Managing Church and Ministry Conflict

A Simple Move Gone Sour

2008-04-08T08:45:00.000-04:00

I am the pastor of a church of about 200 in the Southwest. I now find myself in a great deal of conflict and would like your opinion. I moved the adult Bible study group to a new location with the agreement of the leader. I made the now vacant room where they had been meeting into a nice, reception area taking the flow of visitors away from the church secretary’s office (so work could be done). I then bought nice comfortable furniture for the new Bible study space to minimize any upsets over the move. I now find that members of the Bible study are truly upset. The church secretary is also very upset, which I don’t understand (I was trying to protect her from all the interruptions).

True, I didn’t get agreement with others, other than staff, and since it was in my contract to do so, I felt it was okay to see a need and correct it. With the exception of a handful of volunteers, the change has also annoyed members of the elder board.

A Cautionary Tale

2008-03-20T17:30:00.002-04:00

This is a follow-up to the case that was posted on November 24 – “Bushwhacked by the Board." And this is also a cautionary tale. The pastor writes:

We had been making progress. I cannot say great progress, but I believe the church was gaining “traction”. There was good healthy, positive feelings in the services again. The people that had so intensely opposed me and my continued leadership had left. The congregation was getting excited again. There was positive energy.We were making strides to hire some new staff.. On the morning of a scheduled Board Mtg., I received a phone call from our asst. state supervisor, stating there would be a meeting before the board meeting and they would “welcome me if I could attend.” “Oh and your spouse is welcome to come as well.”. I called my wife, told her of the meeting and stated, “It is going to be one of two things – either they will be planning how to move the church out of supervision or they will be calling for my resignation”. We all arrived at the meeting (at my church) and then the chair began citing how we had arrived at this point – history.Then he stated, “the State Council has decided to ask you to resign.”Excerpts from their letter stated…The division that exists in the church has occurred and continues under your leadership. These facts are indicative of your failure to lead the church in a healing and restoration process.· You have continued to display only tacit compliance to our requests. It is not our intent to compile a list of issues; suffice it to say items such as your lack of ownership for the division, our having to insist that you give a public conciliatory statement regarding the division, your limited attempts and failure to restore relationships with ministry leaders and influencers who have left the church, and your non-compliance with our pastoral staff selection process serve to illustrate the concern.· Your lack of effort and failure to make progress in leading the church to healing and restoration that would redeem as many as possible is most disappointing to all of us. We recognize that no man's ministry is greater than the church. Therefore it is with heavy hearts that we have recommended to the State Council that you be requested to submit your resignation. This is not an easy decision for us to make; it comes as a result of much prayer and fasting and hours of discussion. From our evaluation and experience of these last 14 months, we realize that a fresh start could be healing to you and the congregation.

· Out of respect for your years of ministry in the city, we will recommend a generous severance package of five months; one month for every two years of your ministry in the church, contingent upon your cooperation during the transition process, the avoidance of any further polarization of the church, and the voluntary submission and expression of your desire to resign.

I told them that I would comply with their request. I stated that I disagree with their assessment and decision. None of those making this decision had been in the church for at least 3-4 months. I stated that I was fearful that this would be devastating to many that had stood by me during this time (which is over 85% of the congregation). I have highlighted part of their statement that said I had failed to reach out to ministry leaders and “influencers” that had left. The former pastor of the church is now the State Supervisor. And some of the “influencers” are close personal friends of his.So, I leave a congregation that 10 years ago was 2 million in debt and now is debt free. They have 400,000 dollars in savings. And they have a weekend attendance near 1000. Frankly, it appears that our district leadership had a completely different agenda.

Father Bill's Dilemma

2008-03-17T12:39:00.000-04:00

TAG received a call from the Reverend Bill, Rector of St. Ann’s Episcopal Church, requesting help understanding the organizational dynamics of his church. The rector felt there were unresolved conflicts undermining the growth and development of the parish and hoped that an impartial outside perspective might provide some ideas that would allow the parish to move forward and realize its potential.

The assessment phase of the consultation consisted of; meeting and interviewing the Vestry of St Ann’s, interviewing the Rector and his wife and interviewing the rector’s staff. Everyone was very open and cooperative and clearly had the best interest of St. Ann’s in their heart. Each person shared their thoughts with me about what they had observed regarding the developing tension in the parish. And as is often the case there was a general consensus about the problems of St. Ann’s. But in very rare cases is the agreed upon “identified problem” the actual problem. At Tag we are looking for the actual underlying problem that we call the “Thing in the Bushes”. It is this conflict that is affecting the entire system dynamic but unknown and unrecognized by those closest to the situation.

Understanding the principles and dynamics of your own group or organization after a problem has arisen is nearly impossible, hence the need for an outside perspective. Everyone interviewed identified some or most of the following issues:

· Most parish members strongly supported Father Bill and his ideas
· There were only a few members of the parish in conflict with Father Bill.
· These were people who had been influential in the life and direction of the parish in the past.
· This small group felt displaced by Father Bill
· This group of long time members resented the new ideals that Father Bill brought to the church...
· Father Bill worried too much about the feelings of this small group.
· Father Bill had become too sensitive to the criticism of this group.
· Father Bill needs to handle these particular parish members in a different way.
· There was a general fear that Father Bill would become so discouraged that he would leave St Ann’s.
· Father Mark (the former rector) was loved by everybody and is a hard act to follow.
· People liked the way Father Mark ran the parish.
· Father Mark did not change much in the church.
· Father Mark let some things slide in order to keep peace
· Father Bill confronts many issues and introduces many changes.

While most of the above issues contain some elements of truth many of them contradict each other and provide no real direction for solving the current conflict. More importantly the current conflict as stated may only be a symptom of something that the church as well as the community is facing; something deeper and more difficult to address. There is always the danger of providing symptomatic solutions for symptomatic problems. Solutions that don’t address the underlying conflict may initially relieve tension but invariably create another set of problems that can prove to be even more difficult to resolve.

Voices of dissent in any system, in any organization, provide clues about the more deeply felt but unexpressed pain in the community. However these voices are misinterpreted because they are seen as oppositional or undermining or attacking. It is hard to hear the message when one is being personally attacked, and almost any response to the attack makes the situation worse.

Father Bill finds himself trapped in this very dilemma. He has not really understood the resistance to his initiatives, especially when most of the parishioners apparently agree with his values and vision. No matter what he has tried, no matter how he has handled the conflicts, the situation has grown steadily worse and he has suffered and his family has suffered. Consequently this suffering has created doubt in Father Bill –doubt about his ability to lead and doubt about his vocation. As he has grown more and more depressed he has also struggled with growing bitterness and resentment. He has found it hard to preach the gospel each Sunday. When our hearts are filled with anger it is hard to preach the gospel of love.

Yet Father Bill is hardly alone in this experience of doubt and seeming failure. Many rectors could identify with Father Bill and his struggles. All people in leadership especially those called to deal with the suffering of their people, face these problems. Unfortunately their seminary training does not provide them with even the basic skills necessary to deal with the problems they will encounter in their work. Most folks in these situations do not know where to turn for help. They struggle alone until they are too tired, too beaten, to continue. They resign because they are ineffective and exhausted. With resignation comes failure and failure of course brings with it shame so they are reluctant to share their experience with anyone and they carry the wound forever. I hope we are not to late to help Father Bill. He is a wonderful man and by the way the right man for the job.

What is the problem at St. Ann’s? I can say without any reservation that the problem is not Father Bill, although he as leader has become the lightening rod, the scapegoat if you will. The problems of St. Ann’s began long before Father Bill became rector. Father Mark I am sure experienced the problems as well and might even identify them in the same way as they are now identified. But Father Mark did not threaten the members of the church in the way that Father Bill does. Father Bill has challenged the status quo. He just never realized what he was doing. He never realized that he would stir up such resistance… And when he did, neither he nor the community understood that the gospel and not Father Bill was the real threat. Even more confusing he thought he was doing exactly what the community of St Ann’s called him to do. He thought he was called to bring the gospel, to teach the gospel, to preach the gospel, and hold his self and hold the members of the community accountable for living the gospel. This is what excited him about becoming the rector of the church of St. Ann’s.

The search committee that recommended Father Bill never fully understood that living the gospel would require a change in their behavior. Father Mark was a pastor who tended lovingly to the needs of his flock but he did not challenge them to live the gospel in the way that Father Bill does. The search committee knew they needed a leader that would challenge the community. They knew instinctively that Father Bill would challenge inherent contradictions whenever he saw them. This does not make one popular. Father Bill’s great error was innocence. He was very, very naïve. He thought because the community needed and said they wanted change they would embrace change. They would embrace him and his family. Instead as he confronted the contradictions he saw in Christian values he was attacked. He did not understand this. He felt betrayed and wounded. He personalized the attacks. This only confused him and created shame and guilt in the members of the parish.

The members of the church who had been doing certain things for years and had never been confronted about their behavior felt wounded and betrayed by Father Bill. They did not understand what he was doing or why he was upset. They felt personally attacked by Father Bill. Father Mark had never confronted them in this way and their only response to Father Bill was to attack back.

As this dynamic unfolds a recursive pattern is immediately set in place because people in the community misperceive the conflict. The conflict is played out in the community as more and more people take sides. And because the discussion in the community is never at the level of the conflict (about the living the gospel, and not Father Bill) the situation worsens and the divisions grow. The outcome if unchecked is always bad. Everything supports the problem. In this case even the surrounding economic context serves to intensify the feelings of failure that everyone is now experiencing. Corrective action is needed and needed now. Here is a list of recommendations to begin the healing process and preserve the community of St. Ann’s.

Recommendations

Near Term

· Father Bill must begin to de-intensify the conflict
· He must begin to re-build relationships one at a time and over time
· He must initiate discussions with those that disagree with him.
· Father Bill must depersonalize the situation. The conflict is about values not people. (He misunderstood the conflict was directed at his role, not at his person). He did not have to embrace the attacks as personal, even though they came packaged this way.
· He must realize that those who attack him do not really understand what the real conflict is.
· He must work to clarify the conflict for all the community.
· He must recognize his own emotional responses
· He must become aware of when others are reacting to him.
· He must recognize the weight of the authority he carries and how people respond to his authority.
· He must recognize situations in which he creates anxiety for the community
· He must change the pace of change. He felt he had a mandate to change St. Ann’s overnight. That simply was not going to happen. The anxiety created by this pace was too high.

