This is only an introduction to the subject at a broad-brush level. These comments are oriented toward church conflict specifically, but are applicable in other situations as well.
This article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…
Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.
1. The Purposes of the Church.
2. Formulating a philosophy of Church ministry.
3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.
4. Pastoral leadership.
Part II, Strengthening Church relationships.
1. Improving church communications.
2. Dealing with church discipline.
3. Managing church conflict.
4. Leading your church through change.
Someone has said that the two leading causes of men leaving the ministry are (1) Their inability to manage conflict; and (2) Their inability to implement change. In fact, these two issues (conflict and change) are tightly interwoven since change itself is one of the leading causes of conflict. So, it makes sense that these are the two leading, interconnected causes of men leaving the ministry.
Conflict in the church is not new. Conflict existed in the early church, despite its apparent pristine condition. We’ll look at some of the biblical examples later. Conflict exists anywhere people with the old nature are present. Conflict occurs when people press their own agenda (their preferences, their opinions, their will) over that of others (cf. Phil. 2:1-4), when they are not willing to compromise or exercise mutual submission. Conflict occurs wherever you have a group of thinking, motivated people. If people are creative, care about their organization, and are motivated to be and do everything to the best of their ability, you are likely to encounter conflict.
I. Some Positive Observations About Conflict
1. Conflict can be healthy. While conflict is usually something we shy away from and which usually has a bad connotation, some conflict is good. Conflict can arise from something as innocuous as a mild misunderstanding. Even if it involves an outright disagreement over something that is serious, it need not necessarily lead to sinful behavior. As long as the parties behave as mature Christians, displaying Christian attributes, and keeping the flesh in check, sin will not be (and must not be) present.
Obviously, conflict that undermines authority or personal self-worth, dignity, or the unity of the church is not good under any conditions. But, if handled properly, conflict is good that stems from or gives rise to a healthy exchange of views or from challenging the conscience (as some preaching does), or that makes people think through their beliefs, traditions, and relationships. Good conflict brings out into the open what was festering underneath, deals with it, and enables all the parties to go on together happily. Good conflict is evidence of healthy life in the body of Christ. Good conflict may open up new ideas and methods. Good conflict may challenge leadership to change course or begin something new, or re-examine the church’s vision, values, or goals. Some of the best decisions are spawned in the soil of good conflict.
When a group of people never has a difference of opinion or practice and where uniformity is the order of the day, you may have a cult or, at the very least, a non-thinking, perhaps apathetic, unhealthy, unmotivated group of people. Healthy conflict is that which is conducted in a God-honoring manner and leads to improved relationships, processes, priorities, and values. Conflict that does that is healthy.
It’s important to understand that conflict and disagreement are not always or necessarily the same. Disagreement can be healthy. It only becomes unhealthy when it degenerates into sinful conflict. Healthy disagreement is the product of open dialogue based on trust, love, and mutual respect. Unhealthy disagreement is when it involves conflict expressed in anger, insults, quarrels, personal antagonism, and disrespect. Healthy disagreement brings out into the open what would otherwise be hidden and fester.
2. Periodic conflict is normal. I don’t mean that it is right or best but that wherever people with fallen natures live together in close relationship for extended periods of time disagreements will occur, and sometimes disagreement leads to conflict. Offences will occur which sometimes give rise to conflict. Personalities will clash and sometimes produce conflict.
Normal conflicts do not have to be bad, sinful, or destructive of relationships. How we handle conflict is the determining factor as to whether the conflict itself severs relationships and is sinful.
3. Conflict does not necessarily produce sustained damage. But this requires sensitive handling of the issue and Christ-like behavior on the part of the parties involved. Conflicts that in the world would leave permanent scars do not have to do so among God’s people. This is why building Christian character in your people through your preaching and example is very important on an on-going basis.
However, I do need to be realistic and warn you that if conflict is allowed to escalate and degenerate into a quarrel, relationships can be fractured, sometimes irreparably, the church can become an unsafe place, and spiritual growth can be hampered.
Conclusions:
1. We need to guard our emotions whenever differences of opinion are expressed, particularly if it is in the form of criticism against you, the pastor, personally, or disagreement with you.
2. We need to beware not to allow Satan to gain an advantage over us through internal strife.
3. We need to constantly examine ourselves – our motives, our pride, our attitude etc.
4. The church is particularly prone to conflicts because of…
a) The closeness in which we live together in the body of Christ.
b) The degree of conviction that we hold about what the church is and how church should be done.
c) The desire for power which is more easily obtained in a church than any other organization.
d) The influence of culture and tradition in the church.
II. Analyzing Conflict
Conflict can be difficult to analyze. The causes of the conflict, the motivations of the parties, the facts of the issue, the history behind the conflict are often difficult to discern. Sometimes, the parties to the conflict do not know the causes, motivations (e.g. their biases etc.). Sometimes, conflict is irrational. Sometimes, two people’s perception and recounting of the facts are completely different.
A. Types Of Conflict.
Conflict has been analyzed into three types (see Speed Leas and Paul Kittlaus, “Church Fights: Managing conflict in the local church,” cited in James Berkley, Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration, 187).
1. Intrapersonal conflict (cf. Ps. 73; Matt. 27:46; Phil. 1:22-23). Intrapersonal conflict is conflict within yourself over competing desires, goals etc. Or, it may be internal emotional, psychological conflict from life circumstances (e.g. loss of a job), which manifests itself in other relationships and contexts.
2. Interpersonal conflict (cf. Gen. 27, Jacob and Esau; Gen. 37f., Joseph and his brothers; 1 Sam. 19, Saul and David). Interpersonal conflict is conflict between two or more persons due to competing personality types, attitudes, upbringing, worldview, temperaments etc.
Paul and Barnabas obviously had very different personalities and temperaments. Paul was very focused on tasks, setting and achieving goals, whereas Barnabas was more focused on relationships and personal encouragement. When it came to dealing with John Mark they had a falling out. This does not imply that Paul was not a people person (Romans 16 would indicate that he was) nor that Barnabas did not have goals. But periodically our overriding temperament comes out and may cause conflict if it is in the context of dealing with someone else of a different personality and temperament. In some cases, certain people’s personality type seems to be always looking for conflict.
Both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts are also found in inter-group and intra-group conflicts. The third type of conflict is what I call...
3. Substantive conflict.
a) Conflict over facts like budgetary items (how much do we have in the building fund; what percentage of total donations should be allocated to missions).
b) Conflict over methods as in evangelism, fund raising, differing approaches to ministry, or engaging in public protests (e.g. at abortion clinics) vs. relying on political intervention.
c) Conflict over values. You can help prevent this type of conflict if your church conducts a core values audit and spells out what its core values really are. Conflict over values and methods of ministry is often seen between age groups where both groups (old and young) hold the same values but express them differently. Some of this stems from tradition or culture that has been established over time.
Often, the generation that follows the founders of a church will follow in the culture that was established by the founders, but sooner or later a generation arises that, in a sense, “knows not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) and which rebels against the culture for culture’s sake.
d) Conflict over goals and priorities such as where to put human and financial resources into developing community outreach or overseas missions. This may stem from losing sight of the purpose and goals of the church. This underscores the value and necessity of spelling out clearly what are the church’s mission (purpose), vision, and goals.
e) Conflict over beliefs and worldviews. These are some of the harder conflicts to resolve because beliefs are held so tightly. We ought always to be willing to re-examine our beliefs and interpretation of Scripture without compromising fundamental truth. The problem is that some people consider any re-examination of any traditionally held view as compromise. But this is not necessarily the case, as in, for example, church structure. Not long ago most, if not all, Baptist churches in Canada were structured around deacon leadership. Now, most of them have changed to an elder / deacon structure in response to a fresh examination and understanding of Scripture. This kind of re-examination of our practices and culture in the light of Scripture is good.
The biggest problems occur, obviously, in those areas where interpretation of Scripture is hard, or where Scripture is unclear or silent. Often these are in areas of practical application. Question: What might be some of the contemporary issues that contribute to conflict of doctrine or practice? Some answers: The role of women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, music styles, Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
f) Conflict over power and control. There may be an attitude of “This is our church, we started it.” I deal with this in greater detail in the next article in this series called “Leading your church through change.” We need to understand at this point that the desire for control is a very strong motivator for some of God’s people. My observation has been that, often, those who want control are those who have little or no position of control in other endeavors in their lives (e.g. they do not hold a position of authority in their work, or even at home sometimes). Thus, they have a subconscious need for power to generate self-esteem and recognition, and the church is the obvious place to try to get it. In fact, it has been astutely observed that the church is probably the easiest place to obtain power and to potentially abuse it because (i) Christians (and Christian leaders) often find it hard to confront people and deal with such issues; and (ii) Power is often conferred in the church just by a person’s popularity, not ability or godliness.
