Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    “Conflict:  Ask Ken”:  If Matthew 18 is Not Applicable to Every Church Conflic

    Bookmark and Share

    The two questions posted at the end of last week were, “what do you do after you have directly spoken to the other person but the tension with that other person is still not resolved? What should churches do when conflict arises in their midst that does not involve sin?‿

    A Different Paradigm for Reconciling Relationships

    Though the New Testament does not provide a step-by-step process for resolving differences of opinion over goals, methods, priorities, resources, style, etc., it does set forth a pattern of conflict resolution that reflects the very heart of God. In Matthew 5:9, Jesus taught, “blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.‿ The phrase “sons of God‿ is significant. To be a son of God means to exhibit the characteristics of God. The phrase, “like father, like son,‿ captures the text's meaning. The question for us therefore becomes, “if we are to be like God in making peace with others, how does God make peace with us?‿

    As you know, there is break in the relationship between God and ourselves. Isaiah 59:1-2 reads, “Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.‿

    As you are also aware, the Father sent His Son to bridge the broken relationship with Him. “There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus‿ (1 Tim. 2:5). And, “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19).

    Returning to the questions posed earlier, “what do you do after you have directly spoken to the other person but the tension with that other person is still not resolved? What should churches do when conflict arises in their midst that does not involve sin?‿

    The answer is, utilize the way God made peace with us – through a mediator.

    If to be a son of God is to possess the attributes of and be like God, “like father, like son,‿ then when it comes to peacemaking, we can say, “as with God, so with us.‿

    As with God -----------------------------So with Us


    Jesus sanctions the work of peacemakers because their work of reconciliation follows the same pattern God uses in making peace with us.

    Indeed, the concept of mediation is so inherently part of the fabric of the Old and New Testaments, that it is hard to explain why so many miss it. The concept of a mediator between God and people is seen in Israel's earliest history in the person of Moses. After he was commissioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses brings God's message both to the people of Israel who are in bondage (Ex. 4:29-31) and to the Pharaoh of Egypt (Exodus 5:1: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go‿). Moreover, throughout the plagues on Egypt, Moses interceded to God on Pharaoh's behalf. Exodus 8:8, for example reads, “then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Plead with the LORD to take away the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the LORD.‿ This Moses did.

    After the exodus from Egypt, the two-sided nature of Moses' role as mediator is seen when the new nation arrives at Mt. Sinai. Not only does God speak to the people through Moses (Ex. 19:2-6), but the people expressly desire that Moses should, in turn, speak to God for them (Ex. 20:18-21). This was the first of many occasions when Moses served as a mediator between the people of Israel and the God of Israel.

    The concept of a mediator between people and God is a role that is played out again and again in Israel's history through: (a) its priests who served as indispensable mediators between God and the Israelites in worshipping God as prescribed in the Mosaic law (e.g. Lev. 6:1-7, 16:1-34), (b) its prophets who stood in the place of God to reveal his word and will to the Israelites (Deut. 18:15-22), as well as the surrounding Gentile nations (Jonah 1:1-2, 3:1f), and (c) its kings who, in Israel's theocracy, were charged to serve as God's viceroys administrating justice and righteousness according to the laws God gave to Moses (Deut. 17:14-20; 2 Kings 23:2-3). These three offices, priest, prophet, and king, all mediatorial in nature, were established by God to maintain the nation's unique relationship with him. Oepke well summarizes, “though the word is not used, mediatorship is at the heart of OT religion.‿ Similarly, when we turn to the New Testament, that the apostle Paul “never preached a religion without mediation,‿ asserts Oepke “needs no demonstration.‿ I agree. It is at the heart of God's plan of reconciliation for us.

    Relevance

    To a few, the mediation model may seem to be of little consequence. From my experience, however, this represents a cataclysmic paradigm shift to the way conflict can and should be handled in the church. While Matthew 18:15-17 is divinely applicable for issues relating to sin, it is inappropriately applied if used to reconcile broken relations over differences of opinion over goals, methods, priorities, resources, style, etc., To introduce a church judicial process that requires one to win and the other to lose face over issues where no moral transgressions are involved is a recipe for disaster. I stand by my statement from last week. The misapplication of Matthew 18 “begins to explain why some church conflicts turn out as badly as they do.‿

    By contrast, just consider four out of many instances in Scripture where a peacemaker, a “third side‿ was involved. He or she gracefully made all the difference between hardening broken relations and creating reconciled ones: (a) Abigal for Nabal, (1 Sam. 25:1-38), (b) Barnabas for Paul (Acts 9:26-29), (c) Paul's unnamed companion for Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3), and (d) Paul for Onesimus (Philemon 10-21).

