Think on These Things
June 2001
1. Conflict Resolution - Personal Matters
Conflict Resolution - Personal Matters
Last
month we considered the issue of doctrinal conflict resolution.
We found that once the Holy Spirit reveals a doctrine, Christians can
obtain its validity by examining all applicable direct commands, approved
apostolic examples and necessary inferences from scripture.
The scriptures totally furnish us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16f), so
we can resolve all doctrine issues by considering the alternatives that are
available to us, and then choosing the one that comes closest to what we find
taught in scripture.
This includes doctrines regarding personal conflict. In fact, the very same chapter of the book of Acts that we found last month dealing with doctrinal conflict also deals with personal conflict. Please read Acts 15: 35-41. Note that what arose between these two great men of faith was a “sharp contention.” It was not over doctrine, and that is why we are calling it a personal conflict. Further, we have here two of the greatest Christians who lived in the first century. Barnabas was noteworthy in that he sold a field to contribute to the work (Acts 4:36f). He stood up for Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:27). He was sent by the church of Jerusalem to encourage the disciples (Acts 11:22-30). And he was singled out by the Holy Spirit to go with Paul to the gentiles (Acts 13:2), which he did on what has been come to be known as Paul’s first missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas were the greatest of Christians and the best of friends. If they could have a “sharp contention” over a personal matter, than any two Christians can. This is the first lesson of Acts 15:35f — Christians can and will have personal conflicts, often over the welfare of the cause of Christ. Thus, we should expect this and prepare ourselves, whether we are involved directly or are to help when others are involved.
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
The
Oil “Crisis.”
We have a number of readers in the West who might take a very different
view of this “crisis” than those of us in areas where electrical power is in
abundance. Having your fuel bills
doubled or tripled last winter would also tend to give you a different
perspective. Oil has always been a
valuable commodity, and God is not unaware of our plight.
The idea of having nothing left over after a day’s work is embodied in
Rev. 6:6: “And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure
of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou
hurt not the oil and the wine.” And,
while we are not saying that this applies to the current increases in fuel
costs, we are saying that the source of the problem is the same: sin, especially
greed and lust for political power.
We
can assert this because it is known that crude oil exists in abundance in this
world — both in the US and in many foreign countries. The “crisis” is a contrived one fed by two sources: (1)
producers, especially OPEC, who restrict supply to keep the prices up (basic
economics), and (2) environmentalists who have dominated the political processes
in many areas. Both see higher
prices as a favorable thing — the one to make more money, and the other to
enhance the environment by causing consumption at a slower rate.
This
is reality. But enter some
politicians who seem to have about as much understanding of this reality as they
do basic economics. “Mandate a
price cap” is their mantra. But
is that not what got us into this mess? If
power companies have to operate at a loss, who is going
Back to the Contents
Acts
15 showed us how to resolve doctrinal conflict.
It also presents some major principles with regard to the resolution of
personal conflict. Please re-read
Acts 15:35 to the end of the chapter. The
argument was over John Mark, a cousin (close relative) of Barnabas (Col. 4:10).
He accompanied them at the beginning of the first missionary journey, but
went back to Jerusalem early in the trip (Acts 13:13).
No reason is given, and we should not assume that he did not have what he
(and perhaps Barnabas) considered a good reason.
It is clear that whatever the reason, he put it before the work for which
Paul and Barnabas had enlisted him. And,
it was surely Paul’s opinion that this disqualified him for such work in the
near future. Let us examine the
principles that are given by this example:
1.
Christians can and will have bitter disagreements. We discussed this on Page 1.
Suppose they had a small problem and just worked it out.
That would not have made this point at all.
2.
Some of the most irresolvable issues involve judgments regarding the
work. Both Paul and Barnabas felt
that their position was in the Lord’s best interest.
3.
It did not become an issue in the church.
There is no evidence that anyone “took sides” on this issue.
Churches should never divide over personal issues.
4.
It was not allowed to affect the Lord’s work.
Neither the church nor the individual work of these men was hampered by
the way that they resolved this issue. Both
continued to serve the Lord.
5. It did not have any lasting ramifications. We can imagine some of the arguments that might be made by Christians. Barnabas could have argued that it was he to whom Paul owed all of his status as a Christian, since he defended him at Jerusalem and also sought after him when he apparently went home to Tarsus (Acts 9 and 11). Paul could have responded that Barnabas was not being objective because of his family relationship with John Mark. But such cheap shots would have left lasting scars that may have prevented any possibility of reconciliation. But look (2 Tim 4:11): “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” Paul’s love for John Mark and the work overcame any lasting bitterness, and the story has a happy ending.
Back to the Contents
Ye
often hear it said ...
“Good men don’t argue.”
but
Luke reported (Acts 15:39) ...
"And there arose such a
sharp disagreement
that they separated from one
another, ..."
No
one can deny that these were good men — perhaps some of the best who have ever
lived. But don’t take us wrong
— we are not advocating argument for the sake of argument. That is contentiousness, and that is condemned (1 Cor.
11:16). We should avoid contending
at almost all costs, although we recognized that there are times when it cannot
be avoided (Jude 3).
Acts
15 tells us that that just because a person disagrees with us, that does not
make him/her a bad person. Good
people can disagree. When
Christians disagree they should look for a remedy that enables the work of
Christ to continue unabated. This
is what Paul and Barnabas did. The
solution that they came to was surely not a perfect one in either of their eyes.
But it was one that would not hurt the work, nor would it hurt anyone who
was involved. This demonstrates
great selfless wisdom on their parts. How
many times have we seen bitter strife and envy tear up a local work when it had
nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine, or for that matter, anything of
substance? If Paul and Barnabas could arrive at a temporary arrangement
that would bridge the gap to ultimate reconciliation, why can’t we?
We can, and that is another lesson that we can learn from this valuable
example in the book of Acts
Back to the Contents