When Conflict Brings You Closer

A few days ago, my 9 year old said to me, "M (her friend) and I started fighting a lot, but then we just talked and found out what we needed, and now it's like we're closer." 

My jaw dropped.  

This experience of conflict bringing two people closer is something that is fairly new to me, and I was so blessed to hear that my daughter has already known this joy.   

Yes, I've been parenting this way for years- Focus on relationships.  Find mutually agreeable solutions.  People get along really well in our house because we approach conflict as a problem to solve together.  That was all life changing stuff that has brought a lot of peace to our home as I learned to implement these ideas with my kids.  

But I had not experienced the depth of what it means to have conflict with a peer, outside of a child/parent dyad, truly bring a deeper intimacy to a relationship until I met my fiance, Daniel.  We don't fight, but as two different people with different perspectives, ways of doing things and triggers from our pasts, we do experience conflict.  Every single time, we come out of the encounter with a deeper love and a greater appreciation of how safe we are with each other.  

As this relationship has challenged, shaped, and freed me, I've gently tested out healthy conflict on other relationships and found out that other generally emotionally healthy people actually want to hear what I have to say, validate my feelings, share their perspective, and allow me to validate them.  When the conversation is over, we haven't just solved a practical problem or said some perfunctory apologies for some hurtful words, we've actually each held a piece of the other person's soul, handled it gently and considered it's shapes and textures with wonder. 

When Daniel and I hit a new depth of intimacy, we call it "Leveling Up," so with that term in mind, I've identified 3 different levels of moving towards conflict kindling intimacy. 

Level One: Common Courtesy

This your run of the mill workplace human resources seminar on not being a total asshole.  

Other people have needs and ideas.  Respect them.  Don't interrupt, take turns with the office supplies, refill the paper in the photo copy machine, and don't leave coffee spills in the kitchen for Linda to clean up.

And if you need something, just say so kindly.  Don't yell at people or leave passive aggressive notes on your co-worker's computer monitor. 

At home, pick up your socks, tell your spouse when you're going to be late, and discuss the budget before buying a boat.

Some of us are blown away that this stuff needs to be said and if you've ever managed people, you wonder why they didn't learn these very basic aspects of common courtesy as children.

However, most people were told as children to show respect, punished for leaving messes for others, yelled at for not taking turns, force to share, shamed for not considering the feelings of others.  

So why didn't the lessons stick? 

That leads to level two.... 

Level Two:  Peaceful Conflict Resolution

People are motivated by one of two things- fear or love. 

Some people take the rules and shame of their childhoods and learn to be afraid to do anything that doesn't appear to be caring about other people's needs, wants and feelings.  

Others decide they will never be afraid again, and demand that everyone care for their needs, wants and feelings with no regard to the impact that has on others. 

Of course many of us are somewhere in the middle, muddling along, trying to figure out that balance of personal boundaries and sacrifice. truly loving others and wanting to meet their needs, but not sure how to get our own met as well.  

As children, if we learn the Common Courtesy of level one as simply *actions* that one takes to avoid conflict, avoid punishment, or avoid the withdrawal of love, then the behaviors are coming from a place of fear.  

There's no room for growth because fear activates a primal part of our brain that just desperately wants to survive, so even as adults, our brains are still wired to see conflict as a threat to survival (even emotional survival).   

What I wanted to do differently with my children, and believe I've succeeded pretty well, is to let their actions naturally bloom from a place of love, safety and feelings of abundance.

Rather than try to teach lessons about behavior, I have tried to focus on seeing behavior as a communication about a need and I meet the need.  When the need is met, they feel loved and feel open to the possibilities of ways to behave that are more in line with their natural empathy, kindness and compassion. 

When two children have competing needs, creating a conflict, I try to find ways to meet the needs of both, and they learn over time that both their needs and those of other people are important, and they eventually learn how to find solutions without my help. 

The same concept applies to marriage, friendships, workplace relationships and even with casual acquaintances.  If you love yourself enough to know you are worth having your needs met, and you love others enough to care about their needs, you can start learning how to get creative with mutually agreeable solutions. 

I've lived in this place for years, and it's a peaceful place to be.  Peaceful conflict resolution is one of the core aspects of egalitarianism.  A marriage does not need a leader to make a final decision if both people are willing to work together towards the common goal of the needs of both being met.  If two children can do it, two adults can do it.

But something was missing, and that's why the name of this blog is Becoming Echad, not We've Achieved Echad.  I knew I was still on a journey of growth (and always will be), both personally and in my relationships. 

Level 3: Emotional Intimacy Kindled by Conflict

I started getting glimpses of emotional intimacy in my relationships with my children, in moments where our souls touched, there was no barrier between us, and I could see so purely and clearly the core of who they are.  

Sometimes resolving a conflict is just a practical matter of distributing belongings or making everyone comfortable.  

They both want the same toy? Set a timer, find a similar toy for one, put a second matching toy on the shopping list, distract one, feed them both and they'll forget about it.... lots of options. 

But sometimes seeking to meet a child's need sends me down a path with twists and turns and a glorious waterfall at the end, shimmering with all their hopes and dreams.  Along the way, a wolf or two jumps out and I get to know their fears.  Those are the moments that I love parenting the most. 

So I knew this thing people called Emotional Intimacy was real and not just some mumbo jumbo made up by people who couldn't accomplish anything practical with their time. 

I also knew I didn't have it in any other relationships, and with my children of course, it couldn't hold the same level of mutuality as I saw could be possible with another adult.  

I had people I could talk to about emotional things, sure.  People who care for me and I care for them.

Feeling safe to tell someone about your trauma, painful feelings and weaknesses is absolutely one very important aspect of emotional intimacy, and finding a handful of those people, even if it's in an anonymous meeting, is very important. 

However, at an even deeper level, there is something particularly soul binding about having conflict with another person, and the relationship still maintaining that safety.  When the tension rises, but you both breathe deep and relax.  When you choose your words carefully, but still speak your truth.  When you start to cut the other person off, but you listen carefully instead, because you know without a doubt you'll have your turn and be heard.  When you can both express, not just your needs, but what fuels those needs.  When the other person knows before you do which trauma is nipping at your heals and making you yelp in pain and confusion, and when they chase it away and wrap you up in a warm blanket.  When you have this with someone, it creates a connection that I truly believe is what the Bible is talking about when it speaks of oneness and unity all throughout. 

Am I saying that you should try to create conflict?  No.  

I am saying conflict naturally arises, but it doesn't have to damage a relationship.  Quite the opposite, it can be something that heals, grows, and deepens a relationship. 

If you haven't experienced conflict deepening emotional intimacy in your relationships, I encourage you to continue on your healing journey, keep seeking out healthy relationships, and the next time a conflict arises, be open to the possibility that it could be a good thing.  Treat it as an opportunity, and maybe you'll have a beautiful outcome.

Your Husband Shall Rule Over You: The Consequence or the Goal?

Again today someone told me that they believe that men have authority over women because of Genesis 3:16.

To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your suffering and your childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

My standard response to this has become, "Is this a consequence or a goal?"

Is this something the believing couple should strive to institute in their marriage? Or is it the reality of living in a fallen sinful world?

If this is a command and a goal for believers to aim towards in their marriages, then it should look like the Hebrew word which is translated as "rule."

The word for rule is the Hebrew word "mâshal," which means:


1) to rule, have dominion, reign

1a) (Qal) to rule, have dominion

1b) (Hiphil)

1b1) to cause to rule

1b2) to exercise dominion



This is not the benevolent, loving leadership of a godly man that is often held up as the ideal. 

This is not "most of the time we work together to make decisions, but if we can't come to an agreement, the husband decides."

This is not initiating Bible studies and taking a leading role in managing the finances. 

This is not what Yeshua was describing when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them to do you," or "The first shall be last and the last shall be first," or when Paul said specifically of husbands that they should "love their wives as their own bodies."   

This is rule, dominion, reigning like a king.


This clearly isn't a word to describe how a believing husband is to treat his wife, but it IS a word that describes how unbelieving men have treated women in almost every culture all throughout history.  

Men ruling over women has been the norm.  This is what pagan men do.  This is what men in their worst moments of pride, greed, and lust do.  Certainly not men with the Ruach guiding their actions. 

Genesis 3:16 is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Which means that God was describing the reality of Adam and Eve's new life in a fallen sinful world, not prescribing a command of how things should be.

We can compare this consequence to the other consequences and see the same holds true for these as well. 

The consequence for the man is that he would have to toil the earth for his food.  

Thorns and thistles it shall sprout for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.  by the seat of your brow shall you eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken: For you are dust, and to dust shall you return. 

Is this a goal?  A command?

Should a man try to toil as hard as he possibly can?  Is he sinning if he lightens his load by inventing shovels, plows, and tractors?  Is he trying to skirt the will of God by working in an air conditioned building.  

Quite the opposite.  God often blessed the work of the righteous with an increase in their flocks and herds, and the money to hire servants resulting in less actual physical labor for themselves. 

When Adam and Eve sinned, they broke echad.  They broke the oneness and unity that they had between themselves and God, between each other, and even broke something in their relationship to the earth.

The reality of living in a fallen, sinful world is that we will experience pain, we will have to work for our food, and the relationship of echad that a husband and a wife are supposed to have will often be broken. 

But our goal for our marriages should be for the man to "cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  

When a man and woman both seek righteousness by looking to him to lead them, God can bless their marriage with unity, healing some of the brokenness in the fallen world. 

Echad and Subordinationism

At the top of this blog, I have two verses: Deut. 6:4 "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one," and Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his  mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

In this post I'm going to explore the relationship between these two verses and the reason I chose them for this blog, and some other related concepts.

The reason I chose these two verses to represent this blog is because I believe they say something important about the nature of God, the nature of marriage, and how marriage is to be a picture of God's relationship with the church.  These beliefs are not just based on these two verses, but based on an examination of the whole of Scripture, which is what this blog is all about.  These two verses nicely sum up the relationship

Deut. 6:4 or the Shema, is a verse that is the foundation to the understanding of God's nature in Judaism. It is the belief in the absolute oneness of God.    

The word translated "one" is the Hebrew word "echad."

The reason that some Jews reject Christianity is because they reject the concept of the Trinity.  They say that God said he is one, not multiple beings wrapped into one.  They say that the word "echad" is often used in the Bible to denote absolute oneness.

For example:
Exodus 9:7 "not one of the cattle of the Israelites."
2 Samuel 13:30 "Absolam has slain all of the king's sons, there is not one of them left."    
See God as One vs. the Trinity for more on the Jewish rejection of the Trinity.

Christians counter that there are other places in the Bible where the word echad is used for two being one, such as Gen. 2:24, "the two shall be one (echad) flesh."  Therefore, they say, the verse supports the concept of the Trinity.

The Trinity is based on various degrees of subordinationism.  The doctrine of subordinationism is the belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are subordinate in nature and being to God.  It is the belief that they are ontologically inferior to God.

In most Christian churches, subordinationism is considered heresy, but some Christians still believe that Jesus is subordinate to God in function, yet equal in being. 

Subordinationism leads to the idea that God can be one way in the Old Testament, with a character and a set of laws that are different from Jesus in the New Testament, who has a different character and frees us from God's laws.

Subordinationism leads to a rejection of the Torah by Christians who believe that Jesus came to free them from God's laws.

Subordinationism leads to a rejection of the Messiah by Jews who can't reconcile a God of absolute oneness with a God who has aspects of his being who each reject the foundation of the other's character.    

As a TOBY, I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) was God's spirit in a human body (John 1:1-14). God is one AND he came to earth in a physical form AND he has a spiritual form who dwells within us (Ephesians 1:13).  The God who gave us his commands for how we will live when we love him, is the same God who came in human form to provide us a means of grace for when we fall short (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6, Revelation 22:13, Isaiah 41:4).  He is both the Mark we strive to hit and the Way we get there. 

God is Echad.  Husband and wife are to be Echad.  Man and woman were one before God separated them and made them two. Marriage is a picture of the two becoming one again, just as the church is to be in unity with God, and will be in the end.

Is it a perfect picture?  No.  No metaphor ever is.  Right from the beginning God gave Adam and Eve individual free will.  When they chose unity with the serpent and each other over unity with God, the result was the fall.  The result was a continual trend of disunity either with God or within the marriage that continues today.  We get to chose whether we want to live out the picture of unity (Echad) or the picture of the fall (unity with each other, without God) or the results of the fall (Patriarchy).   

Does this mean husband and wife will always agree  if they are seeking unity?  No, of course not.  But if we are both seeking to be in unity with God, then we will move closer to unity with each other.  Which is why hierarchical authority in marriage is not only unBiblical, but impractical in a marriage of believers.  If husband and wife are not in unity, they need to go back to God and pray for him to show one of them, maybe both, what he wants them to do. 

Prayer is seeking God's will.  Knowing God's will and acting on it out of obligation or fear is compliance.  Knowing God's will and acting on it out of love and trust is obedience.  Being so in tune with God's will that it is as if his Spirit is working through us- that's the kind of unity I believe he wants with the church.  That's the kind of unity with God and with each other, that husband and wife can seek to show the world, as a picture of God's desired relationship with the church.

DId Your Theology Come From Plato?

"The belief that women must be subject to the authority of men does not have its origin in the Bible. In other words, it is not properly called “biblical” at all. Rather, it has its origin in the human philosophy of Plato. This philosophy was incorporated into Christian theology by St. Augustine, a Roman Catholic Bishop of the 4th Century A.D.. It was carried into the Protestant Reformation by John Calvin, and today it remains alive through the work of the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and other similar organizations."

That's the conclusion of Bob Edwards in his post The Council on Bibliclal Manhood and Womanhood: Examining the origins of their beliefs and calling for repentance.

I haven't read all the source material that he uses, and I'd like to.  I think this is a very important thing to study from a TOBY perspective.  After all, many TOBYs have realized that a lot of church teachings do not come from the Bible or from Jewish thought, but from Greek/Roman thought.  Why would teachings about marriage and gender roles have escaped that influence?   

TOBY- Torah Observant Beliver in Yeshua

I've decided to start using the acronym TOBY on this blog.  I am a Torah Observant Believer in Yeshua, which means that I believe that God gave us his instructions for how to live in the first 5 books of the Bible (the Torah) and I follow them to the best of my knowledge and ability.  I also believe that Jesus (Yeshua) is the Messiah and Savior.

There are other terms, such as Messianic and Hebrew Roots and many others, but I'm just not fond of them for various reasons though I don't think there's anything wrong with using them.  I have sometimes called myself Messianic in groups where I am more known, but since it seems that it originally was a term used for Jewish converts to Christianity, I don't want to have it be confusing for anyone.    

Why I Appreciate Help, but Don't Appreciate Chivalry

I just read two different articles on the topic of chivalry.  This one from Matt Walsh and this one from The Time Warp Wife.  I've only ever read a few posts from either site, but I've greatly enjoyed and shared some of those from Matt Walsh's blog.  So this response is not written in an argumentative or debating spirit.  Just as dialogue for anyone who thinks that maybe those of us who object to chivalry actually *do* have a reason for it and would like to know what it is.   


So here are my thoughts on chivalry.  

I appreciate respect, generosity and help. I just don't appreciate it in the form of benign sexism. If a man holds a door open for me, I say "Thank you!" Much more so if I'm carrying something heavy or wrangling kids. But I choose to assume that he's doing it because he's a kind, respectful *person* helping another *person.* If he tells me he's doing it because I'm a woman and he's a man, I lose some respect for him. Because those are the same kind of men who tend to have beliefs about submission and leadership and what jobs women should hold, with which I strongly disagree, and because I know they do not respect me as a full human being since I'm a woman. I can still think they are great people in other ways, and I can still have relationships with them, and I probably won't even tell them my beliefs on the topic (unless they ask), but I cannot respect them as much as I respect a man who is a courteous man just because he is a courteous man, without gender qualifiers about to whom he is courteous.

I have heard many times, and I just read in the comments of both articles, about women who get angry about men being courteous to them.  Women who "don't allow it" or "punish" men for it.  The Time Warp Wife starts out by apologizing to men for women making it seem like we don't want their respect and kindness. 

The thing is- I have never actually met one of these women.  I don't doubt the stories of those who claim they've been berated by women for holding the door open, but I wonder if there is more to the story.  Were they really being berated for holding the door open?  Or were they being berated for some sexist comment or attitude that accompanied the act?  

Even Matt Walsh says:

 "...men who forgo chivalry often do so because they’re afraid that being gentlemen might seem “offensive” to some women. Meanwhile, only a small fraction of women actually report being offended by chivalrous deeds."

Exactly.  Most people are not offended by common courtesy.  What IS offensive, however, is the attitude behind *some* acts of apparent courtesy. 

It comes down to intention.  I'm not going to grill the random stranger in the store on his intention when he opens the door for me.  I simply accept the kind gesture, say thank you and move on with my life without giving it another thought.  But I do want to know the intentions of the men my daughters will marry.  The intentions and attitudes that are *behind* the actions of opening the door make a huge difference when the topic changes to "Who is the head of the house?" or "Should women work?"  The same men who believe they should open the door because they are stronger and the woman is weaker, are often the same ones who believe they should make the final decisions in marriage for the same reason.  That's a problem for the woman seeking an egalitarian partnership. 


Matt discusses the history of chivalry, saying:

"Knights could use their strength and wealth to dominate and oppress, but they were called to utilize it in the opposite direction. They were called to do with their power what Christ did with His. They were called to love in the manner described by Paul in Ephesians 5. That’s chivalry. We might not wear suits of armor anymore (unfortunately), but there’s nothing suddenly irrelevant or unnecessary about the spirit of chivalry."

What he fails to mention is that during the same time period, women were not allowed to be land owners, receive as much education as men or have the same rights as merchants.  One of those chivalrous knights could woo the lady to marry him (or just buy her as a teenager from her father), and then he essentially owned her.  He could expect sex as his right and the term marital rape was unheard of.  He could legally hit her.  If she resisted these social customs, she might be determined to be a witch and burned at the stake.  Chivarly did nothing to prevent or remedy any of this.

To compare Ephesians 5 to chivalry, really cheapens the message of Ephesians.  The whole book is about unity, working together, and everyone striving to have a heart for what God wants, which then translates into us all wanting the same thing.

Chivalry was probably a much needed concept for knights who were going into war where rape and pillage was common place.  It's a very base starting point for not acting like a savage animal.  It's hardly a goal worth striving for if you're already a man who's not raping women and beating your wife.      


Matt says:

"Chivalry calls for the strongest to serve and honor the weakest, realizing that the other option is for the strongest to dominate and abuse the weakest.... In the mean time, as a routine matter, chivalry is still essential. Men should carry bags, and hold doors, and pull out chairs, and offer seats to women, not because women are incapable of standing or opening their own doors, but because of what these acts represent — what they say. And what they say is simple: “I am bigger and stronger than you, but I will use my strength to honor you and protect you. I will not hurt you. I will not take advantage of you. I will humble myself before you and serve you.”

And a wise commenter on his blog named Jason responds in part:

"And it is here that we get to the heart of the problem of chivalry. Chivalry defines who is strong and who is weak by gender and age. You may see yourself as saying (later in your post) “I am bigger and stronger than you…” but let’s change the adjectives while retaining the same meaning “You are smaller and weaker than I am…” What if someone did something for you based on this rationale? How would that make you feel? Can you see how someone may take offense to this?"

