Conflict Resolution

We learned something else in TESOL about managing teacher-student relationships, conflict resolution, using Joseph Devito’s REPAIR tactics. This stands for:
1. Recognize
2. Engage
3. Pose possible solutions
4. Affirm
5. Integrate, and
6. Risk

Step 1 is to recognize and acknowledge that there is a conflict. As in solving any problem, you need to be aware that something is not right which needs to be fixed. If you don’t even know that a problem exists, you are not going to do anything about it.

Once the two parties acknowledge that they need to do something, they can engage in meaningful dialogue to discover a means to resolve the issue. The discussion can take one of several directions, depending on the assertiveness versus supportive stance adopted by the participants:

1. My way (competition) – This is the classic confrontation mode, with each party insisting his own way. The conflict will escalate with no resolution possible.
2. Your way (accommodation) – One side gives in to the other’s demands, but the problem is not solved as the needs of the party giving in are not met.
3. No way (avoidance or withdrawal) – Both sides walk away from the problem. Again the conflict is not resolved, just deferred and will come back again.
4. Both ways (compromise) – This is one way to come to some agreement by each giving in half-way. It is a partial solution as not all issues are dealt with, only put aside as a bargaining chip.
5. Our way (collaboration) – This is the only win-win solution as both sides face the issues squarely and work together to find a mutually satisfactory way out. Not only are the issues resolved, but the relationship is repaired.

Assuming the parties collaborate, step 3 is to pose possible solutions taking both sides’ needs into consideration. One-sided, self-serving solutions are dropped. The tone is conciliatory, not antagonistic.

The next step is to affirm the other party’s merits. Focus on what you have in common, not the differences. This will align the attitude with the behavior to facilitate reconciliation. Many interpersonal relationships are damaged not because the action was wrong, but because the attitude was not right.

Once a mutually agreeable solution is reached, step 5 is to implement it and integrate it into your behavior. Some good plans never produce the desired results, because they are not properly implemented. Both attitude and behavior need to be consistent.

The last step is to realize that risk is involved. You may find the solution to be difficult, or you may think your partner is not holding up to his/her side of the bargain. But remember risk and reward go together – the higher the risk, the greater the reward. Nothing worth fighting for comes easy. Stay at it and in due time you will see the results. Hope you resolve your conflict and repair the relationship.

Knapp’s Relationship Model – Coming Apart

Yesterday we looked at Coming Together, from Initiating to Bonding. Unfortunately we are all sinners living in a fallen world, and not all relationships live happily ever after. Today we continue to examine the five stages of Coming Apart.

The first stage of a troubling relationship is Differentiating, the opposite of Integrating. Instead of merging identities and focusing on “we” rather than “I”, the couple starts to feel stifled and begin to assert their differences, reverting from “we” to “I”. Each wants space as stress develops in the relationship, with increased fighting and conflict.

The second stage is Circumscribing. Here the couple is pulling apart but tries to preserve the relationship in public, so they set limits and boundaries on both the quantity and quality of communication. Sensitive topics are avoided to give an appearance of harmony on the surface. They also start having separate friends and activities.

Stage three is Stagnating, or going through the motions. The couple acts as if nothing had changed, but in fact the relationship is deteriorating and there is no joy, enthusiasm, or interest. They avoid talking about their relationship because they knew what will be said, which will lead to more conflict. The relationship is but a shadow of its former self.

The next stage is Avoiding. The distance between the couple is elevated from the emotional to the physical level. They avoid seeing each other to keep awkward interactions to a minimum. One partner may go out while the other is in. They keep different routines and take separate vacations. At this stage the relationship is going down a slippery slope of separation.

The final stage is Terminating. Instead of trying to salvage the relationship, one or both parties wants out and desire to go their separate ways, ending the relationship officially. The parting of ways may be on good or bad terms.

If you see some of the negative signs above, what can be done to turn the situation around? A relationship breakdown does not happen overnight. Couples usually drift apart over a period of time. When either partner notices something is wrong, instead of hoping that time will heal things, they should openly discuss the problem and resolve the differences together. Recognition and admitting that a rift exists is step one towards healing. If they cannot solve the difficulties themselves, seek outside help, either from a professional counselor, or if they are Christians, from their pastor. It is not a shame to seek help as all families have problems. Don’t try to run away or drown your problems through activities or busyness.

But prevention is better than cure. The best advice I can give any new Christian couple starting out is for them to pray and have devotions together daily. When the Lord is at the center of both your lives, He will keep your marriage strong through the storms of life. Stay close to God and you will have a strong marriage. I am not saying you will not have difficulties, but you have a steady anchor regardless of the storm. Keep Him out and you are heading towards trouble. It is that simple.

Knapp’s Relationship Model – Coming Together

In TESOL we learned about teacher-student relationships, and one of the tools, Knapp’s Relational Development Model, proved to be useful in other situations. Mark Knapp divided relationships into two phases: Coming Together and Coming Apart. The relationships could be personal-social as between friends and families, or professional-functional as that between superior-subordinate, professional-client, or employee-public. Each phase in turn consists of five stages, generally progressing sequentially. Today we will describe Coming Together.

The first stage in Coming Together is Initiating. This is the initial contact with strangers, where first impressions are formed based on appearance, clothing, and conduct. While impressions may not be accurate, they form the basis of screening and filtering in which people decide whether they wish to develop the relationship further.

Stage two is Experimenting. Here people get better acquainted by engaging in small talk. They try to find something in common e.g. interests, and verify first impressions. If the experience is pleasant they will explore some more; if not the relationship stays here at the acquaintance level.

The next stage is Intensifying, where people test the waters by sharing some personal information to see if it will be reciprocated. Defenses are lowered in self-disclosure, and forms of address become familiar. There is increased physical touch and commitment, passing from casual friends to serious friends.

The fourth stage is Integrating. At this stage the lives of the two become more intertwined and the “I” becomes “we”. They share things in common, and influence each other’s ideas, likes and dislikes. Others view them as a couple. Intimacy is increased.

The final stage in Coming Together is Bonding. They declare their commitment and exclusivity to each other formally and publicly. In the case of romantic relationships, they get married and share the future together. For business, companies form a partnership or merge together.

Think about the positive relationships in your life, whether personal or professional. Which stages are they at? What are some of the things you can do to grow the relationship? Well, for starters, keep up the communication, without which you cannot get to know the person. Give appropriate self disclosure, as communication is a two-way street. Ask relevant questions to see their perspective. Try to understand their needs through active listening, and support them by helping them to accomplish their objectives. Try it sometime. It works.

Pastor? Minister?

Q. Something is very puzzling to me for many years. I have a relative in California; she has only a grade 10 education, never attended seminary, or even took a bible course. Many years ago, she said she was ordained a minister. She then started a ministry and does fund-raising. She is Pentecostal and their meetings focused on faith healing. She is very active in her preaching. She goes to Mexico and China to preach the Gospel, but her Gospel is not the true gospel. I feel sorry for the people she preached to and misled to think that they are saved but actually aren’t. What is the difference between a pastor and a minister ? I am surprised what church would ordain a person of her lack of qualifications.

A. There are many branches within Pentecostalism, some orthodox, some not. I don’t know which particular branch your relative belongs to, but just as there are degree mills which sell worthless college degrees, there are denominations which sell worthless ordinations. They give legitimate churches and denominations a bad name, but sadly they do exist and led many astray.

Opinions on the difference between a pastor and a minister tend to polarize. On the one-hand, a commonly held notion is that it is the same role called by different names in different denominations. They feel that it is really the same thing, only the title is different because of tradition. On the other hand, some believe, based on the priesthood of all believers, that all Christians are ministers. To them, a minister is someone who ministers or serves, which means all Christians. So a minister is not anyone special. Both extremes draw their conclusion based on partial data and have an incomplete picture. Allow me to present the NT usage, then my comments.

The word pastor translates the Greek word poimen, which literally means a shepherd or one who feeds and tends the flock. Figuratively, he is the presiding officer, manager, or director appointed over a congregation, the same job committed to elders, overseers or bishops:
1. Eph 4:11-12 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.
2. Acts 20:17, 28 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church … Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,
3. 1 Pet 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them

The word minister is used to translate three different Greek words which occur a total of 56 times in the NT, so I will give only one example of each:
1. diakonos, which means one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master, hence a servant or attendant, deacon e.g.
• 1 Co 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
2. leitourgos, which means a public servant of the state, e.g.
• Rom 13:6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full-time to governing.
3. hyperetes, an under rower, subordinate rower; or anyone who serves with hands, or who aids another in any work e.g.
• Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.
As one can see, all three words carry the connotation of servant or assistant, not someone who oversees as in the case of pastor.

My conclusion is that, contrary to the commonly held belief that “pastor” and “minister” are synonymous, they are not. All pastors are ministers because they serve, but not all ministers are pastors because not all are called to lead and oversee congregations. Pastors are called to equip His people, viz. Christians, for works of service i.e. ministry. In other words, pastors are to equip “ministers”. Unfortunately many people, including believers, use biblical words indiscriminately, leading to much confusion. Based on the examples you cited, your relative is preaching salvation by works, which leads only to destruction. I’m sorry for the folks she misled too. That’s why we work hard to spread the true gospel of salvation by faith in Christ alone. Hope this explanation helps.

What is Truth?

As part of our TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) certification, we had to examine how dictionaries evolved over time, and what that tells us about our changing society. One particular exercise involved comparing the meaning of “truth” in the 1828, 1913 and 2012 editions of Webster’s dictionary, which I found to be very interesting.

1828: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,truth
1913: http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=truth&use1913=on
2012: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth?show=0&t=1361075784

Webster’s 1828 edition has thirteen definitions of truth, while both the 1913 and 2012 editions have four. However, the four definitions in the later editions have multiple parts, so some of the secondary meanings in the first edition are in fact embedded within the latter’s multi-part definitions. Rather than compare each part in detail, some revealing observations can be made by examining the most important first definition, as well as what’s included and what’s dropped.

Both the 1828 and 1913 editions define truth as conformity to fact or reality. Both assumed the existence of an external standard which is factual and real, and truth is that which conforms to this objective standard. Furthermore, this exact accordance is with that which is, or has been, or shall be. In other words, the standard is unchanging, or absolute. What was true in the past, is true in the present, and will be true in the future.

In contrast, the 2012 edition defines truth as sincerity in action, character, and utterance. In other words, truth is subjective. If one is sincere in what he does, in who he is, and what he says, then that is truth to him. What he believes in may not conform to fact or reality, but that does not matter, because truth is relative, not absolute. This reveals that “educated society” has abandoned the notion of absolute truth in favor of relative truth, and relativism has become the foundation.

Secondly, Webster’s 1828 edition quoted only from the Bible for examples of what constituted proper usage of the words. The 1913 edition still quoted from the Bible, but added examples from other literary authorities such as Shakespeare, Coleridge, Mortimer etc. The 2012 dropped references from the Bible altogether. What this reflected is a drift away from Scripture as the final authority, to the Bible as one source amongst many, to the Bible being no longer regarded as authoritative and relevant. No wonder we are facing so many problems, and people are throwing up their hands in despair!

The Unpardonable Sin

Q. What does Matthew 12:32 really mean?

A. The unpardonable or unforgivable sin appears in all three of the Synoptic gospels:
• Mt 12:31-32 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
• Mk 3:28-30 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
• Lk 12:10 And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

First, note the following observations:
• blasphemy against the Spirit = speaks against the Holy Spirit = saying the Holy Spirit is an unclean spirit
• blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come i.e. forever = eternal condemnation
• speaks a word against the Son of Man = blasphemy against the Son; will be forgiven

This immediately raises the question, “Why the distinction between speaking against the Son versus the Spirit? Isn’t the Son equal to the Holy Spirit? Why can speaking against the former be forgiven but not the latter?” To understand this we need to know the primary work of the Holy Spirit:

• Jn 16:8-11 When He comes, He will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

It is to convict the world of sin so that the person may know that he is guilty before God, that righteousness is available only in Christ, and that he is judged and condemned already if he does not believe in the name of Jesus (Jn 3:18). The desired result is to lead the person to trust in Christ and be saved and forgiven. To blaspheme the Spirit, then, is a total and persistent denial of the witness of the Holy Spirit for Christ. It is to be blatantly hostile towards God and totally reject Jesus after knowing the truth.

Once we grasp this, we can understand why blasphemy against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Spirit: because the former is in ignorance while the latter is not. This principle is well established in the OT. In Num 15:22-29 there are offerings for unintentional sins. But if anyone sins defiantly, then that person must be cut off.
• Num 15:30-31 But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD and must be cut off from the people of Israel. Because they have despised the LORD’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.

