The level of conflict has less to do with the problem than with people’s reaction to it. Just because people are open and honest with each other doesn’t mean that real differences do not exist. Of course, as the stakes get higher, so does the possibility of more intense conflict.
— Speed Leas
Conflict comes in many colors.
We normally know it as red, fiery hot: shouting matches, withdrawn pledges, fired pastors, split churches. This type of conflict burns everyone it touches.
But conflict also comes in blue, as cool and calm as a placid mountain lake. Issues are moved, seconded, debated calmly, and voted upon. People walk out of meetings “losers” but not bitter or angry.
Other conflict is green, contributing to the growth of a congregation. Some is black, foreboding doom for the church. Some is an amorphous gray, uncertain and undecided but enveloping the church like fog.
So when we talk about church conflict, we’re talking about many things. And when we talk about dealing with conflict, we need to recognize the specific color of conflict we’re dealing with.
Analyzing the Levels of Conflict
In my consulting work, I see at least four types, or levels, of church conflict. In each level of conflict, two major factors give me clues about the amount of difficulty a church is facing: the objectives of the parties involved and the amount of distorted thinking.
By “objectives” of the parties I mean their goals—what they are trying to accomplish. In lower-level conflicts, parties usually stay focused on the problem or difficulty. In higher-level conflicts, the goal of the parties shifts to trying to hurt one another or gain control.
By “amount of distorted thinking” I mean this: as people become more anxious or frightened, it becomes more and more difficult for them to think clearly about what is actually going on. They have a hard time assessing how much the church is threatened by the other party.
The clarity of people’s thinking, of course, is seen in their use of language: If the words they use are broad, diffuse, and scattered (e.g., “The elders are being difficult” or “The pastor always does . . .”), the parties are at a higher level of conflict. The more specific the language (“The pastor hasn’t preached a good sermon in four Sundays” or “I’m discouraged that the elders didn’t approve my salary request”), the lower the level of conflict.
Also, the level of conflict has less to do with the problem than it does with people’s reaction to it. Just because people are open and honest with each other doesn’t mean that real differences do not exist. It is possible for people to be in low-level conflict even when important issues are at stake. Of course, as the stakes get higher, so does the possibility of more intense conflict.
In addition, most churches tolerate certain levels of conflict, even though the conflict is unpleasant. And it’s not unusual for the conflict to rise to that level and hold there, not getting worse. Many churches seem to have internal governors that prevent the tension from escalating.
Finally, churches don’t necessarily move neatly from one level of conflict to the next. Churches sometimes skip levels altogether as they move up or down through conflict.
Here, then, are the five levels of conflict most churches experience and the strategies that are best used at each level.
Level I: Predicaments
In Level-I conflict, the major objective of the parties is to solve the problem. Level-I disputants don’t accuse people: “What’s the matter with you?” They stay focused on the problem.
For example, in a Level-I controversy over the pastor’s salary, the pastor and the personnel committee simply try to reach an agreement about the pastor’s compensation. The pastor does not accuse the personnel committee of being stingy, and the committee does not charge the pastor with greediness. The goal of the participants is not to punish or to get control; the goal is to reach an agreement that will appropriately meet the financial needs of the pastor within the salary standards for the position and the available resources of the church.
Participants’ language tends to be specific and clear: “I believe I need another $5,000 just to afford to live in this community” or “I don’t know that we can afford that large of a raise since pledges fell short this year.”
People find it easier to articulate what could be done: “Maybe if we adjusted my salary package, we could in effect get me that $5,000” and “You know, if we presented your concerns to the congregation, I think we could raise a few more pledges, which would put us over the top.” People think clearly and feel confident speaking to the point,
By and large, the conflicting parties are open with one another about the problem. Neither party is frightened or suspicious of the other. Each assumes good will upon the part of the other, so neither party withholds information. The level of candor, in fact, is an excellent indicator of the level of conflict.
Because this level of conflict is handled so smoothly, some people don’t see it as “conflict.” But whenever people of different views try to work out an agreement, no matter how graciously they do so, you’ve got conflict. Conflict, then, is part of every church’s life.
