Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Emotional dimension of conflict
Despite the normalcy of conflict, the experience thereof varies in intensity and level. People’s emotional state, not only their differing opinions or viewpoints, can trigger conflict. Situations of conflict tend to bring out the worst in people. People do what they would not normally do and then justify it. How, or if people engage with or fight in conflict is generally determined by how empowered they feel. “As contradictory as it sounds at first, the weaker the people perceive themselves to be, the more likely they will fight dirty or use violence” (Leas, 1982:29). All grave issues or problems bring an emotional dimension of personal offence or estrangement, irrespective of whether the subject matter is predominantly ‘impersonal’ or ‘technical’ or ‘objective’ (Yoder, in White & Blue, 1985:214).
Not everyone has the ability to face conflict rationally. The emotional dimension has the potential to cloud logic and good sense in conflict-related decision making. Neither would good sense and logic guarantee the resolution of conflict. Therefore, it would be naive to assume that all parties locked in conflict can be thought to approach the conflict situation rationally and logically. An admission by Haugk and Perry (1988:32) is worth noting:
Too often it was assumed that all parties involved in conflicts were mentally healthy, responsible, rational, and willing to compromise. Experience has shown that such assumptions, while applying to the great majority of individuals, overlook a very notable, vocal, and disruptive majority.
There is hesitancy in Christian circles to identify and deal with trouble makers, or identify ‘antagonists’. Yet, it is necessary to recognise that there are individuals who initiate and thrive on unhealthy conflict, persons who have no desire whatsoever to see conflict resolved. “Antagonism is unhealthy conflict, however, and antagonistic behaviour is not honourable” (Haugk & Perry, 1988:21). Conflict is normal and can be healthy, whereas characteristics of antagonism include personal attacks on individuals who are mostly in leadership. Antagonists can be defined as …individuals who, on the basis of non-substantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership capacity (Haugk & Perry, 1988:21– 22).
To varying degrees, feelings and emotions are invested in most conflicts. People deal with their emotions when involved in conflict in various ways such as letting feelings and emotions become the primary determiners in dealing with a conflict. Conversely, parties try to ignore feelings and emotions out of a fear that expression thereof may portray the perception of being out of control or may obscure the core issues. In yet other cases, people acknowledge that feelings and emotions are involved, yet try to intellectualise them to the point that the other party never realises the intense feelings a particular conflict is causing. All of these approaches to dealing with feelings and emotions can cause and exacerbate conflict (Weeks, 1994:55). Humans have two different ways of processing information. The first mode is rational – the mode of our conscious – and is thoughtful, analytical, and reflecting. Operating simultaneously and mostly independently is another mode that is impulsive and often illogical. This emotional mode is quicker and more powerful than the rational mind. The emotional mind takes on whole chunks of information and acts immediately without thinking. It determines such primitive reactions as whether we should fight or flee. The emotional mind associates current information with the feelings or moods of the memory and reacts to the current situation without distinguishing it from the past (Van Slyke, 1999:35). People whose emotions were severely wounded when they were children will tend to express emotions either by great explosions of anger, or by turning the anger in upon themselves. As children they learned that this is what they must do to survive. When emotionally damaged people come into the church, they bring their hurt, fear, and rage with them. “Unless these persons are healed, they are prime candidates for joining into series [sic] relationships, becoming a timid, or an antagonistic loner, filing co-dependant roles for addictive persons or processes in the congregation, or they will seek an identified patient upon whom they may transfer their own symptoms” (Shawchuck, 1996:47).
The argument that ‘the end justifies the means’ is often used, for example, when torturing terror suspects. It is argued that information extracted can save lives. That may make sense in certain contexts but Huttenlocker (2008:25) argues that that kind of thinking is foreign to scripture. “The fallacy of the mentality of conflict is the conviction that the end justifies the means. This belief is never true; it is antithetical to the tenor of the Bible.” Such is the case when congregants feel their only way forward is to move away from their current church. Putman’s words (2008:217) to church leaders on this are sobering, bearing in mind the focus of this study:
Whatever you do, the church is not your church; it belongs to God. You don’t have the right to split His church. If you’ve done all you can to change the church, but there’s a significant number of leaders opposed to the direction you feel led to take, be careful. God’s reputation is at stake, and when Christians fight, it causes unbelievers to reject Jesus. No matter what, always honour the church leadership. Never allow those who work with you (who agree with you) to gossip about those who don’t.
Of course, change can’t be implemented when a leadership is divided in purpose and direction. But you have a choice to make. You can decide to focus on what is not happening, or you can be joyful that you are creating disciples in the areas where you work. You may have to leave because your principles do not allow you to be involved in a church that is not strategically doing what they should be. Just remember, those who oppose you may be wrong in their direction (or lack thereof), but it does not mean they are not fellow believers. If you decide to leave the church, leave in love and honour knowing that God will not bless you if you hurt His body and reputation.
