I’ve been asked if religious groups offer mediation.  Actually, such groups have worked to be on the side of peaceful resolutions for centuries. More recently, there is growing recognition of what is now known as “faith-based” mediation. Faith-based mediators may employ sacred texts and teachings as tools to help the parties understand their conflict and develop a path for forgiving and restoring their relationship, as well as finding a way to move ahead together.

Perhaps it can best be illustrated with the following example:

Christopher and Sarah were members of a small community church, where Christopher’s father was the pastor. The congregation took pride in its informal mediation practices to resolve any disputes among members in the close-knit congregation.

After several years of friendship Christopher and Sarah decided to become parties in a real estate venture. They acquired two small houses and a garage on one lot. They worked together to renovate the property with Christopher managing their joint business checking account. When Christopher kept asking Sarah for additional funds, she asked to see the check register. 

Sarah was upset to discover that they were in default with their mortgage and Christopher had been spending money on sporting events and rock concerts. Sarah threatened to sue Christopher in Small Claims court to recover the funds, but members of the church, who had become aware of their dispute, pressured her to agree to mediation with church elders.

During the mediation both had the opportunity to share what had happened. The church elders then reminded them of the story of Joseph in Genesis. Joseph’s brothers had sold him in slavery but over time Joseph acquired great power. Later, when the family was reunited in Egypt and the brothers discovered that Joseph was alive and powerful, his brothers fell before him offering to be his slaves. Joseph didn’t judge them, but insterad offered forgiveness and kindness. One of the elders quoted from Genesis: “And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.” (Genesis 50:19-21)

Christopher accepted blame for mismanaging their money and agreed to pay back the funds he had used for his personal use. He also agreed to have Sarah manage their checking account. The message to Sarah was that Christopher lacked the skills to manage their joint funds and had failed her, but that she should not judge him, but instead forgive and help by managing the funds so their relationship could continue. Sarah agreed to the new arrangement. Their business partnership continued and they later sold the renovated property for a profit.

The story of Joseph gave Sarah and Christopher a new narrative for their relationship, which provided a way to resolve their issue peacfully within the fellowship of their church.

When people ask me if there are conflicts that just can’t be resolved, they are usually thinking about such disagreements through the lens of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong and moral vs. immoral.

What we hold values about, though, do vary in their importance to us. For example, religious values are held to be more important than beliefs about day-to-day interactions, such as expectations for being on time for meetings.

Conflicts over these more important values can generate more extreme language including:

• The use of words that express strong feelings and judgments.

• Predictions of dire consequences if a change or solution is pursued.

• Use of sources, which one party believes are unquestionable to try to convince the other.

• Negative characterization about the views, values or capabilities of the opposing parties.

Some approaches that have been successfully employed to deal with these conflicts are:

• Address peripheral conflicts first. It is possible that reaching some accommodation on peripheral issues help to lower tensions and hostilities and lay a foundation for future attempts at dealing with the value-based conflict.

• Work to change the relationship between the parties from one of head-to-head adversaries by limiting their interactions with one another and creating forums where positive interactions are more likely to occur. For example, rather than permit adversaries to debate one another, have them co-present their positions to a neutral party, such as community forums or educational settings. Not permitted to engage in argument and being forced to hear each other’s positions has the potential to begin to change the parties’ relationship.

• Work to identify superordinate values. Just as superordinate goals require competing groups to cooperation, it is possible that in value conflict there may be superordinate values, that is, values the competing groups may share and that bridge their differences.

• Finally, recognize and accept that all things have a time. Value based organizational conflicts, which may not be resolved at the present, might be seen differently in the future as conditions change.

Cultures do vary as to their acceptance that such conflicts must be immediately resolved and recognize that conflict is a process that evolves over time.