Family Conflict in the Time of Cancel Culture: Tim Muehlhoff & Sean McDowell

Episode Transcript

FamilyLife Today® with Dave and Ann Wilson – Web Version Transcript

This content has been generated by an artificial intelligence language model. While we strive for accuracy and quality, please note that the information provided will most likely not be entirely error-free or up-to-date. We recommend independently verifying the content with the originally-released audio. This transcript is provided for your personal use and general information purposes only. References to conferences, resources, or other special promotions may be obsolete. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the use or interpretation of this content.

Family Conflict in the Time of Cancel Culture

Guests:Tim Muehlhoff and Sean McDowell

From the series:End the Stalemate (Day 3 of 3)

Air date:November 6, 2024

Tim: We’ve got to start to be charitable and be able to talk in favorable ways about people we disagree with. We are spectacularly failing, and we’re going to have to have courage to start calling people out.

Shelby: Welcome to FamilyLife Today, where we want to help you pursue the relationships that matter most. I’m Shelby Abbott, and your hosts are Dave and Ann Wilson. You can find us at FamilyLifeToday.com.

Ann: This is FamilyLife—

Dave: —Today.

Dave:So we got Tim Muehlhoff and Sean McDowell back in the studio, talking about End the Stalemate, having meaningful conversations with people that we have different opinions with. And again, you can look them up; their bios are long and weighty.

Ann: They’re both professors and doctors.

Dave:—doctors; they teach students every single day.

Tim: We need to come here more often, Sean.

Sean:Oh man, I’m feeling the love.

Tim: This is awesome; I love this.

Dave:We don’t get to say this every day about our guests. Man, oh man; I feel like we’re in the presence of royalty. And again,—

Ann: —and they both have great podcasts, too.

Dave: Yeah; tell us the names of your podcasts.

Tim: Mine is called Tim Muehlhoff Can Change Your Life podcast.

Dave: Yeah, that’s it!

Tim: We have two listeners, my wife—no.

Dave: Your wife’s not listening; she’s not one of them.

Tim: No, it’s called Winsome Conviction podcast. We bring on people we know disagree with each other, and we try to model what it’s like to have good engaging conversations.

Dave: That’s good.

Sean:Think Biblically, with my co-host, Scott Rae. We want to think, biblically, about every issue under the sun.

Dave:—amazing, amazing teacher.

Sean:Yes, he is; still is.

Dave:I took Hebrew from him. I never thought I’d want to think like he—and J.P. Moreland—made me just realize how thinking is so, so important. Okay,—

Ann: I think, too—let me add this—“If you’re a parent, with young adults or even high school students, listening to either of your podcasts would be really beneficial. One that you could say, ‘Hey, I just listened to this. I’d love to get your thoughts on this.’” It’s like a bridge of conversation that can take place because you guys both do a really good job.

Tim: And Ann, I would add to what you said—I think this was yesterday—“Ask your children what podcasts they listen to and start listening to them, or trade songs:—

Ann: Yes.

Tim: —“’What are the songs that you really resonate with?’” One child, particularly, we trade songs all the time; what a glimpse into the world!

Dave:Well, we’re talking about your book, End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations—which is really interesting is—you guys don’t agree on everything,—

Tim: No.

Dave:—and you wrote a book together!

Tim: We did.

Dave:It’s like, “No, no, no; that can’t be possible. You do not agree on everything.”

I got an email from you about the endorsement: about an area that you guys didn’t agree on, like, “Do you guys want to take your endorsement back?” I love the thought that, “Oh, my goodness, you’re modeling ending the stalemate.”

We’ve already talked about pre-conversation. We need to talk about: “Okay, when we’re in the conversation, how do we have this?” We have kids coming home from college this month. The election just happened; your person might not have got elected. That could cause—or they might have; I don’t know—

Ann: Your kids may not want to come home for Christmas or Thanksgiving because of the political climate in your house. And so we’re navigating that, as parents: “What’s the best way to go about these conversations?”

Dave: “How do we have healthy conversations?”

Sean:So here’s a question for you: “If you’re worried about your kids coming home this Thanksgiving, do you want them coming back home in five Thanksgivings? Do you want them coming back in 20 Thanksgivings, with your grandkids?” You’ve got to play the long game when it comes to communication. And if they’re afraid to come home, now, they could cut ties; and things could go south for a long time.

