Chapter
15 : Disagreeing Gracefully
“They
had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company”
(Acts
15:39 )
If there is one thing we are bad at doing in the Christian
world it is disagreeing gracefully! We're all prone to it and Paul and
Barnabus were no exception!
15.1
The Apostolic Example
What was at the heart of this sharp disagreement?
Well back on their first missionary journey John Mark had gone along
but had then given up and left them. It had obviously been too much
for him. Now Barnabus was an encourager (and that's what his name means)
and he obviously wanted to give John Mark another chance.
Barnabus is a people-person but Paul
is a project-person. Paul has the vision of what needs to be done (to
go back and strengthen the churches they had helped raise up) and he
won't let anyone threaten that vision. For Barnabus people come first,
but for Paul the apostolic calling was so serious that nothing should
be allowed to jeopardise it.
Many commentators, looking for the best in this situation,
say that at least God was now able to bring two apostolic teams into
being instead of one. But that is really an excuse isn't it, for God
could have put it into their minds to multiply without disagreement.
No, this is an unfortunate example of the humanity of these two men
coming through - badly.
They could have quite amicably agreed
to go different ways but Luke, the writer, shows it as a sharp disagreement.
What does that say? It says that these two men had such fixed ideas
that they allowed them to override the grace within them so that they
parted, with upset!
15.2
Reasons for a Crisis Disagreement
That's what we have in this example, a crisis disagreement, which
is one where the feelings run so strong that grace is pushed out. Why
do we get into such situations? I would suggest the following as perhaps
some of the reasons, and you may be able to think of others:
1.
Fossilised ideas
This simply means that we have allowed our ideas to be
set down and cast in stone, and nothing will change them! Now there
are some things that are worth dying for, the truth of the Gospel for
one. Many of the earliest Christian martyrs died because they refused
to deny the truths of their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
In the last part of the twentieth century ideas became
the basis for a cause and a cause became a reason to fight. In a world
where relativism reigns and absolutes have been rejected, fighting for
a cause has become a new source of identity, whether it is animal right's
activists, Irish republicans or loyalists, or Arab terrorists fighting
for a religion or a land. Human life has become expendable as the end
has become the justification for the means.
But within the church we seem to be the same sometimes.
We get set in our particular viewpoint and the enemy plays on our lack
of grace and all other views become the enemy. A little while back,
the Lord challenged my mental abilities by allowing me an opportunity
to travel to the States, and stay with a delightful pastor on the outskirts
of Los Angeles .
This man of God questioned me on a number of my beliefs.
For instance he challenged me on the practice of the gift of prophecy.
I believe the ‘discussion' between the two of us lasted six hours non
stop, challenge and counter challenge. On that visit we had three or
four of these marathon doctrinal challenges. He is a theologian, I am
not. I came back from that trip (and yes I did do some ministry as well
as argue theology!) honed up. It made me question and sharpen up my
own beliefs, and it made me question and sharpen up my questioning of
things that sometimes go on in the Christian circus.
As I wondered about doing similar things with my own leaders,
I realised that you have to be quite secure in yourself to enter into
this sort of debate. My American friend and I dialogued for all those
hours without an ounce of rancour. However when I'm at home and I watch
and listen to people involved in an interactive Bible Study, I realise
that many of us feel highly threatened if an alternative view is expressed
to the one we've just uttered.
What I instigated with a very small group for
a couple of years, was a ‘think tank' where four of us put a morning
aside once a fortnight, we chose a topic and then discussed it in detail
for at least a couple of hours. Our thinking was challenged and our
ideas brought into clear focus and, I believe, a respect has grown between
us as “ one man sharpens another ” (Prov 27:17). This sort
of approach not only stirs our thinking, it also creates a security
in the awareness of our love and respect for one another.
A
Personal Strategy to avoid over-rigid thinking :
Listen to others, consider their viewpoints, consider the possibilities
of their being right. Read books to understand the viewpoints of those
who differ from mine.
2.
Tiredness
I know for myself the greatest time of danger is
when I'm tired. Over-activity brings stress which brings tiredness,
and in the midst of tiredness comes loss of perspective. Suddenly things
become too important. We need to deal with this issue now! This minute!
This is a critical issue! There is an enemy to be confronted! These
people are wrong!
For me, my particular temptation was to immediately
commit something to paper, only to find that that wasn't the best means
of communication when I'm tired. At such times we need to lay down the
work, go into a corner and rest and pray, wait, consult others and then
decide coolly and rationally what needs to be said or done. The trouble
with tiredness is that so often we don't realise the effect it is having
on us. Quite often we're not the best people to diagnose ourselves.
