Ever think that someone in the church is needlessly antagonistic? The presence of antagonists is never healthy, but is invariably harmful to the church and its leadership. Kenneth Haugk in “Antagonists in the Church” describes an antagonist this way. Antagonists are individuals who, on the basis of no substantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership capacity. Recent literature in the area of conflict resolution has begun to recognize that there are individuals who initiate and thrive on unhealthy conflict, persons who have no desire whatsoever to see conflict resolved.
Regarding the unique congregational structures and how they contribute to antagonism, Mr. Haugk writes this. For too long, congregations how been places where antagonists can operate with success. Their behavior is not as successful in many other areas of life because in those areas it is simply not tolerated. ….Why has there been antagonism in churches? Because too often people have felt that antagonists had to be placated…. when someone with antagonistic tendencies takes hold of issues, the result is often destructive and divisive. The antagonist is usually not interested in the issues themselves; they are only a means to his or her own peculiar end. (pg 39)
In regard to the passive silence and apathy of a congregation, he says that when a congregation is attacked, it needs a very vocal group of people who are willing to confront the antagonists directly in order to give them the firm message that their behavior will not be tolerated. As long as the majority of people silently sit by, thinking the pastor will take care of it and it’s not their fight, the more encouraged the antagonists are, and the more they accelerate their attack. He speaks too of the extreme loneliness a pastor under attack experiences when individuals tell him privately they support him, yet will not take a stand and support him publicly or rebuke the attackers. He writes, “Silent supporters are no supporters”. The essential point that he makes, which is not intuitive to most people, is that an attack against a pastor is virtually never a problem with the pastor, but with the congregation that allows it to happen, by their silence.
When one individual assumes the whole burden of dealing with an antagonist, the result is rarely healthy. The obligation to deal with the situation properly resides in the corporate leadership of the congregation and, to a lesser extent, in the congregation as a whole. (pg 23)
What happens during an attack? The most immediate and obvious effects are that attendance in a previously growing congregation drops off precipitously, and interest in evangelism becomes almost non-existent. People on the fringes of congregational life do not want to be involved in the conflict, and almost everyone loses interest in bringing others into the congregation because of the tense atmosphere and shame people feel because of the attackers and their ungodly behavior. However, the antagonists then jump on the fact that attendance is down, and try to lay the blame for this on the pastor, when it is in actual fact the inevitable result of their own actions.
He discusses many distinguishing characteristics and “red flags” that can let a congregation know when they are faced with an antagonist. There are too many to list here, but a few worth mentioning include
a) a previous track record of antagonism toward church leaders and pastors,
b) bringing “concerns” to church leadership on behalf of “unnamed others” who have somehow chosen to confide in them, and
c) flaunting their financial donations and making a point of letting others know that they are not giving as much to the church because of “the situation”.
He then points out early and late warning signs of an imminent attack by an antagonist, as follows:
Early warning signs:
• A chill in the relationship
• Honeyed “concerns”
• Nettlesome questions
• Mobilizing forces and pot-stirring
• Meddling
• Resistance
Later warning signs:
• Sloganeering – (“There is not enough love in the congregation”)
• Accusing
• Spying
• Distorting
• Misquoting scripture
• “Judas kissing”
• Smirking
• Pestering
• Letter writing
• Pretense
• Lobbying (pg 63-66)
The author warns that, when these warnings signs begin to be seen, especially in antagonists who have a long track record of being antagonistic to every pastor and leader the church has had, an attack is imminent. Something must be done to stop the attack before it happens, for antagonists are never satisfied with their small victories. On the contrary, every perceived success only reinforces and emboldens them, so that each subsequent attack become more vicious and more harmful to the leader who is attacked and to the congregation.
Effects of antagonism on the church
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).
When arguing and antagonism wrack a congregation, its witness to the God of love is destroyed. Antagonists choose not to live out the love of Christ. Strife is introduced in love’s place, and with strife goes jealousy and anger. The primary effect of antagonism on God’s people is destruction. Visible expressions of the unconditional love of Christ are among the first casualties of active antagonism. Antagonism destroys the unique, loving witness of Christians and the vitality of the congregation, calling forth God’s anger.
Treatment for antagonism
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them” (Romans 16:17).
This is always the first step toward dealing with antagonism: watch out for it, be aware of it. The apostle Paul did not leave to his readers’ imaginations whom they were to watch. They were to watch for those who created dissension and caused divisions.
The Bible speaks definitively about the final treatment for those who persist in causing division and heartache in the church: “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10,11).
Dismissing someone should not be done lightly. But the words “have nothing to do with him” are a clear-cut response to an individual who persists in divisiveness after the first and second warnings. Paul told Titus not to engage in extensive attempts to smooth things over with the troublemaker; he was simply to avoid having anything to do with that person.
The apostolic guideline is clear: When confronted with an antagonist, face the probability that change simply will not occur. He is “self-condemned.” Stay away from that person.
This is the kind of book every congregation hopes it will never have to read. But all are reminded by the author of the importance of recognizing and dealing with harmful behavior.
1 comment:
Wow, does that sound familiar. It really is sad that so many churches go through the exact same thing. You'd think we'd learn.
One difference that I noted, though, was that in our situation, everything was kept so private that the majority of the congregation was not aware of what was happening or who was causing the problems. All we could do was tell the pastors we were behind them.
Post a Comment