Conflict Resolution

In an article in The Atlantic, Ross Andersen raises the question: "Did Humans Ever Live in Peace?"

Archeologists have long had evidence of conflict between small rival groups. And the earliest signs of war have been dated to the dawn of civilization (with the Sumerians and Egyptians). But recent discoveries at Laguardia, Spain pushes proof of our warring inclination to the dawn of agriculture. So how far does war go back in our history?

Because war is, by definition, organized violence. Hieroglyphic inscriptions tell us that more than 5,000 years ago, the first pharaoh conquered chiefdoms up and down the Nile delta to consolidate his power over Egypt. A Sumerian poem suggests that some centuries later, King Gilgamesh fended off a siege at Uruk, the world’s first city. But new findings, at Laguardia and other sites across the planet, now indicate that wars were also occurring at small-scale farming settlements all the way back to the dawn of agriculture, if not before.

For nearly a century, anthropologists have wanted to know how long people have been engaged in organized group violence. It’s not some idle antiquarian inquiry. For many, the question bears on human nature itself, and with ruinous wars ongoing in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere, it has become more resonant. If warring among humans began only recently, then we might be able to blame it on changeable circumstances. If, however, some amount of war has been with us since our species’ origins, or earlier in our evolutionary history, it may be difficult to excise it from the human condition.

But Andersen closes his piece with a view of what he thinks is hope:

What separates us most from other species is our cultural plasticity: We are always changing, sometimes even for the better. We have found ways to end blood feuds that implicated hundreds of millions. War may be a long-standing mainstay of human life, an inheritance from our deepest past. But each generation gets to decide whether to keep passing it down.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Andersen's view is common today. It sees humanity as though in constant progress towards perfection. We currently rest at the zenith. His "hope" is for this progress to continue. But a survey of our history reveals that this view is no hope at all. It is simply doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. That is not hope, it is insanity. There is no hope for lasting peace until the Prince of Peace appears (Isa. 9:6-7).

Roni Bandini is an artist and computer coder in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Like a great many Argentinians, he hears a lot of reggaeton music (a blend of reggae, hip-hop, and Latin rhythms). But not always voluntarily, that is.

In a post on Medium that has since gone viral, Bandini explained that the neighbor he shares a wall with plays loud reggaeton often and at odd hours of the day and night. But rather than pounding on the wall or leaving a note, Bandini decided to find a technical solution.

Bandini was inspired by a universal TV remote-control called “TV-B-Gone” that reduces unwanted noise in bars and restaurants from televisions that no one is watching anymore. So, he put together a contraption that could do the same thing with reggaeton music.

He used a small Raspberry Pi computer and AI that he trained to recognized reggaeton music. He then installed the device near the wall to monitor his neighbor’s music. Finally, he 3D-printed a name on his device: the “Reggaeton-Be-Gone.”

Any time it detects any reggaeton music, it will overwhelm his neighbor’s Bluetooth receiver with packet requests. He said, "I understand that jamming a neighbor’s speaker might be illegal, but on the other hand listening to reggaeton every day at 9 AM should definitely be illegal.”

There are three lessons here. First, if you want to be a good neighbor to someone who shares a wall with you, be mindful of when or how often you play loud music. Second, creativity and technical ingenuity can solve so many more problems than we think possible. But a third hidden lesson remains – so much hassle can be avoided if you simply take the initiative to communicate directly. Because who knows? Maybe Bandini’s neighbor might have turned the music down if he’d simply asked.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Many small problems can be kept from growing into large problems by diplomatically discussing it with the people involved (Matt. 18:15-17). So much hassle can be avoided if you simply take the initiative to communicate directly.

Almost 690,000 couples reported getting divorced in 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s about half the number of couples who reported getting married. Most couples file for what is called a no-fault divorce, which means you can dissolve your marriage without showing that either party has committed any wrongdoing.

There are a handful of commonly cited factors that couples feel put a strain on their marriage, according to a Forbes Advisor survey. These conflicts include (in ascending order):

#6 – Finances

#5 – Relationships with Friends

#4 – Relationships with Family

#3 – Division of Household Labor

#2 – Parenting differences

The biggest conflict divorced couples encountered, with 46% naming it:

#1 – Career choices

Only 5% of divorcees say there was no way their marriage could have been saved, the survey says. A whopping 63% said that having a better understanding of commitment prior to marrying could have helped them avoid divorce. And 54% said that if they had a better understanding of their spouse’s morals and values prior to getting married, they might still be together.

Editor’s Note: The Forbes Advisor survey is well worth looking at for its wide-ranging statistics on the state of marriage and divorce in 2023. You can access the results of this survey here.

Possible Preaching Angle:

It is important to keep in mind that this survey was taken of society as a whole. With proper guidance through premarital counseling and personal growth toward spiritual maturity, a believing couple would be much more likely to establish a solid marriage for life.

A total of 689,308 divorces occurred in 2021. That’s about half the number of couples who reported getting married, with subsequent marriages failing at higher rates. Understanding why marriages fail can help you to make your own union stronger if you are married. It can also guide you in making choices about entering into a marriage and it can help you support the married couples in your life.

Forbes Advisor commissioned a survey of 1,000 Americans who are divorced or who are in the process of divorcing to discover why marriages fail. Based on this data, here are some of the most likely reasons marriages come to an end.

• 43% - Lack of family support
• 34% - Infidelity
• 31% - Lack of intimacy
• 31% - Too much conflict/arguing
• 24% - Financial stress
• 20% - Parenting differences
• 10% - Marrying too young

Key Facts About Divorce

• The majority of divorces are initiated by only one party, with only 27% of respondents indicating the decision to end the marriage was mutual.
• Just 4% of couples divorce after 10 years of marriage.
• 63% of divorcees believe a better understanding of the commitments of marriage could have helped them to avoid divorce
• Only 5% of divorcees say there was no way their marriage could have been saved, the survey says.

You can access all the results of this survey here.

Possible Preaching Angle:

It is important to keep in mind that this survey was taken of society as a whole. With proper guidance in premarital counseling and personal growth toward spiritual maturity a believing couple would be much more likely to establish a solid marriage for life. Remember, 63% said a better understanding of commitment prior to marrying could have stopped their union from collapsing.

Iconic quiz show Jeopardy! faces an uncertain future due to ongoing labor strikes by two labor unions, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA). Sony Pictures Television, the show's producer, is exploring solutions like reusing questions to maintain broadcast continuity during the labor disputes. However, the imminent start of Season 40's production adds urgency to resolving the impasse.

Contestants set to compete in the upcoming Tournament of Champions have expressed solidarity with striking workers. Toronto's Ray Lalonde, a 13-time winner last season, declared his support on the Jeopardy! Reddit forum, vowing not to cross picket lines. More holdouts could cause a postponement to winter or spring.

Moreover, the status of hosts raises another concern—Mayim Bialik has already halted her duties until the resolution of the labor issues, while Ken Jennings faces increasing pressure to follow suit.

As Season 40's premiere approaches, the show's future hinges on negotiations between the two unions and Sony Pictures Television. Those negotiations are said to be imminent and/or ongoing. With a rich legacy and loyal fan base, the fate of Jeopardy! rests on key leaders in both camps being able to find middle ground in this dispute. And fortunately, the answer to this problem need not be stated in the form of a question.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Scripture has much to say about the rich and powerful withholding wages from the hardworking laborer. Regardless of how this particular strike is settled, there is a day coming in God’s timetable for all accounts to be settled in God’s courtroom (Jam. 5:1-6).

Author Pete Greig shares the following story in How to Pray: A Simple Guide for Normal People:

I was walking the darkened streets near our house one night, reviewing the day before bed, remembering how I'd driven Sammy [my wife] and the boys to the cinema and how someone had cut us off. I'd yelled at him. Sammy had yelled at me. I'd yelled at Sammy. Hadn’t she seen how dangerously the other guy was driving? Had she forgotten that we had vulnerable children in the car? Didn't she know there was such a thing as righteous anger? She'd gone silent.

We arrived at the cinema. The film had been great. Life had moved on. No big deal. But now in the stillness of these darkened streets, as I returned to that moment, it seemed that God was siding with my wife. I sighed. "Okay, I'm sorry. I admit it: I lost my temper. I shouldn't have yelled at that driver. Lord, help me to be more patient tomorrow."

There was a pause before I sensed him telling me to apologize to our sons. This thought annoyed me, and I found myself protesting. "That's ridiculous. You're making this bigger than it is. My kids don't need me to apologize. They won't even remember such a trivial incident. Do you have any idea what the traffic is like around here?"

Ten minutes later, I was sitting on Hudson's bed. "Son, I just want to say sorry to you for something. Do you remember me yelling at that man on the way to the cinema?" Immediately, he nodded. "I shouldn't have done that. Mum was right. Christians are supposed to be patient and kind. I set you a bad example. That's not how I want you to grow up and treat people. I'm sorry." Right away, he put his arms around my neck and squeezed me tight. "That's okay, Dad.”

A minute later, I was in the room next door, making the same speech to Danny, and the same thing happened. He immediately knew exactly what I was talking about. He hadn't forgotten either. He listened to my apology and didn't think it was crazy. He hugged me and told me it was okay. It's a silly, mundane story, and that's the whole point. We are changed--conformed into the likeness of Christ--through a thousand small choices like these.

It’s in political news to note that Americans are hopelessly divided, and that this division is manifest in the lack of collaboration across the aisle in Congress. But Washington Post columnist Amanda Ripley might disagree that our situation is hopeless.

That’s because Ripley did a deep dive on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, a bipartisan collection of twelve lawmakers. This year’s committee has made over 200 recommendations to revamp Congress processes and practices, most of which have already been accomplished or put into motion. By comparison, the last committee assigned to do similar work disbanded in 2018 after making exactly zero recommendations.

So, what made the difference? A series of bold steps to overcome the toxic division and promote dialogue and cooperation. Committee chair Derek Kilmer met with each committee member separately to gauge their willingness and/or optimism. Initially, it seemed bleak, particularly in the wake of the events of January 6, 2021. One Democrat told Kilmer: “I feel like not only was I in a relationship with someone who cheated on me; I was in a relationship with someone who cheated on me with someone who was trying to kill me.”

After those initial conversations, Kilmer said, “We’re going to have to do some stuff differently.” So, what was different? They engaged in practices that promoted listening and building trust in relationship. There was a joint retreat for mutual bonding. They created neutral zones for conversation and collaboration without the pressure of television cameras present, so that members could have real conversations. And they had another debrief and listening retreat after the January 6th attacks, so that each lawmaker could hear and be heard.

Several people commented on the results: “It felt like someone turned the air conditioner on. You saw people starting to be curious about each other again.” “The conversations were quite remarkable. They surpassed my expectations.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Being effective requires trust, empathy, and teamwork. When we respectfully listen and engage, we are modeling the behavior God desires.

In an issue of CT magazine, author and musician Sandra McCracken writes:

I played softball in a community league when I was a teenager. We didn’t know each other the first time we stepped out under the lights together. We were strangers in gray polyester uniforms and orange baseball caps.

At the start of our opening game, there was a palpable feeling of possibility. My teammates were talented, and the coach was tough. As he invested time watching us throughout the season, he positioned and repositioned us in different roles, playing to our individual strengths. As each player lived into her giftedness, there was more synergy and success.

Today, instead of feeling like a single team with diversely gifted players, we find ourselves in a cultural moment where it often feels we’re on different teams altogether. This is true in society at large, and sadly, it seems just as true inside the church.

But there was a time when the church was like a brand-new softball team, stepping out onto fresh-cut grass in late summer, individual differences obscured by what they were as a whole: “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit ... All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:4, 42, 44). God is so committed to this unity that Jesus prayed specifically for us, “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21).

Jesus was not naive. He knew that finding unity is patient, slow work.

Let’s open up our echo chambers and build bridges instead of moats. Let’s listen for the still, small voice of the Spirit and attend to what he may ask of us. These are heavy times, but there is kingdom work to be done.

In her attempts to end the legal conservatorship that prevents her from controlling her own legal or fiscal affairs, former pop star and embattled single mom Britney Spears has been gaining support from plenty of notable celebrities. But for one entertainment journalist, his support was not received among Spears’ fanbase with open arms.

One Twitter user responded, “If you’re really sorry, put your money where your mouth is. Donate all of the *considerable* wealth you got through misogynistic bullying.”

That tweet was aimed at veteran entertainment blogger Mario Lavandeira, who uses the nom de plume Perez Hilton. Britney Spears supporters have been taking Hilton to task for his decade-long history of disrespectful behavior toward the pop star. His behavior helped to generate income on his gossip blog and establish his career as a go-to purveyor of celebrity sleaze.

Because of this considerable blowback, Hilton has been on an apology tour, trying to atone for his history of media misbehavior. Hilton appeared on British TV show Sky News and said, “I know I did not express myself as well as I could have. I didn’t lead with empathy and compassion, which thankfully seems like most people now are understanding the severity of Britney’s situation. I absolutely apologize and carry deep shame and regret.”

