Introduction
We
do not like conflict, but it is always with us. We shrink from it, but we can
use it to strengthen fellowship if we understand how to use it to good ends. We
can choose how to approach it, whether to engage or disengage, and how we
participate in it. Conflicts cannot always be avoided and cannot always be
resolved. We continually encounter conflict; practice in dealing with it yields
skill while avoidance leaves us unskilled and produces frustration.
To
avoid misunderstanding between us, please let me use the word
"conflict" to include hidden disagreement, and in a general way to
denote all possible shades of difference between people, from potential
difference to open antagonism. I know that the usual meaning of
"conflict" implies open disagreement, but in this essay we need to
emphasize the potential for it also. My purpose is not to cover all types of
conflict, but to help you understand that there is constructive conflict that
can lead to unity.
Consider
conflict in general as being of two types:(1) conflict of ideas and (2)
contest of wills. A conflict of ideas can potentially be resolved by
reason, does not need to be personalized, and may involve debate, argument, or
education. Listening and reasoning skills are needed to resolve a conflict of
ideas. A contest of wills is always personal, often involves false
debate or sham argument, inherently involves a win‑lose mentality, and
usually ends with someone’s defeat. Peacemaking skills are required to resolve
a contest of wills.
Resolving
conflict is not "settling fights," although sometimes that is
necessary. Conflict resolution should be peaceful, accomplished by discerning
when it is worth the effort, with the goal of achieving spiritual unity.
The
Nature, Basis, and
Purpose
of Conflict
The
nature of conflict may include the following features:
1.
Debate (a reasoned discussion of differences, sometimes with emotion).
2.
Strife (any conflict that includes antagonism or friction).
3.
Withdrawal (passivity, separation, or other avoidance).
The
basis of conflict is individuality, including self‑will,
egocentrism, and self‑righteousness. "We have turned every one to
his own way" (Isa. 53:6). "In those days there was no king in Israel,
but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judg. 17:6; 21:25).
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes:but he who hearkens unto
counsel is wise" (Prov. 12:15). Each person is an individual, with his or
her own thoughts. Because each of us is going in a different direction,
conflict is inevitable.
God’s
purpose for conflict is that it lead to unity. God desires that we be united in
mind as well as in the Spirit. "I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche,
that they be of the same mind in the Lord" (Phil. 4:2). "With all
lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one
body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:2‑6). "He gave [gifts] …
for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-13). "Stand fast
in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the
gospel" (Phil. 1:27). "Fulfill my joy, that you be likeminded, having
the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through
strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than
themselves" (Phil. 2:2,3).
The
Process of Unity
Because
we have, by nature, different minds, the only way we can become of one mind is
by exposing to each other our differences so that we can be informed and
changed. We achieve agreement by comparing presuppositions, facts, and
reasoning. While doing so, we must recognize the limits of knowledge (some
things are unknowable), acknowledge the limits of communication, admit our
capacity for error through self‑deception, premature conclusions,
prejudice, stubbornness, and so on. I would like to call this a
"conversation for unity." This constructive conflict entails mutual
education and respect for one another.
Words
and jargon hinder agreement. We
are not sufficiently conscious of how our word use differs from one person to
another. We often mean different things with identical words or phrases. This
causes false conflict. Many arguments are just about words, not truth. It is
very important to be sure, by asking questions before we argue, that we really
understand what the other person means.
Since
we have defined "conflict" to begin with any difference
between two people, we can see that conflict can be beneficial if we approach
these differences with the assumption that the other person seeks to speak the
truth and to do well. Or conflict can be detrimental if either person assumes
their differences to be due to some unacceptable cause such as ill will,
stupidity, ignorance, worldliness, or hostility.
Just
as conflict can turn out well or badly, the methods by which we approach
conflict can be either constructive or detrimental. It is the techniques of
conflict that determine most strongly whether "injury" occurs in
"settling" it. Harmful methods of conflict include passive
aggression, intimidation, slander and name‑calling, fighting, lying, and
withdrawal.
Conflict
may be resolved in various ways, usually not resulting in perfect unity, but at
best produces agreement on important points. At worst, conflict results in
social fracture or even violence. Our own response to felt conflict determines
whether we will, ourselves, be able to face it and work constructively to
resolve it.
The
Nature of Conflict
Conflict
is something we usually try to avoid. The reality is that conflict is not only
unavoidable, but is necessary if we wish to understand others and to
"walk" together with them. Without permitting conflict it is not
possible to have true unity. The difficulty with conflict lies not in
disagreement but in strife that is produced by our reactions and our behavior.
We often fight when we should debate; we argue when we should educate each
other; we ignore disagreement when we should discuss it; and instead of
settling arguments peaceably, we walk away from them unresolved and let them
fester.
Why
is there conflict? Because we are created individuals, each with his own will
and his own point of view. We cannot read each others’ minds, nor can we read
God’s mind. Thus we cannot be thinking the same thing. If there are any ideas
on which we agree with each other, it is because we were taught the same thing,
or through a happy accident came to the same conclusion independently—or
because we had a discussion and reached agreement.
Each
person’s will is completely independent of God’s will:this is the essence of
what it means to be "born in sin." Our will is by nature strong, and
disobedient. The Bible plainly states that not only are we disobedient, but we
are by nature opposed to God:"The carnal mind is enmity against God:for
it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7).
What does this mean for our relationships with our fellow man? We are no more agreed
by nature with our fellows than we are with God, and we have no more knowledge
of their thoughts than we do of God’s thoughts. Because we have language, and
because we can debate the meaning of words and arrive at agreement on their
meanings, it is possible to communicate with each other. God Himself uses
language to communicate some of His thoughts to us in the Bible.
How
is agreement reached? With our minds. God Himself uses the same technique with
us:"Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD:though your sins
be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson,
they shall be as wool" (Isa. 1:18). God expects that the result of His
reasoning with us will be agreement. The result is not that God agrees with us,
but that we, if we reason honestly, will agree that He is right. The essence of
righteousness is knowing God’s thoughts; hence after we have reasoned with God
our sins have been changed from scarlet to white. We see this process with Job
who reasoned with God and repented.
To
reason honestly with God is difficult for us not only because our hearts are
deceitful, but also because we are willful and do not want to give up our
thoughts even after it is clear another’s are better.
We
shall now consider what this means for Christians, for whom the goal of
fellowship is that we be united, that we be "as one."
Turning
Conflict into Unity
The
process of conflict in the flesh leads to separation. The goal of conflict, in
Christ, is to make peace and to become of one mind. Metaphorically, "Iron
sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Prov.
27:17). The ideal process is:(1) We have disparate thoughts that are unknown
to each other; (2) we reveal ourselves to each other; (3) we discover our
differences, then respond to them; (4) we learn from each other; and (5) we
combine the best of our ideas into a shared viewpoint. Let us expand upon some
of these points.
We
reveal ourselves to each other. In
Prov. 20:5 we read, "Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a
man of understanding will draw it out." Are you "a man of
understanding"? Are you able to "draw out counsel" from another?
Do you think of others as having counsel for you?
Another
vision is seen in Prov. 27:19:"As in water face answers to face, so the
heart of man to man." Others are a mirror of our own actions and
attitudes. If they perceive friendliness, they respond favorably; if they
perceive animosity, they react with irritation or rejection. Note carefully,
others respond to what they perceive in us, not to what we feel
inside. Our demeanor does not necessarily reflect our inner attitude. This is
useful when we are able to conceal damaging or dangerous reactions; it is a
hindrance when we successfully conceal positive reactions to others. In fact,
failing to conceal irritation and failing to show gratitude or praise both hinder
our ability to stimulate others to good. "Let us consider one another to
provoke unto love and to good works" (Heb. 10:24). Most of us know how to
"provoke" or frustrate one another; but do we know how to provoke
someone else "unto good works" and to love?
We
discover our differences, then respond to them. To discover differences feels like disagreement.
But it can be an education instead. Others may be aggressive or supportive in
their approach to us. How do we approach those with whom we sense disagreement?
