Conflict in Meetings

Recently I was asked by someone on my Yearly Meetings Faith and Practice committee for suggestions for a new section they are writing on Conflict in Meeting which prompted this blog.

The first thing I think is to realize that many Friends come to us from other traditions and are attracted to our reputation as peacemakers.  I think there is a hope that this means no conflict.  We must surrender our pretense about this.  We have as many conflicts as any other group!  Conflicts happen because people have different needs or point of view. Conflicts happen because there are difficult personalities or personality combinations in any group of people.  Conflicts happen because we have an opportunity for change that we maybe trying to avoid.

For many Meetings the most important thing would be to start to recognize the conflict amidst us.  This means that when someone disappears we do not assume they are busy, or have changed their minds about our Meeting.  We need to have a practice of M&O, Oversite, or Pastoral Care (depending upon what you call this in your meeting) – keeping track of people and doing a friendly check in if someone has disappeared.

It also means that when something is bothering us in Meeting, rather than gritting our teeth and assuming “they” will handle it, and why aren’t “they”  (who is they?) that we decide what committee should be addressing the issue and go speak to the committee stating clearly what our concern is and what if anything we see as a way forward on the issue.

It means that as a community we need to reclaim what eldering is suppose to be about, nurturing people in faith and holding them accountable lovingly if they are behaving in unQuakerly ways.  For example if someone is starting to make people in meeting uncomfortable with their behavior that we speak to them stating clearly what the behavior is and how it effects people rather than hoping the problem will just stop and waiting till a bigger crisis arrives when they upset someone who then also acts inappropriately.

It means that when there is a “difficult” personality in the Meeting, that the committees which are affected need to talk about how to respond lovingly.  This may mean setting clear boundaries for the person, consistent feedback, support so they can observe requirements of the meeting, mediating between them and other Friends they have upset, or naming clearly to community what the problem is.  The committee handling it needs to consider whether there is a mental health issue at hand.  Ignoring this question often leaves the committee under prepared and misguided in their approach.  If it is a mental health issue, consulting with a mental health professional, and tailoring an appropriate response will be more effective and ultimately more loving.

Some examples of this:  One Meeting had a man who was schizophrenic who came and would regularly stand and give long delusional paranoid rambling messages.  Pastoral care first gave him guidelines for appropriate speaking in Meeting.  When he was not able to observe these guidelines, they told him that some of them would meet with him each Sunday in the library for worship until he could observe boundaries.  He came to the library a couple of times and then chose not to attend anymore.

Another Meeting had two people who were very provoked by each other and often responded to each others messages, “arguing” in their responses.  M&W met with each separately reminding them of the ground rule of not responding to each other in Meeting for Worship.  When this did not work they convened a meeting with both present to discuss the problem and their reactions to each other.  While this was not wholly successful either, it is an example of engaging the problem rather than avoiding it.

In a third example a person regularly had “tantrums” during business Meeting – nothing was done, awkward silence followed month after month.  More and more members started leaving the Business Meeting and also the Meeting as a whole.  This is an example of not handling the conflict and the price that is paid.

Sometimes a difficult issue may cause huge conflict over a period of time in business Meeting and when the issue is finally resolved or laid down, there are still hurt feelings and disturbed relations within the Meeting.  Again best to address this directly, sometimes M&O can facilitate healing dialogues with parties especially estranged.  Another practice used successfully by many Meetings is holding a “Meeting for Worship for Healing” after the conflict ends.  Someone reads a brief statement of what has occurred that has left wounds and then the hour is give to worship for healing.  Remarkable messages and forgiveness can arise out of such Meetings for Worship.

I want to recognize also that conflict is different in Meetings of different sizes.  In very large Meetings often things can fall between the cracks because not everyone is even aware of a problem, it is often unclear what committee should address it, etc.  In more medium size ones members maybe stressed with other Meeting demands and find it hard to marshal time and energy around conflicts.  But in small worship groups or Meetings conflict can be really deadly.  There is no “neutral committee” because everyone is involved in some way.  Conflict can threaten to have people leave and this can than threaten the very survival of the group itself.  Those who contribute more to the Meeting, whether energy or money, maybe attended to more than others, etc.   So in small Meetings it becomes especially important to figure out how to pull in outside resources.

Seeking outside resources may mean inviting someone from M&O of Quarterly or Yearly Meeting, or a FGC traveling ministry Friend, or even sometimes inviting speakers or outside Quaker visitors can break up the dynamic and bring new ideas, points of view, etc.  It may mean knowing social service resources available in the community.  In general I think a Meeting has to view realistically the energy and people available within the Meeting and figure out when to pull in outside resources or when they maybe more appropriate.  For example a couple having problems in the Meeting may better be served by a referral to couple’s counseling than by a clearness committee trying to work with issues beyond their skill level.

The Chinese character for conflict also contains the character for opportunity. Perhaps if we approach conflicts in Meeting this way we can also reap its benefits.  Just as we experience in consensus decision making that by listening more deeply to each other we can sometimes to come to more eloquent and complete responses.