In response to the Twitter exchange, Hilton decided not to contribute to Spears’ legal fight, citing his need to support his children and mother, all of whom are under his care. Still, it seems like the best apology in this case would be changed behavior. Time will tell whether or not Perez Hilton is truly capable of that kind of apology.

Possible Preaching Angle:

When we do wrong, it's our Christian duty not only to recognize the wrongdoing and make restitution for it. If our sin was committed publicly, then a public confession can serve as an example to others.

Rumors have been circulating that Mathew McConaughey might be considering a run for governor of Texas in 2022, and perhaps a higher office after that. In a recent interview in Men's Journal, Jesse Will cornered the Hollywood star on the topic. McConaughey, resisted confirming or denying his thoughts on the matter. But when pressed to give a hypothetical campaign slogan, he shared that his favorite suggestion has been, "Make America All Right, All Right, All Right, Again." Then he paused and said, "But for me . ..It’s ‘Meet Me in the Middle—I Dare You.'" He then explained:

When facing any crisis, I’ve found that a good plan is to first recognize the problem, then stabilize the situation, organize the response, then respond. You can’t have unity without confrontation. And to have confrontation, you have to at least validate the other’s position. We don’t even do that. So, I’d say, I’ll meet you in the middle. I dare you. It’s a challenge, a radical move. You come this way, I’ll come your way. That’s how democracy works.

In other words, to explain to another human why they are wrong (if in fact it is them and not us in error), we must listen to them. We must understand where they are coming from? Why do they make the choices they do? You must meet them in the middle.

One morning Mauricio Estrella walked into the office, sat down at his desk, and was greeted with the message: “Your password has expired. Click ‘Change password’ to change your password.”

You know how, when you are emotionally raw, small things can be so frustrating? This, for Estrella, was one of those times. He was running late that morning, had forgotten to eat breakfast, had a meeting to attend, and then there were those nagging frustrations with his ex. Estrella had just gone through an emotionally brutal divorce that had left him in a deep depression.

At his workplace, the server is configured to ask thousands of employees around the planet to change their password every 30 days. As the empty field with the pulsating cursor awaited his input, Estrella thought to himself, “I’m gonna use a password to change my life.” His password became: “Forgive@h3r.”

Each time he came back from a break or lunch, he typed “Forgive@h3r.” For one month, the password became a mantra. And that mantra changed his life. Estrella shared: “That constant reminder that I should forgive her led me to accept the way things happened at the end of my marriage, and embrace a new way of dealing with the depression that I was drowning into.”

In his book, Heath Adamson describes the process of correctly diagnosing a problem:

Horst Schulze, the former COO of Ritz-Carlton Hotels, told the story of one manager's discovery of a problem that seemed to confuse almost everyone. Numerous complaints came in to management because room service was repeatedly delayed. The eggs were cold, the toast was hard, and guests were inconvenienced. Mr. Schulze described a typical response as being something along the lines of scolding the supervisor for being incompetent. As one could expect, the discouraged supervisor would then gather their staff around and do the same to them. Blame would cascade down from one person to the next. But this isn't what happened at the Ritz-Carlton.

The Ritz-Carlton manager assembled the team, and they studied the problem. The kitchen staff prepared the food on time. The staff quickly took the trays to the elevator for delivery. They discovered that the issue had nothing to do with the kitchen staff but rather the service elevators were not always available. This delayed delivery. Then, they continued to study the situation by using a stopwatch to time the elevators for an entire morning.

The reason the food was delayed and arriving to the rooms cold had nothing to do with irresponsible kitchen staff or faulty elevators. A decision by management to reduce the number of bedsheets on each floor was causing the housekeepers to use the elevators more frequently, thus tying them up more. Trying to save money by reducing the number of bedsheets purchased, stored, and washed actually created more challenges in the long run and resulted in angry customers and poor room service. Misdiagnosing a problem never results in solving it.

An article in Men’s Health spotlighted the unlikely friendship of Colin Allred and Van Taylor. Colin Allred and Van Taylor have a lot in common. In 2020 they were both freshman lawmakers in the US House of Representatives. They’re both from Texas. They’re both used to being part of a team: Allred spent four seasons in the NFL with the Tennessee Titans; Taylor was in the Marines for nine years.