Long Term

· Father Bill must build shared vision in the community.
· Building shared vision requires building a shared values structure and that requires building consensus in the community for those values.
· Developing a strategic plan with the vestry and other church leaders for the future direction of the St. Ann’s. (Mission and Vision)

Notes

· In this article we’ve used terms that can be more fully explained by going to our website, www.transformingchurch.net. Our book, Thriving Through Ministry Conflict should prove helpful.
· We’re also posting explanations of key concepts that should also be helpful.

2008-02-20T08:16:00.001-05:00

I am the pastor of a church of 400 in the Southwest. I’ve been there for five years. I have an associate, a Christian Ed/Youth Director, an Administrator, and several support staff.

I recently fired a secretary of long-standing who is also a church member. She was basically incompetent, gossipy, with an inability to accept correction and direction from me or anyone. Yes, my contract said this was within my authority. So did all of the denominational directives. I offered to pay for computer classes. I also offered to find her a counselor for her emotional problems. All of this was refused, and the situation seemed irremediable.

One thing that had endeared her to members of the congregation was the face that she was very pastoral. She also was best friends with the congregational leader’s wife. I approached this woman (the wife) asking her to help solve the problem, but nothing came of it. The secretary subsequently resigned the day I was to fire her. The leader’s wife shunned both my wife and me from that day on and refused to take communion from me one Sunday.

Now the situation has spread to other parts of the congregation, people choosing up sides either with me or the fired secretary. What should I do next? I feel like I’ve made mistakes, but I’m not sure what.

2008-02-02T08:09:00.000-05:00

Final Uganda Report

Many of you have shown interest in my trip to Uganda. I have decided to include one final report. Actually these are excerpts from a proposal one of my former students is writing to obtain a grant to begin a program to assist children. It will give you some information as to the plight of children in not only Uganda, but indeed the whole continent of Africa. Note the adaptive issues that this posses, issues that the University where I teach is attempting to address.

BACKGROUND

In Uganda, like else where in Africa, children have always worked within their families. They participate in cooking, washing, and, fetching firewood and water. Gradually through observation, guidance and supervision the children were prepared for the roles expected of them during adulthood. During this process of socialization children grew to maturity. The important phenomenon in this environment was the fact that children’s work was devoid of exploration. This is what has always been referred to as child work, which is permissible, if not desirable in children’s upbringing.

On the other hand, child labor refers to work, which is hazardous and the circumstances of its performance jeopardizes the health, safety, education and morals of the child. The general criteria of determining child labor being the age of the child, nature of work, duration the child has to spend on the work and criteria for its performance.

There is a mounting body of evidence that children in Uganda for long have been subjected to various forms of child abuse, especially related to child labor. The 1991 Population and Housing Census and the 1992-3 Integrated Household survey revealed that one in four children aged between 10-14 years were involved in some form of work. From the various urban and rural domestic servants of middle class elites’ homes, to the small peasants’ shambas, large plantations and cattle keeping rangelands, working children are a familiar sight. In the expanding entertainment industry, the quarries and construction sites, the garages of second hand Japanese vehicles, and the informal commercial sector, the wheels of Uganda’s economy are oiled by the sweat of children, without equal benefit to them.

Today the traditional expectation of children to work as part of their up bringing, childhood development and education, has been replaced by the struggle for survival on the part of children. With armed conflict and HIV/AIDS, every principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is at risk of being violated. Whether it is the right to education and development or health, or whether it is the right to self-protection from exploitation and harm. All of these are endangered. Literature now abounds that it is detrimental to the child, whether it is armed conflict or AIDS, any condition that disrupts the normal activities, enhances participation of children in chores that would otherwise be performed by adults.

With AIDS and prolonged internal conflict, many children are orphans or have parents who are totally helpless to provide for their care and up bringing. In this environment children are expected to contribute substantially, if not wholly, to their basic needs such as clothing, food, medical care, and formal education. With the scourge of AIDS, internal conflict and poverty, this care is often required by their parents, brothers and sisters as well.

The HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Uganda
The first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in Uganda in 1982. Since then, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has taken its toll, resulting in lowering of life expectancy from 54 years to 47 years (GOU-UNICE Country Program, 2001-2005). At the end of 1997, it was estimated that at nearly 1 million people (or 9.51% of adult population aged between 15 and 49 years) were living with HIV/AIDS that AIDS has accounted for 1.8 million deaths by that date. It is also reported that AIDS is responsible for 12% of annual deaths in Uganda and has surpassed malaria and other diseases as a leading cause of death amongst individuals aged between 15 and 45 years.

Violence and Armed Conflict
Armed conflict in Uganda started with the 1979 Liberation War. It went on throughout the end of 1980’s with the districts in the immediate neighborhood of Kampala being largely affected by a 1981-1986 Guerilla War (Luwero Triangle). The period 1987 up to date saw an uprising in the Northern Uganda and the Eastern parts of Uganda that led many families to be displaced from their means of survival, to protected villages or camps. Though Eastern Uganda was largely pacified in the early 1990’s, further incursions from across the borders as well as the increased cattle raids from the north Eastern region by Karamojong warriors resulted in considerable displacement of the population within the region and neighboring districts.

From 1997, the insurgency of the magnitude that characterized Northern Uganda throughout the one and a half decades was extended to Kabarole - Mt Rwenzori high lands (The western Region of Uganda). This resulted in internal displacement of the population many of whom have either fled to Internally Displaced People camps. Some of the displaced people are however living with relatives in safer locations. It is estimated that armed conflict or its effects currently affects about 26 districts nationally.

According to the new GOU-UNICEF Country program (2001-2005) armed conflict has increased separation of families with some members living in towns (mainly children to avoid abduction) others in camps while some few continue to subsist in rural areas. With the new settings in the camps/protected areas, more and more children have not had the support of extended family and often lack adequate parental care.

Child Labor
Child labor has been identified as a major social problem in Uganda although no official national data can verify the situation. More than 2.5 million children are thought to be engaged in child labor activities. Engagement in child labor is very often known to be detrimental to children’s education and their right to normal development and progress.

The problem of child labor is associated with rapid increase in the population, poverty and HIV/AIDS scourge, decline of economic and social services of the 1970s and 80s as well as negative effect of the economic reform programs such as retrenchments and cutbacks in production leading to massive unemployment.

AIDS has tremendously increased the social costs of caring for the sick people leading to orphaned children in communities and households. A GOU-UNICEF study in 1996 found that in nearly all HIV/AIDS affected families, many orphans and children were forced to leave school and care for themselves and other family members or provide nursing/ care for sick relatives (Mwaka and Tumusime, 1996). As a result of HIV/AIDS the extended family system was strained to the limits due to the large family size and the absence of young adults which often entailed the leaving of several children under the care of older orphans or grandparents.

It was estimated that by the end of 1997, there were 1.1 million orphans under 15 years of age (due to AIDS), and a further 0.6 million youth or young adults who had been orphans when they were in the same age bracket. Even with the recent downturn in sero-prevalence, the figure is projected to peak by 2010, but still to remain unusually high up to 2020. Many of these children live in child-headed households. Much of the land of the deceased parents, farms lies fallow or is used for subsistence crops only.

Approximately 44% of Ugandans live in absolute poverty. When orphans are into homes they are often treated badly (made to do twice as much of the household chores as the children of their new care takers, segregated at meal times, given less food or less nutritious food and have limited access to beddings). It is estimated that 16% of same children aged between 15 and 18 years are in the labour force (mainly as unpaid family workers). The same children are more vulnerable to other rights violations, such as exploitation by greedy relatives or neighbors who do not fulfill rights to inheritance, education, health, and other social services, and often suffer from sexual abuse.

Amidst this seemingly hopeless situation, there is a reason for hope. Recent data indicates a significant declining trend in HIV sero-prevalence and incidence. In urban sentinel site surveillance through antenatal clinics all sites showed evidence of significant decline through the first half of the 1990s-by as much as 10% to 15% in same sites. This has resulted from increased knowledge leading to avoidance of risky behaviors. Declining wages and producer prices have further fuelled the plight of poor households leading to household inability to provide for all their members especially children.

According to the World Vision 46% of the population of Uganda still live in absolute poverty and Uganda was ranked the 20th poorest country in the world. HIV/AIDS and the persistent civil strife compound Uganda’s poverty. The phenomenon of single parent and child headed households occurring as a result of HIV/AIDS or armed conflict associated mortality and displacement has put a strain on many already impoverished families (Luyima, 2000). Uganda has an estimated 1.7 million orphans resulting from AIDS a figure in child expected to rise to 3.5 million within 10 years (UNICEF, 2000). Many of these children are staying in child headed households or with grandparents who are themselves in need of care. Left on their own for personal survival or with an additional burden of caring for sibling and grand parents such have became part of the potential child laborers.

Peace,
Jim

2008-01-26T09:53:00.000-05:00

One last greeting from Uganda.

Sorry this didn’t come yesterday. The electricity is erratic here, and I was unable to get online. I wanted to share the last role play, as I believe it is instructive. Just a note on the role play. It involved a couple with two children, a boy and a girl. The family only had school fees (everyone must pay to enroll children), for one child, and the father insisted this be for the boy. The girl, in his mind, needed to be married off. This would solve two problems, he would not have to pay her fees, and he would also receive a bride price (usually a cow or two) in return, which would increase his wealth. He was a Christian man, but he goes out, and finds a Muslim man about his age with three wives, who agrees to marry his daughter. Problems solved! Interesting competing values.

The second role play of the day is the one I want to unpack a bit. It involves a pastor and his wife. The play opens with the wife trying to talk with her husband. A knock comes, and in comes a congregant begging him for school fees. He immediately gives these to the woman. His wife tries to continue the conversation. His cell phone rings and he tells her he must hurry off to an important meeting at church. The play continues, and boundaries continue to be violated in every imaginable way.

At the end of the play there is a heated discussion about the expectations on pastors here. I was told that the pastor, in order to establish legitimacy, must be totally available to congregants. This obviously reaches absurd proportions. In fact the spouse of the pastor is also conscripted into this frantic lifestyle. As a result, many ministers here are burning out from exhaustion and over work.

What followed in my class was a discussion about expectations – that ministers can never meet all of the expectations that are thrown at them. Nor should they. In fact, to attempt to meet these expectations, especially the more “childish” ones that involve healing all childhood wounds, is totally counter-productive to the person seeking the help. I stressed the need to NOT meet expectations, but recalibrate them.

I hope these visits from Uganda have proved provocative. Having a chance to live for a brief time in this culture is truly life-changing. I catch a plane tomorrow back to the states, so the next time I post, I should be safely back in Virginia.

2008-01-24T11:28:00.000-05:00

Another word from Uganda.

