Boundaries Face To Face Part 4

When we give in to guilty feelings, we are complying with a harsh conscience. This fear of disobeying the harsh conscience translates into an inability to confront others-a saying yes to the bad-because it would cause more guilt.

Biblical compliance needs to be distinguished from this kind of compliance. Matthew 9:13 says that G.o.d desires "compa.s.sion, and not sacrifice" (NASB). In other words, G.o.d wants us to be compliant from the inside out (compa.s.sionate), not compliant on the outside and resentful on the inside (sacrificial). Compliants take on too many responsibilities and set too few boundaries, not by choice, but because they are afraid.

Avoidants: Saying "No" to the Good

The living room suddenly became very quiet. The Bible study group that had been meeting at the Craigs' house for six months had suddenly become more intimate. Tonight the five couples began to share real struggles in their lives, not just the usual "please pray for Aunt Sarah" requests. Tears were shed, and genuine support, not just well-meaning advice, was offered. Everyone, except the hostess, Rachel Henderson, had taken a turn talking.

Rachel had been the driving force behind the formation of the Bible study. She and her husband, Joe, had developed the format, invited the other couples, and opened up their home to the study. Caught up in her leaders.h.i.+p role, however, Rachel never opened up about her struggles. She s.h.i.+ed away from such opportunities, preferring instead to help draw out others. Tonight the others waited.

Rachel cleared her throat. Looking around the room, she finally spoke, "After hearing all the other problems in the room, I think the Lord's speaking to me. He seems to be saying that my issues are nothing compared to what you all deal with. It would be selfish to take up time with the little struggles I face. So . . . who'd like dessert?"

No one spoke. But disappointment was evident on each face. Rachel had again avoided an opportunity for others to love her as they'd been loved by her.

This boundary problem is called avoidance: saying no to the good. It's the inability to ask for help, to recognize one's own needs, to let others in. Avoidants withdraw when they are in need; they do not ask for the support of others.

Why is avoidance a boundary problem? At the heart of the struggle is a confusion of boundaries as walls. Boundaries are supposed to be able to "breathe," to be like fences with a gate that can let the good in and the bad out. Individuals with walls for boundaries can let in neither bad nor good. No one touches them.

G.o.d designed our personal boundaries to have gates. We should have the freedom to enjoy safe relations.h.i.+ps and to avoid destructive ones. G.o.d even allows us the freedom to let him in or to close him off: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." (Rev. 3:20) G.o.d has no interest in violating our boundaries so that he can relate to us. He understands that this would cause injuries of trust. It is our responsibility to open up to him in need and repentance. Yet, for avoidants, opening up to both G.o.d and people is almost impossible.

The impermeable boundaries of avoidants cause a rigidity toward their G.o.d-given needs. They experience their problems and legitimate wants as something bad, destructive, or shameful.

Some people, like Marti, are both compliants and avoidants. In a recent session, Marti laughed ruefully at herself. "I'm beginning to see a pattern here. When someone needs four hours with me, I can't say no. When I need someone for ten minutes, I can't ask for it. Isn't there a transistor in my head that I can replace?"

Marti's dilemma is shared by many adults. She says "yes" to the bad (compliant) and says "no" to the good (avoidant). Individuals who have both boundary conflicts not only cannot refuse evil, they are unable to receive the support they so readily offer to others. They are stuck in a cycle of feeling drained, but with nothing to replace the lost energy.

Compliant avoidants suffer from what is called "reversed boundaries." They have no boundaries where they need them, and they have boundaries where they shouldn't have them.

Controllers: Not Respecting Others' Boundaries

"What do you mean, you're quitting? You can't leave now!" Steve looked across his desk at his administrative a.s.sistant. Frank had been working for Steve for several years and was finally fed up. He had given his all to the position, but Steve didn't know when to back off.

Time after time, Steve would insist on Frank's spending unpaid time at the office on important projects. Frank had even switched his vacation schedule twice at Steve's insistence. But the final straw was when Steve began calling Frank at home. An occasional call at home Frank could understand. But almost every day, during dinnertime, the family would wait while Frank had a telephone conference with his boss.

