Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to take the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Assessment as part of a group coaching session at work. The idea behind this tool is to learn about your personal approach to responding to conflict, and to explore ways that your approach may be more or less useful in different situations. Long story short, I found out that I tend to handle conflict through “collaborating,” instead of competing, avoiding, accommodating, or compromising. The good thing about that mode is the way it invites dialog and looks to identify and meet everyone’s needs through creative solutions. The bad thing is that it takes a long time, and it can be difficult and exhausting as you keep talking until a mutually-satisfying solution can be found. I think the results are pretty accurate, if the stories Elizabeth can tell about me doggedly talking an issue into the ground, day or night, are any indication.

When it comes to the conflict inherent in the political process, and in particular the conflict that seems to be becoming more and more divisive this presidential campaign cycle, I am tempted to respond by wishing everyone was more collaborative: more willing to listen, to ask questions, and to seek the good of the whole nation instead of a narrow set of interests. That would be a good thing, right? James 1:19-20 seems to be pointing in that direction: “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” If the candidates could just sit down and have a measured conversation, if politicians on the floors of their legislative houses said things to each other like, “Why, that’s an excellent point you’re making; let’s talk about that,” if the voters were willing to honestly stand in the shoes of the other side and consider an opposite point of view for a minute, wouldn’t that lead to positive growth and advancement in our country? If wishes were horses…

Simplistic as that is, I do believe that collaboration is possible and effective even in polarized environments. However, I am also confronted with the reality of how frequently fear is my primary motivation when dealing with conflict in my own life. On the outside it may look like asking questions, active listening, and seeking solutions that work for everyone, but on the inside I am driven by a fear of disapproval, a fear of misunderstanding or lack of information, and a fear that I won’t be heard or even that no one cares enough to bother listening. This fear twists the good intentions I might have, and more importantly it reveals the way my fallback position is to defend and protect rather than to trust God. As Justin put it in the sermon this week, I am a press secretary for my views, whether the topic is politics or interpersonal issues or anything else. Whether I come across as a strident, demanding secretary or a diplomatic one.

Fortunately, there is Gospel hope here: God is our defender and protector, and Jesus is our Eternal King. In this life my motives will never be pure and I will probably never completely shake the fears that lurk under even my best intentions when addressing conflict with those around me. However, I can trust that Jesus is already on the throne and that no earthly power can shake his kingdom. I can engage in the political sphere without fear – with godly wisdom, yes, and with trembling supplication to the Lord that he protect us from evil and set righteous leaders in the seats of power in our nation and world – knowing that the one we serve is our mediator and gave his life up as a ransom for us all.