Heart to Heart Response

What strategies can be used to deal with an uncomfortable situation brought about by another person? Fight or flight? Ignore, resolve, or counterattack? Obviously it depends on the type of situation. There are of course times when the situation is hopeless and it is best to do the "ignore it and maybe it will go away" tactic, for instance when a crazy or drunk person is challenging you, hoping for an excuse to get into a fight. Or in some political discussions it may be best to "fight fire with fire" to counter arguments. For the purpose of this discussion, however, I am speaking of times when another person (especially a friend or relative) confronts us about something uncomfortable - either a personal request for emotional support or a rebuke for hurtful behavior on our part. There are only two choices - our response will be either be a good-faith helpful response, or it will not. In the latter case, if we choose to not respond in good faith then we will do one of three things: attack, ignore, or emote. It is these four responses that I would like to discuss.

ATTACK
A counterattack can take many forms. A purely defensive move when confronted with something uncomfortable, a counterattack usually is instinctual rather than premeditated. In the case where someone points out something about you that seems wrong to them, it is usually easiest to question their right to criticize you by pointing out their own faults. There is always something wrong with them that you can see, and, even if you can't change their mind, you can at least shut them up for a time and leave the conversation feeling justified. What about if the uncomfortable situation is not confrontational? For instance, what if someone comes to you for help? Is there a way to do a self-defense attack in that case? Of course there is, but the counter-attack is different. In that case, we counterattack by either (a) being more pitiful than them or by (b) acting like their request is causing us great emotional stress. This will certainly deflect all requests for help, except from the most desperate people - those who are either totally insensitive to others or who are at least willing to play the "I am more pitiful than you" game.

IGNORE
A more effective (and more often used) strategy is to pretend to listen and respond, but not actually give anything that has been asked for. How many times have we been in the situation where we attempt to ask a friend a question or bring up a painful subject and we have a discussion with the other person, but after we get home we realize that, though we talked for a long time, we can't remember a single, specific answer to anything. Not only this, but generally we can't actually remember anything that the other person said. This is a very effective method, because it takes a considerable emotional effort to have a *second* conversation with the person on the same subject, and besides, they usually now have time to erect defenses to prevent a second discussion anyway. The problem with this strategy is that it allows us to be shabby and mean without too much conviction. The person ignored has their pain doubled by our callousness and is now left hanging, wondering if it is worth the trouble to try again. It is also a clear violation of the admonition of the Lord in the sermon on the mount: "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt 5:23-24) Sadly, if there wasn't offense before, there is now. Eventually, a family, workplace, or church will be filled with a lot of isolated islands as the walls get stronger between people.

EMOTE
Another strategy is to produce a lot of strong emotions to simulate action. A great display of repentance or caring can be produced without a single actual instance of change or help. This is often the response of a "feeler", who will often convince himself/herself that they have had a beautiful experience of friendship or personal revelation - often without any actual measurable change whatsoever. There will often be a great public testimony given by the Emoter about the exchange and how meaningful it was: "We had a heart to heart and we both cried", or "so and so challenged me to be a better person", etc. The real question is: did the person originating the interchange go away with their questions or concerns answered? Or will they just feel too guilty to bring it up again?

MEANINGFUL RESPONSE
So what is the alternative? I believe it can be found in the words of Paul to the believers in Corinth, found in 2 Corinthians chapter 7 verses 8-11:

For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while. I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

I like this passage because the people in Corinth, whatever their faults (which were many) actually got it. Many people think that they are responding to criticism or other communications when they emote strongly and freely. In this case, the Corinthians could have spent the next month publicly crying in repentance, weeping and gnashing their teeth, or alternatively they could have gotten all offended and gone on the warpath, issuing a strongly worded defense to Paul, vindicating themselves and disavowing his right to criticize them. Instead of these responses, they showed that they understood both Paul's heart and his intent. Paul didn't want to make them feel bad at all. He wanted them to be happy! By his own words Paul said as much, as he expressed his relief at seeing that the sorrow that they had was not a morose, pitiful outpouring of emotion but merely a correction with the result that they experienced joy - joy that they shared with Paul. Look at how specific their response was:

1. They changed their behavior ("repentance")
2. Earnestly - from the heart with no fakeness or ulterior motives,
3. they vindicated themselves - checking against all charges, making sure everything was fixed,
4. they were indignant - they agreed with Paul's charges, adopting his values and not just doing 'lip service',
5. they had fear - they took it seriously, not flippantly,
6. they showed longing - they really wanted to do the right thing,
7. they had zeal - their response was not left "on the back burner" to do "when they had time" but was a first priority for them until it was complete,
8. they avenged their own wrongdoing - justice was done, they took care of the results of their wrong actions and made things right,
9. they demonstrated themselves innocent - not only did they fix things but they made sure that the change was complete and permanent.

