The man was pacing at the back of the auditorium, violently shaking his head and gesturing with his arms. “I demand to be heard,” he shouted and pointed directly at me on the platform. The occasion was a local Adventist Forum meeting and I was presiding over a panel discussion. The participants had taken predictable but different approaches to the issue, and a vigorous discussion was in progress. Now the man at the back was drastically changing the dynamics of the situation. While he continued to shout I turned to the panel members. “Should I let him speak?” I asked. One of them shrugged. “I can’t compete with that,” he said. The others nodded. Reluctantly, I spoke into the microphone and announced that we would open the meeting up to discussion, beginning with the gentleman at the back. That did it. For the next few minutes we listened, dumb-founded, as he attacked the panel members and myself, the institution, and the general Laodicean condition of the Adventist Church. He raised the spectre of secular humanism, likened us to communist infiltrators, and generally did what he could to tar us as traitors to the cause of the gospel.

I didn’t handle it well. I could feel my anger rising throughout his harangue until when he finished up with, “What are you going to do about it?” I retorted, “I’m going to close this meeting right now.” I stood up, gathered up my notes, thanked the participants, and stalked off the platform.

With experience, maturity, and a lot more understanding of conflict management, I would have turned that situation around. But there will be other opportunities, I know, because one thing I have come to realize is how much the Adventist community, like other institutions, needs to understand the nature of conflict. I’d like to offer some reasons why Adventists handle conflict badly, propose some different ways to regard conflict, and suggest some alternative principles upon which to base our responses in conflictual situations.

Five Ways We Fail at Conflict

Fear. We are afraid of conflict. We identify conflict with anger and anger with sin. At the first sign of tension we back off, afraid to go any farther for fear that we might offend or break any number of social rules that govern “niceness.” What seems to matter most is maintaining the veneer of respectability that overlays so many of our interpersonal relationships, rather than discovering the causes of the conflict.

Denial. We find it difficult to be honest about the presence of conflict. One sure sign that the tension level is rising is when Adventists begin to call each other “brother” and “sister.” It’s an unconscious attempt to deny that conflict exists and to remind each other of our collective fantasy of being a tightly-knit community. Yet when we call each other by such falsely honorific titles in the midst of genuine conflict, we impose a structure on the situation that can only make things worse. It’s the equivalent of baiting someone until they are angry, and then chiding them for having a temper tantrum. By ignoring the real presence of conflict we rob each other of the opportunity to get beyond our first impressions to the values each of us holds deeply enough to be in conflict. In doing this we often sabotage the very means through which people rise above their differences to a new level of understanding. More often than not, real community is the product of real conflict. Having fought honestly and well, people find how much they care about the cause at stake. Differences of mere preference and opinion are scrapped and the way is opened for the integration of the deep and powerful issues at conflict.

Power-play. We often attempt to deal with conflict by invoking the power of position to quell the sources of conflict. If power is both a real and symbolic force that is invested in an office, authority is power that is earned by people we come to respect. Coercive power based on position alone, power without authority and trust, is power exercised without foundation; it begins to crumble the first time someone asks “Why?”

Misperception. We find it difficult to distinguish essential values from peripheral issues. The essential values are the ones that form our very core of being, that define us as people and as Christians. The peripheral issues are those preferences and momentary interests that mark us as belonging to particular and shifting sub-groups. While such interests might be personally important, they are rarely worth fighting for, and the presence of conflict over such things suggests that we are not coming to grips with the real values in our society. Perhaps they are values we inherited, for which we have a lot of history but little direct experience. Or perhaps they are values which call our very self-image into question. In any case, we ignite our tempers over the straw that broke the camel’s back before we find out for sure that this is our camel.

Identity-confusion. Adventists want to run the church like a business but live in it like a family. We can’t have it both ways: either we work toward explicitly stated goals and mission statements like a business or we indulge in the loose, informal, messy and sometimes infuriating web of expectations and assumptions we associate with families. Either we regard each other with respect, even in conflict, or we fall under the wearying rounds of gossip and innuendo.

Many of these conflicts arise because Adventist institutions are often frustratingly unclear about which standards are expected and what the intended mission and goals are. Employees are left to guess at what administrators want, since they don’t seem to know what the end result should be nor how to get there. Added to this is a debilitating corporate inferiority complex which manifests itself in the hiring of “outside” consultants and experts at great expense to tell us what common sense would suggest in a healthier environment.

