One Sunday evening, Good Shepherd Church was conducting its twice-yearly congregational meeting. Discussion was calm; a few nodding heads certified no hot issues were on the agenda.
Then, toward the end of the meeting, someone noted the music committee had asked for a 20 percent increase in budget. “What does this involve?” he asked.
The chairman of the music committee politely explained that the two part-time staff persons were overworked, and thus the committee had decided to hire a part-time director for the junior choir.
Immediately two people jumped to their feet. “Who authorized the music committee to increase the staff?” they demanded. People in the pews visibly stiffened. Two couples slipped out the back exit.
A member of the music committee angrily defended the proposal, in the process saying, “This congregation exploits the gifts of musicians!” and accusing several individuals of deliberately attempting to destroy “the finest church music program in this town.”
Though this explosion was sudden, the fuse had been smoldering a long time. The disagreement over salaried music staff at Good Shepherd was at least a decade old. Each year the music committee gradually increased the music budget, and every year members opposed to hiring music staff tried to sabotage the increases. Despite these annual behind-the-scenes skirmishes, the congregation scrupulously skirted open and direct discussion of the issue.
Now Good Shepherd Church had arrived where congregations that habitually avoid conflicts usually arrive. Long-bottled tensions erupt; the congregation is caught off guard.
For nearly a decade I have mediated church fights like this one, though usually I am not called in until the conflict has escalated far beyond that at Good Shepherd. My experience has taught me: Manage conflict, or it will manage you. Whenever churches have faced conflict openly, the congregations have grown stronger in the process. But whenever they have hidden from conflict, it has emerged when the congregations were weakest and least prepared. The longer the congregation hides, the more “political” and power oriented the struggle becomes, and the more destructive its impact.
Through dozens of tense congregational meetings, late-night phone calls, and painful letters, I have found some principles that have helped pastors and churches manage conflicts in positive, constructive ways.
Accept Conflict
The first, and most important, principle is to allow conflict and even encourage it. It’s a paradox, but if you want to experience less conflict in your congregation, try to have more. Invite differing views to be expressed.
Recently I spent a weekend with a church paralyzed over several issues, then spent the following weekend with another church responding with little polarization to the exact same issues. People in the first church felt bad about their disagreements. In fact, they viewed them as dangerous. When certain topics arose, voices quieted and bodies stiffened. People with known differences withdrew from each other, so when discussion did occur, it quickly turned hostile. What struck me was that while trying mightily to avoid conflict, this church was riven by tension.
The second church didn’t seem to try to hide its differences. I almost got the feeling people enjoyed the vigorous exchange of views. I mentioned this to the pastor, and he said, “I figure if you’ve got this many people growing together, you’re bound to have your share of differences.” It’s odd, but this church, which wasn’t trying to bury its conflict, actually seemed to have less of it.
People who fear conflict commonly respond to disagreements in one of these ways:
1. Spiritualizing-A pastor pulled me aside near the end of a weekend of intense effort to resolve a long-festering feud. “I suppose all this emphasis on getting things out in the open and discussing them isn’t all that bad,” he commented, “but I really don’t think it’s going to do us any good. What this church needs is not dialogue; we just need to get down on our knees and pray, confess our sins, and get our hearts right with God. That’ll take care of our conflicts!”
2. Denying-Tension had paralyzed the elders in one congregation for months. Increasingly they stopped communicating with each other and instead talked to other members about their frustration. When we called a meeting for elders to communicate directly, the member most distinguished for sullen withdrawal began with denial. “I don’t intend to say much,” she stated archly. “I’m here because I was asked to come. But I’ve given all this over to God. I don’t have problems with anyone here, and I don’t understand why everyone keeps fussing and complaining.”
3. Trivializing-“Why can’t these people be a little more mature?” moaned a congregational chairperson about a recent church tiff. “People are starving in our world, and we are surrounded with lost souls, yet here we sit, tearing up each other over ridiculous details. Why do we waste time over these petty objections?”
4. Guilt-tripping-“I feel as though I’m a failure as a pastor when there’s disharmony in the church,” confided a distraught minister. “Maybe I’m just not exercising appropriate leadership.”
These persons share the common assumption that conflict is primarily negative and destructive. While their wounds are many and undeniably real, what they don’t understand is their assumptions about conflict elicit the worst in others. Each of these approaches blocks communication and actually escalates feelings of desperation, misunderstanding, and anger.
The question is not whether we disagree but how we disagree. Jesus assumes there will be conflict among believers, as reflected in Matthew 18:15-20, and he outlines simple, practical procedures for resolving it. Paul is angry about conflict in 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, not because conflict exists, but because the disputing parties were resorting to the use of secular courts for resolution. “Surely there is someone among you wise enough to mediate!” he charges. Paul’s model of the church, a body of diverse members, is a conflict model. A hand and a foot will view a mountain hike quite differently! Diversity means conversing, challenging, listening, welcoming disagreement, and taking our differences seriously.
Throughout church history, conflict proves to be the arena of revelation. More than any other moment, God speaks to humans when they stand face to face in disagreement. Look at Acts 15-tremendous conflict, yet the setting in which God reveals stunning new intentions about the scope of salvation. Consider our church creeds: virtually all we call orthodoxy emerged in its present form only because of conflict.
No, not all conflicts lead to revelation. The potential for hurt, pain, and chaos is substantial. But let us begin by looking first for the goodness in conflict, not the darkness. If we rightly understand Scripture, church history, and human experience, we need not necessarily say, “Oh, no, here we go again!” We might realistically have the courage to say, “Well, what is God going to say to us this time?”
I often begin sessions with a church in conflict with a statement on 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Despise not prophecy, but test everything.” I stress the importance of people taking a stand on their views and also testing all perspectives critically. This kind of public acknowledgment of conflict, and acceptance of it, lays the foundation for the specific techniques for managing conflict.
Agree on the Process
What should you do first, after conflict explodes into the open, or better, after it is placed in the open by acknowledging early on that opinions differ?
Agree on the process-before trying to agree on solutions. That is, before discussing the viewpoints themselves, agree on a fair way to discuss the various viewpoints and come to a decision. It is much easier to agree on procedure than on issues.
By discussing procedures first, a foundation for cooperation is laid. It is usually not difficult to gain the support of 80 percent or more of a congregation for a proposed procedure if it is fair and impartial. When a process has been agreed upon, there is a better chance of gaining broad support for a solution. I have seen people who once strongly opposed a given solution support it ungrudgingly because they were satisfied their viewpoint had been heard.
On the other hand, I have seen people immediately reject solutions-that to me seemed wise and fair-simply because they felt left out of the process.
At the Good Shepherd meeting described earlier, the congregational chairperson was initially caught off guard, but prevented greater damage by moving the group to this important first step. He noted the different opinions and summarized each empathetically. Then he said, “I propose we lodge this issue with the church council and ask them to take leadership in resolving this disagreement.” Others liked the idea, and after a few minutes of discussion, the chairperson’s proposal was approved. Placing the conflict on the official agenda of the church prevents further avoidance and allows careful planning of succeeding steps.
The church council then formed a group to develop and propose a decision-making process for congregational approval. Such a committee should represent the various viewpoints on the issue. This means, however, everyone will be tempted to engage in little power games to “win” at the expense of others. The best way to reduce this temptation is to take half an hour during the first committee meeting and occasionally in later meetings to discuss the issue openly. Encourage members to view their job not as advocating a particular solution but setting up a process by which each view will be heard.
This kind of committee outlines, in writing, a proposed process, sometimes known as the “Agreement on Procedures.” The “Agreement” will be submitted to the congregation for approval before discussion of the issue begins. In their book, Church Fights, Paul Kittlaus and Speed Leas suggest four items that should be included in the Agreement: issues, goals, time line, and decision rule.
Issues: Specify the issue that needs to be decided. In the opening stages of discussion, people often disagree on what the real issue is. It is important that people agree on what they are disagreeing about before trying to seek solutions.
