90 Sermon Illustrations on Conflict

Small Group Letter: Enhancing Small Group Life and Ministry Interview with Dr. Kenneth C. Haugk, executive director of Stephen Ministries

Q: WHAT CAUSES DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICT IN A SMALL GROUP?

A: Destructive conflict usually will not occur without an antagonist. I

define an antagonist as an individual who goes out of the way to make

unreasonable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of

others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than

building up, and are frequently directed against those in leadership.

Please note the difference between healthy conflict and destructive conflict.

It is healthy conflict to honestly - even heatedly - disagree with

something that is being discussed in the group. But the goal here is to

be heard, to express a viewpoint, and not to tear down. However, the

goal of the antagonist is to usurp power or to criticize and tear down

someone (especially the leader), often behind the person's back. That is

destructive. The antagonist's critical nature and behavior - left

unchecked - will destroy a group. (above used 3/15/98)

Q: ARE ANTAGONISTS A FAIRLY COMMON PROBLEM IN SMALL GROUPS?

A: More so than we would like. Not every small group has one, obviously, but

I would imagine that in every fairly large congregation's small group

ministry, a few of the small groups will have an antagonist or two.

Unfortunately, the church is not immune from antagonists.

Q: WHAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE ANTAGONISTS?

A: It is generally a result of unresolved, deep-seated problems: low self-

concept; a high need for attention; a history of not being affirmed; a

history of being pushed down, which causes them to rise up and challenge

or attack. They are individuals who basically do not feel very good

about themselves. Hitler was an extreme antagonist. He felt inferior to

others. (He was short and was rejected from the Vienna Art School.) He

felt inadequate and was determined to compensate by becoming a big shot,

by having power. Many antagonists may even be quite popular and

effective, as was Hitler for awhile. He helped revive the German economy

and helped provide a car, the Volkswagon, for every family. In the

extreme, antagonists are sociopathic.

Q: HOW CAN A SMALL GROUP LEADER DETECT AN ANTAGONIST?

A: Some early warning signs that antagonists send out include:

CRITICISM OF PAST LEADERS: As early as the first group session, the

person may criticize the leader of another group in which he was

involved. The criticism will be unsolicited.

"BUDDY-BUDDY': The person may show a strong, overly aggressive desire to

get close to the leader very early. He may want to take the leader

out for coffee or call him at home often. He may be very helpful and

effusive with praise. Initially he may be the leader's best

supporter. Then something will happen - the leader may not even know

what - and the antagonist will suddenly turn against the leader.

THE 'OTHER-PEOPLE-SAY' SYNDROME: The person may come to the leader and

say, "There are a number of people in our group who have come to me,

and they're a little concerned about this. I just wanted to pass it

on to you, to help you.' But when questioned further, the "others"

will be nameless or the person will say that he can't tell who they

are because of "confidentiality."

PREVIOUS TRACK RECORD FLAG. Another sign to watch for is a history of

being disruptive in other groups or situations or a tendency to jump

from one group to another.

Q: WHAT SHOULD A GROUP LEADER DO ABOUT AN ANTAGONIST?

A: If you recognize an antagonist ahead of time, try not to let him become

involved in your group. That's the first and best thing. Once he gets

in, chances are you're going to have a tussle, no matter what you do.

Once the antagonist becomes part of the group, do not placate him. Speak

directly to him at the time of disruption or criticism and say, "That is

not appropriate. What you are saying is destructive to this group, and I

will not allow that to happen." Be strong. Never allow an antagonist to

gain the upper hand or the ability to intimidate. Exercise the authority

you have as the group leader. Also, don't call him at home and plead

with him to be nicer in the group. That will only give him a position of

authority and power - which is what he wants. If necessary, simply ask

him not to return to the group. He needs counseling and spiritual help,

not your small group.

I need a small group for several reasons. First, I need to hear what others are learning because I learn from other people. We sometimes get the idea that God only speaks to us through the Bible and our own private devotions. But I believe that God gave us each other so that He might communicate through us to one another. A second reason is that I need to see God at work in other people. Without this, my Christianity can easily become very intellectualized, more head-oriented than heart-oriented. I need to be reminded of the changes and beauty God is bringing about in the lives of individuals. One of the best ways for this to happen is to be regularly involved in the lives of others within the context of a small group. Watching God at work in these "up-close" relationships helps me keep the sense of excitement and reality in my Christianity. Finally, my small group is a tremendous source of support. I need to be praying for others and having others pray for me. Small groups help keep me from becoming an island.

#4203

*

Church conflicts often center on the issue of control. Older members do not want younger ones to push them out of leadership. A balancing act is often needed.

#804

*

THOSE “TWO-FACED” PEOPLE

We've all seen and experienced them. In our less “professional” moments, perhaps we might have justly or unjustly lashed out at those whom we perceived to be two-faced, hypocritical, skin-deep “wolves in sheep's clothing” who, we feel, are just Judas's in disguise putting on a “show” or facade.

Whatever we call these types of people, perhaps the greatest thing that characterizes our reaction is, “How can they be so different?” “What made them change?” “What a fickle person!” and/or “I never expected that from them!”

WE ALL ARE A JEKYL AND HYDE

Discounting, of course, more serious mental disorders such as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now more commonly referred to as Disassociative Identity Disorder (DID), virtually all of us have a “Jekyl and Hyde” aspect to our personalities.

A number of personality inventories recognize and test for this aspect of our personalities, among them the Personal Personality Profile (from Performax Systems). What these inventories recognize is that we generally have two preferred personality modes, a “non-anxious” and an “anxious mode.”

NON-ANXIOUS AND ANXIOUS MODES

The non-anxious mode refers to our personality characteristics when we are not under stress. It is this mode we use when we are not under pressure. It's the mode which we use when we're with others. It's the mode that we most often use when we're in the company of others. Above all, the behaviors demonstrated in the non-anxious mode are generally those behaviors which we would like to have others believe characterize us.

The anxious mode of behavior, however, refers to those behaviors with which we instinctively use to react to crises or anxiety-provoking events. When it's “do or die,” these are the behaviors that we prefer to draw on...whether they are healthy and constructive or not. Anxious behaviors tend to be instinctive. Behaviors in this mode may be made without regard to what others think, what they say, what is right, what is wrong, or what consequences may result from anxious reactions.or .

STRESS SHIFTS

Anxious behaviors may be rather frightfully surprising. Indeed, they often can catch us “off guard.” Yet, though their timing and manner of behavior may be unpredictable, the fact that there is a stress shift ought not surprise us. After all, it probably happens to us, too!

How many times have we noticed in ourselves that in our non-anxious mode we are happy, jovial and confident until anxiety comes. Then we erupt or internalize our emotions or, perhaps, we become aggressive or passive, controlling or easily led.

Under stress, perhaps we may become more vocal or physically reactive. Or, when anxious, perhaps we become more task-orientated or people-oriented than we “normally” are.

WE'RE ALL SUBJECT TO STRESS SHIFTS

These and other behavioral changes are all examples of the “stress shift” or, as we said above, the “Jekyl and Hyde” inside you. All of us are subject to these non-anxious and anxious stress shifts. We, like almost everyone else, may prefer one set of behaviors when not anxious and prefer a totally different set of behaviors when anxious.

