Boundaries Updated and Expanded Read online

  Taking ownership of our thinking in relationships requires being active in checking out where we may be wrong. As we assimilate new information, our thinking adapts and grows closer to reality.

  Also we need to make sure that we are communicating our thoughts to others. Many people think that others should be able to read their minds and know what they want. This leads to frustration. Even Paul says, “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?” (1 Cor. 2:11). What a great statement about boundaries! We have our own thoughts, and if we want others to know them, we must tell them.

  Desires

  Our desires lie within our boundaries. Each of us has different desires and wants, dreams and wishes, goals and plans, hungers and thirsts. We all want to satisfy “me.” But why are there so few satisfied “me’s” around?

  Part of the problem lies in the lack of structured boundaries within our personality. We can’t define who the real “me” is and what we truly desire. Many desires masquerade as the real thing. They are lusts that come out of not owning our real desires. For example, many sex addicts are looking for sexual experiences, but what they really desire is love and affection.

  James writes about this problem of not owning and seeking our real desires with pure motives: “You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:2–3).

  We often do not actively seek our desires from God, and those desires are mixed up with things that we do not really need. God is truly interested in our desires; he made them. Consider the following: “You have granted him his heart’s desire and have not withheld the request of his lips. You came to greet him with rich blessings and placed a crown of pure gold on his head” (Ps. 21:2–3). “Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps. 37:4). “He fulfills the desires of those who fear him” (Ps. 145:19).

  God loves to give gifts to his children, but he is a wise parent. He wants to make sure his gifts are right for us. To know what to ask for, we have to be in touch with who we really are and our real motives. If we are wanting something to feed our pride or to enhance our ego, it’s doubtful that God is interested in giving it to us. But if it would be good for us, he’s very interested.

  We are also commanded to play an active role in seeking our desires (Phil. 2:12–13; Eccl. 11:9; Matt. 7:7–11). We need to own our desires and pursue them to find fulfillment in life. “The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul” (Prov. 13:19 KJV), but it sure is a lot of work!

  Love

  Our ability to give and respond to love is our greatest gift. The heart that God has fashioned in his image is the center of our being. Its abilities to open up to love and to allow love to flow outward are crucial to life.

  Many people have difficulty giving and receiving love because of hurt and fear. Having closed their heart to others, they feel empty and meaningless. The Bible is clear about both functions of the heart: the receiving of grace and love inward and the flow outward.

  Listen to how the Bible tells how we should love: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. . . . Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37, 39). And how we should receive love: “We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also” (2 Cor. 6:11–13).

  Our loving heart, like our physical one, needs an inflow as well as an outflow of lifeblood. And like its physical counterpart, our heart is a muscle, a trust muscle. This trust muscle needs to be used and exercised; if it is injured, it will slow down or weaken.

  We need to take responsibility for this loving function of ourselves and use it. Both love concealed and love rejected can kill us.

  Many people do not take ownership for how they resist love. They have a lot of love around them but do not realize that their loneliness is a result of their own lack of responsiveness. Often they will say, “Others’ love cannot ‘get in.’” This statement negates their responsibility to respond. We maneuver subtly to avoid responsibility in love; we need to claim our hearts as our property and work on our weaknesses in that area. It will open up life to us.

  We need to take responsibility for all of the above areas of our souls. These lie within our boundaries. But taking care of what lies within our boundaries isn’t easy; neither is allowing other people to take care of what lies within their boundaries. Setting boundaries and maintaining them is hard work. But as you’ll see in the next chapter, boundary problems take some very recognizable shapes.

  Chapter 3

  Boundary Problems

  Following a day-long seminar that we were leading on boundaries, a woman raised her hand and said, “I understand that I have boundary problems. But my estranged husband is the one who had an affair and took all our money. Doesn’t he have a problem with boundaries?”

  It’s easy to misunderstand boundaries. At first glance, it seems as if the individual who has difficulty setting limits is the one who has the boundary problem; however, people who don’t respect others’ limits also have boundary problems. The woman above may have difficulty setting limits, but, in addition, her husband hasn’t respected her limits.

  In this chapter, we’ll categorize the main types of boundary problems, providing you some pegs on which to hang your thoughts. You’ll see that boundary conflicts are by no means limited to those who “can’t say no.”

  Compliants: Saying Yes to the Bad

  “May I tell you something embarrassing?” Robert asked me (John). A new client, Robert was trying to understand why he had so much difficulty refusing his wife’s constant demands. He was going broke trying to keep up with the Joneses.

  “I was the only boy in my family, the youngest of four children. There was a strange double standard in my house involving physical fighting.” Robert cleared his throat, struggling to continue. “My sisters were three to seven years older than me. Until I was in sixth grade, they were a lot bigger and stronger. They’d take advantage of their size and strength and wale on me until I was bruised. I mean, they really hurt me.

