For those whose marriages did not turn out the way they anticipated

Life often does not turn out the way we thought it would and this is often true in marriages. If you are struggling in your marriage this is a powerful, powerful song by Casting Crowns.

Broken Together by Casting Crowns

Three reasons to be reconciled with those we have had conflict with in the church

There is no way around conflict in the local church. In fact, it is only the presence of the Holy Spirit that keeps churches from devouring themselves. Coming from all kinds of backgrounds, with our own dysfunctions and issues, it is the Cross of Jesus that gives us a common bond - which we would not otherwise have. And it is the common Holy Spirit that unites us as members of the family of God. 

So why should we be reconciled to one another when there is conflict in the church? We may violently disagree with one another, we may hold grudges against each other. And it is very easy to pick up the offences of others and carry them ourselves. And those we disagree with don't deserve our favor or forgiveness unless they "repent" and choose to agree with us. So why should we be reconciled to each other?

Let me suggest the following reasons to consider. I don't do this lightly as I have been at odds with others in the local church. In fact, I need to do this with great humility. I have had to forgive and be forgiven too many times so this is not a treatise from strength but one from having to face myself too many times. And one from having faced truths from Scripture that I have had to grapple with.

First: We forgive because Jesus chose to forgive us. Ephesians 4:32 says it this way: "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." No matter how much animus I have, I cannot get around the fact that Jesus chose to forgive me and therefore commanded me to forgive others. 

Such forgiveness is not predicated on the confession of others (and in conflict we are often all guilty in come way). Nor is it predicated on having hashed through all the issues (it is often not possible). What it is predicated on is that Jesus forgave us when we did not deserve it and by implication we are to forgive others even if they do not deserve it (in our view).

I fully believe that Christ will hold us accountable for every unresolved relationship we choose to live with when we see Him. What do we say to the one who bore our sin and failure on Himself and chose to forgive us against the fact we chose not to forgive others? The truth is that we will have no answer in the face of his amazing and unmerited forgiveness of us. How can we not forgive others when we have been the recipient of so much grace?

Second: In church conflict we often do not know the full story. There are always two sides and we often are privy on only one. We need to remember that we only know what we know and frankly we usually don't know the whole story. 

Third: Forgiveness and reconciliation do not mean that we need to be best friends with those who we extend it to. It does not mean that we agree with the course of action that was taken. Nor that we must stay in the church. 

It does mean that whether we choose to stay after conflict or leave that we do either with a happy heart and a clear conscience based on reconciled relationships and the lack of unfinished business. Living with ongoing animus or anger is both unbiblical (do not let the sun go down on your wrath) and it is a prison of our own making that we live with and that separates us from others. What reconciliation and forgiveness does mean is that we are willing to live at peace with those we had a disagreement with.

TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."

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.

Lessons I have learned in helping churches resolve conflict

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have come to the conclusion that there are six non-negotiable principles if there is to be 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

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.

Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner

One of the observations I have made in working with churches who are experiencing conflict is that we generally don't do it very well. Conflict itself is not bad if it involves differing ideas as to how to accomplish our mission. The issue is always how we handle the conflict, or our differences. It is poor handling of differences that get us in trouble, not the differences themselves which are merely differing perspectives on what should be done. That being said, here are some principles that can help us negotiate conflict or differences in a healthy manner.

One: Disagreement and expressing that disagreement is not wrong. Some are afraid to share their opinions because they have been told that to do so is gossip. It is not. All of us have the right to share our views in the church with the caveat that we do it in a healthy manner. It is unhealthy to try to shut down discussion in the church. It is OK to talk. It OK to express our views. It is OK to differ with others.

Two: Gossip is sin. Gossip is "idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others" (Wikipedia). Gossip is different than sharing our opinion for it goes to the motivations or actions of others and is generally destructive in nature. Scriptures are clear that gossip is wrong. Gossip includes questioning the motives of others, passing along third party information as fact, and denigrating others. Disagreement or stating our views is not gossip, it is simply defining what we are thinking.

Three. Robust dialogue is healthy. Robust dialogue means that we can put any issue on the table with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas. There are differing views in congregations on any number of issues. It is good to talk about those things but to do so without personal attacks, hidden agendas or language that inflames rather than informs. Healthy leaders invite healthy dialogue and listen to those who speak.

Four: Unity in diversity is critical. Unity within the body of Christ is a high value in Scripture. Congregations are made up of different views, opinions, social and ethnic backgrounds but it is the Holy Spirit that binds us together as one. Each of us has the same Holy Spirit in his or her heart and that spirit is a spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,goodness, gentleness, and self control. If we live in His Spirit we can have differences and still remain united as one body. As Paul put it in Ephesians 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Five: Being able to disagree and stay in relationship is good Emotional Intelligence and demonstrates the work of the Holy Spirit. Each of us has preferences and opinions on many things in the church. What we want to be able to do is to state those positions but remain in fellowship and friendship with those who hold a differing position. This is not always easy but it is Biblical.