Furthermore, conflict at this level is valuable to a church—that’s why many people don’t even consider calling it “conflict.” When conflicts remain at this level, a great deal can be accomplished: problems get solved, people understand each other better, relationships improve, trust is deepened.
Level II: Disagreement
In Level-II conflict, the objective of the parties has shifted slightly: each party becomes increasingly concerned about self-protection. Parties are still concerned about solving the problem, but they are especially concerned about coming out of the situation looking good.
Furthermore, the language that people use now becomes more generalized. One hears “I don’t know if I trust the treasurer anymore” or “The pastor doesn’t seem to be doing his job.” Such descriptions leave the hearer wondering what the person is actually talking about. They may well be accurate descriptions (not distortions, which we will see in Level III), but they merely point in the direction of the problem; they don’t tell you what it is.
Level-I statements, on the other hand, might be “The treasurer hasn’t been giving me the monthly reports as I asked” and “The pastor hasn’t made a hospital call in two months.”
At Level II, people’s language has a higher emotional content. Each party reveals their increasing tension: “The treasurer makes me pretty angry” and “I’m very disappointed with the pastor.”
People at Level II begin to lose trust in the church leaders to help them get through the problem. They look elsewhere for help. They talk to others in the church about their concerns. They take their problems home and discuss them with spouses and friends.
This can become destructive, of course, but it can work for the good too, especially if people receive feedback that helps them deal constructively with the conflict. For example: the pastor talks with a colleague about his frustrations with the treasurer; his colleague tells him how he dealt with a similar problem in his ministry, and the pastor finds it works in his own setting as well.
Parties also begin withholding information at Level I. It’s not that anyone is distorting the farts or lying, but not everything that might be relevant is shared.
For instance, when the pastor suggests to the treasurer that he wants a monthly report, he may omit the fact that not getting the report makes him anxious, even angry. When the member tells the pastor he needs to be more of a shepherd, she may omit mentioning her noticing his failure to visit Mrs. Jones when she was hospitalized overnight.
The parties believe, moreover, that if they are to resolve the problem, everybody will have to compromise. In Level-I conflict, the parties work toward a win-win solution. At Level II, that hope has been abandoned. People assume they’ll have to settle for some kind of a tradeoff: for example, the pastor may believe the best he can do is get a treasurer’s report only every other month.
At Level I, parties explore the inaccuracies of the other party’s case simply to discern the facts. But parties in Level II are more interested in “scoring points,” demonstrating their intellectual prowess in conflict. When a conflict shows signs of becoming a contest, though, moving toward a consensus becomes even more difficult.
As in Level-I conflict, this level should not disturb churches. This is another level of conflict typical to most churches, a level that with a little patience and planning can be turned to the good.
That can be done by:
—Helping each party understand the specific source of their frustration.
—Getting the parties to tell each other, in a gracious way, the facts as they see them and the emotions they are experiencing.
—Helping the parties find an amenable solution to the conflict.
Level III: Contest
At Level III, conflict has become a full contest: the “players” are less concerned about the problem or looking good; now they want to win, to get their way.
They’ve lost perspective on the issue. When looking at the larger picture of a conflict at Level I or II, people still see in the foreground the problem and possible solutions. At Level III, problems and solutions have moved to the background.
It is much more difficult, then, for people to see clearly and accurately what is actually going on, and their language reflects this. Several distortions are common:
• Dichotomizing. To dichotomize means to see things as right or wrong, black or white. There is little or no room to explore a variety of alternatives: “Either we make a special appeal this Sunday or the church will go out of business!” or “Either the youth pastor resigns or our family leaves!”
• Universalizing. We universalize when we make broad generalizations that do not accurately describe what is going on in the church. We tend to use words like everybody, nobody, never, and always:
“The pastor never calls on the older people in the congregation.”
“This church is split right down the middle. Everybody has taken sides.”
Naturally, universal statements are rarely true, and saying them distorts people’s views even more.
• Magnification. When we magnify, we assume the other party has evil motives. We also imply that our motives are righteous:
“They don’t give one whit about this church. They could care less if we had to close the doors.”
“At least I’ve given my life to this congregation, trying to make it a mission-oriented fellowship.”
• Fixation on feelings. This means focusing on people’s feelings rather than the facts of the problem.
