Of all sins one of the ones I despise the most is hypocrisy. So I am very aware when I say something then do it myself. I suppose you could say this blog is as much a guide for myself as it is for other people. In fact, since I have so few readers I'm sure that is exactly what it is.
One thing I sometimes struggle with is what I understand to be passive aggressive behavior. Keeping things in and not allowing conflict to be resolved out in the open. Or lashing out silently. I to my knowledge have never lashed out silently against someone but I'm examining some past experiences and I recognize times when I did jump to conclusions about someone and I silently made a judgment about them without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. Had I been straightforward with them I would have found the situation to be different. Those times are inexcusable. I'll try not to commit that particular sin again.
But I'm reflecting on other times when I fled conflict that could have been handled out in the open, and I realize something. The reason why I didn't go to the person directly and deal with things properly is because I know that I would have lost the argument. Either they were so hard headed or I knew they were just too good at arguing. Not that I would be persuaded to change my position, but I knew that I wouldn't be able to change their's. I was still right and they were still wrong, but my verbal skills were not good enough to defend my position. In these cases it was more advantageous to keep the issue silent and do what I would do had I won the argument. Is that the right thing to do? Probably not. But what can a poor speaker do? Does he have to live his life according to other people's rule sets just because he lacks the ability to defend his position? Absolutely not! Especially when he is dealing with moral issues.
So what can I do the next time this situation comes up? I can't go to them directly and allow us to argue. We won't get anywhere. They'll "win" and I'll be forced to back down on an issue that I feel very strongly about. But it's wrong to go behind their back too. What to do? God? Any advice? I wonder if there are any scriptural verses to aid in this conundrum.
I do know that Paul was supposed to be a poor public speaker. And he had more influence on our religion than anyone, save Jesus Himself. How did Paul do it? Writing? I don't know. Obviously the Holy Spirit helped Paul. Will the Holy Spirit help me with the little disagreements? Surely the answer is... sometimes. Sometimes the Lord has bigger plans.
I'm reminded of the phrase "What Would Jesus Do." Jesus would be able to argue the point and convince the other person that they are wrong. I'm not Jesus. I don't have His ability to convince other people, so I'm back at square one.
I'm wondering if this conundrum sometimes plays a part in a lot of people's passive aggressive behavior. Once again, the case is made for giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming there is a valid justifiable reason behind their actions. This includes passive aggressive behavior.
So what can we do? If I am the person with the problem, I don't know. I'll have to ponder that question for awhile. Any thoughts on that are welcome.
I wonder though if people reading this blog will understand what this situation is like. Do you know what it's like to be inescapably right but to also be unable to defend your position? I suspect a lot of socially skilled people don't understand what it's like. Can you give advice to someone who isn't capable of taking your advice? It's just like the WWJD "advice." Advice from someone who is capable of arguing a point doesn't help much. You can't just say, "talk about it with the other person" because talking about it is the very problem I am faced with, especially when it's with people who are skilled at arguing. I hate arguing. It never leads anywhere except towards destruction. So if you know what it's like to be unable to talk to someone about an issue you have with them, what can you do?
Now if someone is silently holding a grudge against me, or forming an invalid opinion about me, can I do something to get them to bring their issues out into the open? Should I? I believe so. They could be wrong. They might be right. Either way it's better if conflict is resolved. If I'm even aware that they have a problem with me. Sometimes I don't. If I should get them to bring the issue out into the open, am I capable of defending my position? Again, I don't know. I suppose this is another reason for the blog. It allows me to cement my thoughts and to prepare for the arguments on these important issues.
Now if I could just get people to have arguments with me about THESE issues. LOL. I'd probably still lose. Celibacy, abortion, religion, and general morality are difficult topics to argue.
Today's archidose #564
14 hours ago
6 comments:
Okay, here goes, I typed this before, but it was deleted, so here's me trying to remember.
Yes, I completely understand not having the ability to defend one's position. I have experiential knowledge on morality, but if it comes down to articulating it, I stumble. However, most of the time, I am altogether willing to give it a go and state my opinion regardless of how ignorant I may sound.
Regarding passive aggressive behavior, I absolutely detest it. Detest. Possibly because I remember distinctly the helplessness and victimized I felt as the recipient of it. Not that I have never dished it out mind you. I have given it...mostly as a reaction to feeling quite hurt by a person and wanting them to know it and feel pain as well. (really on the inside I wanted this person to react in sympathy towards me, "what did I do?" sort of thing) Not the best reaction or technique for relationship development. I should have had the courage to be vulnerable and honest about how this person had hurt me. But no. Instead I kept it inside. Gave a little hurtful comment later. And alas, resolved nothing.
Maybe this has something to do with respect...hmmm.
Oh, and I retract my previous comment that logic can dismantle all immoral arguements. I don't think that is true anymore. If God could have a bunch of people following Him based on logic alone, there would be no relationship. Therefore, I can see that the commandments of God are full of wisdom, logically they make perfect sense. However, it's not logic alone, in this generation anyway, that will turn one's heart. It's relationship, experience, trust, faith...esp. in the non-religious sense of the word..faith.
Man I really hate it when I lose something I wrote. I detest that probably just as much as you detest passive aggressive behavior. :D
I pretty much agree with you about willing to give it a go and explain my position. That's why I explained why I don't drink alcohol to you. But I know I didn't articulate my feelings on the issue adequately.
This really isn't the issue I was tackling in my blog post though. I was sort of addressing a point of conflict perhaps? Or... oh I forget. I can't even think of any examples because I don't like to remember this kind of stuff. Suffice it to say that my blog post was referring to cases where something needs to be said and agreed upon, but you can't, so you let it go. No, you don't let it go, you avoid the issue and go along as if you did have the discussion.
See? I can't even articulate this! And I'm writing! It's hard without an example. I'm sure God will provide one soon. LOL
By the way, I wouldn't back down on your comment that logic can dismantle all immoral arguements. I believe that it can. Immorality is illogical. Morality is logical. So it's completely reasonable to think that logic is better served to defend a moral stance than an immoral one. We might not be able to see the logic clearly though. We are imperfect. But that doesn't mean the logic isn't there.
I do agree with you that logic alone (especially in this age) will not turn a heart. Totally agree. You do need a relationship, with God.
But I do understand what you were saying when you said, "If God could have a bunch of people following Him based on logic alone, there would be no relationship." It's true that God doesn't want robots or puppets. It would be meaningless for us to love Him then. But I think our imperfection gets in the way of logic. Hmmm... Adam and Eve were perfect, right? Were the robots? No. They had free will or they couldn't have sinned to begin with. But hmmm.... eating the forbidden fruit was illogical, no? But they did it anyway. Why? I'm thinking perversion of logic. Twisted logic. Satan confused their logic.
So I'm not completely sold on the idea, but you do raise an interesting point. I'll have to ponder it further.
Yeah, I knew that wasn't the main point of your post. But the passive aggressive thing just got in my head.
I'm not really sure what you mean. Like you said, it needs an example. Except to maybe the situation would be you avoiding conflict?
Ok, I thought of an example. I'm not sure if I should use this as one but... oh well.
Let's take my agreement with Mike. It says that I teach level 1 on Thursday and level 2 on Sunday, a class at Tropicana, be on his Cha Cha team and be present at Omni functions. In return Mike will send private lessons my way. He and Jonathan will give me private lessons to prepare me for their curriculum. And finally I will get to teach private lessons, for which I will pay $15 an hour. $15 by the way is completely exorbitant. SSQQ charges $10. Melody $10. Eddy $5. And those are to the general public, but Mike is charging ONE OF HIS OWN VALUABLE TEACHERS MORE! I tried to get the fee down, but Mike had the upper hand and I wasn't able to change the deal. Mike just said, "take it or leave it." Since then three things changed.
First, I was made to teach 4 classes instead of 2. I do enjoy it, but it's still work. I have to get to the studio sooner on Sunday and that requires me to rush from church to the studio.
Second, I stopped teaching level 1 class and moved up to teach level 3.
And third, I was replaced (supposedly by the manager) at Tropicana. Tropicana was tiresome and it was something I didn't relish doing. Frankly it was a burden. I was glad to see it go.
That quite frankly was the only good change. But everything else in the agreement was either not honored if it benefited me or if it benefited Mike, it was expanded.
Mike has not done a very good job of sending private lessons my way. And I've not had any personal private lessons with Mike nor with Jonathan. Admittedly I haven't followed up on this so I'll call that one a draw.
The real issue though is that I am teaching 4 hours of intermediate classes a week and I agreed to teach 3 lower level classes. I teach hundreds of dollars worth of students. Possibly $1000 worth of students each month. That way way more than makes up for any floor fees Mike would get from my few private lessons.
So, I could argue with Mike (if I could argue) that I shouldn't have to pay the $15 floor fee. Our original arrangement has been changed to my detriment and I am proving to be a good group teacher (one that is proving more popular that he himself!) but I'm still paying the floor fee.
But I'm incapable of changing this because #1 I'm terrible at convincing people at things like this and #2 Mike is particularly GOOD at convincing people (or more accurately himself - but he's good at conveying those reasons in the argument) that things are just fine the way they are. So if I go to Mike and try to change the deal, nothing will happen, except that Mike would be alerted to the fact that I feel that the $15 floor fee is unfair, and he might become suspicious.
BUT! (and this is of course purely hypothetical and mentioned just for the sake of this example) if I were to go behind Mike's back and just teach private lessons without telling him, then I would not have to pay the $15 floor fee. I would just pay the fee for private lessons he knows about.
That is of course wrong to do. But he's also still wrong for charging me the $15 floor fee.
Of course you might argue that the $15 floor fee is what we agreed upon or perhaps it might be possible to get the fee down to $10 or even $5 and I should at least try. Well, that's this bad example for you. I'm pointing all of this out specifically to give you an example so you might understand what I meant in my original blog post.
So try not to get wrapped up on the details of this example. That's neither here nor there. It's just an example and the point behind it is I'm incapable of making the argument so I'm instead forced, or at least tempted, to avoid the argument altogether and do what I would have done had I won the argument.
Comprende?
I see. I see.
Clearly you Micah no longer respect me since you resorted to passive aggressive behavior.
Post a Comment