Relationships 101 - How to End a Friendship

Perhaps you've come to the conclusion that relationships often seem similar to inflatable dartboards - they just don't work forever.

A 'permanent relationship' could almost be called an oxymoron. Then again, as long as you keep a safe distance things may last a while, but anything beyond the superficial risks failure. How does this happen? What is it that separates otherwise close friends? What, on the contrary, holds them together? What goes on in this whole deal?

The key nuance that I want to focus on here is this: how you handle sin.

You see, a relationship between two people is just that - a relationship between two people. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says -
"Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."
Any relationship between two humans is a relationship between two sinners, who are both bound to do as sinners do: sin. We should expect that. If I'm hoping to live in a bubble where everyone close to me is void of something I could accurately accuse them of, I am hoping in an illusion. If I am disappointed because someone I know did something wrong (against me or otherwise), perhaps the greater disappointment should be found in that I expected something better¹. Sin happens. It is not permanently avoidable this side of eternity. Sin is simply going to happen. That's not the issue. The issue is how you handle it. Consider the following.

"He who conceals a transgression seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends" (- Proverbs 17:9)

Notice that in both cases there is an issue of some sort at hand. The difference, then, between the two is not the presence or absence of "something wrong", but what is done with it. So here is Mr. So-And-So going along in life, doing whatever, and he encounters sin in a friendship.

Now what?

Well, it is, in fact, a real sin. The other person involved is legitimately wrong in this situation. To accuse him/her of error would be an accurate assessment; you wouldn't have to worry about mis-evaluating anything. He is wrong fair and square, and you are right (fair and square) in observing so.

Now what?

There are two options: 1) conceal or 2) repeat.

First Mr. So-And-So could, literally, "cover" the "crime". He could remove it from his own sight and that of others, such that it does not become apparent in the situation. It is hidden, it is not drawn out or left out in plain sight for all to see, and the consequences and shame to be heaped on the offender's head. This is the option our Mr. So-And-So would choose if he was "a seeker of love". If he is one who continually, characteristically searches out love. Love is his goal, so he doesn't jump on an opportunity to carry out justice, or harbor offense, or amass accusations against another. Instead, that crime, that legitimate crime, will be proactively covered. If you were to look in it's direction, you would see something else instead. The sin is not visible, it is concealed.

Is it just once? Should he cover this one, but after this make them face the cold hard facts? They had a chance right?

Not really. The form of the word used for "conceals"² is such that it describes characteristic action, just like "seeks" did. This covering is something done characteristically, not pick-and-chooseyly. If you're going to be a characteristic 'seeker of love', you must and will also be a characteristic 'coverer of transgressions'. This means more than one sin, more than one time. To convince yourself that you are somehow genuinely seeking love, and yet you still hold on to and re-hash another's error is to convince yourself of a false reality. The two are mutually exclusive.

Second, Mr. So-And-So could repeat the matter. He could talk about it again, review the details and share them. He could perpetuate the awareness of the act, and bring it up to once more to go through peoples' minds instead of covering it. This is the option Mr. So-and-so would choose if he was a "separater of a friend". This is the method of a truly divisive person, who's work is not to seek love in a relationship, but to end it. The tool he uses is this: repetition of wrongdoings. By means of bringing that 'crime' up again and deliberately repeating it, he successfully drives a wedge right in the middle of an otherwise close, dear, and precious relationship. You see, the crime committed doesn't have to close things down. Remember, in order for one to cover a sin, there has to be a sin in the first place. That's not the terminating element. What does, however, split close friends apart is when that sin is intentionally repeated, and not deliberately put out of sight, covered, and hidden. The issue is not the transgression, but how it's handled that makes the difference.

So, to put it this way, if you want to end a relationship (and I hope you don't), or at least make it a bad one (I am speaking in fluent sarcasm), repeat the misdemeanors someone has done. Hash them over again, don't let them die. This is divisiveness 101.


Leaving Mr.So-And-So behind to choose his course of action, let's consider another verse:

                                "Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers a multitude of transgressions."
                                                               ~ Proverbs 10:12

In the previous verse we had two different people, but here we have two different dispositions : hatred and love. Theses two seem to be as opposite in actions as they are in nature. Hatred, you see, awakes, stirs up, rouses, strife. It doesn't just let a good controversy go to waste and die down, but fans the flames and wakes it up again. It provokes the fight that otherwise may not be there.

Love on the other hand,  covers all wrongdoings. It's not just that love does't stir up hibernating controversy like hatred does, but it deliberately covers and conceals the misdemeanors that it has genuinely identified as genuine transgressions. Please notice that. This verse doesn't say "Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers a multitude of variations in personal preferences" or "...love covers a multitude of tolerable, insignificant differences". No, it says "...love covers a multitude of transgressions." These are legitimate, honest-to-goodness wrongdoings. So then, don't think you have ground to make life hard for someone simply because you know what they did was truly wrong. You might be right, but as we are observing there is indeed a wrong way to be right.

As we have seen, then, a genuine transgression does not warrant our self-defined just treatment of it. We don't have excuse to return the favor when we encounter another person's 'crime'. Unless, of course, we aren't interested in 'finding' love, and want to make it clear that we ourselves don't really love. On the other hand, if we are indeed seekers of love, we won't pounce when we realize that so-and-so actually did something downright wrong.

What will keep two sinners faithfully and joyfully wedded for the extent of their lives, instead of bailing out part way through? That. What will preserve friendships in general even through trying times, specifically times that are trying from the inside? That will. What will keep a whole church of sinners from abandoning each other during those tumultuous times when sin natures rear their ugly heads and things start to heat up? Love. That's what. We will have made one huge step towards preserving relationships when we refuse to "repeat the matter" and "stir up strife".

Because if we do repeat the matter, we will successfully put an end to relationships that we may not have thought really could be stopped. And it won't just be one or two, because, as we said earlier, a relationship between two people is a relationship between two sinners. We will always find faults. Always. So, if you want to split friends up, don't cover their crimes.

 That's how you do it. Don't try this at home.


____________________________________________
¹No, this does not mean walking in sin is acceptable. It must be dealt with, but not rumored about, as we will see.

²This is a 'participle'. Participles communicate continuous ("I am reading") or characteristic ("I am a reader") action. Hence my usages of words like 'coverer' or 'separater', provoking blogger to underline my obtuse articulation in red, lest I think I'm adding to the dictionary or something.