An Essential Side of Community Love

The church is portrayed in the New Testament as a tightly-knit community. It pictures a gathering of believers putting the needs of others ahead of their own. By contrast, American churches, in particular, find it hard to emulate this model. The average American congregation is like an island. It draws its members from the surrounding waters of an individualistic society where fulfillment of self comes first. This precarious mix of opposing cultural values creates a constant source of tension in the church. It makes a leader's task of building community all the more difficult. What is needed is a process for the resolution of interpersonal conflict that takes these factors into account. Without it, the likelihood of realizing an enduring and resilient community is significantly reduced. That's where the Peace Plan comes in.

The Peace Plan is composed of (i) a congregational workbook (see photo outline) and (ii) a leadership module. The leadership module reflects a church leader's enlarged organizational perspective and responsibility. It complements the congregational training by incorporating it within a larger structure. Just as most churches have steps relating to church discipline, a relatively rare occurrence, congregations need to establish steps for dealing with interpersonal disputes, a far more common experience. With the Peace Plan in place, your members will more likely mature through conflict and not be broken by it. This is not a program but a way of organizational life that beautifully enhances the culture of community within a local church.

Designed to diffuse most disputes before they get out of hand. Very "user-friendly"!

Pastors and other leaders stay more involved in the positive aspects of ministry and less entangled in debilitating, interpersonal problems (cf. Ex. 18:13-19).

No new hierarchical structure needs to be created. Its beauty is in its decentralization.

Requires only one key individual, one “keeper of the flame” to champion the maintenance of a conflict competent church culture.

For particularly difficult or sticky issues, the church delineates the progression of a conflict instead of being manipulated by it.

Enables church shepherds to fulfill their leadership responsibility of not only leading and guiding their flocks, but also protecting them (Acts 20:28-31).

Remember, the membership of your church has a vested interest in the way individual disagreements are handled. When poorly managed, there can be system wide repercussions that leave those not party to the dispute, like children of a divorce, hurt and confused. This is to say nothing of the emotional pain experienced by those directly involved.

By contrast, establishing a dispute resolution process for matters not involving sin conveys to your members two important messages: “(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 congregants? Like a net under a trapeze artist, it will provide a sense of security when things don't go as well as anticipated. For those who have been "burned" in a prior church experience, it will also bring a sense of relief.

Pastor, teach your congregation how to more concretely fulfill the apostle Paul's injunction, “let us pursue the things which make for peace” (Ro. 14:19). Distinguish your church community as one that has really learned how to "preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Doctoral Student (Ph.D.) in Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Nova Southeastern University.

Website: www.ResolveChurchConflict.com Email: Newberger@peoplepc.com Phone: 301-253-8877

Entering mediation signals that previous dialogues have not led to a resolution of issues. Sadly, they may have actually led to an escalation of the conflict. By contrast, mediation represents a new mode of communication that interrupts past patterns and establishes a new and more constructive one. Studies have shown that disputants who enter mediation are more likely to reach agreement than if they do not.

Because multiparty or organizational conflict, as in the case of churches, is more complicated than disputes between two individuals, a different approach and well-defined outline of the procedure for all sides to follow is imperative. Such an outline is provided below. It can be adapted as needed.

> indicates the use of a specifically designed questionnaire, form, or educational resource.

> Upon request, an agreement form between myself and the church will be provided to the church.

1. If invited, a face-to-face meeting with the pastor, governing board of the church, and possibly others (see B. 2. below) will be scheduled. The primary purpose of this meeting is:

> To make this meeting as productive and focused as possible, I will provide a set of wide-ranging questions for all attending parties to consider in advance. They relate to a general description of the church and the nature of the particular issues currently facing it. Given the explicit purpose of this meeting, all parties will be asked to enter this meeting with the understanding that there will be no discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of any side or perspective.

B. to sign an agreement of understanding between myself and the church to formally begin the mediation process if there is a desire to move forward.

a. No Disputants Present. If the conflict is localized among parishioners and does not involve pastoral staff or anyone on the governing board, I will meet with the pastor and/or the governing board to discuss the situation and the appropriateness of using mediation.

b. All the Disputants Present or Represented. If the conflict is localized to the pastoral staff and/or the governing board, or, if it is not so localized but all sides of the dispute are represented within this group, then I will meet with this group to discuss the situation and the appropriateness of using mediation.

c. Some of the Disputants Present or Represented. If the conflict relates to the pastoral staff or members of the governing board, as well as other members of the church who are not represented within this group, then at least two other individuals representing that group or perspective must be invited to attend. This is so that no misperception of mediator partiality is inferred by not initially meeting with the parties or representatives of all sides of the dispute.

C. All parties who have been identified as directly involved in the dispute but not present at the above meeting should be informed by their representatives of the meeting. They should also let them know that shortly they will be receiving a letter from the mediator.

D. Each party who has been identified as a primary participant in the dispute will receive a letter from me.

E. All participants will be asked to read in advance of the "Preliminary Private Meeting" the article entitled, “Foundations for Resolving Church Conflict.”

> You may print-off copies from this website (click here) or I will email the article to the church for distribution as a formatted Word attachment.

A. I will schedule separate meetings with each group that represents a given side of the dispute. This will allow parties to elaborate and clarify their written responses and ask questions. These separate meetings serve an important function, not the least of which is to provide me an opportunity to informally meet everyone before the joint sessions begin.

>A set of ground rules will be distributed to be reviewed before the preliminary joint meeting prior to mediation.

B. Once all the exploratory inquiries are complete, a preliminary meeting to mediation is scheduled for all the parties involved.

All the persons who have been identified as primary participants in the dispute or as representatives of a group are invited to a pre-mediation meeting. At the close of this meeting, a determination will be made whether or not the parties wish to engage in the mediation process. The agenda of this gathering is as follows:

C. Educational Component. This will cover information that will aid in providing an overall understanding the nature of conflict and the opportunity for positive change it can provide. Properly handled, conflict can become the impetus for individual, interpersonal, and corporate spiritual growth and transformation.

> An abbreviated outline presenting the major components will be distributed and discussed.

E. Ground Rules. The rules of conduct that will govern our dialogue and make them as healthy as possible will be discussed and agreed upon.

F. Commitment to Mediation. At this time a formal commitment to the mediation process will be sought by all participating parties. A desire to resolve differences in good faith is critical to the success of this process.

H. Preparation for Mediation. Participants will be asked to prayerfully prepare for the first scheduled mediation session.

> The handout entitled, "In Preparation For Your First Mediation Session," will be distributed to each participant.

> The handout entitled, "Reconnecting Bro ken Relationships," will be distributed to each participant.

It is beyond the scope of this internet presentation to delve into the steps and considerations that come into play throughout this stage. (The complete step-by-step mediation process, including handouts, is now a component of the leadership notebook). Suffice it to say here, each party will be given the opportunity to tell his or her "story" and differences of opinions will be aired. This does not spell doom to the mediation process. Rather, it signals its beginning. From seemingly irreconcilable positions, we will examine the underlying interests that need to be satisfied for mutually acceptable and forward-looking agreements to be reached. In this exchange, the mediator, by-and-large, controls the process. The participants, by-and-large, control the outcome.

1. A Memorandum of Agreement which incorporates the joint decisions reached during the mediation process will be prepared.

3. The final document will be returned to all the participants as both a testimony to their peacemaking as well as a practical guide for the implementation of any actions that need to be carried out.

If circumstances warrant it, I will initiate a discussion to consider whether there is a mindset or organizational operating procedure that has become problematic. The goal here is to encourage organizational change that results in greater harmony and peace.

TOWARDS AN EVANGELISTIC LIFE-STYLE.

The founders of this church wandered around 'speaking the word' (Acts 11:19-20 RSV), 'telling the message' (GNB). We don't know their names: they were probably not 'apostles' but ordinary Christians committed to sharing the Good News with those they met. Churches everywhere are healthy or unhealthy to the extent that their members are verbalizing their faith. Where this is left to 'professional' clergy or evangelists, those churches are diseased.

Evangelism is 'one beggar telling another beggar where to get food' (D. T. Niles). Jesus came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). The Lord is patient, because he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants all to turn away from their sins (2 Peter 3:9). It is God's desire that all hear the Good News in such a way that they will turn from idols (ie. living for anything other than God, 1 Thessalonians 1:9). In the terms the New Testament uses people either 'perish' or are 'saved' according to their response to this Good News. And we, his people, are commissioned to preach it! What an awesome responsibility!

Peter Wagner (Your Church Can Grow) says 10% of all Christians have a special evangelistic gift, but only about one half of one per cent are actively using it. (3) Why is that? However the other 90% are also 'gifted': all the spiritual gifts are meant to lead persons to Christ. But let us hesitate before we launch 'total mobilization' efforts: these often induce unnecessary guilt.

The most overtly 'evangelistic' Christians are the fundamentalists, who have a more literal view of hell. As we move towards the 'universalist' end of the theological spectrum ('everyone is/will be saved'; 'if there is a hell God will empty it') evangelism becomes almost non-existent. Three other theologies which hinder evangelism: 'hyper- Calvinism' (God saves who he wants to save, and rejects the rest, there's nothing we can do about that); anti-proselytism ('even if they are only nominal members of my church don't you preach to them'); and the view that 'all religions are valid, Christianity doesn't have all the answers'. What is your view?

Good evangelism is more than apologetics, which attempts to give a reasoned defense of the Christian faith. Apologetics cuts down trees; evangelism builds houses! Evangelism is more than imparting organized doctrine: as John Stott puts it, you have to win a person's confidence before you can win their soul! (Do what Jesus did: minister to a 'felt need' first - loneliness and poor self-image, sickness, hunger etc. - you supply the examples. Stott told a conference on evangelism in Britain: 'Christians are more like the pharisees than Jesus. We keep our distance from people. We do not want to get hurt or dirty or contaminated'). But good evangelism is more than being friendly: I come across 'friendly' churches that can't name many people who have committed their lives to Christ in the recent past. (Reason: new people change the chemistry of the group, and we unconsciously freeze them out of our social life). Good evangelism is more than inviting your neighbour to a 'mission' at the church (although these are valuable - your church ought to have regular special evangelistic efforts, appropriate to the culture of the people you are aiming to reach). Evangelism is relating as Jesus did to people day by day, week by week. The best evangelism is done by new converts: they still have the most non-Christian friends! And the best evangelistic churches are where people truly love one another, especially across racial, social, cultural and other barriers which previously divided them.

Size per se is not an infallible measure of spiritual health. Some small churches are healthy, others malnourished; some large churches are healthy, others fat! However we can say that all healthy churches are experiencing additions by conversion, ie. they grow! Some of these growing churches give themselves away by adopting a 'mission mode', sending their trained members away to plant other churches, and so may not, over time, experience net numerical growth. That's OK. But I would be worried if my church were not causing the angels to have a party from time to time as people come into Christ's kingdom! This church experienced rapid growth, both numerically and spiritually (not all churches grow both ways at the same time!).

The acid test: list all the young people and adults who have come to Christ, joined the church and are growing in their faith in the last, say, ten years. Write down their names. In the 'Great Commission' Jesus gives his followers (Matthew 28:19-20) there are four 'action verbs' - going, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching. But only one ('make disciples') is in the imperative mood, and therefore the 'main command'. Our central purpose is not merely to win 'converts' but to make disciples!

In the end, an evangelistic lifestyle arises out of the reality of our experience of Christ. If he has really changed our lives, that's great news, and we'll want to share it!

Further Reading: Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, Regal, 1976, David Watson, I Believe in Evangelism, Hodder and Stoughton, 1976

Questions: (1) Discuss this statement from theologian Emil Brunner: 'The greatest sin of the church is that she witholds the Gospel from herself and from the world.' (2) If you were to plan a strategy to acquaint everyone in your area about the facts of the Good News, how would you do it? Why not do it? (3) In your group, tell one another how you would help a person who said to you 'I want to become a Christian.'

Idea: Run a 'Christianity Explained' group for church members, new Christians and their non-Christian friends.

THE CHURCH AS A CRITIC OF CULTURE

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/ycca/ycca0013.htm

Last year I talked with an Indian pastor who had been dragged many hundreds of metres through the streets of his town by militant Hindus, before being beaten with rods. 'What did you do?' I asked him. 'I blessed my persecutors in the name of the Lord' he said. 'And what happened?' 'The gospel fire was stoked up in my heart for these people!'

The church at Antioch was born out of persecution (Acts 11:19), as are churches in many parts of the world today (eg. in communist or Islamic countries). Generally, where there is persecution there are fewer half-Christians! Conversely, where there is little persecution, and 'going to church' is a socially acceptable habit, nominalism becomes a deadly possibility. The greatest enemy of the church's health is not overt persecution, but affluence and apathy.

Culture is the sum total of a community's customs and values, which give it a sense of identity and continuity. These assumptions become embedded in a community's institutions, and also form its 'world view'. No human culture is totally bad or totally good: so we must challenge what is evil and affirm what is good in all cultures. As the Lausanne Covenant put it, culture must be tested and judged by scripture; because humans are God's creatures, some of their cultures will be rich in beauty and goodness; because they are fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some is demonic.

A 'cult of culture' develops when religion validates culture and society without bringing them under judgment. A certain social order becomes 'right' and therefore 'Christian' and cultural values are divinised. The prophetic dimension of our Hebraic-Christian tradition is lost. Love of neighbour becomes voluntary and is divorced from justice. Members of congregations are spared the pain of ethical examination of how structures and systems may be the instruments of injustice. The preacher is told to 'steer clear of politics' - and still be biblical and prophetic! Such churches may claim they are 'neutral' and maintain the status quo: but there is no such thing as neutrality. Churches choosing to support what already exists may be supporting an ungodly system. Then, too, churches may contribute to the status quo by being preoccupied with their own internal affairs - administration, doctrine, buildings, finance, authority, liturgies etc.

When the church marries the spirit of this age, it will be widowed in the next. Jesus promised we would face trouble, because his kingdom's values were in conflict with those of the world. 'Do not be conformed to the world', Paul warned (Romans 12:2). We are to be 'faithful in the alien', as Luke 16:12 reads literally. This earth and its cultures are not our final home. But we are not to abandon the earth, but rather apply God's standards in it.

Further reading: Marvin K. Mayers, Christianity Confronts Culture, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974; Charles Kraft, Christianity in Culture, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979; Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, New York: Harper & Row, 1956; Leonard Griffith, Illusions of our Culture

Discuss: (1) Where do our culture's values and beliefs differ from Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God? (2) Stephen and his fellow-Christians were persecuted for confronting the powers-that-be by attacking their record of injustice. Would our church run any risk of persecution for this reason? (3) Apart from church-attending on Sundays, what distinguishes our church-members from people in the community who have no contact with the church? (4) If Jesus came back to our country, where would we find him, and what would he be doing - and saying?

LEADERSHIP SELECTION: MOVE WITH THE MOVERS!

Sometimes unlikely people make the best leaders. Would you have chosen the impetuous Peter or the quisling Matthew? Or Saul of Tarsus, implicated in the persecution and murder of Christians? It's the nature of many (most?) churches and denominations to 'play it safe' and choose people who are 'like us'. They thereby ignore the great potential that often resides in people who may be creatively unconventional! Fortunately Barnabas was big enough to see Paul's potential where others couldn't, and the church at Antioch benefited from his significant evangelistic and teaching gifts.

What is leadership? Experts aren't entirely sure. One writes: 'There are many theories and more than a hundred definitions of leadership.' And another: 'Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.'

Leaders are people who get things done through others (who also want those things to get done). There are three kinds of human beings: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened! Leaders make things happen!

All human groups need leaders. Effective leaders know where they're going: they have strong beliefs and values. Good leaders exude and inspire confidence, are willing to take risks and make sacrifices. Good leaders have one key aim: to be a servant to maximize others' potentials for the good of the whole enterprise. Good leaders can verbalize their strategic vision for the organization. They are effective communicators, moulding people's ideas. That's the difference between a political leader and a statesman: the first follows public opinion; statesmen (and women) shape it. Essentially, leaders get things done through other people who also are highly committed to the same goals.

So smart leaders will know what their colleagues are thinking: this they learn through feedback. And they will never be too far in front or behind the group they're leading. Sometimes a leader will have to surrender a cherished goal because the group isn't yet ready to follow. Here's a personal example. Baptists around the world are divided over the question of 'closed' vs. 'open' membership My strong belief as the senior pastor in one church was (and still is) that we ought to welcome into the membership of our church all whom the Lord has accepted into His church, and let people sort out the issue of the mode and timing of baptism for themselves. Some of our leaders said this wasn't 'Baptist': weren't all the people in the New Testament baptized knowingly as believers? Well, yes, I said, that's my own position too but haven't Baptists also strongly held the view that each of us ought to be free to be guided by the Holy Spirit in our study of the Scriptures? And didn't Jesus say 'It's acceptance of others I want, not ordinances' (Matthew 9:13). But those ordinances came from God: is Jesus saying people matter more than laws...? And so on. But I failed to convince some of them, and made a tactical retreat from the issue: perhaps I'm 'chicken' but I wasn't ready to be martyred (or create division in the church) over that one. As one truism puts it, a leader will realize that the unintended effects of any policy change are apt to be larger and more lasting than the intended effects.

But where the Lord guides leaders to be decisive this will generate opposition. That's why they're leaders: others have not (yet) been given their gift of vision. If you want approval badly, or a life free of pressure, don't be a leader. Leadership requires courage: it involves risk-tasking and possibly ridicule, opposition, or rejection. 'Courage' comes from the French word for 'heart' - coeur - and means simply your heart's in it!

Have you heard the old story of the mule standing in the centre of a circle of hay? The mule was hungry, but there was no wind: he could not smell the fragrance of the hay. But he could see it: he was surrounded by equally attractive goals. He stayed in the centre and starved to death. Too many church leaders are indecisive like that.

Other capacities a leader will need include teachability, a facility for uniting people together, and hard, hard work! The life of a leader was never meant to be easy!

What about leadership style? In all cultures the leader must operate in ways acceptable to the group (or else organize armed guards to eliminate opposition!). Author- itarian leaders (the 'tells' style) are sometimes acceptable where people are insecure or immature. They often get things done quickly and efficiently, but when the group matures there'll be hostility, competitiveness, scape-goating, and discontent. Consensual leaders ('sells' style) seek the group's approval, and when they get it there's more harmony, teamwork and satisfaction, and, eventually, increasing productivity. Laissez-faire leaders have an 'in-basket' management style. Their programme is determined by whatever comes along. Initiatives come from elsewhere or not at all, and the group gets frustrated when they realize they're not going anywhere.

Leaders get things done through other people in four stages: planning (forecasting opportunities, spelling out objectives, outlining the steps and time limits to reach those objectives), organizing (developing a structure within which groups can work effectively, delegating authority and responsibility to other leaders, promoting teamwork), leading (making good decisions, communicating these, motivating and training people), and controlling (developing measures of performance, evaluating results, and making 'course corrections').

One word in the paragraph above is most important: motivation. Developing a climate where church-people are highly motivated to serve the Lord and other people is a challenge for the leader/s. People are highly motivated when (1) they know they are loved, (2) they are invited to do a job commensurate with their gifts, only a little more stretching, (3) they are adequately trained, (4) they know precisely what they are to do, by when, with what resources to help, and (5) their psychological needs are met (eg, encouragement, security, socializing, fulfilment when a job's well done and appreciated etc.). Some pastors and church leaders say these factors shouldn't be important: we should serve the Lord altruistically, from a motive of love alone. Well, yes, in heaven we will all do that! Surveys show most pastors 'enjoy' preaching more than anything else. One said: 'Preaching's the only thing I do that is not at the mercy of petty bureaucrats!' So it's not wrong to allow people in the church to do what they enjoy doing either. Motivation then becomes a lot easier.

'But Rowland', pastors often say to me, 'the blighters in our church won't work!' Douglas McGregor's 'theory x and theory y' have helped me at this point. According to 'theory x' management thinking people hate work and will avoid it if they can, so they must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened to get anything done. 'Theory y' leaders believe work is as natural as play or rest, and that workers will be highly motivated to work towards goals to which they are committed: they will be self-directing and will seek and accept responsibility; imagination, ingenuity, and creativity are widely not narrowly distributed among the population. Pastor, the blighters will work, if all the above factors are noted!

Are leaders born or made? Probably both. There's an indefinable charismatic quality about outstanding leaders. However, the Lord promises wisdom to all of us: the leadership equation is godly wisdom (James 1:5) + enthusiasm (1 Peter 5:2) + faith (Hebrews 13:7) + hard work (1 Thessalonians 5:12,13).

Discuss: How do the leadership styles mentioned above apply to your church? Look at the leaders cited in Hebrews 11: they were a varied lot, but matched the occasion into which they were called. What lessons are there for us? Study the leadership qualities in 1 Timothy 3: what do these mean in our culture?

Further Reading: Gerard Egan, Change Agent Skills in Helping and Human Service Settings, Brooks/Cole, California, 1985 (especially chapter 11 'Leadership'). J.M.Burns, Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership, Chicago: Moody Press, 1967. Ted W. Engstrom and Edward R. Dayton, The Art of Management for Christian Leaders. Word Books, Waco Texas, 1979, and Strategy for Leadership, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1979. R. Wolff, Man at the Top, Tyndale, 1970. Lawrence O Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke, A Theology of Church Leadership, Zondervan, 1980. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, Ventura: Regal, 1984.

Thumbnail Sketch

Ted Engstrom’s definition of leadership is “one who guides activities of others and who himself acts and performs to bring those activities about.” He also tries to clarify the difference between management and leadership. He defines leadership as an attitude where management is simply a skill learned. However, he goes on to focus more on the performance of leadership rather than the personality of leadership. He also adds quite a few aides in attempt to help one perform better as a leader.

A few drawbacks is that one, a larger portion of the beginning refers to church leadership rather than Christian leadership (chapter 5 especially). He also seemed to struggle in actually differing between management and leadership, though that was one of his main points in the beginning.

Chapter Titles

“The Gold” From the Book

1. “There are three kinds of people in the world – those who don’t know what’s happening, those who watch what’s happening, and those who make things happen.” (pg. 20)

2. “Sensitivity to the needs of those who are serving as well as those being served is essential.” (pg. 27)

3. “Jesus teaches all leaders for al time that greatness is not found in rank or position but in service.” (pg. 37)

4. “He (a leader) must be respected in the day-to-day living beyond the four walls of the church.” (pg. 47)

6. “The Christian leader must also recognize his personality and gifts, the needs of the people, and the given condition. He cannot be driven by the thirst for power.” (pg. 69)

1. “Leadership is influence, the ability of one person to influence others. One man can lead others only to the extent that he can influence them to follow his lead.”(31)

2. He does this “not by the power of his own personality alone but by that personally irradiated, interpenetrated, and empowered by the Holy Spirit ...There is no such thing as a self made spiritual leader. He is able to influence others spiritually only because the Spirit is able to work in and through him to a greater degree than in those he leads.”(33)

3. The person most likely to be successful is one who leads by not merely pointing the way but by having trodden it himself. We are leaders to the extent we inspire others to follow us.”(33)

4. D. E Hoste stated: “When a man... demands obedience of another, irrespective of the latter’s reason and conscience, this is... tyranny. When... by tact and sympathy; by prayer, spiritual power and sound wisdom one is able to influence and enlighten another, so that through the medium of his own reason and conscience is led to alter one course and pursue another, that is true spiritual leadership.” (83)

5. “All are leaders to the extent that they influence others. All of us can... increase our leadership potential. The first step to achieve that end is to discover and correct weaknesses in that area and to cultivate our strengths.” (160)

6. “leadership is the ability to recognize the special abilities and limitations of others, combined with the capacity to fit each one into the job where he will do his best. He who is successful in getting things done through others is exercizing the highest type of leadership.” (202)

7. True leadership is an internal quality of the spirit and requires no external show of force. (44)

8. “Many who take courses in leadership in the hope of attaining it fail because they have never learned to follow.” (72)

2. “Procrastination and vacillation are fatal to leadership. A sincere though faulty decision is better than no decision. Indeed the latter is really a decision, and often a wrong one. It is a decision that the status quo is acceptable.” (85)

3. The leader may be “obliged either to greatly modify or lay aside projects which were sound and helpful but met with determined opposition, and so tended to create greater evils than those which might have been removed or mitigated by the changes in question. Later on, in answer to patient continuance in prayer, many of such projects..[may be] given effect to.” (100)

4. “No small dissident or reactionary element should be allowed to determine the policy of a group, when the concensus of the spiritual leaders is in the opposite direction.” (168)

5. “Spiritual ends can be achieved only by spiritual men who employ spiritual methods” (40)

6. “A leader must be able to envision the end result of the policies or methods he advocates. Responsible leadership always looks ahead to see how policies proposed will affect not only present, but suceeding generations.”(78)

1. “A Spirit-filled leader will not shrink from facing up to difficult situations or persons, or from grasping the nettle when that is necessary. He will kindly and courageously administer rebuke when that is called for; or he will exercize necessary discipline when the interests of the Lord’s work demand it.” (73)

2. The spitual leader must deal promptly with potential causes of weakness (245)

2. Action taken only when it would be for overall good of the work or individual.

3. Should always be in spirit of genuine love and conducted in the most considerate manner.

4. Should always be with the spiritual help and restoration of the offender in view.

1. Sacrificial- “true leadership, is achieved not be reducing men to one’s service but in giving one’s selfless service to them. And that is never done without cost.”(15)

§ “True leadership always exacts a heavy toll on the whole man, and the more effective the leadership is, the higher the price to be paid.” (169)

§ “Willingness to renounce personal preferences, to sacrifice legitimate and natural desires for the sake of His kingdom, will characterize those marked out by God for positions of influence in His work.”(169)

§ He must be “able to recieve from others as well as to give to others. There are some who delight in sacrificing themselves for others, who are quite unwilling to allow others to reciprocate... [although] that is a very powerful way of exercizing helpful leadership.”(77)

§ “Jesus did not have in mind mere 'acts of service,' for those can be performed from very dubious motives. He meant the *spirit of servanthood* “(27)

§ “He will without reluctance undertake the unpleasant task that others avoid or the hidden duty that others evade because it invokes no applause or wins no appreciation.” (73)

3. Does little things well - Should be able to sit back and avoid getting immersed in detail, but be able to do little things well. (38)

4. Intense - “We should covet...continuing intensity as we grow older, but it is not automatic. The flame always tends to dowe down to dull embers. Fresh fuel must constantly be fed to the flame.”(162)

5. Humor - “because man is in the image of God, his sense of humor is a gift of God...Clean, wholesome humor will relax tension and relieve a difficult situation more than anything else.” (93)

§ Humor is also “the ability to stand outside oneself and one’s circumstances, to see things in perspective and laugh. It is a great safety valve.” (95)

§ “A good test of the appropriateness of our humor is whether we control it or it controls us.” (96)

§ It is a “willingness to adapt our stride to the slower pace of our weaker brethren while not forfeiting our lead. If we run too far ahead, we lose our power to influence.”(99)

7. Tact- “intuitive perception... of what is fit and proper and right; a ready appreciation of what to say, especially in a fine sense of how to avoid giving offense.”(103)

8. Reconciliation- “Skill in reconciling opposing viewpoints without giving offense or compromising principle...The ability to conduct delicate negotiations and matters concerning personnel in a way that recognizes mutual rights and yet leads to a harmonious solution.”(103)

§ “one who lacks executive ability to any considerable degree, however clearly he may see things spiritual, will be unable to translate his vision into action. ...overmuch organization ...can be a very unsatisfactory substitute for the presence and working of the Holy Spirit. But that is not necessarily so.” (106)

§ “It is for the leader to discover which departments of the operation are functioning below the optimum level and to remedy the defect. It may involve drawing up new or better job descriptions, are ensuring that lines of communication are clear.”(166)

§ “The importance of maintaining warm relationships...cannot be overemphasized. People are more important than Administration.”(167)

10. Listening -”a genuine effort to understand what the other person has to say” (108) “happy the man who gives the impression that there is ample time to hear the problem. Time spent listening is well invested.”(108)

§ “In nothing should the leader be ahead of his followers more than in the realm of prayer.”(121)

§ “mastering the art of prayer, like any other art, will take time, and the amount of time we allocate to it will be the true measure of our conception of its importance.” (123)

§ “To busy Martin Luther, extra work was a compelling argument for spending 'more' time in prayer.” (123)

§ “true praying is a strenuous spiritual exercize that demands the utmost mental discipline and concentration.”(126)

§ Prayer “utilizes the body, demands the cooperation of the mind, but moves in the supernatural realm of the Spirit.”(127)

§ “Jesus dealt with the cause rather than the effect, and the leader should adopt the same method in that aspect of praying.”(130)

§ Great leaders in the Bible were leaders “because, by the power of prayer, they could command the power of God.” (134)

§ “No leader is exempt from criticism, and his humility will nowhere be seen more clearly than in the manner in which he accepts and reacts to it.”(177)

§ “There is always some element of truth in criticism and self vindication is an unproductive quality.” (47)

§ “The man who is in the place pf God’s appointment need not attempt to vindicate himself when challenged by jealous rivals...he is safe in the hands of his heavenly Protector. God is jealous for the leaders whom He has called and appointed. He honors them, protects, and Motivated by love for God & man vindicates them, and relieves them of any necessity to stand up for their rights” (200-201)

13. Delegation - “The ability to choose men to whom he can safely delegate authority, and then actually delegate it, is that of the true leader.” (202)

§ The leader who is “reluctant to let the reins of power slip from his own hands...is unfair to his subordinate and is unlikely to prove satisfactory or effective. Such an attitude would tend to be interpreted as a lack of confidence, and that does not induce the best cooperation, nor will it draw out the highest powers of the one being trained for leadership.”(203)

§ “how is he [the subordinate] to gain experience unless both responsibility and authority are delegated to him?” (203)

§ “A one person activity can never grow bigger than the greatest load that one person can carry.” (203)

§ “The man in a place of leadership who fails to delegate is constantly enmeshed in a morass of secondary detail that not only overburdens him but deflects him from his primary responsibilities.” (204)

§ “Subordinates should be utterly sure of their leaders support in any action they feel called upon to take, no matter what the result, so long as they have acted within their terms of reference. That presupposes that areas of responsibility have been clearly defined and committed to writing so no misunderstanding can occur.” (204)

§ Moses example (Ex. 18:1-27) “Those gifted men, who might have become his critics had he continued to keep things in his own hands, were developed by the burden of their office and became his staunch allies.” (206)

§ “even should they [subordinates] do them [delegated tasks] worse, we should still relinquish them—a severe test for the perfectionist!” (207)

§ We should be willing to delegate responsibility to emerging leaders the moment they evidence sufficient spiritual maturity and be ready to help while they gain experience by trial and error. (208)

§ “In the early stages, a wise watchfulness will be necessary, but a resort to interference should be made only if the need becomes acute. The sense of being watched destroys confidence.” (208)

§ “A leader is a person who has first submitted willingly and learned to obey a discipline imposed from without, but then imposes on himself a much more rigorous discipline from within.” (72)

§ If a “leader is himself...strongly disciplined, others sense that and are usually willing to respond cooperatively to the discipline he expects of them.” (76)

§ “a leader must allow himself no indulgence in secret that would undermind his character or mar his public witness.” (52)

§ “that which raised them [the disciples] above their fellows was the degree to which they developed... gifts and graces through devotion and self-discipline.”(71)

§ “The man who possess vision must do something about it, or he will remain a visionary, not a leader.”(83)

§ “The leader must either initiate plans for progress or recognize the plans of others. He must remain in front and give guidance and a sense of direction to those behind. He does not wait for things to happen, but makes them happen. He is a self-starter, and is always on the lookout for improved methods. He will be willing to test new ideas...A great more failure is the result of an excess of caution than of bold experimentation with new ideas.”(188-189)

§ “It is much easier to criticize plans submitted than to create more satisfactory ones. The leader must not only see clearly the goal that is to be reached, but also plan imaginative strategy and tactics by which it can be attained.” (167)

§ “The humility of the leader, as his spirituality, should be an ever growing quality.” (89)

§ “The spiritual leader is in all probability one who yesterday expressed his humility by working gladly and faithfully in second place.” (91)

17. Does not see failure as the end. -“The successful leader is a man who has learned that no failure need be final, and acts on that belief, whether the failure is his own or that of another.” (198)

§ “A leader cannot afford to ignore the council of cautious men around him. They will often save him from unnecessary mistakes. But he must beware of allowing their excess of caution to curb his initiative if he feels his vision is of God.” (189)

§ “It might be thought by those who have not found themselves in a position of leadership that greater experience and a longer walk with God would result in much greater ease in discerning the will of God in perplexing situations. But the reverse is often the case. God treats the leader as a mature adult, leaving more and more to his spiritual discernment, and giving fewer sensible and tangible evidence of His guidance than in earlier years.” (180)

§ People expect their leaders to be courageous and calm in crisis. “Courage is that quality of mind which enables men to encounter danger or difficulty with firmness, or without fear or depression of spirits.”(86)

§ Leaders “must be able to thrive on difficulties and regard them as routine.”(195)

§ “We have each been entrusted with sufficient time to do the whole will of God and to fill out His perfect plan for our lives.” (136) “The problem is not that of needing more time, but of making better use of the time we have.”(137) “We cannot be held responsible for our capacity, [but] we are responsible for the strategic deployment of our time.” (137)

§ “The young man of leadership caliber will work while others waste time, study while others sleep, pray while others play (73)

§ “take interruptions from the Lord. Then they belong in your schedule, because God was simply rearranging your daily pattern to suit Him. To the alert Christian, interruptions are only divinely interjected opportunities.” (143)

§ “In the economy of God, the discharge of one God given duty or responsibility will never involve the neglect of another.” (58)

21. Depends on God - “The leader must be a man who, while welcoming the friendship and support of all who can offer it, has sufficient inner resources to stand alone, even in the face of fierce opposition, in the discharge of his responsibilities. He must be prepared to have ‘no one but God.”(174)

§ 'He should be sympathic with the weak and erring. “He was to 'specialize' in mending bruised reeds and fanning the smoking into flame” (29)

§ “The true leader regards the welfare of others rather than his own comfort and prestige as of primary concern. He manifests sympathy and concern for those under him in their problems, difficulties and cares, but it is a sympathy that fortifies and stimulates, not softens and weakens.” (185)

§ Samual Brengle stated: “We need leaders who know how to read hearts and apply truth to the needs of the people ...There are soul-sicknesses open and obscure, acute and chronic, superficial and deep-seated which the truth... in Jesus will heal. But it is not the same truth for each need... This is why we should most diligently study the Bible and pray for the constant and powerful illumination of the Spirit.” (54)

§ able to teach (mentally and spiritually)- not only the ability, but readiness. If he is to teach he must also be a student of the scriptures and his teaching must have the support of his life. (53)

§ Christ “Taught... by example as well as precept and His teaching was incidental rather than formal.” (70) —Lk. 10:17-24

§ “people love to be led by one who knows where he is going and who inspires confidence. They follow without question the man who shows himself wise and strong, who adheres to what he believes.”(19)

§ It is the “responsibility of the leader to reproduce and multiply himself. If he is to discharge his trust fully he will devote time to training younger men to succeed and perhaps supercede him.”

§ “the real test of the quality of... leadership is the manner in which that work survives the crisis of his [the leaders] removal.” (210)

§ To encourage leadership among subodinates: “responsibility should be laid on them, including increasing opportunities of initiative and power of final decision. They should be given recognition and generous credit for their achievements. The principle thing is to trust them. Blunders are the inevitable price of training leaders.” (218)

§ “It is unwise to give key positions too early even to those who manifest promising talent, lest it spoil them. ...although he should not be given a key position too soon, the promising convert should be afforded a widening opportunity to serve at humbler and less prominent tasks that would develop both natural and spiritual gifts.”(59)

27. Encourages - “An important ingredient in leadership is the faculty of being able to draw the best out of other people.”(102)

28. Optomistic - “The pessimist sees a difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees an opportunity in every difficulty.” (80)

§ “A plant needs time to take root and come to maturity...It must take root downward before it can bear fruit upward.” (58)

1. The Lord seeks out men for spiritual leadership. When God finds a man who fits His spiritual requirements, and is willing to pay the full price of discipleship, He uses him to the limit despite his patent shortcomings.(18) “Service to which God calls must not be refused because of a sense of unworthiness or inadequacy.” (65)

2. “God is always at work, unpercieved by men, preparing those of his choice for leadership.” (211)

3. “No theological training or leadership course will automatically confer spiritual leadership...’You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you’ (John 15:16)” (25)

4. “If a man possessing great gifts will not place them at the disposal of God...He will take a man of lesser gifts that are fully available to Him and suppliment them with His own mighty power.” (214)

5. The road to spiritual leadership. Samuel Logan Brendle stated:
“It is not won by promotion, but by many prayers and tears. It is attained by confessions of sin, and much heartsearching and humbling before God; by self-surrender, a courageous sacrifice of every idol, a bold, deathless, uncompromising and uncomplaining embracing of the cross, and by an eternal, unfaltering looking unto Jesus crucified. It is not gained by seeking great things for ourselves, but...by counting those things that are gain to us as loss for Christ. This is a great price, but it must be unflinchingly paid by him who would not be merely a nominal but a real spiritual leader of men, a leader whose power is both recognized and felt in heaven, on earth and in hell”(21)

6. Dr. A W. Tozer stated:
“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of external situation. ...I believe it might be accepted as a fairly reliable rule of thumb that the man who is ambitious to lead is disqualified as a leader. The true leader will have no desire to lord it over God’s heritage, but will be humble, gentle, self-sacrificing and altogether ready to follow as to lead, when the Spirit makes it clear that a wiser and more gifted man than himself has appeared.”(36)

1. “Spirit leadership is a blending of natural and spiritual qualities. Even the natural qualities are not self produced, but God-given, and therefore reach their highest effectiveness when employed in the service of God and for His glory.”(32)

2. “Leadership that can be fully explained in terms of the natural, although ever so attractive and competent, will result only in sterility and moral and spiritual bankruptcy”(19)

3. Natural endowments and traits of personality and scholastic attainments greatly enhance leadership, but they’re not the factors of paramount importance.(20)

4. “Each of us from birth possesses skills that either qualify or disqualify us from certain tasks. Those skills often lie dormant until some crisis calls forth their exercise. They can and should be developed.” (34)

5. “Because qualities of natural leadership are by no means unimportant in spiritual leadership, there is value in seeking to discover leadership potential both in oneself and in others. Most people have latent and undeveloped traits that, through lack of self analysis and consequent lack of self knowledge, may long remain undiscovered” (43)

6. “It is the perogative of the Spirit to bestow spiritual gifts that greatly enhance the leadership potential of the recipient.”(35)

Natural Leader	Spiritual Leader
Self-confident	Confident in God
Knows men	Also knows God
Makes own decisions	Seeks to find God’s will
Ambitious	Self-effacing
Originates own methods	Finds and follows God’s methods
Enjoys commanding others	Delights to obey God
Motivated by personal considerations	Motivated by love for God & man
Independent	God-dependent

Doctoral (Ph.D.) Student in Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Nova Southeastern University

Website: www.ResolveChurchConflict.com Email: Newberger@peoplepc.com Phone: 301-253-8877

Given the great diversity of people that attend, churches can be both a source of joy and aggravation, a place of peace or conflict. In this essay, we will be delving into matters relating to interpersonal conflict. Accordingly, consider the following two remarks. Frustrated and upset, one minister verbally emoted:

“It just kills me when people are this ugly in any community, especially the church. What happened in the nominating committee last night was bald-faced character assassination. Nobody stopped it until I finally stepped in. Even then, they just sat there. Today Joan is still at it, spreading her poisonous lies about Sheila all over the congregation. What hurts so is how the people of this congregation play dead and let her keep on. I can't believe it. At times like this, it makes me sick to be the pastor of this church” (Halverstadt).

“'I thought the church was different from other organizations - especially with regard to conflict,' a confused and depressed lawyer said to me in the midst of a painful and protracted battle between his church's vestry [board] and the school board which ran their parish day school” (Leas).

These are just two expressions of disappointment about conflict in the church. Surely, if there is one place where people want to find a respite from the world, a place of peace and harmony, it is in their church. Notice how, in both cases above, the church is distinguished from all other institutions and organizations by the use of the word, “especially.”

However, what is not realized by the majority of clergy and lay persons alike is how unprepared the church is to deal with conflict in its midst. Ironically, the one place people expect for differences to be managed well is the one place where, by and large, it is not. After fourteen years of experience one church consultant and conflict specialist declared, “I have not yet been in a church that has a decent set of understandings of how to deal with differences when they arise” (Leas). The reality behind that observation has changed little since that time. Rediger noted, “It is surprising to find how few congregations have a clear, widely known procedure for handling complaints.” How can this be?

A major reason churches have so much trouble managing conflict is because it is so contrary to what people expect to find. Yet this widely held anticipation that houses of worship are conflict-free is very unrealistic. In fact, such misguided expectations only exasperate the problem. Rodger Bufford, chairman of the graduate psychology program at George Fox College writes, “Ministers don't report that they are having much conflict in their ministries because they are not supposed to have them” (Lowry & Meyers).

Through newspapers, radio, and the evening news, people are well aware of all the problems in the world. Locally or nationally the names are different but the story is always the same: abuse, rape, murder. Internationally, the names are different but the story is the same: political unrest, territorial disputes, war. No matter what the era or where the locale it never ends. But people expect a different, higher experience in the church where love is extolled as the greatest virtue. Jesus' words to his disciples are well-known: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35 NKJV).

Likewise, when pastors or Sunday school teachers look to a model of the ideal church, they inevitably turn to the snapshot of the newborn church recorded in Acts 2:44-47 (NKJV).

“ 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.”

This passage is often cited as a description of the kind of loving fellowship that is expected to exist in our congregations today, and in fact, such love and care can regularly be found.

However, the above snapshot is only a momentary picture. Reading on in the New Testament, we discover that the euphoria of those very early days gave way to instances of false pretenses and lying (Acts 5), to serious conflict between two culturally distinct groups within the church (Acts 6), to theological contention (Galatians 2, Acts 15:1f), and to interpersonal disagreement (Acts 15:36f). As Christianity spread, we find that first-century churches had their fair share of disputes. They are spoken of in virtually every epistle. Paul's remark to the Corinthian church which was composed of people with a strong pagan background is an example: “I fear that there may be [among you] quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” (2 Corinthians 12:21, NIV).

Such a state of affairs does not in any way diminish the words of Christ or the portrait of the early church. But they do acknowledge the difficult realities that churches face when diverse people from every age group, race, ethnic group, income bracket, and background come together to become part of one body. There will be strife. Conflict is a reality of organizational life, and churches are not exempt. They never were.

But not all have come to this understanding. Too often, for a church to acknowledge conflict in its midst when it is supposed to demonstrate love, is to confess failure. Its acknowledgment is incongruent with its highest ideals. It is analogous to faculty members at a university's department of dispute resolution publicly announcing that they are at war with each another.

Consequently, “when we imagine that conflict shouldn't exist, we are likely to engage in denial when conflict does arise” (Rediger). The finding of Peter Robinson, associate director at the Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law supports this contention. After working with hundreds of ministers, he discovered that a pastor's preferred option of dealing with church conflict is “avoidance” (Lowry & Meyers). Rediger has likewise stated, “our image of the ideal church doesn't include conflict. This is unrealistic, of course, but this fallacy about the church is a significant part of the context; when we imagine that conflict shouldn't exist, we are likely to engage in denial when conflict does arise.”

The downside of avoidance and denial is that disputes, rather than being constructively managed, slowly simmer until they explode, catching the rest of the congregation off guard. And then the hallmark of Christian fellowship, love, is nowhere to be found. It is at times like these when people scratch their heads and say, “But I thought the church, especially the church, is not supposed to be like this.” Ron Kraybill has given the following advice to pastors and other church leaders:

“Manage conflict or it will manage you. Whenever churches have faced conflict openly, the congregations have grown stronger in the process. But whenever they have hidden from conflict, it has emerged when the congregations were weakest and least prepared. The longer the congregation hides, the more 'political' and power oriented the struggle becomes, and the more destructive its impact.”

Chaos management, a contradiction in terms, becomes the emerging paradigm instead of the implementation of a pre-designed process of conflict management such as is found in the Peace Plan.

What can be done to address the problem many churches have in dealing with conflict? The first thing that needs to be done is to change people's minds in terms of what they should expect to find in the church. The Mennonites have taken the lead among Christian denominations in this area. As a denomination, they have publicly gone on record stating,

“'Making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,' (Eph. 4:3) as both individual members and the body of Christ, we pledge that we shall: 1. Acknowledge together that conflict is a normal part of our life in the church” (Schrock-Shenk).

In order for such a reorientation to take place in the church at large, a major educational effort has to be made. However, to make an impact on churches, the rationale behind the effort must first be derived from the Scriptures.

It has become apparent to this writer that there has developed a fundamental disconnect between belief and practice. The expectation that the church should be without conflict is incongruent with Biblical theology. It must be remembered that the purpose of Jesus Christ's life can best be seen against the dark backdrop of our destructive patterns of thought that typically result in conflict-producing behavior. The gospel message is that the Son of God came into the world to die for such sins. He who committed no sin bore our punishment on the cross for the wrongs we have engaged in so that we, through faith in Christ, can experience God's forgiveness.

Becoming reconciled with God, however, does not change our underlying human nature. The well-known phrase, “sinners saved by grace,” recognizes the fact that we are still sinners. Very few imagine that a person's new commitment to God eradicates self-centered, conflict producing thoughts and behavior. (The difference is that the Lord now enables us to live a life more pleasing to Him, but it will not be sin-free this side of heaven).

To better grasp this point, Garry Wills' comment is helpful with regard to tarnished televangelists. He wrote, “Journalists miss the point when they keep asking, after each new church scandal, if a preacher's fall has shaken the believers' faith. Sin rather confirms than challenges a faith that proclaims human corruption.” In other words, how can a faith that at its foundation asserts the predisposition of people to do wrong be shaken when people do wrong? It's like saying, “the Pope practices Catholicism. Shocking isn't it?”

Given this fact, why do churches have such difficulty dealing with conflict-producing behaviors when they understand its fundamental cause? The pattern of avoidance belies the underlying premise of the gospel message. Somehow, a fundamental disconnect between faith and practice has developed. Kevin Miller, editor of Leadership, a journal for church leaders, put his finger on the problem when he wrote, “evil is more subtle and more common in all of us religious people than we want to believe.” In other words, religious people have a tendency to see themselves in a more idealistic light than is warranted.

The message that churches should regularly reinforce to their parishioners is that conflict is a natural outgrowth of the human proclivity to be self-centered. This obvious truth transcends all races, all cultures, and all peoples. No researcher has ever found a conflict-free society or organization (Wilmot & Hocker). This accords well with the Scriptures that teach, “there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20 NASB).

Therefore, when a dispute in the church occurs, parishioners should hardly be surprised. Rather, it should be anticipated and seen for what it is, the natural and normal course of human interaction. Such a message regularly communicated will be a major first step in modifying the statement of shock, “but I thought the church is supposed to be different,” to an affirming, “this congregation really knows how to address and resolve conflict and strengthen the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Indeed, those who study human behavior find that “love only endures when dissension is faced openly” (Bolton).

Changing expectations is the first of two major steps that will help churches to better deal with conflict. The second has to do with the way conflict is viewed once it has emerged.

Question: when does one draw the line between a healthy difference of opinion and destructive arguing? Answer: when people become “antagonists.” The etymology of the word “to antagonize” comes from Greek, meaning “to struggle against” (ajntagwnivzomai, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker). Hence, when someone starts directing energy away from a given problem and begins to struggle against another person, the line demarcating destructive conflict has been crossed.

When people begin to undermine the other, it does not bode well for the future of that relationship or for the social setting in which it occurs. The original issue is no longer the real issue. The problem is now identified as a person. He is / she is / they are the problem. In a highly inter-relational setting such as a church, sides begin to form. If the dispute does not get resolved, people begin talking less constructively to each other and more negatively about each other with those in their own circle. Each faction views the other with growing suspicion and ignores what they have in common. Thoughts become increasingly judgmental and condemning. Questions of the other's character, competency, credibility, or spirituality are raised. Emotions affect reasoning. Exaggeration, false assumptions, and other distortions in perception increasingly occur. Parties belittle each other. Action begets counteraction and the conflict escalates. The nasty spirit that surfaces may be as ugly as any found in a secular setting. Why?

