Conflict in the Black Church

Recently, we spent an evening in East Orange, New Jersey, with advisory board member Stanley Long and a dozen black lay persons he had assembled. Dialogue flowed freely and intensely as both men and women expressed opinions about the causes and cures for conflict in the black church.

It quickly became apparent that while certain specific problems are somewhat unique to a local black congregation, the basic elements of conflict disregard denomination, polity, size, and color. The sources of conflict and the means for resolving conflict are universal.

We agreed with Stan’s observation that the following article speaks well to the issues raised at our meeting.

The church is the most historic, influential, and strongest institution in the black community. It has not, however, fulfilled its potential for economic, social, and spiritual leadership. I believe a principal cause of the shortfall is its failure to manage internal conflict creatively.

Why has the black church failed to manage conflict? First, it believes that conflict is wrong. A situation involving conflict is adjudged to be a sinful situation. The individual who generates it is often viewed as an agent of the devil.

But conflict is not immoral; it is amoral. It can come out of a sin; but it need not be sinful. Unfortunately, we attach negative results to conflict without realizing that it can lead to positive results.

Another reason the black church has not managed conflict is expressed by Douglas W. Johnson in his book, Managing Change in the Church:

“Church leaders often feel guilty when conflict is generated or becomes a major part of the decision-making process.”

This guilt arises from the belief that conflict is abnormal. On the contrary, it is a natural result of human interaction, and is inherent in organization.

A third reason the black church has failed to manage conflict is that its leadership and followship have not always had the courage to deal creatively with it. It takes courage to enter purposely into confrontation. Withdrawal from potential conflict is easy. What is often forgotten, however, is that personal withdrawal does not resolve anything. The reasons for the conflict remain, and the possibility of escalation increases.

The fourth reason for failure is because of unwillingness to take high risks. Conflict management is fraught with human alienation, resentment, and the need to get in touch with one’s feelings. The cost is too high.

Floyd Massey and Samuel McKinney have plumbed the depths of their experience and

search to give us three pertinent causes of conflict in the black church.

A. Latent Ambitions. A young man found no opportunity for the realization of his ambitions on the job. His energies were bottled up. Sometime later he joined the church, and there his irrepressible ambitions surfaced. His goal was to obtain membership on the deacon’s board. He knew that “in the average black Baptist church, the deacon board is the power board.” However, the routes to his destination intersected the paths of other ambitious men in the congregation. The result: A series of conflicts.

B. Power Struggle. Deacon Jones enjoyed being the opinion-molder and congregational leader in the Mount Zion Baptist Church. It had long been acknowledged that Deacon Jones’s influence was greater than that of the former pastor. A new, young, activist pastor was called to the church. His first self-allocated task was to wrest power from Deacon Jones. The pastor’s strong belief was that no layperson should exert more influence upon the congregation than the spiritual leader. This obsessive belief led the minister and the deacon into a bitter, ecclesiastical conflict.

C. Eclipse and Ascension. It was apparent to most members that the Pastor’s Aid committee had become the minister’s favorite organization in the church. The smallest efforts by the committee members guaranteed them his extended praise, and they enjoyed this position for three generations. Meanwhile, the members of the Flower Guild said, “We worked until our tongues were hanging out, but he was stingy in praising us.” When the minister died and a new pastor was called, the Pastor’s Aid made frequent overtures to become his favorite, but to no avail. The new minister refused to inherit a favorite auxiliary. The Pastor’s Aid was replaced by the Flower Guild. As a result, conflict between the two committees escalated.

Conflict announces its presence in black congregations with disturbing regularity. Key questions are: What does a church do when conflict comes? How does a pastor deal with it?

Rolla Swanson, writing in the Chicago Theological Seminary Register, stated that the crucial issues in dealing with conflict are “to be able to identify conflict, deal with it openly, and keep it from being destructive of the Christian community.”

Some students of conflict management have developed detailed, sophisticated, and scholarly formulas for successful management of conflict. After the professional veneer and ecclesiastical jargon are peeled away from these formulas, however, they become consonant with the simple and significant truths expressed by Swanson. Therefore, let’s apply his three suggestions in the context of the black church when there is conflict.

Identifying Conflict

In order to identify conflict, two things are necessary-a willingness and an ability to recognize conflict. Some individuals are willing, but do not know what to look for. The following are often heralds of conflict:

¥ continued fierce expressions of competition

¥ inability, or unwillingness to agree on purpose or goals

¥ unbridled jealousy

¥ expressions of unwillingness or resistance to communicate

¥ constant generation of negative feelings

¥ different role perceptions

Dealing with Conflict Openly

Openness and honesty involve the acknowledgment of the clashing of goals between church groups, differing interpretations concerning the role of the pastor and other church officials, and fierce power plays among members. Acknowledging these factors is the beginning step toward management of conflict. The attempt to hide these matters from others, and especially from oneself, compounds the conflict and delays its management.

Dealing honestly with conflict in the black church involves dealing honestly with feelings. This is the rub. Most of us are in touch with our thoughts, and, if asked at any given moment, we may reveal what we are thinking about. But we are usually out of touch with our feelings.

Our spiritual and cultural training have made us ashamed of negative feelings. Thus, we are reluctant to admit to our uneasiness in the presence of certain leaders. A resentment toward certain members, competition for power, tenseness in the presence of a domineering choir member, and hostility toward the pastor are feelings we deny.

However, alone or together, these are signals of latent interpersonal conflict. Repressed, they rob the pastor-parishioner relationship of stability and security. By being open and honest, the parties involved begin taking specific steps toward conflict management. Without this, there is escalation of conflict and little opportunity for reconciliation.

Reconciliation

The goal beyond conflict is reconciliation; but how is this achieved? First, confession must be made that reconciliation is easier to adopt as a goal than to achieve as an experience. Nevertheless, here are some suggestions.

Be willing to accept and salute the personhood of those with whom you are in conflict. The opposite is frequently true. Jesus knew how to rebuke a person’s delinquent behavior without rebuking the person. This is the key to conflict reconciliation. It is a lesson far too many pastors and parishioners have failed to learn.

Be willing to listen and try to understand the other party. This requires discipline which many men and women fail to apply to themselves. They hear, but do not listen. They make and accept critical judgments regarding others’ behavior; but they do not seek to understand the motivations, pressures, and problems that promote such behavior.

Carl Rogers says that in establishing the climate of encounter groups he listens “carefully, accurately, and sensitively . . . to each individual who expresses himself, whether the utterance is superficial or significant. To me, it is the individual who is worthwhile.”

Not only does listening point the way to reconciliation, understanding is required. And where there is no understanding, there is no compassion. The Gospels make frequent reference to the fact that Jesus looked upon individuals with compassion. He experienced something positive at the center of his being that moved him to positive action. This was the matrix out of which he fed the hungry, gave sight to the blind, made lepers clean, forgave sins, and raised the dead. It was his compassion that led him to restore individuals to wholeness. Expressions of compassion will enable more members in the black church to mend their splintered and broken relationships.

One more thing needs to be said. This article is not suggesting that there is more conflict in the predominantly black congregation than in the white. The purposes and examples given can be applied by all Christians when polarity makes its presence known, felt, and heard. As the black church learns how to deal more creatively with internal conflict, it will become a more potent force in the black community.