But: I think, talk, worry, pray, get upset about, etc., all of this stuff all the time (way too much) and maybe the few of you who read this and are invested in the PCA will engage me on what follows.
John Gottman is one of the premier marriage researchers in the country and his book The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work has been enormously helpful to me, not only in my own marriage but also in trying to help married folks in our church. Gottman's basic argument is that the heart of marriage is intimate friendship, commitment and the deep interpersonal unity that results. Through his research into nearly 4000 couples at his 'love lab' at the University of Washington, Gottman has identified a cluster of behaviors that are the true culprits in causing divorce and marital break-down. He calls these "the four horsemen of the apocalypse": criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. These actions over time produce 'negative sentiment override' in which everything the partner says or does (or has done) is interpreted in a negative manner.
The really important insight here is that these everyday patterns are the real sins that kill the heart of a marriage and produce the conditions of loneliness, pain, and physical/emotional distance in which adultery, abuse, desertion typically take place. Thus, the first step in repairing damaged marriages is to replace the four horsemen with good communication patterns. Then, the conflicts that have been handled poorly can actually be discussed in a fruitful way.
But there's more: once the four horsemen are cleared out of the way, Gottman has specific advice on handling areas of conflict and disagreement within a marriage. He says that most big, lasting areas of disagreement between couples are rooted in deep value differences that are themselves tied into each person's past experience. In this situation, the only way to move forward is for each person to listen to the other as they talk in depth about why they hold the values the do. Gottman says that if this kind of safe space can be created for honest discussion and sharing then the listening process can engender (at least) some measure of mutual understanding and empathy for the value difference in the other. Finally, with the four horsemen replaced by understanding, the couple can begin to negotiate their different approaches to issues and find ways forward that satisfy to some degree their differing values.
What does this have to do with the PCA?
The different parties in the PCA are like married partners whose ecclesial marriage relationship has been deeply damaged by the presence of "the four horsemen": criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling. (Actually, if we add incessant gossip and slander then that makes six, but who's counting). While sin is certainly enough to produce these kinds of destructive behaviors in all of us, they often rage during church conflicts where both sides see the issues very differently. (The fact that our system of polity is court-based and legal in nature only makes adversarial stances and strategies all too easy). I am suggesting that, as may be obvious, our disagreements are rooted in different theological or ecclesial values held by the parties in question. Much of the time, even in more constructive dialogue, all the conversation partners attempt to do is clarify their points of agreement and disagreement, while offering a critique of the other's position; while this kind of 'charitable debate' format can be helpful, Gottman's insight into the dynamics of crumbling marriages suggests that it's not enough.
The differing parties within the PCA need marriage counseling along the lines Gottman suggests. First, safe spaces must be created for conversation in which each 'side' can honestly describe the ecclesial values they hold dear and, more importantly, why they do so. There must be a commitment first to understanding the other and why they believe the way they do. Such an exercise, undertaken in reliance on the Holy Spirit and a posture of humility, prayer, and repentance, could actually produce genuine empathy instead of angry debates and dismissals. Presumably, these kinds of conversations would surely bring to light much relational sin of which to repent. Perhaps new relationships and even friendships would emerge with the strength to withstand further discussion. If such reconciliation occurred between the polarized PCA parties, fruitful negotiations could then go forward and (maybe) creative solutions be found to many of the issues that vex us.
Of course, at the end of all this, deep differences - even at the level of values and vision - would probably still exist (as they continue to exist in most marriages!); but the process would leave the partners in a different place than where they began. And that couldn't but be a good thing.
