Conflict Management
Conflicts are a constant in church life. For example, conflicts::
- between clergy and lay leaders
- between members of a staff
- between ministry leaders and participants (e.g. choir director and choir)
- between age groups
- between men and women
- between long-tenure and short-tenure
- between liberals and conservatives
Just listing some of the possibilities suggests a fundamental truth: a living system will have conflict. The leadership issue isn't "whether conflict will occur," but how to handle the many conflicts that are occurring at any given time.
In general, a healthy church system can handle even severe conflicts. The best long-term strategy for dealing with conflicts isn't to stifle disagreement, to rein in strong personalities, or to avoid situations that are likely to produce conflict (such as change, politics or financial problems). The best strategy is to nurture a healthy church.
When conflicts arise, therefore, the leadership need isn't to assign blame or to minimize fallout. The need is to assess the system's state of wellness. Is the system healthy enough to handle this latest conflict? The leaders' focus is church wellness, not preventing conflict or taking sides in a conflict.
The primary exception -- and it happens frequently -- is leadership conflict involving the pastor.
Any conflict involving the clergy evokes complex responses
- odd and often childlike behaviors among laity
- feelings of guilt and powerlessness
- a rekindling of issues from childhood
- denial during early stages, when resolution is most possible, and then bursts of rage
- a tendency to load onto this one target a host of issues that have little to do with the specifics of the presenting problem
- a pathological desire for secrecy
- often, an antagonist who is determined to unseat the pastor and will do anything to make that happen
Leadership groups have difficulty handling such a conflict. Their ranks usually include both those most critical of the pastor and those most supportive
Norms such as consensus, civility, open discussion, and patience tend to evaporate.
Lay leaders tend to stop seeing their role as working in partnership with the clergy and to start seeing it as being advocates for the laity against the pastor. Being an advocate can include steps toward resolution and peace, but always with an air of suspicion and confrontation.
Leaders become overwhelmed with data input -- complaints, rumors, innuendo, love stories, horror stories, suggestions, threats -- coming in broadside fashion from the laity, like undifferentiated noise, and in tightly focused anguish from the clergy.
Leaders are increasingly expected to take sides.
If the leadership conflict goes from simmering to boiling, leaders will be expected to punish and hurt someone. They become seen as "enforcers."
Fortunately, an entire industry of church conflict-resolution specialists has arisen, making expertise and proven processes available to the congregation.
Unfortunately, those services are expensive, begin to consume leaders' time, and usually lead to the pastor's resignation, as the course that is easier than trying to change the attitudes and behaviors of a large group.
Even more unfortunately, the conditions that led to the clergy-leadership conflict rarely are resolved by "fixing" or "ousting" the pastor. They are systemic issues, and they don't go away easily. For that reason, the leadership might come to a resolution of a clergy-employment issue, but find that nothing has improved.
From a leadership training perspective, the primary need is to understand these dynamics and not to be surprised or ashamed when they occur.
