CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.3 Literature review
2.3.2 Findings
2.3.2.2 Non-claimants – update on a biblical theology of conflict
church setting, but it does not address either other settings or other kinds of conflict within the church setting.208 Fourth, this thinking is built on the assumption that conflict is sinful and something to be prevented. And fifth, as evidenced in several passages of Scripture,209 the presence of qualified elders did not automatically keep the church from error.
What Terry presents is an idealised notion that spiritual leadership (teaching correct doctrine) will result in mature believers who will not experience conflict. While this process finds its basis in the Word of God,210 his conclusion is fraught with incorrect assumption, eisegesis, and inaccurate application. In fact, as will be demonstrated later, conflict is the very avenue that God uses to bring about spiritual maturity in the obedient response to the Word of God. For these reasons, the claim of Terry for a BTOC also falls short.
There are two positives, however, in his work. The first is his understanding of the connection of Romans 12 and 13 and the work of conflict resolution. The second benefit is his observation on God’s provision of principles to assist believers in responding to conflict biblically. God has not left His people without instruction on how to understand, respond to, and use conflict for spiritual development.
2.3.2.2.1 Gunther (2011)
Gunther’s work is largely denominationally focused in exploring how to better equip Assemblies of God pastors in conflict. However, much of his input engages developing a BTOC. In fact, one of the stated purposes in his discussion about the development of his material is “to teach a biblical theology of conflict” (2011:9). He goes on to state: “Ministerial students need a resource for understanding: (1) the nature of conflict; (2) the extent of the problem of unresolved or mismanaged conflict in the church; (3) the various conflict management styles; and (4) suggestions for engaging in the resolution process” (2011:9).213 His resource involves both the development of course material and resources for that outcome.
Gunther begins his call to better grounding of ministers in conflict with observations on the current status of ministerial preparation. He bemoans: “At times conflict resolution is omitted, or inadequately covered, leaving the novice ministers without sufficient resources to handle the tensions that are a normal part of any congregation” (2011:ix). And the complication is, as he states:
From the dorm room of the college campus to the board room of a local church to the grass huts of a mission field, conflict is everywhere. When it is handled properly, growth occurs in individuals and groups (Acts 6). When the tensions are mishandled, division and strife destroy friendships and split churches (2011:8).
And so, he bluntly states, “Conflict itself is not the problem: mismanaged conflict is .… One important element new ministers will need to learn is how to deal with conflict” (2011:7).
His resolution to this predicament is largely214 to look to the Scriptures for answers, and so he writes: “From Genesis through Revelation the Bible is filled with incidents of conflict, both intrapersonal and interpersonal. These passages in God’s Word reveal the benefit of well managed conflict situations and the consequences that occur when the conflicts were not
213 Gunther’s (2011:9) prescribed resource goes beyond the scope of this study by delving into management styles and emphasising practical theology as a DMin would do. For example, he writes:
“This presentation, with accompanying resource materials, seeks to do the following:
• teach a biblical theology of conflict;
• inform ministers of their role in conflict management;
• assist ministers in recognizing conflict management styles and appropriate usage;
• educate ministers in the relationship between change and conflict;
• equip ministers to understand the conflict development cycle and recognize it early; and
• encourage ministers to respond appropriately to conflict on personal and corporate levels”.
While the results of his study will inform practical theology, the focus of the present study is on a BTOC and on what has God revealed about conflict.
214 This is not a criticism, but his pursuit of instruction in conflict management styles moves beyond a BTOC and the quest of this study, and that is why his methodology is not more fully embraced.
resolved” (2011:10). His reasoning for this approach is based on the honest portrayal of conflict that is found in Scripture. He states, “From Genesis to Revelation, relationships between God and people, individuals and others, and people and creation are shattered by conflict. Biblical accounts show the truth of sin and its deadly impact of separation and isolation” (2011:17).215 By way of illustration, three of his statements which point to the efficacy of God’s Word in outlook are submitted below (which will inform a BTOC).
Men and women who respond to God’s call to vocational ministry need the insights revealed in the Bible to successfully navigate the difficulties of conflict. God’s Word records incidents where conflict is handled well or totally mismanaged. Pastors can study these accounts to derive principles that will enable them to handle intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts. Scripture also contains clearly stated axioms that will assist men and women of God to train their congregations in conflict resolution”
(2011:18).
