A lesson · Finding the Bigger “Us”
Age 21+Finding the Bigger “Us”
A practical way to stop picking sides — at the family table, in a meeting, or in a marriage.
Assumptions & Caveats
Before you begin
What you should know
Adults don’t need a hook to get invested in this topic — most people in the room are already carrying a live disagreement that fits: a family member with different politics, a coworker or manager they’re at odds with, friction in a marriage or a church or civic community. The work here is less about persuading anyone the idea is true and more about giving them room to apply it to something real, which is where adult learning actually sticks. Resist the urge to over-explain the concept before getting to practice — treat participants as capable of connecting the idea to their own life with light framing, not a lecture. Some disagreements adults bring into this room will be long-standing and painful (an estranged relationship, a years-long family political rift). Hold those with real respect; this lesson can offer a next step, not a resolution in one sitting.
What we're assuming
- Most adults in the room can name a current, real disagreement without much prompting — a political difference with a parent or sibling, tension with a coworker, friction with a spouse or partner, disagreement within a church or community group.
- Adults generally don’t need private journaling to be willing to share, but should never be pressured to disclose more than they’re comfortable with, especially about family or marriage conflict.
- Some participants may be in the middle of a genuinely painful or unresolved situation. This lesson is not couples counseling, mediation, or family therapy, and shouldn’t be positioned as a substitute for any of those where real, sustained harm or dysfunction is present.
- Facilitators should be ready to hold real disagreement about the technique itself — some adults will (reasonably) push back on whether “finding the bigger us” is always appropriate, especially around politics or justice issues. That pushback is worth engaging directly, not deflecting.
Learning goals
What they walk away with
- Recognize a real, current disagreement — political, professional, or personal — where they’ve defaulted to “us vs. them” thinking.
- Understand that naming a larger shared goal doesn’t require abandoning their own position, minimizing real stakes, or false-equivalence between differing views.
- Practice the script “I don’t think we’re actually on different sides here — I think we both want ___” aloud, on a real disagreement, with the option to try it for real this week.
- Draw a clear, explicit line between “finding common ground” and “excusing or tolerating mistreatment” — and know which side of that line their own situation falls on.
How to hold the room
Before you start talking
- Never pressure anyone to find common ground with someone who has genuinely harmed them, or with abusive or unsafe dynamics of any kind, including in a marriage or family. Finding the bigger “us” differs fundamentally from excusing mistreatment, and adult-scale examples make this line easier to blur by accident — name it explicitly, more than once if needed.
- Let people choose how much of their real situation to disclose. Full participation doesn’t require sharing the specifics of a marriage, family rift, or workplace conflict — the exercise works even described in general terms.
- Political disagreement will likely come up, given the age range. Hold the room as a place to practice a skill, not to relitigate or resolve the underlying political disagreement itself.
- If someone uses the exercise to argue that a position with real moral stakes (e.g., involving someone’s safety or basic dignity) is “just a disagreement,” it’s fair to gently note that this lesson is scoped to everyday disagreement, not to every situation where two people see something differently.
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
Invite participants to think of a real, current disagreement — with a family member, a coworker, a spouse or partner, or within a community or congregation — where they’ve felt like they’re on opposing sides. No one has to name specifics; a general description (“someone in my family,” “a coworker”) is enough.
Discuss briefly as a group or in pairs: what does it feel like, physically or emotionally, in the moment you register someone as “the other side”?
A bigger idea of what brings people together
Share this concept: genuine community isn’t fundamentally about buildings, labels, or even shared conclusions. It’s whatever people gather around when they’re aiming at something bigger than their current disagreement — understanding, fairness, a working relationship, a family that stays a family, a workplace that functions. Real differences remain; they simply don’t constitute the complete picture.
Discuss: “Think of the disagreement you named in Beat 1. What might you and the other person both genuinely want, underneath your different positions — even if you still believe you’re right?” Give real space for adults to sit with genuine ambivalence here; some will find this easier than others, and that’s fine.
Try the script
In pairs, participants practice aloud (or in writing, if working alone or virtually) 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 their real disagreement, or a hypothetical one if they’d rather not use something live.
Follow with a brief pair discussion: what would it actually feel like to say this out loud to the specific person you had in mind? What, if anything, makes that hard?
Not about being right, and not about excusing harm
Clarify that this approach prioritizes discovery over victory — identifying what’s genuinely shared beneath disagreement rather than assuming nothing is. This does not mean disagreement stops mattering, and it emphatically does not mean tolerating mistreatment in the name of unity — in a marriage, a family, a workplace, or anywhere else. Naming a shared goal with someone is compatible with still setting a boundary, still disagreeing firmly, and still protecting yourself or others where that’s needed.
Close with:
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”
John 17:21
“You don’t need to eliminate genuine disagreement to locate what both parties actually seek. Usually, that connection exists upon investigation — and finding it doesn’t cost you your own convictions.”
What you'll need
The materials
- Paper and pens, or a 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 what emerges is real mistreatment, abuse, or an unsafe dynamic — in a marriage, a family, or a workplace — distinct from ordinary disagreement, finding common ground isn’t appropriate, and this lesson shouldn’t be used to encourage someone to stay in or make peace with a harmful situation. Don’t ask a participant to locate shared ground with someone causing them harm. Redirect toward safety and appropriate outside support instead, and follow the site’s mentor safety guidelines (For Mentors page) if you’re unsure how to respond in the moment.
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.