A lesson · Finding the Bigger “Us”
TeenFinding the Bigger “Us”
A practical way to stop picking sides.
Assumptions & Caveats
Before you begin
What you should know
No prerequisites required. The lesson draws from traditions that use “church” to mean any gathering structure where people aim toward something larger than their disagreements. Whether your group uses that terminology matters less than the underlying practice, which functions independently.
What we're assuming
Most people experience pressure to choose sides — online, at school, at home. The lesson doesn’t assume which sides or require disclosure. It addresses everyday disagreements, not situations involving actual harm (genuine finding of common ground never excuses mistreatment).
Learning goals
What they walk away with
- Recognize that “us vs. them” thinking isn’t inevitable — a larger shared goal typically underlies disagreements.
- Learn one practical phrase for naming that shared goal during actual disagreements.
- Understand that acknowledging common ground doesn’t require denying real differences.
- Practice the approach directly, even in low-stakes or hypothetical scenarios.
How to hold the room
Before you start talking
- Never pressure anyone to find common ground with someone who has genuinely harmed them. Finding the bigger “us” differs fundamentally from excusing mistreatment.
- Reserve this lesson for everyday disagreements — classroom debates, family conflicts, political differences — not abuse or genuine danger, where this approach doesn’t apply.
The lesson flow
Step by step
Each beat alternates a little input, a little doing, and a little reflecting. Skip, slow down, or stretch any of these to fit your group.
Naming an “Us vs. Them” Moment
Participants recall a recent situation — school, family, online, news — where they felt pressured to choose a side or perceive someone as “the other.” No judgment regarding which side was chosen or whether one was chosen at all.
A Bigger Idea of What Brings People Together
Share this concept: genuine community isn’t fundamentally about buildings or labels. It represents whatever people gather around when they’re aiming at something bigger than their disagreement — understanding, fairness, peace. Real differences remain; they simply don’t constitute the complete picture.
Discuss: “Can you identify a ‘bigger us’ that you and someone you disagree with might both genuinely want, despite choosing different positions?”
Try the Script
In pairs, participants practice aloud or in writing a straightforward opening line for disagreement moments: “I don’t think we’re actually on different sides here — I think we both want ___.” They complete the blank using real or hypothetical disagreements.
Not About Being Right
Clarify that this approach prioritizes discovery over victory — identifying what’s genuinely shared beneath disagreement rather than assuming nothing is. Conclude with: you need not eliminate genuine disagreement to locate what both parties actually seek. Usually, that connection exists upon investigation.
What you'll need
The materials
- Paper and pens, or shared digital document/whiteboard for virtual meetings
- Optional printables: Visual “The Bigger Us”; Pocket card “The Bridge Line”
If it's not going well
When this one gets heavy
If actual mistreatment or unsafe situations emerge — distinct from mere disagreement — finding common ground isn’t appropriate. Don’t ask participants to locate shared ground with someone causing them harm. Redirect toward safety instead, and follow the site’s mentor safety guidelines (For Mentors page).
For the fuller tiered guidance — including what to do if someone discloses something serious — see For Mentors.
Help this get better
Teaching this to a group we haven't planned for?
Tell us — this only gets better with your eyes on it. We read every one of these.