"Instruments of Peace: The Grievance-Suggestion Procedure (GSP)"
  G. Lloyd Rediger 

The Hebrew term “shalom” has become a focusing word in contemporary spirituality. It has at least three translated meanings: peace, wholeness, salvation. All of these concepts offer valuable insights into the mystery of spirituality. Yet each needs a directive for action, lest it remain only an idea that seemed good at the time. A directive for action, a recipe, an instrument which can facilitate shalom is needed for our real life situations.

The values and dangers of reducing any aspect of spirituality to a formula, ritual, symbol, or instrumentality are mostly apparent. Having an instrument of peace is similar to having an instrument of war. Waging war is not a fantasy, it takes place in specific locations, using instruments of warfare. Peace also is not just fantasy. It takes place when people wage peace—with instruments, strategies, and a sense of mission.

The well-known “Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi” begins, “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.” Spiritually-disciplined persons are agents (“instruments”) of peace. That is certainly part of the peace process. But this essay is about strategy and procedure rather than persons acting as agents of peace. Such persons are vital to the health of any congregation. And they need tools—instruments—for facilitating peace. The whole congregation needs to know about such instruments so all may participate in the peace and health of the congregation.

This is all relevant to the dynamic of conflict and abuse occurring in organized religion today. We are learning that we must rethink—reinvent—our definitions, strategies, instruments, and mission if we are to be co-creators with God of a kingdom of peace-health-salvation. And we are learning that we must have new instruments of peace which fit contemporary spiritual warfare.

CONTEXT

Peace, health, salvation should be normal, even automatic in the church, according to our idealized thinking. This fantasy can be a barrier to realistic thinking about the community of faith. But the escalation of conflict and abuse in congregations and denominations is a reality check. It reminds us that spiritual warfare is a reality. Those who are unprepared will become casualties.

Besides the dawning awareness of spiritual warfare, we are also required by contemporary realities to rethink our common understandings of the basic concepts of shalom mentioned earlier. Peace, for example, is not just the absence of conflict and warfare. Many have learned that peace must be waged by dedicated actions. And peace is not a time to settle into self-serving indulgence, it is a time to heal, nurture, and grow. Health is not just absence of pain and disease, it is wholeness in the biblical sense, which means fitness for God’s purposes. Salvation is not just a guarantee of eternal bliss. It is God’s redemption of humankind coupled with our dedicated service in caring for others, and redeeming our resources in the model of Jesus Christ.

In addition to these fresh insights regarding the basics of spirituality, we are learning that peace-making and peace-keeping are sustained by both spiritual disciplines and by discerning strategies. We are learning to care about prevention and proaction as well as battle strategies and triage. All of this context helps us understand the what, why, how, when, and whom of sustaining shalom. The rest of this essay is devoted to discussing a particular instrument of peace which appears to be valuable in our stewardship of shalom in congregations.

AN INSTRUMENT OF PEACE

In consultations with troubled congregations and the pastoral care of pastors, I find that a valuable tool or instrument is typically missing, which could prevent much conflict, and could provide a method of resolving much of the conflict and abuse which is occurring. That tool is a clear, concise, and workable method for handling grievances and suggestions for change within the congregation. Without such an instrument congregational leaders and pastors are left with the possibilities of anarchy, manipulation by congregational powerbrokers, or patching together whatever seems like a good idea at the time. We can do better than this.

We can call such an instrument a grievance-suggestion procedure (GSP, for brevity). This means a well-known and readily available channel for guiding both concerns and suggestions for change through an accountable and caring process of consideration and resolution. It is valuable to use the same method for handling both complaints and suggestions for change in the congregation. For this allows the procedure to be used and perceived as a positive way of handling both the negative and positive concerns of the parishioners.

When we deal with this issue in the seminars on managing the clergy killer phenomenon, a participant often expresses discomfort with the terminology of “grievance.” This is a valid concern which can be addressed by changing the name of the procedure for any congregation using such a procedure. There is no magic in the terminology. I use the term grievance because it expresses the urgent unhappiness of some parishioners who are angry about something in the congregation. If the complaint is actually a negatively worded request for a particular change, this procedure will handle it as a suggestion for change rather than a grievance.

Since it is not common for a congregation (or a denomination) to have a simple, clear, practical procedure for handling grievances and suggestions for change, it will likely be useful to consider the generic questions which arise when an unfamiliar strategy is suggested.

WHAT? It is best not to be too literal here in suggesting the contents of a GSP, for each congregation has unique needs, polity, bylaws, and traditions. We can, however, list typical ingredients which are useful:

1. The GSP should be designated as the official process for handling all grievances and suggestions for change. This means it must be officially voted by duly elected representatives of the congregation. The only exceptions are those allowed by a similar official action.
2. The grievance or suggestion must be submitted in writing.
3. It must be signed.
4. It must be dated.
5. The GSP should name a specific person or officer to whom it must be submitted.
6. The GSP should indicate what official entity (committee, council, etc.) of the congregation or denomination will review and decide on the grievance-suggestion.
7. The GSP should indicate what official responses can be expected.
8. When the submitter will be notified of official actions and decisions.
9. The GSP should indicate that decisions of the official board conclude the matter, unless an officially designated appeal process is followed.
10. The GSP should state that anyone not abiding by such judgment will be held accountable for such behavior, and how they will be held accountable.

