Our nominating committee was stuck! We couldn’t agree on anything-not a Sunday school director, not even a department director. Every time a name was suggested, Fred would object. We had no men both qualified and willing to take any of the key leadership positions, and Fred was set against having a woman in any position “over” men. We had a problem.
As pastor, I badly wanted to get the Sunday school staffed with able, committed directors. I also wanted to work through the differences Fred had with other committee members.
I suggested to Fred that we meet privately to examine the Bible teachings on the role and ministry of women in the church. We studied 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Galatians 3:28-29, Ephesians 5:21-30, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and other Scriptures. I pointed out the leadership roles played by Priscilla, Phoebe, and Deborah-all to no avail. Fred was immovable.
As I weighed the situation, I developed the following grid as an analytical tool.
X-coordinate: Degree of Certainty, or “How sure I am that I am right.”
Y-coordinate: Degree of Importance of the Issue, or “How important this matter is to me.”
On any given issue or question, each individual has a unique viewpoint. The person must determine how much intrinsic importance this matter has and also the degree of certainty of that position.
For point A on the grid: I am absolutely certain the toothpaste tube should be rolled up from the bottom. But on the scale of importance, I do not place it very high. Therefore I will not break fellowship with my wife if she persists in squeezing it in the middle! I won’t even rant.
For point B: Euthanasia is a very important matter; it involves taking a life. But under what conditions should life support systems be suspended? And who pulls the plug? Serious questions leave me uncertain that my position is right. I am reluctant to press my viewpoint. I wouldn’t break fellowship with a fellow minister who sees the matter differently.
An interesting set of patterns begins to emerge when you compare the grids of two persons who disagree over a particular issue.
How did this tool work in the conflict with Fred? He strongly opposed nominating women to any position of authority over men. He agreed to the nomination of a woman as preschool division director so long as no men worked in that division. As our discussions progressed, it became clear that he believed his position was scriptural and right. He put his X well to the right on the grid. He also said this matter had a high degree of importance, which moved his X toward the top of the grid. His X on the grid was now located close to the “Region of Conflict.” Most people positioned in that area on a given issue will fight for their views.
As I examined my own convictions on the role and place of women in the church, I felt he was wrong in his interpretation of Scripture. However, I was not absolutely sure I was right. I didn’t want to break fellowship with Fred or see this matter develop into a church fight when I was still undecided.
I suggested each committee member be free to express opinions but that we agree to let the committee decide on the nominees by majority vote. Everyone agreed-even Fred! We also agreed that none of us would campaign for our position or try to impose our interpretations on the church body. Under these conditions we could agree to disagree and maintain fellowship, each respecting the right of others to a different point of view.
Not every disagreeing person will soften to the point of submitting his convictions to the will of the majority. But the grid has proved to be a useful tool for objectively discussing our respective positions and thinking through how far we would go in insisting on our own way. This approach also kept the church from becoming embroiled in a potentially divisive issue.
-Ernest Beevers
West Hills Baptist Church
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
Copyright © 1986 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
