« Adrian Rogers on Vision | Main | Multi-Site Churches: Answering the Critics »
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Conflict? Ask Ken: Runaway Congregational Conflict and Why We Should Solve It (Part 2)
(Continuing from last week’s article, Part 1)
Making Expectations More Realistic
What can be done to address the problem many churches have in dealing with conflict? The first thing that needs to be done is to change people's minds in terms of what they should expect to find in the church. The Mennonites have taken the lead among Christian denominations in this area. As a denomination, they have publicly gone on record stating,
“'Making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,' (Eph. 4:3) as both individual members and the body of Christ, we pledge that we shall: 1. Acknowledge together that conflict is a normal part of our life in the church” (Schrock-Shenk).
In order for such a reorientation to take place in the church at large, a major educational effort has to be made. However, to make an impact on churches, the rationale behind the effort must first be derived from the Scriptures.
A Dose of Biblical Theology
It has become apparent to this writer that there has developed a fundamental disconnect between belief and practice. The expectation that the church should be without conflict is incongruent with Biblical theology. It must be remembered that the purpose of Jesus Christ's life can best be seen against the dark backdrop of our destructive patterns of thought that typically result in conflict-producing behavior. The gospel message is that the Son of God came into the world to die for such sins. He who committed no sin bore our punishment on the cross for the wrongs we have engaged in so that we, through faith in Christ, can experience God's forgiveness.
Becoming reconciled with God, however, does not change our underlying human nature. The well-known phrase, “sinners saved by grace,” recognizes the fact that we are still sinners. Very few imagine that a person's new commitment to God eradicates self-centered, conflict producing thoughts and behavior. (The difference is that the Lord now enables us to live a life more pleasing to Him, but it will not be sin-free this side of heaven).
To better grasp this point, Garry Wills' comment is helpful with regard to tarnished televangelists. He wrote, “Journalists miss the point when they keep asking, after each new church scandal, if a preacher's fall has shaken the believers' faith. Sin rather confirms than challenges a faith that proclaims human corruption.” In other words, how can a faith that at its foundation asserts the predisposition of people to do wrong be shaken when people do wrong? It's like saying, “the Pope practices Catholicism. Shocking isn't it?”
Given this fact, why do churches have such difficulty dealing with conflict-producing behaviors when they understand its fundamental cause? The pattern of avoidance belies the underlying premise of the gospel message. Somehow, a fundamental disconnect between faith and practice has developed. Kevin Miller, editor of Leadership, a journal for church leaders, put his finger on the problem when he wrote, “evil is more subtle and more common in all of us religious people than we want to believe.” In other words, religious people have a tendency to see themselves in a more idealistic light than is warranted.
The Needed Message
The message that churches should regularly reinforce to their parishioners is that conflict is a natural outgrowth of the human proclivity to be self-centered. This obvious truth transcends all races, all cultures, and all peoples. No researcher has ever found a conflict-free society or organization (Wilmot & Hocker). This accords well with the Scriptures that teach, “there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20 NASB).
Therefore, when a dispute in the church occurs, parishioners should hardly be surprised. Rather, it should be anticipated and seen for what it is, the natural and normal course of human interaction. Such a message regularly communicated will be a major first step in modifying the statement of shock, “but I thought the church is supposed to be different,” to an affirming, “this congregation really knows how to address and resolve conflict and strengthen the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Indeed, those who study human behavior find that “love only endures when dissension is faced openly” (Bolton).
For Discussion: Theologically, when people become Christians, do you believe that they no longer sin? When it comes to conflict in the church, what do you think are most people’s expectations? How do you think one’s expectations impacts the way people process conflict? Are such expectations based on theological truth?
FOR OTHER ARTICLES BY KEN ON CHURCH CONFLICT... click here
--
© 2005 Kenneth C. Newberger
Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution and
development 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 help resolving conflict, if you need individual coaching, or
if you would like to develop a communicatively healthy church, please visit
Ken's website at www.ResolveChurchConflict.com or call 301-253-8877.
