In three previous articles, we examined characteristics of Jesus that made him ideally suited to make peace and sought in the life of the early church examples of dealing with conflict. In this final article in the series, we will view additional early church models.
What did the early church do to prevent conflict from becoming destructive and damaging the reputation of the Christ-followers?
The Jerusalem Council, Acts 15:1-35
Whereas in part 3, the early church avoided conflict, we now turn our attention to how the church managed its conflict to prevent destructive results. Pause at this point to read Acts 15:1-35. Notice the nature of the conflict and the reactions of the church leaders to it. Luke recorded the event: “And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissention and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue” (Acts 15:1-2, NASB).
• They acknowledged that conflict existed. They were not appalled that conflict had arisen, and they did not try to hide it. They openly admitted their differences.
Sometimes we try to “hold the lid on things” because we are afraid that admitting conflict exists is akin to acknowledging spiritual failure. In truth, we can hold the lid on only so long. Sooner or later an explosion will occur if we try to pretend conflict does not exist in the church.
After acknowledging the conflict, they took action. Not all conflicts are alike, of course. As a guiding principle, it is better to deal with conflict with as small a number as possible while still involving everyone involved. The early church leaders identified their conflict as doctrinal and widespread. It involved how a person is saved. Do men have to be circumcised before they can become Chris-tians? Those of the circumcision party said, “yes,” while Paul and Barnabas raised their voices in protest.
They understood that if left alone, this conflict would have escalated into unmanageable proportions. The conflict then would likely have become so destructive that alienation and division would have occurred. Fellow Christians would have begun to look suspiciously at each other. They would have begun to publish what others had to believe in order to have fellowship with them. Worst of all, the time and energy re-quired from this inward attention would have kept the church from its mission. The kingdom of Christ would have suffered and the reputation of the church would have been hurt.
To deal with the issue, the apostles called for a meeting in which they discussed their differences and reached a solution. These early Christians were not willing for anything to distract them from the commission they had been given by Christ.
• They attacked the issues not each other. By acting to bring together those who held different opinions and by negotiating to reach a satisfying agreement, these church leaders confronted their conflict. They were proactive. With foresight and courage they moved to eliminate the cause of their distress. Notice they did not assume that other persons were to blame. The conflict itself was the culprit, so it was the conflict they attacked, not each other.
Surely this was no easy task because, like our own conflicts, the argument would have been emotionally charged. For the sake of the church’s mission and reputation, however, they set aside personality differences and egos and concentrated on reaching agreement.
Although James was in-volved in the process of listening to the various viewpoints, he had not lost his ability to see the different sides of the issue. Neither had he lost his ability to be heard by all sides. He used his knowledge of the Scripture and a quiet wisdom to present a win/win solution (vv. 13-21).
In deference to the Gentile Christians, they would not have to be circumcised, nor would Gentiles have to be circumcised in the future before they could become Christians. But, to ease the fears of devout Jews, “The Gentile Christians must not follow their former practice of eating food which had been sacrificed to idols. They should observe the Jewish rules of fidelity in marriage and avoid the sexual vice common among pagans. Fur-thermore, they must refuse to eat animals that were killed by strangulation and abstain from eating blood. The Jews considered all of these pagan practices an abomination.”
• They reached agreement. A win/win solution ideally allows both sides to get what they want. Sometimes, however, a win/win solution involves each side making nonessential concessions. This is apparently what happened here. Neither side pressed for its own opinions to be imposed on the other. For the sake of the body of Christ, its members listened to James’ proposal and reached agreement. Each side had stated its beliefs and James was able to include the central concerns of each. This is negotiation at its best.
Unlike James, sometimes persons in the church lose the ability to be trusted equally well by all sides. Often they become embroiled in the controversy and cannot be objective. When this happens, one of the spiritual descendants of James—a person with a knowledge of the scriptures and a quiet wisdom—is needed. An outside person can sometimes enter a conflict with a fresh approach or can see an obvious solution which had been obscured by heated rhetoric.
• They celebrated their agreement. Verse 31 says, “they rejoiced because of its encouragement.” Celebrating the agreements we reach brings closure to the conflict. Too many times following a dispute people are left hanging. In all probability they celebrated that the church had escaped a threat to its fellowship because each side was willing to compromise the nonessentials for the sake of the Kingdom of Christ.
• They resumed their mission. Finally, with the conflict acknowledged and identified; with a meeting called and negotiation completed; with an agreement reached, recorded and celebrated, the church resumed its mission.
No church will ever be completely free of conflict because disagreement is a part of human relationships. But while not all conflicts can be prevented, church leaders can learn from the examples of Jesus, himself, and from the record of the early church how to keep conflict from disrupting the church fellowship, from diverting the church from its mission and from damaging the church’s witness in the community.
Jim White is executive editor of the Religious Herald.
Related stories:
• Blessed are the church leaders who make peace in their own congregations, part 3
• Blessed are the church leaders who make peace in their own congregations, part 2
• Blessed are the church leaders who make peace in their own congregations, part 1