Ch: 5 Make it Safe

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in baskets of silver.

Proverbs 25:1

How to Make It Safe to Talk About Almost Anything

Previously, Crucial Conversations taught us how to spot when safety is at risk within a heated conversation. Now we need to learn the process of restoring safety once it has been broken. This was done through the use of a scripted scenario between a couple holding a sensitive conversation about physical intimacy. At pinnacle moments in the conversation, the authors intentionally stop the script for the reader. At these points of the reading, the authors address the safety issues that are in danger throughout the couple’s intense dialogue to provide the reader with realistic solutions on how to redirect an argument back to safety.

The first step in this process involves stepping outside of the conversation. Like mentioned before, safety (in a conversation) is at risk when people move towards silence (as a way to avoid the problem) or violence (as a way to hurt the person). Pay attention to signs of silence or violence and decide which of these is being used. Then step back from the dialogue and restore safety between you and the other person so that the pool of shared meaning can continue.

In order to restore safety, one must realize which condition is at risk. The second step involves “understanding which of two different conditions of safety is at risk. Each requires a different solution” (76).  It can be either mutual purpose or mutual respect; the first deals with shared goals and the latter deals with respect. Once this step is actualized, the third phase involves apologizing if respect was violated; however, if there was a misunderstanding of purpose or intent, then state what was not intended. After this, explain what was really meant to the other person. This alternative consists of contrasting and fixing the false impression made by the other person. The last step in restoring safety entails the act in which mutual purpose is established. When it appears that “cross-purposes,” the possibility of no mutual purpose that satisfies each person, is the problem then create mutual purpose by using four skills (97): committing to seek mutual purpose, recognizing the purpose behind the strategy, inventing a mutual purpose, and brainstorming new strategies (102).

Analysis:

Before I begin this analysis, I must reiterate concisely the prior chapters’ primary concerns. The first four chapters lay down the basic terms and definitions that are to be understood while reading the rest. In chapter 1, “What’s is Crucial Conversation”, the authors clearly outline what makes a conversation crucial. Following this, chapter 2 explained that crucial conversation is mastered when there is a dialogue as opposed to an argument. Next, chapter 3 reveals that the art of dialogue begins with the heart and altering one’s bad habits when crucial conversations arise. Lastly, chapter 4 offers ways to deal with crucial conversations that are failing or in other words noticing when safety is at risk. Those chapters are the fundamentals of crucial conversations that will assist in the trajectory of the remaining chapters and the overall analysis of the book. I begin my analysis in chapter 5 because it allows me to apply all I need to relate the information gained from this book and to extend it’s meaning in other disciplines. With the coming chapters, I will continue to summarize the main points and expand them with my own analysis.

The subject of chapter 5 would be useful in any conversation, most notably, one about homosexuality and Christian ethics. When it comes to homosexuality, there has been a long battle over the ethics and the biblical stance in light of this issue. Based on my knowledge, very few crucial conversations have taken place between two opposing camps (Church leaders and the LGBT community) of this debate where a healthy dialogue was engaged. In Crucial Conversations we learn that a dialogue cannot occur unless all who are involved in the conversation feel safe to share ideas and provided feedback so that a conclusion can be made. In the case of homosexuality, both the Church and the LGBT community have not been able to have a dialogue because respect on both sides has been infringed upon and there seems to be a continuous misunderstanding. In applying the lesson learned in chapter 5, I propose that the Church leaders follow the steps to create safety so that they can hold a crucial conversation with the LGBT community. For one, the Church is responsible for bringing lost sheep in relation to Christ, the shepherd. The Church is supposed to be a city upon a hill, the salt of the earth, and the hands and feet of Jesus. Thus, church leaders should first step back from this failed conversation and remember their purpose and spot where safety has been violated for those that are in the LGBT community. First, an apology from the church is a must for all the wrong that has been committed, regardless of what the other side has done. Then, the church leaders must come together to state what they did not intend to do, ostracize the gays and separating them from knowing the love of Christ. Moreover, the church leaders should state what they intend to do, which is to demonstrate Christ’s love and proclaiming the good news that all mankind falls short of the glory of God but are forgiven through Christ. Lastly, the church leaders must find a mutual purpose so that the LGBT community can no longer blame the church as an excuse to stray from the Creator. The last part will be difficult, but it can be done. God is judge of all and so the church leaders must seek to love and not take God’s role as the supreme judge. Only advice as to what is ethical and moral based on sound biblical analysis on this topic should be given. The LGBT community can choose to agree to accept the Church’s stance on this issue and decide individually how they will move from there. The fight between LGBT community and the church leaders should not take place. Instead, creating a pool of shared meaning where people feel safe to have different perspectives and openly discuss them should be the mutual purpose between these two camps.