Others may be receptive or rejecting of us; how do we respond to them when
conflict begins? Our emotions may be strong; we need to rule them; we tend to
react to the emotions of others rather than to respond. Our response is our own
responsibility; the other person’s approach and response are his responsibility
(bearing in mind that we can provoke others).
The
spiritual challenge is that our natural response to conflict tends to be like
Cain’s, namely anger (Gen. 4:4‑8). By nature we want to have our own way.
Anger is the natural response to frustration. This natural response destroys
social relationships:marriage, friendships, family connections, fellowship. In
order to have mature social relationships, we must give up our own way; we must
set aside anger when frustrated. One who is quick to anger lacks understanding:
"He who is slow to wrath is of great understanding, but he who is hasty of
spirit exalts folly" (Prov. 14:29). A response of irritation or anger is a
signal that we do not understand. It is an inner hint to learn more about the
other’s point of view. Some anger is due to understanding, but
"the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God" (Jas. 1:20).
If,
in sensing disagreement, we first seek mutually to understand, the
result will be an improved relationship and harmony of mind and spirit.
Listening
Talking
does not reduce disagreement. Listening does. To communicate is to listen. If
two people each express their own point of view, this is not communication.
Communication occurs only if each listens to the other, and asks questions that
try to understand not merely what the words mean, but what the other is trying
to imply. Communication can lead to agreement if we mentally check the
following areas as we converse:
1.
Assumptions (presuppositions).
2.
Values (priorities, morals, laws, esthetics).
3.
Facts (information, observations).
4.
Reasoning (implications, deductions, inferences).
5.
Conclusions (actions, outcomes).
Opportunities for error in
communication include:
1.
Wrong assumptions about the other’s values or presuppositions.
2.
Erroneous interpretations of non‑verbal signals.
3.
Not detecting the speaker’s misstatements.
4.
Misunderstanding.
5.
Incorrect "facts."
Assumptions. If
we do not agree on presuppositional truth, we are unlikely to be able to agree
on logical conclusions. The thorniest part of reviewing assumptions is that
they are never open to debate. They can be examined for
"reasonableness," but are unprovable. Assumptions can only be accepted,
rejected or modified.
Values. A person’s values are seldom explicitly revealed,
but are important because they "color" reason. If a person’s
reasoning seems illogical, usually some important priority or value judgment
can be discovered lurking behind this. Differences in values or priorities must
be explored and understood if we wish to reach unity. In fact, we can expect
that others will have totally different ideas from ours of what is important or
even relevant. If these differences are ignored, we can expect friction.
Facts. These may be ignored, distorted, or even false. We
will succeed in communication to the extent that we are willing to have our own
facts "double‑checked" or independently verified by another.
Disagreement about facts can quickly make shipwreck of a reasoned argument. Did
we really see what we thought? Did we see all there was to see? Remember the
blind men examining the elephant, each with a "complete" description,
unaware that only a part of the elephant had been felt.
Reasoning. Anyone’s reasoning may be faulty, even our own!
We need to remember that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9). The human mind is not a logic machine, it
is a pattern‑recognition instrument. We emulate logic in our thinking;
it is something we must be trained to do. Even then our desires and our will
blind us as to facts, twist our values, and help us draw premature conclusions.
Conclusions. Any conclusions we reach, even if in agreement
with someone we respect, even if they seem to be based on complete facts and
objective reasoning, must be tested against reality. Remember the Bereans! Does
a recommended action make sense? Is it constructive? Will it build up the
relationship? Will it provoke love?
Speaking
Out
Both
speaking out and silence can hinder the reasonable conversation we must have in
order to reach unity. Speaking out is difficult for some, easy for others. To
speak wisely requires courage for the quiet and discernment for the talkative.
First,
we should be careful in what we say. We should wait to speak:Jas. 1:19 says,
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to
speak, slow to wrath." And Prov. 29:20 reminds us, "Do you see a man
who is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him." When
we do select our words carefully, we create beauty:"A word fitly spoken
is like apples of gold in pictures of silver" (Prov. 25:11). Also silence
avoids trouble:"Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul
from troubles" (Prov. 21:23).
It
is impossible to reach agreement without speaking, but we understand from
experience that speaking can be dangerous. "Even so the tongue is a little
member, and boasts great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire
kindles! … But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of
deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we
men, which are made after the similitude of God." (Jas. 3:5,8).
In
attempting to communicate towards unity, we learn that "in many things we
offend all" (Jas. 3:2). As we mature, we strive toward this goal:"If
any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle
the whole body" (Jas. 3:2). Thus, "He who keeps his mouth keeps his
life:but he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction" (Prov. 13:3).
We are protected if we learn that "A soft answer turns away wrath, but
grievous words stir up anger" (Prov. 15:1).
Second,
despite the danger of inciting others by speaking, we must speak if we wish to
decrease conflict and communicate effectively. Significant disagreement cannot
be ignored, but must be considered and gradually resolved. It is important to
understand the implications of Amos 3:3:"Can two walk together, except
they be agreed?" The only way to reach agreement is to talk. We do not
have to discuss every point; ironically, it is more important to cover those
points at which we differ. Unless we have a tolerant, humble, patient, and
forgiving attitude, exploring points of difference is liable to result in
irritation or ill will. Revealing doubt about another’s intentions or motives
in our comments will hinder the other from accepting our thoughts.
Third,
it is not the sole responsibility of the speaker to avoid offense. It is
important for the listener not to take offense. We do this by
attributing good intentions to the speaker, even if they are not at first
evident. This tolerance and good faith is love:"Love suffers long, and is
kind … is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; bears all things … endures
all things" (1 Cor. 13:4‑7).
As
Christians, we have the opportunity, thanks to the indwelling Holy Spirit and
the new nature, to overcome both our natural offensive selfishness and our
natural angry reaction to disagreement. That is, we can choose whether to be
offended.
Need
for a Good Reputation
An
important qualification of "speaking out" is that whether our message
is "heard" will influenced by our own reputation and by our
credibility. For example, a person who is known to have mistreated his wife
will never be listened to by women, whether or not his message is
"true"; furthermore, a truthful message delivered by someone who is
inconsistent may be assumed to be false because of the reputation of
unreliability.
Thus,
if we hope to have a constructive influence on others in any "conversation
toward unity," we must consider our own reputation. If there is any reason
why others may not respect us, we might as well remain silent and accept the
decisions and opinions of others as final. Capitulation is the only peaceful
option for us until we have earned others’ respect by admirable living.
Confrontation
Sometimes
it is necessary to endure difficult conflict for the sake of the truth, or in
order to prevent wrong from being done. At other times it may be useful to
provoke a crisis in order to stimulate others to necessary action. If you do
this, be aware that you may have to suffer personal rejection, slander, or ill
will as a result, no matter how correct the stand you have taken. In fact,
because the natural man is at enmity with God, if you represent the truth of
God to either a Christian living in the flesh or to an unbeliever, do not be surprised
if you the messenger are attacked in some way. This is part of the cross of
Christ which we are honored to bear.
In
speaking up for what is correct, it is desirable to do so in a way designed to
produce a positive response. Even so, the listener may respond with anger
rather than repentance. In fact, most people respond with self‑justification
and argument even if deep inside they want to repent. Thus, it is best not to
be accusing, in order to make self‑justification unnecessary; and it is
best not to push for remorse but instead leave room for the Holy Spirit to work
out changed behavior and true repentance.
It
is also wise to consider the method of "uncovering" the conflict.
Christ often used questions. "What would you that I should do for
you?" (Mark 10:36); or "Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a
kiss?" (Luke 22:48). Sincere questions make us examine ourselves.
Rhetorical questions (questions that presume the answer) may harden the heart.
Questions that reveal our prejudices or biases will not bring an open
response. If you ask a question and receive an objection or argument, you have
gotten an answer to what you have implied. Think about it.
The
wise person discerns whether differences are important; that is, whether the
"conflict" is even worth resolving. Zeal for the truth may breed
indiscriminate perfectionism. This is Pharisaical, but also prevents others
from confiding in us. We must carefully consider whether any intervention or
confrontation is appropriate.
Silence
There
are times when silence is the only proper response to conflict. Sometimes it is
inappropriate to speak; or we might have a bad reputation, and can expect our
judgment not to be respected; or the other person may be incapable of
appreciating what we have to say. "Give not that which is holy unto the
dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their
feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt. 7:6).
But
when we are seeking unity in the Lord’s fellowship and work, silence prevents
unity. If we are silent, we can never be "of one mind" with another
person. There are many reasons for silence, but they all add up to concealed
disagreement. Two can be at peace if one of them is silent, but they cannot be
of one mind.
In
the pursuit of unity, total silence is never constructive, although quietness
of spirit is an important positive character quality. Silence is sometimes the
most appropriate or the only possible response to intractable unreasonableness.
But silence is never useful in reaching unity, because silence conceals
counsel, hides knowledge, and stifles wisdom’s voice.
Silence
is usually interpreted by others as containing whatever emotion was most
recently visible. It is impossible to interpret accurately another’s silence,
and if we choose silence we must expect to be misunderstood. It is very
difficult to discern between silent contentment and silent anger, between
silent joy and silent humiliation. Quietness of spirit, on the other hand,
provides enough communication to permit some appropriate response.
In
a contest of wills, silence seems always to "win," because it cannot
be defeated; a vocal partner will feel defeated because the victory is not
acknowledged. On the other hand, the silent partner will feel demoralized and
frustrated. The result is domination rather than unity will occur even if the
silence seems to be willing submission. There cannot be unity when one is
silent. It is oppression if the dominant one forces silence; it is stubbornness
if the silent one refuses to make a reasonable attempt at conversation.
Intimidation
An
important cause of silence is intimidation. There are really two types, with
distinctive causes, warranting quite different responses.
"Positive"
intimidation. A person may feel
intimidated when none is intended, related to qualities that are entirely
positive or affirmative. For example, someone may be intimidating because of
eloquence, knowledge, or age; through social or professional status, a
position of authority; or through force of personality or masculinity. Some
people are so timid that they are fearful of interaction with anyone who is
unfamiliar. In this instance the intimidation is the responsibility primarily
of the timorous one, as the other may be completely unaware of being
intimidating. Such a person needs to learn courage, needs to face his fears by
marching into the valley of the shadow of death. Prov. 29:25 notes, "The
fear of man brings a snare." It is one that can prevent us from speaking
needed words.
"Negative"
intimidation. At other times,
intimidation is intended or is due to unacceptable behavior, chiefly anger.
Threat, personal insult, physical violence, dishonesty, disloyalty,
stubbornness, and unreasonableness are always intimidating. Of these, anger and
stubborn unwillingness to reason are, I think, the commonest. Do not expect
anyone to continue a conversation with you if you seem angry.
Dissecting
Conflict
With
the above‑mentioned cautions in mind, here is a process by which to dissect
conflict:
Analysis. In what ways is the person correct? Just what is
the error? For example, is it wrong assumptions, incomplete facts, belief in
untruth, self‑centeredness, willful error, irrational thinking,
insanity, or something else? And most importantly, how do I know I am right and
he is wrong? Test thyself!
Position. What is my position with respect to the wrong
person, and what is his position in our group? Do I have any direct or clear
responsibility for her or him (for example, as a parent, foreman, teacher, or
elder)? If not, how is it my business to try to correct this person?
Approach. What is the best way to cause the wrong person to
discover he or she needs to change their thinking? There are many ways to do
this, some extremely subtle. For example, a parent may simply allow the child
to make a mistake and experience the painful consequences of the mistake. (To
point out an obvious mistake causes humiliation and resentment.)
Support. If the person who is wrong becomes willing to
change, am I truly able to lead her or him to an understanding of the better
way? Will my manner of approach be accepted? Is it constructive? Is it
educational?
Consummation. If the person who is wrong does change, can I
also change in order to accept the new relationship that this requires? What do
I have to offer in this new relationship?
