Can Conflict Be Healthy? by ERIC B. DENT, Ph. D. The George Washington University 2136 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20052
[email protected] 202-496-8385 (w), 202-676-5232 (x)
In my work with United Methodist churches in conflict, I have discovered a commonly held view in congregations that Christians should not be involved in conflicts. In fact, in my own church, we once had two staff members who got into a major disagreement. Some Staff-Parish Relations Committee members said, “why does this happen if both people are Christians?” While it might be nice to think that Christians are somehow immune from the conflicts inherent in daily life, this view is not biblical. During the Exodus, the chosen people were constantly in conflict. In the New Testament, Paul and Barnabas had such a disagreement that they ended up going their separate ways. In fact, some have suggested that a subtitle for the Bible could be War and Peace. What does distinguish us as Christians is that we should be adept at resolving conflict. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ exhorts us to be peacemakers. Paul reminded the Corinthian church that their unity in Christ was far more important than their perceived differences. So, conflict is necessary for life. It is also, in and of itself, neutral. It isn’t inherently bad or good. People need healthy ways for dealing with conflict, not less conflict. The good news is that few things are more exhilarating than a conflict resolved! In fact, in the Celebrating Marriage program that I am involved in, a couple will often mention that the best lovemaking they have is “makeup sex,” the lovemaking that happens after an argument has been settled. I don’t think a resolved conflict can generate those kind of feelings in your church meetings, but it is true that if people in a disagreement are committed enough to work through a conflict, if they solve it, they will have grown closer to each other and brought healing to the body of Christ. Christians can also claim an unbelievable outcome of only two people who come to agreement in Jesus’ name. Matthew 18:19 “If two of you shall agree on earth anything that you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” As we all know, resolving conflicts is not a simple matter. Conflict can often be thought of as an onion. The conflict has several layers, many layers might smell bad and bring tears to your eyes, and the “real” problem is not in the layers, but somewhere near the core. The layers get added when we no longer give others the benefit of the doubt, when we decide what other people’s real
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2331239
motives are, and when we get worked up about any little thing that could possibly be interpreted as a slight. But, there is good news about conflict. Do you know what is at the base of every conflict, something that all conflicts have in common? Two or more parties who care deeply about something. People who are apathetic don’t get involved in conflicts. Why bother? So, usually, two people who have a disagreement, agree on one very important thing. They care about their church. Conflict is much better, and easier, to deal with than apathy. Remember in the Revelation of Jesus Christ that the harshest words were for the lukewarm, apathetic church. So if you ever feel overwhelmed in a conflict, find some comfort in the fact that at least you aren’t dealing with apathy. Christians also have resources available to them that are superior to any other institution because we have the presence of the risen Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit. Two people who love Jesus also share trust in their faith, are attuned to grace, and are accustomed to forgiving. If you are like me, you have been missing a key resource necessary for resolving conflict. No one ever showed me how! In school I was taught math and biology, but not how to resolve conflicts. Some people learn from their parents, but for many of us our parents were not really the best models of conflict handlers. So, many of us have been stumbling along solving conflicts as well as we can without knowledge and tools, and avoiding conflict any time possible. That is not a recipe for success. Whole congregations are like individuals, often resolving conflict without much knowledge or many tools. Researchers have discovered that there are five common conflict handling styles (Thomas, 1976): Competing or Forcing (forcing is the term used in work or family settings where you have an authority figure who can pull rank and basically force a certain decision. Competing is the term more commonly used with peers); Avoiding; Accommodating; Compromising; and Collaborating. Each of the five styles is a function of how much a person asserts herself, and how much she cooperates. Assertiveness and cooperation are independent dimensions. So, it is possible, for example, to be high (or low) in both cooperation and assertiveness.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2331239
Compromising involves a medium level of assertiveness and a medium level of cooperation. Many people believe that conflicts should be resolved by compromise. Compromise is still seen as the most prevalent goal in labor negotiation, for example. “You give up some demands, I’ll give up some demands.” Compromise is most useful in some situations ,but it is not the most desirable way to resolve conflicts. Compromise may be the best strategy when time pressures are great. It may also be the best when “splitting the difference” makes sense. If your church has a disagreement over how often communion is to be served, and one side prefers once a month and the other prefers four times a month, a solution in the middle is meaningful. But compromise is not the preferred strategy for many other types of conflict. If you are selecting carpet colors for the Fellowship Hall, or whether a pastor should be of a certain race or gender, compromise won’t help you. A Sally Forth cartoon strip nicely illustrates the point. Sally and her husband are buying a new mattress. He wants the softest mattress and she wants the firmest. They tell the salesman they want to buy the medium firm mattress and he can’t believe they are going to buy a mattress that neither one will be happy with. Sally says, “we also drive a green car because he wanted yellow and I wanted blue.” Another cartoon shows people leaving an arbitration hearing. One person says to the other, “All in all, I’d say it was fair... Everyone got what they didn’t want.” These cartoons point out one of the biggest problems with compromise. Compromises don’t yield good, long-term solutions if neither party is really satisfied. The conflict will probably keep surfacing.
The conflict style we should use in most cases at church is called collaborating. Collaborating is high in cooperation and high in assertiveness. So, you are trying as hard as you can to achieve the other party’s objective and you are trying as hard as you can to achieve your party’s objective. This is the search for what is commonly known as the win-win solution. The key to collaborating is really getting to know the other person(s). Because once you know them well, and once you show yourself to be trustworthy, people will be more open and more creative. This changed attitude is the key to collaboration. Most conflicts arise because of a difference in two different solutions. But those are almost always only two possible solutions out of many others. For example, the classic conflict poses seemingly intractable opposite positions. Two employees share an office. One wants the window open, the other wants it closed. Both are adamant about their positions. If they will learn to know each other deeply, what they may discover, by peeling back the layers of the onion is that the person who wants the window open is primarily concerned about having lots of airflow. The person who wants the window closed is primarily concerned about having her papers blowing around. So, two creative people could probably come up with half a dozen win-win solutions. A strategically placed fan might make both parties happy, or an open window in an adjoining room. The key is to get down to each other’s “core” desire and then let the other side be creative about meeting the need. Consider a situation in which some people are insisting that the next pastor have young kids. Others want a more seasoned pastor. When probed, what the first group is really concerned about is having a pastor who will be active in building a youth program. The second group is primarily concerned with having a pastor who will increase the size of the congregation. The conflict was seemingly about the age of the pastor. But it really wasn’t about that at all. Collaborative solutions are usually found on another “level.” Jesus gave us masterful examples of collaborative solutions. He was constantly confronted with an apparent, no-way-out conflict. For example, in John 9, “whose sin caused this man’s blindness, his or his parents.” Jesus resolves the apparent conflict by shifting it to another level. In Luke 9 when the disciples ask Jesus which one of them is the greatest, he resolves the conflict by challenging their solutions and assumptions. Collaboration is not the most useful strategy for all conflict situations. It takes time in most cases, so if a crisis is at hand, compromise or competing may be the better approach. Collaboration also only works when the parties have the problem solving skills necessary to explore assumptions, and creatively develop alternatives. A minimal level of trust is also important for collaboration to work. The strategy which should be employed the third most often is competing or forcing. Competing is high in assertiveness and low in cooperation. Decisions made by voting are probably the most common form of forcing seen in churches. If an SPRC votes 5-4 in favor of a motion, the majority has forced the decision on the others. Competing may be the best approach when quick, decisive action is vital. It is also often useful on important issues where unpopular actions need to be taken. The third appropriate use of competing is a really dangerous one. Competing may be best on issues vital to the church where you know you are right. This is dangerous because we
never really know if we are right since we are sinful creatures. For example, is there a right way for a worship service to be conducted? We might all have strong opinions about how we prefer to worship. However, it isn’t clear that one person’s preference is “right” compared with someone else who wants a more formal service or another who wants a rock band in church. Church members have to be very, very careful about saying, “I won’t compromise or collaborate on this conflict because I know I’m right.” This position points up the huge disadvantage of competing. Someone who competes is sending a message that “I’m sure I’m right, and I give no value to your opinion or your need.” That type of stance often causes long-term damage to relationships. By design, the United Methodist church is set up so that there can be few instances of forcing. A pastor can’t force the Missions work area to spend money a certain way. The Worship work area can’t force a pastor to preach a certain message. The bishop can’t force .... (that’s a subject for another article). If competing or forcing has to be used, several additional steps need to be taken to repair the relationship. First, acknowledge the merits of the other side. Show them that you really understand their position and you care about it. This has to be done with love, not condescension. It is also important to communicate thoroughly the rationale behind your position and to note that the issue involves a greater principle, not something personal. A final caveat about forcing or competing. Don’t expect that you’ve heard the final word on this conflict. World War I didn’t have a Marshall Plan and the embittered Germans moved in the direction of another war almost immediately. When I’m involved in a situation of forcing, I often use “the Marshall Plan” as a memory jogger to remind myself that a conflict resolved by competing or forcing requires the additional step of repairing the relationship. The strategy that should be used fourth most often is accommodating. Accommodating is high in cooperation and low in assertiveness. This is a self-sacrificing strategy. Accommodating should be used on issues that are far more important to the other party, or when the other party is much more knowledgeable about the area. It should also be used if you find out you are wrong about something. Accommodating is also often used in a way that “I’ll yield to your position in this case, if you’ll give me one in the future.” >True accommodating means, “It is over with.” If the situation continues to really bother you, you have not accommodated, you have either avoided or been forced. Accommodating means that you give higher value to the relationship than to this particular conflict. The strategy which should be used the least often, but may be used the most often at church is avoiding. Ironically, the times when we should be using avoiding at church we may not be. Avoiding is a good strategy when you are allowing someone to freely exercise his/her gifts. There may be some things you don’t like, but what about the big picture? If it is basically good, don’t create a conflict over a small detail or two. Avoiding may also make sense when it would be helpful to cool down, regain perspective, or gather more information. The chief disadvantage of avoiding is that addressing the conflict represents an opportunity for deeper understanding, for growth and development. Avoiding is a lost opportunity for sharing the Christ in us and exploring the Christ in others.
I commend these conflict resolution strategies to you as you move forward with deliberations in your church. I pray that your churches will be filled with conflict - good healthy, Christian conflict, and that your church will be filled with members who are skilled in conflict resolution.
References Thomas, K.W. (1976). “Conflict and conflict management,” Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, M. D. Dunnette (ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.
