Can we disagree with one another and still speak kindly to one another?

It bemuses me when Christians in the name of Jesus disagree with one another in highly  disagreeable ways. It is as if disagreements give license to speak to one another in the name of Jesus without the love and grace of Jesus. It is our "truth" without God's "grace." When our truth cannot be spoken in grace it should not be spoken at all. It is not a Jesus truth when communicated in ways that Jesus would not have communicated. 

When we are angry we ought to filter our response through the Fruit of the Spirit. If our response does not meet that grid we are better off waiting until it does. If our words and attitudes do not match the truth we espouse we negate the spirit of Jesus in whose name we purport to speak. Too much conflict and disagreement in Christian circles does not live up to the spirit of Jesus or for that matter the Holy Spirit who lives within us.

In the prophets it says that the Servant, (Jesus) would not break the bruised reed. Think of how easy it is to break a reed, let alone a bruised one. Yet, Jesus is so gracious that even when he needs to get our attention He does it with amazing love and gentleness. Yet we find it easy to wield a sledgehammer in His name. I suspect it makes Him deeply sad when we do.

I discount opinions and words spoken in Jesus' name without Jesus' love. Why should I trust such words when their delivery violates everything Jesus taught and modeled? And I am deeply sorry when I do the same. The older I get the more I understand that truth without the spirit of grace is hard and so unlike Jesus. I like you am susceptible to violating His loving spirit but I am determined to see alignment between the truth I share and the spirit in which I share it. 

If we disagree with one another - and we will! Let's do it in a spirit that looks like Jesus. It would change the equation in many relationships and conflicts.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Ten ways to create unnecessary chaos in relationships

In recent days I have had my share of brushing up against chaotic and conflictual relationships between individuals or groups. What I have seen is messy, probably unnecessary and certainly painful but it got me thinking of the many ways that we can create unnecessary and painful chaos in relationships.

One. Triangulate with others instead of going to the source. When I share my issues about another person with anyone other than that person, I have brought them into my issue and often into an alliance with me against others. When you think about that, how crazy is that! It does not solve the problem but rather enlarges the circle of those who now have problems but who cannot solve them because their problem is a problem by proxy (actually our problem) but not theirs.

Two: Copy emails about conflictual situations to those who are not involved. Of course once you do that they are now involved and often others get inadvertently roped in. Why do we copy emails to people who have not business getting them? It is usually a power play or a way to bring in others to "our side" and it certainly enlarges the circle of mistrust, doubt and information.

Three: Sharing second or third hand information. Second hand information is not usually real information. At least it is often highly suspect because no matter what if it is second hand we don't know all the facts but just some of the facts. We ought not share what we don't know about another person's experience. 

Four: Going on a crusade against another individual or group. There are people who believe that they need to solve problems that they are not in a position to solve but they go on a crusade to do so anyway. I am not talking about a "whistle blower" situation but especially in Christian circles, taking matters into our own hands to take care of situations that are more likely the purview of a church or ministry board to deal with. There are many dysfunctional situations I may know about but do nothing about because they are not my purview to solve. 

Five: Planting seeds of distrust against another by sharing gossip or even "facts" that they can do nothing about. If people need to know, the right people need to know, not the wrong people. Too often we don't discriminate on that score. 

Six; Ignoring issues that we are in a place to deal with and the responsible person. Often, leaders who are conflict adverse don't deal with issues they know are problematic and therefore allow the dysfunctions to spill over among others. This is the source of much pain in the local church when leaders choose not to confront behaviors that are problematic.

Seven: Not telling people the truth. Truth should be shared graciously and only with the right people but if we have issues we need to share those issues in the right way and at the right time. Then we need to leave those issues with those who are in a position and who have the responsibility to do something about it. What they do is not my responsibility. Being honest with them is.

Eight: Demonize those who disagree with you or who are the objects of your unhappiness. It happens all the time in Christian circles. We divide the world into good people and bad people, righteous and unrighteous. Is life that easy? and which group would we be in? In this world view we are in whatever group someone else puts us in. Life is not that easy. Good and Godly people can do and say unfortunate things but it does not make them worthy of demonization.  We ought to be happy that Jesus does not see us that way.