It should be obvious that each congregation should have a GSP which fits their circumstances, and yet promotes peace, decorum, and faithful ministries. It is not the goal of a GSP to produce perfect harmony. This, of course, is not a realistic expectation among normal persons. For diversity, disagreement, dislikes, and mistakes, even sin are expectable human dynamics. Conflict is not all bad, but abuse is unacceptable. Conflict is often positive and valuable, clarifying disagreements and encouraging creativity where grace is operant.

Some of what constitutes a GSP is common sense, civility, and caring. There are precedents and guidelines for the content of a GSP in the denomination’s polity, the congregation’s bylaws, and in such general resources as Roberts Rules of Order. All of these have standing in church tribunals and secular courts of law, as do many other documents which are signed and dated. It is important that the GSP conform to the denomination’s polity. For actions which violate official polity may be nullified. And actions which violate a congregation’s bylaws are illegal and may be overturned in secular courts.

Since the church is a mission under God rather than a business or a social organization, it is important that its governance be based upon Scripture and spiritual disciplines. Therefore, the GSP should begin with references to the need for congregational decisions to be enveloped in sincere and humble prayer, and suggestions for appropriate passages from the Bible to be quoted and studied. It can be very helpful to begin the GSP with quotations from, or references to Matthew 18, Acts 15, I Thessalonians 4:12-22, Colossians 3:1-10, Philippians 2:1-7, Galatians 5:13-6:5, I Corinthians chapters 12 and 13.

If harm (sin) has been done, then the forgiveness formula must be invoked. (This five-step formula, derived from Scripture, was reviewed in my column entitled, “The Year of Forgiveness,” in the July 1996 issue of the Clergy Journal.) We should remember, of course, that the hard core terrorists of the church—the “Clergy Killers”—are unlikely to participate in any forgiveness and healing process. For this does not fit their purposes. Often then, the congregation and pastor must do the forgiveness process and the healing without the malefactor’s participation. But such painful and yet healing processes underscore the need for a GSP. For much hurt, sin, and lost opportunities can be avoided if the congregation has and uses a GSP.

In seminars I am asked often for a specific example of a GSP. Such a request indicates how poorly prepared most of us are to lead our congregations in a clear, precise, and practical strategy for handling the sensitive issues of conflict and change. There is no one formula which will be perfect for every congregation. But, each congregation has a denominational polity (such as it is), bylaws, and tradition. It should, of course, also have common sense and spiritual disciplines which guide us towards God’s purposes instead of self-serving struggles to get our way at the expense of others. Yet, in these days of change, conflict, and abuse, it is obvious that each congregation needs some form of an effective GSP. For many congregations are floundering and at the mercy of nefarious powerbrokers who have little intention of seeking God’s purposes rather than their own. Therefore, it appears that a major responsibility of spiritual leaders these days is to aid a congregation in preparing a GSP. One that will guide leaders and congregations when there is conflict and which is also prophylactic.

Since it may be helpful for spiritual leaders to see an actual GSP in print, I have compiled some basic ingredients into a generic model of a GSP, as follows:

“Good communications are a characteristic of a spiritually healthy congregation. And one of the most important communications between people has to do with managing disagreements and making suggestions for change. We want to be a spiritually healthy congregation. Therefore, the elected leadership of the church provides the following procedure for handling such sensitive issues.

We begin with guidance from the Scriptures. In Matthew 18:15-20 we have a three-step procedure taught by Jesus to his disciples. Where there is a grievance between two persons, Jesus taught, the harmed person should go to the person who harmed him and seek redress in private. If no solution occurs, bring witnesses and try again. If the person behaving in unhealthy ways will not repent, bring it before the congregation. And if the malefactor still does not repent, the whole community of faith is to treat that person as a reprobate.

These are hard teachings, but they are from no less than Jesus the Christ. The process and rationale are clear. Persons who insist on disrupting the harmony of the congregation, and are unrepentant, must not be allowed to infect others with their spiritual sickness.

The early church also gave us a valuable model for handling suggestions for change in the community of faith. In Acts 15:1-34 we have a record of the first general convention of the church after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some members wanted to make changes in theology and practice which others opposed. The Apostles Paul and Peter convened a meeting of church leaders where with prayer and respect for each other they discussed the options. Then they negotiated changes in theology and practice to which all could agree. And because of this prayerful process, the early church thereafter grew rapidly and healthfully.

Those methods from centuries ago may not work exactly for our congregation. But they provide a context of caring and respect, of prayerful dialogue, negotiation and tough-minded spirituality, and of sincere seeking of God’s will rather than our own. In order to apply these spiritual principles to our congregation, we provide the following procedure for handling grievances and suggestions for change.

1. This procedure has been developed prayerfully, after careful review of our denomination’s polity, our congregation’s bylaws, and our traditions and present circumstances. Since it has been voted on and passed by duly assembled members of this congregation and its spiritual leaders, it is the only procedure which is acceptable for handling grievances and suggestions for change.

