Category: Conflict

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.

Values Trump Facts – Is Consensus-Building Possible?!?

Is there hope for consensus-building when the facts don’t overcome existing values / biases? According to some the answer is “NO!!!” I’m not so sure. Here’s why.

Why don’t facts seem to matter any more?

On May 8th, 2019 David Barker and Morgan  Marietta wrote a piece in Niemanlab. In the article they explored  the impact of the Mueller Report on US public opinion about the President of the USA. Mueller’s investigation into the Trump election campaign and the Russians found no collusion but  areas where there may have been an obstruction of justice by the President.
These two eminent political scientists concluded that the Mueller Report did not move the needle for the vast majority of people in the USA with respect to their attitude to the President. If people already thought that the President was engaged in illegal activities they were confirmed in that view. If they thought the President was innocent then Mueller confirmed it for them.

Values count more than the data

Why does this happen? According to Barker and Marietta it comes down to this. “We found that voters see the world in ways that reinforce their values and identities. If they start with a particular set of values then everything they receive by way of information is interpreted as support of those values. In such a context “fact checking” or hearing “the other side’s point of view” has no impact on changing the mind of people.”
An interesting illustration of this phenomenon is the attitude of Americans about whether there is racism in the USA. Quoting from the article: “… according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It isn’t even her own race. It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.”

What does this mean for consensus-building?

The pessimistic view of the authors is that “Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies … is that there are no known fixes to this problem.” Well that’s all a bit disheartening!!! I disagree with them.

The first things that it means for a consensus-building approach are not to try and ram “the facts” down a person’s throat; and secondly do not be disparaging of others as bigots and closed minded.

Findings like those is this article are greatly encouraging to the people who understand consensus based discernment or decision-making. Why? Because it affirms how important it is to get behind the presenting words and feelings. It compels us to look past the first things that people say, and instead attempt to understand what is important to them. Consensus-building processes know that people act out of their values – fears, hopes, identity, world view. These processes want to hear about these things from people. Consensus-building processes take values and identity seriously and respect them.

Where values differ these need to be explored. However, it is a much richer and respectful conversation if we invite others to tell us what is important to them. This is a much healthier and more constructive approach than seeking to persuade them about “the facts”.

The great failure of the parliamentary style of debate and decision-making is that it gets into this world of duelling facts. Then when the debate is over and the vote is taken there is a decision. But in the world we live in today the divisions remain because the values have not changed.

What can be done?

Here are some attitudes and strategies that can be used in a consensus-building context to help avoid the stalemate that comes when facts reinforce values.

  • Get the agreed facts out on the table (even the ones that you don’t like!)
  • Ask people what they conclude from / make of this information.
  • Take a step back and find a way to talk about our values or the things that shape what is important for us. In the church this can include significant faith stories.
  • Speak about our understanding of God and God’s hope for the world.
  • Seek out common values and affirm the common ground. Note that people have many values and some will have precedence at different times. Some we may disagree with, yet many we will share.
  • Explore, with respect and humility, how the options / actions that we are discussing support our shared values.

Optimism can be found for the Christian community in that when we go deep enough we do have a common narrative /vision / hope. Many societies can find this common ground too – if they are prepared to work to find it.

However the great advantage that Christians have is that they have at their foundation the community that God has created through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This common ground is not their choice it is the will of God and our responsibility is to live into that reality. As the Apostle Paul noted there is one faith, one Lord one baptism – one God and Father of us all (Ephesians 4: 5,6).

Conclusion

Of course we have to deal with reality. There are not really ‘alternative facts”.

However we need to understand that it is our values that give meaning to the things that we see. If we are going to get past “duelling facts” and name calling them we have to explore values.  Consensus building processes understand this. They foster this deeper and respectful engagement, and provide the tools for discovering shared hopes and then actions.

UMC Needs a New Way

What next for the UMC?

The UMC (United Methodist Church) is clearly at a crossroad. The decision by the General Conference in February to maintain the rejection of LGBTIQ+ people from Ministry in the Church, strengthen penalties for clergy that do same gender weddings and other decisions has ignited a firestorm in the denomination. 69% of the US delegates favoured allowing local churches to decide their own position (“The One Church Model”) but the overseas delegates strongly supported the “Traditional Plan”.

