Boundaries Face To Face Part 12

Sharon, unaware of how she was hurting her friend, is genuinely sorry about the problem. She begins to take more responsibility for her schedule. After a few futile attempts to get Cathy to baby-sit at the last minute and having to miss a few important meetings, she starts planning for events a week or two ahead of time.

8. What happens next? The friends.h.i.+p grows and deepens. Over time, Cathy and Sharon laugh over the conflict that actually brought them closer.

Conflict #4: Compliant/Nonresponsive

Remember the Marsha-Tammy friends.h.i.+p at the beginning of this chapter? One friend doing all the work and the other coasting ill.u.s.trates the compliant/nonresponsive conflict. One party feels frustrated and resentful; the other wonders what the problem is. Marsha sensed that the friends.h.i.+p wasn't as important to Tammy as it was to her.

Let's a.n.a.lyze the situation: 1. What are the symptoms? Marsha feels depressed, resentful, and unimportant. Tammy, however, may feel guilty or overwhelmed by her friend's needs and demands.

2. What are the roots? Marsha always feared that if she didn't control her important attachments by doing all the work, she'd be abandoned. So she became a Martha to everyone else's Mary, a worker instead of a lover (Luke 10:38a42).

Tammy has never had to work hard for friends.h.i.+ps. Always popular and in demand, she's pa.s.sively taken from important friends.h.i.+ps. She's never lost anyone by not being responsive. In fact, they work harder to keep her around.

3. What is the boundary conflict? There could be two boundary conflicts here. First, Marsha takes on too much responsibility for the friends.h.i.+p. She's not letting her friend bear her own load (Gal. 6:5). Second, Tammy doesn't take enough responsibility for the friends.h.i.+p. She knows that Marsha will come up with activities from which she can pick and choose. Why work when someone else will?

4. Who needs to take owners.h.i.+p? Marsha needs to take responsibility for making it too easy for Tammy to do nothing. She sees that her attempts to plan, call, and do all the work are disguised attempts to control love.

5. What do they need? Both women need support from other friends. They can't look objectively at this problem without a relations.h.i.+p or two of unconditional love around them.

6. How do they begin? Marsha practices setting limits with supportive friends. She realizes that she will still have friends.h.i.+ps in which each friend carries her own weight if she and Tammy break off their friends.h.i.+p.

7. How do they set boundaries? Marsha tells Tammy about her feelings and informs her that she will need to take equal responsibility for their friends.h.i.+p in the future. In other words, after Marsha calls, she won't call again unless Tammy does. Marsha hopes that Tammy will miss her and begin calling.

If worst comes to worst and the friends.h.i.+p atrophies due to Tammy's unresponsiveness, Marsha has gained something. She's learned it wasn't a mutual connection in the first place. Now she can grieve, get over it, and move on to find real friends.

8. What happens next? The mini-crisis changes the character of the friends.h.i.+p permanently. It either exposes it for a nonrelations.h.i.+p-or it provides soil for the rebuilding of a better one.

Questions about Friends.h.i.+p Boundary Conflicts

Boundary conflicts in friends.h.i.+ps are difficult to deal with because the only cord tying the relations.h.i.+p together is the attachment itself. There's no wedding ring. There's no job connection. There's just the friends.h.i.+p-and it often seems all too fragile and in danger of being severed.

People who are in the above conflicts often raise the following questions when they consider setting boundaries on their friends.h.i.+ps.

Question #1: Aren't Friends.h.i.+ps Easily Broken?

Most friends.h.i.+ps have no external commitment, such as marriage, work, or church, to keep the friends together. The phone could just stop ringing and the relations.h.i.+p die with no real ripples in the lives of the partic.i.p.ants. So aren't friends.h.i.+ps at greater risk of breaking up when boundary conflicts arise?

This type of thinking has two problems. First, it a.s.sumes that external inst.i.tutions such as marriage, work, and church are the glue that holds relations.h.i.+ps together. It a.s.sumes that our commitments are what hold us together, not our attachments. Biblically and practically, nothing could be further from the truth.

We hear this thinking in many Christian circles: "If you don't like someone, act like you do." Or, "make yourself love them." Or, "commit to loving someone." Or, "choose to love someone, and the feelings will come."