One application of this principle in the NT is Paul. Formerly Saul blasphemed against Jesus, but he was forgiven:
• 1 Tim 1:13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
Now, when people looked at Jesus, they looked at the externals and could be mistaken about His true identity, e.g.:
• Jn 6:42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
When they speak against Him out of ignorance, they can be forgiven when they repent.

However, in Mt 12 the situation was different. Mt 12 comes after a series of signs and wonders
• Mt 4:23-25 Jesus heals the sick
• Mt 8:1-4 Jesus heals the man with leprosy
• Mt 8:5-13 Jesus heals the centurion’s servant
• Mt 8:14-17 Jesus heals many
• Mt 8:28-34 Jesus heals demon-possessed men
• Mt 9:1-8 Jesus heals a paralytic
• Mt 9:18-26 Jesus raises a dead girl and heals a woman bleeding for 12 years
• Mt 9:27-34 Jesus heals the blind and mute
• Mt 12:22-24 Jesus heals a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute.

The above is recorded in Matthew, some of which are general accounts with many who were sick and/or demon-possessed. Yet after so much irrefutable evidence that Jesus performed these miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Pharisees still accused Him of driving out demons by Beelzebub, and that the Holy Spirit was an unclean spirit. This is proof that they had deliberately hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge the truth. They were willfully defiant and therefore guilty of an eternal sin. Why unpardonable? Because they won’t turn to the only One who can forgive them. No repentance, no forgiveness. The sin was unforgivable because they absolutely rejected the source of forgiveness. I pray many will wake up before it is too late.

Decision-Making

Yesterday we covered the right-brain creative thinking process. Today we continue with left-brain decision-making, which involves 6 steps:

1. State the situation.
2. Get the facts.
3. Establish the criteria:
a. Negotiable
b. Non-negotiable
4. List alternatives.
5. Weigh alternatives against criteria.
6. Limit debate to the criteria which points to a solution.

As in creative thinking, step 1 is to state the situation. If you don’t know what your problem is, you can’t solve it. Step 2 is to get the facts. You want to base your decision on real, hard data, not hunches or speculations. Collect all data relevant to the situation. Next, establish the decision criteria. Distinguish what is negotiable and what is not. The former are what is desirable, “nice-to-have’s”, but not absolutely necessary; the latter are your “must-have’s”. It is very important that you do not make the “minors” “majors”, and vice-versa; otherwise your decision would be at best sub-optimal, or even outright wrong.

Step 4 is to list the alternatives. All available options are itemized, and each is then weighed against the criteria to see how it stacks up. Some will pass the tests, some will fall by the wayside. Several could be equally possible options meeting all requirements. The last step is to rank all feasible alternatives according to their attractiveness, and limit the debate to the selection criteria to come to a solution. Often decisions could be stalled because the discussion drifted to areas outside the criteria, or negotiables have been elevated above their place. You need to narrow down the consideration only to the agreed criteria, or else the process could be dragged out and never come to a conclusion.

The above six steps are not fool-proof, but can lead you to a logical decision based on a careful analysis of all available data. Try it; it is a sound method that beats deciding by gut feel or doing what you have always done.

Creative Thinking

Leadership involves solving problems. And in problem solving you make use of your whole brain – the right brain for intuitive creative thinking, and the left brain for logical, analytical decision-making. You will also be leading both types of people – the right-brained, subjective, artists, and the left-brained, objective, linear thinker.

Today we’ll outline the creative thinking process first, followed by the decision-making process later. You’ll need both to handle the challenges and problems you will inevitably face. The creative thinking process consists of 5 steps:

1. State the situation.
2. Put it in the “In what ways can we …?” format.
3. Green-light for quantity.
4. Red-light for quality.
5. Develop a plan of action.

Step 1 is to state the situation. It is critical that you define the problem accurately or you will be tackling the wrong issue. Step 2 is to put the problem definition in the “In what way can we …?” format. There are 2 parts to this formulation: (1) “in what ways” – emphasizing the possibility of a solution, and that there are multiple solutions to the problem, and (2) “can we” – focusing on the collective approach. Step 3 is brainstorming for quantity of ideas. Here it is important to adopt a “green light” mentality and not shoot down ideas as they are being put forward, or else the creative process will be short-circuited. Step 4 is evaluation for quality ideas. All the ideas generated in (3) are assessed as to their feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The attitude is “red light” to screen out the bad from the good ideas. The last step is to develop an action plan to implement the best idea. This is crucial as often an idea failed not because it was a bad idea, but due to of lack of action.

