Friends and Enemies

Talking with a colleague several years ago, he mentioned a person whom I had business with. In the course of the conversation he let it be known that he did not have a good relationship with this mutual acquaintance. When I told him that, not only did I know this person, he was a friend of mine and wondered if that was a problem with us working together? He said to me, “Lewis, you don’t have to adopt my enemies to be my friend.”

I thought about that in my early morning walk today in Chennai. I have a friend here I have been working with for over ten years. He’s a visionary, charismatic and opinionated. He is also obstinate, a bit preachy and I certainly don’t agree with some of his projects. I have known people who have partnered with my friend who decided that he was either dishonest or a dictatorial tyrant and therefore severed their relationship with him. Many of those people wonder why I continue my relationship with such a man. The reasons are basic.

First, people who develop relationships based on competing agenda’s are bound to clash. When everyone wants to take the credit for how many souls are saved, how many churches are planted, how many orphans are supported, someone is going to be unhappy on how the money is or should be spent. My friend and I do not have competing agenda’s. His goals and mine are the same, i.e. training people how to take the message of Christ cross-culturally. Neither he nor I use each other for our own end. Because his goals and mine are the same we are not in competition.

Second, most people who work my friend do not understand culture. Indian’s do not, for the most part, operate in an egalitarian fashion. Family businesses function with a very strong sense of hierarchy. Roles are well defined and few people get a vote on how the organization is run. I don’t make the rules; I just know how the rules are created which most people from the outside fail to understand. If someone wants to work with people in this culture they must understand that the person at the top is in control and to try and make them “accountable” (as they define accountability) is a waste of time. (Hierarchy is usually the result of a family run business. For established business and schools that is not run by the founder or his sons, the structure is more bureaucratic. There are egalitarian companies in India, but they are the minority).

Lastly, the reason I continue to work with my friend is that I do not desire to adopt someone else’s enemies for their approval. In every relationship it is a matter of give-and-take. Certainly that is true in marriage, so is it with all friendships. I know the parameters in which I can work with my friend. I work with him; I do not work for him. When I am on his turf I operate by his rules. When I disagree with him, which is often, we discuss it. We have built a mutual respect for each other in spite of our differences in opinion or personality.

As I continued my walk I thought about my younger brother who has made a mess of his family because he insists that one must adopt his enemies to be his friend. Others in the family have embraced that same philosophy making it impossible for reconciliation. I thought about church members who, not only left a church over a disagreement, have broken relationships with those of their former church because they are unwilling to support their unhappy position. I thought about people in my life that I no longer have a relationship with because I refuse to adopt their enemies. Life is too short. I may not like your friends, but you don’t have to adopt my enemies to be a friend of mine.