Polarity Management

Several years ago, I attended a continuing education event led by Speed Leas and Barry Johnson. The workshop was on polarity management. Barry was working on the concepts now incorporated into his book Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Is that not a great title? It does not deal with solving unsolvable problems, but with identifying and managing unsolvable problems. No miracles promised in that title!

In our congregations, presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly we are faced with constant polarities which we try to solve with “yes – no” votes. A decision is made, sometimes by the narrowest of margins, but the “problem” has not been solved. Folks are still lined up on opposite sides of the “problem.” I wonder what it would look like if we tried to deal with fewer “problems” at any one meeting and applied Johnson’s polarity management as a tool for our discernment.

Johnson posits that each side of a polarity has an upside and a downside. He uses a square divided into four quadrants. Side A identifies the potential upsides of their position. Side B identifies the potential upsides of their position. Side A identifies the potential downsides of Side B. Side B identifies the potential downsides of Side A. The question for both sides is, “What must happen so we gain as much of the two potential upsides and avoid the potential downsides?” I must admit this paragraph has not even scratched the surface of Johnson’s work.

It seems to me, in applying polarity management, it is necessary for each side to acknowledge the potential upsides of the other position. I know, in the heat of our battles that is very hard to do. When emotions escalate the ability of the mind to reason decreases in direct proportion to the emotional escalation. When we think we are the sole possessors of the truth, it is impossible to acknowledge truth on the other side. It is interesting that in the Book of Order (F-3.0105) it states, we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.

In doing a Google search for the definition of forbearance (patient self-control; restraint and tolerance,) I found a graph depicting the use of the word over time from about 1800 to 2010. Usage of the word peaked in about 1825. Usage has since been decreasing to reach the lowest level in our present time. There is no indication of the correlation of the word being used and being forbearing in behavior. However, it seems we are not very forbearing in the incivility of our era. We are so damned convinced of our rightness, we cannot see the potential rightness of another. So we divide away from those we are convinced are wrong.

If we have a 12 inch long magnet it will have a north and a south pole. If we cut that magnet in half, each half will have a north and south pole. If we cut the two halves each of the pieces will have a north and south pole, ad infinitum. So it becomes when congregations or denominations divide. In a relatively short period of time, a polarity will develop among those who thought they were all “like minded.”

Johnson’s polarity management requires enough forbearance to even consider the possibility that the other side might have some potential upsides. I doubt the Kingdom would suddenly burst forth if we applied polarity management in our discernment for ways forward with our unsolvable problems, but what would be upside of trying?