<div class="text-justify"> 

![Screenshot_20240802-121357.jpg](https://images.hive.blog/DQmUjsZyWtiFywoyw3vCWbLQEKLfRXw3q22YWyCco43jL4t/Screenshot_20240802-121357.jpg)


The church board members of Broadview Community Church got quite a surprise when they arrived at a meeting their pas- tor called before church one Sunday morning. They all had known about the meeting for most of the week, but no one knew the pur- pose of the meeting. If they expected it to be routine, it was any- thing but that. When they were all assembled, Pastor Al spoke.
“I’ve called this meeting to show you a questionnaire I intend to require all church members to fill out at the close of the service today. Some of the questions are for the purpose of updating our files on church members. These questions ask a person’s address and how long he or she has attended Broadview. Other questions, however, have to do with the lifestyle guidelines in our denomina- tional policy manual. They ask whether a person smokes, drinks alcohol, or goes to the movies. I’ve become very concerned about reports of members who are living a lifestyle that is not in harmo- ny with those guidelines. This is particularly  disturbing to me when I hear it about those who hold positions of leadership in the church. 

As you know, our annual church board elections are com- ing up in a few weeks. After looking at the results of this question- naire, I will instruct our nominating committee that it may consid- er only those members who are living a life in accord with those guidelines. ”
Several members immediately raised their hands. They wanted to know who had put the questionnaire together, and the pastor acknowledged that he had done it himself, closely following the denominational policy manual. They asked for more time to look at the questionnaire and discuss it before the pastor passed it out to the membership. Pastor James asked if any of the board members had a problem with the requirement that church leaders live in accord with the denominational guidelines.
Bob spoke up.  “No, I don’t, Pastor. But I have to tell you, if people are not living according to those guidelines, I’m not sure this is the way to deal with it. I’m afraid this questionnaire will tear this church apart".

Emmanuela raised her hand.  “Pastor, if I understand what you’re saying, if my term is up and I check on my questionnaire that I at- tend movies, I would not be eligible for reelection. ”
“That’s right, Emmanuela, but I know that wouldn’t be a problem for you. ”
Emmanuela shook her head.  “I have to agree with Bob. I’m really afraid of what this is going to do to our church. Can’t you put this off so we can talk about it?”
“If we put it off, we won’t be able to do this before the church board elections. That means we’ll have to wait another year. We need to address this situation now before we get more people in leadership positions who don’t fit the guidelines of our denomination. ”
When asked if the board was going to vote on the questionnaire, the pastor said that it was not, but that he would not tell the church members that the board had approved it.
“Do you plan to tell them that the results will be used to deter- mine who is eligible for church board elections?” asked Mike.

“By  all means,” Pastor James responded.  “People need to know how this information will be used. ”
Helen stood up and addressed the pastor. “Pastor, I’ve been a part of this church for over  15 years and on the board for  10. I can’t sit idly by and watch you destroy this church, and I don’t want my name associated with this questionnaire in any way. My letter of resignation from my board position will be on your desk in the morning. This is wrong, Pastor. I have no objection to you wanting people to live by denominational guidelines, but this is not the way to go about it.” Helen walked out of the meeting. 

When Pastor James proceeded with having church members fill out the questionnaire after the morning service, there was an immediate and strong reaction. Many members could not believe that the pastor was so callous and insensitive. Some of the board members who were losing their positions had given many years of service and thousands of dollars to the church.
Helen's letter of resignation was on Pastor James' desk the next morning as promised, along with the resignations of two other key board members. Several families immediately stopped attending. Others who were offended stayed to try to help the church work through the crisis. Later on, many of these families also stopped attending.

Attendance  dropped  and financial  contributions plummeted. Pastor James was obviously not pleased to see what was happening. However, he was  convinced he had made the right  decision. If members were going to hold leadership positions in the church, they should be models of the lifestyle guidelines described in the denominational policy manual.

A group of seven or eight families that left the church decided to begin holding Bible studies on their own until they could sort out their options and decide what they were going to do. They didn’t want to see their families go without the spiritual nourish- ment they needed at this time, and they didn’t want to lose con- tact with other families they knew and loved through their church affiliation. Wayne served as the leader of the group, but he felt in- adequate to provide spiritual guidance. He decided to call Pastor John, a retired minister of the denomination living in the area who was also a close friend of some members of the group.
Helen told Pastor John about what had happened and asked him if he would be willing to lead a Bible study for the group until a decision could be made about what they were going to do.

Pastor John knew that Pastor James would be very unhappy with him if he started meeting with the group, but he agreed to do it. When James found out, he consulted the denominational leader for his area, and they both agreed that as long as Pastor John continued to meet with the group, the group was not likely to return to the church. The denominational leader advised Pastor James to call John and request that he stop meeting with the group.
When James called John to make this request, he informed John that he  and the denominational leader both believed that John was contributing to the breakup of the church. John defended his action by saying that he was only giving spiritual guidance to the group while decisions were being made about what the group was going to do.
The conversation ended with Pastor James threatening to recommend that John’s denominational credentials be rescinded.

“Well, I’m sorry about that, Pastor,” John told James in parting, “not just for myself but for you and the church, because you have the opportunity to build a strong, dynamic church at Broadview, and you’re in the process of tearing it apart. ”
The next day Pastor John received a second phone call, this time from Catherine, the denominational leader in the area. Catherine repeated the request that John discontinue meeting with the families that had left the church. 

Again, John kindly, but firmly, asserted that he would continue to meet with them until they figured out what they were going to do. 

All of the members who were meeting in the Bible study immediately contacted Al to say they were withdrawing their membership from the church. They and Pastor John also withdrew from the denomination. The group discontinued  meeting,  and the  families went their  own ways, mostly joining other denominations. It would be many years be- fore Broadview would return to the size and vitality it had known before the conflict.

Twenty years later, a subsequent pastor of Broadview Commu- nity  Church who  had  no part in the  conflict  heard  about the
events that had torn apart the congregation in days gone by. He decided a healing service was needed if there was ever to be any binding up of the wounds that the conflict had inflicted upon the congregation. The families that had left the church were invited to come to the service and many of them did. While all expressed ap- preciation for the pastor reaching out to them, none returned to the church or the denomination. It’s hard to calculate the long- term damage brought on by this conflict.

While names  and  some  details were  changed to protect the identities of those involved, the essential facts have been reported just as they occurred. Mishandled  conflict  can wreak havoc in  church. People  are traumatized  and  lives  are  turned  upside  down.  Children  and young Christians get a poor image of what the church should be like. The image the church portrays to the community is hardly one that demonstrates Christian love. Mishandled conflict sends the message that the church has no better means of addressing its problems than do groups outside the church. 

Church leadership ranks are depleted, persons who were instrumental in carrying out the  duties  of the  church  leave,  and  important  aspects  of the church’s work will go undone. The financial support base of the church is drastically eroded. Serious conflict can produce grave, negative effects on the life and ministry of the church and its peo- ple. Great harm is done to the work of God and His kingdom.
There wasn’t necessarily anything wrong with the Broadview church before the conflict arose. As a matter of fact, the church was really quite healthy, effectively reaching the community with the gospel message.
When the conflict developed, it showed that there were signifi- cant  differences  among members  as to what the  qualifications should be for leadership positions. The conflict also demonstrated that the congregation didn’t have an effective way of identifying and dealing with differences within the church. This is undoubtedly true of many churches.

Differing  opinions within  a  church  does  not  mean that the church is a “sick” organization. Healthy churches exist and prosper while maintaining and managing significant differences among their members. As  a matter  of fact, the  conflict  experienced  at Broadview presented both pastoral staff and laity with a potentially valuable opportunity for learning and growth.

Conflict  can provide  an  opportunity to grow  and  develop; it does not have to be equated with illness that weakens the body and must be eradicated. It can be an opportunity to learn about yourself and how you manage under tension. It can be an oppor- tunity to practice new behaviors and assess their relevance to other conflicts.

The staff and members of "Broadview Community Church" could have had very profitable discussions on the lifestyle guidelines in the denominational policy manual. This would have permitted all parties to express their perspectives while also learning the views of others. These discussions would have helped the members of Broadview know and understand each other better. People could have learned that deeply committed members will sometimes dis- agree with other deeply committed members.

How differently this would have turned out if Pastor Al had an- nounced  that  there  was  to be  an  open  forum  to  discuss  the lifestyle guidelines in the denominational policy manual. The stat- ed purpose for the  discussion  could be to  determine what role those guidelines would have in upcoming church elections.

This was  an  outstanding  opportunity for that role to be  determined from within the membership itself rather than imposed by congre- gational authority. This  opportunity was lost, however, because the conflict was mismanaged.
This is not to say that after those discussions there would not have been some members leave the church. Some members may have understood those guidelines in a new way. 