The stress shift can be observed in individuals to varying degrees. Some individuals may have a radical stress shift while others may have less dramatic stress shifts. In some individuals, the stress shift can be so slight as to be virtually unnoticed.

EXAMINING OUR SYSTEM ROLES

Unless we live our lives in total hermetic isolation, our lives are conducted in various groups or sub-groups. Each group, family systems theorists tell us, has certain characteristic roles which can be identified. The main function of these roles is to sustain the equilibrium of each group.

At least six system roles have been identified which are generally found in every group, sub-group, or family. These are the Hero, the Enabler, the Spiritual Leader, the Lost Child, the Mascot, and the Scapegoat. Descriptions of each of the six system roles are as follows:

1) The Hero: The Hero is the member of the family who is the focus of positive energies. This individual “plays” or is “appointed” to be the one everyone admires. His or her achievements are always elevated while their mistakes are played down.

2) The Enabler: The Enabler is the one who is always helping others at great sacrifice to themselves, to keep things settled down. Enablers work to keep the lid on anxieties and to help shield the system from internal breakdown through compromise, repression, etc.

3) The Spiritual Leader: The Spiritual Leader in the family is the one to whom the family turns to for guidance, support, wisdom and insight. Though others may not be “spiritual,” the family's Spiritual Leader is the one to whom they turn with those items of religion, fate, and determining the will of God.

4) The Lost Child: The Lost Child is a loner who never finds themselves. Always in the midst of the family and looking for love and acceptance, the Lost Child is accommodated but not loved. The Lost Child is an emotional orphan neglected, uncured for, and left to take care of himself.

5) The Mascot: In response to the fear of being left out (as the Lost Child) and a dread of a guilt-ridden loneliness (as the Scapegoat), the Mascot is marked by visible behaviors which draw attention to himself. Positive Mascot behavior is marked by the ability to joke around, provide fun, humor and release of tension in the family. At other times they will be the “cute” one or clown that people point to and enjoy. Whether the Mascot's behavior is constructive or destruction, one thing is sure: the Mascot will be hard to ignore.

6) The Scapegoat: This family member is the constant recipient of unfair and hostile projections, many of which may be undeserved. As steam needs to be released from a boiling keg to keep it from bursting, so family and relationship systems need a release valve to ease the “pressure” of family. The Scapegoat is that release.

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: EQUILIBRIUM

Whether Hero or Scapegoat, Enabler or Spiritual Leader, each of these system roles are shaped, encouraged, modeled, projected and reinforced to maintain the system's functional (or dysfunctional) level of equilibrium. When equilibrium is established, each non-anxious role is largely in its non-anxious state.

When the system is at equilibrium, the Hero can do no wrong, the Scapegoat can do no right, the Enabler will always be there to keep the peace, the Mascot will be acting in an abnormal way, and the Lost Child will be distantly aloof...somewhere.

WHEN EQUILIBRIUM IS DISRUPTED

When the equilibrium of the system is disrupted by going either from or to a non-anxious to an anxious state, things within the system may suddenly and unexpectedly change. In response, single or multiple individuals within the system undergo a stress shift. Since the stress shift may result in either an intensification or a shift of their system role, the system becomes disrupted.

This disruption in equilibrium then initiates a chain reaction which triggers anxiety-driven stress shifts throughout the rest of the system. In a domino-like fashion, others in the system respond with the necessary role transformation. The transformation to anxious state equilibrium is complete when the system attains a level of equilibrium the system considers to be an optimum level.

OPTIMUM EQUILIBRIUM: THE GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS

This “optimum” state of equilibrium in each system is self-determined. Though designated “optimum,” this state of equilibrium may not necessarily be “optimum” for other groups and systems. This “optimum level” may just as easily create a functional or healthy equilibrium as it can create a dysfunctional equilibrium, or a combination of the two. Thus, systems transformed to their anxious-state optimal equilibrium may use their energies either to “uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10 NIV).

When encountering groups in which the anxious-state optimal system equilibrium is destructive, it is imperative to take preventative measures to prevent the chain reaction from occurring. Indeed, this momentum is not only “bad news,” but gives ample opportunity for Satan to wreak havoc, chaos and schism in the Lord's Church.

On the other hand, when the anxious-state optimal system equilibrium is constructive and driven by a positive, energizing sense of immediately achieving God's vision for the system, the momentum which can result from the chain reaction is nothing less “good news.” Indeed, such momentum may respond to God's power and be blessed in remarkable and miraculous ways!

EXAMPLES OF STRESS SHIFT ROLE TRANSFORMATIONS

Examples of stress shift role transformations might include scenarios such as these. For example, a person who is a Mascot (the “Joker”) in a non-anxious role may, in stress shift, become more passive, taking on the anxious role of a Lost Child. The one who is the Spiritual Leader in a non-anxious system may, in the anxious state, demonstrate more extraverted, daring characteristics and become a Hero in the anxious system.

Of special interest to pastors and congregational leaders is that in the same way, one regarded as a Spiritual Leader in the non-anxious state may, because of his or her own personality tendencies toward introversion and passivity, may become a Scapegoat of an anxious system.

POSSIBLE ROLE SHIFT COMBINATIONS

What role shifts can you expect? The following table demonstrates all theoretical possible stress shift role transformations.

(Table: Combinations of Anxious and Non-Anxious System Roles. Sorry, this is not displayable with plain text email. Table is available in the html version of this article at the Ministry Health WebSite.)

As this table demonstrates, an individual may be a Mascot in the non-anxious role and a Hero in their anxious role (Mascot-Hero). Or, an individual may be a Hero in their non-anxious role and, in their anxious role, a Scapegoat (Hero-Scapegoat). Other possible combinations include, for example, Enabler-Mascot, Scapegoat-Hero, et al. As the table indicates, individuals may have identical non-anxious and anxious roles, e.g., Enabler-Enabler, Mascot-Mascot, Spiritual Leader-Spiritual Leader, et al.

SOME APPLICATIONS

• Since stress shifts are so common, Pastors and church leaders ought to expect that the behaviors and system roles of every individual -- including themselves -- will change in an anxious environment. For the same reason, Pastors and church leaders ought to expect corresponding stress shifts in the respective groups to which they belong.

• Each individual and system has different anxiety tolerances and sensitivities. Thus, what causes anxiety in one individual or group may not affect another individual or group.

• You can't treat everyone and every group alike.Nor should you. They all have different needs, different anxiety triggers, differing levels of sensitivity, different system roles, and different needs for equilibrium.

• Those whom individuals and groups you can trust in non-anxious states may or may not be trusted in their anxious states.

• Since anxious states can be elicited by a virtually limitless number of possible stimuli, the only way to really know the anxious response is to experience the anxious state. This is where pastoral ministry must be exercised with great patience and care.

• Pastoral ministering to congregations can be greatly disrupted by pastors and leaders who do not understand their stress shifts and are not willing or able to adjust them, when necessary, to address system anxieties in an appropriate manner.

• Ministering to people in their anxious role can be rather unpredictable and unsettling.

• Often, ministry to such individuals in their stress shift may demand enormous amounts of energy and exact a great price.

• The greater the number and influence of functional sub-group and group systems existing in a congregation, especially in anxious modes, the greater the likelihood that anxiety, conflict and challenges will invigorate the congregation toward God's vision of growth for that congregation.

• The more a congregation is dominated by dysfunctional sub-groups and group systems, especially in anxious modes, the greater the likelihood that these dysfunctional dynamics will, by definition, favor those things which characterize a dysfunctional church. (Cf. Ministry Health Article “Characteristics Of A Dysfunctional Church”).

• Pastors and church leaders must be sensitive to manage stress factors within the context of systems so as to prevent unwanted chain reactions of dysfunctional systems in stress shift and to encourage desirable ministry support by eliciting positive chain reactions in functional congregational systems.

• Management of stress and anxiety factors is not simply the use of appropriate administrative strategies and tools such as mediation techniques, building of community, enhanced communication, charismatic persuasion, etc. Though these may be helpful and instrumental, the most important tool is use and proclaim the Word of God in such a way to communicate the message of Law and Gospel, contrition and repentance, trust and faith, to give all individuals and systems the essential fundamental base necessary for a proper response to God in all times -- anxious and non-anxious.

• Congregational systems which tend, especially in their stress shift, to place the pastor in a Scapegoat role, will tend to persist in this behavior. Over time, some of these systems may become quite good at it and permeate their influence into other systems.

Thus, some congregational systems whose equilibrium requires the pastor to be Scapegoat will persist in this equilibrium until acted upon from forces -- within or without -- that can change them.

• Though there are many possibilities for transforming and healing dysfunctional systems, often the way God brings real change to these systems is through the pain of recognition of their sinful dysfunction or the pain of conflict. In the past, God used drastic pain application to the Northern and Southern Kingdoms when they persisted in their hardness of heart. God can also work in His Church in the same way today. Indeed, He does!

• Ultimately, the only power pastors and church leaders have to develop healthy individuals and congregational systems, is the Word of God. It is the most powerful “double-edged” sword. it is the “dynamite” of God. Whatever the apparent results of this working during our ministry, God's Word always has the promise: it will not return void without accomplishing what God intended. In God's time, His will shall prevail.

SOME ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

The overall cumulative effect of stress shifts within systems can go a long way to explain a number of congregational dynamics, especially in conflict. Relative to congregations this may explain some other congregational phenomena such as...

1) Why members may suddenly display inexplicable “Jekyl and Hyde” behaviors;

2) Why seemingly peaceful and pleasant churches can, in an anxious state, become quite unstable and destructive;

3) Why pastors may act “out of character” from their normal “non-anxious” role in conflict;

4) Why congregational leaders and pastors, who undergo their own stress shifts, may not be able to handle crisis in a congregation which is also in stress shift;

5) Why pastors suddenly find themselves “betrayed” or alone without the expected and experienced support in relatively non-anxious system conditions;

6) Why some members, in conflict, will become unusually vocal while others will escape (e.g., Lost Child) and leave the church without saying a word to anyone;

No doubt, stress shifts and the cumulative “chain reaction” type effect of stress shift may help explain a number of other things you may have experienced in your congregation, too..

WHAT CAN A PASTOR OR LEADER DO?

What are some ways a pastor can address anxiety to reduce, if possible, the potential for stress shift manifestations in the church?

1) Recognize that often, when people express their anxious reactions in the church, the presented issue is probably not the issue (cf. Ministry Health Article, “The Issue Is Not The Issue”)

2) Especially in anxious times, adopt a strategy for pastoral care including a personal visit to the homes of the anxious on an individual basis to discuss and, if possible, soothe their anxiety. When on their own home territory, individuals will likely feel “safer” to share their anxieties. Sometimes during such visits, keen observers will note certain clues to the cause(s) of the anxiety in their home, work, family, etc.

3) When individuals take on additional responsibilities and circumstances (e.g., become single parents, take care of elderly parent in the home, lose a job, take on a second job, dealing with adolescent rebellion, face retirement, etc), take special notice of the potential for stress shifts. often used in marketing and evangelistic literature to measure “receptivity,” the Holmes-Rahe Stress indicator may be especially helpful to identify various individual stressors.

4) When stress occurs, expect behavioral changes in such individuals and respond appropriately. Offer an appropriate degree of quality, empathetic pastoral support as early as possible so that they understand that you recognize their situation. Give assurances of your concern and be prayerfully supportive and pastorally available as they have need. This is especially important in your ministry to those high-anxiety individuals who, in their anxious stress shifts, take on antagonistic system roles.

5) When anxiety regarding church issues is expressed, provide an appropriate forum for the anxiety to be voiced and expressed. Listen to their concerns and help them look for opportunities to address their issues and concerns. Nothing soothes like a genuinely listening ear.

6) Listening and empathy, however, do not preclude that the ministry of the congregation must stop in its tracks.

6) Help foster a congregational environment which does not inhibit an ongoing appropriate sharing of personal anxieties. Prayer partners, varieties of small fellowship groups (e.g. sharing, recovery, etc, and after worship altar counselors, etc.) can go a long way to build such an environment. After all, isn't anxiety reduction through trusting God and His leading in our lives what prayer, worship, and Bible Study are really all about?

7) Have periodic sermon series or Bible Classes on various Biblically-based, anxiety-related relationship issues (e.g., divorce, marriage enrichment, how to take care of the elderly, boundaries, adult child issues, substance abuse, how to deal with suffering, development of Christian coping mechanisms, etc.)

8) Have leaders list the anxieties which they feel are in the congregation and brainstorm ways that they and the congregation can positively and effectively addressed these anxiety needs.

9) Make a study of Edwin Friedman's landmark book, FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION, especially as it relates to your situation. Chapters 8 and 9 of Friedman's book are especially insightful.

10) Consider leading a workshop or seminar on congregational anxiety. One possible workshop might be “Reasons For Congregational Conflict” in the Ministry Health Web Site Resource Archives. Of course, consider other Ministry Health articles which may be helpful resources for you or your leaders.

11) Never scapegoat those in their anxious stress shifts. Deal with them with the most prudent pastoral care possible. The most highly sensitive and anxious often have a history of distrust, especially of leaders (e.g., pastors). Go easy and try to understand them (cf. Ministry Health's “Thirteen Ways To Recognize The Adult Child...” and other related Ministry Health Articles).

12) Finally, when anxiety and conflict start to build, do not hesitate to contact your judicatory or denominational executives. Those who are skilled with conflict situations may be quite willing to give their support. Do not consider it a weakness to seek their counsel and support. A timely intervention by an outsider can literally save congregations and pastors untold measures of grief, anger and frustration.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

Of course, the most important thing when dealing with the Jekyl-Hyde's in your church, is to continually seek and patiently (read “painstakingly”) follow God's guidance. Whether a non-anxious “Jekyl” or an anxious “Hyde”, His promises to us and to those whom we ministry are always the same. Cast all your burdens and anxieties on Him and let Him be faithful to lead, guide and protect His church as He so determines.

