Have you ever been there? A bunch of friends or family, snacks and beverages in the middle of the table, or maybe it’s lunch or dinner. The conversation takes care of itself, a comment here and there, some stories, plenty of laughter. Sometimes you join the banter, sometimes you just enjoy the sounds of friendship. Then it happens. Somebody brings up politics, or it could be religion.

The speaker looks around the table for affirmation. “This is dangerous. I can’t see how anyone could see that bunch of mumbo jumbo any other way?” 

Speak Up or Stay Quiet?

Faith filled living is tricky stuff at times like these. The speaker hasn’t considered that others in the group may disagree. They are looking for fans, not philosophers. It’s hard to know what to say when the speaker wants “salty agreement” not thoughtful reflection filled with grace and “seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

It’s almost an unwritten rule, open discussion with a lively exchange of divergent ideas is not permitted. The speaker’s purpose isn’t to ask others to weigh in on their ideas or to learn more about the topic. They are presenting a settled opinion and looking for confirmation.  

And if you don’t agree? Too often, this scenario ends with what one of my favorite books, Crucial Conversations, calls “Silence or Violence.” If the situation seems unsafe, the concerned listener may choose silence, judging that it could be socially or physically dangerous to oppose the speaker. On the other hand, the listener may feel compelled to take a stand and impose the righteousness of a contradictory opinion through a kind of verbal violence that leaves no room for respect or even dialog.

Mixing up a wise and gracious conversation is much easier with Say Good to guide you.

Another Way

There must be a better way. Ashlee Eiland describes a third option in her book Say Good. She and her husband joined new friends from their recreational sports league for snacks after an evening game. The group represented more than one team, and not everyone knew each other. The comfortable conversation took a bad turn when one man made a belittling remark about an ethnic group. One of Ashlee’s teammates, a member of that ethnic group, registered discomfort on her face, looking toward the speaker and then toward Ashlee. Although Ashlee wavered in exactly how to respond, Ashlee’s husband decided to act. Waiting for an appropriate time, he requested a private word with the speaker and respectfully told him about the impact of his comments. The speaker reflected on this new information, realized there was a problem and apologized.

If this seems like a “too good to be true” story, consider first how rare this story is. Do we really know what would happen if we chose to speak privately and respectfully to someone that has offended us, perhaps even without realizing their error? It took courage for Ashlee’s husband to address the concern. It also took restraint and positive regard. He saw the offender not as the object of derision or wrath but as a colleague who deserved a chance to learn and make correction.

I wish I were more like Ashlee’s husband.

I’m wondering if I would choose this “third way” more often if I trained myself with more ready responses – a kind of recipe to follow in awkward conversations.

Maybe something like this:

Savory Dialog without Roasting

Serves: Many- especially effective for small conversation groups

Working Time: A few minutes of courageous and respectful conversation

Total Time: Hours of intentional learning, plus commitment to living in community

Variations:

Recipe may be prepared by the speaker or the listener. Procedures will vary depending on whether the preparer introduced the topic or responded to another’s choice of topic.

Procedures:

Select a topic considering both the issue and the various perspectives that you and others may hold. Enter the conversation with a desire to learn. Choose the most appropriate procedure for the immediate situation. Save unselected options for the next opportunity.

Select your role in the dialog. Are you the:

Speaker ?

• Don’t assume others agree.
• Ask a question- “I’m wondering what you think?”
• State your views briefly.
• Listen and ask clarifying questions (avoid argumentative questions).
• Ask how the other’s experiences have led them to their views.
• Emphasize shared values.
• Determine the appropriate time to finish for now, talk again later.

Listener ?

• Depending on the speaker’s context, choose a response:
  • Ask permission to offer an alternative view.
  • Silence for now – talk privately later.
  • Change the subject – talk privately later.
• Speak for yourself to clarify, not as an adversary to convince – e.g. “I see that differently…”
• Look for areas of common agreement-
  • e.g. “I see that we are both concerned about…”
• Ask open ended curious questions to hear where the other is coming from.

Putting it Into Practice

Does this feel awkward or too hard? Anything unfamiliar likely will. My memories of this kind of conversation, whether I initiated it or not, are very few.  I have employed these “recipe” procedures in many formal or business-like settings. But when have I drawn on them in a social context?

As I searched my memories, the exchange that popped up occurred some time ago. At a social gathering someone turned the conversation to politics. The speaker’s opinions, and those of the majority of the group didn’t agree with mine. I chose to say very little. Eventually the conversation waned, and the dinner party ended. As I made my way to the parking lot, one of my dinner partners followed me out. “You were uncharacteristically quiet,” he said. I felt tension rise as I positioned myself to head off an argument. But my posture was unnecessary. The speaker went on, “I was trying to figure out why, and then I realized, she doesn’t agree with what we’re saying.”

I had expected a tone of attack, but these words were spoken with curiosity and interest.  I smiled and confirmed, “Good perception,” I had expected hostility, but instead I received room to be myself. The hard work of disagreement didn’t go away because of this acknowledgement. It just made a more thoughtful conversation possible in the future.

Everyone wants to be known and accepted for who they truly are and recognized for what they truly believe. Too many of us opt out of conversations because we feel like our relationships are on the line if we aren’t all on the same page. It’s never easy to change old ways of doing things, but I want to follow a recipe that makes listening easier and loving unconditional. In the Message, Eugene Peterson describes the purpose of this kind of conversation. “The goal is to bring out the best in others…not put them down, not cut them out.” (Colossians 4:6 MSG)  I want to remind myself that fully expressed faith speaks with both wisdom and grace.