    To err is human. To forgive is divine. And blessed is (s)he who helps disputing parties do what they have not been able to do for themselves, make peace.

    -----


    Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist, earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United States. If your church needs individualized help, please visit Ken's website or call 301-253-8877.

    To submit a question and connect with Ken, click here.

    © 2004 Kenneth C. Newberger

    Last week, we considered the application of Matthew 18:15-17. We noted its proper application in those cases which could lead to a person's removal from the church. The conditional aspect of the beginning of verse 15, “if your brother sins against you...‿ makes it clear that if this condition remains unfulfilled, what follows does not apply. (By way of analogy, consider this statement to a young man, “if you shovel away the snow in my driveway, I will take you to my bank, withdraw $50, and pay you in cash.‿ However, if the young man does not shovel the driveway, then all steps leading up to payment also do not occur). On the other hand, if step one of Matthew 18:15-17 is entered into and there is no resolution along the way, then all of the steps must be applied. There is no stopping after step one or two. For those who hold that Matthew applies to every kind of conflict, the question then becomes, is it proper to throw people out of the church for issues not relating to sin?


    image


    -----

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Bernie Dehler on Thu, December 09, 2004

      Great article.  I’m dealing with this issue now in one of the ministries that I’m involved in.  Get a peacemaker, what a concept… very applicable… Thanks!

      Hopefully, both parties and the peacemaker all work with an attitude as peacemakers, too.


      ...Bernie


      http://www.FreeGoodNews.com

       

    2. Bart on Thu, December 09, 2004

      All very true, but the difficulty is that in using the direction in Matthew and in using a mediator, we usually dont want a mediator, but support.  We try to find a mediator that is in agreement with our position.  An independant mediator is very difficult to find.  It is very difficult to turn your conflict over to someone that you do not know or trust, and so we find a mediator that we know, and probably already have a relationship with.  Can they really be impartial?  If both parties do not trust the mediator, or if one party has a relationship with the mediator, the conflict resolution may not work.

    3. Jack on Thu, December 09, 2004

      It all sounds well and good, but what do you do when “mediation” doesn’t solve the problem? I’ve observed MANY situations where a Godly person tried to mediate in a conflict between two or more people in a church, but one or both of the parties stubbornly refused to abide by the counsel of the mediator. It SHOULD work this way, but the truth is that it seldom does.

    4. Marlene Taylor on Thu, December 09, 2004

      What constitutes sin?  You seem to be assuming that the “sin” is some objective action!  Where does attitudinal behavior fit?  Critical spirits and that sort of thing - those subjective aspects of behavior that create tension, dissension and conflict in the church.

    5. Dennis on Thu, December 09, 2004

      I have read both parts of Ken’s comments before commenting myself.  I have not ever used this particular process in the past for someone who has “sinned” against me.


       


      However, I did abide by Jesus instruction that if I am preparing to worship and remember a brother has something against me to leave my sacrifice and go be reconciled to my brother.


      You know if Jesus puts reconciliation of brothers/sisters ahead of worshipping our Creator, it must be pretty important!

      I took the principles found in Matt 18 and went to him alone and he refused to see me, take my calls or respond to a letter.  Then I chose someone, that I knew he respected, to go with me and he again refused to see us.  ( I knew he had something against me by some of his actions, but I had no idea what I had done or what he preceived I had done.)


      I finally asked the Elders to assist, which they did.  He had no specific accusation against me, he just didn’t like some things I had discussed in bible class.  We left that very emtional meeting with no resolution at that time, but later we were reconciled and became good friends again.


      Isn’t it interesting…God’s way does work!

    6. Harry Miller on Thu, December 09, 2004

      The problem is sin.  The answer is Jesus Christ.  If we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  All things work together for good to them that love God to them that are called according to His purpose.  For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of His Son that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.  God does give us a standard to follow and that standard is Jesus Christ.

    7. Sagaga on Thu, December 09, 2004

      The issue here is the sin. Who is the brother sinning against? Even though it says that his sin is against me, the sin is actually against God because all sins is against God and His law. We are involved because we are witnesses of the Gospel. We are our brother’s keeper with regard to his salvation.  (1John 4:1919 “We love him, because he first loved us. 20; If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”) Those that love God are the saved as indicated in verse 19. If he rejects us let him be as a heathen(unsaved person) and leave him be.

      This verse is just another way to remind us of our responsibilities as witnesses of the Gospel.