________

Thomas F. Fischer

Copyright 1998 -- All Rights Reserved

Ministry Health WebSite

Thomas F. Fischer, M.Div., M.S.A., Editor http://genesis.acu.edu/ministryhealth

Support And Insights For Your Ministry!

•

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Billy Graham argued in a Christianity Today article (12/17/82) that "peace on earth" is qualified by Matthew 10:34 - sometimes war and conflict are necessary. Leonard Nolt disagrees. "Not to bring peace, but a sword": the word 'sword' is used as a synonym for 'divide.' The parallel in Luke 12:51 uses the word 'division.'

"If we say that Matt 10:34 justifies Christian participation in military service and interpret that verse in the context in which it is written, then we will have to conclude that in this passage the Bible is telling us to declare war against the members of our own family!"

1351

*

In Judith Viorst's children's book "I'll Fix Anthony," the younger brother

complains about the way his older brother Anthony treats him:

"My brother Anthony can read books now, but he won't read any books to me. He

plays checkers with Bruce from his school. But when I want to play he says

"Go away or I'll clobber you" I let him wear my Snoopy sweatshirt, but he

never lets me borrow his sword. Mother says deep down in his heart Anthony

loves me. Anthony says deep down in his heart he thinks I stink. Mother says

deep deep down in his heart, where he doesn't even know it, Anthony loves me.

Anthony says deep deep down in his heart he still thinks I stink. When I'm

six I'll fix Anthony....

"When I'm six I'll float, but Anthony will sink to the bottom. I'll dive off

the board, but Anthony will change his mind. I'll breathe in and out when I

should, but Anthony will only go glug, glug,.... When I'm six my teeth will

fall out, and I'll put them under the bed, and the tooth fairy will take them

away and leave dimes. Anthony's teeth won't fall out. He'll wiggle and

wiggle them, but they won't fall out. I might sell him one of my teeth, but I

might not....

"Anthony is chasing me out of the playroom. He says I stink. He says he is

going to clobber me. I have to run now, but I won't have to run when I'm six.

When I'm six, I'll fix Anthony."

Most of us know the feeling of Anthony's brother. The Bible calls it

vengeance. #1883

*

Christians should try to resolve conflict, not fuel it.

Back in the 1920's the leading fundamentalist preacher in Texas was J. Frank Norris. Norris loved conflict. He thrived on it. He ran an on-going verbal war with the Southern Baptist Convention because of its liberalism. (It was more conservative back then than it is now!)

One of his sermons was entitled, “The Ten Worst Devils in Fort Worth, Names Given.” The sermon lived up to its title.

One of the “devils” mentioned in the sermon was the Roman Catholic mayor of Fort Worth. After Norris said the mayor wasn't fit to be a manager of a hog-pen, a friend of the mayor's threatened Norris by phone. Not getting satisfaction, he came over to Norris' office in the church.

After a heated argument, Norris pulled a revolver out of his desk and shot the man dead. The jury let him off the hook by ruling it was self-defense, but it didn't help Rev. Norris' reputation. To many people, his behavior is just what you should expect of conservative Christians.

An anecdote about the intense level of feeling in politics:

Grover Norquist was attending a reunion of his liberal college newspaper in

1991. A now-prominent liberal writer came up to Norquist and said, "Grover,

you conservatives must be so unhappy now that Bush has betrayed you on taxes."

"Nick," Norquist replied, "for 40 years American conservatives had to fight a

two-front war against Soviet imperialism abroad all the while domestic

statists were gnawing at our legs. Today, thanks to the leadership of Ronald

Reagan and the sacrifice of millions of American servicemen from Korea to

Vietnam to Europe, the Soviet Union is broken into 15 pieces. It no longer

exists. So now we can turn all our attention and energy to crushing you."

He was taken aback, but Norquist added two thoughts. "And Nick, the Soviet

Union had nuclear weapons. You don't. And with the Soviets, it was simply

business. With you it's personal."

#4032

*

The Spirit unites, but the American church divides. A field guide for discerning how to handle Christian controversy.

“For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?” Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, and later commented: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Cor. 3:3 and 6:7; NIV).

“Worldly.” “Completely defeated.” Would the apostle Paul use similar words to describe the vital, innovative, quarreling church in America today?

I was startled recently when I went through the news columns of Christianity Today for 1996 and found over a dozen good-sized fights reported among American Christians. (No doubt hundreds of other fights were too local to make national news.) They included the full gamut of quarrels over property, doctrine, money, leadership. Even though I had read all these stories as they appeared, I had not taken in their cumulative effect. The frequency of our fighting left me numb.

Fighting among Christians is nothing new, of course; it dates from New Testament times. It’s hard to say whether we fight more than Christians in previous periods. I suspect more, but I can’t prove it. I do know that we fight differently.

CASE STUDY NO. 1: ACA

Let me tell you what I know about a very public fight in a well-known evangelical Christian organization, which I will leave unnamed since it could serve no purpose for me to re-publicize these wounds. Plus, the unfolding of the controversy is so frustratingly common that any of a large number of groups could be substituted for this one.

I stumbled into the beginning of this fight several years ago while researching an article. The founding figure of the organization — I’ll call it ACA, for A Christian Agency — had recently moved on. The board had turned over leadership to a new man from outside the organization.

I was not long in their building before I sensed a culture gap. The staff were a bookish group, deeply dedicated to thoughtful, measured approaches. The new leader was a hard-charging crusader, eager to put his distinctive stamp on the organization. Most of the staff members lived on a pittance. They had grown up in the organization and saw themselves akin to missionaries. The new leader was accustomed to living well, and he had no sense that because others had lived frugally he should do the same.

While I visited ACA, a strained cordiality reigned. Apparently that did not last long. Some staff left ACA voluntarily; a good number were “laid off.” After one particularly large group lost their jobs, they made their complaints public. One laid-off staff member sued ACA for wrongful dismissal. ACA filed a countersuit. This dispute was eventually settled out of court.

Meanwhile, other former staff members formed a committee to approach the ACA president and his board with their questions and concerns. They got nowhere. Their entreaties, they say, were answered with threatening letters from ACA’s lawyers. They got neither a face-to-face meeting nor answers to their complaints. When you listen to members of this group, it sounds as though they did everything they could to reach a meeting of minds but got stonewalled.

ACA leaders say they willingly met with individuals. But they saw the committee as a power tactic, intended not to facilitate communication but to force the board’s hand. ACA leaders were not willing to accord the committee the status it sought by granting a meeting. Nor did they feel obliged to answer every charge the committee raised.

To this day, both sides consider themselves essentially blameless. They have never met to try to resolve their differences, and they aren’t talking to each other yet. Both sides grow frustrated at the very mention of the other side’s names. It is a thoroughly nasty and unresolved quarrel.

AN OUT-OF-CHURCH EXPERIENCE

Much about the above fight is classic, especially the non-communication between staff and board. ACA’s case, though, represents several new trends in how we Christians fight.

