Category: Bringing about Change

A Case Study on Church Conflict

First: Review the 7 Levels of Conflict

Church conflict happens in lots of places. Understanding the dynamics and what can be done needs practice. The following case study is a chance for you to put theory into practice.

Review the Case Story

Background

Blessed Peace Church is located in Keiffer, a small town. This congregation has been in existence for over 135 years. There is a sense of wellbeing in the greater community and the population has been growing steadily in recent years due to the high quality of life offered. Keiffer has a college, a new telecommunication center for a large insurance company and an established manufacturing factory nearby that employs a lot of people. Because of these factors, new people are moving into the area alarming older residents with the need for new schools and other services. Change is happening despite growing opposition.

Current Reality

This growth has also brought about challenges in the congregation over the last 5 years.  Once a small church, Blessed Peace has now grown in size (Average Weekly Attendance 115) and style offering a full program for children, youth and adults.  Its ministry has developed, stretching the budget and space needs. There is now a growing college student program that is led by a new member, Charles Tony. Mr. Tony has been a member of the congregation for less than 2 years and has established an effective ministry with students that totals 45 each Sunday. He tends to work best alone and values growth.

Pastor Martha Rowlings has been at the church for 6 years and is now receiving a steady stream of complaints about the Student Ministry from older members. They share that this new group is not sharing space well, they consume a part of the budget that could be used on other ministries and seem not to appreciate established leaders or approved ways for doing things.

What Happened

At a recent Church Council Meeting, Mr. Tony made a request on behalf of the students requesting that a second worship service begin next month. They would meet on Sunday evenings in the Fellowship Hall and offer a contemporary style of praise and song. He would take the responsibility to find musicians and promote this new venture on behalf of the congregation. When Pastor Rowlings, who did not know about this request in advance, asked that the congregation form a task group of 7 members of the church (older members and students) to further study this matter to gain support and to properly organize this activity, Mr. Tony objected. He stated that if the church did not approve his request, he would quit and the students would leave.

A heated debate occurred that raised all the underlying issues that the congregation was struggling with over this ministry: lack of communication, the difference of perspectives, allotment of resources, confusion and a desire to do things the way they have been done in the past.  While no one opposed the request, some expressed doubts that the request was brought before the Council properly and with the support of the Pastor, as it should be. Assumptions and insults followed over whether the proper process was followed. What was the impact on the budget expected to be? The congregation wanted to support student ministry but not be held hostage.

In frustration, the Council Chair finally deferred the matter until the next meeting. He suggested that the Pastor and Mr. Tony meet together during the week to work out a proposal that would be beneficial to both the students and the church. Mr. Tony did not show up for that meeting.

Afterwards…

People began to talk and take sides. Some believed that the student ministry was taking over the church and needed to be more respectful. Mr. Tony had overstepped his boundaries. Other leaders wanted to do all they could to support the newer members and suggested that a second worship service would help alleviate tensions between the 2 groups. My Tony did bring new energy to the church and the young adults responded well.

Sadly, nobody knew what to do to resolve the matter or the conflict that led to the place that they now find themselves. So they call you…

Discussion Questions

  1. What level of conflict do you think the church is encountering and why?
  2. What would you suggest be done to resolve the tensions and bring about a restored trust and wellbeing to the congregation?
  3. Is there a way to meet the needs of both the older members and students? Can you see a way forward?

Understanding and Working Through the 7 Levels of Conflict

Conflict occurs when 2 or more people or ideas try to occupy the same place at the same time.  Understanding the 7 Levels of Conflict helps you understand the root causes and how to respond appropriately.

Note:  if a situation is mishandled, the level of conflict escalates. So it is always best to recognize the level and address it in a timely manner.

 

Level 1: Peace in the Valley

Level 1 is basically the phase where all is well.  Ministry is happening. Nothing is wrong and people work well together.  Unfortunately, this level is fleeting – it needs attention to thrive.

Possible responses include:

  1.  Hold a shared vision before the group
  2. Monitor actions between people and groups
  3. Encourage creativity
  4. Establish a Behavioral Covenant (link)
  5. Practice good communication – use “I” statements

Level 2:  We Have a Problem to Solve Together

Level 2 is all about having a mutual problem to solve.  It’s about information. Perhaps there is a new ministry that needs space in the church or there is now a need for a nursery. At this phase, there is a high level of respect and trust.  You won’t find any personal attacks here.  The focus is on the present and what is possible.  You may notice some misinformation. People may not understand the need for a new ministry.  Perhaps an older Sunday school class is the perfect spot for the nursery because of its proximity tot he Sanctuary.

