This is the thirteenth and final post in a series that I am doing based on the lives of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the accounts of which are found in the book of Genesis. In spite of the title of this series, the record of the experiences of the men listed above are only incidental to me. What I find far more interesting, relevant, and important is the revelation of the character and nature of God that we can see by observing these men's lives. Each post will coincide with a lesson being taught in a classroom. As such, they will not be in a traditional essay format. Rather, it will be a slightly expanded version of the notes that I hand out in class.
The Genesis Account
Gen. 33:4-11 – Jacob greatly feared his reunion with
Esau due to the way he had treated his older brother in the past. He knew he needed to confront this fear but that
didn’t make it any easier. Jacob faces
his fear and uses creativity to, as much as is possible for him, obtain a
positive outcome to the situation. Then
he places his future in God’s hands. And
miraculously, as He so often does, the Lord made it so that the encounter was a
thing of beauty.
Supporting Scriptures
Mat. 18:15-17
– This passage is an essential component of biblical teaching on the issue of
confrontation and settling disputes. It
is a wonderful resource because it lays out for us a logical, ordered sequence
of steps we are to take when we find ourselves in this situation. The first step of this sequence is probably
the most important because most Christians never even get past it. When an offense has been committed by another,
whether directly against us or just in general, we are to open a dialogue with
the offender. Notice the following
sentence, which gives us the reason we are to do this. It is not for the purpose of winning an
argument. It is not for the purpose of
advancing any agenda of our own. Rather,
it is for the sole purpose of restoring a relationship that has been damaged in
some way.
Gal. 6:1-2 –
Here Paul builds upon and adds to the teaching that Jesus already delivered in
Matthew. The importance is re-stated of
restoring relationships in the body of Christ.
This is the entire reason why we are commanded to confront. And when we do so it absolutely must be with
a spirit and attitude of humility. We
must understand that we are just as capable as the brother or sister we are
seeking to restore of falling into the same trap of temptation and sin that
they have found themselves in.
Phi. 1-25 –
This issue of unity and reconciliation in the Church is of such paramount
importance that an entire book of the New Testament (albeit a short one) is
dedicated to it. Paul writes a letter to
Philemon (an influential member, possibly even a leader, and at the very least
the one in whose home the church met) in the church at Colossae. In this letter the Apostle urges his brother
to accept back into fellowship a man named Onesimus, a former slave of
Philemon’s who had run away and subsequently became a Christian. Paul uses flattery, reminders, and even guilt
trips in a vigorous effort to convince Philemon to turn from the norms of Roman
culture, which dictated that he had the right to execute Onesimus, and instead
restore the unity of the church. Paul
goes to such great lengths because he believes, correctly, that this issue of
reconciliation is of absolutely paramount importance in the body of Christ.
Questions For Meditation
Why do Christians hesitate to engage
in confrontation with other believers?
As an elder in a local evangelical
church, I find it interesting that one of the more common reasons people have
sought me out over the years has been to complain about a problem they are
having with someone else in the church.
When I inquire whether they have talked to the other party the answer,
almost every single time, is no. The
majority of people shy away from confrontation.
They certainly desire a resolution to whatever problem they seem to be
having. But the preferred default method
seems to be to contact an elder and have them take care of things. As the passages of Scripture listed above
make clear, this is not the correct procedure for Christians in the body of
Christ to follow. So why do people do
it?
The short answer to this question is
rather mundanely that we are sinful in our tendencies. But to expand upon that answer and provide
specifics, we are contaminated by fear, anger, and pride. Fear prevents us from seeking out
confrontation because of a dread of pain, both emotional and physical. It is undeniable that conflict sometimes
results in pain. And as beings whose
number one priority is the preservation of our own comforts, confrontation is
often seen as diametrically opposed to that.
Furthermore, conflict is often born
out of being taken advantage of by someone else. As such, we perceive that our human rights
have been violated. This concept is on
some level formed from the ideals the United States was founded on. But on a deeper plane it really stems from
nothing less than pride. It is
antithetical to a fallen human mind to accept a perceived slight, constituting
as it does a compromise of our self-imagined prerogatives.
Concurrent with and often born out of
pride is anger. Our pride dictates that
we not accept offenses. Then our anger
comes along and inflames us to ungodly rage.
In this state, the last thing we desire is for a peaceful and harmonious
resolution to the situation. We
certainly are not concerned at all about the other person. We simply want our own interests to be cared
for and our bruised egos pampered.
How does the worldly concept of
confrontation differ from the biblical model?
Worldly, cultural influences tend to
dictate a policy of avoidance and/or hostility when it comes to
confrontation. This mindset has its
roots in the individual as outlined in the previous question. With a sinful and fleshly starting point as
the basis for our world view, anything that has the potential to introduce
those undesired elements into our lives is seen as something to be avoided at
all costs. As children we learn that
dealing with conflicts between two people face to face does not end the way we
want most of the time, due to selfish motivations. And as we grow our society takes those
convictions and brings them into full flower.
We might see parents talking about other adults behind their backs. We are perhaps encouraged to run to mommy or
daddy when trouble between siblings brews.
As adults the corporations we work for often follow policies of non-confrontation,
instead instructing us to take our disputes to a third party such as a
supervisor. And this of course mirrors
the judicial system in our country. Much
has been made of how litigious America is.
Some would argue that point and both sides present compelling
arguments. But for the purpose of this
discussion it is irrelevant. The point
is that Americans have fairly easy access to a well-designed legal system in
which they are freed from the responsibility of confronting an offender
directly. And this of course feeds right
into the aforementioned desire to avoid problems or complications that our
flesh hungers for.
In contrast to this we find the Bible
advocating, even commanding, a completely different approach to conflict
resolution in Matthew 18:15-17, as seen above.
There are four stages of this model, and each stage has three necessary
components.
- Stage one is for the offended to approach the offender privately. This applies whether a person has been sinned against directly, or whether they have just observed another Christian sinning. Presumably, someone who has a relationship with Christ ought to be offended on His behalf any time the glory of God is defiled by sin, just as Jesus was in the temple in Jerusalem when He overturned the money changer’s tables.
- Stage two, only to be moved to if stage one is unsuccessful in restoring a right relationship between the two parties, is to take a witness or two along with you and again seek for reconciliation with the other party.
- Stage three is to tell the offense to the whole church. Presumably this would be funneled through the church leaders, if they haven’t already been involved to this point. Again, the goal of this is to bring the sinner to repentance and restore them to right relationship with God and their community.
- Finally, if all three of the preceding steps have met with failure then the sinning person is to be put out of the church completely. This is the historic act of excommunication.
At every point in this process we are
advised to follow in the footsteps of Jacob in the confrontation with his
brother Esau. In Genesis chapter 32 we
find the prelude to this meeting of estranged relatives. Jacob is informed that Esau is traveling to
meet him with 400 men. This fills Jacob
with fear, considering the less than charitable manner in which he had dealt
with his brother before leaving for Haran two decades earlier. His plan of action is as follows:
- First he prayed to God for help. He asked him for mercy in preserving his and his family’s lives. But he related this request to the previous promise of God to prosper Jacob and make of him a great nation.
- Then he planned. He used the intellect and creativity God had blessed him with to devise a strategy for confronting his brother. Jacob sent five different servants on ahead, each with a gift of animals for his brother. And he instructed them very carefully to present these gifts to Esau in a humble manner, referring to Jacob as Esau’s servant. Finally, he divided his immediate family into companies, spreading them out behind him while he went on to meet Esau first. In all of this Jacob hoped to use his gifts to blunt any anger Esau was feeling, and use his family to soften Esau’s mood when he saw the women and children.
- Finally, he acted. It is noteworthy that after all of his preparations had been put into place it was Jacob who finally went forward alone to confront his brother. He did not use his wives or children as shields to preserve his personal safety. Rather, he put them behind him but in such a way as for Esau to observe them easily from afar and perhaps further ease any tensions that might be present. It is also worth mentioning that Jacob insisted on his brother accepting his gifts. Esau attempted to decline them but Jacob persisted. He knew that in the future, if it should happen that Esau was tempted to remember the former wrongs committed against him, the ongoing presence of a gift from his brother would go a long way toward calming his temper.
So what we find with this example
from biblical history is the sequence we ought to follow at every phase of the
model of confrontation taught by Jesus.
We should first pray, seeking the favor of God. We should then plan, using the wisdom and
knowledge God has given us to the fullest measure possible to do everything in
our power to bring about a successful resolution to the situation we are
facing. And then we must act. It is unavoidable that at some point we must
take action if we are to be obedient to the Lord’s command. But rather than a haphazard and poorly
conceived implementation on our part, the model of Scripture is one of care and
precision prior to the action which will ultimately serve to both make the
final confrontation much easier for us and also increase the likelihood of
obtaining a favorable outcome.
When we refuse to follow the biblical
model of confrontation there is a word that describes our actions. What is it?
The Bible is quite clear on how we
ought to handle confrontations. The
Scriptures elevate the importance of reconciliation and unity to a very high
level. The letter that Paul wrote to
Philemon concerning Onesimus the runaway slave is worthwhile to consider. Even though Philemon was a leader in the
Colossian church and a solid believer, Paul knew the cultural world view he was
fighting against in urging Philemon to accept his wayward slave back as a
brother. In the Roman world, if a slave
ran away and was then recapture, the owner had the right to mete out any form
of punishment he wished, up to and including execution.
In light of this Paul goes to extreme
lengths in this letter to convince Philemon of his obligation to go against
culture and place the unity of the church and his personal reconciliation with
his slave on a higher level of importance.
He uses the following tactics in his letter:
- Flattery (Phm. 1)
- Encouragement (Phm. 4-7)
- Logic (Phm. 11)
- Manipulation (Phm. 17-19)
- Assumption (Phm. 21)
- Reminder (Phm. 25)
With this much emphasis in the
teachings of Jesus, the actions of Paul, and the model of Jacob placed upon
biblical confrontation for the purposes of harmonious reconciliation, can it be
called anything less than outright disobedience when we refuse to follow
suit? Can we possibly excuse ourselves
because of cultural norms? Philemon
certainly could not use that argument against Paul. And we cannot use it today as an excuse to
get out of courses of action we may find less appealing than others.
The really astounding thing is that,
as in the case of Jacob, if we would just submit and follow the Bible’s
teaching in this area, more often than not the confrontations are nowhere near
what our fearful minds built them up to be.
Jacob trusted God and He gave his servant such a miraculous and
providential resolution to the conflict with his brother than it must have
overwhelmed him with how good his God was.
I have had to confront people over the years on a number of different
issues. I never look forward to it. I shy away from confrontation just as much as
the next Christian. But in almost every
situation, when I have submitted in willing obedience to the will of God He has
stepped in and worked the situation out so beautifully that it brings me to my
proverbial knees in an expression of wonder and adoration. My prayer is that you, if you struggle with
biblical confrontation, will be willing to set aside your personal fears and/or
your cultural world view in this area and submit to the Lord so that you too
can be amazed at His providence.