That the UMC cannot continue as it is should be clear to everyone. I am not arrogant enough to tell members of another church which turn they should take at a time like this. Nevertheless, there is one very strong piece of advice that I am prepared to offer.

Even as a long distance observer of the UMC, it is clear that there is a lot of anger and aggression being expressed towards people who hold different views on the future for the church. This combative, disrespectful and self-absorbed way of interacting must come to an end! There are lessons here for all churches!!

What does a new way look like?

There is much discussion across the church about whether there will be two, three or more fragments left from the UMC as it stands today. Some still hope for one church but this seems less and less likely. I have no comment to offer on the structural arrangements that should come to pass for the UMC. However, I am very clear that what needs to change is the way that people relate to each other.

The new way for the UMC has to be one where people genuinely listen to each other. A way where they seek to work together in discerning the will of Christ for his church. The new way must include respect and appreciation for people who hold different positions to us.

Rev Adam Hamilton is offering great leadership as he and others try to foster healthy and constructive conversations about what to do in response to the decision of General Conference in February. He is encouraging Methodists who understand that it is possible to live together with major differences and to work together on finding a solution. Of particular interest to me is that he is speaking about building a consensus across the church. There will be a major meeting in May. People who can envisage living in the same church as people who have different opinions will come together. In all their diversity they will seek to discern what the future may look like for the UMC.

I would love to be an observer at that meeting in May! I’d like to see how they engage in a consensus building approach. This may be the first time in the history of the UMC that a serious consensus-building approach has been attempted. This has to be the new way for the UMC.

2016 General Conference – a lost opportunity

When the General Conference met in Portland in 2016 it had available to it a consensus-building approach to discernment. I was contracted to develop the alternative Rule, prepare meeting resources and provide training and resources for using the process. Along with my colleague, Julia Kuhn Wallace I hoped that the delegates would experience another way of exploring difficult issues. For reasons that I will not go into here, the Rule was not adopted. As a result, the legalistic, argumentative, power-driven approach of the Parliamentary process continued in use. The outcome was the Bishop’s Special Commission and the 2019 Called General Conference.

How is it a surprise that the UMC found itself in the same belligerent and hurtful situation again in 2019 as it did in 2016? Why should people expect that having engaged in this process using aggressive parliamentary rules that now it is possible for people to turn off the aggression? The UMC is reaping what it has sown because in its meeting procedures it has encouraged disrespect, power plays and a winner take all mentality.

The alternative Rule in 2016 would have provided delegates, and other members of the UMC, a chance to experience another way of being in community around difficult issues. Not taking that direction was a lost opportunity.

Lessons for the new UMC / churches

I know that there will be many people who think that “if we can only get rid of all those people who think differently to us then it will be fine.” There are Conferences and Jurisdictions that are ready to reject the 2019 decisions and be affirming of LGBTQI+ people in the church. But do not think that this alone will get you where you need to go. The new “gatherings” of UMC people need a new way of making decisions.

There is no doubt that using Robert’s Rules of Order has been a major driver for why the UMC finds itself where it is today. If new groupings that want to be inclusive and respectful of each other continue to use parliamentary styles of decision-making then they will end up with broken relationships, alienated members and intractable conflict.

If new groups form around principles of respect and inclusion then they need to develop decision-making processes that are consistent with these values. Consensus-based discernment processes will be critical in the next phase for the successor groups to the UMC. The churches and Jurisdictions that are opposed to the Traditional Plan will need to invest in developing alternative business procedures. These resources are available and can be implemented when there is a will and a deliberate approach to doing so. Please do not think that you can change the culture of any new church(es) without making major changes to the way in which you engage in discernment!

Conclusion

If we are going to have healthy relationships we need to build capacity in the people and establish healthy ways of interacting. Churches need to establish a culture that gives the best chance of expressing Christian values. Robert’s Rules of Order are the opposite of what churches should be doing! Consensus processes better reflect and support Christian values.

The UMC is experiencing a huge crisis and we should all be praying for them. My encouragement is that any new way for the United Methodist Church does not just deal with the symptoms but also the causes. The causes include the way in which Christian relationships have been defined and structured – parliamentary business procedures included. Dealing with the causes by changing the way people meet and decide issues will lay the foundation for healthy and effective churches into the future.

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).