I haven't said much about the country here. It is a country that has been ravaged by war, famine and poverty for decades. HIV/AIDS has claimed up to 6% of the population (that would be some 18 million people in the U.S.). People here struggle with disease, illiteracy, hunger, and fear. Fortunately, the government now is somewhat stable. I met with one of my former students today for lunch (who gave me an African robe as a present). He is beginning a new Child Rehab Program that will provide housing, psychosocial support, nurse training, peace building, conflict resolution and child advocacy.People have experienced conflict that we can only dream about in our wildest nightmares, conflicts that have absolutely devastated this country and people. In the midst of this it is amazing to find people that are a delight to know, with broad smiles and welcoming handshakes. But I know that underneath the welcoming demeanor is a life marked by profound suffering.

My students continue to produce the most elaborate role plays, with 4 to 5 acts, props and fine-tuned acting. They put Americns to shame in this regard. My students still present the struggles this culture faces with the seismic adaptive shifts that they face. I have about 5 pastors in my class of 25. They talk about the cases that come to them -- a man marries a first wife, then without telling her, he marries a second and moves her in with the first, expecting the first wife will say nothing about this arrangement. The pastor asks me what he should do about this (polygamy is still somewhat prevalent here). Another asks about pre-marital counseling, asking when it would be most helpful (before the bride price is paid, after the announcement to the parents, during the courtship period). It takes a great deal of effort for me to dissect the culture to understand the question fully.

Conflict here often turns violent, especially within the home. I haven't had occassion to talk about clashing clergy to this point, as my focus has been on marriage and the family. If I have a chance to delve into church conflict, I'll let you know. That's all for now.
Jim

2008-01-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to my first story, two other role-plays involved. The changing roles of men and women in this culture. This is the most profound adaptive issue that I have seen the Ugandans facing. This has been a very traditional society, with carefully prescribed gender roles. Women had the babies and tended to the house and garden. Men went off to work and did little to aid women in child rearing and household tasks. Now with the increasing influence of the West, these gender roles are collapsing. But there is great confusion as to what now should be the "proper" role of the man and the woman. And that is not just in the home, but everywhere.The role plays involve husbands attempting to order their wives around, and generally have their way in the home.
The wives balk at this and refuse to a greater or lesser extent to go along with the old rules. It is obvious that a culture that has been so clearly delineated truly struggles when the pressures of the outside world demand change. The university where I teach is going a long way in attempting to help the students understand and struggle with the adaptive implications of these profound changes. These students, upon graduation, have gone to churches, counseling centers, aids clinics, and court settings where they have been embraced. So it is very gratifying to me to be a part of this adaptive change, aiding these folks as they struggle with the adaptive implications of the momentous societal shifts. Must run to a meeting of faculty now, so will try to post other observations if possible.
Jim

2008-01-23T08:07:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Uganda.
I'm teaching a course here for graduate students in marriage and family counseling. To help cut down on the cultural differences, I have them do a great deal of role playing (which they enjoy). I thought I'd post one of the role plays, as it points of the universality of much of what we talk about. The role play was this:

Mark is a local pastor. He is married, but his wife is childless (which in their culture is a real bad thing). His mother and paternal aunt (who acts in this culture as a surrogate father when the true father is dead) yell at him that he must produce an heir, and continue the bloodline. They insist that this must be done no matter what the circumstances. In the second act of the
role play, Pastor Mark goes out and gets another woman pregnant. In the third act he has a tremendous fight with his wife, who is distraught. In the fourth act his mother and aunt re-enter and rejoice a the same time they scold Mark's wife (the daughter-in-law) for being so selfish. In the final act, the wife scolds Mark for turning against his Christian principles.

What was interesting to me about this story (apart from the boundary issues and intrusion of parents into the children's marriage) was the competing values this represents. Mark is caught by a web of competing values:
1. His Christian values (and as a pastor, he is a chief spokesman for these values)
2. His cultural-tribal values that are wedded to his ...
3. Family of origin values.
His Christian values direct him toward the exclusivity of his wife. And yet, because she is childless, his cultural values scream at him that he is to bear a child, no matter how this is accomplished. He states that his priority of values would be Christian values first, then all other values falling in line below these primary values. But when faced with the competing values, he chooses to trump Christian values with cultural/tribal values.

That's all for now from Uganda. If another intriguing role play appears, I'll post that for you.
Warmly,
Jim

2008-01-02T14:44:00.000-05:00

Actors United… and in Partnership?

By way of introduction: I have been a full-time minister at a mid-size to large church, St. Peter’s, for four years.

While on a recent sabbatical, I left a co-worker, another of our church’s ministers, in charge of much of what I oversee (some things were put on hold for a short time for me to resume upon returning). One of my roles has been overseeing what groups meet in the church during the week. One group in particular, Actors United, a local theater group, has been using the church for many years, long before my arrival. They are well-respected among the congregation, even though their connection to the church lies primarily just in their being space users (though several actors do attend St. Peter’s).

Since I’ve been at St. Peter’s, the various presidents of Actors United (AU) have been in touch with me to explore ways they can “partner” with us and be considered not just “space users” but an actual “ministry of” St. Peter’s. In fact, they are a Christian acting troupe—their mission statement explicitly says so.

