Abstract
An intergroup conflict based on fundamental incompatibilities such as different group identity and values is the highest and the unhealthiest level of conflict in a local congregation setting. In this case, a peacebuilding process is required in order to transform the conflict situation to achieve sustainable peace. Different from peacemaking and peacekeeping, peacebuilding takes a longer period to transform the cultural, social and structural problems on the macro level as well as to change behaviours, perceptions and perspectives of individuals on the micro level. This article attempts to disclose the characteristics of intergroup conflict in an urban congregation in the UK to describe its serious intensity by analysing its nature and scale. Furthermore, it demonstrates how the conflict transformation approach, as a long-term peacebuilding process, can be used effectively not only to alleviate intergroup conflict but also to eventually promote rehabilitation and reintegration through fostering a culture of peace.
Introduction
The Research Context, Problems, Purpose and Scope
In order to make this a more comprehensive article, and to increase its relevancy, it is important to provide some context to explain the situation and setting. The context of this article is a merged local congregation called Grace Community Church 1 (hereafter GCC) located in an urban area in Britain. Two small congregations (Grace Evangelical Church, hereafter GEC, and Hope Community Church, hereafter HCC 2 ) in the same area were merged in 1998 in expectation not only to survive but also to have stability in terms of human and financial resources. Although the merger brought several benefits, both parties began to realise that there was an invisible barrier between them so that they could not become united as one. During the merger process, they resolved several practical issues such as naming the newly merged congregation, establishing the church governing structure and writing bylaws and the constitution. However, they did not pay enough attention to realise and handle incompatible differences in doctrinal positions, traditions and Christian identities and values formed and developed in their former congregations. These differences began to cause disagreement, incongruity and disconnection between the parties. Although both GEC and HCC were independent and non-denominational churches in common, each church had their own distinctive features that revealed their ethos and attitudes underpinned by their Christian identity and values. GEC was a non-charismatic Brethren church founded in the middle of the 19th century. Its members were mostly lower-class people and they were proud of their long-term spiritual legacy. On the contrary, HCC was born out of the house church movement in the 1970s and grew as a charismatic evangelical church. Members of HCC were made up of the middle class and they were reform-minded people. A report to the trustees discloses the difficulties and troubles that GCC faced six years after the merger (Minutes of trustees meeting, 2004: 1): ‘Those who have been involved since the two churches came together are aware of the strains, struggles, and blessings of the exercise. We have experienced heartaches, despair, disappointments, frustrations and a fire’.
I personally joined GCC as an assistant pastor in January 2004 and the intergroup conflict situation was exactly the same as aforementioned in the minutes. Halverstadt (1991: 63) states that when one or both congregations find that their behaviour is enmeshed around differences in the initial period of the merger, conflicts are held in a chronic stage of submerged latency so that power is manipulatively used to control the differences. However, the intergroup conflict situation at GCC was not in a stage of submerged latency but evidently manifested in various forms and stages. Therefore, I was strongly motivated to know why the intergroup conflict began, what its nature and characteristics were and how the conflict situation had been developed. In particular, I was greatly interested in understanding why the biblical principles for peace-making through forgiveness and reconciliation as well as Christian ethics to love and respect others were not actively applied in the conflict situation. Another important motivation of the research is to suggest an appropriate approach with its strategic methods to handle the intergroup conflict in the most effective way. In order to undertake the research, I employed ethnographic tools to collect data through in-depth interviews, observation and questionnaires and to analyse and interpret them.
A conflict situation in a congregation is an explicit recognition of the existence of multiple realities (Lederach, 1988: 39). It means that a conflict situation in a congregational setting is often complex in terms of its multifactorial cause or multifaceted feature. Therefore, it is important to have a scope to focus on a particular research problem. This research focuses on the political struggles between the parties to seize power in order to subdue or even to eliminate the opponent for complete control and dominance. Although the research field is a local congregation, the data will be analysed and interpreted and the applications will be suggested from the sociological, anthropological and social psychological perspectives for two particular reasons. Firstly, a local congregation is not only a faith-based community but also a social organisation that shows no significant difference from other social settings in terms of dynamic social and cultural interactions among its members. Secondly, when an intergroup conflict intensity in a faith-based organisation is high and unhealthy, it is commonly acknowledged that the biblical principles for problem solving are not effectively applicable. In the majority of these cases, each party is more interested in a bloody triumph than a peaceful resolution on the basis of the biblical principles (Guichun, 2016: 61).
Causes, Characteristics and Phases
The data analysis process revealed the causes and nature of the intergroup conflict in the five stages of its development.
Stage One: Fear and Anxiety
The merger between GEC and HCC offered not only hope but also fear and anxiety. Firstly, both congregations feared change. There were some people from both congregations who did not want to be disturbed by any changes in their church life through the merger. Some elderly people from GEC wanted the rooms and halls to be used according to their designated purposes. For instance, they could not tolerate it when the vestry was used by young mothers as a breast-feeding room or when the room which had been used for the deacons’ meeting and prayer was converted into storage. Some people disagreed and were dissatisfied with different styles and structures of worship, preaching and leadership. Secondly, people had a fear of loss. People did not want to lose what had deeply become part of their church life. People feared losing their existing privileges which they had had for a long time. For example, one disabled person feared losing the disabled parking bay designated to him and did not allow another disabled person from the other congregation to park in the bay. The thing they feared most was losing their long-term involvement and roles in the church, e.g. as Sunday school teachers, worship leaders, door stewards or youth leaders. They rejected spontaneous offers of help from people who were also involved in the same ministries in the other congregation. Thirdly, people had a fear of failure. The merger was not agreed by everyone from the beginning. There were people from both sides who expressed their negative opinions on the merger. Some people from both sides evaluated the other congregation on the basis of negative information they heard about the present leaders or about mistakes that the other congregation had made in the past. For example, GEC was notorious for the unfair dismissal of pastors so that some people from HCC were concerned about their leaders. On the other hand, several people from HCC were anxious about abandoning the missional calling and the vision from God for the area where HCC had been planted. Finally, people had a fear of uncertainty. This was partly caused by there being no clear direction in terms of the vision of the merged church. Ambiguity in ministry direction made people confused: ‘I am afraid of the fact that no one can tell precisely what the purposes of the merger were and where we are heading’. Some people doubted the capability and competence of leaders from the other congregation, as regards their ministry ethoses, emotional stability, personalities and integrity in theology.
Stage Two: Competition for the Initiative
People’s anxiety and fear meant that pressure was put on the leaders of both parties to take the initiative in the merged congregation. Therefore, the leaders chose competition rather than collaboration between the two parties, in order to satisfy people from their own congregation, to occupy more and higher positions and to secure limited resources. In the early stages of the merger, the main tasks and roles of the GEC leaders were looking after the premises, finance and administration, and the HCC leaders were involved in ministry development. This was agreed by both parties, in order for one party to counterbalance the other in terms of power-sharing. As leaders from both parties exercised their power in their involvement, several phenomena that intensified competition between the two parties were observed. Leaders from GEC began to exert their influence on people from HCC to gain a competitive advantage in the struggle to take an early lead in terms of governance. For example, they did not give the church keys to the people from HCC until several months after the merger. They also made arbitrary decisions without accepting the opinions of the HCC leaders. On the other hand, some people from GEC were neglected from pastoral care and excluded from social events by HCC leaders. Rules for discipline were not applied equally when an interpersonal conflict occurred between a person from GEC and another person from HCC. The most serious phenomenon in this stage of intergroup conflict was that leaders from HCC excluded people from GEC in terms of nominating workers in different departments of ministries. They tried to appoint more workers from their side to take the initiative through numerical preponderance.
Stage Three: Animosity
As the aspect of the intergroup conflict was shifted from taking the initiative to seeking dominance, the realisation of incompatibilities between the two groups intensified the level of enmity. At the first annual general meeting since the merger, people from HCC who pursued dominance presented their concepts on the reality of a local congregation situated in a contemporary city and their view of church governance. People from GEC were pressured to consent to those concepts presented by people from HCC. However, they denied the pressure and held on to their own concepts: ‘We rejected their understandings of a local church and their ways of doing ministries because we thought that consensus automatically meant becoming a subordinate group’. The level of animosity was gradually increased as they realised that there were incompatible elements between the congregations. People from GEC imbued their traditional articles with special meanings which provided and reinforced their group identity. However, people from HCC tried to get rid of all the articles. For instance, two leaders from HCC smashed the huge wooden pulpit made and dedicated by a member from GEC because they thought that it was a significant symbolic identity of old GEC. This increased the levels of hostility. After a while, the leadership team decided to replace the hard wooden chairs with comfortable upholstered chairs. When the congregations voted, the majority of people from GEC rejected the suggestion. They expressed a few reasons such as saving finance for other purposes or the usefulness of the old wooden chairs. However, according to the results of in-depth interviews I conducted with several members of GEC after the church meeting, the majority of people said that the old chairs were the last symbol of old GEC. While this struggle was going on, a fire broke out and burnt everything inside apart from the structure of the building. People from HCC interpreted this fire as a blessing from God and as confirmation that God had supported their reforms: ‘I believe that God sent the fire through which God achieved what we could not do’; ‘The fire got rid of all the traditional things that GEC was obsessed with’; ‘The fire proved that God was on our side’. Due to these distinctive differences in relation to background, history, the characteristics of members and theological inclinations, what they valued and pursued was also different. As mentioned above, the two congregations’ understandings of the roles and functions of a local church were incompatible with each other. The majority of people from GEC viewed a local church as a Christian charity existing and working for the benefit of the public. On the other hand, people from HCC viewed the local church as a salvage boat for saving souls. HCC tried to abolish all the events and programmes that GEC had been putting on for the community and to establish more spiritual activities such as Bible study, evangelism, cell group meetings and prayer meetings.
