Conflicts Not New⤒🔗

At first glance this thesis seems to be supported by the facts. If one studies the record of the early church as well as her subsequent history, one finds that the history of the church is one long record of conflicts. From its inception the church has experienced tensions and diverging opinions. Acts 15 reveals that a sharp disagreement had arisen among church leaders with respect to circumcision and the function of the law. The "synod" was able to resolve the issue only in part. In Galatians 2 we read of a public controversy between Paul and Peter. The issue there was not about any point of doctrine but had to do with relations among Christians with Jewish and pagan back­grounds. At the end of Acts 15 we read that a sharp contention arose between Paul and Barnabas which resulted in a parting of the ways.

Soon after Pentecost complaints about the method of distribution of food led to the institution of the first deacons in the Jerusalem church. Later an ugly party spirit surfaced in the Corinthian congregation where everyone had his own favourite apostle and some even formed a "Christ" party.

Paul seems to agree with modern psychology when he says that there have to be conflicts in the church of Christ. When he is informed that there are divisions in the church at Corinth, he is not surprised (1 Cor. 11:18). He knows that such divisions are necessary because it is the only way to find out who is able to pass the test. It has to be so, he argues; we cannot do without these conflicts and heresies, for they serve a useful purpose.

But how do we handle them?

The Diagnosis←⤒🔗

How does Scripture diagnose the conflicts which occur in the congregation of Christ? To say, as Paul does, that they have to be there, does that imply a positive evaluation on his part? Not necessarily. These conflicts are not a good thing as such. He does not deny they are there. But should they be there? Even though God in His wisdom uses these conflicts for a higher purpose, namely to reveal who will pass the test, should they for that reason be welcomed and viewed as challenges and opportunities for growth?

Absolutely not. The question is, how do we conduct ourselves in these con­flicts and how do we determine their character?

To begin with the latter, what sort of conflicts do we read about in the New Testament? Some concern mere differences of opinion and it does not matter very much on which side of a given issue one comes down. I feel this way about it, Paul writes to the Philippians, but if you feel different, that's allright too. God will reveal to you in due time who has the better view (Phil.3:16). The apostle can leave the matter with the Lord.

When it concerns scruples of weak believers he is prepared to please all men in all things (1 Cor. 10:33). To the Jew he will be a Jew and to the Greek a Greek. As much as lies in him he will live peaceably with all men and he would have everybody do the same (Rom. 12:18).

This does not mean that the apostle is a man without convictions or principles. He may be all things to all men, but why? So that by all means he might save some (1 Cor. 9:22). The apostle is concerned about one thing only: the salvation of sinners. That's why he does not promote his own interests. He seeks only the good of others and in doing so he is very creative, resourceful and flexible. He is willing to put himself aside as far his person is concerned.

But not when it comes to his apostolic office or the Gospel he proclaims. His apostleship he defends vigorously and his Gospel is not negotiable. He pronounces a "woe" upon himself if he does not preach the Gospel. He is a driven man, a true apostle and messenger of Christ with a burden for souls. But he also pronounces his woe upon those who preach another Jesus and another Gospel. He does not evade the conflict when Peter jeopardizes the Gospel or when pseudo apostles are hawking it. He rebukes the Corinthians for shunning the conflict and for tolerating those who preach a different Jesus than the one he had preached, and for receiving another spirit and another Gospel than the one they had previously received (2 Cor.11:4).

When the false apostles come into view, Paul does not say, to the false apostle I will be a false apostle, but he as­serts the full authority of his apostleship. When the truth is at stake there must be a conflict no matter who the opponent may be. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal.1:8ff).

Paul distinguishes between approaching people and pleasing people. The former he seeks to do with all his might; the latter he shuns for the sake of the Gospel which is not according to man. Conflicts in the congregation of Christ can be managed only if the foundation of that congregation is preserved intact. As soon as that foundation is jeopardized, a conflict has arisen that cannot be avoided. It has to be faced head on and fought to the finish, even if it involves an angel from heaven, because the foundation of the congregation is at stake.

Not Only Doctrine But Life←⤒🔗

A similar attitude is called for when it concerns the relationship between church and world. Today we like to speak of the "openness" of the congregation towards the world. But that openness may never be at the expense of the fundamental difference between those outside and those inside the Church of the Lord. In this connection one should read what the apostle writes about the sins committed in the congregation of Corinth. The party spirit there, and the strife among the members resulted in conflict situations which threatened the very life of the congregation. Paul mentions especially the gross sin committed by someone who lived with his father's wife. But the worst thing is that the rest of the Corinthians are proud of their tolerance in such matters (1 Cor. 5:1-13). Paul, however, is convinced that this attitude cannot possibly be reconciled with the communion of the saints. You cannot keep company with fornicators, he warns, at least not with fornicators inside the congregation who profess to be brothers in Christ. With such a "brother" who is immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, you should not even break bread. If he were outside the congregation, Paul says, we could leave him to God's judgment, but since this man is inside the church, it is our responsibility to judge him.

