Our Conference is happening NOW! Join us! Click HERE for Conference Webpage
Our Conference has concluded but it's not too late! Click Here for Conference Recordings
Saved!
ICC Certification Case Reporting
Make every effort to submit your case reports within 30 days of services ending. Case reports are carefully reviewed by a Candidate Review Team prior to graduation so a detailed report is the best way to communicate the dynamics of the peacemaking skills used. Copies are automatically sent to you and your Advisor.
Advisor Approvals
Your candidate has been notified
Your changes are saved automatically as you enter each field,
but you can force a save using this button:
Your advisor has been notified
Are you sure? This is not reversible.
Deleting: One Moment Please
Privacy Policy: Do not use the actual names of the parties. But be consistent in the names that you do use for this report and your uploaded report summary. Any private case documents and files must be kept secure or destroyed after follow-up is complete. Please consult with your advisor or the ICC office if you have any questions.
Case Management Questions
Case management is everything that precedes actual conciliation and is often a significant preparation for both conciliator and the parties.
It was created by the chairman (Guy) and myself (The Intentional Interim Senior Pastor) to deal with a vital vote on sanctuary upgrades that was only 60/40 in favor for the project. This decision was too narrow and the issue was potentially divisive to the church moving forward with the project. So with my council from past conflicts it was suggested to the leadership that we gather a group together to work out the issues involved and see if we could come to a consensus. This would enhance communications between differing points of view, promote unity and help define the final project in a way that would be good for the church and the designers.
One party was outspoken on the forty percent side. We approached him to ask if he would be willing to work with a group of people to discuss the issue. We then ask him to point us to people with the same opposite point of view to promote a thorough discussion. In the process of forming a group I also found a third point of view. We wanted a small group of people who were passionate about the issue and willing to discuss it in a reasonable way. I worked with the chairman of the church (Guy) to select the group. We ended up with six men, all engineers by training. I had asked for some women to be involved, but it didn’t happen. The were many women on the bigger and final vote group called the Sanctuary Upgrade Committee.
All the parties had a long history in the church and were well known for their involvement and leadership in the church. They knew each other and were friends, even though they did not always see eye to eye. I accepted this on face value as to their spiritual maturity.
The presenting issue involved a marble altar and pulpit that had been in place for 35 years. They were heavy and fixed in place. The Sanctuary Upgrade Committee had determined that the renovations needed the altar and pulpit to be movable to make better use of the cancel space for music programs and other uses such as Vacation Bible School. Also the praise band needed to move up to the cancel level. The Altar and Pulpit appeared to not be movable and held emotional attachments to many people. It was assumed that the forty percent voted no because they wanted to retain them.
The initial issue was could they be moved without destroying them, or could a alternative solution be found that would retain them?
I included the chairman in the process. I felt it would be good to have him involved because of the importance of the issue, it would give me an some additional insights as we proceeded and he was on the Sanctuary Upgrade Committee. He has not been trained on any level of reconciliation. It was decided that I would guide the process and he would run the meeting and. It became collaborative as we could read and support each other as we guided the discussion.
He also knew the men in the group well and had established good relationships with all of them.
We did not use any specific forms. This was an internal document. We did a formal agreement at the end, but didn’t use a form for it.
I am the Senior Intentional Interim Pastor of the congregation. I had only been in the church for three months when this mediation started.
I explained the distinction between the pastor role and conciliator roles during the process. I have been in this dual role situation many times before. This mediation was unique that the distinctions were never an issue and the process flowed naturally.
Many people in the church support this process. This was a well known issue that appeared to have no easy solution. When anyone expressed concern for the process, they were encouraged to pray about it.
Pre-mediation / Coaching Questions
Conflict Coaching cases do not apply toward Supervised case requirements. However, Pre-Mediation coaching is essential and counts toward your total mediation case hours.
The issues started out being all about the altar and pulpit in a sanctuary upgrade. The emotional attachments to these two items were personal issues which initially made the discussions harder and seemed to be issues that were not reconcilable.
