OPENING
SENTENCE: Vaunda had an aunt who had been married for over forty years to the same man before he passed away long before her.
INTRODUCTION: When they were both alive Vaunda and I would travel south to visit with them in Monterey, California and they were always very welcoming and enjoyable to be with. But to hear them talk to each other you would have thought they hated each other. And, when he was gone off to work and the gals were talking with each other, she seldom had much good to say about him. Probably, had she been brought up in our contemporary iWorld, she would have divorced him early only on. But, in years past you stuck it out- and they both stuck it out.
Ironically, when he finally passed away you would have thought her world had fallen apart- and in a real sense it did. She went into a depression and commented regularly on how much she missed him and how empty her life had become since he passed away. What appeared to us a barely tolerant co-existence was, in reality, a deeply embedded commitment that bonded them even in their adversity.
This story makes a very important point which is, “The presence of conflict in a relationship is not necessarily a sign of an unhealthy relationship.” Conflict can be a normal part of a relationship and is destructive only when one feels threatened. Vaunda’s aunt illustrates that people in the past years may have understood that better than today.
TRANSITION
SENTENCE: So what is it about much of the conflict we see that can be so destructive?
TRANSITION: This morning I want us to see that destructive marital conflict is driven by a sense of desperation that is grounded in a threat to one’s self. There are numerous examples of destructive conflict in the Bible but I want us to look at one in particular- the account of David and Absalom.
SAY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY: I want to ask, “What can we learn from David and Absalom about understanding destructive conflict?” We will look at three things. First, we will see that conflict operates at two levels. Second, at the emotional level destructive conflict is a feeling of desperation that leads to a drastic action. Third, we to acquire skills and knowledge about how to deal with conflict wisely.
TEXT: 2 Samuel 14:1-15:37
THEME: We reduce destructive marital conflict when we identify and address the source of desperation that drives it.
What can we learn from David and Absalom about understanding conflict?
EXPLAIN
SETTING: In order for us to understand the nature of the conflict between David and Absalom we need to understand the setting. David, who scripture regularly identifies as, “A man after God’s own heart” had allowed himself to succumb to the temptations of power, sex, and pride that led him to make some destructive decisions. David saw the beautiful Beth Sheba bathing on a rooftop and lusted after her. As a man of power he used his position to seduce her and in the process she conceived a child- all while her husband had been off to war. You know the story. To hide his sin David arranged to have her husband Uriah return from battle, hoping he would have sexual relations with her and claim the child was Uriah’s. The plan did not work. As a man of honor, Uriah refused to enjoy the pleasures of marriage while his squadron was off suffering the hardships of war. David then did something even more hideous- he sent Uriah to the front lines knowing full well he would be killed. In a real sense, David murdered Uriah- a sin that the prophet Nathan late exposed and for which David repented.
This evil decision set the course for a series of unfortunate events for David. Events that eventually led to a devastating conflict between him and his beloved son Absalom. First, his status as a good and honest man after God’s heart is now damaged. Second, his identify as a father is severely affected. His child born by Beth Sheba died and he believed his death was a consequence of his sin. But, it also impacted his other relationships as a father.
For instance, his son Amnon was impacted by his Fathers indiscretion by a loss of respect for David and by a damaged sense of moral discernment. In I Samuel 13, we are told Amnon desired his brothers Absalom’s daughter Tamar so much he had her brought to his home under false pretenses then sent his servants away and raped her. Immediately after, detested Tamar and set her up to have her to face the shame alone. It didn’t work. Word got out to both David and Absalom. David, who as king and as a father, should have punished Amnon- instead he did nothing. Probably, because of his own shame.
For two years David refused to act on behalf of Tamar and Absalom, saw David’s unwillingness to act on behalf of his daughter as a betrayal. David’s avoidance caused Absalom to begin a plot to destroy David and his overthrow his kingdom. And, in one sense, who could blame him. David had failed him.
Our story for today begins in chapter 14 of II Samuel where we are told, “Two years later when Absalom’s sheepshearers were at Baal Hazor near the border of Ephraim, he invited all the king’s sons to come there.24 Absalom went to the king (David) and said, “Your servant has had shearers come. Will the king and his attendants please join me?”
25 “No, my son,” the king replied. “All of us should not go; we would only be a burden to you.” Although Absalom urged him, he still refused to go but gave him his blessing. 26 Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon come with us.” The king asked him, “Why should he go with you?” 27 But Absalom urged him, so he sent with him Amnon and the rest of the king’s sons. 28 Absalom ordered his men, “Listen! When Amnon is in high spirits from drinking wine and I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon down,’ then kill him. Don’t be afraid. Haven’t I given you this order? Be strong and brave.” 29 So Absalom’s men did to Amnon what Absalom had ordered. Then all the king’s sons got up, mounted their mules and fled.
