Peace-making

Peace-making

See:  saladin_et_al.htm

Jrnl 2/12/94  My wife was telling me about some friction that exists in the church.  I said that I was on the Peace-making Committee, and that this might be a good place to learn to, and begin to, be a peace-maker.

            "Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called the children of God."  Matt 5:9

            Harry Emerson Fosdick – A Great Time to be Alive – Sermons on Christianity in Wartime – 1944 – Harper & Bros – NYC, London

p19      "Democracy is not inevitable, but is a long-drawn-out cause demanding all the intelligence, devotion, and character we are capable of.  Peace is not a mere logical deduction from the new world interdependencies, but the most difficult task that mankind ever undertook, the way to it is blocked by huge obstacles both in outer circumstance and in the deep-seated prejudice and greed of the human heart."

            Children, Karen Horney said, need healthy friction with others.  This should be a part of their childhood training, because life involves friction – some healthy, some otherwise.  So also, the church should expect, and provide for, friction – this is a part of life.

            "Love one another." does not mean that we cannot have differences of opinion.  We can and should.  The church's role is that of teacher, of reconciler, of counselor.

            We weren't born with negotiating skills – they must be acquired – learned.  The human is born with two instincts – Fight or Flight.  First we try to win - to defeat the adversary.  If we see that we cannot win, our instincts tell us to flee.  We can flee literally, or we can meekly withdraw from the confrontation.  We can feel sorry for ourselves, or we can save face by declaring the grapes sour.

            The church's task in this situation is to teach.  The church must teach its members, and the world, that there are many shades of gray between fight and flight – that it is possible to negotiate a settlement between the parties involved – a settlement which may not be completely satis­factory to either party, but which can be, neverthe­less, tolerable to both.

            Compromise is the first and most-important lesson to be learned in peacemaking.  The second lesson is this:  Everybody needs to learn to be persuasive.  The more persuasive a person is, the more effective he will be in the negotiations.

He also needs to learn tact and diplomacy.  He needs to learn that he can win the battle but lose the war.

            The church teaches in seminary, a course called 'Conflict Resolution', basically Peacemak­ing.  There is also a popular, generally available course called 'Assertiveness Training'.  I am sure the State Dept has many seminars on 'Negotiat­ions'.  We can believe that many people have given many hours of thought as to what is required as a person or group seeks to learn the science and art of negotiating.

I believe that it is useless for any person or group to go into the negotiating chambers with a point that he or they feel is non-negotiable.  This may be the very point that precipitated the conflict in the first place.

If peacemaking as a science is to work, the principals involved must believe that it can work.  They cannot believe this when one party refuses to negotiate a crucial point.

Another suggestion I have is that negotia­tions should start first on issues that are not cru­cial.  When the negotiators are able to resolve one of these lesser issues, they gain confidence that compromise is possible.

The Fundamentals

            One problem is that all too frequently people do not realize that there is a conflict, or a possible conflict.  The foremost task of the church and the peacemaking committee is to recognize where conflict or possible conflict exists. 

            Not that we are looking for trouble – we are trying to avoid trouble.

            Please understand that I am not talking about theological issues – these are decided by Emotional Man, not Rational Man.

            But even when Rational Man is in charge, whenever persons or groups want to do something, and there are several ways of doing it, there are potential conflicts.

            There are differences of opinion, different approaches, personal philosophies, personal biases.  There will be persons or groups who don't want anything done.

An Example

            Suppose the Session has appointed a com­mittee to consider the possibility of putting drapes on the windows in Fellowship Hall.  First we find two possible courses of action:  Yes, we should, and no, we shouldn't.  Even this decision is not simple.

            Back in the 60s or 70s the Exec Comm of Gen Assembly voted to contribute $10,000 to the Angela Davis Defense Fund.  Angela Davis was Black, she was a Communist, she was a Woman, a losing combination if there ever was one.

            That $10,000 (which was later repaid by another contributor) cost the church something like $13 million in contributions.  This was one way the members expressed their opinion.

            Thus, we can see that there will be a silent but significant vote in the decision on drapes in Fellowship Hall.  We cannot dictate to volunteers.  If we want their backing, we must enlist their support of every decision.  In the church, every member votes by contributing or withholding contributions.

            Let us assume that the Drapes Comm is convinced that the church wants drapes of some sort.

            Usually, a committee like this is composed of three members, two votes being a clear majority, theoretically eliminating any possibility of conflict.  But, of course, it doesn't.  A majority doesn't convince the loser, it only over-rides him.  Part of the goal in Conflict Resolution is to convince both, or all, sides, that the compromise is the best possi­ble, and that both (or all) parties should support it.

            In a sense, it would be better to have an even number of members on the committee.  This would help make clear that a simple majority is not necessarily a satisfactory solution.

OUR MISSION

            Jesus went about Teaching, Preaching, and Healing.  This is the task of the church today.  Teaching is the imparting of knowledge to open and receptive minds.  Preaching is the imparting of knowledge to doubtful or resistant minds.

            You might call preaching 'the hard sell'.  However, preaching's goal is conviction.  The church is not satisfied with reluctant acceptance.  We want acceptance with enthusiasm.

            The used-car salesman is satisfied when you sign the dotted line.  He doesn't care how you feel about the car tomorrow.  The church wants you to believe forever that you have made the right deci­sion.

A major goal of preaching is to inspire enthusiasm.  To thrill – to encourage – to win support.  Coaches have their pep talks; business managers have their sales meetings or production meetings.  Where these inspirational messages are missing, enthusiasm dies.

            Pontiac advertises 'We Build Excitement.'  So also does the effective preacher.  Remembering that we are all ministers, we can believe that we are all preachers.  Our task is to build excitement for our cause, be it for our faith, or for our project.

PERSUASION

            Both the preacher and the salesman use the same technique – the art of persuasion.  However, there are some differences in how we use this art.

            In the church, we are guided by the princi­ple of truth.  (Perhaps I should say, what we believe to be the truth.  There are some things in any religion that sound like fantasy to Rational Man.)  We call something 'true' when nearly everybody believes it, and has believed it for a long time.  We in the church try not to tell you some­thing that can be easily refuted.

            Members of the church do not deliberately use untruths in trying to be convincing.  Other people may have other tactics.  You will have to learn how to deal with these people too.

COMPROMISE CONT'D

            The art of compromise is illustrated in the presumed conflict between the two members of the Drapes Comm.  Let us say that Jones wants the drapes to cost less than $10/yd and to be 36" from the floor.  Smith wants the drapes to cost $50/yd and to be 4" from the floor.

            In its simplest form, the resolution might be $30/yd and 20" from the floor.  However, if cost is of major importance to Jones, the compromise might be $20/yd and 10" from the floor.  If distance from the floor is of major importance to Smith, the compromise might be 5" from the floor and $20/yd.  Its a case of, "I'll give you this if you will give me that."  The art of negotiating – the art of compro­mise.

Human Nature

So far, I have assumed that the principals involved want to negotiate.  This may not be true.  Perhaps as many as half the people would rather submit than negotiate.  See The Art of Being Satisfied With Life. 

            I consider this situation a mental-health problem, a major problem in itself, but not the primary focus of this essay.

For the purpose of this essay, we will as­sume that the principals involved in the negotia­tions have good mental health; that they can deal with 'healthy friction'.

An Example

            Recently while waiting in the entryway of WalMart, I saw three girls playing on the rides there.  A small girl, perhaps 4 or 5, was at the steering wheel.  The other two, perhaps 7 or 8, were behind her.

            When the small girl got off to check the control panel, the other two began to scramble for the driver's seat.  As soon as the small girl saw what was happening, she began to scream like a stuck pig, and to fight for the driver's seat.

            Of course, the other two could have won had it been simply a matter of strength, but the screaming seemed to unnerve them.  They quickly relinquished the driver's seat to the small girl.

            Mommy, who was standing nearby, perhaps wisely did not interfere.  We can only guess what their home life was like.  We hope they were learn­ing to live with 'healthy friction'.

Children learn to use the tools that work.  It is the parent's responsibility to see that 'unfair' tools do not work.

KINDNESS

            My wife and I have been discussing a certain person in Eastern Star who seems to have a knack for rubbing the other person the wrong way.  My wife feels that the situation is serious enough to warrant tactful intervention.

Here is the essay I wrote but which was never delivered:

            In taking upon ourselves the obligation of the Order, we bind ourselves to the 'performance of those acts of kindness and forbearance which are essential to our welfare and prosperity'.

            'Be ye kind, one to another, loving and forgiving', summarizes the charge at the close of the church service.  We know we should be kind but we don't know exactly what that means.            What does 'kindness' mean?  The Gold­en Rule is not perfect, because we don't know how the other person wants to be treated.  I may have a tough hide, but you may be very sensitive, your feelings may be easily hurt.  Thus, when I treat you the way I want to be treated, I may hurt your feelings.

            Kindness is measured by how it affects the other person.  A kindness is a word or deed that pleases the recipient.

            One of the words we find in the definition of 'kind' is 'considerate', which is from the verb 'to consider'.  Which in turn means to think about, to weigh the various options.

            To be kind one must think before he speaks or acts.  One must ask oneself, 'How will my word or act be received?'.  Some words or acts are always in order; eg ‘please’ or ‘thank you’.  Commands are seldom in order.  At a performance at Ilfeld Audi­torium I told the man in front of me to, 'take off your hat.'  He refused and perhaps rightly so.  What I should have said was, 'Will you please take off your hat?'  This is a question phrased courte­ously, much kinder than the command.

Criticism is seldom in order.  No matter how well-intentioned our comment might be, criticism is always risky.

            Even comments that might be construed as criticism can be unkind.  The substance of this 'sermon' is a form of criticism, and could very easily be considered offensive by some.  I hope not, but it could be.  I make these comments 'for the good of the Order'.