For example, a couple approaches the pastor after worship and says: “We know of several families who are unhappy about your leadership.”
“What are they unhappy about?” the pastor replies.
“We don’t know, but you had better take care of it.”
When not connected to some description of people’s unhappiness, such a statement simply scares others:
“If you don’t know why I am upset, there’s no point in telling you.”
“I’m hurt at what you’ve done; too hurt to even talk about it.”
In lower levels of conflict, people express their feelings (“I am unhappy”), but they usually continue with specifics (“The pastor didn’t let us know he was going away on a retreat this week.”)
At Level III, groups and coalitions begin to form. These groups are not yet factions, which emerge at Level IV, but people are beginning to talk with one another. They may not meet regularly, nor do they have dear leadership or a hierarchy, but others begin to notice their consanguinity. Parties may even be given names: “the dissenters,” or “the old-timers,” or “Pastor Smith’s friends.”
It becomes difficult to separate issues from persons. Personal attacks increase and take the place of talking about the problem: “Pastor Jones is just lazy!” or “The women’s group is a bunch of gossips!”
It also feels as if a problem this big has to be somebody’s fault—someone must take the blame and punishment. Dynamics of church life and the complexity of the issue are ignored: the problem is due to bad or difficult people.
In addition, members begin to try to influence one another through emotional appeals rather than rational arguments: “You don’t seem to care about what is happening here” or “Look how bad everybody feels now. We’ve got to do something!”
Finally, people at this level dispute about who should initiate peace overtures: “No way am I going to meet with that committee until the chairman apologizes” or “I’d be happy to work it out, but the pastor needs to come to our meeting first.”
Handling Level-III Conflict
Obviously, Level-III conflict corrodes a congregation. Decisions made at Level III, because they are based on seriously distorted thinking, will often create more problems than they solve.
In one California church of 130 members, an elder was furious with the pastor. He originally became upset over some things the pastor said in two sermons. Then he chafed at the pastor for changing the order of service. Those objections escalated into accusations of hypocrisy and arrogance.
When the elder board refused to take actions on his complaints, he threatened to send a personal letter to every member of the congregation, explaining his problems with the pastor. That would have “punished” the pastor by embarrassing him (the elder’s main goal), and it would have split the tiny church in two. It was overkill.
The other elders quickly and decisively told him not to send his letter, and fortunately he did not.
In general, I want to reduce Level-III conflict to Level I or II. I can do that in the following ways:
• Increase the amount of clear, direct communication between the parties. This is the key to reducing conflict at Level III. I want parties to hear directly from each other what each of their concerns are. To do that, I need to get them together.
And I can get them together only if they feel safe with one another. To that end, I do the following:
—Clarify who will be there.
—Clarify the agenda.
—Clarify the ground rules.
When warring parties get this information ahead of time (even helping to determine it), they are much more willing to come and talk to one another, and they are more likely to reach agreement.
• Help the parties explore areas of common agreement. Before they look at their areas of disagreement, I will attempt to raise their level of hope. If the parties do not believe they have any common ground (or forget that whenever they get together) or see no possibility for advancing their concerns, the conversation will probably not go far.
• Help the parties discover the deeper interest. The concerns and solutions each party proposes may seem incompatible. However, behind each position may lie a range of interests that have not yet become conscious or been articulated. These deeper concerns can become the basis upon which other alternative solutions arise.
I once worked with a congregation with a conflict over the membership list. One staff member and several volunteers had for years kept the membership list on an Apple computer, although the church also owned an ibm for other office uses.
But one year, three other staff people went to receive computer training so that the church could keep financial records, data bases, and membership lists in a coordinated way. The program they were trained to use, however, was only ibm compatible.
Consequently, these people suggested that the membership lists be transferred to the ibm system, and that’s when the Apple-list people started feeling they were losing control of their work—they thought they would not be able to access names as easily on the new system.
The people trained on the ibm system felt the Apple people were silly, and they began entering the 1,800 member names in their computer. Soon the church had two membership lists and a different group of people overseeing each one.
When I was called in, I met with each group separately to discuss what it was they really wanted. I also helped them look at the consequences of continuing to run dual membership systems. They each agreed to meet together to see if each party’s needs could be addressed. We agreed on the ground rules and agenda for that meeting.