Stage Four: Power Struggles
As the aspect of conflict became more aggressive, expressed by more antagonistic actions and reactions to each other, the situation entered a new phase in obtaining power. The power balance at GCC was already broken during the initial period of struggle for the initiative, and HCC became the stronger side and GEC became the weaker side. At this point in time, each party had different reasons for seeking power. HCC sought power to maintain control over its opponent. On the other hand, GEC sought power so as not to be victimised in the struggle. Therefore, HCC naturally developed offence-orientated behaviour and GEC developed defence-orientated behaviour. The two particular methods of the offence-orientated behaviour of HCC were sabotage and elimination. A form of sabotage is to deliberately prevent an opponent from playing his or her role in a strategic way in order to cause the person to feel frustrated. The worst form of sabotage in the power struggle at GCC was to eliminate opponents from the church. Another painful form of elimination was to suddenly replace a person who had been involved in a particular ministry for decades with another person, with no notice. On the other hand, GEC developed two particular defence-orientated behaviours: rebellion and retaliation. GEC as the weaker party chose an immature and aggressive defence mechanism to cause damage to the dominant party. There were several people from GEC who declared themselves rebels fighting against the dominant party. They did not attend any official meetings. They did not acknowledge the authority of elders. They created several groups and they had fellowship only by themselves. They did not inform the elders about any events they organised or submit any reports on the structure, purpose or finance of the groups. A passive way of retaliation was preventing the other party from getting opportunities and positions in ministries. For instance, when a person from the other party was being considered as a deacon or an elder in the leadership team, they slandered the candidate.
Stage Five: Schism
The hostility and aggressiveness in the power struggle described above gradually led to a clear schism. There are several factors which aggravated fractionalisation at GCC. One of them was politicisation. People began to view everything as a political matter. Appointing deacons for different duties was not interpreted as a way of doing church ministry any longer but as church politics. In other words, people perceived that deacons were appointed not to carry out different duties for church ministry, but instead to increase political influence in order to take control or even to overthrow the other party by having enough people from their own side on the leadership team. The second factor in relation to the schism was injustice felt at the inequality and unfairness in opportunities, discipline and responsibilities. Some people experienced unfair treatment when matters arose between them and others because the processes of investigation, judgment and punishment were biased. When two individuals made similar mistakes on different occasions, one was severely disciplined while the other was not. The final factor is the victim mentality of both parties. After a long-term power struggle, both parties began to exhibit a victim mentality, a kind of self-image of victimisation affecting individuals or a group with a pervasive sense of anger and resentment as well as of helplessness, pessimism and defeatism. According to the results of in-depth interviews, people from GEC believed that people from HCC destroyed all the good traditions of GEC. On the other hand, people from HCC thought that the merger was advantageous only to GEC and that they were being exploited to serve the purposes of GEC. This victim mentality caused both parties to misinterpret the other party’s motives on various occasions, and became a hindrance to forgiveness and reconciliation between the groups.
The Nature of the Intergroup Conflict
The data analysis clearly disclosed the causes and characteristics of the intergroup conflict in the various stages of its development. I intend to do two things in this section on the basis of the findings. One is to provide interpretive meanings on the findings in order to explain its nature from sociological, anthropological and social psychological perspectives. The other is to classify the type of the intergroup conflict in order to suggest an approach to dealing with it.
Symmetrical Schismogenesis
Competition is the rivalry between groups to achieve a common goal on fair terms, whereas conflict means there are clashes and interference between groups for the common goal. Social psychology suggests that groups are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals in conflict (Smith and Mackie, 2007: 515). In the social sciences, intergroup conflict is not simply a matter of misperception or misunderstanding but is based on real differences between groups in terms of social power, resource scarcity, important life values or other significant incompatibilities (Fisher, 2011: 177). In general, intergroup conflict in organisations requires three ingredients: group identification, observable group differences and frustration (Daft, 2010: 492). In this respect, intergroup conflict is understood as a structural conflict in terms of the scale and nature of the conflict. Conflicts occur in people’s everyday interactions as well as in diverse systems, whether political, religious or cultural. People normally accommodate themselves to these systems constructed by them and regulated by laws, norms and traditions. However, there are always certain people who realise injustice and unfairness in those social systems and try to transform them. Structural conflict occurs, for this reason, between supporters and abolitionists, conservatives and liberals and haves and have-nots within an organisation. There are two different types of structural conflict: complementary schismogenesis and symmetrical schismogenesis, as originated by the anthropologist Bateson (1935) in the 1930s. In complementary schismogenesis, the mutually promoting actions are essentially dissimilar but mutually appropriate (Fries and Gregory, 1995: 80). The two different types of group behaviour at times cause serious rifts, but most of the time complement one another. For instance, the behaviour of a dominant group and a submissive group reinforce each other. In contrast, symmetrical schismogenesis describes a conflict phenomenon in which the mutually promoting actions between the two parties are essentially similar, but the two parties try to amplify hostility and enmity towards each other (Charlton, 2008: 15). Aggressive behaviour by one party stimulates more aggressive behaviour from the opposing party. If this is repeated, a vicious cycle continues in the conflict situation and eventually may result in serious violence. In this regard, the intergroup conflict at GCC is a type of symmetrical schismogenesis caused by the discrepancy in power and incompatibilities in identity and values.
Discrepancy in Power
The two parties take similar actions in the power struggle because they interpret the given situation in the same way. This symmetrical schismogenesis causes a vicious cycle which ends when one group completely wins over the other in any form. There is no way to create a common ground for reconciliation or agreement in this power struggle. The power balance between the two parties in this article was demolished soon after the merger and the relationship of dominant and subordinate was formed. Both parties could easily anticipate that only the winner in the conflict became the power-holder at GCC to control the other group to achieve their desired outcomes. The discrepancy in power from the initial period induced both parties to intensely struggle for restoring the balance of power as well as for maintaining the initiative. In the intergroup conflict, loss has become a central issue to the group defeated in the power struggle. What is regarded as a loss by one party is counted as a gain by the other. In this way, victim mentality caused by the loss of power reinforced enmity and retaliation towards the dominant party. Victim mentality is an obvious psychological problem; therefore, I assert that a social psychological approach is needed in order to understand how a group and individuals are affected by intergroup conflicts and to help them to respond appropriately and effectively during the conflicts in a local church context. Focusing on the psychological dimensions of intergroup conflict and analysing individuals’ perceptions, emotions and motivations, it is psychologically significant to understand what factors instigate and perpetuate intergroup conflict and how these factors relate to strategies that can resolve or alleviate conflict (Tropp, 2012: 4). Even though conflicts occur in their unique contexts and have their own characteristics, it is assumed that the socio-psychological foundations and dynamics of those intergroup conflicts are similar regardless of time and place. Therefore, it is important to analyse conflict situations from not only a theological perspective but also with sociological, cultural and social-psychological perspectives as to how people react before, during and after conflict. These multiple perspectives enable us to understand how conflicts are constructed and developed, how people get involved in conflicts, what behaviour intensifies or alleviates conflicts and how to handle conflicts constructively.
Incompatibility in Identity and Values
Conflict can occur at any time, in any place and in any human relationship. Some healthy conflicts contribute to recognising differences between groups through reflection, and can lead to a change in behaviour. This kind of conflict will help the organisation to grow and develop. It is caused by differences in interests or in ways of doing things. However, the intergroup conflict at GCC was caused by different group identities and values that, in the majority of cases, are non-negotiable. Social psychologists have emphasised for the last three decades the role of group identity and values in the causes and consequences of intergroup hostility and conflict. In particular, social identity theory and self-categorisation theory emphasise the potential for group-based identities and values to foster support for the status quo among higher power and status groups, and to foster intergroup competition and movements for political change among lower power and status groups (Ashmore et al., 2001: 3). A group’s identity is based on their shared values, beliefs or common concerns and is generally embedded in the life of members of the group and often reinforced so that when their group identity and values are ignored or threatened, they normally do not tolerate the situation.
The intergroup conflict at GCC is an example of how intergroup conflicts are inevitably caused and destructively developed by different identity and values between the parties. Incompatibilities in group identity and values became sources of psychological and cultural motivation which elicited conflict behaviour in the two parties and drove them to pursue their goals after the merger. The most successful mergers occur when the combined entity adopts a new identity and checks compatibility on values, priorities, cultures and theology between the merging and merged church (Spacek, 1996: 3). However, GEC and HCC did not consider these things carefully when the merger happened. Their main motivation for the merger was simply to fulfil their needs through the other party, without seeking to fulfil their common values. Initially, their needs were met by each other’s contributions. However, a power struggle began not long after when each party began to deny the identity and values of the other party. The conflict status was developed into a highly disruptive, chaotic and uncooperative status because the conflicts involved interpretive dynamics of history, tradition, culture, values, identities and beliefs of the two groups that were framed in ways that were mutually exclusive.
Collective Moral Desensitisation
One of the research questions is as to why Christians in a high intensity of intergroup conflict do not consider applying the biblical principles of peace-making and Christian ethics to handle the conflict. The majority of individuals at GCC have acted on their faith and moral beliefs in response to the unreasonable behaviour of others in the lower intensity of conflicts. However, it has been observed that the individuals’ collective behaviour in the group and strategies that they employ in response to the intergroup conflict are not much different from what individuals in other social organisations collectively do to win conflicts. It is evident that the collective moral perception and decision of members in an intergroup conflict could be worse than what the individuals would do independently in an interpersonal conflict. Why do individuals’ personal Christian faith and moral beliefs not function in the way that they are expected to in the process of collective perception and behaviour in the intergroup conflict? There are three major reasons identified at GCC through in-depth interviews, which explain why individuals behave differently in the intergroup conflict. Firstly, a few people mentioned that there would be no strong personal responsibility that individuals should take as a result of their collective behaviour. This means that perceiving conflict issues and making decisions to react to those issues are dependent on whether or not individuals should take responsibility for the result of their behaviour. This phenomenon informs that an individual’s behaviour in a conflict situation may differ according to the scale of the conflict and to their self-perception as an individual or as part of a group in the conflict.
Secondly, some members of each group conform to the perception and moral decision of their leaders without discerning between right and wrong in the intergroup conflict. This type of blind conformity is a way of displaying loyalty to their leaders and the group. In the intergroup conflict, members of each party tend to reinforce their group identity for a stronger sense of belonging to solidify the party. This tendency of individuals of each group is to seek approval of their membership from their leaders or peers, allowing them to share the benefits of the power of the party.
Finally, the majority of the members of each group intentionally subjugate their Christian moral beliefs in their collective behaviour for the sake of fulfilling the group’s primary purpose in the conflict. They are aware of the sharp conflict situation that losing a battle means being eliminated by the other party. They focus more on the temporary target to win by whatever means necessary than on the biblical principles to make peace. Each party tries to maximise the in-group favouritism and out-group derogation. Each party increases the intergroup bias to view the other party as enemies and to behave hostilely. I define this phenomenon as collective moral desensitisation which sanctions the irrational and immoral behaviour of individuals in the group against the other party. This is strong evidence against the theory that individual behaviour is generally determined at the individual level regardless of the scale and nature of the conflict. Group membership and identity in the intergroup conflict affect an individual’s perception and moral behaviour, even desensitising believers to following their Christian moral beliefs when they only focus on seizing power. In fact, according to the latest research on congregational conflict executed by Cobb et al. (2015: 792), an intergroup conflict causes in-group solidarity among members in each group, which eventually impacts individuals to be less moral in actions and reactions in the conflict.
Structural and Between-Frame Conflict
It is critically important to classify conflict into a particular type on the basis of its scale and nature not only to disambiguate its intensity but also to employ the most appropriate approach to handle it effectively. In order to analyse the intensity of conflict by understanding its nature, Becker (1999: 18–19) clarifies the two different types of conflict in congregations: ‘within-frame conflict’ and ‘between-frame conflict’. Within-frame conflict is caused by a violation of shared values and beliefs, whereas between-frame conflict is caused by the clash of two fundamentally different sets of values and beliefs. Within-frame conflict is often painful, but usually amenable to being resolved by some previously existing organisation routine (Becker, 1999: 18). On the other hand, between-frame conflict is more fundamental conflict over the nature of the congregation’s identity and core tasks (Becker, 1999: 19). Therefore, between-frame conflict is much harder to resolve because it stems from divergent standards of what is right or different values and beliefs that provide guidelines for our social and cultural conduct (Emerson and Woo, 2008: 146). As far as scales of conflict are concerned, there are macro-level and micro-level conflicts. The macro-level conflict occurs between groups, communities and countries when the parties experience discrepancy in their goals, policies or obligations (Nicholson, 1992: 11). Thus, a macro-level conflict is referred to as a structural conflict caused by factors that are beyond the control of individuals involved in the conflict, such as social policies and institutions or organisational culture and structure. A conflict also exists when two individuals wish to carry out acts which are mutually inconsistent. This is a micro-level conflict which is referred to as an interactional conflict.
In the light of conflict nature and scale, the intergroup conflict at GCC is classified as a structural conflict between two parties seeking power and a between-frame conflict based on different identity and values. Its intensity is the highest among other types of conflicts so that it is the most unhealthy and dangerous type of conflict in a local congregation setting. In this situation, it is hard to expect that GCC would resolve this intergroup conflict spontaneously and autonomously. Both parties are reluctant, even unwilling, to consider a way for conflict resolution because there has been an unbridgeable gap between the groups created by different group identities and values and developed by emotional wounds during the conflict. In this case, conflict transformation, which differs from conflict resolution, conflict settlement or conflict management, is needed to transform the conflictual relationship between the two groups to create unity, not only by addressing the roots of conflict and improving understanding of the opposed party but also improving and transforming the structural issues.
Applications: Approach and Strategic Methods
Conflict Transformation as an Approach
Conflict transformation is normally employed to handle intergroup conflicts which are deep-rooted and protracted, caused by structural issues (Strömbom, 2013: 32–33). It is a more holistic approach than the other three conflict approaches mentioned above, and is not a resolutionary approach but a revolutionary approach (Lederach, 1995: 11). It is not involved in eliminating the causes of conflicts or in settling conflicts to create temporary harmony, but in understanding the nature of the underlying conflict (Ishem, 2009: 76), identifying structural problems and changing them, to transform conflict into a constructive and positive force for achieving the main goals of the organisation. There are several distinctive features of conflict transformation. Firstly, it is a long-term point of view in the peace-building process. It takes note of structural problems in an organisation as the root causes of conflicts, especially power asymmetry and injustice (Ramsbotham, 2010: 218). It requires long periods of time to build peace in a long-lasting and highly intense between-frame intergroup conflict situation. In the situation, transforming the organisational structure through restoring equity in power and justice requires long-term persistent effort, unless one party is completely eliminated (Lederach, 1995: 14).
Secondly, conflict transformation looks at the conflict from the macro-perspective, such as the social conflict theory of Karl Marx, who regarded conflict as an inevitable result of social evolution (Man, 1985: 392). Conflict is understood as a dynamic force of change, and the primary role of conflict transformation is to unlock the potential of conflict, in order to convert its destructive elements into a positive source for reconstructing social realities. Due to the influence of social conflict theory, conflict transformation is sometimes viewed as a dialectical framework for synthesising differences and transforming conflict to change and reconstruct social realities (Ishem, 2009: 73). During the transformation process, both parties inevitably alter their perspectives and eventually produce a new reality that is a synthesis of the original opposing perspectives (Ishem, 2009: 74). The parties should be helped through this continual dialectical process to change their perceptions and communication patterns, to open up new possibilities and to reshape the common goal.
Finally, conflict transformation encourages all levels of people in an organisation or a society, from high to low, including those who are directly involved as well as third parties, to play their roles in their social positions in order to achieve the goal of transforming conflict (Strömbom, 2013: 33). Conflict as a social phenomenon is not only caused by structural issues such as social policy or organisational polity, but also by the accumulation of the interactions of social members in their daily lives. Hence, conflict transformation is involved in both changing destructive relationship patterns in the interactions of people and seeking systemic change for peace-building (Lederach, 1995: 18). In order to achieve both purposes, it is important that all levels of members understand the need for change and collaborate for transformation in their social positions. In other words, peace-building requires a lot of attention and awareness of the importance of change, and the commitment and collaboration of social members at all levels – top leaders, middle range members and grassroots members (Contreras, 2015: 13). In particular, the role of the middle range level members is vital –facilitating communication between the top and the grassroots, and creating harmony between the top-down approach with power and the bottom-up approach with strong demand (Nordquist, 2013: 127).
Strategic Methods for Transforming the Intergroup Conflict
Understanding both the type of the intergroup conflict and the concept of conflict transformation enabled me to suggest several strategic methods to transform the intergroup conflict situation and to build peace at GCC. In order to apply these strategic plans, we formed a steering group in February 2014, just after data analysis and interpretation had been completed, in which there were five representatives from both parties. Through many discussions and disputes for a substantial period of time, we agreed to apply the strategic methods in order.
Conscientisation Through Education
The first strategy is educating members to erase ignorance and raise awareness of conflict issues and of the need for transformation (Lederach, 1995: 12). This strategy assists members to see the reality of conflict through increasing their ability to recognise not only the overt phenomena of conflict but also the covert factors of conflict. Education provides a lens through which to see what they have not seen, especially social structural problems such as power asymmetry and injustice. This stimulates members to desire resolving the problematic reality and even to take action to change it. In particular, education is significant in conflict transformation to enhance perceptions of the grassroots because the political activities of people in high-ranking posts are important to transform the conflict situation, but not sufficient to develop sustainable peace without the collaboration of the grassroots. In conflict transformation theory, educating members is called conscientisation (Lederach, 1995: 12). Conscientisation is defined as the process in which social members, not as recipients but as knowing subjects, achieve a deepening awareness of the reality which shapes their lives and of their capacity to transform that reality (Freire, 1970: 27).
