INTRODUCTION

Church problems existed even in the first-century Church, so it is not surprising that today’s Church, which is still not perfect, would have its problems. People become dissatisfied with the way church leadership spends money, with a youth program which doesn’t meet the needs of their children, with the style of worship or preaching, with teaching that seems unscriptural, and so on. Sometimes a problem exists between members who disagree on everything that happens in the church. Paul had to reprimand two ladies in the church at Philippi. "I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord" (Phil. 4:2). These were not just marginal troublemakers who had cantankerous spirits. They had both worked at Paul’s side in the cause of the gospel.

Conflict Between Good and Evil

From ArticleWorld

The conflict between good and evil is an eternal one, taking place on both a world scale between individuals and ideologies and as an inner battle between the good self and the bad self

Trouble and disagreement seem inevitable in any human situation, even in a church populated by humans in the process of becoming Christlike. Satan, who seeks to discredit God’s work wherever he can, delights in raising occasions for friction and disagreement right in the church body. This is reality even though the Bible urges all believers to work together in unity (Eph. 4:3,13), to be kind to one another (Eph. 4:32), and to show equal respect to all who come into the congregation (James 2:1-9).

When church problems arise and seemingly come to the point of having no solution, what should a Christian do? The first step is severe self-evaluation. If the dissatisfied person is in any way responsible for the problem, and leaves the church, the problem will go along, only to break out in another form in the new situation. A time at the altar, sincerely seeking the Lord’s direction on what can be changed in one’s own life is essential, even if the problem seems to have been initiated by another party.

After one has passed the "inner-spirit check," with no solution becoming evident–remembering all the time that God desires unity among His children–one must then look toward ways in which the Holy Spirit can use him or her to deal with and resolve the problem. With a gentle spirit, nurtured through extended prayer, and possibly fasting, one might then speak with the one or ones who are part of the problem. This step fulfills the instruction of Scripture: "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ’every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church" (Matt. 18:15-17). Hopefully, by this time, with each party seeking the unity of the Spirit, there will be some resolution.

But human nature being what it is, and with Satan busily at work trying to keep unity from becoming a reality, one may actually have to separate from the congregation and seek to identify with a group devoted to God and His Word. Unfortunately, some Christians have left unpleasant situations which should have been dealt with according to Matthew 18, only to see later that the remaining members of the congregation followed after false leadership that led the congregation into spiritual ruin. There may even be times when mature denominational leadership should be called in to deal with unhealthy situations. An objective outside voice, sensitive to the leading of the Spirit, can often cut through pettiness that causes major church problems.

Every church minister will face either a personal conflict or an interpersonal conflict with a congregation. Conflict is a fact of life and it is inevitable. Conflict in itself is an ambiguous concept that takes on different meanings for different groups and in different contexts.  Naturally many people understand and perceive conflict as negative. Usually conflict is driven by a sense of grievance. Therefore when we get involved in a conflict, it is an opportunity for us to be able to address the grievances by either affirming a position or overcoming perceived shortcomings. Conflict is an indicator that the relationship between the parties involved cannot continue as it was before. Conflict reveals issues, but whether we deal with them constructively or destructively depends on how we handle it.

Take a number of church ministers and ask them of the various conflicts they are having in their churches, and they will give you stories of battles raging in their churches. It is true that conflict is common in the body of Jesus Christ, but must it be debilitating? Yes we expect disagreement, but must the way we settle our disputes - too often nusty- be our defining characteristic? Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results, or conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead to quality final products. Conflict can be a problem when it hampers productivity, takes attention away from other important activities, lowers morale or self-concept, causes more and continued conflicts or causes inappropriate behavior such as fighting and name calling. But when a conflict or a disagreement can help us see things more clearly and bring about better decisions, it can be a helpful tool in accomplishing God’s work.

Conflict has a lot of benefits. Constructively handled conflict can lead to a long-term peace and cooperation in a church and will cement congregation cohesion. It can also help in constructing members boundaries as each individual recognizes their common interest. Conflict can therefore offer stability and serve as a unifying force. Conflict will sometimes be necessary to bring justice where injustice exists. It can provide an opportunity for new system to be created or established and hence help to shape the future. Were it not for the conflict in neglecting the Greek widows in the early church, the office of deacon would not have been created.

Psychologically, conflict can initiate a process through which individuals realize that they have a common interest and a common opponent.

It is rare for us to perceive conflict and use it as an opportunity to reach a higher degree of satisfaction in relationships. We tend to experience conflict as something hurting, which we would like to stay away from, to neglect or forget about. For this reason, we may find ourselves blaming others for disturbing our “status quo” when they try to take care of their interests and needs. In other words, we use conflict to confront others with our ides, our own interest or we use our power to impose these on them.

Conflict will be experienced as a disruption in the natural flow of our relationships. All over sudden we start feeling being more attentive to some of the things we have always taken for granted. We stop taking things at face value, but instead spend time and energy interpreting and re-interpreting what things mean. Our communication will become difficult and we will find it difficult in hearing what the others are saying unless they agree with us. In all this, it is important for us to understand that God made us in his own image but he also made us unique. This is why some of our views differ from those of others. All what we need is to have respect for one another’s needs and views.

Our churches should be creative, committed, problem-solving communities, able to effectively utilize conflict as an empowering force to deal not only with our own internal problems, but with the concerns and issues of the larger world as well.  First, we must remember that by the very act of creation, God gives each individual unique value and worth. Faith in this gift allows each member of the church to affirm his or her sense of self-worth which enables us to engage in the constructive utilization of conflict. Second, we must remember not only to trust each other, but also to trust that God uses even our disagreements to further the work of the church and our spiritual growth.

DEFINITIONS OF CONFLICT

One simple way to define conflict might be this: Conflict is the opposing positions of two individuals on the same subject.  This addresses the crux of conflict -- two sides with different positions.  The disagreement may be about the who, what, when, where, why and how of an issue.  Two men may differ on whether to use a 2-iron or a 4-wood when faced with a 200 yard shot to the green in golf.  Two parties at a restaurant may disagree about who gets the table by the window.  Many husbands and wives have contradictory views on who started their last fight.  The differences may be substantive or simply incorrect perceptions.  The differences may be mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive.  The conflict lies in the incompatibility of  the two sides.

When people think of the word conflict, they often think of war or violence. However, conflict exists at all levels in the society in all sorts of situations. Various persons and researchers define conflict differently.  So that we can have a broad understanding of conflict, I am putting fore-ward for us to examine a variety of definitions postulated by various authors:

Ÿ  Conflict is simply a crash of differing points of view, opinions or values. It is a situation in which two or more  human beings desire goals which they perceive as being attainable by one or the other but not by both.^[1]

Ÿ  Conflict is a natural disagreement resulting from individuals or groups that differ in attitudes, beliefs, values or needs. It can also originate from past rivalries and personality differences

Ÿ  Dr. Wise defines conflict this way: Conflict is two pieces of matter trying to occupy the same space at the same time.¹Two pieces of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time, hence the conflict.  One piece could concede the spot to the other and the conflict would be resolved.  The two pieces could agree to alternate occupying the space.  Identifying the conflict is one thing -- Bringing the two differing parties to resolution is another. 

Ÿ  It is a condition which exists when two or more interdependent parties interact.^[2]

Ÿ  It is an active striving of one’s preferred outcome which if attained, precludes the attainment by the others of their preferred outcome, thereby producing hostility.^[3]

Ÿ  It is an expressed struggle, perception of incompatible goals, perceptions of scarce rewards, and interdependence coupled with interference as the common elements underlying conflict.^[4]

Ÿ  Friedrich Glasi defines conflict more specifically as an interaction between agents-individuals, groups or organizations- where at least one agent perceives incompatibilities between his/her thinking/ides/perceptions/and/or/feelings/or will and that of the other agent(agents) and feel restricted by the other’s action.

Ÿ  It is the interaction of interdependence people who perceive incompatible goal and interference from each other in achieving these goals.^[5]

Ÿ  It may also be defined as a situation of competition in which parties are aware of the incompatibility of potential future positions and in which each party wishes to occupy a position that is incompatible with the wishes of another.^[6]

Ÿ   Conflict comes from the Latin root word Fligere meaning “ to strike.” Inflict means to something into or onto while to profligate means to strike forward. Conflict is formed by con which means together and fligere which means to strike hence the meaning to strike together^[7]

Ÿ  Conflict may be simply defined as two pieces of matter trying to occupy the same space at the same time. A good way to demonstrate this is to ask one person to go and stand in one position and then ask a second person to go and stand in the same position. One of them has to move. 

Ÿ  Conflict may also be defined as a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals.

Ÿ  Conflict is a struggle between two or more tendencies of action that are either contrary or in the same direction but mutually exclusive.

Ÿ  The expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an interaction, process, product, or service. Someone or some group is unhappy with someone else or something else. This dissatisfaction can result from multiple factors: differing expectations, competing goals, conflicting interests, confusing communications, or unsatisfactory interpersonal relations. (Costantino and Merchant 1996, 4)

Within these definitions we can decipher several important understandings of conflict emerging either directly or implied. These understandings are:

Power - How people define and use power is an important influence on the number and types of conflicts that occur. This also influences how conflict is managed. Conflicts can arise when people try to make others change their actions or to gain an unfair advantage.

Values - Values are beliefs or principles we consider to be very important. Serious conflicts arise when people hold incompatible values or when values are not clear. Conflicts also arise when one party refuses to accept the fact that the other party holds something as a value rather than a preference.

Feelings and emotions - Many people let their feelings and emotions become a major influence over how they deal with conflict. Conflicts can also occur because people ignore their own or others' feelings and emotions. Other conflicts occur when feelings and emotions differ over a particular issue.

Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and manage the true needs of the parties.

Parties involved -

There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family, company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. In the above example, people very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become an elusive concept to define.

Perceived threat - People interpret reality differently. They perceive differences in the severity, causes and consequences of problems. Misperceptions or differing perceptions may come from: self-perceptions, others' perceptions, differing perceptions of situations and perceptions of threat.

People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat, facing them. Thus, while perception doesn't become reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions) that manage it (agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the conflict.

Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly define "the problem" as one of substance, task, and near-term viability. However, organizational or church conflicts tend to be far more complex than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional components. Needs are things that are essential to our well-being. Conflicts arise when we ignore others' needs, our own needs or the group's needs. Be careful not to confuse needs with desires (things we would like, but are not essential). Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented. And the durability of the interests and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation. Any efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points into account.

Conflicts occur when people (or other parties) perceive that, as a consequence of a disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Although conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing numerous opportunities for growth through improved understanding and insight, there is a tendency to view conflict as a negative experience caused by abnormally difficult circumstances. Disputants tend to perceive limited options and finite resources available in seeking solutions, rather than multiple possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-solving.

PATTERNS OF CHURCH CONFLICT

A pattern is a series of actions that tend to repeat whenever a particular situation occurs.  Congregational or organizational patterns are behaviors that tend to repeat when certain situations occur.  For instance, whenever two members have a disagreement in the church, the pattern may simply be that the pastor is automatically called in to attempt resolution of the conflict.  The disagreement could be as small as deciding when to repaint the sanctuary or a larger conflict over church discipline of a deacon.  Another example might be the response of the membership to an attack on the pastor by a member.  Someone may send a "nastygram" to the personnel committee about the pastor's sermons.  The congregation may engage in gossip as a bad habit.  The gossip about the attack on the pastor begins to polarize the membership -- those who support him and those who do not.  Each faction then tries to push the other out of the church through various political maneuvering.  In the end, they force the pastor out of office because of the bitter acrimony among the membership.

The pattern is the general set of behaviors which can be identified and, with sufficient observation over time, predicted during the next cycle of conflict.  Observing the patterns of conflict over time can provide the pastor and church leadership with valuable information for conflict management.  As noted in previous lessons, knowing when a conflict is likely to occur allows one time to prepare for it.  Knowing the pattern of behaviors during the conflict can help the leadership formulate various strategies for successfully defusing and resolving the conflict.

A trained incapacity is a debilitating behavior which an individual or organization has learned from prior experience.  In families, many such debilitating behaviors are learned as children and then carried into the next generation family.  For instance, a child may observe his father's response to an angry clash with his mother.  The father becomes quiet and does not immediately respond to the shouting.  But over the next few days, he does everything in his power to humiliate and denigrate his wife as revenge for the verbal lashing he took.  As the child grows into adulthood and his own relationships with the opposite sex, he then mimics the behavior of his father.  Instead of working to resolve a conflict, he "takes it like a man" and refuses to talk about it.  Later, the inner anger spills out in angry retribution to his spouse.  The first generation family has "trained" by its behaviors the next generational family in handling conflict.  The behaviors passed down are an incapacity to patiently work through conflict, hence the term, "trained incapacity."

Organizations often have behavior characteristics like individuals.  Church congregations are no different.  A trained incapacity relates to church conflict when the membership learns over time how to mishandle conflict situations.  The membership may be so fearful of public opinion that it does its best to stifle any conflict that occurs.  The conflict may be denied, covered up, or ignored.  Over time, members in the church realize this happens and begin to perpetuate this behavior because it is the standard operating procedure.  People who grow up in the church observe this and either accept it or leave.  As a result, the congregation as a whole tends to repeat this behavior over and over.  Members may have no other experience in the church than what they have observed at their church.  Thus, the incapacity to acknowledge and deal with conflict is learned over time and passed down to the next generation members.

Here we shall enumerate four trained incapacities related to conflict in churches.¹

Ÿ  A tendency to spiritualize conflict -- that is to pray about it to the exclusion  of attempts at reconciliation.  God certainly intervenes in torn relationships to effect healing but rarely without any communication between the two parties.

Ÿ  Denial that any problem exists -- This seems to be particularly strong practice in large "mega" churches where it is extremely difficult to keep a large, diverse group of people focused and working as a team.

Ÿ  Trivialization of conflict -- Anything can be trivialized in comparison to the great commission. A marriage problem can be dismissed as unimportant compared to the need to evangelize the neighbors.  Of course, when the marriage breaks up the couple will be unable to evangelize anyone in the neighborhood.

Ÿ  The guilt trip -- This is a pattern which uses the pastor or other staff members as a "scape goat" for any problem.  If a conflict occurs, the pastor is blamed for poor leadership.

Each of these behaviors can be a serious and debilitating pattern that a church embraces, even unconsciously.  Over time, members pass down these incapacities to new or younger members.  Most of the time, these behaviors go unnoticed, unchanged and, as a result, so does the training of the next generation members.

How to change an established pattern of conflict

The circumstances of life have a dramatic impact on how we live.  Conflict, in  particular, has a terribly draining effect on our mind, emotions, and spirit.  The believer, though, is not to be driven by circumstance but by faith.  By faith, we are to engage in a pattern of behavior regardless of the circumstance.  This pattern of behavior is defined in the book of Ephesians and can be summed up in . (Ephesians 5:1-2,15-16:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a

 life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a

 fragrant offering and sacrifice to God...Be very careful, then, how

you live--not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every

opportunity, because the days are evil, NIV)

In this passage, the Apostle Paul is discussing our relationships with one another.  He commands that we should walk in love the way that our LORD Jesus Christ walked while in His earthly ministry.  What a high and lofty admonition for the church!  What a wonderful pattern for our behavior toward one another.  He then makes a point that is particularly relevant for the Church today -- "Be very careful, then, how you live" (Eph 5:15, NIV).  This is a very explicit command to make sure our walk is one that is true to teachings and examples of Christ.  We are not to be foolish which is to engage in deceit, unwholesome talk about or toward one another, nor sin when we get angry.  It is not enough for the Church to teach the admonitions of the Bible but we must model them as well.

So, circumstances which create enormous potential for conflict should not be a problem for the body of Christ, right?  Unfortunately, each of us still has a problem called the “flesh” or the “sin nature” by which we stumble when we give in to it.  Rather than walk in the Spirit of God we walk according to the flesh when particular circumstances threaten us, grieve us, anger us, or sadden us.

SOME PRINCIPLES ABOUT CONFLICT

A conflict is more than a mere disagreement - it is a situation in which people perceive a threat (physical, emotional, power, status, etc.) to their well-being. As such, it is a meaningful experience in people's lives, not to be shrugged off by a mere, "it will pass…"

Participants in conflicts tend to respond on the basis of their perceptions of the situation, rather than an objective review of it. As such, people filter their perceptions (and reactions) through their values, culture, beliefs, information, experience, gender, and other variables. Conflict responses are both filled with ideas and feelings that can be very strong and powerful guides to our sense of possible solutions.

As in any problem, conflicts contain substantive, procedural, and psychological dimensions to be negotiated. In order to best understand the threat perceived by those engaged in a conflict, we need to consider all of these dimensions.

Conflicts are normal experiences within the church or organization. They are also, to a large degree, predictable and expectable situations that naturally arise as we go about managing complex and stressful projects in which we are significantly invested. As such, if we develop procedures for identifying conflicts likely to arise, as well as systems through which we can constructively manage conflicts, we may be able to discover new opportunities to transform conflict into a productive learning experience.

Creative problem-solving strategies are essential to positive approaches to conflict management. We need to transform the situation from one in which it is 'my way or the highway' into one in which we entertain new possibilities that have been otherwise elusive.

RESPONSES TO CONFLICT^[8]

We have emotional, cognitive and physical responses to conflict. These are important windows into our experience during conflict, for they frequently tell us more about what is the true source of threat that we perceive; by understanding our thoughts, feelings and physical responses to conflict, we may get better insights into the best potential solutions to the situation. Harry Webne-Behrman, postulated these responses:  

Ÿ  Emotional responses: These are the feelings we experience in conflict, ranging from anger and fear to despair and confusion. Emotional responses are often misunderstood, as people tend to believe that others feel the same as they do. Thus, differing emotional responses are confusing and, at times, threatening.

Ÿ  Cognitive responses: These are our ideas and thoughts about a conflict, often present as inner voices or internal observers in the midst of a situation. Through sub-vocalization (i.e., self-talk), we come to understand these cognitive responses. For example, we might think any of the following things in response to another person taking a parking spot just as we are ready to park:  "That jerk! Who does he think he is! What a sense of entitlement!" or: "I wonder if he realizes what he has done. He seems lost in his own thoughts. I hope he is okay." or: "What am I supposed to do? Now I'm going to be late for my meeting… Should I say something to him? What if he gets mad at me?" Such differing cognitive responses contribute to emotional and behavioral responses, where self-talk can either promote a positive or negative feedback loop in the situation.

Ÿ  Physical responses: These responses can play an important role in our ability to meet our needs in the conflict. They include heightened stress, bodily tension, increased perspiration, tunnel vision, shallow or accelerated breathing, nausea, and rapid heartbeat. These responses are similar to those we experience in high-anxiety situations, and they may be managed through stress management techniques. Establishing a calmer environment in which emotions can be managed is more likely if the physical response is addressed effectively.

SOME TERMS AND APPROACHES USED IN CONFLICT

Many terms are frequently, and almost interchangeably, used in the field of conflict to describe the activities and processes that bring conflict to an end. However, some of these terminological approaches have distinct implications for the outcome of a conflict situation. Here we will briefly examine some of the most significant approaches.

Ÿ  Arbitration: This is a process in which a third party neutral, after reviewing evidence and listening to arguments from both sides, issue a decision to settle the case. This is often used in and commercial labor /management disputes

Ÿ  Collaboration: A desire or need to create or discover something new, while thinking and working with others. It is a process of joint decision making among parties. It involves: different views and perspectives, shared goals, building new shared understandings, and the creation of a new value or product. Collaborations may address a single issue or a short-term concern.

Ÿ  Community Conferencing: This is a structured conversation involving all members of the community or organization who have been affected by the dispute or disagreement. Using a script, the facilitator invites people to express how they were affected and how they wish to address and repair the harm that may have resulted due to the disagreement.

Ÿ  Conflict Prevention (Crisis Prevention): these are activities that are undertaken in particularly vulnerable situations over the short term to medium term to seek to identify situation that could produce violent conflict, to reduce manifest tensions, to prevent existing tension from escalating to violence and to remove sources of danger before violence results.

Ÿ  Conflict Resolution: These are activities undertaken over the short term and medium term dealing with and aiming at overcoming, the deep rooted causes of conflict, including the structural, behavioral, or attitudinal aspects of conflict. This process focuses on the relationship between the parties than the content of a specific outcome. Within the field of conflict resolution the main aim is not to eliminate all conflict, which would be impossible and probably damaging, but to transform violent conflicts into processes of peaceful social change. The basic vocabulary and principles of conflict resolution can be used to analyze and resolve conflicts at all levels.. Resolution of a conflict implies that the deep-rooted sources of conflict are addressed, changing behavior so it is no longer violent, attitudes so they are no longer hostile, and structures so they are no longer exploitative. The term is used to refer both to the process (or the intention) to bring about these changes, and to the completion of the process, so it is difficult to avoid ambiguity about its precise meaning. It is actually a  process to resolve disputes between people with different interests. This resolution process can have constructive consequences if the parties air their different interests, make trade-offs, and reach a settlement that satisfies the essential needs of each. The process of conflict resolution includes becoming aware of a conflict, diagnosing its nature and applying appropriate methods in order to:

Ÿ  Diffuse the negative emotional energy involved;

Ÿ  Enable the disputing parties to understand and resolve their differences;

Ÿ  Resolve the differences so as to achieve solutions that are not imposed, which have been agreed by all the key parties, and which address the root causes of the conflict.

Ÿ  Conflict management is often confusingly used as a generic term to cover the whole gamut of positive conflict handling, including settlement and resolution. However, it used here to refer to the limitation, mitigation and containment of conflict rather than the durable elimination of the causes of conflict. It is the principle that all conflicts cannot necessarily be resolved, but learning how to manage conflicts can decrease the odds of nonproductive escalation. Conflict management involves acquiring skills related to conflict resolution, self-awareness about conflict modes, conflict communication skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in your environment.

Ÿ  Conflict Settlement refers to the achievement of an agreement between the conflict parties which enables them to end a violent conflict but which does not fundamentally alter the underlying causes of the conflict. This is an approach emphasizing the reaching of agreement between the parties through negotiation and bargaining. A settlement, in this definition, means an agreement about the conflict issues that often involves a compromise or some concessions from both sides. Using this approach, neither side may achieve all of their goals, but the disappointment may be offset by the mutuality of the compromise. Third party mediators in settlement-type process often use pressure, inducements and/ or threats in order to compel the conflict parties to agree to a compromise solution. A settlement is often the quickest solution to a difficult or violent situation. Critics charge, however, that its efficacy is temporary because the underlying relationships and structures that have caused the conflict remain unaddressed. In practice, conflicts that have reached settlements are often re-opened later.

Ÿ  Conflict Transformation: This is a generic term referring to actions and processes which seek to alter the various characteristics and manifestations of conflict by addressing the root causes of a particular conflict over the long term. It aims at transforming negative destructive conflict into positive constructive conflict and deals with structural, behavioral and attitudinal aspects of the conflict. This term refers both to the process and the completion of the process. It therefore incorporates the activities of conflict Prevention and Conflict Resolution and goes further than Conflict Settlement or Conflict Management

Ÿ  Debate: the objective of a debate is to convince one’s opponent to see things according to one’s own perspective

Ÿ  Forgiveness: At its core, forgiveness is a relational act between the wrongdoer and the one who is wronged. It is the way for people to restore a relationship which has been strained or broken because of one person’s offense against the other. When forgiveness has been bestowed, it means that we will not call to mind the other person’s sins to use them against that person. In this, we can look to God’s pattern with people.

The Bible teaches that when God forgives:

Ÿ   He remembers people’s sins no more (Isaiah 43:25, Jeremiah 31:34).

Ÿ   He removes their transgressions from them as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:10-12).

Ÿ   He buries people’s sins in the deepest seas (Micah 7:18-19).

This figurative language clearly communicates that after forgiveness has been bestowed, there is no more condemnation. Only when there is agreement between the offender and offended regarding a hurtful action that the basis for true reconciliation exists.  And isn’t that how we make peace with God?  It was for human injustice and sin that God sent His Son to die on the cross.  For our part, we must acknowledge by faith what Jesus did for us on the cross, and “confess” our sins.  In Greek, “confess” means to “say the same thing.”  Hence, it is only when we come to that point when we “say the same thing” about our sins as God does, that we are forgiven. Lest we forget, giving and receiving forgiveness is a relational activity.  Just as an apology is not effective by talking to oneself, neither is forgiveness in the New Testament viewed as something unilaterally engaged in apart from any connection to the offending party.

The idea that we, in isolation, forgive others because it heals us is not Biblically derived.  It is a concept that originates from our highly self-centered and individualistic Western culture.  Biblically, forgiveness represents a transaction between two people.  God does not unilaterally enter into a relationship with us.  We connect with God only when we confess our sins and trespasses.  Until that time, He remains willing to enter into a reconciled relationship.  He remains willing to forgive.  Forgiving requires remembering things that we want to forget. It requires speaking of pain that we want to bury. It requires hearing things that we do not want to hear. It requires humility, confession, apology, repentance, and repairing the wrongs.

Ÿ  Game: The object in a game is to outwit each other and perhaps an audience in order to come out as a victor. In both game and a debate the opponent is an essential ingredient. The challenge is what makes the game worth. In a game a strong opponent is valued more than a weak one. Therefore the opponent in a game cooperate.

Ÿ  Early Neutral Evaluation: this involves the use of a court appointed attorney to review a case before it goes to trial. The attorney reviews the merit of the case and encourages the parties to attempt resolution. If there is no resolution, the attorney informs the disputants about how to proceed with litigation and gives an opinion on the likely outcome if the case goes to trial.

Ÿ  Fight: in a fight the opponent is mainly a nuisance and he or she should not be there, but somehow the person is there. The issue here is to eliminate, cut down to size or minimize the opponent. The real object of a fight is to harm destroy, subdue or drive away the opponent.

Ÿ  Goal: A desired future condition, including measurable end results, to be accomplished within specified time limits.

Ÿ  Mediation: This is a voluntary and confidential process. In which a neutral third party facilitator helps people discuss difficult issues and negotiate an agreement. The third party assists the disputants in finding a mutually acceptable solution. In mediation, the role of the third party is to assist disputants in considering or exploring all the parameters of a conflict (interests, facts, possible solutions). The mediator is not authorized to impose a solution upon the parties; rather the mediator uses a series of joint and confidential private meetings to help the parties determine whether a set of solutions exists to which each party can say yes. Basic steps in the process include gathering information, framing the issue, developing options, negotiating, and formalizing agreements. Parties in mediation create their own solutions and the mediator does not have any decision making power over the outcome.

Ÿ  Mediation-Arbitration: this is a hybrid that combines both mediation and arbitration. Prior to the session, the disputing parties agree to try mediation but give the neutral third party the authority to make a decision if mediation is not successful.

Ÿ  Negotiation: Direct talk among the parties about a conflict, conducted with the goal of achieving a resolution. The distinguishing characteristic is that the talk involves the parties themselves without the direct assistance of a third party.

Ÿ  Negotiated Rulemaking: this is a collaborative process in which government agencies seek input from a variety of stakeholders before issuing a new rule.

Ÿ  Process: A series of actions by which something is produced. A set of interrelated activities that is characterized by receiving inputs and adding value to produce a desired output.

Ÿ  Peace-building: This is a generic term used to cover all activities intended to encourage and promote peaceful relationships. It is a long-term process that seeks to positively alter structural contradictions, improve relations between the conflict parties and encourage over all constructive changes in attitudes. It may also refer to activities connected with economic development, social justice, reconciliation, empowerment of disadvantaged/strategic groups and humanitarian support.

Ÿ   Reconciliation: Theories of reconciliation stress that an end to a conflict cannot be achieved merely by satisfying the instrumental motivations of opponents. Instead, satisfying the emotional needs of the parties  is necessary as well. Similarly, theoreticians of negotiation stress that although focusing on tangible issues such as money or property and ignoring intangible issues that relate to the psychological needs of the adversaries is a common practice, it often deadlocks the negotiation . In other words, as long as these emotional needs remain unsatisfied, they block the path to reconciliation. The process of satisfying these emotional needs that impede reconciliation was termed by Nadler^[9] the socio-emotional route to reconciliation. One major way these emotional barriers can be removed is through the apology–forgiveness cycle , that is, when a perpetrator apologizes to the victim and when the victim reciprocates by granting forgiveness.

Reconciliation means bringing together the folks in conflict. Some issues will never be resolved, but people can still be reconciled. Often in the process of seeking resolution, however, we compromise and seek middle ground. Many poorly designed church buildings are the result of trying to resolve the conflict between low costs and effectiveness; as a result, neither is accomplished. Reconciliation brings people to relational unity but not necessarily to agreement.

Genuine reconciliation, made possible by the cross is:           

Ÿ  Horizontal:  this involves our breaking down and crossing of social barriers in relation to others.  

Ÿ  Vertical : this involves the individual transformation that is our relation with God. Our relationship with others affects our relationship with God.

THE ROLE OF PERCEPTION IN CONFLICT

As noted in one of our definitions of conflict, we define conflict as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. One key element of this definition is the idea that each party may have a different perception of any given situation. We can anticipate having such differences due to a number of factors that create "perceptual filters" that influence our responses to the situation. These factors are:

Ÿ  Culture, race, and ethnicity: Our varying cultural backgrounds influence us to hold certain beliefs about the social structure of our world, as well as the role of conflict in that experience. We may have learned to value substantive, procedural and psychological needs differently as a result, thus influencing our willingness to engage in various modes of negotiation and efforts to manage the conflict.

Ÿ  Gender and sexuality: Men and women often perceive situations somewhat differently, based on both their experiences in the world (which relates to power and privilege, as do race and ethnicity) and socialization patterns that reinforce the importance of relationships vs. task, substance vs. process, immediacy vs. long-term outcomes. As a result, men and women will often approach conflictive situations with differing mindsets about the desired outcomes from the situation, as well as the set of possible solutions that may exist.

Ÿ  Knowledge (general and situational): Parties respond to given conflicts on the basis of the knowledge they may have about the issue at hand. This includes situation-specific knowledge (i.e., "Do I understand what is going on here?") and general knowledge (i.e., "Have I experienced this type of situation before?" or "Have I studied about similar situations before?"). Such information can influence the person's willingness to engage in efforts to manage the conflict, either reinforcing confidence to deal with the dilemma or undermining one's willingness to flexibly consider alternatives.

Ÿ  If the person sharing the message - the messenger - is perceived to be a threat (powerful, scary, unknown, etc.), this can influence our responses to the overall situation being experienced. For example, if a big scary-looking guy is approaching me rapidly, yelling "Get out of the way!" I may respond differently than if a diminutive, calm person would express the same message to me. As well, if I knew either one of them previously, I might respond differently based upon that prior sense of their credibility: I am more inclined to listen with respect to someone I view as credible than if the message comes from someone who lacks credibility and integrity in my mind.

Ÿ  Previous experiences: Some of us have had profound, significant life experiences that continue to influence our perceptions of current situations. These experiences may have left us fearful, lacking trust, and reluctant to take risks. On the other hand, previous experiences may have left us confident, willing to take chances and experience the unknown. Either way, we must acknowledge the role of previous experiences as elements of our perceptual filter in the current dilemma.

These factors (along with others) conspire to form the perceptual filters through which we experience conflict. As a result, our reactions to the threat and dilemma posed by conflict should be anticipated to include varying understandings of the situation. This also means that we can anticipate that in many conflicts there will be significant misunderstanding of each other's perceptions, needs and feelings. These challenges contribute to our emerging sense, during conflict, that the situation is overwhelming and unsolvable. As such, they become critical sources of potential understanding, insight and possibility.

THE ROLE OF FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORY IN CONFLICT

When looking at the various causes for conflict, one must look beyond the personalities of the combatants and the presented or “content” issues of the conflict. . In other words, the organizing principles that produce stability and security (homeostasis) automatically restrict participating in growth and change (morphogenesis). Before any intervention, systemic consultants remind themselves of this axiom: “the issue is not the issue.”

