POLICE BRUTALITY, the Affordable Care Act, climate change: When people with differing convictions on issues such as these come together for conversation, some prefer to first set aside the issues and focus on building relationships, while others want disagreements front and center. In his book I Beg to Differ: Navigating Difficult Conversations With Truth and Love, Biola University communications professor Tim Muehlhoff says relationship and honesty are necessary for progress to be made.
“If every conversation we have with others is about the issues that divide us, the intensity will hurt the communication climate,” he writes.
For example, he offers the hypothetical story of an evangelical Christian who wants to share his faith with a Muslim co-worker. Over lunch, the colleagues take time to learn about each other’s differing religious convictions, but the conversation doesn’t invade their work relationship. Back at the office, they return to their easygoing, day-to-day relational habits.
It’s a mistake to begin conversations by trying to convince others of our position, Muehlhoff says. It is better to listen with a sincere desire to understand what the other person believes and why they believe it.
“Position-centered individuals view others as a collective whole based on gender, race, education level, social position, political affiliation, religion, and so on. Individuals are grouped into large, often stereotypical categories and are treated accordingly,” Muehlhoff writes.
Person-centered communication views those with whom we disagree as “unrepeatable souls created by God.”
As we approach differences, he advises that we ask ourselves: “Are we relating to a person or someone’s analysis of them? Do we allow individuals the freedom of self-definition? Have we boxed people in according to stereotype? How much of my communication is shaped by pre-judgment?”
Muehlhoff describes himself and most of his students as conservative Christians. In his advanced rhetoric class, he has assigned them the task of watching Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary and finding areas of agreement with the politically liberal filmmaker. When students have complained that they can’t find one area of agreement with Moore, Muehlhoff has guided them to areas of common ground, such as the belief that “what makes our country special is the freedom to critique a president.”
Once common ground is established, wisdom is necessary in determining how to proceed, he says. Many of us get stuck here, because we don’t want to jeopardize fragile relationships. But it is a mistake to consistently avoid difficult issues. “Honesty communicates trust. If the time never seems right to address honest disagreements, then we have fallen into this common mistake” and our conflicts will remain unresolved, Muehlhoff writes.
Muehlhoff suggests asking ourselves the following question once we have taken sufficient time to establish a foundation of common ground and trust: “With this person, at this time, under these circumstances, what is the next thing I should say?”
If we do nothing beyond listening with a sincere desire to understand our opponents and ask ourselves this question, it’s possible we’ll get farther than by pushing our own position too hard. In our rush to convince others that we’re right and they’re wrong about issues, we too often run roughshod over relationships that could be vital to creating lasting change on issues about which we are passionate.
I Beg to Differ is an excellent resource with helpful chapter summaries for easily bookmarking the many communication strategies it presents. The book would have benefitted from examples that appeal to a more politically and theologically diverse audience, but overcoming that weakness may be a place for readers to start putting their listening skills to work.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!