Father John Series #1

Chapter 1

Context of Chapter One

Chapter one introduces the two main characters of this book. I write fictional stories so that I can help community psychology students understand how this discipline can be practiced. I offer the Bob Newbrough character as the ideal of the practicing community psychologist. I offer the Father John character as the kind of client a community psychologist might serve. I modeled Father John very loosely on a parish priest that Bob, Paul Dokecki, and Bob O Gorman consult with once a month. As this story and the ones that follow unfold I hope the reader can come to see themselves growing and learning as Father John did. And I hope those readers, who wish to accept the mantle of community psychologist, can imagine themselves being a constructive consultant in the way that the Bob character was.  

Consultation with Father John

It was a gray late February Monday in Nashville, Tennessee. Bob Newbrough is in his office in the Community Psychology Department at Peabody waiting for his 11:00 A.M. appointment reading a draft of one of his student’s dissertations on the third position. It is the third position that Bob is famous for.

            A man in a brown robe with a hood and wearing sandals walked into the office lobby. His robe was tied to his waist by a rope. Bob hears him ask someone, “Where is Bob Newbrough’s office?”

            “I’m in here,” Bob shouted.

            The man walks into Bob’s office. Bob made note of this man’s unconventional appearance. The man appears startled by the chaotic stacks of books and files that letter the office.

            “You must be Father John,” Bob said.

            “I am,” offering little more.

            “Have a seat,” Bob offered the only chair with books on the seat. “The Bishop called and said that you wanted to talk to me but that’s all he said. What is your work in Nashville?”

            “I’m here to organize a new parish of Latino and Mexican immigrants,” he said.

            “Well Nashville should be a good place for that,” Bob said. “There are 40,000 new Spanish speaking immigrants in Nashville.”

            “I know,” he said, “and most of them are illegal and only I’d say half of them speak English.”

            “That makes them easy to exploit,” Bob said.

            “And that’s why they need a church,” he said, “a community organization where they belong, where they can speak their language where they can find someone to understand and speak to them.”

            “And that would be you,” Bob said matter-of-factly. “What brought you to take on this job?”

            “I didn’t want it,” He said. “I am a disciple of liberation theology I wanted to stay in my country, Mexico and organize laborers against the government. The church in Mexico City wanted to get rid of me, so when Rome told my bishop that the Nashville diocese asked for a Spanish speaking priest he thought of me.”

            “You speak English with no accent at all.” Bob said.

            “That was another reason,” He replied. “I was born in the U.S. of wetback undocumented parents. We were deported back to Mexico when I was thirteen. I have lived there since, until a month ago, when I moved here.”

            “How can I help?” Bob asked.

            “I don’t think you can,” he answered.

            Bob was surprised by this answer. “Then why are you here?” Bob wondered.

            “The Bishop paid your $150 consultation fee,” he answered, “and sent me specifically to see you. I think to have you be his spy.”

            “I’m not interested in being his spy,” Bob said emphatically.

            “Well you are interested in the Bishop’s money,” Father John said just as emphatically. “That money could have gone to the church building fund instead of to you. When I realized I had to come to talk to you I read your articles. I’m not an educated man. I am a Franciscan monk. We serve. We do not read and contemplate. All that stuff you’ve written about the third position is just bullshit as far as I’m concerned. And since I’m a priest of the people from the streets my words are not confined to proper English. I’m sorry if I offended you.”

            Bob wasn’t sure what to say. He sat there in silence for a time. Then he said, “I will contribute the $150 to your building fund. I’m not a spy and I can’t help you if you believe I might be. What you say to me is confidential. My professional loyalty is to you, not the Bishop. I’m sorry. I thought helping you build your parish would have been an exciting project.”

            “So you are not working for the Bishop?” Father John asked.

            “No, I consider you and your parish by client,” Bob said. “I assume the Bishop knew that when he sent you to me.”

            “So I can count on you not to talk with the bishop about what we talk about?” Father John asked.

            “Yes, of course,” Bob said.

            “I’m new here,” Father John said, “I don’t have anybody to talk to about my work. I don’t want your academic philosophy. How can that help me?”

            “I’m not sure I can. Perhaps my ideas about the Third position might help you,” Bob said.

            “I don’t see how,” Father John replied. “What can you offer me?”

            “How a community manages its conflicts is important,” Bob said. “Conflicts can be healthy for a community, just as challenge, exercise and stress can be good for the body. Or conflict can destroy a community just as stress can cause disease and death in people. The third position is a strategy for constructive cooperation and an antidote for competitive destruction. The third position can help make conflict constructive.”

            “So you can help me manage conflict successfully?” Father John asked.

            “That is what we use the third position for,” Bob answered.

            “I tried to read your papers on the third position. It was all a bunch of gobbly-do-gook to me,” Father John said. “I don’t see how it could ever be useful or practical for any community.”

            “I know,” Bob said. “You are not the first person to say that about my writing. I apologize that it appears so convoluted.”

            “Convoluted,” Father John repeated. “See I don’t think you and I speak the same language.”

            “I’m sorry,” Bob apologized again. “I should have said confusing.”

            “There you go talking down to me,” Father John said, “I’m not here to be patronized.”

            “Perhaps I use difficult language sometimes,” Bob said. “I live in a world that competes by using big words. I can’t help it sometimes. It is not something I’m proud of. I want to talk to you and to others like you, who work with real communities and who face real problems. The way I talk handicaps me. I’m sorry, but if you will give me a chance I think you will see that the third position is a simple notion.”

            “My people are handicapped by their language too,” Father John said. “Tell me about your third position. How does it help conflict stay healthy?”

            “First it raises the debate above personalities,” Bob began, “when differences become personal, conflicts become sick. The third position begins by honoring the two debaters.”

            “How does it honor the two fighters?” Father John asked.

            “It helps them identify the values that they represent,” Bob said, “and it encourages them to be proud to represent their opposing values.”

            “I see,” Father John, answered, “It shifts the attention from people to their values. That’s how it takes personalities out of the conflict.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “And it honors them and their opposing values so that they can be proud and so that the opponents are encouraged to respect each other for fighting for what they are proud of and what they stand for.”

            “So this makes the conflict a conflict of worthy values,” Father John reflected, “not a conflict between two angry people.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “All conflicts come from value positions worthy of respect. Once these positions are put into words, once the adversaries are encouraged to feel proud of what they stand for, the conflict begins to change its tone. Reason becomes the battlefield, not physical or emotional dominance.”

            “That seems like it is enough right there,” Father John said, “If I can help my parishioners think with words and use ideas instead of curses and fists, I think we could have more healthy conflicts.”

            “That’s a good start,” Bob said. “But it is not enough. And this is not what distinguishes the third position from other efforts to civilize conflict. I live in a world of ideas and in this academic world our fights can be vicious and destructive. Just making the positions clear and identifying and ennobling the values is not enough. Politicians prove that every day on the news.”

            “Why isn’t this enough?” Father John wondered.

            “It’s not enough,” Bob said, “because two positions can become locked in rigid stubborn thinking, with each adversary sincerely believing they are right. If the conflict continues without something added it will degenerate into cursing and name calling quickly. The two positions need a pressure relief value.”

            “So what do you add for that?” Father John asked.

            “A third value position,” Bob answered. “And that’s all.”

            “What does the third position do?” Father John asked.

            “At its most primitive level,” Bob answered, “it works as a tie breaker. When you have an odd number of votes in a decision you can proceed with a decision, but one versus one creates deadlock. The third position breaks this tie.”

            “So the third value votes,” Father John asked.

            “Yes, it can vote but the point is not to vote,” Bob said. “Because if the vote is two against one; you have a loser. And we want to avoid that. The best use of the third position is the role of a neutral that the other two values must appeal to in order to get its vote because the third position has a moral posture even though it may not cast a formal vote.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “So this forces the two opponents to think outside their own rigid positions.”

            “Exactly,” Bob responded, “and this begins the process of including new creative ideas. It opens up the conflict and expands the thinking of the two opposing positions.”

            “So give me an example of how this works,” Father John said.

            “Let’s use a conflict in your parish for our example.”

            “Well I can’t think of one right off the top of my head,” Father John said, “okay what about the death penalty debate.”

            “Oh that’s easy,” Bob said. “What are the two opposing values? You can see those.”

            “Sure,” Father John said. “The sanctity of life versus accountability. Okay so what’s the third position?”

            “It can be anything?” Bob said. “But this assumes we can control this debate which we cannot.”

            “I know,” Father John said, “but lets assume we can what would be a third value.”

            “Any value,” Bob said, “It doesn’t matter. It just needs to be one value that creates a triangle of values.”

            “Okay since I’m a foreigner let’s make the value international relations,” Father John said, “Yes, that’s it. The value of getting along with other nations.”

            “Well that works,” Bob said. “Doesn’t it? We can be accountable and get along with other countries without the death penalty. And that would make other countries feel more compatible with us because we won’t kill their citizens no matter what.”

            “So we just solved that conflict,” Father John said. “If only we ruled the world. I liked that.”

            “Yeah,” Bob said. “I would rather work on real problems where my ideas will actually be helpful.”

            “So this is so simple,” Father John said. “Are you really the first person to have this idea?”

            “No,” Bob said. “I think I am not. Lucretius was but it is implanted in the human brain..”

            “What problem are you talking about?” Father John asked.

            “It’s the problem with the mammalian brain that David McMillan describes in his book Emotion Rituals,” Bob said.

            “Oh no,” Father John said. “Here you go talking over my head.”

            “I can’t win,” Bob said, “If I talk to you one way you accuse me of talking down to you. If I talk to you another way, you accuse me of talking over your head.”

            “Okay,” Father John said, “but don’t expect me to understand what the mammalian brain is.”

            “It is simply the part of our brains that we share with dogs, cats, cows and other mammals,” Bob said. “In us it is about the size of a fist. Most of the wiring for human emotion is contained in this part of the brain. When we get frightened or angry, when our red-alert vigilance system tells us we are being threatened, the mammalian brain takes over. It shuts out the largest part of the brain, the human brain or the neo-cortex.”

            “I don’t want to hear about the neo-cortex,” Father John said. “The mammalian brain is about all I can handle. So you are saying there is a part of the brain, the human part, that doesn’t work when we feel threatened. So what does this have to do with what you called ‘the problem’?”

            “The problem is,” Bob said, “that the mammal part of the brain only uses two categories: pleasure/pain, good/evil, black/white, go/stop, etc. This part of the brain won’t allow for creative problem solving. It is either fight or flight.”

            “I think I see the problem,” Father John said. “When there are two opponents in a conflict, they are often angry and they cannot get out of their positions because their thinking is locked inside the mammalian brain. They only can think inside a two-category universe.”

            “Yes, that’s the problem,” Bob said. “In a conflict it is easy for all of us to be captured in our positions versus our enemy. We then become locked into a linear polar continuum, inside our two-category mammalian brains.”

            “Now you have lost me with linear polar continuum,” Father John said. “I was doing all right until you got to that.”

            “Well when you have only two positions they operate as two dots in space,” Bob said. “Any two points in space from a line.”

            “Okay so two positions form a line,” Father John said. “And that line is flat.”

            “Yes that’s right,” Bob said.

            “There’s no life in a flat line,” Father John said laughing.

            “Now I don’t understand,” Bob said.

            “It’s like the line on an EKG machine that is tracking the heart beat,” Father John said. “It’s dead.”

            “Yes it is,” Bob said. “I hadn’t thought of that.”

            “A line needs a third point if it is to move above the deadening debate of either/or.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “And that’s what I mean by polar. The line forms a pole with each party locked into the extreme position at the end of the pole. A continuum is a pole that will allow positions to be taken at any point on the pole or line.”

            “I can visualize this,” Father John said. “The idea of a line with two points is easier to understand than abstract philosophical ideas.”

            “This idea is part of philosophy,” Bob said. “Plato saw the problem long ago. And before him a Greek named Lucretius saw the same problem, the problem of either/or thinking. Lucretius was making the point that reality is not either/or. Reality consists of one thing and its opposites. Both are part of reality. Lucretius collapsed the polar debate by agreeing with both sides.”

            “How did he do that?” Father John asked.

            “He did that by talking about matter. He noticed that matter had an opposite and that opposite was a void or empty space or a vacuum, however you want to say it. Without empty space (the opposite of matter) everything would be one solid mass. There would be no opportunity for movement. If reality was only empty space there would be nothing to occupy that space. Just as matter must have a void as its opposite, so to do ideas attract an opposing value to create a context discussion. Lucretius was trying to take the adversaries out of the personal and help them see that they needed their opponent in order to have someone or some position to argue with.”

            “This sounds to me like the political idea of the worthy opponent,” Father John said.

            “Yes, it does,” Bob said. “Later, Kant and Hegel amplified Lucretius’ idea. In the twentieth century Dewey had the notion that truth came from the transaction of one thing with another. For Dewey knowing came from the transaction of differences. These differences did not necessarily have to be opposite. After Dewey, in the 1950’s, Hook extended Dewey by suggesting that solutions needed to move back and forth along the continuum for a culture to develop and prosper,” Bob said. “Let’s say that two positions were conservative versus liberal. Some years our culture should be concerned with not risking and should conserve resources. Then the pendulum should swing (and will naturally swing) to a place where the culture should encourage more investment and risk taking. In the 1970’s Altman used this notion that reality contained both parts of the either/or choice by placing the positions on the line calling one position at one end of that line the thesis and the position at the other end of the line the antithesis and adding synthesis as the resolution of opposites, as Marx had done earlier.”

            “That’s an awful lot to fit together,” Father John said. “All I could get out of this was the image of a pendulum. The pendulum has a natural third position,” Father John said.

            “What do you mean?” Bob asked.

            “Well the pendulum hangs from a point above the line doesn’t it?”

            “Yes I guess so,” Bob said.

            “That point is your third position,” Father John said.

            “Well it is, isn’t it,” Bob said, “I haven’t thought of it that way. And neither did Hook. He didn’t notice that still point above the two dots, in some way, acts as a neutral mediating value from which the pendulum swings.”

            “But that still point above the other two dots serves that purpose,” Father John said.

            “Yes it does,” Bob agreed

            “So all these guys were trying to civilize conflict too,” John said.

            “Yes,” Bob agreed. “It appears so.”

“When you mentioned thesis, antithesis and synthesis, those are three positions aren’t they? Father John wondered.

“Yes they are,” Bob said. “This idea came from Marx and Altman. All three of their positions remain on the same line.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “We need something to help us rise above the line. A third position would define a plane, a level field.”

            “Yes it would,” Bob said, “and here is where geometry no longer serves us. I suggest that the third position operates like a magnet pulling out the best elements of each of the two opposing positions. Remember since the third position has moral power, the other two positions need the approval and support of the third position.”

            “This creates as many possible solutions as there are points inside the plane.” Father John said. “The third position raises the level of the argument. I can think with you when you give me this visual image. So the third position is not just a third vote to break the tie. It is a point above the line or argument.”

            “That’s right,” Bob said. “It pulls us onto a plane and off a line. I think a third position will pull us out of the mammalian brain into the human brain, where we can creatively cooperate to solve problems together.”

            “You think a third position will stop us from being pigheaded,” Father John said, “thinking like an animal and will bring us above that to a more spiritual plane.”

            “Well we social scientists don’t use the word spiritual much,” Bob said, “but yes that’s right, if not spiritual certainly to a higher more creative form of humanness. But the problem is that the third position is on the line. Altman and Marx split the blanket to halve the problem. Their solution is often somewhere on that line toward the middle. And often that is a lose/lose decision.”

            “What do you mean by split the blanket?” Father John asked.

            “I mean giving each side half of the resources without accomplishing anything.” Bob said, “Used in the Marxist synthesis does not necessarily bring anything new to the conversation. It just serves as a way to compromise between the two. It is made up of parts of two opposites. Nothing new is added. Sometimes a compromise is not the best solution. Sometimes the best solution is something outside the box, above the line. This is what the third position adds. And this is where I come in.”

            “Where do you come in exactly,” Father John asked.

            “In community psychology there has always been a natural polarity or line formed by the two dominant values in the field. The first value is individual freedom. This position is that communities and governments should use their power to promote individual freedoms and individual rights.”

            “What’s the opposing point of view?” Father John asked.

            “It is that a community should promote the common good or the best interest of the whole rather than its individual parts. Sometimes a community needs water. So the individual must allow the community or its government to put a water pipe and a sewer and perhaps a road or a phone line on an individual’s property, because it is in the best interests of the whole. This line is sometime called the individual versus the collective.”

            “The church deals with this all the time,” Father John said. “I tend to value the collective.”

            “So did Hitler and Stalin,” Bob said.

            “Oh, I see,” Father John said. “The power of the collective can easily be abused.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “That is why the father of the U.S. Constitution distrusted the power of a central government. That’s the reason for the Bill of Rights.”

            “And that’s why Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and the rest created three branches of government to balance and check each other,” Father John said. “Three positions there it is again.”

            “Yes,” Bob agreed. “This idea of three points pops up all the time. The most stable seat is a three-legged stool. The most stable building is made of triangles that provide its support. In social science we suggest that a theory is valid if it is measured the same from three points of view. Three does seem to be a powerful number.”

            “So what’s your third position between the individual and the collective?” Father John wondered.

            “Well between is not the right word,” Bob said.

            “Oh I’m sorry,” Father John said. “Yes, above is more correct. So what is your third position?”

            “Remember in the French Revolution the French patriots shouted three values used to oppose the King.”

            “Yes,” Father John said and then he shouted, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”

            “Liberty,” Bob said, “represents the value of the individual. Fraternity represents the value of the common good or the collective. Equality for me represents the value of everybody being consulted and everybody having a hand in the decision making person, equal opportunity and a fair, level playing field that allows the most competent to rise.”

            “So the third position is equal opportunity,” Father John said, “not equality of every person with the government giving each person the same wage, thus eliminating wealth.”

            “Yes you are right. My version of equality does not go that far,” Bob acknowledged, “Some people are interested in living simply and are not interested in wealth. Others want to live comfortably and are only interested in security, not wealth. I think work and competence should be rewarded. I appreciate what a free market economy does. What I’m talking about is the community and its government should respect equally all its citizens, regardless of who they are, where they come from and how much money they have.”

            “Maybe I disagree with your view of equality,” Father John said, “but I see your third position above the individual versus the collective is equal opportunity.”

            “Yes,” Bob said, “that’s basically right. But third position thinking is not limited to these three values. The third position in a conflict could be any value position. I could have chosen the value of protecting the earth as my third position. The third position simply is a value that the two opposing points of view can agree that they also want to serve this value as well as the one they represent.”

            “So the third position is any value the two opponents can agree on. Is that what you are saying?”

            “Yes, that’s right,” Bob said, “but I’m the one who is tired of all this abstract thought now. I want to use this idea to help you. Is that possible?”

            “This idea of the number three seems mystical to me,” Father John said. “It has the feel of numerology. Are you saying it is like God’s ordained trinity?”

            “You know I am a bit taken with this notion of the number three as a magic number,” Bob said. “The reason that it may seem magic is that it is how our brain works at its best. The most primitive part of our brain is reptilian. It is reflexive. It has only one position. The mammalian brain adds two positions, for example, approach/avoid, enemy/ally, black/white. It takes the neo-cortex or the human brain to entertain a third position. That is my best explanation for why three.”

            “Just a minute,” Father John said, “I’m getting into this idea now. Why not a fourth position?”

“Well as a matter of fact,” Bob said, “a student in our program Adam Long suggests a fourth position. He calls it a Gramesian Square. I’m not sure I understand it, but my best understanding is that four points create two crosshair lines perpendicular to each other. So when you connect the four points with two lines crossing the middle of the square, they intersect and that intersection is your best solution.”

“That seems too rigid and too much like a formula solution to me,” Father John said. “I would rather have a solution that came out of a discussion, not from having two lines cross an arbitrary point.”

“Yes,” Bob agreed, “and a fourth position adds another dimension that can provide as much instability and chaos as it does to help provide a balanced solution. To me four positions feels like overkill, one too many. Three seems less confusing somehow to me.”

“I agree,” Father John said. “Can three positions ever create a problem?”

“Yes, they can?” Bob said. “Vivian Paley, a school teacher, documented the problem in her book, You Can’t Say, You Can’t Play.”

“What was that about?” Father John asked.

“Oh you know,” Bob said. “It is the universal first grade event of two children ganging up on the third and telling them that they can’t play. Then the third position, instead of being a respected neutral position, above the other two is devalued and below the other two. The triangle is turned upside down resting on one point or you could say it collapses into a line. This is a dangerous place.”

“I see,” Father John said. “How does this play out in a community?”

“C. Vann Woodward documented a time in the South after the civil war when there were three positions were working well together,” Bob said. “The three positions were the former slaves, the poor white sharecropper and the white landowners. They seemed to be collaborating well together to rebuild the South, until the white landowner interjected race again into the cultural dialogue. Here the white landowners and the white sharecroppers united to say to the former slave, you can’t play. You are not our equal. The South did not right this upside down triangle until the passage of the civil rights acts of the 1960’s.

“This is what Murray Bowman calls gossip. This is also how racism and other prejudices from. Gossip is two positions privately colluding against a third. This turns the triangle upside down. In these circumstances three positions can become destructive to a community and to trust.

“Now can we talk about something real that’s a problem for you now?”

“I think so,” Father John said. “I do have a problem with the Bishop.”

            “What’s that?” Bob asked.

            “The prick wants me to build a Belle Meade church, using Belle Meade brick for Latin immigrants,” Father John said.

            “Well I see this has gotten personal,” Bob observed.

            “Yes,” Father John answered. “He called me an unrealistic zealot. My language comes from the earth and the people, not from the brain. Unrealistic. I’ll show him who is realistic.”

            “So what do you want to do that seems so crazy to the Bishop?” Bob asked.

            “I want to build a church that will feel like a church home to my people,” Father John said. “I want it to have mission architecture and a stucco exterior. I want the art outside to be Latin art and not Michelangelo.”

            “That sounds reasonable to me,” Bob said. “What’s the Bishop’s beef?”

            “He says we are immigrants,” Father John replied. “That we are mostly here illegally and that if the U.S. immigration service enforces the law that he will be left with a church that regular Americans, particularly the racist southern American, won’t want to worship in. He doesn’t want to invest the Nashville Diocese’s money in a Latin church.”

            “So what are the two opposing values here?” Bob asked.

            “I only see me representing what’s right for my people and the Bishop protecting his racist southern base,” Father John said.

            “So you see it as a good versus evil fight?”

            “Yes and we are growing,” Father John said. “There are forty-thousand of us in Nashville now. Ten years ago there was maybe three thousand. How many of us will there be in ten more years. This is what he’s afraid of. He is fighting the inevitable. We will be the Catholic Church in Nashville one day. And he is afraid of us and me. And he should be. He will be the loser. Just wait.”

            “Let me see if I can nominate a value that you are fighting for,” Bob said. “Would that be all right?”

            “Yes.”

            “I think you represent the value of building a church for the people it is meant to serve,” Bob suggested.

            “Yes that’s right.”

            “See if you can recognize a respected value that the Bishop might be serving,” Bob challenged.

            “Okay, but I’m not sure there is one,” Father John said.

            “I think the Bishop represents the interest of the indigenous Catholic culture in Nashville,” Bob said. “You are proposing to use money from this diocese of mostly Anglo-American Catholics. He is protecting their interests in the event that you and your people disappear. Because you are right. They weren’t here yesterday. Perhaps they will be gone tomorrow.”

            “That’s exactly what he says,” Father John said as he looked at Bob suspiciously.

            “What if this was in Mexico and a priest wanted to build an American looking church there and you were the bishop. What would you say?”

            “That he is crazy,” Father John replied before he thought about what he was saying.

            “See,” Bob said. “It is not personal. In any system or community or church people play roles. You are playing your role in this drama and the Bishop is playing his. It has become personal, but it really is not personal. It is a clash of values.”

            “And we need a third positions,” Father John said.

            “Yes,” Bob said. “I think a third value that you both agree to serve would help you unlock yourselves.”

            “From our pigheadedness,” Father John interjected.

            “You said that,” Bob said. “I didn’t.”

            “So why don’t you go away and think of a value you both might agree to serve and then pitch this value to the Bishop. And come back again next week and we will talk further.”

            “And you won’t talk to the Bishop?” Father John asked.

            “No, not unless you ask me to,” Bob said. “And then only with you present.”

            “I’ll be back next week. Same time?” Father John asked.

            “Yes,” Bob answered.

Father John returned the next week. It was a gray raw February day. Father John entered Bob’s office in his monk’s robe and sandals with wool socks. He seemed sturdy and strong under his baggy brown robe.

            “I got it,” he said to Bob after the greetings and after he found his seat in the one uncluttered chair in Bob’s office.

            “What do you mean?” Bob asked.

            “I’ve got the third position,” Father John said. “It’s money. We need $500,000 to secure a loan. I talked to a bank. They agreed to lend us the $3,500,000 more it would take to build a cathedral for my people if I could raise the $500,000. They would take the building and the lot as collateral. If I raise this money, the bishop won’t have to put up any money from his diocese. I think he would like that. Right now if he builds it on money from the diocese he will have to come up with $300,000 of his precious diocese’s money. If I can save him from that I think he would agree.”

            “Can you raise $500,000 from the Latin community,” Bob asked.

            “The plans are to break ground in six months,” Father John said. “I have never tried to raise money. It’s for a good cause and there are many potential contributors. It’s worth a try.”

The Bishop agreed. The bargain between them was, if Father John raised $500,000 he could build his church. If not, then, the church would be built with Belle Meade brick and have the architecture of an American Church, so that from the outside it would look like a church that belonged in Nashville, Tennessee.

Some weeks later in April Father John, in his monk robe, entered Bob’s office with a bouquet of tulips.

“These are for you,” he said as he entered Bob’s office. “They came up on the site where we plan to build the church. I thought I would pick them and give them to you before the bulldozer got them.”

“Thank you,” Bob said as he accepted the flowers.

“I had no idea it would be this hard,” Father John said. “I only could raise $75,000.”

“Your congregation is poor.”

“Yes it is,” Father John acknowledged. “They are sending all their extra money back to Mexico. They even send money to their churches back in Mexico. They do this hoping that God and their local church in Mexico will take care of their families.”

“So do you feel defeated?” Bob asked.

“Yes and no,” Father John replied, “I learned a lot about my parish as I tried to raise this money. I think they appreciated my attempts to fight for them. And I figured out we can give the Bishop a Trojan horse.”

“How is that?” Bob asked.

“On the outside it will look like his church,” Father John said. “But we will build it with Latino hands. We will use Latino artists for the interior décor and art. Inside it will look like a South American church. My people will get the work and they will have their church in America. It will be good for them to realize that they live here now. This is their new home. We will all together make room for more of us to come. Eventually I think we can all win. Even the Bishop. And I think I discovered that I can work with the bishop. I think I won his respect. This was something I never expected. The third position created a new space in me. Although I failed to raise the $500,000 I did not compromise. I don’t feel like I lost. I feel like I learned something and began a relationship with the Bishop that may work.”

Father John Series #2

Chapter 2

Context of Chapter Two

This chapter is autobiographical. It is about my failure to respect the profound difference between the role of learner and the role of teacher. I have not spent much of my professional life as a teacher. Consequently, later in my career, when I was given the opportunity to teach I was poorly prepared. This story reflects some of what I learned.

            It is also about the importance of getting your own ego out of the way, if one assumes the third position. The politically correctness in academia makes the role of teacher more difficult. The focus needs to be on the student and what they are learning, not on the teacher.

Father John: Playing with Three Positions

Father John has been consulting with Bob Newbrough weekly for some time now. Today he comes into Bob’s office and plops down in the one chair that isn’t stacked high with files, papers and books.

            “Academic life must be hell,” he begins.

            “What do you mean?” Bob asked.

            “I was asked to team teach a class in liberation theology at a local conservative Christian seminary,” Father John said. “There was me, Gene Franklin and Sally Foster. I agreed to do this because I hoped to recruit some pastoral interns to help with my ministry in this Hispanic community. Gene is the class professor of record. Sally is a visiting professor from England. Gene agreed that he would devote some of the class sessions to me to present my ideas and my project.”

            “How many class periods were there?” Bob asked.

            “We met every Wednesday afternoon for three hours,” Father John answered. “Let’s see, that amounts to fourteen Wednesdays I think, but I’m not sure. Anyway three weeks ago was the next to last meeting. At that meeting I was supposed to present some of my ideas and projects that I thought might interest them. Every week we meet prior to the class to prepare for the next class. At that planning meeting just prior to my presentation, Gene told me that some of the students didn’t like me. Well I know I’m a jerk. Apparently some of the students thought so too. They didn’t want Gene to give this time to me. They wanted to present the movie Motorcycle Diaries instead and discuss that.”

            “So what did you say to Gene?” Bob wondered.

            “I told him that I could handle hostile students. I reminded him that in my last lecture three students came after me and I acquitted myself quite well. And he concurred that I did handle them with dispatch and my presentation went well. So I said if that happens, I am fast on my feet. And I reminded him that he promised, that I had put in all this time for free all semester six hours a week plus reading, gratis.

            “Gene warned me that I was viewed by some as unsophisticated. These students aspire to be professors or pastors of high steeple, frontline churches. They saw me as a passé hippie. They were not sure I had anything relevant to say to them.

            “What did you say to that?” Bob asked.

            “I told him that I only wanted a few students,” Father John said. “Three would be great. There were twenty in the class and I thought I might interest a few in my project and that was all I needed. The next day I went to class early. I set up for my lecture. I handed out my materials. The class gathered on time.

            “I took my place at the front of the class. Attendance at this class was on the light side. As I looked at my audience, I saw several disinterested faces. Gene and Sally and a few other students seemed ready to listen to me.

            “I began. I got through my introductory remarks when Carol’s hand went up. I like Carol. She is always cheerful and easy to talk to. I never identified her with the element in the class that didn’t seem to like me.

            ‘Carol, you have a question,’ I said.

            ‘Not so much a question but a comment,’ she said. ‘I don’t like this. Here you are standing there lecturing to us. You are another male authority telling us students what to think. I feel assaulted. This mode of learning is patronizing and insulting. This isn’t how I want to learn. I want to be respected. I’m not interested in what you have to say.’

            “Then came another voice from another face. I don’t remember who. All I remember was their words began with, ‘I agree. I don’t want to listen to a Pope worshipper wearing a sack robe and sandals.’ I stood there silent watching as at least half of the class joined in the rebellion. I had no defense. I could think of nothing to say. I was surprised that my usual quick mind was empty.

            “Finally one of the students said, ‘Let him talk. Why are you shutting him down? Every class period so far has been a lecture, followed by discussion. Why can’t we be open to what Father John has to say?’

            “‘Because he is the enemy,’ someone said, ‘He represents the Catholic Church. He worships Mary not Jesus. He obeys a Pope – not a God.’

            “I was still at a loss for words. As the students continued the debate for the rest of the class, I found a seat off to the side. After the shock wore off, I was hurt. I was embarrassed. I was so disappointed in myself. What happened to my ability to think on my feet? What happened to the compelling nature of my ideas? What happened to my sense of humor? Where was whatever charm I have? As I think about it, this class rebellion seemed staged. The words they used about Mary and the Pope didn’t sound like real talk. I was lost.

            “Yeah, I know I can take an arrogant pose, but generally I think people are entertained by what I have to say. My ideas may be provocative and stimulate debate, but I had thought they were at least worth hearing.

            “Last week, the last class period, was spent as an attempt to salvage the whole semester. A respected emeritus professor presided over the debriefing of the student’s experience in the class. Much of the focus was on me and what I was doing there, how I was perceived and how I behaved. There were some apologies and there were some continued attacks. My wounds were still fresh. I tried to offer an apology, but I was not sure for what. I am not clear on what my contribution to this disaster was.

            “This was such a disaster. I will never try to teach in a graduate school again. But I need to know what happened. What did I do to deserve this? How can this happen in a place that is supposed to represent the free exchange of ideas? Why were my ideas not worthy of consideration?”

            “Your wounds are still fresh. I can tell,” Bob said.

            “Yes they are,” Father John said.

            “Sometimes the seeds of a community’s problems can be found in the first meeting,” Bob said. “And remember a class is a community too.”

            “Everything is a community to you,” Father John said.

            “Today’s academic world is dangerous,” Bob said. “If you are not politically correct in some form or other you can be banished. It is different than it was ten years ago when you went to seminary.”

            “I’m not sure the Catholic system has changed that much,” Father John said.

            “The private university world has changed a lot,” Bob said. “Now tell me about your first class meeting.”

            “I think I began the class a little insecure,” Father John said. “I’m not well read. I haven’t read Foucault and I don’t know what modernism and post-modernism is and I don’t understand what quantum physics has to do with God. I chose not to sit with Gene and Sally at the head of the class. Gene had each student say why they took the class and what they wanted to learn. Instead of opting out of answering that question I took my turn like any other student. Gene had not introduced me as a teacher. So I introduced myself. My comments were flip and challenging. It felt like I was in graduate school again trying to prove I was smart enough to belong there. I think I might have said as a joke, ‘I am the only one here who seems to understand that faith requires sacrifice. I try to live out my values to fight this materialistic culture. I’m here to see if I can recruit any of you to join me, to sell your cars, get some sandals, and join Christ’s army. Now I can see that no one thought it was funny.’

            “After the introductions Gene and Sally took the lead on organizing the presentations for the rest of the semester. Gene told the class I would have the role of commentator. I would listen to the class presentation and discussion and comment at the end on how these ideas might be put into practice in a parish setting.”

            “What did you do with your role?” Bob wondered. “Did you continue to try to prove yourself?”

            “Umm, this seems to be a set up,” Father John said, “Yes, I think I continued to use my role to prove myself. I looked down on the theoretical discussion. I told them I thought a lot of their ideas had no practical value, that they were mentally masturbating.”

            “I’m sure that went over well,” Bob said.

            “Well it was the truth,” Father John said.

            “Did Sally and Gene tell this kind of truth?” Bob wondered.

            “No,” Father John replied. “They seemed to be afraid of the students. It was like they had to ask their permission for what to present in each class. They did a lot of reflecting, making what seemed like stupid ideas into interesting and relevant comments. Instead of teaching and challenging students, they created forums for the students to express their, often trite, stupid and trivial ideas. When I was a student we had no input into what the next class would be about. For Sally and Gene every class was negotiable. I thought they were giving up their responsibility to see that the students developed the skills appropriate for their future roles as pastors.”

            “Gene and Sally were acting like many graduate school professors do now,” Bob said. “Today it is the norm that students be taught what they want to learn. They are active participants in planning the courses. Students become collaborators in choosing the course topics. Gene and Sally were negotiating their course, class by class.”

            “Yes they were,” Father John said. “But they never explained that to me. If that was true, how could they promise me three class periods?”

            “Good question,” Bob said. “Perhaps that was a mistake. With this negotiating the class philosophy I can see they made another mistake.”

            “What was that?”

            “They invited you to play,” Bob said, “without asking the students if they wanted you to play. They gave you a role that you were particularly not suited for.”

            “I didn’t think I had the background for any other role. In my role as parish priest I practice the ideas they preach. Why wasn’t I prepared for that role of commenting on how the ideas are supposed to be practically applied in the parish?”

            “Because you have not evolved from student to teacher yet,” Bob said. “As a student you are trying to prove yourself. So you put your ideas out there. You expose yourself. You compete for attention and for praise.”

            “So?” Father John said.

            “Well as a teacher you do the opposite,” Bob said. “Good teachers are like a good parish priest. They tend their flocks. Nurture and safety is primary. You never ask a lamb to jump a chasm that is too wide. You have to structure the challenges for your students or your parishioners that is within the possible. And your parishioners or students must trust you, not fear you. If they trust you, they will follow and accept your challenges. If they fear you, they will find a way to escape your authority.”

            “Oh,” Father John said. “You got me right between the eyes. I see now I began my failure in the very first class. Instead of listening first and receiving them I was pushing myself at them, competing with them for space. I would never do that in my parish. There I listen. I care. I offer help. I visit my people when they are sick. Most of what I do is simply be there for them. In that class I was criticizing more than I was understanding and caring. Gene and Sally were taking care of their sheep. I was attacking them. How embarrassing.”

            “Well Gene and Sally made some mistakes too,” Bob said. “They didn’t have you sit at the head of the table with them. They didn’t introduce you to the students. They never explained to them what you had to contribute to the class experience. They let you take the role of critic and the students were not safe enough with you to allow you that role.”

            “And I was still trying to prove myself at their expense,” Father John interrupted.

            “Yes, that’s true,” Bob said, “but the journey from graduate student to competent teacher took me years, as well. It is not as easy transition and you didn’t have a clue what the role of teacher required. You thought it is an output role, telling others how to think. It is not. Teaching is a receiving role, hearing, understanding, and using praise to shape students much more often than criticism. Gene and Sally should have helped prepare you so that your comments found good in the class discussion instead of bad.”

            “I never expected to hit such resistance,” Father John said.

            “And that’s another problem,” Bob said.

            “What’s that?” Father John asked.

            “Students were your currency,” Bob answered.

            “What do you mean students were my currency?”

            “Every community survives on trades,” Bob said. “Your trade with Sally and Gene was for students in return for your participation in the class.”“Yes,” Father John acknowledged.

            “That was an unrealistic trade.”

            “Why is that?”

            “Are you an adjunct faculty member?”

            “No,” Father John said. “I was going to be. Gene proposed that I be in a faculty meeting, but some faculty members didn’t want me to have the power to grade or teach because they were afraid I might attract students to my project. So they voted to offer me (and the two others proposed along with me) the status of friend of the faculty, which meant that students would get no academic credit for working with me.”

            “That’s my point,” Bob said. “Students are a precious commodity. The paid faculty want the students free labor for their research and their projects. Can you imagine how insulting, threatening and intrusive you must have seemed to other faculty members who are not working with a real parish organizing a community? You are offering an opportunity to do interesting and potentially exciting work. The faculty would not be happy to have you steal their students.”

            “So I never had a chance with those students. Did I?” Father John said.

            “No, you had no chance,” Bob said. “The systemic infrastructure was stacked against you. Students get paid with academic credits. They want to curry favor with the people who grade them. Why would they waste their time with you when their primary goal is to graduate?”

            “Yeah, why would they?” Father John agreed. “So I began with extremely grandiose expectations. There was no seat at the academic table for me, was there?”’

            “No,” Bob concurred.

            “How does this relate to the third position?” Father John wondered.

            “This reminds me of Vivian Paley’s book You Can’t Say You Can’t Play,” Bob said. “Do you know it?”

            “No,” Father John replied.

            “One day she observed two boys playing,” Bob said, “and a third boy who wanted to join in. The two boys playing told the other boy ‘no you can’t play.’ When she saw the hurt in the rejected boy’s eyes, she decided to make a rule ‘you can’t say you can’t play.’ That phrase became the name of her well-known book by the same name. You Can’t Say You Can’t Play describes how she implemented this new rule. In her classroom no one was banished from the field of play. Her classroom was her community. This community was required to find a role for all would-be players. Ms. Paley’s experiment was successful. Her students learned to negotiate roles, to disagree and continue their discussion. They found a way to accommodate one another. She served the role of the third position. Her rule, ‘you can’t say you can’t play’ became a link and a containment force. The children learned to create their own third position since they often had to find a role for a third player.”

            “But she can’t let just anyone off the street come in and play with the children,” Father John challenged.

            “No,” Bob agreed.

            “Well perhaps I’m not qualified to play,” Father John said. “I haven’t made the transition from critical graduate student to nurturing teacher. And the faculty sees me as a threat.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “The two boys saw the third boy as a threat as well. That doesn’t mean he really was. Certainly if the divinity school’s goal is to provide learning and growing challenges to their students, you are not a threat. I think the school should make a place at the academic table for people like you. The faculty needs to define a place for practitioners. The program should include a partnership between practitioners and the university. Here are the three positions. The teacher, the student and the practitioner. In your case some of the teachers and students effectively told you that you couldn’t play. I think in any community we need at least three positions, certainly in a learning community.”

            “But what about my critical competitive attitude?” Father John wondered.

            “If they would let you work with the students,” Bob said, “the students would help you find your place in time. Learning to be a good teacher requires practice, like anything else. The divinity school should have patience with you.”

            “Right now,” Father John said. “I don’t think I have patience for them either.”

            “I understand,” Bob said.

            They sat silently for a time. Then Father John asked, “If this class had gone well what would it have looked like?”

            “Well you had the role of the third position,” Bob began. “But you did not have it legitimately. The faculty gave you no standing. The students had no say in you taking any role. You were not properly introduced. The third position requires that the other two positions have respect for you too.”

            “And I behaved like a jerk,” Father John added.

            “That too,” Bob said. “But assume that you were properly and legitimately given this third seat at the table. You would have helped students see that these ideas that they were discussing were useful. You would have helped the teachers see where their ideas led to action.”

            “So the three positions would have been one in the applied role of the practitioner,” Father John said, “Gene and Sally in the role of the teachers and the students were in the learner, active participant role. Those are our ideal three positions. Right?”

            “Yes,” Bob agreed.

            “But instead of connecting teacher to student,” Father John said. “I embarrassed Gene and Sally and alienated the students from me.”

            “Yes, perhaps that’s what happened,” Bob acknowledged. “When you should have been searching for the practical strengths of the ideas of the teacher and students so they could have hope and confidence that one day the students could put what they were learning to work. For example, you might have followed a lecture on like nature of a human community with a suggestion that ministers need to call a parishioner who has a question or a comment. Such phone calls help solidify the network in the Church and help place the minister in an important central position in that network.”

            “I could have done that,” Father John said.

            “See, you aren’t beyond repair,” Bob said. “There’s hope for you yet. The role of the third position doesn’t have to be always affirming, but the third position has to be at least neutral. Someone in this role might be critical of one or both of the other two sides, but they must not be seen as having an agenda of their own. You had an agenda. First it was to prove yourself. Then it was to recruit students. The other two positions in your classroom community could smell you coming from a mile away. Your ego was at risk. The two other positions have too much of their egos at stake to have to deal with yours. When they should be able trust that you have no dog in the fight, you did. They knew it and they didn’t let you ever have the third position,”

            “But was there a place for a third position,” Father John asked, “If I had played it well?”

            “Perhaps,” Bob answered, “but in your circumstances you would have had to play the third position perfectly. There was no room for error. And all the players in your story failed to play their roles well.”“But there was a place for a third position,” Father John insisted.

            “Yes, ideally,” Bob said, “I think every community needs this role and they need talented people to play it. This is what I think you do for your parish. It is what a judge does in a courtroom. It is what the police should do in a conflict between neighbors. It is what a family therapist does with a family. It is what a nurse does in a hospital.”

            “The two positions are obvious, but often the third position isn’t,” Father John said. “It is easy to ignore the nurse, for example.”

            “Yes,” Bob agreed. “Our minds work so that when we see one thing we naturally contrast it with its opposite.”

            “This is what makes a debate,” Father John said, “I can hear someone make a case for say ‘let’s play soccer tomorrow’ and my mind immediately begins to think why that is not a good idea.”

            “Yes, we all think that way,” Bob agreed. “We especially think that way in an emergency.”

            “Oh I see that’s why political leaders try to use fear as a tool to convince voters to give them a mandate,” Father John said, “They pose as the hero and portray their opponent as the villain and the voter must act now or the damsel in distress tied to the railroad track will be run over by a train.”

            “Have you ever seen the movie, The Tail Wags the Dog?” Bob asked.

            “No, I haven’t,” Father John, answered.

            “In that movie,” Bob said, “the president was losing popularity in the polls so he declared war to shore up his political popularity and win the election.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “This is what happened with Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks after 9/11.”

            “What are you talking about?” Bob asked.

            “9/11 triggered our collective fight/flight response. We stopped our individual thinking and we united in fight mode behind our leaders. So when Michael Moore at the 2003 Oscars criticized the war he was booed from the stage. Or when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks publicly criticized President Bush, radio stations stopped playing their music. In an emergency there is only good vs. evil. Dissent is not tolerated. There was no room for a third position.”

            “That’s right,” Bob said. “Third position thinking doesn’t occur in such red-alert, fight or flight moments.”

            “So what do we do?” Father John asked.

            “We should not let our leaders define the conversation or the decision as a critical emergency,” Bob said. “Most of the time there is time for deliberation. Fear and rage end the discussion. We have to redefine the problem so that it is not an emergency. Then we create three positions and let the three positions work to find a solution. The New Zealand Maori Aborigines have a custom they call ‘going to the long hall’ when important decisions have to be made. Tribal members take their blankets and food and retire to the building they call the ‘long hall’ to talk. The object is to come from the long hall with a decision everybody agrees with. It may take days, but no one can leave the long hall until all agree.”

            “But we can’t do that,” Father John said, “We would never get everybody to agree.”

            “The point is we don’t believe we have the time, when we do,” Bob said. “But you are right. Third position thinking cannot happen in the context of a belief that circumstances are threatening and dangerous. Third position thinking requires safety, faith, openness and patience.”

            “Is there any debate where you find yourself in one of two opposing positions and you think you are right,” Father John asked. “Is there any theoretical question where you, Bob Newbrough, cannot find a third position?”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “As a matter of fact there is.”

            “What’s the subject?” Father John said.

            “It’s about how to create social change,” Bob said. “So far community psychology typically conceptualizes only two positions.”

            “What are they?” Father John asked.

            “One is change by revolution or war,” Bob said. “President Bush called it Regime Change. Some community psychologists use the term social action to mean the same thing. In this way of causing change the means justify the ends. It is change at all costs. It assumes no basis for cooperation or trust. Revolution tears things down. It uses chaos and conflict to make matters worse, so that things must change. It assumes that someone must lose; that power cannot be shared. The object is to win. Power is a zero sum game. There is no room for a third position.”

            “What is the other form of change?” Father John asked.

            “It is evolutionary change or cooperative change,” Bob said. “It is community development. This is a cooperative consensus building approach. Decision making includes many points of view. Differences create resources for a community. Evolution takes time. Patience is required. Trust is taken for granted. Power returns when you give it away. Win/win solutions are the goal.”

            “So let me guess where you stand,” Father John said.

            “Yeah, I am committed to evolutionary change,” Bob said. “I’m blind to a third position. I am angry and I’m defensive about my position. I know I’m wrong. There must be a third position. I should be able to find one here, but I can’t.”

            “So even you sometimes need help finding a third position?” Father John asked.

            “Yes,” Bob said, “I need help too. Are you going to teach again?”

            “I don’t know,” Father John said. “I would need a lot of help if I did.”

Father John Series #3

Chapter 3

Context of Chapter Three

This chapter is about The Truth. I used to believe that some people lied and some people told the truth. And that if two people spoke differently about the same event, one of them was lying. The third position can help sort out what the truth is without requiring that there be liars vs. truth-tellers. This story illustrates how one can use the third position to respect the truth of the other two positions.

Father John: How Do We Know?

Father John came into Bob’s office suite. Bob’s door was shut. Father John banged on the door, turned the doorknob at the same time and barged into Bob’s office. Bob clearly wasn’t expecting him.

            “Those sons of bitches,” Father John shouted. “Those goddamned sons of bitches. Those racist bastards. Pigs. Yes, that’s what they are pigs. They are all pigs. Nashville police are all racist pigs.” He paced the office as he raged. There was no chair without a pile of books or files. Bob quickly moved a pile out of one chair.

            “Sit down,” Bob said. “And stop yelling. I didn’t know priests cursed.”

            “Priests don’t,” Father John said, “I do. God will just have to forgive me. Besides God knows I’m right.”

            Just then Paul Dokecki peered in and asked, “You okay Bob?”

            “Yes, I’m fine,” Bob said. “Father John is just venting. He’s not angry at me. I don’t think.” And Bob looked at Father John as if to make sure.

            “No, I’m not angry at Bob,” Father John said to Paul. “But I am angry at the Nashville Police. I want you to help me get the police chief fired,” he said turning to Bob.

            “Well, I will leave you two to that project,” Paul said, his way of taking his leave.

            “What is all this about?” Bob asked.

            “It is a clear case of bigotry,” Father John said. “I have proof. I am right this time. My people are being systematically targeted, abused and mistreated by Nashville police. I assumed it would be this way when I came here. The South is racist. Some say Nashville is better than most Southern cities. It’s not. My people think it might be worse. You would think the black police officers would be different. You would think they had been the victim of racism and they wouldn’t perpetuate police racism. But they are no better.”

            “Tell me what you are talking about,” Bob said.

            “I’m talking about evil,” Father John said. “I’m talking about police predators exploiting poor Hispanics. I’m talking about justice vs. injustice, right vs. wrong.”

            “I still don’t know what you are talking about,” Bob said. “Can you tell me what happened? Something must have happened.”

            “It’s not just one thing,” Father John said. “It’s a million things that happen to my people everyday at the hands of a wicked and corrupt police department.”

            “Start by telling me about one thing,” Bob said.

            “Okay,” Father John said. “One thing. No. I can’t tell you one thing. I will tell you three things. First I was riding in Roberto’s truck. We were going to get mulch to landscape the church gardens. I wasn’t dressed like this in my priest robe and sandals. I was dressed like a laborer because I was going to help spread the mulch. Roberto had broken no laws. He was not speeding. He did not run a red light. He was driving a truck decorated in red and orange flames, a painting style typical of Latino vehicles. We looked like Hispanics. That was our only crime. A policeman pulled us over. He came up to the driver’s side and said, ‘I know you don’t have a driver’s license because the state won’t issue one to any of you spics.’ Roberto objected and said, ‘oh police officer I do have a license.’ The policeman replied, ‘then I will run you in for having a fake license or you can pay up. You know the drill.’ Roberto was confused. I just sat there dumb founded. I knew the policeman had no idea that I was a priest. I thought I would just watch and catch him in the act of shaking down a motorist. ‘What drill,’ Roberto asked. ‘It will cost you $100 to get out of this. That’s what I owe my bookie. I get you spics to pay gambling debts and take the money I win home to mama. Pretty good system don’t you think, hundred dollars. Fork it over. You Mexicans always carry lots of money with you cause you can’t trust the banks.’ Roberto didn’t have a hundred dollars. I had to loan him fifty. We gave the cop the money and drove away. I was stunned. Roberto was not. ‘This was cheap,’ he said. ‘I have had them ask for $500. It’s cheaper than a ticket would have been. I don’t have to go to jail or court. It’s not so bad. It’s worse in Mexico.’”

            “That’s one. I got a call in the middle of the night last week. It was the wife of one of the families in my parish. ‘Hurry they are beating up my husband.’ I rush over to their apartment complex. On the way I call the police and tell them to come too. When I get there I see Diego. He is sitting on his truck’s foot rail with blood running from his nose and the side of his mouth. Two men in security guard uniforms were standing over him. This time I’m dressed as I am now priest cassock. Diego greeted me saying, ‘Father John you go home. No problem. I’ll be fine.’ I asked what’s going on. Diego didn’t answer. One of the security guards said, ‘none of your business.’ Then the two police cars arrived. The police knew the security guards by name. ‘What’s the problem?’ one of the policemen asked. ‘Diego here was eyeing one of the white girls,’ the security guard began to say. The policeman looked at me and interrupted him. ‘So Diego was disturbing the peace. He was drunk and when you tried to quiet him down he picked a fight with you. Is that it?’ Then they all looked at me.