Power struggles often stem from money. Those with more money sometimes think that they should have the right to be heard over others and to get their own way. Social status and even education can do the same thing. Pastors need to be careful that they do not seek power because of their position or education. The biblical instruction that I think is very apropos in this situation is that we are to “esteem others better than ourselves” (Philippians. 2:3) and “to not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think” (Romans 12:3).
Conclusions. Of course, any one of these conflict types may overlap with another – e.g. conflict over which project to spend money on may expose personality differences. Analyzing the type of conflict is obviously valuable in resolving the conflict as it will determine your approach.
Often, the type of conflict may be masked by a Christian veneer of submission (e.g. “I only want what’s right for the church”), or godliness (“I don’t want this for myself but for the glory of God”). We need to be able to cut through that veneer to see the true source of the conflict. When conflicts arise out of a false front (e.g. when you are dealing with people who are not explicitly honest about their goals and feelings) you can easily go after the wrong type of conflict, thinking that it is a conflict of substance when it is actually a conflict of personal ambition or control.
So long as people have opinions and convictions, and so long as they feel passionately about their church and its mission and vision, then you will inevitably have some sort of conflict. What is of most importance is the motivation of the conflict and its resolution.
B. Some General Steps In Analyzing Conflict.
1. Analyze what type of issue it is. Is it a doctrinal issue? Is it a church ministry issue? Is it a leadership issue? Is it an interpersonal relationship issue? Is it a financial issue? etc.
2. Analyze all the known facts about the issue. Acting without all the facts can get you into hot water. Remember, there are often two sides to the story – the side you have heard is not necessarily the only one or the true one. During this part of the process you may learn facts and aspects of the issue that you did not know before.
3. Analyze what category of conflict this issue falls into. If it is a doctrinal issue, decide what category of doctrinal issues – one that threatens your fundamental, evangelical beliefs, or a secondary issue over which we have some liberty. If it is a ministry issue, decide what category of ministry issue – one that revolves around practice or people; one that speaks to your core values or long-term goals etc.
Ask yourself how widespread or deep this issue is. Is it a full-blown, church-wide drama (either actual or potential), or is it something that the majority of people wouldn’t care about? Is it something that attacks who we are, what we stand for? Is it an issue that could dishonor the Lord’s testimony in this community?
4. Analyze the people involved. Who are they? Have they been involved in such conflicts before (i.e. are they habitual fighters)? What might be their motives in this conflict (e.g. defending other family members)? Is this a power issue? Are they part of a clique in the church?
5. Analyze the level and state of the conflict. The most serious level is one in which (a) the parties are mad at each other, shouting etc.; (b) the conflict may cause a split in the church; (c) resignations have been tendered or pending; (d) threats are being made; (e) this is a full-blown fight over irreconcilable differences.
Below that there is an intermediate level, where there may be a sense of foreboding that is hanging over everything. Things don’t seem to be progressing. The future seems uncertain.
Then, there is a manageable level, where people are cool, calm, and collected. This conflict is characterized by the discussions and decisions that are being made. Resolution seems to be near.
The healthy level is one where the disagreement is minor and positive results are appearing. The conflict is producing some good results. No damage to relationships appears to be sustained. The parties are acting in a mature manner. This is a situational problem that can be resolved
Analyzing the level and state of the conflict helps you determine the urgency of intervention. You will be able to determine the risk factors, the seriousness of the conflict, what is at stake, how entrenched are the positions, how illogical and emotional the parties have become.
6. Analyze the problem over a reasonable period of time. Time does a number of things: (a) It allows you to digest what you learn about the conflict before acting; (b) It gives you time to pray about it; (c) It gives you the opportunity to consult others if necessary; (d) It gives you space to arrive at a wise decision (wise decisions are not made in a hurry); (e) It gives time for emotions to settle down (time is a great healer).
III. Some Sources Of Conflict
A. Personal Affront.
Personal affront can be caused by different sources…
1. Unfairness, injustice. Churches are notorious for dealing with people (staff or members) unfairly or unjustly. Some pastors are let go from their church for the most unjust reasons. For example, a pastor who was diagnosed with cancer was let go because he would “not be productive” during his chemotherapy treatment period. That church justified their action on the grounds that it was in the pastor’s best interests to be free from the pressure of pastoral responsibilities during his treatment period. But what about the pressure of no income? What about the love and care for someone who is undergoing a heavy burden? What about just being kind and fair?
2. Favoritism. Often decisions are made based on the person involved. Certain persons are given permission and freedom, for example to carry out certain ministries or functions, when others are not.
3. Left out of the group. A few years ago I was involved in conducting a significant survey of our church to get a handle on the church’s current state of affairs. One of the things we did was conduct some exit interviews. Many of those interviewed disclosed that they had left the church because they felt that they didn’t fit in or that there was no sense of belonging, of community.
B. Differing Convictions.
Some church conflict arises over matters of doctrine, but they are usually intertwined with matters of practice such as the role of women in ministry, leadership organizational structure and selection, church music (e.g. contemporary vs. traditional).
The differing convictions that give rise to church conflict usually are not doctrinal convictions (although the antagonists often would like to make them doctrinal!) but matters of personal preference that is raised to the level of personal conviction, or matters dealing with church practices or power. Many issues of power are masked as issues of doctrine.
C. Unfulfilled Expectations.
Why do unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conflict? Because unfulfilled expectations lead to disappointment and disappointment can affect one’s attitude. And because unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conclusions that, for example, promises were not kept, which in turn generates feelings of distrust, lack of integrity.
Why is it so important to establish clear, definitive expectations? Because expectations (whether stated or assumed) set the standard against which people measure future performance.
What are some of the expectations that church leaders need to define? They may be such matters as the expectations of their ministry leaders, pastors’ job responsibilities, or scope of authority.
D. Unclear Definitions.
Often churches fail to define things like job descriptions, ministry plans and goals, leadership authority, organizational structure. When these important matters are undefined or unclear, they can easily lead to conflict.
E. Leadership And Decision-Making Style.
Here are some of the styles that can cause conflict: Autocratic vs. collegial; top down vs. team approach; political maneuvering vs. forthrightness and openness. These processes probably causes more conflict than the issue itself because people are not informed fully or because they are not given enough time to think the issues through.
F. Habits, Attitudes, Behavior, And Personalities.
There may be toxic attitudes that need to be addressed in dealing with conflicts, such as a root of bitterness, critical spirit (cf. Eph. 4:31-32; Heb. 12:15); a critical spirit; gossip and evil speaking about others (cf. James 3:1-12; 4:11); self-will; pride; stubbornness; the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21).
These negative, sinful habits and attitudes need to be replaced with the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:19-22) – love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1); respect and honour; mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21).
G. Contemporary Issues.
Among other matters, contemporary issues include the style of church music, women in ministry, leadership structure, the division of power (between members, elders, pastors), redefinitions of pastoral authority and responsibility, and transitioning from one generation to the next.
H. Change.
See my article on “Leading your church through change” (“Change: Culture and Control”).
IV. Some Biblical Principles And Studies On Conflict
A. Biblical Principles For Managing Conflict.
Notice how pervasive in Scripture is the exhortation and instruction to unity and peace:
Psalm 133:1; Proverbs 16:7, 32; 17:14; 18:17, 18; 19:11; 20:3; 21:14; 26:17; 26:20-21; Matthew 5:9; 18:15-17; John 17:20-23; Romans 12:14-21; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:4-13; 2 Cor. 2:11; Gal. 1:6; 4:11-12, 20; Ephesians 4:3; 4:25-32; 6:10-20; Col. 3:8-9, 15; Phil. 1:27; 2:2-5; 3:15-16; 4:2-5; 2 Tim. 2:24-25; 2 Tim. 4:14-15; Titus 3:10; James 4:1-10; 5:16.
B. Biblical Examples Of Conflict.
Judges 15, Samson’s responses to conflict. Samson’s responses actually escalate the conflict: (a) The response from the mind - impetuous decisions (e.g. to marry a Philistine); (b) The response from the will - arrogant behavior (e.g. posing a ridiculous riddle); (c) The response from the heart - uncontrolled emotion (he will take revenge for losing his wife to another man); (d) Rage that distorts his reason such that his response is totally disproportionate to the offense (e.g. tying 300 foxes’ tails together and setting their tails on fire). One act of uncontrolled emotion leads to another – it doesn’t end with the loss of crops but escalates to the loss of life, a great slaughter. Revenge and retaliation never solve the problem.
Other texts for private study: Luke 10:38-42; Acts 6:1-6; 11:1-18; 15:1-35; 15:36-40 (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11); 1 Corinthians 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 10:2-11; Gal. 2:11-21; 6:1-2; Phil. 4:2-3.
When studying these texts, answer the following questions: What was the issue? Or, what was the cause of the complaint / conflict? What happened? How was it resolved? What can we learn about church conflict from this example?
V. Some Principles And Practices For Resolving Conflicts
A. Some Good Principles To Adopt.
1. Make sure that you approach the conflict with the right attitude. This applies to both the parties involved in the dispute and to the pastor / mediator of the dispute. The attitude of the parties is vitally important in bringing about resolution. If you, as the pastor have the wrong attitude either towards the issue or towards either of the parties, you won’t be effective in bringing about resolution. If either of the parties has the wrong attitude towards the other, the chances of resolution are slim. The overriding attitude must be one of grace, humility, kindness, love, peace-making.
Biblical principles about our attitude must be foremost in our minds. In this regard, the beatitudes become very meaningful in conflict resolution. The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) is very important to remind yourself of the right attitude. Make sure that you judge your own heart before engaging in conflict resolution. You can be just as critical, harsh, uncompromising etc. as anybody else. Part of one’s attitude is the recognition that God is able to resolve these disputes and that just as he gave Solomon wisdom, so the Holy Spirit can give you the necessary wisdom.
2. Whenever possible, try informal resolution first. Try to defuse conflict before it becomes a public issue. It’s much better to deal with conflict informally. Once it becomes public, you have to deal with it formally and decisively using the above steps.
Informal processes for dealing with conflict would include one-on-one counselling sessions with the parties; group counselling sessions. Group sessions are helpful in bringing the parties together to talk about the issue and to bring the facts out into the open. Often disputes can be dealt with this way since all the parties may not know all the facts, all the parties may not realize how they have offended others, the parties may not be talking to one another – a sure way not to resolve the conflict. Another benefit of a group meeting is that you will learn things about the conflict that you did not learn from the parties individually. Conflicts are rarely as simple as the parties involved may make them out to be.
3. Trust The Effectiveness Of Prayer. Bathe all conflict in prayer. This means not only your own prayer about the situation but the prayer of the parties involved. Insist that they commit to pray about it. Involve your elders in praying about it (if that is appropriate). Begin your conflict resolution meetings with prayer, involving the parties in praying together at those meetings. During the meetings when tough issues are being discussed and / or things are going off the rails, don’t be afraid to stop the proceedings for a time of prayer.
B. Some Good Practices To Follow.
1. Be objective. Deal with the facts as much as possible, not the emotions. Don’t allow yourself to respond emotionally or defensively. For example, if you are dealing with a theological / doctrinal issue, deal with the theology objectively, precisely, biblically; bring Scripture and commentaries to bear on the issue.
2. Be neutral. Don’t show partiality (James 2:1-10). Ignore who the parties are (whether you like one and not the other etc.). And don’t try to manipulate the parties by forcing them to settle the dispute. If you are perceived as using force (either mental, emotional, or spiritual), you will erode the position of trust you hold. And, beware of misusing Scripture – that is a form of manipulation. The parties to the dispute have to willingly settle it or it will arise again.
3. Be a peacemaker, not at any price, but work to bring about peace. You are a pastor and a pastor wants peace among his people for their spiritual, emotional, and relational benefit and for the benefit of the church as a whole. After all, conflict has a quenching effect on the Spirit and can bring dishonor on the Lord’s name.
You can be a peacemaker by the way you treat the parties to the conflict, by the way you conduct conflict resolution meetings, and by ensuring that all parties are treated with respect. You can demonstrate this by making your language and resolution options non-personal. You are dealing with the issue, not trying to chastise, humiliate, or demean any of the persons. It’s always appropriate to stress the need for grace and Christlikeness.
