| How to Communicate Disagreement in the Church
Every church of every size will have disagreements among its members, on everything from budget issues to blue jeans in worship. How should church communicators view these disagreements, and more importantly, how should church leaders handle disagreement as an ongoing ministry challenge?
The Word says "unity". A myth of those who may foster dissent in the church is that disagreement is just a part of life, both inside the church as well as outside. That is an unbiblical view. Throughout the New Testament we see many examples and commands related to unity in the body of Christ.
- In Ephesians 4:1-13 we are told to "walk in a manner worthy of our calling" and to "maintain the unity of the Spirit".
- In 1 Peter 3:8 we are commanded to "have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind".
- Philippians 1:27: Paul says to "behave as citizens worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel".
- Philippians 2:2 says to be "of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind".
Clearly we are to be like-minded, unified, working toward a common purpose and goal. Unity is the model and the standard, not the exception. The New Testament example is a church that outsiders looked at with awe in part because they were of one mind at at peace with one another. Does this sound like your church?
The "authenticity" argument. A second myth related to disagreement in the church is that we are not being truthful, authentic believers if we lock our jaws and smile through our anger or dissent--that unity for the sake of appearance comes off as "holier than thou" to non-believers. We can adopt an attitude of "righteous disagreement" and place our argument or viewpoint ahead of other concerns.
Here we are faced with the heart of the matter, because the authenticity question causes us to ask, "What image are we trying to protect?" Are we most concerned with our personal image or our local body's image in the eyes of non-believers? Or, should our concerns about what people might think of us bow to a much greater concern: what will they think of our God? "Authenticity" is one of those vague churchy words on which we can place great emphasis, but without biblical foundation, and worse, a re-ordering of priorites that does not solve anything.
We carry Christ's reputation. Hebrews 13 is a tremendous instructional passage on the focus and unity of the church. The chapter ends with a reminder that our work is chiefly for the glory of God on earth, and that Christ's work in us is to bring Himself ultimate glory through our actions. When we look at dissent and disagreement, we must ask, "Whose reputation will be damaged by improper handling of this issue?' Often our own reputations are of no concern to one party or the other. But if both parties call themselves followers of Chist, then ultimately it must be Christ's reputation that we guard first, above our own issues and interests.
If, then, there is disunity in our church, our goal must not be to "take a vote, majority rules" or for a leader to declare "my way or the highway". Rather, we must work to restore unity in the body to accomplish the purpose and mission of the church. This is done for the sake of Christ's reputation in the world. If non-believers see us arguing among ourselves, then forget what they think of us--what must they think of Christ? Can we not solve our issues in a way that promotes unity and glorifies Christ, so that even in our disagreements others will see His presence in us? That is a tall order, and one in which most of us, including myself, fall far short of the standard.
Which brings us to communication. The task of leading the body through these issues is ultimately for church leaders. In church disagreements, unity is the standard and Christ's reputation is to be protected. Biblical principles follow here as well--we should go to a person one-on-one to work out differences. Failing that, we should go with a brother or sister in Christ. Failing that, deacons, elders or leaders should take up the issue. That's the simple biblical model for conflict resolution and the escalation of authority in the church. But for the purpose of this webiste, how should church communicators act or react in the face of disagreement? A few suggestions:
We do not air our diagreements in public. In the age of the internet, email and instant blogs on every topic imaginable, it's terribly easy to build a forum for dissent or debate in a public place, accessible to everyone. Over the years, in arguments from leadership style to worship songs to budget battles, I have seen church members who would never speak up to anyone within the walls of the church start online campaigns outside the church in an effort to influence decision making. In a few cases I've watched in horror as another church's internal issue played out on local television news.
This is absolutely wrong, and I believe is actually creating dissentions and factions, acts of the sinful nature described in Galatians 5:20. Such activity has no place in the body. If faced with this dillemma, I would encourage chuch leaders to approach the party biblically and try to resolve the issue privately. Failing that, however, they should in some cases be cast out of the church, if we are to follow what the New Testament teaches about such sin as being typical of those who are not believers.
The internet is an inappropriate forum for disagreement in the church. I have seen church controveries in the United States play out on blogs and websites. People in the church and outside the church take one side or the other and battle it out in postings, Bible references in hand. Who does this glorify? I would not even dare apply the adjective "well meaning" to these people. They are embarrassing themselves, their church and their God. By New Testament standards, any forum that does not bring God glory in its use for a significant disagreement in the church body is simply unbiblical.
Create forums for discourse and discussion. Sometimes dissent or disagreement comes when there is no clear avenue for expressing a viewpoint. Don't assume that people with a grievance will simply call the chuch office and make an appointment with the appropriate staff member. I have seen this often in church business meetings, which are called for one specific purpose, but end up being an open mic night to talk about anything of concern to the membership because it's the only time many believe they are given a forum for discussion.
I've concluded many statements or write-ups on decisions at churches over the years with a phrase like, "If you have questions or concerns, please call or email...". This simple addition creates a clear avenue for making a point. Discussion and Q&A forums can also be helpful--I've seen these done on a per-ministry basis versus churchwide to limit topics. Here again, I think that a personal forum as opposed to an electronic one is important. Emails and blog postings are not appropriate forums to take up a discourse on disagreements within the church. People say things with more fervor (even hatred) in an email than they would ever express in person--and this often clouds the real issue and creates additional issues in the process.
Keep church matters to the church, and personal matters personal. Issues of doctrine, preaching and teaching, dissemination of budget funds, strategy and direction--disagreement on these issues affect the body of Christ and should be dealt with biblically, and by church leaders in an organized manner. I am always willing to talk with and open the Word to study and learn from another believer who may take issue with me on a point of theology or interpretation of scripture. These disagreements can be healthy.
However, I've often been called upon to "settle an issue" between two Christian brothers, only to find neither has approached the other to reconcile the situation. So I'm asked to become "The People's Court" for the argument. In this case, I always point the person back to the Word, and suggest my role is moot until they first attempt to work it out with their neighbor. If I am asked to go with a brother to mediate in a conflict with another believer after their own effort has failed, my role then becomes reconciler--how can we biblically settle the issue so that all parties are reconciled to one another in the body at the conclusion? Anything less than this result is not biblical. We are one in the body of Christ--it simply is not acceptable to "go our separate ways" as a solution.
What do we say? Ultimately, any time the church must officially comment on a controversial issue (within the body), or announce a decision that may generate dissent within the church, I think, "What can I say here that will glorify Christ?" Sometimes, that means saying less instead of more. Most of the time it means providing an avenue for follow up and comment.
Disagreement is inevitable. But we must not succomb to unchurched means of settling our differences. And we must keep in mind at all times that we are representing not ourselves or our own viewpoint, but our God to those around us and those outside the church. If we do not ask "What will people think of Christ as a result of this conflict?" during the process of discussion and reconciliation, we are quite simply asking the wrong question.
 For Further Reading On This Topic...
> Click for more books and periodicals on aligning (intention).
About the Author. Eugene L. Mason has more than two decades of experience in ministry communications and technologies. More...
Copyright Eugene L. Mason. All rights reserved. 031109
|
