A simpler version might be: when we use distance to alleviate our emotional enmeshment with other people, we will either find that the strategy brings only temporary relief or we will become emotionally enmeshed with someone else.
Our logic is normally something like this: that person is causing me pain, if I get away from that person, the pain will lessen. However, that logic fails with emotional enmeshment. Family System Theory (FST) would locate the problem in the refusal of each person involved to be a "self." Enmeshed relationships (called codependency in other models) are characterized by people being confused over where they end and the other person begins. Or, it is like having two toys trying to run on one battery. There just does not seem to be enough juice in the battery for two whole toys to function independently.
Humans, it appears, have two contradictory needs: the need to be a "self" (me) and the need to be connected with another (we). Thus, all relationships are about "managing" the space between theses two needs. We often use physical distance to manage the space between me and we. We are, in this way of thinking, a bit like porcupines trying to stay warm without poking each other. We want to be close to others, but sometimes this hurts, especially, when we feel the other person overwhelming our sense of self. We even call this experience suffocation.
In Friedman's first rule, he deals with how we use physical distance to regulate the anxiety we experience as we move between me and we. However sometimes the we experience is a bit too much. On the less extreme end, we will avoid people who make us uncomfortable, on the other end, we divorce them, move far away from them, or worse, remove them.
An extreme form of separation is called an emotional cutoff. Counter intuitively, people who use emotional cutoffs to solve issues of emotional interdependency (enmeshment) are actually very connected to the person they are trying to leave and they will replicate their need in another relationship.
This explains the person who divorces a spouse only to marry someone very much like the person they left. Or, think of the abused spouse who seems to find only another abuser. Another example of an emotional cutoff might be the son who runs away from his Dad to become his own man, only to find that he finds himself in the same kind of stifling relationship but now with, say, an uncle or boss.
There are a couple of biblical stories that illustrate this well. The story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 27) comes to mind. The story is very involved when you think about it. Isaac is fused to Esau; Rebekah to Jacob. Isaac and Rebekah are in a conflictual relationship that they project on their children. The children, with the help of Rebekah, will resolve the conflict between the boys by having Jacob run away to his uncle. Soon he will find that his unfinished business (the cheating of his brother and father) will continue in his relationship with his uncle Laban. In fact, in time, Jacob will find his new situation twice as bad as what he left. Distance only amplified family process.
Another example of this might be David and his son Absalom's relationship. The Bible records,
Then Joab went to Geshur and brought Absalom back to Jerusalem. But the king said, “He must go to his own house; he must not see my face.” So Absalom went to his own house and did not see the face of the king … Absalom lived two years in Jerusalem without seeing the king’s face. (2 Samuel 14:23–28 NIV; see text for larger story)Again, physical distance (or time, as in the case of this story) could not resolve the emotional conflict that existed between father and son.
While both Abraham and David's families provide many examples illustrating the validity of FST, there are also plenty of examples arising from congregational life.
Any time in congregation life when we avoid another, we are using distance to manage an enmeshed or poorly defined relationship. Members who come to worship or meetings late, an elder avoiding members "who get to them," meetings that never get around to dealing with the elephant in the room are all examples of how people use distance to manage difficult or uncomfortable relationships.
Some of the more memorable examples in my ministry to date include the couple who would arrive late for worship each week and then when something would happen in the service they did not like, they would leave. What seems odd, when you think about it, is that the couple attended at all. But that is the way of enmeshed relationships: they form loops that get played out over and over again—and will until someone has the courage to call the game.
Church leaders who find themselves using emotional distance to resolves issues have an opportunity to do something different. They can dare to stand where it is uncomfortable. They can choose to reconnect to the person seemingly causing them pain. They can choose to confront what their guts (and the Spirit of God) tells them is the right thing to do.
Or they can choose leave well enough alone—but then they will have to deal with the issue over and over again. The key to managing emotional distance is to take a stand while staying connected to the other. Distance will solve nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment