Pittsburgh: the parting of friends?

I am not expert enough, or fool, to enter seriously into the serpentine constitutionalities, let alone politics, of US Episcopalianism, but one or two people have asked me for a reaction to the recent Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention. Perhaps I can annoy everybody all round, equally:

1. I was surprised by the Bishop’s assertion that this is “the end of a long era of division in the Diocese.”
   More timid souls may fear that this is actually the beginning of a long era of division in the diocese. Depends how you define “the diocese,” perhaps. I wonder if delegates to the Montgomery Convention of 1861 believed they were resolving division. With hindsight, most historians wouldn’t buy that notion. We’ll see.
   
   
2. I was moved and impressed by David Wilson’s opening sermon, about faith, courage and the future:

To be true to our beliefs, it would be far better to bless each other in separating, each going our own way than to continue the internecine warfare of winner-take-all. It will take courage to let each other go and to bless each other in the going. We have an opportunity today to make this convention a testimony to love and forbearance among brothers and sisters in Christ. To be a blessing to each other. Do we have the courage to do it? Will we do it? Can we forgo parliamentary shenanigans that in the end will cause more pain and more distrust and bless nobody? Can we get on with it decently and in order?

I suppose some will feel that this noble view does leave open the question of where the truth of the matter actually lies, as well as drawing discreet veils over past “parliamentary shenanigans” on both sides that have caused pain and distrust, but its sentiments and intentions are surely the best...

Conflict Transformation, Day Three

Conflict Transformation Course, Day Three (Earlier Day One, here and here, Day Two here.) This bagged up information from the other two, with a chance to rework the medical ethics problem from day 1 in the light of all we'd learnt about Integrative Complexity and Relational Contextual Reasoning. I came to the same conclusion, but was rather surprised by how many extra facets about the problem and its various contexts came into play when I applied the IC/ RCR toolboxes. We were each given a personal profile describing how we react to conflict, based on the work we'd handed in. I wish I’d studied this stuff years ago. I don’t think it would have lessened the amount of conflict in my life, but it would have felt more like White Water rafting, and less like falling over Niagara Falls!

Finally, a lot of the course so far rather assumed rational people acting rationally. Whether it's an angry person somewhere under the ceiling, or a sullen manipulative bully, not everybody is sensible all the time. Some people and groups make a living out of being difficult. What about them?

We were introduced to a bit of Game Theory (Robert Axelrod) called, rather unattractively, “Tit for Tat” indicating tactical options in relation to a variably collaborative or defecting protagonist which might be able to get things back on some sort of negotiable track in the face of person or persons behaving badly.

I think this project offered considerable potential for church conflict at all levels. Here's a classic statistic out of the air — 46% of church conflict is more driven by the personal dynamics than the actual bone of contention. We need to grow greater understanding about how we interact and why, along with some practical skills for alternative strategies and tactics. I’m certainly exploring how we might be able to access this resource better in the diocese and wider church. It will be interesting to walk towards Lambeth with this perspective in mind.

Peacemaking Boot Camp 2

Transforming Conflict Session Two (One, here and here). The plot thickens. On the train there, I got out some Integrative Complexity homework I’d done, and suddenly saw another way of mapping the second phase of it, leading to an actual (low wattage ecological) light bulb moment. During the day it got more complicated, and our group is now going to try our hand at working a homework problem with RCR, an 8-phase method which incorporates but transcends IC. Hmm...

These methods certainly provide effective, practical ways to slow down the reptile fight-or-flight bits of the brain whilst the intelligent bit catches up. That’s got to be worth knowing how to do, even more than waggling your ears.Their Achilles Bugbear could be that whilst proven peacemaking techniques infallibly help people who actually want to make peace, they only annoy small-minded thugs who derive their energy from getting into punchups, and stave off their terror of insignificance by terrorizing others. Or do they? More will be revealed in workshop 3, which I'm booked into on 26 February.

Don’t make a Drama out of a Crisis

People have been asking me all about last Friday, the first of my 3 days as a guinea pig on a research project about Integrative Complexity. It’s resourced by theologically literate Cambridge research psychologists. What did I learn, and what is Integrative Complexity anyway?

1. You measure IC by language — not what’s said, but how it’s said. It’s a psychological discipline, grounded in our understanding of the functions of different brain parts, and with a big experimental base. People studying Osama’s IC level (as you do) noticed it hit the floor just before 9/11.
   
2. People Integrate Complexity, when they hold the whole picture = all the particular information in a diverse field simultaneously. Telescoping things into simple yes/no’s, Not relating them, or eliminating them are strategies for avoiding rather than integrating complexity. If you can hold things in view for what they actually are in their own terms, you achieve higher integration. The higher your integrated complexity level, the higher your capacity to understand, and the less likely you are to end up punching people's lights out.
3. OK, Wittgenstein fans! Remember those Duck/rabbits? being realistic about what you see and not telescoping one into the other whilst remaining aware of both possibilities, demands a higher level of IC than the ‘be right and persist’ approach.
4. Hi-IC isn’t always the best way. Some situations call for it and others don’t. Before World War 2, for example Hitler’s low IC posturing required Churchill’s low IC, not Neville Chamberlain’s high IC response. We studied a five-phase model of how people evolve tension into full scale wars, along with tell-tale signs of transition between stages. We also worked through other case studies, using an IC toolbox.
   

Violence flares from low to obscenely high in ways that can be described in almost any context. This study is all about how religious leaders use and could use IC awareness in leadership. Different approaches to faith and leadership profile differently in IC terms. This study is finding out how.

Why bother? Scripture tells Christian leaders to accept the prospect of conflict, but to aim for peace and steer away strenuously from fruitless punch-ups. I want to learn how. I am particularly interested, having written a thesis on religious conflict in the Church of England between 1880-1914. I’m furiously scribbling questionaires, writing up notes, and looking forward to stage 2 next year. Watch this space...

Transforming conflict

Wherever there’s life there’s conflict. Some people love it (boy, this is what I can Valhalla) but most of us in this culture loathe and fear it. Especially when it is about religion, there's nothing like Basil Fawlty repression about conflict to make idiots out of us.

I was off at 5.00 a.m. this morning to York, for the first day of a course resourced by two Cambridge psychologists on Conflict Transformation — not management, but transformation. The premise is not very English — that conflict is actually part of life, not some awful breakdown in the fabric of everything. What matters is not avaoiding it, not even understanding it completely (because much conflict arises from the deeply irrational, fight or flight parts of us), but to see it through a process of Integrative Complexity.” I’m off to learn what that is, and very much looking forward to the learning. Watch this space.

first entry posted on a train!

Farther up, and farther in!

Sad news — see NYT Obit from Sarx — that Madeleine L'Engle died Thursday in Connecticut. She was 88. See also Maggi Dawn's blog.

Not so well known this side of the pond, L'Engle believed everything hangs together in spiritual unity, and that religion, science and magic are simply different aspects of a single seamless reality. She said of children's writing, "You have to write the book that wants to be written. And if the book will be too difficult for grown-ups, then you write it for children"

She produced what Ian MacDonald calls "Spiritual Toffee" — so here are a few nuggets on which to chew:

Those who believe they believe in God but without passion in the heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, and even at times without despair, believe only in the idea of God, and not in God himself"

When we were children, we used to think that when we were grown-up we would no longer be vulnerable. But to grow up is to accept vulnerability... To be alive is to be vulnerable.

We tend to defend vigorously things that in our deepest hearts we are not quite certain about. If we are certain of something we know, it doesn't need defending.

It is far too easy to take refuge in our little groups, rather than allowing the Creator to change us as he changed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

agape means "a profound concern for the welfare of another without any desire to control that other, to be thanked by that other, or to enjoy the process." Not easy. But if we can follow it, it will mean that we will never exclude...It teaches me not only about forgiveness but about how to hope to give guidance without manipulation.

Wherever there is unity in diversity, then we are free to be ourselves; it cannot be done in isolation; we need each other.

We have false expectations of our holy days, of our churches, of each other. We have false expectations of our friends. Jesus did not. He had expectations, but they were not false, and when they were not met, he did not fall apart. He was never taken in by golden calves! Friendship not only takes time, it takes a willingness to drop false expectations, of ourselves, of each other. Friends--or lovers--are not always available to each other. Inner turmoils can cause us to be unhearing when someone needs us, to need to receive understanding when we should be giving understanding

Rest in peace... Rise in glory!

Niceness or Justice? Growth or Pretending? Cheese or Truth?

Great time yesterday with my colleagues Alison Webster & Raj Patel doing the first Oxford Podcast about Racial Justice in our diocese. Coming back I found a fantastic Greenbelt 2007 talk by Raj about Conflict — When do we confront and when do we walk away?

Raj gives a Gujarati slogan for us all — What God first created you to be, that you must become! and conflict, justly and honestly undergone, is a means to this happening, personally and corporately.

Conflict holds up a mirror to an organisation, an opportunity to get real, grow and learn. Secular organisations are often further ahead in their self awareness about conflict. Churches are often more into niceness than faith, so that fear of conflict paralyses them, rather than grows understanding and faith. Bullies use Fear of conflict to manipulate people. There's a weak "let's split" option that preserves subgroups' nicencess, along with their immaturity, sitting apart in smug little self-reinforcing circles, tolerating bullying and manipulation as the price of peace that isn't peace.

We need to learn when to confront and when to walk away rather than walking away because we hadn't the courage or self awareness to work it out or see it through... Raj's talk includes some pointers and practical help about these crucial decisions.

The way we handle conflict is a mirror of ourselves — What do we see in the mirror just now in our hearts, our homes, our congregations, our churches?

Is it Cheesy or realistic?

Just or Convenient?

Manipulative or honest?