In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul writes of his rebuke of Peter for compromising the gospel. He points out Peter may be preaching the gospel, but he was not living the gospel he preached. Paul’s emphasis here is...
The more fully we understand the gospel, the more consistently we should seek to live it
Peter is often easy to pick on…he provides lots of material. Here we see an example of someone who, in trying to avoid conflict, created it. Peter’s capitulation was fear-based.
Proverbs 29:25, “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.”
Nevertheless, let us be quick to commend him for his response to the rebuke as evidenced at the Jerusalem Council, which followed shortly after this incident (see Acts 15:6-21).
We see that at the Jerusalem Council, Peter and James were the two strongest supporters of Paul. They spoke out clearly in defense of Paul’s gospel and denied the teaching of the Judaizers. The practical prohibitions placed on the Gentiles at the end (vv. 20-21) were only intended to prevent further division and strife recurrences.
It is always easier to state the truth than to live it out in practice. If you constantly state your Christian worldview to your unsaved family, friends, and co-workers but you inconsistently live out your Christian worldview…you might as well not state it anymore because people watch more than they listen.
In Essentials Unity; In Non-Essentials Liberty; In All Things Charity
Most church conflicts fall into one of three categories. The first category is essential doctrine, but that is the one that causes the least conflict. Disputes in this category might involve the following things: Is the Bible the Word of God? Is Jesus the Son of God? Is Jesus the only way of salvation? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Do we believe in the Trinity? Rarely is there a church that splits over important biblical teachings.
The second and third categories cause the most trouble. The second category is non-essential doctrines. More churches split over non-essentials than they ever do over essentials.
This category deals with conflicts where there are disagreements over matters that are not directly discussed in the Word of God. Examples of this would include things like when to schedule your services and how many services to have. Another might be the style of worship. Should the church offer contemporary worship or traditional? This is why many churches offer contemporary and traditional services…they are trying to avoid conflict over non-essentials.
The third category of conflict is arguing over whether a particular conflict belongs in Category 1 (Essentials) or Category 2 (Non-Essentials). The greatest arguments occur in this area. One person says, “This is clearly taught in the Bible,” and another says, “No, it is not. It is just your opinion or preference.”
And so, the battle begins. Here is the problem with the motto, In Essentials Unity; In Non-Essentials Liberty; In All Things Charity. This motto only works if we agree on what is essential and what is not. Yet having said that it remains true that even if a person intellectually admits that some preference to which they hold is non-essential, they can still emotionally hold to the preference as if it is essential and thus there will still be conflict!
The Gentle Art of Confrontation
Not everything is worthy of confrontation. The way it is done is just as important as the fact that it is done. There are four levels of processing conflict:
1. Recognition of symptoms
This is the level one diagnostic phase. At this level, we are aware that something is not right, and we may feel disturbed in our spirits. There is a sense of distance…we feel ourselves or the other person pulling away.
2. Information gathering
At the next level, we seek to find out if we can discover what has happened and why. We look for patterns and hints to confirm or refute our suspicions.
3. Analysis
This is when we decide if confrontation is necessary and helpful. We must consider whether we have concrete evidence or only vague suspicion. At this level, we should struggle with our motivation for moving toward confrontation. Do we care for this person or are we simply delighting in pointing out their errors? We also evaluate the fallout from a confrontation and the fallout if we do not confront.
4. Confrontation
This is the critical phase. Can we confront it in the right way with the right attitude? Do we have a spirit of humility or a spirit of vengeance? Are we willing to confront in the right setting at the right time with the right approach? The setting should be conducive to what we are trying to accomplish. There may not be a perfect time and place, but there is usually the best time and place. Some approaches work better with some people than others.
Abraham Maslow, the pioneering psychologist, was fond of saying, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail!” Some folks only have one style of confrontation: the hammer. The hammer may not work best in getting your point across, so you must consider the best way to achieve your objective. The goal of confrontation should always be reconciliation and correction, not embarrassment and humiliation. If reconciliation and correction are not your goal, then do not confront it. Find someone who is willing to confront the person for the right reasons.
When necessary, rebuke and correction should be based on principle, not on our personal preferences. When we deem rebuke necessary it should always be dealt with on the smallest possible scale. If we can deal with it privately, so much the better; however, public correction is necessary where public error has publicly corrupted others.