Acts 15:30-41
Resolving Conflict
November 24, 2002
It’s easy to see why people like the sea gull. … He exults in freedom. He thrusts his wings backward with powerful strokes, climbing higher and higher until he’s above all the other gulls, then coasts downward in majestic loops and circles. He constantly performs, as if he knows a movie camera is trained on him, recording. In a flock, though, the sea gull is a different bird.
His majesty and dignity melt into a sordid slough of in–fighting and cruelty. Watch that same gull as he dive bombs into a group of gulls, provoking a flurry of scattered feathers and angry squawks to steal a tiny morsel of meat. The concepts of sharing and manners do not exist among gulls. They are so fiercely competitive and jealous that if you tie a red ribbon around the leg of one gull, making him stand out, you sentence him to execution. The others in the flock will furiously attack him with claws and beaks, hammering through feathers and flesh to draw blood. They’ll continue until he lies flattened in a bloody heap." (P. Yancey, in The Strong Willed Child by J. Dobson, 1995)
Conflict is a part of our life. In those rare times of its absence we suspect something must be brewing. Like a pack of six year old boys who haven’t made a sound in an hour, we hold our breath for the trouble to come. Conflict is inevitable, for as fallen creatures we poke and prod one another.
The German philosopher Schopenhauer compared the human race to a bunch of porcupines huddling together on a cold winter's night. He said, "The colder it gets outside, the more we huddle together for warmth; but the closer we get to one another, the more we hurt one another with our sharp quills. And in the lonely night of earth's winter eventually we begin to drift apart and wander out on our own and freeze to death in our loneliness."
Conflict happens in all of our relationships. We experience it in our families, in our jobs, in the church as well. In Acts 15 conflict arose between the Jewish and Gentile Christians over whether the new Gentile converts would be required to submit themselves to the Law of Moses in order to be accepted as part of God’s people.
In the previous weeks we examined the content of the conflict which the early church faced. We looked at the theological significance of the Law as well as the fact that we come before God by God’s grace alone and that received by faith alone. Having distilled some theological truths from this passage, we must now turn our attention to how these issues were handled. How should conflict be handled? What are some of the causes of conflict between believers?
One of the marks of maturity is the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but as we all know that takes grace! In a recent survey of 55 Protestant mission agencies, missionaries were to list the greatest problems they faced. It was not persecution or rejection by those they served, rather the problems were listed as follows, in reverse order:
7. Loneliness 6. Financial pressures 5. Marriage difficulties 4. Raising children 3. Managing general stress 2. Cultural adjustment 1. Relationships with other missionaries
(World Prayer and Share Letter, Sept. 1990)
Our passage this morning relates an unresolved conflict which leaves us hanging, but in examining this portion of Scripture, we learn some valuable lessons. READ Acts 15:30-41.
Before we delve into the personal conflict, we will take a cursory view of how the doctrinal conflict was handled. This entire chapter deals with conflict. In the first instance, the church handles it well but in the second, individuals do not do as good of a job.
How should we resolve doctrinal conflict?
Conflict resolution demands accountability
You recall that the conflict arose over some men from Judea coming to Antioch making demands of the new believers there. Some demanded obedience to the Law as the means of being right before God, while Paul and Barnabas were convinced that we relate to God on the basis of faith in Christ’s completed work and on his merit alone. But that was not the end of the issue.
They did not just leave the issue alone by saying, “What right do you have to tell us what to believe!” What was at stake was not personal preferences but matters of eternal significance.
What happened next illustrates the importance of accountability among believers and among churches. In v2 the church in Antioch sent Paul, Barnabas and other to Jerusalem to speak with the apostles and elders there. In order to settle this important doctrinal issue which was dividing the church – there had to accountability between the churches.
Conflict resolution is impossible where there is no organic connection between churches. When a church is nothing more than a collection of like-minded volunteers, people will come and go without any compunction to do the hard work of building and maintaining relationships.
This is the one factor which years ago won me over to the Presbyterian form of government. It was watching the church as a whole care for one another, not just in the local church, but other churches as well. This is why I am concerned with the independent church movement. When a problem arises (and they will for all of us), there is no means to address the issues.
This accountability will mean it may appear we are sacrificing the peace of the church for its purity.
We must be careful of buying into a false dichotomy, imagining that we can have real peace with impurity or have purity where conflict is allowed to reign supreme. Our unity as brothers and sisters in Christ must allow for our differences to stand, as long as those differences do not deny the essentials of the faith.
No local church or denomination should settle for an expedient peace at the expense of doctrinal purity. At the same time, Antioch's decision to appeal to Jerusalem shows us that doctrinal purity maintained in an atmosphere of contentiousness--at the expense of peace--is an equally wrong situation. The old slogan remains a wonderful guideline in conflict: in essentials, unity; in non-essential, liberty; in all things charity.
Conflict resolution is handled by the church’s representatives
While it may be hard for us individualistic Americans to buy into the idea of a representative government, how it operates is illustrated in Acts 15. The convocation in Jerusalem was not a free for all, open ended discussion, allowing equal time for anyone who had an opinion. Matters of grave importance are not settled by talk radio, but by able bodied leaders who represent the body.
Those who would decide the matter are appointed by the church (v2). These people already held positions of authority in the church and would decide the matter for the church. That is a matter of trust and commitment on the part of the body as a whole.
It is also important to see that the church was no longer ruled by apostles, but now by elders as both gathered (v6) to consider this matter. We have here a great prototype of church councils which would follow for centuries to come. That prince of theologians John Owen observed that the churches “did of old, and ought still, to meet…for advice, consultation and consent”
This is why we elect elders as representatives, who are responsible not only for overseeing the spiritual life of this congregation, but have a responsibility to the churches in our denomination.
Recently Butch Harper and I were part of a judicial commission, appointed by the Presbytery, to handle an issue in another church. Some of the members of that church, having already been wounded by the tragic events unfolding in their congregation, expressed some frustration as to why we were there and what right we had to stick our nose in their business. This was a wonderful opportunity to express how the church cares for one another.
Conflict resolution, settled by God’s Word and God’s Work, is communicated to God’s People
As we saw in previous weeks, the issue of the use of God’s Law in the life of believers was addressed by Peter and James, each addressing the issue from the perspective of how God had worked and what God’s Word said.
Matters of doctrine are not settled by personal preferences, expediency, or pragmatism. The matter must be understood in light of the only rule for our faith and practice, God’s Word. The letter sent well articulates the unity which the council achieved. In v28, the people were informed that their conclusion seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” There is both internal/personal confirmation, but there is also external/corporate confirmation.
Why is personal conflict hard to resolve?
Conflict comes when two people have different ideas about the same goal v36
Unfortunately not all conflict is as easily solved as what we see with the Jerusalem Council. While matters of doctrinal conflict can be settled by a church council, those issues are relatively rare and easy to solve. What is much harder and much more common in our lives are the interpersonal conflicts that arise between us and those we know and love. What we see here is a negative example. Nevertheless, it teaches some important lessons.
Paul and Barnabas, having participated in the first ecumenical council, settling the issue that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, decide to visit the churches they began in Asia Minor. But what takes place as they deal with the logistics is what, one writer said, a “doleful disagreement which ought to make all the godly afraid for just causes.”
Here are two devout men, who together, faced angry crowds of persecutors, were the targets of seditious plots of harm but maintained their unity. But when it came to a simple matter of whether to take along a certain helper, they seemingly come almost to blows.
What is at stake here is this: Should a person who defects from a mission and leaves people in the lurch be given a second chance on a similar mission?
In v37 Barnabas wants to take John Mark along again, as they did before. Paul couldn’t fathom such a plan. We don’t know what happened, but in Acts 13:13 all we are told is that John went home. It may have been a combination of things: the strain of missionary life with its inherent cultural conflicts, the disease that was rampant in that part of the world, Paul’s growing ascendancy over Barnabas, a pampered upbringing, homesickness.
But Paul sees his departure in the worst of terms. What the ESV translates as withdrawn (38) in Greek is the word from which we get apostasy. He abandoned them, proving he was unfit for the work and to take him again was only asking for trouble.
When two people think they have the same goal in mind, but have different ideas as to how that goal should be met, conflict will result.
In his autobiography, Number 1, Billy Martin told about hunting in Texas with Mickey Mantle. Mickey had a friend who he thought would let them hunt on his ranch. While Billy waited in the car, Mickey knocked on the door to get permission. Mantle’s friend quickly gave them permission to hunt, but he asked Mickey for a favor.
He had a pet mule in the barn that was sick, and he didn’t have the heart to put him out of his misery. He asked Mantle to shoot the mule for him.
When Mantle went back to the car, he felt like being mischievous so pretended to be angry. Hearing him slam the door, Billy Martin asked him what was wrong. “He won’t let us hunt,” declared Mantle, I’m so mad, I’m going to shoot one of his mules!”
“You can’t do that!” Billy Martin protested.
“You watch me,” Mickey Mantle declared. And he drove like a maniac to the barn.
Jumping out, Mantle loaded his rifle, ran into the barn and put the mule out of his misery (just as he was asked). But as he left, he heard two other shots. Running to the car, Mantle saw Martin holding a smoking gun. “What are you doing?” he yelled.
Martin yelled back, face red with anger, “We’ll show him—I just shot two of his cows!”
Conflict often arises as people may think they have the same goal in mind, but go after it in two very different ways. This is most clearly when our personalities shine through, so that conflict resolution is very hard because what must be resolved are two different personalities clashing.