First, it is more likely today for Christians to turn to litigation. Of course, Christians have been suing each other at least since the time of the Corinthian church, but I believe it would be accurate to say that lawsuits have been exceptional. Our grandparents would never have pondered their chances of being sued as they steered their way through church quarrels. Today, it is a rare battle that doesn’t have a lawyer involved.

Steve McFarland of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) says that Christians go to court thinking they are going to get justice. Instead, they get incredible delays, terrible costs, and in the end, a very doubtful chance at justice. In the case of ACA, the moment a suit was filed, lawyers were advising all parties not to talk to each other for fear of damaging their “case.” (Of course, this can be an excuse; after the suits were dropped, the parties still wouldn’t talk.) Lawyers’ tactics are rarely designed to bring reconciliation.

A second modern distinctive: the parties to the ACA fight were board members, staff members, lawyers. Church authorities–pastors and elders–did not play a significant role. No church or denominational structures intervened or provided a place to air differences.

Sociologist Tony Campolo notes that over half of American Christians now attend an independent church, detached from any intercongregational structure that has the power to encourage reconciliation. And in many congregations, independent or otherwise, church discipline is weak or nonexistent.

Nonetheless, even independent churches retain one tool for resolving conflict that was missing in the ACA example–namely, a real community. Parachurch organizations have grown dominant in missions and evangelism, in all forms of communication (print and broadcast), in service to the poor, in political and social advocacy, and even in defending doctrinal orthodoxy. The battles of parachurch organizations like the ACA are necessarily outside the discipline of any church body. They are governed ultimately by each organization’s constituents, who are often “constituents” only through the checks they write.

Many modern Christian fights carry on in this netherworld of independent direct-mail-funded organizations, where fundraising and communication with donors are the most pressing realities. (Modern American politics is carried on in a similar environment.) They provide no nexus for resolving conflict, and no community to press the partisans to make peace.

There can even be an incentive to quarrel. If you can make the case in your newsletter or on your radio show that you are fighting for principle (and who isn’t?), then your “community of donors” may actually give more. Fighting tends to shut down contributions in a local church, but it may increase giving to parachurch organizations that successfully spin the dispute into a matter of honor or a point of identity.

EMPOWERING PEACEMAKERS

“I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women” (Phil. 4:2-3). Fighting Christians need help. They could make peace by themselves–nothing stops them. Frequently, however, they need the pressure and assistance of other believers.

Who will give it? American Christianity is increasingly fragmented. Quarreling Christians nowadays don’t meet accidentally, as people did in small towns or small denominations. The social structures that would make the other party difficult to avoid are not there.

This is not to suggest that people in small towns don’t fight. They do, of course. Euodia and Syntyche did in the first century. They needed someone to step in and help them. Paul took their quarrel on and enlisted someone in the Philippian church to take an active, hands-on, peacemaking role. What would that look like today? A peacemaker needs to have authority in both persons’ (or both organizations’) lives. In ruptured modern society, such a person may not exist. That’s why structures need to be reinvented. …

Nonetheless, we need umbrella groups that are willing to spell out right behavior and to provide an authority that insists that wrong be made right. No power on heaven or earth can force people to behave like Christians; you can’t coerce reconciliation. Structures can, however, provide peacemakers and moral pressure. The more they are used, the more their significance will grow. …

Another strategy for peacemaking is the use of mediation ministries. Even secular corporations increasingly rely on mediation and arbitration simply because it saves time and legal expenses. In nearly all states, a contract containing a “conciliation clause” stating that disputes must be resolved through mediation (voluntary agreement) and arbitration (a mandated settlement determined by an arbitrator after a formal hearing of evidence) will be enforced by the courts.

Christians have an added incentive for using mediation and arbitration: they can settle disputes in a Christian way. The CLS’s Steve McFarland recommends that every church and Christian organization include a conciliation clause in its terms of employment and other contracts. People fear, he says, that mediation will try to impose a kiss-and-make-up solution, bypassing the facts that require justice. In reality, he says, properly conducted mediation and arbitration seeks justice as well as peace. Mediators can and should be experienced and knowledgeable in the area of dispute. They gather facts and offer carefully constructed settlements.

Several national organizations offer trained, Christian mediation and arbitration services. Best known are Mennonite Conciliation Services, Peacemaker Ministries (a spinoff of the CLS), and the Alban Institute. Peacemaker’s Ken Sande says that most of their work is at a local level, helping to resolve family and business disputes. Occasionally Peacemaker is asked to help with “major Christian figures,” but Sande has often found them resistant to conciliation. “They have a hard time believing there are people competent to deal with their cases. When threatened, they tend to go quickly to an attorney. They’re usually more comfortable with an attorney.”

CASE STUDY NO. 2: ECT

Another very different kind of fight was prompted by the 40-page statement “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT), issued in March of 1994. ECT tried to define the basis for a working alliance between evangelical and Catholic Christians, particularly regarding social issues such as abortion and family life. Prison Fellowship’s Charles Colson and First Things editor Richard Neuhaus originated the idea and persuaded prominent Christians in both communities to sign. The statement soon encountered strong opposition on the evangelical side. [Mediation followed… ]

The morning’s talks were brutally frank and highly emotional. By the end of the day, however, these leaders had come together. There were tears and embraces as they signed a statement clarifying the theology of ECT. Colson called the meeting “a beautiful example of how Christians should deal with their differences.”

Several participants said that Stowell had done a masterful job of moderating. I asked Stowell what such a peacemaking meeting required. He mentioned several factors:

• First, he said, it is very important that all participants really want a constructive result. The goal may be simply to understand each other. But if participants aim only to vent their anger, to “get” or “reprove” the other party, reconciliation is unlikely.

• Second, he said, you need something drafted ahead of time if you hope to emerge with an agreement. Packer had brought a statement to Fort Lauderdale that served as a solid starting point. “If you have no predraft,” Stowell said, “then trying to write in a group like that is an excruciating thing. You’ll never get it done.”

• Third, Stowell noted, a neutral meeting place is important. While Kennedy’s church was not perfect (Kennedy’s sympathies were clear), it at least avoided the headquarters of one of the more outspoken battlers.

• Fourth, Stowell felt it was important not to rush into a solution. “You have to let people vent enough so that they actually get all the junk on the table. If guys have really been wounded, those wounds have got to show. It has to get personal enough so that guys really get honest about what they feel.”

________

Copyright(c) 1997 by the author or Christianity Today, Inc./Christianity Today magazine. October 6, 1997 Vol. 41, No. 11, Page 27

Smith and Jones were “on the outs” over a very trivial matter. This deeply concerned Deacon Brown, so he prayed that he might be a peacemaker. He called on Smith and asked, “What do you think of Jones?” “He’s the meanest crank in the neighborhood!” “But,” said Brown, “you have to admit that he’s very kind to his family.” “Oh, sure, he’s kind to his family all right; no one can deny that.”

The next day Brown went to Jones and inquired, “Do you know what Smith said about you?” “No, but I can imagine how that scamp would lie about me!” “This may surprise you, but he said you’re very kind to your family.” “What! Did Smith say that?” “Yes, he did.” “Well, if you hadn’t told me, I wouldn’t believe it.” “What do you think of Smith?” asked Deacon Brown. “Truthfully, I believe he’s a lowdown scalawag.” “But you have to admit that he’s very honest in business.” “Yes, there’s no getting around that; in business he’s a man you can trust.”

