My grandson walked through the front door in his soiled baseball uniform with his hat in his hand and his lip dragging on the ground. “How did it go?” I asked, even though his body language had already supplied the answer. “They cheated!” was his reply.
Both teams had arrived at the field assuming that the normal rules of Little League would guarantee a fair and fun contest. However, the umpires were late. The opposing team, by virtue of the fact that they were one year more advanced in the league, or perhaps that their coaches were more aggressive by disposition, decided that the play should begin on time with or without the officials. One inning and five runs for the other team later, the umps arrived, allowed the earned runs to count, and refused to hear any objection of “Foul!” Neither goal of fairness nor fun was achieved that night.
A sporting contest is actually one of many forms of relationship. Simply defined, a relationship is an association whereby two parties relate. All relationships are predominantly a form of contractual connection. Some facilitate a task, i.e. a business affiliation, and serve mainly a practical function. Other bonds foster and sustain emotional or psychological needs. Whether pragmatic or quixotic, all relationships require the same key elements. There must be a clear description of each party’s role, a definitive set of rules, and clarification of the outcome that each party can expect. Finally, a means of conflict resolution or a court of appeals must be identified in case either party defaults upon the terms.
In the case of my grandson’s ball game, the contract was altered, thus jeopardizing the relationship. The first “curve ball” came in the form of changed rules. Ten-year-old boys play with more advanced regulations and equipment than are standard for the nine-year-olds, thus the younger boys were out-skilled and under-trained for the changes. Contractually or relationally speaking, the game they had agreed to play was on a whole new “playing field.”
The second “change-up pitch” was that the coaches became the umpires. The nature of any contract is that the participants expect to receive a benefit. Relationships are mutually binding and mutually rewarding. Benefits flow because each party gives what has been agreed. Neither party may coerce or extort. When disagreements arise, the rules function to define “fair” or “foul.” If either party disputes the application of the rules, an unbiased third party is called to make a judgment based upon the pre-set rules. For either side to act as the judge is to invite possible partiality, prejudice, and ultimately extortion of the benefit. Judges cannot be either party in the relationship. Judges must know the rules and enforce them, or the relationship is at risk.
Principle Based Evaluation: Relationships are built, maintained, and deepened by making and keeping clear agreements. The rules of an agreement serve to judge the actions of each party; but if either party challenges the rules, a third party judge is mandated to insure the integrity of the relationship.
For more information on the author, Dr. Patti Amsden, go to: www.pattiamsden.org
Tom Jackson
said:
 |
... I hope I see where you are going. Our society's mantra is "judge not," easily taken out of context of Christ's full challenge. But without judges or some avenues of judgment (or justice), there will never be safe, secure or mature (fully developed) relationships. Good parable! |
