(Slide 1) Whoever said that politics is boring? It certainly isn’t these days, is it?
We have seen this week a person, appointed by an embattled governor to be the next senator of that state, refused admission to the United States senate chambers. Why? Because his papers were not in order as they needed to be. (Of course, the press has also indicated other reasons as well.)
Then we have another senate seat still undecided in which a lawsuit is filed to get uncounted ballots, counted. The outcome is still undetermined. (Haven’t we been here before?) Who said politics is boring?
One of my personal projects these days is to read a biography or autobiography of every US President. One that I really enjoyed reading was Edward McCullogh’s biography of Harry Truman.
It, like other Presidential biographies, is filled with stories of conflict. One that really caught my attention was the conflict that arose when Dwight Eisenhower, who would replace Truman as President, did not accept Truman’s offer to help him get the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. (Eisenhower won as a Republican.) It made Truman angry and it caused a rift to develop between the two that lasted pretty much through the rest of their lives. (McCullough, if I remember correctly, indicated that there was a “slight thaw” in the relationship but it was never close.)
Conflict is present everywhere- in Washington, Indianapolis, Albion, and Kendallville. It is present in our schools, factories, neighborhoods, and churches. It is this way because conflict is in our hearts from where it begins and comes.
(Slide 2) Today is the second sermon in our initial 2009 series ‘2 Things 2 B in 09’ and they are a peacemaker and a missionary. We are addressing our role of peacemaker this month and will address the role of missionary next month. (BTW, if you have wanted to review any of my sermons, I am now posting them to a blog (on-line journal) and you can access them at this address, (Slide 3) http://jimkane.wordpress.com) (Enough shameless self-promotion!)
Last week I shared with you four main points regarding the role of peacemaking and here they are:
(Slide 4)
To be God’s peacemaker is to understand the difference between peacemaking and peacekeeping.
(Slide 5)
To be God’s peacemaker is to practice the Biblical pattern of reconciliation.
(Slide 6)
To be God’s peacemaker is to: discern the nature of conflict.
(Slide 7)
To be God’s peacemaker is to: accept that peacemaking is an ‘inside out’ process.
Last week we examined the differences between peacemaking and peacekeeping. Today (Slide 8) we look at the practice of Biblical reconciliation.
(Slide 9) I thought about titling my sermon, “Practice Makes Perfect.” However, I simply titled it ‘Right’ because of what Neil T. Anderson and Charles Mylander says about resolving conflict with others. It needs to be they say, accomplished with God’s help and by (Slide 9a) ‘talking to the right person in the right spirit at the right time.’
I would also add this morning, (Slide 9b) ‘in the right way.’ We find the right way to make peace when we follow the guidelines that Jesus himself set in Matthew 18:15-17: (Slide 10)
“If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17If that person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. If the church decides you are right, but the other person won’t accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.
When it comes to conflict resolution, this passage is given repeatedly as the pattern for resolving conflict. Granted, other passages deal with conflict, but this passage is perhaps the most quoted one. A closer look is required of us this morning if we seek to be Biblical peacemakers.
Now, again we need to study this passage in the context in which it is written. Chapter 18 begins with Jesus speaking about the importance of childlikeness when it comes to belief in and admission to the Kingdom of God.
He continues this line of thinking with a memorable passage concerning the need to ‘cut something off’ as an illustration of letting go of things that cause us to stumble and fall and then concludes with the story of the persistent shepherd who seeks the one lost sheep. Then comes our main text for today and it is followed by the story of the unforgiving debtor as an answer to Peter’s question about how much forgiveness is required to forgive someone who sins/offends/hurts you.
So, in the midst of stories about conflict and redemption, Jesus lays out a process for resolution that is necessary for peacemaking.
(Slide 11) The first step in Jesus’ plan is the recognition of conflict and direct contact.
Denial has no place here. To keep denying that something is wrong is like allowing an untreated wound to fester into a serious infection.
For peacemaking to begin, the conflict has to be admitted to and seen for what it is – a conflict; a disagreement.
Now, I know that there is in scripture passages such as 1 Corinthians 13:5 which says, Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. Yet there is also verse 6 that says, ‘It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.’
Truth wins out through honesty and honesty addresses denial that seeks to keep things hidden and conflicts unresolved.
Maybe you have been afraid to address a conflict, in the right way at the right time with the right person. I have too.
Let me suggest this morning that when we are concerned enough to confront, perhaps framing our confrontation, our desire to deal with a conflicted situation; from the perspective of love might make things easier.
For example, let say you have a conflict with a family member, say a sibling. Let’s hear a scenario from two different perspectives. Let’s use the name of Joan and Alice and Frank, Joan’s husband.
Scene one.
‘Frank, why did Joan tell mom that Harold and I were having to borrow money? What business is it of hers anyway?
Mom does not to have that information. It will only set her off to worrying.
Joan walks in… is there a problem?
No says Alice as she walks away.
Scene two.
Alice walks in. Hi Frank! Where’s Joan?
Right here, sis. Is there a problem?
Yes there is, can we talk alone about this?
Sure.
They go outside to talk.
Joan, did you tell mom that Harold and I had to borrow some money?
Uh, yes, I did.
Why?
Well, I uh… wanted to… I don’t know why I did.
Alice, I love you and I am hurt by this but I am also concerned that mom will start worrying like she does and I really don’t need her constant phone calls asking me if everything is okay.
Joan, I am sorry, I meant no harm in telling mom but I am concerned for you and Harold.
I appreciate the concern, sis, but please let us tell mom these things when we are ready to tell them. Okay?
Okay, I will do that.
Now what are the differences in these two stories?
In the first scene, Alice does not go directly to Joan. She complains to Joan’s husband. Then, when confronted by Alice, Joan denies there is a problem.
In the second scene, Alice goes directly and privately to Joan. She affirms her love for Joan and asks her to stop telling their mom what is going on in her (Alice’s) life. Joan is responsive and agrees to stop doing what Alice has asked her to do.
What is the better way to deal with conflict resolution?
Going directly to the person(s) involved and seeking to deal with it with a heart of love and respect.
This is going to the right person in the right spirit at the right time.
But what if Joan refuses to listen to Alice and continues to talk to their mother about Joan and Harold’s situations and issues? (That happens, you know.)
What if Joan says to Alice, ‘I don’t care what you say, I am going to tell mom whatever I want and you can’t tell me what to say anymore!’ Then storms out.
What does Alice do?
If we are honest, she probably gets mad, storms away as well, and creates a festering resentment that grows and grows. This will require perhaps, if both parties truly want it, a lengthier resolution.
(Slide 11a)
The next step in Jesus’ process is to bring in others to try and help resolve the issue.
If both, or either, Joan and Alice wants to resolve their conflict, then maybe a person they both respect is asked to help. Perhaps this is a family friend or a personal friend that both have a respect for and feel respected by in turn.
Maybe they turn to their pastors for help. Or a counselor. But, if a direct and private approach fails, the next step in attempting to resolve the conflict is to bring someone into the situation to try and help resolve it.
Now in doing so, as Jesus says, it is to give witness to others that you are sincere in your efforts to resolve the situation. If your motivation is correct, remember ‘right’ spirit, then your effort to resolve maybe honored.
But what if it is not honored? What if the gap separates more between Alice and Joan. They stop speaking to one another. They stop coming to family gatherings. The ignore one another and talk about one another in mean ways that causes tension and conflict in the family.
(Slide 11b) Jesus’ next step is to bring in the church to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I remember hearing a story probably 10 years ago now about a pastor in a well-known denomination (not ours) who threatened a lawsuit over his dismissal because it had been documented that he was having an affair with a church member. Church fights and church conflicts get ugly and they affect the members and pastors for a long time. They are dishonoring to God and they give people an excuse, who are looking for an excuse, to have nothing to do with the church.
But Jesus says, if there is failure to resolve at this point, then gather the church, hear both sides and then decide. And if, if the person who probably is the uncooperative and unrepentant one is still that way, cut them off.
This seems harsh today. It goes against the teaching of God is love and the church as a place of forgiveness.
Today this church member just might file a lawsuit seeking financial damages for emotional pain. (It has happened.) So this level of conflict resolution is perhaps infrequent or kept quiet.
But Jesus’ words are clear, what do we do with them? If the church decides you are right, but the other person won’t accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.
How were tax collectors treated? They were shunned. They were ignored.
I do not think that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins if He was not interested in redeeming us. He does love us in all of our unloveliness.
However if we seek to be peacemakers, then we must follow this process. We must do so carefully, humbly, and prayerfully. Keeping in mind the Biblical concept of peace that focuses on the well-being of the other person, not the mere absence of conflict or strife, this is a process designed not to gloat or win but to redeem, forgive, and restore.
Should the church get involved? What if Joan and Alice don’t go to church? Who gets involved then? How might this process play out in another setting.
There is a TV show that I watch from time to time on the A and E channel called ‘Intervention.’ It is a show with episodes regarding families intervening in another family members’ life who are on the edge of perhaps death or serious illness or incarceration because of an addiction.
It is a moving and powerful show. The highlight, if you will, of each segment is when the family and friends (and these are not just young adults these are middle and older adults as well) sit with their family member and tell them what their addiction has done and is doing to them.
I would say 90+% of the time you hear the words, ‘I love you’ and one definitely hears the words ‘will you please get help today?’ If then intervention is successful, the cameras follow the person to a treatment center where then spend perhaps 60 to 90 days in recovery. To me, this show illustrates, in a different context, what Jesus is telling His audience to do if the first two steps of reconciliation have failed.
‘But what happens, Jim, if the person refuses to change, to forgive, to be reconciled? These are people we love and care about and we believe that God still cares about them as well. We just don’t turn our back on them!’
You’re right, we don’t turn our backs on them. We become like the father of the lost son who waits for the child, the parent, the spouse, the friend, the fellow believer to come home.
It is hard to do. We wait and love; wait and love; wait and love. We pray for them to come to their senses and come home.
God is the Father in that story and just as He waited on us to come home to Him, He continues to wait on others to come home as well.
So here is the pattern for peacemaking, for Biblically resolving conflict:
Recognition of conflict and direct contact. No going to others to talk about the situation. No gossip. Going with humility and a desire to see a relationship restored.
If necessary, bring in others to try and help resolve the issue. It has to be the right people, ones who are going to have the best interest of both parties at heart. People who will pray and truly seek God’s help and will to be done.
If necessary, bring in the church to decide who is right and who is wrong. This is the last resort and done only if necessary.
As we conclude this morning I would remind us that Jesus intervened for us on the cross. It is His desire and God the Father’s desire that we are made right with them and with others. Let us resolve at the beginning of 2009 to follow this process with God’s wisdom and help so that we honor God and demonstrate true Biblical faith. Amen.