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
June 23, 2005 in Church Conflict | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d8344aac6453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conflict? Ask Ken: Runaway Congregational Conflict and Why We Should Solve It (Part 2):
Comments
I agree that conflict is to be expected, but there seem to be very few persons in church supervisory roles who are well equipped to direct conflict resolution within church bodies. Those involved in conflict often believe they are capable of handling things themselves and quickly polarize into thinking that they are righteous, rather than thinking of themselves humbly. I have seen and experienced this personally and have succumbed to such thinking. Inevitably, when superintendents or elders or bishops see eliminating church conflict as the most important priority, rather than guiding people through conflict to greater maturity, we'll continue to have disenchanted people and disillusioned spiritual leaders. It's time for these persons with responsibility to oversee the Body to quit accommodating both power-abusing church leaders and contentious congregants. Influence needs to be applied to work through things. The biggest problem isn't the conflict, it's the accommodation of stubbornly sinful thinking and behavior. Repentance and humility are the first order of business when conflict arises. And I can vouch that humility comes at a high price when it isn't volunteered. And it is almost impossible to guide people to repentance unless everyone involved acknowledges there would not be conflict unless everyone had some measure of sin in the mix.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Dean | Jun 23, 2005 1:58:01 PM
Being in a conflict doesn’t necessarily mean that one has sinned. We understand that “Sin” according to James, is an act of the will against the knowledge of God’s will. Was Jesus sinning because he was in conflict with the Religious leaders of his day? No, he wasn’t. Sin comes out of a desire in our hearts to have our way against God’s plan or will. Conflicts can arise in the church when one takes a stand on a scriptural principle, i.e. Homosexuality is against God’s plan, this does not make the one “standing” wrong or in sin. Yet, Conflicts can also arise in the church when sinful desires of want take over and the “I” becomes more important then the “Body.” It is generally the latter of these two that are causing the majority of conflicts in our local fellowships.
As a pastor for years it is these interpersonal conflicts built around want and desire that I tend to deal with continually. I have a personal belief that these conflicts in the church are an “avoidance action” that distracts them from what God is speaking to them about in their personal life.
Posted by: Al | Jun 23, 2005 2:30:07 PM
For several reasons I am unable to swallow the dose of biblical theology Ken is prescribing. His statement that it is incongruent with biblical theology for the church to expect to be without conflict is misleading. In terms of a standard to be adhered to, the Bible declares, "Let there be no divisions among you." "Let nothing be done through strife." "Avoid foolish and ignorant strifes." And ten different times it tells us to have the same mind toward one another.
Verses like these—and there are many more that can be cited—set forth a clear expectation that strife is to be disallowed in the church.
The substance of an issue is one thing. The processing of that issue is quite another. When it comes to how an issue is to be processed, the Bible is clear in its expectation that there is to be no corrupt communication that comes out of our mouth and that all wrath, anger, clamor and evil speaking is to be put away. In short, the substance of an issue is not to be pursued in an atmosphere Scripture prohibits.
What Ken calls normal the Bible calls carnal (I Cor.3:3). For many years now psychology has been normalizing deviancy, and I detect a strand of that pattern in Ken's thinking. To characterize conflict as a natural and normal course of human interaction may well engender approving nods from those who themselves are limited by natural thinking, but this isn't at all what Scripture teaches. To view conflict only from a horizontal, human perspective like this is to be blindsided by how the enemy intends to exploit it.
Such talk about the inevitability of conflict, the need for pastors to better manage stress, to better enhance their communication skills etc. at best slides on the verge of truth and too often is the product of an overly secular mind.
Moreover, the notion that we are still sinners and that becoming reconciled to God does not change our underlying nature is entirely wrong. The Bible says we are a new creation—period. There is nothing hyphenated or bifurcated taught here. Martin Luther's phrase, simul justus et peccator, simultaneously just and sinner, is mistaken. No such hybrid humanity is taught in the Scripture.
This discussion of one nature versus two isn't just the fussiness of airhead academia. Much is at stake here. Carelessness on this issue brings casualties. Because the image we have of ourselves is a powerful determinant for our future, we must reject the "what a worm am I" theology and those "I sin every day" confessions, for these have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
Ruth Paxson rightly argues, "God nowhere says that we are not able to sin, but He clearly says we are able not to sin." At no time when a believer sins is this sin inevitable, owing to the fact that the forces of temptation overmatched the resources of grace.
The Latin poet Ovid said of himself, "I see the better course and approve it; but the worst is the one I follow." However, Paul got out of this Romans 7 struggle, wherein sin overcame in and slam-dunked him into abject defeat, declaring how the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (his new nature released and activated) "set me free."
Once we conclude that such a victory is unattainable, we will find ourselves scrambling for some other solutions to relational conflicts besides the ones Scripture clearly gives. In doing so, we may think we are being more realistic, when in fact we are really on the wrong side of that Grand Canyon Gap between God's ways and our ways.
Posted by: Jim Phillips | Jun 23, 2005 10:39:27 PM
This is a huge topic on my heart right now; maybe more so with personal conflict within the church than a congregation taking sides. I recently took a short seminar on resolving conflict in the church, and was reminded of what Matthew 18 says about conflict. I realized that in my whole life I've never know anyone that actually handles conflict this way (including myself!). Our pastor seems to believe that his role is in the middle of every conflict right from the beginning, and he usually makes things more painful and difficult to resolve.
What a different place our church community would be if we dealt with conflict directly and lovingly, involving no one else unless it becomes unresolvable, and acting like adults instead of junior high students!
Posted by: RB | Jun 23, 2005 10:46:01 PM
Author (Ken) writes:
"To better grasp this point, Garry Wills' comment is helpful with regard to tarnished televangelists. He wrote, “Journalists miss the point when they keep asking, after each new church scandal, if a preacher's fall has shaken the believers' faith. Sin rather confirms than challenges a faith that proclaims human corruption.”
Actually, it a good question for the reporters to ask. Some greedy preachers, like Dr. Hagee, operate their greed in broad daylight, such as Hagee receiving almost $1 million compensation FOR JUST ONE of his ministries (he's also paid an undisclosed amount as Senior Pastor of his church). Part of being good stewards should be keeping others accountable, but most Christians (even leaders) are afraid to (example, think Todd will delete this comment and link about Hagee?).
For more info on Hagee's scandal, see:
http://freegoodnews.blogspot.com/2005/03/greed-dr-hagee-christianitys-baddest.html
...Bernie
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jun 23, 2005 11:12:12 PM
Bernie,
I've often called for accountability and partners to keep leaders pure. And I really don't understand why leaders don't protect themselves. I have been involved in a ministry that literally fell apart because of sin that should have been dealt with through proper accountability... so that's something we agree on.
Something else we agree on (and I think I've been clear on this here in the past as well, though maybe not with John Hagee) is that it is downright dangerous to only surround yourself with family and/or 'yes' people. Again, without honest accountability it is too easy to give into the temptation, especially when money and fame come into the equation. You have to have people around you that will look you in the eye and tell you you're wrong.
OK... we agree... alot.
Here's where the exceptions I would have with your post: You have a soapbox. Right now it's John Hagee. I've seen you mention it here numerous times. It seems every topic right now for you leads to corrupt leaders, and specifically to John Hagee. We agree on the subject of John Hagee and his lack of accountability (if indeed he only has his family on the board). I don't however feel like it's my responsibility to use every space I have to bring him into accountability. That's something he needs to do for himself. And I believe God will deal with him strongly if he's in the wrong.
But, really, my main exception with your post is your quote:
"...most Christians (even leaders) are afraid to [hold others accountable] (example, think Todd will delete this comment and link about Hagee?)..."
It's like you're challenging me... kind of a thumb in the eye type thing. Enough already.
As you can tell, I've left the link... people can check it out as they wish.
[Turn's out I'm not a scardy cat afterall]
OK... let's get back on-topic with Ken's original post. Thoughts?
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 23, 2005 11:31:23 PM
Amen Jim,
Good post.
Posted by: Al | Jun 23, 2005 11:32:54 PM
Todd:
"We agree on the subject of John Hagee and his lack of accountability (if indeed he only has his family on the board). I don't however feel like it's my responsibility to use every space I have to bring him into accountability."
But, Todd, would you accept his money to advertise on your website?
Posted by: Ricky | Jun 24, 2005 12:02:46 AM
Questions:
"Theologically, when people become Christians, do you believe that they no longer sin?"
Absolutely not. When we are saved, our spirits come alive and are in communion with God. Our flesh, on the other hand, is there like a magnet that's attracted to all things evil. That's the reason there is sanctification, which is a lifelong walk at ridding ourselves of that magnet.
"When it comes to conflict in the church, what do you think are most people’s expectations?"
It has been my experience in counseling with people, that most people don't expect to be supported by the leadership. It's an "us against them" mentality and "they" have the bigger stick.
This is one reason why people leave when they are hurt by the "church."
"How do you think one’s expectations impacts the way people process conflict?"
I believe that it affects the way the view most things. If they set their expectations low, which most do, then the disappointment that comes when the leadership doesn't support them, isn't as crushing as it could be.
"Are such expectations based on theological truth?"