4. Be prepared to be misunderstood. Typically, one or more of the parties will misunderstand you and / or attribute false motives to you and / or accuse you of not defending them. The reality is that though you may be acting on behalf of one of the parties, you are actually acting for all.
5. Be strategic, not haphazard. For example…
a) Establish an agenda for all conflict resolution meetings. You may have several meetings and the agenda for each meeting will be different. The purpose of an agenda is to keep the meeting focused and moving toward the common goal of resolution. The first agenda item should be obtaining agreement on the facts. If they do not agree on what the problem is, you can’t begin to resolve it.
b) Get the input of other people. Perhaps friends of the parties (if appropriate) can help with resolution (i.e. people who the parties trust and love, and whose advice they will heed).
c) Ask hard questions of the people involved. Challenge them to support their statement with facts and figures. Often in conflicts, sweeping generalizations are made or statements that are inferences and not facts. The investigation of charges made is biblical (Proverbs 18:17).
d) Establish the rules of procedure and etiquette - e.g. that it is alright to disagree; that everyone’s opinions are to be respected; that people may not interrupt each other or start to argue; that no one will be allowed to say anything derogatory about or to anyone else; that emotions are to be expressed maturely and with restraint.
e) Be in charge of the process. Take charge of the process when engaged in a face-to-face meeting with the parties. You are the chair and mediator. They may not agree with your opinions or proposals, but they have to accept your leadership or else the process has no integrity.
f) Work purposefully toward a resolution. Keep everyone focused on the task at hand. Don’t let the attention wander to unconnected issues. As you progress through the process, periodically summarize where you are and what has been agreed upon so far. Make sure all parties agree.
g) When appropriate, provide options, give your opinion, recommend your preferred solution (if you think it will help and be accepted). But, only articulate a recommendation or opinion if you absolutely have to in trying to break a deadlock. Don’t be offended if your ideas a rejected. Even though you are their pastor, when push comes to shove in a nasty conflict, your opinion may not mean much.
Remember that your primary role is to let the parties resolve the issue. That is the best and the most enduring resolution to conflict. But sometimes some parties cannot work out a solution. They may not have the skills to do so or the maturity. Or, they may be so emotionally involved that pride stands in the way of suggesting a compromise. That’s when you can say what they would not.
6. Options if no resolution is achieved. Not all conflicts will be resolved right away and some may never be resolved. If you cannot bring about resolution through this mediating process, you have a few options:
a) You can send the parties out for professional counselling or professional mediation.
b) You can involve the elders, particularly if the nature of the case may involve church discipline.
c) You can negotiate for more time.
C. Some Common Responses To Conflict Resolution.
The parties involved in conflict will respond somehow to the conflict and any attempts to resolve it. Each of the following responses to conflict and conflict resolution may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation. Typically, all responses fall into one of the following categories (these ideas are taken from Seidel, “Charting a Bold Course,” 259-262, but the expression of these ideas are mine)…
1. Avoidance (withdrawing). A party to conflict may just avoid dealing with the conflict altogether either because the issue is just not resolvable, or because the issue has gone on and on and they need to bring it to an end, or because the person is incapable of looking the other party in the eye and dealing with the issue.
The dangers of responding in this way are that (a) the conflict is never properly closed; and (b) the other party will appear vindicated (or, be the self-declared winner) by virtue of your silence – i.e. you are wrong by default.
A personal experience of avoidance. I had an experience one time where an elder of the church I pastored used avoidance so that the issue was never properly closed. He had an issue against me (I don’t know what), so I asked him to come in and speak with me about it (whatever it was). But when he came in he would not disclose what the issue was, saying that he had other things going on in his life that caused him to act the way he did (i.e. he used avoidance). This was no good. I could not resolve the issue or even attempt to resolve it.
So, if someone uses avoidance because they are afraid to address the issue directly with the party involved, you cannot resolve it. This is not a satisfactory way to deal with conflict.
Avoidance may be used in the following situations…
a) To temporarily to buy time while seeking a resolution in other ways or
b) Where a face-to-face meeting to resolve the issue would be explosive and perhaps do permanent damage.
c) Where the issue really isn’t that important.
d) Where there is no hope of resolution.
