Do you know someone who has forgotten that advice about “burying the hatchet and letting bygones be bygones”? Or who acts as if it’s much more enjoyable to remain angry at the people who didn’t vote the way they did or don’t agree with their political or religious viewpoints?

“In many instances, anger feels good, especially today, when political issues seem to dominate American life. ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ smothers all other moral and rational brakes that the brain has in place,” observes Dr. Luis Vega, professor of psychology and interim dean at the College of Social Sciences and Education at California State University in Bakersfield, Calif. “Additionally, anger can deliver a high similar to that experienced in thrill-seeking activities where danger turns on dopamine reward receptors in the brain and can become its own form of addiction.”

When this occurs on the job, it can become the basis for a toxic-workplace lawsuit. But there is something we can do to lower the temperature.

Confronting these destructive attitudes is one of the most positive, upbeat people I’ve interviewed — Juliana Tafur, the Bridging Differences program director at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

Tafur and her team are leading the 7-Day Campaign for Connection Challenge that, as she says, “Brings together folks with differences in politics, race, religion, culture, all sorts of attitudes — and teaching how to talk with each other. The goal is to minimize othering, prejudice and division and expand our sense of care and shared humanity for others in this time of tremendous division the country is facing.”

Here’s what leads to trouble

I asked Tafur to describe what fuels conflict in our daily lives. What are we doing wrong? She shared these four things, along with some ways to address them:

1. We see a label rather than a person.

We assume that we already know everything about a person based on the label we give them, whether political, cultural, racial, identity. For example, because of their political stance, we might dismiss any unique aspect of their personality, and since we don’t agree, we shut ourselves off from learning anything else about them.

2. We stick to our assumptions and refuse to listen with compassion.

We assume that our truth is the truth and avoid people who think differently. We associate only with those who are in alignment with our views and don’t read anything that doesn’t match our beliefs or that might encourage us to question them.

When meeting someone who does not share our opinions, we focus only on our differences and reinforce the person’s otherness. We dismiss the idea that we could have any meaningful commonality and disregard any shared identities or experiences, such as being in the same PTO at our kids’ school, or both caring about a problem in the community that needs solving. We think, “They’re not worth my time and are so different that we cannot have anything in common.” In the extreme, we might even consider them an enemy.

Actively listening to what someone has to say, with compassion, with our mind and body language — being willing to consider the other person’s feelings and intentions while still disagreeing — is possible. Being engaged in a discussion is one of the most powerful ways of showing that we care about another person’s feelings and want to understand them and their position.

3. When faced with an issue on the job or at home, we shut down the person we don’t agree with.

Looking for a way to upset co-workers or family members when faced with an issue where we are certain of having the only valid opinion? All you have to do is and tell them, “I don’t need any more details. I’ve already heard this viewpoint from others. I know exactly what you are going to say, so don’t waste my time!”

When they get upset, we put them off instead of showing compassion and a desire to discuss the issue. We act like they’re overreacting and say things like, “I don’t get why this would bother you.”

When perspectives clash, we should ask for the other person’s help with a resolution. For example, say something like, “It’s pretty clear we are not understanding each other, and I would really appreciate your help in figuring this out.” This reframes the conversation as a shared effort rather than a confrontation. It also invites collaboration and shows humility, a cornerstone of bridging differences.

4. We approach prejudice the wrong way.

Rather than calling attention to another person’s apparent bias and prejudice by calling them a bigot, Tufar says, consider saying, “Someone might say that your comments reveal a prejudiced mind, which I don’t think is correct, and I’ve caught myself in that kind of a situation but realized it just isn’t really me and sends the wrong message to others.”

Tafur concluded our interview on a positive note that, in my mind, stands as a powerful motto for what her organization strives to accomplish: “By recognizing that anyone can teach us something valuable and approaching people with this mentality, we allow them — and they in turn allow us — to be seen and to feel heard.”

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post Feel Free to Disagree, But Here’s How to Bridge Differences appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

“I am writing you on behalf of several members of the congregation in a Presbyterian church located near Sacramento. There is a problem with our minister and we hope that you will be able to provide some guidance. In a nutshell, he can’t stop talking and this is leading to a serious loss of members,” Kelley’s e-mail began.

“His sermons go on forever — often for two hours. Now, people aren’t quietly walking out during the middle of one of his endless sermons. They grab their kids, and slam the door on the way out. It is really embarrassing. Several of us on the management committee have nicely approached him, diplomatically suggesting that perhaps a shorter sermon would be better. His answer is that we all can give two hours out of our busy week to listen to his sermons, and to God.

