SBC Philippi 2/6/05 am
Rev. Jeff Simms
Dealing With Conflict Wisely
Galatians 2:11-14
Primary Purpose: To discuss the Bible way to handle conflict in our lives and to examine 5 mistakes that people make in dealing with conflict
There are a few things that are guarantees in this life. I know that I will one day pass away, I know that I have to pay taxes, I know that I have to one day stand before the Lord and answer for my life and I know that there will at times be conflict. This is because we live in a fallen world where there is sin and strife. Many people also, didn’t grow up having good role models to learn how to deal with conflict, probably most of us didn’t. What I want to do this morning is to look at what the Bible has to say about conflict looking at an example from the life of Paul and Peter. Then also we want to look at some mistakes to avoid in conflict. (Read Galatians 2:11-14)
In Galatians 2, Paul is telling the Galatians church some of the history of his ministry, where he has been and what he has been doing. A high point of this is the Council that met in Jerusalem. Most of the apostles including James, the brother of Jesus and Peter were a part of this council. This had to do with the role the Gentiles would have in the church and how they would be received. Would they have to observe the law, temple sacrifices and circumsion as in the past or not? That Council stated that a person is not saved by observing the law and affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. This council is mentioned more completely in Acts 15.
At some point after this council, Paul was in Antioch when Peter arrived. At first, he began to associate with the Gentiles as church brothers at the same level and way as he associated with the Jews. But, then Paul says certain men came from James in Jerusalem. James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Peter became worried about what people would think and under some peer pressure to conform, he acted hypocritically. v.13 Not only that, but because he was a leader others followed his example, so that Barnabas got caught up in it too.
Paul had a choice about how he would respond to the hypocrisy that he saw growing around him. The stakes here are high. If he says nothing or does nothing, it will look like Paul is in agreement with their actions. There are several actions that Paul could have taken on that day that would have not solved his problem.
There are several strategies that people use when faced with a possible confrontational situation like Paul was. Most of them don’t work and actually can make things worse. There’s the
1. Head in the sand approach- this person is going to stick there head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong. This is like a resident assistant I know of that use to monitor the dorms we lived in. He said that as far as he was concerned if he didn’t see it, smell it or hear of it then it didn’t happen.
Me and my roommate, who is now a pastor in Texas, use to refer to this dorm as Satan’s den. I remember some of the guys in the dorm staying up late at night all the time. One guy threated a fellow with a broken whiskey bottle right down the hall from me. It was a terrible place to try and live, but for this resident assistant there wasn’t a thing wrong.He decided that he would just ignore the problems around him. The problem with this approach is it usually allows the problem to get worse instead of better.
2. The burnt earth approach- this is the person who for the sake of trying to kill an ant will burn down a forest. This person’s motto is “Win at all costs”. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt as long as I win. This is obviously contrary to the principle that the Bible tells us that we should love others. My Bible says in Romans 12:9 “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.” Then again in v.s.17 “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”
3. The Passive aggressive approach- this is the person who won’t confront Peter, but he’s go get on the phone and say nasty things about him all day long. Peter isn’t going to find out for days with this approach that Paul is even mad at him. Not only does this approach not show Peter any love, but there is a lack of respect for Peter shown here also. This approach will not solve the problem and damage the relationship possibly beyond repair. If you wouldn’t want someone treating you that way, then don’t treat others that way.
4. This is the history approach- This person will not only go to Peter and tell him what is wrong with him, but then he’s bring up every other problem and stupid thing Peter ever did as ammunition. This person will say “I forgive you for what you did wrong.” But, then when another argument comes, if it is convient, the other problem will be mentioned and rehashed again. This person keeps a record of all wrongs and forgets nothing. This is contrary to what 1 Corinthians 13:5 says that love “does not act unbecomingly, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered.”
This reminds me of a story about two men who were talking about their wives. One said to the other, “When my wife gets angry she gets historical.”
The other replies, “You mean hysterical.”
