Conflict patterns in organizations like LCMS

By David Domsch

Though we like to think we’re unique, our current LCMS conflict follows a pattern that is very familiar to those of us who work with organizations. 

The terms Missionaries and Guardians are useful shorthand which captures the positive core of the primary mental models which are now in conflict. 

When encountering something new, our mind searches for ways the new is like something it already understands.  Analogy gives a way to deal with the new.  Without such a mechanism, every new experience would require a brand new approach.  We would quickly be overwhelmed.

Differing Aspects of the Mission

In mission-driven organizations, different leaders’ mental models often emphasize different aspects of the mission, just as New Testament writers emphasized different aspects of the Gospel and what it means to be a Christian.  These different models can co-exist in positive tension, each model contributing a perspective which enriches understanding.  Each model traces its emphasis to the organization's roots.  Leaders work to ensure the organization does not forget their emphasis.  People with different models often discuss their differences – in the best of times examining their foundations and working to understand the good which exists in models other than their own. 

This positive tension, however, can be fragile.  The most common danger is one model asserting it alone is "faithful to the mission" – to the exclusion of others. When that happens, a pattern of escalating conflict is set in motion – a pattern playing out in predictable fashion in the LCMS today.

A Conflict Among Leaders

As others have noted, Missionary and Guardian models exist primarily among the clergy.  This is typical.  Few members have the background and involvement to fully share leaders’ models.  From over 50 years’ work with membership organizations, my firm has identified 10 different human motivations (including secular equivalents of Missionary and Guardian) for joining and remaining members.  It is rare to have 20% of the membership understand the kinds of issues emphasized in their leaders’ models.  The LCMS is no different.   

This is very frustrating to some leaders.  To them, the issues are obvious – and very important!  Members should understand!   Frustration generates predictable action.  Advocate your emphasis to all who will listen. 

To enhance credibility, advocates build their argument on the organization’s fundamental values.  ”Seize the symbols!”  is perhaps the first rule of conflict within organizations.   It doesn’t matter what the conflict is really about – advocates always frame arguments in terms of their organization’s core symbols.  It is quite typical that every statement in our conflict is buttressed by quotations from our symbols – Scripture and Confessions.  It is also not unusual to have the same citation used to support very different positions.

More frustrating for leaders, their well-buttressed arguments make little impression on most members.  Leaders talk to and past each other in the language of their own models.  They hear the obvious wisdom of arguments that fit their model – and reject as tortured logic the arguments of others.  Most members hear little or nothing of this argument – it is outside their mental model of what the organization is all about.  With few exceptions, those who are aware of the conflict view it as a waste of time and resources.  

Positions Hardening into Ideology

Over time, as leaders in conflict hear and accept only arguments advanced within their model, the tool designed to help us make sense of new experiences can harden into ideology.  At this stage a model moves from being descriptive to prescriptive – from helping us relate effectively to defining acceptable behavior. 

By definition, ideology is absolute.  The model’s underlying assumptions are no longer open to examination.   As conflicts approach an ideological stage, they always become intensely political.  Positions are too important to do otherwise.  As in all political contests, it is much easier to raise the opponent's perceived negatives than to raise your own positives. Discrediting the opposition (negative campaigning) is a logical thing in political battle – it works.

 In this light, filing charges against Dr. Benke, Dr Kieschnick and others is just the next logical step in our increasingly political conflict.  The political nature of the charges is clear in that those bringing charges feel exempt from the dispute resolution process of Matthew 18.    Ideology demands action to protect its truth.  Technicalities are not relevant.

Becoming a leader at this stage requires advocating an ever purer version of the model/ideology.  Words and concepts take on totally new meanings to fit this need.  A couple of examples within our own conflict may make this clearer.

Unity is a good word. The LCMS Constitution includes unity as a core goal.  Apparently, however, unity means very different things to Missionaries and Guardians. 

Unity for Missionaries

Missionaries accept the definition of Unity in Article VII, paragraph 2 of the Augsburg Confession: 

 “And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.  As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.” 

With agreement on the Gospel and Sacraments, Missionaries say unity exists.  Their focus shifts to carrying out the great commission.  Remaining points of disagreement are less critical than doing the work which awaits.

Unity for Guardians

Guardians define unity very differently – as complete agreement.  Increasingly those at the vocal forefront hold that uniform practice – in liturgy, worship form, and other practices – are all required.  Absent total agreement, Guardians see the threat of false doctrine.  Purity in doctrine is the supreme concern, far more important than anything else. 

One Guardian web site offers a version of a Latin phrase used by Lutherans in 1548, when the Lutheran cause seemed lost politically and Roman Catholic practices were imposed on Lutheran churches in Saxony.  The word “adiaphora” was then—and still is—used to mean things which are neither mandated nor forbidden in Scripture, and thus are a matter of free choice. 

The Guardian phrase in Latin is "Nihil est adiaphoron in statu confessionis et scandali".

The full original phrase stated the good Lutheran principle that adiaphora that have become wrongly mandated practices are no longer adiaphora and must be resisted, in order to maintain Christian freedom.

The web site, however, changes one word from the Latin “casu” to “statu.”  This new phrase has come to be used to publicly protest errors in church doctrine while remaining (temporarily) in fellowship.  It means that nothing—doctrine or practice—is adiaphora if the author declares it to be a matter of confession.  For this person, no one has Christian freedom to practice differently from what he confesses.

This revised phrase is 180 degrees from the meaning of the original. 

Some pastors with strong Guardian emphases now advocate refusing to commune LCMS members from outside their congregation—and warn their parishioners not to commune at other LCMS congregations—for fear of false doctrine away from home.

In other conflicts, these kinds of positions are signs this model has moved into ideology –  no longer open to examination – at least for these advocates.

Can This Conflict Be Resolved?

The critical question for the LCMS:  Is it possible to resolve our conflict in a positive manner?  Many believe it is and are working to do so.  Prayer and studying Scripture are essential elements – advocated by all who seek resolution.  The theological convocations Dr. Kieschnick has called are laudable attempts to increase understanding and reach positive resolution.  We all pray for God's blessings on sincere efforts at resolution.  If all models are open to self-examination, progress can be made.

In human terms, achieving positive resolution will be extremely difficult.  The Holy Spirit can yet intervene to resolve this very human conflict.  His help is urgently needed.  I pray for his help.

David Domsch is a member of an LCMS congregation and a principal of Lawrence-Leiter and Company Fairway KS.