Others may have discovered there was strong support for the guidelines. Still others may have realized that they had little chance of getting leadership positions in the church. Any one of these people could have con- cluded that there was a better fit for them in another denomina- tion  and left the  church.  If that had happened, however, they would have left with much better feelings about the pastor and the denomination and with fewer feelings of resentment and hostility.

“Conflicts  are power  struggles  over differences”  
(Halverstadt 1991, 4). The fact that these differences exist does not mean that the church is in conflict, however. Differences should be expected since people  come into  churches from  a wide variety  of back- grounds that have determined their attitudes, beliefs, and values. They also come with different views on what it means to be “the church.” Conflict develops when opinions, positions, and propos- als clash with regard to choices the church is making concerning its ministry. If a struggle erupts over whose proposals, positions, and opinions will prevail, the church is in conflict.

Differences in values lie at the heart of the most bitter church conflicts. Some members value structure and order in the church service while others value spontaneity and informality. Some per- sons value reaching out into the community while others place more value on building up the Body of Christ. Some members val- ue impressive church buildings to attract new people, while others value media outreach.

Our values  determine what we believe  and how we  see the world. Conflicts in church are often centered around the values that are held most dear. When that happens, we can expect the conflicts to be intense, highly emotional, and difficult to resolve.
Both Pastor James and the members who left Broadway Community Church would probably have said that their goal was to provide the best leadership for the church. The two factions, however, had very different values for determining what makes a person a good church leader.

Pastor James placed a high value on conformity to denominational lifestyle guidelines. He wanted lay leaders who would model those guidelines as an example to young Christians and to the new peo- ple who were coming into the church.
The dissenting members would have put commitment to the church  as  a local body  as their primary value  for  determining church leadership. They wanted people who demonstrated a will- ingness to commit their time and resources toward the church’s
mission. This is not to say that they had no value for following denominational guidelines, but this was not their primary value.

The stage was set for either an in-depth and helpful discussion of the role the guidelines should play in church elections or a hurtful, destructive conflict with long-term, negative consequences for the church.
Another difference at the heart of the conflict in the Broadview case was  a  difference  of opinion  as to how  church leadership should be selected. There were members who left the church who totally agreed with Pastor James in putting faithfulness to denomina- tional lifestyle guidelines as nonnegotiable for determining church leadership but  differed  strongly with the  manner in which he chose to implement that value. The value of their friends and col- leagues  and for what they  considered fair treatment  of church members took precedence over their value for the denominational guidelines  or for the pastor himself. They therefore joined the group of those who left the church. Some members valued their relationship with Pastor John, and they left the denomination be- cause of the way he was treated by the pastor and the denominational official.

A difference in values is latent conflict until one or both parties choose to use the power available to them to incorporate those values into the church decision-making process. Pastor James used his power as the pastor to determine which members met his criteria for church leadership and to keep those who did not meet the cri- teria off the ballot. The displeased members used their power by withholding resources the church badly needed. When the power struggle begins, church conflict is no longer latent.
Most difficult church conflicts are power struggles over value differences. The value differences spurring most church conflicts today  center  around worship  styles,  decision-making processes, methods of interpreting Scripture, just to name a few.

It’s important to note that the use of power in working out val- ue differences does not necessarily ensure a negative outcome. If constructive means of addressing their differences had been pur- sued by both “powers” at Broadview, the church could have generated new power for the achievement of the church’s mission. They could have formed stronger relationships in the church’s in- frastructure on which to build future church growth. They could have developed effective means for dealing with future conflicts that would have resulted in less disruption of the church’s work of taking the gospel to a needy world.

Well-handled  conflict produces positive  energy for  a  church. It’s called conflict transformation, and it’s a hot topic today. The term was  apparently  first used by John  Burton in  1988  (Dane 1988, 1). What we mean by this term is that the parties to the con- flict work through it in such a constructive manner that significant learning and development occurs in the lives of the individuals in- volved as well as in the church as a whole. God is able to use the openness and vulnerability of both pastor and people to make one new creation empowered by His Spirit to carry out His mission in the world with greater power than they had ever known before.

**DISCLAIMER:**
This is a book as indicated by the front cover page. I find it interesting on handling church conflicts, so I decided to share it with you in this platform. I am not the owner or author.

![Screenshot_20240802-121357.jpg](https://images.hive.blog/DQmUjsZyWtiFywoyw3vCWbLQEKLfRXw3q22YWyCco43jL4t/Screenshot_20240802-121357.jpg)


</div>