The
possibility of rejection. How will
I respond if my "help" is rejected, or if the person who is
confronted tries actually to damage me or my reputation? What are the
consequences for myself? The prophets were stoned.
Perfectionism
Undiscerning
perfectionism is a cause of severe conflict, especially between parents and
children, but also at work and among believers. We and everyone around us are
growing; none is yet complete in Christ. Each of us has learned slightly
different lessons. We tend to expect others to know what we know; we tend to
miss or forgive our own shortcomings while those of others we find troublesome
or even intolerable. We who are mature did not become so suddenly; we should be
as patient with the slowness of others as the Lord has been patient with us.
"Perfectionism"
is giving great attention to faults without proportionate attention to growth
and character. We are a fellowship of sinners in fact and in practice; we are
an assembly of righteous only in the person of Christ. Our own perfection is
future, not present.
An
antidote to perfectionism is longsuffering. God is not in a hurry to accomplish
His purposes, so why are we in a hurry on His behalf? "But Thou, O Lord,
art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in
mercy and truth" (Psa. 86:15). "The LORD is longsuffering, and of
great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the
guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation" (Num. 14:18). "But the fruit of the Spirit is
… longsuffering" (Gal. 5:22). "With all lowliness and meekness,
with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph. 4:2).
There
is little disagreement on the main truths about salvation and our
responsibility to the Lord. There is much disagreement regarding more subtle
points of doctrine, on what language is best used to express these truths, and
on how scriptural directives should translate into behavior. Our natural
tendency is to pay careful attention to others’ lives and beliefs, trying hard
to helpfully whisk out the important motes from the eyes of our brethren,
blithely unconscious of our own shortcomings (Matt. 7:3‑5, Luke 6:41).
It
is important to be zealous for the truth. It is possible to allow this zeal to
spill over into things we infer to be truth. The plain pronouncements of
Scripture do have more weight than our logical analysis of it, even if we are
confident that we are Spirit‑led in this and that others are not. We
tend to give our interpretation of Scripture, and even our traditions, as much
weight as the definitive statements of Scripture itself. Confidence in our own
understanding fosters intolerance of differing points of view, or different
expressions of truth, even if held by those who sincerely try to please the
Lord and who are open to correction. Other Christians often express the same
truths with different words, and we will be edified if we take the time to ask
what they mean. We are too often hasty to speak the truth in our own language
and slow to take the time to find out what others mean by what they say; and we
sometimes say that those who are slow to come to our point of view "fail
to discern the Spirit."
Strife
and Peacemaking
Suppose
a conflict of ideas degenerates into a contest of wills, or even strife. There
are two situations to consider:(1) Two people close to you are involved in
strife and (2) you are in strife with someone else. When you have friends or
parents engaged in strife, be very cautious. The person who steps between
fighting dogs is likely to get bitten. You are likely to become part of the
fight when you try to help people in strife! If you want to help, first be sure
your help is wanted. Then pray, express love, do not take sides, ask
questions, offer your ear. After this, the combatants may possibly welcome
your contributions.
If
you find yourself in strife with another, at some point you will, I hope,
become uncomfortable with what that strife is doing to your relationship and
wish it to end. In this case, you must realize that it takes two to make peace.
The most you can do is to approach the person and say, "It grieves me that
we are fighting over this issue. Is there any way we can discuss the matter in
a peaceful way?" If the other person also wants the strife to end, only
then will resolution become possible. This does not mean that the relationship
is promptly repaired or that the two of you immediately reach agreement; this
may take a long time if it ever happens. But it changes your emotional tone and
direction and allows resolution to begin, if both of you are willing to change.
Summary
We
will always have conflict. In Christ, we can choose to pursue unity when we
discover this conflict; or we can choose to have a contest of wills. This is a
choice we each must make. By recognizing the sources of conflict and
understanding the process of reaching agreement, by recognizing the damaging
effect of self‑will on unity and recognizing its intrusion when our
emotions get involved, we can retard the development of discord, resolve our
conflicts, and enhance true fellowship one with another.