We talked, in our first discussion, Tim raised a point where, sometimes, you cannot prepare when somebody just drops a comment; you’re like, “Oh, how do I respond?!”—you’re emotionally-engaged. Kids coming home for Thanksgiving: you can prepare your heart, and you can prepare your mind. One thing I heard Kara Powell, at Fuller Theological Seminary, say she asks her kids all the time; she says, “Tell me what you believe that mom and dad still believe. Tell me something that you now don’t believe that we believe, and why.” And just listen—don’t get defensive—try to understand. That’s a powerful thing to do, in the right time and the right way, with your kids.

Dave:And don’t correct them when they say, “I don’t believe this anymore.” You don’t try and convince them; you just listen.

Sean:At least, not initially. Step number one is: “Understand.” But I also want to know the backstory: “What led to you changing this? Was there an experience that you had?”

Tim’s got a great chapter on “Briccolage,” which is how we put together our belief systems. We’d all like to think that they’re lined up by analyzing evidence and looking at the data—that’s not true—it’s relationships; it’s experiences; it’s hurts. So “If you’ve changed your views,”—could it be, for some kids, they just want to have their identity at something that’s different from their parents? I remember telling a kid, who left his faith; and after I figured out for a while, I was like, “Oh, my goodness, your parents have controlled everything in your life”; but they couldn’t control what he believed, so that was his way of holding back.

If a kid changed, I want to know—“Was it a professor?” “Was it a roommate?” “Was it an experience?”—”Tell me the backstory,” long before I try to correct their beliefs.

Ann: Have you guys had those conversations with your kids?

Tim: Yeah, I’ll be somewhat discreet; but I will say one thing: “Don’t freak out when they’re talking to you.”

Sean:Exactly.

Tim: Yeah; you can freak out, in the back bedroom, with your spouse. I remember, early on, one of our kids—I want to say this was elementary school—remember: “List the ten most important things in your life.” And mom and dad—the teacher said—is always number one; but then, God was on the list. One of our kids came home with the list, and God was fifth. And he, literally—I’ll never forget this—he literally said, “I know you wanted that to be higher, but it’s not.” Could we freak out?—yes, in the back bedroom—“Lord, we failed! We should have homeschooled,”—something like that; but don’t freak out in front of them.

This is what we would say as professors: “You’re getting one little slice. It’s a photograph; it’s not the end product.” But to let my students have office hours, where they’re just saying things that might even be a little heretical, because they’re in process; they’re wrestling. I want to teach them to be good thinkers.

I would say this: “When the child comes home; and now, you’re going to have a family conversation—maybe, process the election—I wouldn’t do that spontaneously.” If it does come up spontaneously, like, “Hey, how did y’all vote?!” I’d be [thinking], “Yeah, we’re not doing that”; I would say, “Hey, what a great question. Two nights from now, let’s order pizza. It’d be kind of fun to go around—say, if you want to—‘…how I voted and why.’ But give me, at least, two days to prepare.”

And then, in our house, there needs to be food; there needs to be a distract. We’re all not just going to sit down at a table, and say, “Okay, go first,”—that’s too much pressure. So we would have pizza or something—or maybe, even a game on in the background, as weird as that sounds—because you can’t just have the intensity build, and build, and build. There has to be distractions/good distractions. Knowing the Muehlhoff family, you’d have to construct that; you’d have to prepare for that and carefully do it.

We have one whole chapter on “How to Construct a Conversation.” Very quickly:

One: “Ask them what they honestly think.” I’m trying not to get defensive.

Second: “Now, why do you think that?” The bricolage thing is interesting: “Piece it together for me.”

Dave:Brick-by-brick sort of thing, right?

Tim: Brick-by-brick.

The third one is so important: “Here’s why I agree. You and I voted differently. But here’s where I agree, where I could see why you voted the way you did; that made sense to me,”—find the common ground.

And then, the fourth one is: “Ask clarifications/more questions—and then, you know it’s going to get flipped—‘And now, you’re going to go through that same process with me.’”

You’re going to, literally, go through those four questions. We find that that gives speed bumps so the conversation doesn’t get derailed. Again, you have to practice it. That’s why—again, at that website—you practice all of these principles.

Ann: And I would add this: “If you’re in a family—where your kids are married—you’re bringing in-laws into the situation who have a different upbringing; maybe different views; maybe a different way that conflict and even conversations are taking place. I think we could have a conversation with our kids—they all know they’re incredibly loved—we’re going to love them no matter what/or what their views are; we’re going to love them. However, our daughters-in-law may not be as secure in that love; and so, we’re way more cautious, now, in having some of the conversations. Because they may not understand, like, “Man, you can say anything; and I’m going to love you.” We can say that, but we don’t know their background. Do you see that at all? Could that be something that—

Sean:Well, I don’t have any sons-in-law or daughters-in-law.

Dave: They’re much younger than us.

Ann: I know that you are.

Sean: So it’s theoretical for me. But I think my response would be: “Why do we freak out in those settings?” And I think one reason is we take it personally.

Ann: Yes.

Sean: We feel like we have failed—which may have nothing to do with it—which makes it about us, not about them.

And “Why not freak out?” Because, number one, we want to keep the conversation going for a while. I’d much rather have my kid come tell me, and say, “Hey, I’m not a Christian”; and keep the conversation going. If you freak out, you shut that down. And also—for the reason you just mentioned—that “If I freak out, does that communicate that my love for you is conditional?” I don’t want to communicate that.

There’s a lot of reasons not to freak out in the moment. In fact, my dad actually—he told me this—he used to practice, in his mind ahead of time, how he would respond if: “My daughter said, ‘Dad, I’m pregnant,’” or if I said, “Hey dad, I’m gay,” or if I said, “Hey, I decided to drop out of college,” “…I decided to smoke marijuana,” or anything that didn’t fit the script that he, maybe, had for my life. And if you practice that, in your mind ahead of time, you’re, at least, more likely to respond in a fashion you won’t later regret.

Dave:I mean, do you ever feel like the way to end the stalemate is: “We’re not going to talk about it”? “There are certain things in our home, we’re just not going to go there. We’ve tried—we know what you think; you know what we think—we’re not going to have the conversation.”

Part of me is like, sometimes—I’m a withdrawer, so I don’t want conflict—”Let’s just eat the turkey”; and it’s like denial. It’s like we can’t go there; because there’s certain topics that are just so explosive in our home, or in our neighborhood, or in our church, whatever. It’s better just not to have the conversation. Is that ever a better policy?— “We’re not going to agree. Do I just love you in a way that says, ‘We can’t have this conversation’?”

Tim: I have a 40-year friendship. This is a person—we went to college together, Eastern Michigan University—we’re in Cru together. We’ve been through thick and thin. So the trust is there—that you were mentioning—we do not talk about theology when it comes to something called Calvinism or Arminianism—if you understand what that means—”Does God control everything?’ or “Does He allow free will to act?” We’ve had this conversation forever—it never tends to go well—we both feel very strongly and can quote chapter and verse to support our positions. We recently—I would say within the last ten years, we avoid politics—now, we talk about other theological issues: we talk about ethics; we talk about church life; our marriages—but [Calvinism vs. Arminianism], it just doesn’t go anywhere. And we have a 40-year track record.

I do think, if a couple/a family can legitimately say, “Yeah, I think/I don’t know if we need to go here. You have friends you can talk to,”—I think it’s okay to bracket. I think, if a marriage or a family, has a million of those, then I might start to think, “I don’t know if bracketing needs to be your go-to position; but I do think it’s okay to have one or two areas, that we’re just going to bracket: ‘We’re not going to go there.’”

Dave:Yeah. Any thoughts, Sean? I got another question on that unless you have a thought.

Sean:I think I, generally, agree with that. I think the relationship is going to shape it. We have family members we’ll see once a week out of a year; and it’s like, “Let’s have a good time; love on them,” especially if they’re not Christians. Of course, I’m not going to bring up politics; because I know they’re very different than what we view. But that’s different than with my wife. I can’t think of any issue—I can’t think of one—and the only reason I would say not—if I feel like, “Okay, have you understood my position? I’ve understood yours,”—we have talked this through; know exactly why we differ and where; and then, we can move on—as opposed to: “I just can’t go there; I don’t want to talk about it,”—and then, I go, “Okay, then there’s something wrong there that is going to come up later; and it’s undermining the nature of the relationship.”

Dave:Yeah, that’s good.

What about this?—your adult child has walked away from the faith you’ve instilled their whole life: “Do you bring it up?” You’ve talked about it a couple times—you know where they stand; they know where you stand—you’ve raised them that way. But now, they’re at a point, where they’re not really warming up to coming back. As a parent, “Do you let it go? Or do you bring it up once every year, twice, three times a month? What do you do?”

