Disagreeing Without Hard Feelings (& the 5 Levels of Friendship)

The other day I attended a monthly meeting of a group -- the nature of the group does not matter at this point.  During the break, a "casual friend" of mine started telling me, much to his satisfaction, about a recent trip he took and how 9 out of 10 people he met could not stand a particular leader. I indicated that I would have been the 10th. When I explained why, he started challenging me and I countered with some direct but strong rebuttal for which he had nothing to say. I told him I was sick and tired of how so many people like he and I in so many other respects, could dislike someone so much without any valid and contextual reason.  Again he had no answer and I slid away to others in the group.

Before the break was over, he called me over and said, "Hey Ken, no hard feelings, right?  We're still friends, right?"  To which I replied, "No, no hard feelings."  As I was heading home that evening I wondered to myself, "Is that really the case?"  Is it possible for such an interaction and such strong, yet divergent feelings, to be verbalized, and acknowledged in such a way where there would be "no hard feelings" and that next time we met, it would be as if this interaction never happened?

As I started to write [which for me is great therapy for a) expressing one's frustration while at the same time b) developing one's position on a matter], it hit me that much depended on the level of friendship that two people had.  That led me to an article by Jermaine Tucker.  You can read it here. There you will find the Friendship Pyramind (see picture above) that he developed based on some of the ideas adapted from Waiting and Dating by Dr. Myles Munroe.

The Friendship Pyramid lists 5 levels of Friendship:

5. Strangers (at the bottom and thus containing the most people)
4. Acquaintances
3. Casual Friends
2. Close Friends
1. Intimate Friends (at the top and thus containing a more limited number of people)

The Pyramid also suggests what characterizes each of the levels.  We would all do well to think about these and perhaps take the trouble to both list people we know by category and then consider whether or not there are sufficient individuals in each category.

Personally, I think there should be a 6th category between Close Friends and Casual Friends -- maybe called Good Friends.  But for our purposes let's stick wth the five Tucker has provided.  Take the time to look at the characteristics of each category before proceeding to read the rest of this article.

So, what can we say about the likelihood of "no hard feelings, we're still friends, right?" when what happened to me happens in conjunction with someone in any of the five levels of friendship?  Here's my take. You are free to disagree -- no hard feelings.

With Strangers: The first thing we need to address here is whether our 'contacts' on our various social media (for the most part) are simply 'strangers' for all intents and purposes, or are they 'acquaintances'?  I'll go with the fact that the "majority" of our contacts are really strangers.  Based on that, the answer here is simple -- it is what it is.  I have found that depending on the issue, such 'strangers' will either block you or ignore you going forward.  On the odd occasion, someone may slowly return to a humane reaction to your posts if you continue to be fair and honest, not attack them personally, and comment positively on their posts where it is merited.  Otherwise, it is their choice (or yours) and it really doesn't matter, does it?

With Acquaintances: I consider acquaintances to be those that I run into in the course of carrying out my work or my life.  They happen to be where I am.  Or I have to deal with them in order to accomplish what I need to do (buy groceries, clothes, do my banking, get my vacuum repaired, etc.). Sadly, or maybe providentially, we don't often get to the point of having a "difference of opinions" on anything controversial.  Especially in the West, we stick to the weather and our local sport team when seeking a small-talk subject. Moving towards more meaningful topics like politics or religion takes a lot of careful posturing and the ability to read any clues as to a particular view that may emanate from an acquaintance.  Even then, proceed with caution.  But let's say a difference does come up -- can you both get over it?  I think the answer is "yes" -- after all, in most cases, you need their expertise and they need your business.  At best, you'll both know enough not to broach the topic in the future. At worse, you will find another provider of what you need, and he/she will find another customer.

With Casual Friends: Casual friends are those that you meet up with regularly because you both choose to attend events or activities that are of interest to both of you. Club meetings or church services are two good examples. Or perhaps you both get invited to the same parties. And if you are like me, this is where the agitation of an interaction like the one I mentioned above starts to kick in and the occurrence requires more thought and discussion afterwards, perhaps with close or intimate friends (the next two levels of friendship). And this is where you really have a meaningful choice to either let it get to you or to let it go -- because either a) you value the activity you both participate in more than winning this argument with this person or b) the person has some other qualities, and it is not worth you convincing them to change their opinions.  The relationship can be saved. Hopefully, he or she would do the same.  If not, the next time you meet, may be more awkward and a further, perhaps more consequential decision, will need to be made.

With Close Friends: These are the individuals that are supposed to have the same values, ideals, and worldview as you do. Your interests and life goals match and you're working together in one way or another to achieve the common goal(s) you both thought you had. Close friends are supposed to be connected in mind and spirit, if not also, body. First, we recognize that we have very few individuals at this level of friendship. Clearly many of our family members may well be in that category. People in our inner circle or church small groups may be there too. Long-time friends may be in this group. Business partners may be there. So when there is a disagreement in our values, ideals, or worldview, we first need to ask ourselves "Is this really a difference at that level, or is our disagreement w.r.t. methodology?" If the former, it may be time to either rethink the "closeness" of the relationship, or to decide that the relationship is so important, that the difference in values does not matter.  One example that comes to mind is having an adult child that is totally at different ends of the political spectrum than you are. And yet when it comes to family matters, work, and life in general, you and he/she have a very close relationship that won't be thrown away because of your differences.  Again the choice is yours but the stakes are much higher.

With Intimate Friends: First, I must admit, somewhat to my chagrin, that I only really have one individual in that category. You guessed it -- my spouse. We (well her more than I) are committed to developing each other's characters. We are committed to mutual honesty. After decades of living together the only thing we really disagree on is how we verbalize our disappointments.  I wear my feelings on 'her' sleeves. She considers such 'wearing' as being critical, especially when it comes to  my feelings about our children and grandchildren. And I admit, she is usually right, always helping me to look on the bright side of things, pointing out how blessed we are. All that to say that the kind of disagreement I experienced with my casual friend would not likely occur between my wife and me. But it appears that many couples are indeed giving up their relationships these days because of political and religious reasons, among many others. Still, I've seen some, who really love each other, some younger than I am, learn to accept each other's political and religious views where they differ strongly with their own. And that's the way it should be.  No hard feelings.

So, where are we? What can we learn from looking at disagreements in the light of who exactly the disagreement is with?

For starters, think about what category of "friendship" the person disagreeing with you is in. Secondly, weigh the disagreement against the value of the "friendship" or involvement you have with that person. Third, when in doubt, let it go.  Life is too short.

But most importantly, especially if you are a person of faith, consider whether your reaction will make you a better follower of your faith, or take you in the opposite direction.

I want to hear from you with your thoughts.

-- Ken Godevenos, writing from Toronto.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

God Says "You Don't Need To Make a Deal" with Your Enemies.

God Says No Spiritual Multi-Culturalism and No Deal

Exodus 23:31-33: “And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, lest they make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”

Back in the wilderness, thousands of years ago, God told the Israelites that He would “fix the boundaries of their land that He was giving them”.  And then the text goes on to describe the Promised Land for the Israelites.

Take a look at the description given in these verses and then check it out on a map.
On the south: The Red Sea
On the west: Somewhere in the “wilderness” from Egypt (Gulf of Suez) to modern-day Israel (north of the Gulf of Aqaba)
On the north: The Great Sea (sea of the Philistines, now also called the Mediterranean Sea)
On the east: The Euphrates River (beyond a part of Syria today).

Now compare that massive expanse of land to the property that modern-day Israel is fighting for and protecting as a nation today – only a small portion of what God had promised them. And still many of the world powers want them to give that up, too. They would rather have them homeless – without a land to call their own. Their enemies – primarily the Palestinians and the Iranians -- want them to be erased from the face of the earth.

In my humble opinion, there is a possibility that God not only will make sure they keep what they have, but that it is possible He may, before this is all over, in a miraculous way give them now what He promised them in the book of Exodus, or some of it. That makes for interesting observing in the years ahead. Even the Nuclear Deal agreed to by world powers with Iran this past week will change what God has in store for His people and for their enemies. (Of course, in the very end, it really will not matter, because God’s people will have it all.)

