Seminary PL31: From Out Group to One Group

This is the seventeenth and last post on church management in my "Seminary in a Nutshell" series. In this series, I first did a section on the Person and Calling of a Minister. Now this is the thirty-first post in a section on the Pastor as a Leader (see at the bottom).

The previous post was about preventing group exit and splits. This post gives some general thoughts and principles of group integration
_________________
1. Human nature is tribal. We are born to herd, and we herd with people who are like us. In terms of church growth, Donald McGavran called this the "homogeneous unit principle," where a homogeneous unit is "a section of society in which all members have some characteristic in common." [1] McGavran observed that a group has synergy--and thus is more likely to grow--when the group is made up of people who are alike.

Understandably, the homogeneous principle has come under immense attack in recent days. It is abhorrent to think of some group saying, "We don't want anyone who isn't white" or "We don't want anyone who isn't African-American" or "We don't want anyone who isn't Hispanic" here! Thankfully, the principle hasn't usually been used in that way in the church. The current "segregation" of American congregations is hopefully more an unthinking phenomenon than an intentional one. [2]

But the natural tendency is for groups to congeal that hold some factor in common. Groups of "like" are more likely to grow than groups of "different." Human nature is such that "make us great" is usually a more powerful sentiment than "unite everyone together."

2. Unless, of course, the thing that holds a group together is the value of cross-group unity. Bob Whitesel has insightfully recognized that multi-cultural churches are actually a subtle form of homogeneity. [3] Those who worship at multi-ethnic churches are usually individuals who value the unity of the church across ethnic barriers!

We have a natural tendency to pull toward our "in-group," the group to which we belong. We have a tendency to exclude, alienate, persecute, fight, or at the very least "not see" the out-group or the other group. [3] There are many different ways to be out-group. You could argue that the 2016 election was in part the ignored blue collar worker pushing back, a group that has felt ignored or "not seen" by the "elite" of established national leadership.

I was part of a group once where I was amazed at the unity of the group, only to find out later that some others had always felt on the outside. This is the least offensive form of bias against an out-group, when we don't even realize we are alienating or excluding. But the out-group is keenly aware. The in-group is usually shocked--even indignant--if the out-group finally boils over and asserts itself. The in-group may not even realize the role it played in the creation of the crisis.

3. If some might not agree with this analysis, most Christians would agree with the goal to which I am pushing. If the church is being the church, then it needs to be a church for everyone, not a church for some in-group or subset. As Paul put it, "Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose" (1 Cor. 1:10). Cliques are not supposed to be part of the church.

This was the problem with the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians: "it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you" (1:11). Similarly in chapter 11: "I hear that there are divisions among you" (11:18). At Corinth, there was a group loyal to Paul and there was a group that was using Apollos as an excuse to push against Paul. Paul writes Corinth to try to get everyone on the same page.

If it grows unabated, factionalism can result in church splits. It clearly pulls against the mission of the church. The goal of the church is for it to be a place where there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, not 'male and female'" (Gal. 3:28). The goal of the church is a place where people are present "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (Rev. 7:9).

4. So how can a church go from "out-group" to "one group"? Let me suggest three stages of unification of a congregation in this respect:

• Agree on the value of unity and full inclusion.
• Take steps to look like your community and, even better, the kingdom of God.
• Shift from "us-them" language and thinking to "us" language.

5. When I say, agree on the value of full inclusion, I am not simply talking about race or gender. I mean all the cliques and factions that can take place even in a generally homogeneous church. After all, this is the last post in the section on conflict management. Having groups with "favored status" in the church is begging for conflict.

So it goes without saying that everyone in the church should be treated as being of equal worth. The children of the board or of wealthy givers should not be shown favoritism over any other child. Some will always think they are being treated unfairly, but we can only do our best.

We need to notice everyone who is our churches. Out-group conflict can simmer, sometimes for years, under the surface because of inadvertent exclusion. Then some other trigger can bring it to the surface.

