exploring how to and not to

do relationships

by ken e. read

1|one

2|family

3|love

4|risk

5|different

6|peace

7|loyalty

8|submit

9|power

10|grace

11|discipline

12|gifts

13|blessing

6|peace

   Jesus came to give us peace with God.[i] The message of peace was central to Jesus. When angels announced his birth, they proclaimed peace to men on whom his favor rests.[ii] The Gospel itself is sometimes called the Gospel of peace.[iii] When Jesus greeted his disciples, he said “Peace be with you,”[iv] and Paul often opened his letters with the blessing “Grace and peace.”[v] The disciples were trained to give the greeting, “Peace to this house.”[vi]

Jesus also came to bring us peace with one another. He said that peacemakers will be called sons of God.[vii] He told his followers to “be at peace with each other.”[viii] Paul urged believers to “do what leads to peace.”[ix]

Peace among believers must even come before worship. Jesus said to go and make things right with an offended brother before offering your gift to God.[x] In many churches, before taking the Eucharist, all of the faithful are invited to say to one another, “Peace of Christ.” They call it “passing the peace.” Perhaps the most powerful blessing and most sincere words we could give one another is to wish them the peace of Christ.

If peace was so central a concept in the New Testament, then it must be an essential goal for us all to gain today. And maybe peace looks very different than we would expect! What does it mean to be at peace? We may find some surprises along the way!

 MYTH #8: Peace is the absence of conflict. Relationships are healthy if people never have disagreements, and if everyone acts kindly toward one another.

This myth works most of the time. When someone offends us, we immediately forgive, choose love and mercy over judgment, and treat one another with loving kindness. When someone strikes us on the cheek, we simply turn the other cheek. We do not take vengeance for ourselves, but we leave room for the vengeance of God. There are so many commands toward love and a soft answer turning away wrath, that it seems as if it would never be right to have a disagreement.

The church is far too much driven by a desire for control, based on our own opinions. Many church splits and “theological” arguments, in fact, really originate in a difference of opinion or taste, which spills over into other areas. However . . .

TRUTH: Peace is not the absence of, but the resolution of conflict.

The kind-hearted approach is not always the right thing. Sometimes the very response of trying to act “kindly” toward someone only causes more problems.

There is a time for everything under the sun, including a time to be angry, and a time to speak, and a time to refrain from embracing.[xi] Some people we need to snatch from the fire.[xii]

God Himself shows anger. Jesus cleared the Temple ,[xiii] and was sometimes indignant with his disciples and especially with the religious hypocrites of His day.[xiv] Paul was sometimes harsh in his letters in addressing problems.[xv] We are told not to let the sun go down on our anger, but we are not told to never become angry.[xvi]

The Bible is full of relational conflict, and Jesus talked about conflict management often. In fact, almost half of the verses of what Jesus says as recorded in Matthew 3-7 contain a negative message. He says, “Go away, Satan!” and “Repent!” He refers to people as “your enemy,” “an evil person,” “false prophets” and “hypocrites,” and tells how to deal with them. He talks about forgiving “those who have sinned against us,” and tells us to “stop judging others.” He says that he himself will someday say to some people, “I never knew you” and tells us that his Father “will not forgive your sins” if you do not forgive.

If Jesus was not afraid to confront sin or to speak of conflict, neither should we. But it must be done in the right spirit.

 sometimes conflict, never quarrel

There is a difference between constructive conflict and quarreling. The Bible says that “the servant must not quarrel.”[xvii] But we are to rebuke or correct one another when necessary.[xviii] What is the difference? Probably mostly the difference between a constructive conflict and a quarrel is motive. If you covet and are jealous, then a whole army of evil desires war within you and cause hurtful things to come out of your mouth.[xix]

In a quarrel, the desire is to win (while someone else loses), to divide (any kingdom divided against itself will fall), to exaggerate and to hide agendas (overstate your perspective), and to pursue selfish ends (scheming to get what you want). When your motivation is wrong, sooner or later your conversation will be wrong, too.

Instead, we must seek the good of others, seek to reconcile, speak the truth in love, be completely above board, and desire to edify and build up the other person. When your motive is right, you will be working toward reconciliation rather than division.

We are to love one another, accept one another, pray for one another, be kindly affectionate one toward the other, to wash one another’s feet, prefer one another, do not judge each other, greet one another with a holy kiss, serve one another, bear one another’s burdens, forgive each other, forbear one another, edify one another, consider one another, exhort one another. One another. One another. Get the point?

three stages of community

It is commonly understood that there are three stages of community.

The first is pseudo-community, when everyone pretends or imagines that they agree with one another, and that there are no conflicts among them. Many churches or small groups maintain pseudo-community for months and even years. But it is not true community, because we don’t love each other for who we really are. In fact, we don’t know each other.