No, but rather the practices of most structured organizations that claim to be "biblical" but is far from it.
This is the mother of spiritual abuse situations.
Posted by: Ricky | Jun 24, 2005 12:09:37 AM
One final comment on John Hagee, then let's move on, pleeeeease! :)
Ricky wrote: But, Todd, would you accept his money to advertise on your website?
Huh? That question seems to come out of left field. And it sure feels like a trap. But I don't want to be accused of being gutless, so I'll take a crack at it.
Hagee's church has not ever been a client of mine. If they posted a job opening on the churchstaffing.com website, I would accept it. It is a church staffing website and they are considered to be an evangelical church. So, yes, on that website I would run their advertising.
Notice, I didn't say that I endorse or even condone their pastor, the church, the denomination, or their practices. I simply said I would post their job opening. I'm a stand up guy, and that's what I'd do.
However, there have been some ads that I have turned declined to run over the years... those would include 'churches' that are considered by most everyone to be outside evangelicalism; or even non-christian. Those ads have been rejected.
That's honestly what I'd do and how I'd approach it.
Hope that made sense and was clear (even though I'm dead tired and going to bed now).
Now, let's get back on topic... does anyone even remember what it was?
Oh yes:
Conflict? Ask Ken: Runaway Congregational Conflict and Why We Should Solve It (Part 2)
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 24, 2005 12:22:30 AM
Though there have been some great comments, I would like to respond to Jim’s. Though we take a different perspective on some points, your posting is very thoughtful. I liked your summary, “ In terms of a standard to be adhered to, the Bible declares, "Let there be no divisions among you." "Let nothing be done through strife." "Avoid foolish and ignorant strifes." And ten different times it tells us to have the same mind toward one another. Verses like these—and there are many more that can be cited—set forth a clear expectation that strife is to be disallowed in the church.” You add, “the Bible is clear in its expectation that there is to be no corrupt communication that comes out of our mouth and that all wrath, anger, clamor and evil speaking is to be put away.” And again you wrote, “Such talk about the inevitability of conflict, the need for pastors to better manage stress, to better enhance their communication skills etc. at best slides on the verge of truth and too often is the product of an overly secular mind.”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because the Bible is full of appeals to take the highest moral ground, we will take the highest moral ground. To talk about anything less than that reflects a secular mindset.
Let’s put that to the test. God says, “Be holy because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). Who is able to publicly say that they are as holy as God in all they do, say, and think? I know I can’t. And if I can’t live as holy as God, that means I fall short. And if I fall short of God’s holiness, because I live in a social context, evidence of my shortcomings will be experienced in my negative interactions with others, some of which will cause tension and conflict.
We may disagree in theology, but one thing I can tell you from study and experience: churches that don’t expect conflict, often experience in its most extreme degree. Because then it gets personal. “There’s something deeply and inherently wrong with them!” Indeed, did I detect a dose of that in your posting? Am I wrong to surmise that you implied my distinctly “theological” viewpoint was a reflection of an “overly secular mind.” As a general statement, irrespective of our conversation, to label a Christian as a secularist is to cut into that person’s identity in Christ, the very fuel that horrendous "identity" conflict in the church is made of - of which you say we are to have no part.
I do think that there is a real disconnect between Biblical appeals and our actual conduct. But that is not due to any psycho-babble produced in the 20th or 21st centuries. You find it on the pages of virtually every epistle in the New Testament that talks about life in the church. Indeed, let’s look at the first passage you quoted in full (I Cor. 1). “10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers."
Posted by: Ken Newberger | Jun 24, 2005 8:02:24 AM
Thank you for your response, Ken. To further clarify my perspective, I will add to what I wrote, and in doing so will attempt to address your points in the order you made them.
If you'll read again my comment regarding a secular mindset, you'll see that it was offered in a generic manner and not in a personal way. As I understand it, this blog is asking for comments on the article you wrote. In the spirit of Spurgeon who wanted his people's blood to be "bibliene," I addressed a flaw in thinking that has been with us for many years. Many denominational fathers have put forward the kind of thinking you did in this article. Reacting to this thought, and to not to you personally, I contend that there are intrusions of secularism creeping in that need to be pointed out.
