Understanding congregational splits

Fred Starke and Bruno Dyck

Accounts of congregational splits may be interesting (at least to those who weren’t involved!), but what lessons can we learn from them?

Skjold Photos

The pastor’s words and actions act as a lightning rod in a church conflict.

Members attribute great significance to comments and actions by their pastor. For those who left a congregation, the pastor was often seen as the reason for the split. For those who stayed, the pastor was seen as someone who needed to be protected from the “troublemakers”. Movement toward disunity was hastened if the pastor had interpersonal difficulties with some members. Consider these typical comments:

“The pastor gathered people around him whom he could manipulate.” “We could have worked out our problems if the pastor hadn’t been there.” “The pastor painted himself into a corner.”

An obvious lesson to be learned from these quotes is that pastors must be very careful about what they say and do. Pastors must be clear and upfront about their views because any inconsistencies will be noticed.

At the same time, pastors must be careful not to be seen as “choosing sides” when disputes arise. On non-essential matters this may mean not offering an opinion (such as what colour the new carpet should be). On essential matters, pastors who try to tell each side what it wants to hear will be perceived as two-faced, and as a result both sides will feel betrayed. Pastors must speak in a way that invites constructive dialogue, rather than destructive conflict.

Several subtle lessons are also suggested. First, church members often have unrealistic expectations of their pastor. There is a tendency to put pastors on a pedestal, to place too much weight on what they say and to forget that we are called to be a priesthood of all believers.

Second, conflict resolution is more likely to be positive when the process involves participation by those involved in the conflict, rather than some authority figure imposing a solution.

Third, a pastor, or anyone else gifted as a peacemaker, may play an important role as mediator, but should not be placed in the position of judge.

Fourth, churches must put conflict resolution structures in place before conflicts arise. Attempts to establish a structure to deal with a conflict once it became full-blown were not helpful in the congregations we studied.

Deal with problems as they arise.

Congregational leaders and followers would do well to reject the “head-in-the-sand” approach to problem solving. Too often conflicts are avoided in the hope that they will go away. The following sentiments illustrate this:

“In hindsight, it is very clear that the two groups didn’t agree with each other, but everyone ignored the differences.” “The leadership had a problem confronting conflict, so they ignored it and hoped it would go away.” “When tensions arose, nobody looked after them or dealt with them; every point of dissension just grew and grew.” “The board of elders did not show any interest in responding to concerns that were raised by a large group of people.” “A lot of the board members were not skilled in leadership. One of the elders that we knew was a wonderful man, but he simply did not have the courage to stand up and say that there were problems that should be addressed.”

Once differences become entrenched, the likelihood of conflict resolution drops dramatically because people are unable to listen to each other, as the following quotes illustrate:

“People take leave of their senses during church conflicts.” “Diplomacy went out the window.”

Manage conflict rather than trying to suppress it.

Conflict must be managed: Too much conflict leads to chaos, but too little conflict leads to complacency. Organizational experts agree that without a moderate amount of conflict, organizations do not possess creativity. Research shows that performance improves in congregations where members feel accountable to each other and accept responsibility to challenge one another. In these congregations, conflicts that have the potential to result in church splits are nipped in the bud because members care enough to confront each other. The lesson that effectively working through conflicts strengthens congregations is illustrated by the Chinese symbol for “crisis”, which has the symbol for “opportunity” embedded within it.

Congregations have an opportunity to be a role model in conflict management.

Daily newspapers testify that the world is searching for effective ways to resolve conflict. We can provide a powerful witness and role model to those outside the church if we take our call to be peacemakers seriously and create the structures and processes necessary to resolve conflicts in our midst. Doing so will require much time and commitment, perhaps more than many Christians are willing to invest, but the dividends for congregational life are well worth the cost.

Some good things can come even from congregational splits.

Splits are generally seen as negative. In our interviews, we saw abundant evidence of people who had been deeply wounded by the events they had experienced. Yet, we also saw excitement and hope for the future.

There are several benefits to creating new congregations, even in trying times. First, members involved in splits generally spend a great deal of time reflecting on their beliefs. This process often strengthens their Christian faith and their commitment to the congregation that they eventually choose to attend.

Second, to have two congregations where there once was only one generally creates a leadership vacuum in both locations, and the need for members to “come out of the woodwork” and get more involved in their church.

Third, splits motivate people to establish mechanisms to ensure that future conflicts are managed more effectively. Many interviewees were eager to describe the new decision-making structures they had adopted in their congregations. This benefit comes to congregations who are willing to call a split a split. Congregations where members rename a split a “church planting” are vulnerable to retaining a head-in-the-sand approach to conflict.

Conclusion

While church splits are considered very unpleasant by those who have experienced them, there is some comfort in knowing that problems in one’s local congregation are not unlike problems others are also struggling with, and that the larger church may learn when we share our experiences. The insights that come from these shared experiences can help both pastors and congregations to deal more effectively with church conflict, and minister to those who have experienced a split.

Fred Starke is a professor and associate dean of the Faculty of Management at the University of Manitoba and is a member of Grace Bible Church. Bruno Dyck is an associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Manitoba and a member of Charleswood Mennonite Church. This article was first published in the Oct. 22, 1996 issue of ChristianWeek.

Last modified May 31, 2005.

© 2005 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.