Conflict Resolution in the Orthodox Church

The Reconciliation of Sts. Peter and Paul by Contemporary Iconographer Peter O'Toole

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West) 

Introduction 

Conflict is an inevitable fact in the organizational life of the Orthodox Church, but it is often one of the most mysterious aspects of the function of the Church. Bishops and apologists tend to obscure and propagate spiritualized myths about conflict due to the perceived unseemliness of disputes, outright demonizing and misrepresenting divergent opinions, rather than clearly addressing and documenting differences fairly. The science of conflict resolution is much better documented within Organizational Psychology, a field which has contributed greatly to the success and flourishing of large Evangelical Churches. From this area of Psychology, we can see that conflict is a hidden opportunity for the healthy exchange of ideas, creative resolution of differences, and the general inoculation of the institution from outside attacks. It can also be an extremely dangerous, hurtful, and ultimately destructive scenario when left unaddressed or downplayed, resulting in schisms between communities, local churches, and even Patriarchates. Caution must always be exercised when approaching conflict, wisdom and experience employed for avoiding unnecessary casualties, proactive, unemotional, creative and objective/unbiased attitudes must be maintained throughout the course of sustained differences, and generosity and forgiveness must be present for the “cleanup” afterward. These are all difficult characteristics in their own right, thus a Bishop who successfully navigates conflict must be a consummate diplomat, a loving pastor, and personally mature beyond conflict-avoidance, insecurities, fear of loss, and the urge to self-protect in the heat of an argument. Division and schisms become a problem when the leadership of the Church is not invested in peacemaking and the good of the whole, but rather in getting their own way, either for reasons of ambition and power, or because of a misunderstanding of the theanthropic nature of the Church. Paradoxically, it is often the side most prone to see heresy and claim to be defending the essence of the Church that the true schismatic intent may be found, due to the psychological realities of projection and overcompensation. Thus, those studying conflict resolution in the Church must be careful not to take sides too early, or simplistically believe that conflicts are due to the emergence of divergent and heretical doctrine. 

Conflict in the Church

Conflict in the Church most often boils down to a clash of personalities. As the Scripture so eloquently says, "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" (James 4:1 KJV) Conflict is most often the result of fear, insecurity, pride and too much unaccountable power on the part of the clergy. Those with a conflict-avoiding personality traits, coming from the externalized power concept of a financially disadvantaged, socially marginalized, low status or parentally abused childhood, have special difficulty leading through these kinds of clashes, even though leadership skills can be learned. Those with a learned or natural lack of fear of conflict can maintain what Professor David Kale highlights in “Managing Conflict in the Church" as the strategic difference between "assertion" and "aggression" - The first is motivated by love and a belief in the value of contribution, while the later is based in fear and a desire to overpower others. In the Church, we desire to maintain the confident "assertion" of Orthodoxy, which is fidelity to the teachings and modalities of the Church, without resorting to "aggression", which requires negative emotional reactions and the constant rehearsal of grievances and resentments. Dr. Kale gives five general categories of conflict to understand and manage as institutional conflict arises. 

Five Levels of Conflict…[1] 

1. Awareness of Differences 

2. Confronting the Differences 

3. Power Struggles 

4. Fight or Flight 

5. Intractable Differences 

These levels, while generalized, are an accurate description of a phenomenon known to organizational psychologists as “escalation.” Escalation occurs when individuals turn into groups, and groups dig in their heels to claim the higher ground within a conflict. It almost inevitably leads to splits if it does not take place in a “positive feedback loop.” Organizational, Process and Systems Psychology center on these processes and have done many state-sponsored, scientific and social anthropologically oriented studies of their effects.[2] 

In governmental politics, these splits sometimes lead to violently opposed parties and civil war, ultimately leading to a winner and a loser. Whilst the losing party may have a long and storied existence, the cultural narratives are formed to serve the winners, and thus the losers are expunged from history. The same tendency can be seen in large churches and business organizations, where the losers are erased from history and their contributions glossed over. We often see this in the Orthodox Church in the tendency of large, state-backed, politically influential Churches smearing, dismissing, or negating the claims of smaller Churches, completely erasing their contributions, canonical documentation, or valid apostolic and canonical lineages from history. This is also one of the reasons that conflict management as a science and art tends to be lost. The stories, examples and canonical precedents needed to understand how conflict works tends to be uncomfortable and compromising to the winning organization. This leads to an “official history” which is taught to everyone and is the focus of the organization’s identity and stated purpose, and its “unofficial history”, which is known only be a few leaders and their successors and is a jealously guarded secret. This is why David Kale’s paradigms are so valuable, since they speak to an almost mystical element within Church management that is rarely addressed – how to recognize, manage, and survive the inevitable differences of opinion that will arise during the course of the life of the Church. 