In order to enable individuals at GCC to grow in self-awareness and self-determination, we have had several workshops in which I presented the findings as to what the main factors were and how they were misinterpreted by the members’ distorted perceptions. In particular, I presented several examples by which people could realise that their behaviours were not based on their own awareness of the situation, but that they were just conforming to the perceptions of their leaders. It was a challenging moment in which their blind conformity and collective moral desensitisation were exposed. There was a lot of struggle during the early period of these workshops. However, although there were disputes and some degree of rejection in terms of acknowledging and accepting the findings, there were some positive outcomes from the workshops. Firstly, people gradually began to realise their tendency of other-directedness in perception and behaviour in the intergroup conflict. Furthermore, several people acknowledged that they felt powerless and vulnerable in terms of perceiving the situation correctly and taking actions appropriately. Secondly, several individuals began to realise that they need to raise their awareness of themselves and of the reality of the conflict situation, and to act as individuals free from constraint rather than as members of the group they belong to. These workshops will be continued as a strategic method not only to eliminate prejudices and stereotypes against the opponents, but also to support individuals to make moral decisions according to their Christian beliefs and moral norms, and act independently without fear of being criticised or alienated by their peers or leaders. It is a gradual process, but its effect will be wider and longer as it enables individuals at GCC to discover real problems and to transform them.
Rehabilitation Through Advocacy
Education motivates members to confront reality and provides the courage to take action. However, it is likely to be met with resistance and opposition by those who prefer to maintain the present situation because of the benefit they have taken from it. Those who pursue change, but are not strong enough to overcome resistance, need empowerment. Hence, advocacy is suggested to support the weaker side for increasing their voices and power. Advocacy ultimately aims to establish a balance of power between the parties. The relative balance of power established by advocacy provides a starting point for the dialectical process in conflict transformation.
Another positive outcome from the workshops for educating individuals is that the steering group began to see the psychological and spiritual needs of individuals in the weaker party. There were several people from GEC traumatised by the loss of positions, relationships and traditional values. The people who were deeply wounded by HCC’s hostile behaviour and heavy tactics had gradually developed a victim mentality which reinforced their sense of trauma. These people had a cognitive connection with the negative past and lived with psychological pain. As long as they were continually neglected without proper therapeutic treatment, their wounded susceptibility might play a role as a cause of other conflicts. They normally remained as a latent factor acting passively to show indifference towards any type of peace-building. However, they sometimes actively caused negative effects on the community, especially in reacting aggressively when a situation was similar to their previous negative experiences. In order to empower the victims, the steering group contacted local church leaders to provide a victim support ministry to bring rehabilitation to these wounded individuals in the weaker party. The local church leaders have provided Christian counselling along with prayer and Bible studies to encourage them to confront the trauma and to embrace the past history. From time to time, these local church leaders were invited to Sunday morning services to bring messages related to biblical principles of forgiveness and reconciliation. Although for various reasons these advocacy meetings have not happened frequently, they, to a limited degree, served the victims psychologically and spiritually to release the pain and to overcome the trauma. One particular positive outcome through the advocacy ministry is that those individuals who were traumatised have been healed, encouraged and strengthened so that they have not withdrawn themselves from the peacebuilding process but continually participate in it.
Depoliticisation Through Negotiation
The dialectical process is a trial to synthesise the tense confrontation between thesis and anti-thesis. In order to find creative solutions through the synthesising process, a change of mind, which collectively refers to perceptions, perspectives or points of view, is necessary for both parties to see past and present circumstances and future possibilities (Cooley, 2006: 88). A change of both parties’ minds can be achieved through negotiation. In the negotiation process, both parties should not impose their will or try to eliminate the other side, but rather must collaborate to reach an agreement to a restructuring of the relationship and dealing with fundamental substantives and procedural concerns (Lederach, 1995: 13–14).
