Emotional abuse is a major problem in our culture today, whether experienced in our private relationships or in our public discourse. From parents verbally and physically abusing their children to spouses abusing each other, our homes often are places of emotional scarring, rather than places of refuge and repose.

And what happens in our private domain gets mirrored in our public forum. We have all witnessed the shameful tension around the health care debate. That debate is no less vitriolic than the discourse around issues such as national security, the housing crisis, the national debt, education, and a host of other critical issues. While no one will debate the importance of these issues — or the passion that they deserve — what is sad, and even frightening, is the emotional abuse that we bring to our handling of these issues.

The character attacks (including racial assaults and even death threats) go far beyond healthy political discussion, and reach a level of emotional abuse at a mass group level.

Whether emotional abuse occurs at the family level or the mass group level, it stems from a struggle over power relationships. In our October 13, 2009 post, Why Do We Fight? we discussed the innate tendencies toward fighting to resolve conflict. Ultimately, we can stay stuck at this level, or we can choose to move to a new level of conflict resolution. It is the level that all the great masters tried to teach us: the way of Love.

Although this sounds simple — and it is — it is not easy. Embracing love as the way to resolve conflict is the most robust skill we can master. We must begin by mastering our own internal enemies (our ego), and along the way, being able to embrace the foibles of the other person — or group. When we truly know who we are, then we can accept others just as they are — without trying to change them.

We spend tremendous energy trying to change other people, which simply does not work. Even if a person is going to make changes, they will do so because they are ready to do so. Our inspiration may be one of many influences in their change process, but their change is a work of spirit — not our genius or judgment.

Rather than abusing each other, by tearing each other down, we need to spend all of the energy we can muster building each other up. My mother was a very wise person, although she was a high school drop-out. One of her very wise sayings was, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” So many times I have learned to look for the good in everybody by forcing myself to say nothing until I had something good to say.

So often when we look at the big problems in our relationships or society, the answers are quite simple — but doing what it takes is not easy.  Although we could give many examples, we want to focus on one specific issue: fighting.  In a previous post we explored the basis of fighting in our nature, and how it impacts us at a personal level and affects our national discourse.

It is no secret to anyone who has been reading newspapers or watching TV that fighting and aggression have become far too common in our national discourse and character.  In much of the recent political fighting, each party suggests when the other party is in power that the other party has an underlying agenda to dissolve our democratic form of government in favor of socialism or a dictatorship.  Both sides use deliberately provocative, misleading and inflammatory language to confuse and enrage the public against the other side.  Here is a quote from Alexander Fraser Tytler (1748-1813) that provides an interesting perspective:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.  The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.  These nations have progressed through this sequence: ‘From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.’

What if the alternatives were moving from fighting to love, rather than moving from abundance to selfishness?  It’s simple, but it’s not easy.

A resolution that has a list of ten covenants has been drafted by one of the U.S. political parties.  Each of its members must agree to at least eight of these covenants or be denied party support.  The requirement for concurrence with only eight out of ten is intended to show an allowance for diversity.  However, the entire notion of explicit standards for membership raises interesting questions about true allegiance.  Although almost all groups and societies have their creeds or organizing documents, it is not clear that written standards establish loyalty or belonging.

In the Christian faith, Jesus the Christ came along and challenged the Ten Commandments, which had long held the position of being the foundation of the faith.  Instead, he said, “If you love your creator and love all created ones just as you love yourself, you will have reached your goal.”

Anyone who has been in love knows that you cannot capture the qualities for love on a checklist.  Oh, you can write up a checklist, but when you meet the right person, you will throw the checklist out the window.  Why?  Because love in its essence cannot be captured on paper.  The energy that fuels and maintains love is not two-dimensional or even three-dimensional; it has more dimensions than could possibly be captured in physical space.

And so it is when we extrapolate people’s loyalty to a group.  The true essence of loyalty cannot be captured on two-dimensional paper or based on explicit standards.  If we try to reduce membership to such criteria, we miss the point.

Actual belonging — whether in a one-on-one relationship or in a larger group — is a function of the heart.  It happens at soul level.  That can never be put on paper.