Summary Of Church Conflict From Contention To Collaboration

According to the writer antagonist is a virulent disease in the church (Hug. 23). A body cannot regard attack on a single part as an inconsequential threat requiring no response by other parts. This case study is conflict over a woman as a pastor or in authority. Congregations face these type of issues, which is belief issues (Everist. 17).

Level one: Problem solves the traditionally, fundamentalism has often held that women are not permitted to teach, men or to hold office of authority over men in the church. However, the church that has held these beliefs is now conforming to allowing women to pastor and hold office. The problem is the committee consists of all men with the chairperson being 90 years of age. They are the founding member and are very rigid and authoritative in their belief concerning women in authority. The 90 years of age

show signs of at least two of the personality characteristics.
A congregation may face the controversial issue of what kind of music is acceptable.

One must ask themselves, what is the nature of the church? What do they believe about God? A congregation may face conflict over the issue of evangelical issues to the issue of women as pastor. According to the writer, Norma Cook Everist; in his book” Church Conflict from Contention to Collaboration. These issues are distinguished as “intergroup conflict”, conflicts within one, and “intergroup conflict, “between and among groups (Everist. 17). the decision has created strife and anger between the committee and layperson(s). The atmosphere in the church has become unpleasant and uncomfortable in the presence of one another. The younger congregation has been waiting for an opportunity to express their concerns and convictions. The straightforwardness of the younger parishioner causes the committee to feel threatened, that the church will divide. The meeting has caused division and hurt feeling on both sides. The participant must be able to listen and think logically before the conflict become worst, dividing the congregation into “two

camps”.
Level two: Disagreements: The congregation brings forth their argument of the committee holding all the power and control in the church. The layperson(s) use language such as, “you always”, “some people”, or “certain family” and some time being sarcastic in their expression of the situation. However, the committee feels it has a duty and that is to the protecting of the name of the church and the standards it has held for centuries. The committee use scripture to convince the congregation of why a woman was not allowed to pastor or hold office; such as the scripture that the woman was easily deceived than a man, but there was a lack of supporting evidence of such (1 Timothy 2: 2-8). At this point, it is to convince both parties to come to a share point of view. Therefore, the compromising approach was to allow the woman to be called missionary. Compromising mean going half way in order to end a conflict and reach an agreement (Everist. 135). Whereas compromise offers a way for all to have an equal role in a solution to the conflict, some people may be “more equal than other (Everist. 135).
Level three: Contest: The opposite side disagrees with the compromising of calling the women missionary. This would mean that they still would have to remain as they are without license to stand in the pulpit or to hold office. The title has just changed, but the position is still the same.
Level four: Fight/flight: The congregation now believes that things will stay the same. People become “cold and self-righteous”. The unresolved problem has now become “two camps “and family who once support the church are now leaving to go to a lesser dogmas church.
Level five: Intractable: I believe at this level because the conflict was not handle properly at level one and two, everything has ran “amok”. In order to get even with the person(s) “That is call the “enemy”, over half the congregation will now go elsewhere. The purpose of this level is to destroy the opponents. Many churches today have been destroyed because of the lack of proper skills, or pride and selfishness in resolving conflicts in organizational churches.
The attack in this lesson is the chairperson and his committee who seem to want to be the “big fish” in a little bowl. The committee fills their own needs for being in power, leaving the congregation to be frustrated by feelings of powerlessness from the committee or the ruling powers. The writer states”, the great sensitivity with which people regard their faith can be a blessing; they are guarding their treasure. However, oversensitive safeguards can also be a curse, because both butterflies and thieves stand an equal chance of setting off the alarm (Haugk. 40).
What are the biblical guidelines for addressing an antagonist?
Due to the serious nature of this evil, one must follow the biblical guidelines to properly address an antagonist before he/she is allowed to cripple the mission of the church. The Bible speaks if your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. However, if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that the evidence of two or three witnesses (Haugk. 48) may confirm every word. But Haugk reminds the reader that a disciple is known for their love for others, thus antagonists by nature are not acting as true follower and should be treated as such (John 13:35). The difficulty in dealing with an antagonist. The antagonists are all too adept at turning the table, they are great manipulator, and there are many instances where an antagonist as an occasion to assail the one beginning the process (Haugk. 48) used formal first-stage Matthew 18 admonition.
In this case, study I feel to compromise would bring a peaceable solution to the issue, but it does not mean everyone is happy with the results. At the heart of the compromise is “to make promises with”. In this light, it can be a collaborative response conflict. We need people with the skill to sever as counselors and mediators to help estranged parties come to a peaceable settlement in which neither has totally lost (Everist. 136).
The question you need to ask in this case study is; (1) is his or her behavior disruptive? (2) Is the attack irrational? (3) Does the person go out of the way to initiate trouble? (4) Does the person’s motive appear selfish? (Haugk. 60)
The personality characteristics in this case study are aggression, rigidity, and authoritarianism and narcissism personalities (Haugk. 60-61)
When one comes to you with a list of “other” about how they feel about the committee and they are nameless in order to get your opinion against the opposing group, this is a “red flag”. Those who also lavish praise on you will also be your greatest criticize later; these are all your “red flag warning. Be aware! (Haugk. 72).
The warning signs in this case study are when the antagonist wants to gather support and create conflict, discord, and doubt. The committee members may invite you over for dinner or ask you to work with them on a project. They will begin to ask a whole lot of picky and petty question, hoping to win you on their side (Haugk. 81-82).