Conflicts also arise when we forget that people are never to be regarded as means to an end. That’s the way badly run businesses operate and we should have nothing to do with it. It’s an inefficient way to work with people and it runs against spiritual principles of the inherent worth and the redemptive value of every person.

Re-visioning Conflict

If we want to get past these failures and on to better ways of handling conflict, we need to see it differently. Specifically, we need to get rid of two myths about conflict.

Myth #1: Conflict is solely negative. According to Thomas Crum, founder of the Aiki Approach and author of The Magic of Conflict, the first useless myth is that conflict is a purely negative experience. It’s not, says Crum. It’s a natural movement, a dance, a release of energy that is constantly going on in nature. It’s not wrong or right; it just is. Conflict is so much a part of the natural world that we often forget the forces that carve a gorge through a mountain, that pull the tides around the world, and that feed the food chain from bottom to top. It is conflict between my muscles that provides the means for me to remain upright instead of sagging like spaghetti; it is conflict that achieves a balance between gravity and centrifugal force to keep me from being slung like a cherry pit into the sky. And conflict is inevitable even if we try to avoid it or resist it.

The key here is the understanding and acceptance of conflict. This does not mean, of course, that we shouldn’t try to resolve conflicts or that we must give up in resignation. It’s simply a clear-headed recognition that in any given human interaction, conflict will likely occur—and that it is natural.

Myth #2: Conflict demands a winner. We need to get rid of the notion that conflict is a contest we have to win. Conflicts are not inherently about winning and losing; we are the ones who choose to make them games in which there are winners and losers. Regarding conflict as a contest means that someone must win—usually at all costs—which also means that someone has to lose. That much is clear. What complicates the situation, though, is that the problem that sparked the conflict is forgotten in the race to best the other person. Shifting our attitudes, from perceiving conflict as a contest to seeing conflict as an opportunity; can free us up to accept the other as a potential partner rather than an enemy.

Grasping the active role conflict can play in peacemaking is a positive step toward re-visioning conflict. Danaan Parry, a conflict resolutionist and author of Warriors of the Heart, says conflict is a catalyst for change and growth. It increases our awareness of situations and it connects us with our conflictual partner by eliciting greater intimacy. We need to see it as “an interdependent challenge requiring cocreating and teamwork,” says Parry, and recognize that if we deny conflict and push it away, it goes underground. There it becomes an internal terrorist, causing us to mistrust others and break relationships. Like a plague it can infect us and our community with suspicion and jealousy. On the other hand, say several experts in the field of conflict resolution, conflict can become the crack in our hard shell that widens to open up a new understanding of ourselves and other people.

I think this new perception of conflict is essential for Adventists. It’s important because it recognizes a principle of spiritual life we often forget: every situation can be redemptive. The seeds of transcendence lie in the mundane, everyday battles of lifethat is where God most often meets us—not in the careful, tightly-controlled, and insular attitudes we often exhibit. The corollary of this is equally important: there’s only one Redeemer. Taken together these ideas provide a working framework for conflict resolution from a spiritual perspective.

Working Through Conflict

Many Adventists have a desperate need, almost an obsession, with defining and finding “the truth.” We define it first as something we own as an institution, and having so narrowly defined it, we thus exclude any possibility of finding it outside our own belief system. That sets us up in a conflictual situation with other viewpoints before dialogue can even begin. How many times in a Sabbath School class or a discussion group has further conversation been stifled by the words, “We know the truth,” or “we know from the writings of Sister White,” or even, “Why are we wasting our time with man’s [sic] thoughts?”

If conflict is natural, inevitable, and a means of change and growth, why don’t we study it, embrace it and learn to see it as a stepping-stone to deeper understanding between people and cultures, and a window into the suffering and triumph of Jesus Christ? Why don’t we open ourselves to the truth that if conflict is natural and inevitable, we need to work with it instead of against it?

First, the principle that every situation can be redemptive helps us work through conflict by recognizing there is a problem before plunging ahead to a solution. Conflict managers advise identifying what kind of problem we’re up against and then together defining it as clearly as possible. That means being honest in admitting there is a problem and being comfortable enough with it to call it a conflict.