Six: By extension, marginalizing or demonizing those who disagree with us is bad Emotional Intelligence and does not reflect the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is another to believe that they are bad people because they believe differently and to allow our differences to shatter our relationships, trust or to see them as evil. This does not reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.

Seven: Taking on the offense of others is foolish and wrong.My best friend has an issue with someone in the church so out of friendship I take up their offense and allow their issue to become my issue. This is foolish and wrong because I have allowed my friend to alienate me from others when I have no personal reason to do so. Nor can I resolve an issue that is not my issue. It happens in families and congregations and it contributes to greater conflict.

Eight: The church is the Bride of Christ and therefore we must display the attitude of Christ toward one another even when we differ from one another. The church is not like any other organization for it is the Bride of Jesus and His chosen instrument to reach the world. We of all people need to be His people in good times and in hard times. Paul writes in Philippians 2:4, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." 

Nine: Forgiveness is often needed when we have conflict. We need not apologize for having differing views and perspectives but we do need to apologize when our words, attitudes or actions get the best of us and we say or do things that are not pleasing to God. I have often had to apologize in times of conflict. God is pleased when we keep short accounts and forgive those who need forgiveness and seek forgiveness when we need it.

Ten: Pray diligently! When we focus on ourselves we want to be right and win. When we focus on God we start to see those who differ with us in a different light and desire God to win. In prayer, our hearts are often softened and changed, our humility is increased and our desire for a Godly solution is heightened.

There will be conflict this side of heaven. Lets do all we can to handle it well.

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.

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

Dysfunctional church leaders, elders or senior pastors hurt people and many of those folks quietly move on to deal with their pain in a healthier place. The wound inflicted, however, is the responsibility of church leadership who allowed people to be hurt and mistreated. In one church I worked with, it included almost every staff member who had resigned over a fifteen year period. In other churches it has been lay leaders who were marginalized and mistreated by senior pastors who were threatened by the leadership of others. In essence they moved out anyone who they perceived to be a threat.

Reconciliation means that we seek to make things right where we suspect that they are wrong. Sometimes leaders must apologize on behalf of those who went before them or for a senior leader who is no longer there. But to leave those relationships scarred is both sinful and the opposite of what Jesus would do. To the extend that we need to humble ourselves and apologize that is what we must do if we are in church leadership.

It saddens me that church leaders who are responsible for creating cultures of wholeness and health often inflict wounds on others or ignore those who do. Instead of a place of healing, many churches are places of hurt. The way out of that behavior is to take responsibility for past hurts that we know of and to seek meetings whether those individuals are still in the church or not. Often, we figure that if they no longer attend it no longer matters. To the contrary, they may well no longer attend because of wounds we have inflicted. 

I have interviewed scores of deeply wounded former staff who were let go and abused by dysfunctional pastors. It will take years for them to heal from a wound inflicted by a bad shepherd. I have also encountered and interviewed many former church leaders or members who were treated badly by church leadership and quietly left their church. Again with deep wounds. 

What is the responsibility of church leadership to address those wounds? I suspect that there will be readers of this blog who long to hear words of apology for wounds inflicted on them. Most will never hear them but I pray many do. If we as leaders will not seek reconciliation where we need to, how can we expect those in our congregations to heed our teaching on the matter?

One church I know made a list of 30 plus cases they knew of and systematically worked to get meetings of reconciliation. It was amazing how many old wounds still raw were healed in that process. I know of churches whose list would be even longer but that means the healing will be that much greater. 

As a church leader, you are responsible to seek healing for those who have been wounded by leadership in your congregation whether it happened on your watch or not. Our willingness to do so is a matter of our humility and whether we have hearts like Jesus.

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.

From theological foes to personal friends: An example of civil discourse across a great divide

One of my bedrock convictions is that if people of differing points of view would develop friendships and relationships and seek to understand each other, much of the rancor and uncivil discourse we encounter in the church would fade. This is not about compromising our convictions but it is about relationship, a willingness to talk and a willingness to understand rather then to simply throw stones and vilify. 

In my observation, there is a whole cadre of Christians out there whose sole purpose in life is to vilify those who engage in dialogue with the "wrong people." And so the industry on the web to discredit people by their association with other people (Rick Warren's friendships with non-evangelical or Christians display number one). If person A, and evangelical, becomes friends with person B, a "heretic" that must make person A suspect as well. So lets go after person A. 

We have lost the ability to have civil discourse among many evangelicals (see my BLOG on this). This is amazing from my point of view when you consider who Jesus hung around with. What do you think He was doing when He  ate at the homes of sinners and Pharisees? Was He not developing relationships? Was He not developing the relational equity necessary to have a conversation about matters of the heart or life? I suspect that if the blogosphere had been around in His time, Jesus would have been castigated for all kinds of relationships.

