Innovative Conflict Resolution

In my experience, there are two general categories of church boards:  The first type is essentially democratic; board members are nominated and voted on by the congregation, and they serve for a specified term.  The second is where the members are hand-picked, either by the Pastor or through a process involving the existing board.  I have had had the privilege of serving on both types of boards. While they differ, they are similar in one very important aspect: They both involve conflict between the members. (There is one type of board where there is no apparent conflict, and I’ll deal with that later.)

A new way of looking at conflict

My definition of conflict might be a bit different from yours. I recently read an article by a mediator who went to great lengths to explain how ordinary differences of opinion are not conflicts.  I think he couldn’t be more wrong. The point he was making is that only real conflicts require a mediator; however, anyone who has served on a church board for any length of time can testify that these seemingly small differences of opinion can be quite costly in terms of both time and relationships. I can’t count the number of times that a board meeting has been “hijacked” by a small difference of opinion, sending the meeting into overtime. Of course, the author was correct in that not all disputes require a mediator – especially if boards and committees are trained in how to approach such differences of opinion and use them to become more productive, not less.

By my definition, conflict is merely what happens when two different points of view meet.  At its most benign, conflict is what we know as communication.  When we communicate, we encode both factual and emotional information into words, facial expressions and body language hoping that others will be able to decode the information appropriately.  Communication could be described as the process of overcoming any differences that exist between people.

Depending on these differences and the complexity of the information being conveyed, this process could be rather effortless (almost seeming like mind-reading), or it might prove to be quite difficult.  Factors impacting the success of communication include culture, age, sex, education, interests, personal tastes and the thousands of experiences each of us has had.  All of these impact how we interpret information, and explains why people can draw very different conclusions from the same information.

A Matter of Scale

Any time we try to communicate a thought to someone who doesn’t share a necessary frame of reference, we have conflict.  There is a barrier – perhaps quite small – that we must overcome.  The more complex the issue being discussed, and the more diverse the participants are from one another, the more conflict we will experience.

The difference between a friendly conversation about the weather and a heated argument over church policy is for the most part an issue of scale.  The problem is the same – differences in perspective – but the barrier(s) change.

However,  the inherent qualities of some relationships can also impact the type of conflict that will be experienced.  An issue which might ordinarily be an interesting intellectual exercise for two recent acquaintances might turn into something quite emotional in the context of a marriage.  Likewise, discussions between members of a church board can become quite emotional because they can involve issues of theology, Biblical interpretation, and personal conviction, all things about which people tend to feel quite strongly.  Conflict, it seems, is in the mind of the beholder.

The Importance of Conflict

There are many Christians who, in trying to follow Christ’s admonitions to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies, have come to believe that any sort of disagreement and conflict among Christians is wrong.  However, there are New Testament examples of conflict indicating that not all conflict is wrong.  In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul writes

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,  for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Some translations imply that Paul was being sarcastic here, and he might have been; however, Paul himself was no stranger to conflict.  Acts 15:36-40 tells the story of Paul’s “sharp disagreement” with Barnabas over John Mark; they apparently didn’t employ the services of a mediator, and the matter was resolved by Paul and Barnabas splitting up. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul tells of another conflict, this time with Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. …

And, according to Paul, there’s even a place for anger in the church:

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. Eph. 4:25-27

There are a couple of things we can learn from these passages. First, it is clear that even Apostles can have differences of opinion; and if they can, so can church leaders and board members.  Second, an open, frank discussion of the issues is beneficial – and even essential. If differences of opinion are not discussed, there are consequences:

1. The truth will not be revealed
2. Error will be allowed to continue
3. Anger, bitterness and resentment can take root

Furthermore, Church history shows us the benefits of a healthy approach to conflict (as well as many wrong approaches to conflict).  The Nicene Creed is a great example: if it were not for the dispute argued by Arius and Athanasius in 325AD, we might not have such a concise expression of the Christian faith.

The Conflict Conversation

The process of working through differences of opinion in a church board setting is not difficult from a technical viewpoint; it is really just a conversation.  Once again, the main difference is in scale.  For example, you might meet someone from a different culture at one of your church functions. Knowing that they will have very different frames of reference than you do, you go out of your way to understand them, and help them to understand you.  You try to use context clues to define words they use, and you ask questions to clarify what they are saying. You also choose your words wisely, and make sure that they are understanding what you are saying.

This is essentially what we need to do in conflict situations.  The key word is understanding.  People hold opinions for reasons; the stronger the opinion, the more important it is that we make an effort to understand why they hold that opinion.  We may find that the real issue is something else entirely.   It has been said that an obstacle can either be a stumbling block or a stepping stone; we should learn to approach conflict as a learning and growing opportunity, a chance to progress rather than as an obstacle to progress.

Reality and Church Boards

The reality of church boards is that they are usually comprised of ordinary people, most of whom have no training in managing conflict. They may be skilled in various aspects of business, and they may be managers and CEOs – but that doesn’t mean they are skilled at dealing with conflict.  The reality is that even in the business world, including experienced managers, have very little if any understanding of how to deal with conflict.

The good news is that it’s not difficult to learn how to work with conflict. With a little understanding of some basic elements and how different people respond to conflict, and some work in building a collective approach to working with conflict, a team can learn to use differences of opinion – conflict – to build each other up and strengthen relationships, not to mention saving time and making better decisions.

Next: Some free tips about conflict management, and the dangers of no conflict.

There seems to be a rule in many households (like ours) that leftovers are not to be thrown out until they’re moldy or otherwise inedible.  We will leave the container for several days, telling ourselves that “someone will eat this,” but knowing full well that in reality, no one will.   Eventually, circumstances will make the decision for you.

Most people deal with conflict like they deal with leftovers:  They know it’s there; they can see that it will become a smelly, rotten disaster.  Where the situation could be salvaged and potentially turned into something positive, inactivity allows conflict to get to the point where an expert needs to be brought in.  Conflict is, in deed, a lot like leftovers.  Neither one just goes away on its own, or improves with age.

Agree to disagree?

Whenever you have a group of people working together, you will have conflict.  Even when you have reached consensus on an issue, there’s a good chance that there are sufficient differences in perspective that some amount of disagreement still exists.  If your discussion was handled well, you have discovered the areas of disagreement, and all parties are satisfied that the areas are insignificant, or that they will be dealt with in some manner.  If, however, consensus was reached without dealing with the remaining issues, they could grow and fester and cause problems at some point down the road.

Plan to disagree

Knowing that there will be disagreements within any relationship (the more people involved, the more potential for disagreement), it makes sense to acknowledge this within the group, and establish guidelines for discussion that diminish the potential that these pockets of disagreement – that will exist – will be able to be dealt with in a positive manner.

Leftovers, whether in the fridge or in relationships, are best not ignored.  What’s in your fridge?

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.