CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Background
2.2.2 Why biblical theology?
2.2.2.4 Because … there is a need for a biblical theology of conflict
through narrative, we’re seeking more – more than our limited experiences, more than our present emotions, more than a grandfatherly abstraction, more than a list of prohibitions and obligations.
We’re seeking His person.” The message of conflict is integral to God’s story, and so, believers should be well versed in its use and importance.
The next question is whether this understanding of conflict is normative, and the answer is no.
There are definitely some who have a good grasp of the role, benefit, and use of conflict, but the majority do not. Furthermore, what is understood accurately is not in any semblance of connectivity.140 This is the reason why the next section must address the need for a BTOC.
it is incumbent on mankind to read and study that narrative, and this has been true of believers throughout human history.143
So, why now focus on a BTOC? The answer is a convergence of several things. First, it is because our world system is rejecting God’s story with greater intensity. Long ago, Niebuhr (1987:169) made this remark:
This sober and true view of the human situation was neatly rejected by modern culture. That is why it conceived so many fatuous and futile plans for resolving the conflict between the self and the community, and between the national and the world community. Whenever modern idealists are confronted with the divisive and corrosive effects of man’s self-love, they look for some immediate cause of this perennial tendency, usually in some specific form of social organization.
Our world system is replacing God’s story and God’s methodology with an artificial one, and so, there is a greater need to address this issue.
Second, our spiritual leaders are often ill-equipped to meet this need in terms of conflict. Many pastors have neither the training nor the understanding to address this issue.144 This situation is not purely owing to a lack of opportunity either. Lyon and Moseley (2012:1-2) make this observation:
The past fifty years have seen the growth of a conflict-resolution industry that has produced theories and consultants by the skid-full to help congregations and other organizations when they confront a major conflict. New techniques for helping congregations resolve their differences are published regularly. But even with all the expert help available for dealing with conflict, it sometimes seems to be getting worse, rather than better.145
Therefore, the appeal of Poirier becomes more poignant as he calls for essentially a BTOC. He writes, “It is evident, then, that there is still a need for greater development of Christian conflict
143 Certainly, there has been progressive revelation, but what man has known of God, he has been responsible to obediently follow in light of this revelation (complete or incomplete). Teague (2016:12) links this all together as he states that “the name used for the study of individual texts and themes in the Bible in relation to the progressive self-revelation of God as a whole is biblical theology”.
144 Strachan (2015:38-39) observes that “despite the central role of the pastor in the church’s work to advance the kingdom of Christ in the great war of the ages, there has been relatively little biblical- theological reflection”.
145 This same idea is seen in the comments of Bernero (2017) where he states: “In our experience, the Church has not equipped believers to address conflict biblically” and adds: “Simply too few resources exist to support Christians through the process of biblical conflict resolution. And if they do, Christians don’t know where to find them.”
resolution theory and practice that is biblically rooted and theologically integrated within the larger corpus of Christian thought and teaching” (2006:12).146 However, not everyone agrees with this assessment since they consider conflict as detrimental to the life of a believer. Rittle (2008:1) comments on the implication of that outlook: “Complicating this matter is Christian leaders may view conflict as a destructive experience and grossly lack adequate training to manage conflict
…”. And so, unless believers are willing to go back to the Scriptures to assess God’s view of conflict, this situation is not going to change. Gilliam (2014) renders a call to hear God on the matter: “As ministers, we have to heed not only the level of difficulty and the cost, but also God’s voice in the decision – what is the right/best thing to do”.147
Sanders’ discussion starts laying a foundation for a BTOC. He begins to connect this problem of lack of understanding with what is found in Scripture, as he comments:
It is intriguing to note that the study of this topic in the Bible does not give a ‘super- spiritual,’ reductionist picture of conflict. It is not within the scope of this article to develop a biblical theology of conflict148 and conflict resolution,149 but rather to illustrate some possible pathways one might take to explore this theme further and in helpful fashion (2017:273).
Previously, Moore (1994:15) had suggested a way of exploring God’s Word further regarding a BTOC. He writes:
This is the way we need to read Scripture, too, if we want to learn what God has to say about reconciliation or any other cardinal biblical doctrine. If we truly want to discover the truth, then we will have to train ourselves to read Scripture the way the prophets do. We will have to take the time to excavate the text instead of inter it. Only then can we begin to learn the principles of conflict resolution buried deep within its marvelous pages. [Moore’s emphasis]
Unfortunately, it appears that his invitation of 25 years ago has largely fallen on deaf ears.
146 Even more striking is the characterisation that Poirier gives for the current status of conflict resolution endeavours; he writes, “To put it more vividly, current conflict resolution practice looks more like four hours in the emergency room than a month of home recuperation therapy” (2006:13).
147 Shapiro (2009:529) provides an excellent application of this focus: “One caveat of using biblical stories is that one can justify a plethora of approaches to conflict: everything is to be found. The Bible does not demonstrate that there is one right way to do conflict.”
148 Here is a definite call for a BTOC, which is distinct from a biblical theology of conflict resolution.
149 From this point forward, when referencing the resolution aspect, the designation BTOC(R) is used. The distinction is explored further in 2.3.2.1.
The final reason to focus on the development of a BTOC is that the only way to remedy the aforementioned problems is to find the answers in God’s Word.150 Bernero (2017) affirms this idea, for he writes that “we believe scripture provides the best approach to conflict resolution, one that will result in lasting peace if both parties will only commit to following God’s ordained methods [Bernero’s emphasis]”.151Why don’t believers avail themselves of the truths about conflict in God’s Word? One reason Shawchuck cited almost 40 years ago is that “we often think a conflict in our church will weaken our ministry. This was not so in the life of Jesus, nor in the ministry of the early church” (1983:11).152 Yet, as one looks in the Gospels, it is abundantly clear that “Jesus engaged in conflict. Sometimes He started conflict …. At other times He resolved conflict …. And, at other times He avoided it” (1983:9). Jesus did not see conflict as detrimental to His ministry. However, what Shawchuck (1983:12) observes in churches is often the opposite of how Jesus responded to conflict:
The over-arching conclusion of Scripture is that well-managed conflict will often serve to strengthen the church’s ministries. The church generally responds to conflict in one of two ways: it either tries to ignore or avoid it; or attributes the conflict to a lack of spirituality among its members and then tries to preach and pray it away.
What the Body of Christ needs right now is summarised by Christensen and Johnson (2015:loc.
80):
A careful search through the New Testament leads to the discovery of a rich diversity of relevant passages. Our first task, then, is not just to discover what is there (since it is all “hiding in plain sight”), but to organize and clarify the abundant material.
What is desperately needed is for the Universal Church to understand that “developing a sound, working conflict theology is important to becoming an effective manager of church conflict”
150 Portaro (1996:5) declares that “we need a reformed respect for the positive role of conflict and a renewed confidence in God”. In addition, Poirier notes that what has often been provided has been largely influenced by the world’s thinking and not Scripture. He writes, “As good as it may sound, this rise in the theory and practice of conflict resolution has depended largely upon the work of secular mediators relying on secular sociological and psychological theories of conflict” (2006:10). While his statement is germane to a BTOC, its inclusion here is not designating all that has been done to this point in the study of conflict as insignificant. What it is doing is pointing out that what has been done to this point, has not necessarily reflected God’s perspective. Poirier continues with this admonition: “What is still needed, then, is conflict resolution theory developed for and practiced in the context of the local church”
(2006:13).
151 Whallon (1995) has a similar view: “These secular approaches to conflict resolution are impotent impostors for Christ’s approach of conflict redemption”.
152 Gunther (2011:69) notices that “when handled appropriately, conflict can lead to the growth of individuals and churches. Acts 6:1-7 is an example.”
(Shawchuck, 1983:50).153 Because that has not happened so far, what has arisen is both deficient reasoning and defective choices by the Church.154
2.2.2.4.1 Deficient reasoning
This deficient reasoning is seen first in the lack of theological training on the topic of conflict for future church leaders. As Van Yperen (2002:38-39) observes:
Few seminaries teach pastors how to build and work with an interdependent team, or how to anticipate and reconcile patterns of sin and corporate conflict. Though church conflict is widespread in the West, most church leaders have no formal or practical training in confronting and resolving conflict. Further, most resources published to assist leaders through church conflict teach that all conflict is interpersonal. Conflict is interpersonal and a lot more.
Van Yperen notes that what was predominant in the conflict materials (almost 20 years ago) was mainly interpersonal conflict material. That observation is still pertinent today as is seen in the overreliance upon Sande’s (2008) book, The Peacemaker, which is simply about interpersonal conflict.155
The lack of discussion at an education level has led to a lack of study of conflict on the personal level. Emphasising that astonishment, Love (2014:20) shares that “as I studied the topic of peace from Genesis to Revelation, I realized that the idea of peace and peacemaking is much bigger than I thought. I wondered how I had missed it”.156
From this lack of personal biblical study on the conflict topic, it is reasonable to assume that a flawed understanding of conflict would follow. “Many people have chosen to adopt low
153 “The question is not if conflict will occur, but when it will happen and how well will it be handled.
Therefore, training in conflict resolution is needed”, observes Gunther (2011:136).
154 A great synthesis is provided by Midgley (2014:70) of the need for a BTOC; he writes: “Many of us know that we do conflict badly. Excellence in conflict management isn’t a gift many of us would claim to have.
So when we come to a place where an apostle gives us the inside track on managing it well, we ought to sit up and take notice. Especially when the conflict isn’t simply smoothed over, but actually becomes the basis for spiritual growth.”
155 Christensen and Johnson’s work is examined in more depth in section 2.3.2.2.10 but their goal was to demonstrate that the early church did not even follow what Sande promotes. This is not to say that Sande is wrong – but in my own experience, there is so much more to the study of conflict than interpersonal conflict, and the solutions to that conflict will not suffice for all conflict as is mistakenly promoted so often today.
156 From his own personal testimony, Love (2014:11) explains that “it was disappointing to realize that I was not yet equipped for a role as a peacemaker. I had studied at two well-respected schools in the United States, Westminster Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary. But no one at either school had taught me about the peaceable ways of Jesus. I had to learn the hard way. Conflict would ambush me – with a vengeance”. This is why he references the study of peace and not conflict as seen in his statement above, and he is simply referencing one aspect of conflict studies.
expectations when faced with conflict”, opines Whallon, (1995). In fact, Van Yperen (2002:91) observes that “most Christians hold false notions about conflict”. Why is this? Many believers are under the assumption that “if Christians would pray more, they would have less conflict” (Goodall, 2006:15). “Conflict in Christian circles is often attributed to spiritual and personal causes, when it may in reality be the result of lack of professional clarity”, declares Sanders (2017:272). The idea of conflict has become a spiritual battle, but not over right and wrong, truth and error, or light and darkness, but instead over the spiritual maturity of one’s church. The idea is that spiritually mature people will not have conflict. Sanders (2017:271) addresses that notion:
Conflict is complex – often more complex than it initially appears. Christian tendencies to oversimplify conflict by spiritualizing it are often unhelpful, because of their tendency to reduce a complex situation to only one parameter, thus neglecting the others and ultimately complicating, not resolving the conflict. Though Christians believe that the spiritual dimension is central to the understanding of any issue, we must not take a reductionist, simplistic approach to the complexity of human conflict. In addition, if conflict were merely interpersonal, we could deal simply with the spiritual and psychological dimensions and hope to solve the issues involved. However, conflict always takes place in a context, and understanding that context is a key to conflict resolution.
So deficient reasoning about conflict is an area that can be addressed with the development of a BTOC.
2.2.2.4.2 Defective choices
Following from faulty reasoning is the outcome of that thinking, where defective choices are made.
“The two most common responses to conflict are to ignore it and hope it goes away or handle it badly”, observe Kale and McCullough (2003:loc. 29). Gibbs (2000:113) notes that “valuable lessons need to be learned in how to handle conflict in a Christian manner”. Throughout Paul’s letters to Corinth and Galatia are pointed examples of these types of poor decisions about conflict.
Tetreau (2013:xi) pointedly states: “Church conflict results more often from a deficient approach to decision-making than from almost any other cause”. And, from an organisational standpoint, Smith (2017:119) observes:
One sign of an unhealthy working relationship is that you are hesitant to raise a matter of contention – a potentially difficult matter – because you fear the reaction of the other person. Healthy organizations do not fear conflict; they are open enough and honest enough with each other that they raise difficult matters and work them out, seeking
common understanding around shared mission and core values. Healthy institutions manage conflict with generosity and courage, not fear; they recognize that conflict can lead to new learning.
Shawchuck’s (1983) observations are relevant to these defective choices about conflict. First, as has been previously mentioned, one’s view of how God views conflict affects one’s response to conflict. And second, if one examines the Scriptures with conflict in mind, Shawchuck (1983:12) believes that one will be persuaded that “the over-arching conclusion of Scripture is that well- managed conflict will often serve to strengthen the church’s ministries”.
In contrast with this poor thinking and decision-making, when one turns to the Scriptures for God’s view of conflict, then a productive understanding, that can provide answers and lead to possible solutions or at least the wisdom to manage conflict properly, can be obtained.
2.2.2.4.3 Productive understanding
For example, regarding education, Shapiro (2009:529) believes that “biblical narratives have sustained readers’ attention for thousands of years. Reframing them in the context of learning about conflict, has the potential to expand students’ analytical and critical abilities.” And, in moving beyond a potential benefit of conflict, Gaiser (2014:284) speaks of the value of the limited experiment that he did with case studies of people in conflict. He writes:
What has been gained by this exercise? We have attempted to use the Bible as a resource for understanding human conflict and the possibilities of conflict resolution (a form of biblical imagination?). This produces genuine insights, although candor requires admitting that many of these insights are also available through other literature and other disciplines than biblical study. Still, the biblical material brings its own witness, corroborating some perspectives and opinions and challenging others.
For people of faith, such a contribution from biblical study might add a measure of credibility to the advice of the counselor as he or she seeks to provide people with insight into their own situation. Such a methodology invites people, whether counselors or counselees, teachers or learners, to take seriously the biblical voice as one that is not limited to the ancient past, but that interacts with the real life of the present world. Perhaps, more than anything, such reflection, unlike that of most other disciplines, has an explicit interest in what God is doing in human life.
In some ways, his observations sound novel, but in reality, it is addressing a shortcoming in our understanding of conflict.
As an example of a tangible benefit of the approach of a BTOC, the case of the use of an over- realised eschatology is posited. Canham (2005:384), in addressing the conflict of Romans 16:18 writes,
Though scholars disagree over whether the language of 16:18 is more descriptive of Judaizing legalism or a Gentile-oriented antinomianism, Paul’s wording supports the latter identification. In this light, it is probably significant that Paul follows his commands in 16:17-19 with a futuristic reminder in 16:20 that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (16:20).157
In the researcher’s personal correspondence with him, Canham draws the application that when someone is struggling with the conflict of legalism, teach on the first coming of Christ. When someone struggles with the conflict of antinomianism, teach on the second coming of Christ.158 Where does this conclusion come from? It comes from exploring the text to see how God uses His authors’ experience with conflict to respond properly to conflict. That is where a productive understanding of conflict can be found and is the heartbeat of this study on developing a BTOC through looking at the conflict principles in Romans 12-16.159 Therefore, the next question to consider is why the study of Romans was selected for this research.