So, with that introduction, let me share a recent article on what I wish was the case more often. "Two Ministers who forge a relationship across a church divide." I applaud these two men, who come from very different theological places, who started to talk, developed a friendship and in the process started to bring healing between two congregations. If peacemaking is part of the character and heart of God, these two are demonstrating God's character, while their critics in the blogosphere are often not. 

I wish more of this were happening within the evangelical community and that the professional heretic hunters would be seen for what they are when they demonstrate ungodly attitudes in order to castigate Godly enterprises.

(Posted from Santiago, Chile)

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.

The courage to have a direct conversation

It takes courage to have a direct and candid conversation with someone that we have a difference with. Too often, rather than speaking directly we speak to others hoping that they will influence or set straight those we have an issue with. It does not work! Rather it creates even more misunderstanding and chaos than if we had simply sat down to dialogue with the other individual.

If I have an issue with another individual it is my responsibility to deal directly with them, or they with me. Avoidance creates more distance and asking others to deal with it for us is a lack of courage. Hoping the issue will just go away is wishful thinking. It is a Matthew 18 thing!

I spoke to a pastor today who had been dealing with a number of elders who were at odds with him. He had avoided direct discussion of the issues for a number of years hoping that he could build the bridges necessary for resolution. It did not work. When he finally addressed the individuals directly they decided that they no longer wanted to serve in church leadership and for the first time in many years he has a unified and aligned group of leaders. Everything changed, but not before he had the courage to have a direct conversation and address the real issues.

We can run from a barking dog, hide from a barking dog or walk toward a barking dog. Today I do the last! I may not get agreement or resolution (the ideal) but at least I will get clarity and have done my part to deal with the relational disconnect. What I will not do is ignore the issues, hide from them or hope someone else will solve them for me. 

Jesus was always direct. He spoke with grace and truth but he did not dodge issues that were in front of Him. Neither should we.  Is there someone you need to have a conversation with?

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.

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.

Conflict avoidance creates greater conflict: four ironies regarding conflict

Here is an irony. In the name of peace we often avoid conflict - addressing issues that we know are real issues but that we don't want to have to work through. What results is usually even greater conflict because existing issues were not addressed and at some point in time those unresolved issues erupt and create a much greater mess than one would have had if they had addressed the issue earlier. 

In our effort to avoid conflict we actually create greater conflict down the road. In fact, the greater the blowup the longer the underlying conflict has usually been avoided. So those who choose avoidance as a strategy set the group up for a larger confrontation at a later date.

Here is another irony! We consider conflict to be a bad thing. In fact, it is usually a helpful thing because the fact that there is conflict is an indicator that there are issues that need to be resolved. Conflict is simply an indicator that there is an underlying issue that must be addressed. 

In itself, conflict is neither good or bad, simply an indicator, like a tachometer going into the red zone that you better shift into another gear or the engine is going to get too hot. Ignore your tachometer and you have engine trouble. Avoid conflict and you have relational trouble. 

A third irony. It is in the working through of conflict - usually competing agendas, philosophies or critical issues that the best solutions are found. Conflict avoidance solves nothing. Resolving the conflict by addressing the competing ideas or issues actually makes the organization a stronger one. The resolution may not satisfy everyone but getting everyone on the same page is far better than allowing competing agendas or ignoring issues.

We often avoid conflict out of fear that in naming the issue we will look like troublemakers. Ironically, our fear is usually unfounded. In most cases everyone is in the know that the conflict exists already. So in pretending that all is well when everyone knows it is not is pretty silly and solves nothing. How often do church boards or ministry teams ignore the elephants in the room that everyone knows exist.

In many cases, the other members of the group are glad that someone has simply named the elephant and at least opened the floor so that it can be discussed. Until someone names the issue that underlies the conflict nothing can be done. Once named it is an issue that can be discussed. 

As a leader I have had to work through conflictual issues with other leaders or staff on occasion. In every case, it has revealed either fault lines of misunderstanding, philosophy, direction or agendas. Without resolving those fault lines our ministry suffers from the divisions that fault lines bring. Resolution (which can take different forms) can bring unity and strength.

Whatever you do, don't ignore conflict which is an indication of fault lines you want to resolve.

Conflict, reconciliation, Jesus, the church and us

The church, in general, has a pretty bad reputation when it comes to one of the most fundamental calls of the Christian faith - reconciliation. As a church consultant I have seen the road kill and carnage of congregations that fight with one another, people who don't forgive one another, spirits of animosity that poison relationships, recrimination, power plays and church splits. 


