Learning to Disagree

Controversy at parish meetings is nothing new. It actually began from the very start of Christendom. In the 1^st century at the Church of Jerusalem the Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised. There were those that opposed this theological idea and argued against it. The arguments became quit heated!

Arguments in the young church can be found throughout Paul’s Epistles. Conflict is normal and we still deal with issues that divide us today. Therefore we should work in good faith with one another to bring some sort of collaborative conclusion to whatever topic it is that divides us. Name-calling and isolation do not solve the problems. We have to remember that we are all on the same team with the same goal in mind; to love and honor Christ. When we personalize issues then they become much more about us than about working to spread the Kingdom of God.

We need to look at our commonalities rather than our differences. It is from there that we are able to build bridges to one another and lay and firm foundation in which to amicably present our arguments. All to often we find ourselves in the competitive mode in which the argument becomes about winning and losing. While in some cases this is a course we must take, they are rare. Rather we need to learn to view each other as fellow Christians in whom we are in relationship. From this perspective we are able to work from a more collaborative format.

Fighting amongst each other often creates schism, isolation and ill will. If it somehow leaves the vestry and enters the congregation then situations can rapidly become quite nasty, and much harder to contain.

We have to learn to disagree fairly and in love. We are all entitled to our opinions and perspectives. But unless we listen to those who disagree with us with an open mind, we miss the opportunity to work together to resolve an issue in an amicable manner. Once communication breaks down then the meeting becomes out of control as well as unproductive. Often we end up compromising and that leaves both sides feeling like they gained nothing. Thus the argument will continue to pop up and raise its ugly head, not only in meetings but in the congregation as well.

Of course there is the avoidance factor in which people on the committee or vestry simply don’t engage in the argument no matter how they feel. Perhaps they are afraid of conflict, as it is always uncomfortable. Nevertheless, avoidance should only be used under special circumstances. We all have something worth adding to the argument whether we think so or not.

Occasionally we find ourselves accommodating the other person we are in disagreement. Accommodation is unhealthy as we chose to abandon our beliefs and concede to the other. Perhaps it is an intimidating individual or a person we wish to avoid engaging in disagreement. Regardless, we lose a piece of ourselves when we bend over backwards to accommodate someone out of sheer fear.

Anger and shouting matches never accomplish anything good. They divide the group, create boundaries and make it difficult for the committee of vestry to accomplish anything. This should be avoided at all cost (a positive sense of avoidance).

In conclusion, building-trusting relationships is the best way to manage conflict. It is on these grounds that we are able to collaboratively work together in a respectful manner to solve the problem. And who knows, in the end we might just end up laughing together about struggle!