Posted on by Abe Austin

Striving Together vs Striving Against

I have noticed two different types of conversation that I have had with friends and loved ones who hold different perspectives and principles from my own. One type has been far more fruitful than the other. Let’s take a look at each.

Shared Foundation)

In some cases the conversation has seen us first speaking from our shared convictions, reinforcing the points that we agree on, and then from that shared foundation explaining the reasoning that has led us to the perspectives that are different from one another. Seeing the two different chains of logic that led us to different places allowed us to question the process that one other took and offer alternative reasoning.

In my experience, this approach worked very well. It felt that we were working together to figure something out that we both wanted to understand. Seeing the motivations behind the conclusions, we each had understanding of where the other was coming from. I and the other person had multiple instances where we each said something along the lines of, “That’s a good point. I’d never thought of that before.” We actually seemed to be changing one another’s mind!

Split Foundation)

The alternative, of course, is when I have had conversations where I and the other person established no shared foundation between us at all. The two of us started by focusing on the differences between us. We didn’t explain the logic that led to our conclusions, except when doing so worked into our critique of the other person’s position.

The result, of course, was far more divisive. The conversation was more prone to devolve into an actual argument, and moments where either of us thought the other person had something insightful to offer were rare.

I think this difference of outcome is very telling. Furthermore, I know that the difference isn’t simply based on the person that I was having each conversation with, because I have had both types of conversation with the same person! In some cases, people might just be belligerent, but at other times it may be the structure of the conversation that invokes one outcome over the other.

Conclusion)

If one only ever experiences the more confrontational form of conversation, he may very well come to assume that the entire enterprise is pointless, and that he should give up trying to seeing eye-to-eye and divorce himself from the other. This would be a very tragic conclusion, particularly since it doesn’t have to be that way.

It is only natural that when we want to encounter a difference of opinion that we would go straight to the matter of contention, but that is the most likely to have us at loggerheads, accomplishing nothing. Though it feels counterintuitive, spending the majority of our conversation on what is shared, building up connection, and only then venturing out into the fringes certainly yields much better results. When two people focus primarily on what they share, they will gravitate to a unified opinion much faster than if they focus on the differences. When we have our shared perspectives as common foundation, securing greater truth becomes the goal of all participants, and we are partners in its discovery. Then, and only then, will that greater revelation be given to us, for then, and only then, will we be ready for it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

We Can’t Talk: Part Five

This series of posts started due to a difficult conversation I had with my coworker about transgenderism. I mentioned how awkward it feels when talking about “hot topic” issues such as this, and how I resent that awkwardness. I explained that I want to learn how to talk openly and respectfully about these important matters.

But having concluded all this, I would be a hypocrite if I then allowed the conversation with my coworker to remain in the awkward state we had left it in. Here, at the end of this series, I want to report that my coworker and I had a follow-up conversation just a couple days ago. Though, to be honest, we almost didn’t. I saw the opportunity for a private word, and I almost let it pass by. I still felt all the same anxiety about speaking openly, and it seemed it would be much easier to just let the moment pass by in silence. But because of the things I discussed in these posts, I knew that I had to take the chance and see what came of it even so.

And…it was great! I acknowledged the awkwardness of the prior conversation, my coworker echoed those sentiments, and then we spent our time agreeing that we didn’t like things feeling that way and wishing that this sort of communication came more naturally. I made it perfectly clear where I stood on certain stances, but also reaffirmed my friendship in spite of our differences. My coworker did not act surprised or offended in the least, but neither did she try to make any false concessions to my views. We both showed respect for the other’s different perspective.

So yes, this conversation was difficult to get started, but it stopped being painful about two sentences in. I really feel like a great weight has been lifted off. I feel that we won’t have to avoid the elephant in the room any longer. I feel closer to my coworker now that we are both able to be genuine and honest. And I don’t have to worry what my coworker would think if she found out about my opinions. If she raises a social or political point in the future, she’ll already know that I probably respectfully disagree.

Of course, I can’t guarantee that every conversation with someone of different viewpoints will go as smoothly as this one did. My own conversation could have put a real wound in our relationship, but I remain convinced that making an honest enemy would still be better than remaining a deceitful ally. I know that I won’t hate someone else because they have a difference of opinion. On the other hand, if there’s someone in my life who would choose to hate me for my opinions, then that’s something worth knowing sooner rather than later.

I’ll leave this subject for now, but rest assured I will endeavor to continue living forthrightly, respectfully and earnestly. I will continue to express the perspectives that I think matter most, and I will strive to be at peace with whatever attitude is given in return.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Discussing Spiritual Differences- Question

It is said that if you want to maintain a friendship you should never discuss religion. We might be able endure differences of opinion in sports and clothing brands, but we won’t tolerate conversations about the things that really matter.

Obviously this timidity to discuss spiritual matters has to do with their inherently sacred nature. We all feel a heightened sensitivity about things which are sacred. These parts are closer to our heart, and therefore a callous word is much more likely to wound our feelings. There is also the tendency to feel judged whenever someone else believes that what we do is a moral wrong.

But I don’t believe the solution should be to cut off communication there. I believe spiritual feelings can be conveyed in a way that is sensitive and loving. I believe that sometimes we need to testify of what we know is right, even if it will be perceived as offensive by the those that we are speaking to. I also believe that there is room to examine one’s intention in how they speak, and room to examine one’s intention in how they listen. With this study I would like to consider exactly those points. How can we share testimony, champion good, and call to repentance in a way that God approves of? How can we hear the opinions of others and receive or reject it as appropriate?

I have already studied a similar topic before, one where I considered how we can remain respectful in our differences of spiritual opinion. But I want to give special attention in this study for those moments where we need to share a spiritual truth that others may fight difficult to hear. I want to focus on both sides of that moment, the giving and the receiving.

In the meantime, I would love to hear about your own experiences in this matter. Have you ever tried to share something out of love, but had it received as if out of hate? Have you ever felt muzzled when trying to champion that which is good? Have you ever felt that you must say what you had to say, no matter how it would be received?