Pathways to Understanding

Nothing arrests the growth of a relationship more than the habit of evaluation. We hear what our spouse, our pastor or our friend says and our first impulse is to evaluate them. "I agree," "I thought the same thing," or "sounds good to me."

This evaluation-impulse approach can suffice when the people in a relationship agree on a matter. But when the viewpoints on a matter are different and the people involved rush to evaluate one another's viewpoints, relational impasses occur.

These relational impasses occur because when we evaluate someone, we are doing so from our own point of view. The problem here is that our own point of view usually contains an agenda of assuming we're right and that the other person is either wrong or misinformed. A little bit of explanation by us and the other person will clearly see we were right and will dial in to our way of thinking, right?

Healthy communication and mutual understanding between people occurs when we suspend our certainty, not when we simply lay out and continuously repeat our own point of view. The apostle James tells us the key to effective communication: "let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger." (James 1:19, NRSV). Two ears and one mouth are a good indication that God wants us to listen twice as much as we talk. But we must listen well.

Anyone who has attended a marriage enrichment conference has undoubtedly been exposed to the "active listening" techniques developed in the 1970s. In this approach, we listen to another and "restate" what we have heard. The problem with this technique is that it's been around for several decades and people frequently find themselves using it somewhat mechanically. By this, I mean someone may well parrot the words that another has shared. But shortly thereafter, the impulse to evaluate and the (implicit) sense of certainty rises and the dialogue between people comes to an end.

You may be wondering how to determine if you're really listening to someone or whether you've merely adopted certain active listening techniques in a mechanical or rote sense.

When someone listens to your restatement of how they feel, that person will be willing to be more vulnerable and less defensive when they sense they are truly understood. Otherwise, a person will probably express defensive exaggerations and false fronts that characterize most deficiencies in communication and understanding. But if someone senses care and concern, their defenses will drop and people can begin to uncover the facts or real emotions in a situation. In other words, as the castle gates of defense diminish, a pathway to understanding is revealed.

So why would intelligent, sincere people evaluate rather than listen to other people? Primarily because in our fallen world communication with people is damaged. We often protect our way of thinking by evaluating other people rather than sharing our own thoughts and emotions. We do this because we don't want to be exposed, causing distortions in the way we communicate with others-such as the impulse to evaluate rather than listen.

When disagreements occur, there are a couple of alternatives to consider. The first is to use a neutral third party. This should be someone who can set aside their own feelings and evaluations. It should also be someone who, after listening to both parties, can clarify the viewpoints and attitudes of anyone involved in the disagreement.

In the business world, these neutral third parties are called "mediators." Groups like labor unions use them all the time. In the interpersonal world, a neutral third party might be a pastor, an elder, or a friend that each person can trust to be impartial and compassionate.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." The practice of mediation is one of the most fundamental characteristics of kingdom life.

If a mediator isn't used and two or more people are seeking a pathway to understanding on their own, a second alternative is to summarize and resummarize the views and feelings until the other person agrees that the description represents the situation that person perceives.

There's a tremendous distinction between this approach and the base "active listening" technique. In the latter, people merely report on what they claim to have heard the other person say. Actual understanding is not implicitly ensured. But if two or more people agree that they must continue summarizing until the other person says "yes, that expresses how I feel," true understanding is possible.

Understanding and resolution are not the same thing, however, and this distinction must be maintained when suspending evaluation and seeking new pathways. Just because we may finally understand another person in a true and sincere sense, a literal disagreement may still exist because of two different approaches to a matter that each party truly believes in. But, instead of an emotion-filled, defensive, "barbed-wire" encounter, by adopting the approaches that promote pathways to understanding we can more closely realize the characteristics of a godly encounter.

A godly encounter occurs when people in disagreement are nevertheless kind and patient. The atmosphere is one of love and gentleness. Using a neutral third party or summarizing a matter until the other person agrees it's accurate can develop the characteristics we need for greater understanding.
by Christopher D. Hess