In the process of peacebuilding, the steering group began to realise that each party excessively politicised the other party’s intention in various activities. The intense intergroup conflict at GCC has caused individuals to develop a tendency to interpret all activities of the opposition party as political intentions. In particular, this phenomenon is more severe in individuals of the weaker party because of their victim mentality. One of the most important factors for building peace is to establish confidence-building measures to overcome prejudice and misinterpretation of the behaviour of the opposition party and to build mutual trust. Therefore, people in the steering group agreed to depoliticise all aspects of church ministries to reduce unnecessary tension and avoid needless escalation of the intergroup situation. Through the long negotiation process, the steering group arrived at two particular conclusions to overcome presupposition against each other through depoliticisation. Firstly, the representatives in the steering group negotiated to restore the balance of numbers of elders and deacons representing for each party. When the leadership team was initially formed after the merger, the numbers of elders and deacons were equally apportioned to both parties to create an optimum status for maintaining the symmetry of power. However, HCC rejected the balance of power as a way of maximising power for their dominant influence in the merged congregation, threatening the order and security of the merged church. In this situation, recovering the balance of power through restoring the balance of numbers of representatives for each group in the leadership team is an appropriate strategy as a self-regulating mechanism through the dispersion of power and roles. Secondly, the steering group realised that the senior ministry position must not be given to either one party or the other due to the anticipation of serious opposition from the other party. Therefore, as a process of negotiation for depoliticisation, they decided to appoint a politically neutral outsider for the senior position to stand between the two parties and embrace them on an equal basis. As a result, in September 2015 GCC appointed an outsider as the senior minister. This particular negotiation prepared a platform for the new senior minister not only to lead the congregation effectively in maintaining an objective distance between the two parties, but also to take the role of peace-builder through reforming the factors of the intergroup conflict.
New Institutions and Culture of Peace
Even though conflict transformation employs negotiation, it is not geared towards an immediate successful termination of conflict. Rather, it is interested in the gradual progression of changing structural issues to build peace. As far as conflict transformation is understood as a continual process until sustainability of satisfactory peace has been achieved, it is important to establish biblical institutions whenever both parties arrive at an agreement as an intermediate outcome. Rupesinghe (1995: 77) addresses its significance as follows: ‘Transformation can be meaningful only if it is not merely a transfer of power, but if sustainable structural and attitudinal changes are also achieved with the society and new institutions emerge to address outstanding issues’. Institutions established by the mutual agreement of both parties function as a stabiliser to limit the ulterior motive of the stronger party intending to break the power balance and manipulate public opinion (Dayton, 2009: 66), and as criteria to judge similar social issues in the future.
In order to create a better organisational structure conducive to sustainable peace through establishing better institutions, both parties must be more reformative in dealing with the substantive issues. Both parties should have analysed and addressed the underlying structural problems, changing them and establishing fairer and more impartial institutions. For example, there is a need for change in the human resource management system at GCC in relation to the selection of leaders. Through the negotiation process, the balance of numbers of representatives for each party has been restored to have a palliative peaceful situation. However, it is crucial in a peace-building process not only to cease the recurrence of superficial conflict phenomena but also to dismantle the problematic institutions in order to establish more effective institutions underpinned by the biblical principles on church governance. Furthermore, I suggest that it is vitally important for GCC to foster a culture of peace in order to build sustainable peace. This is because even though establishing biblical institutions is important in the process of long-term peace-building, an institution established by the agreement of both conflicting parties may become a thesis and therefore there will be an anti-thesis against it later. The only way to overcome this continual dialectical process in relation to establishing institutions is to foster a biblical culture of peace at GCC. A culture of peace is a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour and ways of life that prevent conflict (Arment, 2012: 172) and provide social security. A peace culture encompasses a wide range of elements such as justice, fairness, equity, dignity, respect, tolerance and solidarity. Among those elements, tolerance is particularly important at GCC to allow individuals of both parties not only to develop and exercise their unique capacities but also to embrace the diversity of policies, traditions, doctrines, identity and values.
Conclusion: Reintegration
Nowhere is without conflicts. A local congregation is no exception to this. A healthy congregation does not mean that it has no conflicts, but that it has the capability to deal with conflicts in a healthy manner. After a long-term intergroup conflict, GCC began to develop its strategic skills at both macro and micro levels to transform the intergroup conflict situation and to build peace in the community. At the grassroots level, through education, individuals began to perceive the conflict situation correctly and to act and react differently according to their own moral principles. Several individuals from the weaker party were healed from their traumas and empowered from powerlessness to participate in the process of peacebuilding through advocacy. On the other hand, at the top level, several effective decisions in relation to depoliticisation were made through negotiation in order to bring immediate but temporary stabilisation in the conflict situation. Furthermore, the leaders from each group have tried to establish more biblical institutions and to promote important values for fostering a culture of peace for the sustainable safety of GCC. This peace-building process is still in progress at GCC. It is an on-going process applying its various strategic methods and skills until the parties involved in the conflict are ready to be reintegrated and united as one through forgiveness and reconciliation in the end. This is because the ultimate purpose of conflict transformation is to achieve the reintegration of the parties involved in the conflict. The peace-building process is not regarded as successful without the reintegration of the parties involved, as well as other groups affected by the conflict.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.