How Shall We Handle Open Conflict?

In a three-part series starting with today’s post, my plan is to put forward thoughts on what is happening in the PCUSA and the short- and long-term scenarios playing out.  The most recent, jarring event is the open refusal of Redwoods Presbytery to go along with the GAPJC’s decision in Spahr v. Redwoods and rebuke her for conducting same-sex marriages. The fine points of the judicial ruling are being debated (for an excellent discussion, see Steve Salyards’ GA Junkie post), but the “spirit of the law” most definitely was violated by the ambush perpetrated upon a presbytery. In the same week, we have witnessed two presbyteries (Tropical Florida and Mississippi) graciously dismiss a total of thirteen congregations to other Reformed bodies.

These events, and coincidentally my topic with seminary students Monday night, prompted me to consider the behavior of various groups and people dealing with the conflict in the PCUSA. We can say more emphatically than ever that we are experiencing open conflict now crossing the lines of orderliness and covenant-keeping into anarchy and betrayal. In general, this behavior does not commend Jesus Christ to the world, does not promote the peace, unity, and purity of the church, and does not solve the Big Problem we have as a denomination.

So today I would first like to offer some insight from conflict mode analysis, in the terms used by the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. People handle conflict differently: some can be very confrontational and others can be conflict-avoiders. A most frustrating profile involves passive-aggressive behavior. The Thomas-Kilmann instrument identifies five modes of handling conflict: 

Avoidance, Competition, Accommodation, Compromise, and Collaboration. Each of these modes finds its place on a matrix formed by two axes: An Assertiveness scale, measuring the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns and a Cooperativeness scale, measuring the extent to which the person attempts to satisfy the other’s concerns. My seminary professor David Augsburger named these axes the Assertiveness scale and the Relational scale, as I have done here.

Avoidance is a common response of pastors to conflict, and we see this throughout the church in reference to the Present Troubles. On an individual level, avoidance seems the path of least resistance when time is short and local ministry needs are pressing. Pastors and their congregations burrow down, keep their heads low, and protect their fellowship simply by not getting involved in the yard fight their brothers and sisters are having. Sometimes based on the false assumption that what happens over there won’t upset our sandbox over here, conflict avoiders isolate themselves (hence, low-relational). But then,  if required to emerge from their isolated corner, they are surprised to discover blood on the pavement, twisted playground equipment, and bullies yelling at each other.  And back to their safe corner they go.

Accommodation belongs to those who, at the expense of asserting their own concerns, seek to please those with whom they disagree in order to keep the peace. Its name suggests that this group seeks to blend in, to refrain from differentiating (which would be assertive), and go with the flow wherever it carries them.  The PCUSA is struggling with (and perhaps has succumbed to) cultural accommodation; just compare the rhetoric/arguments related to California’s Prop 8 legal case with the pro-gay-marriage presbyters to see that the church has capitulated to cultural values and adopted its vocabulary.

Competition is the conflict mode that seeks to win, to get the prize, and to render powerless the opposition. We have seen this mode in play, on both sides of the aisle, for years. And no, I don’t think we have Robert’s Rules to blame for this, for it is quite possible to conduct a thoughtful, nuanced, and compassionate debate by following the rules, which do in the end help us as a body to make a decision. The problem has become the introduction of ungodly choices to our options list and a vocal minority who have elbowed their way onto the playing field not only to change the rules but to change the game.

Compromise as a response to conflict is the result of the two parties willing to give up some things in order to attain others. “The objective,” according to the Thomas-Kilmann website, “is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. . . . In some situations, compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution.” In the current PCUSA landscape, I think the Mid-Council Commission Report represents a compromise in its recommendations, not to say other compromises might not also be introduced at the GA. Evangelical/orthodox Presbyterians consider some doctrinal issues to be non-negotiable, which makes compromise a dirty word to them, by definition a relinquishment of “purity” as a goal for our fellowship.

Collaboration is high in assertiveness because it requires full exploration of one’s own needs or concerns in order to find bridges to the other, and is high in cooperativeness because it requires active engagement relationally to empathize and to find a creative solution in which both parties “win.” This of course is the arena that seems to have broken down completely, especially in the Redwoods Presbytery example, where covenant with each other (by orchestrating an ambush) and with the PCUSA (by defying an order of a higher council) has been violated. Collaboration requires a level playing field, equal access to the playground structures, mutually agreed upon game rules, and a firm referee.

The circumstance we have is of deep-seated conflict around theology, values, and philosophies of life that are incompatible with each other. It is time for two irreconcilable bodies within the Body to separate, as a sign of mutual respect, to facilitate renewed mission in the name of Jesus Christ, and to promote healing of congregations and members. This I would consider the Great and Necessary Compromise for the PCUSA. If we do not find an amicable and humble way to do this, our members will seek their own healing in other bodies rather than subject themselves to the abuse that afflicts them in ours. I understand these feelings to be held deeply by members on both sides of the aisle. So it seems to be that we all have a stake in finding a way to break up this schoolyard fight, acknowledge our irreconcilable differences, and move on to separate areas to flourish according to the rules we can live by. Perhaps Tropical Florida and Mississippi have gotten it right; I am pretty sure that the departing congregations will flourish, and the remaining churches will be able to gather their energies around a more unified understanding of their call, too. In the end, the Kingdom of God is served while its citizens are chastened and challenged to live out their repentance as the true sign of God at work.