Goals: The Agreement should also state what the group would like to happen as a result of this effort. Surely one goal would be to understand the viewpoints of each group better. In many situations, another major goal would be to develop a specific recommendation that most of the congregation can accept.
Time line: The Agreement should lay out what will happen when. Probably the first event in the time line will be congregational approval of the proposed Agreement. The second event will be gathering viewpoints from all corners of the congregation. Specify how this will be done-questionnaires, interviews, group discussions, or all of these. Normally the third event would be the committee tabulating and reflecting on the congregational viewpoints. The fourth event would be the committee presenting for congregational approval a resolution they believe will be acceptable to the majority.
Decision rule: The Agreement should specify the rule by which the final decision will be made. Is a simple majority vote adequate? Or must there be greater support? A decision supported by 75 percent of the congregation is much easier to live with than one supported by 53 percent.
At Good Shepherd Church, the church council appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of three members of the council (one of whom was also head of the music committee), plus three other individuals in the congregation. In the course of three sessions, the ad hoc committee developed the following Agreement on Procedures:
Issue:
Voluntary service versus paid service in the congregation. (The ad hoc committee decided this was the key issue, not whether or not to increase the music budget.)
Goals:
1. To understand the implications of voluntary service versus paid service for our congregation, and to find God’s will for us in this issue.
2. To provide opportunity for members of the congregation to express their views on the issue.
3. To develop a proposal resolving the issue that is acceptable to as many members of the congregation as possible.
4. To discuss the issue openly, tolerantly, and flexibly in a spirit of Christian fellowship.
Process and time line:
1. September 12-Church council ad hoc committee presents Agreement on Procedures to congregation for approval or modification.
2. October 3-17-Congregation discusses issue. All members will have an opportunity to state their views and suggest solutions during this time.
a. October 3-Panel discussion of issue during adult Sunday school hour.
b. October 10-Small groups discuss issue and fill out questionnaire during evening service.
c. October 10-24-Ad hoc committee reviews results of small-group discussion and on October 24 briefly reviews preliminary findings at end of church hour. Individuals wishing to respond may meet with committee after church.
d. November 7-Church council ad hoc committee presents a resolution for official action to the congregation based on previously gathered information.
Decision rule:
A 66 percent affirmative vote is required by the congregation on any resolution recommended by the church council ad hoc committee.
What happened? The Good Shepherd ad hoc committee circulated copies of the proposed Agreement on Procedures in a special after-church meeting on September 12 and responded to the few questions that arose. The congregation then voted overwhelmingly to accept the Agreement on Procedures.
This process may seem lengthy or arduous to some. And, of course, hard work remains after the Agreement on Procedures is approved. But I have found repeatedly that congregations that begin in this fashion usually find the discussion process less divisive than they anticipated. One congregation I know that worked through this procedure had set a 60 percent affirmative vote as their decision rule. They were surprised and relieved to discover 87 percent of the congregation supported the recommendation that finally developed!
Minimize “Triangling”
Exacerbating every church conflict is a process psychologists call triangling. Person A is unhappy with Person B. Healthy communication habits, and indeed, adherence to Matthew 18:15-20, would bring A to communicate directly with B about the problem. The common and usually unconstructive alternative is A avoids B and instead confides his anger or frustration to a third person, C.
Person A feels temporarily relieved, but the problem remains unresolved. Person C also reaps substantial benefits. Recall how good it feels when someone confides a juicy, indignant tale about another person! People routinely associate feelings of honor, significance, wisdom, and power with being the C corner of a triangle. Thus, two-thirds of the people involved in triangling get immediate emotional payoffs. No wonder this maneuver is so common a response in conflict, and so difficult to resist.
In churches paralyzed by conflict, triangling is ubiquitous; all through such churches are people willingly playing the role of C. These people are perpetuating unresolved conflicts while, ironically, feeling helpful. “A feels so bad; he just needs someone to support and comfort him.”
Triangling is not always bad. Sometimes troubled persons need the counsel of others to gain perspective on a conflict. What matters most is that we teach people to recognize triangling when it occurs, and to consciously decide whether it is useful to talk about another person rather than with him or her. Knowing how to respond as a C when approached by others is crucial to being effective in relationships, especially when things are tense.
When is listening to Person A’s frustration constructive? (1) When the discussion focuses on people who are present (“What insights on yourself do you have, A, about why this relationship with B seems to be so difficult?”) or, (2) when the purpose is to restore direct communication (“How could you approach B about your concerns, or how can I help you prepare for this encounter?”).
Without these elements, triangling rarely proves beneficial. Often the most helpful thing C can say to A is, “From what you are saying, this has been a difficult situation for you. I would like to help, but I feel uncomfortable talking with you about this because B, who is the one who really needs to hear what you have to say, is not here. I care about both of you, and I want to see the two of you work this out.”
Many people find this kind of response difficult, because they fear upsetting A. And very often, they have already been snared into pledging secrecy for what A is about to tell them. In conflict settings, once you have pledged secrecy, you have formed an alliance with your partner and will usually be triangled. Church leaders particularly need to know when it is appropriate to pledge secrecy and when to desist. So long as pastors and lay leaders yield to requests “not to tell who told you this,” conflicts will fester.
So how can triangling be overcome? Speed Leas discovered an effective tactic. “Feel free to share stories,” he assures congregations, “but commit yourself to this congregational ground rule: All stories bear the name of their source; no anonymous tales. Thus, if I tell you a juicy tidbit, you are free to repeat it, but you and I both know that when you do, you will say, ‘Speed Leas told me that. … ‘ The gossipy introduction, ‘Don’t tell anyone I told you . . .’ is off-limits.” This approach won’t eliminate triangling, but it helps keep people accountable and makes them more cautious about information sharing.
Encourage Group Dialogue
One of the most important, and most difficult, aspects of congregational conflict management is getting issues into the open. Leaders and lay people fear open discussion will lead to an explosion, so they procrastinate talking about the conflict or avoid it entirely. Ironically, the longer a group avoids discussion, the more likely an explosion will indeed occur when the issues surface.
The fastest way I know to get to the issues paralyzing a church is to structure dialogue about the controversial issues in the presence of the entire church. While it feels risky to me as mediator, and especially to members of the church, I have discovered it to be less risky than it feels. Numerous ways to structure dialogue will reduce anxiety and enable thoughtful reflection, even when volatile issues are at stake. The key is to provide a structure that makes it unlikely, if not impossible, for members to fall into old patterns of feuding.
None of the options requires an expert in conflict management, though the discussion facilitator should be chosen carefully. He or she must be viewed as a trustworthy and caring person, and if not personally neutral about the issues at hand, must at least be known for setting aside personal biases to serve everyone’s interests. The facilitator must also be able to summarize in a few empathetic words what others have said. If no one in the congregation seems suited to the assignment, a person outside may be able to play such a role.
Here are three of my favorite tools for structuring group dialogue:
Interviews-Select one to three people from each perspective on the issue. In the presence of the entire group, interview them about their viewpoint. Try to relate to each warmly, keeping the tone that of a friendly, informal conversation. Paraphrase often what each person says.
You may wish to begin on a personal note to establish rapport: “Tell me a little about yourself,” or “Tell me what has happened to you this week.” Then ask for the person’s views, spoken only for himself or herself. Sample questions: “How do you view these issues personally?” “Tell me what is happening here from your perspective.” “In what ways do you at times feel misunderstood?” “In what ways would you personally agree or disagree with views already expressed here?”
List views on a chalkboard, or have an assistant do so, to enhance the sense that each viewpoint has been heard-the major goal at this point. If time allows, encourage direct dialogue between interviewees, especially in those moments when people speak calmly and thoughtfully or use genuine feeling statements (“I feel . . .”). Prompt direct dialogue with “I’d like to give you the opportunity to ask or say anything you feel would be helpful directly to Sam (the other party).” Or, “I’d like you to turn and say directly to Sam what you just said to me.”
You may wish to turn to the congregation and inquire if there are views not yet stated that someone wishes to add. Be prepared for the occasional outburst and respond with paraphrasing. Request that speakers come forward to the microphone, preferably yours, in order to discourage cheap hit-and-run attacks from the rear.
In most cases-and this is the real strength of the interviewing approach-if the interviewees have been carefully chosen to present all major viewpoints, the anxiety level of the group diminishes palpably during the interviews. Ideally, each person present will feel that his or her own viewpoint, or something similar, has been expressed by at least one of those interviewed. This reduces the inclination of excitable souls to jump into the fray and “set everyone straight.”
Group Spectrum-This exercise involves everyone, physically if not verbally. In a spectrum, the leader draws an imaginary line and designates one end of the room to represent one extreme viewpoint, and the other end an opposite extreme viewpoint.
Individuals are then asked to stand somewhere along this spectrum corresponding to their personal views. The spectrum quickly sketches a picture of group opinion.
Recently I was called to a church whose pastor had resigned under pressure. A group that supported the recently resigned pastor wanted to leave and start a new church. To move to the heart of the disagreement, and to involve everyone, I used a group spectrum. I announced that I knew one major issue in the congregation was the stated intention of a group in the church to start a new fellowship, and I wished to guide them in the discussion of the issue and what lay behind it. I designated one end of the room to represent those who definitely intended to leave the congregation and the other end, those who definitely intended to stay. Between the two points represented a range of intermediate views, like leaning toward leaving but unsure.
I gave everyone sixty seconds to decide where he or she wanted to stand. Then I asked everyone to get up and walk to the point that represented his or her views. The group gulped collectively. No one wanted to publicly reveal his or her biases. But chuckling nervously, everyone found a place. Once there, they were afraid to peek, to see where others stood. I encouraged them to take a good, long look, and after a minute or two invited people to share why they stood where they did. Responses came readily, with little acrimony, from across the room.
I found in this situation, as before, that physical position is remarkably effective in bringing diverse views into the open without hostility. People who normally communicate only in angry tones often seem able to chuckle and express themselves calmly about their position.
The group spectrum causes discussion with others in order to determine exactly which persons one should be standing between. You might want to bring together for discussion individuals closest to each other. For example, those at the poles of the spectrum form two groups, and those in the middle form a third group. This can be an effective way to organize for negotiation on disputed items, and it often empowers the middle group since it is frequently the largest.
Samoan Circle-This exercise is named after a community decision-making tool used in the South Sea Islands. Usually eight chairs are placed in a central point in the room. Five persons are chosen to serve as the core discussion group. They take their places in the circle and begin discussion of the chosen issue. Any other persons who wish to join are welcome to come forward and take one of the three “rotating” seats. If the vacant chairs are full, people wishing to speak may come forward and stand in a line behind the rotating seats. If the line is large, current occupants are expected to keep their comments brief.
In one church, we had narrowed the issues of conflict to four. I asked the two predominant groups to each select four people from the other group who they felt could effectively present the other group’s perspective. These two teams of four took their place in a semicircle with several additional rotating seats. This approach helped the congregation discuss the issues in a more peaceful, orderly way. The leader must be firm, however, that all discussion occur in the circle. If people begin reacting from outside the circle, goodwill degenerates rapidly.
These structured approaches bring conflicting views into the open; they allow people to state their opinions in a constructive, calmer way. Once views are in the open, they can be clarified, and people can determine what’s really important and what’s not.
Not What I Prefer but What I Can Support
The final stage in most church conflicts is to generate a list of possible options and decide on one. The church about to split that I mentioned earlier listed three options:
-stay together with ongoing discussion of key differences;
-separate into two independent churches;
-separate, but explore ways to support each other and cooperate where possible.
The first option seemed unrealistic because the new group had already met together several times and was enthusiastic about the need for a new church in the city. The second option was unattractive, for only a few wanted to relinquish all ties with people from their old fellowship. A straw vote established that most people supported the third option and genuinely wanted to find ways to cooperate with the other group.
This decision did not please everyone, and that’s true of nearly every decision resolving church conflict. My goal is not to reach a decision everyone prefers, but one everyone is prepared to support. Because this church worked to handle their conflict constructively, they were able to reach such a decision.
Near the end of my time with this group, I opened the floor for people to make statements of personal friendship, apologies, or confessions. For ten minutes, people rose one after another and offered confessions. Many months of misunderstanding and pain began to be healed in those moments. Since returning home, I have kept in touch with this church, and negotiations between the groups are going well. Church conflict such as this is always painful, but it can be constructive if we work to manage it well.
Ronald S. Kraybill is director of the Mennonite Conciliation Service in Akron, Pennsylvania.
PACIFYING PRICKLY PARISHIONERS
Fresh out of seminary, I worried about becoming bloodied by prickly parishioners. I’d heard the classic war stories: PASTOR SKEWERED BY OWN THREE-POINT SERMON or DEACONS WITHHOLD SALARY; MAKE POINT. I understood that some folks respond to their pastors like out-of-joint porcupines. Quills extended, they lurch forward, eager to make an impression.
Wondering how a veteran dealt with difficult people, I chatted with my mentor. John, in his eighties, exhibited a full shock of gray hair. If ever a preacher incarnated the old-fashioned notion of pluck, it was John, who combined it with puckish mischief. When I asked how he fought the porcupine wars in his decades as a pastor, John said, “I pray for my enemies. I pray for their early deaths!” Then he broke out in laughter.
Of course, John spoke in jest. He went on to say that ice-cold parishioners often melt when the preacher doesn’t heave snowballs back at them. “Thaw their icy hearts by offering a sunny word of encouragement,” he advised. “It works wonders.”
That was one pro’s contribution to my education. I later picked up a second strategy: Don’t make every battle your own, a lesson I learned in a conversation with a master in the art of cultivating human relationships-Norman Vincent Peale. I figured anyone who can hold together a Manhattan church for over fifty years must have some insight. After all, New Yorkers have been known to beef, bite, and bellyache. I had the chance to ask him about it.
Peale pointed out that when we enter the religious fray with difficult people, it angers us, eats away time for productive ministry, and creates even more vehement enemies.
“What’s the alternative?” I asked. “Must we just slink away from attackers?”
Peale replied, “I have always let my parishioners do the fighting for me. Changed lives will win the day. Persuasive parishioners who believe in your views are ten times-a thousand times-better in the heat of battle than clever, clenched theological arguments.”
Maybe that’s one reason why Jesus went to the mountains to pray. This allowed his disciples, not the easiest collection of people to get along with, to work on each other. Peers are better than pastors at rebutting most parishioners’ complaints. It’s amazing how irked folks will sometimes accept abrasive words from pew sitters, but if the pastor utters a peep along the same lines, out come the tar and feathers.
In our church, we urge people to write their gripes on pew cards. We promise to read every signed card before the elders. Sometimes the cards have teeth that leave an imprint of dissatisfaction on my hide. But it is not my job to respond. After being read, the cards are parceled out to appropriate committee chairpersons. They deal with the gripes, and prickly people will usually listen to these peers.
Recently a parishioner lambasted me because I didn’t have “an old-fashioned Mother’s Day sermon”; I dared talk about our ministry to single parents. So we passed on the beef to the worship committee chairman who visited the irritated worshiper and explained our desire to help single-parent families. “Perhaps you know some who have this solo responsibility,” he fished.
“Yes,” responded the woman. “My daughter goes to school with their kids.”
The chairman explained we wanted to avoid messages about “mom and dad with two kids in the nest loving Jesus” that would alienate these people. The parishioner began to understand our thinking. The conversation worked wonders. My involvement might have only added fuel to the fire.
When difficult parishioners get me down, I sometimes wish I were Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Living alone on a desert island away from difficult people would be paradise. But Defoe’s other writings snap me back to reality. “Though I don’t like the crew,” he wrote, “I won’t sink the ship. In fact, in time of storm I’ll do my best to save it. You see, we are all in this craft and must sink or swim together.”
Together-that’s the rub with difficult people. But when I’m gentle in return and let others blunt the worst stabs, ministry continues-together.
-Jack R. Van Ens
Arvada (Colorado) Presbyterian Church
Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