Several times Frank had tried to talk with Steve about the time violations. But Steve never really understood how burned out Frank was. After all, he needed Frank. Frank made him look successful. And it was so easy to get him to work harder.

Steve has a problem hearing and accepting others' boundaries. To Steve, no is simply a challenge to change the other person's mind. This boundary problem is called control. Controllers can't respect others' limits. They resist taking responsibility for their own lives, so they need to control others.

Controllers believe the old jokes about training top sales people: no means maybe, and maybe means yes. While this may be productive in learning to sell a product, it can wreak havoc in a relations.h.i.+p. Controllers are perceived as bullies, manipulative and aggressive.

The primary problem of individuals who can't hear no -which is different from not being able to say no -is that they tend to project responsibility for their lives onto others. They use various means of control to motivate others to carry the load intended by G.o.d to be theirs alone.

Remember the "boulder and knapsack" ill.u.s.tration in chapter 2? Controllers look for someone to carry their knapsacks (individual responsibilities) in addition to their boulders (crises and crus.h.i.+ng burdens). Had Steve shouldered the weight of his own job, Frank would have been happy to pitch in extra hours from time to time. But the pressure of covering for Steve's irresponsibility made a talented professional look elsewhere for work.

Controllers come in two types: 1. Aggressive controllers. These people clearly don't listen to others' boundaries. They run over other people's fences like a tank. They are sometimes verbally abusive, sometimes physically abusive. But most of the time they simply aren't aware that others even have boundaries. It's as if they live in a world of yes. There's no place for someone else's no. They attempt to get others to change, to make the world fit their idea of the way life should be. They neglect their own responsibility to accept others as they are.

Peter is an example of an aggressive controller. Jesus was telling the disciples about his upcoming suffering, death, and resurrection. Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him. But Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, "Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of G.o.d, but the things of men" (Mark 8:33).

Peter didn't want to accept the Lord's boundaries. Jesus immediately confronted Peter's violation of his boundaries.

2. Manipulative controllers. Less honest than the aggressive controllers, manipulators try to persuade people out of their boundaries. They talk others into yes. They indirectly manipulate circ.u.mstances to get their way. They seduce others into carrying their burdens. They use guilt messages.

Remember how Tom Sawyer tricked his playmates into whitewas.h.i.+ng the fence for him? He made it seem like such a privilege that kids were lined up to paint!

Isaac's son Jacob finagled his twin brother Esau into giving up his birthright (Gen. 25:29a34) and, with his mother's help, deceived his father into bestowing Esau's blessing on him (Gen. 27:1a29). In fact, Jacob's name means "deceiver." Numerous times he used his cleverness to avoid others' boundaries.

The event that helped Jacob work out of his manipulative boundarylessness was his confrontation with G.o.d in human form (Gen. 32:24a32). G.o.d "wrestled" with him all night long and then changed his name to Israel. The word Israel means "he who fights with G.o.d." G.o.d left Jacob with a dislocated thigh.

And Jacob changed. He became less deceitful and more honest. His aggressiveness was clearer, as evidenced by his new name. He was owning his feistiness. Only when the manipulative controller is confronted with his dishonesty can he take responsibility for it, repent of it, and accept his and others' limits.

Manipulators deny their desires to control others; they brush aside their own self-centeredness. They are like the adulterous woman in Proverbs: "She eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I've done nothing wrong' " (30:20).

Believe it or not, compliants and avoidants can also be controllers. They tend, however, to be more manipulative than aggressive. When compliant avoidants need emotional support, for example, they may do a favor for a friend. They hope that by being loving, they'll receive love. So then they wait, antic.i.p.ating the return of the favor. And sometimes they wait for years. Especially if they performed the favor for someone who can't read minds.

What's wrong with this picture? It's not a picture of love. The love that G.o.d talks about doesn't seek a return on its investment: "It is not self-seeking" (1 Cor. 13:5). Caring for someone so that they'll care back for us is simply an indirect means of controlling someone else. If you've ever been on the "receiving" end of that kind of maneuver, you'll understand. One minute you've taken the compliment, or favor-the next minute you've hurt someone's feelings by not figuring out the price tag attached.

Boundary Injuries At this point, you might be saying to yourself, "Wait a minute. How can controllers be called 'injured'? They are the injurers, not the injured!" Indeed, controllers do lots of damage to others, but they also have boundary problems. Let's see what goes on underneath.

Controllers are undisciplined people. They have little ability to curb their impulses or desires. While it appears that they "get what they want in life," they are still slaves to their appet.i.tes. Delaying gratification is difficult for them. That's why they hate the word no from others. They desperately need to learn to listen to the boundaries of others to help them observe their own.

Controllers also are limited in their ability to take responsibility for owning their lives. Having relied on bullying or indirectness, they can't function on their own in the world. The only remedy is to let controllers experience the consequences of their irresponsibility.

Finally, controllers are isolated. People stay with them out of fear, guilt, or dependency. If they're honest, controllers rarely feel loved. Why? Because in their heart of hearts, they know that the only reason people spend time with them is because they are pulling the strings. If they stopped threatening or manipulating, they would be abandoned. And, at some deep level, they are aware of their isolation. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear" (1 John 4:18). We can't terrorize or make others feel guilty and be loved by them at the same time.

Nonresponsives: Not Hearing the Needs of Others

Brenda's hand trembled as she talked. "Usually I've got pretty thick skin with Mike. But I guess the past couple of weeks of kid problems and work stresses had me feeling very vulnerable. This time his response didn't make me angry. It just hurt. And it hurt bad."

Brenda was recounting a recent marital struggle. Overall, she thought her marriage to Mike was a good one. He was a good provider, an active Christian, and a competent father. Yet the relations.h.i.+p allowed no room for her hurts or needs.

The incident Brenda was discussing began in a fairly benign manner. She and Mike were talking in the bedroom after putting the kids to bed. Brenda began to unburden her fears about child rearing and her feelings of inadequacy at work.

Without warning, Mike turned to her and said, "If you don't like the way you feel, change your feelings. Life's tough. So just . . . just handle it, Brenda."

Brenda was devastated. She felt she should have expected the rebuff. It wasn't that easy to express her neediness in the first place, especially with Mike's coldness. Now she felt as if he had chopped her feelings to bits. He seemed to have no understanding whatsoever of her struggles-and didn't want to.

How could this be a boundary problem? Isn't it just basic insensitivity? Partially. But it's not quite that simple. Remember that boundaries are a way to describe our spheres of responsibility: what we are and are not responsible for. While we shouldn't take on the responsibility of others' feelings, att.i.tudes, and behaviors, we do have certain responsibilities to each other.

Mike does have a responsibility to connect with Brenda, not only as a provider and as a parenting partner, but also as a loving husband. Connecting emotionally with Brenda is part of loving her as himself (Eph. 5:28, 33). He isn't responsible for her emotional well-being. But he is responsible to her. His inability to respond to her needs is a neglect of his responsibility.

Termed "nonresponsives" because of their lack of attention to the responsibilities of love, these individuals exhibit the opposite of the pattern exhorted in Proverbs 3:27 (NRSV): "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (that last phrase, "in your power," has to do with our resources and availability). Another key Scripture here is "If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom. 12:18 NRSV). Again, note the condition: "so far as it depends on you": we can't bring peace to someone who doesn't accept it!

Both of the above verses indicate the same idea: we are responsible to care about and help, within certain limits, others whom G.o.d places in our lives. To refuse to do so when we have the appropriate resources can be a boundary conflict.

Nonresponsives fall into one of two groups: 1. Those with a critical spirit toward others' needs (a projection of our own hatred of our needs onto others, a problem Jesus addressed in Matthew 7:1a5). They hate being incomplete in themselves. As a result, they ignore the needs of others.

