In any church conflict it is important to find the core issue and the common source

If you are a leader whose church is in conflict, there are two issues it is helpful to understand. First, what is the actual reason for the conflict, and second, who is at the center of the conflict? 

Understanding the true nature of the conflict is often difficult because the presenting issues are often not the real issues. If one tries to solve the presenting issues without understanding what the actual issues are, there will not be a resolution, because even if you solve the presenting issues, the core issue remains untouched.

I am convinced that most church conflict has nothing to do with the surface or presenting issues and everything to do with power and control issues that lie behind the surface issues. This has to do with decision-making power in the church and control of the church. It is an agenda to force a certain decision or direction hidden behind other presenting issues. Often it is cloaked in spiritual language such as the "good of the church," but at its core, it is about power and control.

How does one know if they are working with the presenting issue or a deeper control issue? One of the key markers is whether those who are complaining and making noise are open to rational discussion and compromise, or if they insist on getting their way. If it is the latter, you are most likely dealing with a power issue, and unless you cede to their demands, the conflict will not stop. If you do cave to their demands, you have allowed power brokers with an agenda to win the day and that is always unhealthy in the church.

Often in church conflict it feels like everyone is involved because loud voices prevail. The truth of the matter is that power games in the church are rarely widespread, but like power games everywhere, can be traced back to an individual or a small group of individuals. I call these the voice behind the voices. Power games in the church are never a general group but always have an individual or a small group of individuals behind them and there is usually one central figure. They usually stay in the background and feed discontent, but the common voice one hears from others is an indicator that this is not random conflict but has a leader or leaders behind it. Common language and common attitudes are clear indicators.

How do you determine who is at the core of the conflict? Listen to the language, have a lot of conversations, ask a lot of questions, and eventually you connect the dots toward a common source. Unless you understand the real issue and can deal with the common source, one has no chance of mitigating the conflict.

We are often naive in the church regarding conflict. We too easily believe presenting issues, not wanting to believe that power politics might be present in our congregation. In addition, we are too slow in dealing with the true source of the conflict because we are dealing with people who hide behind spiritual language. None of that, however, changes the damage that they are doing to the church. Power politics in the church destroys unity, hurts leadership and people with agendas hurt the body. The proof that you are dealing with power politics is when you get to the core group and they will not live under the authority of the pastor or elders. Those who don't respond to appropriate authority are playing power politics. 

The ultimate power play is simply to call for the resignation of the pastor and the board. Here is where motives are nakedly plain. I was the pastor of a church where this once happened and church chairman in another church where it happened. In both cases, the real issues had been revealed, and the core parties had been exposed. Their last stand was to try to force the leadership out of office. When they lost their bid, they left the church, clearly unwilling to live under authority. When someone pulls a power play in the church and walks when they lose it is an indication this was about power and control in most instances.

The bottom line? As Jesus said, be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Don't be fooled! Be smart. Be wise. Be prayerful. Act carefully.

It is often helpful to get outside counsel from someone who can give objective feedback and who does not have a stake in the outcome. That is often a threat to the dissenters who are counting on their influence to win the day, and now there is a new level of accountability.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome in church conflict

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have concluded that there are six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome.

First, an outside facilitator is usually necessary. The nature of conflict is that people take sides, making it very difficult for anyone within to play the role of a neutral mediator. In fact, the larger the conflict, the more critical it is that the individual you bring in is trusted by both sides to have the best interests of the church at heart. The sooner you bring someone in when it is clear that the situation is dangerous, the better.

An outside facilitator must come with a neutral stance and be willing to genuinely listen to all sides, with the desire to find the truth. When I have played this role, I made it clear to the board as a precondition that I would listen attentively, gather information, and share my conclusions with the congregation without seeking board approval for that report first. If they were unwilling to agree to this, I would not help them because factions often exist on the board level as well and I had to be impartial in my findings and recommendations.

The board and the congregation still had to decide whether they would accept my recommendations but I needed the ability to share what I learned openly and honestly. The rest was up to them - and I was of course willing to help them with the next steps.

I cannot overemphasize that a neutral outside individual or individuals can be critical in church conflict resolution. When I held that role, I had to convey some difficult messages to various groups within the church, and I needed to do so honestly, fairly, and without worrying about how people would react. When reporting back to the congregation, I would always ask them how candid they wanted me to be. They would say very candid and I would respond, "I will do that but understand that I will likely make all of you unhappy with something I say." Getting their permission to speak freely and warning them that my findings and recommendations might not be pleasing to them gave me the freedom to speak openly and gave them a heads up that it might not always be to their liking.

Here is the thing. Spin does not work in conflict. Only truth works - hard as it might be to hear.

Second, the issues that are fueling the conflict need to be brought into the light. Conflict thrives in the shadows, in gossip, in cliques, in assumptions, and behind the scenes. Bringing all the competing agendas, attitudes, and positions into the light and allowing all members of the congregation to understand what is being said, what is happening, and what the issues are takes the mystique out of the situation, allowing everyone to respond from a position of knowledge. It also removes the power of those who have an agenda but have not been willing to make it public, instead exerting pressure from behind the scenes. Getting everything on the table allows all stakeholders to understand what is happening and to have a voice in resolving the issues. Ironically, those who are most vociferous in their opinions often exaggerate their support when, in fact, if all facts were known, the majority would not agree. Bringing the issues, actions, and words out of the shadows is key to successful resolution.

Third. Reconciliation is always preferable to disunity. This is actually a hard concept for many who have taken a position in church conflict. First, our natural tendency is to take a hard line, and once we have told others about our own line in the sand, it is humbling to change our position. Second, the longer the conflict persists, the more we tend to view members of the opposing side as evil, dishonest, and disingenuous, with bad motives. Once we demonize people, it becomes difficult to envision reconciliation as a possibility. 

Not being willing to consider reconciliation is to make a mockery of God's reconciliation with us and His call for us to be reconcilers. Speaking of church conflict, this is what Paul had to say to the Corinthians. "I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)." 

In Ephesians 4:1-6 Paul writes, "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Having said that, it may not be possible to reconcile and stay together. Sometimes it means that we part ways and speak well of one another.

Fourth, ground rules need to be established. One of the most incendiary fuels in all conflict is the absence of ground rules - what is acceptable and what is not. For a list of the ground rules that I recommend, see my blog, Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner. Or, if you want to keep it very simple, look back at the passage in Ephesians 4:1-6, where he says to be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. When you think about it, these characteristics are almost always lacking during conflict. What gets in our way? Pride, wanting to get our own way, anger, and our emotions.

Five, you may not convince everyone. There are people who don't want to reconcile. There are people whose pride exceeds their humility, and they have no desire to seek a win-win solution. 

In working with churches in conflict, I don't do very much to try to convince the unconvincible, even if they have the loudest voices. 

I am seeking individuals who are committed to peace and reason and are willing to collaborate in promoting unity within the church. This does not mean that the issues that have caused disunity are swept under the rug. To the contrary, as principle two states, they are all on the table, and those that need to be addressed are addressed. To do that successfully, however, it requires men and women of peace and reason, whose personal agendas do not cloud their emotions.

Who is most likely to leave in a church conflict? Those who have taken a hard stand and cannot or will not compromise that stand. Frankly, it is good for them to leave because they will simply contribute to ongoing conflict if they are not willing to come together with the rest of the congregation.

Sixth: It is a process. Church conflict does not start overnight, and it does not get settled overnight. In some cases, it may take a year to bring the church back to health. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the trauma of either a church split (which damages churches for years to come), a power play by a faction in the church (which causes huge trauma to a church and a significant lack of trust), or not dealing with it at all, which dooms the church to later issues.

What is needed for a healthy process is a willingness of the congregation to work together, recognizing that how they handle their differences will either enhance or diminish the reputation of Jesus. If his reputation is at stake—and it is—I will do all I can to enhance it.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Six things a church board should not do when there is church conflict

One of the most difficult jobs of a church leadership board is to deal with differences of opinion within the congregation, especially when the issues are significant, sides are being taken by parishioners , and there may even be the possibility of a church split (whether that means many people leaving or the church literally splitting). 

Boards often respond to such situations just as a person does when attacked - with a defensive posture. Usually, it includes a circling of the wagons where there is a great deal of secrecy, the labeling of people who may disagree with their position as dissidents, an attempt to shut down discussion of the issues, and even intimidation through threats of "church discipline." In other words, just as each of us operates under challenging circumstances with either good or bad EQ, there is a corporate board EQ that responds either in healthy or unhealthy ways to church related issues. 

Ironically, while boards can point the finger at what they may justifiably (or not) label as behaviors of congregants as sinful or divisive, they can be equally guilty of the same behaviors. Of course, they can use the "authority" card, even when their behavior is not healthy.

I have several suggestions for boards who find themselves in this position.

One. Do not shut down legitimate discussion. Whenever we try to muzzle people, we are operating out of fear rather than from a position of health. Whenever there cannot be a free discussion of differences, while staying connected with one another, we are operating from fear. Healthy leaders both invite candid dialogue and strive for win-win solutions rather than win-lose outcomes. They are non-defensive, open, listen carefully, and work toward solutions that preserve the unity of the church. When boards circle the wagons, free dialogue is over.

Two: Do not marginalize people who disagree with you. This is a common behavior when one feels under attack. Rarely is this about whether those who disagree with us are sinful or righteous, but rather that we disagree on process or solutions. Often, division comes when one side or another takes a position that disenfranchises the other, rather than looking for ways to address the concerns of both sides. 

Three: Don't do it alone. When issues become magnified and positions become staked in the ground, you often need an outside facilitator who can help moderate a discussion. A skilled outside facilitator does not have an agenda and therefore can speak to both sides and help them come together. Resisting an outside voice is usually an indicator that we want our way rather than a win/win solution. 

Four: Realize that the more you spin the issues and try to manage people who disagree with you the more dysfunctional the debate will become. People don't like to be manipulated, and many boards that go on the defensive do just that with spiritual language, board "authority", and actions that put people in a corner. The more a board tries to "manage" the debate rather than allowing it to occur, the more dysfunctional the debate will become. Ironically, it is in trying to shut down discussion that the issues become even more problematic. When people don't feel heard, they will try all the harder to be heard. 

Five: Remember that you can split the church (the bride) simply by making it clear that "if you don't agree, you should leave." Many will not fight a board and pastor but feel forced out nonetheless. When people start redirecting their giving, for instance, it is usually done because they feel there is no other way to send a message to leaders about the direction of the church. Leaders who fail to recognize such signs are either in denial or foolish. I am always amazed by leaders (including pastors) who are willing to see large numbers of people leave who don't agree with them. They may get their way, but the conflict will never truly end, as those who leave will continue to have relationships back at the church they left. 

Six: You cannot move forward by marginalizing a segment of the church. Leaders need to honor the past as they build for the future. Being willing to sacrifice the past for the future is neither Biblical nor unifying. Yet it happens all too often. Ephesians 4:3ff is a good place to start in terms of how we see the folks in our congregations: 

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Boards and other leaders who feel defensive need to live out the theology of unity. It takes wisdom and humility, but it is possible. And don't discount the possibility that the critics may see something you don't see. 

One caveat. If the conflict arises because someone in the congregation seeks to dominate and is stirring the pot to leverage their position, and if gossip and untrue statements are being propagated, leaders must address this and, if necessary, call it out. Intentionally causing division to get one's way is different than legitimate questions or differences of views.  On the other hand, often when I have mediated church conflict, some people saw issues that needed to be addressed, but were instead labeled as troublemakers because the board was unwilling to deal with the problem. Don't go defensive. Have an honest discussion.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

When we take on the issues of others rather than keeping our own counsel

Some of the most challenging situations I faced as an organizational leader involved individuals who would call my office angry, unhappy, and irrational over issues they had no firsthand knowledge of. They had taken up someone else's problem and gone on a crusade.

The reason these are such difficult situations is this. First, because they don't have firsthand knowledge, one cannot have a rational conversation about what really happened. All they know is what they "heard" happened, and in the context of anger, hurt, and raw emotions. Thus, this is not a conversation about facts but perceived facts and emotional reactions. Conversations that cannot be focused on objective facts are usually conversations that cannot be resolved. 

Second, the conversations are crazy-making because those who take up others' offenses usually do not reveal that fact. It is clear from the conversation that there is an underlying issue (someone else's offense), but it is never stated, making it challenging to address. If I sense there is an underlying issue, I will often probe as to what it is and try to get to the heart of the matter. Dealing with side issues does not help one resolve the real underlying issues. Unless that is put on the table, there is no resolution.

Third, since these conversations are not about facts due to the absence of firsthand knowledge, they ultimately become about perceptions and anger. Perceptions of others are usually wrong, and anger cannot be resolved without dealing with facts. And facts cannot be established without those with firsthand knowledge present. 

Finally, these are no-win conversations because those who take up the offense of others have no way to move on because they cannot resolve "facts." So while the person whose offense they picked up moves on eventually, those who picked up the offense do not and cannot.

When there is conflict, the goal must always be to achieve reconciliation. The goal is to come to an understanding and achieve a level of peace. When I take up someone else's offence, however, I am doing just the opposite, enlarging the conflict rather than minimizing it: I cannot solve it for others; my own anger spills over to others; I have no objectivity in the situation, and because it is not my issue, I cannot find resolution. It is a no-win situation and does nothing to bring reconciliation or peace.

Picking up someone else's offense is foolish, demonstrates poor EQ, and causes relational havoc beyond what is necessary. It is one thing to seek to help resolve an issue in a healthy and productive manner. But once you take up another's offense, there is no good way out.  

One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we can empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, and support. It does mean that we don't allow the problems of others to become "our" issues. 

A key to this is what I call "keeping my own counsel." Everyone has a perspective on issues, but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel, I seek to listen and, when appropriate, ask questions, but ultimately I must make my own judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair, or healthy for me to simply take the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs or when I have no firsthand knowledge. 

In addition, I want to avoid enmeshment because I cannot solve other people's issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whoever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately, I am responsible for my problems and not for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone. 

Getting sucked into the issues of others takes a relational breakdown between two people and multiplies it among others, where they were never part of the original breakdown and have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of organizational conflict and church splits. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties, and what was a minor problem now becomes a significant issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.

When we have issues with others, we always have the choice as to whether we draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one we have problems with, or whether we keep our own counsel, seek to resolve the situation, but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others, but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy. 

This is all about demonstrating wisdom in our relationships with others, living with healthy emotional intelligence, and being peace makers rather than stoking conflict.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Nine ways that pastors can inadvertently create conflict in the church

Senior leaders are fully capable of creating unnecessary conflict in their churches. There is enough opportunity for conflict in the church without pastors contributing to it. Here are some ways that pastors contribute to conflict and, therefore, ways we can avoid doing so.

One: Being defensive with staff and boards. Defensiveness shuts down discussion, which inevitably creates conflict as real issues cannot be openly discussed and resolved. When pastors are insecure and, therefore, not open to robust dialogue, conflict becomes inevitable. The more open we are the less opportunity there is for conflict to germinate. 

Two: Making unilateral decisions without the input of stakeholders. Nobody likes surprises - not boards, not staff, or congregations. When pastors do not engage stakeholders, whoever they are, they create the seeds of conflict. Key decisions need to be processed with those who are impacted.

Three: Being inflexible. We may be clear about where we want to go, but flexibility is usually necessary to get there. Often, we cannot get everything we desire at once. Wise leaders are flexible in how they get to where they are going so that those they lead will actually go with them.

Four: Not running process. This is related to the above. All change requires a process to help those we lead go with us. When leaders make decisions that surprise stakeholders and do not run an adequate process to explain their rationale for change, conflict inevitably occurs. Often, we are too impatient to go where we want to go rather than take the time to run a process, and it results in conflict.

Five: We are not clear on where we are going and how we are going to get there. Ambiguity over direction and strategy creates insecurity and questions among those we lead. Clarity over both is critical to a healthy congregation. Often, when these are absent, dysfunction results.

Six: Marginalizing those who disagree with us. This is always a sign of poor EQ and insecurity, but it is not uncommon among senior pastors. We too often equate loyalty with agreeing with us, and when someone disagrees, there is a tendency to see them as bad or disloyal or even "agents of the evil one." Disagreement is not bad, but our response to it can be. When we marginalize those who disagree with us, we naturally create conflict because we now have those who are "in" and those who are "out."

Seven: Using the pulpit to take shots at our detractors. All pastors have detractors—it is the nature of the job. But when we start using the pulpit (which is a powerful platform), we naturally create an us-and-them mentality. The pulpit is for the untainted truth of God from Scripture, not a platform for us to take shots at our detractors. They deserve our love and maybe our candid thoughts, but not from the pulpit.

Eight: Dividing the board from the staff. I call this "leadership default." Pastors never play their board against their staff, for it inevitably creates an "us/them" mentality and distrust between two groups that must work in coordination with one another. The senior team the pastor is on is always his board, and it is his responsibility to create partnership rather than tension between his staff and his board.

Nine: Using the church for one's own agenda rather than for a corporate agenda that is agreed to by staff and board. Churches can be a platform for our personal agendas in leadership, or they can be a platform for God's agenda, which is agreed to by leadership, staff, and, ultimately, the congregation. When we use it for our own agenda without the agreement of others who make up our leadership team and the congregation as a whole (remember the priesthood of believers) we will inevitably create conflict.

As leaders, we often criticize those who create conflict in the local church. We need to remember that we can do the same—and often do if we are not careful. 

Five ways we can create conflict when trying to avoid it

 

It is ironic, but there are many ways to seek to avoid conflict that actually creates it. Think about this:

One: When we try to please others by not telling them what we really think in an attempt to keep the peace, we often unintentionally create a later conflict since our words do not match our true thoughts. Our true convictions come out at some point, and the lack of honesty on the front end creates conflict on the back end.

Two: When we tell one person one thing and another a different thing in order to keep the peace, we eventually create conflict because the two versions don't match up. One of the signs of good EQ is the ability to be defined by what we believe, no matter what the response might be. And to stay in a relationship with those who might disagree with us at the same time. 

Three: When we simply avoid the issues and pretend that they are not there, the end result is far deeper conflict than we could have wished for. Sweeping issues under the rug only leave them for another day when the number of undressed issues is now larger and the potential conflict equally larger. Church boards are often guilty of this. The thinking is that "If we ignore the issues, they will go away." They don't go away. In fact, they get worse, and when you finally do confront them, they are now larger issues than they were.

Four: When we engage in passive-aggressive behavior, hiding our true thoughts and allowing them to emerge in other ways creates even greater conflict because it is disingenuous. This strategy is all too common, and it creates relational chaos since one thing is said, but another thing is lived out. 

Five: When we lie about the conflict or issues that are causing division to get our way, we create larger issues in the future when the truth comes out. This tactic is not uncommon if one wants to create sympathy for their own point of view. However, eventually, truth prevails, and at that point, we now lose our own credibility.

There are many ways to create conflict by avoiding it. There is no upside to not putting issues on the table. We may think there is, but our strategies to avoid conflict actually make even deeper conflict inevitable. Boards and staff teams are guilty of this all the time, and it does not yield healthy results.

Lessons I have learned in working with church conflict

 

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have concluded that there are six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome.

First, an outside facilitator is usually necessary. The nature of conflict is that people take sides so it becomes very difficult for anyone from within to play the role of a neutral mediator. In fact, the larger the conflict the more critical it is that the individual you bring in is trusted by both sides to have the best interests of the church at heart. The sooner you bring someone in when it is clear that the situation is dangerous the better.

Second, the issues that are fueling the conflict need to be brought into the light. Conflict thrives in the shadows, in gossip, in cliques, in assumptions and behind the scenes. Bringing all the competing agendas, attitudes and positions into the light and allowing all members of the congregation to understand what is being said, what is happening and what the issues are takes the mystique out of the situation and allows everyone to respond from a position of knowledge. It also removes the power of those who have an agenda but have not been willing to make it public but have instead been putting on pressure from behind the scenes. Getting everything on the table allows all stakeholders to understand what is going on and to have a voice in solving the issues. Ironically, those who are most vociferous in their opinions overplay those who agree with them when in fact, if all facts were known, the majority would not agree. 

Third. Reconciliation is always preferable to disunity. This is actually a hard concept for many who have taken a position in church conflict. First, our natural tendency is to take a hard line and once we have told others about our own line-in-the-sand it is humbling to change our position. Second, the longer conflict goes on, the more we see the members of the opposing side as evil, dishonest, disingenuous, people with bad motives and once we demonize people it is hard to ever think that reconciliation is possible. 

To not be willing to consider reconciliation is to make a mockery of God's reconciliation with us and His call for us to be reconcilers. Speaking of church conflict, this is what Paul had to say to the Corinthians. "I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)." 

In Ephesians 4:1-6 Paul writes, "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Having said that, I acknowledge that sometimes it is not going to be possible to reconcile and stay together. Sometimes it means that we part ways and speak well of one another.

Fourth, ground rules need to be established. One of the most incendiary fuels in all conflict is the absence of ground rules - what is acceptable and what is not. For a list of the ground rules that I recommend, see my blog, Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner. Or if you want to keep it very simple, look back at the passage in Ephesians 4:1-6 where he says be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. When you think about it, these characteristics are almost always lacking when conflict is taking place. What gets in our way? Pride, wanting to get our own way, anger, and our emotions.

Five, you probably will not convince everyone. There are people who don't want to reconcile. There are people whose pride is far greater than their humility and they have no desire to seek a win/win solution. In working with churches in conflict, I don't do very much to try to convince the unconvincible even if they have the loudest voices. I am looking for people of peace and reason who are willing to work together to see the church come together in unity. This does not mean that the issues that have caused disunity are swept under the rug. To the contrary, as principle two states, they are all on the table and those that need to be addressed are addressed. To do that successfully, however, it requires men and women of peace and reason, whose personal agendas do not cloud their emotions.

Who is most likely to leave in church conflict? Those who have taken a hard stand and cannot or will not compromise that stand. Frankly, it is good for them to leave because they will simply contribute to ongoing conflict if they are not willing to come together with the rest of the congregation.

Sixth: It is a process. Church conflict does not start overnight and it does not get settled overnight. It may take a year in some cases to bring the church back to health. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the trauma of either a church split (which damages churches for years to come) a powerplay by a faction in the church (which causes huge trauma to a church and a significant lack of trust) or not dealing with it at all which dooms the church to later issues.

What is needed for a healthy process is a willingness of the congregation to work together recognizing that how they handle their differences will either enhance or diminish the reputation of Jesus. If His reputation is at stake - and it is - I will do all I can to enhance it.

Additional blogs on church conflict:

Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner

8 Reasons in my experience that churches experience major conflict

Church conflict: Finding the core issue and the common source

Seven things to understand about church conflict

Church conflict, christian character and the reputation of Jesus

Seeking a life of Peace in a world of conflict

We live in an increasingly fractured world: Divided by politics, race, international conflicts, and personal slights and offenses that become the grounds for division. The sad thing is not that such fracturing is commonplace but that it has become commonplace among God’s people and in our families and congregations. We divide over theological and personal differences; over politics; over offenses that we experience and won’t give up. We are a divided people and relational conflict is commonplace.

And we have our principles, convictions and beliefs and these often cause us to double down, refuse to forgive or to look for ways of relational peace rather than division. Our world has always been divided. But: into that divided world came a Savior whose purpose was to bridge the gap between God and ourselves and between us and those around us.

To be like Jesus is to be a peacemaker. Jesus Himself said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” To follow God is to join Him in bringing peace to our fractured world.

The world of Jesus’ day was a world of conflict and division as well. Jews and Gentiles didn’t get along. Slaves and free did not relate. Men and women were divided by how one treated the other. The differing ethnic groups that made up those ancient cities gave all kinds of reasons to live with division. And finally, the socio economic differences between rich and poor, entitled and those without power all contributed to a world of division and conflict. And into that brew comes Jesus, the One who consistently subverts the status quo and says to them all “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” 

I am sure that many who heard that statement were shocked because they had their convictions and their principles and they were sure they were right and therefore had no obligation to work toward relational peace. Yet, Jesus said, to be like God you must be a peacemaker. That is who He is. 

Jesus was called the Prince of peace. Paul writes this about His death on the cross. “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one spirit.”  Ephesians 2:14-18

The common word in these verses is “peace.” Peace with God and peace with one another based on Christ’s work on the cross. At the cross, says Paul, Jesus destroyed the hostility between us and God and the hostility between us and our neighbor. Jesus came to bring peace and calls us to join Him in seeking peace wherever possible. 

How do we do that in a world that is so divided? Here are some of the principles Paul gives us.

• Be devoted to one another in love.
• Honor one another above yourselves.
• Share with the Lord’s people who are in need.
• Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
• Live in harmony with one another.
• Do not be proud but be willing to associate with people of low position.
• Do not be conceited.
• Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
• Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.
• Do not take revenge.
• Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
• 
  

All of these instructions are found in Romans 12 and Paul sums it all up when he says, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

Jesus is calling us to a life of less conflict and more peace. To avoid division wherever possible and to contribute to peaceful relationships, especially among members of God’s family but also beyond.

As we let go of our egos and as we elevate Christ rather than ourselves, we are called here to do all we can to live in harmony, peace, and love with one another. So our question today is twofold: First, who am I divided from or have conflict with? Second, what can I do to seek to bridge that gap, just as Jesus gave His life to bridge the gap between God and us and between us together?

Peacemaking is not an easy task. It may mean that I have to forgive. It may mean that I have to humble myself to have a conversation I don’t really want to have. It may mean that I need to lay aside my pride and find ways to bless others who irritate us or who have offended us. It may mean that I need to be more tolerant of others' political choices and bless them in spite of those differences. It might mean that God is calling me to bury the hatchet of conflict and division and embrace others as Christ went to the cross to embrace me. 

As we follow in the footsteps of Jesus on His way to the cross, let's also follow in His footsteps in making peace where we currently experience conflict. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God.”

Father, help me to become a person who loves peace and who is committed to making peace where there is division. In the words of the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:

“Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; To be understood, as to understand; To be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.” Amen.

The question to consider today: Is there a relationship or situation where I can contribute to peace?

Practicing "normalizing conversations" when there is conflict

 

There are many things that can introduce conflict or awkwardness into relationships: disagreements; words spoken; actions or even second hand conversations that come back to us. It can cause us to back away from a relationship, suspect that others don't have our best interests in mind and create an invisible wall between two individuals. It happens in families, among friends and in the workplace - anywhere we have key relationships.

It is also very easy to allow that conflict, misunderstanding or break in the relationship to linger, leaving a break in the relationship. The truth is, however, that in most cases, this break in relationship can be resolved. And we should always try.

This is where normalizing conversations come in. Rather than live with our perceptions or assumptions about where the other individual is coming from, or the awkwardness that has been introduced into the relationship, normalizing conversations can clarify and remove relational walls that have been created. It is a courageous decision we make to seek peace, clarity and understanding by candidly talking to another about the events that have transpired.

Unaddressed issues between individuals create walls and distance while discussing those issues can remove those walls and bring parties closer together.

A normalizing conversation is very simple. It is taking the step to initiate a conversation in order to understand one another and remove the invisible wall that has been created by words, actions or assumptions. Choosing to initiate a conversation with another to clarify issues and create understanding  is a courageous and peacemaking practice. And too rare.

A normalizing conversation is not a confrontation but a conversation. It may or may not result in agreement but it can result in understanding. Because you have invited the other individual to be candid with you as you are with them, it removes future awkwardness in the relationship even if you did not come to agreement. It is simply a conversation to "normalize" what has become problematic.

The major barrier to such conversations is our own fear. In my experience, our fear is usually unfounded and we find the other party relieved to be able to lower the walls and understand each other. Even if the conversation is hard, it opens up the ability to communicate and creates greater understanding and that by definition almost always lowers the relational walls. It is about calming the relational waters.

I will often start such a conversation with something like this. "I know that there has been some awkwardness over (whatever the issue it is) and that it has impacted our relationship. Can we have a candid conversation about this issue and simply try to understand one another? I don't like where we are and really want to see if we can better understand one another." In almost every circumstance this leads to a productive conversation and usually the lowering of walls.

Francis Chan on divisions within the Christian church

 

CNLP 413: FRANCIS CHAN ON ESCALATING DIVISION, ASIAN HATE, AND WHY INFLUENCE IN THE CHURCH CAN’T COME FROM SELF-PROMOTION

By Carey Nieuwhof

Practicing space and grace in a time of division and conflict

Our world is increasingly polarized, and it is easy for us to judge others who don't believe what we do politically, theologically, or in how they choose to live their lives. When my kids were teenagers, they told us that their friends' parents believed we were bad parents because of how we raised the boys and what we allowed them to do. In fact, we can find many reasons to judge one another within the body of Christ. Even what a speaker wears on the platform can become a subject of judgment and public comment.

The tendency to judge others for their convictions or lifestyle choices is nothing new. It happened in the church in Rome, and Paul devoted considerable attention to this topic in Romans 14 and 15. The controversy was over whether people could eat food offered to idols as the pagans regularly did, how one practiced the sabbath, and other issues where people's convictions differed. 

Paul counseled the believers in Rome to extend to one another space and grace. Space to make decisions based on their conscience in areas where there is no obvious right or wrong, and grace to resist the temptation to judge or look down on others for their choices. Paul reminded the Romans of three things in this regard.

First, we all make choices that we believe honor God, so why would we judge one another? "For none of us lives to himself alone, and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." Romans 14:7-8

Second, we will give an account of our choices to God one day. It is not our place to judge others but to ensure we live in a way that pleases God. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

"You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me;  every tongue will acknowledge God.' So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another." Romans 14:9-13

Third, Paul uses the example of Christ, who accepts us, to encourage us to accept one another. "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, to bring praise to God." Romans 15:7.

There is a wonderful beauty in the church when we can encourage one another, accept one another, and give the space and grace that Jesus gives to us. The world has enough divisiveness, and we are called to unity, peace, grace, and patience with one another. That is a congregation that is inviting and loving.

As we enter a divisive campaign season, argue over whether one's church should meet in person and navigate the views on Covid, space, and grace that are desperately in need. We cannot control what others do, but we can influence our own attitudes.

A no nonsense policy to deal with interpersonal conflict and gossip in the workplace

Few things destroy the health of a team or workplace more than that of triangulation and poor conflict resolution practices. In too many places, rather than resolving interpersonal conflict in a healthy manner, staff make it worse by talking to others about the one they have conflict with, gossiping with their "friends" about another individual which results in alliances being formed against other staff member(s). 

This is made worse when a staff member makes assumptions about another's motives and starts to see them through a negative lens no matter what they do. It is a lose lose proposition for the relationship and the greater team as the fallout spills over to others. 

Unfortunately many workplaces accept this is a part of their culture but they need not do so. 

Recently in working with an otherwise great organization, these issues came to the forefront and were poisoning relationships between good people. The first thing I did was to run a series of reconciliation meetings in line with my blog entitled, The Six Questions to ask in any Reconciliation Process. Not surprisingly what staff members believed to be irreconcilable differences were surprisingly easy to  clear up using this process.

When I asked how each of them had contributed to making the conflict greater, the consistent answers were:

• I talked to others but not to the one I had an issue with
• I assumed poor motives of the one I had conflict with
• I created alliances with those who were my friends against the other individual

We then instituted a new policy with staff. 

We are committed to the highest level of relational health in our organization. The following is our conflict resolution policy.

When there is a conflict or personal issue between staff members it is the responsibility of those who have an issue to speak directly to the staff member with whom they have an issue. 

It is not permissible to talk to other staff members about issues one has with another staff member or to speak negatively about other staff members. This constitutes gossip,causes division, encourages others to take up another's offense and results in greater conflict and ill will. Violation of this policy can be grounds for dismissal.

If resolution is not found in a conversation with the staff member one has an issue with, the only individual it is permissible to speak with about that situation is one's supervisor. The supervisor will seek to find resolution between the two parties. Staff members involved will be expected to abide by the requirements of the supervisor for resolving the presenting issue(s). 

If necessary, the supervisor may choose to bring a higher organizational leader into the conversation to ensure resolution.

We take great pride in a culture that is healthy to work in. This policy is designed to ensure that relational health is maintained, cultivated and issues that may arise resolved in a healthy manner.

Leaders who are proactive in laying out expectations and the consequences of violating those expectations create a much different and much healthier culture than those who do nothing.