The next day Brother Brown called on Smith again. “You know what Jones said about you? He claims you’re a fellow that really can be trusted in business, and that you’re scrupulously honest.” “You mean it?” “Yes, I do,” said Brown. “Well of all things,” replied Smith with a happy smile.

The next Sunday the former “enemies” nodded to each other. Brown continued his “meddling” until the next annual business meeting of the church when Smith and Jones shook hands and finally voted on the same side! Take a diplomatic page from the peacemaking notebook of this consecrated deacon and begin to practice his helpful methods, for God loves “a holy meddler!”

Squabbling parties within the European Union could learn a lot about how to get along from the invasive Argentine ant population. Researchers have discovered an enormous "supercolony" of these ants that extends across 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles) of Southern Europe.

All the ants within this supercolony, even those from different nests, seem to behave amicably toward each other. This is the largest cooperative biological unit ever discovered. By contrast, in Argentina, ants from different nests are particularly belligerent and fight to the death, says Laurent Keller, an entomologist from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, who led a study on their behavior.

Keller's team captured about 5,000 ants from 33 separate nests in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal and transported the insects back to his laboratory. Once in the lab, the scientists arranged ant fights - pitting ants from one nest against ants from the other 32 nests. Over the span of a year, the scientists conducted almost 1,100 ant fights.

What they discovered was that all the ants were members of either one of two enormous supercolonies. A supercolony is a remarkable structure because it involves hundreds of billions of individuals. Ants from 30 of the nests belonged to the main supercolony, which stretches from northern Italy along the Mediterranean coastline past France and Spain and curves around the Iberian Peninsula past Portugal. Ants from three Spanish nests represented a smaller Catalonian supercolony.

DEFYING EXPECTATIONS

What is extraordinary is that ants from nests separated by thousands of kilometers did not show any aggressive tendencies towards each other; ants from Portugal, Spain, Italy and France all got along, says Keller.

What has scientists befuddled is how a supercolony arises.

The whole concept of these large colonies clashes with the "kin selection theory," which basically predicts that altruistic behavior should only occur between related individuals. But within the European colony, a visiting ant from the Portuguese branch of the supercolony, for example, is just as welcome in an Italian nest as a local ant.

A possible explanation was that the entire supercolony arose from a very small number of founders, which would mean that the ants within the colony are genetically very similar - hence their surprising tolerance of ants from distant nests. But this did not prove to be true. A genetic analysis done by Keller's team revealed that the European Argentine ants are a diverse lot.

"It's a very nice piece of work," says Kenneth Ross, an entomologist from the University of Georgia, in Athens. "Keller and his colleagues collected a huge number of samples, tested many genetic markers and proved that this tolerance is not due to these ants being closely related."

Keller's work is published in the April 16 issue of the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR

It seems that when the Argentine ants invaded Europe in 1920 they entered a "bonanza habitat," says Ross. Ross suspects that with plentiful food and no natural enemies, defending territory and fighting unrelated ants was no longer necessary for survival.

"Nest mates or not, why fight if there is plenty of food," says Ross.

Thus genes involved with recognition - those that allow ants to distinguish a nest mate from a foreigner - may have been less important and lost over time, says Ross.

Keller agrees that there has been a "genetic cleansing" of the recognition cues - the genes involved with recognition must have become very similar within each ant supercolony.

What is clear is that the recognition genes between the main European supercolony and the Catalonian supercolony are very different. Ants from these colonies fight aggressively - biting at the head, releasing venom and locking body parts in the jaws. Death usually occurs within a minute.

"What I find exciting is that the social organization of an entire species can change by changing environment," says Keller.

Argentine ants are a particularly aggressive invasive species. Away from their homeland they tend to displace or eradicate the local ant populations as well as spiders and insects. The ants destroy fruit and buds, and tend to protect insects that devastate plant life.

Their tremendous destructive power is due in part to their ability to form these vast cooperative colonies.

________

(Previous illustration at this number has been added to HolwickID #16703)

An elderly couple would constantly argue about everything. The woman often ended the arguments by stating vociferously, "I'll dance on your grave! I'll dance on your grave!"

Well, sure enough, the man died first.

His last request was that he be buried at sea.

In 1939, in a small town in Oklahoma, a young couple had been married a few short and disappointing months. He never dreamed there were so many ways to ruin fried chicken. She couldn't imagine why she ever thought his jokes were funny. Neither one said aloud what they were both thinking -- the marriage was a big mistake.

One hot afternoon, they got into a terrible argument about whether they could afford to paint the living room. Tempers flared, voices were raised, and somehow one of the wedding gift plates crashed to the floor. She burst into tears, called him heartless and a cheapskate. He shouted that he'd rather be a cheapskate than a nag, then grabbed the car keys on his way out. His parting words, punctuated by the slam of the screen door, were, "That's it! I'm leaving you!"

But before he could coax their rickety car into gear, the passenger door flew open and his bride landed on the seat beside him. She stared straight ahead, her face tear-streaked but determined.

"And just where do you think you're going?" he asked in amazement.

She hesitated only a moment before replying, just long enough to be sure of the answer that would decide the direction of their lives for the next forty-three years.

"If you're leaving me," my mother said, "I'm going with you."

_____________________

By Lynne Kinghorn from A Second Chicken Soup for the Woman's Soul,Copyright 1998 by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Jennifer Read Hawthorne and Marci Shimoff

*

Theodore Roosevelt was a rugged outdoorsman. He loved traveling and exploring the great Northwest. On one of his trips, he observed something quite phenomenal -- A SKUNK EATING WITH A GRIZZLY!

As the bear came sauntering into the garbage dump, the skunk came right along with him, fearing nothing. The ole' griz' could have taken him out with one swipe, but he didn't. He knew the high cost of getting even.

Smart grizzly! Smarter than most people. He was quite aware of the price he would have to pay by reckless behavior.

Doctors now attribute many illnesses to worry, anxiety, resentment, hatred, etc. “Grudgitis” kills. Many people spend sleepless nights and untold energy thinking up ways “to get even”. Strange as this may seem, they become their own worst enemy.

Jesus is ridiculed in some circles for his ethics of “loving your enemies,” “forgiving those who have wronged you,” letting the past go.” It is a well-known fact in the discipline of psychiatry that these principles are health. It is therapeutic to apologize, to forgive, to let go, to say, “I'm sorry.”

We might be grouchy as an old bear sometimes, but one thing for sure, he knew when not to fight!

Bulletin Digest

Glenn Randolph

Santa Fe, New Mexico

There were three guys talking in the pub. Two of them are talking about the

amount of control they have over their wives, while the third remains quiet.

After a while one of the first two turns to the third and says, "Well, what

about you, what sort of control do you have over your wife?"

The third fellow says, "I'll tell you - just the other night my wife came to

me on her hands and knees."

The first two guys were amazed. "Wow! What happened then?" they asked.