“Things reached a low point last Saturday during a formal wedding ceremony — complete with a 30-voice choir. It was a typical hot summer day, and even though the church has A/C it was still warm inside. With the couple — in their late 50s to mid 60s — standing on the stage, under hot, bright lights, even before actually marrying them, our minister lectured on and on about marriage, with tons of Biblical citations, for more than 45 minutes!

“Suddenly, the groom passed out! The poor guy fainted in front of 300 guests. About 15 minutes later, he recovered, and the wedding ceremony continued. The minister could have shortened it, but did not. It lasted a half an hour more. The poor groom was as white as a sheet, obviously weak, and the bride was visibly shaken, as were we all. Everyone was hoping the wedding would not turn into a funeral!

“This is what we are dealing with. What do you suggest we do? He has three years remaining on a four-year contract. Is this something that could actually get us all in a lawsuit if he were fired? That’s the last thing we want, but unless things change quickly, I am afraid for the future of our church,” Kelley’s e-mail concluded.

For an answer to my reader’s question — both from a religious and legal perspective — I turned to attorney and Episcopal priest, the Reverend Robert D. Woods of Kernville.

I’ve know Reverend Woods professionally for many years, as he served as chief deputy in the Kern County Counsel’s Office for over 20 years. He is also a mediator active in Church related matters, and has “been involved with several cases, almost identical to what your readers are describing.”

“If not resolved soon, these are the kinds of problems which can tear a church apart, it’s that serious,” he cautioned.

Reverend Woods also pointed out something which “most people might not think of,” and that’s the fact “in almost all religious disputes, the courts take a hands-off view. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — separation of church and state — requires judges to steer clear of these kinds of issues almost 100 percent of the time.”

“However, what will predictably toss this into court is where the congregation does not follow their by-laws or personnel procedures.”

“When I was a seminary student, we had strict rules about sermons; If it was shorter than 10 minutes or longer than 15 minutes, points would be deducted. That’s plenty of time to make two or three good points,” he noted.

“In what we call an Orthodox Christian service, the high point — the focus — is the Eucharist or Communion. In Protestant churches, there is often a much greater emphasis on preaching, and it’s not unusual to have longer sermons. Twenty minutes to a half an hour is common. Beyond that, you will lose the congregation. They cannot absorb the message, and will likely tune-out.

“At a wedding, instead of a sermon, a Homily is preferable, which is comprised of brief uplifting comments. The focus is on the exchange of vows and the couple’s first Communion.

“In a Protestant church the focus can often be on instructing the couple, telling them how to be good husbands and wives, using Biblical citations. But again, no more than 10 to 15 minutes.”

Absolute fairness is critical

“All churches have bylaws, a constitution, etc. Courts will become involved when it is alleged that the church itself did not follow its own rules. It is usually along the lines of a failure to provide notice — nothing to do with theology, but, rather, with application of basic principles of fairness, notice, and due process.

“The same duties that you find in any employer-employee relationship apply here. If a procedure does exist in the written contract which covers this situation, it must be followed. However, based upon what you are describing, this minister is at peril for being terminated under a typical clergy employment agreement.

“So, we have to look at who has the power? Begin there. Go to the church structure, read the documents. Talk with your local governing organization. If the local hiring committee does not want to dismiss the minister, you might have recourse to a regional or national structure,” Reverend Woods suggests.

“A minister has a professional relationship to the church members. One group might love him, the others less so. Being a minister can be highly political — it shouldn’t be that way, but often is.

“In a number of churches, a senior clergy person may be assigned to mediate between the concerned parties. Now, if someone comes to a good pastor or priest, and says, ‘we’ve got issues here,’ there should be an immediate acknowledgment, such as, ‘I hear you. How can I help?’ This requires the kind of approachability and lack of ego which I think is going to be a problem in your reader’s situation.

“In the case of a minister who at least acknowledges a problem, then some type of a intervention should be conducted. Often, as it is difficult to sit in the same room with the person you want to fire, these session are conducted via shuttle diplomacy,” he observes.

“Some churches have a retained psychologist or psychiatrist whose function is to handle these kinds of situations, and to screen applicants for the ministry.

“Modernly, a lot of mainstream churches require psychological evaluations for candidates for both seminary and the ministry. The reason for ongoing contact with psychologists and psychiatrists is that a lot of people are attracted to the church because they are psychologically damaged. They see the church as a magical healing source. Mainstream churches feel that it is important to have psychologically sound clergy to counsel their membership.

“Essentially, members of this congregation need to do their homework, and above all else, not to act rashly. There must be planning for an interim minister. Without farsighted planning, the church itself can be destroyed,” Reverend Woods concluded.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Can we fire our minister appeared first on Dennis Beaver.