According to family systems theory, what really causes conflict to develop in the church is not the content concerns (though these may well be legitimate) but anxiety-inducing changes in the  church system. These systemic adjustments provoke anxiety within members of the system and within the system itself, which then produces the conflict that becomes fixed around a content issue. Should the content issue be resolved (say the preacher changes her mind about the value of seeker-sensitive sermons) the anxiety will affix to another content issue (for example, a biblical view of women in church leadership, or the matter of equipping the saints for the work of ministry). In chronic conflict, the underlying systemic concerns are not addressed though the content issues change.

The way we are at home is the way we are at church. The stuff we learn at home, we take to church. Church members and ministers think and behave the way they learned in their families of origin. We continue our way of thinking and acting from generation to generation. Often, church conflicts represent a clash of cultures and history learned in families of origin. It benefits the church to help members deal with family issues, because when family of origin issues are resolved at church, they're fixed at home too, and vice versa.

 Most church conflicts have more to do with the process by which decisions are made, not the content of the decision. And the triangles created by troubled interpersonal relationships in churches are like the triangles created in troubled family relationships. For example, a triangle is created in a family when one member, perhaps an alcoholic, becomes victimized by his addiction. Another family member often is drawn in as a rescuer, to save the addict from the consequences of his own actions. Until this triangle is broken, family systems theory says, the addict cannot find healing.

Ministers and other church leaders often get pressed into similar relational triangles at church and just as family members sometimes sabotage an addict's true attempts at recovery because they don't know how they would function without the addiction present, so church members sometimes sabotage progress toward wellness

Effective church leaders must articulate their position, stay connected and deal head-on with sabotage. Churches actually are organisms but often are treated as organizations. This is a critical mistake because organization techniques are not effective in solving organism problems. The central focus of an organism at its core is life, while the central focus on an organization at its core is structure. A vital part of an organism is concerned with relationships, while an organization is concerned primarily with structures and their functioning. Healthy churches functioning as organisms focus on fellowship, consensus and focus, while organizations focus on buildings, programs and finances.

INSIGHTS FOR UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT

 Conflict is a normal part of all people, both in and out of the church: While it may seem obvious that too much conflict is harmful, the opposite is also true. A church without a measure of healthy disagreement and conflict can become like salt without taste or a light hidden under a bushel basket    ( Matthew 5: 13, 15). God ‘s creation as narrated in the book of Genesis, brought a lot of diversity in life. These God given diversities as experienced from the time of creation until today, make for conflict in the body of Christ. (see 1^st Cor. 6:1)

Read the following Scriptures: Romans 14:1-6 , 10-12 , Galatians 2, 1 Corinthians 1, Philippians 3,  Acts 6 

Conflict becomes sinful when our responses to it are destructive, hurtful, abusive or violent: Conflict will usually occur over issues that focus on behaviors with which we disagree. If the conflict turns into a contest between us and them, their behavior is identified as sinful. But even people who feel they are right on the issues can treat others in a very unloving way. Being faithful to Christ involves more than taking the right stance on issues. It also requires engaging those with whom we disagree in positive respective dialogue. Mathew 7:1-5, John 8: 1-11,Romans 2:1-4                             

The Bible provides guidance for both attitude and process in dealing with conflict. The Bible admonishes us to speak the truth, be kind, humble, gentle, respectful, accountable, non-judgemental, loving, and forgiving. Matthew 18: 15-20  speaks to us about what to do when there is brokenness. Dealing with broken relationship is the business of the Church. Bringing about healing and forgiveness is God’s Work, but it is also the concern of the entire faith community. It is everybody’s business. We need to treat kindly those who live and believe differently than we. This does not involve compromising the Gospel or ignoring our deepest convictions. This means to live by the fruits of the Holy Spirit… Galatians 5: 22-23 and humbly recognizing our own imperfects, sinful condition before God.                            

Conflict can be used by God for learning, growth, and transformation: We can come to know God deeper in times of Conflict. Conflict can damage relationship and tear up community. But conflict can also be an opportunity to strengthen relationship and build up the body of Christ. How we approach conflict helps us to determine what its results will be. If we actively look for growth and illumination , we can find it.. throughout in the history of the church, God has spoken in the midst of conflict( see Acts 6 and 15). While not every disagreement leads to revelation, we may deny ourselves opportunities to hear God’s voice if we avoid conflict or end it prematurely.

As Christian, we seek not the absence of conflict or disagreement but the presence of peace. If we want to have less harmful conflict we should encourage open and honest disagreement while still treating others respectfully. Restoring relationships broken in conflict requires:                                                      

Ÿ      Acknowledging the wrong we did and accepting responsibility for hurting the other(truth-telling).                                                      

Ÿ      The need for acceptance, letting go of the past hurts and a new beginning(mercy).                                                   

Ÿ      Recognition of rights, the need for restructuring, and restitution(justice)                                                      

Ÿ  A sense of well being( peace)