One woman listens kindly while another cries, showing empathy and restraint as key conflict resolution skills in faith-based settings.

The Complex Art of Christian Kindness: Building Bridges

How can disciples remain kind without compromising truth? By asking sincere questions and turning toward others.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The sixth article in the Peacemaking Series, published in partnership with Public Square Magazine and Skyline Research Institute.

Christian discipleship must navigate the seemingly dichotomous relationship between the commands always to be “kind” to one another (Ephesians 4:32), while simultaneously “standing” for Christ in all times, things, and places (Mosiah 18:9). When in situations of conflicting standards or beliefs this means implementing the social savvy of “disagreeing” without being “disagreeable” (Oaks, 2014). For successful conflict resolution, one or all of the parties must achieve a clarity of understanding. When motivated by goodwill, questions act like bridges for differing perspectives to pass from conflict to understanding.

Christianity will always be “offensive” (Kierkegaard, pg. 139). With perfection unattainable in this life, a relationship with Christ’s Gospel will always expose needed improvements, “for all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). And, since the Christian endeavour is foundationally social (John 15:12), this is why personal righteous behavior can be offensive to others. Even when implementing strictly personal behavior, disciples simply trying to live and preach the Gospel will expose others’ shortcomings and likely their associated insecurities (Matthew 5:11-13). In addition, disciples will inevitably, continually encounter conflicting perspectives about what the “right” thing to do is––even amongst other believers (Mark 9:33-34).

When motivated by goodwill, questions act like bridges.

For these and so many other reasons, disciples of Christ will unavoidably encounter conflict and require conflict management skills. When handled with love, such moments will distinguish the disciple of Christ, for “by this shall men know ye are my disciples” (John 13:34-35).

With God as “no respecter of persons” this pattern of behaviour must permeate not only events and discussions surrounding organized religion, but all social interactions with all people (Acts 10:34). This is a high bar, which to effectively implement would require perfection: only Christ’s atonement reconciles mankind with God, and only His Gospel will unite the Earth in peace (Ezra Taft Benson). But in the meantime––especially considering all the conflict our discipleship is likely to stir up––how do we make and keep friends who do not agree with our beliefs or standards? 

The Skyline Institute––hosts of TheFamilyProclamation.org––shares a playful yet impactful message as part of the Peacemaking Series regarding the powerful––though too frequently overlooked––functionality of sincere question asking, and its necessity when managing conflicts arising from differing perspectives:

Taking the time to understand someone else’s perspective doesn’t require compromising personal standards. Latter-day Saint missionaries live extremely conservative lifestyles and solely devote their time to preaching the Gospel, yet they foster eternally impactful relationships with individuals living completely opposite lifestyles. Preach My Gospel teaches all modern missionaries that the first conversational step in building a relationship of trust is to “ask inspired questions” (PMG, Ch. 10). Conveniently, the manual includes principles and examples for both “inspired” and “ineffective” questions. Naturally, the manual then follows with as effective a step: to listen.

Sometimes the struggle with conflict management principles is that they come across as too obvious and thereby people ignore them (see Intellectualization). But the reality is that conflict management breaks down when the obvious steps of symbiotic relationships aren’t followed. John and Julie Gottman became leaders in the field of conflict management through studying the most microcosmic, intimate, and voluntary of interpersonal relationships: Marriage. The longevity and thoroughness of their findings have produced theories effective in their applicability to any relationship. Among their work, they illustrate the four most destructive habits in a relationship and their “antidotes.” Among the antidotes is the simple act of “turning toward” your partner. Additionally, they call a “bid” any action motivated by an internal intent to solicit a “positive connection” (Gottman). “Bids” are both initiated and received by both sides of the relationship. Successful, healthy relationships turn toward bids. 

Christ admonishes His followers to both initiate and receive bids; “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you … pray for them which despitefully use … and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44), persuade “by kindness … and without guile” (D&C 121:41-42), and ”forgive … seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:21-22). Observe the commandment to “agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him” (Matthew 5:25). Notice the footnote for “Agree” clarifying an alternative Greek translation: “Quickly have kind thoughts for, or be well disposed toward.” This is a specific commandment from Christ to adopt a mentality when entering into conflicts––to foster goodwill toward the other party. Remember the example of Christ, one who was unimpeachably kind and “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38) yet unflinchingly committed to His commandments, covenants, and doctrine.

A structure for effective debate-oriented conversations systemized by mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapaport, “Rapoport’s Rules for Dialogue and Criticism” incorporates some of these principles taught by Christ. While true discipleship would not require adopting this specific system, it serves as a valuable example of grounded behaviors incorporating the principles Christ taught. The system––originally published by Rapaport in Fights, Games, and Debates (1960)––as summarized by Daniel C. Dennett (pg. 25):

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Consider practicing this with someone while debating something trivial you don’t understand, like a favorite food, recent movie, or hobby. Remember, we’re not just practicing the system, we’re practicing the intent to establish a positive connection and ask questions motivated by sincere curiosity.

Successful, healthy relationships turn toward bids. Christ admonishes His followers to both initiate and receive bids.

Anecdotally, the majority of conflicts I’ve engaged in were rooted in mis-understanding; missed chances to create understanding. The majority of times there was no actual disagreement; we just needed to take the time to talk and listen––realizing we already agreed. In some cases the empathy of mutual understanding resolved the relationship issues. In my fiercest disagreements I could have prioritized the more important “weightier matters” both sides agreed on (Matthew 23:23). And, in situations where interests truly conflicted, the clarity established the foundation for decision-making that led to no regrets.

Next time you find yourself spinning wheels in a conversation with both sides talking past each other, pause, take a deep breath, and search for a question motivated by sincere curiosity and the desire for a positive connection. God will guide you in your efforts (D&C 6:14-15).

The Peacemaking Series

You can view the rest of the videos in the Peacemaking Series HERE on YouTube. Each month, an article is released to accompany each video of the series. To view the rest of the articles in this series and other articles written by The Skyline Institute published by Public Square Magazine, visit our author page HERE. The Skyline Institute curates and performs original research to complement the prophetic teachings found in The Family Proclamation. You can view this research on TheFamilyProclamation.org and follow our accounts on social media.

About the author

Skyline

Skyline Research proudly hosts TheFamilyProclamation.org, a website dedicated to advancing the principles of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
On Key

You Might Also Like

When Trust Dies

What happens when most Americans stop trusting our institutions? We’re about to find out.

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to