A legacy is something that is passed on, usually from one generation to the next and often in the form of a person’s manner of life, such as their values, relationships, priorities, beliefs, habits, and moral character - those primary characteristics that continue to influence those who follow after them.

We learn much from the legacy of great spiritual leaders who have gone before us, like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Tyndale, Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon was fifty-seven years old when he died, after a ministry that impacted people around the world. After forty years of exemplary ministry, Spurgeon passed into the presence of the Lord. Two or three days before the end he said to his secretary, “My work is done.” Well, his work may have been done, but it still lives on to this day. That’s a lasting legacy!

Acts 20 records the apostle Paul’s journey to Jerusalem (20:16). On route, he stops at Miletus where he calls for the elders of the church at Ephesus to meet with him (20:17). He had had a great influence on the church at Ephesus after having ministered among them for probably a couple of years. When they came to him he gave his farewell address to them in which he exhorts the leaders to take on the work of shepherding the people of God. The primary purpose of this meeting was evidently for Paul to remind the elders to follow the example of his ministry among them. This would be his lasting legacy.

I am calling this biblical study on church leadership, “The Final Farewell Of A Godly Leader: A Lasting Legacy” (Acts 20:18-35). Paul’s final words are words of reflection and exhortation, words that demonstrate credibility, experience, and godliness, words that project warmth and care, words that summarize his ministry. Let us learn from the apostle Paul’s legacy as described in his parting words and apply the principles of his leadership to our own. The first principle we learn is that...

I. Our Words Should Expose The Clarity Of Our Motives (20:18-21)

1. Our Personal Testimony (20:18-19). Credibility seems to be more and more absent in church leadership today. It seems that no sooner does a church leader emerge on the public scene and generate some degree of notoriety than something arises that mars or even destroys their ministry. Often this happens during the latter years of a leader’s ministry. It’s so sad! A man may have had a tremendous impact on people over a long period of time, and then towards the end of his life he may do or say something that casts a shadow over all those years of faithful ministry. Not so with the apostle Paul. His ministry was credible because his motives were clear, in terms of…

a) Commitment and consistency. It’s important that our words clearly communicate who we are and why we do what we do. “You yourselves know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I set foot in Asia… (20:18). The believers in Ephesus knew all about Paul’s manner of life from the example he set while living and ministering among them. They had observed him from the very first time he came to their area. They saw how he lived, his steadfast commitment to the ministry and his consistent manner of life.

Commitment and consistency are so often lacking in the lives of church leaders. Sometimes their zeal for the ministry wanes. Sometimes they say one thing and do another. In fact, we sometimes do that ourselves. What we need is not only commitment to the work of the Lord but consistency in the work of the Lord, ensuring that our actions match our words, that our motives are pure, and that our manner of life is patterned after Christ’s. If we do, we will leave a lasting and powerful legacy.

b) Activity and attitude. The singular activity of the apostle was devoted to “…serving the Lord” (20:19). He was a living example of his own exhortation: “Do not lack diligence in zeal; be fervent in spirit; serve the Lord” (Rom. 12:11). That was his daily engagement, to serve the Lord anywhere and at any time, whether it was convenient or not, “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).

And he carried out that ministry activity with a Christ-like attitude, “serving the Lord with all humility, with tears, and with the trials that happened to me because of the plots of the Jews” (20:19). Humility is often confused with meekness. In a sense, they are two sides of the same coin of self-awareness. Humility is the awareness of yourself in relation to others, not thinking of yourself more highly than you ought to think (Rom. 12:3); whereas meekness is the awareness of others in relation to yourself, considering others as more important than yourself (Phil. 2:3). The apostle Paul exhibited both these attributes throughout his ministry life, despite the hardships and opposition that he received from others

It's so easy to develop a bad attitude when you are verbally criticized, physically attacked, and wrongly accused, isn’t it? When you read of the tears that he shed and the trials that he experienced from the plots of the Jews (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24-28), you wonder how he could have lived such a consistent, committed life with such humility. May that energize us to so live with clear motives, manifesting the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor. 10:1).

2. Our Public Ministry (20:20-21). It’s so easy to live our personal lives differently from what we practice publicly. Perhaps this is why the apostle Paul spoke about his personal testimony before speaking about his public ministry. They must be consistent with one another if we are to have credibility. Paul’s personal testimony was marked by commitment and consistency in his activity and attitude, and his public ministry by…

a) Transparency and boldness. “I did not hold back from proclaiming to you anything that was profitable or from teaching you publicly and from house to house” (20:20). He didn’t hold back anything that was beneficial for them to know. He didn’t play favorites. He didn’t modify his message to suit the crowd. He didn’t say one thing in public and another in private. His motives were expressed in openness and truth, transparency and boldness.

b) Gospel orientation. “…testifying to both Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus” (20:21). Paul’s audience included everyone regardless of race or religion. Wherever the opportunity arose, Paul taught the truth of the word of God in every venue (whether in the public square or in private homes) and in every way, such as “proclaiming… teaching… testifying” (20:20-21).

Even more noticeable than how he taught and preached is what he taught and preached. Four different descriptions are given in our passage: He preached (1) “Repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (20:21); (2) “The gospel of God’s grace” (20:24)”; (3) “The kingdom (of God)” (20:25); and (4) “The whole plan (purpose) of God” (20:27). This was the sum and substance of his ministry at the root of which was the gospel. This should challenge us as to the extent to which our preaching and teaching ministry is similarly characterized. Are we taking every opportunity to lead people to repentance? Are we taking every opportunity to help people grow in their faith?

We need to preach evangelistically (the gospel), instructively (for the edification of the saints), admonishingly (warning unbelievers and saints alike), and fully, so that we are “innocent of the blood of all of you” (20:26).

The second principle we learn is that...

II. Our Words Should Exude Our Confidence In God (20:22-25)

The men who have been role models and mentors to me have all been men with great confidence in God for the present and the future. In Paul’s experience he had…

1. Confidence despite present uncertainty (20:22-23). “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit warns me in every town that imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me” (20:22-23). Even though the Holy Spirit had told him what awaited him at Jerusalem, he was not deterred. He had confidence in the call of God on his life. This is what kept him going, regardless of the possibility of imprisonment, persecution, and even death that he may face in Jerusalem.

2. Confidence in view of future completion (20:24-25). “But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of God’s grace” (20:24). Paul’s focus was on the long term, not on the short term. He was not concerned about the present uncertainty of what may happen to him in Jerusalem because he didn’t place value on his present, temporal life. Rather, he was concerned about the future completion of his ministry, for which the Lord Jesus had called him and gifted him. This is what gave Paul such confidence, to “testify to the gospel of God’s grace” to the very end, to finish well his life’s task. Is this not the life of a preacher? Is this not what we have been called to?

For this reason, he was determined to press on to Jerusalem, despite the testimony of the Holy Spirit that “in every town imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me” (20:23), and despite the reality that this would be the last time he would see the brethren from Ephesus: “And now I know that none of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face again” (20:25). Despite this uncertain future and the fact that the end of his life was in view, his life’s purpose never changed, it would be one of constant testifying and proclaiming the truth of the gospel. “I strive toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). He never wavered in his task in view of its future and imminent completion. This is what he aimed for. He kept his eyes on the goal (to “finish my course) and the prize (“the upward call of God in Christ Jesus”).

The third principle we learn is that...

III. Our Words Should Express Our Convictions About Ministry (20:26-31)

In three succinct exhortations, Paul expresses his convictions about a preaching ministry…

1. We must preach the full scope of Scripture (20:26-27). “Therefore, I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, because I did not hold back from proclaiming to you the whole plan of God.” This verse contains two convictions about a gospel-preaching ministry…

a) That the people are responsible before God for their response to our preaching. No matter how Paul’s hearers responded, his conscience was clear; if any of them chose not to believe, he was not responsible - they were. Because he had fully, openly, and boldly declared the whole plan and purpose of God to them, he could say “I am innocent of the blood of all of you” (20:26). He had completed his ministry; he had preached the whole truth. That was his responsibility; how they responded was their own responsibility for which they would answer to God.

b) That the preacher is responsible to declare the whole plan of God in the gospel. Paul had spent a considerable amount of time in the church at Ephesus teaching them the truth. On his arrival in Ephesus he found that the disciples there only knew about John’s baptism, so he taught them that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, “telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus (19:4). The result was that they responded positively to his teaching and he baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5). He then continued to fully, openly, and boldly (19:8) declare the whole truth of the gospel, nothing left out and nothing compromised (see also 20:19-21). Despite opposition (19:21-41), “I did not hold back from proclaiming to you the whole plan of God” (20:27), he says. He had fulfilled his duty to make known to them the entire truth concerning the full scope of the gospel (see Ephesians 1:3-14).