God told the Israelites that their enemies would be delivered ‘by Him’ into their hands so that ‘they’ can drive them out of the land that is to be theirs. The truth is that Israel has never actually taken over all of that land (save for a short period in the times of King David, only to lose it again because of their sin). David Guzik explains this by saying that God may “grant” but we need to “possess”. He says, “(God) withholds our possession of many blessings until we will partner with Him in bold faith and obedience.”

Like the Israelites, we too, Guzik says, have “been granted every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; but will only possess what we will partner with Him in faith and obedience to receive. God is not an indulgent, spoiling father, pouring out on His children resources, blessings, and gifts they are not ready to receive or be responsible with.”  And there once again we see the reference to two of the three key elements we had earlier discovered are the secret to a great life with and for God: total trust (reliance on God); total obedience; and committed service.  If the Israelites did not get what God promised them it was not because He changed the rules. And the same is true in our case.  We claim God’s promises and are ticked off when we don’t get them, but we fail to examine how short we fell on our side of the agreement.

And then God says, “You shall make no pact with your enemies or with their gods.” The promise of the land was conditional also to this requirement – that they should make no agreement of friendship, nor have any familiarity with idol-worshippers, or with their idols or gods. And God goes even further by telling them such people shall not be allowed to live in their land or travel in it without first renouncing their idolatry.  So, what does this tell us about modern-day immigration laws?

I am not so sure that what God proposes is so much an immigration issue as the need for His people to avoid both His reproach and that of other believers as a result of having a close relationship with the worshippers of false gods. Now, who does that include today? Well, in one sense, just about everyone who does not accept, as the Apostle Peter utters in Matthew 16:16 that Jesus Christ is “the Son of the living God” and has accepted Him as his/her own personal Savior. That’s a lot of people.  Did God mean for us not to ‘associate’ with non-believers? Absolutely not – just look at the example of Jesus in the New Testament.  No, the intent of the instruction here for us is not to have “intimacy” and that may mean different things to different people. For me, it means do not rely on them, do not obey them where their instructions contradict what God is wanting of us, and do not serve them or the things or idols they serve. It means do not intermarry with them.

In the days of the Exodus, it may well have made sense that before someone comes to live in the land controlled by the Israelites, they had to become monotheists and agree to worship the Living God of Abraham. That would make a lot of sense today, but it’s far too late for that, as we’ve already given up idea of unification between ‘church and state’.  We have dichotomized our very essence be separating the two. But yet God never intended that way.

And God says there’s a good reason for religious (not racial) separation. Matthew Henry spells out the implication. There’s a “. . . danger of being drawn to worship with them. By familiar converse with idolaters, (our) dread and detestation of the sin would wear off; (we) would think it no harm, in compliment to (our) friends, to pay some respect to their gods, and so by degrees would be drawn into the fatal snare.” Henry, writing many years ago even points out the dangers of living in a ‘bad neighborhood’ for the sins of others will be our snares, if we look not well to ourselves.” (Italics and bracketed parts mine.) Of course, millions of people living today in the only places they can afford to live are proving that to be true. With murders and drug deals taking place regularly, these people know their only hope for survival is to move away.

But the main point Henry makes is this: “We must always look upon our greatest danger to be from those that would cause us to sin against God. Whatever friendship is pretended, that is really our worst enemy that draws us from our duty.” Amen. What relationships do you and I have that would qualify for that?

And by the way, just what did happen to the Israelites with respect to this promise and this warning?  David Guzik writes, “Through lack of discernment, Israel did end up making a covenant with some of the people of the land.” We read about it in Joshua 9. But we also know that there is no area of the law that Israel - or anyone - has ever kept perfectly. And thus, if we were honest, we cannot expect God to bless us fully in them, although in His magnificent grace and love, He does much more than we deserve.

And we will never be in a position where we have to make a “deal” with those that oppose God in order to protect ourselves. Unfortunately, our world leaders do so out of fear or political convenience and nations pay the price.

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.