Just recently a good friend rang me up and asked,
“Are you all right?” I thought and genuinely responded, “Yes fine, to
the best of my knowledge.” A couple of days later over coffee he said,
“You know, I had a vision of you the other day, a really clear, genuine
vision of you in great anguish.” Something in my mind clicked… ah, yes,
well….. and the truth came out.
I had been so busy that I hadn't been taking any
notice what had been going on inside me. These are vulnerable times,
times when we loose perspective and become argumentative! We need to
learn to recognise the state we're in and know when blood sugar levels
are low!
There are times when anyone can come up to me and say anything
and I can handle it. There are other times when I simply feel fragile!
In those latter times my grace level seems very low. Don't tell me I'm
not drawing on the Lord, I am, it's just that physically I'm at a real
low, and if I'm struggling to cope just staying upright, I may not be
too good at producing a graceful answer.
I'm learning to say, “I'm ever so sorry, but I'm
a bit washed out at the moment. Do you mind if I come back to you when
I'm feeling a bit more on top so you can get the best from me.” I want
to be graceful at all times but if I'm having trouble being that, the
best I can do is quietly retreat into a corner and recover physically
and spiritually, and then come back and be a blessing to people. Too
often in the past, I know that I've struggled to be everything to everyone
when really I need to be out of the ring and recuperating.
A
Personal Strategy to avoid this :
Find someone in the church that I can trust (preferably husband, wife,
close friend, leader) to whom I give permission to tell me when they
see signs of over tiredness that may be making me appear jaded.
3.
Personal Insecurity
Fear is a great motivating force for an argument, and fear
is often there because we feel insecure. Insecure people cannot risk
the challenge of alternative points of view. Insecure people often take
refuge in fossilised ideas which can be trotted out from time to time
rather like tidal defence barriers to stop the incoming tide of heresy
(as we see it).
Insecure people have to be right, have to have the last
say, are unable to disagree gracefully. Insecure people are fearful
when something new is suggested and are unable to weigh in the balances
the truth of what is being proposed. Insecure people have a knee jerk
reaction rather than a reasoned response. Insecure people feel they
have to bring doctrinal balance in prayer when someone has just prayed
enthusiastically in a rather one-sided way.
Personal insecurity shows itself in this context in a number of
ways. Some time back a man I know rang me and started the conversation
with, “I just want to cross swords with you over the subject of…” and
he named a particular doctrinal viewpoint. My reaction at this point
is to reply, “Well my own feelings about this subject are….” and I tell
what I believe, and then I continue, “but I'm not interested in crossing
swords with you over it. If you disagree, I respect your view and I
don't particularly want you to come round to my view point. If you have
genuine questions over either viewpoints I'm quite happy to discuss
the merits of both sides, but I'm not interested in crossing swords
with you.”
What am I saying? I'm saying I don't want to be involved
in doctrinal confrontation. Insecure people are often argumentative.
I would prefer to help them into a place of security, but it doesn't
come through argument! I'll say some more on this subject of doctrinal
disagreement later.
A
Personal Strategy to avoid this :
Go back through Book One and ask God to transform me and help me not
be someone on the defensive.
4.
Legalistic Reasoning
This is really a tool of insecure people. Insecure people
work by rules and by logic because this helps them feel in control and
if they feel out of control they feel insecure (it's a nice circular
argument!). Yet for a number of situations, we find rules, reason and
logic cannot get us to the answer. As we'll see in a moment or two,
there are some situations where disagreement can almost be guaranteed
and logic won't solve it.
I know that I'm supposed to be covering causes of
why people get into crisis disagreements, but I think it's worth saying
here that once you get into a crisis disagreement, legalistic reasoning
will not get you out. When we're in such a situation the combatants
actually don't want to reason logically to the truth, they want people
to hear why they're hurting so much, they want their feelings to come
out. I'll pick up on this subject in a later chapter, but for the time
being, if you have hurting people, don't expect cool calm logic to be
the answer for them!
A
Personal Strategy to avoid this :
Put a sign on the wall of my study/bedroom/kitchen - “Listen to people's
feelings, not their verbal reasons. Understand why they feel as they
do - and love them”
5.
Emotional Ignorance
This sounds nasty. I simply mean that there are situations
where we only know half the story (we're partly ignorant) and our emotions
have been played upon by the anguish of one side. It's very easy to
get swept up emotionally in today's age of media manipulation where
‘image' is all important. Western political theory at the beginning
of the twenty first century seems to rely upon emotional manipulation,
hence the emergence of so-called ‘spin doctors' whose function is to
release information in such a way as to portray the party in the most
favourable light, to turn our emotions towards them. TV soaps and dramas
are incredibly good at hitting our emotions, often completely bypassing
truth!
You can see or hear this sort of thing in the church prayer
meeting sometimes. Depending where you are in the country, a particular
political party, member of the royal family or other well known figure
will be portrayed as a saint or sinner - depending on the view of the
prayer leader and the people. Truth may often be far away. Praying for
the nation and for national leaders can be a tricky thing, where only
informed background, combined with the revelation of God how to pray,
will give us the hope that we may be avoiding partisan bias and actually
agreeing in prayer with how God feels!
A
Personal Strategy to avoid this :
Put a notice on the wall of my study/bedroom/kitchen - Don't get swept
up emotionally by only one side of the argument!”
15.3
The Fact of Disagreement in Life
The above things are merely examples of things that cause
us to be stirred up in such a way that we refuse to listen to or accept
an alternative view. I said above, there will be times when there can
almost be a guaranteed disagreement. Life isn't always neat and orderly,
there are often situations where someone has to give way.
The classic story of Robin Hood meeting Little John
on a log crossing a stream means someone has to give way, they both
can't cross at the same time. When they try to they both end up in the
stream! This happens at very practical levels and at what might
be called spiritual levels. There WILL be disagreement. What
matters most as Christians is how we handle it .
A
Practical Example.
The church is growing, the building is getting too small.
It is suggested that a building extension project ought to be got under
way. Suddenly the options are wide open and the potential for unhappy
disagreement suddenly escalates. To build or not to build? If we build,
how should we build? How much are we willing to commit to it? If we
don't build, should we look for alternative premises or should we think
about multiple Sunday Meetings or even planting out a further congregation?
When such an ‘alternative options' situation arises, what is
your attitude, what are the feelings that arise in you? Is turning to
God for wisdom and revelation your instinctive response? Perhaps the
easiest way to diagnose it is to say, what is the feeling generated
within you when such a situation arises, or even when you think of such
a situation? Do you think, “OK just another situation to work through”,
or do you start to have a feeling of dread at the conflict you know
is likely to arise.
Public
Disagreement
I still have memories of my earliest years as a Christian,
being in a large denominational church and attending church meetings
both in the presence of the Minister and during an interregnum when
they were waiting for a new Minister. Both experiences were shocking
for me as a new Christian, for they both involved loud and very vocal
disagreement, unhappy disagreement, unholy disagreement!
In our present church we have had
a monthly meeting called ‘News & Views' which was an opportunity
for the leaders to share where they feel God is taking us and for the
people to share on what they feel about it, ask questions and voice
alternative suggestions. A little while back we had a particularly contentious
subject arise, which touched on tender memories that various people
had from their previous church experiences. Again the tendency was for
very vocal, emotional views to be expressed in disagreement.
In
that time I had cause to say:
•
“First of all when you express your
views on the subject we've put before you, will you understand we're
asking for your views, not because we have a hidden agenda and have
decided what we think is right and want you to agree it, but because
we genuinely want to know what you want. You don't have to convince
us as leadership or one another of the rightness of your view. We
would like to hear all views and then we'll take them to the Lord
and ask Him for His view.
•
“Second, if you do feel particularly
strongly about a subject, please would you express your concern as
concern about a subject and not feel you have to attack any one with
it. We will listen to you, but it will be easier to hear you if your
viewpoint is not laden with emotional pressure. Can we learn to express
our view in a neutral non-threatening way, even if we strongly hold
them. Our love and unity is more important than our individual views.”
Spiritually
Disagreeing?
As I've watched, listened and read over the years, I've
been amazed by the ungracious way that sometimes we express disagreement
over spiritual matters. In 1956 Francis Schaeffer wrote in a letter:
“ The Lord has been speaking to me during my prayer times in the
quietness of the Alps that it is as important to show forth the love
of God as to show forth the holiness of God. And that this surely means
that personal attacks (whether against “leading brothers,” against little-known
brethren in the Lord, or against unbelievers) were completely ruinous
spiritually to the Christians who employed or who condoned such personal
attack ” (The Letters of Francis Schaeffer p.67). What he said
then still holds true today. When we feel we have to speak out for truth
and holiness, if we do it without the love of God we undermine our whole
position.
Doctrinal
Disagreements
When it comes to doctrine and practice we will find great
varieties of understanding. The fact that there are Calvinist versus
Armenian arguments indicates that great men of God can differ in their
understanding of the great issues of Scripture. The fact that there
is a debate over “Once saved Always Saved” indicates that great men
of God can differ in their understanding of Scripture. The fact that
there are differing ‘millennial schools' indicate the same thing.
In each of these cases we are purely speaking about
interpretation of Scripture, and the fact that it needs interpreting
means that it is likely that we're not always going to get it right.
This shouldn't stop us trying. The variety of Creeds and Councils through
history, that have sought to clarify doctrine, should remind us of this.
We do need the grace to accept that as strongly as I may feel about
a particular doctrine, I may not have it quite right, and while I may
not have it quite right, have I the grace to love and accept others
who may or may not have it all quite right?
Then there are the defenders of truth. On one extreme of
the church are those who some might label ‘Liberals' who some say believe
little of the Bible or even about the inspiration of the Bible. On the
other extreme are those who not only see the Bible as the inspired word
of God but also see themselves as the upholders of that truth against
all comers. They see themselves in a war situation (which of course
it is) but they take on a defensive stance which is both hard and harsh
in its opposition to all that appears to vary from their perceived position.
Being in a war has become an excuse for ungraciousness
and therefore ungodliness, but it is just an excuse, a bad excuse. Then
there are those who espouse the cause of Protestantism against Catholicism,
and again harshness and hardness so often creep in where they should
not be. We may object to standpoints, points of view, doctrines that
we consider less than Scriptural (and should not be afraid to voice
them at the appropriate times) but that should not stop us loving the
individuals we encounter and treating them gracefully and respectfully,
whether they come from a sect, a mainline denomination or a new stream.
In a day when religious extremism is seen across
the earth in many forms we, surely, should take the extreme position
of being the most loving, graceful and godly community on the face of
the earth. Our doctrine is vitally important but if we fail to show
the love and grace of Jesus Christ, we simply put ourselves on the same
level as all other religious adherents. Because of the nature of these
things, it means there will be disagreement and we must learn to say
graciously, “Well I still can't see it like that but I love and respect
you and will agree to disagree until the Lord is able to bring our understanding
together.”
Disagreement
of Practice
So far above we've spoken of doctrine, and we hope
that there are central core doctrines over which we will not disagree,
but there is also in church experience the whole question of practice,
the differing ways we go about church life. This can be in respect of
having a minister, elder or team, or how church government is run, or
how we conduct ‘services'.
Most of the times, we go our different ways for either
historical reasons or because we understand Scripture differently. Unfortunately
we use these things sometimes as reasons for division and separation.
Can we learn to say, “Well I see it differently and I prefer the way
we go about it, but we love and respect you in the way you do it” and
not let it be a cause of separation.
The
Real Nature of Disagreement
These are areas where we can almost guarantee that
at some time there will be disagreement by the very nature of things,
simply because things are not always clear cut but are, in fact, open
to interpretation or different assessment. The lessons to learn here
are how to disagree gracefully and without division. Yet
at times we must accept that staying in unity is difficult. There are
areas where it is awkward.
Here are two churches in town. One believes
the Gospel and faithfully teaches Scripture. The other believes little
and preaches social behaviour. From our standpoint can the faithful
preacher help the unbelieving preacher? In theory yes, but in reality
this means friendship, dialogue and willingness to talk - and time -
and faith to believe change can come. Sometimes in the pressures of
ministry life those last two ingredients are in scarce supply. Can the
two churches work together? For the Gospel the reality is probably no,
but over social good deeds the answer can be yes. But even in this area
we have to be very careful. God has a habit of turning up and working
in areas we least expect!
15.4
The Tragedy and Reality of Division
I live in an area of Britain where historically church
division has been rife, one group springing out of another group. Yet
this isn't uncommon, for the whole history of denominationalism has
this at its heart. When we look at church history we see that divisions
took place mainly because:
•
one group disagreed with the doctrine
and practice of another group,
•
one group found new life that contrasted
with the death of the old,
•
the new group formalised itself and became
a separate grouping.
My own belief is that if , once we became Christians,
we were made perfect in daily practice, then in any one geographical
location there would ever only be one church, the local church of whatever
town or village or area you live in. Yet because that is not so, we
have divisive multiplicity which comes about for the three reasons I've
given above.
Yet Jesus knew that would happen when he brought the church
into being, this was no surprise to him. So he perseveres with us and
perhaps even uses the divisions to thwart the enemy. In a divided church,
if one part goes astray other parts can hold to the truth. In a divided
church it is more difficult for the enemy to control it through secular
authorities. But all of this doesn't mean that division and disagreement
are good!
John Wimber said that he appreciated liturgical churches
because they gave him freedom not to be. If others weren't upholding
and preserving the church calendar, he would have to do it, but as others
were doing that, he was free not to. That's a nice outlook. Secure leaders
don't mind that others are different and indeed appreciate the differences
(now we've got them!). It seems that God takes the differences and uses
them. Differences may not be ideal but perhaps it is as Joseph said
to his brothers, “ You intended to harm me, but God intended it
for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving on many lives
.” (Gen 50:20)
Seeds
of Division
Why are we even considering this in this book? Simply
because in a secure church we want to avoid the potential of division
if that is at all possible. How does division come about? I would suggest
that the following are likely conditions:
•
Some people in the church feel unhappy
either about what is being taught,
about the practice of the church or about the apparent
absence of life in
the church.
•
There is no room or structure in the
church for expression of concern, so
they murmur among themselves.
•
Dissension grows and frustration boils
over in them, with them violently
voicing their sense of grievance and then leaving
and going somewhere
else.
What was the primary cause of this separation? Lack of
communication! The people in question may have a wrong heart, wrong
spirit or wrong whatever else but for some reason in this church there
was no means in which that could be faced long before it blew out of
all proportion into a major conflict.
If we are realistic there are going to be people who, despite
all your efforts, do not want to live in the truth and do not want to
change, and get fed up with their situation. There will be people who
will leave despite everything you do. Yet the point of this discussion
is to avoid that happening where it is possible to do so. One of the
sad things about people leaving with a grievance is that if they leave
and set up another church, they take their wrong attitudes into that
new church and until repentance comes, the foundation of that new church
will always be undermined.
I mentioned earlier that we had a monthly meeting
called ‘News & Views'. The object of that meeting was purely for
communication, to avoid if possible the growth of unhappiness in the
church because people feel kept in the dark, or because they feel they
have no room to express what they are feeling. These days our Leadership
Team seeks to meet semi-informally with all of our key leaders on a
regular basis and ask them how they feel things are going and are there
any areas where they feel we're not getting it right. It may not guarantee
avoidance of upset but at least it is a step towards it.
Making
Excuses?
The thrust of this chapter has been to highlight
the problem of disagreement that will arise whenever there are two sinful
human beings, even if they are Christians. The point I have wanted to
make again and again is that the most important thing is how
we disagree. There are always those somewhere who seek to excuse their
harsh attitudes by referring to Jesus' actions clearing out the temple.
If we want to do this then we also need to remember the incidents either
side of that incident.
Before it we find Jesus looking down on Jerusalem
and weeping over it. If we dare speak a word in righteous anger, can
we first ensure that our hearts have been so moved by compassion that
we have wept for those to whom we come.
Following that incident Jesus gave his life to
save even some of those people in Jerusalem , possibly even some who
had opposed him (Saul/Paul being a good example). If we dare to say
we are moved with righteous anger we also need to know that we will
give our very lives to save the very people who oppose us, if that be
possible.
Only when we weep for the people, only when we are prepared
to die for the people, may we perhaps consider we are called to speak
by God against the practices of the people.
15.5
And So?
The questions that follow help us focus on our own situations,
our own church:
Are we able to identify how we become vulnerable to getting
emotionally swept up into severe disagreements by
•
fossilised ideas preventing us seeing
alternatives?
•
tiredness creeping in through over busyness?
•
my own personal insecurity that brings
in fear?
•
relying on logical legalistic reasoning
in emotion-heavy circumstances
instead of facing the emotion?
•
becoming emotionally biased?
Have we intellectual, spiritual and practical strategies
in place to overcome each of these where possible?
Have I allowed myself to get into a position
of a bad disagreement because of failing to identify
•
the dangers of an unclear situation with
alternative options?
•
the fact that doctrinal differences are
a reality?
•
the fact that differences of practices
are a reality?
Have I been guilt of hastily moving in a situation
of concern in my church over teaching/practice that has worried me,
or the absence of life that has worried me without seeking a godly solution
to it?
Have I been guilty of thinking or speaking harshly
about those with whom I disagree to cause grief to the Holy Spirit?
Are there communication structures/strategies in place
in my church that enable people to express their concerns or views or
revelations? If not, what can I do in a godly, gentle manner to rectify
that?
Can I determine, by God's grace not to
•
act
hastily, harshly or unkindly
•
speak
hastily, harshly or unkindly
•
think
harshly or unkindly