First United Methodist Church Birmingham, Michigan
Scripture: Matthew 21:28-32
January 19, 1997
When I was beginning my ministry, one of the great names in Methodist preaching was that of Dwight Large. Dwight finished his career in the pulpit of Central Church, Detroit, following stints in other downtown pulpits in Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Ann Arbor. Dwight was a handsome man with sharp features, snow white hair, and what can only be described as "a sweet smile." His manner charmed you, even as his words drilled you. For Dwight was never afraid to call a spade, a spade, even as he was lovingly (and eloquently) planting it into your foot.
Dwight always preached from a manuscript. Which was not unique. What was unique was the extra page he wrote and made available for distribution at the close of the service. The title of this addendum escapes me now, although it was something like "For Those Who Would Like To Go Further." Building on the assumption that when his sermon work was done, yours was just beginning, Dwight figured he'd better prepare a "what to do next" sheet for his hearers. On this page could be found suggestions of books to read....prayers to offer....letters to write....steps to take.... organizations to contact....efforts to launch....that sort of thing.
Everybody applauded him for it. It was novel. It was creative. It was well researched. But it was woefully under-utilized. In a cluster of his colleagues, he once admitted that he wasn't bothered by how few people were willing to heed it, but by how few people were willing to read it. Not that people don't think about sermons after they are preached. They do. At least they tell me they do. People stream by me, Sunday after Sunday, and say: "That was really interesting. We'll have to think about that." Which I take as a compliment....given that I'd hate to be thought of as "uninteresting." And I cotton to the idea of giving people "something to think about."
But, then, there's this little story of Jesus to think about, suggesting (as it does) that thinking about stuff....no matter how "interesting" that stuff may be. is not necessarily an activity that sends shivers of joy up and down God's spine.
"How so?" you say. "Listen up," I say. Pay attention to this little story that Jesus tells in the last five days of his earthly life (which would seem to give it a certain priority, if not a certain urgency....don't you think?). But there I go again, posing something for you to "think" about. Which may be alright this time, given that this tiny parable begins with the same invitation....namely to "think about" something.
"What do you think?" asks Jesus. I mean, he really wants to know. He's going to tell you a story.... pose a question....then ask your opinion. Maybe he's going to request a show of hands. So you'd better be ready in case there's a show of hands required....at the end of your thinking, that is.
"A certain man had two sons," says Jesus. The father asked them both to work in his vineyard, that very day. To which one of his sons impudently replied: "Forget it." Or something to that effect. But, a little while later, the father looked out the window and there was his insolent son out there working like a mule....weeding....trimming....picking....plowing....whatever.
Meanwhile, his other son....his polite son....the son who would never think of addressing him without saying "Sir"....said, in response to his father's request: "Father, sir, nothing would please me more than to go out in the field and work for you....in just a moment." But, three hours later, this polite and docile son was still lying on the sofa watching MTV.
"Now think hard," says Jesus. "Which of these sons do you think pleased the father more?" The one who said, "No," but then went into action? Or the one who said, "Yes," but did nothing? There is no record that Jesus waits for a show of hands. So I won't either. I suppose when you are on your way to the gallows (him....not me), you don't start discussion groups. Besides, it seems that the multitude shouted out the correct answer instinctively. "The first son," they said. "The insolent son. The son who said who said he wouldn't go, but did. The nay-sayer who became a do-gooder. That's the one who pleased his daddy." And since Jesus didn't contradict them, one can only assume that Jesus agreed with them. So now you know. Question posed. Question pondered. Question answered. The father would rather have performance over promise....deeds over words....and deliverance over intention.
Which is a rather harsh judgment on son number two....who clearly thought well of his father, and (since we have no reason to think otherwise) thought well of his father's request. But, when crunch time came, son number two never got off the seat of his thought (if you'll pardon the crudeness of the image).
It makes you wonder, doesn't it, why this second son....this polite and pleasing son....this agreeable and agreeing son....this honor-all-requests and make-no-waves son....didn't get off the seat of his thought and head for the vineyard. For if he didn't want to go....didn't plan to go....didn't think it was his place to go....and didn't think he should have been asked to go....you'd think he would have simply said so, don't you?
But many don't....say so, that is. They say "yes," but don't put any effort behind their "yes." And they may, over time, act in such a way so that everybody else wonders why they said "yes" in the first place. There's a name for those people. We call them "passive-agressives." And all of us have known them. Because a lot of us are them.
Talking with a psychologist about such folk, he says: "I am seeing a woman who fits your definition right now. She's in therapy. She needs to be in therapy. She has been told by people close to her (and, most especially, by her mother....who called and made the initial appointment for her) that she ought to be in therapy. And the woman, herself, agrees that therapy is very much indicated. But she misses sessions....comes late to sessions....forgets to cancel when she misses sessions....fails to do the assigned homework between sessions....and seldom remembers her checkbook so that she can pay for her sessions. That's what I would call passive-aggressive behavior."
So I asked a businessman if he ever saw such folk as these. "See them?" he said. "I work with them. Their behavior is most obvious at meetings. I am talking about meetings to which they have agreed to come, but clearly do not want to attend. So they half attend. They come late. They leave early. They read. They doze off. They forget to turn their chair (or their head) toward the speaker. They ask irrelevant questions. They get off on minor points. And, when all else fails, they critique the process. But we don't call it 'passive-aggressive' when they do these things at work. Instead, we call it 'malicious compliance.'"
Next, I turned to a husband and asked him what he knew about passive-aggressive behavior in marriage. "Well," he said. "Let me tell you what happened yesterday. It snowed, as you remember. It snowed a lot, as you will also remember. My wife and I were out shoveling out driveway....our big driveway. When she said....as I knew she would....'Honey, we really need a snowblower. Promise me you'll get one.' To which I said,'Sure thing. Right you are. First thing tomorrow.' Or something to that effect."