I’ve been reluctant to expand the scope of our relationship with them, but am having trouble putting my finger on exactly why. In the couple of meetings I’ve had with their reps, they’ve asked for things like making live announcements in church to promote upcoming plays, recruiting church members to their troupe, putting more permanent fixtures (such as a stage) in our space, and the like. I haven’t been able to accommodate all they have asked for, but I’ve tried to do enough so that they feel like they are more included in the life of the church. As to full “partnership” and fully integrating them as a top-down endorsed ministry of the church, I have avoided the issue and have dealt more with case-by-case requests as they come. And I have a sense that they still want more and a conversation could be helpful. I’m just not sure how to do that.

So one set of pre-existing questions that I’ve basically been ignoring and procrastinating has been: What should I do in response to their requests for a greater partnership with and integration into our church life? How can I go about exploring my reluctance and understanding what issues are at hand? By what criteria (if any) should I determine how to move ahead?

Now add this to the mix: during my sabbatical my stand-in had to be in contact with Actors United because of some props that were left out after a recent production. AU is not the sole user of the space they use, so it posed a problem for groups coming into that space after them. Initially AU was responsive and apologetic about their mess, but it happened again, several times. Finally, in a moment of desperation, my stand-in told them that should the messiness continue, he would remove their name from the list of folks who are authorized to use the space and discontinue our relationship with them.

In response, AU’s president reiterated the good standing they’ve enjoyed at St. Peter’s for many years, the importance of their own ministry, and how they feel they are truly a ministry of the church (not just a space renter). He said, “We are not just space renters that you can ask to leave so dismissively. Maybe we should get together to talk more about our working together in ministry.”

All of this dialogue took place over email.

What had begun as a simple request to keep things clean and tidy escalated into a frustration, a conflict, and now a conversation to be had about “partnership” in ministry.

I learned about all of this on my return from sabbatical. So now the question has been raised again: What should I do in response to AU’s requests for a greater partnership with and integration into our church life?

Now I am also asking: How ought I to work together with my stand-in to do any relational cleanup that is necessary after a somewhat heated email escalation?

And where should I start in all this?

2007-11-24T13:52:00.000-05:00

Bushwhacked by the Board

Background:
I have just completed 10 years at First Church. I have been in the pastoral ministry for 20 years and these past 18 months have been the most difficult in my years of serving churches.

First Church, prior to my leadership, had experienced 10 years of a slow decline. Upon coming, I began to refocus the attention of the congregation to outreach. During these past 10 years, the church has experienced consistent growth – numerically and financially.

In January 2007 the “wheels came off.”

The Elder Board moved against me, calling for my resignation and forcing the resignation of my son who had served as youth pastor for 4 years.

After hiring a consultant to look at where we stood, and what we needed to do, we had added a
§ Saturday worship service
§ Assistant Pastor
§ Admin Asst in Children’s dept.

We also had discussed extensive governance changes -- moving our church from a congregational model to an elder model of governance. We were about ready to present to the congregation for implementation.

The church consultant we hired had found our church, on his evaluative tools, to be “very healthy.” Our highest scores were in the areas of Member Satisfaction, Mission / Outreach / Evangelism, and Church as Community.

In October 2006 we had a change to our elder board. There were 2 new people elected that were not part of the planning process. These individuals were given all the materials to bring them up to speed and a board member offered to coach them about our process of planning and initiatives. I discovered some time following that that one of the new board members declined.

I also discovered that my senior associate pastor, when exiting the planning meetings with the consultant, had disparaged the meetings, the process and the results to some staff and elders.

One of the elders took the responsibility upon himself to talk to some people that have left the church. No, we have not had a "mass exodus."
He had confronted me at a December board meeting about these people that were so hurting and asked me what I thought about that. I told him I would like to talk with him more but I would not be able to speak clearly about it unless I knew who he was referring to. He has a history of coming to the board meetings with an issue and then confronting me rather aggressively, without the courtesy of telling me ahead of time or discussing with me so I can be prepared to respond.

On Sunday, following a meeting of the elders w/o me, he delivered a packet of his "findings". It included a three page letter from him along with letters from about 10 people that had left the church that he had interviewed along with one letter (unsigned) from a support staff and a few letters from some people who are still attending that basically vilified me.

You would not have believed how he presented the "findings" at the board meeting. After he and another board member read 5 different scriptures, making allusions to pastors taking advantage of sheep and not doing their job and God judging them, he then began listing a bunch of words and said, "how do you respond to these issues?"

I had to stop him and say, "I'm sorry, I thought you were still reading Revelation 2:4, would you list those "issues" again please?" I began writing as he listed them... "Intimidating, manipulative, unethical, deceptive, inaction, confidentiality broken, division, lying, nepotism, my way or else, use the pulpit, power corrupts."
He stated, "these are the issues, how do you respond to them?"

I was flabbergasted. Sunday night I had read through the letters from the people who had left and the others and I found that several had inaccurate statements, half-truths and outright fabrications.

I asked why he had chosen to not come in and speak with me as he had said in the last board meeting he would do. He sidestepped my question.
The encounter was adversarial and accusatory immediately.

I asked if they wanted me to address each of the letters individually or just to share my comments. They replied, "speak to the issues." So, I began to address them. As I began to speak, I was interrupted and one of two elders would go off on a long diatribe about my failings and the hurt of these people or bringing up things/issues I had never even heard of before.