The third man took a healthy swallow of his beer, sighed and uttered, "She

said, 'Get out from under the bed and fight like a man!'"

*

There was once a man and woman who had been married for more than 60 years. They had shared everything. They had talked about everything.

They had kept no secrets from each other except that the little old woman had a shoebox in the top of her closet that she had cautioned her husband never to open or ask her about. For all of these years, he had never thought about the box, but one day, the little old woman got very sick and the doctor said she would not recover. In trying to sort out their affairs, the little old man took down the shoebox and took it to his wife's bedside. She agreed that it was time that he should know what was in the box. When he opened it, he found two crocheted doilies and a stack of money totaling $25,000!!

He asked her about the contents. "When we were to be married," she said, "my grandmother told me the secret of a happy marriage was to never argue. She told me that if I ever got angry with you I should just keep quiet and crochet a doilie." The little old man was so moved, he had to fight back tears. Only two precious doilies were in the box. She had only been angry with him two times in all those years of living and loving? He almost burst with happiness. "Honey," he said, "that explains the doilies, but what about all of this money? Where did it come from?"

"Oh," she said, "that's the money I made from selling the rest of the doilies."

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13206]

"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs."

-- Unknown

You may have heard the expression: "He was a brick!" Few of

us, however, know the origin and significance of that

expression. The term implies all that is brave and loyal.

Plutarch, in writing about the king of Sparta, tells how the

phrase was coined. An ambassador on a diplomatic mission

visited the famous city. Knowing that its strength was

acclaimed throughout all of Greece, he had expected to see

massive fortresses surrounding the town, but he found nothing of

the kind. Surprised, he exclaimed to the ruler, "Sir, you have

no fortifications for defense. Why is this?" "Ah, but we are

well protected," he replied. "Come with me tomorrow and I will

show you the walls of Sparta." The next day he led his guest to

the plain where the army was drawn up in full battle array.

Pointing proudly to his soldiers who stood fearlessly in place,

he said, "Behold the walls of Sparta -- 10,000 men and every man

'a brick'!"

When all else fails, love opens doors.

Shortly after her marriage to Prince Albert, Queen Victoria had a quarrel with her new husband. Albert walked out of the room and locked himself in his private apartment. Victoria hammered furiously on the door. "Who's there?" called Albert.

"The Queen of England, and she demands to be admitted." There was no response, and the door remained locked. Victoria hammered again.

"Who's there?" The reply was the same, and still the door remained shut. More fruitless and furious knocking was followed by a pause. Then there was a gentle tap.

"Who's there?" Albert asked.

"Your wife, Albert," the Queen replied. The prince opened the door at once!

In Gore Vidal's {Lincoln}, President Lincoln's oldest son, Bob, wanted to join the army and fight for the Union. His mother objected strenuously, and his father supported her decision. They had already lost two sons at an early age, and she could not bear the thought of losing another. Robert protested that soon General Burnside would be marching against Fredricksburg and would take Richmond by Christmas. Then the war would be over. His father replied, "Oh, no! No, boy, there will be war enough to go around."

- Paul W. Powell, "Basic Bible Sermons on Handling Conflict" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992) 11

A man at war with himself will be at war with everyone else.

- Dag Hammarskjold, former general secretary of the United Nations

- Paul W. Powell, {Basic Bible Sermons on Handling Conflict,

}(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992) 21

Years ago I heard the supposedly true story of a pastor who had a

woman in his church who didn't like anything he did. She didn't like

his sermons. She didn't like the way he dressed. She didn't like the

way his children behaved. And she didn't like the program he

proposed. She had a cantankerous spirit and was a thorn in his side

from the minute he arrived.

He tried to talk with her on several occasions but she would no

communicate. He did everything he knew how to do but there seemed to

be no way to get along with her.

One day he was visiting in her neighborhood and decided to go by

her house. Her car was parked in the driveway so he determined to

visit her and see if they could work out their problems.

He rang the doorbell but no one answered. He then knocked on the

door, thinking the doorbell might be out of order. But still she did

not answer. When you've knocked on as many doors as most preachers

you can almost always tell when somebody is inside. It is like a

sixth sense. And he was sure she was at home.

So, he went around to the backdoor and knocked again. He called

the lady by name saying, "It's the pastor and I would like to talk to

you for a minute." But still there was no response.

He went back to the front door again and decided to ring the

doorbell one more time. Still there was no answer. Then on an

impulse, he said, "I dropped down on my knees and looked through the

keyhole." And, what do you suppose he saw? He said, "I saw an eye

staring right back at me."

He continued, "She then opened the door and we were both

embarrassed." Then he said, "I looked at her and said, 'Isn't it

interesting that the first time we got down on our knees together we

saw eye to eye?'"

There is more truth than fiction to that. If we would pray more

together we would more likely stay together longer.

- Paul W. Powell, { Basic Sermons on Handling Conflict,

}(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992) 67-68

David C. Cook gives negative advice on “How to turn a disagreement into a feud.” He says there are eight (8) rules to escalating conflict:

1. Be sure to develop and maintain a healthy fear of conflict, letting your own feelings build up so you are in an explosive frame of mind.

2. If you must state your concerns, be as vague and general as possible. Then the other person cannot do anything practical to change the situation.

3. Assume you know all the facts and you are totally right. The use of a clinching Bible verse is helpful. Speak prophetically for truth and justice; do most of the talking.

4. With a touch of defiance, announce your willingness to talk with anyone who wishes to discuss the problem with you. But do not take steps to initiate such conversation.

5. Latch tenaciously onto whatever evidence you can find that shows the other person is merely jealous of you.

6. Judge the motivation of the other party on any previous experience that showed failure or unkindness. Keep track of any angry words.

7. If the discussion should, alas, become serious, view the issue as a win/lose struggle. Avoid possible solutions and go for total victory and unconditional surrender. Don’t get too many options on the table.

8. Pass the buck! If you are about to get cornered into a solution, indicate you are without power to settle; you need your partner, spouse, bank, whatever.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12126]

It used to be that just one superpower had missiles which could carry deadly destruction to American soil. But in today's post-Cold War world, there are several countries that either have or may soon have that capability. Which has necessitated some fresh thinking about America's defense against a missile attack. That, in turn, has birthed the idea of anti-missile missiles - a controversial plan that launches defensive missiles to pre-empt and destroy an incoming enemy missile.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "Knocking Down The Missiles."

Now look, I don't know if the idea of destroying an incoming missile is workable or advisable for our national defense. But I do know that the Kingdom of God could use more people who knock down verbal missiles before they do a lot of damage. Just look around your church, your circle of Christians. Too much gossip and backstabbing? Too much misunderstanding between spiritual brothers and sisters? Do you see walls and hard feelings and disunity developing?

You can be part of the answer - if you'll commit yourself to seven little words that can knock down the missiles that destroy the unity and love of Jesus' followers. They're based on our word for today from the Word of God in Matthew 18:15. Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault..." Now, notice the scope of your complaint: "...just between the two of you." That could be one of the most disobeyed commands of our Lord - and one of the most damaging disobediences.