True, there are things of which we may say, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5). We respect the liberty each of us as believers have in Christ. The congregation is made up of weak and strong Christians. But there are things which in Paul's view are incom­patible with the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, things which lead to conflict situations which cannot be settled by compromise. The apostle says that although he is absent in body he is present in spirit so that he will join the congregation in passing judgment on the erring brother. The sentence in this serious case can only be "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:3-5).

This is the way the congregation has to deal with conflicts of this nature. Paul here is simply following Christ's direction in Matt. 18:15ff., "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him," etc. This passage has been called the Church Order of the Gospels. Here are the guidelines for dealing with conflicts in the congregation. The Reformed tradition, following this same line, views the Church Order as the rule for managing church conflicts so that the foundation of the con­gregation is preserved intact while at the same time the difference between church and world remains visible.

The Therapy←⤒🔗

Assuming now that we are clear about the nature of a given conflict, how should we deal with it? There are issues of which the apostle says: here I give you my personal opinion, but you may be of a different mind. This is the approach he uses in connection with the offering that was to be held for the poor (2 Cor. 8:8,10). "I speak not by commandment," he says, "…but I give my advice." Although there exists considerable tension in the congregation about this issue, Paul does not exercise his full apostolic authority to settle the dispute. We have something similar when he speaks about marriage. When it concerns the scandalous sin of fornication in the congregation he throws his full apostolic weight into the balance.

But when the subject is marriage, he takes two different approaches in the same chapter (1 Cor. 7). First, in verse 10, he says, "and unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." But in verse 12 he says, "to the rest I speak, not the Lord." Although there is a connection between his personal and apostolic authority, the two must nevertheless be distinguished from each other.

When it concerns adiaphora or things indifferent, we may agree as congregations to do things a certain way, but in such cases we should not say: thus saith the Lord, but, we decide it should be done in such and such a way. This should settle the matter, but history shows that it is exactly these adiaphora that cause so much trouble in the church. Everybody has a different idea as to what are things indifferent. What for the one is not an important issue is for the other essential truth. Some will say, let's do it this way and others, no we should do it that way. Before you know it there is a conflict. Church history is replete with examples of such conflict situations. The way these conflicts have sometimes been dealt with shows that the children of this world are often wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8).

There are situations where we should ask ourselves, is it wise to delve into this issue? Sometimes it is better to just let things be. They will get resolved somehow without any strife and pain. But there are other situations where even things that are indifferent in themselves may cause explosions which could have been prevented if the proper advice had been given in time. He who has to give leadership in such matters may well pray for the guidance of the Spirit. But he should also use a lot of common sense and take into consideration backgrounds, family histories and traits, etc. Above all, he should be able to listen patiently and sympathetically.

The office bearer who is called to give leadership should know when to remain silent. But he should also know when to speak and offer solutions in a given situation. Many things outside the congregation are changing. Yet the foundation of the congregation has not changed, nor the congregation itself as the body of Christ that has been called out of the world in order to keep itself unspotted from the world (James 1:27).

This involves both the doctrine and the life of the congregation. The doctrine of salvation, the proclamation of the Gospel of grace – these must be preserved. Any conflict in connection with these essentials must be confronted head on. Also the life of the congregation is involved in this. Because it is the life out of Christ, the new life. As far as that goes it will become increasingly clear that the congregation of Christ will be drawn into conflicts more and more because she is engaged in an ongoing conflict with the world. Her very existence opposes the world, its fashion, wisdom, and morals. The congregation can remain standing only when she is rooted and grounded in the love of Christ. That is another life, a life that comes from above and draws us above. It is the resurrection life, a gift and fruit of the new birth. The strength of this new life will reveal itself in the determination with which the congregation will combat the evils in her midst.

The congregation will not skirt the issues and avoid the problems, pretending they are not there. She will not seek her wellbeing by negating the conflict. Rather she will strive to be more and more the congregation of Christ. In such a congregation conflicts are dealt with communally. That is to say, the priesthood of all believers will function in her midst. The special offices in the church will stimulate believers to exercise their common office. The way of Matthew 18 is still the most reliable way. Church discipline has a bad name today and deservedly so. There is much ignorance and misunderstanding about this subject. Even our office bearers are not sufficiently aware that the sole motive behind discipline is to draw sinners to Christ.

There are those who say, the church has seen her best days and her leaders had better close shop. The congregation of Christ, if it is to survive at all, must adopt the new structures and forms suggested by the social sciences, especially modern psychology.

It is true that we can learn much from the social sciences when it comes to analyzing and resolving conflicts. We may use these insights, surely. But we may never forget the wisdom which is from above. Nor may we forget the perfect law of liberty that is in Christ. Nor should we ever lose sight of the promise: "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5ff). He gives generously and does not find fault. But let us ask in faith, not doubting. Because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and tossed.