June 14, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

This week I want to write about the divides within human organizations, particularly our political and religious institutions. I’m trying to understand what there is about us as social beings that causes these splits. Typically, a fundamental issue comes up that cannot be resolved and a congregation will split over the disagreement. Are these ideological splits inevitable, a product of the human temperament? Let’s look at some historical examples and see if we can see some common elements.

Soon after the founding of our country, two political parties formed with fundamental differences about the role of the federal government. The Federalists favored a strong central government, following the sympathies of Alexander Hamilton, President Washington and John Adams. The Democratic-Republicans wanted a weaker federal government with stronger state and local control, a type of governance favored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. What started as a political dispute has now grown into separate philosophies about the role of local institutions, including the family, in our lives.

In Islam, the Sunnis and Shia split over the leadership of the Muslim community. The Sunni believed that the community should choose its leader from among qualified companions of the Prophet, leading to the selection of Abu Bakr as the first caliph. The Shias believed that succession after Muhammed’s death in 632 C.E. should remain within the Prophet’s family and that his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib, had been designated as his rightful successor. What began as a political dispute gradually developed into distinct religious traditions. Over time, Sunni and Shia Islam evolved different views about religious authority, leadership, and certain theological questions.

In the ancient Jewish community, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over the source and interpretation of religious authority. The Sadducees accepted only the written Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) as authoritative. The Pharisees accepted the written Torah but also believed in an Oral Torah—a body of interpretations and traditions passed down alongside the written text. Because the Sadducees’ authority was tied closely to the Temple, its destruction in 70 A.D. caused their movement to disappear. An oral tradition allowed the Pharisees to adapt religious law to new circumstances and eventually became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism.

Their disagreement reminds us of the disputes between Christians who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible and those who understand the Bible as story, as allegory, as poetry. We can see elements of this dispute  in our current debates about judicial interpretation and analysis. The Sadducees rejected any doctrines that were not explicitly stated in the written Torah. Textualist judges believe that legal analysis must be firmly grounded in and confined only to the text, and its meaning as they understand it.

The first followers of Jesus were Jewish. They attended synagogues, observed Jewish law to varying degrees, and regarded themselves as part of Judaism. Some believed Jesus was the Messiah that Jewish tradition had long spoke off. However, some followers began to regard him as divine, provoking a clash with Jews who believed in strict monotheism. After the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbinic Jews rejected claims that Jesus was the Messiah or divine. By the middle of the second century, many Jews and Christians regarded themselves as separate communities.

Over the centuries, frictions over papal authority grew between Greek-speaking Christians in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and Latin-speaking Christians in Western Europe. The bishops in Rome, the center of western Christianity, claimed universal jurisdiction over Christians everywhere. Bishops in the east believed that they should govern together as equals. This is similar to the disagreement between the Federalists and anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention. The Federalists wanted a strong centralized structure. The anti-Federalists wanted a confederacy of equals. In 1054 C.E., the bishop of Rome, also called the pope, and the bishop, or patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. Western churches called themselves Roman Catholic. Eastern churches called themselves Eastern Orthodox.

The historical examples so far have been ideological divides over authority. Who gets to be boss? It surprises me that these persistent divisions in human society have similar characteristics to playground disputes. A fundamental feature of loosely organized games is the lack of authority, an anarchy that is central to the relations between countries. If the players do not agree to a higher authority, then disagreements are inevitable.

In the 16^th century, Martin Luther challenged the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and Christianity divided into Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believed in the authority of priests and bishops to interpret the Bible, and salvation was through these intermediaries. Protestants advocated for a more collegial structure in which believers and local churches had the final authority to interpret the Bible. Salvation was directly from God. This echoes the political disputes over the role of the central government in American society, and the schism between the eastern and western churches. Throughout Europe, Protestants and Catholics fought a series of bloody civil wars without resolving these conflicts. Whole countries went one way or the other. Many European countries in the south went Catholic. Those in the north went Protestant.

In 19^th century France, republicans and conservatives argued over the role of religion in the educational curriculum. In 1881- 2, the Ferry Laws made primary education free, compulsory and secular. Republicans believed that the curriculum should foster loyalty to the French Republic, not the Catholic Church. Conservatives, monarchists, and many Catholics maintained that religion was essential to moral education, and the integrity of society itself. Secular schools could not instill the principles that built moral character. The dispute concerned the identity of France itself. Would it be an orderly society grounded primarily in Catholic tradition or one organized around less clearly defined republican and secular principles?

In the 19^th century, American Methodists divided over slavery. Northern Methodists opposed slavery, while southern Methodists believed slavery was compatible with Christian principles and the Bible. After a hundred years, the two branches reunified in 1939. Divisions over same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay clergy led to another split. Underneath these disagreements lies a major dispute among Protestant Christians over the interpretation of the Bible. Should sacred texts be understood through historical tradition and the plain meaning of the text, or should interpretation be guided by changing social and cultural circumstances? There is a similar dispute among judges as to the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the law.

Disputes over ideological matters can mask a dispute over authority. Take the case of the Methodists and slavery. In Colossians 3:22 and 1 Peter 2:18, the apostle Paul encourages slaves to obey their masters. Does that mean Paul endorsed slavery or is he advising a behavior within a relationship that was common in the old world? Pro-slavery interpreters argued the former. Abolitionists argued the latter contextual understanding. Slavery contradicted the central message of Christianity, that all people were equal before God and could be saved. Why did this drive the Methodist congregations apart? In many southern churches, Jim Crow laws mandated that enslaved people sit in segregated sections of the church. Northern churches had no such restriction.

Hidden within that tangle of claims and arguments is a question of authority. Whose rule wins? Who is the final interpreter, the decider of what the Bible, or the Constitution, or the Quran means?There is none. Organizations are glued together by forced or voluntary consent. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the framers agreed to add the First Amendment. This separated the government’s power to enforce consent from the voluntary consent of religious belief and association.

The natural tendency of human organizations to fracture leads to a profusion of beliefs and practices. Ideas evolve as living creatures evolve. They adapt to a changing social, economic and cultural environment. Conservatives naturally resist institutional change but it is inevitable. Progressives want to engineer institutional change but such change must happen in response to changes in the environment of a human society. That’s why so many proposed changes seem forced.

There is no newspaper titled Our Daily Disputes but that is the news. Knowing that most conflicts in our lives are really about authority, and who gets to make the rules, can help us understand our own feelings. I hope to see you next week.

//////////////////

Photo by Fineas Anton on Unsplash