I also don't think we should demand unconditional surrender of others to reach resolutions and bring solutions to issues. Unconditional surrender results in a win-lose situation. (NOTE: I am talking about personal human relationships and interactions here. In times of war between nations I am in favor of demanding unconditional surrender. If a problem between nations cannot be resolved peacefully and resorts to war, then there should be a complete and convincing victory by one party).
What I advocate as a method for resolving problems of human interaction is "union". Union - a coming together - to solve problems results in a true win-win. When we unite with God as in "He who loses his life for MY (God's) sake will find it", God wins a relationship with us and we win a relationship with God. God wins our life. We win our life. This is how I paraphrase this reference: "He who qualitatively alters his life and he who drastically changes his definition of the meaning of life and freedom will find both."
I have inserted below a pictorial representation of how I see compromise. In the first set of blocks you have two differing views - in this case "blue" and "yellow". In order to compromise each view must have a piece cut out of the view in order for it to "fit" with the other. In the end the two views "fit" together nicely, but at a cost. Each had to have a portion cut out and each view had to give up a part of itself. The worst part is this: The two views are now merely placed together because they happen to "fit", but there is no staying power. The two views are just sitting side by side and can be easily pulled apart with the least bit of stress applied to them. The holders of the original views can still easily distinguish their contributions and might be tempted to accentuate their own views over the other views.
Below is a pictorial representation of how I see union. In the first set of blocks you have two differing views - again in this case "blue" and "yellow". In order to form a union each view must be altered in order to be "joined" with the other. (The alteration is represented by diagonal lines). In the end the views come together and "fit" nicely in an overlapping and interwoven fashion while also forming a new blended view ("green"). All of the "blue" is still there as is all of the "yellow". In the end a new viewpoint is formed by all the elements of the original views and a portion of that new view is a true combination of the originals. Forming a union creates a strong bond. This new view is presumed to be superior to either of the originals and cannot be undone without significant effort and stress - if it can be undone at all. In fact, the holders of the original views will work together to preserve the union because they can no longer easily distinguish and separate their own ideas and they will recognize the advantages of the union.
Unions are much harder and more work to develop than compromises. Unions are qualitatively different from compromises, but much better in the end for the individuals and organizations involved. Unions also result in much healthier and more productive solutions and result in solutions that have staying power.
How do we work toward unions? For me, I focus much meditation time on Philippians 2:3-4:
I think the concepts expressed by Paul through the influence of the Holy Spirit represent my meaning of engaging in unions with others to solve problems. If I look out for your interests and you look out for mine, we will arrive at a solution that is much better than if we merely look out for our own interests and give up (compromise) on things we are willing to do without. If I am willing to cut something out of a plan, it must not be very useful or important and I probably don't believe it adds any real value to the solution anyway.
I think we can solve most human interation and relationship problems with unions that preserve the wholeness of the persons involved and the wholeness of their ideas and desires. In the end we will have solutions that have more lasting value and that are stronger than any of the original ideas.
I wish I could give you some specific suggestions for your situation, but I can't because forming unions is hard work and each union must be worked out and worked on diligently by a joint effort between the parties involved. I am available to talk with you though.
Posts
2 comments:
Union is a joining together. A perfect marriage is a union, an intertwining of mutual, competing and harmonious needs and delights.
If marriage is also the metaphor of our perfect relationship with Christ then is it not also the best example of other love relationships as well?
I don't see compromise,necessarily as a deficient word, per se, although the word has gained that connotation. Compromise, in my mind, is a selfless, humble, sacraficial act of giving up personal gain for the benefit of another. Kind of like going to the cross, maybe? But union is a far better ideal conceptual word than, say, collaboration, which has similar connotations.
I like the word union since it carries all the meaning of unity, unite and unification. In essence, becoming one with another.
I like the pictures. They helped me understand what you were saying. I was a little foggy, but the idea of not much pulling a compromise apart is helpful. A union is interlocking. Both parties are committing to the successful nature of the relationship. Like a marriage. The question is...how do we apply this practically? How do we move from compromise to union?
Post a Comment