I cannot guarantee that you will always come up with a creative solution, but if you follow these five steps, you will have more and better ideas to work with, and a more motivated and happier team because they had been involved in the decision process.

Making Memories

Our daughter’s family took a vacation to Orlando. We’ve been to Florida a few times, and have enough of our share of Disney World and Universal Studios, but we tagged along to offer what little help we can, seeing that they have a lot of stuff to carry. There were two suitcases, one large and one medium, two car seats, a heavy-duty stroller, not to mention two wriggling little kids! I guess children are more fortunate these days and get to fly. But more importantly, we get to have some fun with the bambinos! It wasn’t that we packed in a lot of activities or sight-seeing into each day. Being young, they need their nap times in the morning and afternoon. And if they go out on consecutive days and don’t get enough rest, they get cranky and miserable. But at our age, presence is enough.

After living with them for a week, the first big change we noticed was our granddaughter’s “talk”. Every morning she would get up around six, and talk incessantly as her parents fed her breakfast. It’s amazing how much language skill she picked up between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years old. A year ago, she was talking in mono syllables. Now, she talked in complete sentences, with an accurate grasp of tenses, use of adjectives and adverbs to describe what she was doing and how she felt, and even conditional statements as she bargained with her dad, “If you love me, you will give me more ice-cream”! If only we could learn a foreign language as easily as children’s natural language acquisition!

Her younger brother, not even half-year old, didn’t know how to talk yet, so he babbled. But he was always smiling. Whenever I looked at him, he would break out into a broad smile that melts all your cares away. At first I thought he must think I looked funny with my big glasses, but no, he smiles at everyone. It’s just his easy-going disposition. That surely was one of the things we missed when we wrapped up our trip.

Airfare: Jet Blue from Buffalo is way cheaper than flying from Toronto, even when you factor in taking Mega-Bus to Buffalo. The downside is you have to wait a long time at the airport. Accommodation: cheap if you don’t mind driving a few more miles to the theme parks. Food: I don’t understand why, but about a third more expensive compared to Toronto. Car rental: not bad unless you want a second driver. But the joy as we watched our grandchildren’s faces light up when they are having fun, priceless!

Bless this House

Q. One of our pastors who recently bought a house has invited the church pastoral team, the elders and the deacons to the new house to perform a blessing ceremony. What is the symbolic meaning behind? Is this a religious practice in the old days? What difference would it make if we don’t do it? What does the Bible teach about this?

A. The Bible mentions “bless the house” several times e.g.
• 2 Sam 7:29 Now be pleased to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever in your sight; for you, O Sovereign LORD, have spoken, and with your blessing the house of your servant will be blessed forever.”
• 1 Chron 17:27 Now you have been pleased to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever in your sight; for you, O LORD, have blessed it, and it will be blessed forever.”
• Job 29:4 Oh, for the days when I was in my prime, when God’s intimate friendship blessed my house,
• Ps 115:12 The LORD remembers us and will bless us: He will bless the house of Israel, he will bless the house of Aaron,
But if you examine their context, the verses refer to blessing the household, the dynasty, not the physical dwelling. This was the case with David, or Obed-Edom, because of the ark of God remaining in his house.

The Bible does teach about dedicating the house to the Lord:
• Lev 27:14-15 If anyone dedicates their house as something holy to the Lord, the priest will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, so it will remain. If the one who dedicates their house wishes to redeem it, they must add a fifth to its value, and the house will again become theirs.
But that meant giving it to the Lord, and if they want it back they have to pay 120% of its value to redeem it, which is not what people have in mind nowadays. Most people think of God blessing them, not they setting their house apart for God. So personally I do not subscribe to the popular notion of blessing the house, except for one reason.

When someone buys an existing house, one does not necessarily know the history of what it had been used for. It could be an ordinary residence, or it might have been dedicated to a pagan god or some criminal or occult purpose. In spiritual warfare, we need to “cleanse” the house and reclaim it for its legitimate use. In this sense, I agree that we have to “sanctify” the house by inviting the Lord to be its master and expelling everything else that might have set up a stronghold there. Your pastor can tell you his reason behind the blessing ceremony. I’m not in a position to judge someone’s motive in such matters.