Loving Truth and Peace—1

LTP

  וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ

Truth and peace are two core parts of healthy relationships. They are both sources and signs of relational health. Said another way, healthy relationships thrive on consistently speaking the truth peacefully and living in peace truthfully. 

This new set of entries brings together the previous entries on living in truth (15) and living in peace (15): loving truth and peace (LTP). LTP leads to living in truth and peace (honesty and harmony). It is not easy of course. One key way to promote LTP is to regularly have trusted others be mirrors for us and vice versa. Being mirrors means giving feedback on behaviors, attitudes, and motives. It includes shining a light into each others' lives regarding possible rationalizations, self-justifications, or other distortions of reality. It helps us to not settle for the convenient substitutes of partial truths and pseudo peace. LTP is a daily discipline and practical pathway for loving people. 

LTP is emphasized throughout the Judeo-Christian scriptures. My favourite example is from the 6^th century BC prophet Zechariah, cited below. His instructive words, indeed admonition, reflect the core of LTP. They are also the guiding principle for this new set of entries.

Do not fear! These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for I hate all these things, declares the Lord. . . . So love truth and peace. 

Zechariah 8:15–19 NASB
וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ

Global MC—Pearl Four

Resources for Good Practice

Christ the Pantocrator (The Almighty)

Opening image from chapter four.

We are exploring member care by using brief quotes from the book, Global Member Care: The Pearls and Perils of Good Practice (published February 2011). Drawing on the metaphor from Rev. 21:21, each quote is like a huge pearl--a pearl gateway--that allows us to enter more fully into the global field of member care. https://sites.google.com/site/globalmca/

Pearl Four

“In the context of complex humanitarian emergencies and the rigours of life in developing nations, aid workers arrive on the scene expecting to enhance life, not just to neutralise pain. Humanitarian work is, afterall, a celebration of life, not homage to death and despair. …International aid is a challenge to the power not only of hunger, war, and poverty, but to cynicism. Faith-driven or secular, the workers who bring aid…are the living embodiment of a human conviction that wrongs not only must be righted, but that they can be righted.” (p.1)

“…the objective of stress and trauma management is not merely to protect local and expatriate staff but to encourage them to grow, flourish, and sow the seeds of well-being among colleagues and communities in which they work and live…One of the most effective ways both to protect and to flourish is to maintain excellent social relationships within and outside the work environment. (p.5) …Our findings suggest that strong relationships afford the best protection in traumatic and stressful environments.” (p.6) John Fawcett, excerpts included from Stress and Trauma Handbook (2003)

Reflection and Discussion

**Recall one aspect of your life/work that relates to the quote above.

**Have a go at connecting the above quote with a current international area that interests/concerns you.

Member Care and the Hippocratic Oath, Part 3

Some Ideas for Responsible Practice:

Respect, Relate, Reproduce

*****

Diego Reivera, The Flower Carrier, 1935

*****

Non hay tan dulce cosa

como la fidelidad

nin miel tan sabrosa

como la buena amistad.

Tem Tob, 14th century, Spain

*

Translation:

Good, faithful friends are sweeter than anything.

*

“To consider dear to me, as my parents,

him who taught me this art;

To live in common with him and, if necessary,

to share my goods with him;

To look upon his children as my own brothers,

to teach them this art.”
*

This second section of the Oath, quoted above, might not seem too applicable for us in the member care field. The type of close teacher-student relationship described here is not exactly the same today as it was 2400 years ago in Greece. But let’s look into it more closely. I would like to suggest that we extract three broad principles from this section that are relevant for member care practitioners.
*

Applications
1. Respecting Senior Colleagues.
We show respect to (and “consider dear”) the senior practitioners in our field. For me, this applies to people whose proven character and proven contributions are sustained over time. It especially applies to those aged 70+ who were working in the pre-member care field in the 1970s and even 1960s. We show respect by listening carefully to their input and honouring them in our gatherings.
*
Personally I so enjoy learning more about our roots as a field and the efforts of those who trail blazed so long ago. Often these folks were not even aware that they were blazing anything but rather thought that they were just doing their job. These folks in their steadfastness and depth inspire me: Stringham, Lindquist, Foyle, Narramore the Grossmans and surely many more! As Tolkien says of Aragorn, a “senior (Ranger) practitioner” in the Lord of the Rings, “the old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by the frost.”
*
The Oath indicates that the teachers and the students have a close personal and working relationship. They may even “live in common”. I likewise want to encourage member care workers and senior practitioners to connect closely together for personal and professional learning. Would it ever be possible for practitioners and senior practitioners to “live in common” in some sense? Now that is quite an idea! Perhaps the closest thing that I am aware of is sharing a room together at a conference for a week, or working on a field-based project for a few weeks, or working on staff together as part of a course or school for a few months. And maybe there are additional types of relationships that we can creatively consider. Why not?
*
The Oath also mentions providing practical support for teachers/senior practitioners as needed. The labourer is worthy of her/his wages. Note that there is no clear requirement for remuneration in the Oath, and perhaps this is not mentioned so that senior practitioners would not be tempted to exploit underlings for money. Perhaps the default arrangement as much as possible was pro bono instruction. Paul the Apostle gets into this point in 2 Corinthians 11 regarding his status as a senior (apostolic) practitioner. He reminds the Corinthians (as he did the Thessalonians and other churches, e.g., I Thes. 2:9) that he served them freely and was not a financial burden to them even though he could have honourably and ethically asked them to help meet his needs. Bottom line: keep our financial relationships clear, and don’t exploit anyone who needs our services or whose services (such as training) that we ourselves need.
*
2. Relating Closely with Colleagues.
Our relationships with the family members of teachers/senior practitioners is the next broad principle. Apparently priority was to be given to children (sons) of the medical teachers. There seems to be a sense of duty to look after the teacher’s children as well as a strategic sense that the children will be in a good place to continue the medical profession, having watched and learned from their parent who is a physician.
*
How to apply this? Well, I like the idea of getting to know the families of senior colleagues and also the families of a few close colleagues. Many family members and others can benefit beyond the dyadic teacher-student relationship. And maybe we will be seeing second or even third biological generations of member care practitioners. Again I say, why not? But consider these caveats: let’s avoid any type of nepotism or favouritism in the member care community. And let’s not confuse professional roles and responsibilities with personal preferences and gain that produce conflicts of interest, not to mention envy and resentment.
*
3. Reproducing Knowledge/Skills.
We provide services but we also try to multiply our services reesponsibly. In fact, as member care practitioners we try to multiply ourselves—our competencies as well as our character. Training in many contexts can thus also involve "imparting our own lives" (I Thes. 2: 8). This is a special privlege and responsibility to be taken very seriously. It also requires accountability. “Let not many of you become teachers knowing that as such you shall receive a stricter judgement” (James 3:1).

*
One additional application is to mention that it is especially challenging to offer instruction well in light of the diversity of the member care world and mission/aid settings. One example among many: how to intervene in a “troubled” family/team setting in which the parent/team leader is seen as being rigid and authoritarian by some members and as exercising firm, caring authority by others? These types of sitautions certainly "stretch" our own experiential and practice boundaries. Good member care practice often requires going beyond the familiar (or with reference to the Oath, we go beyond the family of our senior teachers) in order to embrace the diverse. We have to cross sectors and disciplines, genders and generations, in addition to crossing cultures. Have a look at the material from the World Federation of Mental Health, prepared for World Mental Health Day 2007: Mental Health in a Changing World: The Impact of Culture and Diversity

http://wfmh.org/COVERS/2007WMHDAY.jpg
*
Final Thought
An important part of our member care practice involves responsibly: a) respecting other practitioners, b) relating to other practitioners, and c) reproducing other practitioners. Can we really read all of these responsibilities into the second section of the Hippocratic Oath? Well, yes, in a general way. Without overstepping our interpretive bounds, we can build upon our Greek predecessors. We can use this part of the Oath as a further springboard to help us consider how we want to practice responsibly.
*
Reflection and Discussion
1. Is there a senior colleague with whom you regularly relate? Do you have any special type of agreed-upon relationship?
*
2. Are there member care workers who look to you as being something like a senior colleague, and consult with you for help?
*
3. Who are your closest colleagues? How close are you to their family members?
*
4. What are the pros and cons of member care workers who link personal and professional relationships together?
*
5. In what ways are you reproducing your knowledge and skills within your sphere of influence? What thoughts do you have about training (i.e. responsible multiplication) in light of the diversity of caregivers/settings?

Member Care: Pearls and Perils, Lecture 2

Wise Doves and Innocent Serpents?
Promoting Health and Managing Dysfunction in Mission/Aid

*****
This second lecture at Fuller School of Psychology (February 2009) looked at suggestions for developing healthy organisations and for safeguarding workers in light of personal/systemic dysfunction. Human relationships and organizatinal life are vierwed as being very positive provided that good practices are understood and embraced. The lectures are available on line for free in written, audio, and video formats. We have included a few excerpts below from the second lecture to encourage you to download and watch the video.
*****
http://www.fuller.edu/academics/school-of-psychology/integration-symposium-2009.aspx

Snakes in suits, doves in snakes. © 2006 MCA/KOD

*****

Overview of Health and Dysfunction

Most of us have been part of both healthy and dysfunctional work settings. The healthy ones are personally rewarding and we feel we are contributing and growing, and challenged and respected. The dysfunctional ones on the other hand drain us, stealing our time, focus, effectiveness, and even our emotional and physical health. Much of my work in member care is devoted to helping organizations develop healthy practices. Conflict management in particular takes up a lot of time for me and many of us, especially for those in management roles. Research also supports what we all seem to know from painful experience: relational struggles in the mission/aid sectors stress us out (Gish, 1983, Carter, 1999, Fawcett, 2003). Conflicts, even if managed well, do not always lead to personal growth and closer relationships. This is especially the case when dysfunction is involved. Dysfunction disables our people and purposes, but most importantly from a Christian viewpoint, it dishonors God (Rms. 2: 21-24).

