There are nearly as many species of mediation as there are mediators in the world. Some, for example, take a strongly directive approach to the process. These mediators give a great deal of input; propose solutions; and generally push the participants to an agreement. The directive mediator also often evaluates each party’s position, and might even give opinions on an individual’s legal prospects if the situation is a matter of potential litigation.

Other mediators take the opposite approach: One of my dispute resolution professors once claimed that he was no more important to the mediation than the potted plants in the room, to which I responded, “Why would anyone pay for the services of a potted plant?”

My philosophy tends toward a place somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, and recognizes that there are times for candid evaluation, and times for purposeful silence. In all of this balance, however, there is one issue that stands out, and that is the need to maximize self-determination for the people who have to live with the agreements and decisions that proceed from a mediation.

What do I mean by self-determination? A simple way to put it is this: The people who have to own, abide by, and be accountable for decisions and agreements should be the ones who contribute the most to the process and outcomes of mediation. There can be no imposition of ideas or results by outside persons – no coercion, threats,manipulation, etc., however subtle or overt. This is true even in a church setting where a congregation or its leadership has encouraged a mediation. It is important that people not be committed to an “agreement at all costs” approach to mediation, lest those agreements become sources of resentment and failure.

But self-determination also means that participants in a mediation come with their hearts and minds engaged. Everyone with a stake in the outcome should be ready to offer and to listen, to honestly evaluate and clearly express thoughts, opinions, reservations, objections, and so on. It is the mediator(s’) responsibility to help the parties take an active role in the give and take, and to, when necessary, discover any reasons for reticence on the part of those who are holding back.

In the end, though, if you are part of a mediation, the joy and the burden of responsibility rests with you – and so does the satisfaction that come from knowing that you have given your best to “being at peace with all.”

Sometimes, of course, the question of rights is a right and crucial one to ask and answer, especially in matters of justice. A criminal ought to always have a fair trial; people who are oppressed or discriminated against ought to have laws changed or enacted to protect them; individuals or corporations who do blatant harm ought to be called to account.

But what about the countless situations when we are not facing clear dividing lines that would determine who has superior rights? If we look realistically at most family and church issues or conflicts, it becomes readily apparent that a large majority of them fit into the category of complex relational dynamics that involve intersections of personalities, with all their strengths and weaknesses, acting on each other. Such interactions are quite often difficult to sort out, and trying to do so sometimes leads to an even greater tangle than was present in the first place.

If a “legal” approach to conflict is generally less than fruitful, what are some biblical ideas and ideals that we can apply to our relationships? First, if we measured our rights in absolute terms – that is, if we compared what we were owed to what we owe, especially to God, and to what we have been given – we would discover that we operate at a severe “rights deficit.” The sheer weight of what we have received in grace, mercy, and forgiveness opens our hearts and minds to a radically different view of what we should be demanding of others.

Second, effectively dealing with conflict requires each of us to examine how we are helping promote discord or disagreement. The basic biblical admonition to take out our logs before examining others’ specks is crucial to attaining and maintaining peace in our relationships. When I am mediating, I always encourage parties to begin with a statement of their own responsibility for what has transpired in the relationship in question.

Third, scripture regularly encourages us to consider how we can make positive contributions toward resolving questions and disputes. This means not only avoiding negative speech and actions, but also deliberately moving in ways that promote reconciliation and godly solutions. It means refusing to give in to the passivity and denial that often mark Christian approaches to conflict. It means coming to the mediation with an inclination to forgive those who have wronged us. Even more fundamentally, it means coming ready to see the conflict from the other “side’s” perspective, and to understand them.

Finally, if we are truly committed to reconciliation, or to taking the sting out of disagreements over issues, then we must move away from demonizing, dehumanizing, or accusing others. We cannot equate disagreement with disloyalty, or turn our disputes into moral dividing lines. We are all equal objects of divine mercy, all recipients of equal grace, all partakers of the same faith, hope, and love. Our “rights” are not nearly as ironclad as we think them to be – certainly, God is not as invested in them as we are and, if we could see objectively, we might find that others’ rights, shocking as this may be, have equal priority with ours.

So, in a mediation, the goal is “love from a pure heart” and the building up of those with whom we are mediating. When all are willing, by grace, to take the non-rights approach, the effect is powerful and lasting. And that grace is freely given by the one who lay down all rights in order to become a servant – let’s take hold of it, put ourselves under it, and let it do its work of transcending the straightjacket of our small ideas of what we are owed

But beyond the numbers, interesting as they may be, are the complex family dynamics that have become so common. For example, multiple

Facing this broad array of choices, technologies, and new cultural settings, elders and families need tools for navigating the landscape. Our goal is to turn questions and conflict into opportunities for enhancing relationships; giving elders a greater voice in family life and personal decisions; coming to collaborative discussions and agreements; and learning lifelong conflict resolution skills.