Healthy Ministry Communication: Triangulation

Covered Bridge, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, 2020. Photo by Tracey Dawson

Healthy church systems have clear policies about communications.  Pastors who model healthy ways of handling criticism rarely face backlash or backdoor power struggles.  If a pastor is transparent, consistent, and vocal about what is a good communications practice, laypersons are given permission to follow suit. It is when pastors and lay leaders allow congregants an open pathway around these best practices that harmful rumors, gossip, and power plays are allowed to take hold in a church. Successful pastoral and lay leadership have in place and consistently follow clearly stated policies for communications with parishioners.

Triangulating Relationships: What are they?

Beverly comes to the pastor and wishes to speak in private.  “Pastor,” she says earnestly, “Rose Marie told me she offered to clean the church kitchen for free, but she said you turned her down!  She is so concerned that the cleaning crew you hired is not doing their job. She feels underappreciated by you and I just thought you should know!”

How does triangulation manifest?

This, my friends and colleagues, is triangulation, an unhealthy communications practice. Triangulation can stem from two sources: one, the reporter has an issue to bring to the pastor or lay leader, but the speaker lacks confidence to own it as their own opinion.  In the case of Beverly, she might actually be the one who is dissatisfied with the kitchen cleaning crew’s efforts and wishes to replace them with someone she has selected to fit the bill.  Beverly may or may not have even discussed the kitchen cleaning job with her nominee, Rose Marie. By telling the pastor that it is her friend’s opinion, she is protecting herself should the suggestion not be well-taken.

The other possibility is that Rose Marie is triangulating Beverly by getting another person to sponsor her opinion to the pastor.  In this instance, Rose Marie is wanting Beverly to bring up the matter, so she doesn’t have to. Depending on the minister’s response, she will either gain power in changing the way things are done in the church, or she remains in the same power position she occupied before but insulates herself from kickback should her opinion be rejected.

What is the healthy response to triangulation?

Either way, triangulation is an unhealthy communications practice that needs to be confronted head-on as soon as it is heard by the intended receiver.  The healthy response to triangulation is: “Beverly, this is a triangulation and it is an unhealthy way to communicate opinions and issues in our church.  I won’t allow you to speak for Rose Marie or anyone else. I make it well known that my door is open, and folks can come to me directly with their opinions.  Is this the way you feel about the kitchen situation?  Tell me more about your concerns.”

By shutting down the attempt at triangulation and replacing it with a) a reminder of the minister’s open door policy; and b) a question designed to see where the concern actually originates and now resides, the healthy pastor deflects the underhanded component of the communication and shifts it into an opportunity for Beverly to have an open and honest talk with the minister about her own feelings.  The wise pastor will insist that she speak with “I” statements and not draft absent others into the conversation to support her position. 

How do I prevent counter-triangulation?

The parishioner-reporter should also be told that she need not report to Rose Marie or any other persons that the pastor wants to hear from them, as this is a false resolution that results in counter-triangulation.  If Beverly tells Rose Marie that the pastor wants to talk to her about the kitchen situation, she is triangulating between the parishioner and the minister. Therefore, the minister should tell Beverly at the conclusion of their conversation, “Beverly, you don’t need to own this problem for Rose Marie nor take it on yourself to set up conversation between the two of us.  We can speak directly, and you are free of that responsibility. Thank you for sharing your own concerns with me about the kitchen; I will make sure they are addressed at an appropriate time and place.”

In this way, Beverly has been seen and heard and she has had healthy communications practice modeled for her. She has been released of responsibility for her own and possibly another person’s anxiety over the matter, and she has been assured that her concerns will be appropriately addressed.

How do I handle “this is for your own good” statements?

Triangulation meets head on the cop-outs of poor communications practice.  Often, the reporter justifies their comments with platitudes such as, “I’m telling you this for your own good” or “I’m saying this because I want to protect the church.”  A reporter leading with this type of statement is often looking for affirmation that their concerns will be heard and not dismissed. Again, a direct question can stop this type of behavior.  “What is your concern for my welfare?” or “How exactly does this issue threaten the church and your statement protect it?” This gets the person talking from their own point of view and gives the listener perspective on what is driving the report in the first place.

How does triangulation effect me as a church lay leader?

If a triangulated report comes to a lay leader, it might sound something like this:  “You are the President of the Church Board, so I just thought you would like to know that Robert Jones is withdrawing his pledge and leaving the church.”  Taking the triangulation bait, the leader may be tempted to inquire further: “Oh? Why is he doing that? What did he say exactly?” Unhealthy triangulation is given steam by the response that asks for more detailed gossip.  The reporter, who is attempting to triangulate the lay leader, is begging to be asked to expand on the story, but a wise lay leader will not fall into the trap of unhealthy communications. Instead, the lay leader answers, “Ok, thank you. How are you feeling about your pledge and involvement this year?  I hope we can count on you to increase both.”

How can I prevent the fallout from unhealthy triangulation?

Not responding to the lead-in statement is the healthy response.  The lay leader may then follow up directly with the disgruntled parishioner, but without giving voice to or referencing the triangulated statement.  The leader might call up Mr. Jones in a few days and say, “I haven’t seen you lately in church. Is everything alright? I am confident we can count on your renewed pledge again this year.”  This greeting gives the parishioner his own voice. Directly then, the Board president can hear directly from Mr. Jones whether he has any concerns and if so, what they are. No other person is involved in the communication.  The healthy lay leader will take the concerns and address them directly in the right setting in the presence of the right people.

What is the simple takeaway lesson?

Triangulation can get ugly.  Stopping it early, every time consistently, while still giving permission for healthy expression of legitimate community concerns, makes for a healthier church ministry system. 

I teach a basic workshop on Healthy Ministry Relationships, one of the components of which is Healthy Communication. This topic is also available as a stand-alone workshop. See my RESOURCES page for more information.

I am also available for hourly consultation with pastors, lay leaders, and churches on this and other HMR (healthy ministry relationships) issues.      

(c) Tracey Dawson, 2020