Words Are Windows: Escaping Enemy Mode and Speaking the Truth in Love
Words are Windows (or They’re Walls)
by Ruth Bebermeyer
I feel so sentenced by your words,
I feel so judged and sent away,
Before I go, I’ve got to know
Is that what you mean to say?
Before I rise to my defense,
Before I speak and hurt or fear,
Before I build that wall of words,
Tell me, did I really hear?
Words are windows, or they’re walls,
They sentence us, or set us free.
When I speak and when I hear,
Let the love light shine through me.
There are things I need to say,
Things that mean so much to me,
If my words don’t make me clear,
Will you help me to be free?
If I seemed to put you down,
If you felt I didn’t care,
Try to listen through my words
To the feelings that we share. [1]
——-
I kept my mouth shut.
This was progress. For too many years of my life, I had been too impulsive. I can feel passionately about a topic, and once in a while, it’s hard not to engage.
I can’t even remember what the issue was about anymore. I just remember how I felt at the time. Clenched fists. Shallow breathing. A tight jaw. Wanting to scream at her. Wondering what was wrong with her.
I now know that I had entered enemy mode, a neurobiological state where the brain perceives the person in front of you as a threat. In a protective response, they become something less than human: a danger, a problem, an “other.”
I was attempting to have an impossible conversation.
When was the last time you had an impossible conversation?
Maybe it was about politics. Or a theological issue. Or race. Or the pandemic. Maybe it was with a parent, a pastor, a coworker, or even your spouse.
And how do you know it was impossible?
Not just because no one changed their mind, but because something in the relationship broke. You felt dismissed or defensive, outraged or shut down.
We often think of “impossible” conversations as being about hard topics. But the truth is: conversations become impossible not because of what they’re about, but because of how our brains and bodies react to conflict.
If we want to reclaim the possibility of transformation—both in ourselves and others—we have to look at how we speak, what we carry into the room, and who we are becoming in the process.
Let’s examine a path forward; not a quick fix, but a way of staying relational, grounded, and grace-filled in the middle of tension. We’ll look at what neuroscience and spiritual formation teach us about:
- Escaping enemy mode
- Listening with empathy
- Speaking truth with courage
- And building bridges where others have built walls
In a divided world, learning to have healing conversations may be one of the most Christlike things we can do.
Enemy Mode and the Breakdown of Conversation
Most of us don’t recognize enemy mode until it’s too late. Our hearts race. Our faces harden. We feel the need to correct, defend, or dominate. Suddenly, the person across from us becomes “other.”
Jim Wilder describes enemy mode as a brain state that “produces relational blindness and keeps us from seeing people as fellow humans with value.” [2] It’s not just an attitude; it’s a neurobiological shift. Once triggered, the brain automatically prepares for defense rather than connection.
There are three types of enemy mode, ranging from simple irritability to intelligent hostility. But the core dynamic is the same: the relational circuits in the brain go offline. We stop seeing the other person as someone we are with and begin treating them as someone we are against.
This can happen in a split second… and it’s often nonverbal. A look. A tone. A memory. The brain’s fast-track warning system predicts, “This person is not safe,” and turns the conversation into a battleground.
The tragedy is that most “impossible conversations” begin here, not with the facts or beliefs in question, but with this underlying shift from relationship to rivalry. As Wilder notes, “While going into enemy mode is like falling down a hill, refrending is more like walking up one.” [3]
The good news? That hill can be climbed. But only if we first recognize enemy mode for what it is—and then choose a different path.
The Courage to Stay Relational
When enemy mode takes over, our impulse is to protect, persuade, or power through. What feels far less natural—but far more powerful—is to stay relational.
That’s where empathy comes in—not as a tactic, but as a posture of the heart. In Nonviolent Communication, Marshall Rosenberg describes empathy as “a respectful understanding of what others are experiencing… listening with our whole being.” [4] Instead of reacting or rebutting, we pause. We remain human, and we look for the humanity in the other.
Rosenberg calls this kind of empathy an antidote to life-alienating communication—language shaped by judgment, blame, reward, and punishment. These patterns don’t just harm relationships; they cut us off from our natural state of compassion.
From a neuroscience perspective, this is critical. The brain doesn’t calm down with logic; it calms down with safety. With compassion. With the presence of another person who sees us as worthy of connection, even in disagreement.
Jim Wilder offers a model called RARE to help us recover relational connection:
- Remain Relational
- Act Like Yourself
- Return to Joy Quickly
- Endure Hardship Well [5]
These habits don’t come easily in conflict. But they do create the kind of space where real conversations can happen; not just exchanges of ideas, but mutual transformation.
Jesus himself modeled this over and over. He didn’t shy away from hard truths, but He began with relationship. Whether engaging a Samaritan woman (John 4), a Pharisee named Nicodemus (John 3), or even Peter after his failure (John 21), He led with presence, not pressure.
And so must we. Staying relational in the face of tension is not a sign of weakness; it’s a mark of maturity.
Speaking the Truth with a Non-Anxious Presence
There comes a moment in almost every difficult conversation when we face a choice: Will I react, or will I respond?
This is where courage matters—not the courage to be forceful, but the courage to stay calm, clear, and connected. Edwin Friedman calls this differentiation: the ability to remain rooted in your own identity and convictions while staying emotionally present and non-reactive in the face of someone else’s anxiety or intensity.
He defines it this way:
“Differentiation is saying I when others are demanding we. It is containing one’s reactivity to the reactivity of others… maintaining a non-anxious presence in the face of anxious others.” [6]
In a world of emotional dominoes, where reactivity fuels reactivity, this kind of presence is rare—and transformational.
It also aligns beautifully with the way of Jesus. The Gospels show us a Christ who is clear about who He is, even when misunderstood or attacked. He doesn’t mirror the anxiety of those around Him. He doesn’t rush to fix or defend. He speaks the truth in love and without fear.
This is what it means to be spiritually grounded in conversation. Not to win an argument, but to witness to truth while remaining tethered to love.
It’s tempting to think that speaking boldly and staying relational are opposites. But in Christ—and in mature leadership—they are inseparable.
We speak the truth because we love.
And we love well by speaking the truth.
Golden Bridges and Moral Reframing
Even when we’re calm and connected, truth still requires wisdom in delivery, especially when the topic touches someone’s identity, values, or sense of morality.
That’s why Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay emphasize the importance of building Golden Bridges. These are conversational pathways that allow someone to change their mind without losing face. The authors write:
“Few people will admit they were wrong if they think humiliation will be the consequence.” [7]
This is especially true when beliefs are tied to moral identity, the deeply personal sense of “What kind of person am I?” In these moments, facts often backfire. What’s needed instead is dignity-preserving dialogue.
Golden bridges are simple but profound:
- Don’t shame people
- Transfer the conversation from a personal attack to a consideration of the issue at hand
- Provide a way for both people to cool down their anger
- Switches the conversation to a collaborative frame
- Relieves the pressure to have all the answers [8]
Alongside this, Boghossian encourages moral reframing: recasting your message in terms of the other person’s moral values. Based on research by Jonathan Haidt, these values include:
- Care vs. harm
- Fairness vs. cheating
- Loyalty vs. betrayal
- Authority vs. subversion
- Sanctity vs. degradation
- Liberty vs. oppression [9]
If someone values fairness above all, show how your perspective aligns with fairness. If loyalty is their priority, speak to that. It may feel like learning another language, but it builds trust and opens ears.
Even Jesus did this. When challenged, He often responded with questions, not declarations. His questions were calibrated, not to trap, but to reveal. “What do you want me to do for you?” “Who do you say I am?” These were not rhetorical tricks. They were relational invitations.
When truth is offered with humility, empathy, and grace, it becomes a bridge.
Joy, Identity, and the Way Forward
We often think the goal of a hard conversation is to convince or correct. But what if the deeper goal is connection?
The kind of connection that allows truth to land, not by force, but by invitation. The kind that sees the person behind the opinion. The kind that reflects Jesus.
At the heart of that connection is joy, the kind of joy Jim Wilder describes as “someone is glad to be with me.” Joy, not agreement, is the relational soil where transformation grows.
When we combine:
- Empathy that stays present when things get tense (Rosenberg)
- Courage that holds space for truth without anxiety (Friedman)
- Connection built on joyful attachment (Wilder)
- And skillful dialogue that honors dignity and identity (Boghossian)
…we begin to cultivate conversations that are no longer impossible. They are still difficult, yes. But they are sacred ground.
So next time you find yourself heading toward enemy mode—
Clenched fists. Shallow breath. The urge to prove or punish—
Pause.
Return to joy.
Choose empathy over judgment.
Ask a better question.
Build a golden bridge.
Speak the truth. In love.
Because in the end, our words are never neutral.
“Words are windows, or they’re walls.
They sentence us, or set us free…”
Let’s choose the kind that sets people free.
1 – Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd ed. (Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press, 2015), xviii.
2 – Jim Wilder and Ray Woolridge, Escaping Enemy Mode: How Our Brains Unite or Divide Us (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2022), 23.
3 – Wilder, 26.
4 – Rosenberg, 104.
5 – Wilder, 254.
6 – Rosenberg, 195.
7 – Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (New York: Da Capo Press, 2019), 77.
8 – Boghossian, 77-78.
9 – Boghossian, 172.
About the Author
Debbie Owen
Deborah C. Owen is an experienced spiritual director, Neuro-based Enneagram executive and life coach, disciple maker, professional writer, senior librarian, and long-time church Music Director and lay leader. She has earned the award of National Board Certification for teaching excellence, and a podcasting award, and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership degree through Portland Seminary at George Fox University. She lives in the backwoods of Maine with her husband and flat-coated retriever. She spends as much time as she can with their 3 grown children, daughter-in-law, and 2 small grandchildren. Find her online at InsideOutMinistries.info.3 responses to “Words Are Windows: Escaping Enemy Mode and Speaking the Truth in Love”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Debbie,
Great post, I appreciated the poem at the beginning. I can remember going to a Family Life Today marriage retreat years ago and the speaker reminding us that our spouse is not our enemy. I just shared that tidbit with my daughter as I was assisting her with some pre-martial counseling homework. It is a tidbit I have had to remind myself of not only in my marriage but in other relationships as well. The person standing in front of me is not an enemy.
I’m thinking about what you posted over the summer about your neighbor’s comments on leadership. it was obvious that she was concerned about preserving your relationship but still felt she needed to voice her ideas. Assuming that you have responded back to here since, as you reflect on that interaction, did you use any of Boghossian and Taylor’s techniques?
Hi Debbie,
How did you navigate a controversial dialogue with empathy? What was your technique – courage or empathy?
Hi Debbie, This is a rich post. I, too, reflected on RARE leadership in light of impossible conversations. I’d be interested in hearing what RARE quality you felt like Boghossian & Lindsay’s techniques most followed and which was/were missing in their tactics.