Nine: Taking up someone else's issue as ours. Another form of triangulation. Your issues are yours and mine are mine. I can give you counsel or take your counsel but the issues are still either yours or mine. When I take up your issue, I get involve in conflict that is not my own. I am always ready to mediate conflict but I do not want to get involved in the issues of others that I cannot solve.

Ten: Being unwilling to be a third party to solve relational difficulties. "Blessed are the peacemakers" says Jesus. What would happen if every time we heard there was conflict we offered our services to seek to resolve the conflict rather than get involved in the conflict itself. The world would be a different place.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Loud voices are not necessarily majority voices

We make a major mistake in the church when we simply assume that loud dissenting voices reflect the will of the congregation. Often they don't. In fact, in many cases, they reflect the voices of themselves and a few friend but not the congregation at large. It may seem like they do because of the noise but be very careful in your assumptions. Often it is just noise.

I have worked in a significant number of situations where churches were in crisis. That crisis was sometimes caused by the pastor or congregants. What I have learned is that what is presented at the outset is often not what I discover upon due diligence. And that the analysis given to me by strong figures in the church (pastor or lay) is often not representative of the church at large.

I am not discounting the perspective of those loud voices. Often, their perspective makes sense even when it does not reflect the will of the majority. What I am saying is that one needs to be careful not to make assumptions as to the legitimacy of the claims until one has done due diligence and can substantiate claims one way or another. That is why I think "grey" in conflictual situations until I have run my process. Grey thinking means that I am listening and observing without drawing concrete solutions until I have all the facts, not some of the facts.

One needs to listen carefully to both loud and quiet voices in any conflict situation. Often the quite voices are more prescient and accurate that the loud voices who get the most attention. What it appears on the surface is not always what is true in the end. 

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Church conflict and the need for the Holy Spirit to overshadow our own agendas.

I am working with a church in deep conflict. I have a lot of experience in such issues and have come to the conclusion that we can diagnose the problem, understand how we got here and chart a path forward but it is all worthless unless the Holy Spirit shows up and bring an end to our agendas, spiritual pride and calls us to the unity that He represents. 

The first verses in Ephesians 4 says it all: 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 and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Seven times we see the word "one." Yet in order for oneness to reign there needs to be humility, gentleness, patience, forbearance and love. Without that there is no one. Yet that is the calling we received. 

All too often it is our pride (instead of humility), harshness (instead of gentleness), impatience (instead of patience), lack of forbearance (instead of understanding) and hatred (instead of love) that fuels disunity rather than unity. Unity is only possible when we live together in humility, gentleness, patience, forbearance and love. Yet that is the calling we have received according to Paul. When we live contrary to those characteristics we are not living out the calling of Jesus.

Church conflict makes me very sad. We want winners and losers when Jesus wants the One Spirit to reign over all of us. Every time we divide we declare that there is not one Lord (before whose cross we all knees), there is not one Spirit (who inhabits each of us) and there is not one God who ultimately reigns over us. We can divide but the Spirit unites. We can get our own way but it is at the expense of the plan of God. We can fight when the Lord brings peace.

Ultimately in church conflict, it is only the Spirit of God that can overcome our own agendas. I speak this Sunday to a very divided congregation. I cannot solve their problems. I can only point them toward the ONE who can. And it is in Unity that there will be peace. But for that to happen every knee must bow before the one Savior of all, Jesus Christ.

All of T.J. Addington's books are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

Neighbors from Hell

Yes, that was the title of the 20/20 episode I watched tonight. It was amazing to see the petty battles and lengths people can go to in their conflict over seemingly insignificant things. And that people who live in close proximity to one another cannot simply get along. It was funny, sad and crazy all at once.

It caused me to think about some of the conflicts in the local church where the Holy Spirit is actually present but where the same petty conflicts easily become full blown battles. Sadly, many of the behaviors, assumptions about one another and tactics are not much different from the "Neighbors from Hell." Except that we are really called to be "Neighbors headed to Heaven" where we will spend eternity together. 

In the 20/20 episode it was clear that battles among neighbors were all consuming - energy wise and emotionally. Fences were built, cameras installed to watch the actions of the others and all kinds of nasty things done and said to one another. 

Such is true in conflict in the local church as well and as such it is often literally from hell because the Evil One is greatly satisfied when we are fighting one another rather than focused on taking territory for Jesus. The irony in the local church is that our "neighbors from hell" are going to be our "brothers and sister in heaven" one day. Does it not make sense that we would practice on earth what will be true in heaven? - especially as we pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Something to think about.

The saddest thing about the episodes? It was so unnecessary. And so is most conflict in the local church. It robs us of our ability to accomplish what God has called us to do, it diminishes the reputation of Jesus and it is life taking rather than life giving (John 10:10). There are certainly things worth fighting for. Most church conflict does not fit that category. It is a distraction of the evil one from the mission of Jesus for the church.

All of T.J. Addington's books are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

Nine ways that pastors 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 therefor 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 where we want to go but flexibility is usually necessary in order to get there. Often we cannot get everything we desire to get at once. Wise leaders are flexible in how they get to where they are going so that those we lead will actually go with us.

Four: Not running process. This is related to the above. All change requires a process in order to help those we lead go with us. When leaders make decisions that surprise stakeholders and do not run 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 process and it results in conflict.

Five: Not being 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 are critical to a healthy congregation. Often when these are absent dysfunction is the result.

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 creates distrust between two groups which 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 are critical of 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. 

Top blogs on conflict and reconciliation

Incarnation and reconciliation 

Conflict, reconciliation, Jesus, the church and us

Reconciling irreconcilable differences

Lessons I have learned in helping churches resolve conflict

When churches need to reconcile with staff and members who have been treated badly

Unfinished business

Conflict: Walk toward the barking dog

Conflict avoidance creates greater conflict: Four ironies regarding conflict

Five mistakes to avoid in negotiating conflict

Seven things to understand about church conflict

Church conflict: Finding the core issue and the common source

De escalating conflict

Living in peace with one another

Conflict and problem avoidance create sick churches

Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner

Church conflict, christian character and the reputation of Jesus

All of T.J. Addington's books are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 discount on orders of ten or more.

Great article on eliminating church confiict

Check out this short article on how to eliminate church conflict. 

What matters most?

8 reasons in my experience that churches experience major conflict

1. Churches are like families and all families face tensions at one time or another. When my immediate family gets together for a reunion from my parents on down there are over 100 present. No family makes it through without disagreements, bad feelings from time to time or irritations. Churches are nothing more than an amalgamation of families and it is only the Holy Spirit that allows most congregants to do well with one another when you consider the different backgrounds, social levels, political views and ethnic groups that make up the average church. By definition then, all churches will have conflict.

2.  Bad Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is a significant factor in church conflict. The inability to control our emotions, anger and words all contribute to the heightening of conflict rather than the de-escalation of conflict. The lower the combined EQ of the congregation the more likely that conflict will escalate and that behaviors will get out of hand and inflame the situation. In congregations with good EQ, there is a recognition that our behaviors, words and attitudes must be kept in check so that rational conversations can take place, hopefully leading to greater understanding.

3. Personal agendas from people who have influence. Personal agendas in the church are problematic for two reasons. First, the agenda for any congregation is already set by Jesus, the Lord of the Church and understanding His agenda is the role of church leaders. Second, anytime an individual seeks to impose their agenda on the church they have violated the principle of leadership by a plurality of Godly leaders. No one gets their way in the church except Jesus. Trying to impose our will will inevitably lead to conflict with those who do not agree with our agenda.

4. Leaders who do not run good process in change management. Change without a good process that allows people to understand, buy in and be a part of the process will create conflict. In one church I attended, there was an executive decision to cancel all ABF groups which disenfranchised and angered many who found them to be helpful and important to their spiritual growth. Whether the decision was the right one is not the issue. The lack of process inflamed emotions and led to larger conflict within the church. When church leaders do not pay attention to bringing people with them (process) they will incur the wrath of those who feel that their church was stolen from them.

