When you can't see eye to eye ...

The only thing wrong with people having a different opinion is that they don't have my opinion. Why can't we have the kind of variety that agrees entirely with me? Or why can't people come around to my way after I explain to them how logical my way is? (I don't argue with people ... I just give the more reasons to agree with me!)

When we are at loggerheads with one another, and it's clear that no one is going to budge, how do we find ways to communicate and cooperate? If the difference is over something minor (who's your favorite Royals player?), it's not usually that hard to enjoy one another's company. But when the difference is major (which way the TP roll goes, Marvel v. D.C., etc.), and the other one is just never going to come around, how do we keep from souring our relationships?

There are plenty of ways, books, and ideas, of course. Most of them are effective. The only problem is remembering to employ them in the heat of the battle. I offer the following ideas as one possible approach:

Identify the values that apply. Without judging, without comparing, without critiquing, list as many values that are in play with the issue at hand. For example,

• living within one's means
• truthfulness
• compassion
• building memories that last

Have each person contribute to the list, adding whatever seems relevant. By this, you will see what values the other is coming from, and often, that their values are valid and important. That helps you understand their view, their logic, and their conclusions. Perhaps there are ways to accommodate many of each other's values. This also helps you filter out what you're saying from stubbornness and what you're saying from your values.

Find as much common ground as you can. You'll have plenty of time to talk about where you differ. Start by talking about where you agree. It's amazing how effective this can be, whether the common area is big or small. I have found especially when talking to religious skeptics or politically enraged chatterboxes that identifying our common ground calms the discussion and opens up a more civil way to disagree. Be careful, you might end up appreciating the other person's perspective a little bit!

Don't dig in your heels until you're able to effectively state the other person's view. Way too often people dig in their heels to argue their opinion or their way before they even understand the other's point of view. That leads to either misrepresenting the other's view in order to maintain that dug in position, or realizing way too late that you're arguing the wrong fight. And then we usually just dig in further, because we're not humble enough to apologize. But if you wait until you can effectively restate the other's position so that they can say, "Yes, you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree," they will know that you're listening and that you respect them. You might even discover that you don't disagree as much as you thought.

One of the beautiful side effects of high school or college debate is that it trains you to argue both sides of an issue, regardless of what you actually believe. And to argue each side vigorously. That tempers dogmatism and requires you to consider respectable sources that don't echo your own view. In debate, you also need to identify the values that apply so that the conversation doesn't wander off into irrelevance. And there are even times when the best strategy is to find common ground on a specific issue (but usually for the purpose of finding a better area to clash, so don't take this analogy too far!).

Three simple things that we already know. We just don't remember them when the "other person" is being obstinate. But the more we practice these even with minor issues, the more habitual they become, and the better we will navigate potentially divisive conflict.

I don't always practice these, but when I do, the conversation is almost always dramatically better.

Boycotts, Agendas, and the Public Square

There's been an interesting reversal these last two weeks - rather than a group of Christians rallying to boycott something, a group of folks have called for a boycott of a fast food restaurant because the head of the company publicly shared his personal view on a moral issue.

I don't intend to say who's right or who's wrong on the myriad of related issues here - that's not my point, and I don't intend to stir up the debate. I don't intend to answer the question of whether or not we should boycott at all. My only goal is to offer some ideas for Christians to consider as they exercise their right to engage in the public arena.

Our model, of course, is Jesus. I also see other useful examples in Scripture.

As you engage with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and cyberfriends, please consider:

• Jesus affiliated with the sinners, loved them, and yet never pretended that sin wasn't sin. The only people who felt really uncomfortable with Him were the religious hypocrites and those who wanted to remain in sin. All others, including the "vilest offenders," felt welcome in His presence (even though He would say things like, "Go and sin no more"). Would a sinner have every reason to feel comfortable in my presence by the loving way I stand for God's ways?
• In Acts 4-5, the disciples were unfairly arrested, but did not raise a huge protest over being mistreated, misunderstood, or violated. They did not make their personal rights the main issue, even though they were treated illegally. They did, however, plainly and clearly state the core truth of the Gospel, and then extended an offer for others to believe. Am I speaking to truly advance the Gospel or to advance my personal feelings and agenda?
• Because these disciples were mistreated, they were able to explain the claims of Christ to people they otherwise would never have had a chance to. Do I see opposition to my views as opportunities to share Christ in a winsome way?
• Their deciding factor, it seems, was that they would do whatever they could to give the Gospel its best possible hearing. They let their own rights be denied, they displayed respect, they chose to shut up or speak boldly, everything for the apparent purpose of not interfering with the Gospel. If they had loudly (and legally) demanded their rights, adopted a combative attitude, or spoke out of turn, they would have damaged the appeal of the Gospel. Do I treat my own freedom, safety, and rights as secondary to the Gospel?
• Paul did assert his rights at times, such as appealing to Caesar - which, as a result, put him in the court system in Rome, where he spoke about the Gospel (more than about his own rights) to those in the Roman government. Do I understand the system well enough to negotiate it wisely?
• Joseph and Daniel are two Old Testament characters in captivity to two different pagan kings. They both had their rights and freedoms denied. They were both treated unfairly. And they both used the gifts and talents God gave them to make their immoral kings very successful. Both made a stronger argument for the God of Israel by doing so. Do I bring value to others, or merely arguments and demands, forcing them into a defensive position?

There is a time to make a stand and endure conflict. When justice is systemically denied, when the defenseless are oppressed, when the moneychangers turn a space dedicated to God into a den of thieves.

But always, always, always, our actions in the public square should be dictated by advancing the Gospel, not mere religiosity. And the manner of our engagement must also reflect the nature of the Gospel itself, or we cancel out our own message.