search for faith

Division among Evangelical Christians is one of the tragic ironies of a historical movement committed - at least by confession - to Jesus' prayer "...that they may one" (John 17:11 - all references are from The New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted). And its results are often devastating to organizations, denominations, local churches and individuals. What is equally tragic is that while these splits are often over doctrinal differences, the very basis for those doctrines --- the Scriptures --- provides principles for handling conflicts that, if followed, would frequently stave off such heart-wrenching divisions. For in many cases it is primarily a misfiring of relationships that exacerbates genuine differences of opinion and heightens conflicts to the breaking point.

And, of course, conflicts are not limited to the context of church. Whether at work, in the home, or wherever, we've all been there: Locked into opposite positions; heels dug in firmly; glaring at each other.

But I'd like to suggest that conflict, broadly defined, is not only something that can be resolved successfully, but also can be a positive force in the life of any community. Consider: Haven't you ever weathered a conflict with someone only to come out of the experience with a strengthened and closer relationship? The very work that's necessary to successfully resolve a conflict often enhances a relationship rather than weaken it. In addition, the fact that we all do not know everything and that our perspective is not invariably the correct one suggests that if we approach conflict with an open mind and a sincere heart we will make ourselves wiser people. The Book of Proverbs is replete with praises for the wise man who will accept correction (e.g. Proverbs 10:17, 12:1; 13:18; 15:5,10,31,32,29:15). We will only learn and grow by discriminatingly submitting to others' wise insights and alternate perspectives. If, then, it's true that conflict can yield positive results, what light does the Scripture shed on a methodology that can guide us through the inevitable disagreements that we will encounter in all of life’s spheres?

One of the most helpful passages that informs a methodology of conflict resolution is Philippians 2:3,4 where Paul writes: "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others."

From this passage we learn the guiding principle that a radical focus on the other person is critical when resolving conflicts.

For several years, I've been training new customer service representatives in my company how to resolve conflicts and deal with very upset customers who call USA TODAY's National Customer Service Center's 800 number. For over ten years I myself have taken calls on that 800 number. (Though I’m a technology manager, at the inbound contact center where I work, the policy is that all employees spend at least some time every week taking calls, irrespective of job title). During that time, I've been able to discover ways of turning a difficult conversation with someone who's irate into a productive discussion with someone with whom you have a stronger relationship after the conflict.

Every conflict has two components: an emotional component and a rational component. Many of our frustrations in attempting to manage conflicts come when we confuse these components in our responses. The successfully resolved conflict typically is characterized towards its beginning by an emotional/empathic exchange, transitioning towards its end to a rational/ logic exchange. The emotional/empathic aspect of the conflict is more right-brain focused while the rational/logic component of the conflict is more a function of the left-brain. I.e. the rational/logic interchange typically deals with what we characterize as the substance of the issue, whereas the emotional/empathic aspect of the discussion is more the music of conversation. One of the most significant errors we make in attempting to resolve conflicts is focusing exclusively on the rational/logic component of the conflict.

Let me unpack that just a bit.

When Alia (my 15 month old) is upset about a circumstance in her little life, she cries. But when my wife Bethany is similarly disconcerted, she, however, uses words. Because words, linguists tell us, are logical symbols, it's our tendency to focus on the logical content of what's being said rather than on its emotive content. So, for example, when Beth raises her voice a bit and says to me, "Why don't you ever take out the trash?" I err when I answer, "Well now that's just a fascinating question: why, indeed, don't I take out the trash? Actually, Beth, I must take issue with your presupposition. In fact, I remember one cold December evening in 1992 when...." In this obvious example, I am dealing only with the logical content of Bethany's question and ignoring its emotive content. I would most effectively respond with a "Sounds like you're pretty frustrated with this overflowing kitchen trash can."

Accordingly, here's a key thing to remember: Respond to every emotional statement with an empathic response. It might be a "That must be really hard" or a "I think I'd feel the same way in your shoes" to a "Wow, I had no idea how you felt about this." You have to find the verbiage with which you're most comfortable and can naturally express.

Most of us are pretty good with a perfunctory "I'm so sorry to hear that" or a similar phrase when we first encounter our disagreeing friend's emotion. The trick to effectively managing the emotional music of a conflict is to respond to every emotional statement with an expression of empathy. After our initial apology or expression of empathy we often feel silly repeating ourselves, but that's because we feel that we are repeating logical content. We are not repeating content. We are merely repeating expressions of concern and empathy. Realizing this frees us up to repeat ourselves because we understand that we are only conveying empathy in our repeated responses to our disagreeing friend's expressions of emotion. In addition, being aware of the essentially emotive character of our friend's comments also frees us up to ignore any illogic content they might express when upset. Many a conflict has locked into an unfruitful emotional versus logic interchange when one person was in their right brain and their opposite was in their left.

Managing the music of a successfully resolved conflict requires responding to every emotional statement with an empathic response. But it also requires a vigorous focus on the perspective of your disagreeing friend.

While the worst thing you can do in the middle of a conflict is slavishly follow some technique, it is nonetheless helpful to summarize the main things to remember in sequential form.

1 - Listen for Understanding

Initially, simply listen to what your disagreeing friend is saying. This conveys respect.

2 - Employ the Acknowledgement Clause.

After the person with whom you are disagreeing has stated their position, acknowledge that you have heard them with verbiage like, "I understand that you feel that way" or "I see." We are often chary to express ourselves this way, fearing that we are inadvertently conveying agreement. But acknowledging your friend's statement of position shows them that you are listening and conveys honor.

3 - Ask Clarification Questions

Step #3 is probably the most valuable of all these steps. For someone with an open heart and mind, it is here that the greatest learning is apt to occur. You basically want to ask enough questions to understand your friend's reasons for believing what she believes. You should ask questiosa with the same thoroughness and intensity as if you yourself were going to have to stand as the advocate for your friend's position. You should be able to make their arguments. When I do conflict mediation, I require each side to summarize the other’s position and then side B must sign off that side A has correctly understood side B’s position. This is step #3

4 - Confirm Your Understanding of Your Friend's Position

After you have asked a sufficient number of clarification questions to ensure that you understand not only your partner's position but also the reasons that they have chosen that position, the next step is to summarize for your friend their position and their reasoning. After such a statement, you should ask your friend if you have in fact understood what they have been saying. If they say no, then you go back to Step #3. If the answer is yes, then you can move on.

An individual open to change at this point in the midst of conflict sometimes says, "I believe you have convinced me of your position."

In a heated conflict, however, it is the rare individual who is capable of such maturity.

5 - Request Permission to Reveal Your Position

Unless you have been convinced to capitulate your position, the next step involves asking your opposite permission to reveal your thoughts on the subject at hand. It is the rare individual that after you have shown the patience and respect to listen, then ask clarification questions and then to confirm that you understand their position will not then allow you to state your position on the topic at hand.

6 - Give Information

6a - State Points of Agreement

First of all, detail what you agree with in your friend's presentation. Note the continued rigorous focus on your opposite's point of view. This is reflected by the fact that even after you've secured permission to share your point of view, you honor your friend by first of all stating your agreements.

6b - List Points of Disagreement

Only after you have listed all of the points your friend stated with which you agree do you now detail the matters about which you continue to disagree. Because you have taken so much time to focus on your friend's point of view, they are now much more likely to listen to what you now have to say.

Most of us have what I call 6b Addiction. That is, when someone states something with which we disagree, we immediately run to state our disagreement and our reasons. That is our typical left brain mistake. Analogously, as I've indicated, when we are in the midst of disagreement, it is also our tendency to shy away from sustained emotional-empathic interchanges - beyond - at times - a perfunctory "I'm sorry to hear that" - and prematurely attempt to drive the conversation to a rational-logic interchange. But the heart of Listening Beneath the Words and Listening To the Words is a rigorous focus on the emotions and the perspective of the person with whom we disagree. Accordingly, I'll suggest a 7th step that not only applies to the steps of Listening to the Words (focusing on your opposite's perspective), but also applies to the principle of responding to every emotional statement with an empathic response (what Stephen Covey calls Listening Beneath the Words).

7 - Keep Dancin'

Through the process of working through a conflict, it is critical that you - as it were - follow the lead of your dance partner. When they bring the focus of the conversation back to their perspective on the matter, follow them there. Acknowledge what they've expressed, ask clarification questions until you understand what they're saying and then confirm that you indeed heard what they said by rephrasing it. This will usually not happen just once in the course of your conflict! Though you are not focusing on their position to manipulate, it is nonetheless true that your mature focus on their position is a powerful inducement for them to reciprocate and think more seriously about your opinion on the matter at hand.

Similarly, throughout the process, when your opposite expresses themselves emotionally, do not be distracted by any illogic that's within their words, but focus on their emotions with empathic responses. This serves to build the relationship and empowers your friend to be able to transition the conversation from an emotional-empathic interchange to a rational-logic back-and-forth where you can effectively address the substance of the issue at hand. But it is critical to remember that even after you believe you have made that transition don't forget to respond empathically to any further emotional statements your partner might make.

Conflicts are a necessary part of human existence. But they can become destructive when divorced from trust. In my personal experience, most of the time destructive conflict is the result of distrust falsely assumed for the other side. Maintaining a trusting heart will burn you sometimes, but maintaining a destructive spirit will burn you a lot more. And - for the Christian - there really is no other alternative (1 Corinthians 13:7).

For the concept of Listening Beneath the Words, I'm indebted to Stephen Covey. For a method of Listening To the Words, I've adapted an approach advocated by Dr. Sharon Crain. For the motivational impetus empowering both techniques (an altruistic focus) I'm indebted to the Scriptures!

The Bible Stephen Covey's The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People
Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline
Myers Briggs Personality Type Theory
Sharon Crain, Ph.D. of Crain and Associates

Stephen Shields is a Technology Manager with USA TODAY, a free lance writer, and formerly a bi-vocational pastor with Cedar Ridge Community Church, founded by Brian McLaren. His work there focused on leadership development, small groups and teaching. Stephen also does occasional consulting work in customer service, conflict resolution, and developing personal and corporate mission statements. He lives with his wife Bethany and three daughters - Michaela Siobhan, Skye Teresa, and Alia Noelle - in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Stephen is the webmaster and principal of a new venture, faithmaps.org.