Pastors are guilty, board members are guilty and paritioners are guilty. Sometimes, whole congregations are guilty. All of us at one time or another have been guilty. Think of the conflicts we experienced with friends early in life let alone as the years went on. 


Paul, himself, who I will quote below had severe conflict with his partner Barnabas, John Mark as well as with the Apostle Peter. None of us are exempt in a fallen world. Fortunately it seems there was reconciliation in later years. Time has a way of bringing perspective and healing.


While I understand the sinful nature we still deal with as Christ followers, I cannot help but believe that the heart of God is deeply grieved over the divisions within His family - especially the unwillingness of people to seek reconcile their differences (however that is able to be done) and at the least live at peace with one another and at the best understand each other. Our inability to do so is really a rejection of that which Christ did for us in His death on the cross. 


The story of God with a rebellious creation is that of reconciliation. The overarching story, of course is that through Jesus we can be reconciled to God - because of His substitutionary death on the cross for us. This reconciliation brings forgiveness of our sin and therefore peace, fellowship and friendship with God which is what our Creator meant for His created in the first place.


This reconciliation, however has further implications. In Jesus, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). The many things that have divided us, race, ethnicity, social status, education, political party or gender have all been broken down by the cross where we meet God and one another as equals. In God's family, the distinctions that divided us are erased by the Holy Spirit who has made us part of a new family.


Jesus anticipated this breaking down of barriers when He prayed His high priestly prayer in John 17:23: "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."


Likewise, Paul, wrote frequently of the unity of the body because of our adoption into God's family and the work of the Holy Spirit. Consider these words in Ephesians 4:1ff. "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."


Here is my question: If God was willing to send His very son to make reconciliation with us possible why, after receiving that gift, are we not willing to go the smaller distance to seek to reconcile ourselves with others in the family of God?


Is it any wonder that society as a whole is cynical of the work of God when His own people cannot live at peace with one another and fight the same personal and political battles as are fought in Washington between differing political parties? We can be just as nasty, just as vociferous and just as unforgiving and stubborn as the most unregenerate unbeliever. Yet we claim the name of Jesus!


We cannot control what others do or don't do but we can control what we do or don't do. Are we willing to be peacemakers rather than divisive? Are willing to forgive rather than to live in bitterness? Are we willing to overlook the failures of others since love covers a multitude of sins?


I also believe that we need to do a better job of helping our congregations understand the central place that reconciliation is to  play in the life of a congregation. The church should look different than the rest of society! We are, after all His people with His Spirit which is a Spirit of unity. This is an issue that needs to be addressed regularly in a world that is so deeply divisive. 


Living on this side of eternity conflict is inevitable - even among God's people. It is how we handle that conflict that is the important issue. Reconciliation is all about how we choose to handle conflict and broken relationships when they occur. 


What reconciliation does and does not mean:


It does not mean that the conflict was wrong or bad. Without disagreements important issues do not get clarified and addressed. Conflict itself is not bad. In fact it can be exceedingly healthy because it reveals the need to clarify some issue. What it does mean is that we choose to resolve the conflict in a way that is God honoring. As much as it is possible!


It does not mean that we must agree with the other party but it does mean that we can choose to disagree and not hurt one another any longer. Some issues will not be sorted out until eternity when we see fully and where our emotions are no longer in the way.


It does mean that there must be a cease of hostilities, slander, gossip and bad attitudes toward one another. The reputation of Jesus trumps my personal need to be right or vindicated. Carnal behavior in conflict is sin and must be resisted.


It does mean that we try to understand the other party's point of view even if we believe it to be wrong and misguided. The ability to listen, empathize and understand (even if we don't agree) goes a long ways to damper hostilities.


It does not mean that we need to change our minds on an issue if after discussion we remain convinced that we are being true to our beliefs and the facts as we understand them. 


It does not mean that we need to be close friends, or even friends. It does mean that we will not be enemies any longer. We can choose to bless one another without trying to be friends or to force relationships that have been broken. Sometimes keeping a distance is smarter than closeness when conflict has been severe and where it is clear that there cannot be a common solution.


It does not mean that we will always be able to sort through the issues. It takes reasonable, humble and teachable people to sort through issues and that is not always possible. Sometimes we must simply choose to put the issue behind us for the higher value of Christian unity. It does mean that if we have sinned in our attitudes during the conflict we ask forgiveness for our part. 


It does not mean that we forget the offense. That may or may not be possible. It does mean that we choose to forgive the offense because we are commanded to by Jesus who forgave our offences.


It does not mean that we pretend that the issues did not matter. Often they do and pretending that they did not or that all is now well when this is not true is a disservice to the concept of reconciliation. The hardest kind of reconciliation is when we cannot fix the issue but we choose to live at peace in spite of the issue.


Who do you need to reconcile with?


See these other blogs:
Incarnation and reconciliation
Reconciling irreconcilable differences
Unfinished business