When Pastor and Parishioner Clash
SPEAKER: Michael P. Andrus
Introduction: I’m not sure that there’s any more conflict in the average church than in the average business or political party or social organization, but it certainly seems to get more publicity. When a pastor is fired, or a church splits wide open, or a church member sues the Elder Board, it usually gets front page coverage. We all know how the news media has thrived on the conflict between Jim & Tammy Baker and Jerry Falwell. The end product in most of these conflicts is significant damage to the cause of Christ.
But I want to suggest today that conflict in the church is not really the problem—the problem is what we do with conflict when it comes. There’s a whole new science being developed today called “conflict management.” It probably ought to be a required course in Seminary. We could spend some time profitably reviewing some of the scholarly books on this subject, but how much better to examine some of the conflict-management principles which the Apostle Paul employed in Galatia.
But before anyone begins to read into this sermon more than is here, I want to make it clear that I am not using this passage to address, either overtly or covertly, any conflicts presently brewing at the Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis County. Frankly I don’t know of any, though the Pastor is often the last to hear. I was recently bragging to a fellow pastor about the high level of peace and harmony we have enjoyed at our church, but then a few days later I read an interview with Lynn Buzzard in Leadership Magazine. Lynn is executive director of the Christian Legal Society (and isn’t it interesting that a lawyer should have a last name like “Buzzard?”). He wrote, “A church with no conflicts is the one suffering from weak pastoral leadership. Either that pastor is failing to inspire anyone enough to care or he’s repressing conflict, or—the most common situation—he’s encouraging an avoidance of it.”
Well, I don’t know whether any of those factors are partially or fully responsible for the lack of open conflict at our church, but I decided to quit bragging about it and just enjoy it. My goal this morning is to share some ideas and principles that hopefully will help us manage conflict when it comes our way in the future, and it will.
Our text this morning marks a significant change in style from that of the first 3 1/2 chapters of Galatians. While the passages we have worked through these past 4 months have been very profound and very practical, I think we would have to acknowledge that they have also been rather stern.
But beginning here in 4:12 all that changes. The stern exhortations give way to emotional appeals, and Paul, the erudite theologian, becomes Paul, the loving pastor. The issue being discussed is still the legalism/grace conflict, but now the focus is on achieving peace and unity in the church. Let’s read the passage to see what insight we can gain on how to prevent or solve conflict in the church today. Gal. 4:12-20:
I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. 13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15 Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
The pastor in this passage is Paul. The parishioners are the Galatian Christians. The Apostle is, of course, an absentee pastor, writing to churches he had founded, but he’s no less interested in their welfare than he was when he was physically present with them.
The first thing we notice is …
The sources of conflict in the Church
The conflict, in this case, is over the fact that false teachers have entered the Galatian churches in Paul’s absence and have succeeded in side-tracking the Galatians from the truth. This forced Paul to write a harsh letter in which he has rebuked them and chastised them. In turn, he’s concerned about how they will receive the rebuke. There is the potential here for a major church split.
I think it would be helpful for us to spend a few moments thinking about the different sources of conflict in the church today. What sorts of problems create dissension? What are some of the hot buttons we need to be aware of? Undoubtedly one of the major sources of conflict is plain, old-fashioned sin.
Sin. Someone’s pride gets hurt. Someone selfishly demands his own way but doesn’t get it. Someone wants power and influence over others but isn’t elected to the office to which he aspires. Gossip, jealousy, covetousness—you name it. Any of these sinful attitudes, plus a host of others can create conflict.
Finances are a second major source of conflict in the church. People are extremely sensitive about money, especially when they are giving it away voluntarily. One might think that when money is given to the Lord, the giver would take his hands off it and let the Lord worry about it from then on. But that often isn’t the case. One of the symptoms is seen in the statistics which show that 85% of the pastors in the U.S. seek a new pastorate either during or immediately following a major building program. Fundraising and spending priorities have the potential of raising a lot of tension in the church.
The only time I experienced significant conflict with an Elder was about 7 or 8 years ago when a man resigned from the Board of the church I was pastoring. I knew he was upset about something, but he refused to identify the problem. It wasn’t until sometime later that I learned that he was angry because he had given a large sum of money to a Free Church project and I had not recognized him publicly for that gift. The reason I did not acknowledge his gift is that I believe the Scriptures teach that giving should be private. Finances can create conflict.
Personality clashes are also not uncommon as a source of conflict. The pastor rubs certain people the wrong way. Either he’s too flashy or not charismatic enough; too flippant or too serious; too studious or spends too much time out socializing with people. And sometimes there are personality clashes between elders and deacons, or between two lay families. There’s no question but that some personality clashes are sinful; others may simply be natural and unavoidable. Then, sometimes conflict arises from simple…
Misunderstanding. A person takes something in a way it was not intended, is hurt by it, and soon a brouhaha develops. Or a Board decision is interpreted the wrong way so that implications are drawn that were never intended. I recall that about six months after I went to my first church, the Board appointed two new members to the music committee. The two new members were appointed to take the place of the two ladies who had served the longest to give more people the opportunity of serving. About three days later we learned of a major conflict that had arisen. It so happened that the two ladies who were replaced were both divorcees and they had concluded that the new pastor was trying to weed all divorced people out of the church. The fact is that I was not even aware that one of the ladies was divorced, it wouldn’t have made any difference to me anyway. I wasn’t even involved in the decision. I learned through that incident, however, that musicians are very sensitive people (that’s what makes them good musicians!), and I worked hard from that time on to be more sensitive to them. By the time I left that church some nine years later the music committee and I were good friends.
Difference of opinion is a source of conflict. Some of us need to learn that it’s alright for Christians to differ with one another. Unity doesn’t demand uniformity. Dissent and dissension are two different things. I personally don’t believe there’s anything especially spiritual about unanimous votes. I’d far rather have a 7-3 vote on the Elder Board after a vigorous discussion than to have a unanimous vote that no one really thought through. But some people are threatened by difference of opinion; they get defensive; they strike back; and soon there’s major conflict over something that started out being a minor disagreement.
Heresy is a final factor I want to mention. It was the source of conflict in Galatia, but interestingly, a very small percentage of church splits today are over heresy. Usually, it’s one of the other factors we have mentioned. But on occasion a real legitimate doctrinal issue is at stake, and conflict erupts. Unfortunately, it is probably true that the pastor is the one teaching the heresy and the parishioners the ones who object. But in the case here in Galatia, it is the reverse. Pastor Paul is still teaching the truth, but the parishioners have abandoned the truth in favor of heresy.
One of the important truths we can learn today is one I will address again in a few moments—namely that for conflict over doctrine to be legitimate, it must deal with major issues, not minor ones. A good pastor friend of mine was put on trial for heresy by his denomination here in St. Louis two years ago. I admired the desire for doctrinal purity, but none of the issues he was tried for was even close to being an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Fortunately, that was the conclusion the church court came to after a long and costly trial.
Having looked at a few of the sources of conflict, I want us to turn our attention to…
The resolution of conflict in the Church
How did Paul tackle the problem once he recognized the presence of conflict between himself and his parishioners? Let’s see what we can learn from the wisdom and experience of a master.
Affirmation of the offending party (12-15). Paul wasn’t about to let the current conflict blind him to the beautiful relationship he had enjoyed with the Galatians in the past. So, four times in four verses he expresses his appreciation for their past kindnesses. There’s real wisdom here. If you must rebuke someone, they’re going to be much more willing to listen if you first affirm their strengths.
Let’s look at these four affirmations. First, he says at the end of verse 12, “You did me no wrong.” He’s referring, of course, to the several years he spent ministering to them. They had met his needs, received his message, and obeyed his Gospel. They had not wronged him in any way. The point of this, of course, is to draw a contrast between their former behavior and their present attitude.
Secondly, he says in verse 14, “You did not loathe my condition.” The Apostle Paul was not a beautiful physical specimen. There are several comments in his letters which indicate that he was probably short, ugly, and half-blind, with some major physical disability that wasn’t exactly socially pleasing. Here in verse 13, he indicates that it was because of a bodily illness that he preached the Gospel to them the first time. Scholars have suggested that Paul perhaps caught malaria on his first missionary journey and, to get to a more pleasing climate, went north to the Galatian territory. While there for recuperative purposes, he founded the churches of Galatia.
Another suggestion is that Paul was possibly an epileptic and once again the higher, dryer climate of North Galatia was better for his epilepsy than the humid coastal plain he had been working in. Clearly, there was something in Paul’s physical condition that was a real trial to his parishioners and could have caused them to loathe him and despise him. But they didn’t.
Not only did they not loathe him; they went to the opposite extreme according to verse 14, where he gives his third affirmation: “You received me as an angel.” So great had been their respect for Paul, so generous the welcome extended to him, it was as if they were receiving an angel of God. And the sad thing to Paul is that the honor once given to him is now being accorded to heretics who are undermining his teaching of grace.
Finally, the Apostle testifies that the Galatians would have done anything for him. Verse 15 reads, “I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.” That demonstrates a pretty strong commitment! But there may be more here than meets the eye, (if you’ll pardon the pun). There is considerable evidence that the Apostle Paul suffered from severe eye trouble, perhaps a result of his Damascus Road experience. One of the hints comes from the last chapter of Galatians, where in 6:11 he writes, “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.” Normally Paul wrote his letters by dictation to a secretary. But, if possible, he would write the final paragraph by himself, although he was forced to write large. If indeed Paul did have an eye disease, his assertion that the Galatians would have plucked out their eyes and given them to him, if possible, demonstrates how much they had appreciated him and his ministry.
So, we see that to resolve the conflict with his former parishioners Paul wisely began by affirming them for past relationships. The second thing he did was to refuse to compromise on the essentials.
Avoidance of compromise on essentials. (16) The world tells us that the way to resolve conflict is to compromise, and indeed, sometimes it is. But not in respect to essentials. Though Paul desperately wanted to see his former relationship with the Galatians restored, he is not about to compromise his convictions to achieve it. After all, it was his insistence upon the essentials of the Gospel that served as the catalyst for the conflict in the first place. To come back now and say, “Oh, it’s not that big a deal after all; legalism is OK; just so you don’t let it get out of hand,” would be to compromise the Gospel and admit that he was wrong in teaching grace as the only way in the first place.
Look at verse 16, where we find Paul asking, “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” The truth is the truth, and if the truth serves as the catalyst for conflict, so be it. The only restriction God has placed upon the speaking of the truth is that it must be spoken “in love.” The Galatians were like so many whose enthusiasm for a Bible teacher wanes as soon as he delves into a subject that convicts them. Such people are selective in their acceptance of truth.
The mark of a real friend is that he tells those whom he loves the truth even though it may hurt. Lincoln said to one of his friends before delivering a controversial address, “If it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth.” Paul refused to compromise on essentials.
Still, Paul is not above clarifying the issues for them to make sure they understand just what is at stake. And that’s exactly what he does in verses 17 & 18.
Clarification of issues. (17, 18) Let me paraphrase these two verses for you: “These heretical teachers go to great lengths to flatter you, but their motives are rotten; it is for their good, not yours. They want to shut you out of the free world of God’s grace so that you will always depend on them for approval and direction, making them feel important. Now it’s a great thing to win others as disciples, whether I’m there or not, provided that it is for the truth.”
There are a lot of funny things going on in the church today under the name of discipleship and church growth that don’t seem to have very much to do with truth. Religious leaders with great charisma are accruing to themselves followers with unswerving loyalty, but for who’s good? Often, it’s for the financial good of those leaders and very little else. Sure, Paul is solicitous of the Galatian believers, but for a very different reason than the false teachers. He does not want them to become spiritually dependent upon him, but rather upon the truth.
The final step Paul takes in his effort to resolve the conflict with his parishioners is to express his love for them.
Expression of love. (19-20) “My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!” Notice that Paul has come full circle in his effort to resolve the conflict with his Galatian parishioners. He had started with four affirmations of them. Now he concludes with warm expressions of his love for them.
Quite a different tone here in verse 19 than what we found in 3:1, isn’t it? There he began, “You dear idiots of Galatia….” Now it’s “My children….” The Apostle places infinite value upon them, just as a mother does upon her children. You see, Paul was their spiritual mother. He was the one who labored to bring them the knowledge of Christ, which eventually resulted in a new birth for them. But a miscarriage had occurred and now he is in labor all over again “until Christ is formed in you,” or, as one paraphrase expresses it, “until you take the shape of Christ.” Paul was perplexed how he could do this. He had to weigh his concern for the truth over against his love and concern for the Galatians.
Now there’s one more point I would like to make this morning, and that has to do with
The purpose of conflict in the Church
Much conflict in the Church is sinful and seems to serve no purpose other than the Satanic one of undermining the cause of Christ. However, even in such cases it is possible for God to produce positive results. Turn with me to 1 Cor. 11:18-19, a passage dealing with irregularities at the Lord’s Supper: “I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” In other words, it is the conflicts in the church that show who the wise, discerning, spiritual leaders are as opposed to the proud, power-hungry, emotional hotheads. One writer put it this way: “The divine chemistry in the church discloses that which is tested and genuine, as opposed to that which is alloyed and adulterated.”
In the interview I mentioned earlier in Leadership Magazine, Lynn Buzzard was asked, “Can conflict be good for what it produces?” His answer was classic, and, I might add, Pauline: Yes—and I’m not even sure that conflict isn’t occasionally good in itself. In a sense it expresses that something important is going on. It helps people clarify what they really believe. It causes people to realize, “Hey, there really are two ways to look at this, aren’t there?”
One person has said that conflict empowers. It gets us out of our lethargy and forces us to identify. Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2 brought some very strategic issues to a head.
Saul Alinsky (not a noted theologian, I admit) has a line that intrigues me: “Change means movement, and movement means friction, and friction means heat, and heat means conflict. You just can’t get the rocket off the ground discreetly and quietly.”
My goal today is certainly not to encourage conflict. Nevertheless, we should recognize that not all conflict is evil, and even evil conflict can serve a useful purpose. Most importantly, we should make sure that any conflict for which we serve as a catalyst is over essential matters and that we do our best to resolve it in a biblical way.
Conclusion: I want to say a summary word about the people’s attitude to the pastor and vice versa. We should take a cue from this passage that we are not to judge our spiritual leaders by outward appearance. They may be intelligent or average, eloquent or dull, handsome or plain. These are not the important things. We should neither flatter them because they are unusually gifted or despise them if they are not. We should not assess their worth according to our favorite teachings. Our attitude toward a spiritual leader should be determined preeminently by his fidelity to the letter and spirit of God’s Word and his desire to bring believers to maturity in Christ.
And what about the pastor’s attitude to the people? John Calvin wrote, “If ministers wish to do any good, let them labor to form Christ, not to form themselves in their hearers.” The pastor must serve, not exploit. He must not use the people for his own pleasure but be willing on their behalf to endure pain. When such pastors predominate, the church will flourish.
Finally, note the references to Christ in verses 14 and 19: “You received me as Christ Jesus,” and “I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you.” What should matter to the congregation is not the pastor’s appearance but whether Christ is speaking through him. And what should matter to the pastor is not the people’s approval but whether Christ is formed in them. The church needs people who listen for the message of Christ, and pastors who look for and develop the image of Christ. Only when pastor and people thus keep their eyes on Christ will damaging conflict be avoided and the work of Christ’s church succeed.
DATE: September 8, 1987
Tags:
Conflict Resolution
Affirmation