"Killing The Art of Compromise"

One of the things I thought was so great about Presbyterians was our ability to compromise. 

The Presbytery that helped form my faith and practice in ministry, had a special way of addressing difficult, divisive decisions.  An unofficial, unannounced, ad hoc “compromise committee” gathered ahead of when said divisive issue/concern/debate would come up in the docket, and a “miraculous compromise” got presented to the Presbytery before the anticipated haranguing could begin. 

I thought this was great.  It put conflict on the sidelines and it appeared, people walked away happy. 

It was the art of the smoke-filled backroom deal; it was probably, mostly/only “good ole’(white) boys”; only in my innocence and naiveite could they really have had good intentions, wanted to avoid conflict, and believed they had both Jesus and the best interests of everyone else in mind. 

These committees could boast an amazing “success” rate in appearances of discerning what was acceptable to the assembly—in fact, I witnessed more than one compromise so finely tuned that the sides itching for a fight voted favorably by acclimation! 

Today I can recognize the false reality this process offered.  Even more, that compromise is not working and the pursuit of compromise is killing us!  Working on acceptable outcomes has been replaced by side-taking, then entrenchment and holding out—sometimes just so the other side can’t win. 

Instead, what if everyone in the room could simply “name their need”? 

I just spent 24 hours with a group of church leaders who got to try this on.  I’m glad to admit, some of it pushed my buttons; my old soul likes some things “the way we’ve always done them,” and to think we weren’t so bad at them.  Instead, I got to say, “this is hard for me,” or “that pushes my buttons,” or even, for me to sit on the sidelines and not actively participate. 

The group worked hard to listen as everyone “named their need,” and also for each person to “name the gift(s) each saw available in the room.”  Only then, with an “inventory” to work from, could the group decide together how to meet needs with gifts present.  It wasn’t 100% successful—some needs went unmet.  But everyone got to acknowledge them.  Compromise was replaced by “taking stock/inventory.”

When I came to work this morning and read the front page of the local paper as I walked down the hallway to my office, the big story was another rally for yet another victim of what was described as “gun violence” (a week ago, a well-known high school senior in our community was shot and killed, the investigation is still ongoing). 

I feel acutely that in my community we do not all agree that this was “gun violence;” I noted that one of the city council members named in the article is a prominent African American councilmember who’s self-admittedly been working on a campaign to end gun violence and this kind of killing for at least a decade.  Our community’s already formed opinions about the people involved as well as our presumptions about the outcome being asked for stand in the way of compromise—we are just not going to agree and working for the necessary votes to get to the outcome for some will force the status quo for decades to come. 

But instead, what if we could all simply “name our need”?  Or name our hope, our desire, our dreamed-of outcome? 

I believe if we could all honestly name our need, chances are high that all of us harbor the need for a time to be when young people would not die as this one did; and, additionally even, where we would not see the violence of recent events in Houston, Philadelphia, Dayton, and El Paso—and all the others!  That those of us, who often stand on separate sides, would see we’re really standing together. 

In our small group of 50 church leaders, it made the process for something all of us were used to doing quickly and easily, far more difficult.  But dare I say it, we all felt heard in the process, and even when it didn’t go our way, we all felt affirmed.  And that meant we built strength and hope together at each step—and reduced resentment.  Work progressed and trust grew. 

What if we could slide compromise to the back burner for a while.  Instead of telling each other what we have to have in order to reach agreement; what if we got to listen as each of us named our need, and our individual and collective needs got heard and considered? 

So, we’d have to listen and consider other people’s truth as our own. 

That sounds hard, I know.  It might be hard to do, yes. 

But it’s also something that Jesus says is just real, neighborly. 

What if we could kill compromise and just be more neighborly? 

© Rev. David Stipp-Bethune; Teaching Elder and Pastor, The First Presbyterian Church of El Dorado, Arkansas

A Letter to the Editor I Might Write

Dear Editor,

In recent days we’ve all been forced to endure some of the terrible realities of human life.  We faced reports of violence in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.  We endured threats and speculation about shopping at Wal-Mart in our own hometown.  We wring our hands over the safety of “church” on Sundays and if our kids are truly safe at school.  And now we’ve learned again in our town and especially in cities, violence isn’t just at school, it happens at home and in our neighborhoods for inexplicable reasons. 

The thing we’re tempted to believe is that while we hear the news about mass violence in other places, that at least, “it isn’t happening here.” 

But one life is too many.  It doesn’t take multiple lives; one life in our community is enough to diminish us. 

In this conversation, it’s usually presumed we must talk about repealing liberal gun laws if we want to make a dent in human safekeeping.  But what needs to be repealed, is the attitude I have for my neighbor. 

We don’t just disagree—we actually think the worst about other people before we ever talk.  Especially the people we’re taught not to like.  Even worse, we not only call other people names, we say ugly things about them having already believed in their ugliness without ever having spoken.  We trust these created lies as truth, we deceive ourselves pointing to people who will agree with us, and attempt to make the world again in our own image—we’re right and the others we choose to be wrong! 

What needs to be repealed is this attitude of our neighbor by which our innocence is stolen, and by which we participate in the diminishment of human life. 

Too many people simply cannot believe that all of this is supposed to be different.  That life is more than a mere handful of days.  That the Bible teaches that the one who lives to be a hundred will be considered a youth and that anyone who dies at less than a hundred will be considered accursed.  That our attitude toward one another ought to be helping each other live, not letting each other die. 

We must stop letting each other die; and it starts in how we perceive our neighbor.

For Christians, Jesus teaches us that loving our neighbors is on par with the greatest commandment—that we love God.  We cannot love God and not love our neighbor.  When our neighbors die this way, it is a failure of faith. 

So, what needs to be repealed, is this attitude where we think another’s life should be or is less valued than our own.