From these episodes in the Old Testament, ministers can learn several important lessons. First, unresolved conflict escalates; it seldom simply goes away. If Cain would have responded to God’s initial offer, murder would not have followed. Second, ministers need to reach out to people in an attempt to bring about reconciliation despite their repeated rejection of such offers. Third, in some situations reconciliation may not be an option. At times only forgiveness of hurts may occur” (2011:21).
Acts is a great book that does not shy away from conflict. It clearly shows both the potential destructive force unresolved conflict can have on a church; [sic] the dispute that involved the Greek-speaking widows in Jerusalem. It also shows the advancement of the kingdom that can occur when conflict is adequately handled, both parties are allowed the freedom to express their positions within [sic] fear of reprisal, and time is utilized to find the best solution that pleases God and allows the gospel to move forward (2011:142-143). [researcher’s emphases]
Whether or not one agrees with his interpretation of the event with Cain or the intent of Acts, the argument is made that he urges searching the Scriptures for answers, and this is at the centre of a BTOC. To the point, Gunther adds: “Examination of biblical pericopes will reveal theological principles the minister should integrate into his or her life and ministry” (2011:42). Such an
215 Unfortunately, consistency is one of the concepts lacking in much of the theological information on conflict at this time. For example, here, Gunther seems to be equating conflict and sin, but later, he clearly states: “In itself, conflict is not sinful. It is a natural part of life for individuals as well as congregations” (2011:69).
approach yields not only answers but insights into greater understanding of the text. For example, Gunther advocates: “Reading Philippians through the lens of conflict resolution is not to be the only way pastors approach this book, but it does allow new insights to be gleaned from the wealth of biblical truths found there” (2011:57).216
Finally, several insights from Gunther address both the lacking, current situation of biblical understanding on conflict and helpful conflict material for a BTOC. First, he mentions the shrewd statement of a fellow pastor217 who states, “The only pastors who don’t experience regular, character-building periods of conflict … are either bullies who walk all over everyone or cowards afraid to stand up for what God wants to accomplish” (2011:68).218 Second, referring to his own seminary, he makes this observation: “Conflict resolution was not listed as a topic in any of the theology courses except for material regarding sin and people’s need for reconciliation with God”
(2011:108).219 That honest testimony leads into a helpful reflection on the struggle over the intrinsic nature of conflict. He reflects:
Some pastors tend to view all conflict as negative, sinful, of the devil, or caused by spiritual immaturity. These pastors tend to either ignore the conflict in hope it will disappear, or they try to preach and pray it away. However, conflict is neutral but has the potential to bring good results to an individual, family, or congregation (2011:76).
And that astute reflection leads to a final input of his on the necessity of right responses to conflict.
If someone is going to benefit from conflict (as designed) then they need to understand that their response to conflict is the key.220 Gunther addresses this thought with the following ideas: “The question is not if conflict will occur, but when it will happen and how well will it be handled … Each believer must take responsibility for his or her actions” (2011:36). As an example, he notices that
“within the confines of gardens, both Jesus and Eve made decisions that relate to the clearly revealed will of God. Jesus got it right; Eve did not” (2011:43). In fact, he draws the correlation that “unresolved intrapersonal conflict led to the first sin in Genesis 3:1-6” (2011:69). And, drawing on the insight of a colleague, he makes this perceptive observation: “the standard of God’s example in conflict management is unreachable because His involvement in conflict is always
216 This statement is found in note 111 of his work.
217 There is some discrepancy to the source of this statement as Gunther provides more details than the actual location of the citation. Gunther’s footnote is as follows concerning its sourcing: “This pastor wishes to remain anonymous”. This statement is actually found in Rowell, E. 1997. Introduction. In:
Shelley, M., ed. Leading your church through conflict and reconciliation: 30 strategies to transform your ministry. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, p. 9. Goodall (2006:93) also cites Rowell as the source.
218 In the researcher’s experience, the alternative of manipulation or discounting conflict are often chosen routes by church leaders rather than biblical teaching on the subject and its implementation.
219 Again, in the researcher’s experience, those in ministry who view conflict as anything else but sinful are few and far between, and that, too, is his experience within his denomination.
220 See Bell (2001:13); Osterhaus et al. (2005:16); and Garrido (2016:7) for some examples.
one-sided; He is never wrong. In conflicts between people, both sides will contribute to the escalation of the situation” (2011:19). What these statements demonstrate is that responding to conflict biblically is vital to experiencing the positive impact of conflict in spiritual growth.