It turned out that neither group wanted the church to have dual membership records. In the end, the Apple people agreed to get training in the IBM system, and they began overseeing the entry and upkeep of the ibm lists, ensuring, they felt, the accuracy of the work. The ibm people provided overall management of the system.
Level IV: Fight/Flight
In Level-IV conflict the major objective of parties is to break the relationship, either by leaving or getting the other to withdraw. No longer is victory palatable; now the very relationship is a problem.
The language of people in Level IV is much like that of those in Level III. In addition, people express their dissatisfaction with nonverbal behaviors towards the “enemy”—not speaking, literally turning their backs, shouting, making obscene gestures, scowling, grimacing.
The focus of conflict shifts from issues and emotions to principles. The parties battle over eternal values—truth, human rights, justice. Often the issues being addressed by the parties are problems to solve, and workable solutions can be found. However, if the problems to solve are addressed as standard bearers for eternal principles, resolutions are extremely difficult to work out.
The strategies of those in Level IV are usually designed to end the relationship. Opponents are punished, shamed, and attacked in the hope that they will choose to go away.
In Level III, allies began to commiserate with each other in identifiable but loosely formed groups. In Level IV, strong leaders emerge, and the groups cohere. Members of the group defer to leadership, and the group makes plans as a group. Members begin to feel more powerful through their identification with their cause: there is a sense of cohesiveness, solidarity, and unity—exhilarating emotions indeed!
Allies, in fact, begin to identify more with their group than with the church. In fact, the good of the congregation as a whole takes second place to the good of the group’s cause—or better, the good of the group becomes the good of the church. Parties push their own will at the expense of the whole, impugning the integrity of those not in the group, believing that those in opposition are essentially hypocrites.
Furthermore, the parties often attempt to enlist outsiders in their cause, and almost any outsiders will do: denominational officials, the press, neighboring pastors, conflict consultants. The expectation of people at Level IV is that when outsiders hear the complaints of the protagonists, they will surely want to join the cause and lend weight (or at least sympathy) to their side.
Level V: Intractable
At Level TV the parties are willing to let the other side live, if at a distance. At Level V, people believe the opposition is so evil and so virulent that simply getting rid of them will not do. The opposition must be punished or destroyed. Those at Level-V conflict believe, for the safety of the church, that the bad people must be disciplined so they can do no further damage.
For example, people at Level V are not satisfied with having the congregation fire a pastor. These people continue their battle at the denominational level, looking for ways to get the pastor defrocked.
Withdrawal from the conflict is next to impossible for parties at this level. Since one feels called by God to do these “mighty acts,” pulling back would be seen as retreat, a demonstration that one does not truly believe.
Handling conflicts at Levels IV and V is beyond the scope of this book. In lower levels of conflict, getting someone or some group to come in from the outside (denominational officials, church consultants) can help. At Levels IV and V it is absolutely critical. The situation is out of control.
But things can get better. Recently I worked with an Episcopal Church where a powerful minority wanted to dismiss the pastor. They included about a third of the vestry (the board) as well as other leaders of the church school and choir—all influential leaders.
The pastor had not been there long, and the dissenters believed they had made a mistake in calling him. First they tried to get the bishop to remove the pastor—substantial Level-IV behavior. The bishop recommended they use a consultant.
I identified the concerns of the congregation, especially their concerns about the pastor’s leadership style. I helped the larger membership see that the pastor’s opposition, although composed of many pillars of the church, was small in number.
Since it was clear that the pastor had plenty of support in the congregation, the congregation decided to actively enlist the support of the dissidents in setting goals and a vision for the future.
In the process of identifying these goals, a couple of the dissenters decided to leave the church. But most stayed and worked on the goals and their relationship with the pastor.
Like most Level-IV conflicts, I would not say that everybody lived happily ever after. But there was a significant lowering of the level of conflict in the church.
It doesn’t always work out this well, of course. And, as I said, most pastors shouldn’t even get in the middle of a Level-IV or -V dispute. Still, as pastors are better informed about the exact nature of their churches’ conflicts, the better are their chances of dealing with them redemptively.
Copyright © 1992 by Christianity Today