  “The strangest part of it all was my parents’ attitude. They’d tell us, ‘Robert is the boy. Boys don’t hit girls. It’s bad manners.’ Bad manners! I was getting triple-teamed, and fighting back was bad manners?” Robert stopped. His shame kept him from continuing, but he’d said enough. He had unearthed part of the reason for his conflicts with his wife.

  When parents teach children that setting boundaries or saying no is bad, they are teaching them that others can do with them as they wish. They are sending their children defenseless into a world that contains much evil. Evil in the form of controlling, manipulative, and exploitative people. Evil in the form of temptations.

  To feel safe in such an evil world, children need to have the power to say things like these:

  •“No.”

  •“I disagree.”

  •“I will not.”

  •“I choose not to.”

  •“Stop that.”

  •“It hurts.”

  •“It’s wrong.”

  •“That’s bad.”

  •“I don’t like it when you touch me there.”

  Blocking a child’s ability to say no handicaps that child for life. Adults with handicaps like Robert’s have this first boundary injury: they say yes to bad things.

  This type of boundary conflict is called compliance. Compliant people have fuzzy and indistinct boundaries; they “melt” into the demands and needs of other people. They can’t stand alone, distinct from people who want something from them. Compliants, for example, pretend to like the same restaurants and movies their friends do “just to get along.” They m
inimize their differences with others so as not to rock the boat. Compliants are chameleons. After a while it’s hard to distinguish them from their environment.

  The inability to say no to the bad is pervasive. Not only does it keep us from refusing evil in our lives, it often keeps us from recognizing evil. Many compliant people realize too late that they’re in a dangerous or abusive relationship. Their spiritual and emotional “radar” is broken; they have no ability to guard their hearts (Prov. 4:23).

  This type of boundary problem paralyzes people’s “no” muscles. Whenever they need to protect themselves by saying no, the word catches in their throats. This happens for a number of different reasons:

  •Fear of hurting the other person’s feelings

  •Fear of abandonment and separateness

  •A wish to be totally dependent on another

  •Fear of someone else’s anger

  •Fear of punishment

  •Fear of being shamed

  •Fear of being seen as bad or selfish

  •Fear of being unspiritual

  •Fear of one’s overstrict, critical conscience

  This last fear is actually experienced as guilt. People who have an overstrict, critical conscience will condemn themselves for things God himself doesn’t condemn them for. As Paul says, “Since their conscience is weak, it is defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7). Afraid to confront their unbiblical and critical internal parent, they tighten appropriate boundaries.

  When we give in to guilty feelings, we are complying with a harsh conscience. This fear of disobeying the harsh conscience translates into an inability to confront others—a saying yes to the bad—because it would cause more guilt.

  Biblical compliance needs to be distinguished from this kind of compliance. Matthew 9:13 says that God desires “compassion, and not sacrifice” (NASB). In other words, God wants us to be compliant from the inside out (compassionate), not compliant on the outside and resentful on the inside (sacrificial). Compliants take on too many responsibilities and set too few boundaries, not by choice, but because they are afraid.

  Avoidants: Saying No to the Good

  The living room suddenly became very quiet. The Bible study group that had been meeting at the Craigs’ house for six months had suddenly become more intimate. Tonight the five couples began to share real struggles in their lives, not just the usual “please pray for Aunt Sarah” requests. Tears were shed, and genuine support, not just well-meaning advice, was offered. Everyone, except the hostess, Rachel Henderson, had taken a turn talking.

  Rachel had been the driving force behind the formation of the Bible study. She and her husband, Joe, had developed the format, invited the other couples, and opened up their home to the study. Caught up in her leadership role, however, Rachel never opened up about her struggles. She shied away from such opportunities, preferring instead to help draw out others. Tonight the others waited.

  Rachel cleared her throat. Looking around the room, she finally spoke, “After hearing all the other problems in the room, I think the Lord is speaking to me. He seems to be saying that my issues are nothing compared to what you all deal with. It would be selfish to take up time with the little struggles I face. So . . . who’d like dessert?”

  No one spoke. But disappointment was evident on each face. Rachel had again avoided an opportunity for others to love her as they’d been loved by her.

  This boundary problem is called avoidance: saying no to the good. It’s the inability to ask for help, to recognize one’s own needs, to let others in. Avoidants withdraw when they are in need; they do not ask for the support of others.

  Why is avoidance a boundary problem? At the heart of the struggle is a confusion of boundaries as walls. Boundaries are supposed to be able to “breathe,” to be like fences with a gate that can let the good in and the bad out. Individuals with walls for boundaries can let in neither bad nor good. No one touches them.

  God designed our personal boundaries to have gates. We should have the freedom to enjoy safe relationships and to avoid destructive ones. God even allows us the freedom to let him in or to close him off: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me” (Rev. 3:20).

  God has no interest in violating our boundaries so that he can relate to us. He understands that this would cause injuries of trust. It is our responsibility to open up to him in need and repentance. Yet, for avoidants, opening up to both God and people is almost impossible.

  The impermeable boundaries of avoidants cause a rigidity toward their God-given needs. They experience their problems and legitimate wants as something bad, destructive, or shameful.

  Some people, like Marti, are both compliants and avoidants. In a recent session, Marti laughed ruefully at herself. “I’m beginning to see a pattern here. When someone needs four hours with me, I can’t say no. When I need someone for ten minutes, I can’t ask for it. Isn’t there a microchip in my head that I can replace?”

  Marti’s dilemma is shared by many adults. She says yes to the bad (compliant) and says no to the good (avoidant). Individuals who have both boundary conflicts not only cannot refuse evil, but they are unable to receive the support they so readily offer to others. They are stuck in a cycle of feeling drained, but with nothing to replace the lost energy.

  Compliant avoidants suffer from what is called “reversed boundaries.” They have no boundaries where they need them, and they have boundaries where they shouldn’t have them.

  Controllers: Not Respecting Others’ Boundaries

  “What do you mean, you’re quitting? You can’t leave now!” Steve looked across his desk at his administrative assistant. Frank had been working for Steve for several years and was finally fed up. He had given his all to the position, but Steve didn’t know when to back off.

  Time after time, Steve would insist on Frank’s spending unpaid time at the office on important projects. Frank had even switched his vacation schedule twice at Steve’s insistence. But the final straw was when Steve began calling and texting Frank at home. An occasional after-hours text Frank could understand. But now it was happening almost every day, primarily during dinnertime. His family ended up eating without him while Frank stepped away for twenty-minute calls or texting sessions with his boss.

  Several times Frank had tried to talk with Steve about the time violations. But Steve never really understood why it was a problem or how burned out Frank was. After all, he needed Frank. Frank made him look successful. And it was so easy to get him to work harder.

  Steve has a problem hearing and accepting others boundaries. To Steve, “no” is simply a challenge to change the other person’s mind. This boundary problem is called control. Controllers can’t respect others’ limits. They resist taking responsibility for their own lives, so they need to control others.

  Controllers believe the old jokes about training top salespeople: “no” means maybe, and “maybe” means yes. While this may be productive in learning to sell a product, it can wreak havoc in a relationship. Controllers are perceived as bullies, manipulative and aggressive.

  The primary problem of individuals who can’t hear no—which is different from not being able to say no—is that they tend to project responsibility for their lives onto others. They use various means of control to motivate others to carry the load intended by God to be theirs alone.

  Remember the “boulder and knapsack” illustration in chapter 2? Controllers look for someone to carry their knapsacks (individual responsibilities) in addition to their boulders (crises and crushing burdens). Had Steve shouldered the weight of his own job, Frank would have been happy to pitch in extra hours from time to time. But the pressure of covering for Steve’s irresponsibility made a talented professional look elsewhere for work.

  Controllers come in two types:

  1. Aggressive controllers. These people clearly don’t listen to others’ boundaries. They run over other people’s fences
like a tank. They are sometimes verbally abusive, sometimes physically abusive. But most of the time they simply aren’t aware that others even have boundaries. It’s as if they live in a world of yes. There’s no place for someone else’s no. They attempt to get others to change, to make the world fit their idea of the way life should be. They neglect their own responsibility to accept others as they are.

  Peter is an example of an aggressive controller. Jesus was telling the disciples about his upcoming suffering, death, and resurrection. Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him. But Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” (Mark 8:33).

  Peter didn’t want to accept the Lord’s boundaries. Jesus immediately confronted Peter’s violation of his boundaries.

  2. Manipulative controllers. Less honest than the aggressive controllers, manipulators try to persuade people out of their boundaries. They talk others into yes. They indirectly manipulate circumstances to get their way. They seduce others into carrying their burdens. They use guilt messages.

  Remember how Tom Sawyer tricked his playmates into whitewashing the fence for him? He made it seem like such a privilege that kids were lined up to paint!

  Isaac’s son Jacob finagled his twin brother Esau into giving up his birthright (Gen. 25:29–34) and, with his mother’s help, deceived his father into bestowing Esau’s blessing on him (Gen. 27:1–29). In fact, Jacob’s name means “deceiver.” Numerous times he used his cleverness to avoid others’ boundaries.

  The event that helped Jacob work out of his manipulative boundarylessness was his confrontation with God in human form (Gen. 32:24–32). God “wrestled” with him all night long and then changed his name to Israel. The word Israel means “he who fights with God.” God left Jacob with a dislocated thigh.

  And Jacob changed. He became less deceitful and more honest. His aggressiveness was clearer, as evidenced by his new name. He was owning his feistiness. Only when the manipulative controller is confronted with his dishonesty can he take responsibility for it, repent of it, and accept his and others’ limits.