"If your brother sins against you, go to him. Tell him what he did wrong. Keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won him back.
"But what if he won't listen to you? Then take one or two others with you. Scripture says, 'Every matter must be proved by the words of two or three witnesses.' (Deuteronomy 19:15) But what if he also refuses to listen to the witnesses? Then tell it to the church. And what if he refuses to listen even to the church? Then don't treat him as your brother. Treat him as you would treat an ungodly person or a tax collector."
- Matthew 18:15-17 (NIRV)
Matthew 18:15-17 gives me a clear and practical blueprint by Jesus in how to approach relational interventions. The goal is to restore the fractured relationship. If I am the wounded party, this involves me having the willingness to be humble and vulnerable with the person who hurt me and that I'm in relationship with. As far as whether or not this blueprint should be applied to all people I feel significantly hurt by, or only the relationships where I want to risk being vulnerable in because they matter enough to me - that is up for each person and each unique situation to be discerned. I don't see it as a one-size-fits all outfit for all conflictual interactions. Conflict between humans is too complicated to be given a one-size-fits-all formula.
Once it has been decided that doing a relational intervention is the next best thing, I can apply this blueprint. I do this by me being the one to show my wound to the person who has caused it, just between the two of us. It is a linear line from me to them, not a triangle of me going to a 3rd party and that 3rd party going to the offender instead of me. Triangulation easily proves to be malignant. If I feel the need to discharge lightening bolts of emotional energy before going to the offender that I am trying to win over, I do not see any danger in me going to one of my friends whom I trust and who won't be placed in a conflict of interest by providing me with their empathy and a shoulder to cry on. Many times these friends will help me get clear so that I can go directly to the person I am in conflict with.
This is the L-shape concept.
But when that 3rd party person does what I myself am to do first, it draws a third line which can easily detonate the triangulation bomb.
If I go directly to the offending party and show them my wound, just between the two of us, and they will not listen to me, I am to kick it up a notch. Not 10 notches, just one. By the way, there is a difference between hearing and listening, one is a passive function which is involuntary (hearing) unless you're hearing-impaired, while the other is a proactive skill that requires voluntary action (listening). For a good article on the difference between hearing and listening, click here, or for a much shorter explanation, click here.
I can seek out others for support in trying to win over this person, and preserve or restore a relationship. The point is to win this person over, not coerce them. Who are the best people to seek out when I'm trying to kick it up a notch? I think they will be people whose voice matters to the person I am trying to get through to because of their authentic relationship with the offending person. They will have a trusting relationship with the offending party where emotional safety and integrity are valued. - BTW - we all take our turns in playing the role of the "offender", the "offended" and "the witnesses", we are all fair game. This is not a court-hearing or a litigation. This is a relational intervention that seeks to bring restoration or reconciliation, not "justice". Nobody needs to play the role of "Judge" or we would all be hypocrites judging one another.
Now, if I have no access to people who will go with me, and will be a substantial voice to the offending party, I am short-handed which places the relational intervention in jeopardy. I guess I am to do the best with whatever I have to work with. This is why doing life within a shared-community is so vital, I am just now realizing this. In American culture where we
If I do have the rare benefit of a shared-community to support me in doing relational interventions, and I take one or two with me (whether it's done literally or figuratively) as long as the message is congruent, not all the physical bodies need to be there I suppose, I am well equipped. I am setting myself and the offending person up, as best as possible, to result in reconciliation. I am after a win/win result. Being well supported or well-equipped though, doesn't take away another person's free will to choose to listen or not. If they still do not listen to me, or the witnesses, this blueprint given by Jesus instructs me to kick it up yet another notch. Go tell more people within this shared-community, and go to the offender with the same message, yet with the presence of more people. If this still doesn't result in the offender listening to this message, I am to surrender the wound in this relationship from being repaired by the offending party, which redefines the whole relationship by changing the context it is viewed and operated from.
Why? - Because I'm giving up on this person and don't care about them because they won't listen to me?
No. Because I am adjusting my treatment and expectations of this person to fit the context which is to match how I am being treated by the other person. I am to acquiesce in a sense, after doing all I can including reaching out for outside help from my community.
"Then don't treat him as your brother. Treat him as you would treat an ungodly person or a tax collector."
The context is now changed to acquiesce to the offender's will which is demonstrated through their behavior in response to you following the blueprint in Matthew 18. This is not a reciprocal relationship. The other person is not reciprocating my efforts or mirroring back my will/desire for the relationship to be mended, so I am to respond by respecting their will, not trying to win it over anymore. I am to surrender my will for the relationship by stop trying to get them to agree with my will, when they will not. This person still has value and worth, but the relationship is now redefined with their actions leading the way, not my will. I am to love them and respect their own choices, without confining myself to relying on trusting someone to reciprocate what they will not reciprocate in order to repair a wounded relationship that isn't needed to be repaired in order to follow legal obligations only (i.e. paying taxes).
Where does marriage fit into this? Ya got me, kid.