2. Those who are so absorbed in their own desires and needs they exclude others (a form of narcissism).

Don't confuse this self-absorption with a G.o.d-given sense of taking responsibility for one's own needs first so that one is able to love others: "Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4). G.o.d wants us to take care of ourselves so that we can help others without moving into a crisis ourselves.

Controllers and Nonresponsives Controlling nonresponsives have a hard time looking past themselves. They see others as responsible for their struggles and are on the lookout for someone to take care of them. They gravitate toward someone with blurry boundaries, who will naturally take on too many responsibilities in the relations.h.i.+p and who won't complain about it. It's like the old joke about relations.h.i.+ps: What happens when a rescuing, enabling person meets a controlling, insensitive person? Answer: they get married!

Actually, this makes sense. Compliant avoidants search for someone to repair. This keeps them saying yes and keeps them out of touch with their own needs. Who fits the bill better than a controlling nonresponsive? And controlling nonresponsives search for someone to keep them away from responsibility. Who better than a compliant avoidant?

Below is a chart of the four types of boundary problems.1 It will help you see at a glance the kinds of problems with which you may struggle.

Summary of Boundary Problems CAN'T SAY CAN'T HEAR

NO The Compliant The Controller Feels guilty and/or controlled by others; can't set boundaries Aggressively or manipulatively violates boundaries of others YES The Nonresponsive The Avoidant Sets boundaries against responsibility to love Sets boundaries against receiving care of others

Functional and Relational Boundary Issues

A final boundary problem involves the distinction between functional and relational boundaries. Functional boundaries refers to a person's ability to complete a task, project, or job. It has to do with performance, discipline, initiative, and planning. Relational boundaries refers to the ability to speak truth to others with whom we are in relations.h.i.+p.

Another way of looking at it is that functional boundaries refer to our "Martha" parts, and relational, our "Mary" parts (Luke 10:38a42). Mary and Martha were friends of Jesus. Martha prepared dinner, while Mary sat at Jesus' feet. When Martha complained about Mary's not helping her, Jesus said: "Mary has chosen what is better" (v. 42). He didn't mean that Martha's busyness was bad; it was just the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Many people have good functional boundaries, but poor relational ones; that is, they can perform tasks at quite high levels of competence, but they may not be able to tell a friend that they don't like their chronic lateness. The reverse can also be true. Some people can be absolutely honest with others about their complaints and dislikes but be unable to get up for work in the morning!

We've taken a look at the different categories of boundaries. But how do you develop boundaries? Why do some people seem to have natural boundaries and others have no boundaries at all? As with many things, it has a lot to do with the family in which you grew up.

4.

How Boundaries Are Developed

Jim had never been able say no to anyone, especially to his supervisors at work. He'd moved up to the position of operations manager in a large firm. His dependability had earned him the reputation of "Mr. Can Do."

But his kids had another name for him: "The Phantom." Jim was never home. Being "Mr. Can Do" meant late nights at the office. It meant business dinners several nights a week. It meant weekends on the road, even after he'd promised the kids fis.h.i.+ng trips and trips to the zoo.

Jim didn't like being absent so much, but he had justified it to himself, saying, This is my contribution to the kids, my way of giving them the good life. His wife, Alice, had rationalized the "dadless dinners" by telling the children (and herself), "This is Dad's way of telling us he loves us." And she almost believed it.

Finally, however, Alice had had enough. One night she sat Jim down on the couch in the family room and said, "I feel like a single parent, Jim. I missed you for a while, but now all I feel is nothing."

Jim avoided her eyes. "Honey, I know, I know," he replied. "I'd really like to say no to people more, but it's just so hard to-"

"I found someone you can say no to," Alice broke in. "Me and the kids!"

That did it. Something broke deep within Jim. A sense of pain, of guilt and shame, of helplessness and rage.

The words tumbled out of his mouth. "Do you think I like being like this, always giving in to others? Do you think I enjoy letting my family down?" Jim paused, struggling for composure. "All my life it's been this way, Alice. I've always feared letting people down. I hate this part of me. I hate my life. How did I get like this?"