But there’s one major difference: Allred is a Democrat and Taylor a Republican. At a time when our government is intensely polarized, you’d have every reason to believe these two aren’t friends and don’t get along. But they are, and they do.

Men’s Health asked how they managed to remain friends. Here is some of their advice:

Allred: You could spend all your time focused on where you disagree with someone. You could have a good argument every day if you wanted to, but you wouldn’t get much done. And anytime you don’t have a relationship with somebody, it’s gonna be easier to demonize them.

Taylor: You want to focus on what you can work on together. You have to accept the arguments on the other side as valid when they are. At least understand what they are so that you are able to converse. Because if you don’t know anything about what the other side is talking about, you’re not going to be able to understand their perspective.

Taylor: No two people agree with each other all the time. If you don’t believe me, ask your significant other.

Allred: And there are important differences! And that’s what our elections are about. That’s democracy. That’s healthy. What isn’t healthy is when you assume that the person who disagrees with you is also a bad person. Because if you can’t disagree without thinking someone else is bad or evil, then you start pulling apart the seams of our country, and we have to be very careful about that.

Leilani Schweitzer is in charge of communication and resolution at Stanford Hospital in California. On a segment for NPR Ted Talks, she explains that she is the one tasked to apologize and make amends when a tragic incident happens during a patient’s hospital treatment.

Years ago, Schweitzer’s 20-month-old son Gabriel died in the same hospital due to a nurse’s error and the lack of a failsafe in the equipment used. Schweitzer speaks about how the hospital’s honesty and transparency were critical in her family’s healing:

It would have been easy for the university hospital administrators to blame the nurse, fire her and assume the problem had been solved because the bad apple was gone. It would have been typical deny-and-defend behavior for them to ignore my questions, to go silent and hope I couldn't gather my thoughts enough to file a lawsuit. But they didn't do that. Instead, they investigated. They explained, took responsibility, and apologized. It made all of the difference.

Schweitzer realizes how difficult it is for any person or institution to admit to having seriously injured or killed someone. There’s shame, guilt, and fear. Most hospitals don’t apologize and let the legal department handle the issue. Now in her position in the same hospital where her son died, she explains:

I've been in many meetings where we explain to patients and families what has happened. And those are difficult things to be part of. I've seen an explanation move the guilt off of a mother's face. I mean, that is the power. I have seen parents walk into a meeting with a physician where no one can lift their heads to look at each other. And by the end of that meeting, they are embracing. And it is remarkable what understanding can do for people.

When the South African country of Mozambique was decolonized, a civil war broke out that lasted 15 years until 1992. Over a million people were abused and murdered in horrible ways. An Anglican pastor named Dinis Sengulane spearheaded an effort among churches that helped lay the foundation for a 1992 peace-treaty. But they didn’t stop there because there were still more than seven million guns hidden all over Mozambique that could lead to another civil war.

To prevent further violence the government of Mozambique initiated several disarmament projects aimed at weeding out the hidden weapons. One of these initiatives was the Christian-backed “Tools for Arms” project, otherwise known as “Swords into Plowshares.” The project got its name from Isaiah 2:4, which predicts a time of peace when warring nations will “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks,” and they will not “learn war anymore.”

In order to draw out the weapons from the bush, people were given an instrument of agriculture in exchange for every weapon turned in. A shovel for a rifle, a plow for a machine gun. One village turned in a whole cache of weapons and received a tractor in return.

They then took many of these weapons used for war and bloodshed and turned them into beautiful pieces of art designed for peace. Their most important art piece from this project is called the “Tree of Life.” It’s 11.5 feet tall, weighs half a ton, and is made from guns welded together. It celebrates the peace this movement has helped create. To date over 600,000 weapons were turned in as part of this program led by Christian churches.

After a long night and day of marching, Lee and the exhausted Army of Northern Virginia made camp just east of Appomattox Courthouse on April 8. Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant had sent him a letter on the night of April 7, following confrontations between their troops at Cumberland Church and Farmville, suggesting Lee surrender. The Southern general refused. Grant replied, again suggesting surrender to end the bloodshed. Lee responded, saying in part, "I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army," though he offered to meet Grant at 10 the next morning between picket lines to discuss a peaceful outcome.

Having watched the battle through field glasses—Lee then said, "Then there is nothing left for me to do but go and see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths." But meeting General Grant at the Mclean house, Lee said "We are pressed and are ready to surrender. What are your terms?"