Occasionally, there are people in our churches who actually do not want outsiders coming or do not want certain types of people in "their" church. This is so obviously unChristian that it should not even need mentioned. But Jesus makes it clear from the Parable of the Good Samaritan that our neighbor is precisely the person from the group we do not like. Today, this may include people of other races and nationalities, people of other religions, whatever the group is today that we want to hate.

What about the sinner? What about the law-breaker? True, the presence of those who disagree with our values or understandings can be a corrupting influence. But most of the time we will want in church the person whom we believe needs spiritual help.

6. So hopefully we believe that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

It is harder actually to draw a mixture of people to our churches. Humans herd. Our church may be located in a diverse community, but it is no easy task to lead a church to look like its location. And even if new people come, there is a fair chance there will be "in-group/out-group" conflict over the new individuals. It is human nature to resist change, especially as we get older.

The question of how to move toward a more diverse church is a subject for another time.

7. What we are concerned with today is how to see out-group or minority group individuals integrated once they are in your church. First, as we have said, the value of inclusion needs to be unbending. We need to be committed to everyone in the church being a full member and participant.

But there is an awkward stage of this process, the final stage, where we shift from "us-them" language to "us" language. Before we final get there, there is often a stage where the "in-group" thinks of itself as the host of the minority group, the new group. They are the ones doing the including, the ones being hospitable. They still assume a dominant role in relation to the "other." The value of inclusion is there, but it is "dominant group including subordinate group."

The final stage of inclusion is when we stop thinking in "us-them" terms at all and we are all simply the one group of the church. There is no host. There is no hospitality toward the other. There is simply "us."

8. There will always be different friend groups in a church. As long as these do not become exclusive or "us-them," they are natural. But it's worthwhile to mix it up every once and a while, get the members of one group talking to members of the other. Get people together who would not naturally do so.

But caution is also appropriate. Introverts don't enjoy forced mixing, while extroverts thrive off it. We should be careful not to make a certain personality a virtue. Go slow as necessary, or you will lose people. Almost any major change that happens, some people will leave anyway.

Next Week: Pastor as Leader 32: The Habits of Effective Administrators

[1] Understanding Church Growth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 95.

[2] Martin Luther King Jr. once called Sunday morning "the most segregated hour in America."

[3] See his recent book with Mark DeYmaz, re:Mix: Transitioning Your Church to Living Color (Nashville: Abingdon, 2016).

[4] The idea of "white privilege" has at its core this idea of not seeing. I don't see that I didn't get stopped for speeding when a person of color was. I don't see people watching me in a store, paranoid that I will steal something, while a person of color does. I do not experience a place as racist because I was considered "in," while someone else who is "out" feels it every day.

"White" itself is an artificial category. There is no real ethnicity that is "white" or "black." This is
a categorization created by the slave trade. My personal ethnicity is a mixture of English, Scotch-Irish, Dutch, and German. "White" is a category that evolved in American history as new waves of immigrants came to America. For example, Irish and Italians were not initially white because they were an out-group just arriving.

Leadership in General

• Categories of Leadership
• Styles and Traits of Leaders
• How does God lead
• Leadership Pitfalls

Strategic Planning

• The Mission, Great and Small
• Identifying Mission
• Casting Vision
• Vision Statements
• Thinking Missionally
• Evaluating Strengths
• Identifying Core Values
• Setting Goals
• Leading Change
• Evaluating Progress/Resetting Goals

Church Management

• Managing the Church
• Leadership in the Early Church
• Leadership Structures in Church History
• Church Position Descriptions
• Leading Healthy Teams
• Good Communication
• Hiring, Recruiting, and Firing

Conflict Management

• Causes of Conflict
• The Third Mark of the Church
• Basic Conflict Resolution
• Leadership and the Gentile Mission
• Navigating Disputable Issues
• Athanasius: No Compromise!
• Zwingli: No Compromise?
• Tillich's Protestant Principle
• Preventing Group Exit

Agreeing to Disagree (Acts 15:36-41)

In Acts, the conflict between Paul and Barnabas seems to pop up out of nowhere. They have just had a successful missionary journey. They have just prevailed at the meeting in Jerusalem. Now suddenly they have an argument over whether John Mark should go with them on a second missionary journey?

The book of Galatians suggests that the argument was over more than just John Mark. In the disagreement at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14), Barnabas ends up taking Peter's side over Paul in the dispute. While it would be convenient to think that Acts 15 resolved this dispute, it seems more likely that Paul lost this argument and that the tensions lingered on for a number of years. [1] Paul makes it a point to tell us earlier that he convinced Peter, James, and John about circumcision (Gal. 2:6-10). But he can't tell us that he convinced Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, because he likely didn't.

What was Barnabas thinking?  Didn't he agree with Paul that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised?  Had he not eaten with Gentile converts until the blow up at Antioch?

Perhaps he agreed with James' logic.  Yes, Gentiles can escape God's wrath without following the Jewish purity laws, being circumcised, and so forth. But that doesn't mean that Jewish believers can stop keeping the purity laws.  Unless the Gentiles are willing to follow certain rules, the two will not be able to eat together.

We can't read Barnabas' mind.  Maybe he sided with Peter for reasons of authority.  Maybe he thought it was important to submit to the authority of Peter and James, even if he disagreed with them. Maybe he was being pragmatist.  Maybe he thought it was a good tactic to yield for the moment until a compromise position could be worked out.

For Paul, this was perhaps the moment God used to sow the seeds of justification by faith. He knew the Gentiles were "in" without having to be circumcised.  How quickly did his theology explaining this mysterious fact follow? His thinking apparently was still forming back when he was in Galatia, for someone was able to convince them that he preferred that they get circumcised (Gal. 5:11)!

But this event in Antioch would seal the deal. No, these sort of "works of Law"--things like purity laws and circumcision--must have nothing to do with a right standing before God.  Had he not been blameless at keeping them (Phil. 3:6)?  If he had not been right with God through them, then no one could get right with God through them. Justification must be completely through the faithful death of Jesus, something we put our faith in when we are baptized. Then God gives us the Spirit as his seal of true ownership.

Acts remembers John Mark as the flash point, but he was only the symptom of a deeper conflict. Had John Mark been the one who tattletaled on Paul's mission to Gentiles when he went home early from the first missionary journey?  After all, he was from Jerusalem and well connected to Peter and the inner circle. If all we had were Acts, we might think it was just because Paul thought him a quitter, and maybe that was part of it.

But God redeemed the conflict.  God used it for good.  The result was two missions instead of one. If they had agreed, Paul might merely have gone back to Cyprus. But now he and Silas set course to spread the good news to new lands.  They will not only presumably take Titus with them, but they will add a young man named Timothy to the ranks of missionaries (Acts 16:1-3).

The rift was not permanent. Paul speaks in positive terms of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6, and he speaks positively of Mark in Colossians 4:10. Christians will not always agree on everything, and there is a time to be unified in disagreement, to agree to disagree. That is exactly what Paul and Barnabas did.

[1] If, as I think likely, Galatians 2:1-10 is Paul's version of Acts 15, then the incident at Antioch actually happened after the meeting in Jerusalem. I of course think Galatians fits better in the middle of Paul's ministry rather than at the beginning.

Vision for the Small Church

I posted this on the seminary blog today: Vision for the Small Church

Handling Conflict on the Mission

I just wrote informally on conflict in the context of Jesus' ministry, but I thought it might be worthwhile to formalize my sense of how to handle conflict when you're on God's mission.

When you are on God's mission and you face opposition, you should:

1. Examine yourself.
This involves prayer. It involves reflection and introspection. It can involve seeking out the counsel of others. Are my motives pure?  Is my understanding right?

2. What are the costs of moving forward?
God doesn't usually force others to do his will. He allows us to resist his will. He often lets others stop his best plan because they have the human power to do so.  And the cost of moving forward with God's best plan can be too great to move forward. What will it take to move forward?