A common thread in defining conflict is the incompatibility of interests. “When we feel our interests threatened, our biological and neurological systems kick in and help us prepare to meet the threat before devising approaches to help manage emotions” (Runde & Flanagan, 2010:33–34). Conflict also involves an emotional reaction to the situation or interaction that signals a disagreement of some kind:
The emotions felt might be fear, sadness, bitterness, anger, or hopelessness, or some amalgam of these. If we experience these feelings in regard to another person or situation, we feel that we are in conflict – and therefore we are. As a mediator, I have sometimes seen people behave as if they were in great disagreement over profound issues, yet I have not been able to ascertain exactly what they disagreed about. Nonetheless, they were in conflict because they felt they were. And in conflicts, it does not take two to tango. Often a conflict exists because one person feels in conflict with another, even though those feelings are not reciprocated by or even known to the other person. The behavioural component may be minimal, but the conflict is still very real to the person experiencing the feelings (Mayer, 2010:5). One of the common emotional threads is hurt. “All of us have been hurt by people who all were hurt by other hurt people. In turn, we – as hurt people – all have hurt other people to some degree or another. And on, and on, it goes!” (Wilson, 2010:1). These hurts take the form of actions, words, and attitudes that are intentional or unintentional, visible or invisible, hands-on or hands-off, other-perpetrated or self-inflicted, and barely survivable to hardly noticeable. Hurt people usually hurt those nearest and dearest to them. Virtual strangers may superficially or profoundly wound by their disrespectful rudeness, their unprovoked violence, or n other ways. But the deepest wounds come at the hands of those loved and trusted (Wilson, 2010:2).
Boundaries in conflict
Conflicts revolve around relationships and their associated boundaries. During times in congregational life when conflict is absent, communication will flow more effectively as relational boundaries become opened. When conflict arises, walls are erected and communication is limited. o understand conflict, one has to appreciate boundaries and how to respond to them. Conflict arises within a definable system. A characteristic of system components is that …they have permeable boundaries that allow information and material to flow in and out. The degree of permeability varies from system to system; some are relatively closed, whereas others are extremely open. However, all biological and social systems require some degree of permeability to survive. Permeability refers both to the system as a whole – which must be open to its environment – and to the components within the system (Miller, 2014:62).
The church is, by God’s design, an open system. It has boundaries, but they are permeable (Stevens & Collins, 1993:144). Cosgrove and Hatfield (1994b:116) observe that …although healthy communication (a porous boundary) admits conflict, people generally throw up a wall if conflict persists, especially when nothing requires them to keep communicating. It is wise to assume that as conflict escalates rigid boundaries will be forming. When this happens the most important thing to remember is that the problem is not the conflict but the rigid boundaries. Those who try to smooth over or repress conflict rather than let it come to the surface only add bricks to the walls that begin forming when conflict is present. Building rigid boundaries will not make conflict go away. It will only suppress some of the immediate symptoms.
“When boundaries become unclear, shifting identities can result in the escalation of conflict” (Rothman, 1997:134). In addressing groups and associated boundaries, Iverson in Everist (2000:163–164) advocates the demarcation of clear boundaries in congregational work and ministry for reasons of safety, policy, and conflict. From an individual perspective, the constant struggle in establishing boundaries and related connections is a source of much personal conflict. The challenge of these boundaries is also at the heart of many interpersonal conflicts (Mayer, 2010:21).
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Theme selection
1.2 Formulation of the research problem
1.3 Conceptualising
1.4 Research parameters
1.5 Practical theology methodology
1.6 Thesis structure
CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPING A MISSIONAL CHURCH
2.1 Perspective on building up the Church
2.2 The term: church
2.3 Context and Influences
2.4 Purpose of developing the missional church
2.5 The Building metaphor in the scriptures
2.6 Ministries of the ekklēsia
2.7 The Concept of finding identity
2.8 A Concept of reformation
2.9 Planning process
2.10 Challenges in developing a missional congregation
2.11 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 THEORY OF CONFLICT
3.1 Concepts, definitions and descriptions
3.2 Dimensions of conflict
3.3 Normalcy and necessity of conflict
3.4 Conflict and systems theory
3.5 Predispositioned responses to conflict
3.6 Leadership and conflict
3.7 Approaches to resolving conflict
3.8 Education and training
3.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4 EMPIRICAL STUDY
4.1 Quantitative research
4.2 Empirical analysis
4.3 Examination and reflection of the statistics
4.4 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 5 TOWARD A NEW PRAXIS
5.1 Brief overview of study
5.2 Developing a missional church
5.3 Limitations
5.4 Confirmations
5.5 Strategic suggestions: Practical Theology
5.6 Strategic suggestions: Conflict as subject
5.7 Strategic suggestions: Ministry
5.8 Knowledge vacuums identified for future study
5.9 Concluding remarks
ANNEXURE A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
ANNEXURE B: CHI-SQUARE RESULTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
