After going through the fire of 3,000+ conversations with pro-choice people, we’ve learned a lot of things that create an environment in the conversation where the other person is more likely to change their mind. These are some of those nitty-gritty dialogue tips.
Pastors very often, I think, would rather not speak publicly about abortion, even if they personally support the pro-life cause. This isn’t usually because they want to hide from the issue or because they don’t think it’s a truth worth defending, but because they are afraid of putting a stumbling block in the way of someone’s salvation. Pastors want pro-choice people to turn to Jesus because they need Him just as much as pro-lifers do. Ministers don’t want to be responsible for someone’s refusal to accept Christ because they pushed them away with a political position.
I love my colleagues at ERI. We pride ourselves on innovation and flexibility, so you’ve probably noticed that we’re constantly experimenting with new arguments, formats, video styles, designs, etc. But here’s the thing: we’re a really small team, so when we determine we need a new strategy, a new program, or a new whatever, that means one of us has just gotta figure it out! We’re go-getters, so when we see something that needs to get done, we’ll find a way.
Editor’s note: This guest post by Muireann Lynch was originally published on the blog of The Minimise Project and can be found at this link.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
Have you ever heard of an elevator pitch? It’s where you try to condense a topic down to a few sentences that you can get across in three minutes or less. The idea is that you have a new business or product that you’re trying to pitch to a potential investor. They’re incredibly busy and you haven’t a hope of setting up a formal meeting, but you happen to bump into them in an elevator. You have a captive audience for the amount of time you’re both in the elevator – minutes, if even. You need to make your strongest case possible in a very short space of time. What do you say?
I don’t think it’s controversial to say each person is more inclined to certain errors based on his or her personality and temperament. For example, an anxious person would likely be more inclined to passivity or inaction, while a more gregarious person might be less likely to choose to sacrifice interpersonal relationships even if confrontation is warranted. Personally, I struggle with the host of potential errors associated with anger.
Do you know why it’s a struggle, why I can’t just “be less angry”? It’s because, as a pro-life person living in contemporary America, anger makes sense! Anger is a logical, appropriate, and even necessary response, to some degree. Just because anger is also dangerous, because it requires walking a knife’s edge to avoid causing further harm, doesn’t make it inherently wrong. And therein lies the temptation.