Although his material makes no claim to a BTOC and is somewhat inconsistent, Gunther has provided invaluable awareness of the current deficient status of conflict understanding in a denomination of Christianity. He has emphasised and illustrated the necessity for looking to the Scriptures for answers to resolving conflict. And he has explained the necessity for responding correctly to conflict which is a framework that can be explored further.221
2.3.2.2.2 McSwain and Treadwell (1981)
The contribution of McSwain and Treadwell involves the advancement of a conflict ministry for churches to incorporate; it is largely developed on the notion of avoidance – “engaging potential conflict before it is fully developed” (1981:41) which they describe as a proactive action. Their purpose for the creation of this model is described as follows:
Conflict ministry is a process for keeping alive the hope of fulfilled promises, for this ministry requires becoming involved with people at the point of their pain, sinfulness, and meanness. It requires human interaction at the deepest level, where people
“bump” into each other and find out whether they can communicate with one another and work with one another. In conflict we must learn to live with each other as though we were members of the same family. This is called intimacy. And intimacy is not easy (McSwain & Treadwell, 1981:15).
Owing to the reality of this interaction, they advocate for an investigation of what the Scriptures teach about conflict.222 Their summation of that teaching is largely based on the record of God’s creation and Christ’s work of reconciliation.223 However, again, consistency is the challenge as
221 This information is used again in developing a BTOC in Chapter 5.
222 They wisely observe: “Meaningful ministry in settings of human fragmentation and alienation must begin with theological understandings of conflict” (1981:19).
223 Sadly, their concept of reconciliation is built on this assumption of conflict being sinful. This thinking is seen in the following discussion: “Only by encountering conflict, bringing it into the light of truth, and accepting it into the totality of his being was God able to bring the wholeness of his salvation to the created order. The meaning of salvation is found in the event of Jesus the Christ. In his living, teaching, dying upon the cross, and victorious resurrection from death the meaning of reconciliation became known. The resolution of conflict is the way of reconciliation. Only as Jesus assumed within himself the conflicts of humanity could the conflicts of humanity become settled. Thus, the way of reconciliation is the way of accepting the supreme symbol of human conflict – the cross” (McSwain & Treadwell, 1981:22- 23). This notion creates tension for this researcher as agreement is found in the following reference, but knowing the background to the statement, disagreement occurs with its meaning. They write: “If Jesus’
supreme act of reconciliation was the obedience of death through encounter with conflict, our ministry of reconciliation must be a living encounter with conflict in all of its forms” (1981:23). Thus, they would
these authors view conflict as sinful,224 “not God’s plan for humanity” (1981:19), and that “the doctrine of creation affirms the vision of a conflict-free existence” (1981:20). And yet, as referred to above, McSwain and Treadwell view conflict as the “deepest level” of human interaction and the place where intimacy lies. If conflict is not God’s plan, then why is that conflict experience linked with intimacy?225 Theological assumptions must submit to God’s revelation.226
With this in mind, their model of ministry is built on the concept: “Conflict is a process” (1981:26).
That process is visually seen in Figure 2-2 (with summary explanations included) (1981:27). Their conflict ministry model is designed to move this process in a “healthy” direction.
summarize all the forms of conflict as sinful. Leas, however, has a much more positive outlook; he writes:
“The point is that in human terms reconciliation is not something we can make, something we can do, something we can create, like a milkshake, if we only have the right ingredients. We can do all in our power to create an environment in which the possibilities of reconciliation are increased, but human beings don’t know how to ‘force’ or mandate it” (Leas, 1985:loc. 101). And, he adds that “our ‘work’ in conflict management cannot be the creating of reconciliation. That is God’s work. Our aim, rather, is to help one another to be faithful, to seek to create environments in which the possibilities of reconciliation are increased” (1985:loc. 111). Finally, Leas observes: “Surely reconciliation will be our ultimate goal, or our meta-goal; but it cannot be our operational goal. An operational goal too far removed from probability is not a meaningful guide or target. If our hopes are fixed on unattainable goals, our behavior, rather than being purposeful, is more likely to be random and futile” (1985:loc. 137).
224 The statement is: “The source of conflict in the world is this human sin” (1981:21).
225 Intimacy with God is a fruit of being made in the image of God, as seen throughout Scripture (Gen 1:26;
Rev 21:7). Certainly, sin’s entrance into the world complicates the story (as conflict would in a narrative), but equating sin with conflict, assumes that conflict only entered when sin occurred, but conflict occurred prior to sin. Otherwise, how could there be a wrong response to conflict if conflict itself is the sin?