Choice and commitment are elements of a good friends.h.i.+p. We do need more than fair-weather friends. However, Scripture teaches us that we can't depend on commitment or sheer willpower, for they will always let us down. Paul cried out that he did what he didn't want to do, and he didn't do what he wanted to do (Rom. 7:19). He was stuck. We all experience the same conflict. Even when we commit to a loving friends.h.i.+p, bad things happen. We let them down. Feelings go sour. Simply white-knuckling it won't reestablish the relations.h.i.+p.

We can solve our dilemma the same way Paul solved his: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). The answer is being "in Christ Jesus"-in other words, in relations.h.i.+p with Christ, both vertically and horizontally. As we stay connected to G.o.d, to our friends, and to our support groups, we are filled up with the grace to hang in there and fight out the boundary conflicts that arise. Without this external source of connection, we're doomed to an empty willpower that ultimately fails or makes us think we're omnipotent.

Again, the Bible teaches that all commitment is based on a loving relations.h.i.+p. Being loved leads to commitment and willful decision-making-not the reverse.

How does this apply to friends.h.i.+ps? Look at it this way. How would you feel if your best buddy approached you and said: "I just wanted to tell you that the only reason we're friends is because I'm committed to our friends.h.i.+p. There's nothing that draws me to you. I don't particularly enjoy your company. But I will keep choosing to be your friend."

You probably wouldn't feel very safe or cherished in this relations.h.i.+p. You'd suspect you were being befriended out of obligation, not out of love. Don't let anyone fool you. All friends.h.i.+ps need to be based on attachment, or they have a shaky foundation.

The second problem with thinking that friends.h.i.+ps are weaker than inst.i.tutionalized relations.h.i.+ps such as marriage, church, and work is in a.s.suming that those three aren't attachment-based. It simply isn't true. If it were, wedding vows would ensure a zero percent divorce rate. Professions of faith would ensure faithful church attendance. A hiring would ensure one hundred percent attendance at work. These three important inst.i.tutions, so crucial to our lives, are, to a large degree, attachment-based.

It's scary to realize that the only thing holding our friends to us isn't our performance, or our lovability, or their guilt, or their obligation. The only thing that will keep them calling, spending time with us, and putting up with us is love. And that's the one thing we can't control.

At any moment, any person can walk away from a friends.h.i.+p. However, as we enter more and more into an attachment-based life, we learn to trust love. We learn that the bonds of a true friends.h.i.+p are not easily broken. And we learn that, in a good relations.h.i.+p, we can set limits that will strengthen, not injure, the connection.

Question #2: How Can I Set Boundaries in Romantic Friends.h.i.+ps?

Single Christians have tremendous struggles with learning to be truth-tellers and limit-setters in romantic, dating friends.h.i.+ps. Most of the conflicts revolve around the fear of losing the relations.h.i.+p. A client may say: "There's someone in my life whom I like a lot-but I'm afraid if I say no to him, I'll never see him again."

A couple of unique principles operate in the romantic sphere: 1. Romantic relations.h.i.+ps are, by nature, risky. Many singles who have not developed good attachments with other people and who have not had their boundaries respected try to learn the rules of biblical friends.h.i.+ps by dating. They hope that the safety of these relations.h.i.+ps will help them learn to love, be loved, and set limits.

Quite often, these individuals come out of a few months of dating more injured than when they went in. They may feel let down, put down, or used. This is not a dating problem. It's a problem in understanding the purpose of dating.

The purpose of dating is to practice and experiment. The end goal of dating is generally to decide, sooner or later, whether or not to marry. Dating is a means to find out what kind of person we complement and with whom we are spiritually and emotionally compatible. It's a training ground for marriage.

This fact causes a built-in conflict. When we date, we have the freedom to say, at any time, "This isn't working out," and to end the relations.h.i.+p. The other person has the same freedom.

What does this mean for the person whose boundaries have been injured? Often, she brings immature, undeveloped aspects of her character to an adult romantic situation. In an arena of low commitment and high risk, she seeks the safety, bonding, and consistency that her wounds need. She entrusts herself too quickly to someone whom she is dating because her needs are so intense. And she will be devastated when things "don't work out."

This is a little like sending a three-year-old to the front lines of battle. Dating is a way for adults to find out about each other's suitability for marriage; it's not a place for young, injured souls to find healing. This healing can best be found in nonromantic arenas, such as support groups, church groups, therapy, and same-s.e.x friends.h.i.+ps. We need to keep separate the purposes of romantic and nonromantic friends.h.i.+ps.

It's best to learn the skill of setting boundaries in these nonromantic arenas, where the attachments and commitments are greater. Once we've learned to recognize, set, and keep our biblical boundaries, we can use them on the adult playground called dating.

2. Setting limits in romance is necessary. Individuals with mature boundaries sometimes suspend them in the initial stages of a dating relations.h.i.+p in order to please the other person. However, truth-telling in romance helps define the relations.h.i.+p. It helps each person to know where he starts and the other person stops.

Ignorance of one another's boundaries is one of the most blatant red flags of the poor health of a dating relations.h.i.+p. We'll ask a couple in premarital counseling, "Where do you disagree? Where do you lock horns?" When the answer is, "It's just amazing, we're so compatible, we have very few differences," we'll give the couple homework: Find out what you've been lying about to each other. If the relations.h.i.+p has any hope, that a.s.signment will generally help.

Question #3: What If My Closest Friends Are My Family?

Boundary-developing individuals sometimes say, "But my mother (or father, or sister, or brother) is my best friend." They often feel fortunate that, in these times of family stress, their best friends are the family in which they were raised. They don't think they need an intimate circle of friends besides their own parents and siblings.

They misunderstand the biblical function of the family. G.o.d intended the family to be an incubator in which we grow the maturity, tools, and abilities we need. Once the incubator has done its job, then, it's supposed to encourage the young adult to leave the nest and connect to the outside world (Gen. 2:24), to establish a spiritual and emotional family system on one's own. The adult is free to do whatever G.o.d has designed for him or her.

Over time, we are to accomplish G.o.d's purposes of spreading his love to the world, to make disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:19a20). Staying emotionally locked in to the family of origin frustrates this purpose. It's hard to see how we'll change the world when we have to live on the same street.

No one can become a truly biblical adult without setting some limits, leaving home, and cleaving somewhere else. Otherwise, we never know if we have forged our own values, beliefs, and convictions-our very ident.i.ty-or if we are mimicking the ideas of our family.

Can family be friends? Absolutely. But if you have never questioned, set boundaries, or experienced conflict with your family members, you may not have an adult-to-adult connection with your family. If you have no other "best friends" than your family, you need to take a close look at those relations.h.i.+ps. You may be afraid of separating and individuating, of becoming an autonomous adult.

Question #4: How Can I Set Limits with Needy Friends?

I was talking to a woman one day in session who felt extremely isolated and out of control. Setting limits with her friends seemed impossible for her; they were in perpetual crisis.

I asked her to describe the quality of her relations.h.i.+ps. "Oh, I've got lots of friends. I volunteer at the church two nights a week. I teach a Bible study once a week. I'm on a couple of church committees, and I sing in the choir."

"I'm getting exhausted just listening to you describe your week," I said. "But what about the quality of these relations.h.i.+ps?"

"They're great. People are being helped. They're growing in their faith, and troubled marriages are getting healed."

"You know," I said, "I'm asking you about friends.h.i.+ps, and you're answering about ministries. They're not the same thing."

She had never considered the difference. Her concept of friends.h.i.+p was to find people with needs and throw herself into a relations.h.i.+p with them. She didn't know how to ask for things for herself.

And that was the source of her boundary conflicts. Without these "ministry relations.h.i.+ps," this woman would have had nothing. So she couldn't say no. Saying no would have plummeted her into isolation, which would have been intolerable.

But it had happened anyway: she had come for help because of burnout.

When the Bible tells us to comfort with the comfort with which we are comforted (2 Cor. 1:4), it's telling us something. We need to be comforted before we can comfort. That may mean setting boundaries on our ministries so that we can be nurtured by our friends. We must distinguish between the two.

A prayerful look at your friends.h.i.+ps will determine whether you need to begin building boundaries with some of your friends. By setting boundaries, you may save some important ones from declining. And when romantic, dating relations.h.i.+ps lead to marriage, you will still need to remember how to build and maintain boundaries even in this most intimate of human relations.h.i.+ps.

9.

Boundaries and Your Spouse

If there were ever a relations.h.i.+p where boundaries could get confused, it is marriage, where by design husband and wife "become one flesh" (Eph. 5:31). Boundaries foster separateness. Marriage has as one of its goals the giving up of separateness and becoming, instead of two, one. What a potential state of confusion, especially for someone who does not have clear boundaries to begin with!

More marriages fail because of poor boundaries than for any other reason. This chapter will apply the laws of boundaries, as well as its myths, to the marital relations.h.i.+p.

Is This Yours, Mine, or Ours?

A marriage mirrors the relations.h.i.+p that Christ has with his bride, the church. Christ has some things that only he can do, the church has some things that only it can do, and they have some things they do together. Only Christ could die. Only the church can represent him on earth in his absence and obey his commands. And together, they work on many things, such as saving the lost. Similarly, in marriage, some duties one spouse does, some the other does, and some they do together. When the two become one on their wedding day, spouses do not lose their individual ident.i.ties. Each partic.i.p.ates in the relations.h.i.+p, and each has his or her own life.

No one would have a problem deciding who wears the dress and who wears the tie. It's a little trickier to decide who balances the checkbook and who mows the lawn. But these duties can be worked out according to the spouses' individual abilities and interests. Where boundaries can get confusing is in the elements of personhood-the elements of the soul that each person possesses and can choose to share with someone else.

The problem arises when one trespa.s.ses on the other's personhood, when one crosses a line and tries to control the feelings, att.i.tudes, behaviors, choices, and values of the other. These things only each individual can control. To try to control these things is to violate someone's boundaries, and ultimately, it will fail. Our relations.h.i.+p with Christ-and any other successful relations.h.i.+p-is based on freedom.

Let's look at some common examples: Feelings One of the most important elements that promotes intimacy between two people is the ability of each to take responsibility for his or her own feelings.

I was counseling a couple who were having marital problems because of the husband's drinking. I asked the wife to tell her husband how she felt when he drank.

"I feel like he doesn't think about what he's doing. I feel like he . . ."

"No, you are evaluating his drinking. How do you feel about it?"

"I feel like he doesn't care. . . ."

"No," I said, "That is what you think about him. How do you feel when he drinks?"

She started to cry. "I feel very alone and afraid." She had finally said what she felt.

At that point her husband reached out and put his hand on her arm. "I never knew you were afraid," he said. "I would never want to make you afraid."

This conversation was a real turning point in their relations.h.i.+p. For years the wife had been nagging her husband about the way he was and about the way he should be. He responded by blaming her and justifying his actions. In spite of hours and hours of talking, they had continued to talk past each other. Neither was taking responsibility for his or her own feelings and communicating them.

We do not communicate our feelings by saying, "I feel that you . . ." We communicate our feelings by saying, "I feel sad, or hurt, or lonely, or scared, or . . ." Such vulnerability is the beginning of intimacy and caring.

Feelings are also a warning signal telling us that we need to do something. For example, if you are angry at someone for something she did, it is your responsibility to go to her and tell her you are angry and why. If you think that your anger is her problem and that she needs to fix it, you may wait years. And your anger may turn to bitterness. If you are angry, even if someone else has sinned against you, it is your responsibility to do something about it.

This was a lesson Susan needed to learn. When her husband, Jim, did not come home from work early enough for them to have time together, Susan became angry. Instead of confronting her husband, she would become very quiet for the rest of the evening. Jim became annoyed with having to pull out of her what was wrong. Eventually, hating her pouting, he left her alone.

Not dealing with hurt or anger can kill a relations.h.i.+p. Susan needed to talk with Jim about how she was feeling, instead of waiting for him to draw her out. Even though she felt he had been the one who had hurt her, she needed to take responsibility for her own hurt and anger.

Jim and Susan did not solve their problem by her simply expressing her anger to him. She needed to go one more step. She needed to clarify her desires in the conflict.

Desires Desires are another element of personhood that each spouse needs to take responsibility for. Susan was angry because she wanted Jim to be home. She blamed him for being late. When they came in for counseling, our conversation went like this: "Susan, tell me why you get angry at Jim," I said.

"Because he's late," she replied.

"That can't be the reason," I said. "People don't make other people angry. Your anger has to come from something inside of you."