I know there’s listeners right there like that: “That’s where my kid is. I don’t know what to do. Do I not talk about it? We’ve had those conversations; they didn’t end well,” or “Do I keep trying to understand their perspective? I’m not trying to convince them, but I want to know what they think; and they feel like I’m trying to bring him back.”

Tim: I teach a family communication class. There’s the longest study done on children and faith called “Faith and Families.” He said, with prodigal children, the number-one principle is: “Keep the door open, and do not burn that bridge.” I think you let the child know: “We love you; we accept you. Nothing’s ever going to sever this relationship, and you know our values. My goodness, we don’t need to talk about this anymore. Mom and I go to church every Sunday, and we know that you’ve kind of walked away.”

He says, in his research, that the vast majority of prodigals eventually come back if the door is kept open—there’s a loving attitude—and the warmth of the father, particularly, woos the hearts of the children. And there’s a ton of reasons for that we can’t go into. I think, “Dads, we need to/man, you need to lead with love.” And I think it’s okay to say, “Now, you know Mom and I don’t approve of that; I mean, you know that.”

Ann: —”but we love you.”

Sean:I would encourage parents, if your kids have walked away, to think about having this conversation: “Hey, son,” or “Hey, daughter, I understand you don’t believe anymore. Would you be willing to sit down for coffee with me and just talk about that journey? All I want to do is understand: ‘When did you start having questions?’ ‘Who did you talk with?’ ‘What was helpful?’ ‘What were the big questions?’ ‘Are there any things you miss about your faith?’ ‘Where are you at, emotionally?’ ‘How often do you think about God?’ ‘How do you wish we had parented you differently?’”

Ann: That’s good.

Sean:That can be painful; but I think that communicates to a kid: “I love you, first; I just want to understand.” And that reinforces the point, that Tim said, that: “This door is open.” And then, you just ask him, “You know that I think this is true, and I want you to be a Christian. There’s no hiding that; I can’t. How much are you open to talking about this?” And there’s some kids—like Jesus let the rich young ruler walk away—if this person’s like, “I don’t want to hear it, ever.” Man, that’s hard to [hear]: “never”; but that tells you their heart is not open. That’s going to burn bridges by pushing—even little comments/”poking the bear,” even in, like, “This is fun,”—but sometimes, poking the bear can have a little edge to it.

And other kids would say, “Oh, I’m happy to talk about it.” So you got to find out the backstory, and understand it, and just say, “If you were in my shoes, and you really believed this was true, and you had a kid who walked away, what would you do?” And just listen. It doesn’t mean you have to do everything that they say; but if you don’t, at least, understand where they’re coming from first. You’re going to have faulty assumptions that just lead to further conflict and, probably, burn more bridges.

Tim: Sean has a book, with a great researcher, John Marriott called Set Adrift.

Dave:We’ve had John on; it’s called Set Adrift.

Sean: Yeah, we did it together.

Tim: Oh, okay.

Ann: Yes, it was so good.

Dave: So good.

Tim: That needs to be standard.

Dave:Deconstruction—the whole thing—he’s one of the best on that.

Ann: So helpful.

Dave: And I would just add—I know Sean’s saying this—but the way Sean even said that—the tone of voice—right? “Parents, did you hear that? That’s how you have this conversation. And when you hear your son or daughter responding, and you feel something welling up within you to correct them, or to say, ‘No, that’s not what…’ you got to let it go, right? You got to be quiet/listen.”

Tim: That’s the heart thing, right? We’re back to the heart preparation.

Ann: Yes.

Dave:Talk post-conversation.

Tim: Okay; this is what we’ve learned from the Winsome Conviction Project; this one surprised us. We did this one conversation, where we had two academics, who flat-out disagreed with each other, but we brought them together for a conversation. We actually did the pre-conversation. We had a five-hour dinner, where we heard the backstory. We prayed for the evening. The evening went so well. It was packed; everybody was there. As this conversation is happening, I actually have the thought, “How do you get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? Do they send you an email? Does somebody show up?”

Dave: I can say I’ve never had that thought in my life!

Tim: The two participants finished; they even said, “This went remarkably well.” Five days later—I kid you not—we get a response from both: “This was unfair. What you did was really bad for students to see. You manipulated us.”

Ann: What?!

Tim: We were dumbfounded!