“For one thing, parties' core identities are at risk in church conflicts. Spiritual commitments and faith understandings are highly inflammable because they are central to ones' psychological identity…. When church folk feel that their worldview or personal integrity is being questioned or condemned, they often become emotionally violent or violating” (Halverstadt).

It goes without saying that this escalating cycle of conflict must not be allowed to occur. Rather, (1) a wall must be established in each person's mind prior to the point of personal attack, and (2) a concerted effort must be made to bring back parties who have scaled that wall. These two objectives are foundational and must be met if churches are to effectively resolve conflict. Indeed, these are not just good ideas. They are rooted in Biblical theology and must be clearly enunciated to churchgoers on a regular basis.

The term “pseudospeciation” has been coined to refer to “the tendency to portray one's own tribe or ethnic group as human while describing other groups as subhuman” (Volkan). An illustration of this concept occurred on an individual level when a U.S. government official made the following statement about another elected official with whom he was in conflict. Speaking to an intervening third party the first man said, “Let's get this straight. We're dealing with a subhuman species here - this is not a human being we're dealing with” (Wilmot & Hocker ). Such labeling, however, does nothing to manage the conflict. It only creates a more entrenched enemy. Lewis Smedes, who noted this tendency to negatively portray an adversary, put it this way,

“We shrink him to the size of what he did to us; he becomes the wrong he did. If he has done something truly horrible, we say things like, `He is no more than an animal.' Or, `He is nothing but a cheat.' Our `no more thans' and our `nothing buts' knock the humanity out of our enemy. He is no longer a fragile spirit living on the fringes of extinction. He is no longer a confusing mixture of good and evil. He is only, he is totally, the sinner who did us wrong.”

Such a direct attack on another person is very common in the midst of interpersonal strife. Nevertheless, it cannot be allowed to stand, especially in the church. It flies directly in the face of the Judeo-Christian worldview that holds there is no essential difference between any of us. The Scriptures teach that God “made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts 17:26 (NKJV).

Though some might like to think that others are intrinsically second-rate, this is patently false. The Scriptures couldn't be more explicit regarding our moral deficiencies, “for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:22-23 (NIV). Soviet dissident and Pulitzer Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who became a Christian while in a Russian gulag, later wrote with great insight,

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

A dramatic illustration of this comes from a surprising source, the television program, “60 Minutes,” and the segment entitled, “The Devil is a Gentleman.” The story is about Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. Mike Wallace posed this question near the beginning of the piece, “How is it possible, you ask yourself, for a man to act as Eichmann acted, do as Eichmann did? Was he a monster? A madman? Or was he perhaps something even more terrifying: was he normal?”

A riveting answer came during Mike Wallace's interview with Yahiel Dinur, a concentration camp survivor. He was called to testify against Adolf Eichmann at the Nuremberg trials in 1961, some 18 years after the Nazi personally sent him to Auschwitz. Wallace observed that the sight of Eichmann by Dinur at the trial, “unleashed a shattering, disabling response.” A film clip of the trial was replayed on the broadcast. Dinur walked into the courtroom. Upon seeing Eichmann, Dinur was overtaken by emotion and fainted.

Wallace remarked, “Why did Yahiel Dinur collapse? He says it was the realization that the Eichmann who stood before him at the trial was not the godlike army officer who had sent millions to their death. This Eichmann, he said, was an ordinary man, an unremarkable man. And if this Eichmann was so ordinary, so human, says Dinur, then he realized that what Eichmann had done, any man could be capable of doing - even Yahiel Dinur.” Dinur asserted, “I saw I am capable to do this. I am capable exactly like he.”

Of course, countless thousands were involved in Germany's campaign of annihilation. Eerily, the conclusion is the same. “It was not crazed lunatics who created and managed the Holocaust, but highly rational and otherwise quite normal bureaucrats” (Ritzer). As 60 Minute correspondent Morley Safer reminded viewers in a different Holocaust story, “evil can have a very ordinary face.” This is because there is a line dividing good and evil in every human heart.

“During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood.”

This is akin to what William James stated over 100 years ago. James observed that a man “has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares. He generally shows a different side of himself to each of these different groups” (Lemert). It underscores the fact that how we act or the “face” we put on changes in the various circumstances we encounter. The truth is our totality of personhood is more than words we speak or any given act we engage in.

Yet in the midst of interpersonal conflict, we tend to stereotype our adversaries by their worst behavior. We tend to inaccurately characterize others by deriving from one or more callous acts an all-encompassing negative view of that person. The remarks of one of the great Christian thinkers of the 20th century, C. S. Lewis, are relevant here. Commenting on the dictum, “hate the sin but not the sinner,” he stated,

“I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. For a long time I used to think, this is a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there is one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it.”

There's probably not a psychologically healthy person on the planet who can't identify with these words. In essence, we all have established in our minds a wall that separates who we are and what we do. Why? Because who we consider ourselves to be and what we do at a given moment in time are not necessarily the same. Consequently, to accord anything less to others is to engage in hypocrisy.

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.

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 hypocritical because we do not apply that same standard to ourselves. It is also counterproductive.

A reading of the New Testament makes it clear that friction among Christians, as with other groups, is normal and 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 Biblical perspective also points to the need for churches to establish a clear, pre-designed, "user-friendly" conflict resolution process to protect and fortify the body of Christ within.

Moreover, establishing such a "user-friendly" process in a church 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.

The Peace Plan: When implemented within a congregation, interpersonal disputes have a much better chance of being transformed into golden opportunities for individual, interpersonal, and corporate growth. More personal relationships will be preserved. The community life of the church will be enhanced.

Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, F. W., & Danker, F. W. (1979). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Carpenter, S. L., & Kennedy, W. (1988). Managing Public Disputes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

Dana, D. (1999). Managing Differences. Prairie Village, KS: MTI Publications.

Halverstadt, H. F. (1991). Managing Church Conflict. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Hewitt, D. (Executive Producer). (1994, July 10). Nasty Girl. 60 Minutes (transcript). CBS Television Network.

Kraybill, R. S. (Fall, 1986). Handling Holy Wars. Leadership Journal, VII(4).

Leas, S. B. (1979). A Lay Person's Guide To Conflict Management. Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute.

Leas, S. B. (1985). Moving Your Church Through Conflict. Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute.

Leonard, S. (1994). Mediation: The Book. Evanston, IL: Evanston Publishing, Inc.

Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, Inc.

Lowry, L. R., & Meyers, R. W. (1991). Conflict Management and Counseling. Waco, TX: Word, Inc.

Moore, C. W. (1996). The Mediation Process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Moses, H. (Producer). (1983, February 6). The Devil Is A Gentleman. 60 Minutes XV, No. 21 (transcript). CBS Television Network.

Rediger, G. L. (1997). Clergy Killers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Ritzer, G. (2000). Sociological Theory (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Schrock-Shenk, C. (Ed.). (2000). Mediation and Facilitation Training Manual (4th ed.). Akron, Pennsylvania: Mennonite Conciliation Service.

Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1973, 1974). The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. 1, T. P. Whitney, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Volkan, V. (1997). Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Weeks, D. (1992). The Eight Essential Steps To Conflict Resolution. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Wills, G. (1990). Under God: Religion and American Politics. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal Conflict (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.