Conflict is not a Bad Word
This paper arose from a meeting about relationships in the Church. The subject was “How we can communicate in a manner that improves the character and vitality of relationships as a whole”. Generally, this doesn’t come up for discussion unless there’s some degree of concern, whether good or bad. Simply talking about communication is somewhat academic without the benefit of an appropriate disagreement. I want to examine “Resolving conflict in a way that brings respect to disagreement”. The reason for addressing this area is because it’s likely that communication issues in the church, stem from conflict. This isn’t an exhaustive examination, but food for thought and I purposefully speak in general terms when referring to the church. I don’t claim to have academic qualifications in conflict resolution. I have some experience resolving conflict in the governance of schools, and the local Church. Both organizations experience times of severe disagreement, however, disagreement itself isn’t the problem, it’s the process we follow that brings respect to the conflict, and determines the degree of biblical resolution we experience.
In my experience, two emotions undermine mature communication when a disagreement happens, “fear and offence”. When either of these emotions dominates the discourse, personality degradation becomes the focus of conflict. We witness a “fight” or “flight” mentality that exhibits extremes of emotional reaction. Some will trade personal insults, while others will bury their heads in the sand. Both have the effect of infuriating the conflict or sending it underground. Here it becomes gossip and discontent. Defensiveness, insecurity, and lack of knowledge about the issue that created disagreement, are also unhelpful.
These emotions are a consequence of the human condition, but a better example might be expected in the church. However, we know that the same condition confronted the Apostle Paul and suggests a higher standard should be the plumb line by which our feelings and opinions are tested. Christianity requires us to submit to Christ. Yet, even in the church these emotions often derail reasonable debate.
Our success in resolving conflict is arguably worse than secular conflict, due to theological tensions, and this is somewhat ironic. The world observes this chaos through, church splits, unresolved disagreements, marriage breakdown, toxic religion, judgement, and gossip. All these situations are caused by the absence of love and respect, for each other as equals!
The current level of disquiet among mature Christians suggests that while many don’t know “why”, we know that something is wrong, and church function is not as it should be. Some resistance to confronting disagreement appears to be more about protecting positions of authority. In some situations, the stamina required to deal with these conflicts might be considerable, and therefore not viewed with enthusiasm. Consequently, serious discussion can be dismissed because of the time it consumes. In recent years alone, there have been many serious issues surrounding the wider Church, and many people leave over conflict that’s not addressed in a manner that recognizes the right of all believers to contribute equally and respect the importance placed on the issue. Therefore no reconciliation is reached. Time passes and conflicts are buried, but the underlying dissatisfaction remains and is never resolved to any degree of biblical integrity.
For a positive resolution to emerge from any conflict, we must acknowledge that a problem exists in the first instance. This might depend on what we consider a problem, but any issue that causes a breakdown of relationships is a problem! The Apostle Paul addressed this condition as, spiritual immaturity, by people who preferred the ways of the world. How we process disagreement could be argued as the fragile underbelly of disunity, and here lays the challenge. Satan does not cause conflict, as some would conveniently like to imagine; WE cause that? Evil works through our soulish reactions to conflict, and in this Satan finds fertile ground. The accusation of satanic influence can be used as a means of controlling those who raise contentious issues, however, the accusation of satanic influence can be worse than the conflict itself. It appears less than productive to begin any discussion by spiritually maligning those with whom we may disagree!
Once we can agree that conflict exists, we might establish how this affects relationships and the general health of the Church. Communication issues often arise from the authority wielded by leaders, differences in doctrinal opinion, or personality conflict. It’s important to acknowledge that the feelings of offence are not unreasonable but not necessarily legitimate. Our opinions may well be right, but neither justifies the use of disparaging comments about someone’s faith and shouldn’t usurp mature Christian debate.
Many opinions exist about how the Church should function, which may be why problems exist in the first place. After all, what is “the church”? It’s not unreasonable to ask this question because Christian purpose is often defined in the context of the Church as a building or denominational structure. But this is not Church, and should not be viewed as an end of itself! The Church (ecclesia) refers to people, as “born-again believers” or those “gathering together as the Body of Christ”. The most common description of “the church” today, refers to an affiliation with a building, or religious denominational structure, which is incorrect. A denomination or building shouldn’t exist for the benefit of the structure but to serve those who are the body of Christ. The church, is a totality of its independent parts, coming together with interdependent purpose and conflict is often generated by the overbearing authority of the structure itself.
Christianity is a simple faith and entirely relational until you ask, WHY? At this point, it becomes academic and somewhat theological. Therefore, any resolution of conflict will exceed the endurance of many in the Church. Ultimately conflict resolution will involve a prolonged cycle of hermeneutical responses as we grapple with the complexities of scripture. This can be productive, and a maturing process for those in the church, as we contend for the faith. Contending for the faith is the responsibility of every Christian, and it’s overly convenient to dismiss conflict based on traditional mores.
Conflict in the wider church appears more between mature believers. The Apostle Paul might argue that conflict and maturity are incongruous and always present, so it might be that the processing of conflict exposes our immaturity, not the conflict itself. Mature believers make up the majority, of those who leave recognized denominational churches, for reasons of disillusionment. As an aside this decision should not presume a rejection of faith. Disillusionment might arise from disagreement, or conflict, and may bare the scars of offence, rejection and hurt. But these emotions exist in the feelings of all Mankind, so it’s extremely tenuous to judge each other, on the grounds of presuming some emotional deficiency. Even if a believer stops going to, “a church”, this doesn’t make them any less a believer, or any less justified by God! In the same manner that we might reject those God has Justified, we bring judgment on ourselves. It’s very convenient to label each other as “backsliders” or the “emotionally hurt”.
This growing disillusionment suggests that our processes for resolving conflict are not respecting the reasons behind the conflict. I accept there are always exceptions to the rule, but generally, this appears to be the case. Open debate about conflict among believers rarely occurs! Some may disagree with this opinion, but happy mature Christians don’t leave the relational intimacy of church, for no reason. Most that leave seem to express similar tones of disillusionment. Many Christians continue with the relationships they’ve been in for many years, which is good. This paper is not about encouraging people to leave, it’s about promoting change. However, many who stay also harbour the same feelings of disquiet and express them within trusted circles. Attendance and giving can be the first to be withdrawn. The reason that many stay has more to do with the relationships they have, than agreeing with everything that happens.
I believe that most mature Christians instinctively know something is not right in the Church, but don’t know why, or how to change it. At the same time, most would view the thought of trying, as simply too hard! Understandably, the subject of conflict may have emotional undertones for some, but refusing to acknowledge the concerns of each other, can be the soft underbelly of a vulnerable institution. The resolve to encourage open and effective communication needs to be established. We need to understand why many Christians feel disillusioned in the first place.
Communication seems more about submission to authorities, so can conflict resolution ever be productive within a religious system that protects itself through its traditions? When I talk about a “religious system” I’m not speaking about people. It’s about the traditions and practices of the institution itself, which have been enshrined as the hard drive defaults that decide how a Church interprets itself. These defaults also decide the expectations of those within the system. Even those with the authority and ability to challenge or change these defaults, rarely do! The system always wins and completely undermines the reason for its very existence. If you want to belong to the organization you must do what the default requires of you, or leave! Most of the difficulties we face are perpetrated by these system defaults and those who administer them. These lines of authority preserve leadership inequities, with some leaders even denying that hierarchy exists. However, this understanding is a little naive. Where-ever someone is appointed, or assumes, a position of seniority (especially when unsupported by scripture), to decide for, and over, others; hierarchy exists.
It may be hard at this point for some to understand the distinction between faith and religion. Some years ago a group of Men who loved riding motorcycles, decided to form a club and encourage other riders to join with them. As the years went by the “Ulysses Motorcycle Club” grew to such proportions that it had club affiliations throughout the country, and a national body to govern the club’s affairs. All appears to be good it would seem. But as time went by the national body began to set up rules for riding, rules for membership, rules for organizing rides etc. Eventually, the freedom and original purpose of riding motorcycles were swallowed up in the organization and authority of the club itself, and thus the club became more important than the riders, and many felt the club had lost its way.
Many Christians haven’t considered the sway that tradition has on our faith. The irony is that we read about examples of this in the bible, and understand the unbiblical nature of such abuses, but fail to see the same within our environment. We haven’t considered how this affects our sanctification, or what effect it has on authority in the Church. Do we consider how these things have influenced doctrine in the church? Again some may not understand where I’m going. Take the Catholic Church. Generally, when we think of Catholicism, we think of the POPE, along with a religious system that’s defined by its hierarchy, its robes, its autocracy, its rules, and its control. The Vatican over arches and decides for all the church. It’s not a fluid body of individual believers, summed up by the totality of many parts. To belong to the catholic faith, you obey the rules. There’s little room for a personal relationship with Christ, because the Pope, as God’s anointed representative, stands between the believer and God. The Corporate Church is the structure that decides for all. At its heart is a management system, with a religious hierarchy that instructs through its traditions and rules. It intends to preside over its followers. For a more contemporary example, we might look at a very prominent, and public, Pentecostal church.
The irony is that all churches today, display similar characteristics to the Catholic Church. They rely on not dissimilar laws of tradition and corporate identity. To a greater or lesser degree, the same reasons we might decry the Catholic Church, are found in all traditional and Pentecostal denominations. So what has this to do with communication and church health?
The over-presumption of authority is the primary reason, that conflict exists. Progress over serious issues will find its expression when spiritual freedom and sovereignty exist to express it. Christ alone needs to become the head of all authority, and all conflict. The prerequisite is a recognition that all believers are equal in Christ. We should be gathering together, to support each other, by submitting to the gifts and abilities God has given to mature the church. In this, leaders have an equal but conditional authority. In a theocracy, seniority doesn’t exist! Fellowship and function must become the basis of any reason to gather in the first instance. Personal gifts are for maturing the saints, not for maturing the corporate structure, and submission to leadership is earned not regulated. If conflict is not viewed in the spirit of equal parts with different views, and embraced as a productive exercise, for the good of all, then we’re prone to deception.
The current anxieties that many Christians feel about the corporate nature of the church, find its origins in the religious laws, traditions and practices, instigated by the early Roman Church as a means of controlling both the church and state. Except for the position of Church and State, the church has continued to promote a similar evolution of this pseudo-religious, authority. However, spiritual control has reconstituted itself under the guise of a Pastoral-lead religious platform, that cleverly places the church, between Man and God by utilizing institutional attendance and membership to decide who is saved. This ideology has resulted in spiritual bondage to the Church (A prominent Pentecostal church in New Zealand is a prime example of how this deception evolves). I don’t believe this evolved by malicious intent. It evolved from spiritual ignorance, where leaders passed down the traditions and teachings of those before them, without consideration about where these traditions came from. The contradictions and disillusionment resulted in spiritual inertia within the church. Personal sanctification is of little significance unless it serves the greater need of the institution. One only has to challenge those who presume to lead, to find the presiding spirit of authority.
The spirit behind this ideology is seeded in 1Samual 8:4:21 where Israel rejected God (Idolatry) and wanted to be ruled like those around them. In the same way, we also embrace the organizational structures of the world, along with the paralyzing desire to have a “Pastor/Senior leader” presiding, and indeed ruling over us. We cannot envision the church without a Pastor to take care of us, and leaders to wear our responsibilities. We imagine the church would fall apart without them. This raises serious questions about our faith, in the authority of God. I’m not saying here that leaders aren’t necessary, for clearly they’re in God’s plan for maturing the church, but the spirit behind much of what we call leadership is control, not function.
Hierarchical control, manipulation, and the suffocating nature of religious Christianity have allowed Satan to take advantage of the soulish nature of Man, and communication in this environment is somewhat conditional. Without change, there will be serious repercussions for the church as we know it today. In many Churches, the seeds of conflict, and the spirit that drives it, are becoming repetitively common.
Processing conflict - This outline may not be complete but the basis for discussion:
We agree to come together, without time constraints, and without holding up positions of authority; as equals, is a good place to begin the process of finding biblical ground. We could acknowledge that emotions might be elevated, but we’ll keep them respectful of each other.
It might be explained that reasonable debate does not always find common agreement but we might ask, how can we reach common ground? To remain biblical we should put aside past traditional opinions and look for evidence from the wider body of scriptural teaching rather than passages used in isolation, or out of context.
The subject in question should be approached openly, without the constraints of time. Meetings might be rescheduled if necessary, until such time as full discussion is exhausted.
Those involved should acquaint themselves with a reasonable grasp of the issue, its theology, and the hermeneutics to support their opinion.
The terms of reference for discussion might be agreed upon. i.e. Reference literature
The subject of conflict should then be outlined, and the reasons why it’s become an issue. It should be detailed enough for all to understand, not necessarily to agree with.
Options for compromise might be discussed.
Implementation processes for any decisions might be decided on.
We need to change the way we view and process disagreement and start listening to what we are saying to each other. If we can stop judging each other on very thin spiritual idioms and acknowledge that conflict is not a problem, the church may find the basis for constructive communication.
The body of Christ is comprised of those called and justified by God. We are accepted by God, to be Sons of God. This is irrevocable! Man plays no part in this process. We recognize these believers through a renewed spirit and a changed life. We should acknowledge this by extending an unconditional “right hand of fellowship”, without religious laws of conformity, rules, and conditional acceptance. God has accepted those who believe, and we’ll be judged by how we judge each other. Conflict in the church can be a testing ground for our sanctification, and we might ask, does the way we process conflict bring glory to God? Or is the church more about bringing glory to ourselves? Being a believer does not divorce us from the judgement of Christ.
As Christians, the veracity of any conflict doesn’t find a way forward in personal opinion, likes or dislikes, or position of authority. We can choose to like or dislike based on personality differences, but in God, equality, respect, and submission are prerequisites for the Holy Spirit to work through us. Even a Donkey can convey the word of truth. The way forward is through the example of Christ. Yes, it seems somewhat cliche, but we’re only servants, each to one another. The way forward is to respect each other, submit to each other, include each other, and lay conflict before the word of God.