Here’s what happened: they both went back to their in-groups. By the way, many of those at the in-group weren’t even at the event; and it wasn’t recorded. So you either had to be there, live, or not. They weren’t there; they even admitted they weren’t there, but they said, “Oh, no, no, no, no, no; remember this about that person,” “Remember this about the person,” “Oh, this,” and “…this,” and “…this.” And they got deprogrammed; and then, came back and were actually upset at [us]. So this is going nowhere—end the stalemate will not happen—if we don’t deal with our in-groups.

And let me just say—I’m speaking to myself—if we’re talking very uncharitably about other people in private, and it’s okay—we have that wonderful little phrase, “Hey, this is just between you and me,”—and then, we violate every communication principle Paul talks about, right?—slander, gossip; and the stalemate is going to happen. We’ve got to start to be charitable and be able to talk in favorable ways about people we disagree with. We are spectacularly failing, and we’re going to have to have courage to start calling people out. We got to start saying, “Hey, the way we talk about the President in our in-group is not good. We can disagree—we’re committed to our political values—but we got to start toning things up. We got to start being more Christ-like in our in-house conversations.”

Dave:So the private conversations, especially with your in-group,—

Tim: How you talk about people, privately, is how you treat them, publicly. People say, “That’s not true!” And I say, based on Daniel Goleman’s “Emotional Contagion,” the negative feelings that you have created in your in-group, it absolutely bleeds into a conversation; and people pick up on it, on the low road of the brain. This is Goleman; this is his “Emotional contagion”; I really buy it. So yeah, you can put on a positive face, but those negative emotions—because you’ve cultivated them; stirred them in your in-group—it has to start with the house of God. We have to start being charitable in our private conversations.

Sean:When you just vent—there’s some times you’re just so frustrated: “Got to get it off my chest,”—is there a time and place for that, ever?

Tim: I don’t know; I don’t know.

Ann:Could you do that with your spouse?

Tim: I want to say there’s, probably, good venting and bad venting.

Ann: That’s what I think, too.

Tim: There’s probably venting that crosses a line. You know what I mean?—

Sean:Yeah, that’s probably true.

Tim: —questioning the character of a person.

Well, I do want to say, with the people in our in-group, or our friends and spouses, I should be able to vent; because I’m really frustrated. Eventually, maybe, my spouse comes back and says, “Hey, I’m glad you got that off your chest, but you know that probably wasn’t fair towards our pastor,” or “…fair towards Sean,” or something like that. So I don’t know, Sean; that’s a great question. I want to probably say there’s okay forms and there’s probably forms that kind of cross a line, a little bit of venting.

Ann: Would you ever do that, Sean, with your wife?—could you see yourself venting, but saying something kind of nasty about someone?

Sean:Oh, I hope I don’t say things that are nasty about somebody. Sometimes, I’ve said to my wife/I say, “Honestly, here’s how I feel…”

Tim: I think that’s good.

Sean:And then, I’ll express how I feel.

Tim: I think that’s good.

Sean:And then, I’ll reflect on it, and be like, “I would never want to say that publicly. And I don’t love that I feel that way, but that’s honestly how I feel when I see this.” And by the way, I mean it is true; sometimes people say things that are really dumb. Now, there’s a difference for me—saying that person is dumb [instead of] what they said was dumb—and these are the kinds of distinctions that are important. But yeah, sure; I vented to my wife; and then, apologized. I’m not venting about her; it’s about something else. But sometimes, you just got to get it off your chest; but then, it’s worth: “Okay, why was that on my chest? Why is that in my heart? Is there deeper issues maybe that I need to wrestle with?”—

Ann: And I think, too—

Sean:—would be the question.

Ann: —when I’ve done that, too, I’m convicted by the Holy Spirit to come back—

Dave: —or by me.

Ann: —of: “How should we talk?” and “What should our speech be like?”

Tim: Can I make a spiritual point? I think it’s okay to vent to God.

Ann: Yes!

Tim: I see it in the Psalms. I see some amazing venting that is borderline: “God, where were You?! You were asleep when this was happening—the armies of Israel got slaughtered—and where were You?!” God can handle that.

Sean:Those are complaint Psalms, right?

Tim: Yeah, yeah.

Sean:Some of the largest—not the largest group—of all the Psalms are complaint Psalms and prayers that are really honest.

Tim: Yeah! I want to have a place for that.

Dave:And I would just add—this is a whole other topic; and we’re out of time—so we can’t develop it. But I think you’re going to agree with this. The post-talk—and this happens a lot in the church world—as a pastor for 30 plus years, I watched this happen. I don’t think church people/Christians are very good at this. We want to be graceful and tender. And so, when I have a problem with Tim, often in church world, instead of going to Tim, I’ll go—I’m saying, “Ann,”—but I’ll go to a friend. or another staff member on this church staff. We’ll shut the door, and we’ll both talk about Tim.

