I distinctly remember one church conflict that took a strange turn. I must add, at the time of this conflict - as a new, emergent, eager, and energetic ministry leader, this particular encounter had me rethinking my active involvement in church all together. I became scarred from this experience. The conflict took place about four to five years ago, where a power struggle emerged in the midst of a committee meeting. Mr. Leo Richardson, a disgruntled leader of the church, upset by a vote that ended his term as leader of Francis Burns United Methodist Church (FBUMC) 501C organization, the Burns Community Development Foundation (BCDF) crossed an indiscernible line. Emotions adversely affected his objective thinking. He exercised poor judgment
…show more content…
He also wanted to know what he could do to foster honest communication and vindicate himself without causing Mr. Richardson to lose his integrity.
After much thought, he agreed to dismiss his motion to remove Mr. Richardson from the board. He knew his motion was an act of anger. Where his emotions took over his logic. As an agreement to drop this motion, he however, wanted Mr. Richardson to publicly apologize to the members of the board. He also wanted Mr. Richardson to stop slandering his name to the congregation. Additionally, he would like for it to be made clear that he was now the new chairman, and Mr. Richardson would have to accept it and respect the wishes of the board.
Unfortunately, Mr. Richardson continued to actively and publicly denigrate the authority and leadership of Mr. Friday. He refused to acknowledge his immoral behavior. And just had a different opinion about how things should be done. Sadly, he remained convicted to this flawed and controlling mindset. He would blow up and accuse Mr. Friday of further impugned intentions at future meetings until he found another ministry to control and torment. I believe until this day, Mr. Friday and Mr. Richardson are still at odds with each
He also wanted to know what he could do to foster honest communication and vindicate himself without causing Mr. Richardson to lose his integrity.
After much thought, he agreed to dismiss his motion to remove Mr. Richardson from the board. He knew his motion was an act of anger. Where his emotions took over his logic. As an agreement to drop this motion, he however, wanted Mr. Richardson to publicly apologize to the members of the board. He also wanted Mr. Richardson to stop slandering his name to the congregation. Additionally, he would like for it to be made clear that he was now the new chairman, and Mr. Richardson would have to accept it and respect the wishes of the board.
Unfortunately, Mr. Richardson continued to actively and publicly denigrate the authority and leadership of Mr. Friday. He refused to acknowledge his immoral behavior. And just had a different opinion about how things should be done. Sadly, he remained convicted to this flawed and controlling mindset. He would blow up and accuse Mr. Friday of further impugned intentions at future meetings until he found another ministry to control and torment. I believe until this day, Mr. Friday and Mr. Richardson are still at odds with each