Understanding congregational splits

Fred Starke and Bruno Dyck

Why are there so many disagreements in congregations, and why do these disagreements so frequently lead to the departure of significant numbers of people? Is there a common “chain of events” that characterizes a congregation as it moves from unity to disunity? In order to get answers to these questions, we conducted in-depth, two-hour interviews with more than 150 people in 24 congregations where a conflict had become so severe that a portion of the members left and started a “breakaway” congregation.

Stage 1: Disenchantment

The process begins when some members in a congregation are exposed to “new” ideas that leave them dissatisfied with their congregation’s current vision, direction or structure. These new ideas may come from attending a seminar or Bible study, from listening to a pastor or from private study. The new ideas may relate to almost any issue, but they typically deal with things like outreach emphasis, how much decision-making power the pastor should have, worship/music style, and doctrine (notably the charismatic issue).

In one downtown congregation, some members had over a period of years attended seminars where they had picked up new ideas for “alternative” worship activities. These members felt that their congregation was not adequately reaching out to nonbelievers, but they knew that trying to make changes would be futile. So they sat tight for a while, hoping for a change.

Typical comments from individuals at this stage include:

“People here are just ‘doing church’ rather than moving forward; everyone here thinks they have ‘arrived’ and they just want to protect the empire they have developed.” “People raise their hands in hockey games and rock concerts. Why not in church?” “Some of the young people went off to Bible college and caught hold of something they could embrace; then they came back to their home congregation and didn’t like the authoritarian atmosphere.”

Stage 2: Blessing

In this stage, the new ideas held by the disenchanted members are legitimized by someone in authority (such as a pastor or board member). Typically this authority figure is not a member of the disenchanted group, and may not recognize the implications of his/her statement. Once legitimized, however, the disenchanted group becomes bolder in talking about and attempting to implement their new ideas.

In one suburban congregation, a small group of members felt that “inclusive, non-sexist language” should be stressed. They began to act on their views only after a newly hired pastor began to use inclusive language in the sermon. With this public legitimation, the supporters of inclusive language became more active. The music director, for example, began omitting stanzas from hymns that she thought were non-inclusive.

Illustrative comments at this stage include:

“When the pastor came, he said he subscribes to a non-charismatic position, but then he changed his mind, and that really got the charismatics fired up.” “At a congregational meeting, the pastor said he thought that starting a new alternate worship service was a good idea. After that there was a lot more pressure to start such a service.”

Stage 3: Taking sides

At first the people promoting the new ideas have some success in introducing changes. However, at some point they try to implement a change that goes “too far” for others in the congregation. Those who are happy with the way things had been done in the past now become active.

In one large downtown congregation, a congregational meeting was called to consider introducing a “creative” worship service characterized by choruses and testimonies. At the end of an agitated discussion, an “approval in principle” vote showed that slightly more than half the congregation thought the new idea should be tried. From that day onward, each member of the congregation was keenly aware that there were two groups in the congregation who wanted fundamentally different things. The congregation split within a year.

Illustrative sentiments expressed at this stage include:

“The start of the alternate worship service polarized the church.” “The charismatics were low-key at first, but the next thing you knew, there were separate Bible studies for ‘us’ and ‘them’.” “While there was no talk of a split yet, it was obvious there were two groups who were antagonistic toward each other.”

Stage 4: Digging in

In this stage, the congregation becomes an active battleground, where each side openly pushes for adoption of its preferred strategy. Whereas members previously minimized differences and stressed unity, they now focus on clarifying differences and rationalizing their own positions. This leads to an entrenchment of positions for each of the groups.

In one small town congregation, there had been an undercurrent of disagreement for several years about whether the congregation should emphasize charismatic gifts during worship. When a new pastor with a charismatic orientation was hired, the respective views became more deeply entrenched. His resignation after failing to get a vote of confidence prompted a group of supporters to begin meeting on a by-invitation-only basis. Within a few months, this group brought forward a motion at a congregational meeting to change the way the congregation was governed. The motion was defeated. At another meeting a few months later, this same group came forward with another motion to change the vision statement of the church. It, too, was defeated. The congregation split soon after.

During the entrenchment stage, the level of trust declines. Consider the following sentiments:

“It was like the KGB among us.” “There was a meeting to discuss a split, but only certain people were invited.”

Stage 5: The last straw

The last straw is the “point of no return” where the disputing parties come to the realization that they have irreconcilable differences. The last straw typically takes place at a congregational meeting and is characterized by motions of confidence or non-confidence in the leadership, ultimatums, resignations and displays of emotional behaviour.

In one congregation that had been having a protracted dispute about governance matters, the pastor and board introduced a motion to revoke the membership of a group of 11 individuals who they felt had been incessantly challenging their authority and creating dissension in the congregation. The leaders indicated that if the motion was not passed, they would leave the congregation. The leadership was surprised when the motion was defeated, but they made good on their promise; they left and formed a new congregation.

Typical comments at this stage include:

“If you don’t like the way things are going here, why don’t you leave?” “I’m more spiritual than you are.” “You people are being deceived.”

Stage 6: A new birth

At some point – usually within a few days of the last straw event – a breakaway congregation is formed. Sometimes planning precedes the last straw event, but the formation of the breakaway is more likely to be an unplanned reaction to the emotional events of the recent past.

One congregation had been having a long-running debate about how much power the pastor should have. The pastor resigned when the congregation refused to implement his vision. That week, many people called him to offer their support; soon this support translated into planning the formation of a new congregation with him as their pastor. The following Sunday, the new congregation met in a school for its first worship service.

Illustrative comments at this stage include:

“The week before the split, I asked one of the men in our choir car pool if he would help start a new congregation if it came to that. He said, ‘No way!’ but when we started the next week, he was there in a leadership role.” “We were watching our congregation erode away before our eyes, and it was devastating. We just couldn’t walk away from all the people we loved, so we got together two days after that terrible annual meeting and formed a new congregation.”

Stage 7: Aftermath

Following the formation of the breakaway, members of the parent congregation are typically hurt, distraught, shell-shocked and resentful of those who left. Members of the breakaway congregation, by contrast, are initially joyful, and feel freed from the oppression of their “parents”. They are exhilarated by the prospect of striking out on their own and starting a new work.

Over time, both parents and breakaway move back toward a middle ground emotionally. The parent recovers from its post-split depression and begins to re-establish itself, while the breakaway gradually settles into a routine and becomes an established congregation in its own right.

After a split, the parent congregation initially experiences a large drop in attendance, while the breakaway grows rapidly. Over the next few years, however, the parent gradually gets back on track, while the growth rate of the breakaway slows dramatically.

The reactions to a split are very diverse, as the following quotes indicate:

“I loved those people, and now they’re gone; it’s like going through a death.” “When the congregation split, it was like a divorce; I felt like the child who is asked, ‘Who do you want to live with, your mom or your dad?’” “What are you people doing, walking away from the beautiful building that you helped pay for?” “In our new congregation, we’ve had the warmest fellowship I’ve ever experienced.”

Fred Starke is a professor and associate dean of the Faculty of Management at the University of Manitoba and 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 originally 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.