And sometimes, we’ll even say, “We need to pray for Tim.” And it’s like a prayer—it’s spiritual—

Ann: —gossip.

Dave: —but it never gets to Tim. And we even had a policy on our church staff, in the early days: “If you come in, and you bring up some other staff member, we’re stopping it right then.” I’m saying, “Go get them; let’s all talk.” They’re not allowed to do this [spiritual gossip]. We call it first-person communication [that’s] got to happen. That happened in our church staff, with a couple hundred staff, for twenty-some years.

Tim: Was it positive? Did people receive that?

Dave:It was awesome; it was hard, because people don’t do that. But it was like I, literally, put my hand up—like: “Go get Joe,” “No, no, no,” “Go get him! We’re not going to talk about Joe without Joe here. Maybe, you two are going to talk, and I’m going to help you; but we’re not having this conversation [without him].” It was really healthy.

I’m afraid to have that really hard conversation with somebody, so I’ll go have it with somebody else. That’s what you’re saying—that’s that post-[talk]—and it’s my in-group, and they’re going to agree with me. And next thing you know, you now have disunity.

Tim: And it’s okay to get counsel. It’s okay to sit down and say, “I’m going to talk to Sean. I really do want to, but I don’t know how to do it.” It’s totally different than me just saying things about Sean, with no intention of ever going to see him. I do think godly counsel would be good in certain situations.

Ann: And if the holidays come, and you say some things—because the bear was poked—that you shouldn’t have said, it might be a great idea to make a call to have a conversation, and just say, “Hey, I’m so sorry; I just blew up. I didn’t mean to, and I hope that doesn’t reflect how much I love you. I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and please forgive me.” I think that that always goes a long way, even as you guys have both demonstrated.

Dave:Thanks for modeling for us. You even differ on different things, and you love each other, and you’ve revealed to the whole world: “This is how you do it, Christlike.”

Shelby: I love what Ann said there at the end of our time today. Who hasn’t said something that they regret at some point in a heated conversation? Well, maybe the goal isn’t always to say everything 100 percent correctly; but instead, maybe to just apologize when you make a mistake. I found that apologizing, when I’ve messed up, goes a long way with both adults and kids. So let’s make a habit of doing that this coming holiday season.

I’m Shelby Abbott; and you’ve been listening to Dave and Ann Wilson, with Tim Muehlhoff and Sean McDowell, on FamilyLife Today. Tim and Sean have written a book called End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations. You can get your copy, right now, by going online to FamilyLifeToday.com; or you could click on the link in the show notes. Or feel free to give us a call at 800-358-6329 to request your copy. Again, that number is 800-F as in family, L as in life, and then the word, TODAY.

We’ve talked about this today, and the last two days, but many of us are just tired of the tension and division that exists between our family, and our friends, and on social media. And while we read things in the Bible, like Psalm 1:33, that tells us it’s good for believers to dwell in unity with one another, we just don’t see that very often in today’s easily-angered and often-offended culture.

So that’s why I’m really excited to invite you to join us, here, at FamilyLife for a five-week video series from our friend—author and comedian—Amberly Neese. It’s called “Moving Toward Each Other in the Middle of a Divisive World.” In it, Amberly guides us on how to build peace with those who are closest to us when our differing thoughts, and opinions, and beliefs threaten to create division. You could sign up for this five-week video series for free by clicking on the link in the show notes, or going to FamilyLife.com/FindingCommonGround. Again, you can find it in the show notes, or head over to FamilyLife.com/FindingCommonGround.

Are your kids college-ready? Well, Michael Kruger, author of Surviving Religion 101, examines how to prep teens for surviving their future religion classes and keep the faith at the same time. He’ll be here with us tomorrow; we hope you’ll join us. On behalf of Dave and Ann Wilson, I’m Shelby Abbott. We’ll see you back next time for another edition of FamilyLife Today.

FamilyLife Today is a donor-supported production of FamilyLife®, a Cru® Ministry.

Helping you pursue the relationships that matter most.

If you’ve benefited from the FamilyLife Today transcripts, would you consider donating today to help defray the costs of producing them and making them available online?

Copyright © 2024 FamilyLife. All rights reserved.

www.FamilyLife.com