            Unsolicited advice is another potentially offensive word.  They used to advertise a certain deodorant with the slogan, 'Even your best friend won't tell you.'  Which tells us that best friends do not offer unsolicited advice.  Even solicited advice is risky.  'How do I look?' is not an invitation to pick me apart.  They used to say, 'If you can't say something constructive, don't say anything.'

If all you can say is, 'Your tie is nice.', say it and forego the negative comments that flood into your mind.

            Sometimes we are required by our job to intervene in what is being done or in how it is being done.  My comments tonight are in accord with the job description of the WP, who is required to 'exercise a general supervision over the affairs of the Chapter'.

In the past business executives were like military officers; they gave commands and subordi­nates obeyed.  Today business is learning a little psychology.  There are ways, they have learned, to give commands without giving offence.  There are kind ways of doing things.

            In our Installation Ceremony we say, 'Such is the nature of all organizations that some must rule and govern, others must submit and obey'.

            Actually, this is the nature of military organizations, and was the nature of business organizations of the past.  That was then, this is now.  Most organizations today depend on tact and diplomacy to achieve their goals.  The days of slave and master are past.  This is an age of consul­tation, negotiation, and persuasion.

            Executives in modern organizations can and do accomplish goals, but they do it by winning the support of subordinates and by supporting them as they work toward their mutual goals.

            Eastern Star has goals, worthy goals, but unless our executives learn how to work with their subordinates, we will not move at all.  It is my belief that the key word in this work is kindness.  Be you executive, or be you subordinate, keep your goals, but keep your mind on the means.

            Courtesy, love, and understanding are the keys to kindness, and kindness is the key to success in this Order as it is to success in life.  Friends, be ye kind, one to another.

            My wife didn't like this essay too much; she didn't say why.  Anyway, it was never presented.

            As we consider the ramifications of Kind­ness, we realize that kindness presents two prob­lems:  How do you deal with sensitive people?  How do you get things done when working with volunteers?

            A person can be so kind that he never gets anything done.  We must learn to get the most possible out of volunteers.  How can we be kind (tactful) and still enlist the support of our people?

5/18/94   Cont'd        More advice from the Com­pulsive Advice Giver.                   Conflict Resolution

            It is virtually impossible to deal with Emo­tional Man.  About all you can do is try to calm him down.  Only after his Rational Man is in control can you explain your position to him, 'I like you and want to continue to work with you, but our relationship will have a much better chance if you will consider my feelings.  I believe that —.'

            So far, I have not tried to be persuasive – to be convincing – to win an argument.  I have tried to state simply and concisely what I believe.

            Believe it or not, many people do not know what they believe.  For these people, I recommend the OA tool of writing.  If you can't put it down in black and white, you probably don't know what you believe.  Right now, I am groping for the best words to use to express myself.  I don't know what I believe (and I am an expert).  I know at a certain level, but not at a communication level.

            We have to plan our presentations around the capabilities of our hearer.

With Whom are We Dealing?

What Type of Person is He?

            Is he an educated person?  Is he a high-school dropout?  Grad, BS, MS, PhD, etc?  How does he think?  Scientist, Philosopher, Theologian, Occult, Athlete?  I could add another category:  Housewife, but I suspect that that would alienate a lot of people.

            Back in the early 70s we had another cate­gory called the Hard Hats.  Many were HS drop­outs, many were American Legion type – reaction­ary.  They were a voice at that time.  Today we hear little from labor, but they are still here and a voice to be aware of.

            Some do not like to put people into catego­ries, it leads to bigotry, but to me it enables me to cope with an overpowering diversity.

Please be cautioned that our old categories:  Race, Ethnic Group, Sex, or Age, are not consid­ered valid today.  Even so, I would not completely ignore them either.

What is our Position?

What do we Believe?

            We will phrase what we say so that our hearer will understand us.  Actually, these are things he should already know, but he may need to be reminded.  Let's call this our Declaration of our Expectations:

          I am a human being, entitled to respect.  I do not want to be treated as an inferior.  I do not want to be dominated by another person.  I do not want to be used or abused.  I have feelings and opinions.  I want to make my own decisions.  I want to be consulted in matters that affect me.

I do not like to deal with angry people.  It is your responsibility to control your temper – discov­er what is eating on you – get counseling – whatever it takes.

Fight or Flight

            The human, in fact most creatures, have two options with which he can respond to aggres­sion:  Fight or Flight.  These are built-in instincts.  However, once he acquires property he wants to protect, or loved ones, he loses the flight option.  But he also may acquire a most valuable ability, he may learn how to protect himself by negotiat­ing peace. 

            The human also may learn how to 'defend' himself against a much stronger adversary – he may learn terrorism.

            We hear a lot about 'non-negotiable' terms as parties begin negotiations.  Non-negotiable means that that particular want cannot be negoti­ated.  Unfortunately, it also means, very often, that the whole effort at negotiation is doomed to fail­ure.