|Worldwide Anglicanism||Anglican Dioceses and Parishes|
|Noted Recently||News Archives||Start Here||The Anglican Communion||Africa||Australia||BIPS||Canada|
|Search, Archives||Official Publications||Anglicans Believe...||In Full Communion||England||Europe||Hong Kong||Ireland|
|Resource directory||The Prayer Book||Not in the Communion||Japan||New Zealand||Nigeria||Scotland|
|The Bible||B||South Africa||USA||Wales||WorldB|
|This page last updated 3 July 2017|
On conflicts in church
Not long ago, a friend described a nasty and escalating church conflict that involved bullying, with demeaning remarks, triangulation, and threats. Having seen too much of this misbehavior, I offered some thoughts and suggestions that the AO staff has invited me to share here.
Disagreements are inevitable, but normal people avoid conflict. We prefer to be in love and charity with one another. If we think we have offended, we are quick to mend relationships. Our instinct is to stay out of other people’s disputes and let the parties work things out on their own.
This will not work if bullying is involved, because bullies do not behave like normal people. Where we find conflict draining, bullies are energized by it and will continue until they destroy their target – or are stopped by the group. It takes time to distinguish between an ordinary disagreement and a toxic conflict. Once we recognize that bullying is involved, nobody wants to risk becoming the bully’s next target.
Staying out of the fray leaves the floor to the bullies, creating the (mis)impression that the bullies have the support of the group. This impression is shared by bully’s target; visitors, who have no other context for judging the mood of the group; and virtually everyone who witnesses the bully’s outbursts.
Toxic conflicts are not a tempest in a teapot that we can safely ignore. They have real consequences, particularly for the target, but also for the entire church. Taking abuse is isolating and demoralizing. Nobody can put up with abuse indefinitely. Faced with unremitting condemnation, even Richard Nixon eventually resigned. So will a choir director, organist, church secretary, Sunday school teacher, rector, vestry member, or other volunteer, and unlike our former President, they most likely won’t hang on for two years. Moreover, allowing one instance of bad behavior encourages others to think it is acceptable until eventually, people feel uncomfortable in their own church.
Uncivil behavior needs to be recognized early and nipped in the bud. That means we need to know how to distinguish between ordinary differences of opinion and the kind of toxic behavior that will destroy a congregation, and we need to know what to do about it when it happens.
Toxic conflicts are different from ordinary disagreements. They are characterized by triangulation – criticizing or complaining to a third person but not taking up the issue with the individual involved; a lack of civil discourse – shouting, accusations, attributing bad motives to ordinary acts, and other ad hominem arguments; unwillingness to accept a decision; and a general meanness. Another characteristic of toxic conflicts is that the response is vastly out of proportion to the real or imagined problem. If the thought, mountain out of mole hill comes to mind, the conflict may be turning toxic.
When we observe toxic behavior, we need to name it and stop it. Here are some ideas:
Corporate action is also needed:
I offer these ideas for you to consider, with the profound wish that you never need them.