*

The above assertions may sound good and “balanced” most of the time. But we must also be concerned about the other side of the distortions—downgrading clear dysfunction and referring to obvious deviance as merely being “differences”. This will become apparent usually if skilled, unbiased people will take the time to inquire. Otherwise people back away from what is seen as a complex confusing story with two or more sides, rather than there being a cohesive core of truth that is being distorted/overlooked. So surely we must not make a mountain out of a molehill; yet neither should we make a molehill out of a mountain! The tricky part is trying to discern who has the clear or clearest perception of what constitutes a mountain or a molehill. It is also tricky since most issues are not so black and white. As Proverbs reminds us (16:2, 18:17): All the ways of a person are right in one’s own eyes, but the Lord weighs the motives; and the first to plead one’s case seems just, until one’s neighbor comes and gives input.

*

Relational Resiliency

When I teach on relationships within the mission/aid sector, I like to distinguish between functional trust and foundational trust. Functional trust is assumed, and needed so that we can work together. It believes a priori, within limits, in the good intentions and reliability of a colleague. It gives others the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so that work-related tasks and mutual interests can be realized. Foundational trust however is much deeper and it is earned. It is developed over both time and over tough times together. Enduring and genuine friendships are based on such trust. Functional and foundational trust can overlap over time, with work-related confidence in a colleague flowing into a growing friendship. Yet it is a real mistake to think that being friendly colleagues in a work context (functional trust) is the same as being true friends (foundational trust) in life. The shift from functional to foundational trust is slow and easily hindered. As Christians, this shift leads to deeper levels of “fellowship” (koininia) as emphasized in New Testament writings (e.g., John’s epistles) and to greater levels of “oneness, unity, community” (yachad) as emphasized in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms 133).

*

"Trust shifts" from the functional to the foundational are healthy. They happen via consistent demonstrations over time that people are seriously and sacrificially committed to each other. This is especially evident during crises which force people to work together closely with mutual dependency. Further, there is the genuine willingness to put someone else's best interests over one's own, with no strings attached. There is the deep sense that people are doing their utmost to respect and understand each other. People communicate regularly, equitably, and empathically. Finally, trust shifts happen when people fulfill their promises. Where foundational trust flows, entrenched conflicts usually do not.

*

Essential Resources: Good Governance and Good Management

Healthy people form healthy organizations, and vice versa. One of the greatest challenges of maintaining a healthy organization is to manage conflict and dysfunction well. I have learned the hard way (not simply from the literature!) that people in conflict do not always play fair and that often significant dysfunction (not just differences in opinion or personality) must be addressed. Probably like many of us, I default towards being a helper who stays neutral, preserves unity, increases mutual understanding, arrives at a “win-win” outcome, who helps people agree to disagree and believe the best in each other. This approach is usually sensible of course. However there are times when this approach is inadequate and ill-advised, and confrontation and discipline are required. This is tough love that necessitates verifiable contrition and verifiable change. Otherwise innocent people, now and in the future, get hurt. And justice is not done.

*

3. Guidelines for Grievances and Whistle-blowing. Third, I suggest that organizations have clear guidelines for handling grievances and for "whistle-blowing" including non-retaliation commitments to those who confront serious problems in an organization. These guidelines are part of good management practices and are in addition to those for conflict resolution. With regards to grievances, mission/aid organizations should also consider the role of an “ombudsman”, a person who acts as a neutral intermediary to represent and help negotiate the interests of both staff and the organization. As for whistle-blowing, one helpful resource is the Policy on Suspected Misconduct, Dishonesty, Fraud, and Whistle-Blower Protection by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability in the USA (see Box 9,). This policy takes into account the legal protection offered by the 2002 Sarbanes Oxley Act in the USA for those who report possible or actual organizational misconduct. It also urges that a variety of safe reporting mechanisms be set up that are understood and used by staff, and includes sample policies for both large and small organizations to adapt for their purposes. Note too that similar legislation to protect whistleblowers was passed in the United Kingdom in 1998, as part of the Public Interest Disclosure Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1). See also the standards for raising concerns and retaliation at: www.business-ethics.org/newsdetail.asp?newsid=88. Mission/aid workers, whether they are employees, volunteers, or independent contractors, need to be aware of their rights/status under the law. Organizations are responsible to explain these laws to their members and to abide by them.

*

Reflection and Discussion

Here are three of the ten "Health Promoters" that are included in the article.

*
1. Healthy organizations have clear policies/procedures that are understood, recognized, and reviewed. Clear ethical values/commitments are also indicators of health. Yet even still there can be a mess when healthy practices are not followed and dysfunction exists. What do you think?

*

2. What behaviors in your experience would you consider to be dysfunctional? Examples: manipulation, lying, stealing, ignoring, ridiculing, discrediting, withholding information, blaming/shaming, scapegoating, demoting, dismissing, etc. Note that organizational and personal health can be described in opposite terms of how dysfunction is described (e.g., honesty vs. lying, affirming vs. discrediting). How can focusing on healthy practices be more constructive than focusing on the negative?

*

3. Have you had to confront “poisoned water”? If so, what were the outcomes? What helped? What did you learn? Have you ever felt like you and/or your colleagues were being harassed and “sifted like wheat” by a malignant force that seemed far greater than yourself (e.g., Luke 22:31)? If so, what did you learn?