Managing Conflict in the Local Church

By Charles Rodney Free

Charles Rodney Free discovered that in California, there were 5,000 churches that had at any given time, passed through a serious controversy between their members and the pastor in the preceding six months (Barnas Survey). The level of tithes and offerings was way down below the previous years. Numbers of pastors were dismissed. Almost none of the pastors had ever had any training in the management of conflict in the local church. Bishop Free offers you his know-how on managing conflict in the local church. Learn now how to protect your ministry and your future.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jan 31, 2013
• ISBN: 9781479762712

Charles Rodney Free

Often called to offer his counsel on how to settle the current conflict in a local church, Charles Rodney Free has for many years succeeded in helping pastors and congregations “piece-it-together-again.” Without the knowledge of best ways to settle discords, many churches have divided, families have been deeply torn apart, and some pastors have resigned in dismay. Now Charles brings his expertise to you, outlining sure methods of restoring peace and trust, fellowship, and harmony to the church. He has had good success as pastor, evangelist, church planter, superintendent, and negotiator. Take this book; it may save your ministry.

Book preview

Chapter 1

Finding the Facts

Whenever there is an offence of some kind in the church, we hope that the pastor will soon know about it and that he will very soon address the problem, with the intent of restoring a healthy spirit of reconciliation. When he or she has discovered that a problem exists and has asked for an audience with the primary partners, his next effort is to find the facts that are relative to the case. Only if a negotiator is able to ascertain the real truth can he bring about peace.

This objective will require skill. You can be sure that the first information you hear will not necessarily be the whole truth. There are several reasons I say that.

First, as a report begins to be spoken, not anyone knows all the truth. If everyone knew the facts, there probably would not be a problem. We keep in mind that the first person who brings a report of a disturbance will tell the story as he or she sees it, not as it is. Then when the investigator listens to the other party’s views, he will hear different things. So the truth probably lies between the two tales.

Please recall the story from ancient India about six blind wise men who were given the chance to see an elephant. Then they were all asked to share what they discovered.

The Elephant and the Blind Men

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day, the villagers told them, Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.

The blind men had no idea what an elephant was. One of them said, Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway. All of them went where the elephant was and touched the elephant.

Hey, the elephant is a pillar, said the first man, who touched its leg.

Oh, no! It is like a rope, said the second man, who touched its tail.

Oh, no! It is like a thick branch of a tree, said the third man, who touched the trunk of the elephant.

It is like a big hand fan, said the fourth man, who touched the ear of the elephant.

It is like a huge wall, said the fifth man, who touched the belly of the elephant.

It is like a solid pipe, said the sixth man, who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant, and every one of them insisted that he was right. It looked as if they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by, and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, What is the matter? They said, We cannot agree as to what the elephant is like. Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, All of you are right. The reason everyone of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features that you all described.

Oh! everyone said. There was no more fighting. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what everyone says. Sometimes, we can see that truth and sometimes not, as they may have a different perspective that we may not agree to. So rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, Maybe you have your reasons.

That being the case, it is advisable for the peacemaker not to agree with the story of either party until he has heard both opinions. No matter how sincere or emotional the first reporter is, that does not mean that (1) he or she truly knows what happened, (2) the person is actually telling the truth or their speech is mixed with some imagination, or (3) their tale is tinted with some revengeful anger. Therefore, the greater wisdom is merely to listen very carefully and respectfully to all who bring a report. But bear in mind, it is not likely you are hearing the facts yet.

When the negotiator has heard what they have to say, his next service is to check out what he has heard. To do that, he will need to very skillfully ask other parties who have brought you a report whether these things were so, which you were told.

Another reason the skilled negotiator withholds his answer or ruling or opinion, or agreement with those who are telling him these things, is that… people lie. There are people you will deal with who have no conscience about lying. Some people lie to set up a defense from being found out and punished for lying. Others lie because they hate their opponent. Still others lie because they would get pleasure from seeing the peacemaker embarrassed.

The demeanor of the skillful negotiator is quietness and good manners

in his way of enquiring into matters. He is not angry and aggressive. He is not authoritative. He is not demanding. He is winning the goodwill of the person whom he is investigating. He knows that when the bond of peace is broken between people in the congregation, one is certainly at fault, and just as likely, two are in error. Therefore, his job is to restore peace between both parties, if possible.

To lessen the possibility of untruths being introduced as evidence, as your talk goes along, perhaps you will ask the person bringing an accusation, Would you be willing to write out your thoughts, and give it to me, to help me get this settled right away? Every investigator in law enforcement reaches a point in investigation that he hands the other person a tablet and a pen and asks them, Here, you know what happened and who said and did what, so write it out for me on my tablet, and I will take care of the problem.

Another way that might help you reduce the misunderstandings is by asking your visitor, Would you sit with me and the person you feel is to blame, and say these very things to them, as you have said to me?

Perhaps this is the time for you to try to ascertain how far this rip has spread. You can find it out with a simple honest question: Would you tell me who there is among your friends who would support you in this case? Who agreed with you that you were right, when you told them about this?

If they have spread this matter among friends, it will help you to know who else knows about the problem and is talking about it in the church.

Now the negotiator does not know yet the extent of the rip. He or she will need to go now and call the other party in and interview them the same way.

Until the peacemaker is fully aware of what the problem is, how can he or she begin to work it out?

Eventually, you will have to work with both opponents at the same time and in the same place. Unless they work this out between themselves, it will continue to fester and increase unto more ungodliness.

And what do you see as the necessary parts to healing an upset?

1. I think it is necessary for the minister to assess just how serious this present problem really is. If it is only a level one skirmish, that is one thing. But if it has the potential to involve other parties in the church, and even other families, and extended families, then your method of solving it will have to be more careful and more thorough.

2. I rather think the first thing to do upon getting an agreement between the parties to let’s work this out and get back together, is to introduce them to your requirement that they must agree to a cease-fire. What we mean by that, of course, is that the two persons at odds will affirm by the name of the Lord that they will stop accusing each other of these charges or any more that they may come up with. And that means Right Now, from this time forward, no more fighting, no more accusations, no more tattling, and no more spreading the news to friends or family or other Christians. Now would be a good time to follow the Bible scenario in 2 Samuel 1:20, Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad (NIV). Also, there is a good verse one can use in Joshua:

Our lives for your lives! the men assured her. If you don’t tell what we are doing, we will treat you kindly and faithfully when the LORD gives us the land. (Josh. 2:14, NIV)

This is your opportunity to stop this matter from passing over large parts of your church. If you can stop the talking right here, it is very good for you and the church. If the stories flood over the church, some will take it upon themselves to play with it, and it could get a lot worse quickly and accelerate into a type 2 problem.

When you bring the two disputants together, I urge you to state your requirements:

No one is to speak disrespectfully to each other, nor to you.

Your plaintiff and defendant must agree at the beginning that the aim of your talks with them is to restore them to mutual fellowship, to peace with each other, and to keep working at this, so that it will be as though it never happened. When this has been done, there must be a sincere promise that neither of them will ever again do this to each other.

If this is a skin-deep reform, very little good has been done.

To the negotiator, I wish to leave this advice: It ain’t over when it’s over.

I hope the peacemaker would say, in conclusion of this meeting, The devils would love to come and repeat something like this between you. So, as your pastor, you can expect me to pray fervently that you will walk in Christ. And I will call on both of you now and then, to see if you are still in harmony, and if not, I will guide you again into love and fellowship, and friendship and mutual trust.

A peacemaker can get into a situation that shocks him, as to what he is hearing. In such a case, he or she may quickly pull back, upon hearing a report or a confession. The negotiator may be so shocked that he may want to quickly back away from hearing any more. Rather, when an admission of misconduct is confessed, hold your peace for a moment, and then pursue the confession. Get the information, spoken as fully and honestly as you can. Speak softly, but encourage the person to continue.

Chapter 2

Of First Importance in Waging Peace

Lingering and damaging delays should never be tolerated by those who are responsible for the keeping of the peace in the local church. Every day in which there is confusion among the congregants, there is an accumulation of further loss.

The idea that trouble between the people of God will somehow just evaporate is not a truthful concept. Even if by some magic the hostilities were to cease, like Bermuda grass in the garden, unsolved division among Christians will reappear and continue to do its damage.

If I seem to be repetitious to the student, it is because I know that these things increase unto more ungodliness, given a little time. When these things are delayed, God forbid, it gives both sides an opportunity to collect and sort and spread even more verbal damages: gossip, the testimony of heretofore silent parties with a complaint, and additional issues that add to the total gripes among the congregation.

The important first thing to do is to physically meet for talks. Since you know that this kind of thing just does not go away, it is imperative that whoever is responsible for the keeping of the peace will call for and direct the aggrieved members very soon.

Of course, there is a reason why a delay of conferencing may occur. It is just so unpleasant to stop the good work one is doing for Christ and get his hands dirty in the task of restoring peace among the people. Some do not really want peace, because to obtain true and lasting peace would necessarily mean someone would have to confess to their ill conduct, and repent the things they thought, said, and did. For some who are strongly self-willed, that is a moment they would rather not have. The mediator may encounter resistance to having a meeting to talk things over by one or the other interests. However, just literally nothing can happen toward piecing-it-back-together until a meeting of the principal parties is arranged and attended.

May the peacemaker, the mediator, the pastor, or whoever else might be responsible to bring all the parties for talks understand that he just must not be delinquent in this serious duty. Do it, and get on with your duty.

It will be necessary to set a place and a time for this gathering. Then it will follow that the next big thing is to personally and skillfully notify the necessary people whom you know need to attend. A commitment should be collected from each of those persons that are asked to come. It will be helpful to all concerned to state clearly what the agenda is for each and all to consider.

Here is where the battle can be lost rather soon. People just do not like to be a part of such a meeting. It is painful and sometimes embarrassing, and they don’t like to be embarrassed.