Yes, how *would* a man respond to the same rationale thrown his way?

Let's try it out....

Women, I'm calling for us as the gender with higher emotional IQs to serve and honor the less emotionally capable.  We should rescue men from awkward social situations, mediate between our husbands and their bosses, and intervene when we see two random men communicating to each other to make sure they do it in a healthy way.  Not because men are incapable of navigating social situations or solving their own problems or conversing in healthy ways, but because of what these acts represent- what they say.  And what they say is simple: "I am more emotionally intelligent than you, but I will use this intelligence to honor and protect you.  I will not belittle you.  I will not manipulate you.  I will humble myself before you and serve you."

Now, I'm sure not a single man will find that at all offensive, right?   

(For the record, I do not believe that women are innately more emotionally intelligent, I'm just making a point.)


 Finally, Matt uses the Titanic to illustrate this point:

"If we adopt an “every man and woman for him/herself” then no woman will ever escape a sinking ship again. The men could quite easily shove the women aside, jump on the lifeboats, and get outta Dodge."

The problem is that chivalry sets up a dynamic in which all the women on those lifeboats will die anyway.  Why?  Because when you always have someone doing the heavy lifting for you, you get weak.  When you always have someone running to your rescue, you become dependent.  When you always have someone protecting you, you never learn to protect yourself.  When women never have to be strong or protect themselves or learn skills that might save their lives while they sit on that lifeboat for weeks waiting for more men to rescue them, they are always helpless and beholden to a man.  This creates the very dynamic both Matt and I would like to avoid.  One where "...just the physically strongest survive. Women can only be slaves in a world like that, as history has proven many times."

I can't think of a single shred of objective criteria one could use to say women were better off socially, educationally, financially, or better protected physically during the era of chivalry than they are in more equal societies today.  Or that they were not much closer to the status of slaves then, then they are now.   

Is it exaggerating to say that chivalry goes hand in hand with patriarchy?   Even the Time Warp Wife can't discuss chivalry without starting her blog post with a story about a woman who's husband is the leader of their home and the woman is happy to obey him.  Of course, she's talking about a much more benign version of patriarchy than what existed in the days of knights on white horses, but it's still damaging.  And Matt can't help but refer to "physical superiority" as if greater strength equals being a superior human being.  It makes me chuckle at the mental image of a man who spends his days in an office pushing papers, feeling good about using his superior physical strength to help a woman carry her groceries to her car, not knowing that the woman is a Marine in civilian clothing.  There are just too many exceptions like that to go about your day constantly judging others' abilities by gender, and expect not to routinely insult people.
 
Both benign versions of patriarchy promotes the typical false black and white dichotomy.

EITHER it's every man/woman for him/herself.
OR we turn to prescribed gender based roles to tell us how to support and protect one another.

Fortunately, there is an option C.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. 

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 Ephesians 4:1-6 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. ² Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ³ Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There are no gender qualifiers on who should exhibit the fruits of the spirit, and even our enemies should receive our prayers and good works.  So I'm not condemning courtesy, kindness, generosity, or helpfulness. Those are all good things, of which the world desperately needs more.  I'm just saying it's important to examine our intentions.  It should be the intention of us all to help those in need, not to show off the areas in which we excel (or those in which we assume we are excel, whether or not that is the reality).  It should be the intention of all of us to unify the body of believers by building each other up, not to divide the body of believers by gender.         





 


 

Excellent Teaching by Pastor Dave Ward "The Church, The Truth and Women in Ministry"

He's not Messianic and I don't know how much of his other teaching I would agree with, but this sermon is excellent.  I think it's especially poignant that he refers to himself as a "recovering chauvinist."  This is not a man who was raised to believe that women should be in ministry.  He came to this conclusion after a year of studying every verse in the Bible on women, studying the original languages, referring to lexicons, learning history, and seeking out those more knowledgeable in theology and Bible study than himself.

Think: The Church, The Truth & Women in Ministry from Central Wesleyan Church on Vimeo.