Striving Together to Reduce Strife

By Obert Henderson

[Page 118]

     There are signs on every hand today that men are becoming tired of the division which has torn the body of Christ asunder. Among those who are heirs of the 19th century reformation movement of the Campbells, Stone, and others, we see evidences of the same tiredness. Though we are presently separated by strife and factional warfare, there is within the hearts of many a genuine desire for a better day. We crave unity instead of division. We seek for ways to bring about peace, increase brotherly love and create an atmosphere in which the unity of the Spirit can become a reality. We realize that the plea for unity which we can make is but a hollow mockery as long as we are divided one from another.

     Most of our past efforts to end conflict have been failures. Seeking peace, we have caused strife. Desiring unity we have created division. Dissension and discord have been the fruits of our efforts. I do not doubt that many have been trying honestly and sincerely to achieve peace in the body of Jesus Christ. This forces me to the conclusion that we have either been using a wrong approach or have been trying to bring about peace on impossible grounds.

     Here then is the question we face. How can we reduce strife and conflict, and restore peace within which the unity of the Spirit can reign among us? Is there any approach that holds promise in this regard? The purpose of this article is to suggest an idea that has value as a partial answer to this question. As Christians we can, and should, learn from any source that has something

[Page 119]

worthwhile to teach us. Good is good, regardless of who points it out to us.

     Some of the research that is being done today in the area of the behavioral sciences, though not concerned with Christians as individuals, or with groups of Christians, still results in knowledge which we can apply to the problems we face. For instance, results of some experiments performed in psychology, sociology and social psychology give us very good insight into the relationships between individual Christians, within groups of Christians, and between groups.

     Though the sacred writings do not constitute a textbook on behavioral science they are still psychologically and sociologically sound. There is no established principle of either discipline which conflicts with the scriptures. The church of Jesus Christ is divine in origin but human in makeup. Christians are still people (albeit born-again people). One thing this means is that truths of the science of human behavior apply to Christians and to the church, just as to other people and other groups.

     Regardless of what kind they are, or the purposes for which they exist, groups tend toward sectism and a party spirit. Group pride and an attitude of exclusivism characterize them. Each group considers itself superior to others. We can use the relationships of groups in a business organization as an example. The production group of a manufacturing firm, for instance, feels that it is the center of the organization and that others, such as the sales group or finance group, are subsidiary and less important. At the same time, the sales group has similar feelings regarding its own importance and the insignificance of the others.

     As a result of this the business enterprise faces a problem. Since the attitudes of the various groups affect their actions, there is often open conflict among them. The problem the firm faces is how to develop cooperative and harmonious relations among the various competing groups so the cause of the firm will be served.

     Christianity faces this same problem. The body of Christ is torn limb-from-limb by factionalism and denominationalism. Looking only at those of us who are heirs of the 19th century reformation movement, we see Christians divided into sects, and the party spirit ruling in the hearts of men. Different groups, springing from this common origin, are in competition and open conflict with each other. Each sees itself as being superior in certain ways to the others. In its extreme, people consider the party of which they are members so special in God's sight that they will affirm that God will accept none who are not in their particular party. We attempt to raid each other with the aim of carrying off "converts." The problem is clear. How can conflict be eliminated and peace restored? How can we create a situation where the unity of the Spirit can exist among us and we can present a united effort for Christ to an unbelieving world and to a religious world presently torn by division but seeking to unite?

     The answer which the partisan gives to this question consists of a statement to the effect that peace can exist if everyone will affiliate with his party, or that we can have unity if everyone will just see things his way. Of course he does not couch it in exactly these terms. Instead he talks about his party as being the "true church" and affirms that his way of understanding is God's way. I know this is so because I have been there. My attitude in the past has been factional and partisan. I regret this, repent of it, and purpose in my heart that by God's grace and the help of his Holy Spirit I will avoid such an attitude in the future.