            “‘What happened Diego?’ I asked. I walked over to him to see if I could smell alcohol. Before I could reach him the police stepped in my way and said ‘We’ll handle this.’ Then he turned to Diego and said, ‘you want to go to jail boy?’ Diego said, ‘No.’ ‘Are you through causing trouble boy?’ the policeman asked. Diego said, ‘Yes.’ The policeman then told Diego to go home and he told me to go home too. I protested, but there was nothing I could do.

            “Later when I talked to Diego he said he was not drunk and that they stole $200 from him. He was not disturbing the peace. He just drove up to his apartment and got out of the car when the security guards jumped him. He was not flirting with a white girl. He didn’t know why they said that.

            “I did. It was to make the white policeman mad and get them to take their part against me and Diego.

            “That’s two. I have one more story to tell you, but there are many more, some that I know and more that I don’t. So I go to the police department. I ask for an appointment with the chief of police. They won’t give me one. They shuffle me off to a lieutenant who tells me I will have to go to my precinct captain. I know that won’t do any good. I insist on seeing the chief of police. I am completely stonewalled. So I attend a public meeting. I am polite. The meeting is about school violence so I raise my hand when it is time for questions and ask if I can talk to him for a minute after he is finished. He says yes. When the meeting was over I approached him. I told him these same two stories. He said, ‘Oh, they rolled a Mexican.’ I said what did that mean. He said, ‘Illegals have to carry their money with them because they do not trust banks and because they don’t have a social security number required to open a bank account. This makes them easy targets to rob. On the streets it’s called roll a Mexican. When someone needs money that’s what they do. They rob an illegal because they know that the illegal won’t report them to the police.’ I replied, ‘especially if it is the police who rolled them.’ He got huffy at that point. He said, ‘You got a name or a badge number. Do you have any witnesses other than yourself?’ I was too flustered to think of getting names or badge numbers and I knew I couldn’t get Diego or Roberto to charge anyone with anything. I said, ‘No.’ I had no names, badge numbers, or any witnesses other than me, but I thought he would want to know and do something about this kind of thing because these weren’t isolated instances.’ His reply was, ‘that’s the risk these illegals take. They should know if they want American jobs, they will be easy targets for American resentment. They pay no taxes. Perhaps this is the cost of sneaking across the border.’

            “That’s three. The bastard police chief. The epitome of evil. I want to get him fired. Help me.”

            “Those are awful stories,” Bob said.

            “Stories,” Father John shouted. “They are more than stories. They are the truth.”

            “They are your truth,” Bob said. “There are as many truths as there are actors.”

            “What do you mean by that?” Father John said. “I thought you were my friend?! Are you calling me a liar? Do you support robbery and corruption? Are you one of them?”

            “Yes I am your friend and no, no, no to the rest,” Bob answered, “look you’ve got me confused. Now I’m all caught up in this. You’re accusing me now and I’ve got to resist the temptation to defend myself or to apologize.”

            “I think I deserve an explanation,” Father John said.

            “I will give you one if you will calm down,” Bob said, “but I will not join you in that reality.”

            “There you go calling me a liar again,” Father John said.

            “No, I’m not,” Bob said this time raising his voice. “I know you believe what you said. I know you are telling the truth as you see it. And I would venture to say that most of what you have told me has factual historical support in reality. However, and this is a big however, I won’t join someone who constructs the world into two parts, good and evil. I will never join someone who thinks he is the champion of right and justice against wrong and injustice. There are more realities than just yours. I will help you if you will let me, but I will help you make new connections and build positive alliances. I’m not interested in going to war with the police chief in a ‘him’ or ‘us’ win/lose battle. While we might wound his reputation some, we will likely polarize the community and stir up more of that hatred and racism you are talking about.”

            “I want to kick ass,” Father John said. “I’m angry for my people. This is injustice. I will fight it with all I’ve got.”

            “You are angry,” Bob said. “That’s my point. When you are angry you have tunnel vision. You act this way and you will lose.”

            “That’s why I’m talking to you,” Father John said.

            “So what if I join you and you do get the chief fired,” Bob said. “You win that battle but will you win the war? What if the police work with the Immigration Service and target illegals in your congregation?”

            “They wouldn’t,” Father John said. Then he paused and was quiet for a moment. Then he said. “They would.”

            “They might,” Bob agreed. “The first thing I’ve got to do to help you is get you thinking with ideas instead of anger.”

“Okay,” Father John said, “I’m beginning to glimpse what you hear me saying. I forget you are Mr. Third Position. You stand for inclusion and you use three positions to create linkages to enrich our understanding. You see me stuck in two-category thinking.”

            “Right,” Bob said. “Why didn’t you talk to the Bishop about this?”

            “Because he wouldn’t be concerned about this,” Father John answered.

            “Well,” Bob said. “The Bishop might have gotten a more responsive and respectful hearing. When possible you approach a person in a powerful position with someone who has a position at their level: President to Pope. Bishop to Police Chief.”

            “I wish I could get the Bishop to be concerned about injustice to the people of my parish or any parish, but I can’t,” Father John said.

            “Well then I’ll have to serve as your consultant here then,” Bob said. “Now my job as your consultant and friend is to get you out of the good versus bad comic book universe and into the complex reality of human existence. The first step now is to see your adversary as a worthy opponent. To do that you must accept the notion that you don’t know all the truth, that there is another way to look at the same set of facts. There is a way to appeal to the best in you and your adversary so that each of you can have honor and dignity.”

            “I don’t know how I’m going to believe that I don’t know the truth,” Father John said.

            “I don’t either right now,” Bob agreed. “But that’s where we must begin. We must begin with what is the truth.”

            “So are we going to have to have that modern versus postmodernism crap?” Father John said. “I don’t understand that stuff and I don’t want to.”

            “Okay,” Bob said, “I will try to stay away from academic language. But to let go of your righteous position (which, by the way, is what Jung, Bowen and Peck think of as evil).”

            “Me evil?” Father John said.

            “I shouldn’t have begun there,” Bob said. “Let me start over. Our job is to get you out of your emotions and help you begin to think instead of just feel. We have to help you build a thought structure that is useful instead of one that’s not.”

            “This better be good,” Father John said. “You think I’m evil!”

            “That’s why we all need the help of a good theory so let me bore you for a bit with a theory. Perhaps that will calm you down and give you some perspective. There are those who think reality is knowable. There is such a thing as truth, even absolute truth. These are the modernists.”

            “And that would be me, the Pope and most Christians,” Father John said.

            “Well,” Bob said. “There are a great many people who take the opposing position that truth is relative to the observer’s point of view. These are the relativists. Instead of using modern vs. post modern, let’s use Star Trek. Did you watch Star Trek?”

            “It’s been years,” Father John replied. “I don’t remember much about it.”

            “On Star Trek there were three positions. Dr. McCoy represented emotions. He was always arguing and exposing his emotions. Reality was relative to one’s perspective and how one feels. Mr. Spock was half Vulcan half earth human. He chose to suppress the emotional human side to him. He behaved as if he were only logical. He always spoke matter-of-factly and all his solutions were based on logic. Captain Kirk represents our third position.”

            “So you’re saying Dr. McCoy represents post-modernism, truth is relative,” Father John said. “And Mr. Spock represents modernism, truth is knowable and absolute. So what does Captain Kirk represent?”

            “Captain Kirk’s thought process encompassed both Dr. McCoy’s position and Mr. Spock’s position,” Bob said. “He used his experience as his absolute truth. He believed what his experience taught him.”

            “So how does Captain Kirk’s position work?” Father John asked.

            “Do you know what I feel right now or what I’m thinking?” Bob asked.

            “No,” Father John said, “not exactly. You seem to be alert and interested in helping me. But I can’t be sure.”

            “Do I know how you think and feel?” Bob asked. “I know you were mad, and that you wanted the police chief fired, but that was when you first came in. Right now I don’t know what you think and feel.”

            “So what’s your point?” Father John asked.

            “My point is that I am the absolute authority of what I think and feel. And you are the absolute authority of what you think and feel. My experience is my truth and I should believe it and use it. Your experience is your truth and you should believe it.”

            “I understand that I know more about me than you do,” Father John said. “But sometimes I may know more about you than you do.”

            “How is that?” Bob said.

            “I may be able to tell by your body language that you are lying,” Father John said.

            “And I won’t know if I’m lying?” Bob asked. “Of course I will know. You can’t be the authority on you and me both. You have to respect that I know more about me than you do and I have to respect that you know more about you.”

“I guess that means that I must respect you as the authority on your truth,” Father John said. “And you must respect that I am the authority over my experience.”

            “Yes and what’s more,” Bob said. “We can never safely assume our truths are the same, even about the same event that we experience together.”

            “I get it,” Father John said, “Our truth may be similar. They may overlap, but they won’t be precisely the same.”

“So your third position is your experience,” Father John said.

            “Yes,” Bob answered. “And each person’s experience of their truth deserves respect and honor.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “If we take the-truth-is-relative position of Dr. McCoy then nothing is knowable. We can’t even have faith that there will be a floor there when we step, but if we take the position of Mr. Spock that we know and represent the truth then we become Hitler and we force everybody to think as we do or we reject them and their reality.”

            “That’s right,” Bob said.

            “So where does this idea of the worthy opponent fit in?” Father John asked.

            “It is simply that you are not God,” Bob said. “God knows the truth but we humans don’t. You must assume that you don’t know the whole truth and that you need someone else with their truth to oppose you so that you can get a better picture of the reality that God sees. Captain Kirk understood that he only knows his truth, not The Truth.”

            “So,” Father John said, “You were being my friend when you opposed my plan to fire the police chief. You were my worthy opponent who saw something I didn’t. And that was that I was thinking inside an angry two category box.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “Thank you for seeing me as the friend I was trying to be.”

            “It feels better to me too,” Father John said.

            “Using the third position, how does that help us know what to do?” Father John asked.

“I have a friend,” Bob said, “who is a psychologist who voted for Bush in 2004. He had considered voting for Nader but he felt this was a waste of his vote. Like most community psychologists I could not imagine that any man educated as a psychologist could vote for George Bush. He had a different opinion. He told me this:

“‘It’s not that I want to vote for Bush. It’s that I don’t want to vote for Kerry. My values inform my vote. I value a healthy whole human spirit. This is what I try to promote in my work. I want our president to have a soul. Kerry seems a lot like Gore to me. They both seem to have no soul to me. They act appropriately but I do not see anything beyond their exterior. Clinton was human. I loved him. He made moral mistakes, but he had passion. He was available to be known.

            “‘Bush is more like Clinton. He stands for something. He has a personality. He is knowable. Kerry is too socially appropriate. He does what appears to be right at the moment. Bush stands by his positions. He has a faith and I like that. Sure he is conservative and I know you don’t like that, Bob, but Reagan was conservative. His ideas were simple. The world politic has a five-year-old brain. It understands power. It responds to sticks and carrots. That’s how the Berlin Wall fell. So Bush is simple, not as sophisticated or complex as Kerry, but he is also not as confused.

            “‘I am a psychologist. I vote for the man who has a spirit, a sense of self. Conservative or liberal, those ideas are important to you, Bob. I’m not sure ideologies matter as much as the person. I like Bush as a person. That’s why I would vote for him.’”

             “So we act on our values,” Father John said, “like your friend. Is that what you are saying?”

            “My friend’s personal story led him to become a psychologist,” Bob said. “As a psychologist he was searching a golden heart in himself and in others. This was a part of his story. It became a value position later. The value position informed his belief that the human spirit was more important than policy in a president. He acted on that belief.”

            “So how do we recognize our truth as it emerges from these three positions: our story, our values and our beliefs?” Father John asked.

            “The truth that comes from third position thinking includes both truths of the opposing positions,” Bob said.

            “That’s confusing,” Father John said.

            “The real truth can be confusing,” Bob said. “Just as the third position does not allow for a clear win/lose, it does not allow for a clear right/wrong. Always with the third position, it is both/and.”

            “Oh no,” Father John said, “The truth is a paradox; it contains elements of positions that appear to oppose one another. The truth is never certain.”

            “No its not,” Bob said. “And what’s more you must not fall in love with the truth you discover.”

            “What do you mean?” Father John asked.

            “The solution you choose or the decision you make,” Bob said, “applies only to that problem at that time. Once you act on your decision, everything changes. The next problem that confronts you might challenge the truth you thought you discovered.”

            “So you never get it right,” Father John said.

            “No,” Bob answered. “You always have to change something for the next time because things never stay the same.”

            “And add to that to you are never exactly right in the first place,” Father John replied.

            “It’s humbling isn’t it,” Bob said.

            Father John didn’t answer right away. He stared into a stack of papers and books on the floor. He finally said, “Living with the third position is a lot of work.”

            “Yes, it is,” Bob, agreed.

            “Where does God’s truth fit into this third position thinking?” Father John asked.

            “Well I’m not sure I believe in God. I guess I do sometimes,” Bob said. “If I believe in God, I’m not sure about God’s Truth.”

            “But if you do believe as I do that there is such a thing as God’s Truth, where does that fit?”        Father John asked.

            “God’s truth would represent a point above the plane of the triangle. Remember in geometry, three points create a plane,” Bob answered. “And the three positions allows for possible temporary solutions or truths to be found anywhere inside that triangle.”

            “Yes,” Father John said.

            “Well,” Bob said, “God’s truth would rest at a point above that triangle creating a pyramid. This single point about the plane where the three line intersect coming from the three points that form the triangle represent perfection, The Perfect Truth, The Right Answer, The Platonic Ideal. This is something we can aspire to, but we humans will never reach. Now see how many creative possibilities there are inside the space of a pyramid instead the flat planes of a triangle. This fourth position is not on the same plane as the other three positions. It is God. If God’s will and Truth comes to us, it is just pure dumb luck and it won’t stay with us for long.”

               Father John started a mock drawing of a pyramid in the air. Then he began moving his hand up from the base of his imaginary pyramid toward its apex and he said, “And the closer you get to God the easier it is to find the truth at the apex of the pyramid and that is where all truths converge.”

“Perhaps,” Bob answered. “But I’ll be dead when I can answer that.”

“Earlier you said I was evil,” Father John said. “What did you mean by that?”

“I’m sorry I said that,” Bob answered. “I was exasperated and evil myself then. Evil is just another half of a two-category world. This time is it good versus evil. I should not have used that word.”

“No, I want to know what you mean,” Father John said.

“I meant that anyone who believes they are right and good and they must defeat their opponent creates a process that will become destructive.” Bob said. “When you wanted to fire the police chief and you believed you were right, you became such a person. I stand for three positions. I think we must create an open process, which allows all positions to speak. You thought you knew the truth. You were creating an “us” vs. “them” myth and I think such myths are dangerous and can become cruel.”

            “Okay,” Father John said, “I think I’m ready to revisit my ideas about firing the police chief, but I’m going to need some help. I stand firm against cops brutalizing defenseless immigrants. What are the three positions here?”

            “Well,” Bob said. “I see you representing the position of justice and human dignity for all. Would that be fair?”

            “Yes,” Father John said, “But with that as my position it is difficult for me to imagine an opponent with another position that could be called worthy.”

            “Let me take a crack at that,” Bob said. “The police chief has the responsibility to protect the legal rights of the people of this community. You feel the same responsibility when your parishioners are threatened. The police chief has a duty to the tax paying citizens of this city. They are his people. He is there to protect them. Many of your parishioners are illegal intruders into this country and city. He doesn’t have the same duty to them that he does to the citizens of this community. Morally perhaps he should, but legally these people don’t belong here. If he enforced the law he would call Immigration officials every time his policemen bumped into someone they suspected was here illegally. That’s the law. So from his point of view he is being kind to them by tolerating them inside the city limits. His job is to uphold the law. Which law would you have him uphold first. If he tries to enforce the law that protects Diego or Roberto he might also end up sending them out of the country when he enforces the immigration law. Their existence here puts him in a real bind. What does he do?”

            Father John again said nothing for a time. “He looked around the room as if he were agitated. Finally he said, as if talking to himself, “I have to see reality from his point of view. That’s the assignment here. Okay there is more to it than I thought at first. I’ll give you that. I can see it when you compared his duty to his citizens to my role with my parishioners. He does have a legitimate position. He has a community to protect. Okay, I think I can respect him now as a worthy opponent.”

            “Then you are ready for a third position,” Bob said. “What would you say to this as your third position? How about making the police force stronger and more effective with the Hispanic community.”

            “I’m not sure,” Father John answered.

            “What I am suggesting,” Bob said, “is a simple psychology principle. You shape behavior by ignoring what you do not want repeated and attending and praising the behavior that you want to be repeated.”

            “Yeah,” Father John said. “So how does that apply here?”

            “Well there is racism in Nashville,” Bob said. “There are bigoted policemen. You don’t want to reinforce these attitudes and behaviors by confronting them. That will just force them to defend these behaviors and find ways to justify them. Just as the police did with Diego when they made up that story about him disturbing the peace.”

            “Oh yeah,” Father John said with the excitement of discovery. “When I caught them and confronted them in the act, they strengthened their position and dug in. There was to be no change happening there that night.”

            “Right,” Bob said. “Exactly. But what if you took advantage of the police department ride along program? To be eligible one must attend the citizen’s police academy. This is a one-day training event. Then you can volunteer to ride along with the police in your precinct. How do you think they will behave toward Hispanics with you in the car?”

            “Better still,” Father John said, “how will a police man behave if the ride along volunteer was a smart attractive woman?”

            “Whatever works,” Bob said. “But the rider must be careful to attend and praise all courteous, kind, respectful, behavior toward Hispanics and ignore the rest.”

            “That will be hard,” Father John said. “But I think I can recruit some people for that.”

            Father John left Bob’s office with a mission to train and recruit several of his citizen parishioners to take on this ride along role.

            Two months later he met with Bob to report on his success.

            “I think the police are doing a much better job now,” Father John said. “We all learned a lot riding with them. We have spent so much time with them that we have gotten to know the names of their children, the sports they like, and the problems they face. Most of them are good people. I’m glad we didn’t try to get one of them fired. This has worked much better.”

            “That’s good news,” Bob said.

            “Well another thing,” Father John said. “We saw how hard it was for them to work among people when they don’t speak the language. A lot of their work involved fights between Hispanics at bars or in domestic disputes. And a lot of the time they don’t have a clue about what’s going on. It was a good thing we were there to translate. So we developed a list of volunteers for the police in the Hispanic precincts that police can call anytime and the volunteer will act as a translator for the police.”

            “That’s a great idea,” Bob said.

            “Yeah,” Father John agreed. “It works toward our third position value.”

            “How’s that,” Bob said. “I forgot.”

            “It was making the police force stronger and more effective among the Hispanic community,” Father John answered. “Remember?”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “I do now.”

            “Most of their work does not involve Hispanic confrontations with locals,” Father John said. “Most of their work involves helping Hispanics get their cars going or dealing with problems we have with each other.”

            “I can imagine they appreciated your help,” Bob said.

            “Yes, I think they did,” Father John said. “And I appreciate yours as well.”

Father John Series #4

Chapter 4

Context of Chapter Four

This is most relevant point about the third position. And that is, if you play the role of the third position, it is as if you are invisible. Consequently we rarely recognize the importance of this role and the people who play it.

            In this story I link the third position to feminism. I do believe that women often play this role in families, businesses and in institutions like the church. I also believe that women are often not given credit for the kind of work, when it is important and difficult work.

Father John: Making the Invisible Visible

Today Bob was expecting Father John. There was one empty chair waiting for him among the other four piled high with papers.

            Father John entered, greeted Bob, and found the chair.

            “I am really confused,” he began.

            “Why are you confused?” Bob asked.

            “I had a conversation with one of my parishioners, Maria Rodriguez. She is a very determined person. She is studying theology in Divinity School. She wants to be a deacon in our church. Maria came to me yesterday. And here is what she said:

‘Father I know I can’t be a priest, but I want to be a deacon. I could conduct services when you are away. I could minister to other congregations that do not have a priest. I could do everything that you can do except serve the sacraments.’ I said, ‘why don’t you serve your faith working with the children. You would be more accepted in that role and we need help in the school.’

‘I thought you would say something like that,’ she almost yelled. ‘You are not the first and you won’t be the last. I’m not giving up.’

                        ‘What are you talking about?’ I asked.

            ‘The prejudice against women in the Catholic Church,’ she said. ‘I thought you might be different, but you are just like Pope John Paul.’

            ‘What about Pope John Paul,’ I asked. ‘Which one are you talking about the first or the second?’

            ‘The second, the Polish pope,’ she said, ‘that one. He just died. You know who I mean. His mother died when he was young. His sister died when he was an infant. He idealized women.’

            ‘What’s the problem with that?’ I wondered.

            ‘In the Catholic Church women are either holy or whores. We are pure and delicate as a virgin to be protected from the sin of the world. Or we are the

Delilah’s who seduced Sampson to betray his people. Some of us, maybe most of us, don’t want to be put on a pedestal. None of us want to be seen as evil seducers. We want, I want to be a player. I want to speak out. I joined your volunteer group to ride with police. In fact most of your volunteers were women. Who is it that organized the church for Holy Week? Who recruited the children for the choir? Who led the choir? Who played the organ? Who keeps the books for the church? Who organized the church pledge campaign? Who runs the school? Who really does the business of the church? I’ll tell you who, women plus you, one man. Women do the church work. Men sometimes show up. And we are supposed to be happy about that. We women are to be kept away from the difficult work that requires thinking, like writing and delivering the Sunday sermon.

            ‘You men want to tell us what to do with our bodies. No birth control pills. Sex only for procreation. We are holy when we are barefoot and pregnant and whores when were not. You want to control our bodies. Tell us what to do when we are young and pregnant. Have your ever been pregnant?

            ‘The church will change a centuries’ old traditions like eating fish on Fridays. We can shop on the Sabbath. We don’t have to attend confession any more. All these changes, but the changes that have to do with giving women equal status in the church, changes that would respect a woman’s human rights, these changes you will not make. It’s like the church is the Taliban of Islam, threatened by women having a voice. The church is a patriarchy that is organized on the backs of women.’

            ‘I never knew you felt this way,’ I said. ‘If you feel so strongly that the Catholic Church is exploiting and oppressing women how can you remain Catholic?’

            ‘That’s what you want, isn’t it?’ she said. ‘You want to run me off. Chase out the voice of dissent. Well I’m not leaving. It’s my church too. God loves me

just as much as he does you. If I were a priest I would not be the threat to children like you are.’

            ‘What do you mean?’ I said. ‘You think I’m a threat to children?’

            ‘Perhaps not you personally,’ she said. ‘But who knows. The point is men do most of the sex abusing. The Catholic Church has a sex abuse scandal. Women rarely abuse children. Duh. It doesn’t take much to see that ordaining women as priests, making me and other women deacons, this would be a good first step.’

            ‘You still haven’t answered why you stay a Catholic,’ I asked. ‘I don’t want to silence your voice of dissent. I just want to understand what’s in it for you?’

            ‘I will not walk away,’ she answered. ‘And they will not force me to be bitter. The message of acceptance, forgiveness, and redemption belongs to me and to women just as much as it belongs to you and men. The church hierarchy doesn’t hear this message of love. As a Catholic I belong to this parish and at the same time something ancient and universal. I love the bells, the incense, the alter, the vestments and the icons. I take joy from this magnificent ritual. This same ritual is practiced all over the world. Love and gratitude is the point. The church is not just a place for baptisms, weddings and funerals.’”

“This conversation leaves me confused and upset. I am the representative of her oppression. Yet, I agree with her.”

“Looks to me like you are between a rock and a hard place,” Bob said. “Do you think she’s right?”

“Oh she’s right,” Father John said. “That’s what’s so upsetting. Women do most of the work in the church. The church lets them work, but it won’t give them a voice. I’m ashamed of what I represent to her.

            “The Bishop won’t be happy with me if I sponsor a woman as a deacon. I’m already considered radical by him. I don’t need to go further on the liberal limb.”

“But I wonder if that isn’t your job,” Bob said.

“What do you mean?” Father John asked.

“I think it’s my job as a community psychologist to help the invisible become visible and the voiceless to speak up. It’s the clinical psychologist’s job to help the unconscious become conscious.”

“I’ll bet this has something to do with the third position,” Father John offered.

“Well as a matter of fact it does,” Bob said. “Thank you for leading me into it.”

“So what does the third position have to do with it?” Father John asked.

“Remember when we talked about Vivian Paley the first grade teacher who wrote the book, You Can’t Say You Can’t Play?” Bob asked.

“Yes, I remember,” Father John said. “She saw two boys playing, ignoring a third boy who wanted to play and she made a rule that said you can’t do that. You got to pay attention to him too and let him play.”

“Yes,” Bob said. “That’s it. We can always see the two opposing in a contest. What we do not see is the third force, what I call the third position. We do not see the setting. The conflict becomes so dramatic that we do not see beyond the two powerful positions joined in the battle. One position claims to be right. It then attracts its opposite to claim to be right. The contest is joined. And that’s what we look at.”

“So what are we missing?” Father John asked.

“We are missing a third position that links these two together,” Bob said. “The third position might be the audience or the observer. It might be the contest organizers and the referees. At a football game it might be the announcer, the band or the cheerleaders. Or it might simply be the person who provided the football and the football field. The point is when there is a contest; it is easy to ignore a third position that provides the context or the setting to the competition.”

“So its your job as a community psychologist to point to a third position,” Father John said. “Is that what you are saying?”

“Yes,” Bob agreed. “The people in a third position often don’t get a voice. They do the behind the scenes work. They decorate for the party, but most times they are not allowed to dance. It is my job as a community psychologist to stop the dance and recognize the people who made it possible and if they want to dance, make room for them on the floor.

 “Then it is my job to leave and for some of those who were once invisible to take on the role I played and to continue to ensure that the people behind the scenes get recognized and have their own voice.”