A second issue was the cost of the overall project. A couple or people in the group did not see the need for the upgrade or want to spend the high cost. So demonstrating the need for the upgrade and cost-cutting measures became issues as well. This was a factor that was reviewed quite often, but is not reflected in the final agreement.
The initial discussion revealed one of the individuals was fixed on a single point of view. I felt the process may bring out the idol in a better way than I could at this point. His background as an engineer said to me that he would operate in a logical way which the process would reveal.
I assumed that the Altar and Pulpit were idols issues from my coaching as I just mentioned. It was assumed on my part because of the way he argued that they must remain as they are. It was a position that was firm and posed the biggest difficulty in the mediation.
What was missing from this idol theory was that the symptoms explained in the development of an idol illustration. For that reason I decided to wait for additional evidence before pursuing my gut feeling. In the end this proved to be a good decision.
We did not have any official coaching sessions before the mediation. We had many casual conversations with the different people involved to define the issues and explaining the process. The parties served together and had no issues with each other. The difficulty was seen as having opposing views on the issues involved and there was no discussion of these issues.
No. It was not an idol.
There was no homework given at this time. A lot of homework would come in the mediation part.
All were willing to be involved in the process even though some of them had some reservation of the process.
They were helped by explaining the process we were going to use to address the issues and to help them have a realistic understanding that it may take a while to work through these issues.
Mediation Case Questions
Continue completing this case form for all mediation cases, independent or supervised. You need to be the lead conciliator on two (2) cases submitted and you need to complete the intake for two (2) cases submitted.
There were no co-conciliators, but I did include the chairman of the congregation in the process as explained earlier. He is not trained.
I did talk to him before the case. I stated that it appeared that this would largely deal with the substantive issues as I had not seen any personal issues in my coaching. I suspected some possible idols but they had not been clearly confirmed. He said to watch and be ready for reconciliation issues that would probably emerge between the parties. I welcomed this conciliation since I had not spent much time working out substantive issues with parties in the past.
We were spread out over four tables put together in a Quad-table arrangement. It worked well. A monitor was put in one corner to aid in the discussion of proposed designs and elements of the overall projects when needed.
A list of normal ground rules were used. There was one addition by the group to not use hyperboles.
Many devotions were used over the seven weeks it took to reach a conclusion. Initially Proverbs 15:22 (The need for many to work together for a good outcome.) and 2 Cor. 13:11 (Our goal to aim for unity and keep peace) were used to start the process. We also used 1 Corinthians 12:25-26 on divisions and Colossians 3:12-17 on harmony. The others are listed later in question #8.
As it started I explained the process and gave them a simple handout explaining the Gospel Process. Starting from the Chairman we went around the circle giving opening statements. There were no surprised as each party anticipated the thinking of other parties.
This mediation was interesting with the many parties involved. There were a lot of moving parts to tract. The parties took turns telling their stories. The group was made up of of Engineers.
The initial homework assignments involved the story telling phase. The points of view revealed the difficulty of the situation. Working with each person’s story, in turn, we defined the expressed issues and worked on defining their desired outcomes. It took several weeks to work through the story telling process. More on this will be revealed as we work through the questions.
As we proceeded in discussions, we learned that the perceived idols were not at the level of an idol. A frank discussion revealed that these were preferences and not idols and with the evidence involved he could let go of his position. In the end this demonstrated to all involved that it would be of no value to keep the altar as it was and move it to the back wall. They could not remain where they were and still achieve the upgrade goals. The group agreed to incorporate a light-weight Altar similar in the top of the new altar. It would honor the existing altar yet be movable as per the plans.
Usually there were opportunities to touch basis casually with the participants during the week. In the process there was no time where things rose to the level of needing a private meeting.
Some creative Scriptures were used. Here is a list of some of these passages.
Proverbs 11:14 On Many advisors.
