Topic : Conflict

Source unknown

• Set a time and place for discussion.
• Define the problem or issue of disagreement.
• Talk about how each of you contributes to the problem.
• List past attempts to resolve the issue that were unsuccessful.
• Brainstorm new ways to resolve the conflict. List all possible solutions.
• Discuss and evaluate these possible solutions.
• Agree on one solution to try.
• Agree on how each individual will work toward this solution.
• Set up another meeting to discuss your progress.
• Reward each other as you each contribute toward the solution.

Together Forever, Aid Association for Lutherans, Appleton, WI, 1997, p. 83

Fair Conflict Management includes:

• Dealing with one issue at a time,
• If more than one issue is presented, agreeing on the order in which the issues will be addressed,
• Exploring all the dimensions of the problem(s),
• Exploring several alternative solutions to the problem(s).

If any party is uncomfortable with the forum in which the conflict is raised, it is legitimate to request and discuss what the most appropriate forum might be.

Inappropriate behavior in conflict includes, but is not limited to:

• Name calling,
• Mind reading (attributing evil motives to others),
• Inducing guilt (“Look how you’ve made me feel”),
• Rejecting, deprecating, or discrediting another person,
• Using information from confidential sources or indicating that such information exists.

Fair conflict always allows people who are charged with poor performance or inappropriate behavior:

• to know who their accusers are,
• to learn what their accusers’ concerns are,
• to respond to those who accuse.

Mastering Conflict and Controversy, Edward G. Dobson, Speed B. Leas, Marshall Shelley, (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1992), pp. 43-44

The story is told of D. Bonhoeffer, who while imprisoned in a concentration camp, saluted a German officer and said “Heil Hitler” as he walked by. Bonhoeffer noticed that another prisoner next to him was refusing to salute, and whispered to him, “Salute, you fool. This isn’t worth dying for.” We need to choose our battles carefully.

Source unknown

Two men who lived in a small village got into a terrible dispute that they could not resolve. So they decided to talk to the town sage.

The first man went to the sage’s home and told his version of what happened. When he finished, the sage said, “You’re absolutely right.”

The next night, the second man called on the sage and told his side of the story. The sage responded, “You’re absolutely right.”

Afterward, the sage’s wife scolded her husband. “Those men told you two different stories and you told them they were absolutely right. That’s impossible—they can’t both be absolutely right.”

The sage turned to his wife and said, “You’re absolutely right.”

David Moore in Vital Speeches of the Day

Labour mightily for a healing spirit. Away with all discriminating names whatever that may hinder the applying of balm to heal your wounds...Discord and division become no Christian. For wolves to worry the lambs is no wonder, but for one lamb to worry another, this is unnatural and monstrous.

Thomas Brooks, quoted in Credenda Agenda, Volume 5 Number 2, Page 3, I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury, Banner of Truth, 1989, p. 304

Jerome, who was always remarkable for the virulence with which he assailed his opponents, never being able to see any good quality in them, speaks with the utmost contempt of Pelagius and Coelestius; but Augustine, who was, after his conversion, as highly exalted above the generality of the fathers of his age in the personal excellence of his character, as he was in ability and knowledge of divine truth, speaks very respectfully both of their talent and of the general character which they had sustained.

William Cunningham, quoted in Credenda Agenda, Volume 5 Number 2, p. 3, from Historical Theology, Vol I, Still Waters Revival Books, 1991, p. 327

But little is gained if opinions are crammed into men; and this is likely to be the case where they are not permitted to inquire and to doubt. At the same time it must be remembered that no spirit is more unfriendly to that indifference of mind so essential to freedom of inquiry than that which arises in the conduct of controversy. When we become advocates we lay aside the garb of philosophers. The desire of victory is often stronger than the love of truth; and pride, jealousy, ambition and envy, identifying ourselves with our opinions, will lend their aid to pervert our judgments and to seduce us from our candor. A disputatious spirit is always the mark of a little mind. The cynic may growl, but he can never aspire to the dignity of character. There are undoubtedly occasions when we must contend earnestly for the truth; but...we should look well to our own hearts, that no motives animate us but the love of truth and zeal for the highest interests of man.