We go and talk to everyone but the person we've got the problem with. We would far rather talk about them than to them. And that raises the question of whether we really want a solution or just an audience for our gripes. Now for those seven anti-missile words. When a person comes to you with something negative about another person, get used to saying these words: "Don't talk to me. Talk to him (or, talk to her)." Every time you do that, you are standing up for the Jesus-way and standing against Satan's attempts to divide God's children.

The Bible says that "the words of a gossip are like choice morsels" (Proverbs 18:8) - we love to hear the dirt, in other words. But God doesn't. He says, "A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends," (Proverbs 16:28) and "whoever spreads slander is a fool." (Proverbs 10:18) The mission of someone who loves Jesus is to contain negative talk, not spread it. And to go direct yourself when you have a problem with another person. You can try to avoid doing it the Biblical way by saying, "Well, they won't listen" or "What good will it do?" Well, really that doesn't matter. Jesus says your responsibility is to go to your brother or sister and to keep it - remember the words? - "just between the two of you."

There are way too many missiles being fired by God's children at God's children. And no army can win when they are aiming their weapons at each other. The good news is that you can do something about it. You can show people another way to be - actually, the Jesus way to be. When you hear something negative about a brother or sister, say those seven words - "Don't talk to me. Talk to her (or, talk to him)." You can knock down some missiles that otherwise could hurt a lot of people.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

John Wesley Powell is a name not well recognized today - he was the one-armed, hero-explorer of American national treasure, the Grand Canyon.

Powell named a place on the Colorado River "Separation Rapid." This is where three men separated from the main party and attempted to walk out of the canyon by themselves.

What precipitated this separation? A major dilemma! The Powell party had earlier lost one of their four boats and over half their food to the river. The rapids they now faced were more menacing than anything they had previously encountered. Normally they "portaged" (i.e., carried) their huge wooden boats around such difficulty, but here it was impossible. Two choices were available to the explorers: (1) abandon the exploration and walk out, into uncharted and hostile territory; (2) face their fears and plunge headlong into the rapids, trusting themselves to make it.

Three chose the former, while the seven remaining men chose the latter. To everyone's surprise the rapids only had the appearance of omnipotence; within minutes they cleared "Separation Rapid," unscathed and with all their provisions. The three separators were never heard from again.

Commentary: Many times marriage presents seemingly impenetrable obstacles which in fact have only "the appearance of omnipotence."

In many cases it is true that the couple cannot "portage" their marriage around the obstacle. However, facing their fears and forging ahead, trusting in the grace of God [Matthew 19:26; 2 Corinthians 12:9], may bring a Grand Canyon-like surprise. Taking the "separation" route in marriage is fraught with danger, many have taken it to their great detriment.

When couples come seeking my counsel I remind them a marriage is similar to a front lawn, right out there in the public's eye: if it's nurtured and maintained it will serve them all the days of their lives, even though some must periodically be cut nearly to the roots; if ignored, abused, or trampled on it will die.

_____________________

Source/Attribution: John Gillmartin; SIEW

Church leaders can steer congregations in a healthy direction by honestly facing conflict instead of running from it or turning a dispute into a personal battle, according to a former pastor and noted conference leader.

Too many church members treat the biblical mandate of reconciliation as an opportunity to argue their case, said Ken Schmitt, keynote speaker at a recent deacon-pastor-spouse retreat sponsored by the Kentucky Baptist Convention.

Schmitt said many people misunderstand Jesus' three-step process on resolving conflicts recorded in Matthew 18:15-17. The passage calls for private reproof, then intervention by a small group and as a last resort taking the matter before the whole congregation.

"We see this as one-two-three strikes and you're out," Schmitt said. Instead, he added, "We are to work toward reconciliation for the common good."

The retreat was titled "Never Call Them Jerks: Healthy Responses to Difficult Behavior." That is the name of a book by Arthur Paul Boers, published by the Alban Institute.

Although this was the first time he led a seminar based on the material, the St. Louis-based speaker has done extensive studies in "systems" theory. He described this philosophy as thinking about the world and each person's part in it as a whole. When people appreciate how all members contribute to the congregation, they develop respect for others, even those that irritate them, he said.

"Systems thinking changes our focus from the speck in our brother's eye to the beam in our own," he said. "The most significant thing we can do to change behavior is to deal with the beam in our eye."

Too often, members focus on the problems they think others pose, said Schmitt, an assistant director in charge of pastoral care for Wycliffe Bible translators.

That creates the potential for intense battles, he said. To illustrate, he referred to a past lawsuit in Knoxville, Tenn., where he was pastor of a non-denominational church from 1977 to 1991.

A woman sued for $20,000 for injuries she received during a contentious business meeting, when she fell over a pew and banged her hand. In addition to her alleged attacker, she named the church as a defendant for allowing the incident to occur.

Schmitt said the episode was an extreme example of a common ailment in churches, where people avoid confronting others until simmering problems explode.

"Avoidance isn't love," he said. "We want to avoid discomfort. It isn't dealing out of love. We aren't really turning the other check.

"We need to learn a new vision of dealing with problems," he added. "The problem is change is challenging. It hurts."

One solution is to develop what he called Christian assertiveness. This calls for working on the system that leads to problems instead of fretting over them, he said.

Healing the system often eliminates the problem and helps members develop respect for others' role. Then, instead of dismissing difficult people we can appreciate how they challenge us and contribute to our spiritual growth, Schmitt said.

Changing a system is also more valuable than concentrating on symptoms, he said.

He told an amusing story about a high school where girls were kissing bathroom mirrors to leave lipstick marks, despite threats of suspension and other punishment.

A cleaning lady solved the problem. She walked into the bathroom while females were putting on lipstick, dipped a sponge in a toilet and wiped the mirrors.

Likewise, churches often attack symptoms, Schmidt said. One example that arose during small-group workshops after each main session was the problem of low enrollment in adult education.

Instead of blaming teacher quality, grumbling about lack of commitment, or trying to simply boost enrollment, a systems approach asked what can be done to deal with the situation.

Among suggestions that emerged in one group were varying class times, scheduling special-interest sessions, polling members about their needs, improving nursery care to attract more young adults, and improving teacher training.

The same theory applies when churches are upset with their pastor. Workshop leader David Stancil said congregations need to face what they are doing wrong instead of blaming everything on their leader.

Now an associate pastor at a church in Louisville, Stancil was a layman and deacon chairman about 10 years ago amid squabbling and division.

"I got up and said, 'The last four pastors have left without our blessing and they were good people,'" he recalled. "'The problem is not the pastor, the problem is us.' It took us about a year and a half to work through that."

Noting that the virus of gossip won't spread without leaders' participation, he said if deacons and spouses behave in healthy ways it will dramatically improve congregational health.

If a member is upset about the pastor, deacons should ask if the individual has gone to the pastor, or offer to go along, or ask if he or she can discuss the situation with the pastor, Stancil said.

If the complainer refuses, the deacon should point out that person is acting unbiblically and will be held accountable.

"If people know the rules, the system becomes healthy," he said. "The goal is not to win, it's reconciliation."

*