Another church in Lansing, Michigan, has a conflict big enough to make newspaper headlines. The church – ironically named Friendship Baptist – is in the news again this week after one faction of the church allegedly locked the other faction out of the building they both still share. According to the Lansing State Journal, “The church has been split for years over disputes related to a 2007 update to the church’s constitution and where church funds should be deposited.” Each of the factions is led by a pastor, and the two groups were apparently sharing the building, holding services at different times, until one group accused the other of damaging the building, leading to the lockout.
Conflicts like these are what drove me into Christian conciliation. Christians are called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, but we undermine our evangelism efforts when we have public disputes like this. What non-Christians would be attracted to this?
Another irony here is that the article says a leader in the mayor’s office has been mediating between the two groups for years. The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, exhorted Christians to resolve their disputes within the church – i.e.., privately — , rather than in a public forum. We shouldn’t need the help of the mayor’s office—we ought to be ahead of the curve, setting an example to the rest of the world for how to live in peace.
I will be praying that my brothers and sisters at Friendship Baptist church re-discover the true head of their church, Jesus Christ, and call on His power to restore their friendship.
Note: More details on this conflict can be found in a Lansing State Journal article published June 21, 2014. As of September, the conflict is continuing.
“I love you.” The three little words that everyone wants to hear, that we don’t say often enough, that comprise one of the most powerful things we can say to someone.
But it occurs to me there’s an even more powerful, meaningful sentence: “I still love you.” These four words connote a lot that may be missing from a simple “I love you.” The three-word sentence could be spoken out of infatuation, excitement, even hopefulness.
But the four-word version says a lot more: it implies full knowledge, forgiveness, commitment.
It’s the message of God to us, over and over in the Bible. And it’s one of the most moving things we can hear from—or say to–another person.
Today is my 19th wedding anniversary. I still love him—and, to my astonishment and delight, he still loves me.
A couple more public apologies in the media recently:
Donald Sterling, owner of the NBA basketball team the Los Angeles Clippers, made racist comments to a girlfriend last month that became public. His attempt in a CNN interview last week to apologize ended up making things worse—as bad apologies will do.
It started out well: “I made a terrible mistake. I’m here to apologize. I’m asking for forgiveness. I’ll never do it again.” These are essential components of an effective apology. But he made a mistake common to many of us when we attempt to apologize: he kept talking. The best thing to do after a good apology is to stop talking and wait. In fact, Peacemaker Ministries recommends that the apology end with a question rather than a statement; the question is, “Will you forgive me?”
Yesterday, South Korean President Park Geun-hye apologized for her government’s role in the ferry disaster last month that killed over 300 people. “As the President who should be responsible for people’s life and security, I am sincerely apologizing to the people for having to suffer pain,” she said. “The final responsibility for not being able to respond properly lies on me.” Taking responsibility is an important component of a good apology. Another is to do something to ensure the offense won’t happen again—as Peacemaker Ministries calls it, “Alter behavior.” President Park’s speech included her decision to dismantle the Coast Guard, recognizing that its current structure impeded the search and rescue process. So her apology isn’t bad – although probably not enough for the grieving families.
The benefit of critiquing public apologies is to reflect on what makes an effective apology – and what doesn’t — so that our own apologies will be effective. There’s just no substitute for a good apology.
The bankruptcy proceedings for the City of Detroit are making good use of mediation. Judge Steven Rhodes, who is overseeing the bankruptcy, appointed U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen as lead mediator last August, and Judge Rosen assembled a team of mediators, comprised of four federal judges as well as Attorney Gene Driker, an esteemed Michigan mediator who received the State Bar of Michigan ADR Section’s Distinguished Service Award in 2012.
The mediation team has experienced both successes and setbacks. Today was another success story: the mediation team announced that Detroit reached a tentative agreement with 14 of its unions. The team also brokered a deal recently with the Retired Police and Firefighters Association involving pensions and health care benefits. A setback occurred in January when Judge Rhodes rejected the deal hammered out with two banks that are major creditors of the city, UBS and Bank of America. Last week, Judge Rhodes ordered officials from Detroit and Oakland, Macomb and Wayne Counties last week to go into closed mediation to continue talks toward creating a regional water authority.
Mediation is not often used in municipal bankruptcies but perhaps Detroit’s experience will open doors for new opportunities in the future.
February 14, 2014 – 2:35 pm
Many girls—and no doubt some guys–will receive the gift of a diamond today. Will it be a “conflict free diamond”?
“Conflict diamond” is a term used to describe diamonds tainted by the conflicts associated with diamond production in Africa, where diamonds are mined under conditions akin to slavery, and are used to finance violent rebel groups.
So diamond retailers have started offering “conflict free diamonds” to assure consumers that their diamonds have been, as one retailer puts it, “ethically sourced.” In other words, a “conflict free diamond” has been mined, refined, and delivered, free of conflict. Its past is conflict-free.
What about the diamond’s future? Will it be “conflict-free” once it becomes a piece of jewelry worn by a happy wife or delighted daughter? A diamond is treasured, not only because of its value, but because of what it represents: beauty, timelessness, durability, permanence. It’s the perfect symbol of a life-long relationship. Wouldn’t it be neat if “conflict free diamond” represented a conflict-free relationship?
Would that all diamonds were “conflict free”—free of conflict in their production, and free of conflict in the relationships they represent. Happy Valentine’s Day!