5. Senior pastors who are dysfunctional and lack wisdom, discernment and Emotional Intelligence. These may be brilliant preachers and teachers but the deficits noted above will eventually create significant conflict as they disempower people, marginalize those who do not agree with them, and treat people poorly. Eventually the pile of bodies behind them is significant enough that people start to pay attention and the dysfunction creates chaos which in turn fuels conflict. Lack of wisdom in change, in how we treat people, in running process all contributes to eventual conflict.

6. Lack of clarity. In the absence of clarity (who are we? where are we going? what is our preferred culture? What are our non-negotiables?), people create their own clarity and vision for the church. Soon you have multiple visions for the church and ultimately those visions will collide and create significant conflict over who we are and where we are going. Being everything to everyone will end up with conflict.

7. Poor leadership from leadership boards. In most church conflict I ultimately hold elected leaders responsible either for ignoring the symptoms above or for not handling the conflict well. Boards that allow senior leaders to mistreat staff or congregants, who don't help the church get to clarity, who ignore known issues that become larger issues that blow up, who don't insist on good change processes or who don't listen to the congregation all provide kindling for eventual conflict. Healthy boards pay attention, ask the hard questions, remain united and provide directional clarity for the church. The better your board the less likely that conflict will get out of hand.

8. Lack of leadership from the senior leader or his team. In the absence of leadership, someone will step into the leadership vacuum, sometimes multiple individuals will. Passive senior leaders (If I just preach everything will be OK) often lay the groundwork for conflict through their passivity. Under passive leaders, staff is without direction, dysfunctional leadership paradigms arise and and the congregation wanders like Moses and the Israelites in the desert. Both controlling leadership and passive leadership can easily lead to conflict.

You may not have conflict at present but if any of the eight issues above apply to your congregation you may want to pay attention as they can be antecedents to trouble down the line. If you suffer from several of these issues your chances of conflict go up significantly.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Conversations - why they matter

I recently was asked to sign a document that I could not in good conscience sign. Thus I asked for a conversation with the individual who was requesting it. What I received instead was an email that stated a position based on incorrect assumptions and fears. Not only did it shut down any dialogue but it was decidedly not a conversation.

When there is an issue to be resolved, email missives rarely resolve them. Often they escalate rather than deescalate conflict. They are one way communications that state positions which is not a conversation. When dealing with conflictual situations they are by nature impersonal and decidedly one sided. 

Conversations, on the other hand, are an exchange of ideas, positions or concerns that have the potential to clarity and get to issues that underlie one's concerns. It allows for questions and clarifications between two mature individuals. Often, even if there is not full resolution there is much better understanding from such dialogue.

If the individual above had been willing to converse I believe that many of his concerns would have been alleviated. Instead, by shutting down conversation (stating a position in an email with underlying wrong assumptions) he lives with his unfounded fears.

Where there is an issue, don't negotiate it by email. Try a conversation. It is more productive and certainly the more mature route to take. Any of us can state positions by impersonal email. Being willing to engage in a conversation demonstrates both greater humility and EQ and it has the potential to resolve thorny issues.

Ambiguity is the enemy of unity

There are times when we are tempted to be ambiguous in our answers, directions or instructions. This is especially true of those who by nature want to be liked and default to telling people what they want to hear rather than what one really thinks. Or, simply trying to avoid issues that might be conflictual. It is a mistake!

Ambiguity on the part of a leader is the enemy of unity. A unified team is always based on a high degree of clarity where all involved are clear about their roles and the game plan. Ambiguity, or lack of clarity either out of carelessness or out of a desire to please everyone and avoid conflict actually creates conflict since different people hear different things or in the absence of clarity assume different things.

Conflict is a natural part of team dynamics, at least healthy conflict where differences need to be sorted out and negotiated. When leaders fail to do this out of a conflict avoidance posture, they create the very conflict that they sought to avoid only worse. And it is frustrating to staff members who find themselves at odds with others precisely because their leader was not clear in the first place.

Clarity is a friend of unity while ambiguity is its enemy.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Don't pick a fight where there isn't one

I was in a meeting recently where someone kept pushing on a certain issue they were passionate about which was not the focus of the meeting. They were trying to push a personal agenda and finally the moderator said "Don't pick a fight where there isn't one." 

It was good advice! There are people who have deep convictions or hobby horses on specific issues and want to create controversy among others so that they adopt there view. The truth is, I can respect the views of others without needing to agree with them or endorse their ideas. It happens all the time.

All of us have issues we are passionate about. It is not necessary that we push our convictions on others which often creates conflict. Don't pick a fight where there isn't one! We can live out our convictions without insisting others agree with them. My convictions are mine, yours are yours and sometimes they overlap and other times they don't - at least as non-negotiables. When Paul says to try to live at peace with all men he is encouraging us to be peacemakers rather than creating controversy.

I find that when people seek to pick a fight over an issue they are often black and white folks who cannot understand that people can have a range of views on the subject. Or that others can have different views and be completely rational people. And even love Jesus. Share your convictions but don't insist that others agree with them. Don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Relational resets

There are times when relationships have gone sideways and have become dysfunctional enough that it takes an intentional reset to get them back on track. I have been involved helping a number of individuals recently reset critical relationships.

A reset is not pretending that the issues that caused the dysfunction or conflict is ignored. In fact, it is only when both parties are willing to acknowledge the damage and the reasons for the dysfunction that one can realistically reset the relationship. Without truly honest dialogue parties can sometimes agree to live in peace but a relational reset requires truly honest and candid conversation.

It starts with the ability of both parties to tell one another the truth about how they truly feel and why. In most cases this conversation will need to be brokered by a skilled facilitator who can draw out the issues and ensure that they all get put on the table. In that conversation it is critical that all issues that have become problematic are put on the table so there are no elephants that remain. Getting it all on the table is the first step toward a relational reset.

The second step is to talk through the issues that have been identified without defensiveness on either side. Non defensiveness invites dialogue and without dialogue, parties do not have a chance to understand one another. When we can listen to one another and seek to understand one another it allow us to ask probing questions in order to understand one another and to push into attitudes or practices that have hurt the other party or ourselves.

The third step is to discuss what kind of relationship the two parties desire. Write it down and clearly define the preferred relationship.

Step four is to ask the question, "If we are going to reset the relationship in the way we have defined it, what changes are necessary for each of us?" This may involve, communication issues, keeping short accounts, changing attitudes, not questioning motives and any number of other changes. These identified changes need to be written down as well.

This may not be a short conversation. It could take a day or longer depending on how deep the divisions are. I can tell you from personal experience that it can make a great difference for us, for relationships and for the Kingdom.

Agreeing and disagreeing agreeably

Healthy relationships, healthy leadership and healthy teams are built on a culture of high trust and a culture of high trust requires the ability to engage in honest dialogue about important ministry and missional issues.

Honest dialogue, however, requires the ability to agree and disagree with those we work with without our agreement or disagreement affecting our relationship. In fact, in a healthy organization or team, honest dialogue is always of high value and encouraged because it is in the give and take of ideas, options and alternatives that a team will come to the best solutions.

In a healthy organization, opinions and ideas are seen as neutral, designed to get the team or organization to the best solution.

As neutral, they are not good or bad, they are simply puzzle pieces on the table that may or may not fit the final picture but which need to be considered. Because they are neutral entities, it is not necessary to see disagreement as bad or a challenge to us because we are simply trying to fit the puzzle pieces together in the best configuration. Thus it is not about me or you but about which solution is best for the team and its mission.

Where this breaks down is where a team member so holds their solution or idea as the right one that it is no longer a neutral option but becomes to them to only right option. Someone who must get their own way displays unhealthy emotional intelligence (EQ) and they infuse what should be a neutral option for the group to consider into a more charged issue of what is right (my way) or wrong (the other way). Once this dynamic occurs, trust is damaged for the give and take of options is no longer possible without a fight over right and wrong, rather than over different options.

This often happens on church boards where individuals with strong convictions insist that their way is the right way and what should be an agreeable discussion of options becomes instead a conflictual discussion of options where their is no way to resolve the issue without conflict because someone has drawn hard and fast lines that must either be followed or the conflict will continue.

In these cases, whether on a team or a board, what should be a discussion of neutral ideas and issues designed to get you to the best solution has instead been hijacked by an individual (well meaning or not) who has a personal agenda. Personal agendas hurt group process and decision making because there is no longer the ability to dispassionately discuss ideas and issues. They have now been infused with what is "right" or "wrong."

Those who believe that honest dialogue toward shared solutions means that they can fight for their personal agenda (the way it should be) misunderstand what healthy dialogue looks like. In fact, unless they can grow in their understanding of the give and take of ideas and issues toward a common solution, they do not belong on a team or a board because their agendas will sabotage the process, and damage trust because there is no longer a way to agree and disagree agreeably.

Remember, in a healthy organization, options and ideas are seen as neutral, designed to get the team or organization to the best solution. They are pieces of a puzzle that may or may not end up in the final picture and should be seen as valid options without being infused by personal agendas. Where a team member cannot do that, they don't belong on the team!

Relational breakdowns

It happens way to often in the Christian world. There is relational breakdown between believers that is not addressed.

It may be an offence committed by one party that they are not even aware of but it is held against them by another. It may be disagreements over strategy or philosophy that causes one to marginalize the other. In many cases it actually has no root in reality but one party makes assumptions about the other party and never bothers to clarify whether those assumptions are indeed correct.

No matter the cause, such relational breakdown has an impact that goes beyond the two who don't understand each other. Because of one or both parties mistrust, others around them are infected by the mistrust because it is very hard to hide one's attitude toward another. That means that relational breakdown impacts the ministry that we are a part of. It is not a victimless sin.

The Apostle Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another as much as it is possible. In other words, when we become aware of relational breakdown it is our responsibility to try to address it whether we were the cause or not.

Our unwillingness to try to bring peace is harmful to the work of God and may in fact be sinful on our part. To hold grudges or live with relational breakdown and not have tried to bridge the gap is one of the common but unfortunate tendencies of our lower nature. We have all been guilty at one time or another. Part of spiritual maturity is learning to proactively try to bridge the gap when we become aware of one.

The most obvious step to bridging relational gaps is to start with a conversation. Many assumptions we make about others are wrong. A pastor may assume motives about a board member who challenges him or a team member about another team member.

My experience is that my assumptions about poor motives have almost always been wrong! Because I assumed poor motives I then caused a wall to go up in my own mind about the other. In such cases, it is our fault for the relational disconnect. The other party may in fact be clueless that there is even an issue.

Often, if we are willing to probe and try to understand the other's heart we find out that not only are there not poor motives but we actually want the same thing - but have been misunderstanding one another. Asking questions while not assuming motives or being judgemental can at least get the issues on the table. Unless they are on the table there is no means of dealing with them.
Where the issues are thorny it may be necessary to have a series of conversations or to bring a neutral party into the discussion to seek understanding.

Not all relational disconnects can be resolved because it takes two to want resolution. Most can, if one of the parties will press into the disconnect, acknowledge that it is there and seek to bridge the gap. Even if they know that they were not the cause, a mature individual will seek to resolve it and will not ignore it.

Taking the step of resolution is not always easy. But relational breakdowns are dangerous to a church or ministry organization. That danger ought to outweigh our fear of confronting it. Often we will find that the other party is relieved to solve it.

Taking up the offenses of others

It is an all too common scenario. Someone commits an offense against a friend of ours, we hear about it and we take up the offense as well - harboring ill will toward the one who hurt our friend, and even on occasion speaking ill of them to others.

Taking up the offense of others is a sign of poor emotional intelligence and is a destructive practice. In getting sucked into this practice we often cause relational breakdown with the one who we believe hurt our friend, are guilty of hurting their reputation through gossip, and in a ministry setting, hurt the cause of Christ - without any first hand knowledge of the facts of the matter.

Let me give a first hand example. Years ago, a colleague who worked in the same organization as I decided that I was a "bad" person (I think the actual description on their part could have been stronger than that). They shared their opinion of me with others, most of whom were healthy enough to figure out there was another side to the story. But a few, without any firsthand knowledge took up their opinion and felt free to harbor both animus against me as well as share that animus with others.

Interestingly, those who took up the crusade had no first hand knowledge or interaction that would back up the "charges" and "opinions." Yet they took on an offense and have lived with that offense for years.

The sad thing is that there is no way I can develop a healthy relationship with those individuals or colloborate with them for the cause of the gospel. Their decision to take on the offense of others has built a wall between us that I cannot remove (and did not build). In fact, they have never talked to me personally about their animus toward me but have felt free to talk to others.
It is not about my reputation, that is in the hands of God. It is about healthy relationships, healthy emotional intelligence and the impact those have on Kingdom work.

It happens to many of us but it is a highly unproductive and unhealthy practice. Each of us is responsible for our relationships with others, for keeping short accounts, and for treating others with dignity. If I violate those principles I need to make it right.

But, I am not responsible for the relationships of other people and if there is relational disconnect between others, I can encourage them to make it right, offer to help make it right but what I should not do is take on their offense. It is their issue, not mine. In fact, to believe as "fact" negative information about another without any first hand knowledge is sin: It is not "thinking the best of others," and when we share our negative opinions in the absence of first hand knowledge it is nothing more than gossip.

I wonder how much relational destruction has been done in the Kingdom by people taking up the offenses of others - and in many cases assuming facts and spreading information that has no real basis in fact. It is simply second hand information that may or may not be true

When tempted to take on the offense of others ask yourself:

• Do I have first hand information that the information is true?
• Have I tried to help solve the relational disconnect?
• Have I inquired of the one under indictment whether my understanding is a correct one?
• Is the issue one that is any of my business?
• Do I want to take the chance that by taking on the offense I may be guilty of attitudes and words that are untrue, hurt others and ultimately hurt the work of God?
• Might there be another side to what I have heard?

We have enough challenges in our own relationships to take on the issues of others - which are not our issues.

Discerning the voice behind the voices

Consider a common scenario. You are a ministry leader and you are receiving significant push back from one or more individuals either personally or you are hearing common themes being discussed with others which find their way back to you secondhand (the passive aggressive way to deal with conflict).

As a rule there are two things I want to know. First, who is pushing back and second, who is the voice behind the voices when there are common themes being raised.

When there are rumblings in your ministry and people tell you that there are discontented folks the first question is "who are they?" In fact, I will generally not have a conversation with people who tell me there is discontent in the ranks unless they will tell me who is involved. 

Why? Because there are people who I know that are continually discontented with where we are going, who have attitudes that are critical and cynical and who I know are not really on the team. The fact that they are sources of discontent neither surprises me nor am I going to spend time and energy trying to change their attitudes. On the other hand if the source of discontent is a healthy staff member I am going to press into that to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

There is another scenario that is all too common: you start to hear common themes in a common language which tells one that there is a voice behind the voices who is spreading discontent. The best passive aggressive people are smart. They will not tell you upfront what their issues are but they will tell others who are prone to becoming enmeshed with them emotionally and who will take on their crusade. They are like arsonists who light fires with others behind the scenes but when you show up they are never there to take responsibility. Rather, they use others to carry their water while they remain hidden in the shadows.

Here is what you want to understand in this situation. Those who are loud voices may not be the ones who are instigating the critical spirits. Common language, common complaints, and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Thus to deal with the situation you must find the common source. 

Here is where Christians are often naive. We believe that God's people will act with integrity when in fact they often don't. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Often when asked by church leaders about scenarios like this I will do some probing and it is not difficult to figure out who the common source is. Once that is determined it is possible to develop a strategy to deal with him or her.

Remember: common language, common complaints and common attitudes usually indicate that there is a common source. Figure out who the voice is behind the voices and you have a shot at dealing with the snake in the grass.

When conflict is a good thing

You may be surprised by the title of the blog but the fact is that there can be significant value in conflict if it handled correctly. I am not talking about conflict that arises from poor EQ or power games. I am talking about the conflict of ideas, methodology and priorities.

Why can this be a good thing? For one, it reveals that there are issues that are not clear among those who are experiencing the conflict. Lack of clarity is never a good thing (see yesterday’s blog) so the very fact that there is a lack of clarity gives you the opportunity to work through the issues and come to clarity on an issue that needs clarification.

In addition, it is in the clash of ideas that the best solutions are found. That is why the best organizations today are relatively flat where information is available to all and where it is OK to press into things that we believe need pressing into. Where robust dialogue cannot be had, you have an organization that will suffer because of it. The ability of staff to be able to be candid with one another and their leaders is a barometer of the health of the organization.

One of the common mistakes in conflict is to personalize it rather than to keep it de-personal and seek to identify the clash of values, ideas, or outcomes that has caused the conflict. Getting to what lies behind the conflicting views can help us understand the root issue(s) and allows the group to think through the implications of those root issues. This takes a non-defensive posture by all and a willingness to allow the robust conversation that needs to be had. Often, when you dig to find the root issues – and this only happens in dialogue – you realize that there is an important issue at stake and it was the conflict that brought it to the surface.

Healthy groups have learned the skill of non-defensive conversation and have the ability to keep the conflict centered around issues rather than people. That is a learned skill and a sign of healthy emotional intelligence. It also allows you to use conflict to your advantage rather than allowing it to control you.

Can we talk? Three key questions in relational disconnect

It is amazing what a conversation can do - especially when there is conflict, disagreement or a relationship gone wrong. Conflict and misunderstanding thrive on silence and assumptions. Conversation makes even those we demonize human and at least understanding is possible when two parties are talking. None, when they are not.

Now there are times when further discussion is counter-productive, especially when dealing with passive aggressive individuals or those you cannot trust to not use the conversation against you. So there are times when we choose silence over conversation - strategically.

But in most cases the way to resolution between parties is a conversation with some good clarifying questions, a lot of non defensive listening, and a candid statement of where we are coming from. Several questions are key:

How did we get here?
Do we both want to find a way forward?
What will it take to resolve this?

The first question clarifies the facts or the perception of the facts. It is not about blame but about the facts as we can understand them.

The second question is critical because it calls the question on whether both parties actually want to find a common solution. If no, then further discussion is fruitless. If yes, there is hope for a common solution. Asking the question has the potential to change the conversation from blame and acrimony to "OK this is where we are, legs figure out how to move forward because we both desire that. 

The third question is a collaborative one. It requires both parties to think together as to how they can resolve the issue at hand.

There is not always a way forward. There is not always a will for both parties to find a way forward. But without conversation you will never know.

The leadership stewardship of necessary but hard conversations

One of the most difficult things a team or organizational leader does is to say the hard things to individuals when behaviors, attitudes or performance are problematic. No one likes to have these conversations and if someone relishes them I question their qualifications for leadership. However, those hard conversations are one of the kindest things a leader can do for the individual involved and for the organization.

What is kind is not always easy but it is necessary. Pressing into the hard things is a great favor to the individual. First, because you have given them the courtesy of hearing what others around them are saying or thinking - which they may be oblivious to. Second, it opens up a dialogue regarding issues which if solved will make them better people and better staff. 

That dialogue may also reveal that the individual is not in their correct lane where they are likely to be successful. If that is the case, they probably know in their gut that they are in the wrong spot but don't know what to do about it. Helping them find their lane whether in your organization or another is the prelude to a happier existence.

If the hard conversation meets great resistance and defensiveness you know that you are dealing with an individual with EQ deficits which will manifest itself in other unhealthy ways and must either be resolved or will cause relational damage. In fact, how an individual responds to hard conversations is a very telling factor about their ability to become healthier. Your willingness to press in, however, is often the prelude to greater happiness and satisfaction on their part - if they choose to respond well.

It is also a huge favor to the team or organization. When there are behaviors, attitudes or performance that are problematic it impacts others in the organization. If we choose to avoid the issue (it is an uncomfortable conversation) we effectively disempower others who are impacted. This is why I call this an issue of leadership stewardship. As stewards of our staff or team we have a responsibility to create a healthy and empowering work environment

Often we wait too long to have necessary conversations out of our own issues and discomfort. When we put it off we forget that we are not doing either the individual or the organization a favor by doing so.