The Congregationalist form of government poses a challenge to Middle Eastern culture where democracy, rule of law, and individual rights, according to the common Western understanding, are not so well practised. This, I argue, explains why the pastors and church members do not use, misuse or struggle with practising their authority in decision-making at church.80 Although voting in Congregationalist polity is an expression of democracy, namely the will of Christ speaking through the will of the
78 Pastor-B’s letter to ABC, 9 Dec 2005. 79
Open interview with Anita, Aug 2015.
80 According to Brubaker (2009), a healthy structure both confers power and limits its exercise and that bylaws exist in part to protect the church and congregants from the abuse of power by individual members.
members, in the three case-studies the process, action, interaction and results failed to achieve this goal. It is noteworthy that the relationship between secular-democracy and the Congregationalist polity are two distinct yet overlapping influences upon the thought and behaviour of the younger generation.
I identify three cultural perceptions that contributed to defeating the requirements of the constitution: leadership style, loyalty to authority figure and avoidance of confrontation.
a) Palestinian leadership style in the church
The traditional Palestinian authoritarian style of leadership is another factor that affects the authoritarianism of Baptist leaders.81 For example, when Pastor-A initiated a business meeting although there was no quorum,82 he decided to vote on changing the quorum for this specific meeting. This special business meeting changed the status of deacon in the constitution from being a position for life to a position for a limited term voted on every three years. He decided to dismiss the current deacons and elect family and new people, loyal to him, to a new system in the form of a church committee. Upon Pastor-A’s request, people who had not attended the church for a long time came to this meeting and voted in support of his resolutions.
Pastor-A, in most cases, was the sole decision-maker; questioning his authority was seen as ‘unfaithfulness to the church’. When the younger generation insisted on change, Pastor-A and his family interpreted this as a betrayal and rejection. This led to hard feelings such as disappointment, offence, rejection and anger. Pastor-A’s wife said in tears, ‘What causes the deepest sorrow for us during this conflict is the lack of
81
See Chapter One, Section 1.3.1.
82 Pastor-A refused to postpone this meeting at the request of one of the deacons for organizational reasons.
124
appreciation for Pastor-A, who has served the church in faithfulness for many years, disrespect to a clergyman is something very unacceptable.’83
This attitude affected the way Pastor-A and his family interacted with the young generation’s request to bring in a young pastor, since the request was labelled as a ‘conspiracy against the pastor’. However, Pastor-A’s attitude was perceived by many
church members as authoritarian. As Rima put it, ‘I felt that we were prohibited to come close to this authority [Pastor-A]… he was like a Patriarch and everybody had to obey him, – I don’t think we still have such thing even in this town!’84 Mary noted, ‘The Patriarch stays in authority until death! The only way out is that people leave.’85 Even the deacons finally wrote, ‘Since we were not allowed to express our opinion freely at
church we decided to write you [Pastor-A] a letter.’86
This style of individual leadership was also seen in case-B. Although Pastor-B agreed unwillingly to have a church committee, he did not cooperate. Elias, a committee member, told me, ‘I resigned from the council of the church because the pastor did not
want to meet with us, despite me visiting him twice and asking him to work with us, the third time four committee members visited him but his answer was NO.’87
When the committee insisted on calling for a general meeting, Pastor-B initiated another meeting. His relatives and long-time non-attendees came to this meeting and voted in support of the pastor. In this meeting the committee was dismissed and declared no longer part of the church. Today church-B has no committee; church business meetings take place only when needed.88
83 Suhad, Apr 2014. 84 Rima, Mar 2014. 85 Mary, Apr 2014. 86 Letter 14 Apr, 1996. 87 Elias letter, 26 Nov 2005. 88 Pastor-B, Dec 2014.
Pastor-B, in most cases, was the main decision-maker. He felt that questioning his spiritual authority and decision-making amount to distrust and disrespect to the pastor. In his words:
They have no respect for a pastor…they forgot all the blessings God bestowed on them through me. My humble conditions were to affirm their trust and respect for me as a pastor; the pastor leads the meetings and has the primary individual responsibility.89
This attitude affected the way Pastor-B interacted with the laity’s request to introduce a constitution and to take part in decision-making, for he labelled it a ‘conspiracy to fire the pastor’. Pastor-B told me, ‘Till this day I don’t know why they did this conspiracy,
they wanted to fire the pastor but God fired them from the church.’90 Nonetheless, Pastor-B’s attitude was perceived by many of the church members as authoritarian.
In case-C, Pastor-C appointed members to positions in the church committee. He would give them freedom to work, but if tension or disagreement arose he would immediately dismiss them.91 Albert, a youth leader, told me that during the conflict Pastor-C sent him a note informing him he was dismissed.92
The findings show common patterns of pastoral behaviour during church conflict: rebuking of members from the pulpit indirectly and through preaching, dismissing leaders/committee from office, and claiming to follow God's directions (‘God told me to’) to indicate that they have the spiritual authority at church. Furthermore,
interviewees complained that most of the pastors did not recognize leaders to lead and preach. Many times when they were away they would arrange for an external guest to preach; in church retreats they would bring in guests to lead the worship and to preach.
More importantly, in these cases the process and the results of voting failed to practise the Congregationalist polity. Most pastors acted in an authoritarian way; some
89 Pastor-B’s letter to ABC, 9 Dec 2005. 90 Pastor-B, Aug 2015.
91
Shirin, a church leader, explained, ‘When there is disagreement, Pastor-C cannot differentiate between personal relationship and ministry’ (Sep 2016).
126
overrode the constitution, others fired church leaders and elected family and friends to various church positions.
b) Loyalty
Hirschman (1970) talks about how members’ loyalty to a group affects the ease with which members may leave when dissatisfied.93 This in turn affects people’s willingness to engage in behaviour leading to conflict (such as the younger generation in the case-studies voicing their dissatisfaction), or people’s unwillingness to voice complaints, stemming from their desire to repress conflict before it threatens membership or the survival of the group (such as the older generation) (Becker 1999).
In terms of loyalty, the findings indicate there is a contradiction between older generations who are loyal to family and tradition, and younger generations who follow Baptist ideology, which is inherently democratic and therefore anti-traditional. Four types of attitudes were identified in the case-studies.
First, loyalty to tradition. This applies to some first-generation members in church-A who would not leave the church or pastor under any circumstances. They remained in church-A following the conflict and left only after they were fired. The deacons’ attitude was also influenced by pastoral loyalty more than concerns for the
health of the church. When Pastor-A turned 65, they suggested keeping him as pastor until a ‘suitable’ replacement was found.94
All deacons except an American missionary agreed.95 This is an example of an encounter between an American missionary’s worldview (influenced by American culture and Baptist practice) and Palestinian
93 Scholars such as Simmel (1955; 1971), Coser (1956), Kriesberg (1973), and Hirschman (1970), look at conflict as something that flows out of certain patterns of group life and culture. They focus on questions such as boundaries, loyalty, and commitment. How do people interact with one another? How do they think and talk about the group’s identity and purpose?
94 Samir, April 2014.
95This decision empowered the pastor to decide what was ‘suitable’ and what was not. At the time of writing this thesis (2018), the pastor has still not agreed on a suitable replacement.
practices. In churches B and C there were only a few first-generation women observers during the conflict and they also had a similar attitude to stay.
Second, loyalty to family. In the three cases the pastors’ respective families and relatives were involved to keep the pastors in position.
Third, loyalty to both tradition and ideology. This was evident in churches-A and B, mainly with second-generation (‘worn-out’) members who respected authority figures and age (tradition), up to the point that the pastor ignored and then rejected them. When they failed to achieve power using the constitution (ideology), they split the church.
Forth, loyalty to ideology. Third-generation members (‘stand-tall’) do not share this same respect for authority. They are more committed to Congregationalist ecclesiology principles than the first and second generations. They justified their demands in terms of the Baptist theology of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and took matters into their own hands. For example, in case-A, during the conflict they held their youth meetings outside the church building in a school hall. In case-C, where most members were third-generation, they questioned both the attitudes of Pastor-C and the ABC-Committee during conflict management and were loyal to their ideology during the dispute. Their ideology conducted them not to split but to exit without starting a new church (three leaders exited during the conflict). Additionally they left silently and did
not fight Pastor-C, although they confronted him. This attitude differed from the third-
generation in case-A in two aspects: first, leaders of church-C2 did not leave with their entire family (Bishara left with his wife, but his mother and daughter continued to attend church-C2), and second they did not start a new church.
