Posts Tagged 'conflict'

One of the biggest challenges I’ve experienced with church is the overlap between the spiritual and the physical.  Ideally, everything in church is a spiritual matter.  However, there are lots of places that physical separates from the spiritual at its core.  What color should the song books be?  Should we have song books?  What type of ministry staff should we have? How should our church organization function?  These may be tied to spiritual matters, and they may support spiritual function, but in and of themselves these are not spiritual issues to be resolved.

The author of Hebrews, whoever he or she is, illustrates this convergence in chapter 12 when discussing the new assembly that Christians have come to.  Specifically, 12:22-23 says:

You have come… to the church of the firstborn whose names are written in heaven.

There is something conceptual in this passage to process about church.  Church exists simultaneously in two spheres: visible and invisible.  There are visible manifestations of church, such as humans that are currently on earth being a part of it.  Then there are invisible parts of church, which would be similar to the names being written in heaven.  A good majority of the manifestations overlap, or co-exist on the visible and invisible plane at the same time.  There are some aspects of the invisible church, however, that those in the visible sphere will not see, and there are some parts of the visible church that do not correlate to the invisible.

In getting my head around this, I’ve started to borrow Wayne Grudem’s understanding that the visible church is the church as man sees it and the invisible church is the church as God sees it.  Thinking of it in this way helps me figure out where this whole church leadership thing is going anyway.  Our job is to make the visible look and act as much like the invisible as possible.  This, of course, is an impossible task.

And this is where much of the conflict in church comes from.  The gap between the visible and the invisible is where the discrepancies are revealed, and is the location of the sparks that set churches ablaze.

Historically, there have been some significant debates/fights/conflicts over invisible church type issues.  Was Jesus really God’s son? Is baptism necessary for salvation? How does the trinity affect the church on earth? In recent times (last 50-100 years?), though, a vast majority of our conflicts and issues have been over visible church type things.  The sad thing is, issues that affect the visible church negatively eventually have an effect on the invisible as well. How many people have you heard say they were tired of church?  How many do you know whom have left Jesus because they found His church to be corrupt?  The damage is significant.

So, how do we work in the visible church so that the invisible is emphasized and advocated for?  More difficult, how to we act when we’re thinking about the invisible church and people around us are focused on the visible?  That’s a tough one to work through.

I came to an incredible realization while at Abilene Christian University for my practical skills and theory class.  Well, at least it was incredible to me. I’ve lamented here frequently that I get frustrated with “church” and how little it looks like what the New Testament says it should.  I’ve whined and moaned a little, but mostly I’ve tried to be open and honest and searching.  The realization at ACU had to do with getting the very heart of the matter that I was dealing with.  As with any problem, it’s hard to deal with it before you name it, and last week I got a name for my problem.

Some time back I did a series of posts on the book FireStorm: Preventing and Overcoming Church Conflict by Ron Susek.  In that series, I discuss Susek’s belief that church conflict is generated in some degree by unmet expectations in key areas of leadership.  When expectations are unmet, especially in the areas of truth, relationships, integrity, and mission, dead branches of kindling build up just waiting for the right spark to set the church ablaze in conflict.  It may seem sort of elementary, but unmet expectations in any area can lay the ground work for conflict to build later.

Now, tie into this something else that I, personally, have struggled with.  I pursued a graduate level study in conflict in a major way because everywhere I went there seemed to be conflict.  One of my mentors has compared me to an abused spouse that subconsciously seeks out dysfunctional relationships that are more likely to lead to abuse.  I thought I was being humble when I sarcastically remarked that “I couldn’t figure out what the constant is in all these conflicts”, insinuating it was ME that was the conflict.  In a recent lunch with one of my co-ministers, Rubel Shelly, he responded to that by saying, “You’re far too arrogant.  Those conflict existed long before you got there.”  I laughed so hard I choked on my chips and salsa.

Here’s what I figured out.  My problem in not with individuals in multiple locations, although that is part of it.  My problem is not with some systemic dysfunction that seems to plague Churches of Christ in particular, although that is definitely a contributing factor.  My problem is with unmet expectations.  My conflict, in and of itself, transcends people and place and is actually with the unmet expectations that lie between the “concept” of church and the “practice” of church.

I know this sort of sounds like I’m repeating something simple, but this was a deep revelation to me for two reasons.  First, it allows me to realize that those unmet expectations, while in a way are everyone’s fault, are definitely no one person’s fault in particular.  In fact, the gap between “concept” and “practice” is wide enough and long standing enough that it works against anyone that wants to actively change it.  People like myself that try to insert themselves into unhealthy systems are run over and trampled, not by people but by the system itself.  Similar to the GM internal memo (thanks Jim Martin for the source) by Elmer Johnson that was quoted in the New York Times, “We have vastly underestimated how deeply ingrained are the cultural rigidities that hamper our ability to execute.” Understanding this allows me to step back to a bigger picture place and extend grace to everyone that is unknowingly, or perhaps knowingly, being pushed along by the system. (Thanks Joey Cope for the lecture on reverence!)

Second, I realized that I don’t have a good understanding of where the expectations are not being met.  It’s one thing to say, “We’re doing something wrong.”  It’s an entirely different thing to say, “Here’s what we’re doing wrong.”  One is empowering (knowledge), while another only promotes unhealthy cycles of conflict (ignorance).  Getting to the heart of the matter (striving for transcendence) is key in solving the problems.  The great thing about this understanding is that it gives me a handle on my issue and a starting point to working through it.

So, where do I go next with my understanding?  First and foremost, I’ve decided to do a detailed study of the theology of church.  I need to know what the standard is before I can understand where the expectations are not being met.  I imagine this study could take years and years, but I think I’ll start to gain insight fairly quickly.  This will be the context for a majority of my blog entries over the coming weeks and months, so you’ll have an idea of what to expect.

I’ll leave you with a real life story that I experienced this week that is sort of my personal theme as I begin this study.  I’ll try to hide as many details as possible, but the power of the situation should be evident (it was to me or I wouldn’t be posting it, now would I?). I spoke this week with a ministry leader that had a 15-20 minute presenation they wanted to make during an upcoming Sunday a.m. worship assembly.  After discussing it with another co-minister, we suggested we could replace the sermon that week and just have this presentation.  One of the workers in the ministry that is making the presentation came to me and the following conversation ensued:

Worker: Are we really going to cancel the sermon for our worship service?
Me: I suppose we could.  What would be wrong with it?
Worker: There’s just something about that that I’m not comfortable with at all.
Me:  Why do we have a sermon on Sunday morning anyway?
Worker: Tradition?
Me: There’s just something about that that I’m not comfortable with at all.
Worker: I guess I just walked into that one.
Me: I think we both did.

Thanks for joining me on what might be a great journey. Please be prayful for me as I seek to understand God’s desire for church, both mine and yours, and for my life in the church.

So far we’ve looked at conflict as a point in space/time as well as a line that connects the two parties.  I’m sure you could hear me tripping out about the bonds that hold people together in conflict.

This next part is the most mentally stimulating of the competing forces thus far.  Unfortunately, it is also going to be the one that is most difficult for me to get out of my head, so bear with me as I try to get this out.

For starters, viewing conflict as a line is also about as incomplete as viewing conflict as a point in space/time.  That is because parties are constantly moving and changing.  Conflicts are not static, but rather are living and active and have substance to them.  A more complete approach would be to begin to rotate the line drawn between the two parties, spinning the line into a circle revolving around the conflict.

The neatest part to this approach is the way the competing centripital and centrifugal forces can be seen.  These forces are naturally occuring physical forces that play off of each other to determine momentum and direction.  One way to understand these forces is to imagine a roller coaster on the tracks headed toward a loop.  When the direction of the track is curved upward to begin the loop, centripital force is applied.  The corresponding centrifugal force pushes the cart down to the track and, subsequently, the contents of the cart (you and me, screaming at the top of our lungs).  These forces can also be seen in our teen filled mini-van that takes a corner too sharp or fast.  The left-hand turn of the van causes all of the weight of the teens to slide to the right, punishing the poor guy at the end of the bench.

This is important in conflict because it reveals the additional conflict of tendency vs. solution.  The solution to our conflicts lie at the heart of the matter, the place where we impact the other person.  The centripital force of the parties rotating around the conflict, however, generates the opposing centrifugal force that pushes us away from the center.  The natural tendency, then, is for us to avoid the conflict and bypass the issue.  The bond of conflict, however, keeps us rotating around the center, simultaneously holding us in place and pulling us away at the same time.  No wonder we feel so messed up when we are in conflict.

The solution to these conflicts require us to fight our way to the center, to the place where we are bonded to each other, and really come to a true resolution.  Only this frees us from the cycle of competing forces and allows us to restore peace to our lives.

Yesterday I wrote about viewing conflict as a simple point in space, which you should read before you decide to read this post, most importantly because this post will consist mostly of an expansion on that topic.

Viewing our conflicts as a point in space is easy and simple and is attractive for many reasons.  Not only does it make give us a self-centered and easily manipulated view of our conflicts, but it also allows us to ignore the fact that our conflicts involve other people.  In fact, this simple view of conflict allows us to completely avoid and simultaneously demonize the other people with which we experience conflict.  A better, and more accurate, view of conflict acknowledges the other parties as being an important part of conflicts.  At this point I would probably get a big “DUH!” followed by a “They’re the ______ that caused my problem.”  Acknowledging the other party goes beyond that, however.