Conflict comes when personalities clash v37-38
When we are introduced to Joseph in Acts 4:36, we are told that the apostles nick-named him Barnabas, which means son of encouragement. Few people ever lived up to a name as he. In Acts 4 he sells his property and donates the money to help the needy in the new church. In Acts 9:27 it is Barnabas who takes Saul under his wing when all others distrust this now converted murderer. It should not come as a surprise that Barnabas wants to give the kid another chance. Why? We don’t know. Mark is his cousin (Col 4:10) or it could be just his sympathetic bent, looking out for the hurting person, wanting to restore his self-confidence.
Barnabas is the guy you want on your side when you are down and out, when you’ve failed and need to be restored. He’d be there to lift up your spirits.
Paul on the other hand is the guy who gets stoned by an angry mob and dusts himself off and goes back into the city. He sings hymns in prison after being beaten unjustly. You read his letters and you meet a strong, determined man who said later to another young man, Timothy:
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. … Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 2:1-3)
Paul’s the one you’d want in your corner when facing tough times. He’d give you the backbone to face trouble with perseverance.
Paul may not have been the nurturing type, but rather a type A who demanded more of himself than others. Some of the church’s greatest leaders have been difficult people. Luther in a famous self-evaluation said, “I am rough, boisterous, stormy, and altogether war-like, fighting against innumerable monsters and devils. I am born for the removing of stumps and stones, cutting away thistles and thorns, and clearing wild forests.”
Barnabas is a people person, Paul is task oriented
Barnabas was a man of compassion; Paul was a man of conviction.
Barnabas was a builder of men; Paul was a planter of churches.
Barnabas looked at the issue from the viewpoint of the overall good of the man.
Paul looked at the issue from the viewpoint of the overall good of the ministry;
This is where worlds collide. It is the perpetual problem of whether to take the interests of the individual or of the work as a whole first, and there is no rule of thumb for dealing with it.
How many of you would side with Barnabas? Give the kid a second chance?
How many see it from Paul’s perspective? Fool me once shame on you, twice, shame on me.
What is important to realize is that such differences are not sin. But how we handle these differences may become sinful.
What took place divided this once unified team. In v39 we are told that a sharp disagreement arose. These two old friends engaged in an angry shouting match---paroxusmos in Greek, from which we get our English word paroxysm, which denotes violent action or emotion. This was not a mild gentlemen’s disagreement but an intense and passionate conflict. As to who is to blame, that is not an easy question. Scholars have had paroxysms over it ever since.
These were not two angels, but two men. They disagreed; they even went their separate ways. All Christians walk with limps. We must always proceed with humility, relying on God’s grace to speak and to act. When we takes stands for truth we must do with the unbending rigidity of Superman, but when personal preferences enters the picture, it must be with the flexibility of Gumby. Wisdom is what we need to know the difference. So we must guard against the misguided mindset as was expressed at a church Christian Ed. meeting when it was said
So the vote is as follows: Larry, Ruth, Dan, and Marcia are for the proposal. God and I are against.
Conflict may come, but it must not remain 39-41
God’s providential hand is seen in what takes place
God uses sinners like us, who, in the midst of our hard-hearted sin, brings out good. This is never an excuse for sin, but allows us to be comforted by his grace. Where we humanly see division, God creates multiplication. Where there was one team, now there are two.
This is never an excuse for our sin, as though we can claim that our conflict is justified by its outcome, that we’re no worse than Paul and Barnabas. The Puritan Matthew Henry said of this fight: Repentance teaches us to be severe in reflections upon ourselves; but charity teaches us to be candid in our reflections upon others.
But our responsibility is that we must not become embittered by the conflict.
When there is conflict, it is our duty to look at the sinfulness of our own hearts, just as we heard read earlier from James 4. Our quarrels and conflicts are but opportunities to be humble ourselves before God, otherwise, when we allow the conflicts to remain, bitterness sets in. It has been said that bitterness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
Fortunately, Paul does not remain bitter. Although as Barnabas leaves with Mark for Cyprus, we never read of him again, Mark does reappear as one used of God. His name is affixed to the second gospel; he served Peter, along with Silas, as we are told in 1 Peter 5:12-13. But perhaps the most intriguing example of conflict resolution comes at the end of Paul’s life. As he is bound in prison, he writes to Philemon that Mark is there with him. In 2 Timothy Paul no longer sees Mark as a deserter and hence useless, for in 4:11 he asks Timothy to bring Mark along, for the useless one is now useful for Paul.
No one is ultimately unredeemable. We never know what God will do in the heart of a person who has failed. The mark of community, true biblical unity, is not the absence of conflict. It's the presence of a reconciling spirit. We can have this reconciling spirit only as we ground ourselves in God’s Word and allow that be our guide as to how we are to live.