3. Make a decision.
There is a time to force God's hand on others. This is especially true when the human cost of not moving forward is extreme.  There is a time when the opposition is "fleshly" and we plow on through. There is a time when the cost is greater than the benefit, and we concede or compromise or "shake the dust off our feet" and move on. There is a time when we wait, sensing that a door will open at a later time.

4. Implement purely.
We should move forward with God's will in a loving way.  We respect those who sincerely disagree and treat them with love. We act without spite for those whose opposition is not pure, looking to their redemption. We pray for those who resist God's will and pray for our own understanding and purity of motive.

Opposition to us today 3

... continued from Saturday
______________
... Who were these teachers of the law?  Mark doesn't identify them as Pharisees and this is just as well, since the Pharisees were primarily located in Jerusalem. [1] Jesus also is not in a big city, just in the seaside village of Capernaum. Most likely, then, these are very local individuals who play some official teaching role in the synagogue.

We can't know if there was an actual synagogue building in Capernaum. The building there now that pilgrims visit comes from over a hundred years later. In general, synagogues at this time were gatherings that usually did not have devoted buildings. [2] We have few archaeological examples of actual synagogue buildings at this point in history. Some did exist, but not in the prevalent way we now assume. Perhaps these gatherings were in homes, as the gathering in this story.

We should not be too quick to condemn these teachers. We know so much about Jesus in hindsight. To them, Jesus was a miracle worker that they definitely needed to check out. But he probably didn't fit their preconceptions of the kind of man God would choose. Wasn't he born under suspicious circumstances? Isn't he an artisan who works in wood and such--on the lower end of society to be sure? [3]

Some opposition is sincere and some comes for dubious reasons. Perhaps these teachers were completely sincere in their opposition to Jesus. Admittedly, it doesn't feel that way as we continue to read the gospel texts. It feels like they were intimidated by someone whose authority called their knowledge and authority into question. And rather than step back and submit to someone greater than them, they used their energies to oppose him.

Opposition usually involves more than just disagreement over the issues. There are usually personal dimensions involved. Sometimes we are jealous of others and what we perceive as their advantages or good fortune. Sometimes we feel embarrassed by them because their strengths seem to expose our weaknesses. Sometimes they make us feel insecure in our position or habits of living. Sometimes such insecurity is real and sometimes it is imagined.

Of course others are wired to enjoy opposing others. Some people have a lust for power and opposing others is their way of gaining more. No one must stand in the way of their ambition. It's not clear to me that the teachers of the law in Mark were of this sort.

Finally, there are a few people who genuinely oppose others because they believe the ideas or actions of another person are dangerous. They of course can be right or they can have a zeal not based on knowledge (Rom. 10:2). At least some of Jesus' opposition probably was sincere, but a great deal more probably was not.

Much of the time, the opposition doesn't seem to bother Jesus.  By and large, Jesus doesn't go looking for opposition, it comes to him. He simply conducts his mission and moves on. He doesn't feel threatened by the opposition. He is confident in what he does. In the case of the paralytic, he substantiates his claim to forgive sins by healing the man.  

We may very well also face opposition and conflict today as we try to do God's will in this world. Unlike Jesus, we may sometimes be in the wrong. There is a time for us to examine ourselves and see if we are on the right path. Are my motives pure or am I on a self-serving mission? Do I genuinely understand God's will or is my own zeal not based on knowledge? I may not be able to see myself clearly. I may need to seek out someone else who I trust to be honest with me.

But we should not always second guess ourselves either. When we have done our best to know God's will, we should move forward with it as best we can. We should not do so with an attitude. Looking down on those who disagree with us is itself a sign that our motives are not pure. Rather, we should have a peace that is not distracted by opposition.

If those who oppose us are praying for us, we should welcome that. How can prayer ever be a bad thing if we are aligned with God's will?  If opposition is self-serving or ambitious, we should beware and be wise as serpents. We usually cannot make others do what is right.  We can only make sure that our own motives are pure and that we are walking circumspectly.  We may need to seek out allies or counsel.

There was a time when Jesus counselled his disciples to "shake the dust off your feet" and move on (Matt. 10:14). You cannot change someone else's heart.  God usually allows them to resist. It is not about winning but about being faithful. We cannot always get everyone on the same page. There is a time to move forward with those who are with us and a time when enough are against us that we should move on and shake the dust off our feet...

[1] So much so, in fact, that E. P. Sanders questions whether Jesus ever even had direct contact with Pharisees proper outside of Jerusalem.

[2] See Lee Levine, The Ancient Synagogue.

[3] Although most of his work is highly questionable, J. D. Crossan has looked at some of these social dynamics. ***

Guest Post: Drury's Stages of a Church Fight

Stages of a Church Fight
Church fights escalate. They start small, but eventually can get whipped into a gigantic and destructive inferno. Sometimes the blaze starts as a fuss between two members. More recently it starts as a difference between a member and the pastor. Like a divorce, it can start with a little spark, but it eventually turns wild and destructive consuming everything in its path. A local church holocaust. What are the stages?

Stage one: Explain
At the lowest stage the member disagrees with the pastor and assumes the pastor doesn't understand. The member goes to explain how he or she feels or believes. Or maybe to explain the history here at this church so the pastor can understand and change. Explaining will resolve the difference. At this stage the member will talk to the pastor or write a letter if the pastor is approachable. If not, they will often telegraph their feelings through someone else.

Stage two: Persuade
But explanation sometimes fails to change things. If it does, the member realizes the pastor is not just misinformed, but is apparently just simply wrong. There is a difference of opinion. So the member switches from explanation to persuasion. So does the pastor, launching a training program, promoting a book supporting their position, or hauling off their members to a conference that will support the pastor's stance. If the member feels their mind is equal with the pastor's, an argument may ensue as both try to persuade the other. If the member feels ill equipped to go up against the pastor, they will likely give the pastor a book or article supporting their position. The pastor is trying to persuade the member and the member is trying to persuade the pastor. Resolution is still possible through persuasion and compromise.

Stage three: Win
Sometimes persuasion fails. Often. When a member fails to persuade the pastor or visa versa the member turns inward at first. Am I wrong? Am I alone? If they are indeed alone, they will often drop their case and shut up or switch churches. They are seldom alone. When others agree it turns into a plural tense fight. The conflict rises to stage three. There's a group who has a beef against the pastor. Before long there will be two groups. A second group will rise to defend the pastor, pitting themselves against the first group. There will be "sides" in the quarrel. Factions. Each side will guard what they say to the "other" side. People with no opinions on the original issue will soon be drawn into the fray. Division prevails. The original disagreement fades and the new goal is to WIN. Both sides want to win. The option for compromise fades rapidly.

Stage four: Remove
Like a forest fire feeding on its own heat, the conflict soon rages out of control. The pastor-opposers realize the only way they can truly win is if they get rid of the pastor. The pastor feels likewise about the opposers. The members work for removal -- through the elective process, or (easier) by working behind the scenes to make life so miserable the pastor will resign anyway. This stage may take a year, it is exceedingly messy, and seldom gets resolved without outside intervention. The pastor's supporters are pushed from arguing the original issue to simply defending the pastor, which gets harder to do as people start leaving the church, disgusted with the whole mess. Some of the pastor's supporters waver, admitting that the only way to get peace may be with a fresh start and a fresh pastor. Even now the pastor can escape with hide intact. But not for long.

Stage five: Ruin
If resignation or removal does not happen properly, the conflagration rises to a stage five forest fire. The pastor's enemies are no longer satisfied with getting the pastor out -- they want to ruin the pastor. Stage five fighters are fanatics. The fight is now a jihad. The local church becomes Belfast or Palestine. The pastor at this stage is not just kicked out the door -- he or she is shot in the back while fleeing. What a forest fire a little spark can ignite! What are the lessons in all of this? If you were teaching ministerial students as I do, what advice would you give to help them avoid getting burned in a fire like this?

By Keith Drury, 1997. You are free to transmit, duplicate or distribute this article for non-profit use without permission.