128
Two reasons influenced church-C2’s attitude. (1) Throughout the conflict, and even before the escalation, many members were mentored by the Canadian pastor.96 Some interviewees told me they updated him with every step during the conflict and tried to follow his instructions. He instructed them to stay submissive to Pastor-C as long as they were in church-C2. If they could not, it would be better to leave peacefully (and not start a new church) since opposition would cause division.97 (2) The ABC intervention during the conflict influenced Pastor-C’s behaviour. It is my thesis that the Canadian pastor’s ideology and ABC intervention were important factors leading to reintegration
in case-C.98 This ideology has space for the pastor as authority figure; however it differs from the first-generation’s deference to clergy. In case-B, the third-generation was still too young to take action.
c) Avoidance of confrontation or confrontation as the last attempt99
In case-A the deacons compromised for years. Although they were very supportive of people who wanted change, they tried to act neutrally and keep good relationships with Pastor-A. George claimed, ‘The deacons preferred to leave church instead of confronting the pastor; they didn’t take responsibility as church leaders to resolve the conflict biblically.’100
After the deacons were dismissed by Pastor-A, they sent him a letter expressing their resentment concerning the last meeting, for it involved violation of the constitution. They said they did not confront him during the meeting as they did not want to cause more tension and poor witness. This is a trait of Arabic culture, namely
96 An old friend of church-C2, see Section 4.2.3. 97
Albert, Oct 2016.
98 As I will explain in the next chapters.
99 Culturally, since open conflict is to be avoided, confrontation, when necessary, is done through an intermediary. This is where a third neutral party is used to communicate that which cannot be said in a face-to-face context. This intermediary allows unpleasant things to be said without being direct and causing confrontation, thus maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships while still communicating the unpleasant.
not confronting people in public. The deacons and most of the younger generation gave up and left the church. They felt they were driven to leave by Pastor-A’s attitude. They did not want to seek help in secular courts, where this kind of behaviour would not be a good witness for their community. However, some interviewees believed starting a church on the doorstep of the mother church was even worse.101
This attitude differs in case-B, where most of the church was second-generation and confronted Pastor-B directly as their last attempt to deal with him. Two months before the split, the committee confronted Pastor-B directly in a meeting and tried to convince him to introduce a constitution and reconcile the leaders who exited. During the first meeting, Pastor-B came prepared to lecture on how the church should be led. One of the committee members asked him to stop, since this meeting was for him to listen to what the church wanted to say. Two of the committee spelled out what they had against Pastor-B, who left angry. The committee met four times without Pastor-B to work on these issues – he was invited but did not appear. Pastor-B issued conditions that they should trust him, he leads the meetings and he builds the constitution. A few days before the split, they announced a general meeting in a church service, ignoring Pastor-B’s presence and without asking his permission.102
In case-C, the third-generation viewed Pastor-C as their spiritual father; they loved and respected him. However, the conflict sounded like a family quarrel. He also rebuked them from the pulpit.103 Some leaders confronted Pastor-C privately about his attitude, and he occasionally listened. They did not insult him but asked him to leave.
101
Majd, Mar 2014 and Mark, Aug 2014.
102 Elias, Agu 2015; letter 26 Nov 2005; Rana, Aug 2015 and Pastor-B, Aug 2015.
103 Albert, a church leader, said, ‘Pastor-C told me “When the church stops following me I will leave the church”… Pastor-C was not the reason for the problems but the members... the issue of gossip is everyone’s responsibility not only Pastor-C’s… eventually Pastor-C took responsibility with the help of the ABC and the church, the members did not take responsibility yet.’ (Aug, 2015).
130
The above analysis of the theological and cultural factors explains why pastors could not handle well the younger generation's request to share power, viewing it as a conspiracy against them and therefore causing them to cling to power and demolish any form of competition for their positions. It also explains how pastors in a Congregationalist polity were able to fire deacons and a church committee and thereby cause the younger educated generation to leave the church.
Pastors cling to power because of a combination of theological and socio-cultural factors. Theologically, pastors are influenced by Episcopalian churches in believing that they are called by God to a lifetime position; that it is God’s will for the church to be led absolutely by one monarchical shepherd anointed by God; that laity are to say ‘amen’ and members are to be submissive; and that questioning authority is viewed as sinful. Socio-culturally, they believe religious communities in general must be hierarchically structured to function effectively. Both point to the same direction of claiming for
power.
The findings also reveal that the younger generation do not share the same theology and culture as their pastors. The younger generation who rebelled against their pastors were influenced culturally by Western-secular ideas of individual rights and democracy (having adapted these ideas to their traditional culture). Theologically influenced by the Baptist theology, they justified their demands to share power in terms of ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ However, they showed respect for clergymen when
they decided to surrender to their pastors by leaving the church as mentioned earlier. Again both point to the same direction of claiming for power.
In sum, the clash between the pastors and younger laity can be seen as a clash in