     The partisan response is not the answer. This is amply proved by our own experience in our time, as well as by historical evidence from the time of our fathers. While we have glibly offered such partisan solutions we have continued to divide and sub-divide into two dozen or more sects. Apparently this attitude brings division instead of unity, strife instead of peace. We must look elsewhere for an answer to the question.

[Page 120]

     Mr. Sherif's article summarizes the results of an experimental study which demonstrates that conflict between two groups can be reduced by introducing what he calls "Superordinate goals" into the relationships between them. "Superordinate goals" are defined as goals which are "compelling and highly appealing to members of two or more groups in conflict but which cannot be attained by the resources and energies of the groups separately." Thus, the goals are such as require the combined efforts of both groups before either can reach them.

     In the experiment, the first stage consisted of forming individuals into two groups. These groups existed separately and within each group the members worked together to achieve goals which they shared among themselves.

     The second stage of the experiment consisted of introducing a situation in which one group could reach its goals only at the expense of the other group. When this was done, hostile attitudes arose in each group toward the other. Each developed unfavorable stereotypes of the other, attributing certain undesirable behavior and motives to its members. When those of one group received some favorable information about the other, this information was reinterpreted (that is, twisted) to fit the existing negative stereotype. Name-calling and making derogatory remarks about the other group were common. During this stage, there was little communication between the groups and what there was served as a media for accusations and recriminations against the other. Further, the leaders of the groups were not able to take bold action toward trying to reduce the conflict since such efforts by either one would be seen by his fellow-members as going against their position.

     During this stage, sociometric measurements were taken. Such a measurement is a means for determining the liking of one individual for others; by it we can tell, for instance, which five people out of a larger number a particular individual likes most. The sociometric measurements showed no out-group friendship choices, that is, no one in either group indicated a liking for anyone in the other group. Thus there existed during this time, mutual exclusiveness, mutual dislike and hostility toward each other.

     In the third stage of the experiment, a superordinate goal was introduced into the situation. This, remember, is a goal which each group wants to reach, but which it cannot reach without cooperation with the other. When this goal was injected, conflict between the two groups declined. They cooperated in activities leading toward the common goal and over a period of time these joint activities reduced the tension between them, There was a decrease in name-calling and derogatory remarks about each other. Unfavorable stereotypes of the other changed to largely favorable views. Sociometric measurements taken in the third stage showed a considerable number of cross-friendship links, that is, members of one group now showed a strong liking for members of the other group. Thus, introducing the superordinate goal had the effect of reducing conflict between the groups, creating favorable attitudes toward one another and bringing about united action.

     The various parties of the Church of Christ--Christian Church--Disciples of Christ movement are in conflict. In fact, it is uncanny how well the description of the behavior of the two groups in the study during the second stage fits our situation. Among us, hostile attitudes prevail with each group viewing the others as enemies rather than as brothers. Tremendous animosity manifests itself here. Unfavorable stereotypes have developed; as a result, those in one party attribute undesirable or ulterior motives to all actions of other groups. When we hear something favorable about the others, we reinterpret (that is, twist) it to fit the existing negative views we hold concerning them. We refuse to attribute honest motives to them. For instance, if one group tries to establish friendly contact with another, this is usually looked on with suspicion, and the attitude is, "You had better watch them, they are trying to pull a fast one on you."

     Name-calling is common. We do not hesitate to label others with various uncomplimentary designations which reflect our hostility or which are intended to discredit them. Just look at our free use of such terms as "anti," "Sommerite," "liberal," "digressive," and others. Derogatory remarks are frequently made as we cast aspersions upon, or make fun of our brothers.

     At present there are very few close relationships between members of our different groups. If we were to take sociometric measurements within any two parties among us, we would find few, if any, cross-group friendship choices. Not many would indicate that they liked anyone in the other party.

     Under these conditions, when there is any communication and contact between groups, it is generally characterized by behavior which reflects the rejecting attitudes mentioned above. Instead of engaging in dialogue to understand one another, we hold debates to bite and devour our brothers. Our contacts are looked on, not as media for communicating with each other, but as opportunities for hurling accusations and dealing in public recriminations.