2. Capitulation, giving in, accommodating the other party, surrendering. In this response, one of the parties quickly yields to the wishes, opinions, decisions of the other party. Typically, this is done by those who consider the relationship to be more important than the issue; or who just are not fighters or cannot fight. While this will superficially terminate the conflict quickly, underneath the issues and hurts may continue to fester, particularly in the one who capitulates. Obviously, this would be an appropriate way to respond if the issue is not that important to you anyway; or where maintaining the relationship really is more important than the issue itself; or if you, as the one who submits, are wrong and you know it.
3. Compromise. Compromise is a very common response to conflict. It’s a common approach to contract and union negotiations. Each party is urged to give up a little ground in order to reach a point where the issue disappears. While this is not the best resolution it can be effective so long as neither party is forced or manipulated into it. If they are, then the problem will surface again either in poor relationships or another issue.
The weakness of a compromise is that neither party is truly happy. Each party thinks that they had to give up too much. The key to negotiating a successful compromise is to leave both parties genuinely happy with the solution and not feel like they have agreed to something that underneath they resent. You may want to adopt this approach where the ground that both parties give up is not vitally important, or when no other better resolution is forthcoming.
4. All-or-nothing. Sometimes parties to a conflict approach it as a competition in which the parties either win or lose. This is the response of (a) those who are very competitive and who have no intention under any circumstances of losing (or being perceived as losing) this argument; (b) the egotist who has no consideration that he/she might be wrong and who has no consideration for the feelings or opinions of the other party; (c) someone who “fights for their rights no matter what”. This is a power-based response. This is usually used by someone who is verbally loud, a verbal fighter, an arguer, or someone with money and status.
Obviously, this is not a satisfactory response or resolution either for the “winner” or the “loser.” The winner actually loses because he thinks he is right again and is confirmed in his wrong attitude about himself and others. The loser also loses because they are hurt, trampled on, and marginalized. The only instance where “winner-take-all” is appropriate is in cases of outright illegal activity or denial of fundamental biblical truths. For example, if fraud were committed by someone in the church, the case would be investigated and proven and the resolution would be effected with no discussion, no compromise, no negotiated deal. But even in this case, we should always make sure that our attitude is right. It should not be the attitude of the winner-take-all, but of humble faithfulness to the glory of God and the truth of Scripture.
5. Mutual agreement. This is the most satisfactory response of all. Here, you attempt to get a true resolution through a mutual agreement. This is not a compromise in that (a) both parties have participated in the process and are both genuinely convinced of the agreement so that they are not compromised in their beliefs, ideas, or opinions; (b) both parties have probably had to move a bit in their position (i.e. both parties have given something up for the benefit of all and what they have given up has not compromised them).
The benefits of this resolution are that (a) by involving all the parties and working through the issue to bring about a mutually acceptable solution or agreement everyone is happy and the chances of long-term agreement are good; and (b) it preserves the relationships as well as addressing the issue – neither one takes priority.
The challenge with this response is to get the co-operation of the other party. To do so, it requires the willingness of both parties to achieve this result through honest and transparent dialogue. Typically, this kind of response only takes place where the parties are mature emotionally and spiritually.
Whenever possible, I think that this response is the one to be worked for. It does not require either party to compromise their position and yet produces an acceptable result through intelligent, biblical, and prayerful dialogue. Obviously, because of the nature of conflict, this response is not very common or conflict would not be very common.
Final Remarks
Managing church conflict is such a broad topic that an article like this cannot possibly cover all possible scenarios, whether it be analyzing conflict, identifying various types of conflict, or steps to resolving conflict. So I readily admit that this article only covers these topics in a broadbrush way. But I do hope that the comments in this article prompt you to think about these issues, research them in greater depth with the objective of developing your own understanding of the best principles and practices that you can apply to your own pastoral leadership skills.
Above all, I trust that the ideas communicated in this paper will assist you in facilitating unity in your church for the benefit of the church members and for the glory of God. Disunity, that conflict can cause, is probably the primary tool Satan uses to weaken the church’s testimony, to dishonor God, and to cause Christians to be discouraged. May God help us to be unifying and peace-making pastoral leaders.
English (US) · 