ago, shortly after I had begun work as a
welfare worker in the State of Washington, I was witness to an incident that
taught me a powerful lesson about human interactions that I have never
forgotten. Although I have not always succeeded, I have attempted to apply that
lesson in my own dealings with others. What transpired took place at the front
counter where clients would come to appear for appointments or drop off paperwork.
In this office there was a triage to determine if an applicant qualified for
food stamps within 24 hours on an emergent basis or if they could wait for two
to three days for a regular appointment to issue the food vouchers. A client was
told by a worker at the counter that they did not meet the criteria for
emergency issuance as they had resources that would allow them to eat until the
regular appointment. The client became agitated because they did not want to
make use of those resources and emphatically stated so. The worker explained
the rules for emergency issue once again. The client rejected the determination
that would require him to use his own resources. The worker repeated the rules
again, and the looping argument continued round and round until the client
asked to see the supervisor. Once the supervisor showed up, she immediately saw
the problem.
Neither the worker nor the client felt they were being
listened to, and they were right. The client showed little interest in hearing
what the worker had to say about the rules, and the worker had little interest
in hearing anything that was not in harmony with “the rules.” Even though the
volume was increasing with each go round, they both felt they were
communicating because they were both talking. However, neither one was
listening to the other, so while they were talking at each other, they were not
talking with each other. The supervisor simply asked the client what his concern
was and stood there silently, only making small nods of affirmation while the
client spoke. Once he was done, she repeated back to him what he had said to make
sure she had heard him correctly. Once he validated what she had said back to
him, the tension noticeably decreased. Then she asked if she could share with
him how and why the emergent food stamp program came into being. After he
agreed to listen, she shared with him. Then she asked him to share with her how
he understood the program and how that fit his circumstances. He silently
pondered for a bit and then said, “I guess I will be OK for a couple of days until
my appointment.” Then she scheduled his appointment and urged him to contact
the office if there were any other concerns. He thanked her and left.
Far too often, we create these “times of trouble”
because we are convinced of the righteousness of our position and therefore any
communications that would challenge that assumption are immediately suspect and
discounted. That discounting has a magical effect on our ears. It is like tiny
trap doors close, and we become incapable of receiving human speech. In
addition, while those doors close, the dental portcullis that normally seals
our mouth draws ever more open to facilitate a litany of speech in an attempt
to overwhelm with noise the same words that our ears are no longer hearing.
Perhaps this is why Jesus told us two millennia ago that such interactions are
like trying to deal with a speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye while having
a full plank of wood in our own.[i] Another way of saying this
might be to ask how we can expect someone else to listen to us if we have made
it impossible for us to listen to them. This principle not only applies in welfare
offices. It is true in churches, in committee and board meetings, in families
and particularly in marriages.
When two people unite in marriage, they come from two
different families who may have done many things similarly, but who also have
many habits that are dissimilar. We all make jokes about how to put the toilet
paper on the holder and how to squeeze the tube of toothpaste, but these are
touchstones of more profound differences that can trouble a marriage. Those differences
can become existential ones if we allow ourselves to believe that they are the
result of our partner’s dissatisfaction or animosity toward us. We may be
tempted to attribute motives to our partner that they never entertained.
Perhaps we have a natural tendency to do this as I have known those who have
attributed highly detailed and malevolent schemes to household pets that lack
the higher intelligence to even achieve such a thing. Perhaps we project onto
those pets, or even our marital partners, fears and inadequacies sprouting from
esteem issues in our own lives. But if our vision is obscured by a huge, wooden
plank, what else could we see but our own defective perspective?
With our pets, we can dismiss such negative ideas out of
hand. But with human beings, we have to admit that they are capable of
realizing all our fears. But they are just as capable to prove loyal, trustworthy
and loving. In fact, we might do better when we cannot see otherwise and tell
ourselves that our partner loves us, wants the best for us and their actions
arise out of love rather than malice unless they clearly demonstrate otherwise.
This does not mean condoning abuse. Even though the welfare worker previously
mentioned could have used better communication skills, whether she did or did
not use those skills would have become irrelevant if the client attempted to
jump the counter to do her harm. It is the same in a marriage. Physical
violence and attempts by one person to cause serious harm to the other are
valid reasons to step away. When either partner no longer feels safe, that must
be respected. Even if an argument becomes very heated but does not reach the
point of abuse or violence, it may be better to withdraw to prevent it from
getting to such a point with the understanding that it can be revisited later
when some of that heat has dissipated and both have had a chance to also mull
things over.
These situations can be made even more difficult within
a home because those who live with us know exactly where our weaknesses are and
can hurt us in ways no one else may be able to, and we can do the same to them.
This is where judgmentalism does its greatest damage in families, in churches
and in workplaces. When we know a way to hurt that other person either directly
or by character assassination, when they say or do something we judge not to be
appropriate, we may be tempted to unleash our “nuclear option” against them. I
am not sure why, but when we give in to this temptation,
we often do not realize that the same judgment will rebound back on us. When we
toss a rock into the pond, the same ripples that hit the far shore hit ours as
well. It may well set in motion an “eye-for-an-eye” process with potential to
blind the entire world, as Gandhi once quipped.
As salty Christians,[ii] we are in a position to ameliorate
this negative cycle. We can stop seeing those who are different from us in a
negative way that assumes that the difference is somehow threatening. That
difference may derive from things as simple as how to do the laundry or how to
load the dishwasher. It may be derived from more profound differences of race,
culture or religion. But if we believe in a Creator who is responsible for each
of us being here,[iii]
then we may need to admit that God appreciates diversity in appearances, habits
and perspectives. This is evident because he felt that the world needed one of
you and one of me, as well as one of each person who sees things differently
from you or me. When we reject that idea, then we reject the one who implemented
it, for we cannot turn our back on others without also turning our back on
Jesus.[iv] This world can be a busy
place, and each day has the potential to become so choked with activity that we
may still commit errors of omission against others even if we do not intend to
overlook our relational responsibilities. But the answer, as I shared at the
beginning, may be found in a willingness to engage in empathic listening that reveals
to those in need that we are indeed listening to what they are telling us. Then
they can find hope that we will act on what we have heard instead of despair that
no one is truly listening to them. Have you ever noticed that God rarely interrupts
our prayers, but instead, he listens?