     Due to the situation that exists, it is virtually impossible for a leader (a preacher, an elder) in one group to take bold action toward establishing friendly contact with another group. If he attempts to do so, he will be viewed by those of his own group as a traitor--"disloyal," "soft," "liberal," "a threat to the identity of the church," "a modernist" -or worse! This makes his attempt largely ineffective among many (but fortunately, not all). If he continues such activity, he is rejected by the majority of those in his group as a leader, and perhaps ultimately as a member.

     This state of affairs and these actions result from the idea that we do not need those in other groups in order to reach what appeal to us as goals for our particular party. In fact, we feel that we can reach our goals only at the expense of other groups. This is vividly seen in the fact that, in order to "build up the church" as we conceive the meaning of this term, we engage in active proselyting campaigns among members of other parties. We attempt to win them to our way of thinking about the party issues which are the occasion of conflict, or, as we prefer to express it, we try to convert them.

     Here is the sad situation we face. What can be done? The third stage of the experiment presents an idea that holds promise as a partial answer to the problem of reducing strife among us. When a superordinate goal was introduced into the experimental situation, this reduced the conflict, led to better feelings toward one another and brought about cooperation and united effort in

[Page 122]

reaching the common goal. Can superordinate goals serve to help reduce conflict among us? And if so, what are these goals?

     The first of these is unity among those who believe in Jesus. His prayer sets the goal for us. "That they all may be one" (John 17:21). It is obvious that we cannot all be one in our present partisan, sectarian, divided condition. Here is a superordinate goal, one that no Christian, no group of Christians, can accomplish alone. A realization that we can fulfill the will of Jesus only through mutual effort sets the stage for that effort. It provides a ground on which we can engage in common action, and a basis for reducing strife among us.

     The second superordinate goal we consider here is the conversion of the world to Jesus. He realized that if his followers were divided their testimony would go largely unheeded. He knew that discord among his disciples would prevent winning men to faith but that unity would be conducive to this end. Because of this, when he prayed for oneness he indicated its purpose: "That the world may believe that Thou hast sent me" (John 17:21). When this goal becomes appealing to us, then we will be of a disposition to lay aside our weapons of fratricidal warfare with which we spill our brother's blood, and take up the weapon of God to use against sin and unbelief. Further, we will see the need to share with all our brethren in this work.

     These two goals must be highly compelling to every Christian and every group of Christians. The fact that Jesus has set these goals for us should make us stop and examine those which we have set for ourselves and our party. All too often the goals for which we strive and the goals for which Jesus would have us strive are not the same.

     We must stress these superordinate goals. Only then will we be able to interest Christians in the task of seeking unity. As long as Christians think the goals they ought to strive for involve rejection of, or conflict with, their brethren in other groups, the present situation of division and fratricidal warfare will continue. So long as we feel that the party with which we are directly affiliated is identical with the body of Jesus Christ we will have no concern over the matter of striving together with our brothers in other parties for unity among ourselves and the conversion of the world to Jesus. Instead, our goals will be to further divide Christians, to build up our own party, to raise the sectarian fences that divide us still higher and to continually harass our brothers--all of which are in direct opposition to the prayer and will of the one whom we call Lord.

     In contrast to this, when we recognize that the party with which we are directly affiliated is not the equivalent of the body of Jesus, and that Christians are scattered throughout the parties among us, we will be in position to begin to strive to make the prayer of Jesus a reality. Then we will see that each of us shares an inter-relationship with all

[Page 123]

others in the body, whatever segment they are in, and that any superordinate goal which can only be achieved by the whole must become a mutual concern to those who compose each segment.

     This is the task that confronts us today. Let us face up to it and its implications. We must "strive together to reduce strife" for only as we show ourselves united will our plea for unity have any impact upon thinking people. Before us lies a tremendous opportunity.