Tod Bolsinger (It Takes a Church) has started a series of posts on congregations in conflict. Since this is a topic of particular interest to me, I’ve been reading carefully, anticipating the next installment. So far it has been an excellent read.
“I realized that I was now praying for the peace and unity of five congregations who were falling apart.” -Tod Bolsinger
My first thought was, “Only five? Tod, you need to get out more!”. I will admit I have a skewed perspective since I dedicate a portion of my counseling practice to working with congregations in conflict (including serving as an Intentional Interim/Transitional Pastor at times). In fact, I have one friend who jokes that we Southern Baptists should stop complaining about church splits and accept that it is our preferred method of church planting. I don’t think too many of us are prepared to go that far.
Tod lists five characteristics of the congregations he is concerned about:
1) The conflict is not about theological issues. I have found church conflict has more to do with the color of the carpet in the sanctuary than with theology or doctrine. I think this is because the average church attender doesn’t know what he believes or why he believes it. But, he does know whether or not he likes the color of the new carpet. Or, the style of music. Or, what she thinks of the behavior of the youth group on Sunday nights.
Just don’t try to tell people they’re not upset about doctrine. One nice thing about not knowing the what and why of your own belief system is you get to make stuff up as you go along. A church member can become convinced the pastor’s failure to visit his sick mother in the hospital is an abandonment of Biblical teaching of epic proportions.
2) The conflict is not over social issues. I have not experienced this as a source of congregational conflict. Possibly because so few of the churches I’m acquainted with are doing ANYTHING to minister to the social needs of the people around them. Nor do they particularly see a need to. I don’t mean to be harsh… that’s just my experience.
3) The five churches are from varied denominational backgrounds with different forms of church polity. While I only do strategic interims within my denomination, I work with congregations from a wide variety of denominational backgrounds. The story is the same wherever I go. Similar to the point above, the average attender doesn’t fully understand the structure and polity of his/her own church. Speed Leas and Loren Mead have both written extensively on the causes and management of congregational conflict (much of their material has been published by the Alban Institute). Both Leas and Mead comment on the similarities of churches in conflict regardless of denomination.
4) There are sincere Christian people on both sides. Unfortunately, this makes perfect sense to me. Sincerity of one’s belief is an intellectual exercise. As I understand the concept, it means I’ve thought about what I believe, why I believe it, and I attempt to behave in a way that is consistent with those beliefs. Conflict, however, is about emotions – not reason. Talk to someone caught up in a church conflict and there will be a strong undercurrent of emotional language: “hurt”, “misunderstood”, “not appreciated”.
I would even go so far as to suggest words like “leadership” and “vision” have more to do with emotion and feelings than thoughts and ideas. The language of leadership is filled with abstract concepts that are hard to see or touch. Going back to the average church attender: he or she may not be able to provide a concrete, operational definition of ‘leadership’ but they can tell you pretty quickly whether or not they feel like following. Or, if they feel like they’re a part of the team. Or, if they sense the Spirit moving in their area of ministry in the church.
I don’t wish to start a debate about the primacy of the cognitive verses the affective components of conflict. I do think we need to acknowledge both pieces are present and important.
5) The pastor is at the center of conflict in each of the congregations.
“In short, these church splits, unlike so many of the past are personal. They revolve around the personality, abilities, leadership style and vision of the pastors who lead the church.”
If we were talking about splits within denominations or movements, then I might agree that splits in the past were more ideological in nature and not personal. Tod is going to have to work a little harder to convince me that splits in the past – within one congregation – weren’t also personal. I just don’t see human nature as having changed much in the past 2000 years. Just as ‘all politics are local’, so are all congregational conflicts personal.
One of the things I appreciate in Tod’s writing is his willingness to admit he doesn’t have all the answers. I’m certainly not going to pretend I have all the answers, either. Nor do I believe there is one ‘right’ way to manage conflict in the church.
As I write and react to Tod’s articles on church conflict (it’s so much easier than being creative and coming up with the topic first: thanks, Tod!) I want to be clear about the underlying assumptions and biases I have. First, conflict is inevitable. Conflict simply means you and I disagree or we see things differently. High conflict, however, is not inevitable. Second, we cannot grow and mature without conflict. Some level of disagreement is often necessary to move me out of my ‘comfort zone’. Staying comfortable is the antithesis of growth. Third, since conflict is both inevitable and necessary, we need to learn how to manage conflict within our congregations before it grows out of control.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
