© 1995 Kathleen Swadling
© 1995 International Urantia Association (IUA)
By Kathleen Swadling
Sydney, Australia
“What I say, is the will of God, and you must be in collusion with Caligastia, one of Caligastia’s agents if you are against me.” This kind of argumentation is not uncommon among the readers of The URANTIA Book. But is it justified? This article endeavours to address this question.
On 28:5.14 The URANTIA Book tells us that [o]ne of the most important lessons to be learned during your mortal career is teamwork. UB 28:5.14. So many of our activities on this world rely on the successful interaction with our fellows. So many decisions made by groups, committees, institutions, councils and governments etc. impact on the lives of individuals throughout the world.
How many of us have been thrown together with a group of people with whom we have had to work through a problem and come to a decision? It may be work-related, familyrelated, community-related, or URANTIA Book-related. Whatever the reason, the exercise will no doubt be one of value as we will be learning important lessons in teamwork.
How many teams break down? How many people fall out with one another because the individuals within the team have not been good team players? I would like to discuss the dynamics of teamwork in the hope of finding some answers that may help us to understand what it takes to interact with our fellows and remain amicable with one another during and after the process. I would like to attempt to find the key to the truth that it is the unity of spirit, not the uniformity of thought which is the essential ingredient for the Brotherhood of Mankind to become a living reality. How do we remain brothers and sisters in the spirit while we hold differing points of view over issues we feel strongly about?
A team is made up of individuals with diverse backgrounds, varying cultural, educational, and genetic inheritances, and varying levels of soul growth, or circle attainment. Every individual in the team views the task at hand subjectively at first. Everyone holds his own point of view and has his reasons for that point of view. The process in the group encounter requires that every individual expresses his point of view, backing it with his reasons. If points of view are opposing then debate is required where everyone listens to each case and assesses the validity of each argument for himself. It then becomes an exercise in the powers of reason, persuasion or influence. Sometimes, but not always, the most logical argument has the most influence over the group. However, often an argument, no matter how logical or persuasive, fails to convince some in the group. This is the crucial point in the exercise, as this is when the atmosphere of politeness can change. It can get personal and emotional—wills clash, and people sometimes become angry. Now comes the big test. Does it become a conflict where nothing is resolved, the team breaks apart, and the team players never speak to each other again? Do the players go off thinking that those who could not be persuaded are idiots, do not have a clue, are morons, and (in the worst case amongst URANTIA Book readers) possibly even agents of Caligastia? Or do they realise they have reached an impasse, take time out to philosophise about the situation, respect the other’s point of view, agree to disagree, and walk out still on friendly terms?
If the latter occurs then the mood is ripe for a possible solution. If the former occurs, then I would have to say that the players failed in their attempts to work together as a team. They should realise their failure and put it down to experience, knowing that it will take all our mortal career to master teamwork, lift up their heads bravely and try again. These are primitive, animalistic tendencies, and have been the cause of battles and wars of destruction throughout history.
So what is it that causes us to feel resentment and hatred just because we failed to convince another of our viewpoint? It is immaturity? Or, do we take ourselves too seriously and believe our point of view is right merely because we feel strongly about it? Do we delude ourselves that our view is right because we know it is God’s will, and the reason we know it is God’s will is because we feel so strongly about it, because we believe it was inspired. This should be a danger signal. If both disagreeing players feel that their view is God’s will, and yet they oppose one another, should not that be warning enough that something is amiss? Shouldn’t we be big enough to step back and look at the situation objectively? try to understand the other person? and realise that if he loves God just as much as you do, yet your points of view differ, then perhaps you are deluding yourselves by using the “God’s will” argument? Rather we should see the view as being our own. The spiritual value of the situation is not necessarily whose view is right or wrong, but rather the relationship between the individuals concerned. Better agree to disagree, remain amicable, and if you believe in your stand, go ahead and do what you must do, but beware of resentment and hate. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of seeking to defeat the other person or destroy the relationship.
The URANTIA Book gives us excellent examples of how to handle conflict. The first one can be seen in the character of the Apostle Thomas Didymus. Thomas’s disposition was naturally argumentative. He liked to analyse situations in detail and debate his point of view to the bitter end. However, if ever he failed to convince his fellows of his viewpoint he would realise when he was beat and was the first to say “come on then, let’s go.” He was highly opinionated but was not so attached to his own opinions that he could not get along with his fellows. The second example was Jesus’ attitude to his apostles and those of John when they could not agree over the issue of baptism. Jesus made it plain to them that the most important issue in this argument was that they agreed. He said he would support whatever they decided upon. He did not de-value the issue of baptism, which John’s apostles felt so strongly about, and he did not side with his own apostles. He would not give any hints as to his opinions over the issue itself, but he did make it clear that he felt strongly that they should not fall out over such an issue. (This is an excellent tip for parents when dealing with their children’s squabbles.)
What is it that causes animosity and hatred over differing views? Why do some players seek to destroy one another? One contributing factor could be that often individuals in a team have their own agendas. They may be on their personal mission according to some inner revelation, and they seek to use the group to attain their personal missions. You get one or more in the group with this kind of motivation and you are bound to have problems, especially if the personal agenda is not in harmony with that of the group. Amongst religionists it can happen that the ones with personal agendas can be very attached to their viewpoint and take themselves so seriously that they are intent on the belief that their mission is vital to the world. If this person is possibly verging on the brink of fanaticism, he or she may feel that anyone who stands in his way must be evil or even sinful as they are blocking something very important to what he believes to be God’s plan. These kinds of people can be impossible to argue with; you cannot argue with an idealist or a fanatic, as it becomes difficult to reason with them, and conflict or separation of some kind becomes inevitable. The person has lost that sense of working and trusting with their fellows.
I return to my original question: How do we remain brothers and sisters in the spirit while we hold differing points of view over issues we feel strongly about? It all comes back to the individual and how we, as individuals respond to situations. If one is motivated by a genuine love towards one’s fellows, has a desire to do good to others, is able to respect the spirit in others, sees his fellows as sons and daughters of God, therefore his brothers or sisters in the spirit, then an effort to remain united in the spirit, despite the possible disharmony of thought, will be made at all cost. If one is motivated by self-importance of one’s own opinions over and above one’s attitude towards one’s fellows, then the victory of one’s opinion will be held in higher regard than the relationship. The uniformity of thought will be considered more important than the unity of spirit. This attitude inevitably holds back the emergence of the Brotherhood of Man. I really believe it is as simple as that. The world’s problem is the individual’s problem. We need to strengthen our characters by making decisions to embrace truth in our lives and truly live it. We need to develop religious habits and study the religion of Jesus to help us get right with our indwelling spirit. In turn, if done sincerely and wisely, the fruits of our lives will be fragrant and attractive and our desire to be friendly to our fellows will be an overriding factor in our group dealings with one another. Our characters need to become the firm foundation for our souls so that we are forever consistent in our attitudes to one another.