This is a wonderful encouragement for those of us who are preachers, that we are responsible to preach the full plan of God in the gospel and our hearers are responsible for how they respond. If we have been faithful in making known to our hearers the scope and power and consequences of the gospel, then we can leave the results of our ministry with God; he will be the judge.

2. We must warn about spiritual dangers (20:28-30). As a result of what Paul had preached in Ephesus, he exhorts the leaders of the church to “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” (20:28).

First, the elders of the church are to “guard” their own personal lifestyle and teaching. They are to be living examples of what it means to believe the gospel, examples of godliness among the flock of God.

Second, they are responsible to guard “all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers.” They are the church’s guardians, supervisors who make sure that none of the flock falls into danger.

Third, they are responsible to “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” Notice the specific terms that Paul uses here to describe the responsibilities of elders, equating them with shepherds (pastors) of the church. They had been appointed and were recognized as the leaders of the church, whose primary function is to “shepherd (pastor) the church of God.” As spiritual shepherds, they are responsible to supply good spiritual nutrition and to provide complete spiritual (and physical) care and guidance. That’s what shepherds do. They are the guardians, care-givers, and protectors of the flock. To this end, elders are to watch out for two specific sources of danger to the flock…

a) Savage wolves (20:29). “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.” Savage wolves are those people from outside the church who, like wild animals, attack the flock. They break into the sheepfold and decimate the flock for their own sick benefit and morbid pleasure (see John 10:10-13).

b) Divisive men (20:30). “Even from among yourselves (your own number), men will rise up, teaching perversions of the truth…” These are false teachers who arise from within the church, who distort the truth of the gospel for their own divisive purposes. Satan always has his agents who are ready to pounce whenever there is a gap in the protection of the flock, whose express purpose is “to draw away (lure) the disciples after them.” False teachings are accompanied by false motives, namely, to create a personal following in opposition to the genuine shepherds of the church.

3. We must teach others by our example (20:31). “Therefore, be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I never stopped warning each one of you with tears.” Paul himself was the quintessential shepherd of God’s people, the example of the continuous and passionate faithfulness to which he is exhorting the Ephesian elders. He is not asking them to do anything that he had not practiced himself.

The fourth principle is that...

IV. Our Words Should Exhibit Our Care For The Congregation (20:32-35)

1. A final benediction: Ministry is about God and his Word (20:32). “And now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified.”

As a demonstration of the very pastoral care that he is exhorting the elders to practice, Paul entrusts the Ephesian believers to two rock solid resources: (1) our divine, personal resource for care and protection in God himself; (2) our infallible, written resource for spiritual edification and teaching in God’s word, “…which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified.”

This phrase “all who are sanctified” refers to the saints, those who are set apart (“sanctified”) exclusively to and for God and who collectively (“among all”) will enter into their inheritance of a shared future life (Eph. 1:14, 18; 5:5), the security and reality of which is based on the truth of God’s word which builds us up (Eph. 2:20; 4:12, 16, 29).

2. A final exhortation: Ministry is about selfless service (20:33-35). “I have desired no one’s silver or gold or clothing” (20:33). True and faithful leaders are not motivated by personal gain or materialism. Indeed, “you yourselves know that I worked with my own hands to support myself and those who are with me. In every way I have shown you that it is necessary to help the weak by laboring like this and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (20:34-35). He was their mentor who not only taught them in his words but also in his actions.

Pastoral ministry is about selflessness – about giving not taking, about generosity not miserliness, about working not idleness, about others not self.

Final Remarks

Paul spoke these words in anticipation of his departure to Jerusalem where he might receive a death sentence. He references this possibility several times in this short treatise. “22 And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit warns me in every town that imprisonment and afflictions are waiting for me…25 “And now I know that none of you… will see my face again… 29 After my departure…” (20:22-29).

It is in that context that he speaks these words, leaving for us a lasting legacy of pastoral leadership, which, I suppose, is summed up in verse 24: “I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of God’s grace.” His life and ministry were all about a humble attitude (20:19) and a bold proclamation (20:20-21, 24, 25, 27). It is on the basis of this ministry that he issues the concluding exhortations that (1) ministry is about God and his Word (20:32) and (2) ministry is about selfless service (20:33-35).

Such final words are truly remarkable. By the grace of God, may this inspire us as pastors and preachers to establish and leave behind us just such a legacy.

This article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…

Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.

1. The purposes of the church.

2. Formulating a philosophy of church ministry.

3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.

4. Pastoral leadership.

Part II, Strengthening Church relationships.

1. Improving church communications.

2. Dealing with church discipline.

3. Managing church conflict.

4. Leading your church through change.

This is the first article in Part II: “Improving Communications.” Communication is the exchange of information between two or more people. Thus, to communicate effectively we must be able to express ourselves in such a way that those who listen can understand what we say and what we mean. So many organizations have poor internal communications. They fail to communicate organizational news, plans, developments etc. to those who need to and should hear it.

Good communication is vital to the harmony and efficient operation of any organization. Good church communication in particular is a two-way street, from leadership to the members and from the members to leadership. In order for church members to feel (and to actually be) an integral part of the organization, the church leadership has to inform them about what is going on and the members have to have opportunity to participate in on-going dialogue with leadership about their wishes, ideas, concerns etc.

Communication should be a pastor’s strength since this is our craft – communicating the gospel and edifying God’s people through teaching and preaching. But sadly, communication with church members is often not our strong point. Members often feel that they are not informed about developments, or not consulted about certain important decisions. And, frankly, they are often right. Sometimes this is because the church has never properly defined what issues must be brought before the members – church leaders often think they can make the decision, whereas the members think they should have been consulted. But even on issues that do not need member agreement, the communication by church leaders with the congregation about matters of congregational interest and importance is often sparse and poorly done.

Let us not forget the very practical fact that the church members are the ones who fund the church’s operations and provide the human resources for church ministries to function. Therefore, if you want their continued co-operation, initiative, and support, you are duty bound to keep them informed and, where necessary and appropriate, consult them.

The question always is, “Which issues do we need to get the members’ agreement on, and which issues do we need to simply inform them about?” This question needs to be settled by each individual church, which will depend on the church’s convictions and traditions concerning organizational structure. But even if the level of decision-making is defined, there still needs to be great sensitivity by church leaders as to issues that should be communicated voluntarily, such as matters of common interest, church developments, news, thanks for member support etc. Of course, certain matters require even greater communication awareness than others, like building plans and progress, vision and strategic ministry plans, annual budgets, and changes in pastoral staff. So, try to communicate as much as possible with transparency and openness, without becoming enslaved to a burdensome administrative system. Generally, it is better to over-communicate than to lose credibility by appearing to be secretive or insensitive.

Communication is a really big topic, so I don’t pretend that this article will address everything you might want to know. But I will try to cover some of the more important bases…

I. Realities About Communication.

A. Communication Is Challenging.

If it were simple, we would all do it much better than we presently do and we would not have the misunderstandings that we do. There are many reasons why communication is challenging. Here are a few examples…

1. We often express ourselves in ways that do not communicate what we intend, leading to misunderstandings. This is one of the limitations and complexities of language.

2. Communication can be verbal and / or non-verbal (as in body language – e.g. hand and arm movements, facial expressions etc.). The communicator is usually not aware of his non-verbal communication and yet, often, more is deduced about meaning from non-verbal than from verbal communication. This, in itself, can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Were the communicator’s non-verbal expressions a true indicator of what he was saying or were they merely the product of habit (e.g. talking to someone with your arms folded or your hands on your hips)? If so, they may not be an indication at all of what he was trying to say at all.

3. We hear someone speak with words that we understand but whose meaning we do not understand (at least, not with certainty): “What did he mean by what he said?” This is the same hermeneutical issue we face when interpreting the Bible. It’s vitally important in communication that the party receiving the communication understands what is being said in the same way that the one communicating understands it.

4. In this digital age, we more often than not use one-way communication (as in e-mail), which requires even more precision than in two way communication (as in a conversation, a debate, or a meeting).

B. Understanding Is Affected By Many Factors.

Our understanding of what is said is usually affected by other factors such as our experience, feelings (e.g. about the topic or the speaker), and attitudes. You can communicate or listen with a positive, receptive attitude or a negative, unreceptive attitude. Your attitude may be affected by your previous experience with, or relationship to, the speaker. Or, it may be affected by your health, state of mind, or previous good or bad experiences that day.

You may interpret what the speaker says in terms of your own personal needs or expectations. If you expect to hear one thing but hear another, that affects how you receive what is communicated. People tend to interpret what they hear or read within the framework of what they want to hear or read. Communication that does not meet our expectations is either filtered out altogether (we do not hear it at all), or rationalized, or stripped altogether of its intended meaning.

Because communication is so complex, it’s easy to understand how two people can listen to the exact same communication but derive from it two entirely different understandings. Those of us who are preachers face this challenge regularly when people derive from a sermon something that we did not say or intend. As pastors we face this whenever we are involved in conflict resolution between people, just trying to convince one or both parties that they do not understand the issue properly. It isn’t a matter of deceit; they just interpret what was said or done in different ways.

When you consider all the variables in communication, you quickly realize how conflicts in any organization or relationship can occur so easily.

C. Healthy Communication Depends On Trust And Truth.

Keeping these two factors in balance is sometimes hard. Trust is earned by the leader over time through your relationships, reliability, kindness, fairness. Truth is demonstrated in the leader’s forthright, open, and accurate communications. I used to work for a businessman who used to say, “You can do business with anyone except someone who lies.” The reason he said that was because you never know where you stand with someone you don’t trust - you never know if they are telling you the truth or not.

It's important to understand the distinction between forthrightness and unkindness. You can be and must be forthright (so that people know where you stand) but without being unkind (Eph. 4:29). It is not satisfactory to say something and then justify it with: “Well, I was just being honest.” Honesty is often used as a cloak for many communication sins among Christians, as though honesty somehow outweighs the sin of cruelty. Usually such persons are not being honest; they are being vengeful (Prov. 15:1).

A trust environment is a prerequisite for truth to be freely and fully expressed - the two go together. But how do you balance the two so that truth is not expressed in a way that disrupts trust. The balancing factor between truth and trust is to follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to always “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), and to ensure that our “speech (is) always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6). This is a principle that is often forgotten.

All communication must be done with sensitivity and wisdom. Sometimes this means that you do not say anything because to do so might inflict damage, especially when a response is not needed. This is being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). All our communications must pass a threefold test: (1) “Is it necessary to say this? (2) Is it kind? (3) Is it true?”

Truthful communication means that sometimes we will say things that the other person does not want to hear (Prov. 27:5-6). Sometimes we need to express our feelings and clarify misunderstandings. Sometimes we need to say things that might generate a negative reaction. For this to be done successfully, there must be an environment of love and respect, of mutual trust and acceptance; an environment in which neither party seeks to denigrate the other.

Lack of trust in leadership is a big issue in many churches. When an environment of distrust exists people start to talk secretly between themselves, not in an open forum where disagreements can be properly aired. They interpret actions and statements negatively, not positively. They attribute to statements and actions deceptive motives, not honest. They start to meet in small private groups, not large public gatherings. It becomes an “us” and “them” situation. This is a major barrier to the type of communication that is necessary and should exist in churches more than anywhere else.

So, how do you build this environment of trust and truth, and who creates it?...

1. The responsibility to generate this atmosphere of trust lies with the leaders. Leaders must, above all else, have strong relationships with the people – the people must know the heart of the leadership. Developing an environment of trust requires two factors: (1) Willingness to be vulnerable; (2) Understanding and valuing each individual. When these factors are present, relationships within the group can move from fear-based to trust-based relationships.

Leaders need to set the example by practicing open, honest communication themselves. They must demonstrate the willingness to be vulnerable. This means being transparent about their decisions, plans, feelings, values, convictions. They must take the time to know and understand each individual. They must demonstrate that they value each individual for who he or she is. Open, honest communication means communicating things to the congregation that they don’t have to communicate, but do so because they want to create this open, honest atmosphere. They want the people to never feel that things are being hushed up, that they are being kept in the dark.

2. The leaders of the church must encourage open dialogue. This means (1) creating forums for this to take place; (2) not being defensive when people challenge their decisions; (3) responding to people’s statements and questions in a non-judgmental manner; (4) respecting people for who they are, regardless of whether they agree with you or not; (5) admitting when they (the leaders) are wrong; (6) telling the people when they (the people) are wrong (perhaps because they do not know all the facts, which is often the case); (7) sometimes telling the people things that they might not want to hear. One of the prices tags that comes with open, honest dialogue is hearing bad news or things you do not want to hear or being shown that you are wrong or being overruled.

3. The leaders must allow the expression of conflicting opinions. Healthy leadership wants its members to be free to express differing opinions and they do so by establishing ground rules for dealing with disagreements within the group. Such ground rules are based on trust and respect. As trust builds, members become freer to engage in group discussions, debates, and meetings where there are conflicting opinions. This is critical to problem solving because this allows for healthy, open, authentic interaction, which produces better decisions and greater likelihood of achieving group goals.

When there is open, respectful dialogue, discussions go beyond the superficial to the real issues, because emotional reactions are not a hindrance to open discussions when everyone knows they are loved and where there is mutual trust.

In general, an environment of trust means creating a safe place for open, honest, loving communication. The critical questions are: How can church leaders create this atmosphere of open and honest dialogue? What sort of forums can leaders create that nurture this kind of communication? What is the pastoral role in creating this environment?

D. Leaders Need Good Communication Skills.

If you can’t communicate accurately, clearly, and relationally, you cannot be a good leader. After all, the main concepts, values, plans etc. of an organization are usually communicated by the leader to the members of the organization. In a church the process usually starts with the initial proposal by the leadership, followed by the solicitation and collection of the members’ opinions, wishes, and ideas in response. Then, when this input is consolidated and combined with the leaders’ original visions and plans, a final proposal is brought to the members in such a way that they take ownership of it.

Good communication is also needed by the leader for every development in the organization which needs to be communicated to the members. Take the example of Jesus’ communication to his followers. Jesus devoted much of his instructional communication to matters of principles, values, future plans, and relationships (cf. Matt. 27:37-39; 7:12; 6:25-34; 24:1-51; 16:21-28). He wanted them to be very cognizant of what they stood for, why they were here, where they were going, what they had to do, and what their scope of responsibilities and authority was. In other words, he wanted them to know how they could and should best represent him (particularly when he was gone). This is so much of the leader’s task - to infuse into his followers his philosophies, vision, values, standards, and plans so that they will act as he acts (i.e. adopt his values, beliefs, and behavior), so that they will carry on the mission (whether he is there or not) in a way that is consistent with how he carried on the mission.

Such was Jesus’ ability to communicate that he inspired the apostles’ writings; he laid the basis for the establishment of his church after his departure (Matt. 6:18); and he radically changed the subsequent history of the world. The power of good communication by a leader is evident not only in Jesus’ example but also in both secular and religious history (e.g. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Winston Churchill, Billy Graham).

In the church, the pastor’s communication skills do not start and stop with preaching. Preaching is certainly his primary task, of course, but he must also be able to communicate the church’s reason for existence – who it is, why it is here, where it is going, how it is going to get there.

II. Keys To Good Communication

1. Understanding people. You must understand what makes them tick, how they think, how they react, why they do what they do.

2. Knowing what you are talking about. No matter how good your oratory, if you don’t know what you are talking about the people to whom you are talking will know; what you say will not be authoritative; and you will create an atmosphere of distrust because people will not know if what you say is true and whether it will happen, or not.

3. Communicating when the time is right. So many leaders make the mistake of communicating thoroughly good information but at the wrong time, and then they wonder why the people responded in a different way than they expected. “When” we communicate is just as important as “how” and “what” we communicate.

If you say something to a person at the right time, they will accept it, adopt it, support it, whereas at the wrong time they might turn against what you said, even though what you said was perfectly good and proper. There are times when people are pliable and receptive to what you are saying. There are other times when they just cannot or will not compute what you communicate. Good leaders know the right time to communicate.

Usually, the right time is not dumping a whole load of information at once, or enacting a lot of significant change at once, or trying to communicate too much too quickly. There is only so much data that people can process in a certain period of time. A good leader knows how much to communicate at one time. A good communicator builds up to the hard communication over time.

4. Discerning the appropriate response. Don’t bury your head in the sand when you have finished communicating. You need to have your ears and eyes open to discern what the response is at the grass roots level, among the people who probably wouldn’t respond to you directly. Being able to “read” people’s responses is vital to being a good communicator because communication isn’t a one-way street.

Whether the response is verbal or non-verbal, there will be a response. And the communication has not finished when you have delivered your speech. It carries on until all the responses are in and until you have made any corrections if necessary. If the response is not what you wanted or expected (1) you might have to change course by modifying what you said; or (2) you might have to cancel what you said altogether (if you do, you probably made a big mistake in the process); or (3) you might have to give more information to persuade the people of your view and your proposal.

5. Striving to improve your communication skills. This means constantly learning how to preach and constantly learning how to communicate in a non-preaching mode.

III. Developing Good Communication Skills

A. Individual (Private) Communication.

1. Be a good listener. “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” (James 1:19). This is of particular importance for pastors. How can we practice it in reality? How can you be a good listener?

(i) Don’t interrupt. Let the other person do the talking until your participation is appropriate. Some people (including pastors sometimes) talk incessantly. We need to understand that what other people want to express is important.

(ii) Take note of what the other person is saying both verbally and non-verbally.

(iii) Figure out what the other person means by what they say.

(iv) Be attentive. Look at the other person in the eye. Don’t let your attention wander by looking around.

(v) Interact intentionally with the other person by asking questions (to clarify). Show your understanding by responses like “Yes,” “OK,” “I understand”).

(vi) Talk about the other person’s situation and concern and not about yourself.  This shows the other person that you are interested in them alone.

2. Be consistent. Be consistent in your attitude toward the other party, in your respect for them, in the way you interact with them. This is difficult sometimes, particularly if they have been critical of you or others. In this situation, try to carry out the apostle Paul’s instruction: “In humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), and “Esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:13).

3. Be encouraging. Encourage the other party by showing unconditional love, that your relationship with them and opinion of them is not changed by what they say. A great way to encourage people is to pray with them.

4. Be responsive. Respond appropriately in your language, attitude, and content. Don’t respond with a mini-sermon every time. Don’t try to make every issue a spiritual matter if it is not. Respond to the other party at the same level as they speak to you, which may be at a superficial level or a deeper, spiritual level. If the other person is light-hearted, respond that way. If they are deeply burdened, respond that way. In your response, don’t try to be an expert when you are not, don’t try to have all the answers.

It is always inappropriate to use corrupt or coarse language or foolish talk ((Eph. 4:29; 5:3-4). It is always inappropriate to speak evil of someone (Tit. 3:2; James 4:11; Jude 8).

Responding appropriately means figuring out what this person needs, be it comfort, counsel, validation, or just the need to vent their feelings to someone, someone to understand them and what they are going through.

5. Be sensitive and tactful. Choose your words carefully. Watch your tongue – it can spread poison (James 3:1-12). “Speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:25). “Let your speech always be with grace seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6). “Be kind to one another” (Eph. 4:32).

6. Be supportive. It is easy to treat people like a number – “Next!” – and then promptly forget that the previous person even existed. When you meet them next time, ask how it is going, what happened, how they feel (1 Thess. 5:11). If something has been left for you to do, always make sure you do it as you promised.

B. Collective (Public) Communication.

Collective communication may be to the congregation or to the Board or staff or some special interest group. All the principles of individual communication apply, but communicating publicly (whether to all the congregation or part of it) has some of its own characteristics and challenges.

In order to be consistent and accurate in public communication, it is good to have some policies and procedures in place that cover such things as: (1) Regularly scheduled events at which to communicate certain information (e.g. quarterly business meetings; annual meetings; town hall meetings). (2) Timely disclosure – when certain information is to be disclosed and to whom (e.g. budgets, spending, new initiatives, staff resignations or dismissals). By spelling out in a policy of procedure who the recipients are of certain information and when they should be informed, you can try to ensure that no one who needs to know is left out. (3) Material information – information that will have a material impact on the church (e.g. shortfalls in donations; a lawsuit; or a potential liability or risk). Such policies and procedures should cover your communication and relationship with the congregation and between the leadership.

1. Relationship and communication with the congregation. Ask yourself the following questions…

a) How can we effectively communicate with the congregation? From the pulpit? In the bulletin? One-on-one? In groups? In membership meetings?

b) Who communicates to the congregation? The pastor? The Chair of the Board? Specially designated person? – e.g. chair of finance committee.

c) What is communicated to the congregation? Better to communicate more than they need to know than too little. Communication of the church’s vision is the responsibility of the visionary (usually, the pastor), who is also the living example of what the vision is all about. You illustrate what the vision is about by, for example, your enthusiasm for it, your time commitment to it, the resources you commit to it. The communication of the vision is vitally important if you want your people to adopt it as their own and participate in making it reality. Notice how Jesus communicated his vision (Luke 19:10; John 3:17; John 10:9-10). What is his key component, common theme?

2. Relationship and communication between leadership. Good relationships and communications between the Elders’ Board and pastoral staff are vital for a healthy leadership group and a healthy church. And yet, this is a potentially problematic relationship, especially in a church that practices congregational government where the lines of accountability and areas of responsibility are not always crystal clear or neatly divided up. In the church, often the Board as a whole (through its Chair) is accountable to the congregation directly as is also the lead pastor individually.

I would suggest that churches need to become far more intentional in defining the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of its pastoral staff and its leadership, and the relationship between the them (between the Board and the congregation; between the pastor and the congregation; and between the pastor and the Board). However it is defined, the leadership of the church is a common task of the elders and the pastors. They have to make sure that it works. A divided leadership team will make for a weak ministry.

Biblically, there is no distinction between elders and pastors – an elder is a pastor (1 Peter. 5:1; Acts 20:28). But practically we make a distinction in their functions because elders are part-time volunteers and pastors are full-time, paid staff. Probably the best distinction is that (1) the elders’ role is to govern (they deal primarily with policy matters, direction, spending, spiritual issues, ministry etc.); (2) the pastor’s role, assisted by staff, is to lead and manage day-to-day matters. Again, these inter-relationships should be at least covered in broad brush terms in a policy and procedure statement.

The elders of the church need to understand that the scope of their mandate is: (1) To be a governing body and not a management team; and (2) To set policy, vision, direction, approve budgets and new ministry initiatives, review financial statements etc. The role of the pastoral staff, on the other hand, is carry out the day-to-day management, subject to the approval of the elders and congregation as necessary. That’s why a church has staff. To not let them carry out the day-to-day execution of day-to-day management issues and duly approved decisions would be an indication of the lack of trust that often exists in our churches.

To enhance the working relationship between the leadership and the pastoral staff, obviously, they need to communicate regularly, openly, honestly between themselves. If such communication doesn’t exist at that level, you can hardly expect it to exist at a congregational level. The purpose of this level of communication is to deal effectively with ministry and practical issues as they relate to the function of elders and pastors.

The direction and stability of an organization stem from the communication and relationship between the Board and the management staff (in this case, the pastors). If there is tension in this relationship, it will affect the communication and the leadership of the church. Often there is a difference of approach to certain issues because the pastoral staff view certain decisions from a different perspective than lay elders, based on their knowledge of the congregation and their theological, biblical, pastoral perspective.

Lay elders are often business people or people from other professions and trades whose training pushes them toward solving problems, setting policies, giving direction etc. from an entirely different perspective. This is where everyone needs to serve the church as shepherds of the church, from a kingdom perspective.

