Danger sign
The “Protocol of Reconciliation and Grace through Separation” that was announced in January puts The United Methodist Church on a different path than other mainline denominations that have battled over LGBTQ+ inclusion. In previous cases, the progressive wing of the denomination ultimately pushed through legislation allowing for ordination and (later) same sex weddings.
This in turn, caused an exodus of traditionalist churches into newly formed denominations or out on their own. The difference was that denominational splits were reactionary and not a planned separation. Protracted legal battles over assets and hurtful interactions were not uncommon.
I correspond with a reader who was a Lutheran pastor when they split. He described a “significant deterioration of trust” in the local church that made it nearly impossible for a pastor to lead effectively. He made three comparisons that stuck with me. One was the similarity to situations where he followed pastors (there were more than one) who had left due to sexual misconduct. The second was what families must have experienced during the civil war. The third was “like an atomic bomb blast and everyone was impacted by the radiation.”
The fact that the “protocol” has involved people from a variety of perspectives (though not all) leads many to believe that things could be different. My friend is not so sure. I’m afraid he might be right.
Assuming that some sort of plan of separation passes General Conference in May, many churches will have to decide where they want to align, post-separation. The potential for an atomic blast of distrust in a congregation is great but is avoidable. Here’s how.
Start talking now.
Unfortunately, many pastors and congregational leaders are avoiding the subject. Rather than helping congregants have honest conversations about what they believe and what they hope for, they are putting their heads in the proverbial sand.
This is classic pain avoidance. The irony is that trying to spare the congregation from the pain of honest dialogue will actually make it more likely that things will explode into a battle of wills later.
Leadership takes courage. Rather than waiting to manage a potential crisis, a non-anxious leader is proactive. She begins discussions when the stakes are lower and it’s easier (though perhaps not easy) for people to share honestly.
I am facilitating a conversation with one church that has already had one “listening post,” where they learned about the “Protocol” and heard from General Conference delegates. The pastor has initiated this process because he knows that he is putting his congregation in the best position to work through whatever happens.
Define yourself, not others.
If you hang around me long enough, you’ll hear me say, “Effective leaders are able to say what they believe, while giving others the freedom to disagree.” This is the essence of self-differentiation. There are two components to this.
The first is defining yourself. The pastor of the church I just mentioned is a friend and a colleague. Last fall people started asking him where he stood on LGBTQ+ inclusion. People want to know where a leader stands. If you’re not sharing what you believe, you’re not leading. He ultimately shared his position in the church newsletter. It’s the best thing he could have done for the health of the congregation and for his position as leader.
The second component is not defining others. This is giving others the freedom to disagree. If you say what you believe, but require others to agree with you, you are picking a fight. It will create distrust and conflict. Plus, it doesn’t work. How often have you convinced another to agree with you by telling them that you’re right and they’re wrong?
My Lutheran friend mentioned that when they split there was a lot of “labeling and name calling.” This is the epitome of defining others and not self. It’s not healthy and it’s hurtful.
Regardless of what happens, if we are able to define self and not others, we create healthy emotional space. This makes it more likely that all involved will experience the grace of God.
Emphasize transparency.
Nothing creates distrust more than a lack of transparency. If you want to spawn conspiracy theories, start holding secret meetings. Not only are they not a secret, but people will infer your most evil intentions.
Conversely, a leader who is open about everything she does, as well as every deliberation or discussion among leadership, will create trust. She can also encourage other leaders to do the same.
Then, instead of people wondering what is happening and fearing the worst, they’ll know what is happening. Better yet, they’ll be hearing the same thing from multiple people. This won’t change peoples’ minds or their beliefs, but it will keep the overall anxiety level of the system down.
This last point is key. An atomic blast of distrust occurs when the anxiety level in the system gets so high that even reasonably healthy people can’t stand it. That’s when blaming and the need to be right take over. This is the beginning of the chain reaction that will lead to civil war.
One thing is for sure. People are going to end up going their separate ways, even in the best of circumstances. The question is how it will happen. Will there be resentment and hurt or will there be blessing? A non-anxious leader can make all the difference.
Finally, a note about families. These same principles apply to any potential conflicts in a family system. Communication before things can fester, defining self and not others, and transparency will keep anxiety levels down and help you work through whatever challenges you are facing. People won’t always agree. They shouldn’t have to. But, they’ll still be family. And there won’t be a civil war.
Jack Shitama 2019
Jack Shitama
The Rev. Jack Shitama serves as executive director of Pecometh Camp & Retreat Ministries in Maryland. This post is republished with permission from his blog The Non-Anxious Leader.