Possible responses include:

  1.  Focus on the facts
  2. Define the problem
  3. Share information
  4. Encourage collaboration to search for the best options to resolve the problem

At Level 2 it is important to train people on how to work through disagreements.  Set clear boundaries.  Be hard on the issue and soft on people.  Work for a win-win solution.

Level 3: We disagree but I want to look good!

Conflict can be caused by funding challenges and where the money is spent.  Offering a second worship service to reach new people.  Even setting a vision for the future can cause tensions to flare.  A disagreement about the strategies and methods used to accomplish a goal can upset people if not handled well. Even the process you use to reach an important decision is not received well.

At this level, people are self-protective and the problem becomes secondary.  They form sides and want to be right or save face.  The goal is to solve a disagreement yet you will notice that there is a record kept of wrongs against people.  Triangulation occurs and trust suffers.  People sometimes cast doubts on other people’s intent.  Things begin to get messy.

Possible responses include:

  1.  Stay focused on common goals and ground
  2. Stay in the moment
  3. Help people seek to understand one another
  4. Ask clarifying questions
  5. Express feelings rather than opinions
  6. Rebuild trust
  7. When necessary: apologize!

Level 4:  We’re in a competition and I want to win!

At this level of conflict, different goals in a group are usually the culprit. You will notice that people are out to win and get their way regardless of what it does to others.  Mutual goals are not supported at this level.  It seems like people are in a contest to win by any means possible.

When power is misused and manipulation occurs, people take sides.  There is “us” vs “them” mentality.  Assumptions flourish. Personal attacks happen. An example of this level is trying to block a second language congregation for using your facility.  It may be that a neighboring church had a fire and needs a place to worship.

Possible responses include:

  1.  Agree on ground rules
  2. Set mutually acceptable goals
  3. Talk separately with the various parties involved to clarify assumptions and check reality.  Discern the needs, objectives, and challenges of the groups involved.
  4. Use liturgical means to bring about healing (prayers of confession, anointing, etc.)
  5. Call in a crisis team or a trained facilitator to help people work through their situation in a just manner.

Level 5:  We will protect ourselves – You must leave!

This level of conflict is often directed at a Pastor or new members who come with different ideas on how to accomplish things.  It tends to focus on the norms or things that we believe.

In this situation, people want to protect their group.  They feel that there way of doing things or their core beliefs are being threatened.  Tensions escalate from the last level as people begin to plot to get rid of someone or a group.

You may notice that there are now organized factions that are causing people to fight or flee.  “You” statements are voiced.  People feel attacked and conflict becomes personal.  Some members feel uncomfortable with what is happening and panic – others leave.

Appropriate responses include:

  1.  Separate people from the issues
  2. Allow people to leave with dignity
  3. Surface majority and minority views
  4. Set boundaries
  5. Use good organizational processes
  6. Generate options for mutual gain
  7. Focus on interests not positions
  8. Hire a mediator

Level 6:  We’re at war and I will destroy you!

When things get out of hand and you reach this point, it is painful to everyone involved.  Groups want to destroy the other and are out for revenge.  Core values seem under attack. Deep positions become intense. There is actual talk of eradicating the opposition.

At this level, you will notice several things:  people forget that caused the conflict in the first place, issues become causes, people think the ends justify the means.  They become fanatical.  Positions deeper.

An example of this level that I see most often is getting rid of your pastor.  It’s not enough to get them “fired” – some have contacted the next congregation considering their call. Congregations that reach this point often split.

Possible responses include:

  1.  Provide a cooling-off time
  2. Stand down dysfunctional leaders for a set time (i.e. they can’t serve for a year, or until they receive training, etc.)
  3. Hire a neutral arbitrator and agree to split or separate
  4. Have a peace-keeping force (neutral third party)
  5.  Design a treaty the parties will agree to keep.
  6. Troublemakers must be disempowered or asked to leave

Level 7: Mutual Destruction

The name of the level says it all.  This is where a congregation is no longer viable.  Earlier attempts to resolve the conflict were not successful. A judicatory officer may then be invited to come and help disperse assets and other resources so they can be used in ministry by others.

