Conflict

 

I don’t like conflicts and, in fact, I’m somewhat afraid of them, even though I sometimes cannot avoid them. J. White wrote that “no test in leadership is as difficult as conflict with opposition. A Christian leader under the stress caused by conflict can fall apart. Some quit because of it, others build a wall around themselves and start shooting deadly bullets from behind it.” When I was writing this book, I had the opportunity to meet a successful entrepreneur who also teaches leadership at a university. He asked me a question I honestly did not expect: What is the hardest thing for you in your leadership? After thinking for a while, I answered that it is conflict. He said he would answer the same. Sometimes I feel I entered certain conflicts unnecessarily, other times I avoided those I shouldn’t have. Sometimes I was too soft, other times too harsh. At the same time, I realized that conflicts are part of leadership, if only because we cannot and should not try to please everyone. The goal is not to avoid conflicts, but to learn how to resolve them. Many excellent materials have been written on this topic, not only from a leadership perspective. I will try to offer my view based on what I have observed in many congregations and experienced myself.

Conflict as a Virus
If relationships in a community are tense, paralysis occurs, manifested by people communicating with difficulty, avoiding each other, leaving gatherings, and much of the community life becoming crippled. Using the image of the church as a body (1 Cor 12), I would compare conflicts in the church to a body attacked by a virus. The body may seem functional at first glance, but what we previously did with ease and enthusiasm becomes a problem. If you come to services, the sermons, music, liturgy, and children’s ministry do not change, but beneath the surface, things are boiling.
I will try in the following lines to describe some people who undoubtedly mean well with the church and congregations but in their efforts and sometimes “holy zeal” destroy the community. I divided them into three groups.

Three Types of Conflict People, Three States of Water

Ice
The first group is hard, they have clear positions, rarely doubt themselves or their opinions, and can be loud. They usually have good argumentative skills, sometimes fondly recall “the good old church where people loved each other and there was order.” They turn congregational meetings into battlegrounds and do not think through the damage their sometimes harsh attacks on others cause. When it comes to truth, let the splinters fly!
They justify their sharp behavior by saying they fight for God’s matters, for the correction of the congregation and church, and that they really care about “the truth of truths.” Sometimes they write long emails that are razor-sharp and take a long time to digest. What is confusing about their argumentation is that in many things they are right, they like to argue with Scripture and church regulations, but their way of communicating hurts.
They are often or almost always dissatisfied, and woe to the leadership if they make a mistake! It is further proof of “incompetence,” “lack of love for the congregation and church,” “laziness,” etc. They are “genuinely believing brothers and sisters who mean well, but leave behind painful wounds and festering injuries. They are often loyal congregation members convinced they serve God faithfully, but in reality, they deal hard blows, leaving a scorched earth in interpersonal relationships both at home and in the congregation.”

Water
Compared to the first group, the second is more “fluid,” meaning the leader never really knows where they stand with them. They rarely choose direct confrontation, but work more behind the scenes, spending lots of time on phone calls or conversations with friends discussing congregational issues they dislike and especially the people they disagree with or who annoy them. Like the first group, they write emails, but usually not to those they disagree with, but about those they disagree with. They rarely enter into direct conflict. Instead, others, whom they have influenced, confront for them.
When they communicate with you, they usually start by saying they “really like” the person they are about to criticize, have “nothing against them,” and can even talk about them as “their friend for whom they pray,” which confuses others. Their communication, unlike the first group, is pleasant, but has a slippery, hard-to-grasp quality.

Gas
The third group appears somewhat ethereal. Sometimes in their arguments, they include the phrase “The Lord told me,” which excludes discussion beforehand because if the Lord told them, the Lord’s word cannot be questioned. On one hand, they eagerly expect God’s work and even pray for it; on the other hand, being around them makes you feel spiritually inferior.
If you have not had the same or at least similar spiritual experiences, they don’t really accept you. They rarely say it outright, but you feel it after a while. It’s not their experiences, thank God for them, but their immature character shows as their gained experiences lead to pride and ownership of the truth.

Why It’s Sometimes So Hard to Name Evil
What these three groups have in common is that they master Christian vocabulary well and do not hide their love for the Lord God and the community. But they love their ideal of the church and people more than the church and the people themselves. Sometimes they are Christians who are or were involved in their congregations, are devoted, often know the Bible well, sometimes even church regulations.
These people can unsettle leaders and call into question much of what is done in the congregation. You gradually realize that the problem is often not the issue itself but the communication style, sometimes very harsh, sometimes behind-the-scenes, and sometimes so spiritual it is actually unspiritual.
It’s also worth noting that these styles are easier to recognize in others than in oneself.
The Scripture describes how to proceed in admonishing (Mt 18:15–17). But there’s a problem. You can admonish when someone commits a clearly definable sin. For example, no one would dispute that hitting a spouse is a sin worthy of admonition, but naming passive aggression manifested by silence, one-word dismissals, or sarcastic remarks is difficult. Or what to do with someone whose hardness drives another to tears while saying “I only told the truth”? The victim fears further confrontation and seeks a third party to help. When the third party intervenes, they get scolded for “listening to gossip.” Suddenly, everything turns against the victim, but what was the victim supposed to do? Not everyone is strong enough to stand up well to an aggressively arguing person. What to do when you want to admonish someone and the response is “look at yourself first”? This is a universal weapon because everyone, leaders included, has some problem.
I want to show that evil and sin are not always clear and easy to recognize and define. Jesus talks about false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing (Mt 7:15). From this metaphor, it’s clear that sometimes we don’t recognize evil and its bearer at first sight. What to do about this?
I will try to write some concrete suggestions for both parties in a dispute, knowing some points will overlap.

Ten Tips on How to (Not) Handle Conflicts

Let’s accept that sometimes we will have to face unpleasant conflicts. Except for a few psychopaths, everyone fears conflict. We should be peacemakers, but if we are in leadership, sometimes there is no other way. On the contrary, it would be strange if we had no conflicts at all. It will hurt, it will be difficult, but those who cause unrest need boundaries set. Moreover, appetite grows with eating — if we stay silent, it won’t stop and will harm others.

First, let’s learn to talk about who we have conflict with before God, then directly with the person involved, not about one another behind backs. Sometimes we have to speak negatively about others; otherwise, the problem won’t be solved, but let’s reduce this to an absolute minimum (regarding positive news, on the other hand, there should be no limit). Always listen to the other side of the dispute, even if their arguments seem obvious. Some people can speak incredibly persuasively, others manipulate, and some are masters of both. To form a judgment, we need to know the whole context. Don’t judge until you’ve heard the other side.

Communicate face to face, which means sparing emails, text messages, and other electronic means. Personal meetings are always better. Long emails solve nothing. When we see the other person in person, we tend to be more careful with our words and can clarify much more. The same applies the other way around, regarding us. Never ventilate problems on social media.

Never solve problems at large meetings where most community members gather. A large crowd is the worst platform for resolving problems. Most people don’t have all the information, and leaders usually can’t say everything, which leads to misunderstanding and frustration.

How we communicate the problem matters a lot. Pulling out biblical verses that suit us, arguing “The Lord told me,” raising voices, dragging up past sins, and slandering never convince anyone but only corner or harden them. If we cannot communicate politely, calmly, and directly, we can say goodbye to the problem being solved—even if we are right.

Learn first to talk about others with the Lord, then directly with the person involved, not about others with others. Sometimes we must speak negatively about others, otherwise, the problem won’t be solved, but limit this to the bare minimum (regarding positive news, be unrestricted). Always speak directly to the other first; don’t rely on second-hand information, even if it seems more convincing. Sometimes a talk with witnesses is necessary—consider when to use this option.

Focus on the problem itself more than motives. In other words, avoid diagnosing why the person does what they do; don’t psychoanalyze (even if you are a psychologist). We can’t see inside another person, and rather than asking why they did this or that, let’s deal with the fact they did it. This doesn’t mean we should never ask why, but let’s be cautious.

Don’t revisit old wounds and injuries. If something in the congregation is closed, it’s closed—have the discipline to keep it closed. Sometimes that requires a lot of discipline. If something troubles us, it’s our problem; don’t burden the community. We can talk about it with someone but it’s not a topic for the whole congregation or a larger group.

Even though we fight for the community and for God’s things, don’t use forbidden weapons called intimidation, slander, backstage games, half-truths, etc. The end doesn’t justify the means in this case, and such backstage tactics usually come back to us. But even if they don’t, don’t do them simply because they are wrong and God won’t bless them.

Although this concerns specific people, the principle remains: we do not fight against flesh and blood... Therefore, pray and trust that God will keep our congregation, church, despite what we experience. Sometimes it doesn’t look that way, darkness can be very thick, but the church belongs to God, not to leaders—even if they are great.

So, just a few words about conflicts. I would wish this chapter to be unnecessary for readers because they won’t have to deal with conflicts. But I’m afraid my wish won’t be granted… So let’s at least handle conflicts wisely.