“It’s your job to leave?” Father John asked.

“Yes,” Bob said. “The three positions should be natural to every setting. My job as a professional consultant is to give power and skills to others so that I am no longer needed. I don’t want to become the third position hero who comes riding in to save the day.”

“Because if you can ride in,” Father John said, “you can and will ride out.”

“That’s right,” Bob said. “And though I might help solve one problem, nothing will have changed. There was a Chinese master, Ch‘n Chen who often reminded his disciples that the sun nurtures life by giving away its light and then disappearing. And in the end in which direction does the trees and flowers grow?”

“So I should help make Marie visible to the Bishop,” Father John said. “I should sponsor her as a deacon for my church. I will do that. I will go with her to her meeting with the Bishop.”

Father John returned the next week. “How did your meeting with Maria and the Bishop go?” Bob asked.

“It was a lesson in the third position. Father John said, “Normally when I am with the Bishop it is me versus him. And there is no third position in the room with us. This time I became the third position.”

“Women often hold that role,” Bob said.

“What do you mean?” Father John said.

“They are the easily ignored Geisha,” Bob said, “who creates the setting that allows for cooperation? Women often provide the spirit or ambiance that sets the stage for discussion between the two opponents. What women often do is invisible. We do not seem to value their contribution. The teachers, the childcare workers, the nurses are often women and we do not pay them or recognize their contributions. The American West was not civilized until the women began to come there. The feminine force sitting among men seems to calm things. They decorate a room so that the senses are pleased. They serve food so that people can eat and talk together. They arrange flowers and bring nature indoors. They keep the children from crying. They understand and manage the ambiance in settings. They bring art to two opposing positions, but the opposing positions do not recognize this as a contribution. Yet when the woman brings her feminine strength the opposing males are often able to find a resolution. They do not understand that it was the woman who made the difference. It is often the value of art that serves as a third position. We need to make art a contender. We need to give women a voice. Here Maria offers herself as a means to turn over the triangle. She gets out of the civilizing third position and gets on the line with the Bishop in a contest over whether or not she will become a deacon. In this instance you may serve as the third position.

“It’s funny that you should say that,” Father John replied. “That’s sort of what happened.”

“Tell me about it,” Bob said.

“The conversation went something like this:

The Bishop began damning her with faint praise. Things like, ‘I appreciate your interest. You have worked very hard to get to this place. You have been so devoted to the church and its children. I know since you have a family and you cannot serve your church as a nun that you must feel very frustrated, but women in the church serve to make a place for men to do their part. Women cook and serve the food and bring the flowers. They take care of the children. Men tend to see that sort of work as unimportant. Men often don’t come to church. That’s why we must save the positions of prominence in the church for men. They will come if they have something important to do. Women seem to naturally feel the pull of the spiritual. It is harder to recruit men into working for the church. So,’ he said, ‘Maria you do not want to take a space that a man might have. Do you?’

‘This church is like a network of nodes and hubs’ the Bishop went on. ‘Men will only come if they can be a hub. Women are content to be a node. They serve well in that role.’

            “Boy I’ll bet that didn’t sit well with Maria,” Bob said. “I’m sure this was not funny to her.”

            “No,” Father John said. “But she was up for the challenge. She told him.

                        ‘I want to be what you call a hub. Women in the church are discouraged by the lack of a voice. They are tired of being baby factories for the church. They are tired of sitting against the wall looking pretty so men can feel comfortable as they decide for the church’s women what will happen in their sex lives and in their wombs.’

            “Then the Bishop countered by attacking her credentials. He said,

‘Maria, you know not just anybody gets to be a deacon. Desire to become a deacon is only one qualification. You must study and work.’

‘I have done that,’ Maria countered.

‘Yes but your work must inspire people to be attracted to you,’ The Bishop said. ‘If you are to be a hub in the church like Father John, people must be inspired to follow your leadership and frankly Maria your personality is a bit abrasive.’ Again the Bishop appealed to physics. He said, ‘Matter changes form. Physicists call the threshold where matter changes form from say a liquid to a solid a phase transition.  For water this threshold is 32°. To meet this requirement in the church to change status from laywoman to deacon you must have the necessary respect of your fellow parishioners. I have heard some complaints about you and I’m not sure you have met the requirements to move from a node to a hub in the church.’

Maria responded, ‘You can appeal to science and logic. But this isn’t about physics or intellectual ideas. Those academic notions are irrelevant here. You can make this an intellectual issue. Here I have 1000 signatures on a petition asking you to make me a deacon. You are right 70% of the signatures are women. Perhaps I have alienated some men. But frankly Bishop I’ve heard some criticisms of you in the Latino community. Those criticisms haven’t disqualified you to be Bishop. This isn’t about science. It is not about me. It is about whether you want to give women a voice in the church. It is whether you want to keep women poor powerless and pregnant. That’s what this is about.’

“The Bishop countered with a Bible verse ‘you know the poor ye shall always have with us. Barabási, a physicist, talks about this when he describes the 80/20 rule. He says that in any community only twenty percent of the people have eighty percent of the power. Many people are content to be a node. And many are not attractive enough to be a hub. And many people are hubs in one network and not a hub in others. Can’t you be content to be a lay leader among lay women?’

            “‘No, I can not,’ was Maria’s strong answer. She went on saying, ‘I know some people are content to be a leader in other communities. I know I am, as you are, a member of many communities, and I could choose to put some of my energy in other places. But I love the church. I treasure my faith. I think I can contribute to making the church a place of refuge for women and the poor. I feel called to this role as I’m sure you feel called to your role.

‘I have friends who are artists and want to remain at the margins of all communities. They want to have the vantage point of an observer and commentator. They do not wish to lead or direct anybody. I, myself, remember a time in my life when I had young children. I had no ambitions to do anything but care for them. I was more than content to be part of the 80 with no power. I’m in a different place now. My children are grown. I feel called to speak out for justice now. People can move in and out of ambitions for leadership. I am not committing a crime for wanting to be a deacon. You know, Bishop, you don’t own your power as a Bishop. It belongs to the Church. You will die and you can’t make a decision for the parish from the grave or you will retire and maybe Father John will become the Bishop. Power moves from person to person. No one owns the power of their office. Who knows what power or influence I might have as a deacon? Who knows how long I will serve or how long you will?’

‘The Bishop responded, ‘but the power belongs to me now. It is my decision and you cannot be a deacon without my blessing.’

‘That’s true. I can’t,’ Maria replied. ‘But holding back the voice of women is coercive power. It is power based on fear and intimidation. It is power that excludes and divides. That is not real power. It is not the power of our faith. External power imposed on people is corrupt. To use your language, I imagine a network of people where links connect to hubs because of fear. I think that the quality of these links’ are compromised. If the link to a hub connection is made because of desire or compassion or justice rather than fear or guilt, the link will be strong and long lasting. Bishop, create a place in the church for the kind of passion I represent. Make people like me a hub in the church and the church will be stronger for it. I am not afraid. I have a passion to serve.’

“Then I spoke. ‘I support Maria,’ I said, ‘but I’m tired of all this talk about power. Power gets too much attention. In the church we should not be so consumed with power. There are other values to serve. There is love. There is compassion. There is sense of community. There is the search for knowledge. There is the desire to serve. There is the Holy and the Sacred. And I could go on. All these things are more important than who has the power. Why are we spending so much energy on that word? Maria should be a deacon because we love the women of the church, because we have compassion for their suffering, because we will have a stronger community if we include her and because we will learn more if we listen to her. There is a third position here that this decision should also serve. Surely we can find another value to serve beyond power.’

‘You are right,’ the Bishop said. ‘We are falling into the Karl Marx trap. He wanted to break the 80/20 rule by spreading the wealth and power that the 20% had to the 80%. That misses the point. I have spent my life standing firm against Marxism. And here I am making the same mistake that I think Marx made.’

“I was confused by this mention of Karl Marx. I asked the Bishop. ‘What are you talking about?

“The Bishop answered. ‘These academic irrelevant ideas that Maria referred to earlier are what now force me to agree with you. I have been an opponent of communism for a long time. And my reason has always been what Father John just reminded us about. It is that we get seduced by power as if it were the only dimension that makes life valuable. And it is not. Yes, Maria wants more of it. And perhaps she should have it. But we get caught up in this power problem. Like Carl Marx, it is as if we can see only the one gold thread in a woven cloth. That gold thread has very little to do with the task of holding together the fabric. You see power or the gold thread and we forget the whole rest of the cloth. As you can tell I am reluctant to appoint a woman as a deacon in my diocese. I hate to admit it but I am moved by what you said Father John. You appealed to another value that I hold dear and that value is that life is not about power and wealth. There is a spiritual value too that I must serve. I will consider this in my prayers. Thank you Father John for helping me see the whole cloth and not just the gold thread.’”

“Wow, that was some conversation you and Maria had with the Bishop,” Bob said.

“It was,” Father John agreed.

“Is he going to allow Maria to serve as a deacon?” Bob asked.

“I’m not sure but I think so,” Father John replied.

“You did act as a third position,” Bob observed.

“Yes, I suppose I did,” Father John agreed. “It is a very different role from being a contender, my usual role. This time the triangle turned and I found myself in the role of the transcendent neutral catalyst. I had influence. If the Bishop did not accept Maria our parish would be without a deacon. And with the shortage of clergy the parish and the church would suffer because I could and would have chosen not to nominate anyone else. So the Bishop had to consider my voice, as did Maria, who would not have been there without me. So we had three equally strong voices in that conversation. Maria, the voice of change, and the Bishop, the voice of status quo, were the opponents on the line and I was the transcendent third position above the line, a new role for me. I spoke for a spiritual value beyond power.”

“There was a lot said in that conversation,” Bob said. “The Bishop is obviously well-read. I just read Barabási’s book Linked and it sounds as if the Bishop did too.”

“I don’t know what he read but he was sure pushing physics,” Father John said.

“Well the church is like any network. Barabási defines communities as networks and then he offers the laws of network.  There is the phase transition law of when a node becomes a hub. There is the law of attraction that he mentioned that requires that a hub attract a critical mass of links in order to be a hub. And there is the 80/20 law.”

“Yeah,” Father John said. “He kept talking about the 80/20 law. It gave me the creeps. That stuff about the poor ye shall always have with us. I won’t stand for that.”

“Well he and Maria did a good job of arguing that out,” Bob observed. “The Bishop stated the problem correctly. Communities and networks tend to have too many voices that are not heard from. That’s the 80%. Then he and Maria talked about why this is so. One reason is that people are members of several communities. They don’t aspire to power in all of them. Another is that some people would rather avoid power roles. They prefer to observe from the margins and comment. This is, for example, the role of the artist in a community. A third is that people have times in their lives when they want to compete for power positions in their communities and times where they would prefer to stay in the background.

“Then Maria made that great point about the quality of power. Coercive power that comes from fear is power that is intrinsically flawed and corrupt. Where power that comes from passion and inclusion is legitimate power and you wrapped it up by reminding both the Bishop and Maria that there are other important values beyond power. You made what was invisible to both of them visible. And that changed the whole tone of the dialogue and helped them see where they agreed and how each might support the other. That’s the third position at work.

“My next step,” Father John said, “After Maria becomes Deacon Maria is to get out of her way and make sure there is room on the stage for Maria’s voice to be heard.”

“That makes sense to me,” Bob said.

Father John Series #5

Chapter 5

Father John: How to Use the Third Position in Mediation

Father John bounced a soccer ball as he approached Bob’s office. When he got to Bob’s open office door, there was no uncluttered space of the floor for a ball to bounce. There was no chair available with an empty seat. Everything was covered with files books and journals.

Bob’s office was empty. Empty is not the right word. The office was its usual cluttered state. The only spots clear of debris were Bob’s desk chair, a semi-circle on the floor around the chair and Bob’s desk. Empty in this case means without Bob.

            Father John stood there waiting for Bob because he wasn’t sure if he did clear a chair for himself, which chair he could empty or where to put what. Shortly he heard a shuffling noise in the suite reception area. He looked and saw Bob walking with a cane, shuffling his feet forward in very small jerky steps.

“Bob what’s wrong,” Father John said.

            “Nothing out the ordinary,” Bob said. “My medicine hasn’t kicked in yet.”

            “Are you sure you are okay?” Father John asked. “I’ve never seen you like this.”

            “Yes and no,” Bob said. “My mind works, but my body doesn’t. I have Parkinson’s disease. When my dopamine gets low my muscles freeze and I walk like this. I just took my medicine so in about twenty minutes or so I will be able to move again. What’s with the soccer ball?”

            “It represents this week’s failure,” Father John said.

            “What are you talking about?” Bob asked.

            “I’m talking about the two gangs I have in my parish,” Father John said. “They are having a war over our church. While our new church is being built we meet in a large warehouse. This is a very adaptable space. It has good ventilation. We installed fans hanging from the ceiling and we have large fans near the roof at each end of the building. In the winter we close it up and bring in industrial butane heaters. It’s not fancy, but it is comfortable most of the year.”

            “So how did your church become the prize in a gang war?” Bob asked.

            “There are two predominantly Catholic ethnic groups in our neighborhood,” Father John explained. “One is Laotian and the other is Hispanic. Both groups are poor. In both groups, the parents often work two, sometimes three jobs. The children of these families are searching for an identity in a world where their parents have no power, a world their parents don’t understand and a world where they do not fit. Naturally these children look to each other. Their mentors are their peers. Their ages range from twelve to seventeen. At seventeen they start working and they start a family and they don’t have time for groups. These are young teenagers. They bond together in gangs and they sometimes have the good sense of a loyal bulldog with no master at home.”

            “What does this have to do with your church?” Bob asked.

            “Look whose being impatient with theory,” Father John observed. “Well gangs mark the boundaries of their territory with their gang symbol. You’ve heard of gangs tagging buildings?”

            “No,” Bob confessed. “I haven’t.”

            “A tag is a spray painted symbol,” Father John said. “You’ve seen them painted on interstate bridges and on the walls of buildings. This has become such a nuisance that the Tennessee legislature had to pass a law requiring storeowners check ID’s and sell spray paint only to people over twenty-one.”

            “Yes, I’m the one getting impatient,” Bob admitted. “What does this have to do with your church and with that soccer ball?”

            “Both gangs have tagged my church as their territory,” Father John said. “I came out of church one night to see two lines of boys facing each other with broken bottles, pipes and knives. Before I knew what I was doing, I found myself standing between them as they cursed each other.”

            “Oh my God,” Bob said. “How awful to be the prize in a fight.”

            “Well it has an upside,” Father John said.

            “What’s that?” Bob asked.

            “I’ll get to that,” Father John said. “Let me tell the story.”

            “Sorry,” Bob said. “Go on.”

            “So I proposed they settle this a different way,” Father John said. “I challenged them to a soccer match.”

            “That sounds like a good idea.”

            “Well it wasn’t,” Father John said. “Oh grandmaster of the third position. You should know you don’t solve a problem with a winner and a loser.”

            “So it didn’t work?” Bob wondered.

            “No,” Father John said. “They came to the soccer field the next Saturday at Church of the Holy Mother, as I asked. I was the referee. The game began. The Laotian gang called themselves ‘the Tigers’ and the Hispanic team named themselves ‘the Bandits.’ There are many fewer Laotian than Hispanic kids. The Tigers had less players to substitute and they got tired. So the Bandit’s were up three goals early in the game. It was obvious the Tigers weren’t going to win. Just before half a Bandit committed a hard foul against a Tiger. Suddenly the Tigers were all armed with knives. The curses began and the game was over. I barely got them to leave the field of play.

            “Later I talked to Lin Chi, one of the Tigers. He said, ‘we claim the church as our territory. We are Catholics just as much as they are. Our parents go to this church. We want to come to church with our families on Easter and Christmas. If the Bandits are there we will fight. That would upset our parents and you. You have been good to our families. You came to the hospital to visit my grandmother. You helped me get out of jail. I trust you, father. We all do. We don’t want to start a riot in church. So we don’t come. But we won’t give up the church to Bandits.’

            “Then I talked to Carlos a leader of the Bandits. His story was pretty much the same. The Bandits wanted to be a part of the church community. They saw the church as belonging to them.”

            “That is quite a compliment,” Bob said. “It says a lot about your good work.”

            “Yes, my good work,” Father John said mocking himself. “You haven’t heard the rest of the story. So then I got the idea I would get them together and talk. I thought if they understood what the church meant to each of them that they could negotiate a peace. That didn’t work. I got them together, but the rage was so strong that no reasonable, constructive words were spoken. Then I separated them and I thought I would be their mediator. I asked them each to make a proposal. Then I would shuttle back and forth explaining the merits of the Tiger’s proposal to the Bandits and vice versa.”

            “Did that work?” Bob asked.

            “No,” Father John said. “Each side made some reasonable proposals, but each side viewed compromise as a show of weakness. To maintain their pride they had to reject the other’s proposal. Nothing was accomplished. They left just as angry as when they arrived. All I did was add another chapter to their angry legacy. I have nothing to be proud of. Here I have children wanting to find a way to be a part of my church. That’s a good thing. And I can’t create a way for them to do that.”

            “Well,” Bob said. “I don’t think you have to give up just yet. Mediation is something that every community psychologist should be trained to do. It should be a part of the training programs.”

            “This sounds like you have an ax to grind,” Father John commented.

            “I do,” Bob said.

            “Most programs ignore this skill.”

            “It’s perfect for the third position,” Father John said.

            “Yes it is,” Bob said, “and that’s where you made your mistakes with these young people. You didn’t create yourself as a strong third position but I’m not a trained mediator. All I know is that mediation and the third position have a lot in common. I have this friend, Marietta Shipley. She is the Judge of Second Circuit Court in Davidson County. She started mediation in Tennessee. She helped write the law that made mediation mandatory in divorces in Tennessee. Let’s meet with her next time and see if she can help you. I wish it was as easy as taking medicine and waiting twenty minutes.”

            Bob stood up and turned around in a circle with complete balance and ease of movement, with no evidence of shuffling and frozen muscles. (Of course the circle was the only clear place on the floor to move).

            “See I’m better,” Bob said. “The medicine is working now.”

            The next week Father John came into Bob’s office to find the same cluttered office and Bob sitting and talking with a strikingly dressed tall woman with short blonde hair. He knew this must be Judge Shipley. She smiled at him warmly. They were introduced. Father John retold the story of his failed mediation.

            Marietta responded, “You haven’t failed. You have just begun. Let’s look at the things you did well. You established yourself as a true neutral. You don’t want anyone to lose. Both parties seem to trust you. Both parties want your approval. You represent a third entity, the church. You can talk to both sides. They will come to your table. You are a legitimate player, but you are not a contender.”

            “Yes,” Father John said. “I suppose you are right.”

            “Most contests have opponents like yours,” Marietta said. “Their egos are fragile. They are terrified of losing. Their pride won’t let them compromise. They don’t trust anything that comes out of the mouth of their opponent.”

            “That’s sure the case here,” Father John said.

            “But they do trust you,” Marietta said. “You have no stake in this. Your ego is not on the line. You are strong enough to be criticized or to have them reject your ideas. You can’t just be a messenger boy carrying messages back and forth. You can’t let them be the author of a proposal. Then you simply have another winner and another loser. You must offer a proposal to each party that reflects their values and interests. Then let them criticize your ideas. You can use their criticisms to develop a contract. They can agree with you even though they can’t agree with one another. If they do agree with you, then they find themselves bound to an agreement with one another.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “The third position has to take a position.”

            “That’s right,” Marietta said. “I see you have been talking to Bob. Yes, a mediator is a third position, but not just an empty third position.”

            “You said what I did right,” Father John commented. “What did I do wrong?”

            “Normally with families,” Marietta began. “We work with parents together. This is because there is some history of goodwill and because they have future problems they must solve together. But here you are working with two groups that have no positive history. This is like working with the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland or the Jews and the Palestinians in Israel. When one works with groups like these, the first goal is to establish safe boundaries. When this is your context and boundaries are the problem, you don’t put the groups in the same room.”

            “So that was my first mistake,” Father John said.

            “Yes,” Marietta agreed. “Your second mistake was not designating who the negotiating representatives would be. You can’t negotiate with fifty people representing one side. You must work with only one representative. You should be sure that the parties will be bound by their representative’s commitments.”

“So that was my second mistake,” Father John said. “I should have required each side to designate their negotiating representatives.”

            “Yes,” Marietta concurred. “You got it.”

            “So these are the things I should not have done,” Father John said. “I should not have put the two sides together and I should not have tried to negotiate with the members. I should have worked with their leaders. Now if I try this again what should I do?”

            “You have enough sense of their positions now I think to make a proposal of your own,” Marietta said. “So begin by presenting a draft proposal. Write it down. Do not give it to either side. Be sure they see and understand it is not a finished agreement. It is only a draft and only a proposal. Do not ask for a solution from the parties. It locks them into that one position. They take ownership of that option. It makes it difficult for them to consider any other. And it makes it easy for the other side to look strong by rejecting that option. Then you meet with each side separately and present your proposal.”

            “Why should I present my ideas?” Father John asked. “Shouldn’t I listen to their ideas and use them? I thought I was to be neutral.”

            “Neutral doesn’t mean empty,” Marietta said. “It merely means you do not care whether anyone likes your ideas or agrees with you. It means that you have no coercive power nor any vested interest in the outcome, other than peace. Why don’t you go back to the parties, have them designate their negotiator, present them with a draft proposal and ask them to criticize it and evaluate it. You and I will meet again in two weeks and see how you are doing.”

            “Fine by me,” Father John said.

            At the meeting in Bob’s office one week later Father John reported his progress. “Both sides loved laughing at me. You were right they loved being critical of my ideas. I presented my draft proposal. It was to stop all fighting and tagging. That’s when they began to laugh. Both sides thought that was ridiculous. After they finished their jokes at my expense, perhaps they felt sorry for me. I’m not sure, but they opened up and told me what they really wanted. They would not stop fighting. Their identities were formed by being against each other. That idea was much too grandiose on my part. They wanted to come to church with their parents, not often, but sometimes, maybe Easter and Christmas or for a baby christening. Both sides wanted the church to belong to them. I took notes of all their points. Occasionally I would try to confront them about their expectations. This always lead to cursing, posturing and threats. I’m not sure what to do next. Neither side seems flexible and they both want the same thing.”

            “You’ve done some good things here,” Marietta said. “And you’ve made some mistakes that you can fix.”

            “Start with the good things,” Bob said.

            “Well you presented your ego as a target,” Marietta began. “Letting them laugh and criticize you opened them up to tell you their real agenda. That was one thing you did well. Another is that you listened and took careful notes. That now has you in a good position to draft your next proposal.”

            “Yes,” Father John said. “But I don’t know what to propose?”

            “We will get to that,” Marietta said, “What to propose next is not as important as continuing the process. That you are doing. The parties are engaged and the process is on-going.”

            “So what could I have done differently?” Father John asked. “I feel like both sides are so entrenched in their tough guy ‘take no prisoners’ posture.”

            “That’s how it appears,” Marietta said, “but a posture is just that. It is for show and postures can change. What you did wrong was that you provoked the posturing by confronting them with their unreasonable expectations.”

            “But I felt I had to be honest with them,” Father John said. “I don’t want to lead them to believe I can deliver a deal when I cannot.”

            “You are not delivering a deal yet,” Marietta said. “Right now you are simply stirring the pot of creativity. You are generating ideas, hoping as you begin to think creatively that they will join you. Raising objections to things they want will stifle this creative process. Right now all ideas, all wants, all agendas are worth considering. Don’t try to get concessions at this stage. Mediating in the third position, as Bob would say, is not about your power to produce change or deliver a deal. It is about creating an atmosphere where people see opportunities for change. Don’t ask challenging questions that will allow them to look strong by saying, “No.” A proposal from you doesn’t require that either side concede to the other. No one will be required to consent or commit to anything until the end.”

            “Oh,” Father John said, “That’s a good idea. I should have said that.”

            “Yes,” Marietta said. “I should have told you that earlier. No concessions or agreements until the end is an important guideline to make clear at the beginning. But you have not lost your parties’ interest. You can still put this guideline in place.”

            “Okay,” Father John said. “But what do I say in my next draft proposal?”

            “Notice how alike both sides are,” Marietta said.

            “Yes,” Father John said. “I see that. They both have the same emotions, the same poses, the same curses. They even want the same things.”

            “And much of what they want is very reasonable,” Marietta observed. “They want to go to church with their families.”

            “Yes, but if they show up at church at the same time they will try to kill each other,” Father John said, “We can’t have a church service in the middle of a gang war.”

            “I don’t see what the Bandits have to gain through mediation. They are the dominant group. They have more members. They will win in a fight and eventually take over the territory. How are you going to get them to talk?” Bob asked.

            “I don’t know,” Father John said.

            “For two reasons,” Marietta said. “One is to please you and their parents. The second is that they may win a few battles, but they will drive their enemy underground. Under cover of darkness their enemy can do great damage. Winning battles won’t bring peace. Peace and stability is good for everybody.”

            “I have gotten them to agree to mediate,” Father John said.

            “How did you do that?” Bob asked.

            “Two things happened that got them to the table,” Father John answered. “The first is that the Tigers stopped tagging. They carried on their warfare on a different level, like Marietta said. Since they were smaller numbers and they did not live in just one separate part of the neighborhood, they figured out that they could never maintain their tags. The Bandits could paint over them faster than they could paint them.

            “What the Tigers did was revert to Southeast Asian guerilla tactics. They attacked in secret. They did damage when no one could see them. They keyed the Bandits cars. They slashed bicycle tires. They stole tools from the Bandits that were old enough to work. They were good enough at these guerilla tactics that they were able to leave evidence pointing to another Bandit. (Father John knew of this because he heard the confessions of some of the Tiger recruits who had to commit some of these crimes as initiation into the gang.)