Surprisingly it wasn't judgment. It wasn't prison. It wasn't retribution … The terms were to stop fighting and to start living. Give up your weapons, go home and plant your fields. The soldiers who hadn't eaten in days were given meal rations, horses and mules to plow fields. The war was over but for many people, life had just begun.

Pedro Reyes, an artist from Mexico City, transforms weapons discarded by the Mexican army for his project called "Disarm." So far he has transformed 6,700 guns that were turned in or seized by the army and police into musical instruments. The guns came from Ciudad Juarez, a city of about 1.3 million people that averaged about 10 killings a day at the height of its drug violence. Reyes said that the guns he used are "just the tip of the iceberg of all the weapons that are seized every day and that the army has to destroy." But rather than succumb to the despair, Reyes took the very instruments used for violence and created instruments for music.

Reyes already was known for a 2008 project called "Palas por Pistolas," or "Pistols to Shovels," in which he melted down 1,527 weapons to make the same number of shovels to plant the same number of trees. Reyes stresses that his work "is not just a protest, but a proposal." "To me at least," Reyes says, "the concept is about taking weapons that are destructive in nature and chaotic and trying to make them for something else. So instead of objects of destruction, they become objects of creation." Art, for Reyes, is about transformation. He takes objects of destruction and transforms them into objects of creation. It is not by accident that Reyes' creative work hearkens back to the ancient vision of the prophet Isaiah when on the great day of the Lord "they will hammer their swords into plowshares."

New research has revealed that employees waste an average of $1,500 and an 8-hour workday for every crucial conversation they avoid. These costs skyrocket when multiplied by the prevalence of conflict avoidance.

According to the study conducted by the authors of the New York Times bestselling book Crucial Conversations, 95 percent of a company's workforce struggles to speak up to their colleagues about their concerns. As a result, they engage in resource-sapping avoidance tactics including ruminating excessively about crucial issues, complaining, getting angry, doing unnecessary work and avoiding the other person altogether. In extreme cases of avoidance, the organization's bottom line is hit especially hard.

The study of more than 600 people found that eight percent of employees estimate their avoidance costs their organization more than $10,000. And one in 20 estimate that over the course of a drawn-out silent conflict, they waste time ruminating about the problem for more than six months. Joseph Grenny, author of Crucial Conversations, says it's time organizations stop viewing interpersonal competencies as soft skills and start teaching their people how to speak up and deal directly with conflicts rather than avoiding them.

The last soldier to die in the Great War was an American, twenty-three-year-old Henry Gunther, a private with the American Expeditionary Force in France. He was killed at 10:59 A.M., November 11, 1918, one minute before the Armistice went into effect.

Gunther's squad, part of the 79th Infantry Division, encountered a roadblock of German machine guns near the village of Chaumont-devant-Damvillers. Against the orders of his sergeant, he charged the guns with his bayonet. German soldiers, aware of the Armistice, tried to wave him off. But Gunther kept coming and was gunned down; he died instantly. His divisional record states: "Almost as he fell, the gunfire died away and an appalling silence prevailed."

Possible Preaching Angles: (1) Salvation—We have peace with God through Christ but we still live like we're at war with God. Lay down your arms and enjoy Christ's victory and offer of reconciliation; (2) Conflict—Are we picking needless battles or picking battles in a way that leads to more conflict rather than living as peacemakers?

An unusual brawl broke out in a Florida courtroom as a judge and an assistant public defender came to blows. Video footage clearly shows the judge, John Murphy, instigating the fight with public defender Andrew Weinstock. The pair started arguing about whether Weinstock's client would waive his right to a speedy trial. Judge Murphy was trying to convince the defender to waive, but the defense lawyer was not having any of it. Judge Murphy said, "You know, if I had a rock, I would throw it at you right now. Just sit down." Weinstock responded, "You know I'm the public defender. I have a right to be here and I have a right to stand and represent my client." On the video, the judge then appears to ask Weinstock to come to the back hallway, an area where there are no cameras, which is where the fight apparently broke out.

"if you want to fight, let's go out back," Murphy tells Weinstock before the pair head off camera. There were no images of the fight, but the video does capture sounds of scuffling and several loud thuds. Two deputies broke up the fight, and the attorney was immediately reassigned to another area so he and the judge would not have to interact with each other. Judge Murphy agreed to take a leave of absence so he could seek anger management counseling.