Conflict? Ask Ken: Runaway Congregational Conflict and Why We Should Solve It (Part 4)

(Continuing from last week’s article, Part 3)

Therefore, when we attack another's personhood, not only do our all-inclusive assessments of negativity invariably miss the mark, but they also make conflict more intractable.  One person's reductionist view of the other disputant will inevitably be rejected by the one who is being attacked. That's why peacemakers urge parties to refrain from assailing the other's character. 

Illustration
Consider the following:  "Former President Jimmy Carter was criticized by some for treating military leader, General Raoul Cedras, as a legitimate player during his successful mediation to resolve the crisis in Haiti in 1995.  The national consensus was that Gen. Cedras was simply a cruel dictator, undeserving of the legitimacy and regard shown him by President Carter.  But Carter wisely appealed to the military leader's `sense of honor, sense of dignity.'  He knew that people don't want to participate in problem-solving dialogue when you insult them.  Carter's mediation succeeded because he steadfastly focused on the need for reconciliation, avoiding the temptation of treating Cedras as a Bad Person” (Dana).

This was the attitude that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King took as he led the U.S. civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century.  Despite the backdrop of centuries of slavery and the inequities that followed emancipation, he did not lead a movement guided by revenge.  Applying the ethical teachings of Christ, Rev. King subscribed to a non-violent approach to injustice.  He taught, “Non-violent resistance is not aimed against oppressors but against oppression” (Lemert). That is, he defined the “enemy” not as persons [whites], but as a state of being unequally treated. What a tremendous difference this made and makes in managing and resolving conflict!

Fisher and Ury explain, “Under attack, the other side will become defensive and will resist what you have to say.  They will cease to listen, or they will strike back with an attack of their own.” Moreover, they add, “if you make a statement about them that they believe is untrue, they will ignore you or get angry; they will not focus on your concern.” 

When this kind of personal insult takes place among Christians, it poisons the social atmosphere of the church.  Inevitably, as the criticized party seeks to defend him or herself, conflict escalates.  A “church split” may be right around the corner.  That is why it is so essential to keep our perspective in check. Wilmot and Hocker have well said, “Transforming a conflict depends on perceptual and/or conceptual change in one or more of the parties.  Perception is at the core of all conflict analysis.”

Hence, our perspective must be properly enlarged so that we do not personally attack an opponent's identity or critically stereotype an opponent's personhood.  It is wrong. It is counterproductive. It is hypocritical because we do not apply that same standard to ourselves. 

CONCLUSION
A reading of the New Testament makes it clear that friction among Christians, as with other groups – given the universal proclivity to sin – should be expected. This understanding in no way diminishes the goal of love. Rather, such a realization opens our eyes to see what love must overcome to reach fulfillment. Essential to this process is a disputant's perception that does not dehumanize the personhood of the other party.  A Biblical perspective and understanding of these two foundational areas by the disputing parties represents a major first step toward the resolution of their conflict. 

This perspective should also point to the need for churches to establish a proactive conflict management process to protect the unity of the church. Establishing such a system conveys two important messages to your members: (1) “Interpersonal conflict is a normal part of congregational life. Let's not be perplexed by it.” (2) This church, in particular, is prepared to address differences as they arise in a manner that strengthens the social fabric of our fellowship instead of tearing it apart.” What do you think such a two-fold message will do for your congregation? Like a net under a trapeze artist, it will provide a sense of security. For those who have been "burned" in a prior church experience, it will also bring a sense of relief.

For Discussion:  Do you think that churches should expect conflict?  What role do malformed perceptions of the other person’s identity play in the escalation of conflict?  Do you think churches should proactively establish a conflict resolution process as a means to protect the unity of the church?  Feel free to share any thoughts or comments.

FOR OTHER ARTICLES BY KEN ON CHURCH CONFLICT... click here

FOR OTHER ARTICLES BY KEN ON "THE NEWBERGER PROJECT... click here

--

  © 2005 Kenneth C. Newberger
Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution and development specialist, earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United States. If your church needs help resolving conflict, if you need individual coaching, or if you would like to develop a communicatively healthy church,  please visit Ken's website  at www.ResolveChurchConflict.com  or call 301-253-8877.

Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts