Don McMinn

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

[Dialogue from Ernest Hemingway’s 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.]

Some things in life happen suddenly. Like car accidents. They’re hard to anticipate and control.

But some things in life develop incrementally. Small actions, repeated over time, gradually accumulate and then suddenly morph into something big. Like the guys putting rubber bands around a watermelon. It happens gradually, then suddenly. Hemingway wrote that bankruptcy can follow this path, and we also see the pattern in other areas of life. This dynamic can be either harmful or beneficial.

Multiple, unwise, small actions can lead to major problems.

• • • Use your credit card indiscriminately on a regular basis and eventually you’ll be in financial trouble. 
    • Consume more calories than you burn day after day, and you’ll gain weight.   
    • Neglect relationships and they’ll suffer..

But multiple positive, small actions can lead to significant and good results.

• • • Doggedly abide by an annual budget, get out of debt, and save for retirement, and you’ll have financial peace and security.
    • Restrict your food intake and exercise regularly and you’ll enjoy a healthy lifestyle. Calories in/calories out; it’s just math.
    • Deliberately prioritize and cultivate important relationships, and you’ll “never walk alone.”

The Bible uses an agricultural analogy to explain a similar phenomenon: the Law of the Harvest: “Whatever a person sows, this he will also reap” (Galatians 6:7). Notice:

• • • You reap what you sow. If a farmer sows corn seed, he’ll reap corn. You can’t plant corn seeds and expect to get broccoli. 
    • You reap later than you sow. After the seed is planted it seems like nothing happens for a long time, but eventually fruit comes.
    • You reap more than you sow. A single seed produces a lot of corn. There’s an exponential return. (In finances, it’s called compound interest.)

Identify some small tasks that you consistently do (both good and bad) that will accumulate into a major result. Stop the ones that are heading in the wrong direction and accelerate the good ones.

I have a friend who thinks clearly and is very organized, competent, and productive. Amazingly so. These are commendable strengths; but sometimes these strengths cause stress in his relationships. His view of the world is so tight that he’s often impatient with people and vague processes. He’ll comment on the tiniest departure from his ideal. Mistakes are unacceptable. At home and work, perfection is the standard. While his strengths are notable, they come with drawbacks.

The principle I want to discuss is: Strengths often have an inherent downside; the advantage they bring is accompanied by a disadvantage. Most strengths have a corresponding weakness.  

A similar challenge exists with virtues. Every virtue must be balanced by another, different virtue or it can get out of balance. The Stoic philosophers had a term for this—anacoluthia—the mutual entailment of the virtues; no virtue is a virtue by itself. For instance, notice how each of these virtues needs to be balanced by another virtue: confidence/humility, caution/boldness, patience/urgency, passion/detachment, openness/discretion, generosity/thriftiness, self-control/spontaneity. 

Perhaps you are:

• • • Confident but lack humility.
    • Generous, to a fault. 
    • Cautious, but stymied by passivity.
    • Logical but emotionally tone-deaf.

Sometimes we have difficulty seeing where we’re out of balance. Ask your spouse or friends to list your strengths and corresponding weaknesses. 

Here are some practical applications.

1. 1. 1. While functioning in your strength, be careful to avoid the corresponding weakness.
      2. Affirm other people’s strengths and extend them grace relative to their weaknesses. 
      3. You don’t need to disavow or limit your strengths until you figure out to achieve balance, but continually work on eliminate the corresponding weaknesses.
      4. Affirm other people’s strengths and, when appropriate, rely on them to compensate for your weaknesses.

Writer Sarah Lyall tells of a man’s outburst in a supermarket when he couldn’t get a certain type of cheese—a blue cheese called Cambozola. The man was obnoxious and belligerent. A store employee observed, “I don’t think this is about the cheese.”

We’re all guilty of this unfair, unproductive, immature, hurtful, and wrong behavior. We’re angry about X, but we express our anger to people that are unrelated to X. We’re frustrated at work and when we get home we yell at our spouse. We’re frustrated at home and take it out on our coworkers. We’re angry about something but we give grief to the deli worker at the grocery store.

In these cases, it’s not about the cheese. It’s about unresolved and misplaced anger.

Sometimes anger resolves itself. If I’m upset at a minor issue—the lawn mower won’t start—in time the anger will dissipate. But if the anger is deep seated, I need to talk it out with a counselor or a friend. 

If we’re angry because we think someone has done us wrong, we should properly express our anger to the person or persons we think offended us. In a controlled manner, share your perspective and be open to hear “the other side of the story.” Approach these conversations carefully because your anger may be unjustified or overblown.   

Or, we can simply choose to drop it. 

If we do take out our frustration on an innocent bystander, we need to apologize. Do that often enough and it will help change your behavior. Don’t ever apologize for your misbehavior and people will begin to avoid you. 

One of the hardest things to do in life—requiring extreme self-awareness and self-control—is to sense when you’re about to take your frustration out on the innocent, and not do so. Better yet, we can even anticipate acting badly and make a decision to preempt bad behavior. For instance, having had a bad day at work, while driving home I should make a note-to-self—“I’ve had a hard day.”—and remind myself to not take it out on my family.

I love that phrase—It’s not about the cheese. I’m going to suggest to my family that we use it with one another as a verbal cue when we think one of us is venting on an innocent bystander.

Years ago I served a church that was searching for a senior pastor. Eleven people were on the search committee. In their first meeting, someone must have suggested that their final decision be unanimous—to call a new pastor, all eleven members must be in agreement. [A scripture verse might have been used to support this position, “That they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you” (John 17:21).]

After months of prayer, and multiple interviews, ten members of the committee were convinced that one particular candidate was the right person for the job. One person dissented. Because of their commitment to act unanimously, the will of one person prevailed over the preferences of ten people. The minority ruled.

This predicament is called minority rule and it should be avoided.

Every team or committee should be composed of vigorous-thinking individuals who are striving to make good decisions. Everyone should have a voice and a vote, but one person should not be given the power to overrule the opinion of others. It might be reasonable to say that 70% of the group must be in agreement, but to set the bar at 100% is naive, unnecessary, and can be detrimental. There’s nothing wrong with a split decision. 

A split decision may even  indicate that the right decision was made because it implies that critical dialogue was pursued and multiple perspectives were considered. While a unanimous decision could indicate that the decision is simple and the best answer was obvious, or that everyone genuinely agrees, it can also indicate that the group is not taking the decision seriously, all variables have not been explored, or that some members may be intimidated by the arguments of those who are more demonstrative and verbal.

What do you think?