When we’re engaged in conflict with another person, we should have a certain level of respect for the other person.  Joey Cope introduced the topic of “reverence” into our discussions.  Of all the reasons we could give to encourage reverence towards others in conflict, the most convincing to me is the understanding of the role the other person plays in our conflict.  Not only are they party to the creation of the conflict, they are necessary for a successful resolution to the conflict as well.  Think about that!  The person you are in conflict with is valuable to you because you cannot restore peace to the situation without their cooperation.  It is as if conflict with the person bonds us together in a relationship where our own success depends on the person we may be most angry with.  LOST fans out there will recognize the slogan “Live together, die alone.”  If we truly want a healthy resolution to our conflict, we need the other person as much as we need ourselves.  In order to resolve the force that is pushing us away from each other we must move closer together.  What a trip!

Going back to our philosophical/geometrical view of conflict, we can expand on the idea of conflict as not only a point in space/time (which it sort of is) to being a point is space/time to which both parties are attached.  The parties extend from the conflict in their opposite directions, which expands the concept of our conflict to a two-dimensional line connecting the two parties.  Both parties are bound to each other as long as the conflict remains unresolved, neither one is fully able to let go until both resolve to.  Even if one chooses to avoid the conflict or not engage the other party, there is an invisible connection that binds them still to the issue.

This view of conflict is still incomplete, however.  Tomorrow we’ll put the conflict in motion and look at the part that has me the most geeked out.

Until then, how have you seen this two party description in play?  For me, I’ve seen it in unrepentent offenders.  We’ve all had our share of people that harm us and choose to not acknowledge it.  You want to restore the relationship, but are unable to because they won’t even acknowledge that they are a party to the same conflict that you are.  What other examples or thoughts can you add?

As I’ve mentioned, I’ve recently completed a practical skills and theory course in conflict.  Lots of thoughts have been swimming around in my head since then.  We covered a lot of material from different vantage points.  Of all of this, the one thing that stood out most to me was the competing forces that exist within conflict.  I’ll write a couple posts on this, which will be paraphrasing information and material that I’m borrowing from my classmates, professors, and readings for the course.

The first force that I observed in our discussions on conflict is the power of perception.  The way we view a conflict has great impact on how the conflict affects us and on how we will handle ourselves and the conflict as we work our way through it.  Conflict can be seen as something evil that should be avoided, or can be viewed as an opportunity for growth.

Specifically, the philosophical way we view conflict is very important.  Most people will view conflict as a punctiliar event or a specific point in space/time.  Thinking geometrically, this perception would view conflict as a singular point in space.  Viewing conflict this way allows us to treat the conflict as a specific event and allows us to describe it as such.  For example, viewing conflict as a point in space gives us the ability to avoid it if we choose.  We can walk around it just like we walk around a piece of furniture or we can store it in a cabinet like a souvenir from our latest vacation.  We can look at it, use it, or avoid it all together.

Viewing conflict as a point in space also allows us to use a very self-centered approach to describing our conflict.  This over-simplified approach to our conflict enables us to consider our perception as the only one that matters.  Since a point is space is easy to name and observe, we can easily place blame on others and be confident in our recollection of events and happenings. Our perception becomes the only one that matters.

While there are certain aspects to conflicts that are specific in space/time, viewing conflict in this way ignores the relational aspect of conflict.  If our desire is to resolve only the specific space/time aspects of a conflict, this is the highest level of philosophical complexity that is required.  For example, if I am injured and my car is damaged in a car crash I may choose to ignore any future relationship with the other person and seek to settle my conflict through litigation.  Myself and the other person will have our perceptions of the space/time event presented to a judge/jury and will have a decision made on our behalf.  A majority of our conflicts, however, will be better served by being resolved with a greater consideration given to the relational value in conflict.

Tomorrow I’ll talk more about that, but I’ll leave you with a true story from today that reveals some of the problems of viewing conflict as a point in time.  One of my BIGGEST pet peeves is when the remote controls go missing in our house.  When a remote disappeared today, I instructed the boys to do nothing else until they found the missing remote.  None of them seemed to have it last, so they were all in it together.  When I came back into the room, I found two children involved in a conflict.  Specifically, one child, red faced, had the other child by the wrist and was staring him down while saying, “Boy… you better get control of yourself and I’m NOT kidding.”  Having been a parent for a combination of 39 years, I knew that they would each have a different account of what had happened that led to this particular situation.

What problems do you see with viewing this conflict as a specific, point in space kind of conflict?