A Typical Illustration of the Five Levels of Conflict in Organizational Psychology 

Awareness of Differences 

The first step in the creation of conflict is the realization that people are thinking, feeling, acting and ministering differently. This sometimes takes a long while, but is easiest to see in groups with different backgrounds – such as a parish with many new converts, or when two Churches of different ethnicity and language come into close proximity with one another. Homogenous groups with similar backgrounds and a tradition of authority and stability have less “issue based” disagreement and more “personality based” conflict. Within Orthodoxy, where the Episcopacy is often literally approached as the ultimate authority on earth, the “Despota”, this means that the only source of valid conflict emerges from within the episcopal rank, while priests and parishes often have to learn to quietly get along, without recourse to the political mechanisms that would be available to them in other, more democratic, situations. This often results in people pulling away from the organization as a whole and becoming “CEO’s”, “Christmas and Easter Only’s”, which typifies a large number of the more nominal adherents to Orthodoxy. This pattern of ineffective conflict resolution is just as much a problem of losing membership as inadequate catechesis, but this area is often left unacknowledged. 

Kale and McCullough state, “[Leaders] become aware that others in the church disagree with them on important matters… Communication about the issues at this point is very rational, emotions are under control, and those involved are taking full responsibility for their positions. Personalities are not involved, and they are directly confronting just the issues. If they determine that the evidence does not support their conclusion, they are open to modifying their positions. If [the higher echelons of church leadership] discover that members are differing over significant issues, they should attempt to get a rational discussion going with those members. At this point the members need information that will help them understand the issues more fully. They may be open to alternative points of view that could result in better understanding of themselves, their church, and their faith. This is an important growth opportunity for these members and the church as a whole.”[3] 

The fact that this awareness of differences creates a valuable opportunity cannot be overstressed. At this point, little can be lost in dealing with differences in an open, inviting, friendly manner. A good Bishop will latch on to this point within a conversation to allow for the establishment of a new, uniting, all-encompassing vision that can, at once, establish the episcopal role as a “parental role” and also bring the divisive questions to an end. 

St. Paul Disputing the Pharisees, a 7th Century Latin Lacquerwork Panel 

Confronting the Differences

This second level of conflict is more confrontational. Normally due to a lack of sensitivity and good-will on the part of more anxious or power-hungry personalities, who are looking to the Church as a source of self-affirmation in the absence of complete psychological and spiritual self-realization and security. Differences are turned into points of contact, which lead, naturally to reaction and re-grouping. “At this second precursor level of conflict members decide to confront the differences they perceive with others in the church. Their goal is to get others to agree with their position. They begin to form arguments that they think will be persuasive in getting other church leadership to see things their way. If they are in conflict with other church leaders, they begin thinking of ways to get other members of the parish to support them. They are designing strategies that they hope will result in their values and interests prevailing in the Church. The openness to other ideas that we found in level one is missing in level two. The objective now is more about persuading others to agree with them than it is to fully understand the issues. They decide whether new information is right or wrong based on whether it confirms what they already believe. Evidence supporting their position is accepted; evidence refuting their position is rejected.”[4] 

This level is where the differences become points of strength, where allies are brought into the fight, and where strong personalities begin to rise within the ranks of the brewing revolution. A good rule of thumb for leaders is that when this happens conflict is on the horizon and may become inevitable as individuals start to arise from outside of the established authority structure, with polarizing views, magnetic personalities, and giving vent to a suppressed or unstated difference that has been felt but never fully articulated. This is often signaled within Orthodoxy by the rise of a controversial monastic figure or an especially “reform-minded” Bishop. 

Power Struggles 

Power struggles begin as a distinct language of “us vs. them” arises. When this happens, “Communication at this level is marked by distortion, innuendo, and extremes. Those outside the conflict are confused by people they consider rational making highly irrational statements. The power struggle becomes evident as members form alliances to defeat the “enemy.” All energies are now directed into winning the battle; discussions are about personalities rather than issues. Strategies are planned to exclude the opposing party from the church’s decision-making process. Members are not yet at the point of attempting to drive the opposition from the church, which is typical of the fight or flight stage. At this level the parties are still engaging each other as members of the same organization. They believe they will eventually be able to win the battle and those who opposed them will come around.”[5] 

As interests entrench, groups rally around various leaders, and the purpose of the organization or Church is called into question, the leader must be extremely cautious about their own ideological affiliations. If the leader already has pre-formed views, then they may jump to the aid of one of the divisive contingencies, instead of remaining objective. When this happens, the opposing side has all the evidence they need of corruption and compromise, and may immediately escalate to the next level. A balanced leader, committed to restoring unity and bringing back the old purpose statement, albeit with contextualizations and modifications, will strive to bring the new leaders together around what brought them to the church, the nation, or the organization to begin with, trying to strike a new compromise that allows the two groups “to stay.” This process has been exacerbated in the Orthodox context because of the lack of centralized hierarchy and cultural consensus in countries like the United States, with overlapping jurisdictions. While many Bishops attempt to keep the peace, the constant drip of online opinion and fundamentalism that misidentifies the ontological purpose of the Church, eventually has succeeded in siloing various attitudes within different jurisdictions, leading to intractable differences between all of them. 

However, because conflict rarely develops to this stage within a local parish or diocese on the watch of an astute and measured leader, when they finally manifest, the Bishop may have to remove himself from a position as judge and jury, and allow some other, outside, conflict-sensitive and neutral party to step in. This can be the person of the Archbishop or Patriarch, but it can also merely be a “Conflict Resolution Expert”, the “outsider with a briefcase,” who has shown in many organizational conflicts to be the last hope before “Fight and Flight” sets in. 

A Contemporary Russian Icon Depicting the Apocryphal Reconciliation Between Sts. Peter and Paul,  After Their Dispute in Antioch According to Galatians 2:11-14

Fight or Flight

The immediate emotional reality, when people start to realize that differences cannot be worked through, is to search for somewhere to go. This can happen locally with a bad priest, and can happen jurisdictionally with a bad bishop. Kale and McCullough say, “When conflict reaches this level, it is very dangerous to the well-being of the church as a whole, membership and leadership alike. Now the fighting parties are taking the position that there is not enough room in the church for them and the members on the other side of the issue. The focus on what is good for the church as a whole is replaced by what is good only for one’s own coalition or subgroup. Communication is reduced to bitter, hurtful comments intended to drive others out of the Church. If by the grace of God there is a positive outcome to the conflict, when it is over, some members will need to ask for forgiveness and repent for some of the things they said and did.”[6] Churches rarely recover from this stage. Normally, this stage leads directly into the acceptance of concrete differences, which are impossible to reconcile and overturn. 

The Parting of Lot and Abraham Mosaic from Santa Maria Maggiore, Depicting the Events of Genesis 13 and the Permanent Separation of the Two Groups and the Establishment of Two Competing Nations

Intractable Differences

Prof. Kale summarizes the entire process at the end of this section of his book, “Parties to the conflict at this level are not just angry, they are out for revenge, hoping to do real harm to those on the other side. Their language takes on the characteristics of what Eric Hoffer calls the “true believer.” Such a person believes that he or she is fighting for eternal principles of much greater importance than any local issue. The other side is characterized as having evil intents, which can only be responded to by attack. An all-out effort to drive them out of the Church is launched. Those who disagree with the “true believer” are called “evil” and “out to destroy the church.” Often, a heresy will be creatively constructed and libelously applied to perceived enemies, who are zealously painted as the “Crypto-Ecumenists”, “Masons” or “Modernists.” The key to these conspiracy theories will be that they rely on things that are difficult or impossible to prove. They may even be labeled as “aligned with the forces of Satan.” The prognosis is very poor for a successful conclusion to conflict at this level.”[7] We have seen such a split emerge in the context of Ukrainian Autocephaly, with each group depicting the other as “uncanonical” and “un-Orthodox.” 

One of the conflicted groups finally ceases to recognize the validity of the other side, and normally the party that is less connected to power and property must leave the party that “holds the keys and deeds” with the buildings. This has often led to disempowered, smaller, lighter organizations with a disproportionate number of young people (the elderly tend to be in charge and stay in charge) to start vibrant, less organizationally encumbered (or accountable) Churches and businesses. It can also lead to deep-set bitterness over the loss of valuables. The added “I’ll show them” in the attitude, although negative, often leads to more resolute work ethics and a strong desire for success in the face of one’s "enemies." Thus, many of these splits in business and politics turn into large organizations, like their parent organizations, doing well, and, eventually, due to age and inflexibility, spawn other organizations in the same way. Thus, while Orthodoxy produces such organizational difficulties in slow motion, spanning eons, the similarities between the organizational principles at work between the various local Churches and the competition of fast-moving and profit-generating modern corporations, is clear for all to see. They operate on the same general rules of conflict. 

Friedrich Glasl's Model of the 3 Stages of Descent into Conflict, Accompanied by the 9 Intermediate Phases of Emotional Reaction to Conflict, Created by Paul J. Abrahamian

Footnotes 

[1] These stages fit generally into the patterns made famous by Dr. Friedrich Glasl’s “Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater.” Haupt, Bern 9. A. 2009, and used in contemporary organizational psychology. 

[2] M. Afzalur Rahim, “Managing Conflict in Organizations,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Routledge Press, 2011, pgs 1-5 

[3] David W. Kale with Mel McCullough, “Managing Conflict in the Church,” Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2003, Pgs. 42-43 

[4] IBID, Pg. 44 

[5] IBID, Pg. 46 

[6] IBID, Pgs. 46-47 

[7] IBID, Pgs. 48-49

Bibliography

1. Glasl, Friedrich, “Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater.” Bern, Germany: Haupt, 2009

2. Kale, David W., with McCullough, Mel, “Managing Conflict in the Church,” Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2003

3. Nicholson, Michael, “Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict (Cambridge Studies in International Relations),” Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992

4. Rahim, Afzalur, “Managing Conflict in Organizations,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Routledge Press, 2011

5. Reagle, Joseph Michael, “Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia (History and Foundations of Information Science),” Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2010