Proverbs 16:3 Dedicating the discussion to the will of God
Exodus 27:1-7 Researched the movable Altar in the Tabernacle
Exodus 20:24 Stone Altars in Bible
2 Chronicles 4:1 Examined the Altar in the Temple that was not movable.
identified that there appeared to be no pulpits and in New Testament churches
Talked about voting in the Bible. How often was the majority right?
The men respected the rules very well. The whole process was handled with great respect for each other. There were times that individuals disagreed and sometimes sharply. Yet even in these times they waited to talk in turn. They would state that they did not agree, or that they saw it differently, but always with respect. It was amazing. I commended them for this good behavior several times.
In this case, the problem identification and clarification were intertwined with the issues leading to to the exploration of solutions. The process naturally flowed from one aspect to the next and would go back and forth as new issues were identified new possibilities explored and logically worked these through to their logical conclusions. Ideas were thought up between meetings as the group worked together to find a solution and eliminate ones that did not work. For example, one party figured out five possible solutions and one by one they were discussed, modified, incorporated with other ideas, and re-examined until a logical conclusion was reached.
The main issues that was weaved throughout the discussions centered on a few simple factors. The final Altar and Pulpit would need to be light-weight and portable, (Defined as able to to be moved by four men over the carpeted floor) honor the traditions and design elements of the sanctuary, and be agreed upon by this task force.
As we proceeded from the story telling, specific assignments were given to individuals who volunteered to help sort through options and feasibility of ideas. For example, we got reports back from different experts and did a search for existing construction plans and eventually contacted the people who built the units, if still in business. We took time to examine the existing units and brought in a inspection camera to put through a hole in the floor to see the structure inside. These resources helped to get the needed facts, narrow the options and eliminate possibilities solutions until only one option remained.
The diversity of the people working on this process proved valuable to exploring all the possibilities. The group worked with the logic and even involved AI in trying to define the issues which were then explored one by one. The process was very thorough. In the evaluation of the process one of the people who at first insisted we use the old altar thanked the group for working very hard to accommodate his wishes even through he eventually saw it was impossible to keep those units as they were.
As described, it was a process that was contingent upon an agreement. The whole process was started by a division and the outcome was seeking to unify a diverse group to agree on a solution. The task force was able to accomplish this.
A document was written to present to the full Sanctuary Upgrade Committee. It was simple and to the point.
Our task force met for seven weeks and and arrived at the following consensus. We recommend to the Sanctuary Upgrade Committee that the following ideas be incorporated into the designs for the for the upgrade.
1. The existing altar and pulpit will not be used in the sanctuary upgrade. They are not adaptable to fit the design goals for the project.
2. A new altar be designed with a thin marble top and sides to replicate the existing altar along with some sort of base and a new pulpit be design to compliment the altar that is also movable.
3. The old altar railing be used or a new railing be designed according to the plans to replicate the existing railing.
Note: The task force intentionally left these items vague so the designer would have the greatest latitude and would be evaluated by the Sanctuary Upgrade Committee. Several members of this task force were also on the Sanctuary Upgrade Committee.
We commended the parties for their good work. They would enjoy the value of their work as the project continues to completion sometime this summer and used for years to come.
Personal Reflection
This section is one of the most important and helps your advisor and the Review Team understand your perspective and growth as a conciliator.
This mediation was unique. My usual experience is dealing with personal issues and very little substantive issues. This case gave me the opportunity to do just the opposite. It gave me hours of experience working out substantive issues that appeared to be impossible to resolve. The process worked well, since it allowed reasonable minds to work in a logical, safe, and well organized process.
There is always room for improvement. There are times I felt I gave too much latitude in letting discussions continue on, but the individuals were so good about following the rules and showing proper respect that is seemed best to let people talk freely. In the end the individuals involved reflected the process and discussion were good.
I had very little in emotions during the process but tended to the business at hand. I was thankful for the discipline the individual demonstrated during the process. There was great satisfaction watching God work in the process as he did. Similar sentiments were expressed that during the evaluation.