This post is part of a series of essays examining how the #Four Foolish Rules we’ve considered over the last several weeks would apply to specific situations. You may want to go back and read this series, including the introduction, and especially Part 1 of this essay, before you read on.
Continuing where we left off last week in applying the #FourFoolishRules to the Scenario that began in last week’s post, we’ll consider Rules #3 and 4 with this post.
Rule #3: Good Boundaries. Remember that there are two aspects to the boundaries question. We’ll take them in turn.
First, we ask whether there’s behavior here that interferes with what we’re trying to do together. What do you think?
Taking Sharon’s assertions at face value, there is reason to believe that Pat has made repeated requests for money, and those requests have proved distressing to church members. Sharon reported that one or more members are choosing to stay away from church rather than have to face Pat. If this is true, it appears that Pat’s behavior in the church is interfering with what we’re trying to do there.
You’ll need to have some conversations and do some investigation in order to better understand what has happened here. A more leisurely conversation with Sharon is in order, along with some discussion with Rick and Carol. You will eventually need to ask Pat about these requests. Your purpose in doing this would be to assess the truth of what’s been happening. You’ll have to consider whether to talk to one or more leaders to accompany you in this reconnaissance.
If you determine that Pat is indeed making these repeated requests and it is having a negative impact on other persons, then it’s important to ask: What boundary needs to be set to address that concern?
This may sound like an inexplicable question. We aren’t used to telling our fellow church members–our peers–what they can and can’t do at church. Let’s pause a minute and remember: Our discomfort with this question belongs. We’ve been conditioned to think we just have to live with people’s behaviors, or walk away. It’s no wonder this all makes us uncomfortable.
Rule #3 says no, there’s another way. When we observe behavior that is hurtful or obstructive, we will name it and address it. We will do that using every effort to be respectful and fair. We’ll do so promptly and with a minimum of side conversations.
This means, of course, that we have to be prepared to put our concerns into words and decide what the boundary needs to be. I’d encourage you to have a conversation with part or all of your leadership group to clarify this approach. Next there’s a talk with Pat, in which you (or some other leader(s)) lay out as clearly as possible (1) what has been happening; (2) why it matters, i.e., how it interferes with what you’re trying to do as a church; and (3) the boundary you’re setting.
The boundary should be straightforward. “You must not ask anyone at church for money, going forward.” What if it happens again? Maybe then you’d require Pat to be accompanied by one of you leaders anytime he’s in the church, and you’ll communicate with all church members to direct any such inquiries to a member of the leadership group. Does this mean he can never express his needs? The leadership team might consider identifying a point person whom Pat can contact with any requests he might wish to communicate.
This gets to the second aspect of Rule #3, Good Boundaries, which has to do with what belongs to Pat and what belongs to the rest of us. In our original scenario, you effectively set your own boundary, that one time Pat asked you for money. You didn’t let Pat’s need push you to take it on yourself.
Some of your fellow church members allowed Pat’s questions to push them past their preferred boundaries. We all have to take responsibility for those decisions, and for becoming more clear about this.
In this scenario, if Pat needs money, that need belongs to him. Pat may need something other than money. As we discussed under Rule #2, last week, when we’ve built a good relationship with one another, we may discover there’s more to Pat’s story that sheds light on his requests and what his true situation is.
Still, having strengthened our relationship and clarified the boundaries on Pat’s behavior, there might be some of us who are quite willing to form a supportive team around Pat, to help him draw on available resources in the community, better allocate what he already has, and maybe even sometimes offer financial or other tangible support for requests that have been made in an agreed manner. In other words, there may be people who are willing to accept within their own boundaries a relationship with Pat in which his situation and needs might be held with care.
We won’t talk here about the boundary questions in the conversation with Sharon and the communications she had with Rick, Carol, and probably others, but those are worth considering, too. If they believe Pat has crossed a line, we could wish they had addressed it using the Matthew 18 process we apply in Rule #4, so we’ll turn to that next.
Rule #4: Clean Up Our Messes. The prior paragraphs reveal that there’s a kind of interplay between Rules 3 and 4. I have talked about the situation with Pat as a boundaries question (Rule #3) and I’m inclined to think that Sharon’s behavior needs to be channeled through Rule #4, where we use the Matthew 18 process of resolving conflict. That distinction may not be airtight. My instinct on this has to do with the way these questions have come to us, but I see that there’s a kind of intertwining here.
Following that thought process, though, I wonder if your response to Sharon in the first place might have been (consistent with Matthew 18), “Have you talked to Pat about it?” That would be the first step for her to address the concern under the Matthew 18 process, after all. Her decision to talk to you is already a violation of those steps.
You might need to have that same conversation with Rick and Carol.
We will never become communities that practice Rule #4 and the Matthew 18 process unless we invoke it in the moment, in living situations that involve conflict and broken relationships. Naming that in that very first conversation with Sharon might have been your best, first step.
Now you and I both know that Sharon may or may not follow through, and do the right thing. You and the other leaders may still have to consider whether to go through the steps I outlined under Rule #3, and identify a boundary that will make it possible for Pat and others to be in healthy relationships in which all feel fully welcome.
At the end of the day, we can hope for that to happen for all of the people involved in this scenario.
Leave a Reply