“No” the first says, “I mean historical. She reminds every argument I have of everything I have done wrong in the past.” From Winning with People, John Maxwell, pg.93.
5. The Doormat approach- this person simply removes themselves from the situation and doesn’t say or do anything. In the interest of being “a good Christian” he doesn’t want to fight about anything. This is a person who doesn’t have any self-respect and allows themselves to be used as a doormat for others.
Paul was a man who was a very godly man, yet he experienced many conflicts. He was hurt from within and outside of the church. He had people questioning his apostleship and authority. He was a man who understood there is a time when godly confrontation is necessary.
There’s one thing that Paul doesn’t mention that he probably did. He prayed about the situation and asked God to give him the wisdom to deal with Peter in such a way as not to hurt their friendship. That’s a good thing for us to do as well-- Go to God and ask Him for wisdom in how to deal with that conflict or problem in your life. Many times we’ll run to other people for the answers, but God knows what you need. He is the author of all wisdom and know how to help you deal with your problem. Take it to him and ask Him for wisdom. Then, let’s notice what Paul did in this situation.
Notice what he did.
1. He was problem centered and not attacking the person- many arguments become personal and very hurtful because they focus on attacking people. If I value the relationship at all, the confrontation is meant to heal and help, not to destroy. If my intent is to destroy then I need to repent. Keep the issue on the table about the problem and not a person. Paul’s issue here is the gospel, notice he says in v.14 “I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.” That was, that Peter was acting like he was superior because he was a Jew. Paul reminded Peter that “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus.” The stakes were high and Paul would not be silent
Just a word about Paul’s approach, this is a strong rebuke by Paul, but that is because the price for saying nothing is so high. This could have resulted in factions of the church developing. Normally, the best policy is to correct in private and to praise in public. There is no need to embarrass aperson without reason.
2. He went to Peter and dealt with him directly. Paul says, “I opposed him to his face”. He wasn’t going to go behind anyones back or gossip or slander, but he had enough respect for Peter to correct him personally. His intent was to correct Peter so that the hypocritical behavior that Peter was involved in wouldn’t hurt the church.
3. Paul didn’t make assumptions about the situation. Sometimes we can make assumption about why people act the way they do or why something happened. Paul observed for a period of time what was happening and saw the problem for what it was. Assumptions can’t be made of the motive of another person, but we must judge actions whether they are right or wrong.
In his book “Winning With People” author John Maxwell tells this story, “Three sons left home to make their fortunes and did very well. One day, the three competitive brothers got back together to discuss the gifts that they were giving their elderly mother.
The first said, “I built a big house for mother.”
The second said, “I got her a Mercedes with a driver.”
“I’ve got you both beat,” said the third. “You know how Mom enjoys the Bible, and you know she can’t see very well. I sent her a brown parrot that can recite the entire Bible. It took twenty monks in a monastery twelve years to teach him. I had to pledge to contribute $100,000 a year for ten years for them to train him, but it was worth it. Mom just has to name the chapter and verse, and the parrot will recite it.
Soon afterward, their mother sent out her letters of thanks. To the first son, she wrote, “Milton, the house you built is so huge. I live in onl one room, but I have to clean the whole house.”
To the second son, she wrote, “Marty, I am too old to travel. I stay home all the time, so I never use the Mercedes. And the driver is so rude!”
To the third son, her message was softer: “Dear Melvin, you were the only son to have the good sense to know what your mother likes. The chicken was delicious.” (Maxwell, pg.74-75). Don’t assume like Melvin, make sure you understand the facts when confronting and dealing with others.
Paul realized that he had to confront Peter. He cared enough about the church and Peter to say something. But, what was said was said out of love and concern and not in anger or in order to destroy a person. There will be times when we can’t stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong. We have to say something for the good of all. At times like that we need to examine ourselves first and ask ourselves why do I want to confront this? Is this for the good of the other person? Am I doing this out of love or spite?
