c. 2000 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C.)

UNDATED _ A local high school is embroiled in controversy over its school colors.

Over the years, what started as Navy blue has evolved into royal blue. One alumna has made it her personal crusade to reverse the blue tide and restore the school to its original shade.

She has no support in the athletic department, whose players are the most visible wearers of the blue, or in the administration. But she is undaunted in her telephone calls, e-mails and solicitations of support from other alumni.

Having myself been the target of such campaigns, I don’t dismiss the crusade lightly. One determined person can wreak havoc on any institution, especially one so vulnerable to public image as a school or a church.

In a national study of church conflict, the stark conclusion was that”all it takes is one”_ one antagonist who will say and do anything to win.

Their venom and determination frighten others to the sidelines and become a magnet for all manner of unresolved issues, most having nothing to do with the presenting problem.

One pastor tells of a lay leader who came to him on his first day in office and announced his intention to force the pastor out. It took two years, but the antagonist won. At another church, an antagonist threatened to ruin not only the pastor but his wife. He and his handful of allies also won.

The blue battle, therefore, might not fade into oblivion just because it is intrinsically absurd. Look at the division of Christendom over the one word”filioque”(“and the Son”) in the Nicene Creed. Look at blood shed over the Greek word meaning”baptism.”Look at how the Church of England tore itself apart in the 19th century over clergy vestments, or more recent warfare over wording of the Lord’s Prayer.

But, you say, Christendom didn’t split over the filioque clause. It split over political power and ethnic hatred. The Reformation didn’t fragment over baptismal water. Its origins lay in more momentous issues like nationalism and intellectual freedom. The vestment controversy was a cover for class warfare. Fighting over the Lord’s Prayer was a cover for deeper angst having to do with modernity and new roles for women in the church.

That’s all true. Same with the lynch mobs who routinely accost vulnerable targets like pastors and school principals: They tend to be compensating for frustration in the rest of their lives. A noted consultant concluded after three decades of toiling with church conflict: When people fight at church, it’s because something is wrong at home.

In all likelihood, the local issue isn’t Navy blue vs. royal blue. I have no idea what it is. I doubt the alumna herself could say. At some point, chasing victory obscures all origins, especially those origins that lie, not in the aesthetics of blue or of language, but in a projection of personal needs.

That’s what makes tightly focused antagonists so dangerous: They tend to use a small issue to deal indirectly with a large issue, and they can’t afford to let it go, because then they would have to deal with the larger issue.

I am tempted to cite the doctrine of”adiaphora”_ the doctrine of things indifferent _ which was promulgated by an Anglican theologian in the 19th century (or perhaps borrowed from the Lutherans). He was more concerned about England’s vast slums than whether clergy wore lace surplices. In other words, some things matter more than others.

Or I could cite the Apostle Paul. Faced with tension between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians _ tension that eventually would erupt in warfare and lay the ground for centuries of vicious anti-Semitism _ Paul begged for a little common sense.

Does the Christian enterprise turn on circumcision? he asked. That is absurd. Circumcision is nothing, he said, and uncircumcision is nothing. All that matters is obeying God.

No one stopped fighting just because Paul named the absurdity. But history bore him out. Fighting over small stakes as a substitute for larger stakes might bring down the mighty, but underlying issues remain.

Kicking the dog never saves a marriage or brings a promotion at work.

DEA END EHRICH