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 has control, personality degradation becomes the focal point of conflict. We evidence 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 outside the church, and the world observes this through, church splits, unresolved disagreement, 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 appears to suggest that while many don’t know “why”, we know that something is wrong, and church 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 conflict 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 a number of 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, or respect the importance placed on the issue. Therefore no reconciliation is reached. While time moves on, and conflicts are buried, the underlying dissatisfaction remains, and never resolved to any degree of biblical integrity.
For positive resolution to emerge from any conflict, we have to agree that a problem exists in the first instance. This might depend on what we consider to be a problem, but any issue that causes a breakdown of relationships in the church, 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 too 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. In reality the accusation can be more contentious than the conflict itself. It appears less than productive to begin any discussion process by personally 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. However, serious communication issues generally arise over the authority of leadership, differing doctrinal opinion, or personality conflict. It’s important to acknowledge that the feelings of offence are reasonable, but not necessarily legitimate. Our opinions may well be right, but neither justifies the use of disparaging comments about someones faith and shouldn’t usurp mature Christian debate.
Many opinions exist about how 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; why is “the Church” viewed as the focus of Christian purpose? Church, as a building or corporate structure is not Church, and should not be viewed as an end of itself! The Church (ecclesia) refers to people, “born again believers” or the same, “gathering together as the Body of Christ”. The contemporary identification with “the church” today, refers to an affiliation with a building, or religious denominational structure, but this context can only be defined as “church” in a metaphorical sense. It shouldn’t exist for the benefit of itself, but for the purpose of serving believers themselves! Church, as a body of people, should reflect the sum total of its independent parts, coming together with interdependent purpose. Conflict is often generated by the overbearing authority of a denominational structure, as it holds itself above those it encompasses.
Christianity is a simple faith, until you ask the question, WHY? At this point it becomes academic, and somewhat intellectual. Therefore, the process of resolving conflict will go beyond the endurance of many in the Church. Ultimately conflict resolution will involve a 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 on the basis of traditional mores.
It’s interesting that conflict in the wider church, appears more between mature believers. The Apostle Paul might argue that conflict and maturity are incongruous, but disagreement will always be present, so it’s the processing of conflict that exposes our immaturity, not the conflict itself. Mature believers make up the majority of those who leave the recognized denominational churches for reasons of disillusionment. As an aside this decision should not presume a rejection of faith. Disillusionment may well be a result of disagreement, or conflict, and may wear the scars of offense, 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 almost never occurs! Some may disagree with this opinion, but happy mature Christians don’t leave the relational intimacy of church, for no reason at all? Most that leave seem to express similar tones of disillusionment. On the other hand many Christians continue to remain in the relational intimacy of a church they’ve been in for many years, which is good. This paper is not about encouraging people to leave, it’s about encouraging change. However, many of those who stay also harbour the same feelings of disquiet and these are often expressed within trusted circles? Attendance and giving can be the first to be withdrawn. The reason that many stay, in spite of their unease, has more to do with the relationships they have in the church, than it does with being in agreement.
I believe that most mature Christians know instinctively that something is wrong in the Church, but don’t know the why, or the how to change it? At the same time most would view the thought of trying, as simply too hard! At times people try to express their opinion, but encounter little appetite for further discussion. In fact the defensive face of authority often rises to dismiss the appearance of confrontation, and blame those who confront. It’s understandable that the subject of any conflict may have emotional undertones for some, but refusing to acknowledge the concerns of each other, can be the soft underbelly of a fractured Church. The resolve to encourage open and effective communication needs to be established. We need to understand why many Christians feel somewhat perplexed and disillusioned in the first place. What have we to lose?
Communication at the present level appears to be a somewhat nebulous activity, having more to do with submission to authorities? Invariably conflict occurs because we don’t agree with what we here, or what we’re told. Can the processing of conflict ever be productive within a religious system that protects itself by traditions, that can’t be challenged? This is an insidious situation where the system of a religious organization effectually serves itself, not the people it might claim to serve. When I talk about a “religious system” I’m not speaking about people. It’s the traditions and practices of the organization, right or wrong, which have been enshrined as the hard drive defaults for the way it performs. These defaults dictate the reactions of those within the system. Even those with the authority and ability to challenge or change the defaults, rarely do! They too would face coming into conflict with the same defaults, and others higher in authority. The system always wins and completely undermines the reason for its very existence. If you want to belong to the organization you have to do what the system defaults teach you, or leave! Most of the difficulties we face are perpetrated by the 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? Some years ago a group of motorcyclists who regularly rode together, for the love of 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 affiliations threw out the country, and a national body to govern the clubs 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 was swallowed up in the organization of the club and long story short, the club became more important than the riding, and may felt the club had lost its way.
Many Christians haven’t considered the sway that tradition and autocracy have 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 a contemporary environment. We haven’t considered how this affects our personal 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, and a religious system, 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 personal relationship with Christ, because the Pope is the anointed representative, 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. Its intention is 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 contemporary churches display similar characteristics to the Catholic Church. They rely on not dissimilar laws of tradition and corporate identity. In fact 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?
Autocracy is the single biggest reason why conflict exists, and communication brakes down in the local church. Progress over serious issues will only find its expression, when spiritual freedom and sovereignty exists to express it. Christ alone needs to become the head of all authority, in all conflict? The prerequisite for this is that all believers are equal in Christ, but have different gifts, to serve, and to be servants. 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 church, finds its genesis in the religious laws, traditions and practices, instigated by Constantine, and promulgated by hierarchical doctrine, as a means of controlling both the church and state. Except for the position of Church and State, the generational teaching in the church has continued to promote a system of hierarchical, pseudo religious, authority. Control has reconstituted itself into denominational religious corporations, and continues to enforce a system that consequentially places the church, between Man and God. This ideology is not the will of God; and has resulted in spiritual bondage, in and too, the ruling authorities of the corporate church (A prominent Pentecostal church is a prime example of how this deception evolves). As an aside, I don’t believe this evolved by malicious intent! It evolved as a result of spiritual ignorance, where spiritual fathers passed down the traditions and teachings of those before them, and this without serious examination about where these traditions came from. The contradictions and disillusionment this created, has resulted in a state of spiritual inertia within the church. Personal sanctification is arguably something of a pariah, and invariably the body of Christ has evolved to serve the needs of the denominational organization. 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 as Gods people, 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 leader to take care of our needs and bare our responsibilities. We imagine the church would fall apart without them. This raises serious questions about our faith in the authority of God, for the realization of the church. I’m not saying here that leaders aren’t necessary, for clearly they’re in Gods plan for maturing the church, but the spirit behind much of what we call leadership today, is control not function.
Hierarchical control, manipulation, and the suffocating nature of religious Christianity has 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 a basis for discussion:
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. 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 idiom 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’re accepted by Christ as Sons of God. This is irrevocable! We recognize these believers through a renewed spirit and a changed life. We should acknowledge this by extending the 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 for our attitude toward each other, which includes the manner by which we treat and judge each other. Conflict in the church can be a testing ground for our sanctification, and we might ask the question, 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 on the basis of personality differences, but in Gods agenda equality, respect, and submission is a prerequisite 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?