226 Another example of their “assumptive” foundation is seen in the following statement: “Is conflict necessary, then? Yes, because sin has made its impression upon all persons. Must it be so prevalent in the church? Yes, for the church is a community of sinners being saved by grace” (McSwain &
Treadwell, 1981:24). Why does this idea necessitate conflict? If anything, it would explain the cause of wrong responses to conflict as seen in Adam and Eve, as well as in Cain – all of this is prefigured in the wrong response of Lucifer.
Figure 2-2: McSwain and Treadwell’s process of conflict
Their definition of this process is as follows: “Conflict ministry is the multiple actions of a person seeking to apply the Christian principles of forgiveness, love, and reconciliation to conflict in such a way that Christian growth results for the persons involved” (1981:28).227 The process consists of five steps that correspond with the conflict process (see Figure 2-3) (1981:30-31). One of the distinctions of this conflict ministry is its proactive process – looking228 for potential conflict and responding to it before it develops into conflict.229
227 And, referencing their conflict ministry, “the ultimate objective is reconciliation in Jesus Christ for all of the parties to the conflict” (1981:28). So, it seems that conflict has a salvific role for them.
228 It is a kind of nebulous endeavour described as follows: “One who has lived through a fight can decipher the conditions of approaching difficulty” (1981:28).
229 Their perspective is stated so: “You cannot do much of the work of conflict ministry after conflict has occurred. You do not give history and provide training when people are experiencing the stress of differences” (1981:32). However, if, as they believe, conflict is sinful, and Christ came to solve that sin problem, then His ministry transpired after the dawn of conflict. That is contradictory, and this is another example of the struggle with consistency that is found in so much of the available material.
The setting of the conflict, which is impacted by 3 facets (triangle):
1. previous experience 2. condition of relationship
3. established rules of engagement
When the conflict is known to the public
An individual’s response to
the event This is the end of the conflict if
it is handled properly. If not, further conflict may follow, and
the cycle is repeated. This repetition is referenced as the
feedback principle.
An individual’s understanding of conflict
Conclusions Engagement Decision-making
Spotting Conflict Potential Avoidance230 Diffusion Problem-solving 1. State purpose
Conflict Awareness
Assumptions Context 1. Gather info 1. Awareness of
facts 1. Collect data 2. Outline rules 1. Past experience 1. Prior events 2. Allow time 2. History 2. List options 3. Observe emotions 2. Folklore 2. Personal
interaction 3. Assess persons 3. Refer to best
forum 3. Prioritise options 4. Engage emotion 3. Authority figures 3. Structures 4. Test emotional
level 4. Enlarge group 4. Depersonalise
options a. past experience
4. Feelings 4. Stress 5. Delay 5. Develop consensus b. humor
c. didactics d. love e. God’s will 5. Reject games 6. Decide 7. Celebrate The “Event” in Process
Figure 2-3: McSwain and Treadwell’s conflict ministry process
A few observations are made at this point about the conflict ministry of McSwain and Treadwell.
First, they make no claim to putting forth a BTOC, but this is, in essence, what they are doing.231 The problem is that their concept does not spring from Scripture as a BTOC would do, but it is manufactured from the combination of a few sources.232 Conflict is relegated to an opportunity to focus on what is most important to them – being an ambassador of reconciliation. Second, there are many more types of conflict than they have addressed, yet they view conflict as only possible
“in the context of personal interactions” (1981:35). And, the Body of Christ is where these types of interactions occur, so their model is really just for the Church, which leads to the third comment:
230 Their notion of avoidance has a distinct perspective to it as is indicated by the following statements:
“Many avoidance strategies do not work. Some of these unsuccessful strategies are the denial of the existence of conflict, attempts to suppress conflict, and withdrawal from conflict into silence or nonparticipation” (1981:38). And “the purpose of avoidance is not to run from conflict. Rather, it is to anticipate the most appropriate way to resolve conflict at a time when the issues can be resolved with maximum benefit for all parties involved” (1981:40). So, their idea of avoidance is similar to Sande’s PAUSE idea (2004:227).
231 For example, they write: “God’s intention for his followers is that they become equipped to serve him as conflict ministers” (1981:24).
232 Those sources are described as follows: “We have drawn from these human relation sources and combined them with insights from Scripture and the experiences of other Christian leaders to offer a resource specifically for churches” (1981:7). This is problematic to the development of a BTOC.
Step One Step Three Step Four
Step Five Step Two