Innovative Conflict Resolution

Perhaps the most basic question someone has to answer when deciding whether to propose or agree to mediation is simply, “Why mediate?”   This is also a very important question: Unless the parties have resolved this question for themselves, there will continue to be uncertainty about the process, uncertainty about value of the outcome, and a lack of commitment to the process.  You may not be 100% convinced, but at least you understand the pros and cons enough to give the mediation process a chance to succeed.  In deciding whether not not mediation is your next step, here are some considerations:

1. Do you need outside help? If you are considering seeking mediation, chances are you have a situation that you have not been able to resolve on your own.  This, therefore, is the first reason to consider mediation.  You should also consider your alternatives, which include not resolving the issue, hiring an attorney,  and perhaps filing a lawsuit or small claims action.  Depending on the nature of the issue, there may be other alternatives to consider.  You will note that of the options I listed, most include obtaining some outside help.
2. Cost. While some mediation venues are free, most mediators need to eat, too, so they charge an hourly fee.  The general cost of a mediator is often cheaper than hiring an attorney, especially if you split the cost with the other party, especially because the entire process of mediation is focused on resolving the issue.  There are some neighborhood mediation programs that provide free mediations, as do many Small Claims courts (after you file your action).  You might feel that having legal assistance is worth the cost, even if you purpose to mediate the issue at some point.  Try to think down the road of each of your list of options, and try to estimate a ballpark cost for each one. Also consider back-up plans, if your first option isn’t successful.
3. Time. Many court systems are quite backlogged. Even filing for arbitration can mean 6 to 9 months before you see resolution (not to mention the added costs). Mediations can be scheduled fairly quickly, often within days, and the parties control the timing of the process.
4. Control. One of the main advantages of mediation is that unlike a court or arbitration process, the parties maintain control of the process.  The mediator works for you, not the other way around.  You decide what issues to address, and you have control over whether or not the issue is resolved.  If you are not pleased with the direction the mediation is going, you can call it off.
5. Relationships. Mediation has the potential to preserve, or even enhance, the relationship between the parties, because the process is collaborative (focused on working together) rather than confrontational (working against each other).  One goal of mediation is to give the parties a better understanding of each other, which often will result in less problems in the future, if the relationship is ongoing.
6. Confidentiality. A court proceeding becomes public knowledge.  A mediation is as confidential as the parties wish, and often confidential information can be shared with the mediator without divulging it to the other party. This can assist the mediator in finding ways to reach an agreement and protect the parties privacy.

To keep things honest, I must concede that there are some factors that might cause you to choose an option other than mediation:

1. The Process is Voluntary. The mediator cannot (in a true mediation) shove a settlement or agreement down anyone’s throat, and a good mediator will not tell the parties who is right or what the “right” solution is.  Resolution is up to the parties.  It is possible that no agreement will result, if the parties cannot or will not come to an agreement.
2. Enforcement. Essentially, there is none. The mediator has no authority to enforce an agreement.  Generally a memo summarizing the agreement will be drawn up, and perhaps an actual signed agreement will result.  However, enforcing an agreement might mean going to court.
3. No Legal Decision will Result. If you need a court ruling on an issue, you won’t get this in mediation.  On the other hand, you don’t run a risk of getting a contrary ruling, which is always a possibility.
4. Waste. If you or the other party is not ready to address the issues, you may waste your time and money.  However, if someone is going to make the investment of time and money, they are usually willing to put some effort into moving the process forward.

Make A List

If you have a situation serious enough to consider investing the time and money to try to resolve it, make a list of your options, and list the pros and cons of each.  You might call an attorney for advice, although keep in mind that attorneys also want your business.  If an attorney proposes you retain him to take a certain course of action, ask him for a proposal and budget.  If you talk to a mediator and he tries to talk you into mediation, ask him for a budget as well.  Mediation might be a good first step, but be aware of your options.

Someone once said, “Where two or more are gathered together, there will be conflict.”  As someone who has been involved in ministry and church leadership for over twenty years, I think there is some truth in this.  While I would like to believe a good church would be conflict-free, with everyone “in one accord,” the New Testament reveals that even the Apostles were not immune to conflict.

Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing; Paul exhorts the Galatians to confront heresy, and tells the church at Corinth, “…there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.”  Conflict can be the result of sin, but it is often the reality of our “seeing in part;” sometimes we just have differing points of view.  Disagreements and discord are simply a part of the human condition; as long as the church is comprised of humans, there will be conflict.

In a 2000 Faith Communities Today survey of 14,301 churches, 75% of churches reported having some level of conflict in the five years prior, with 25% reporting what they considered to be serious conflict.  A follow up study found that over two-thirds of churches experiencing conflict reported a loss of members as a result, and about 25% suffered the loss of a leader.

While conflict can be beneficial (conflict resulted in many of our great creeds and theological statements), it has the potential to be damaging to both the church and the individuals involved.  Often it seems the real damage results not from the issue in conflict, but by how the conflict is handled.  As with any adversity, conflict can either make us better or bitter; how we approach conflict may be the factor that determines whether a church is strengthened or shattered.

Conflict doesn’t go away – People do

One of the worst things a pastor or leader can do when he or she recognizes there is discord is to ignore that it exists.  Conflict doesn’t just go away – people do. People usually don’t leave churches because they see something they like better; they leave because they are unhappy where they are. And, if those who leave are in close relationship with others in the church, they often aren’t the only ones who leave.  Certainly there are people who simply can’t be pleased, and they will come and go.  However, discord of any nature can be poison to a church; while we can never agree with everybody, we can at least make sure people are understood, and understand us.

The next worst thing a pastor or leader can do is to take an authoritarian approach, either by “pulling rank” and issuing his verdict on the issue, or by enacting a “don’t talk” rule (labeling any discussion of the issue as “gossip”).  Besides being un-Biblical, it won’t work for everyone and these attempts to silence the opposition will only add fuel to the fire. Again, unresolved conflict will not simply go away; however, people will go away, and possibly lead others to follow. The only way to deal with discord or conflict in a church is to address it, as Paul said, so “those who are approved may be recognized among you.”

There are obviously other counterproductive ways of dealing with conflict, and they are not by any means unique to churches.  See “Ten conflict resolution mistakes to avoid.”)

Conflict is not sin

It is important for churches to recognize that conflict is not put in the same category as sin; many churches err by attempting to be Biblical in following the process outlined by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. Matthew 18 specifically deals with someone who “sins against you,” not someone who simply disagrees with you.  Calling on Matthew 18 automatically presumes that one side of a dispute is in sin. That being said, a process that facilitates communication and has reconciliation as its goal is essential.

If two people cannot resolve an issue by themselves, it is wise to suggest the use of a third party to act as a mediator or facilitator.  The results of a poll conducted by Christianity Today indicated that of congregations which found themselves in conflict, 78% waited too long to seek outside assistance. Many churches simply don’t recognize the seriousness of the conflict until it erupts.  The use of a mediator to work through issues differs significantly from the Matthew 18 approach, which is focused on convincing someone they have sinned and encouraging them to repent. A mediator remains neutral, taking the side of neither party. In both cases, of course, reconciliation is the ultimate goal.

Neutrality

It is essential that a mediator be completely impartial (and remain so), which often becomes difficult in church settings. If the third party has an opinion on the issue or has a stake in the outcome, he or she might favor one side. Often the dispute is between those in the congregation and the pastor and/or leadership; in these situations, it may be impossible to find a true neutral party within the church and someone completely outside the church should be called in.

Going even further, it may be wise to bring in someone from outside the denomination, to completely avoid any potential conflict of interest (conflict isn’t bad, a conflict of interest is).   A mediator should not come in any position of authority – not even a hint of it.  A mediator’s job is not to “fix” the problem or decide who is right or wrong; a mediator is a servant, whose job is to facilitate communication, resolution and reconciliation.  There are church consultants/mediators who will issue their “findings,” acting more as an arbitrator or judge.  This may resolve the issue, but it likely won’t result in reconciliation. Rather, the “losing” side will likely leave, or just “smolder” within the congregation, poisoning those around them.

The goal is reconciliation

I can’t emphasize enough the principle that reconciliation – restoring understanding between people in disagreement – should be the goal in resolving any dispute between Christians.  As Paul wrote in II Cor. 5:16-19:

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

I know countless people for whom reconciliation has never happened. I find it difficult to understand how churches can continue where there are unresolved issues, especially when the wounded are left behind as some sort of “spiritual roadkill.”  It is a very poor testimony indeed, and more than that, should prevent us from continuing our worship activities.  Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:23-24,

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Church conflict is a fact of life, whether resulting from sin or from differing viewpoints. Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing; however, every conflict has the potential of resulting in sin and suffering if not handled properly. If we really believe that we have been given the ministry of reconciliation, it behooves us to look at issues of conflict in church as an opportunity to see God’s grace at work as issues are resolved and relationships are restored.