            “The second thing that happened was a tragedy. There was a wild horrible night of shootings. The Bandits shot into the homes of the Tigers. The Tigers shot back into the homes of the Bandits.  No Bandit or Tigers were hurt, but four children died. Three were Hispanic and one was Laotian.

            “At the funerals I talked to the gang leaders. I asked if they would come with their members to a memorial service for the loved ones who died. I held separate services for each gang. At each meeting I showed them the movie Westside Story. I used their grief at the loss of these children. I told the Bandits that they will turn their enemies into guerilla warriors that they cannot see to fight and that peace is the only thing that will bring jobs and opportunity to this neighborhood. They seemed ready to hear this. They agreed to mediate.”

            “So what do I do?” Father John asked.

            “The first thing a mediator does,” Marietta instructed, “is to enlarge the pie. For parents with children, they simply introduce the notion of taking turns to their fighting siblings. This gives everybody a chance to play. Expanding time from now to into the future enlarges the alternatives and expands your options. But I’m not sure how you can take turns with Christmas and Easter.”

            “Oh that’s easy,” Father John said. “We have several masses every holiday. In fact we have three masses every weekend, one Saturday night, one early Sunday morning and one at 11:00 AM Sunday morning.”

            “There you have a pie that you can expand,” Marietta said. “That’s the mediator’s gift. People locked in a disagreement are like two gear cogs in a transmission that are meeting teeth against teeth. They don’t see that if they move just a little bit that the teeth of one will fit inside the other and that they can work together. Here both sides want the same thing. If you can get each side to recognize these wants in each other as legitimate, then get them to move just a bit to accommodate one another, things can fall into place for both sides.”

            “I will try that,” Father John said. “Can we meet again in one week?”

            “Sure,” Bob and Marietta concurred.

            When they reconvened one week later, Father John reported progress. “I got them to consider taking turns. The Bandits like thinking of the church as their territory on Saturday night, because they can be out of church by 8:30 or 9:00 PM and back with their gang for gang business and fun. The Tigers liked thinking of the church as belonging to them early Sunday morning. They would only be coming to church on special days and they could get up with their families for those times.”

            “That sounds like you have a deal,” Bob said.

            “I’m close,” Father John admitted, “but I have a problem with them thinking of the church as belonging to them. And I’m not sure what to do about that. After they seemed to agree that they might take different times, the tagging of the building resumed. I go out and paint over the tag of one side and then the tag of the other side appears. I paint over that and a tag appears the next day. I want that to stop. I’m supposed to be neutral but I have my own agenda with who the church belongs to.”

            “You do,” Marietta agreed. “This tagging though is not about one side winning and the other losing. You have to frame it for them so that they are not making a concession to the other side. That is how they are thinking about it now. Conceding a point, losing a position is not something people want to appear to be doing.”

            “So what do I do?” Father John asked.

            “Reframe the issue of territory,” Marietta said. “So that neither side loses. Give them a principle that they can embrace instead of something to which they must concede. The church belongs to God might be an example.”

            “I was thinking about the church being considered like Switzerland,” Bob said.

            “It is about keeping you as a neutral, like Switzerland,” Marietta agreed. “They need a place that neither of them owns. It is not a concession to the other. It is a concession to God and to you and to having a third position that they both respect. Your position needs its own territory. That is a principle that they might embrace.”

            “I’ll put that in my next draft,” Father John said. “I think we are getting close to an agreement. Can we meet once more in one week?”

            “Sure,” Bob and Marietta agreed.

When they met again Father John handed Bob and Marietta a two page document on the stationary of the Church of the Holy Mother.

“This is it,” Father John said. “I have a signed agreement.”

Bob and Marietta turned to the last page noting the signatures.

“You don’t have to read it,” Father John said. “You know what it says. It says, ‘The Church of the Holy Mother is neutral turf. No member of the Bandits and no member of the Tigers will ever come to the church with a weapon. There will be no territorial tags on the church building. Only the signs of Jesus and the Christian faith will decorate the church. The church belongs to Jesus.

            ‘The Bandits will come to church as a group with their families for Saturday night mass. The Tigers will come to church as a group with their families on Sunday morning early mass. Individual Tigers and Bandits may come to church for the Sunday 11:00 AM mass.

            ‘On church holidays the Tigers and the Bandits will treat the church in the same manner that they treat the Sunday 11:00 AM mass. They will come as individual worshippers of Jesus and not as a member of their gang.’”

            “I see a lot of signatures here,” Bob observed. “Did all the gang members sign the agreement?”

            “Yes,” Father John said. “We had a signing ceremony at the church. I personally called as many of the parents as I knew to invite them too. A few parents came.”

            “That’s great,” Marietta said looking over the document.

            “Yes,” Father John answered. “And I am also excited about what happened the next day after the signing. Lin Chi came to see me with two other members of the Tigers. ‘We want to play soccer again,’ Lin Chi said to me. ‘Why would I agree to that when last time you all pulled out knives? Someone could have gotten hurt.’ I answered.

            ‘We won’t bring knives.’

            ‘Or other weapons?’ I asked.

            ‘No, the soccer field will be like Switzerland and like Church for us. We want to play soccer.’ So I am refereeing a soccer game this weekend. I asked the police to come and watch. They agreed they would have a couple of policemen there at the game. If this works I plan to take the best players from both teams and form an all-star team to play in the Catholic soccer league.”

            “You stuck with it,” Bob said. “You didn’t fail.”

            “The third position, you and Marietta, rescued me,” Father John said. “Thank you.”

            “What you did took a lot of work and patience,” Bob said. “I wish working with people was like taking a pill to unfreeze my body. But it is not. It takes time and patience.

            “I need some help with my yard,” Marietta said. “Do you have any parishioners who might want this work?”

            “Sure,” Father John said. “I will give you a phone number for Miguel. He can help you.”

Father John Series #6

Chapter 6

Father John: Discovering Power in the Third Position

When father John approached Bob’s office he could hear Bob talking on the phone. He peered in the door. When Bob saw him, Bob motioned him to a seat. He kept talking, saying his oft used phrase, ‘very interesting…very interesting…very interesting,’ while he scurried about to clear a path to the chair pointed out to Father John. Bob cleared the path, all the while using his ‘very interesting’ phrase on the phone, (which means that he is trying to be positive, avoid conflict and make no commitments). He interrupted his phone conversation saying to the person on the other end, ‘excuse me for a moment.’ He put his hand over the bottom of the phone and said to Father John, “I can see you don’t know where to sit. Move that pile and put it on top of this pile,” Bob pointed to a pile in another chair.

As Father John began this task, Bob corrected him. “No, not directly on top. Turn your stack ninety degrees so that I can keep the two stacks separate.” Bob ended his phone conversation then as Father John completed his task. Bob said, “Now let’s sit down and talk. What’s up with you this week?” Bob began.

            “I live in an apartment house with inside entrances and long halls,” Father John said. “There are many Spanish-speaking tenants in my building. One night I hear noise down the hall, yelling and shouting, things breaking. I try not to think about it. Then I hear a small tapping on my door. I go to the door and there is four-year-old Pedro. He has blood on his hands and on his shirt that is now on my door. I immediately check to see if and where he is bleeding, while he yells ‘andellé andellé’ and tries to pull me down the hall. He is not bleeding anywhere that I can see. I go down the hall. The door to his apartment is open. His mother, Carlotta, is lying on the floor, unconscious blood coming out her nose and mouth. She is breathing, but I can’t wake her. I call 911 and I clean the blood off her face. The fire trucks, ambulance and police come. They take her unconscious to the hospital. I ask a neighbor to take care of Pedro and I follow along in my car behind the ambulance to the hospital.

            “When she comes to I’m there along with a doctor who is tending to her mouth and nose. Carlotta’s nose is broken and she has some loose teeth in the front of her mouth. She tells me in Spanish that her husband, Juan, beat her and left. When I tell the police, they swear out a warrant for his arrest. Carlotta protested, ‘No arrest Juan, No arrest Juan.’

            “The police can’t find Juan to arrest him. He comes to see me the next day and asks me what to do. I tell him he has to turn himself in, that the police told me he could get a bond for $500 and a bondsman would post his bail. Then he would have to appear in court the next week. I went with him to the jail. He posted bond. Later the next week I went with him to court. They sentenced him to eleven months, 29 days or probation if he attended a program for batterers.

“The social worker with the victim witness program recognized me and asked if I would start a batterers program for Spanish speaking people at our church. I told her I would consider it. In the meantime I went with Juan to Nashville’s English version of a batterers’ program. I went with Juan to support him and to see for myself the English version of the program I was asked to sponsor at my church. I was not impressed by what I saw.”

            “What was that?” Bob asked.

            “The men, all the participants were men, they seemed to have their heads hanging,” Father John observed. “The presenter seemed to be talking down to them, treating them as if they were bad children. I just didn’t like the way it felt there. I can’t imagine that this would help anybody. I asked Juan how he felt after one of these groups and he said he felt ashamed. I can’t see how shame will heal or help Juan or any of the others.”

            “I have a former student who ran a batterers program for a time,” Bob said. “I will invite him to come and talk with us next time. His name is David McMillan. He is a lot like you. He has strong opinions and has a lot of salt in his language. I think he would know how to advise you.”

            “I would like to meet him.”

            The next week Father John arrived at Bob’s office to find Bob talking and laughing with this bald sixty-year-old man dressed like a pro golfer, sweater, golf shirt, dress pants and shoes and suede Ben Hogan cap. He had an air of arrogance about him, but he had a good laugh and a big smile. The introductions were made.

            “This is David McMillan, Mr. Sense of Community,” Bob said.

            “Yes, I have a theory,” David said. “Give me three facts and I’ll give you a theory McMillan. That’s me.”

            “Watch out,” Bob said, “Father John is not a great fan of academic theory.”

            “Me either,” David said. “Sorry. I won’t bore you with mine. So Bob tells me you want to start a Spanish speaking batterers program and you weren’t sure you liked what you saw in Nashville’s version of one of those.”

            “That’s right,” Father John said.

            “Can’t say as I blame you,” David said in a southern accent. Father John was uncertain about the spirit David brought with him. He could be a ‘good ole boy’ or an ‘uptight banker.’ Father John wasn’t sure which. David continued. “I ran a batterer’s program for five years. Our program worked. The Duluth model doesn’t.”

            “What’s the Duluth model?” Father John asked.

            “It’s a program developed in Duluth, Minnesota,” David answered. “It quickly spread to become the national model for batterers programs. It is the model the Nashville Batterers programs use. It doesn’t work.”

            “Tell Father John how you developed your program,” Bob said.

            “I think you know my wife, Marietta Shipley,” David began. “She is a Davidson County Circuit Judge. In her work with divorcing families she came across several families where the husband went to the batterers program one night and came straight home afterwards and beat his wife. She couldn’t imagine that this would be the result of effective treatment. She asked me to develop a better program. The D.A. that prosecuted batterers gave me a copy of Adele Harrell’s research on the Duluth model.”

            “What did Harrell find?” Father John asked.

            “Just what you and Marietta observed,” David said. “The Duluth model doesn’t work. She found that only 50% of those who attended completed the Duluth Model programs. Of those that graduated 90% continued battering. To Harrell it seemed that treatment did not help. I called her and talked to her and she admitted she thought the treatment actually may do more harm than good. I asked her if she knew of a good treatment model and she told me about a fellow in the D.C. area named Steven Stosny. She thought he had a good program.”

            “Who is Steven Stosny?” Bob asked.

            “Turns out,” David answered, “he is a Catholic social worker. His primary job is his work at the psychiatric hospital for Catholic priests in Washington, D.C. He is in charge of the program for sexually abusing priests.”

            “I wonder if that program works?” Father John asked.

            “He says it does,” David answered, “but a lot of abusing priests are transferred out of one parish to another, instead of being referred to him for treatment. This is a way that the church blames the victim, assuming that once the predator priest is away from its prey that the problem will be solved. But, for the priests that come to Stosny for treatment, he claims he has a very high success rate.

            “And the researchers who studied his batterers program found it to be very effective as well. He graduates 75% of his participants. Only 10% of those reoffended within a year. This is a stark contrast to the 90% of the Duluth Model graduates reoffending within one year.”

            “Stosny’s model does sound promising,” Father John said. “I wonder why the Duluth Model doesn’t work?”

            “Here’s how Stosny explained it to me,” David answered. “He said: 'Of course the Duluth Model doesn’t work. Like you, I was asked if I could help with a batterers program. I went to the first session and I heard the therapist say this:

‘You are a man. We live in a patriarchy. Men create the violence in this society. Men cause the problem. You are the problem. If we are to stop violence in this country you must change.’

            '‘These were the first words these men met when they walked into the room and it’s the same every session. The Duluth Model program doesn’t teach a skill. It doesn’t have a first session that is built on by a second session and so on. It takes in new people in each session. How can a program teach anything when it has to deal with beginners in each session?

            "‘The Duluth Model is not treatment. It is a course in sociological research that is designed to humiliate men. You don’t treat anyone by starting with shame. Shame is what anger attempts to cover up. The more you shame someone, the more anger you add. Of course, men come home after a Duluth Model program and beat their wives. And the program organizers blame the men for the ineptness of their program. Domestic violence shelters advocate divorce, but the wives stay in the violent marriage in spite of their counseling.’”

            “Did the women in your program use the Domestic Violence Shelters?” Father John asked.

            “Sometimes,” David said. “They get the same advice as the wives of Stosny’s batterers ‘Leave the son-of-a-bitch.’ But they rarely do. This is why our program treats the families and not just the batterers. I see it as a system’s problem. We had a great deal of success.”

            “So why did you stop?” Bob asked.

            “The D.A. changed,” David said. “The new D.A. liked the Duluth Model. She was against having a program that has husbands and wives together, because that’s not how the Duluth Model does it.

            “The Courts and the probation officers were hostile to us. We called our program ‘Compose’. They make fun of our program and called it ‘Compost’.”

            “Why didn’t you do some research?” Bob asked.“Because who would believe our data?” David answered. “The D.A.’s office did a small study comparing our program with the Duluth Model program. They found ours to be slightly better. They compared twenty people from each program. However, in the sample of the twenty from Compose they included four re-offenders who were referred to our program that never came.”

            “I never really understood what we were doing wrong,” David said. “They say that by treating families we are using a systems model that blames the victim. That makes no sense to me.”

            “It does to me,” Bob said. “You have run afoul of the 70’s feminist view of family therapy. There once was general agreement among feminist-therapists that family therapy in abuse cases tended to blame the victim. That is beginning to change. There are some dissenting feminist therapists emerging. But apparently your D.A. and the probation officers were not among those.”

            “What are you talking about?” Father John asked.

            “Well as you might have guessed, this relates to the third position,” Bob said.

            “Give a guy a hammer and he will use it on everything,” Father John said sarcastically.

            “Well see if you think it applies here,” Bob said. “There are three major theories in community psychology. One is David’s Sense of Community theory; another is Rappaport’s Empowerment Theory and the third is Jim Kelly’s ecological theory of community. And I think my Third Position is coming on to the stage as a fourth. I have always had a problem with empowerment being the dominant theme in the field. And I am proceeding carefully.”

            “Why so careful?” Father John asked.

            “Well I knew what I had to say didn’t square with the politically correct thinking of the day,” Bob said. “And in Community Psychology we are in a very politically correct world. My thoughts will be considered subversive to the main thrust of the discipline. I have agreed with Community Psychology’s primary direction with the development of the whole community. I wanted to be over prepared and I am conflict avoidant.”

            “What does this have to do with the Compose program?” David asked.

            “You were trying to change a family,” Bob said. “And perhaps a culture. The dominant feminist view is represented by Bill Ryan’s book, Blaming the Victim. Batterers and their victims became a major source of debate in the empowerment movement. The two polarities in the debate were family systems theory versus feminism. The polarity of family systems theory tended to look at family violence as a systems problem. They would take on the role of objective neutral and attempt to find the contributions that each part of the system made to the problem. This meant that all parts of the system were to blame for the violence, even if only one person in the system perpetrated the violence. Rarely did a family therapist take the most extreme of this position. If they did systems theory would have them blame the mother and the children for some part of the father’s violence. This clearly was another version of blaming the victim.”

            “So how did Feminist therapists suggest we treat batterers? The Duluth Model that doesn’t work?” Father John asked.

            “Yes,” Bob said, “but you have to put this in context. As the other polarity in this debate women were rightly enraged by how they have been abused and disrespected for centuries. It was only in 1919 that women were seen as worthy of the vote. In the 1800’s women could not own property in some states. In 33 states men could force a woman to abort a pregnancy against her will. A woman’s property and her children were considered property of her husband. Marital rape was legal. In 1782 it was considered an advance in human treatment that a law in England was passed that stated that a husband should not beat his wife with a stick wider than his thumb. In Biblical times women were seen as property of men, because women were believed to be inferior to men. Even today men wield most of the power in our society. So it’s obvious that when men can shift the blame for their violent behavior onto women, they will. Feminist therapists believe that family systems therapy perpetrates this blaming the powerless, when it is the people with the power that should be held accountable. And that was the purpose of the Duluth Model. Though the Duluth Model is a poor treatment approach, the movement that established it did a great deal of good. Judges, prosecutors and police took domestic violence seriously. Feminist therapists helped increase our culture’s compassion for the victims of domestic violence. They created new terms that better conceptualized the consequences of violence toward women, for example, rape trauma syndrome and battered wife syndrome. They directly attacked hatred of women in the culture.”

            “I see,” Father John said. “Seeing women as objects to be used and owned is a form of hatred.”

            “Yes,” Bob agreed. “Feminists observed that in battering families, the male batterer was already blaming the wife and children for his behavior. Feminist therapists alleged family systems therapists simply aided and abetted the batterer’s justifications for behavior that could not be justified. In domestic violence there clearly were innocent victims. Systems theory included victims in the discussion of things that needed to change in the system. Often the male dominated legal system, piled on too, i.e., police and judges often tended to think, ‘she probably deserved it’ or ‘this is a private family matter, we should stay out of it.’”

            “It makes sense that we had to oppose this,” Father John said.

            “Yes,” David agreed. “And that’s what the Duluth Model did. It was like a course. In the first session it introduces what’s called a ‘power wheel.’ This is simply a demonstration that violence in our society is perpetuated by men; that we live in a patriarchal society and that the job of this treatment is to help these men (participants are usually all men) accept blame for their behavior and stop their violence.

            “Most participants in a Duluth Model program are court ordered. They have the choice of successfully completing the program or going to jail for 11 months and 29 days.

            “Various meetings and conventions around the country have promoted the Duluth Model. The attendees are prosecutors, court officers, victim rights advocates, and directors of Duluth Model programs. Generally the report on these Duluth model programs in the journals and at these conventions is that they are not effective. The explanation for this is that batterers cannot be changed. The apologists for the Duluth Model offer two reasons for this. First, batterers are not really interested in treatment. They just don’t want to go to jail. Second, batterers are personality disordered, ‘most are psychopaths’ and all therapists know that these people are some of the most difficult to treat. If a program were to be successful, it is often said that it would take two years. Usually courts only order batterers to attend weekly treatment sessions between six months and one year or less. So apologists of the Duluth model conclude, ‘no wonder our programs are not effective.’”

            “How is the Compose program different?” Father John asked David.

“It’s not about shame. It’s about compassion,” David answered.

            “That may be the problem you have with the D.A.’s and the courts,” Bob observed.

            “What do you mean?” Father John asked.

            “Courts are into punishment,” Bob said. “And David’s program may have been too kind.”

            “Well, we tried to be kind to everyone in our program,” David agreed. “Our philosophy was that we all have problems with anger. That compassion is anger’s antidote and that we need to give compassion to ourselves and everyone else. We demonstrated the good you do for yourself when you feel compassion. Compassion is like a drug it turns anger off and opens your heart to healing and connection.”

            “Now, I can see why the D.A.’s and courts wouldn’t like that,” Bob said.

            “But it works,” David said.

            “Yes, but right now no one is listening to that,” Bob said. “They are intent on punishing and protecting the victim.”

            “But shaming the batterer doesn’t protect the victim?” Father John said.

            “And that is the point of the third position,” Bob said.

            “What do you mean?” Father John said.

            “The problem rests in the issue of what is power and what does power have to do with blame, the victim role and accountability,” Bob said. “Most couple’s fights are about who is the innocent victim. The husband might say, ‘It’s me I am entitled to the innocent victim role because I just finished working overtime.’

            “‘The wife might say, ‘No, it’s me because I just finished one job to come home, cook supper and take care of the kids.’

            “They are fighting over the role of innocent victim because that role entitles them to the high moral ground. This entitled position then suggests they deserve to rest or to be angry or to get what they want.

            “In most of these fights over the innocent victim role, fault or blame is attributed to the opponent. ‘It’s their fault and if they change, everything would be okay.’ Each party often points the finger at the other. In violent families, most of the time, both parties engage in this dance. Psychological abuse often goes both ways. The male batterer constantly argues that the violence is her fault, that he is the real victim.

            “Often in the more extreme cases of domestic violence the woman agrees and blames herself. This way she can maintain a sense of control. If she is responsible, then she has the power. In her mind she has emotional strength to handle the blame, while her mate is like an infant that she must take care of. Given this perspective, it is like teaching a child to make her bed. Sometimes it is just easier to go on and make the bed yourself, rather than take the time to teach the child. Sometimes with her husband it’s just easier for the battered wife to accept the blame and accommodate, rather than challenge her husband to take responsibility for his feelings and behavior.

            “Infantilizing the perpetrator in this way is disrespectful. It enables him to avoid growing and learning. It nurtures and maintains the chaos. When she buys into his myth that his violence is her fault, there is no hope that he will ever get in control of his behavior. Yet, he is the only person who can really become responsible for his violence. She will never be able to stop it. Blaming herself enables the perpetrator to continue his violence.

            “This competition for the victim role disempowers all the players. The only clear innocent victim is a powerless child. This is what the adversaries are really claiming in their fight.

‘Poor me. I’m the powerless child and you are the strong adult who can cope with life, because I can’t. You can adapt and change because you have good sense and I don’t.’

            “When we point the blame at someone else, we say that they control us. They can change. They have the power to right our world. We don’t.”

            “I get it,” Father John said. “This means if we are defined as innocent victims, power belongs to someone else. But what if we say, ‘I’m sorry. My fault.’ What happens if we accept some responsibility?”

            “This means,” Bob said, “that we have power to do something about our lives. We can do something to change things. We are not victims. Accountability creates power.”

            “I agree,” Father John said.

            “Do you want to make the men who are already powerful and accountable more powerful?” Bob asked.

            “Yes and no,” David said. “We want to give the perpetrators more power by giving them more choices. Often violence is the only answer that they know to their pain. Other choices and more understanding of others gives them adult power, rather than destructive childish temper tantrums. So, in a way, yes, we want give more power to the batterer in the form of more coping strategies. And, no, we want the power balance in the relationship to change so that the victim has equal power.”

            “That’s why we have the women victims come to our program. It is not to blame them. It is to empower them. We want to teach them the skill of managing their anger as well. We want them to learn to have compassion for themselves first and then for others. We want them to hold themselves accountable for their anger and hold their husbands accountable for his.”

            “Isn’t this the point of Louis Farrakhan’s sermons?” Father John asked.

            “You mean the head of the separatist Islam African American movement?” Bob asked.

            “Yes, that’s who I mean,” Father John agreed. “He says when the white establishment is blamed, then they are given more power. He wants his own people to blame themselves to see what they can do to change and then to change.”

            “But what could the victim in your program do to be accountable?” Bob asked David.

            “She can contribute her story to the newspapers, magazines, television stations and legislative hearings,” David said. “She can have compassion for herself and be sure that it is safe to be with her husband before she recommits herself and her children to a violent marriage. She can control her anger and her participation in the psychological abuse in the marriage. And she can hold her violent husband accountable so that he can learn, change and grow. When the woman accepts all the blame by herself, she carries her water and she carries her husband’s too. She must make him carry his own water or it will weaken him, their family and perpetuate the violence.”

            “But doesn’t the wife often go back and accept the violence?” Father John asked.

            “Yes,” David said. “This often happens. Everybody has the responsibility to learn from their past, their pain and the pain of others. Accountability is the expectation that people will learn some new behaviors or skills from their mistakes.”

            “So you do want to blame the victims too?” Bob asked.

            “Yes,” David said. “We do. We want them to lose their halo of innocence, their helplessness and discover what they can do to change their lives. Yes, we think we should blame the batterers, because we think they need more power and more skills to be effective in life without resorting to violence. But victims of the violence need to learn things too. Perhaps what they have to learn is that they have resources; that they are valuable; that they can make better choices and that they shouldn’t protect their husbands from the consequences of his behavior. We surely do not want victims to remain helpless. They need to ask the questions: Where did they go wrong? What can they change? That is where they will discover power. Accountability should not be reserved for the perpetrator.”

            “This is how Mothers Against Drunk Drivers was born?” Bob said.

            “What’s that?” Father John asked.

            “It’s called MADD,” Bob answered. “They were organized around the accountability question: What can we do to see that this doesn’t happen again? The parents of victims of drunk drivers formed an organization and changed the drunk driving laws.”

            “But Bob,” Father John said. “This puts us back into treating the system.”

            “Yes,” Bob agreed. “We’ve come all the way back to that. We have talked about three positions where responsibility can be allocated. One is on the victim. The other is on the perpetrator. The third is on the system. When you add a skill like compassion to this triangle, then the debate changes from blaming to growing. Skill building makes accountability easier, because it is no longer about ‘Stop being who you are.’ It is about ‘Here, learn this and see if this works better.’

            “In the 1970’s we did not know what to do with violent families. All we had was the adolescent fault-finding that the Duluth Model embodies. When the system offers a skill to learn, then the batterer/victim polarity has a way to grow. The victim and the batterer need a third position to help them get beyond their cycle of violence. The system here provides that third position, but the system needs to offer skills to learn in addition to punishment.”

