This is part of a series shared ecumenically with members to whom I was assigned; the goal was to start conversation and deep thought, and many of these messages led to great conversations.
How to Resolve Conflict
Original Publication Date: 17 September 2025
I want to talk to you about different ways to address conflict. I had picked this topic before Charlie Kirk was killed last week, so I considered if a different topic was more appropriate, but I think his death amplifies this message and it’s more timely than ever. I know that among our squadron there are many different views of Charlie Kirk and his life, but whether you loved, hated, or were indifferent towards him it won’t change the importance of this newsletter.
Benjamin Franklin said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” One other thing that can be absolutely certain in life is conflict. If there was a reprieve from conflict, we wouldn’t need a Department of Defense or a Department of War, we’d all just be held in reserve status. But the truth is we’re going to have conflict: between nations, political parties, in budgets and priorities, in time management, between coworkers, between family members, and even conflict within ourselves.
In the spiritual context, conflict is not in the way of life and mission and thriving, it often is the means to grow and succeed and overcome. Conflict in our lives and between other people gives us the chance to resolve differences, heal rifts, and grow together, so in some strange way, conflict is good.
But that doesn’t mean everyone approaches conflict right; there are three major ways to address conflict, they all start with peace, but are all radically different: Peace-Faking, Peace-Breaking, and Peace-Making.
Peace-Faking is the idea that if I ignore a problem or run away from it, it won’t be my problem anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. A person who addresses conflict this way may be called “avoidant” or “escapist.” Unfortunately, many suicides can be traced to this style of conflict resolution. Charlie Hines spoke this week on base about his suicide attempt and emphasized that he was seeking to end the pain he was feeling, but he was clear that he found no peace in his attempt.
Hiding, ignoring, or running from problems feels like it’s working for a little while, until the conflict catches up to you, usually intensified from neglect. One of my first big battles as a chaplain was with a superintendent who was a classic example of peace-faking until he had no-where else to hide failed processes and hurt people; it came to my attention when I noticed a trend of Airmen from his shop in my office complaining about their toxic work-center. Unfortunately, in his case his peace-faking cost him his career through an investigation that led to his retirement.
As maintainers an example that really resonates is the Rome (Italy) Escalator Incident of 2018. Because of the cost and inconvenience of maintenance, authorities illegally disabled monitoring systems, tampered with safety systems, and pencil-whipped certifications. They got away with it too…until they didn’t…and an escalator seriously injured twenty people and put many more at risk. (No USAF endorsement, but Veritasium on YouTube just released a fascinating examination of this event)
A peace-faker can also be putting relationships ahead of mission, which sounds admirable but usually doesn’t serve either the relationship or the mission.
Peace-Breaking resolves a conflict with violence. Consider premeditated murder, where does that act start? There is planning (premeditated) involved, anger, decision, hatred, and first of all, conflict. A person who is a peace-breaker can also be called “confrontational” or “coercive.”
Assassinations fit into this category, instead of seeking resolution or middle ground, the decision is made to end the conflict using violence. Lesser styles of peace-breaking include attacking character instead of position (aka ad hominem), nit-picking, firing, and yelling.
It might feel like this ended the conflict, but if the other person or persons are just afraid of you, or avoid you, or retaliate against you, then you’ve added to the conflict. One of the best tests of this style is a quote by Colin Powell, “The day your people stop bringing you their problems is the day you stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.”
Peace-breakers put the mission ahead of relationships, which works for a little while, until neither relationships nor mission are intact.
Peace-Making begins with the idea that conflict can not only be mitigated, but resolved. Having your own desires and hopes and wants is not wrong, but they will give you opportunities to resolve conflict with people whose desires, hopes, and wants are different than your own. This is not a bad thing.
We see this in world history such as after World War II, when the United States was not just not at war with West Germany and Japan, but were actively sharing resources and friendship with nations that just a few short years before were seeking each other’s destruction. My favorite peace-maker in modern history was Joshua Chamberlain who called his conquering army to salute the surrendering army, reminding soldiers on both sides that they were Americans all, and one country once again. On smaller scales I am a huge proponent of marriage counseling, having watched several cases of people who hated each other come to similar points of views and begin thriving with and loving each other.
Tools we have for peace-making are humility, forgiveness, apology, reconciliation, and—for bigger conflicts—counseling, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. All of these have one major thing in common, they communicate through the conflict.
Peace-makers strive to heal relationships without losing sight of goals, recognizing that people perform the mission, and the mission is meant to benefit people.
Sometimes the line is not so easily drawn, such as for 20 years we employed a nuclear missile called the “Peacekeeper” which assured mutual destruction if nuclear weapons were launched. Was that peace-making or peace-breaking or peace-faking? Similarly, many decision makers have made the argument that by killing high profile peace-breakers like Saddam Hussein and Ayman Al-Zawahiri they have made the world a safer—more peaceful—place; have they succeeded? Can you make peace while preparing for war?
How About You? Most times our conflict style is easily defined, so who would you say you are? Are you confrontational? Avoidant? Or reconciliatory? Has it been good for your relationships? Your missions and priorities? Which would you want to be? How can you grow in that direction?
I’ll conclude with a trend I and other chaplains have seen. With the advent of the internet it is likely that you’ve seen traumatic things that you may not have intended to see, such as the recent and very traumatic shooting of Charlie Kirk. Many people have been seeking chaplains and other helping agencies to talk about their revulsion of seeing such a horrible video. If you’re struggling with things you’ve seen, I want to say that it is natural and good to have a revulsion to those things; I’m much more worried about people who can see things like that and have no moral injury. Your next steps in healing could be talking about it, solidifying your own morals, processing the events spiritually and ethically, and if necessary, seeking deeper counsel from someone you trust. I don’t have a monopoly on hope, but I would be honored to work through it if need be.
Last, an optional offer: one of my friends who is an author wrote a booklet about understanding suffering from a Christian perspective. I just learned that Charlie Kirk received a copy some months ago and talked about how much it impacted him and he called it “terrific”. I’ve been giving this book out for years, I have about 80 in my office if you’d like one, just let me know and I’ll get you a copy.
I’m honored to be your chaplain, and I hope together we can be peace-makers that both us, our nation, and our progeny can be proud of.