"I knew exactly what to say, because I have said it countless times before. Not that I have ever followed it up by buying a snowblower, mind you. I don't like them. I don't want one. And I'll probably sit on the decision to purchase one as long as possible. That's because a snowblower is a machine, and I am uncomfortable around machines. If I buy one, I'll have to assemble it....start it....fix it....learn how to baby it. None of which sounds like fun. But I do not like admitting that to my wife. Nor do I want to get into an argument (with my wife) over that. So it's easier to tell her that I'll get one first thing tomorrow....and then find some way to be busy tomorrow."
Now my friend doesn't call that "passive-aggressiveness." Neither does he call it "malicious compliance." But he does have a name for it. He calls it "yessing my wife to death." Which I can understand, given that I have an advanced degree in the same subject.
By now you're beginning to get a picture. Perhaps uncomfortably so. You are beginning to see that passive-aggressive behavior....wherever it is found....consists of four classic components.
- Verbal compliance: At this stage, agreement is offered. "Yes" is said. And politeness (or niceness) is the mode of expression. That's because we passive- aggressives like being liked, dislike being confronted, don't want to make waves (or even ripples), and will often agree to something as a means of extricating ourselves from uncomfortable situations, or as a way to temporarily get people off our backs.
- Behavioral non-compliance: What we said we would do, we don't. Or we do it poorly. Or complainingly. Or late. In fact, if an otherwise punctual person is habitually late for one particular activity....if an otherwise organized person is chronically disorganized in one particular area....or if a person with a mind like a steel trap consistently forgets one particular thing....suspect passive-aggressiveness.
- Internalized anger: Passive-aggressive people are (as the term suggests) aggressive. But they are afraid of their aggression. So they block it, deny it or skate wide circles around it. But it leaks through. It always leaks through. Consider the head of the secretarial pool who is angry at one particular employee. But she can't admit it, address it, or work her way through it with the employee in question. So she chooses to address the issue by writing a memo to the entire staff and posting it above the coffee maker. It is a terse memo....a barbed memo....and a somewhat threatening memo ("Unless this matter is resolved, corrective action will be taken immediately")....leading everybody to scratch their heads and say: "What's that all about, anyway?" In fact, it has been suggested that many memos in the workplace are often poison darts thrown, from a safe distance, by passive-aggressive people.
- Compounded frustration: How does one respond to passive-aggression? Straight up? Well, you can try. But you will probably not succeed. That's because you are not dealing with "straight up" behavior in the first place. What you are dealing with is deceptive behavior, based on denied feelings. Let's say that your spouse is habitually late for social occasions involving the two of you. Which bothers you. You wonder what it says....what it means....where it's coming from. You raise the issue in the most delicate way possible, even rehearsing your little speech before you give it. But your words are taken as an attack. Defenses are raised. Anger is kindled. The spouse counterattacks, saying: "Look at my schedule....how much I have to do....how little time I have to do it....no time to myself....no life of my own....and you're complaining about 15 minutes of tardiness, twice a week." Which leads you to think to yourself: "I knew there was anger there, I just didn't know how much."
But why does any of this concern me as a preacher? Let me suggest a couple of reasons. First, a lot of passive-aggressive people hide out in churches. Ministers are often numbered among them, given our tendency to be compliant and placating people....who like to be nice....who are afraid of anger.... who desire peace....and who will pay an inordinately high price to achieve it. Second, because there are some aspects of the gospel message which, if misread, can be used to justify the condition...and even make it worse.
For if you think that
- loving everybody will mean that you will never again disagree with anybody, being a good Christian can always be equated with being a nice person,
- surrendering your life to Jesus Christ (and subjugating your will to his) means that you will never again feel....or express....difficult emotions such as anger,
- praying for your enemy will thereby free you from any further need to negotiate an open and honest settlement with your enemy,
then your misreading of the gospel will keep you from owning what you feel, facing what you feel, and working through what you feel (in ways that will lead to the kind of reconciliation which is worthy of the gospel).
In an excellent essay on "Passive-Aggressiveness in the Religious Setting," Robert Wicks concludes:
Passive-aggressive persons are extremely hard to deal with, because of their effort
to maintain a rather serene picture of themselves as well-controlled, proper, non-
violent human beings. But they are seldom the peaceful and loving personalities they
pretend to be, and often remain remote and inaccessible to human relationships.
Should such relationships begin to develop, passive-aggressive people will often find
ways to sabotage them....without anybody knowing exactly how it happened, or why.
What does that mean? You know darn well what it means. It means that passive-aggressive people, given enough time, will find a way to screw up relationships with the very people they are most afraid of offending. After all, go back to son number two in this pithy little parable of Jesus. Good son. Respectful son. Polite son. Compliant son. Said he'd go. But didn't go.
Not really all that big a deal. No fight. No fuss. No big scene. He just didn't go.
I mean, you can't really yell at someone like that, can you? Of course you can't. The problem is, you can't really love someone like that, either. They simply won't let you.
Note: Countless people have preached on "The Parable of the Two Sons" and almost unanimously move the sermon toward the need to supplement good words with good works. One of the better such efforts was William Willimon's sermon entitled "Words And Deeds." But one such sermon....whose preacher I can't recall....suggested (in a rather oblique reference) that son number two might have been one of the Bible's first passive-aggressive personalities. I owe this entire sermon to that off-hand suggestion. I am also indebted to helpful conversations with a pair of psychologists, Wes Brun and Robert Wittrup, and to a most helpful book entitled "Passive- Aggressiveness: Theory and Practice" edited by Richard Parsons and Robert Wicks.