            “You are saying Everyone needs to change,” Father John observed, “that we need to treat the system so we can help the people in the system. Everyone needs to be challenged to grow. We all must be held accountable. No innocent victims.”

            “Yes,” Bob said. “That’s my point. Let me read you what a modern feminist therapist, Mary Jo Barrett, said. Here’s her book,” Bob reached over and pulled out a book from a stack and turned to an earmarked page.

            “What’s this book?” Father John asked.

            “It’s Constructing a Third Reality,” Bob said.

            “I might have guessed,” Father John said.

            “She is writing about reconciling families of incest victims,” Bob noted. “She said that she hoped to offer them and these now are her words, ‘something that would bypass the poisonous polemic on each side’ …to bring together families torn apart by incompatible and warring realities about the past in order to create a third more livable and peaceful reality for the future.’”

            “That would take a third position,” Father John observed.

            “Yes,” Bob said, “I think a third, active, transcendent position would” and he picked up the book again and read ‘help families get out of the quagmire of painful accusations and counteraccusations, blame and defense, contradictory memories and differing experiences that never would, nor even could be reconciled.’”

            “So how does this relate to power?” David asked.

            “When you teach skills as you do in Compose,” Bob said, “or hold everybody accountable so that we all have power, then power is not a zero sum game. It is not a scarce resource that we need to take from one person and give to another. It is something that can grow. Everyone can add to it. The system, the two adversaries all can become stronger, more effective and more powerful. All three can change, while two polarities alone often cannot. In a three position universe each position has work to do. The third position’s job is not just to be a parent allocating blame in a dispute with two children. The third position should offer a process for understanding and for decision-making. The process then becomes a tool that each polarity can use. With the tools learned from the third position, growth and change and skill building replace conflict and competition for the victim role.”

            “So the person in the role of the third position has to do more than simply be present?” Father John asked.

            “The role of the third position is not an easy one to play,” Bob said. “Sometimes being present and listening is a major contribution. At other times the third position needs to assert a value. At other times the third position must bring a transforming skill for the parties to learn.

            “Of course, if all a family therapist is doing is playing the role of a neutral parent between two misbehaving children and choosing where the blame falls between the two, that is inadequate treatment. It only perpetuates unproductive shaming and blaming. It empowers the therapist and disempowers the couple. It adds no new skills and keeps the couple’s pathological defense system in place. We agree with the basic tenets of the feminist position here. Such treatment is simply bad treatment.”

            “The third position’s contribution to the discussion of power is that we want everyone to carry their moral weight. We want to avoid creating innocent victims. We all have the responsibility to grow and change. We all have something we can do better. Martin Luther King was holding his people accountable when he said, ‘I know non-violence will work. We have to do it for our dignity. We have to do it for our self-respect.’ He was saying that even the oppressed have responsibilities. And that taking responsibility for our own behavior gives us dignity.”

             “That reminds me of a public service announcement for Tsunami victims,” David said. “George H. Bush, the first of the Bush presidents, and Bill Clinton appear together. George Bush says, ‘no on can change what has happened.’ Then Bill Clinton says, ‘but we can all change what happens next.’”

            “Yes, we are responsible for what we do next,” Father John said. “Blaming someone else and waiting for them to do right will never give us power. This reminds me of when I did Catholic Mission work in Africa for a year. I was in Blantyre, Malawi in Southern Africa. Everywhere I went there I saw evidence of the failure of our work. The metaphor for this failure was the large metal containers that were used as crates for heavy machinery. The tractors, bulldozers, trucks, front-end loaders had disappeared into metal parts used as counterweights in wells and steel filed into machete blades. What was left that was in fact useful were these giant metal boxes that housed people and animals.

            “We missionaries were on a personal power trip to save the African and bring modern culture to change their way of life. In Blantyre when I worked there in the 1970’s the community was a mixture of races: Italian sausage makers, Greek traders, Indian merchants, Sikhs, Gryartutis and Ismailis. When I went back to visit two years ago there were no racial differences. The other races fled for their lives. The only faces and voices that were not indigenous were white-faced, short-time do-gooders. They ran everything. Society there was in the hands of the charities. Giving away and taking care of was the only economy there. They, we, had turned the Malawians into whiners and beggars. We do-gooders never stopped to wonder how to hold these people accountable. How could they become part of the solution? We neutered them by seeing them as innocent victims.”

            “So what do you do here now?” Bob asked.

            “I want to use the Stosny version for our churches battering program,” Father John said. “I do not want to use the Duluth model.”

            “So, is that a problem?” Bob asked.

            “Well,” David answered for Father John, “the D.A. and the courts might not refer to his program.”

            “That’s right,” Father John said.

            “I see,” Bob said. “And I can’t make my ideas about power and accountability acceptable in the academic world right now.”

            “We all need the help of a third position,” David said. “Perhaps fate will provide one.”

            “Speaking of help,” Bob said, “I could use some help carrying trash bags to the dumpster outside. Can each of you grab one?”

            “You are throwing something away?” Father John asked mockingly.

            “I can’t believe it,” David chimed in.

            “Yes,” Bob answered. “It hurts me but I must part with some of my things: old correspondence, notes and memos. I will miss them.”

Father John Series #7

Chapter 7

Father John: Three Types of Community

Today Father John arrived at Bob’s office wearing a black suit and a clerical collar. As he walked in Bob’s office, Bob motioned him to the one seat, other than Bob’s, that was without a pile of papers.“How do you exist and get anything done working in the middle of all this debris?” Father John began.“I don’t think of it as debris,” Bob said. “It is not refuse to be thrown away. I think of myself as a nineteenth century newspaper man, like H. L. Menkin, who has everything he needs around him within arms reach on flat surfaces, floors, tables, desks, chairs, arranged in stacks. I know where everything is.”“This would not do for Sister Martha,” Father John said. “She is in charge of office files at the Nashville Diocese headquarters. She has a place for everything and everything is in its place.”“So do I,” Bob protested.“I will have to take your word for that,” Father John said.“I’ve never seen you dressed like that,” Bob observed, “What is this about?”“I’ve been asked to spend at least a month working in the central office of the diocese,” Father John said. “They are shorthanded after the death of the Bishop’s assistant. Sister Martha told me the first day that I had to dress like this if I was to work at the Diocese central office. The Bishop seems to think my parish needs me less than the other parishes need their priests, or he wants me to stop rousing my rabble or he wants to keep an eye on me.”“Or all the above,” Bob said. “The world is multi-determined.”“That’s right Mr. Three Positions,” Father John said. “There are at least three reasons for everything.”“So what do you want to talk about today?” Bob asked.“The Bishop has assigned me the responsibility to respond to a request from a militant right wing conservative Catholic group,” Father John said. “It is further to the right than Opus De is. You know that organization referred to in the book, The Davinci Code.”“What’s the request?” Bob asked.“They want to start a new Catholic school,” Father John answered. “They believe that Catholics from South America will immigrate into the United States and will have many children so that within the next 40 years the country will be over 50% Catholic. They want to prepare children to be part of a new Roman Catholic theocracy. They follow Pope Thomas X.* He thought all other religions were idolatry and that the Jews killed Jesus. He wanted the Catholic Church to become a world power. These people believe that creating a group of young people, educated in this philosophy, will prepare the Catholic Church to take over the government. They believe this will lead to making the United States of America the Kingdom of God, heaven on earth.”“This sounds crazy and dangerous,” Bob said.“It is,” Father John admitted. “It’s my mission to convince them that our current Catholic schools do a fine job educating and raising the children and that our plans for expansion of the Catholic schools in Nashville are adequate. I have to do this and not alienate them and see if we can attract their money to our schools.”“Is Pope Thomas X, a dead pope, really their leader?” Bob asked.“No,” Father John answered. “Their leader is an African American psychologist, John Fletcher. Race is the only thing they have an open mind about. Fletcher is further right than the black Oklahoma Congressman, J.C. Watts. They meet on Tuesday and Thursday morning after early mass. Their meeting usually consists of thirty-plus people. Fletcher gives a small talk about reinstituting confession in the church, protecting women, or going back to the Latin mass or preparing the next generation to build a Kingdom of God on earth. They have raised $200,000 for their new school and they already have pledges for one million more.”“And your job, given to you by the Bishop, is to basically talk them out of building a new school without losing their money.”“Yes,” Father John said. “And I hate this job. I am no polite diplomat. I think these people are idiots. I tend to say what I think. You know that.”“Yes I do,” Bob agreed.“And I hate working at the central office,” Father John said. “I hate working with the staff there. They are drones, experts with no personality. There is no laughter there. They are policy researchers, accountants, and keepers of lists. And Sister Martha, ‘Fill out this requisition if you want a pencil,’ ‘have your authorizations to use the car?’ ‘you can’t smoke in the building.’”“But you don’t smoke,” Bob said.“I know,” Father John said, “but it’s her constant nagging. She is the Bishop’s hatchet lady. I miss my parish, my cassock, my parishioners. Every day there I felt I could help someone. We laugh and we love each other. Juan needs a job. I call Diego and he gets him work. Maria needs a bus for a school trip. I call Roberto and he brings me two large vans. Our parish is like a family. I want to go back.”“Why don’t you?” Bob asked.“The Bishop’s orders,” Father John said. “I can’t go back until I get this problem solved.”“So what have you done to solve it?” Bob asked.“I started going to their meetings,” Father Johns said. “I haven’t said much. I go and I pray. Someone mentioned that John Fletcher meets with a planning committee. It costs $40,000 to be a member of that. I think this is where they got their $200,000. I stayed after a meeting one time to see if I could talk with Dr. Fletcher.“I approached him, introduced myself and I said, ‘I know a social worker and a psychiatrist who knew him.’ He replied, ‘It’s not who you know but what you believe’ and he starred intensely into my eyes as if staring into my soul. After an uncomfortable silence I said, ‘I am here organizing a new parish in the Nolensville Road area and I heard about this group and wanted to learn more.’ He said. ‘The world is our parish and we are about changing the world.’“I still didn’t know what to say or do. So I left. I think that’s how he works. He gets people off balance and takes a superior tone. Those that are insecure are then attracted to his confident, righteous pose. He gave me the creeps. I am really lost as to what to do next.”“You must understand the nature of the community that you are dealing with,” Bob said.“So there are different kinds of communities?” Father John asked innocently.“Yes,” Bob said. “There are three.”“I should have known,” Father John said. “Here we go again with the third position.”“Yes,” Bob admitted, “and no.”“What do you mean by that?” Father John said.“Well third position thinking would say,” Bob began, “that we cannot understand reality with only two categories. For a long time community psychology only had two types of community.”“What were they?” Father John asked.“They were gemeinschaft communities on one end,” Bob said, “and gesellschaft on the other.”“Oh God,” Father John exclaimed. “New big words and these are German words. What is it with you academics? Does it make you feel smarter to use big foreign words? Why can’t you find an English word?”“Okay,” Bob said. “I’ll use English words. But the reason we use German terms is because a German named Tonnies came up with this typology.”“I don’t give a damn about him Tonnies and his German typology,” Father John said. “What are the two types?”“Gemeinschaft or the theory of the village,” Bob began again.“English please,” Father John said.“Give me a break. I’ll get there,” Bob said. “Gemeinschaft is associated with rural tribal rooted-in-the-earth family oriented communities. So let’s call this type an organic community.”“That makes sense to me,” Father John said.“Gesellschaft is the theory of the city that refers to an urban, specialized technological, competitive, market-driven community. So let’s call this type a market community.”“Okay,” Father John said. “Market versus organic communities. What’s your third type?”“Well it’s important to note that no one has suggested a third type until now,” Bob said. “I have never been satisfied with just two categories, as you might imagine.”“Yes so what’s your third?” Father John said.“A colleague of mine found a third German word that ends in schaft,” Bob said.“Why can’t we use English?” Father John said. “I hate these big foreign words.”“That’s the academe and I’m it,” Bob said. “So you have to humor me. This third German word is gefolgschaft which means to obey or give one’s allegiance to. So a gefolgschaft community would be one with a charismatic leader with a mission.”“So give me an English word,” Father John said.“I think you might call this a mission community,” Bob said.“So then you have three types of communities,” Father John said. “One is the organic community the other is the market community and the third is the mission community.”“There you have passed the first part of the quiz,” Bob said.“So why should it matter which community I’m dealing with,” Bob said.“Because each one functions differently,” Bob said. “Each one serves a different purpose.”“It seems to me that the organic community would be the best one,” Father John opined.“That’s what most people say,” Bob acknowledged. “But that’s not necessarily so.”“Why isn’t that obvious?” Father John said.“Well let’s talk about the good things about an organic community,” Bob said. “This is a face to face world. Loyalty is the main value of this community. People govern, not laws. If you are a member, you have a place. The community takes care of its members. Whatever good fortune one member has is shared with others. Whatever pain one member has is shared as well. This conjures images of communal celebrations, e.g., church socials, weddings, Thanksgiving dinners and neighbors bringing food and drink to a wake. Such a community has clear boundaries and provides all its members with a sense of place and a sense of community.”“This all sounds good to me,” Father John said. “It’s like my parish and I love my parish. So what could be wrong with an organic community?”“Corruption is the primary problem,” Bob said. “Power, jobs, wealth, community roles all depend on who you know and where you came from. Power is connected to persons, not to an office. Wealth and status are inherited. If you are so and so’s son, you automatically have a job in the fire department. If a powerful man recommended you, then you get the job. This is why the mafia calls itself a family. The organic community justifies its corruption in the name of ‘the family.’ This is the world of the warlord, Western civilization before the Magna Carta, Somalia today and Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban.“In one small town in Arkansas during the 1930’s Depression the circuit court clerk choose the same thirty-six men for every jury panel for every case. One lawyer always won his cases in that county. Big verdicts were collected. The lawyer who won all his cases often ‘loaned’ money to the twelve men who sat on the jury for that trial. The loans were never repaid. Life in that small town was not about justice or fairness. It was about loyalty and who you knew. If you knew the clerk, you had a chance to be on the thirty-six-man jury panel. If you were loyal to the attorney, you could ‘borrow’ money that you never had to repay.”“I see,” Father John said. “If you don’t belong, you don’t count. That’s the problem that my people feel about being in the U.S.“So in my parish or any organic community the goal would be to keep its sense of community while holding doors open and giving opportunity to all comers. This is the job of all good churches.“So tell me what’s good about the market community? That type of community is impersonal and cold and uncaring to me as I imagine it.”“Well it can be,” Bob said. “And that would be one of the things its critics would say about it, but the best thing about a technological economy is that competency is king. This is not a face-to-face universe. It is a face to machine world. The machine doesn’t care who you are, only that you know how to make it work. The most qualified person gets the job. A successful market community cannot afford corruption. The market must be protected. The trading process must be open and transparent. Laws and procedures apply equally to everyone. Rules govern behavior not people. Power belongs to an office, not a person. Boundaries and rules are essential for order. There are clear job descriptions that define the limits of one’s power. Hard productive work is rewarded. Ideas that improve productivity are encouraged. Communication is free and open. Dissent is welcome. It is not about who you know. It’s about what you can do.”“Well that sounds much better than I thought,” Father John said. “So what’s the dark side of a market community?”“It can be cruel,” Bob said. “It is rigid and inflexible. In a market community it is about what you can do for me today. What you did yesterday no longer counts. It is bureaucratic. It has red tape. Decisions are made in a certain prescribed rule-based manner. Decisions take time. You are bound by precedents.”“This is beginning to sound like Sister Martha and the diocese central office,” Father John observed.“Yes,” Bob agreed. “I suppose it is. The diocese is about business. They run the whole Middle Tennessee church. They have to be a bureaucracy. They can’t play favorites.”“And Sister Martha fits perfectly in that world,” Father John said.“Yes,” Bob said, “I suspect she does.”“So the job of a good leader of a market community,” Father John said, “is to protect the process, of course, while at the same time developing compassion.”“Yes,” Bob said. “I think that’s an appropriate challenge to a market community.”“Yeah,” Father John said. “It’s to get Sister Martha to dance.”“Who knows,” Bob said. “Maybe back in her convent, an organic community, Sister Martha dances.”“So tell me about the mission community,” Father John said. “The gefolgschaft community.”“I’m amazed you remembered,” Bob said. “Well the mission community is often a spiritual or military community. It serves a higher purpose. This is not a face-to-face world or a face to machine universe. It is an idea-to-idea matched community. It answers the call of a prophet. It puts the prophet’s teachings into practice. These communities use the charismatic person as the organizing principle for the community. The leader often paints a picture of an emergency situation, often a life or death crisis. With a crisis mentality as a given and the mission community’s value as the answer, the leadership structure can quickly become autocratic.“Its purpose is to do good. It is organized around a certain value position. To be a member you must share the community’s values. Shared value is all that is required to belong. You do not have to know someone or be an expert. All you have to do is support the cause, and keep the faith. A mission community wants to change things. It appeals to what it believes to be the best human values. It wants to right wrongs.”“I think I can see the problems with this type of community,” Father John said.“Problems with mission communities are obvious,” Bob said. “Dissent is not tolerated. In fact dissent can be grounds for excommunication. Mission communities quickly can become personality cults. Often mission communities serve a small range of human values that marginalize its appeal and create extreme, sometimes dangerous positions. The cause can create an, ‘ends justify the means’ mentality. The mission can diminish the individual and encourage unreasonable personal sacrifice. Suicide bombings are examples of exploiting a member for the cause.”“So how can you help a mission community,” Father John said, “because that is obviously what John Fletcher is leading.”“Well,” Bob said. “The job here is to help members and leaders see the worthy values in the opposition. Help charismatic leaders be cautious with the power their charisma gives them. There should be some process for passing the authority to a new leader. Dissent within the community should be encouraged. Emergency myths should be discouraged.“The tension between the warlord king of the organic community and the priest of the church mission community was once the dominant theme in the history of the West. When the technological communities emerged, a third position was added to the two polar positions of the king vs. the church.”“So what do I do with John Fletcher?” Father John asked.“Remember what he said?” Bob asked.“What are you talking about?” Father John wondered.“He said, ‘it’s not who you know, it is what you believe. What beliefs do you and he share?”“Almost nothing,” Father John said, “or at least I hope that’s true.”“Well,” Bob said. “You had better find some. I think you might get closer to him in your robe and sandals than in your collar. Your robe symbolizes your shared militant values.”“But we are militant about different things,” Father John said.“You won’t get anywhere if you decide you are superior to him,” Bob observed. “That is what he is doing and it is what makes him easy to manipulate. Give him his superior position. He will take it and then be open to your influence.”“Well,” Father John replied. “There is the thing in the Bible about being all things to all people. And besides I have the advantage. He is a good catholic. That means he must obey the Bishop. He can’t build a Catholic school without the Bishop’s approval no matter how much money he has.”“Then what’s your problem?” Bob asked.“The Bishop wants that $200,000,” Father John answered. “And the Bishop wants to use John Fletcher’s talent for raising money for other missions of the church.”“Then you better find something else you agree with him about,” Bob said. “Remember it’s not who you know, but what you believe.”Father John returned to consult with Bob a month later.“This idea of three types of communities was really helpful,” Father John said. “I’ve been thinking about it ever since we talked. Different type communities do different things. An organic community is great to settle and farm land with a small number of good friends, because people always need help and every person’s help is useful in some way. Cooperation is required to raise a barn or to harvest a crop. Or to make a church run. Or in a school. Education is probably best done inside the caring and loyalty of an organic community.“But in the Diocese central office we need the best person to crunch the numbers, or to organize the office. The Bishop cannot afford to hire his best buddy. A crony-system won’t work here. The central office is a technological community.“And in John Fletcher’s group values matter most. To be a member you must follow the leader’s vision.”“I don’t think you should expect to make money from a financial investment in a mission community,” Bob said.“Or make friends in a technical community like the Diocese Central Office,” Father John said.“Or justice in an organic community,” Bob said. “By the way, how did it work out with John Fletcher?”“It went just like you said,” Father John said. “When I told him he was a smart man, he was eager to recruit me. It turns out he sees the Hispanic immigrant as the key to his vision. ‘They are a mixed race,’ he said. And that is what he wants the world to become. The Catholic Church provides the context for inter-racial marriages. The church can bless these unions. The church provides the moral values that will help these marriages last. Hispanics are truly a mixture of Indian, African and European bloodlines. When they become the dominant race and they join with other Catholics of different races under the banner of the church, the world will be a better place, according to John Fletcher.“He offered me a place in his inner circle. He wants to have stronger ties with our church and its men. (I don’t mean women. He’s not one to champion women’s rights.) He sees me as an important ally. I became the go-between Fletcher and the Bishop.”“So did you get his $200,000?” Bob asked.“Let me tell the story,” Father John said. “When I told John Fletcher that the Bishop was not going to approve the building of a new Catholic school for his movement. He was angry. He said, ‘I’ll burn the money if he won’t build my school.’ That’s when he overstepped. As charismatic as he was, it was not his money. Earlier I had suggested a fall back position to Fletcher and his group. I love Latin and I respect a Latin classically based education. John Fletcher also shared this value. The group seemed to resonate to it as well.When John Fletcher threatened to burn the money, one of the members reminded him it was not his money to burn. Another suggested supporting Latin education by providing scholarships to the top students in Latin classes at the Catholic high schools. The group liked this idea.John Fletcher was not happy. Speaking to the group he said, ‘You have betrayed me. You have betrayed the cause’ and he stormed out and did not return. The group has continued to meet as a men’s prayer group. Now it is more of a support group, what you call an organic community. Sometimes it holds a pancake breakfast for all Latin students in the high schools. Then it becomes an action group. Some members who have strong social skills who can encourage others well and pray easily are most active in the weekly prayer group. Other members who are less verbal and more take charge action people are most active in organizing and cooking the breakfasts. I guess you would call it a technical community when it is serving breakfasts. But it is much less of a mission community without John Fletcher.”“Communities evolve, don’t they,” Bob answered.“This seemed a healthy change to me,” Father John said.“I’m sure it was,” Bob agreed. “But sometime communities remain the same. I expect the dioceses office will remain a technical community, no matter who works there.”“That’s too bad,” Father John said.“Oh I don’t know,” Bob said. “We are not stuck in one community. We are all members of more than one community. We get various needs met in each community we belong to.”“Oh,” Father John said. “That makes me think of Sister Martha. How I hope she has some community where she dances.“You don’t know,” Bob said. “Maybe she does. At least you can imagine her singing in a nun’s choir.”“You have done a lot of thinking with these three categories,” Bob said.“Yes I have,” Father John acknowledged, “and if there were only two rather than three I would have had completely different notions.”“How so?” Bob asked.“I would have been caught in the trap of trying to decide which one was the best,” Father John answered. “Two types are not enough. We need at least three. Three positions help me understand the other positions better. They give me balance and perspective. Two positions give me the illusion that I can find the right choice versus the wrong choice, perfection/imperfection, and guilt/innocence. Two positions never tell the complete truth. A triangle is the strongest physical structure and mental structure as well. With only two position types I would never have seen that each type serves a different constructive purpose. With three types I can see that there are no pure types. Sometimes, not often, we laughed together at the central office. In my parish we advocate values and support missions. In my parish we need to have rules of procedure and a budget. And, of course, I see my people loving and supporting each other. So my parish is an organic community sometimes, a market community other times and a mission community as well. The three types help me understand what can be expected of my parish or other communities. Each type frames what is good or bad about the other type.”“And this is the point of having more than either or types,” Bob said. “We need at least three to give us perspective.”“This was so helpful to have this structure and these categories to think with,” Father John said. “I feel myself changing. Before I met you I would have taken pleasure in John Fletcher’s defeat. Now it gives me no comfort. I am sad to lose him as force in the church. He meant well. He had great passion. I wish he could have accepted his loss and found a way to use his gifts in the church. Well maybe latter. Somehow the third position has taught me the downside of winning. Thank you for all your help. I don’t know how to repay you for all the help you have given me. Your ideas have been useful, but the best part has been your friendship. I was afraid when I came here, but you gave me someone to trust. I’m sure you have done this for many people. But you have certainly done it for me. I wish there was something I could do to repay you.”“Well you paid me money,” Bob said. “That’s enough, but I could use some workers. I’m retiring and moving out of this office. If you have any members of your church who need the work, I could use some help moving this stuff to my home office.”

Ten truckloads later, Bob’s office was empty. Thank you Bob.* Pope Thomas X is a fictional character. We hope in reality there is and never has or will be such a Pope.

