A:

Some years ago in the city of Liverpool, England, a "peace march" was organized to demonstrate the unity of the church of Jesus Christ to the world. A number of children dressed as angels led the procession bearing banners fashioned in the shape of doves and emblazoned with the word "Peace." Unfortunately, during the climax of the event (including a rather lengthy speech extolling the joys of Christian unity) some of the "angels" were observed beating their fellow angels over the heads with their dove-shaped banners. Apparently, despite the noble intentions of the march organizers and the sincere proclamations of the preachers, the patience of the youthful participants had worn thin. The demonstration demonstrated something that it was not designed to demonstrate – namely that Christians both young and old, have difficulty getting along with each other. 

Now if it be protested that grown-up Christians don't go around beating each other over the heads with banners, I must agree. However, in the interest of honesty we must admit that tensions exist and many earnest believers agonize over how to deal with relationships which are more likely to produce pain than promote peace. But why should this be so?

First we must bear in mind that God's self revelation is so vast, mysterious, and all encompassing that no human can grasp it all completely. Then we must admit that our minds are less than perfect, our motives less than pure, and our self interest less than noble. Put these two factors together and it is not difficult to see why there is a strong possibility that we will arrive at different conclusions, adopt different attitudes, and determine different actions are necessary. When opinions are held with varying degrees of conviction, attitudes are exhibited with varying degrees of grace, and priorities established with varying degrees of flexibility, warm hearts and cool heads are necessary. Should they be in short supply, the results can be less than ideal. 

People become "difficult" when their opinions and convictions are espoused with scant regard for other's convictions, when their attitudes are contemptuous and dismissive of the feelings of others, when their agendas are presented in a manner which implies they are infallible, and when their objectives appear to be directed more toward winning than wooing – more interested in being proved right at any cost than behaving righteously at all costs. Such people do not wield banners in the shape of doves to crack stubborn skulls. Instead they often use more civilized, but no less devastating, methods to achieve their ends, and in the process break many sensitive hearts. 

I think of the church organist and choir director who refused to play or allow the choir to sing if contemporary music was used in the service. This despite the fact that such compositions are at least equal musically and theologically to some of the pieces to which he was adamantly committed. 

I mourn the loss to the mission field of a couple who, proficient in the language and deeply involved in the culture to which they had been sent, were nevertheless sent home in disgrace because their style of evangelism was more aggressive than that of the field leader. Instead of admitting he was threatened by their effectiveness and challenged by their courage, he chose rather to question both their motives and their loyalty. 

I despair over church boards that cannot convince a pastor that his sermons could be improved by some pruning or amplifying, and instead reach an impasse, which is "solved" by pastoral dismissal, leading to board disintegration, congregational dispersion, and societal disgust. 

We can do better than this – and we must! Certainly difficulties abound. Clearly difficult people multiply. But the people of God are called to something nobler and grander than what is so often exhibited by both difficult people and those who cope with them.

3 STEPS TO TAKE WHEN DEALING WITH "DIFFICULT" PEOPLE

1.  Evaluate Your Own Motives and Actions

First and foremost it should be understood that those who regard others as being "difficult" will no doubt be characterized themselves as being the difficult party! While it takes two to tango, it does not necessarily follow that it takes two difficult people to tangle and tussle – one is often enough! The one who tenaciously holds a position will find difficulty with someone who is less committed to the position; and the one who feels strongly about an issue will be unimpressed with the person who, in wishing them to change, apparently exhibits a lack of insight and principle. Anyone seeking, therefore, to deal with a difficult person had better be willing to check out their own motives and actions before wading into the tricky waters of turbulent relations. 

2.  Clarify the Problem

Next, an attempt should be made to clarify the issues around which the difficulty has developed. In the realm of human relations the possibility for misunderstandings is enormous and the probabilities of misinformation being communicated are endless. This invariably results in hurt feelings and bruised egos. When feelings have been aroused, facts are usually obscured, so any opportunity for a clear statement of facts should be welcomed and enthusiastically embraced. There will no doubt be much talk about "principle" and "issues" and "matters of conscience." High sounding as these terms undoubtedly are, attempts should be made to identify which principles are at stake, what the issues really are, and in what way a person's conscience is in danger of being violated by the matter at hand. This is important because some "principles" on closer examination prove to be "prejudices," and some matters of "conscience" prove to be nothing more than matters of convenience. It is also helpful to show that one principle often needs to be balanced by an equally valid principle. So the above mentioned field leader who felt – on principle – that his leadership was being threatened and therefore the offending parties should be disciplined, would have been well advised to remember that he and his colleagues were on the field – on principle – to reach the lost, which is precisely what they were doing!

Should this line of firm but fair discussion eradicate some of the heat, the possibility for mutual concessions comes into play. In any difficult situation, people dig their heels in at some point and often it is the wrong one. When that is recognized, there is room for acknowledgement of error and the possibility of a responsive move away from the position previously held. The field leader should be willing to acknowledge the effectiveness of the couple's ministry, the couple should admit to being frustrated and somewhat disdainful of the leader's limited leadership abilities. Greater freedom should be proffered by the leader, greater respect offered by the led. 

3.  Determine When a Parting of Ways May Be Necessary 

All this presupposes that the difficult person has a point which needs to be acknowledged even if his way of expressing it should not be applauded. But what of those who are constitutionally difficult, who respond neither to reason nor grace, whose sole accomplishment in the fellowship appears to be disruption? These persons no doubt have at least a spiritual problem, and possibly a personality defect as well, and should they refuse help in addressing these matters, they should be placed firmly in a position where their impact is minimized and their problems are not allowed to hinder the work of the Lord. A parting of the ways may become necessary. Barnabas found Paul difficult over John Mark – and went his way. Abraham found Lot difficult over pastureland and they went their separate ways. Peter and Paul had their moments and faced up to them. In all these cases, time was a great healer. That is sometimes our best hope.