       

    8. Scott on Thu, December 09, 2004

      I’m having trouble getting past the opening remark: “The conditional aspect of the beginning of verse 15, “if   your brother sins against you…” makes it clear that if this condition remains unfulfilled, what follows does not apply.”  Ken proceeds to build from this foundation.


      Unfortunately, only “late” manuscripts add “against you”.  So, the earliest, or oldest, manuscripts read simply “If your brother sins”.  So, with that in mind, the foundation upon which Ken builds using the condition of “against you”, is shaky at best…

    9. Kevin on Fri, December 10, 2004

      I have to take Harry Miller’s point a step farther.  The Problem IS SIN.  Please do not forget that we are sinful creatures in our natrual state and one or both parties, though believers and brothers, may be acting in the flesh - knowing ly or unknowingly.  The Mediator makes perfect sense.  I would encourage each of us and the ‘at conflict’ brothers to first evaluate what the text says and means and then commmit to apply it regardless of the outcome.  God is big enough to make sure you (if you are the one who has to give up - or give up the most) will be blessed over and above the amount of money (or ground) you gave up, at some later time.

       


      Please also understand that God’s plan and principles for money and marriage and other relationships do work for the unbeliever — because they are His plan for man.  The principle of mediation and Biblical dispute resolution, whether Matt 18 or not, will work even if one or both of the parties are not our brothers in Christ.  If one is and the other is not then the Christian must act like one. Be Christ to the world!


      Just yesterday my father and I were talking about this issue in His long life.  My 74 yr old father said that there were a few points in his life that he is sure that when he meets Jesus, face to face, he will be glad he was the one who gave up rather than the one who refused.  (Maybe He’ll be glad he is not the other guy when He (the other one) sees God.) I think that is a good way to approach our attitudes when in conflict.

    10. Bobby Collins on Fri, December 10, 2004

      I’m pleased to see mediation being advocated. As a professional family mediator, I work primarily with broken families (usually ex-spouses who are in conflict over custody issues), but I have also had opportunities to mediate inter-church conflicts. The result - if handled properly - is a blessing to observe.


      Too many times, though, when I offer mediation services to ministers, I am told basically that, “We don’t do it that a’way ‘round here.” Which I can only understand to mean, “We like a good feud every now and then!” For some reason churches look on mediation as new and untried, and therefore as untrustworthy. As Ken pointed out, the practice is thousands of years old, as well as divinely directed. I wonder if we’ve gotten too me-centered and controlling to allow the process to be used as it should be.

      Properly applied, mediation does not usurp any minister’s authority, nor does it risk leading the disputants away from their church’s fold or teaching. A professional mediator is not interested in teaching or instructing nearly as much as he/she is focused on helping the two disputants to find a resolution to their own conflict. The mediator does not judge and decree a decision, but guides the two parties to find their own settlement.


      I strongly urge all ministers to find a mediator they can trust and to use his/her services. Granted, as has been brought up already, if the minister feels he can trust the mediator, that may indicate a conflict or a question of total neutrality. But without the pastor’s confidence, the mediator will not be used anyway. Ideally, the minister will not look for a clone who merely parrots his own words. Neutrality is the key, not complicity.

       

    11. Bobby Collins on Fri, December 10, 2004

      I’m pleased to see mediation being advocated. As a professional family mediator, I work primarily with broken families (usually ex-spouses who are in conflict over custody issues), but I have also had opportunities to mediate inter-church conflicts. The result - if handled properly - is a blessing to observe.


      Too many times, though, when I offer mediation services to ministers, I am told basically that, “We don’t do it that a’way ‘round here.” Which I can only understand to mean, “We like a good feud every now and then!” For some reason churches look on mediation as new and untried, and therefore as untrustworthy. As Ken pointed out, the practice is thousands of years old, as well as divinely directed. I wonder if we’ve gotten too me-centered and controlling to allow the process to be used as it should be.

      Properly applied, mediation does not usurp any minister’s authority, nor does it risk leading the disputants away from their church’s fold or teaching. A professional mediator is not interested in teaching or instructing nearly as much as he/she is focused on helping the two disputants to find a resolution to their own conflict. The mediator does not judge and decree a decision, but guides the two parties to find their own settlement.


      I strongly urge all ministers to find a mediator they can trust and to use his/her services. Granted, as has been brought up already, if the minister feels he can trust the mediator, that may indicate a conflict or a question of total neutrality. But without the pastor’s confidence, the mediator will not be used anyway. Ideally, the minister will not look for a clone who merely parrots his own words. Neutrality is the key, not complicity.

       

    12. Page 1 of 1 pages

      Post a Comment

    13. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors