Church fights and the "third voice" middle

Conflict over the issue of homo sexuality was tearing apart a congregation of about 100 members. One member of the congregation, involved in a committed long-term homosexual relationship was in a leadership role in the congregation, and for some members that was unacceptable. The governing body of the congregation wrestled with the issue for months, and ultimately brought it to the congregation for a vote. I was asked to facilitate the congregational discussion and vote.

The three groups in the conflict

In this instance there were, as usual, those who were for allowing the homosexual per son to continue in office and those who were against it. I sought to empower a "third voice" in the conflict: those persons, present in every group conflict, who are more concerned with the process of resolving the conflict and less with the issues themselves. They are often the least heard and at the same time the most able to nurture the struggle. Thus the conflict broke down into three groups.

I asked for each of the three groups to choose spokespersons to talk with each other and with the congregation. All three representatives spoke with passion—the first two about the issues, and the third about her love for the congregation and the members involved on "both sides." The outcome of the final vote was probably not changed by this dialogue, but the many in "the middle," who were more passionate about the future health of the congregation than about the identified issue, did influence the tone and the content of the debate.

The overlooked "third voice"

Scilla Wahrhaftig has written compellingly of the need to nurture the "third voice" in conflicted organizations.¹ If those in the non polarized middle of a conflicted group are recognized and listened to, she concludes, the likelihood of reconciliation increases. My fifteen years of congregational conflict consulting has confirmed Wahrhaftig's thesis. The group most crucial to resolution and reconciliation is the group least likely to be noticed or consulted to any significant extent—the critical middle or the "third voice."

We overlook these crucial voices simply because they're generally not very loud or demanding. The voices of the passionate advocates of one issue or another predominate—for or against homosexuality, the building project, or whatever issue has generated intensity. These voices become so passionate that they must be heard. In fact, attempts to silence or ignore them only increases their intensity. Thus our conventional decision-making and intervention processes tend to privilege these voices at the expense of calmer and quieter ones.

Democratic decision-making processes, particularly parliamentary procedures, encourage active participation and reward passionate argument. Those participants who can "control the mike," "marshal the right arguments," and "get out the vote" are most likely to prevail. Linear thinking and either/or arguments tend to prevail over nuanced considerations and a tolerance of paradox in a two-party system where one person or view must eventually "win" over another.

The hesitant, the confused, and the quiet are at a disadvantage in these debates, as are those who are simply able to see both sides. How much passion can we expect from presentations that take the approach: "On the one hand.. .. But on the other hand .. .?" In the heat of debate such valuable voices tend to get lost in the noise.

Like it or not, religious congregations are not only families of faith, they are also political organizations that tend to adopt decision-making models that are consistent with the dominant culture in which they are situated. Thus, most congregational discussion and decision-making models also tend to privilege the passionate over those who appear perplexed.

Giving voice to the majority "middle"

The "middle" in any polarized debate is crucial not only because of its perspective but also because of its size. No organization where I have intervened in the last 15 years has been truly "split down the middle." In "position spectrums" that I have facilitated on a range of apparently divisive issues, those feeling "strongly" either for or against the identified issue generally have numbered 20-40 percent of the reportedly "conflicted" group. That leaves from 60-80 per cent of organization members somewhere in the middle. These do perhaps favor a particular perspective but they are also well aware that there is validity in the opposing position.

So how do we hear from the critical middle, especially in times of congregational anxiety and stress? Wahraftig offered several suggestions in her article, including using smaller, facilitated home meetings to hear from those who may not speak out in a larger public forum. Yet I am also challenged to assist congregations in structuring regular opportunities for "nurturing the voices that are least heard." Several ideas that I've seen used in regular congregational discus sion and decision making include:

1. Offer multiple methods for hearing from members. Large group forums probably work for 20-40 percent of the members. For the many who remain, smaller groups and opportunities for individual input (listening sessions, surveys, etc.) are also needed.

2. Provide training opportunities for both better advocacy and more skillful listening. One reason that debates over important issues become polarized shouting matches is that we're really not very good at assertive speaking or attentive listening. Some congregations have learned to offer training in cooperative communication skills to members before times get rough. This provides for realistic expectations in the group, along with the skills needed for healthy dialogue.

3. Recruit members of the third voice to serve on critical leadership boards and process planning committees. Although their passion may not lead them to volunteer for such roles, the value of their presence and input means that we must often seek them out.

The third voice is always present

The "third voice" is always present, even in the midst of the most polarizing debates. Our challenge is to recognize that it exists, provide an opportunity for it to emerge in the midst of passionate intensity, and respect its wisdom. It is from the third voice that I have most often heard the third way—a new perspective of looking at a particular conflict and its resolution that those most passionate about the issue were not able to see.

Listening to the third voice requires a conscious choice on the part of organizational leaders. Will we allow only the strident speeches, or will we also give space for the more reticent reflectors. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is in such still, small voices that a word from God is most often heard.