The purpose for this paper is to apply an analytic technique to a story told in John 8:1-11. The story recalls the events when the religious officials brought a woman to Jesus to see how he would respond to the sinfulness of the woman. The analytic technique that I propose to use is a dynamic model of relational transitions. The brevity of this paper does not allow for a comparison of other interpretations of the story nor does it allow for a proper explanation of this analytic technique. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the story. It is not fair, however, to assume that the reader knows about this analytic technique so I will provide a brief introduction to this technique and then refer the reader elsewhere for more information.
| The Technique
The analytic technique that I propose to use is based on a three dimensional grid. The horizontal axis of this grid ranges from love on the left side to hatred on the right side. The label I use for this axis is “antagonism”. The vertical axis ranges from dissonance to distracters and it is a measurement of information flow. Dissonance implies that the information is heard but not always expected. In this model dissonance is good because it implies that learning is possible. The third axis is an indication of energy or effort. A simple illustration of this grid is shown to the left. |
Elsewhere I have demonstrated a relationship between locations on this grid and defined patterns of human behavior. Please refer to my web site at http://www.RobertPerrine.biz for additional information regarding the background and definitions of these behavioral patterns. To simplify the description of these states of being I will temporarily drop the axis that indicates energy. The set of meaningful techniques for conflict resolution are shown below. Note that I picked the terminology that relates to conflict because the story of the woman caught in adultery is a tale of conflict between the woman and others as well as a tale of the conflict between the religious authorities and Jesus.
In brief, smothering is a technique in which you feel an abundance of love with no feedback to regulate the flow of love. Smoothing is a technique of denial. Forcing is an antagonistic technique in which one person demands resolution on their terms and disregards the information as to the consequences this approach might have on the other party. Withdrawal is a technique of maintaining the antagonism while ensuring that the disconnect between the parties cannot be resolved. Confronting is the technique of addressing the problem. Confronting requires that both parties actively communicate. Confronting only works when the antagonism is held in check.
Compromise is a technique that is in the middle. There is some effort to address the issue but it is not actually resolved. There is some effort to minimize the antagonism, but neither party is satisfied. Often, however, it is the best we can humanly hope to achieve. In contrast, aligned is a technique of conflict resolution in which the issues are resolved without friction. When two people understand each other so well that they can anticipate the other’s needs then they are aligned. When we understand and obey God’s laws without dissention then we are aligned. Alignment is difficult to achieve. When the Kingdom of God is realized, then humanity will be aligned with God.
Jesus and the Pharisees
We are told that the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus both because they found her guilty of sin and to test Jesus. They entered this relationship with antagonism both for the woman and for Jesus. Their willingness to stone the woman indicates their disregard for her well being. Their willingness to test Jesus indicates their willingness to ignore the good news he tried to share with them. The Pharisees entered into this encounter intending to use the conflict resolution technique called forcing.
Jesus responded in an unexpected way by simply writing in the dust. This is dissonance. Jesus consistently amplifies the dissonance whenever he encounters skeptics. The miracles create dissonance because they are acts that create a dissemination of news. Here, not acting in the expected way created dissonance. If Jesus had raised the level of dissonance while maintaining the level of antagonism the transition would have gone from forcing to withdrawal. I link the symbol of a tornado with withdrawal because withdrawal creates chaos which has a tendency to spiral inward on itself.
If Jesus had simply dampened the antagonism then the transition would have been from forcing to smoothing. I link the symbol of a mountain with smoothing to indicate a peaceful state of being. While it is true that the Pharisees became quiet the story implies that they had a change of heart. I link the butterfly with confronting because this implies a transformation. I propose that the Pharisees entered this encounter with the intent to force their resolution onto Jesus and instead found themselves confronted and transformed.
The question is what would it take to transform a Pharisee? Here I venture into the unknown but the treasure that the Pharisees hold most dear is the law of Moses. If you wish to transform a Pharisee, then the way to create the maximum dissonance is to show them the disconnect between their own state of being and that prescribed by the law. Note that this no longer has anything to do with the woman. Instead Jesus reminded the Pharisees of the distance between themselves and the law. Thus, I am led to conjecture that what Jesus wrote in the dust was from the law of Moses.
But this encounter is not yet finished. Remember that Jesus consistently took opportunities to bring people closer to the Kingdom of God. If Jesus had stopped with the transformation of the Pharisees then this would not have demonstrated the power of the Kingdom. To move from confronting to aligned requires love. Thus, Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees with antagonism, he responded with love. He demonstrated his love for them by not challenging them. Instead, he patiently waited until each came into alignment with his intentions.
The Woman
The woman would have entered this encounter in chaos. The threat to her life would create an immense dissonance. The need to escape would have created a willingness to resist. Additionally, she remains speechless – which is a behavior typical of withdrawal.
The standard approach people take when caught doing wrong is to smooth. Consider the number of public officials that have been caught doing wrong. Their first defense is to recast the incident in such a way as to minimize the dissonance and minimize the antagonism. Their goal is smoothing. If, however, that does not work, then the fallback technique is compromise. How many can you think of that are willing to pay money rather than admit guilt? How many are willing to admit guilt to a lesser crime to avoid being tried for the more serious crime. People typically attempt to exit chaos by aiming at smoothing and settle for compromise.
Notice, however, that the silence is multi-directional. The Pharisees do not speak to the woman. And, until the situation with the Pharisees is resolved, Jesus does not speak to the woman. Thus, the dissonance is held constant. The woman, however, would have felt the dissolution of antagonism. Without more information it is not clear as to whether the woman remained in chaos or began a transformation.
After the Pharisees left Jesus addressed her directly. Notice that he does not smooth over the sin, he does not force her compliance, nor does he offer a compromise. Instead he confronts her, in her sin, and asks her to interpret the current state of affairs. She replies that the antagonism is gone yet she implicitly acknowledges the sin. Here she enters into confronting. Jesus next points her to the way of the Kingdom and asks that she align her will with God’s law. The following diagram illustrates these transitions.
Conclusion
The purpose for this paper was to apply an analytic technique. The result that I hope you see is that this technique adds value. I also hope you now see this passage in a new and exciting way as a demonstration of a Christ-like approach to conflict resolution. I know that I learned from this experience.
The first thing that I learned is that Jesus responded to the Pharisees with love. He did not reply to their antagonism with antagonism. Instead, he did what Jesus told us to do, he responded to those who would attack him by giving them love. Too often the confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees are portrayed as a battle of wills. From this exercise I now see how wrong that portrayal is. Jesus responded to this confrontation with dissonance and with love.
Second, I now see that the Kingdom of God is a key element in this story. I had missed that before. The end result of this story is that the woman is told to align her will with God. And, most importantly, the Pharisees do not leave defeated, nor do they leave transformed. Instead, the Pharisees leave with their wills aligned with Jesus. Now perhaps that only lasted a short time, but before I did this analysis I had not seen that result.
I hope you found this technique helpful. Please feel free to send me your feedback.