Tag: conflict resolution

The Current Context

Over the last few weeks and months, I have noticed an interesting trend in the church world. One that is both a little concerning and an opportunity to be embraced.

I like to read stories from around the world from Christian news aggregators. It makes it easier to keep up with some of the various events involving the Church. But, in reading various stories, I have seen some issues that probably would have escaped my notice before.

In the last year, I have noticed that there have been more than a few issues surrounding church structures and conflict resolution. These issues have been discussed in a variety of denominations, communions, and reformations. In particular, the question of how conflicts are resolved (or left unresolved) have been particularly prominent.

Of particular interest is how these issues have taken place across theological traditions and ecclesiological forms of governance. The nature of the various circumstances have ranged from the local church to the national level of denominations. And in almost every instance the breakdown occurred when the polity of the organization was not followed.

I am sure these issues have always existed. Whenever you have two or more people together you will run the risk of conflict arising. It is the nature of human beings seeking to live in peace. But, when we work together, establish a common system for managing conflict, and then those rules are violated, we cannot be surprised when the situation gets worse.

The Practical Benefit of Polity

When we think about issues surrounding conflict in the church, we don’t always consider the impact of our ecclesiology. This alone reveals a severe deficit in the Church’s recognition of the role of polity in the overall life of the church.

The structures we inherit or create to achieve common cause are vitally important. While not always at the top of our thinking, when we fail to consider the way our local congregations and greater missional connections are designed to operate, we put our effectiveness at risk.

It is rather unfortunate for leaders at all levels of an organization not to understand how decisions are made and conflicts resolved within their particular polity.

The fact of the matter is a lack of understanding regarding the governing processes an organization employs will lead to conflicts and tension that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated.

The Critical Function of Ecclesiology

One of the most critical functions of ecclesiology is to provide the framework for conflict resolution. It does other things too (which we will address in other articles). But, for now, the issue of conflict resolution is of primary interest.

Our ecclesiology guides how we address conflicts and what a process of reconciliation looks like.

Not only does our Church’s ecclesiology inform how we do ministry, how we understand our various roles and responsibilities in the body of Christ, it does something as important. It provides the pathway from the conflict to a restoration of peace.

Given this function, it becomes incumbent upon the leaders of any organization to have a clear understanding of the processes already in place.

Could there be reason for emendation? Of course. However, these options are taken up when the current procedures are found to be lacking in helping achieve a resolution.

This is why, when there is an indifference to the ecclesial structures, unhealthy patterns begin to take root in a church or organization. What’s more, what could have been dealt with quickly (even if there are tensions and difficulties) can become counterproductive to the overall mission of the organization.

There is no reason to complicate the processes of decision making and conflict resolution. These will already be difficult if the situation is complex. But when we are not adequately knowledgable in what those structures are and how they work, that is exactly what happens.

Conclusion

My purpose in this reflection is not to overly simplify what our church’s or organization’s ecclesiology can do. I want to highlight the fact many times, when we need a way of addressing points of tension and contention, we abandon the frameworks we have been using for doing ministry. This is unwise. And doing so reveals either an ignorance of the structure or a lack of confidence in them.

Let me put it simply.

We need ecclesiology especially when the decision making process and the conflict resolutions process are threatened with breaking down. Why? Because, in the case of churches, their ecclesiology serves as an institutional and historical reminder of who they are and how they do things.

One of the mistakes we have made in the Church, particularly in recent years, is we have ignored the structures of our churches when things are going well. But when the difficulties arise, we do not have enough awareness of how “we” make decisions to do so in ways that are consistent with our understanding of who we are as a congregation or organization.

This pattern has to be corrected. Both for the sake of missional effectiveness, but also to promote institutional cohesion.

In the face of external and internal factors, a failure to adhere to ones polity threatens to derail the purpose for which the church or organization exists.