2. Any grievance or suggestion for change must be submitted in writing. If assistance is needed to meet this requirement, it will be provided by elders or deacons of this congregation.

3. This written document must be signed by the person initiating the action and any associates who wish to participate in this action.

4. This document must indicate the date on which it is properly submitted.

5. Any grievance must be submitted in this documented form to the Chairperson of the Personnel Committee if it is directed towards a member of the church staff, to the Chairperson of the Board if it is directed towards a parishioner, and to another member of the Board if it is directed towards the Chairperson of the Board. Any suggestion for change must be submitted to the Chairperson of the Board.

6. The Board shall review and deliberate the documented issue according to its commonly accepted practice and render a decision, unless it chooses to delegate this responsibility to another official group in the congregation or select an ad hoc group for this purpose. All such deliberations and decisions shall be reported to the Board in writing and may be reviewed and acted upon by the Board. In any case, the Board retains final authority for a decision on this documented issue.

7. The person(s) submitting a documented grievance or suggestion for change may be asked to appear before the Board or its designee for purposes of clarification. In any case, this person(s) will notified in writing of the Board’s decisions regarding this documented issue within ninety days from the date of submission which appears on the document.

8. The decisions of the Board are final, unless appealed by the following process:

a. The issue may be resubmitted one time only, according to the above procedure, and will be accepted for reconsideration only if presented with significant new data and information.

b. After this issue has been appealed to the Board one time, the Board’s decision may be appealed to the denomination’s nearest office, according to denominational polity.

9. A decision by the Board, whether in its original deliberations or after one official appeal, is final. If an appeal is made to the denominational office, its decision is final. There shall be no further presentation of this issue verbally or by document at any time. Violation of this procedure shall be considered grounds for initiation of a trial within the tribunals of the denomination’s or the congregation’s polity for all persons violating the Board’s or the denomination’s decision regarding this issue. If this issue is submitted to secular courts of law, the mandates of such courts shall be followed by all parties, unless the Board or denomination duly determine to initiate contrary actions and are willing to sustain lawful consequences.

10. All persons involved in the above process are responsible for their own prayerful Christian conduct and attitude during the handling of any GSP. It is expected that all parishioners and its spiritual leaders shall regard each other with love and respect, even during times of stressful conflict. It is also expected that official decisions of the Board and denomination will be honored fully, whether agreed with or not. For we all function under God’s authority and believe that the Board’s and denomination’s decisions are made under this authority. Anyone unable to maintain such attitudes and behavior is expected to prayerfully reconsider their commitment to this congregation or transfer their membership to another congregation.” (end of model GSP)

WHY? We turn now from the what question in regards to this instrument of peace, to ask the why question. The answer to this question is briefer, for most of the why issues have been covered in the discussion of the content of a GSP.

It is obvious to many experienced spiritual leaders that anarchy is unacceptable in a congregation or denomination. There are gatherings of believers which operate with almost no official procedures for actions within the organization. This is possible if all are of a like mind. This can be a wonderfully free and caring way to function, as long as a healthy ethos is sustained. However, we are warned regularly by horrible examples that such groups can become victims of evil groupthink, with or without their own awareness of such a condition. In more organized groups, such total evil is less likely, but nevertheless possible. We face this condition in a growing number of congregations today. For the internal structures which once maintained spiritual disciplines, or at least decorum, are breaking down. This allows unrepentant powerbrokers to manipulate the congregation for their own purposes. When this is allowed over a long period of time, such spiritual sickness becomes normal, along with its evil consequences. Therefore spiritual disciplines are required in any congregation, so that evil can be discerned in its earliest manifestations. And then, a simple, clear, and workable GSP must be in place, by which responsible spiritual leaders can sustain spiritual health even in the presence of infection. Further, the known presence of a GSP is a regular reminder that a congregation becomes sick when it forgets how to be well.

HOW? The next generic question regarding the GSP as an instrument of peace asks how such a strategy is initiated and implemented. The answers, of course, are determined by local circumstances. If there is no identified and known GSP in a congregation, it must first be formulated, then studied, then voted upon in conformity to polity and bylaws, and finally implemented and sustained.

When a GSP exists, it must be taught to all leaders, made known continually to parishioners and the denominational offices, and reviewed whenever needed. It should be seen as part of the healthy spiritual disciplines of any committed community of faith.

WHOM? The GSP is effective when implemented by elected spiritual leaders, and adhered to by parishioners, staff, and clergy. It is the elected spiritual leaders who are finally responsible for the effectiveness of any official GSP. The pastor cannot enforce it effectively, only emphasize it and model adherence to it. For the office of pastor usually does not function well when the pastor must defend herself/himself from undisciplined attack, nor when he or she is the primary source of discipline for the congregation.

Remember that the model presented here is only a suggestion for your congregation’s GSP. It reflects both the grace and the spiritually-disciplined commitment characteristic of spiritual health.

Copyright 1998, G. Lloyd Rediger. All rights reserved.