"Conflict: Ask Ken": If Matthew 18 is Not Applicable to Every Church Conflict, What Is?

Recapping Last Week’s Posting
  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?

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

QUESTION: What do you think? Please leave your comments...

 

Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts