Lit in Progress

Perhaps I am imagining things, or perhaps I am reiterating uninteresting observations already made, remade, and worn to bits too stale and floppy to enjoy. But whatever.

So here’s my assertion: The church (at least, the churches with which I have had contact) seeks to avoid conflict both within and without the boundaries of its community, where conflict spans from mild friction or disagreement to persecution and martyrdom. (Except, perhaps, on the issues of homosexuality and abortion, but I think the fixation upon these issues is actually symptomatic of the broader directive or desire to avoid conflict. More on that later, perhaps.) Perhaps “seeks to avoid” is not the correct terminology – perhaps, instead, I’m trying to say that the church views both internal and external conflict with dismay, as a sort of failure of the mediatory and relationally-focused philosophies which override its dominant discourse and overriding metaphorical framework.

If this is the case, and the church is viewing conflict between and among groups of individuals as a thing to be avoided, how does that mentality, and the activities produced thereby, influence the church’s effectiveness as an evangelical organization? (Perhaps I should stop here and really think about what I think the church should do. But I don’t think I will; my 15 minutes are almost up.) And as a supportive community? Is it beneficial for the church to percieve a healthy relationship as one devoid of conflict? What role does conflict play in a “healty” relationship? What role has conflict historically held in the growth of the church as an organization? As a community? What benefits can be obtained through avoiding it? What degree of conflict is desireable, necessary, or beneficial? Is it beneficial at all? How do the ways in which we percieve “conflict” influence the ways in which we percieve – and behave towards – God and those around us? Ourselves?