30 While they were on their way, the report came to David: “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left.” 31 The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn.
32 But Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said, “My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s express intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar. 33 My lord the king should not be concerned about the report that all the king’s sons are dead. Only Amnon is dead.”
You get the story. Absalom waited for two years maybe hoping David would deal with the issue of Tamar’s rape. Seeing no action Absalom set it up so that he could kill his brother Amnon while also getting revenge on his father by causing him to believe that all his sons were dead. He wanted revenge on both of them and his plan worked- at least for the short term. We can observe several things.
I. Conflict has two levels.
A. The Problem- The differences between two or more people. In this case, it was the hurt and sense of betrayal that Absalom had toward his Father. The rape was a real problem that needed to be addressed and instead of dealing with it David avoided it. Avoidance only delays the pain you will ultimately face anyway. It is always better to face your pain up front. But, the problem itself is seldom the most important component of destructive conflict.
B. The Threat- The belief that one’s self-esteem is in danger. For two years David refused to act all the while he should have known the expressed hatred and animosity that was building in Absalom. Now we find David acting under pressure to appease Absalom by allowing him to have Amnon join him in this gathering. He was naïve if the thought that Absalom had let the matter go. In reality, Absalom used the two years to plot his revenge and David’s avoidance and appeasement was not the way to deal with it. Absalom felt a threat because he believed his father did not even care enough for him or his daughter to bring justice.
Like David and Absalom in our own lives conflict also works at two levels. The problem and the threat. The problem is the easier of the two levels to handle. Problems can be easily negotiated and resolved. It is the threat that leads us to act out of desperation that is hardest to deal with. That threat can be real or imagined. By imagined, it means we can live in anxiety that comes out of our own insecurities.
The threat can be to one’s status or to one's identity. For David, it was both. His reputation as an honorable king and man of God and his identity pertaining to his role as a father were both intensely threated. The threat may also be invisible others who may not understand why we are afraid to face up to the problem that is clear to them.
Principle: To deal with conflict we must learn to identify the source of the threat. Like David, we must face the threat to our status or identify before we can deal with situations. Face your pain up front.
C. We should not confuse the two levels when we are trying to manage conflict.
1. Problem Solving attempts to solve the problem the two people are facing.
2. Conflict Reduction seeks to reduce the threat a person feels.
ILLUSTRATE: When we confuse the two it often makes the problem worse. Men, you know what I am talking about. Your wife says something to you about that she does not like and you ignore her because you do not see it as a problem or if you do- it is no big thing. But, what you learn is that it is a big thing to her. In fact, she has been seething over it for days. We must learn that when she says something that is bothering her you better listen- because if it is unaddressed it can grow into something bigger.
It is like an old joke. Where a letter to a neighbor reads: Dear Frank. We've been neighbors for six tumultuous years. When you borrowed my tiller, you returned it in pieces. When I was sick, you blasted rap music. And when your dog went to the bathroom all over my lawn, you laughed. I could go on, but I'm certainly not one to hold grudges. So I am writing this letter to tell you that your house is on fire. Cordially, Bob
APPLY: We need to deal with problems before they grow into something bigger.
THEME: We reduce destructive marital conflict when we identify and address the source of desperation that drives it.
What can we learn from David and Absalom about understanding conflict?
II. Conflict is a desperate feeling that can lead to a drastic action.
34 Meanwhile, Absalom had fled. Now the man standing watch looked up and saw many people on the road west of him, coming down the side of the hill. The watchman went and told the king, “I see men in the direction of Horonaim, on the side of the hill.” 35 Jonadab said to the king, “See, the king’s sons have come; it has happened just as your servant said.” 36 As he finished speaking, the king’s sons came in, wailing loudly. The king, too, and all his attendants wept very bitterly. 37 Absalom fled and went to Talmai son of Ammihud, the king of Geshur. But King David mourned many days for his son. 38 After Absalom fled and went to Geshur, he stayed there three years.39 And King David longed to go to Absalom, for he was consoled concerning Amnon’s death
A. The desperate feeling is caused by the threat. If conflict were only about problems and differences, then it would be relatively easy to resolve. But, it usually more about the threat and our response, than it is about the problem. The threat often leads to a sense of desperation- a sense of near panic that obsesses us. That desperation leads to a drastic action.
In the case of Absalom, the drastic action is that he fled- a common response to conflict. Because he had a perceived threat from his father he fled to a place that where he could not be found. You can almost feel the emotional intensity present in his anger at Amnon and lead him to kill him and the anger at his father who had failed him and he had intended to humiliate and hurt
Actions of this nature are driven by the desperation of the person.
B. The drastic action is always intended to restore esteem and remove the threat- not to solve the problem. Note this important point in conflict. The motive for the action is not to solve the problem but to get away from the threat. That is why some of the things people do in conflict make no sense- they are often self-destructive or intended to hurt the person they feel is the threat even if it makes things worse.
C. One or both of the parties may be in conflict. The problem worsens when both parties are in a state of conflict- or feeling a sense of desperation. In such a state even the simplest of problems cannot be solved. People begin attacking each other and not the problem at hand. Little problems often grow into significant divisions.
ILLUSTRATE: I have used the story of my son’s growing up and fighting quite often and usually over the most trivial of things. On one occasion they were hitting each other over a three-inch piece of blue yarn while we were driving in our blue Astro van. After a few minutes I grabbed the piece of yarn and told them to stop fighting- it was mine now. I showed them the piece of yarn and asked them, “Is this what you are fighting over? A stupid piece of yarn?” We kept that piece of yarn in the van for years and would show it to them when they began fighting.
APPLY: Most destructive conflicts are not about pieces of yarn- it is about our sense of justice, our esteem, our need for love or respect and when we do not get it. We fight. If you stop and look at the actual problem it is often about little more than a stupid of yarn.
THEME: We reduce destructive marital conflict when we identify and address the source of desperation that drives it.
What can we learn from David and Absalom about understanding conflict?
II. We need wisdom to know how to deal with the conflict.
14 Joab son of Zeruiah knew that the king’s heart longed for Absalom.2 So Joab sent someone to Tekoa and had a wise woman brought from there. He said to her, “Pretend you are in mourning. Dress in mourning clothes, and don’t use any cosmetic lotions. Act like a woman who has spent many days grieving for the dead. 3 Then go to the king and speak these words to him.” And Joab put the words in her mouth.4 When the woman from Tekoa went to the king, she fell with her face to the ground to pay him honor, and she said, “Help me, Your Majesty!” 5 The king asked her, “What is troubling you?”
She said, “I am a widow; my husband is dead. 6 I your servant had two sons. They got into a fight with each other in the field, and no one was there to separate them. One struck the other and killed him. 7 Now the whole clan has risen up against your servant; they say, ‘Hand over the one who struck his brother down, so that we may put him to death for the life of his brother whom he killed; then we will get rid of the heir as well.’ They would put out the only burning coal I have left, leaving my husband neither name nor descendant on the face of the earth.”
8 The king said to the woman, “Go home, and I will issue an order in your behalf.” 9 But the woman from Tekoa said to him, “Let my lord the king pardon me and my family, and let the king and his throne be without guilt.”10 The king replied, “If anyone says anything to you, bring them to me, and they will not bother you again.”11 She said, “Then let the king invoke the Lord his God to prevent the avenger of blood from adding to the destruction, so that my son will not be destroyed.” “As surely as the Lord lives,” he said, “not one hair of your son’s head will fall to the ground.”12 Then the woman said, “Let your servant speak a word to my lord the king.” “Speak,” he replied. 23 Then Joab went to Geshur and brought Absalom back to Jerusalem.24 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
Let’s stop and consider what is happening here. Joab was a faithful servant to David and he saw David’s plight. He saw David’s sorrow at the death of his son Amnon and his initial response to the exaggerated claims that all of David’s son’s had been killed. It had to be traumatic and he must have had been incapacitated in acting for multiple reasons. He was still reeling from his on indiscretion and had lost his moral authority by not acting in Tamar's defense. Now he had lost a son through the murder of another son and for at least a brief period had thought he had lost all his sons. On the one hand, he had to angry at Absalom while on the other hand understand his act. So when Absalom fled he only had a few choices. One was to chase him down for punishment- something that Absalom feared and coerced him to flee. The other was to call him back to try to rebuild a broken relationship that he created the setting for. David choose neither. He instead chooses again, to do nothing.
In his wisdom, Joab created a scheme to help David see his need to act. So by taking a story line from the prophet Nathan he created a scenario where David would see that need. He recruited to assist him a wise servant whose story we just read. She gave a fictitious story of losing her husband and of one of her two sons killed the other son. She was being pressured to turn the remaining son in so he could be punished- leaving her with no remaining family.
The story was not true but it did create a scenario where David’s sense of justice could be fairly applied. The story really was about David and his own son Absalom. What good would it do to punish Absalom or even to have him remain in exile? He loses both sons if he did not try to reconcile. As we learn David accepted the wisdom that was laid before him and invited Absalom back. Absalom did return and David did try to reconcile but unfortunately, Absalom’s disdain for his father did not end here. But that is something for another story. But what we can learn from this account are three things.
A. You can learn the wisdom needed for dealing with conflict. David needed wisdom and Joab was the person that could help him apply it. It says to us that we can learn wisdom from others about how to deal with difficult situations by people that are emotionally wrapped up in the matter.
B. We all have a natural style for dealing with conflict. We all deal with conflict in our own way but some ways are better than others in different situations. Some avoid conflict and even though it is often okay there are times we must face issues head on. Some are accommodators and seldom assert themselves even when it is important in building a relationship. Some see everything as a competition and seek to win regardless of its impact on others. Some are compromisers who can give and take on many issues but often come across as sly. Collaborations seek a solution that is a win-win for everyone but often demands to much input before accepting a decision. Knowing your natural style helps you to better understand when you need to try another style when necessary.
C. If we find our security in Jesus alone, we can avoid destructive conflict. This is the heart of the issue. If we seek our sense of well- being primarily in your spouse, you set ourselves up for disappointed and destructive conflict. Why? Because you are married to a flawed person like yourself. He/she may at times fail you but Jesus never will. We can learn from Him wisdom in dealing with conflict.
ILLUSTRATE: Harvard University initiated a new approach to learning in the Masters of Business program. Most programs are based on a model that if you do the required reading and pass the tests you are granted your degree. The approach that Harvard innovated uses a case study model. In this model, students are to master up to 280 case studies of real life situations and learn from them how to apply it to the real world. Each session they will address a case study where they will read information on a problem that a real business faced, have a presenter who was part of the situation and then they will discuss it and review what was done and potential alternatives they could have used.
The idea is that after so many cases they will most likely find situations that match what they will face in the real world- not just some hypothetical information that may not pertain to what they will really face.
APPLY: That is the kind of learning we need in dealing with conflict in marriage. There are no new problems in marriage. There is a limited range of problems that we will face and we can learn from those who have already worked through them. While our situation feels unique and unsolvable to us, in reality, it is not unique and usually not unsolvable.
THEME: We reduce destructive marital conflict when we identify and address the source of desperation that drives it.
SAY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID: This morning we looked at the destructive conflict between David and Absalom and learned that like them it is grounded in desperation driven by a threat to our esteem which we base on flawed premises. Until we find our security in Jesus we will be prone to conflict.
TIE INTO OPENING SENTENCE: Vaunda’s aunt reminds that conflict itself is not a sign of an unhealthy relationship. It becomes unhealthy when the person or the problem is perceived as a threat that must be removed.
APPLY TO SPECIFIC AUDIENCE:
1. Learn to distinguish between problem-solving and conflict reduction. It is extremely difficult to deal with problems when you act out of desperation.
2. Assume others are in conflict if they act in ways that are destructive to the relationship.
3. Identify the threat that is causing you or the other person to have a sense of desperation.
4. Find your security in Christ alone. No person other than God can determine your true worth- and we know the magnitude of His love for us by looking at the cross.
HAYMAKER: In a 2011 Leadership Journal article, Gordon MacDonald shares the moving story about his friends Dr. Paul and Edith Rees. When the Rees's were in their 90s, MacDonald asked if they still fought after 60-plus years of marriage.
"O, sure we do," Dr. Rees responded. "Yesterday morning was a case in point. Edith and I were in our car, and she was driving. She failed to stop at a stop sign, and it scared me half to death."
"So what did you do?" MacDonald asked.
"Well, I've loved Edith for all these years, and I have learned how to say hard things to her. But I must be careful because when Edith was a little girl, her father always spoke to her harshly. And today when she hears a manly voice speak in anger—even my voice—she is deeply, deeply hurt."
"But, Paul," MacDonald said, "Edith is 90-years-old. Are you telling me that she remembers a harsh voice that many years ago?"
"She remembers that voice more than ever," Rees said.
MacDonald asked, "So how do you handle that driving situation from the other day?"
"Ah," he said, "I simply said, 'Edith, darling, after we've had our nap this afternoon, I want to discuss a thought I have for you. And when the nap was over I did. I was calm; she was ready to listen, and we solved our little problem."
MacDonald concluded: "These are the words of a man who has learned that conflict is necessary, can be productive, but must be managed with wisdom and grace. By the time I reach 90, I hope to be just like him."