I am so grieved by the lack of respect offered, for the lack of biblical process. I asked them if my comments were going to make any difference or were their minds made up already. I started with one. He said I was putting words in his mouth. I stated that my perception was that he had arrived at that meeting with his mind made up. I then asked another if his mind was made up already. He made a few comments and then said, "My mind is already made up." I stated, "So nothing I can say or my commenting on these letters is going to make any difference?" He said, "No". "So you are going to make up your mind having only heard one perspective?" He replied, "yes."

I then went to some of my prepared comments:

1. You need to know that many of these letters contain lies/fiction and half-truths.
In fact, they are not based on facts, but emotions and perceptions.

2. Some of you have arrived at a decision after hearing, reading these letters – that was listening only to one side.

3. Some of you had a decision formed and then went out and found supporting arguments and testimony.

4. In any court system, both sides are heard from before a decision is made.

In fact, scripture is very clear about how these things are to be done.
And that has not been done in this case, at all.

Is my speaking to you tonight going to make any difference?

Do you want to know the truth?

I then began polling some of the other men.

The bottom line at the end of the meeting was one elder was calling for my son (who had been hired to do the youth ministry) to be fired. He said the board had a right to do that. He and two others were calling for me to resign. I referred to the Constitution and Bylaws reminding them that they could not remove me. That could only be done by the membership.
They went ahead and made a motion to go on record of asking for my resignation. It passed 5 in favor, 2 opposed. I have contacted our district leadership and will decide what I am going to do. I can call for a vote from the membership.

In February 2007, I invited our district denominational officials to come and give assistance and intervention (as a result of the elders calling for my resignation). There were five elders who were opposing me and two who supported me.

The district intervention team came and took testimony from myself, my son, staff and the elders. The five adversarial elders demanded binding arbitration.

The district intervention team recommended that the church come under district supervision and the elder board be dissolved. Their first draft of recommendation also included the dismissal of the senior associate pastor.

The district intervention team has also requested that I go through an assessment and coaching process and that the church go through another assessment.

The senior associate pastor was part of ongoing discussions among himself and the opposing elders about my removal. He also polarized people that were loyal to him. He has now left and taken a church out of the area.

How could I have handled this staff person differently or more effectively?

How could I have handled this crisis differently?

What should be my next step?

Stories of Success

2007-11-19T15:16:00.000-05:00

If you have the opportunity to visit the Transforming Church web site you will read about our Transforming Church Institute. The Institute is comprised of pastors like your self. The men and women who make up the institute are located throughout the country and serve congregations of all sizes and denominations. One of our purposes in starting our blog is to provide a forum where these men and women can share with all of us some of the challenges they have faced, what they have learned and how they used the crisis or conflict to heal rather than divide their community.
Please share with us your story so all of us can learn and grow from your experience. Or share with us a challenge you are currently facing with a question or two so that we could offer a few ideas for you to consider.

Joe J

A pastor in trouble

2007-11-13T10:00:00.001-05:00

TAG received a call from the Reverend Bill, Rector of St. Ann’s Episcopal Church, requesting help understanding the organizational dynamics of his church. The rector felt there were unresolved conflicts undermining the growth and development of the parish and hoped that an impartial outside perspective might provide some ideas that would allow the parish to move forward and realize its potential.

The assessment phase of the consultation consisted of; meeting and interviewing the Vestry of St Ann’s, interviewing the Rector and his wife and interviewing the rector’s staff. Everyone was very open and cooperative and clearly had the best interest of St. Ann’s in their heart. Each person shared their thoughts with me about what they had observed regarding the developing tension in the parish. And as is often the case there was a general consensus about the problems of St. Ann’s. But in very rare cases is the agreed upon “identified problem” the actual problem. At Tag we are looking for the actual underlying problem that we call the “Thing in the Bushes”. It is this conflict that is affecting the entire system dynamic but unknown and unrecognized by those closest to the situation.

Understanding the principles and dynamics of your own group or organization after a problem has arisen is nearly impossible, hence the need for an outside perspective. Everyone interviewed identified some or most of the following issues:

· Most parish members strongly supported Father Bill and his ideas
· There were only a few members of the parish in conflict with Father Bill.
· These were people who had been influential in the life and direction of the parish in the past.
· This small group felt displaced by Father Bill
· This group of long time members resented the new ideals that Father Bill brought to the church...
· Father Bill worried too much about the feelings of this small group.
· Father Bill had become too sensitive to the criticism of this group.
· Father Bill needs to handle these particular parish members in a different way.
· There was a general fear that Father Bill would become so discouraged that he would leave St Ann’s.
· Father Mark (the former rector) was loved by everybody and is a hard act to follow.
· People liked the way Father Mark ran the parish.
· Father Mark did not change much in the church.
· Father Mark let some things slide in order to keep peace
· Father Bill confronts many issues and introduces many changes.

While most of the above issues contain some elements of truth many of them contradict each other and provide no real direction for solving the current conflict. More importantly the current conflict as stated may only be a symptom of something that the church as well as the community is facing; something deeper and more difficult to address. There is always the danger of providing symptomatic solutions for symptomatic problems. Solutions that don’t address the underlying conflict may initially relieve tension but invariably create another set of problems that can prove to be even more difficult to resolve.

Voices of dissent in any system, in any organization, provide clues about the more deeply felt but unexpressed pain in the community. However these voices are misinterpreted because they are seen as oppositional or undermining or attacking. It is hard to hear the message when one is being personally attacked, and almost any response to the attack makes the situation worse.

Father Bill finds himself trapped in this very dilemma. He has not really understood the resistance to his initiatives, especially when most of the parishioners apparently agree with his values and vision. No matter what he has tried, no matter how he has handled the conflicts, the situation has grown steadily worse and he has suffered and his family has suffered. Consequently this suffering has created doubt in Father Bill –doubt about his ability to lead and doubt about his vocation. As he has grown more and more depressed he has also struggled with growing bitterness and resentment. He has found it hard to preach the gospel each Sunday. When our hearts are filled with anger it is hard to preach the gospel of love.

Yet Father Bill is hardly alone in this experience of doubt and seeming failure. Many rectors could identify with Father Bill and his struggles. All people in leadership especially those called to deal with the suffering of their people, face these problems. Unfortunately their seminary training does not provide them with even the basic skills necessary to deal with the problems they will encounter in their work. Most folks in these situations do not know where to turn for help. They struggle alone until they are too tired, too beaten, to continue. They resign because they are ineffective and exhausted. With resignation comes failure and failure of course brings with it shame so they are reluctant to share their experience with anyone and they carry the wound forever. I hope we are not to late to help Father Bill. He is a wonderful man and by the way the right man for the job.

What is the problem at St. Ann’s? I can say without any reservation that the problem is not Father Bill, although he as leader has become the lightening rod, the scapegoat if you will. The problems of St. Ann’s began long before Father Bill became rector. Father Mark I am sure experienced the problems as well and might even identify them in the same way as they are now identified. But Father Mark did not threaten the members of the church in the way that Father Bill does. Father Bill has challenged the status quo. He just never realized what he was doing. He never realized that he would stir up such resistance… And when he did, neither he nor the community understood that the gospel and not Father Bill was the real threat. Even more confusing he thought he was doing exactly what the community of St Ann’s called him to do. He thought he was called to bring the gospel, to teach the gospel, to preach the gospel, and hold his self and hold the members of the community accountable for living the gospel. This is what excited him about becoming the rector of the church of St. Ann’s.

The search committee that recommended Father Bill never fully understood that living the gospel would require a change in their behavior. Father Mark was a pastor who tended lovingly to the needs of his flock but he did not challenge them to live the gospel in the way that Father Bill does. The search committee knew they needed a leader that would challenge the community. They knew instinctively that Father Bill would challenge inherent contradictions whenever he saw them. This does not make one popular. Father Bill’s great error was innocence. He was very, very naïve. He thought because the community needed and said they wanted change they would embrace change. They would embrace him and his family. Instead as he confronted the contradictions he saw in Christian values he was attacked. He did not understand this. He felt betrayed and wounded. He personalized the attacks. This only confused him and created shame and guilt in the members of the parish.

The members of the church who had been doing certain things for years and had never been confronted about their behavior felt wounded and betrayed by Father Bill. They did not understand what he was doing or why he was upset. They felt personally attacked by Father Bill. Father Mark had never confronted them in this way and their only response to Father Bill was to attack back.

As this dynamic unfolds a recursive pattern is immediately set in place because people in the community misperceive the conflict. The conflict is played out in the community as more and more people take sides. And because the discussion in the community is never at the level of the conflict (about the living the gospel, and not Father Bill) the situation worsens and the divisions grow. The outcome if unchecked is always bad. Everything supports the problem. In this case even the surrounding economic context serves to intensify the feelings of failure that everyone is now experiencing. Corrective action is needed and needed now. Here is a list of recommendations to begin the healing process and preserve the community of St. Ann’s.

Recommendations

Near Term

· Father Bill must begin to de-intensify the conflict
· He must begin to re-build relationships one at a time and over time
· He must initiate discussions with those that disagree with him.
· Father Bill must depersonalize the situation. The conflict is about values not people. (He misunderstood the conflict was directed at his role, not at his person). He did not have to embrace the attacks as personal, even though they came packaged this way.
· He must realize that those who attack him do not really understand what the real conflict is.
· He must work to clarify the conflict for all the community.
· He must recognize his own emotional responses
· He must become aware of when others are reacting to him.
· He must recognize the weight of the authority he carries and how people respond to his authority.
· He must recognize situations in which he creates anxiety for the community
· He must change the pace of change. He felt he had a mandate to change St. Ann’s overnight. That simply was not going to happen. The anxiety created by this pace was too high.

Long Term

· Father Bill must build shared vision in the community.
· Building shared vision requires building a shared values structure and that requires building consensus in the community for those values.
· Developing a strategic plan with the vestry and other church leaders for the future direction of the St. Ann’s. (Mission and Vision)

Notes

· In this article we’ve used terms that can be more fully explained by going to our website, http://www.transformingchurch.net/. Our book, Thriving Through Ministry Conflict should prove helpful.We’re also posting explanations of key concepts that should also b

Welcome

2007-11-12T16:32:00.000-05:00

Welcome to our new blog called clashing clergy. Our intent is to support church leaders who are dealing with conflict on a daily basis but do not feel they have the skills needed to navigate these turbulent waters. It is our belief that ministry IS conflict. Conflict is not something to be avoided at all costs. It is a necessary, and potentially useful tool that allows the community to make progress on their deepest concerns. Welcome to the journey.

To get started, you might like to take in our website at www.transformingchurch.net. There you will find the book we've written, Thriving Through Ministry Conflict.