James Henley Thornwell, quoted in Credenda Agenda, Volume 5 Number 2, p. 3, from Collected Writings, Vol II, Banner of Truth, 1974, pp. 511-2

Unfortunately, that is not very often how it works. The accusatory rhetoric at the United Nations is not all that different in tone from the way Christians argue with each other. Here is an example from the seventeenth century, when the Puritans and the Quakers were engaged in angry debates: The great Puritan preacher Richard Baxter wrote a pamphlet in which he lumped the Quakers with “drunkards, swearers, whoremongers, and sensual wretches” and other “miserable creatures.” And then—just in case he had not yet insulted them enough—he insisted that Quakers are no better than “Papists.”

The Quaker leader James Naylor announced that he was compelled “by the Spirit of Jesus Christ” to respond to these harsh accusations. He proceeded to characterize his Puritan opponent as a “Serpent,” a “Liar,” and “Child of the Devil,” a “Cursed Hypocrite,” and a “Dumb Dog.” This is strong stuff. What makes it especially sad is that the angry talk often makes it difficult to get to the real issues. The debate between the Puritans and the Quakers was actually a rather interesting and helpful one. Both parties engaged in some serious biblical exposition; if the heavy rhetoric were removed, the discussion could easily appear to have been a friendly argument between Christians who had some important things to talk about. But I doubt that either group heard the helpful things the other side was saying. Too much angry rhetoric was in the air.

Uncommon Decency, Richard J. Mouw, p. 52

Years ago, a large statue of Christ was erected high in the Andes on the border between Argentina and Chile. Called “Christ of the Andes,” the statue symbolizes a pledge between the two countries that as long as the statue stands, there will be peace between Chile and Argentina.

Shortly after the statue was erected, the Chileans began to protest that they had been slighted—the statue had its back turned to Chile. Just when tempers were at their highest in Chile, a Chilean newspaperman saved the day. In an editorial that not only satisfied the people but made them laugh, he simply said, “The people of Argentina need more watching over than the Chileans.

Bits & Pieces, June 25, 1992

Sacramento, Calif.—A man who hit his wife with a frozen squirrel was jailed on suspicion of spousal abuse, police said Monday. Kao Khae Saephan, 26, had been arguing with his wife early Monday morning when he walked into the kitchen and took several frozen squirrels from the freezer, police spokeswoman Betsy Braziel said. The woman told police that when she walked in the room, her husband swung the squirrels at her and struck her in the head with at least one of them. She fell against a table and received a one-inch cut above her eye, Braziel said. Saephan was booked into the county jail.

Spokesman-Review, 12-17-1991

French novelist and playwright Alexandre Dumas once had a heated quarrel with a rising young politician. The argument became so intense that a duel was inevitable. Since both men were superb shots they decided to draw lots, the loser agreeing to shoot himself. Dumas lost. Pistol in hand, he withdrew in silent dignity to another room, closing the door behind him. The rest of the company waited in gloomy suspense for the shot that would end his career. It rang out at last. His friends ran to the door, opened it, and found Dumas, smoking revolver in hand.

“Gentlemen, a most regrettable thing has happened,” he announced. “I missed.”

Today in the Word, Moody Bible Institute, Jan., 1992, p. 33

• Today in the Word, Moody Bible Institute, Jan., 1992, p. 33
• Leadership, IV, 3
• C. Swindoll, The Grace Awakening, Word, 1990, p. 173ff
• Leadership, Vol X, #3 (Summer, 1989), p. 32.

1. Be sure to develop and maintain a healthy fear of conflict, letting your own feelings build up so you are in an explosive frame of mind.

2. If you must state your concerns, be as vague and general as possible. Then the other person cannot do anything practical to change the situation.

3. Assume you know all the facts and you are totally right. The use of a clinching Bible verse is helpful. Speak prophetically for truth and justice; do most of the talking.

4. With a touch of defiance, announce your willingness to talk with anyone who wishes to discuss the problem with you. But do not take steps to initiate such conversation.

5. Latch tenaciously onto whatever evidence you can find that shows the other person is merely jealous of you.

6. Judge the motivation of the other party on any previous experience that showed failure or unkindness. Keep track of any angry words.

7. If the discussion should, alas, become serious, view the issue as a win/lose struggle. Avoid possible solutions and go for total victory and unconditional surrender. Don’t get too many options on the table.

8. Pass the buck! If you are about to get cornered into a solution, indicate you are without power to settle; you need your partner, spouse, bank, whatever.

Ron Kraybill, quoted in Tell it to the Church, Lynn Buzzard, David C. Cook, 1982, p. 23