When Two Goodwilled People Disagree in the Gray Areas of Life - Part 1

In my experience, the vast majority of married couples going into battle with each other over disagreements are not doing so over black-and-white issues of morality. They are not up in arms with each other because one is hoping to hold up the bank together this Friday like Bonnie and Clyde, while the other is trying to convince them that a life of crime is not the answer. One parent is not trying to convince the other that they should train their children as MMA fighters so they can be kings of the playground.

Instead, most couples find themselves disagreeing in the gray areas of life—not issues of morality but of preference. What type of church should they attend? How should they spend (or save) the Christmas bonus? Is now the right time to enter the housing market? In some cases, both options are good, and they really can’t lose whichever way they go. In other situations, one of the good options may be “less better” than the other. Yet based on the reactions of one or both of the spouses, you’d think that someone was suggesting they go throw buckets of paint on priceless works of art.

In this three-part series about disagreements in the gray areas of life, I want to draw your attention to three specific ways to keep these gray-area disagreements from escalating to knock-down, drag-out fights, where the issue is no longer the issue.

1. Make sure you acknowledge the ton of good things going on in the disagreement.
2. Don’t claim to be 100 percent the victim.
3. Look for the common ground in the disagreement.

First up, when we find ourselves disagreeing in the gray areas—especially with the most important person in our life whom we know to be goodwilled, even on his or her worst days—why can we not acknowledge the ton of good things going on in the disagreement? Why do we too often fixate, escalate, and exaggerate?

I get many emails from wives with their list of six or more negative things about their husbands. These wives have goodwill and are concerned about the family, but in voicing their negatives about their husbands they miss or do not acknowledge the good and godly things about him. When I point these good qualities out, the wives humbly receive my observations. They do not resist what I say about him but they definitely have overlooked this. They seem to be myopic and see only the negatives.

For example, consider this wife’s testimony over a disagreement she had concerning an inexpensive computer her husband chose to purchase for their son—certainly not a black-and-white issue of morality:

Our son’s school computer broke down for good, and my husband chose a $150 refurbished tablet computer and ordered it without consulting me. I texted him saying a refurbished item is not a good idea for us and that a small computer wasn’t suitable. I stayed to the facts. Predictably, he went into a texting frenzy of overspending, etc. which he usually slips into at Christmas though he never prepares with a budget. He always starts out like everything is rosy and casual and all generous, and then suddenly, he will panic and blame others. I don’t fight on texts so I just recommended we cancel the order and rethink, restart, and said we have time. He canceled it. Shortly, I went into our room to deliver something, expecting he might defend, etc. But he acted like nothing happened. So yes, the approach worked! However, this is ongoing with my husband. He regularly overreacts in a variety of situations but doesn’t recognize it. The kids see it and others see it. When I am calm, he thinks I am in denial.

Consider some of the statements she said about her husband: 

• “He went into a texting frenzy of overspending, etc. which he usually slips into at Christmas.”
• “He never prepares with a budget.”
• “He always starts out like everything is rosy and casual and all generous, and then suddenly, he will panic and blame others.”
• “He regularly overreacts in a variety of situations but doesn’t recognize it.”

And what was his crime? He was attempting to solve a problem while saving money during a normally expensive time of year (Christmas).

To be clear, the wife had many good points of her own. Were we to learn more about the situation, we may even conclude that her idea of buying a better, more expensive computer was the better choice. For argument’s sake, let’s assume this to be true, and that her husband had the “less better” idea. In this gray-area disagreement, does she need to fixate, escalate, and exaggerate, to the point that it sounds as though she’s married to a hot-headed, panic-stricken guy who has no idea how to manage money?

Instead, could this wife choose to verbalize the good things her husband tried to do, though she disagreed with him?

One, he selected a less-expensive, refurbished computer because he was motivated to be frugal.  This motivation can be complimented. Why not acknowledge this and even express appreciation for this desire to be a good steward?

Two, his choice is not a bad or immoral choice. Yes, one could argue that a small computer is less suitable, but that does not make his idea a bad idea or “not a good idea.” The truth is, in this instance, his idea is less better; it is not bad. To claim otherwise is to make a moral judgment that is way out of line. This is moralizing on something that isn’t a moral issue per se. This is not a choice between something morally good and morally bad but a choice between two ideas that have merit and virtue. He believes his idea has merit, which it does. She believes her idea has merit, which it also does. It comes down to a decision about which idea is better. He is not wrong for his ideas, and she is not solely right about her ideas. Neither are wrong, just different in their view about what is better or best. 

Three, his heart was in the right place to meet a need. She faults him for not making a budget and for panicking about limited resources, but she needs to ask herself: Does he really want to deprive the family of stuff or does he simply fear putting the family in too tight of a financial situation? Again, why not empathize. “I really get your concern here. I agree, it would be unwise to overspend and put the family in a tough spot financially. Do you think a larger, more expensive computer will stretch us too much? What do you recommend?” 

Four, without fighting with him but making a reasonable proposal to wait and see other options, he deferred. Even without honoring him, notice how the choice of language still calmed him down: “I don’t fight on texts so I just recommended we cancel the order and rethink, restart, and said we have time.” This was reasonable to him. He is open to rethinking. What sets men off is when their idea that has merit is condemned as “not a good idea.” When he still feels his idea is a good idea, he feels the same as the millions of women who also say, “My husband just dismisses my ideas as bad or stupid.”

After all, what is a person to feel and do when feeling attacked for being wrong, bad, and stupid about their ideas (which appears to have been the original message to this husband when she told him straight up, “A refurbished item is not a good idea for us and that a small computer wasn’t suitable”)? 

For sure, to prevent this person from going into a frenzy by attacking them as cheap, unthoughtful, and uncaring, why not just say, “Look, I respect your goodwill and desire to be a good steward of our finances. I salute you. However, long term, I think we will save more money with a bigger and new computer. We will minimize our risks of having to spend more if the refurbished option doesn’t have a guarantee.” 

When we are dealing with clashing preferences in the gray areas of life, like the purchasing of a computer, we must not make this into a moral issue but we must see the goodwill and the merit of what they are saying though we don’t agree with their ideas.

In part 2, we’ll discuss another technique many unfortunately attempt when in disagreement with their spouse in the gray areas: They claim to be 100 percent the victim.