Father John Series #8

Chapter 8

When The Third Position Is Destructive

Bob called Father John and invited him to come to his home on Hopkins Street because his Parkinson meds weren’t quite right. “I can think fine,” Bob had said. “I’m just not getting about so well. So if you don’t mind, come meet me here.”Father John rang the bell. Bob yelled, “Door’s open. Come in.”Father John expected the house to look like Bob’s office. It didn’t. The house had a living room with a fireplace surrounded by windows on two sides.“Come on back,” Bob yelled.Father John started down the hall and was met by a wire-haired Dachshund darting at him tail wagging and dancing in a circle around his feet.“That’s Jenny,” Bob said. “Don’t let her bother you.”On his way down a hallway Father John passed an open door to a room filled with books, papers, file folders and boxes with a desk with papers and books spilled about. As he passed this room Father John said, “Bob, this must be your office here.”“That’s right,” Bob answered. “Lynn confines me to that space. But I like to meet back here on the porch. Keep coming this way.”Father John followed Bob’s voice. He turned right, walked through a neat well appointed galley kitchen to a breakfast nook and then saw Bob to his left sitting at a round modern white table in one of the five matching white swivel chairs on a porch that looked out on a backyard filled with plants, flowers and trees. It looked like a park.“Lynn likes to garden,” Bob said. “She did all this. I enjoy sitting here when I work, but I have to clear my things off the table before Lynn gets home or I’m in trouble. Lynn doesn’t want the house to become my office she says.”“I can understand that,” Father John said.“So have a seat and tell me what we are talking about this week,” Bob said.“Lying,” Father John said, “I have had my fill of liars for a while. First, there is the Bishop, then, its Raoul, our church treasurer.”“Tell me about the Bishop,” Bob said.“He is going to this Bishop’s convocation,” Father John said. “And he wanted me to go with him. I go. He got up and showcased my parish, and making him look like an inclusive liberal who cares about diversity in his diocese. He said I came to Nashville as a revolutionary who wanted to burn down the cathedral and I have become a cooperative player who has helped him raise money from the conservative wing of the church. I have built my church with architecture that conforms to Nashville, rather than the culture of the people of my parish, helping them assimilate and become good American citizens. Hell over half of my parish are illegals and will never be American citizens. He lied about me and he lied when he took credit for my work. It makes me sick. I want to quit.”“I see,” Bob said. “I would be demoralized too if I were you.”“Yes, it felt like someone hit me in the stomach,” Father John said. “And then I get a phone call while I was at the convocation. The church secretary called me to say that her paycheck bounced. I came back a day early. I go into my office and I find Raoul, the church treasurer, mostly naked with a prostitute in my office. The prostitute didn’t seem to be bothered by my surprise entrance. She took her time getting dressed, seeming to enjoy the embarrassment she caused Raoul and me. When she left he confessed that he stole money from the church. He admitted he was a cocaine and sex addict. He had been using my office as the place for his assignations for some time because I am rarely there.“I’m angry about the stolen money, but the lying, the secret life he led, the deception, the hypocrisy, the contempt for me and the church. All this happening right under my nose.”“Let’s talk about Raoul first,” Bob said. “His secret life is a demon’s third position.”“Oh here we go again,” Father John said. “The third position has something to do with lying and addiction. And you are invoking the devil. I thought you didn’t believe in the devil.”“I don’t,” Bob said. “But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in negative forces. Lying or deceit is the opposite of working with a transcendent, transparent and an agreed upon third position. A secret agenda can become a hidden third position that one party has kept from the person in the second position. Here Raoul had a secret third force playing with him and the church. He had hidden the third master that he served. Raoul has violated Habermas’ principle of free and uncoerced communication.”“Who the hell is Habermas and why is that relevant?” Father John said.“He is a world class critical philosopher who thinks a lot about moral living. He believes the foundation of moral living is transparent truth, truth available to all. He adds to truth the skill of active listening and that is the stuff of free and uncoerced communication.”“How is this relevant to Raoul and the third position?” Father John asked.“He has a hidden third position. This blocks transparent truth and that is destructive to communities and to communion,” Bob said.“Yes, what Raoul did was certainly destructive to our church,” Father John said.“Are you still angry at Raoul?” Bob inquired.“I’m angry at his betrayal,” Father John said, “but now I mostly feel sad for him. He is in a treatment program for addictions. He has been there for a week. He could lose his wife, family and his job. But when I visited him, he said he felt better than he had felt in a long time. I’m not sure I understand that.”“I do,” Bob said. “Living with a hidden third position is exhausting. It is hard to support a life serving a secret master. When he made his secret third position public, when he confessed, he was redeemed. Isn’t that what Jesus preached?” Bob asked.“It sounds familiar,” Father John admitted.“I don’t put much stock in the virgin birth or the resurrection,” Bob said, “but the transformation that can come with confession feels very real to me.”“What does confession of sin have to do with the third position?” Father John asked.“A better question would be, how can the third position become corrupted?” Bob said.“Okay, I’ll bite,” Father John said, “How does the third position become corrupt?”“It is simply the third position turned upside down,” Bob said. “When you hide the third position or put it below the surface, you are sabotaging your community. You are a spy. You are an addict. You may be destroying a family with an affair. You may be leaking energy from your team by pretending to care about the game when you really only care about the uniform. Hidden third parties under the surface act like cancers in any relationship and in any community. This is why the press serves a community. A good newspaper or television reporter exposes hidden third positions. When third positions are exposed, when sins are confessed, the third position flips from below the surface to above the surface. This is what you call redemption.”“Wow that was a neat trick,” Father John said. “Isn’t the third position convenient. It just described sin. How about that?”“Yes, but for Raoul,” Bob said, “It also describes how he can feel better now. His secret third position has been exposed to the light. Everyone can see it now. Everyone can see him now. He can be known and loved, instead of loved for someone he pretends to be.”“That’s was my last week’s sermon,” Father John said.“The church community has a job to do here as well,” Bob said.“What’s that?” Father John said.“It has the job of forgiving Raoul,” Bob said. “If it doesn’t the church community will have a secret third position.”“What is that?” Father John said.“It is revenge and bitterness,” Bob said.“I see, if church members carry a grudge,” Father John said, “ignore Raoul, shun him or hate him, then they have an agenda to kick his ass. Of course, they would deny that if I asked them. This anger becomes an aura that surrounds them with bitterness. That is dangerous. You are right.”“We all need a community to confess our sin to,” Bob said. “We all need to flip our secret third position from under the table to above the table. We need to get rid of our secret and show ourselves to a public of some kind. We need to join with our community in condemning our behavior and pick up again the values we share with our community and begin to serve those values. That is redemption.”“I see why you give the press an important role in society. A good free press does that for a community,” Father John said. “It creates opportunities for redemption and healing.”“The people of Philadelphia, Mississippi recently had such a moment of redemption,” Bob said. “The editor of the local paper crusaded for a trial of a man who was a conspirator in the murder of three civil rights workers there in 1964. The local prosecutor dug up the evidence. They tried the man in the local courts and convicted him of manslaughter. This showed the world that the community of Philadelphia would no longer keep a secret hatred alive. They would stand for the principles of justice shared by the human community. Philadelphia rejoined the world community. They flipped the third position over so that the whole world can see the truth. Now their third position is visible and clear in Philadelphia, Mississippi. They were redeemed.”“So with Raoul,” Father John said. “My job is to help him uncover his illicit third position, to hold him accountable, give him a chance to do right by the church, repay the money and help the church members lay down their bitterness and forgive him.”“Sounds like a plan,” Bob said.“But what about the Bishop?” Father John asked.“You and the Bishop seem to keep dancing with each other in the first and second position,” Bob said.“Yes, but he is lying,” Father John said. “He has a third position below the surface. He is evil. Your explanation of this proves it. I have always felt this to be true.”“And I suppose you are good,” Bob said. “And it’s your duty to destroy evil.”“Oh, I get it,” Father John said. “I am constructing another two category myth. And you are about to say that there is a third position.”“Yes I am,” Bob said. “But what I’m really talking about here is building consensual knowledge or building community knowledge.”“And I suppose you use the third position to do this as well,” Father John said sarcastically.“As a matter of fact I do,” Bob agreed. “First, I want to suggest that the Bishop isn’t lying. He sees reality from his perspective.”“And what is that?” Father John asked.“I can only guess,” Bob said. “But I can imagine it would go something like this. Imagine I am him speaking:‘I asked the cardinal to find me a priest who would develop a parish with the Spanish speaking people in Nashville. I take credit for that. He was a little rough at first, but I have whipped him into shape. He has accepted my authority. He has helped me raise money. He has worked within the structures I have placed over my diocese. He even wore a suit and a collar when he came to work in the central office. I’m quite proud of my achievements. We will have a good Spanish speaking church that fits into the Nashville community and does not threaten the status quo, thanks to me. Oh, I may have to rein him in from time to time, but I have done that before and I can do it again if I have to.’“That’s exactly what he thinks,” Father John said.“Then he is not lying is he?” Bob said.“Well it’s not the truth,” Father John answered.“It’s his truth,” Bob countered.“Yes but it is not the truth,” Father John repeated.“And I suppose you know The Truth,” Bob said emphasizing the words “the” and “truth.”“Well I know my truth,” Father John said. “Oh, I remember us talking about this when we talked about how we know. From the perspective of third position thinking, truth is relative until you get to yourself. Then it is absolute. I am the absolute authority on what I feel and know.”“And the Bishop is the absolute authority over the truth of what he feels and knows,” Bob concurred.“So now we have two different positions with their truths exposed,” Father John said. “They seem contradictory to me. They can’t both be true.”“I’m not so sure about that,” Bob said. “Most of the time there is more that you agree with in your opponents truth than you disagree with. It is the feelings and the power dynamics that hurt feelings and distort what things we might agree upon.”“So what do we agree on?” Father John said.“Did he recruit someone with your qualifications to organize the Spanish speaking population in Nashville?” Bob asked.“Well I’m not sure he wanted what he got in me,” Father John answered.“Come on. Answer the question,” Bob said. “Yes or no. Stop quibbling.”“Yes, he did recruit someone more or less with my qualifications,” Father John acknowledged.“Does he deserve credit for this?” Bob asked.“Yes, but he wants the Latinos to fit in, not to be themselves,” Father John said.“Come on,” Bob said. “Stop letting your feelings answer the questions. We know he doesn’t want you to cause a revolution in Nashville. That’s not the question. Will you give him credit for bringing you here?”“It’s hard to do,” Father John said, “but I guess you are right. He deserves it.”“Did you build a church that he approves of?” Bob asked.“Yes or no?” Father John asked.“That’s right,” Bob said. “Just be straightforward and answer yes or no.”“Yes,” Father John admitted.“Did you help him raise money and stop the far right in the church from undoing his work with the catholic schools?” Bob asked.“Yes,” Father John said. “I did his biding there too, but I made no compromises to do that.”“See now you are saying you agreed with him,” Bob said. “And you did, didn’t you?”“Yes, you are right, I did.”“Now take each one of these agreements and use them as bricks in building your consensus with him,” Bob said. “This is how a community and a relationship builds shared truth, brick by brick. You assume that you and your opponent have some shared reality and interests. You use this assumption as your third position. That position gives you enough trust and faith to go looking for agreed upon reality. When you find it you make note of it. You announce it to yourself and your opponent and you set it into the shared reality that makes you collaborators as well as opponents. This makes the world a bit grayer, but this building the truth with the third position is what allows communities to function. It is what enables relationships to work.“So is the Bishop lying?” Bob asked.“I guess not,” Father John said. “It is a lot easier inside myself to believe he is. It justifies how I feel about him.”“Yes,” Bob said, “but then it is you who is lying. Here help me take some of my things off the table and back into my office before Lynn gets home.”“Sure,” Father John said.Bob shuffled ahead of Father John through the kitchen back to his office. Father John followed carrying a stack of yellow pads, files and books.“Where do you want to put this?” Father John asked.“Put it on that stack on the chair,” Bob said. “But remember to put it on at a 90° angle so that the stacks don’t get confused.”“How did you develop such a simple elegant, clear way of thinking as the third position,” Father John asked, “with an office like this?”“I don’t know,” Bob said. “It all seems natural enough to me.”

Father John Series #9

Chapter 9

Home

Father John had been consulting with Bob weekly now for over four years. Finally, he got the transfer back to Mexico where he always wanted to be. He would work with the native Aztecs in Southern Mexico. This was to be his final session with Bob.Father John came to the front door as usual. And as usual it was open. He rang the door bell. He heard Bob's dog, Jenny, answer immediately with a bark and the clicking of her toenails against the hardwood as her four feet ran to greet him. Bob yelled his familiar, "come on back."Jenny herded Father John down the hall through the kitchen to Bob's back porch and his white round table and white rotating pedestal plastic chairs. Bob was waiting for him seated in one of the chairs reading the paper and sipping his tea.“Make yourself a cup of tea or coffee if you like,” Bob said. “And come sit.”By now Father John knew where hot water was and the French press Bob used to make individual cups of coffee. He poured hot water in the French press, brought it out to the porch with a cup and sat it in front of him on the table to let it steep for a time until it was ready to pour into the cup.“Are you excited about going back to Mexico?” Bob asked.“Yes,” Father John said. "I am, but I'm going to miss you.”“Oh nonsense,” Bob said. “You have mastered all I have to teach and more. You have the third position in your bones now. You have used it to mediate disputes, to understand the Bishop, to construct a third community type, to learn how to be a teacher, to raise money for the church. I can't think of all the ways you have put it to use.”“I know, Bob,” Father John said. “Yes, I think I have discovered a new skill, a new way to think, a better way to care and I can't exactly describe it, but I also think I have found a new me.”“I know what you mean,” Bob said. “The third position works on you, doesn’t it?”“Yes it does,” Father John said. The conversation paused for some time as Father John poured his coffee from the French press into his cup and they supped their hot drinks. As they drank they were both admiring the garden in the backyard, the product of Lynn, Bob's wife's hard work. It was fall. The dogwood leaves were a red purple. The maples were orange and yellow. The grass was still very green and the leathery red and orange leaves of the oak leaf hydrangea next to the garage created a noble architecture to the scene.“Bob, I’ve been wondering about something,” The words of Father John interrupted this reverie of silent, shared communion. “Is there a fourth position?”Before Bob could answer Bob’s dog, Jenny, began barking and running to the racket at the front of the house.“It’s me,” a voice yelled from the front door.“Come on back,” Bob yelled. “That’s David McMillan. I recognize his voice. You met him some time ago. He has done a lot to help me discover the wide range of the third position. He has helped me expand it into the concrete world of practice as have you.”David appeared in the doorway.“I’m glad you are here,” Bob said. “Father John was asking me a question about the fourth position. Since this was your idea, David, you might explain it to him. I don’t really like to talk about it.”“I’ll pour myself some tea,” David said. As he was pouring his tea David asked Father John, “So what do you want to know about the fourth position?”“Is there one?” Father John asked.“Bob you haven’t told him about this?”“Yes, I did once,” Bob said. He looked at Father John and said, “That was when you consulted me about the police (see chapter three).”“That’s right, I barely remember that,” Father John said.“David can do a much more thorough job of explaining the fourth position,” Bob said. “I feel uncomfortable talking about this. Perhaps that is why it didn’t make an impression on you when we talked about it earlier.”“So, David, tell me about the fourth position,” Father John said.“I call it home,” David said.“Home?” Father John said.“Yes,” David confirmed. “Home. It is death. It is perfection. It is the ideal, the end of the journey. We humans at best can only work with three positions. The fourth position is in a parallel plane. It is in another reality. It is where I believe we go when our life is over.”“The fourth position is heaven?” Father John said amazed.“No,” Bob said emphatically no. “I don't believe in heaven. See, this is the reason I don't talk about this. People will confuse it with some sort of religious nonsense. And I suppose it is religious. And certainly it may be nonsense. But it is not part of an earth, heaven, hell, purgatory complex.”“Then what is it?”Bob hesitated. He looked up and then all around. His hands came together and each one squeezed and wrung the other. “I'm not sure I want to talk about this,” he said. “David you explain.”“Bob what is it?” Father John said, “I've never seen you this upset.”“This is hard for me to talk about,” Bob said. “For me this is personal.”“Why is that?” Father John asked.“When I was in high school I had an epiphany at church camp. I decided I wanted to become a Presbyterian minister,” Bob began. “I had a strong faith. In my first semester of college I decided to major in psychology rather than philosophy because I liked the psych professors and I didn’t like the philosophy faculty as well. I was a student minister throughout my four college years and preached on Sundays at the rural Presbyterian churches that had no minister. By the time I was a senior I became convinced that the minister’s job was preaching to the converted. Though I wanted to be a minister I wanted to do more than preach to the converted.“My senior year I thought I would go to graduate school in psychology and go on to seminary later, once I finished my Masters degree in psychology. During my 1st year in grad school I heard a Wednesday night radio show in which the lead statement was, ‘you may be a Unitarian and don’t know it.’ The theme of that minister’s talk was the improvement of life on earth, rather than in heaven. I contrasted this with my Presbyterian teachings about working for salvation and eternal life. I decided then and there to be a Unitarian. I wanted to devote myself to making this life better for all of us, here on earth.“I was raised as a moderate Christian, not a fundamentalist. But the virgin birth, resurrection and Armageddon all took away attention from improving things on this plane. I appreciated Jesus teachings about lilies of the field and I appreciated the Jewish notion of confession of sin and the healing and redemption that comes from the truth. I was impressed that Jesus contributed the concept that love and compassion can replace vengeance and fear. But I wasn’t sure that Christianity was the only faith that taught this.“Choosing to be a Unitarian was not any easy decision for me. Once I became clear about what I believed and what I didn’t, I knew I could never become a Presbyterian minister. That=s when I decided to become a psychologist. None of this sat well with my mother. She sent her Presbyterian minister after me to pull me back into the flock. I was really offended by this. How dare him or anyone tell me what to believe about God. I left my parents way of life. I traded in rural Idaho farm community life for city life, church centered living for academic scholarship, life dominated by the weather for life dominated by whimsy of the academe. I have always had some regrets about this decision.”“So what does this have to do with the fourth position?” Father John asked.“Well,” Bob said. "I'm not sure, except that the fourth position for me is God or perfection. It is the place of absolutes and Truth with a capital T. And just like I don't want anyone telling me what I have to believe about God, I don't want to tell anyone what they should believe. Wars are fought over ideas like this. I don’t ever want to try to impose my ideas about this on someone else. It reminds me of Mother’s Presbyterian minister coming after me. I guess that is why talking about this makes me so uncomfortable.”“I understand your reluctance now,” Father John said. “But I still don't understand the fourth position.”“David, you explain it,” Bob said.“Okay let's start with the reptilian brain,” David said.“Do we have to?” Father John moaned.“Father John doesn’t like intellectual academic language remember?” Bob said.“Okay the reptile's brain. What about it?” Father John said.“In the human brain the reptile brain structure is replicated as a small amount of gray matter and the brain stem.”“So what?” Father John said.“All it allows us to do is to have reflexes,” David said. “The reptilian brain gives us no choice. We have only one reflexive, reaction. That is what infants have. They have reflexes. All the other parts of the brain are a long way from maturation.”“I still don't get it,” Father John said.“That is the first position, expressed as an instinctive desire or response. We can't entertain two positions until our brains mature a bit more. At age 5 our mammalian brain matures. That is where our emotions are. That part of the brain, think dogs brain about the size of a fist, sits on top of the reptilian brain. That part of the brain contains the amygdala and the hypothalamus. These brain circuit’s give us two choices fight or flight, enemy or ally, good or bad, black or white, etc.”“So that allows us a second position,” Father John said.“Right,” David concurred. “And the neo-cortex or the human brain allows us to think abstractly, to be aware that we have two choices and to imagine more. The human brain gives us the capacity for a third position.”“I think I’ve heard this before,” Father John said. “I know about three positions. I just don’t quite get the fourth one.“I’m sorry. I have to start from the beginning,” David said. “Think of the first position as only a point. The second position creates a line. With the creation of a line, think about how many points can exist on a line between the polarities. Imagine each of these points as one possible resolution to a debate. A line creates many more possible answers.“Now watch what the addition of a third position does. It creates a plane. Imagine how many more points can exist inside that plane. I'm not sure we could calculate all the potential points inside a plane. These represent potential problem solutions. See how a third position adds to the possibilities.”AI see this,” Father John said, “and not for the first time.”“Well now imagine a fourth point above the other three, creating a pyramid,” David said.“Now I remember,” Father John said looking at Bob. “You told me about the top of the pyramid, but I’m not sure I know what it represents.”“It represents the one right answer, the platonic ideal, the golden mean, the absolute Truth and God,” Bob said.“Bob, I thought you didn’t believe in absolutes except when it has to do with the absolute authority on one's feelings,” Father John noted. “And then, you believe the person who has the feelings is the absolute authority on them.”“Yes, that is what I said,” Bob agreed. “Think about an atom. An atom oscillates over nine billion times a second. If that's true how can reality remain the same? Things change. Yes, we all have the same basic emotions. And cyanide will kill all of us. But tomorrow a baby may be born with a new basic emotion. Even our species may change. We are all changing constantly. There may be thresholds, where suddenly you change like the day you road your bicycle for the first time, your first date, your first sexual experience, your ordination as a priest, my Ph.D., your first church, the birth of my first child, the day I was diagnosed with Parkinson. These seem to be sudden changes, but they are not really. They are the product of constant moment-to-moment, second-to-second change. With all this change, what stays the same? What answer will always apply? We need all those points in the plane. We need all the possible positions in a pyramid.”“So, this is why you say all things are relative?” Father John said.“Yes,” Bob said. “But maturity teaches us some things. All adults understand that cooperation is more effective than competition. Most adults understand the character that comes from accountability, that mistakes are simply an opportunity for growth and new learning.“I know this family,” David said. “The twenty year old son fathered a child out of wedlock. His sister hated the new mother for ruining her brother's life. The father and mother of the twenty year old would not pay any medical bills during the pregnancy in hopes the pregnancy would miscarry. After the birth the new grandparents would not attend the child's first birthday party. The 85 year old now great-grandfather of the same family bought the mother a minivan and told her he would do anything he could to help her raise his great grandchild. To a man as close to death as he was, he understood what really mattered.”“I'm sick with a terminal disease,” Bob said. “My disease has helped me understand what really matters. And those things include love, compassion, respect and hope. As I move up in age I rise toward the fourth position. I have more to learn, but I have learned and grown a lot. Even my disease brings me closer to the fourth position. When I get there, I will know it all. I will have that perfect perspective. I will be spiritually whole and I will be dead. That's home for me. That's the fourth position.“Perfection is synonymous with death. I don't want to be in that fourth position yet. I enjoy making mistakes, not knowing and learning. I'm not ready for home, but someday I think I will be.”“I see why you don't want to talk about this,” Father John said. "I'm not sure I do either. I'm not ready for the fourth position.”“No, you're not,” Bob said. “But you don't walk with a shuffle. You don't fall asleep in the middle of a meeting. You are not a burden on those you love. I'm not ready either, but I'm closer to being ready for home than you are.”They sat there in silence for a time. None of them knew what to say next. None of them wanted to speak. All wanting to hold on to this intimate moment. Then Bob said, “I’m glad David got to tell you his ideas about the fourth position. I agree with them, but they came from him. That’s the good thing about any good notion. Other people can use it and elaborate on it for their purposes. I hope you will take the idea of the third position as David has and make them your own. You have already mastered this tool. Play with it, extend it, and discover ideas in the third position that I never imagined. I think you can do that on your own now.”“My bladder is telling me to empty it,” Bob said. The he stood, hugged Father John good bye and shuffled off to the bathroom.Father John talked a bit more with David and began walking out the door.As Father John was leaving he thought he heard Bob come out of the bathroom and say, "See you at home someday."The End

Chapter 6: Pastoral Care & Conflict

By David McMillan and Janet Tuck

More than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Romans 5:11

Hopefully you won’t walk into a conflict when you make a pastoral call. But you might. Remember Ned in chapter four? He wasn’t planning to mediate a family quarrel when he went to visit Carl and Mac, but he did. This is another chapter about issues that you will deal with personally in your life, like guilt and grief, but as a pastoral caregiver delivering food for the church, you would probably pass on trying to be the only go-to person for the people you visit who are in the midst of a conflict. Having said this, however, we want you to be exposed to the tools that one might use to help manage conflict. The primary tool we will describe in this chapter is called the Third Position. It was first formulated by David’s friend and mentor, J.R. Newbrough, Ph.D.

The third position is a particular way of reframing conflict. In the fourth chapter Ned reframed the conflict between Carl and Mac in terms of a family diaspora. When Carl and Mac saw they were participating in a normal human family event that was not unique to them, they were able to stop personalizing this pain and see it in the context of grieving for their mother. This reframe helped stop the blaming and opened them to compassion for one another and for their shared loss.

In the movie Lars and the Real Girl there is a scene with Gus and Karen in Dagmar’s (the doctor’s) office. They are at an impasse. Gus wants to send Lars away to a mental institution. Karen wants to keep him at home thinking that there was something that she and Gus might do. Dagmar offered a third position, keeping Lars at home in the community, knowing there is nothing they can do, that they could embrace the embarrassment and ridicule that would come to them and Lars as they pretended that Bianca was a real girl. Dagmar suggested that they could not really do anything to help Lars. Nor would a mental institution help Lars. Only Lars could really do this work. And if they chose, they could support him to do that work at his pace, whatever pace that was. Her idea was a third position of sorts and it unlocked the impasse.

Consider this story:

Dan was Vic’s best friend. They had been friends for years. Vic was terminally ill in the CCU of Vanderbilt Hospital.

Dan went to visit Vic and pay respects to his family in hospital. When he walked into the critical care waiting area he saw Helen, Vic’s sister, and Alice, Vic’s daughter angrily talking as he entered the room.

“Dan,” Helen shouted when she saw him, “Oh I am so glad you are here.”

Dan walked over to greet Alice and Helen.

“Oh Dan,” Alice said. “You don’t think we should pull the plug, do you?”

Dan couldn’t speak after hearing this questioned. Once the stunned expression left his face he said, “I’m not sure that my opinion is important here. This is a family decision.”

“Yes, but,” Helen said. “You are his best friend in the world. Vic and Tonya are divorced. We are the only family Vic has and you might as well be family.”

“I’m just not comfortable having a vote in this,” Dan said. “This is something that the two of you must hash out. Perhaps you should talk with the pastor.”

“No,” Helen said. “I don’t want to hear from a wet behind the ears twenty-eight year old about this. Dan, you have a strong faith. I would rather you help us.”

“Me too,” Alice said. “Dad is not dead. It would be euthanasia to pull the plug. It’s a commandment Thou Shall Not Kill. We can’t do this. It would be morally wrong. I don’t believe in abortion and I don’t believe in not giving my father every conceivable opportunity to live. He is in a coma. The doctors say he has some brain function left. He just needs a machine to breathe for him. They say if we turn off the machine, he will probably die.