Some suggestions for improving intra-leadership (pastor-elder) communications and relationships are…

a) Training. It helps if pastors train their lay elders whenever possible and suitable. Teach them the Bible, particularly as it relates to the biblical theology of being an elder, of leading the church, of church ministry and leadership. Teach them about prayer. Teach them about the fruit of the Spirit.

b) Developing relationships. The pastor can play a very important role in developing intra-leadership relationships. If people know each other personally and respect each other at a non-formal level, this always helps when differing opinions need to be resolved at formal meetings. Any interaction in a relaxed, non-threatening environment helps to break down communication barriers. Some suggestions for a pastor to help to develop these relationships are…

Spend time together between official meetings – for example, by inviting the elders to your home for social occasions; or by arranging elder-pastor retreats. This creates a more relaxed setting with time to talk together.

Express your appreciation to your lay elders – for their time, interest, commitment to the Lord and the church. Being appreciated does wonders for relationships. If people know they are loved and appreciated, they will be much more accommodating of your ideas.

Pray together (for each other and the church) and study the word together. I would strongly recommend that all meetings should be preceded with prayer and a word from the Scriptures. This sets the tone for the meeting.

Encourage each Board member – for example, when they are criticized by members of the church or when something goes wrong in their lives.

Exercise forgiveness regularly and freely. This is all very biblical but often forgotten. Again the pastor would do well to teach the leadership such principles as (1) esteeming others better than yourself (Phil. 2:3), forgiving one another and speaking kindly to one another (Eph. 4:32). Leadership is so public, so risky, and so complex, that forgiveness and the other Christian relational attributes must be spontaneously and openly practiced or communication will not work well.

3. Relationship and communication between other leadership groups. Just as the pastoral staff and the elders should meet regularly to communicate and make joint decisions, so other ministry leaders in the church should meet regularly with their volunteers in order for everyone to be on the same page regarding the church’s operations, ministry goals, and vision. The more open and regular the communication, the better. Generally speaking, you can’t over communicate.

Final Remarks

Many volumes of books have been written on this subject of organizational communication. This article is really just a brief introduction to the subject. Of course, in our context of church relationships and communications, we find our most authoritative and practical instructions on this topic in Scripture, such as…

James 1:19. “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”

Proverbs 10:19. “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.”

Ephesians 4:29. “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”

Proverbs 18:2. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Ephesians 4:15. “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”

Ephesians 4:25. “Having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”

Romans 12:4–5. “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”

Ephesians 2:22. “In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”

1 Thessalonians 5:11. “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.”

Romans 12:3. “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.”

Philippians 2:3. “In humility count others more significant than yourselves.”

Let us take heed to these Scriptures (and many others) and practice them in our communication and relationship with others. I hope that this article stimulates your thinking on this topic. I hope that it motivates you to document policies and procedures that govern communications in your church and to be intentional about developing your own communication skills and relationships. If you do, I think you will find that your communications will become more effective and you will develop more healthy relationships in your church. May that be so for the glory of God and the blessing of the church.

This is only an introduction to the subject at a broad-brush level. These comments are oriented toward church conflict specifically, but are applicable in other situations as well.

This article is a continuation of our series on church leadership, as follows…

Part I, A Philosophy / Theology of Church Leadership.

1. The Purposes of the Church.

2. Formulating a philosophy of Church ministry.

3. Christian leaders and leadership: Their definition and characteristics.

4. Pastoral leadership.

Part II, Strengthening Church relationships.

1. Improving church communications.

2. Dealing with church discipline.

3. Managing church conflict.

4. Leading your church through change.

Someone has said that the two leading causes of men leaving the ministry are (1) Their inability to manage conflict; and (2) Their inability to implement change. In fact, these two issues (conflict and change) are tightly interwoven since change itself is one of the leading causes of conflict. So, it makes sense that these are the two leading, interconnected causes of men leaving the ministry.

Conflict in the church is not new. Conflict existed in the early church, despite its apparent pristine condition. We’ll look at some of the biblical examples later. Conflict exists anywhere people with the old nature are present. Conflict occurs when people press their own agenda (their preferences, their opinions, their will) over that of others (cf. Phil. 2:1-4), when they are not willing to compromise or exercise mutual submission. Conflict occurs wherever you have a group of thinking, motivated people. If people are creative, care about their organization, and are motivated to be and do everything to the best of their ability, you are likely to encounter conflict.

I. Some Positive Observations About Conflict

1. Conflict can be healthy. While conflict is usually something we shy away from and which usually has a bad connotation, some conflict is good. Conflict can arise from something as innocuous as a mild misunderstanding. Even if it involves an outright disagreement over something that is serious, it need not necessarily lead to sinful behavior. As long as the parties behave as mature Christians, displaying Christian attributes, and keeping the flesh in check, sin will not be (and must not be) present.

Obviously, conflict that undermines authority or personal self-worth, dignity, or the unity of the church is not good under any conditions. But, if handled properly, conflict is good that stems from or gives rise to a healthy exchange of views or from challenging the conscience (as some preaching does), or that makes people think through their beliefs, traditions, and relationships. Good conflict brings out into the open what was festering underneath, deals with it, and enables all the parties to go on together happily. Good conflict is evidence of healthy life in the body of Christ. Good conflict may open up new ideas and methods. Good conflict may challenge leadership to change course or begin something new, or re-examine the church’s vision, values, or goals. Some of the best decisions are spawned in the soil of good conflict.

When a group of people never has a difference of opinion or practice and where uniformity is the order of the day, you may have a cult or, at the very least, a non-thinking, perhaps apathetic, unhealthy, unmotivated group of people. Healthy conflict is that which is conducted in a God-honoring manner and leads to improved relationships, processes, priorities, and values. Conflict that does that is healthy.

It’s important to understand that conflict and disagreement are not always or necessarily the same. Disagreement can be healthy. It only becomes unhealthy when it degenerates into sinful conflict. Healthy disagreement is the product of open dialogue based on trust, love, and mutual respect. Unhealthy disagreement is when it involves conflict expressed in anger, insults, quarrels, personal antagonism, and disrespect. Healthy disagreement brings out into the open what would otherwise be hidden and fester.

2. Periodic conflict is normal. I don’t mean that it is right or best but that wherever people with fallen natures live together in close relationship for extended periods of time disagreements will occur, and sometimes disagreement leads to conflict. Offences will occur which sometimes give rise to conflict. Personalities will clash and sometimes produce conflict.

Normal conflicts do not have to be bad, sinful, or destructive of relationships. How we handle conflict is the determining factor as to whether the conflict itself severs relationships and is sinful.

3. Conflict does not necessarily produce sustained damage. But this requires sensitive handling of the issue and Christ-like behavior on the part of the parties involved. Conflicts that in the world would leave permanent scars do not have to do so among God’s people. This is why building Christian character in your people through your preaching and example is very important on an on-going basis.

However, I do need to be realistic and warn you that if conflict is allowed to escalate and degenerate into a quarrel, relationships can be fractured, sometimes irreparably, the church can become an unsafe place, and spiritual growth can be hampered.

Conclusions:

1. We need to guard our emotions whenever differences of opinion are expressed, particularly if it is in the form of criticism against you, the pastor, personally, or disagreement with you.

2. We need to beware not to allow Satan to gain an advantage over us through internal strife.

3. We need to constantly examine ourselves – our motives, our pride, our attitude etc.

4. The church is particularly prone to conflicts because of…

a) The closeness in which we live together in the body of Christ.

b) The degree of conviction that we hold about what the church is and how church should be done.

c) The desire for power which is more easily obtained in a church than any other organization.

d) The influence of culture and tradition in the church.

II. Analyzing Conflict

Conflict can be difficult to analyze. The causes of the conflict, the motivations of the parties, the facts of the issue, the history behind the conflict are often difficult to discern. Sometimes, the parties to the conflict do not know the causes, motivations (e.g. their biases etc.). Sometimes, conflict is irrational. Sometimes, two people’s perception and recounting of the facts are completely different.

A. Types Of Conflict.

Conflict has been analyzed into three types (see Speed Leas and Paul Kittlaus, “Church Fights: Managing conflict in the local church,” cited in James Berkley, Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration, 187).

1. Intrapersonal conflict (cf. Ps. 73; Matt. 27:46; Phil. 1:22-23). Intrapersonal conflict is conflict within yourself over competing desires, goals etc. Or, it may be internal emotional, psychological conflict from life circumstances (e.g. loss of a job), which manifests itself in other relationships and contexts.

2. Interpersonal conflict (cf. Gen. 27, Jacob and Esau; Gen. 37f., Joseph and his brothers; 1 Sam. 19, Saul and David). Interpersonal conflict is conflict between two or more persons due to competing personality types, attitudes, upbringing, worldview, temperaments etc.

Paul and Barnabas obviously had very different personalities and temperaments. Paul was  very focused on tasks, setting and achieving goals, whereas Barnabas was more focused on relationships and personal encouragement. When it came to dealing with John Mark they had a falling out. This does not imply that Paul was not a people person (Romans 16 would indicate that he was) nor that Barnabas did not have goals. But periodically our overriding temperament comes out and may cause conflict if it is in the context of dealing with someone else of a different personality and temperament. In some cases, certain people’s personality type seems to be always looking for conflict.

Both interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts are also found in inter-group and intra-group conflicts. The third type of conflict is what I call...

3. Substantive conflict.

a) Conflict over facts like budgetary items (how much do we have in the building fund; what percentage of total donations should be allocated to missions).

b) Conflict over methods as in evangelism, fund raising, differing approaches to ministry, or engaging in public protests (e.g. at abortion clinics) vs. relying on political intervention.

c) Conflict over values. You can help prevent this type of conflict if your church conducts a core values audit and spells out what its core values really are. Conflict over values and methods of ministry is often seen between age groups where both groups (old and young) hold the same values but express them differently. Some of this stems from tradition or culture that has been established over time.

Often, the generation that follows the founders of a church will follow in the culture that was established by the founders, but sooner or later a generation arises that, in a sense, “knows not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) and which rebels against the culture for culture’s sake.

d) Conflict over goals and priorities such as where to put human and financial resources into developing community outreach or overseas missions. This may stem from losing sight of the purpose and goals of the church. This underscores the value and necessity of spelling out clearly what are the church’s mission (purpose), vision, and goals.

e) Conflict over beliefs and worldviews. These are some of the harder conflicts to resolve because beliefs are held so tightly. We ought always to be willing to re-examine our beliefs and interpretation of Scripture without compromising fundamental truth. The problem is that some people consider any re-examination of any traditionally held view as compromise. But this is not necessarily the case, as in, for example, church structure. Not long ago most, if not all, Baptist churches in Canada were structured around deacon leadership. Now, most of them have changed to an elder / deacon structure in response to a fresh examination and understanding of Scripture. This kind of re-examination of our practices and culture in the light of Scripture is good.

The biggest problems occur, obviously, in those areas where interpretation of Scripture is hard, or where Scripture is unclear or silent. Often these are in areas of practical application. Question: What might be some of the contemporary issues that contribute to conflict of doctrine or practice? Some answers: The role of women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, music styles, Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

f) Conflict over power and control. There may be an attitude of “This is our church, we started it.” I deal with this in greater detail in the next article in this series called “Leading your church through change.” We need to understand at this point that the desire for control is a very strong motivator for some of God’s people. My observation has been that, often, those who want control are those who have little or no position of control in other endeavors in their lives (e.g. they do not hold a position of authority in their work, or even at home sometimes). Thus, they have a subconscious need for power to generate self-esteem and recognition, and the church is the obvious place to try to get it. In fact, it has been astutely observed that the church is probably the easiest place to obtain power and to potentially abuse it because (i) Christians (and Christian leaders) often find it hard to confront people and deal with such issues; and (ii) Power is often conferred in the church just by a person’s popularity, not ability or godliness.

Power struggles often stem from money. Those with more money sometimes think that they should have the right to be heard over others and to get their own way. Social status and even education can do the same thing. Pastors need to be careful that they do not seek power because of their position or education. The biblical instruction that I think is very apropos in this situation is that we are to “esteem others better than ourselves” (Philippians. 2:3) and “to not think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think” (Romans 12:3).

Conclusions. Of course, any one of these conflict types may overlap with another – e.g. conflict over which project to spend money on may expose personality differences. Analyzing the type of conflict is obviously valuable in resolving the conflict as it will determine your approach.

Often, the type of conflict may be masked by a Christian veneer of submission (e.g. “I only want what’s right for the church”), or godliness (“I don’t want this for myself but for the glory of God”). We need to be able to cut through that veneer to see the true source of the conflict. When conflicts arise out of a false front (e.g. when you are dealing with people who are not explicitly honest about their goals and feelings) you can easily go after the wrong type of conflict, thinking that it is a conflict of substance when it is actually a conflict of personal ambition or control.

So long as people have opinions and convictions, and so long as they feel passionately about their church and its mission and vision, then you will inevitably have some sort of conflict. What is of most importance is the motivation of the conflict and its resolution.

B. Some General Steps In Analyzing Conflict.

1. Analyze what type of issue it is. Is it a doctrinal issue? Is it a church ministry issue? Is it a leadership issue? Is it an interpersonal relationship issue? Is it a financial issue? etc.

2. Analyze all the known facts about the issue. Acting without all the facts can get you into hot water. Remember, there are often two sides to the story – the side you have heard is not necessarily the only one or the true one. During this part of the process you may learn facts and aspects of the issue that you did not know before.

3. Analyze what category of conflict this issue falls into. If it is a doctrinal issue, decide what category of doctrinal issues – one that threatens your fundamental, evangelical beliefs, or a secondary issue over which we have some liberty. If it is a ministry issue, decide what category of ministry issue – one that revolves around practice or people; one that speaks to your core values or long-term goals etc.

Ask yourself how widespread or deep this issue is. Is it a full-blown, church-wide drama (either actual or potential), or is it something that the majority of people wouldn’t care about? Is it something that attacks who we are, what we stand for? Is it an issue that could dishonor the Lord’s testimony in this community?

4. Analyze the people involved. Who are they? Have they been involved in such conflicts before (i.e. are they habitual fighters)? What might be their motives in this conflict (e.g. defending other family members)? Is this a power issue? Are they part of a clique in the church?

5. Analyze the level and state of the conflict. The most serious level is one in which (a) the parties are mad at each other, shouting etc.; (b) the conflict may cause a split in the church; (c) resignations have been tendered or pending; (d) threats are being made; (e) this is a full-blown fight over irreconcilable differences.

Below that there is an intermediate level, where there may be a sense of foreboding that is hanging over everything. Things don’t seem to be progressing. The future seems uncertain.

Then, there is a manageable level, where people are cool, calm, and collected. This conflict is characterized by the discussions and decisions that are being made. Resolution seems to be near.

The healthy level is one where the disagreement is minor and positive results are appearing. The conflict is producing some good results. No damage to relationships appears to be sustained. The parties are acting in a mature manner. This is a situational problem that can be resolved

Analyzing the level and state of the conflict helps you determine the urgency of intervention. You will be able to determine the risk factors, the seriousness of the conflict, what is at stake, how entrenched are the positions, how illogical and emotional the parties have become.

6. Analyze the problem over a reasonable period of time. Time does a number of things: (a) It allows you to digest what you learn about the conflict before acting; (b) It gives you time to pray about it; (c) It gives you the opportunity to consult others if necessary; (d) It gives you space to arrive at a wise decision (wise decisions are not made in a hurry); (e) It gives time for emotions to settle down (time is a great healer).

III. Some Sources Of Conflict

A. Personal Affront.

Personal affront can be caused by different sources…

1. Unfairness, injustice. Churches are notorious for dealing with people (staff or members) unfairly or unjustly. Some pastors are let go from their church for the most unjust reasons. For example, a pastor who was diagnosed with cancer was let go because he would “not be productive” during his chemotherapy treatment period. That church justified their action on the grounds that it was in the pastor’s best interests to be free from the pressure of pastoral responsibilities during his treatment period. But what about the pressure of no income? What about the love and care for someone who is undergoing a heavy burden? What about just being kind and fair?

2. Favoritism. Often decisions are made based on the person involved. Certain persons are given permission and freedom, for example to carry out certain ministries or functions, when others are not.

3. Left out of the group. A few years ago I was involved in conducting a significant survey of our church to get a handle on the church’s current state of affairs. One of the things we did was conduct some exit interviews. Many of those interviewed disclosed that they had left the church because they felt that they didn’t fit in or that there was no sense of belonging, of community.

B. Differing Convictions.

Some church conflict arises over matters of doctrine, but they are usually intertwined with matters of practice such as the role of women in ministry, leadership organizational structure and selection, church music (e.g. contemporary vs. traditional).

The differing convictions that give rise to church conflict usually are not doctrinal convictions (although the antagonists often would like to make them doctrinal!) but matters of personal preference that is raised to the level of personal conviction, or matters dealing with church practices or power. Many issues of power are masked as issues of doctrine.

C. Unfulfilled Expectations.

Why do unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conflict? Because unfulfilled expectations lead to disappointment and disappointment can affect one’s attitude. And because unfulfilled expectations sometimes lead to conclusions that, for example, promises were not kept, which in turn generates feelings of distrust, lack of integrity.

Why is it so important to establish clear, definitive expectations? Because expectations (whether stated or assumed) set the standard against which people measure future performance.

What are some of the expectations that church leaders need to define? They may be such matters as the expectations of their ministry leaders, pastors’ job responsibilities, or scope of authority.

D. Unclear Definitions.

Often churches fail to define things like job descriptions, ministry plans and goals, leadership authority, organizational structure. When these important matters are undefined or unclear, they can easily lead to conflict.

E. Leadership And Decision-Making Style.

Here are some of the styles that can cause conflict: Autocratic vs. collegial; top down vs. team approach; political maneuvering vs. forthrightness and openness. These processes probably causes more conflict than the issue itself because people are not informed fully or because they are not given enough time to think the issues through.

F. Habits, Attitudes, Behavior, And Personalities.

There may be toxic attitudes that need to be addressed in dealing with conflicts, such as a root of bitterness, critical spirit (cf. Eph. 4:31-32; Heb. 12:15); a critical spirit; gossip and evil speaking about others (cf. James 3:1-12; 4:11); self-will; pride; stubbornness; the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21).

These negative, sinful habits and attitudes need to be replaced with the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:19-22) – love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1); respect and honour; mutual submission (Ephesians 5:21).

G. Contemporary Issues.

Among other matters, contemporary issues include the style of church music, women in ministry, leadership structure, the division of power (between members, elders, pastors), redefinitions of pastoral authority and responsibility, and transitioning from one generation to the next.

H. Change.

See my article on “Leading your church through change” (“Change: Culture and Control”).

IV. Some Biblical Principles And Studies On Conflict

A. Biblical Principles For Managing Conflict.

Notice how pervasive in Scripture is the exhortation and instruction to unity and peace:

Psalm 133:1; Proverbs 16:7, 32; 17:14; 18:17, 18; 19:11; 20:3; 21:14; 26:17; 26:20-21; Matthew 5:9; 18:15-17; John 17:20-23; Romans 12:14-21; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:4-13; 2 Cor. 2:11; Gal. 1:6; 4:11-12, 20; Ephesians 4:3; 4:25-32; 6:10-20; Col. 3:8-9, 15; Phil. 1:27; 2:2-5; 3:15-16; 4:2-5; 2 Tim. 2:24-25; 2 Tim. 4:14-15; Titus 3:10; James 4:1-10; 5:16.

B. Biblical Examples Of Conflict.

Judges 15, Samson’s responses to conflict. Samson’s responses actually escalate the conflict: (a) The response from the mind - impetuous decisions (e.g. to marry a Philistine); (b) The response from the will - arrogant behavior (e.g. posing a ridiculous riddle); (c) The response from the heart - uncontrolled emotion (he will take revenge for losing his wife to another man); (d) Rage that distorts his reason such that his response is totally disproportionate to the offense (e.g. tying 300 foxes’ tails together and setting their tails on fire). One act of uncontrolled emotion leads to another – it doesn’t end with the loss of crops but escalates to the loss of life, a great slaughter. Revenge and retaliation never solve the problem.

Other texts for private study: Luke 10:38-42; Acts 6:1-6; 11:1-18; 15:1-35; 15:36-40 (cf. 2 Timothy 4:11); 1 Corinthians 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 10:2-11; Gal. 2:11-21; 6:1-2; Phil. 4:2-3.

When studying these texts, answer the following questions: What was the issue? Or, what was the cause of the complaint / conflict? What happened? How was it resolved? What can we learn about church conflict from this example?

V. Some Principles And Practices For Resolving Conflicts

A. Some Good Principles To Adopt.

1. Make sure that you approach the conflict with the right attitude. This applies to both the parties involved in the dispute and to the pastor / mediator of the dispute. The attitude of the parties is vitally important in bringing about resolution. If you, as the pastor have the wrong attitude either towards the issue or towards either of the parties, you won’t be effective in bringing about resolution. If either of the parties has the wrong attitude towards the other, the chances of resolution are slim. The overriding attitude must be one of grace, humility, kindness, love, peace-making.

Biblical principles about our attitude must be foremost in our minds. In this regard, the beatitudes become very meaningful in conflict resolution. The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) is very important to remind yourself of the right attitude. Make sure that you judge your own heart before engaging in conflict resolution. You can be just as critical, harsh, uncompromising etc. as anybody else. Part of one’s attitude is the recognition that God is able to resolve these disputes and that just as he gave Solomon wisdom, so the Holy Spirit can give you the necessary wisdom.

2. Whenever possible, try informal resolution first. Try to defuse conflict before it becomes a public issue. It’s much better to deal with conflict informally. Once it becomes public, you have to deal with it formally and decisively using the above steps.

Informal processes for dealing with conflict would include one-on-one counselling sessions with the parties; group counselling sessions. Group sessions are helpful in bringing the parties together to talk about the issue and to bring the facts out into the open. Often disputes can be dealt with this way since all the parties may not know all the facts, all the parties may not realize how they have offended others, the parties may not be talking to one another – a sure way not to resolve the conflict. Another benefit of a group meeting is that you will learn things about the conflict that you did not learn from the parties individually. Conflicts are rarely as simple as the parties involved may make them out to be.

3. Trust The Effectiveness Of Prayer. Bathe all conflict in prayer. This means not only your own prayer about the situation but the prayer of the parties involved. Insist that they commit to pray about it. Involve your elders in praying about it (if that is appropriate). Begin your conflict resolution meetings with prayer, involving the parties in praying together at those meetings. During the meetings when tough issues are being discussed and / or things are going off the rails, don’t be afraid to stop the proceedings for a time of prayer.

B. Some Good Practices To Follow.

1. Be objective. Deal with the facts as much as possible, not the emotions. Don’t allow yourself to respond emotionally or defensively. For example, if you are dealing with a theological / doctrinal issue, deal with the theology objectively, precisely, biblically; bring Scripture and commentaries to bear on the issue.

2. Be neutral. Don’t show partiality (James 2:1-10). Ignore who the parties are (whether you like one and not the other etc.). And don’t try to manipulate the parties by forcing them to settle the dispute. If you are perceived as using force (either mental, emotional, or spiritual), you will erode the position of trust you hold. And, beware of misusing Scripture – that is a form of manipulation. The parties to the dispute have to willingly settle it or it will arise again.

3. Be a peacemaker, not at any price, but work to bring about peace. You are a pastor and a pastor wants peace among his people for their spiritual, emotional, and relational benefit and for the benefit of the church as a whole. After all, conflict has a quenching effect on the Spirit and can bring dishonor on the Lord’s name.

You can be a peacemaker by the way you treat the parties to the conflict, by the way you conduct conflict resolution meetings, and by ensuring that all parties are treated with respect. You can demonstrate this by making your language and resolution options non-personal. You are dealing with the issue, not trying to chastise, humiliate, or demean any of the persons. It’s always appropriate to stress the need for grace and Christlikeness.

4. Be prepared to be misunderstood. Typically, one or more of the parties will misunderstand you and / or attribute false motives to you and / or accuse you of not defending them. The reality is that though you may be acting on behalf of one of the parties, you are actually acting for all.

5. Be strategic, not haphazard. For example…

a) Establish an agenda for all conflict resolution meetings. You may have several meetings and the agenda for each meeting will be different. The purpose of an agenda is to keep the meeting focused and moving toward the common goal of resolution. The first agenda item should be obtaining agreement on the facts. If they do not agree on what the problem is, you can’t begin to resolve it.

b) Get the input of other people. Perhaps friends of the parties (if appropriate) can help with resolution (i.e. people who the parties trust and love, and whose advice they will heed).

c) Ask hard questions of the people involved. Challenge them to support their statement with facts and figures. Often in conflicts, sweeping generalizations are made or statements that are inferences and not facts. The investigation of charges made is biblical (Proverbs 18:17).

d) Establish the rules of procedure and etiquette - e.g. that it is alright to disagree; that everyone’s opinions are to be respected; that people may not interrupt each other or start to argue; that no one will be allowed to say anything derogatory about or to anyone else; that emotions are to be expressed maturely and with restraint.

e) Be in charge of the process. Take charge of the process when engaged in a face-to-face meeting with the parties. You are the chair and mediator. They may not agree with your opinions or proposals, but they have to accept your leadership or else the process has no integrity.

f) Work purposefully toward a resolution. Keep everyone focused on the task at hand. Don’t let the attention wander to unconnected issues. As you progress through the process, periodically summarize where you are and what has been agreed upon so far. Make sure all parties agree.

g) When appropriate, provide options, give your opinion, recommend your preferred solution (if you think it will help and be accepted). But, only articulate a recommendation or opinion if you absolutely have to in trying to break a deadlock. Don’t be offended if your ideas a rejected. Even though you are their pastor, when push comes to shove in a nasty conflict, your opinion may not mean much.

Remember that your primary role is to let the parties resolve the issue. That is the best and the most enduring resolution to conflict. But sometimes some parties cannot work out a solution. They may not have the skills to do so or the maturity. Or, they may be so emotionally involved that pride stands in the way of suggesting a compromise. That’s when you can say what they would not.

6. Options if no resolution is achieved. Not all conflicts will be resolved right away and some may never be resolved. If you cannot bring about resolution through this mediating process, you have a few options:

a) You can send the parties out for professional counselling or professional mediation.

b) You can involve the elders, particularly if the nature of the case may involve church discipline.

c) You can negotiate for more time.

C. Some Common Responses To Conflict Resolution.

The parties involved in conflict will respond somehow to the conflict and any attempts to resolve it. Each of the following responses to conflict and conflict resolution may or may not be appropriate, depending on the situation. Typically, all responses fall into one of the following categories (these ideas are taken from Seidel, “Charting a Bold Course,” 259-262, but the expression of these ideas are mine)…

1. Avoidance (withdrawing). A party to conflict may just avoid dealing with the conflict altogether either because the issue is just not resolvable, or because the issue has gone on and on and they need to bring it to an end, or because the person is incapable of looking the other party in the eye and dealing with the issue.

The dangers of responding in this way are that (a) the conflict is never properly closed; and (b) the other party will appear vindicated (or, be the self-declared winner) by virtue of your silence – i.e. you are wrong by default.

A personal experience of avoidance. I had an experience one time where an elder of the church I pastored used avoidance so that the issue was never properly closed. He had an issue against me (I don’t know what), so I asked him to come in and speak with me about it (whatever it was). But when he came in he would not disclose what the issue was, saying that he had other things going on in his life that caused him to act the way he did (i.e. he used avoidance). This was no good. I could not resolve the issue or even attempt to resolve it.

So, if someone uses avoidance because they are afraid to address the issue directly with the party involved, you cannot resolve it. This is not a satisfactory way to deal with conflict.

Avoidance may be used in the following situations…

a) To temporarily to buy time while seeking a resolution in other ways or

b) Where a face-to-face meeting to resolve the issue would be explosive and perhaps do permanent damage.

c) Where the issue really isn’t that important.

d) Where there is no hope of resolution.

2. Capitulation, giving in, accommodating the other party, surrendering. In this response, one of the parties quickly yields to the wishes, opinions, decisions of the other party. Typically, this is done by those who consider the relationship to be more important than the issue; or who just are not fighters or cannot fight. While this will superficially terminate the conflict quickly, underneath the issues and hurts may continue to fester, particularly in the one who capitulates. Obviously, this would be an appropriate way to respond if the issue is not that important to you anyway; or where maintaining the relationship really is more important than the issue itself; or if you, as the one who submits, are wrong and you know it.

3. Compromise. Compromise is a very common response to conflict. It’s a common approach to contract and union negotiations. Each party is urged to give up a little ground in order to reach a point where the issue disappears. While this is not the best resolution it can be effective so long as neither party is forced or manipulated into it. If they are, then the problem will surface again either in poor relationships or another issue.

The weakness of a compromise is that neither party is truly happy. Each party thinks that they had to give up too much. The key to negotiating a successful compromise is to leave both parties genuinely happy with the solution and not feel like they have agreed to something that underneath they resent. You may want to adopt this approach where the ground that both parties give up is not vitally important, or when no other better resolution is forthcoming.

4. All-or-nothing. Sometimes parties to a conflict approach it as a competition in which the parties either win or lose. This is the response of (a) those who are very competitive and who have no intention under any circumstances of losing (or being perceived as losing) this argument; (b) the egotist who has no consideration that he/she might be wrong and who has no consideration for the feelings or opinions of the other party; (c) someone who “fights for their rights no matter what”. This is a power-based response. This is usually used by someone who is verbally loud, a verbal fighter, an arguer, or someone with money and status.

Obviously, this is not a satisfactory response or resolution either for the “winner” or the “loser.”  The winner actually loses because he thinks he is right again and is confirmed in his wrong attitude about himself and others. The loser also loses because they are hurt, trampled on, and marginalized. The only instance where “winner-take-all” is appropriate is in cases of outright illegal activity or denial of fundamental biblical truths. For example, if fraud were committed by someone in the church, the case would be investigated and proven and the resolution would be effected with no discussion, no compromise, no negotiated deal. But even in this case, we should always make sure that our attitude is right.  It should not be the attitude of the winner-take-all, but of humble faithfulness to the glory of God and the truth of Scripture.

5. Mutual agreement. This is the most satisfactory response of all. Here, you attempt to get a true resolution through a mutual agreement. This is not a compromise in that (a) both parties have participated in the process and are both genuinely convinced of the agreement so that they are not compromised in their beliefs, ideas, or opinions; (b) both parties have probably had to move a bit in their position (i.e. both parties have given something up for the benefit of all and what they have given up has not compromised them).

The benefits of this resolution are that (a) by involving all the parties and working through the issue to bring about a mutually acceptable solution or agreement everyone is happy and the chances of long-term agreement are good; and (b) it preserves the relationships as well as addressing the issue – neither one takes priority.

The challenge with this response is to get the co-operation of the other party. To do so, it requires the willingness of both parties to achieve this result through honest and transparent dialogue. Typically, this kind of response only takes place where the parties are mature emotionally and spiritually.

Whenever possible, I think that this response is the one to be worked for. It does not require either party to compromise their position and yet produces an acceptable result through intelligent, biblical, and prayerful dialogue. Obviously, because of the nature of conflict, this response is not very common or conflict would not be very common.

Final Remarks

Managing church conflict is such a broad topic that an article like this cannot possibly cover all possible scenarios, whether it be analyzing conflict, identifying various types of conflict, or steps to resolving conflict. So I readily admit that this article only covers these topics in a broadbrush way. But I do hope that the comments in this article prompt you to think about these issues, research them in greater depth with the objective of developing your own understanding of the best principles and practices that you can apply to your own pastoral leadership skills.

Above all, I trust that the ideas communicated in this paper will assist you in facilitating unity in your church for the benefit of the church members and for the glory of God. Disunity, that conflict can cause, is probably the primary tool Satan uses to weaken the church’s testimony, to dishonor God, and to cause Christians to be discouraged. May God help us to be unifying and peace-making pastoral leaders.