Allow me to further elaborate. At the point conflict is discussed as a reality which is normal, as something we should expect, the door is then opened for conflict to be viewed in more of a phenomenologically neutral way rather than in a moral/spiritual way. Granted, this type of "coloring" doesn't always occur. But often, as one reads on and digests what is being said, it does. What then follows tends to accommodate such conflict, if not actually embrace it, in subtle but detectable ways. Hence, we'll have a spade of books that tell us how to fight fair in marriage, how anger is a gift, how anger strengthens relationships, etc. Typical of Satan, that dense and deadly truth twister, such books will have a substantial mixture of truth in them, even though the direction of the argument is really not biblical. The Bible says to do all things without murmuring and disputing. So why should anyone accept dynamics God rejects?
Gary Willis' comment about sin confirming a faith that proclaims human corruption makes me nervous. Of course, I understand the limited point he is making. However, to surface this quote in a context that suggests this is the way we should expect it to be, even in a church, has a slant to it that begs for a reminder that our faith doesn't proclaim human corruption. It acknowledges it. What our faith actually proclaims is a life where sin has no dominion over us, a life that enables us not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and a life where we need not fall.
The language about expecting conflict, as your article asks us to do, is misleading if it doesn't clarify in what sense we are supposed to expect it. Paul said that he was not ignorant of Satan's devices. He knew his tricks, he knew his traps, he knew how he operates. To expect conflict in this sense is certainly appropriate. However, to expect conflict, and the usual sinful dynamics that promote it, in the sense of allowing it to be expressed is something we should not do. Once a conflict has a strife character, leadership should minister to that strife character before addressing the issue itself.
Scripture is immensely realistic in its assessment of fallen man. When C. E. M. Joad, the militant, agnostic philosopher came to Christ, he said that what most convinced him was the Bible's doctrine of original sin. To him, Scripture's analysis of what is wrong with mankind made a lot of sense. In this same vein, Francis Schaeffer offered the comment that the one thing a Christian should never be is shocked. The radical unmasking undertaken by Scripture discloses all too well the intent and extent of our sin.
Your comment about all of us falling short and exhibiting less than holy behaviors at times is true, but the conclusion you seem to draw from this need not be true. What I am resisting are suggestions of inevitability, entrenchment of the problem, and therefore accommodation where it should not occur. What I am favoring is a summons to repent quickly when repentance is needed and to then proceed taking the higher moral ground, to use your words, Ken. Not to do this, or not to recommend this, is obviously more secular than biblical in its orientation. There is a slippery slide nearby if we call conflict normal, ask people to expect it, withhold biblical descriptors about it and proceed as if all of the above is a given
Of course, no one can argue that a disconnect exists between belief and practice in the church. Abraham Maslow once characterized the church as "non-peakers talking to non-peakers about peak experience." Phenomenology of religion studies show that there is a tremendous gap between our talk and our walk, between our creed and our deed, and between what we know and what we grow. However, there are many didactic statements in Scripture that set forth a different expectation than this. To use a C. S. Lewis phrase, such statements are not "idealistic gas." Instead, they counter notions of sin's inevitability and therefore this supposed need for accommodation.
Once we call conflict "normal" (which statistically it may be), we set ourselves up for unwitting accommodation. Therefore, we need to view the conflict that has sin in it with a more wary eye. During the middle chapters of John and throughout the book of Acts we see continual conflict. All this havoc and hatred, every time it appears, is in retaliation to the Word going forth. Its motive, which came straight out of the pit, was to stop the Word.
To call conflicts like this normal seems to miss the point. The Bible says "hatred stirs up strife" (Prov.10:12), "a proud heart stirs up strife" (Prov. 28:25), and therefore the "servant of the Lord must not strive" (II Timothy 2:24), because Satan will capture people at will if a strife atmosphere is permitted (II Timothy 2:26).
The strife that comes against the Word must itself engender a response from the Word. When Scripture says we're to be "holding forth the word of life," it does so in the context of adverse circumstances that tempt sinful responses. What is needed is a response strategized from the Word, wherein ego is assigned to the cross, the problem is given to the Lord, a spirit of love is extended to others and the Word is trusted to yield a solution that will bring God glory.
Posted by: Jim | Jun 24, 2005 3:47:40 PM
Hi Todd-
Dr. Hagee, I think, is relative to the topic. It is a CONFLICT with me. What is the Church? Christ's body. So this is "CHURCH CONFLICT." My point: many leaders (peers) shrink back fom confronting sins of high-profile leaders. I'm also directly relating to the article's point about tele-evangelist scandals.
Paul & Jan Crouch is another example of greed for ministers. They have the same problem of a family-controlled board and outragous salaries.
Ricky has a good question about "why do we support these ministries?" Many solid Christians are also on TBN, although it's mostly corrupted by the "health & wealth" prosperity teachers, like Benny Hinn. It makes me think that if Satan himself has a "Christian" channel, that many "solid" ministries would use it because of the audience. The ends justify the means???
Just my opinion... It's time to take a stance for rightousness, which includes holding leaders to accountability, rather than turning a blind eye because of their stature. All of the fallen evangelicals had a great reputation, until their sin (greed) was disclosed.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jun 24, 2005 4:36:10 PM
Should Christians be correcting each other?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jun 26, 2005 2:06:24 AM
I will address Dr. Hagee as it goes into conflict resolution.
Let is look at Biblical requirements for conflict resolution.
1. Go to the person who "sinned" against "you" "alone" and show him his fault. Did Dr. Hagee sin against you? And did you go to him first to show him his fault?
2. If he does not listen then go back with one or two to bear witness. Did you then proceed to find two neutral witness to hear both sides out?
3. Then take him to whole church. This is the phase that many of us go straight to, either through gossip, message boards, emails, or prayer request.
4. If he refuses to listen to the whole church then kick him out, and have nothing to do with him. I believe this probably includes gossiping about him as well.
What if a person has not sinned against you but is in sin and out of love you want to restore them.
Galatians 6:1-3 says to restore them in a "spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."
Galatians 3:12-17 Put on love and instruct and admonish with "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."
2 Timothy 2:25-26 "25in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."
If you believe the Dr. Hagee is a brother then you must first approach him yourself, personally, no where do I see in the New Testament that it is acceptable to go anywhere else first.
If you believe he is not a genuine believer and is a false teacher, tare, etc. what should you do?
1) Avoid - 2 Timothy 3:1-5 Gives you a checklist to identify those who may be false and exhortation to stay away from them. Note that it is to avoid false Christians not those who are lost or are ignorant of their sin.
2) Preach True Gospel - 2 Tim 4 Preach true gospel always, rebuke, convince and exhort with longsuffering. Some will fall away and raise up teachers that say what they want to hear.
3) I have not found an indication that we should do anything other than preach the truth. I see no precedent for us to spend our time, money, and resources in proving the false are false to the world. We need to concentrate on showing the truth to the world. In the light of the truth shown in love through our walk and talk, then the darkness of the false brethren will be manifest.
4) I believe that the best action is to pray that God revive those teachers who are caught in sin. Convert those who have never been saved in the first place, and bring their followers to a saving faith in Jesus. This I believe is more biblical than they way, I, and others have addressed these issues in the past.
Posted by: Franklin Reeves | Jun 27, 2005 4:20:00 PM
Now should we expect Church to be without problems, conflicts, etc..?
Yes and No!!
Yes the church should not fall into bitter, destructive conflicts that plauge the world. We are called to be different and we are different.
No we are saved from our sins, and God will finish the good work He started. However that is not completed at the time of salvation. We will grow and as new members are added to the body they will have less maturity. We also have tares growing along with the wheat, espically in the modern church where we have, unbiblically, deemed all atempts on being Holy to be legalism.
Conflict, particularly destructive ones, are best handled in the earliest stages.
All Christian are a royal priesthood and are required to serve a function in the body, specifically as they are gifted, and generally where a need is. This includes conflict resolutuion and prevention.
1) Leaders should only be accussed of "sin" before the brethern if two or three witness testify. 1 Tim 5:9 P.S. Sin is transgression of the law.
2)For leaders and non-leaders. It should be done in love, with a motive of correcting and restoring, not exposing, destroying or hurting.
3) It should be done by the person who was sinned against, or the one who witnessed it. Going to the person alone first.
4) If the person disagrees that they have done wrong, and was unable to show you made a mistake then and only then do you go and get witnesses. The witness needs to be someone that is impartial to both parties and respected by both parties. The witness will then listen to both and make a judgment.
5) If the person still does not repent, and the witness agrees with you then go before the church.
6) The whole church will then bear witness and make judgement.
If in step 5 or 6 the person is found not to have sinned and you still feel thay are in the wrong, you need to check your own heart. If however the person did sin, sin being transgression of God's Law not your feelings, then you need to go go elsewhere to serve and worship.
I would also caution that a lot of prayer on your part to God to work on your heart and thier heart before you take each step.
I would also add that you should forgive the person regaurdless of what happens.
Posted by: Franklin Reeves | Jun 27, 2005 4:56:52 PM