The second stage is a tunnel of chaos, in which someone finally speaks up with an opinion or strong feeling that differs from someone else, or from the rest of the group. Suddenly, the honeymoon is over and the community is plunged into chaos. It is not clear while going through the tunnel of chaos whether or not anyone will emerge intact on the other side when such strong feelings are being expressed. But a group cannot get to the third stage without having gone through the tunnel of chaos. So plunging in while following biblical guidelines for relationships and knowing that full unity and love is possible only on the other side.

When the chaos is resolved, we finally achieve true community, which is marked by unconditional love, accepting our differences, better understanding and appreciation for our diversity, and a commitment to defend one another. As Rich Mullins wrote, “My friends ain’t the way I wish they were, they are just the way they are.”

Some people smile to your face and complain behind your back. Other people disagree to your face and then support you behind your back. If I have a choice, I would much rather take the latter! The writer of Proverbs agrees: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”[xx]

 case study: Paul and Peter

Paul and Peter were both apostles of Jesus Christ. They were equal in authority, but had somewhat different callings: Paul was called to reach Gentiles, while Peter was called to reach the Jews.[xxi] They were one, and they respected each others’ calling.

Peter came to visit a church in Galatia , where Paul was working at the time. While there, he was influenced by some Judaizers, and he withdrew from eating with Gentiles. Even Barnabas fell into this sinful segregation.[xxii]

Paul knew that this segregation was: it was legalism, it was heresy, and it was sin. The church is called to unity, not to division. The Gospel gives no excuses for racism in the name of Jesus.

What should Paul do? Take Peter aside and talk privately? Preach a sermon and hope that Peter would get “moved by the Spirit” to repent? Send someone to deliver a message? Send out a pointed letter? No, none of these. This was a public sin, committed by a spiritual leader, and it needed to be confronted publicly. So Paul spoke to Peter directly in front of the rest of the saints, perhaps there at a common meal or in the assembly.[xxiii] In any case, Peter heard Paul’s rebuke and he repented. This didn’t escalate, but was quickly resolved.

There is a time for disagreement, even heated confrontation, but it must be handled carefully, lovingly and prayerfully. And on the other side of the conflict, unity awaits.

MYTH #9: If we just could become like the New Testament church, we wouldn’t have interpersonal struggles.

Jesus said that love would be the mark of the disciples. Love prevailed in the early church. The church in Philippi was told to be like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.[xxiv] That is the attitude we want to see restored. However . . .

TRUTH: The New Testament is filled with records of interpersonal struggles.

Interpersonal struggles have been common through the ages, including the pages of the New Testament itself. Love marked the early disciples, and yet on nearly every page we find hints of strained relationships! In the same chapter in which Paul urged the church to be like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose, he told them to “do everything without complaining or arguing.”[xxv] Apparently, his instructions were written because they were not doing those good things.

If you want to be a New Testament church, be careful which church you emulate! They all seem to have had interpersonal problems. Paul and Barnabas separated (the word is a very strong word) before their second missionary journey.[xxvi] Euodia and Syntyche were two women who apparently maintained animosity between themselves, so that Paul had to plead with them to get along with each other.[xxvii] The Galatians were “biting and devouring each other,” and in danger of destroying each other.”[xxviii] There were strained relationships, even in those ideal early days.

Christians today also have problems with moody bickering. I have said, half in jest, “The church would be a great place to work, if it just weren’t for the people!” I’ve been told that the worst time to work in a restaurant is for the Sunday after-church crowd. The first hour after the assembly should be the best gauge for whether Christianity is working; apparently, it is not. They don’t tip well, and they are impatient, unfriendly, picky and judgmental.

The church at Corinth was divided. They had divided themselves up by spiritual pedigree: Apollos, Paul, Peter—even Christ![xxix] They were divided at the “love feast.”[xxx] They had doctrinal differences. Paul told them that they were people of the flesh, mere babies in Christ.[xxxi] Paul said, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”[xxxii] I suspect Paul was being sarcastic when he said that.

Paul likewise pled with the Colossian church, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.”[xxxiii] Notice that he said “hearts,” not just “heart.” Christ’s peace must preside over all of us together, not just each of us individually.

 when should a church have conflict?

Sometimes, the Lord actually calls the church into conflict, not away from it. Christ wrote to the churches in the book of Revelation, and sometimes he called them to more active adversity. We will deal with those criticisms in chapter 11. But suffice it to say that there is warfare in heaven![xxxiv] Conflict where God’s will is always done?[xxxv] So what makes us think we can avoid it on earth?

case study: Barnabas and Paul

Let’s look at the development of the relationship between Paul and Barnabas. First, let’s make some assumptions about their personalities: Paul was outspoken, zealous, direct, and had a tendency to be harsh. Barnabas was an encourager who always saw the best in others and showed them mercy. But in the Lord, they were one.

Barnabas had believed in Paul from back when he was still named Saul.[xxxvi] Years went by and they did not see each other. And then Barnabas was sent to the Antioch church. He was “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith.”[xxxvii] Barnabas soon realized that the church there needed someone with his old friend’s gifts, and so he looked for Saul and urged him to come with him to help him teach in Antioch . There, they worked together for over a year, eventually with a team of five prophets and teachers. Then the Holy Spirit directed Barnabas and Saul to go on a church planting campaign. They chose John Mark to go with them, and had great success on their journey, sharing the good news of Jesus.[xxxviii]

During that missionary journey, several things happened: Saul changed his common name to Paul, and he moved into the prominent position with Barnabas. Now they were called Paul and Barnabas instead of Barnabas and Saul.[xxxix] Also, John left them to return to Jerusalem .[xl] Eventually, they returned to Antioch and reported all that God had done and stayed for a long time with the disciples.[xli]

Paul and Barnabas continued to work together as a team for some years.[xlii] What a team Paul and Barnabas were!

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.”[xliii] Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them before. “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.”[xliv]

Suddenly, this effective team of P&B was broken. Paul was later reconciled to John Mark, but there is no record of him ever working with Barnabas again.[xlv] It seems to have been a permanent split. Did the Lord lead them to part company? Was this sinful weakness on their parts? Or did they just have differing opinions, and they decided the Lord was leading them in different directions?

So, what’s the point of all this? Simply this: sometimes differences arise, roles change, and friendships are strained, even among the apostles and early church leaders. The grace of God continued to be with them, but it might not have been the Lord’s first choice for them.

coming out the other side

Once we recognize that any two people will have a disagreement at some point, it helps us to take down our masks and begin to work through conflict. We are called to be of one mind, but there are only two ways for that to happen.

The first way to be of one mind is if one of the people doesn’t have one. If one person has such a compliant spirit that everything is always fine, and the other person makes decisions about everything, then two people are of one mind.

When I was single, finances were very tight, but I never had an argument with myself about money. I had dilemmas, but I never had an argument, because I had only one brain. After I was married, I discovered that money was still tight (after all, two can live as cheaply as one, as long as one starves), but Ellen had her own set of priorities for how to spend it. Money symbolizes our values, and we had to talk through our budget, because we now had two brains and our values were not always the same.

So, the other way for two people to be of one mind is to talk through differences and come to some agreement together. It really can be done, whether it is two people in a marriage or a hundred people in a group. Talk it out.

Occasionally, when we talk about our differences there is tension in the air. When at least one of the people involved feels very strongly, or feels stress or frustration, a simple discussion about our differences might be described as an argument. An argument doesn’t have to be a bad thing, as long as the two parties close the argument closer than they were before it began. We can do that by avoiding some destructive communication techniques during our argument, and using positive feedback while under stress.

We might call the destructive communication techniques Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Any good convention of warfare must ban them from being used. Here are the some of the most harmful WMDs of an argument. Strange as some of them sound, they have all been used to “blow up” constructive staff meetings and Board meetings of churches. So beware of these:

Silence. Silence can be golden when the water is peaceful, but in a stressful conversation saying nothing can be an unfair weapon. Pause to find the right wording, but do not shut down.

The door. Walking out of a conversation is like quitting when you are “it” in tag. It brings frustration to others because nothing can be resolved with a door. Ask for permission to gain space if you must, but do so with a promise to return to the table.

Harsh words. Certain words are too emotionally charged to use with strong feelings. Therefore, avoid words like “shut up” or any curse words or near curse words. Even a harsh tone can turn the most pleasant word negative. Choose gentle words with a gentle voice when answering, and you will turn away wrath.[xlvi]

Absolutes. Sometimes we are tempted to talk about general trends by using absolutes. “You always” or “I never” cause the topic to switch, as the other party defends the one time when there was an exception. Remember: never use absolutes.

The Past. I am sometimes tempted to bring up some past event that I supposedly forgave and forgot. The past should always be remembered to learn from, not to show superiority. Dredging up past hurts, especially when they were cleared up already, only confuses the matter. People can change; deal with the present.

The Future. Likewise, it is easy to look at past behavior and draw a straight line to project what someone “will” do in the future. But when I accuse someone of something that has not happened yet, how can she possibly defend herself? People can change; deal with the present.

You. Instead of communicating with a focus on the other party (“You are this way”), I am far better off to communicate using “I” statements and “feeling” statements. Try to paint a word picture as you see it (“When this happened, I felt this way”).

Interruptions. Someone else starts a sentence. I think I know where he’s going. I interrupt to give my good answer. But all I do is to stir up his emotions and make him feel inferior. Stop and listen, clarify his statement (“This is what I hear you saying. Am I right?”), and only then give your defense.

Arguments are an exchange of feelings and thoughts. If we can “disarm” them from being hurtful, then full healing can come on the other side of the discussion. If we allow for a controlled exchange, calmly tossing “the ball” of conversation back and forth, painting word pictures to show our feelings, providing enough time for each to finish a thought, staying with the subject at hand, and expressing our feelings without casting blame at the other, then we can have healthy disagreements that will resolve problems.