Sadly, I witnessed this level in a suburban church.  The congregation was growing quickly and decided to build a new educational building. After much discussion, it was decided that the space would be used for children and youth ministry.  Money was raised.  As the building was completed, a small group made the decision to move the adults into a nice, new space.  Feeling betrayed, parents of children and youth threatened to leave if the church leaders did not honor their agreement.  When the Church Council refused, the parents and their families left leaving only a handful behind to pay the mortgage.  Unable to make payments,  the church building was put up for sale and the congregation disbanded.

Conclusion

It is essential to recognize the level of conflict and respond appropriately.  It teaches us how to work through difficult situations with a sense of grace and purpose.  When the level of conflict is managed well, everyone wins and the congregations become resilient.

Community based decision-making process – 1st step: Preparation

Be prepared for anything

A sound decision-making process needs good preparation. So put in place the steps to be effective. This series of four posts walks you through the steps required for effective community based decision-making. The first step is preparation. Step 2 is invitation. Step 3 is deliberation and decision.The final step 4 is to implement the decision.

How you begin the work of making decisions affects how you complete it. Preparation is the crucial first step. “The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together” expands on this material in pages 86 – 92; and the Checklist on page 184. You can get your copy from Amazon.

Preparation

In this step of the process focus on organisation. Therefore give attention to the following elements. Then you will cover all the important parts of this phase. Overlooking any of the following six steps can lead to significant negative consequences. Do not underestimate the value of good preparation!

  1. Name the decision to be made

    People need to know what is being asked of them. So put clearly into words the issue, and the form of the proposal. This clarifies what is being considered. Then people can pray and think wisely about the issue.

    Provide information about the possible decision (i.e. the proposal). Also include how and when the decision will be made. People in an organisation are more likely to accept a decision if there is transparency. People need to understand and trust the process or they will want to go over the issue again and again. So tell them the process!

    You have told people the issue / proposal being considered. They know when it will be considered ,and the process that will be used to come to a decision. In addition people need to know who is making the decision. In a local church context this may seem obvious. However when a decision is contentious it is well worth reminding the wider group who has been trusted to lead in this area of decision-making. This is a way of building confidence and trust. If there is an external facilitator involved it is important to share, widely, who they are and why they have been selected.

    The first stage of preparation is to let the decision makers, and those affected by the decision, know what is happening. Be as clear as you can.

  2.  Design the Process

    Consider forming a Process Planning Group to assist in this task. This group will take the leadership (perhaps the responsibility) for designing an effective process. Their role is to draw a road map for the journey towards discernment. On this map will be:

    + Communication strategies for the community affected by the decision.

    + Communication strategies for the decision makers.

    + A process for use within the meeting. It will cover information sharing, ways to explore an issue, strategizing about how to include all voices and how to generate creative options to resolve the matter, etc.

    + The timeline for making a decision – it doesn’t all have to be in one meeting!

  3. Fill key leadership roles

    Name the meeting chair (this is often a person already elected). If you decide to have small group discussion as a part of the process, design the groups and ensure they are inclusive. Recruit small group leaders and schedule as many training sessions as required to make them ready. When making decisions on matters that have a profound impact on your organisation we recommend that you utilize a trained facilitator to guide the process.

  4. Support the entire process with prayer and other spiritual practices

    Don’t forget to call a season of prayer, and if appropriate, fasting for the entire process. If there are Bible passages that people can helpfully study and meditate on, make these known. Immerse your community in the process. Provide knowledge about what is happening. It is nothing less than discerning the will of Christ for His church on this issue, in this place, at this time. This is a spiritual undertaking.

  5. Set Meeting Guidelines

    Be clear about who can participate in the process. Also be able to say what they need to know in order to participate. Now is the time to list respectful ways to work together (listen deeply, ask clarifying questions, be in a spirit of prayer, etc). If you don’t have a Behavioral Covenant now may be a good time to make one. Make these guidelines known well ahead of time.

  6. Provide a safe environment to meet

The location of the meeting matters. The space you choose should allow for people to clearly see and hear each other. We recommend setting the room up in a circular pattern to promote a sense of community. If necessary have a sound system. Think about hospitality and comfort – respect and care for the people who are making the decision.

If you do not already have one, consider establishing a behavioral covenant to guide respectful interactions with people. If you have one ensure that it is before people and they commit to following it.

Do not assume that people know to communicate well with one another. Encourage people to listen before speaking, to ask clarifying questions so they understand what is said, not to monopolize the conversation, etc.

Conclusion

If you take  time to prepare your decision-making process, you will lay the groundwork for a good experience and make better decisions. The goal of your preparation is to give people confidence in the process and therefore to be better able to accept the outcome.

 

Politics and Consensus

politicsPolitics and Consensus

Politics is full of conflict. Observers call out for greater collaboration rather than political point scoring. People understand that as a society we have too many shared problems to enjoy the luxury of opposing the ideas of others for no good reason. Most people long for our leaders to constructively engage together in a search for shared solutions.

I am often asked if consensus decision-making processes can work in a political environment. Well, it depends!! The first observation that I make is that consensus can only be built if there are shared values. That usually get a knowing laugh and the assumption that consensus processes cannot work in politics.

In Australia, it is very difficult to see shared values between our political parties. Maybe it is because we are in a national election campaign that makes the aggressive rejection of each other’s ideas more strident. The “necessity” to create a product differentiation between the policies of the different parties in order to attract votes at elections brings out the worst in our politicians.

If we understand the political process as the pursuit of power then clearly there can be no shared values. In that context, there has to be a winner and a loser. So is consensus building doomed to be relegated to the fringes of society? Or is there a chance that it could take over the central power centres of our society?

Options for Politicians and Consensus

In the United States until the last 15 to 20 years there was often the capacity for bipartisan solutions to issues. The phrase ‘working across the aisle’ was the real experience of US political life. This is in stark contrast to the Westminster system of government that arose in England and is used throughout its former colonies. In that system parties always vote as a bloc and if a member of a party votes with the other side they can be thrown out of their party.

So in the US, and probably other countries too, there have been experiences of parties working together to achieve shared goals. In countries where this is the experience then there is a history and practices to draw upon which support seeking after consensus.

Even though the Westminster system has built into it the requirement to be oppositional to the other side, not everything is so black and white. There are many things on which all the major political parties in Australia agree. Foreign policy is not a seriously disputed space, opposition to the death penalty is unquestioned, none of the major parties opposes access to free health care and to cheap prescription drugs, and the list could go on. So another ground that might encourage consensus seeking is to recognise those areas where there had once been a difference and now there is general agreement. What lessons can be learned from the past that can encourage us into the future?

In addition to these things, there is also a place for pragmatism as a driver for seeking consensus. Sometimes opponents can agree to work of a common project because it matters to them for different reasons. In the United States, an area where there is an increasing willingness to co-operate across the political divide is in reducing the size of the prison population. For one side the cost of incarcerating millions of people is a burden on the budget. For the other side, they don’t want to see people going to jail for extended periods of time for minor offences. So the shared interest is reducing the size of the prison population. By working together on this project it is possible for people to understand the perspective and concerns of the other side. From this understanding arise strategies that will meet their needs and so help to keep the prison population lower over time.

So, three things that can help

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible? Perhaps there was a crisis (eg war or natural disaster) that meant other things became less important, or there were genuine goodwill and relationships that enhanced co-operation. Learn from positive experiences.
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move? Why are they not contested now and can we find other issues where collaboration makes more sense than contesting?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

Lessons for Churches

As you have been reading this post have you been thinking “what has this got to do with the church?” I think that in many places we are in the same situation as the political climate of our times. Many churches are split along ideological lines and in many places co-operation with those who think differently has stopped.

Can consensus work in churches where there is a lack of shared values? No! However, I do not believe that such churches exist. There are always some shared values. There are always some things on which even the most divided Christians can agree. There will always be something to work on together for the benefit of all sides. But we have to be prepared to look for it.

For conflicted churches or denominations I have the same advice as I offered above.

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible?
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

The reason that ideologically and high conflict churches cannot use consensus-building processes is because they just don’t want to co-operate. For reasons of power and control, fear, or disrespect of their brothers and sisters in Christ too many Christians will not work together.

Yes, sometimes they cannot work together because of previously unresolved hurt that has been done to them. But good consensus processes include building safe places and dealing with those experiences.

Co-operation is not optional for Christians

Christ has called all Christians into one body. We have to learn to deal with it! We are one as Jesus and the Father are one. To refuse to live out of that reality is to refuse to live out of the identity that we have been given in Jesus Christ. Not good!!

There is insufficient space here to outline the many and effective strategies for seeking consensus in conflicted churches. Feel free to browse the blog posts for where some aspects of this have been addressed in the past. For example: Uniting the Church – Is it Possible?

However, for the present, I just want to challenge you to look for the ways that consensus building can be encouraged. Please do this in even the hardest places for the sake of the witness of the church. In these times more than any other it is an evangelical imperative to seek common ground among Christians. For as Jesus observed, it is through our unity that the mission of the church will be advanced (John 17:21).

“Farsighted – How to Make Decisions that Matter the Most”

Farsighted: How to Make Decisions that Matter the Most is written Steven Johnson (Riverhead, 2018). It is a must-read for church leaders who want to help their congregations make better decisions that address our usual cognitive biases and faulty intuitions.

In August, 2010 American Intelligence experts learned that an Osama bin Laden courier entered a fortified compound in the remote Pakistani city of Abbottabad.  They launched an extensive planning process that resulted on the successful May 2011 raid by US Special Forces.  What did they learn?

Johnson reminds us that thesuccess of the mission was not just due to  the soldiers who risked their lives to complete it. It also depended on the planners who had learned from previous mistakes. The key for the planners was to run a 2 phase decision-making process.

Johnson explains in Farsighted that planners first widened their thinking. They did this by defining the situation well and surfacing information. Only then did they begin considering numerous options.  This full appraisal worked because it led to them considering various alternatives. This was because they could play out different scenarios so the mission could be successful. They prepared well for any unforeseen reality.

Years of research and personal experience, have concluded that the human mind has biases. These biases lead us to misunderstand the past, misconstrue the present, and badly foresee the present. Nevertheless, there is hope.

Johnson shares practical tools that can improve our ability to make wise decisions – helping you to be farsighted.  He provides several examples of real life decisions and the deliberations that went into making them. We can learn creative steps to do the same.  This is how we become farsighted. Whatever choices your congregation faces these steps can ensure your success.

When we are faced with complex choices, we tend to frame problems too narrowly.  This results in eliminating creative solutions.  To combat this situation, Johnson outlines a process that draws from a diverse, wider group to generate options.  Most notably, he argues for including people from the ‘fringe’ of your organization and those impacted by the choices. He urges us to let them participate and offer suggestions.  Most groups usually only include their leadership base which results in fewer options that others can support.

Moreover, Johnson reminds us that a diversity of viewpoints is not enough to deal with the problems we face.  We must accumulate more than shared knowledge to consider all the viewpoints.  Most organizations, for example, never consider more than a single option or way forward.  This often leads to a gravitational pull toward how we usually frame a problem. As a result people often miss the nuances and creative discoveries that can result from scenario planning.  The “if this, then that” mentality can help us to deal with situations beyond our control and anticipate how to deal with them wisely.  Scenario planning allows you to play out how various versions of the future  may develop and to handle them well.

Did you know that most groups tend to make a decision only to be blocked later in implementing it when new factors come to light?  When you engage in scenario planning, it allows you to prepare for whatever happens next.  To be sure, this form of analysis can be overdone and paralyze a group from making any decision at all.  Yet this form of planning also allows you to make decisions that can creatively handle any situation well.

Johnson also shares tools like ‘linear value modeling.’ This helps us to make decisions that are congruent with who we are as an organization.  Looking at possible ‘bad outcomes’ helps us decide well.  Also, the skill of ‘generating all the information’ necessary to make a decision allows you to be resilient and to maturely face the consequences of your decisions.  Ultimately, surfacing information and generating options prepares people to trust their intuition and resolve issues well.

Speaking from the heart, the author concludes that we can draw from our shared stories and experience. The result is that we are not doomed to repeat previous mistakes. This proactive approach can create an unlimited sense of opportunity to face the future instead of short-changing our decision making by only doing what worked in the past.

There is also a summary and analysis of the book available here.