Second, we look for a win/win solution instead of a win/lose, a lose/win, or a lose/lose solution. The goal is to arrive at a solution that both parties can live with. The ideal is that both parties win—that success is not achieved at the expense or exclusion of other people. The win/win attitude sees life as a cooperative, rather than a competitive arena, says Stephen Covey, bestselling author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

Third, we seek first to understand and then to be understood. The paradigm shift here is that we work at comprehending the other persons point of view without projecting our own responses onto them first. This involves a return to the classical rhetorical principles of ethos (character), pathos (feeling), and logos (reasoning). The sequence is important: in ethos we establish our credibility with others by truly, empathically listening to them; in pathos we become aligned with their feelings and needs and finally, in logos we present the reasoning behind our view point. Stephen Covey says, “Seek first to understand. Before the problems come up, before you try to evaluate and prescribe, before you try to present your own ideas—seek to understand… When we really, deeply understand each other, we open the door to creative solutions and third alternatives.”

The redemptive quality of conflictual situations is not inherent in the situation, though. Rather, it is an attitude and a perspective that we must work hard at achieving. We bring it to the situation and work from that energy. It takes self-aware, disciplined, and patient work to shift our paradigms and assumptions from competing to cooperating-not unlike the process we go through in accepting Christ into our lives, confessing our needs, and sticking to our commitments.

The second aspect—there is only one redeemer—also supports this new approach to conflictual situations. Many Adventists act like becoming a Messiah were written into their contracts when they accepted Christ as their Savior. They fuss and fidget, make infinite adjustments to their conversations, worry that they haven’t witnessed in over a week, and generally make life miserable for those around them by trying to save the world. There’s only one redeemer and redeeming is best left to that person.

When applied to conflict situations and to life in general, this principle tells us that we haven’t been called to come up with all the answers nor have we been given the responsibility to fix all the problems. In whatever we do, even our best efforts are flawed and finite. In working through conflict to some kind of resolution we need to realize that we will fail a good portion of the time, for no solution answers every problem or situation. People change, our priorities slide, our goals become unfocused, and laziness creeps in.

Again, we are not called to be perfect, but we are called to be faithful, to paraphrase Mother Theresa. Preparation and diligence help us to act responsibly, but we cannot prepare for every contingency. We are responsible to work mightily to change what can be changed within our situation, and then to rest. Three passages in the Tao Te Ching, the book of wisdom from ancient China, offer us excellent counsel as we think about conflict in a new way:

• Think of the small as large and the few as many. Confront the difficult while it is still easy; accomplish the great task by a series of small acts.
• When you are content to be simply yourself and don’t compare or compete, everybody will respect you.
• Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.

Behold, conflict is in our very midst. Let us work with it and through it to bring about cooperation and creativity.

Conflict Resolution

Books on conflict resolution are legion and they range from the silly to the superb. The ones below are easily-available and offer a variety of viewpoints and approaches to the subject.

Stephen R. Covey. The 7 Habits of Higly Effective People. Simon and Schuster, $12.

This book is not specifically on conflict resolution, but the chapters on “Think Win/Win” and “Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood” alone are worth the price of admission. This is an eminently practical book on character development from an author whose personal ethic is Christian but who can appeal to people from any background.

Thomas F. Crum. The Magic of Conflict: Turning a Life of Work Into a Work of Art. Simon and Schuster, $12.

The author is an Aikido martial arts expert and as such knows something about defusing volatile situations. He uses the nonviolent approach of Aikido to make parallels with interpersonal relationships. His advocacy of working with conflict and remaining open to its potentially energizing power is helpful.

Roger Fisher and William Ury, with Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, 2nd edition. Penguin Books, $10.

Something of a standard in the field of business negotiating, this book usually shows up in the bibliographies of articles on conflict resolution. The authors are business people and have little time for cultivating the interpersonal. Their approach is pragmatic, fair-minded, and tough.

Danaan Parry. Warriors of the Heart. Sunstone Publications, RD 4, Box 700AW, Cooperstown, NY 13326,1991.

Parry works regularly with corporate groups and social services organizations, teaching methods of conflict resolution. His approach uses techniques of body and mind discipline integrated with a clear understanding of interpersonal communications.

Tom Rusk with D. Patrick Miller. The Power of Ethical Persuasion. Viking Press, $20 (hardcover).

In the field of self-help, much that is marketed as a new approach is familiar to anyone who was raised in Sabbath Schools and homes with a modicum of good manners and Christian principles. Rusk's book is a clearly earnest and helpful summary of how to influence people in ethical ways.