I like to call this passage "the eight steps of real repentance". If someone comes to us with a problem, even if it is not an offense but a plea for help - can the steps above guide us? If someone comes to us and says "I have really been depressed lately", do we run away or would they say that we were earnest, longing and zealous to help? If someone has a problem with something that we have done or said, do we show fear, avenge our wrongs and demonstrate our changes? Or do we just avoid them in the future?

HEART TO HEART
I think that a lot of this passage hinges on the attitude of the Corinthians. They could have decided the "sorrowful letter" that Paul had previously sent them was for the purpose of making them feel bad, and acted accordingly. This would have been childish thinking - sort of like a teenager who tells a friend "my parents hate me and don't want me to ever have any fun" when told that they can't go to the midnight movie on a school night, instead of saying "they don't want me to go out that late on a school night. Sorry. Could we go on Friday night instead? I could go then!" If the Corinthians had responded that way then both they and Paul would have spent their time sorrowful. What a waste that would have been. How wonderful it is that they decided to give Paul the benefit of the doubt and not decided in advance that he just wanted them to emote.

This passage brings up one more interesting item. If we chose the "I'll just feel bad" route, it produces terrible things in our own lives. "the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, ... but the sorrow of the world produces death." There are two kinds of sorrow - there is the kind that produces quick life change and happiness, and there is the kind that produces wallowing in sadness and death - emotional and even physical.

This makes me think of the parallel stories of Peter and Judas. Both of them betrayed Jesus the same night - Peter denied knowing him three times (as predicted by Jesus) and Judas betrayed him to be arrested. Both Peter and Judas felt bad, though there was a marked difference. Before we undersell the betrayal of Peter, remember the emotional scene after his third denial, when from inside the house where the trial was taking place, Jesus looked right into the eyes of Peter with a "I told you that you would do this" look, and Peter went out and "wept bitterly". Wow. It almost looks like Judas repents more quickly than Peter even. While Peter is out weeping, Judas goes back to the high priest and throws the money back at them that he had received for his betrayal. But we can see the true source of the sorrow if we look more deeply. Judas felt *regret*, but this seems to be out of a sense of unfairness. Instead of true repentance, he went out in self-pity and killed himself, forcibly taking away from himself the chance of turning from his sin - he confirmed himself in it for eternity. I am sure he cried and emoted and demonstrated his unhappiness all the way to the field where he hung himself, but his self-pitying sorry resulted quite literally in death - physically and eternally.

Peter, on the other hand, while he did withdraw from ministry at first and went back to his old profession, when Jesus confronted and comforted him (at the end of the gospel of John) he turned back, turning his back on the sin he had committed, and became a leader in the church. He preached the first sermon in the history of the church (with 3000 converts), wrote some of our scriptures, and bravely died a martyr's death at the hands of the Romans many years later after a fruitful life of service. He had "repentance without regret" resulting in life - not only for him but for many others! Certainly the opposite outcome from Judas.

CONCLUSION
What does all the above have to do with my original premise? Everything. Part of keeping relationships healthy is making a heart connection to the other person. If someone comes to us with a need, we can either discern what they need or we can do what serves us - avoiding the uncomfortable either by giving empty help with big demonstrations of emotion or by doing something that will keep them at arm's length. Can we then go to God and expect his help, though, if our response to our friend was "be warmed and filled" with no actual help? Or if we responded "sorry, I will try to help you later (which will probably never come)"? Probably not. Can our families/workplaces/churches/clubs thrive if we sit behind our walls when others have reached out to us? Or looking at it another way, how much better would it be if we made it a point to always respond - even negatively if we need to - rather than leaving people hanging for the sake of our comfort?

"Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed". (Prov 27:5)