The High Cost of Avoiding Conflict: Why Calling In Is a Strategic Necessity

In this reflection on Matthew 18:15-20, the South Elkhorn Christian Church community explores a counterintuitive truth: the presence of Christ is found not just in prayer or worship, but in the difficult, high-friction work of interpersonal reconciliation. While modern digital culture defaults to public shaming and call-out tactics to address grievances, this approach often triggers a cycle of resentment that destroys long-term relational value. By shifting from public punishment to private, direct communication, a practice described here as calling in, individuals can bypass the compounding costs of passive-aggressiveness and misunderstanding. For leaders and community members alike, embracing the discomfort of direct confrontation is not just a moral choice; it is a system-level intervention that prevents organizational rot and preserves the integrity of the community over time.

The Hidden Dynamics of Conflict Avoidance

Most people view conflict as something to be managed or minimized, but this sermon suggests that conflict is actually a primary site for organizational development. When we avoid direct, private confrontation, we do not just keep the peace; we allow internal narratives to fester. These stories, built on assumptions rather than reality, inevitably lead to passive-aggressiveness or sudden, explosive public shaming.

The system-level consequence of call-out culture is that it prioritizes the immediate dopamine hit of moral signaling over the long-term work of restoration. When we choose to call someone out publicly, we effectively close the door to their growth. Conversely, calling in requires the patience to hold someone accountable while simultaneously inviting them to align their actions with their best self.

"We need to be a lot more careful about calling out and a lot more committed to calling in. To inviting people to make choices about their behavior where what we are assuming is they can make better choices about what they have done."

The Strategic Necessity of Boundaries

A common failure in idealistic communities is the belief that extravagant welcome means the absence of boundaries. However, systems thinking reveals that a lack of boundaries actually makes a community less safe, not more. When a community refuses to set limits, it inadvertently creates an environment where the most aggressive actors can exploit the vulnerable.

The sermon highlights a critical distinction: true reconciliation is not a universal template. There are situations, such as those involving intimidation or abuse, where direct, individual confrontation is not only ineffective but dangerous. In these cases, the system must respond with protective boundaries. These boundaries, while uncomfortable in the moment, serve the long-term health of the entire group.

"Is that extravagantly welcoming? Maybe for the person who is experiencing intimidation, we live in a fallen and broken world where we have to have honest and direct communication, set boundaries where boundaries are necessary and do that in a spirit of love that is about building other people up where it is possible."

The Multiplier Effect of Courageous Conversations

When two or three people gather to resolve a conflict, they are doing more than settling a dispute; they are establishing a cultural baseline for the entire organization. If the default response to hurt is silence or gossip, that behavior becomes the system operating system. If the default is direct, honest communication, the system becomes more resilient.

The payoff for this approach is delayed but significant. By addressing hurt early and privately, you prevent the insidious ways that unresolved conflict manifests later. This requires the courage to move outside of one's comfort zone, but it creates a moated advantage: a community that can handle the truth without fracturing is significantly more durable than one that relies on superficial harmony.

Key Action Items

• Audit your conflict default: Over the next week, identify one instance where you chose silence or passive-aggressiveness instead of direct, private communication. Acknowledge the story you told yourself about the other person intent.
• Practice the Call-In framework: When someone acts in a way that is inconsistent with their values, try framing your feedback by acknowledging their better self: "I know you are [positive trait], so help me understand how you could [action]?" This pays off in 12 to 18 months by building deep, high-trust relationships.
• Establish clear safety boundaries: If you are in a leadership position, ensure your organization has explicit, written policies (like anti-bullying or safety covenants) that protect the vulnerable. This creates the baseline of safety required for courageous conversations to actually occur.
• Seek mediation when necessary: If you find yourself stuck in a loop of misunderstanding, bring in a third party, a mentor or a professional, to act as a witness. This is not a sign of failure; it is a structural intervention to ensure both parties are talking about the same thing.
• Prioritize the long-term relationship: Before reacting to a grievance, ask: "Does this action lead to reconciliation or just temporary relief?" If the goal is long-term health, choose the path that requires more immediate effort but yields higher relational stability.