“Dad and I were estranged from the divorce. In the last few years we have reconciled. I’m not ready for him to go. I need a father. My children need a grandfather.”

“But you don’t have any children Alice,” Helen said. “You just married last year.”

“I know,” Alice said, “and my husband John doesn’t even know my father well. They were going hunting before my father got cancer. They say they can radiate his brain tumor.”

“But he is nearly dead,” Helen said, “What about his quality of life? The doctors say if he becomes dependent on the machine to breathe for him that he won’t be able to breathe without it. He will be stuck in this bed, unable to communicate with a tube down his throat for the rest of his life. I can’t stand to see him suffer like this. It’s not right for anyone to suffer like this. It’s evil.”

“Wow,” Dan said. “Are either of you sure that you are speaking for God. Alice you are saying how Aunt Helen is immoral and Helen you are on the verge of calling your niece, Alice, evil. Is that what you want to do, descend into name calling because that’s where you are headed?”

“No, I don’t want that,” Helen said.

“Me either,” Alice agreed.

Now we will leave this story to return later after the Third Position is introduced and explained.

Defining the Third Position

Reframing the Problem

In Chapter four Ned used the metaphor “family diaspora” as a reframe in a positive way. People often use stories and metaphors in a destructive reframe. A metaphor can insult or demean others. The story we tell about our partners and our relationship can frame us as the suffering hero/victim and our partner as the mean, insensitive perpetrator/villain. In such stories we are always the innocent victim and our partners are the guilty responsible perpetrator. If you are like us, you like these stories.

Stories that reframe others as the villain and us as their innocent victims are disempowering and basically not true.

We are suggesting a way to reframe any conflict so that a deadlocked acrimonious shouting match can be peacefully and creatively resolved. A helpful reframe should accomplish three things: 1. It should shift the focus from the personal to the system; 2. It should identify and label the roles played in the system by opposing parties; and 3. It should assign values to the roles that the opposing parties are playing for the system. For example, in a financial argument one party may have the role of family accountant. The other party may have the role of family shopper. The family accountant may argue for the value of financial security and promote balanced budgets. The family shopper may argue for the value of nurture and promote quality living for the family.

These are systems’ arguments. Blame is almost irrelevant to a system’s argument. Every system has such arguments. We are serving our family system when we adopt a role and promote values represented by that role. In this example the family needs for us to debate quality of life versus financial security. This is how the family balances finances with needs. It is a noble sacrifice for each partner to contribute their anxiety and anguish to the value that they represent and to carry its banner into the fray. God knows it is not fun.

When pastoral caregivers reframe the argument in terms of a system, its roles and its values, they raise the emotional tone and they help civilize the debate. When they reframe the conversation in this way, they give honor and respect to both parties. As a pastoral caregiver begins to reframe the conflict in system’s terms, it becomes easy to add a third value position.

A Third Position Reframe

A third position reframe does the three things that most constructive reframes do. In addition to those three things (1. Taking the conflict out of the personal and into the system, 2. Identifying roles played by adversaries and 3. Identify values served by the roles played) the third position humbles both parties, honors both parties as worthy opponents and invites creative play into problem solving. It humbles both parties by asking them to acknowledge that there are things they don’t know or understand and that there is possibly a better solution than the one that they advocate. It asks both parties to appreciate that they may need opposition and that this conflict offers both of them a chance to give the problem their best considered judgment; that their adversary means well and their opposition will help the refine their opinions. Both parties are respected as worthy opponents. All ideas and thoughts should be offered as a solution, no matter how silly they might seem.

The third position as an intervention assumes two people are deadlocked in a conflict. Often two people have difficulty making decisions together. The desires of each can block the other from acting. Hopefully, parties in a relationship respect their partners enough so that they won’t act for the relationship without the blessing of the other partner. In families issues from sex, money, parenting, in-laws, and religion can quickly become painful, insoluble problems.

In business partnerships the partnership agreement often anticipates such statements and the written agreement provides for a non-partner, such as an accountant or attorney, to act as a third vote so the tie can be broken, decisions made, and business can proceed.

In intimate relationships there is rarely a third party to cast a tie-breaking vote. The third position is the answer that we suggest to help couples peacefully resolve disputes.

Notice that, in any discussion about the merits of a decision, one party will stake out a position and the other will oppose them. In any conflict of ideas a proposition will attract its opposite. The idea that the earth was flat attracted an opposing idea that the world was round. Now, as the twenty-first century begins, intellectuals are again talking about a flat world because of how quickly information travels.

Three levels of conflict

The most primitive form of social conflict is a battle of the “I wants.” Let’s call this a level one conflict. It pits what I want against what you want. I want a new car versus you want to use the money for a vacation. A level one conflict is a crass power struggle. The most powerful wins. In a relationship, the idea that we need to buy a new car is often met with the question, “can we afford it?” In every disagreement you will notice that you represent an important human value about life, love and relationships. What you might not notice is that your partner also represents an equally important value about life, love and relationships.

Usually, in loving relationships we rationalize our wants by appealing to some transcendent social value. The car advocate might say, “We should get a new car because the old one is not safe for the family.” This is an appeal to the value of family safety and security. The vacation advocate might say, “We should take a family vacation because we have been promising this to us and our children for years. It’s been a tough year on all of us. Our family needs some good memories together.” This is an appeal to the value of family quality of life. Let’s call this a level two conflict.

In a level two conflict there is potential to take the conflict out of the personal and to frame it as a systems struggle, natural to all systems. Here the parties are playing their roles assigned to them unconsciously by the system. Each party is serving the relationship by advocating for an important value. In a level two contest we can see that both parties are worthy opponents who deserve respect. What is absent in a level two conflict is creativity to help open what appears to be a deadlock. It is easy to imagine a level two conflict falling back into a level one crass power struggle and another win/lose moment. If these moments continue to pile one on top of the other, one partner will tend to be the winner. This creates a dangerous imbalance and sets up the framework for passive aggressive guerilla warfare in the relationship.

In a scene in Gone with the Wind, Scarlett was arguing with Ashley. She wanted them to run away together. She appealed to the value of true love. Ashley refused to go. He appealed to the value of duty. They seemed deadlocked until Ashley nominated a third value, that of Tara and love of the land.

Suddenly the impasse was opened. When three values are used in this way, we have a level three conflict. A level three conflict uses the third position

A level three conflict has all the elements of a level two conflict. The conflict can be framed inside a system and away from the personal. Instead of being blame and failure oriented, the conflict can be seen as a natural and healthy consequence of being together. What the third level has that the other two levels do not have is a third value. The third value forces both parties to reevaluate their positions in light of an additional third value position. This consideration of three valid value postures creates a third vote. It adds creativity and imagination to problem solving. It validates the other two value positions and, at the same time, challenges the parties to think beyond their entrenched postures.

Professional mediators often say the key to a win/win solution is to enlarge the pie. When the issue is clear and the contest is joined, it seems counter-intuitive to add complexity to the debate. That is exactly what the third position proposes. It is a paradoxical truth that adding an agreed upon third value will reduce chaos and bring order to the discussion. The third position breaks up the entrenched postures. It civilizes the debate and creates options neither party ever imagined.

Visualizing a Third Position Through Geometry

Imagine a line connecting the two opposing points of view. In a level two conflict, whatever decision that is reached will represent a point on that line somewhere between the two opposing points. Now imagine a third point above that line. Three points make a triangle. Now we have a geometric plane. There exists in the plane an exponentially greater number of points than the points that are on the line between the two opposing points of view. Any point that we can agree on inside the plane can become a potential plan of action. The third position forces us to expand our options. Our creativity can be engaged. We are no longer frozen in place. Every time we develop a third position, it forces us to move out of our one dimensional value system. The conversation is no longer pro versus con. It is exploring options to find an answer that serves all three values.

Third Position is not compromise or synthesis

The third position may be confused with the dialectic of Karl Marx. Some might suggest that the third position is the synthesis or the compromise between two polar opposites. This is not how the originators of the third position think about it. A compromise or a synthesis is a mixture of the two opposing polar positions. The third position allows us to rise above the two positions and find a creative solution that is not a compromise and not a synthesis of two positions but a point above the line, a mixture of three value positions that becomes something much different than a compromise or a synthesis of two values. When the deadlocked parties serve a higher value, no one loses or compromises. Both parties are able to do the right thing.  Though nobody has to lose, everybody must be respectful and creative to get to a third position.

Neurology of the Third Position

As we know, when anger or fear become mixed into the discussion, our brains contract. Our neurological threat system is turned on. Our brains reduce our options so that we can act quickly and our actions are not held up by deliberation or careful consideration. An emergency requires that we act now, not take time to think a problem through.

Both anger and fear cut off the brain’s access to the deliberating, creative, thoughtful part of the brain, the neocortex. This part of the brain makes up two thirds of our gray matter. This part of the brain is often called the human brain. Anger or fear reduces the active part of the brain to only the mammalian brain or the part of our brain that we share with mammals. This is about the size of our fist. It is mature by the age of five.

When we are afraid or angry, we think simply, like a child. We use two-category thinking. We see things as good or bad. We see people as enemies or allies, as for us or against us. We think in all or nothing terms. Everything is win/lose. All games appear to be zero-sum games.

This kind of thinking is often what we are stuck in when we are fighting with our mate. It is them or us. We are right and they are wrong. We are good and they are bad. We are smart and they are stupid.

The mammalian brain can only consider two options. To consider a third, the neo-cortex must be engaged. Adding a third position forces us to engage our neo-cortex. When we choose a third value to serve, we are now thinking creatively instead of reacting defensively. We have just added two times more gray matter to our problem solving.

An example of the Third Position

Let’s return to the buy-a-new-car or go-on-a-vacation argument. The two opposing values are family safety (remember the car is old and malfunctioning, hence not as safe as a new car would be) and family quality of life (the creation of a collection of family stories, pictures and memories that will become an important record of the love this family has shared).

Now let’s choose a third value. It can be any value that the partners choose. Let’s choose two far-fetched almost irrelevant values to make the point that the third position can be any value. For example, it can be the ecological health of the planet or it can be housing for the homeless.

Assume we choose ecology as the value. The outcome of the discussion might mean that the 365 horsepower Escalade is not the car we buy; instead it is a hybrid minivan. The vacation we take is not to Hawaii; but it is to Blowing Rock, North Carolina, a place where we can drive the family in the new car. Less energy will be used. The money saved from the airfare will be used as four car payments.

But remember, we could choose any value and it would work just as well. Assume we choose housing for the homeless. The new car might be a new truck that the family uses to haul lumber and cement for Habitat for Humanity. The vacation becomes the church mission trip to the Mississippi Gulf Coast to rebuild homes destroyed by a hurricane. The family has a new vehicle and good memories for a lifetime.

The third position is not an easy discipline to follow. It requires an understanding and admission that our perspective is limited; that we may strongly believe we are right and yet, still may be wrong. This humility also requires trust in our partners. We have to believe that they will not take advantage of our self-doubt and openness. It requires trust in a process that we contribute to but do not control. It assumes a shared belief that a respectful process is more important than getting our way. It requires faith in a transcendent principle and a willingness to serve that principle. With these ingredients we will almost always be surprised by the solution we discover using a third position.

The third position is a complex philosophical idea that came from an academic paper by J.R. Newbrough, Ph.D. It is also a simple idea of a tie-breaking value. And it is an excellent tool for relationship impasses.

Steps to a Third Position Conversation

Setting the stage for the third position

The opposing parties must have a modicum of goodwill and respect for their opponent to participate in third position resolutions. If you are in a mediator role, you can help establish this humility by reminding the parties that they do not hold the one right answer, that many answers exist to human social problems. No one can predict the future and no one is entitled to certainty. That’s God’s position.

The next thing you as mediator should do to set the stage is introduce the concept of the worthy opponent. It is our privilege to have someone who cares about the issue, as we do, to oppose us. They make us stop and consider our opinions and actions. They provide us with the opportunity to rehearse and pre-test our decisions. Their opposition gives them no pleasure. They want the same thing we do – a good outcome.

With the entitlement of certainty and being right gone and with the respect of the opponents as worthy you are prepared to proceed.

There Are Six Steps to Third Position Problem Solving

Step 1. Once you conclude that the debate has become entrenched, frame the problem as a system problem. Label the roles played by the opponents. Then identify the two values represented by the polarities in the debate. For example, a mother might say, “You are not jumping out of an airplane with my child.” The father might reply, “I will not let you take all of the excitement out of my child’s life. I will see that she faces fear and builds her courage.”

The two positions represent value positions that are important in any system. We might label the mother’s value position as “security and safety.” We might label the father’s position as “building courage and a sense of adventure.”

When seen in this way, both parties are serving the family system by representing an important value. Labeling the value positions takes the debate out of the personal and emotional and places it into system values. The parties are now taking on important and necessary family roles that someone needs to play for the family system. This step creates the concept of the respected worthy opponent and it ennobles the conversation. It elevates the problem from a personal problem to a system’s problem. Both parties in this frame are admitting that their solution is not the only good solution and that each party is limited by their perspective.

Step 2. Nominate other values that might become a third position value. This begins the process of collaboration and takes the conversation further away from the entrenched, angry, threatened, frightened positions and moves the emotional tone into imaginative, creative, cooperative problem solving. This should be a playful, fun, imaginative process.

Step 3. Choose a value together to represent the third position. It can be any value that the two currently opposing parties agree to serve. The choice of a third value begins the process of seeing areas of agreement. It creates the possibility in the minds of the opposing parties that more can be added to the discussion. It begins the commitment to opening the process to new ideas.

Step 4. Retreat. Each party withdraws from the conversation and reconsiders their position in light of the new third value position. Their goal is to reconstruct their argument so that they serve their original value as well as the new third value position and perhaps even their opponent’s value, as well. This new argument creates opportunities for consensus building.

Step 5. Present new arguments and proposals. Look for areas of agreement. Be willing to discover new ways of solving problems. Begin building an agreement by finding areas where ideas overlap. Use your imagination. Make bold, new, sometimes silly proposals. Be creative. Laugh and enjoy putting the puzzle together.

Step 6. Build a consensus solution. This is done by taking the overlaps from Step 5 and looking toward a particular solution. One should not expect a solution for any more than the issue at hand. There is no answer for all problems. But there usually is an answer for the next problem we face. Keep adding on newly discovered areas of agreement until you find a direction for the next step.

The reason we do not want to think and solve problems beyond the next step is because when we take that next step, we see things and circumstances that we never imagined before. These new circumstances may open doors that make further agreements easy or they may present more difficult challenges.

If there are more difficult challenges simply repeat the third position’s six steps for each of those.

Let’s return to the story of Dan’s visit to Vic’s family in the critical care waiting area at Vanderbilt Hospital.

“Wow,” Dan said. “Are either of you sure that you are speaking for God. Alice you are saying how Aunt Helen is immoral and Helen you are on the verge of calling your niece, Alice, evil. Is that what you want to do, descend into name calling because that’s where you are headed?”

“No,” I don’t want that,” Helen said.

“Me either,” Alice agreed.

“So I wonder if we can agree on some ground rules as we negotiate our way through the thickets of such a difficult decision. Can we?”

“I suppose,” Alice said.

“I hope so,” Helen said.

“First, let’s agree that we humans cannot speak for God about right and wrong or good or evil,” Dan said. “Can we agree on that?”

“Yes,” Helen said. “I know I don’t speak for God.”

“But the Bible does,” Alice said.

“Yes it does. But Alice, do you believe that you can be the Bible’s unbiased interpreter?”Dan asked. “You said that you needed more time with your father and that you wanted him to live to see you have children. Is that God’s will? Doesn’t this show that you may be biased when you consider right and wrong? For most of us right somehow seems to be what we want.”

“Well it is what I want,” Alice said. “And it is what I believe is right.”

“But can you truly, honestly say for sure that you can tell right from how you wish things were?” Dan asked again.

“I wish my father didn’t have cancer,” Alice said. “I wish my parents had never divorced.”

“And maybe those wishes cloud your judgment,” Helen said.

Alice was silent now as she angrily glared at Helen hoping she wouldn’t say anything to Helen that she might regret.

After a while Dan said, “Helen has a point here, Alice. This is an important moment for Vic and his family. You don’t want to make this decision alone. Alice, you need Helen’s opposition so that whatever decision that is made becomes a considered judgment that includes many points of view.

“This brings us to the second guideline. Remember the first is that you might be wrong and the second is that we need for our position to be tested by opposition so that we can develop a well thought out decision.”

“So you are saying that I should be grateful that Aunt Helen disagrees with me?” Alice asked.

“Yes,” Dan said.

“Think of me as the loyal opposition,” Helen said.

And this made Alice smile.

“Fine, I agree,” Alice said. “I can’t be sure that I have right on my side and I appreciate Helen thinking through this with me.”

“Even though I am a pain in your neck right now?” Helen said.

“The neck isn’t the place I was feeling the pain,” Alice said. “I have another place in mind.”

Helen laughed.

“Okay,” Dan said. “So now that we have opened our minds and created some doubt about our positions, let’s see if we can take this issue out of right versus wrong and validate each of your perspectives by framing your position with a value that each of you are advocating. This takes us out of the personal and raises our discussion to the transcendent values and principles that we hope we serve as this family makes it decision.

“Alice would you say that you represent the value of protecting the sanctity of life?”

“Yes, I would,” Alice said. “That is the value that I am trying to serve. It makes me proud to think I am standing for this principle. Yes, the sanctity of life. That’s what I am arguing for.”

“And,” Dan said. “Helen, are you representing the value of quality of life?”

“Yes I am,” Helen said. “I don’t think medical science should keep people alive as vegetables. I think we ought to let people die when people are comatose and can’t breathe on their own. There is no dignity in a body lying still all but dead except for some artificial machine. Yes, I am glad to represent this value, but I would add dignity in dying to quality of life. That is the value I represent, death with dignity. I am pleased to represent this value.”

“Fine,” Dan said. “Helen you represent the value of death with dignity and Alice you represent the value of sanctity of life. These values seem to be placed in direct opposition to each other. It appears that if one value is served that the other value loses or is abandoned. But in God’s eyes these spiritual values work together. Values are like colors. There are ways in which colors can be placed together that don’t serve beauty and harmony and there are ways all colors can shine and contribute to beauty.”

Helen interrupted, “So are you saying that both of these values can help us in this decision?”

“Yes I am,” Dan said. “But like a nose creates balance for the two sides of the face, we need a third value here to help us find harmony and that can help provide perspective and help us see how these, now, three values fit together.”

“So what is that third balancing value?” Helen asked.

“It can be anything,” Dan said. “It can be caring for the planet. It can be serving the church. It can be promoting literacy. It doesn’t matter what the third value is. We just need another value that you both agree to honor and consider as you develop your position.”

“I’ve been wondering what Dad would want,” Alice said. “I think he would want every chance he might have at life. But I don’t know. We haven’t ever talked about this end I have just begun to get to know him again as an adult. What do you think he would want us to do?”

“Yes I’m glad you said that, Alice,” Helen said. “I think absolutely we should be thinking about what Vic would have us do.”

“So respect for Vic’s wishes would be our third value,” Dan said.

“Yes,” they both said at the same time.

“I think I know something about what my brother would want,” Helen said. “I’m just two years younger. When I was Alice’s age I would have her position on this. But my back hurts now. I have glaucoma and I can’t see to drive at night. I have trouble hearing. My balance is not good. I can imagine a time when I don’t want to stay in this body and I would welcome death. Though I haven’t talked about this specifically with Vic, I’m almost sure he feels this way too. And he is at that place now.”

“Have you talked with him about this, Dan?” Alice asked.

Dan’s face blushed. He seemed suddenly to have no words.

“He has hasn’t he?” Alice said. “What did he say? I want to hear his exact words.”

“I’m not sure what Vic said was intended to be heard in mixed company,” Dan finally said.

“No,” Helen said, “We know Vic salted his words. This is not the time to be delicate, Dan. Please tell us what he said.”

“Well,” Dan began speaking slowly and looking down as he spoke, “he said he wanted to die when could no longer have sex or something like that. I can’t remember his exact words.”

“Or you won’t say them to us,” Helen said.

“Did he say anything else?” Alice asked.

“No,” Dan answered. “But I believe he meant that in the spirit of what Helen said that there was a time when he would welcome death.”

“Thinking of Dad now I can imagine that this is how he would feel,” Alice said.

“Okay,” Dan said. “So we have our third position. Now I want you both to rethink your argument to include this value, Vic’s wishes. But I don’t want you to abandon your original value. I suggest we take a break. I’m going to get some coffee. Can I get some for you?”

“No,” Alice said.

“I would like some tea,” Helen said.

“Fine,” Dan said. “I will be back in fifteen minutes. I don’t want you to talk to each other while I’m gone. Use that time to reconsider your thoughts.”

Dan returned in fifteen minutes as promised.

“Here is your tea Helen,” he said as he handed her a white styrofoam cup with a string hanging down the side.

“Thank you,” Helen said taking the tea.

“I’m glad you are back,” Alice said. “I’ve been thinking. The doctors say if Dad stays hooked up to that machine he will never get off. The machine may extend his life, a few days but he will die anyway and he will have suffered more time with that tube down his throat. They say there’s a chance that if we pull out the tube that his body will strengthen and he will breathe on his own and he might even get to go home. I know he would rather die at home and not in a hospital. If there is a chance of that I think we should take it.”

“I agree,” Helen said.

The doctors pulled the tube a few minutes later. Vic began to breathe on his own. The exertion of having to breathe himself seemed to wake him from his coma. Later, he was able to go home with Hospice care. He was able to talk in a limited way. He died a week later. Both Helen and Alice were very pleased with their decision.

The third position is magic. It opens doors that we never knew were there. It opens our minds and hearts to one another. We have seen it work many times and always with an unexpected result.

Three Values to Consider

Consider the three pronouns, “I”, “We,” “They.” Embedded in them are three values. These three values are always at work in any social relationship.

            “I want…” represents the value of freedom, independence, autonomy, liberty, personal choice and other words that represent the libertarian value. This value when taken to extreme becomes selfish and cruel.

            It is often balance by “We need…” This represents the value of serving the common good. It is represented by communitarian values. Words like fraternity, all-for-one - one-for-all, attachment, bonding, connectivity are words that represent this value. This value taken to its extreme can become restrictive and smothering. Often there is an assumed tension between the “I” value, the individual, and the “we” value, the collective. However, such a polarity forces us again into “either/or” thinking or “compromise,” which is what third position thinking avoids.

            This brings us to our third always-with-us value represented by the “They” pronoun and the question: “What do they think?” This value includes the concept of status and social competition and of better-than/less-than thinking. The positive value is an antidote to the social poison of hierarchy and status. The value is represented by words like justice, equality, equal access, fairness. This value creates a mythical objective “they” to look down on our relationships and behavior.

            Our relationships always exist in a social context. All of us have the urge to be in the better-than position inside our social world. This third value encourages us to level the playing field, appreciate the value of all the players and to find a role for each person to play. This value taken to the extreme can create an extreme sensitivity to insult.

            As you will note the complexity of each of these values increases as we move into them. The “I” value is simple to understand. It is the value of the individual’s right to assert one’s self. The “we” value is only slightly more complex. It is the value of conforming to the needs of our relationship or our community. The third value that emerges from the “they” pronoun is still more complex. In every relationship there is always the judgment of the “they” or the relationship’s context. We can get so wrapped up in pleasing “them” that we diminish our partner or our community and limit any individual creativity.

If we can find humility and serve that they/equality value along with the value of I independence and we the-good-of-the-community or relationship value then we can avoid either/or dichotomies and win/lose games.

In a community and in a relationship, when each of these values is considered and represented, a community is in balance. Solutions that come from a mixture of these three values or forces are satisfying, effective, creative solutions. These three positions: the self, the relationship, and the abstract sense of fairness or equality, are a natural part of the human condition. It is no wonder that those three values are motivating forces in relationships and communities.

If you are searching for values represented in conflicts, begin with these three. If you are searching for just one value to represent a third position, consider one of these.

The Holy Trinity

As we describe the Third Position, I (David) can’t help but wonder about the Holy Trinity. Here is where I’m above my pay grade. The idea of three parts in one God is a mystery. I wonder sometimes if this mystery somehow involves the magic of a third position. In the Trinity, we have the God of the Old Testament who gave Moses the Ten Commandments. This represents the law or the rules we need to live by in order to have a healthy community or the “we” value. Then there is Christ who represents the value that we are to be our authentic selves, not a perfect Jesus. Jesus died for us because we cannot be perfect. Jesus died so that we could be free to be authentically ourselves. So Christ represents the “I” value of liberty and freedom of expression. So here we have two seemingly opposing values; the value of the community versus the value of individual freedom.

This opposition begs for a third position. Dichotomies never reflect reality as it is. No value should be put in opposition to another. Duality is not reality. True spiritual values can always accommodate other spiritual values. However, when we are reduced to two major spiritual values, we tend to put them in opposition. A third value liberates us from this dichotomous thinking.

The Holy Spirit is the third part of the Trinity. What value might the Holy Spirit represent? In Bob Newbrough’s scheme, it might be equality or the “they” value. It might be expressed as the spirit that loves us equally. “All the children of the world, Red and Yellow, Black and White, they are precious in His sight.” Rich, poor, strong, weak, afraid, joyful, we all can receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe this is the mystery of the Holy Trinity. We need three positions to see the entirety of this spiritual reality.

Conclusion

The Third Position appeals to our higher transcendent spiritual nature. It invites all parties to move away from the false sense of certainty into the reality of ambiguity. It humbles all participants. It opens our minds and civilizes our discourse. It might be a useful tool in your work in pastoral care. Hopefully it will become a new tool for you in your own life.

Chapter 8: Balance Book

Click here to read Chapter 8: The Third Position www.mediate.com/DMcMillan/docs/Chapter Eight Third Position.doc