How to Resolve Conflict

Matthew 18

David W. Garrett

To my family and friends

who introduced me to conflict

at an early age . . .

COPYRIGHT 2005, 2010. Published formerly under the title, “Been Wronged Lately” Updated 2010. All rights reserved. David W. Garrett

All Bible references are New International Version, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society; Used by permission of Zondervan. Other scripture taken from The Message by Eugene Peterson, Navpress, Copyright ©1994-2001 Used by permission of Navpress Publishing Group

David Garrett

ICORVI Ministries

www.icorvi.org

Table of Contents

Introduction

Quick Overview of the Process

Constructive Confrontation

Peer Accountability

Community Conciliation

The Ten Steps

Step One - "Go One on One"

Step Two - "Take Two Along"

Step Three - "Tell Three at Your Church"

Step Four - "Verify Salvation"

Step Five - "Deliver an Invitation"

Step Six - "Assemble the Conciliators"

Step Seven - "Make a Plan"

Step Eight - "Exchange Information"

Step Nine - "Meet to Conciliate"

Step Ten - "Honor your Pledge"

Conclusion

Appendices

Introduction

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."

-Mahatma Gandhi

"Forget injuries, never forget kindness."

-Confucius

"Hatred does not cease in this world by hating, but by not hating; this is an eternal truth."

-Buddha

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

-Albert Einstein

"When it is a close relative who has committed something bad, you will both blame him and defend him."

-African Proverb

"...that wouldn't be so bad, if I have to cure the world's problems by being everybody's scapegoat."

-Don Quixote

“When an elephant is in trouble, even a frog will kick him”

-Hindu Proverb

The English writer, Charles Dickens, started his masterpiece, A Tale of Two Cities, with these words, "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." Strangely enough, so it was in early church history. In Acts 2 of the New Testament we encounter the very first church. It was experiencing tremendous, almost exponential growth. "Believers" were being added daily in great numbers. These new Christians, as they were called, were devoting themselves to meeting together frequently for study and worship. In addition, they were contributing generously to the welfare of their community. It was said that they "broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people." Signs and wonders which testified to a risen Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, were being demonstrated by the Apostles, their leaders.

However, by Acts 6 only four chapters later conflict had entered the scene. Jealousy, one of the prime instigators of conflict, was at work. The Greek widows, new to the group, were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food by the churches predominantly Jewish administrators. An unfortunate situation was developing where Greek believers were lining up against Jewish believers and Jewish believers were lining up against Greek believers. The very existence of the early church was being threatened by conflict even before it got well underway.

In First Corinthians 6 we discover yet another church. By contrast, this church had been in existence for awhile. Its membership by now was substantial and diverse. The Apostle Paul and other church leaders from Jerusalem had visited the Corinthian church many times. Correspondence including two letters to the Corinthians now preserved in the Christian Bible had been exchanged. Unfortunately, in this more mature church the weeds of discontent were flourishing. In fact, conflict had escalated so much that civil lawsuits between members were becoming a significant disruption to church life. Paul became outraged. With holy indignation he chastised them.

I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! -1 Corinthians 6:4

If you attend a Christian church perhaps you are noticing similar fractures in unity. Maybe your church is a new one. It might be like the church in Acts 2. Your conflict might be over food distribution, too. More likely, however, it's over control of your churches agenda, its leadership personnel, or its style of worship. Or, possibly your young church is suffering because of an inheritance matter within your congregation, an ugly divorce, or a business transition issue in a family. Maybe conflict in your church is not very obvious or maybe it's too soon in your churches history for it to exist. You don't see conflict but you are trying to look ahead and want to be prepared.

Or, perhaps you attend a church that has been around for awhile. It’s more like the church in First Corinthians 6. A toxic stew of personalities and contested issues has come to a head and has been boiling for a long time. In fact, it might even be out of control. Factions have developed and one faction is threatening to leave the body if its demands aren’t met. Lawyers may even have become involved. Alternatively, your conflict could be the result of commercial differences between those in your congregation. Examples might include a contractual matter, a fraudulent business deal, or even a fight over real estate. Even the best churches are vulnerable sooner or later. After all, isn't conflict a predictable manifestation of forgiven but still sinful natures living in community together?

Obviously, conflict is nothing new. That's equally true for believers in the first century and in our own. Even the famous colonial preacher, Jonathon Edwards, felt compelled to say in 1750 to his congregation in Northhampton, Massachusetts:

"A contentious people will be a miserable people. The contentions which have been among you, since I first became your pastor, have been one of the greatest burdens I have laboured under in the course of my ministry-not only the contentions you have with me, but those you have had with one another, about your lands, and other

concerns . . ."

How awful it would be if we were just individual blobs of consciousness floating in space and traveling through time. It would be empty, dark, and without purpose or hope; no one to talk to or to share our existence. But God has not made us that way. We don't have to be lonely. We were made for relationships. In other words, we as individuals were designed by our creator to live in community. Doesn't God himself exist as three persons in one? (Genesis 1:26) Remember why God made Eve for Adam? (Genesis 2:18) God Himself even connected daily with Adam and Eve in the garden. (Genesis 3) Notice that the first five commandments in Exodus address man's relationship with God and the last five address man's relationships with each other. God even directed Moses to organize the children of Israel into small groups and communities to facilitate relationships in Exodus 18.

If that doesn't convince you then ask who established the institution of the church? (Matthew 16:18) Christ himself. The church is God's chosen vessel for bringing His message to the world. The church is both the incubation place of new believers and the home and hearth of more mature ones. (1 Timothy 3:4) Most incredibly, the church is to be the bride of Christ at the wedding feast of the Lamb. (Revelation 19:7) We were made for a relationship with Christ. He died to redeem us from our sins. All we do is accept His gift. He reconciled us with God and now it is incumbent upon us to reconcile with each other. Christ forgives us and now we must forgive each other. Jesus even recruited twelve disciples to live with him in community while He was here on earth. Moreover, Jesus was distinctly upset by a disruption in His fellowship with the Father while on the cross crying, "Why have you forsaken me?" But of course, He had to be forsaken for a moment. He bore our sins and was then paying the penalty for us, the church. That's how much He loved us. Now, we must love each other.

In Acts 2 the church was birthed. The early Christians gathered to worship together. They shared life. They ate together, shared their possessions, and took care of each other. What's more, they even sacrificed their property for each other. You will recall they were willing to sell their property for money as their fellow believers had need. They prayed together. They carried each others burdens. They confessed their sins to each other. They shared the Lord's Supper together. They shared the same hope, faith, and identity.

Almost all of the New Testament is devoted to teaching us how to live in community. A Christian living alone is no better than a turtle perched on a pole. The turtle can make no progress alone because his feet do not touch the ground. We need each other. Baptism symbolizes our union with Christ and our connection and identification with each other. (1 Corinthians 12). Most importantly, we are known in an unbelieving world by the love that we share. Conflict interrupts that love and destroys our testimony. That's why Paul was so upset with the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6. In addition, our relationships are so important to God that He tells us to put our worship of Him on hold until we patch up our relationships with each other. (Matthew 5) Consequently, we as believers must make the resolution of conflict and reconciliation with each other a priority because our restored relationships serve as a testimony, because reconciliation is an act of worship, and because we see that our relationships corporately in the institution of the church was designed by God for an eternal relationship with Him.

Chapter 1

Quick Overview of Matthew 18

In Matthew 18 Jesus Christ was asked what to do when wronged. He responded with a simple set of three steps to follow. They are uncomplicated, seemingly common sense steps but on closer inspection reveal their brilliance. But of course, we should expect no less. The process he described shows how an individual can resolve conflict and reconcile with another individual. I believe the principles which Jesus sets forth can be “generalized’ and used as a “template” on all sorts of conflicts in all sorts of relational contexts. The values and motivations underlying the principles translate very well.

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” Matthew 18 (NIV)

Three Principles Form the Template

1. The Principle of Constructive Confrontation

2. The Principle of Peer Accountability

3. The Principle of Community Conciliation

Constructive Confrontation

You have heard of constructive criticism? That is, a challenge to someone’s behavior or performance which is supposed to help not hurt? Constructive Confrontation is using the direct approach with someone who has wronged you for the purpose of reconciliation. It helps not hurts. All of your efforts should be designed to restore the relationship. Obviously, this rules out “telling someone off” as they say. Instead, you go straight to the person with benevolence in your heart and attempt to “constructively” work it out.

Peer Accountability

If constructive confrontation doesn’t work then the next step is raise the stakes. In other words, invite others to come along to witness your efforts at reconciliation. Note especially that accountability is at the “peer” level. That is, you are not appealing to a higher authority such as your boss or pastor to make the errant person comply with your attempts. This refinement is key and part of the divine insight of Christ into the resolution process. Reconciliation between two people in conflict starts in the heart of each participant. If imposed externally by an authority figure where is the character development? Where is the demonstration of faith? If we say we really “believe” this stuff and have eternal perspective a little dispute shouldn’t be difficult to resolve. It just needs an “accountability” nudge by our “equals.”

Community Conciliation

If Constructive Confrontation and Peer Accountability don’t work the next step is Community Conciliation. To begin, the wronged person (or wronged group for that matter) appeals to a larger body of peers to assist in the resolution of the conflict. In the case of two disputing believers who attend the same church, for example, the plea might be to a panel of three independent fellow attendees who have no prior knowledge or involvement with the disputants. This body of peers will play the role of conciliators. Such a role is distinct from that played by a judge, jury, mediator, or arbitrator. Its aim is not to make a binding evaluation and impose its decision. Rather, the panel provides a forum for the formal airing of the grievance and productive discussion which hopefully leads to resolution and reconciliation.

This overview is but a brief introduction to the process. There is more detail to be explored but for now:

A Word of Caution

The process described herein is wholly faith driven guided by biblical principles, examples and procedures. It is based on the author’s religious convictions and should only be used by those who share the same views. As such, faith-based conflict resolution should not be viewed as the practice of law, mediation, counseling, or some other profession licensed or not licensed. Instead, it is a fundamental exercise of religious faith. Conciliators are not acting in a professional or licensed capacity and are not and should not offer legal, accounting, counseling, or other advice other than spiritual guidance. In addition, the process described is entirely voluntary. Participants receiving spiritual guidance should not be coerced or pressured in any way to become involved or continue in the process. Expressed or implied personal or religious threats such as shunning, excommunication, or eternal consequence are not and should not be made in an effort to secure participation. Rather, each participant’s choices are a matter of his or her own conscience. Faith alone drives the process. Nevertheless, religious conviction may drive a church’s response to participants’ choices. Furthermore, the process should respect governmental laws of confidentiality and privacy. In accordance with Matthew 18 interaction and increasing participation by third parties should occur in an orderly way. Every effort should be made to minimize disclosure and embarrassment tempered with spiritual accountability. Next, the process described is targeted at interpersonal conflict between “believers” of a civil nature only. For example, it is not designed for criminal cases, cases involving serious moral turpitude, insurance cases, workers compensation cases, or cases in which the laws of governmental authority are involved. The Apostle Paul’s advice in I Corinthians VI is general guidance. There may be biblically legitimate exceptions to his prohibition on lawsuits. Please consult those in spiritual authority over you. Also, implementation as narrowly understood herein is not “authoritarian.” Instead, participants subject themselves voluntarily to peer review by others who share similar religious convictions. Therefore, the process is not designed to be conducted by vocational church leaders, elders, or church staff. Lay people, preferably trained, form the core resource. Church leaders play a very different role in the process. Finally, conciliators, participants and leaders should feel free at any time to seek legal counsel. In fact, they are instructed to do so. Faith-based conflict resolution is not a substitute for competent legal or other professional counsel. Rather, such consultations can aid in the process. Issues such as confidentiality concerns, statutes of limitations, and other matters mandate expert review. Existing legal representation and pending litigation should be disclosed and respected. The author and publisher of this book and ICORVI Ministries, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees and successors for themselves disclaim any responsibility for misuse or misunderstanding of the process herein. No assumption of liability is expressed or implied. You are directed to consult you own attorney and spiritual advisor for final direction.

Chapter 2

Constructive Confrontation

Does being a dedicated believer mean you must always let yourself be taken advantage of by wayward Christians? In other words, must you automatically capitulate and do "nothing" when you are confronted with conflict? Is this what having a "godly perspective" means? Of course not.

In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul's clear instruction to contentious believers was not to sue a fellow believer. Such an instruction does not preclude seeking some other remedy, however. He did not require the Corinthians and he does not require us to passively accept a wrong. And it does not matter whether the "wrong" is one for which a remedy could be sought in secular litigation or a lesser personal wrong. His instruction was the same. Paul simply told the Corinthians not to follow their instincts and retaliate. Don't resort to the culturally acceptable practice of suing for a remedy. Instead, Paul tried to give the Corinthians perspective on what their values should be in the face of a temporal difference of opinion. His message was a call not to respond in kind. Don't seek an "eye for an eye." It meant letting an unpredictable response speak louder than a predictable one. It takes an opponent off guard and makes him question the heart. It showed him faith-based horizons exceed the here-and-now. Paul’s primary limitation is that a believer must not resort to the secular lawsuit to try to enforce what the wronged believer perceived to be a "fair" resolution. Paul's comments were meant to lift a potential litigant out of earthly time and space to see the "big picture" thereby reorienting a victim's values. For Paul, submitting to a non faith based evaluation for mere earthly justice was unthinkable.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers. The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? 1 Corinthians 6 (NIV)

As an alternative, Paul makes a very practical suggestion for resolving conflict which respects and employs Christian faith and values. We as believers are not "left hanging" and told to "stew in our own juices." It is as profound a suggestion as it is a simple one. Paul instructed believers to rely on their own peers; namely, the church for resolution. Paul instructed disputing believers to ask others in their church (who were presumably unbiased) for help. His chief criterion was that they have "wisdom." Paul wanted problems resolved internally. The faith values of the community which they learned from scripture would provide direction. In such a manner, Paul laid the capstone on the process first introduced by Christ in Matthew 18.

You will recall we started with the three principles which come out of Matthew 18. Now let’s develop them further. To review:

1. The Principle of Constructive Confrontation

2. The Principle of Peer Accountability

3. The Principle of Community Conciliation

Let’s start with the first principle, Constructive Confrontation.

Step One - "Go One on One"

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." Matthew 18:15

The first opportunity is the direct approach. Jesus counsels you to go to the believer who you believe offended you one-on-one, communicate your concern, and try to reconcile. For all you know, the offense which looms so large in your own mind may not have even occurred to your brother. We all know what a blind spot is in a car, right? It is something blocking your view so you don't get a clear picture of the traffic around you. Your brother might just have a "blind spot" about having offended you. Rather than develop anxiety about it Jesus tells us to go straight to that person and bring it up.

Keep in mind, however, that conflict is often two-sided. By that I mean each party may share some degree of fault. You may feel wronged but so also may your brother. Each of you may have had an expectation unfulfilled. Be willing to acknowledge the fact you may have likewise wronged your brother in some way even if it is unknown to you. Look for the log in your own eye first. Be willing to be told you may have offended even if it seems unlikely or petty.

Many times, however, you may be completely innocent in a conflict situation. Notice that Christ directs us to be "pro-active" about conflict. We must be willing to be wronged in our hearts as Paul teaches but that does not mean being passive. There is something we can do and Christ provides specific direction. Part of the ingenuity of Christ in designing the process of reconciliation lies in the fact that it requires an initiation of contact. That is, you must affirmatively go to your brother and communicate. Think about how many wrongs are left unsaid let alone "unrighted" which in turn leads to a needless lifelong fracture in a relationship!

Moreover, we are directed to act individually at this point. Recruiting our "friends" to assist us at this juncture is out of the question. Christ says to go one on one. Resolving the matter is not a function of how many people you can persuade to be on your side. Resist the temptation to assemble a "posse." We might find comfort in justifying our conduct to our friends but at this point it will not help resolve the situation and amounts only to gossip. Examine your own heart to make sure there is "no log in your eye" and then go to your brother with the sincere desire to reconcile.

What does it mean to reconcile? Basically, reconciliation means restoring the relationship or putting back together what was lost in the relationship because of the wrong. So often persons who are trying to make peace are kept so busy trying to keep disputants from quarreling that they forget the goal is to put these individuals back together. That's why our emphasis needs to be on the importance of the "relationship" rather than the "thing" over which the battle is being fought.

Reconciliation may or may not include making restitution. Restitution means making the offended party “whole” either with money or with proper performance. Our eagerness to provide restitution is evidence of our faith, eternal perspective, and the value we put in Christian relationships. Therefore, always bear in mind that reconciliation without restitution may be insincere.

Remember: Take personal responsibility for your relationships, examine your own heart, and approach your fellow believer in a loving and humble way. Try to resolve the conflict on your own. The goal is reconciliation.

Review Questions

1. Why do you think Christ directs us first to go one on one?

2. Does Christ teach us to be "passive" in the face of conflict? What does he want?

3. What should be our goal in going to our brother? Why?

4. Why should we resist the initial temptation to seek solace with our friends?

5. Why is repentance without restitution insincere?

Chapter 3

Peer Accountability

Step Two - "Take Two Along"

"But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’" Matthew 18:16

If unsuccessful, the next approach would be bringing a couple of fellow believers along with you to witness your efforts to reconcile. I call this chance at restoring the relationship the accountability approach. It becomes your second opportunity. This tactic would both show the wrongdoer how serious you are and provide witnesses to corroborate your efforts to reconcile and the response of the alleged wrongdoer. It carries the weight of accountability with it. Therefore, it is slightly stronger medicine than the direct approach.

Notice that the witnesses are not portrayed as advocates. Their role is simply to listen and watch. They are not "parties" to the dispute. They do not pick sides nor do they "represent" anyone like a lawyer does. The job the witnesses do is much more fundamental. Besides increasing the "feeling" of accountability they also affirm the place of the two disputants in a church community. Everyone is part of that unique relationship and shares that identity.

In addition, the witnesses do just that. They "witness." They report on all they saw and heard. In setting up this procedure Christ drew on a similar safeguarding procedure from the Old Testament.

"‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.'"

Numbers 35:30

These two witnesses may eventually be questioned by church leadership just as witnesses were questioned by Jewish leaders in ancient Israel.

Remember: Increase accountability by bringing two uninvolved fellow believers with you to try a second attempt at reconciling. These witnesses may be questioned by leaders at your church to verify the disputed issues and your attempts to resolve them.

Review Questions

1. What advantages do bringing "two witnesses" bring to the process?

2. What is the role of the witnesses? Why? What shouldn't they do? Why?

3. To whom might the witnesses provide their testimony? Why?

4. What will those who hear the testimony weigh? What are their possible responses?

Chapter 4

Community Conciliation

Step Three - "Tell Three at Your Church"

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." Matthew 18:17

If unsuccessful, the third approach would be to bring the dispute to the attention of appropriate individuals in your church or organization. In Matthew 18 Jesus says, tell it to the church. I call this opportunity the “community” approach because it brings to bear the collective spiritual weight of your local church (or Christian organization.) At the outset, you should first discretely involve your church leadership. Ask them to help you start the biblical process for dealing with your problem. It is biblical to request help. The time has now come to weigh the testimony of the two witnesses. They should be interviewed separately by church leaders and if their testimony matches then its reliability is increased. It will be credible. Then, church leaders can make the decision whether or not there is a bona fide dispute and whether or not the church should accept it for a Conflict Resolution Team to be assembled. If it’s a “go,” church leaders can then prepare to assign members to the team. Lay people form the core resource relied upon to reach a resolution using this procedure. I will say more about the team later. In the meantime, I love how the author of “The Message” renders Paul’s language.

And how dare you take each other to court! When you think you have been wronged, does it make any sense to go before a court that knows nothing of God’s ways instead of a family of Christians? The day is coming when the world is going to stand before a jury made up of Christians. If someday you are going to rule on the world’s fate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to practice on some of these smaller cases? Why, we’re even going to judge angels! So why not these everyday affairs? As these disagreements and wrongs surface, why would you ever entrust them to the judgment of people you don’t trust in any other way? I say this as bluntly as I can to wake you up to the stupidity of what you’re doing. Is it possible that there isn’t one levelheaded person among you who can make fair decisions when disagreements and disputes come up? I don’t believe it. And here you are taking each other to court before people who don’t even believe in God! How can they render justice if they don’t believe in the God of justice? These court cases are an ugly blot on your community. Wouldn’t it be far better to just take it, to let yourselves be wronged and forget it? All you’re doing is providing fuel for more wrong, more injustice, bringing more hurt to the people of your own spiritual family. 1 Corinthians 6 (Msg)

Remember: If your attempts fail ask your church leaders to help you. They will interview your two witnesses to confirm the conflict. Ask them to get ready to appoint a recommended panel of three neutral individuals to meet with you and the brother with whom you are in conflict. These unbiased trained lay believers are called conciliators because their goal is to help disputants "reconcile."

Review Questions

1. To whom do Jesus direct disputants if their first two efforts fail? Why does he not specifically direct disputants to tell it to the pastor or elders?

2. To whom does Paul direct disputants? Why does he not ask disputants to take it before the pastor or elders or wait for him to arrive?

3. Do you think Jesus mean he wants us "tattle" about the conflict to the whole church when he says, "tell it to the church."? Or, is he really saying He wants us to reach out to our fellow believers for help in reconciling just like he intended in the first two steps of Matthew 18?

4. Who forms the "core resource" in assembling a team to resolve the conflict? What are the advantages of doing it this way?

Chapter 5

Seven More Steps

The Bible sets forth very specific guidance for the procedure for formally resolving conflict. It consists of increasing levels of accountability, consequence, and involvement by additional persons. Certain safeguards are inherent. Certain objectives are set.

Matthew 18 provides the first threes steps for resolving conflict. Thereafter, 1 Corinthians 6 provides the inspiration for filling out the intent expressed by the phrase "tell it to the church" when the conflict reaches the community level. Seven more steps detail that process. Each is corroborated by a Scriptural passage. There are ten steps in all. We have reviewed the first three steps. Now lets' review the last seven individually.

Recap

Step One – Go One on One (Constructive Confrontation)

Step Two - Take Two Along (Peer Accountability)

Step Three - Tell Three at Your Church (Community Conciliation)

Step Four – Verify Salvation

Step Five – Deliver an Invitation

Step Six – Assemble the Conciliators

Step Seven - Make a Plan

Step Eight – Exchange Information

Step Nine - Meet to Conciliate

Step Ten – Honor Your Pledge

Chapter 6

Step Four - "Verify Salvation"

“But our citizenship is in heaven." Philippians 3:20

The fourth step in the process and first step at the community level in Christian Dispute Resolution is determining whether or not the parties involved are appropriate candidates for the biblical conciliation process. The threshold question which church leaders should verify is the salvation of the individuals in conflict. The process is faith-based so faith is essential.

Generally, there are two parties: the alleged wrongdoer and the alleged wronged person. Certain additional questions need to be answered to prequalify the parties for the process, including the following:

Is each of the parties of adult age and competent to engage in Christian Dispute Resolution?

Will each of the parties by participating agree that he or she is exercising religious rights protected by law?

Are the parties willing to prepare and sign a spiritual pledge prior to engaging in this process?

Will all pending legal action be properly placed on hold?

Are the parties willing to proceed with the process even if it means forfeiting certain legal rights or benefits?

Is each of the parties aware of the right to consult with an attorney prior to proceeding?

Will each of the parties agree to risk being wronged, if necessary, and purpose not to file a lawsuit as described by Paul in I Corinthians VI?

Have the parties tried the first two steps described in Matthew 18 regarding conflict with another believer?

Has each of the parties read this book or otherwise researched the process of Christian Dispute Resolution?

Assuming you are one of the parties to a dispute or part of church leadership trying to decide whether or not to proceed further with Christian Dispute Resolution you will want to investigate and discover the answers to each of these questions. In addition, you may wish to use your common sense and particular knowledge of the dispute to answer any other questions you may feel are appropriate for your situation. If your answer to any of the above questions is “no” then it may not yet be time to proceed. You will want to keep working on the unresolved questions until you are satisfied. Imagine for a moment you yourself are embroiled in a conflict. How will you evaluate this step?

Evaluation

To start with, you recall hearing about a procedure when disputes like this one come up. You remember that it is called Christian Dispute Resolution and that it follows the outline Jesus gives in the book of Matthew and then the outline Paul gives in his letter to the Corinthians. You get out your Bible and review a passage in Matthew.

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

Matthew 18 (NIV)

Notice an assumption in the guidance Jesus gives: the existence of the special relationship of “brotherhood.” He says, “If your brother sins … .” Jesus, moreover, seems to presume this special relationship of brotherhood flows from association with a “congregation” of persons who share a common set of beliefs. In the context, this association means shared faith in Him as the Son of God. Earlier in the text He declared that God was His father. For the procedure to properly work then, the dispute must be between brothers or fellow believers in Jesus. As would later play out in history, Jesus would be crucified and thereby reconcile believers with God. Anticipating such reconciliation, Jesus was describing the corollary process of believers being reconciled with each other. Consequently, a significant part of satisfying the first step in Christian Dispute Resolution must be determining whether or not both parties are believers. You then review the guidance the Apostle Paul gives.

“And how dare you take each other to court! When you think you have been wronged, does it make any sense to go before a court that knows nothing of God's ways instead of a family of Christians?” 1 Corinthians 6 (Msg)

You see, Paul also assumes the parties to a biblical conciliation of conflict are Christians. He wants wrongs resolved within the family. Distressed about the existence of litigation among the Corinthians, he fumes, “But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!” (niv).

Other common-sense questions of prequalification must be answered. Are you both of you of adult age and competent? Easy to determine but very important. Will he agree he is exercising a religious right by doing Christian Dispute Resolution? In other words, does your brother believe following what the Bible teaches is or should be the exercise of a protected fundamental right where he lives?

Will he sign a spiritual pledge with you? This part of the prequalification process might be a challenge. Your brother may not be in the mood to sign anything right now. Maybe he will sign if he understands trying to work through to a solution with several sympathetic, but neutral, Christians from church will be better than getting the lawyers involved. Besides, the pledge is just a pledge, not a contract. It simply sets forth the religious expectations of the parties to a biblical conciliation, without legally binding them to any resolution achieved. It occurs to you that it might not be a bad idea to show your brother.

Will all pending legal action be properly placed on hold? Right now there may be no pending legal action between you two. Your brother may have only threatened it. Moreover, you should check to make sure there are any statutes of limitation or government benefits that are relevant. It couldn’t hurt to call your lawyer with these questions. To summarize your query, will a short delay for the biblical conciliation process create a problem?

Are the parties willing to proceed with the process even if it means forfeiting certain legal rights or benefits? Probably not, unless you help your brother gain an eternal perspective. Won’t he consider waiting on God for a solution?

Is each of the parties aware of the right to consult with an attorney prior to proceeding? You know you are aware of your right to consult with a lawyer. You think your brother may be equally aware, but it couldn’t hurt to remind him. Good counsel knows that litigation may not always serve the best interests of a client, even in secular disputes. Rolling the dice at trial should be avoided wherever possible. Didn’t Jesus say in Matthew, “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge” (Matt. 5:25)?

Will each of the parties agree to risk being wronged, if necessary, and purpose not to file a lawsuit as described by Paul in I Corinthians VI? This part of the prequalification process is probably the most demanding evaluation you will have to make about yourself and your brother. What does being wronged look like for you? What does it look like for him? What about trying a third option? That option is meeting with three conciliators in an effort to find a creative resolution that satisfies both parties, is God pleasing, and paves the way for reconciliation. Are you and he willing to risk being wronged by participating in such a process? Isn’t it really like “playing chicken?” One of you might wind up actually being wronged if the process breaks down or doesn’t work! Still, are willing to move out in faith and consider agreeing to risk the consequences?

Have the parties tried the first two steps described in Matthew 18 regarding conflict with another believer? You verify you have.

Lastly, have you and your brother researched the process of Christian Dispute Resolution? You could offer your brother some reading material such as this book. Maybe in the still of the night he will read it and the Holy Spirit will work in his heart.

Parallels in Procedure

You may find it interesting to note that this first step in Christian Dispute Resolution parallels the first step in secular litigation. The first step in secular litigation is establishing jurisdiction. Lawyers must first determine if the court in which they wish to file a lawsuit has jurisdiction over the person their client wishes to sue. For example, lawyers can generally sue people only in the same state or county as they live in. They cannot force defendants to come to their client’s location. In a manner of speaking, citizenship is the key. Likewise in Christian Dispute Resolution the first step is to establish jurisdiction. We must determine the citizenship of the participants. The difference is that our citizenship for jurisdictional purposes is heaven. We have heavenly citizenship because we are believers bound for that place. Unless all participants are

believers, Christian Dispute Resolution has no jurisdiction.

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. Philippians 3 (niv)

Once you have prequalified the parties to your satisfaction you are ready to move on to the next step.

Remember: Make sure your brother with whom you have a conflict shares a common faith with you. Ask if you have any doubt. Turn uncertainty into opportunity. Faith based alternative dispute resolution only works for those whose confess their belief in Jesus Christ according to the Bible. Also, check to confirm the secular authorities are not involved.

Review Questions

1. Why is it essential to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that the persons involved in the conflict are "believers" as defined in the Bible? What really drives the process of resolution and reconciliation?

2. Name several of the other factors to evaluate prior to commencing the conflict resolution process.

3. What are the serious pitfalls of failing to pre-qualify the parties for the process.

4. How does this phase of the process parallel the secular process? What makes it different.?

Chapter 6

Step Five - "Deliver an Invitation"

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." Matthew 5:23

The fifth step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to invite the person with whom you have a dispute to participate in conciliating the conflict. Preferably, one of the aggrieved parties to the conflict will make the invitation, whether verbal or written. The invitation must have certain characteristics, including the following:

Is the invitation sincere?

Is the invitation adequately descriptive of the disputed issues?

Is the invitation well counseled?

Is the invitation unequivocal and deliberate?

Is the invitation directed at an objective?

Is the invitation encapsulated in Christian love?

Is the invitation delivered in confidentiality?

Legal proceedings are generally started with the filing of a Summons and Complaint. These are legal documents prepared by an attorney for registering with a clerk at the courthouse in the appropriate jurisdiction. You will recall that jurisdiction typically follows citizenship or residency. These documents are then formally served on the person or company being sued. That starts the lawsuit.

As you might imagine, lawsuits are rarely sent to an opposing party as a birthday or Christmas present might be sent. Instead, they are generally sent in hostility. The party who filed the lawsuit is angry and offended and wants justice. The motivation driving the lawsuit is the desire for a remedy. These remedies might include the repayment of money, performance of a promise, delivery of property, or a change in legal status. Emotions usually run high in lawsuits. When people decide to sue, the emotions of hate, revenge, bitterness, selfishness, fear, and even greed often fill their hearts.

By contrast, Christian Dispute Resolution starts with a simple invitation. This invitation may be given formally or informally, in writing or in person. It is not registered in a court of law but is usually well counseled by church leadership. Jurisdiction is by citizenship in heaven. The primary distinction from a Summons is that an invitation should always be sent in Christian love, not hostility. Our motivation for seeking a remedy must be able to stand the test of eternity. Preparation of the heart is therefore essential. All of the reasons you have chosen to risk being wronged as the apostle Paul asked must come into play from the outset.

Characteristics

In addition, the invitation must have certain characteristics. It must be sincere. You will want to ask yourself if you are sending the invitation because you really want to resolve your dispute according to biblical principles or because you, for example, just want to look or feel godly. Test your heart. If you are just following the program because you are trying to placate or please onlookers, you are little different than Ananias and Sapphira.

Next, your invitation must be adequately descriptive of the disputed issues. Sometimes wrongdoers don’t know what they did wrong. Before delivering the invitation to conciliate a dispute you must think through exactly how you think you were wronged. Then, you must be prepared to describe it as precisely and succinctly as possible. It can’t be, “He wronged me and I want money.” Instead, you must be able to articulate exactly how and why you feel you were wronged.

Third, the sending of an invitation must be well counseled. The Bible says we should seek godly counsel, especially when we are perplexed about right and wrong. Often conflict presents itself in the context of seeming dilemmas and conundrums. Godly experience and biblical wisdom are invaluable^.

The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 12 (NIV)

Fourth, the invitation must be unequivocal and deliberate. An invitation does not necessary have to be sent formally in writing, delivered by an entourage of elders, or sent “return receipt requested.” However, it should be clear to the recipient that you “mean business.” Any method you choose to use should convey the serious nature of your concern. Burying your concern in banter during a casual conversation at the grocery store will not do. No doubt should be left in the recipient’s mind that you feel wronged and want resolution and reconciliation.

Fifth, the invitation must be directed at an objective. In other words, you should convey in your invitation an “action plan” in the event the invitation is accepted. “Here is what I suggest we do next,” you might say. Essentially, you are inviting them to conciliate a dispute with you with the assistance of several concerned neutral lay believers in your church. You want them to accept the invitation and begin the process. You need to make sure they know exactly what it is that they are accepting and what they should expect next if they do so.

Sixth, the invitation must be encapsulated in Christian love. Where the emotions typically associated with a secular lawsuit are fear, anxiety, anger, hostility, and animosity, the emotions which should pervade the sending of an invitation to do Christian Dispute Resolution should be love for each other, hope for a God-pleasing solution, and joy because of the knowledge that comes from faith and eternal perspective about the dispute. No effort should be spared to communicate the invitation in love. Rather than being driven apart as brothers and sisters, we should be honored that God has given us this opportunity to become closer and more intimate in Christian love through this faith-building exercise.

Seventh and lastly, the invitation must be delivered in confidentiality. Common sense dictates that, at least during the initial stages of a conflict, its existence not be shared beyond the parties, potential lay conciliators, and church leadership. Afterward, the participants can establish a mutual policy for revealing information. The purpose of exercising initial discretion is to minimize long-term damage to the participants, prevent unnecessary gossip, and maintain testimony. In the event the need for discretion is supplanted by the need for accountability then it may be necessary to bring the dispute to the attention of a larger circle of concerned individuals and finally perhaps formally before the local church body. The subject of church discipline is beyond the scope of this book. However, the idea is to create a safe, helpful, and prayerful environment tempered with the very real pressure of eternal answerability.

Remember: Go to your brother and invite him to join you in the biblical conciliation process at your church. Make sure you are doing so with a heart of love and sincerity. We must become right with each other so we can worship God properly.

Review Questions

1. How do our values as believers affect the way we perform this step? How do secular and faith based motivations differ?

2. What factors go in to making an invitation? Which seems most important to you?

3. Why is confidentiality important? Can you think of any legal rights you might violate if you mishandle information?

4. How might you test the sincerity of someone who wants to send an invitation? Why is insincerity a great danger?

Chapter 7

Step Six - "Assemble the Conciliators"

"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?" 1 Corinthians 6:1

The sixth step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to assemble a panel of conciliators to assist in resolving the dispute. Conciliators are drawn from a pool of qualified believers to make three-person panels. A person designated by the complaining disputant’s home church or organization generally recruits the panel. It can also be assembled from believers from several churches or organizations for interchurch or cross-organizational conflict. Preferably, conciliators should have certain characteristics. Among these are the following:

Have they experienced salvation?

Are they competent?

Are they laypersons?

Do they have wisdom?

Do they have spiritual maturity?

Do they have proper motivation?

Do they have a background similar to the disputants?

In legal proceedings a judge is generally assigned to a case after the filing of a Summons and Complaint, as mentioned in the previous chapter. In some cases a jury will also be selected and assigned. This assignment of finders of fact is known as the court of decision. It will decide or judge the case. While such a court of decision may not issue perfect justice every time, it is the best that a broken world can do.

The assignment of a judge is generally at random. A jury is selected from an arbitrary pool of eligible peers. Aside from civic duty, the assigned decision-making participants have very little perspective in common with believing disputants. The secular court of decision might be motivated by a worldly sense of right and wrong, but its sense of so-called justice is not eternal. Eternal justice takes into account God’s perspective. It is godly. As Paul asks us in I Corinthians VI, If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

While a secular court of decision might be sufficient for a dispute between unbelievers (or even between unbelievers and believers) it will not, as a general rule, be sufficient for disputes between believers. As discussed later in this book deciding “justice” between believers takes something more. Consequently, qualified believers must be assembled as conciliators to act as the court of decision, so to speak.

Let’s look at the requirements for conciliators in detail.

First, conciliators must be believers. They must have experienced biblical salvation. As Paul says in Romans 1:16, I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (niv). Paul contemplates resolving disputes among ourselves in I Corinthians VI using fellow members of the ecclesia or church. The church is constituted from believers in the gospel. He suggests we appoint as judges even men of little account in the church, if necessary, rather than resort to the secular court system.

Second, conciliators must be competent. Competence generally means believers who are of adult age and otherwise legally capable. That is, they manage their own affairs. Their financial and legal concerns are not governed by others as they might be in a legal guardianship or conservatorship. How could disputing parties be expected to rely on persons unable to conduct their own affairs, let alone assist in conciliating the disputed concerns?

Third, conciliators should ideally be laypersons; that is, not members of the staff of the institution or on its board. Consequently, elders, deacons, trustees, board members, employees of the institution, and even pastors are not preferred. As will be shown, church and organizational professionals play a different role in the process. Moreover, there are certain conceptual advantages to relying on disputants’ peers to conduct the actual conciliations.

I have already touched on possible reasons for preferring laypersons previously, but I will review them and add a few more. To begin with, it’s noteworthy that Paul’s suggestion in 1 Corinthians 6 references persons “of little account” in the church. Such a comment hints it might not be a bad idea to ask “plumbers to help disputing plumbers work out plumbing issues.” Common sense indicates lay people, in fact, may be the best qualified to evaluate disputed issues between lay believers. Peers should judge peers.

Note also Paul did not tell the Corinthians, “wait for me personally to arrive” to assist. He also did not specifically require the elders or deacons to step in. What’s more, he did not insist the educated or powerful handle the problem. He did not even require the local pastor be asked for help. Authority figures were not mandated by Paul. He only asked, is there anyone wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? What Paul seemingly approved of was essentially a grass-roots approach. Eligible conciliators could be simply well-respected, spiritually mature, neutral, and perceptive lay individuals highly motivated to assist disputants to work through their problems. They would not necessarily be persons of “position.”

In addition, using disinterested lay people would diffuse situations of inherent organizational “politics.” Conciliators would be drawn from a pool of trained lay believers to form three-person panels. This use would especially benefit smaller churches where pastoral staff appearing to side with one faction or another in a dispute could cause problems. Moreover, leaders of organizations with perceived or real vested interests in certain donors would not jeopardize their neutrality by participating in resolving conflicts where these donors are involved.

Also, using disinterested lay people would minimize institutional liability exposure. The public would see the biblical conciliation process for what it is; the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual religious right. Non-professional volunteer laypersons exercise the precepts of their faith and work with other similarly situated persons in conflict. Contrariwise, when the evaluations of otherwise litigable disputes are conducted by professional staff or institutional leadership, the institutions themselves risk being perceived as exercising “quasi-judicial” authority. Hence, these institutions risk collateral attack by disgruntled participants.

What’s more, failing to use disinterested lay people would exclude them from a biblically legitimate opportunity for Christian growth and blessing. They would miss this organic exercise of Christian community. The dispute resolution process is a faith- and fellowship-building prospect not to be missed.

Finally, and probably most important, using disinterested lay people frees up pastoral and organizational staff to fulfill another function in the process. That function is post-conciliation follow-up. Had these professionals participated in the actual conciliation sessions they would have disqualified or at least hampered their effectiveness in this role. The credibility which comes from neutrality would have been compromised. Follow-up includes counseling, encouragement, accountability, and possibly church discipline. It also includes the prospect of building deeper long-term pastoral relationships with each disputant. In 1 Corinthians 5 the Apostle Paul references this eventuality.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

Fourth, conciliators must have wisdom. Paul asks, “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” Wisdom is the minimum requirement. To say wisdom is the minimum requirement, however, is far removed from saying it is the easiest requirement. Wisdom is the quality Solomon possessed which made him so adept at resolving the disputes that were brought before him as king. He was renowned for his judgment. Accumulating godly wisdom is life-long quest. You will recall it was Solomon who discerned the true underlying motivations of the two disputing women with newborns when he decreed the baby be cut in two. Solomon’s wisdom also included the advice,

My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:1-6

Fifth, conciliators must have a sufficient level of spiritual maturity for the disputes they will conciliate. Dispute resolution in this fashion is spiritual warfare as previously discussed. It is not for those who have not developed discernment of the human heart, dependence on prayer, patience, good judgment, and a perception for the wiles of the devil. Such maturity usually takes many devoted years of experience in the Christian faith. Also, just as with others in lay leadership, conciliators must be above reproach and of good reputation. Moreover, they must have a demonstrable history of spiritual service, which is the hallmark of spiritually mature believers.

Please keep in mind that each church and Christian organization will itself mature as it learns to handle larger and more difficult conflict situations. In The Message Paul says, The day is coming when the world is going to stand before a jury made up of Christians. If someday you are going to rule on the world’s fate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to practice on some of these smaller cases? (1 Cor. VI). Therefore, it might not be a bad idea to start out with simpler, less serious disputes and practice until each institution has more fully developed its own process and pool of conciliators. It would be irresponsible and poor stewardship, for example, to assign an expensive conflict between two aggressive business men to an inexperienced but well-intended panel of novices in Christian Dispute Resolution.

Sixth, conciliators must have the proper motivation. Conciliators are not to be compensated financially in any way even if they are professionals such as attorneys, counselors, or psychologists. Their service is voluntary. In addition, they must be personally and financially disinterested in the result. By that I mean that each conciliator must not have an interest of any kind in the dispute other than to see God’s will done. Ideally, conciliators will not have any advance knowledge of the particulars of the dispute and, in even better, cases not even be acquainted with the participants. This ignorance will assure neutrality and objectivity. It will also avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Finally, conciliators should, if at all possible, share a similar background with the disputants with whom they will deal in their panels. Backgrounds could include vocation, testimony, or temperament, for example. Inappropriate or unlawful discrimination in assessing backgrounds such as national origin or race must be rigorously avoided, however. The idea is to put people together who share similar experience and expertise so they can relate well.

Remember: If your brother accepts your invitation ask the leaders of your church to go ahead and appoint a panel of three trained lay believers to help you. If you and your brother attend two different churches form a joint conciliation panel made up from teams from both congregations. Their spiritual gifts and experience in life will provide wisdom. These conciliators will in turn appoint a Chief Conciliator to initiate and schedule the meetings with you and your brother. Using your peers to assist you in resolving your conflict eliminates "church politics." The "body of Christ" heals itself in a spiritual exercise of faith.

Review Questions

1. Why is important to the process that conciliators have experienced salvation?

2. Why might training be helpful? Why do you think Paul made "wisdom" the primary quality conciliators should have?

3. Argue why using laypersons as conciliators rather than church professionals is more desirable. Argue the reverse. Who won? Why?

4. Why is spiritual maturity particularly useful in conciliation? Might spiritual "gifts" also come into play? How?

5 Why might it be a good idea to "work up" to the more expensive conflicts when a Conflict Resolution Team is just starting?

Chapter 8

Step Seven - "Make a Plan"

“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison." Matthew 5:25

The seventh step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to establish the ground rules for conducting the conciliation. Participants in the conciliations will want to know what to expect from the conciliators and from each other. Agreeing early in the process on the terms or ground rules to be followed will ensure orderly progress and minimize misunderstandings.

Among the kinds of terms to establish are these:

When and where will the conciliation sessions be conducted?

Who may attend?

What format will be followed?

What kinds of information will be exchanged?

What information will be kept confidential?

What spiritual pledge will be made?

Early on in a typical civil lawsuit the judge will invite the lawyers into chambers to discuss scheduling, discovery, and procedural rules to be honored. This conference permits the parties to express their concerns and fix expectations. Although there may be intense posturing to establish strategic advantages at that time, it is very practical and fair in nature. Timing is set. The judge establishes deadlines and perhaps penalties or sanctions for non-compliance. The kind of discovery to be exchanged is also discussed. Discovery is the lawyer’s word for documents, written admissions, photographs, and other evidence. How the trial will be conducted is also discussed. Will it take a half-day or longer? How many witnesses are expected? What information will be kept confidential? At the end of the conference the judge will generally have each lawyer sign a summary of the discussion called a pre-trial statement or scheduling order.

Likewise, in Christian Dispute Resolution it makes sense to agree on the terms to be honored while in the process. The first practical issue to be established is when and where the conciliation sessions will be conducted. Occasionally, a dispute can be resolved at the initial session when all parties and conciliators are meeting for the first time. More typically, however, at least two sessions are required; a preliminary session and a final session. The preliminary session is primarily used for acquainting the participants, clarifying the disputed issues, and discussing the ground rules. The final session is for conducting the actual conciliation. Sometimes it will take more than one session of actual conciliation. The disputants need to fix when these sessions will occur and where.

Second, the disputants need to agree on who may attend the sessions. Will the sessions be limited to the disputants and conciliators? How about family and friends? Will witnesses sit through the sessions and listen or be called in only when needed? Should church or organizational staff be allowed? These questions need to be answered in advance to avoid surprise and secondary conflict.

Third, what format will be followed? The parties need to agree in advance on how the information about their positions on the dispute will be communicated to the conciliators and to each other. For example, will an informal discussion format be followed? Sometimes just “winging it” in free-flowing conversation can sufficiently air concerns to reach a resolution. Or, perhaps the parties would prefer to read from prepared written statements. Maybe alternating formal presentations with rebuttals would be the best choice for some parties, especially in higher-dollar disputes. Another option for more hesitant disputants would be question-and-answer. The conciliators would simply ask questions of each party until they felt sufficiently informed to proceed to discussing possible resolution.

The format to follow is limited only by the creativity and preferences of the participants. A final concern will be deciding whether the disputants want a non-binding recommendation from the conciliators. Remember, the role of the conciliators is not to make a binding ruling. Instead, their purpose is much broader. Their objective should be to give the parties biblical perspective, encourage resolution, and work toward reconciliation. Toward this end a non-binding recommendation both disputants can consider might be helpful. It is not essential, however, and should never be imposed or even suggested unless the parties request it. The parties are potential casualties in spiritual battle and must as part of their growth in the faith take the lead in this skirmish. It is intensely personal and has, if you think about it, eternal ramifications.

Fourth, the parties should settle on what kinds of information will be exchanged. They do not have to actually disclose the items at this point. That will come later. For now, a general recital of what each disputant expects to present will be sufficient. For instance, a disputant might simply indicate he or she wants to show a written contract, photos, a repair estimate, or a copy of a letter. Also, if a disputant wants “witnesses” to explain what they saw then it should be so stated. Keep in mind witnesses with firsthand knowledge are strongly favored. Secondhand information, also known as hearsay, is not as reliable. In some situations a disputant might want someone trained or experienced as an expert in a trade or other discipline to provide an opinion. Revealing this intention is only fair. Finally, if there are any Bible passages one or both parties feel would be beneficial at this point they should disclose them.

Fifth, the parties need to agree on what information will be kept confidential. The disputants may not want others to know certain facts. Or, innocents may be unnecessarily harmed. “Telling it to the church,” as instructed in Matthew 18 does not necessarily mean broadcasting the details of the dispute to every gossip grist mill in the institution. Rather, “telling it” initially means reaching out to appropriate individuals in a home church or organization for help. Accountability with a larger circle of persons may come later. These decisions are very much the province of the disputants, and the conciliators should respect the disclosures they will hear. Please note, however, there are a handful of very special exceptions to the confidentiality rule. You will discover these when you read paragraph 3 in the sample Spiritual Pledge.

Sixth, and last, the parties should strongly consider actually signing a spiritual pledge. Any written pledge should be seen as just that. It is not to be considered a legally enforceable contract. Such a perception misses the point. A Christian conciliation is a faith-based alternative to litigation. It is not a deal you make. Furthermore, it is not the practice of law. Rather, it is a unique opportunity to enlarge our perspective and vision of our spiritual journey here on earth. As such, the pledge merely reinforces our sense of spiritual accountability to each other and our God. Having said that, the disputants should keep in mind that their representations to each other in the pledge should be truthful. For example, if a party represents he or she has suspended litigation proceedings, then that representation must be true. Notwithstanding the nonbinding nature of the pledge, such a representation could be construed to have legal import if untrue. What is not legally enforceable or binding is the result of the conciliation; that is, the so-called “resolution.”

Remember: Before you meet for final conciliation you must decide where, when, and who may attend. Have a preliminary meeting first to get the issues on the table and to plan. You must also make a spiritual pledge. Keep knowledge of the details of the conflict to yourselves for now. Decide what format for presenting the conflict will be followed.

Review Questions

1. Why does having a step to establish ground rules make common sense?

2. Why is discussing who may and may not attend important?

3. Describe the different formats which could be followed? Can you think of others? What situations could you suggest might best fit each?

4. Read the Spiritual Pledge in the forms portion of this book. Why is this document essential? When might you introduce it to the parties? How will you explain it?

Chapter 9

Step Eight - "Exchange Information"

"Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body." Ephesians 4:25

The eighth step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to exchange information. Participants in the conciliations will want to examine the evidence the conciliators will see in advance of the conciliation sessions. Certain concerns will usually be raised about how the information will be exchanged and what information will eventually be shown.

Among the concerns in this part of the process are the following:

How and when will the information be provided?

How significant is the information?

Is there better or more authentic information?

In normal litigation, information or discovery is everything. The process of exchanging it usually takes up most of the time waiting for trial and often delays the hearing. The information exchanged helps each party in their efforts to prove the other wrong. Documents, photos, contracts, letters, emails, ledgers, financial records, and the like are typically requested. Often, disputants play a sort of cat-and-mouse game in the process. For example, if it is not specifically asked for, it is not provided. Consequently, the requests get pretty specific. If not satisfied, attorneys will schedule “depositions” where witnesses can be questioned in advance of trial under oath in an effort to ferret out more of the truth. Mistrust is the too frequently the prevailing state of mind.

By contrast, believers in the conciliation process should readily volunteer all they know. Half truths will not do. Building trust is the objective. As Paul says in Ephesians 4, Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. When we provide incomplete information or tell a half truth, Paul says we lie, in a very real sense, to ourselves. There is a highly significant relational point to full disclosure. Instead of building a case against fellow believers, the information exchanged helps disputants understand, at least in part, why their opponents believe they have been wronged. The hope is, as Peter exhorts, that empathy will result. Such an approach better paves the way to a resolution and reconciliation.

Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 1 Peter 3 (niv)

The first concern to be addressed in this step of the process is how and when will the information be provided? The answer is that common sense and courtesy should rule. We should literally be tripping over each other to make the information available. Gather up all of the information you believe the other party should have, make copies, and deliver it at their convenience. Then, ask if you missed anything. The objective is full disclosure; full of God-pleasing integrity. Remember, it’s not about justice! The parties may want help from their conciliators to establish guidelines, not deadlines, for providing the information. Take care to understand the rules regarding confidentiality. If in doubt, contact an attorney. Examples of confidential information might be medical records or the records of minors.

The second concern is how significant is the information? Lawyers sometimes call this relevance. Haven’t you heard attorneys say on television, “Objection. That evidence is not relevant.” The goal is not quantity of disclosure but quality. To say a piece of information is relevant or significant is to say it either tends to prove or disprove your point. Information for its own sake, even if it makes you feel good, is counterproductive. Who wants to wade through all of the photos you developed on the roll? The other party and the conciliators for that matter only want to see the ones of the roof problem you are complaining about; and that only if the picture was taken in the year of the damage. Resist the temptation to dump piles of documents or letters on the other disputant. He or she does not want to see all of the copious note-taking in your diary. What’s are relevant or significant are more likely documents that show when something was supposed to happen or how it was supposed to happen; or, documents that show it didn’t happen or happened the wrong way.

The third concern about the exchange information step is answering the question is there better or more authentic information? To show a contract which is not signed, but was only an early draft, is to show nothing. Try to obtain the contract with original or at least copied signatures. Informal print-outs from a bank teller about bank transactions years ago may at best be confusing if not unreliable. Better you should try to get actual bank statements with the bank’s letterhead. If you think the other disputant may question a piece of information or evidence, it is incumbent upon you to do your utmost to prove its authenticity. You may need to get a warm body to come to the conciliation to explain it and answer questions.

Remember: You must provide all photographs, documents, and other evidence to each other which might help clarify and resolve the conflict. We lie to ourselves when we lie to each other so truthfully tell all you know. Decide how and when to exchange this information.

Review Questions

1. How do motivations to exchange information differ in secular litigation and faith-based conciliation?

2. How does full voluntary disclosure of information honor God?

3. Is all evidence equal in "weight?" Why or why not?

4. Why would it be a good idea to agree on a schedule for exchanging information in advance?

Chapter 10

Step Nine - "Meet to Conciliate"

“No, please!” said Jacob. 'If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably." Genesis 33:10

The ninth and most interesting step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to conduct the conciliation session. A proper conciliation session is a unique opportunity for the disputants to confront each other face-to-face and attempt to resolve their differences effectively in the company of concerned fellow believers. It is also an opportunity to begin the process of reconciliation. The parties are gathered for no other purpose. Though it may feel like it, the room used for the conciliation is not a boxing ring or a bullfighting stadium. It is also not a courtroom. No judge will be present. And, while the conciliators may judge, so to speak, they will not be judgmental.

For many, the initial moment of face-to-face confrontation in a conciliation session is the moment disputants fear most in the process. All kinds of questions may run through a disputant’s mind. Will the other party be hostile? Will I lose my temper? Will I cry? What will the conciliators think of me? Will the conciliators be fair? Will they back me? Will I lose?

Happily, the moment of confrontation can also be a moment of hope and realization. It can be like the moment when Jacob met Esau in the desert after a 20-year separation. You will recall that Jacob likened his perspective at that instant with the encounter he had with God while struggling the night before at Peniel. He exclaimed to his brother, “To see your face is like seeing the face of God!” You will also recall that Peniel means face of God. Jacob and Esau learned, and disputants need to be reminded, that our everyday struggles don’t hold a candle to what God has made us to each other for eternity. Our blood-bought relationships are what it is all about. Therefore, we need to “face” each other in conciliation.

In a very real sense, our own reconciliation with Esau in the “desert” must follow our own reconciliation with God in Peniel. Just like as Jacob sent his family on ahead in faith across the river Jabbok, knowing he would have to follow them to meet Esau the next day, so also must we show our faith by taking those uncomfortable steps into the conciliation session. Consequently, wouldn’t you agree that a disputant’s own journey toward conciliation is not unlike venturing into that very same desert?

A conciliation session should have several characteristics. Among these characteristics, conciliators would do well to check whether are the following are present:

An appropriate setting?

An appropriate opening tone?

A sense of Christian community?

A non-threatening atmosphere?

A sense of order?

A sense of eternal perspective?

The first characteristic is an appropriate setting. At the prearranged time and place, the conciliators and disputants will meet. It can be at the home church or organization of one or both of the disputants or it can be somewhere else of mutual convenience. A well-lit, well-ventilated conference room with a table and comfortable chairs is ideal. The room should be private and free of distractions. The goal is to be able to focus on the issues to be resolved without undue time concerns or discomfort. Witnesses, and also family and friends who are there to support the parties, should have another place in which to wait in until their presence is requested.

The second characteristic is an appropriate opening tone. By the time the parties meet for the actual conciliation a chief conciliator should be chosen. It is his or her initial responsibility to set the tone. By tone, I mean feeling. The parties should be welcomed warmly and put at ease. Providing mild refreshments or beverages would be acceptable. At the same time, a feeling of seriousness should pervade. Everyone is gathered for a very important purpose. The chief conciliator should assign seating as people arrive, taking care to arrange the parties to best facilitate discussion. Once settled, the chief conciliator should reacquaint the participants and open in prayer.

The next characteristic of a proper conciliation session is a sense of Christian community. Here’s where the other conciliators begin to come into play. The simple gathering of lay conciliators from the disputants’ institutions, together with the disputants themselves, should give rise to a feeling of community. Each participant and each conciliator shares an identity. Although they may not know each other well, or at all, their faith is in common, their growth under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit is in common, and their local community of believers is in common or at least in cooperation. What’s more, the Bible says, Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. It is no mistake that these verses in Matthew 18 (niv) immediately follow the directions given by Christ gives to believers in conflict. Consequently, the participants at the conciliation should avail themselves of Christ’s promise to a gathering of believers by recognizing the presence of Christ in prayer.

The fourth characteristic is a non-threatening atmosphere. The conciliation cloister should both be safe and feel safe. The parties should be made to feel they can say what is on their hearts without fear of being thought of as stupid or petty. They should also not feel as though they risk unwarranted disapproval. Moreover, the policy of confidentiality should be reiterated. Once all parties are at ease, the next objective for the conciliators is to get the issues out on the table in a matter-of-fact way. Then, the hard work of understanding the issues and the possible underlying issues can begin in earnest.

It is the conciliators’ ministry to help the disputants see their concerns from a biblical perspective. It’s to be hoped that the discussion of issues will give way at times to discussions of the heart. Hopefully, too, the temporal remedies each party seeks will begin to include personal reconciliation. The conciliators should take care not to lose control of the conciliation session to emotional outbursts. Occasional exhibitions are to be expected though, and these outbursts may permit a party to “vent” harmlessly. In the unlikely event an unsafe atmosphere erupts, the conciliators should, of course, end the meeting. A non-threatening response to a simple loss of self control would be to refocus the disputants on the task at hand. Both parties should also be encouraged periodically to refocus on their stated willingness to become wronged, if necessary, for all of the reasons stated in Part Two of this book.

A fifth characteristic of a proper conciliation is a sense of order. Presumably, the parties and conciliators will have established a meeting format to follow in advance of the conciliation. This format should be reiterated and explained at the outset of the actual conciliation as a refresher. It will give all a sense of order and decorum. It is the chief conciliator’s responsibility to encourage the participants back into line should one deviate from this format or digress in conversation. Ironically, such digressions sometimes lead to revelations as Solomon noted in Proverbs 12, An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk, but a righteous man escapes trouble.

Fairness to each party is essential. The parties should get as much time as they reasonably need, but the conciliators should take care to ensure balance. As a general rule, order demands an equal time policy. An occasional rest-room or stretch break should be anticipated. At the end of the presentations the Chief conciliator should ask each disputant if there is anything else he or she would like to say. Thereafter, the conciliators should take a moment to restate their understanding of the issues for clarification. Finally, the parties and conciliators should begin to

work toward a specific and articulated resolution.

The final characteristic of a proper conciliation is a sense of eternal perspective. The conciliators should spare no effort to both “live” and convey their heartfelt biblical convictions about conflict. When a conciliator says he believes it is better to be wronged than sue it must be clear that he really buys into it. The credibility a conciliator brings to conciliation flows from his or her eternal perspective. A conciliation session misses the heart of its mission if the disputants leave without gaining a more refined sense of eternal perspective about their conflict. They should perceive God working through the ministrations of the conciliators. Please note, however, that the fruit of the conciliators’ efforts may not ripen right away. If a resolution is not reached within the time allotted the session should be ended and rescheduled. If one or both of the disputants refuse to meet again, the matter should be referred to church or organizational leadership. In any event, every effort should be expended to work toward reconciliation, even if a resolution cannot be reached.

Remember: Meet together with your brother and the appointed conciliators to discuss your conflict. Conciliators facilitate not dictate a resolution. Pick a safe, comfortable place, free of distraction. Listen carefully to each other. Seek guidance in the Bible. Pray that you may see your brother as you see God. Forgive each other as God forgave you. Be reconciled as God has reconciled with you because of Jesus Christ. Write down your agreement.

Review Questions

1. How does an experience of modern conciliation compare with the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 33?

2. What are the set-up characteristics for conciliation? Why is each important?

3. What spiritual advantages are there to making the conciliation process voluntary?

4. Why is it important that conciliators have the same perspective towards conciliation that they seek to elicit in disputants?

Chapter 11

Step Ten - "Honor your Pledge"

"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." 1 Peter 3:8

The tenth and last step in Christian Dispute Resolution is to follow-up on the resolution. Many people assume they have crossed the finish line when they have reached the resolution. This assumption is further reinforced when they learn the parties are steadily working toward reconciliation. Unfortunately, resolutions are not always fully or easily carried out. In addition, even if they are fully carried out, the reconciliation process may not always be completed. There are certain post-conciliation concerns to manage, and among them are these:

What if no resolution was reached?

When will the disputants be contacted again, and who will check on their progress?

What if the parties are not reconciling even if they have resolved their differences?

What if the resolution is not being honored?

The first concern raises the prospect of church discipline. What if no resolution was reached? A full analysis is beyond the scope of this book. The reasons for not reaching a resolution could be apparent or unknown. Possible reasons could include honest but uniformed disagreement, unwarranted or legitimate fear of conciliator bias, apprehension about change in the status quo, or a lack of the creativity necessary to problem solve. More likely, however, the setback is sin. In any event, however, the conciliators should bring their news to those in their local church or Christian organizational leadership. This could mean a person specifically designated to receive such information. It could also mean an concerned elder or staff person. At a minimum, pastoral counseling of the recalcitrant parties should begin. Furthermore, responsibilities under 1 Corinthians 5 should not be ignored.

The second concern is administrative in nature. When will the disputants be contacted again, and who will check on their progress? The conciliators should decide who among them will take this responsibility at the end of the conciliation session. A specified time interval which the participants have agreed to in advance for the resolution to be performed should be allowed to pass. If one or both of the parties is not making genuine and substantial progress towards fulfilling their pledges then perhaps an accountability follow-up session should be scheduled. The amount of the time interval, of course, will depend on the nature of the pledged resolution.

The third concern is pastoral. What if the parties are not reconciling even if they have resolved their differences? It may be time to invoke the assistance of your church or organizational professionals. Reconciliation at its most fundamental level means restoring a broken relationship to its former state. However, it should include both stated and heart felt forgiveness, even if that forgiveness must be renewed when emotional pain resurfaces. Just like God forgives us we must forgive each other. The parties should be therefore be so admonished. Note, however, that where necessary for safety’s sake the establishment of physical and emotional boundaries may be appropriate. Abundant Godly counsel should be sought in such instances.

The fourth and final concern is remedial. What if the resolution is not being honored? The parties may need to be encouraged to meet again and work out any post conciliation issues that may have arisen. A curative session should be scheduled. It is certainly possible that one or both of the parties misunderstood their responsibilities. Or, perhaps, the pledge is no longer feasible. Alternatively, however, it may be errant obstinacy. If simple encouragement proves unsuccessful then it may be necessary to approach church or organizational leadership for accountability purposes. Nevertheless, with prayer and persistence, hopefully the parties will hold to their perspective gained through the conciliation process, fulfill their pledges, and find the grace to reconcile.

Remember: Do what you have agreed in writing. Do it immediately and completely. Honor your pledge. Repay evil or insult with blessing, if necessary. Restore your relationship to its best. Live in harmony.

Review Questions

1. Why isn't conciliation over after the parties have met for conciliation?

2. Why might follow-up be more spiritually fruitful for the participants?

3. Why is it important to schedule and delegate responsibility for follow-up?

4. Why does it become necessary to inform church leadership if the process fails?

5. Can you think of situations when a "refresher" conciliation might become necessary?

Conclusion

Conflict provides a challenge. However, conflict also provides an opportunity; a silver lining to a perhaps otherwise unwelcome rain cloud. The resolution of a conflict yields at least two benefits. First, it provides an opportunity for Christian growth and blessing. When we go to the stressful and laborious effort of working through our problems we grow closer to each other. We learn about each other in more intimate ways. By sharing our problems we let down our guard a little bit. In addition, our faith has an opportunity to grow. We must really believe the "stuff" that makes up our faith to put our wealth and dignity at risk by engaging the biblical process of dispute resolution. Adversity tests us and through adversity we gain perseverance as James says in chapter one of his book in the bible. Christian maturity is the result.

Second, we enlarge our testimony of hope. Paul's worry in 1 Corinthians 6 is that our conflicts will put off watchers who are considering making our faith their own. How can we preach reconciliation with God if we can not reconcile with each other? Our message at its core is about reconciliation. A New Testament example of how resolving conflict can become a testimony of reconciliation is found in Acts 6. You will recall that the Jewish priests were watching the early Christians work through one of their first quarrels. Clearly, they were jealous of the increase in numbers of new believers and hoped they would stumble as an organization under that weight of disunity. Instead, the early church leaders tackled the problem head on and came up with an administrative solution to the problem of inequitable food distribution amongst the widows in the church. This resolution so impressed the skeptical and jealous priests that as the bible records, "many were converted to the faith." Note the believers said nothing. It was their conduct that spoke volumes. May the testimony of our conduct in conflict be a testimony some day, too!

We stand at the edge of an abyss. As our Judeo-Christian culture continues to erode and lose influence in the Western world, will we succumb to the seduction of the secular legal culture to resolve our internal disputes, or will we reach into the pages of Scripture for guidance? Grasping abstract procedural concepts from Scripture takes faith. Remember how radical other Christian initiatives have been in history? It’s just easier to get swept up in the system.

But God calls us to bigger things. He wants us to see how incredibly fundamental is dispute resolution to our existence in this life. The corollary of Christ’s great work on the cross, which reconciled us with God, is reconciliation with each other! This truth is not an arcane doctrine or concept. It goes to the core of what life is all about—relationships! That is why God created us. We must master this process. God has given us the tools with which to do it.

Appendix A

Bible Study Questions and Answers

Read Matthew 5:21-24

1. Question: What is Jesus trying to teach us by comparing “anger" with “murder?”

2. Question: What is the point of a "gift at the altar" or "sacrifice" in this passage in Jesus' day?

3. Question: What does Jesus say should come first; reconciliation with a brother or offering a "gift at the altar? What do you think comes first in contemporary Christian life; reconciliation with a fellow believer or personal worship? Why? What does this guidance say about how much Jesus values our relationships with each other?

4. Question: Is our obligation to go to a person with whom we have conflict limited simply to resolving the dispute or does it go further?

Read Matthew 18:15-17

5. Question: Why is the first effort at reconciliation with a wrongdoer supposed to be just between the disputants?

6. Question: What role do the one or two "others" play during the second effort at reconciliation?

7. Question: Why do a one-on-one attempt and an effort with one or two witnesses precede telling the conflict “to the church"?

8. Question: To whom does Jesus direct us lastly as a resort for the resolution of disputes between believers?

Read I Corinthians 6:1-7.

9. Question: How upset was Paul that the Corinthians were taking their disputes before those without God rather before than the saints? Why?

10. Question: Did Paul ask the Corinthians to wait for him to come to Corinth to resolve the disputes personally? Did Paul specifically direct the Corinthians to ask their pastors, elders, or other church leaders to resolve their disputes?

11. Question: Whom did Paul suggest might qualify to resolve the disputes? Why?

12. Question: Why does Paul reference the judging of angels?

13. Question: How is our faith built by honoring Paul’s challenge, “Why not rather be wronged?” Could agreeing to remain wronged rather than sue a fellow believer result in a blessing? How?

14. Question: You will recall that in I Corinthians VI Paul mentions wisdom as a virtue for believers to have when conciliating disputes between fellow believers. How can we gain more of this wisdom referred to by Paul?

15. Question: How does God regard a person who creates conflict?

16. Question: What might happen when confronting a person with a wrong?

Participant reads Proverbs 9:7-9

17. Question: How should I react to an odd or insulting comment while in conducting a "conciliation" or dispute resolution session?

Participant reads Proverbs 12:16

18. Question: Why is it not always wise to interrupt a person I suspect has done wrong from talking at length?

Participant reads Proverbs 12:13, 12:23, and 13:3

19. Question: What frame of mind does the writer of Proverbs identify as a breeding ground for disputes?

Participant reads Proverbs 13:10

20. Question: For what kind of people is reconciliation and making restitution for wrongs a common trait?

Participant reads Proverbs 14:9

21. Question: Why is truthful testimony important in dispute resolution?

Participant reads Proverbs 14:25

22. Question: Why is the tone of my voice important during a dispute resolution session?

Participant reads Proverbs 15:1 and 15:4

23. Question: Why is it worth listening to fellow Christians tell me I have offended them?

Participant reads Proverbs 15:31

24. Question: What did Solomon do when confronted with concerns about the credibility of two opposing parties who wanted him to make a decision between them? Why?

Participant reads I Kings 3:16-28

25. Question: Disputes affect our unity. What is one reason Paul gives why unity among Christians is so important?

Participant reads Romans 15:5-7

26. Question: What if I just don’t want to deal with conflict and unmotivated people who allow it to fester?

Participant reads Romans 15:1-4

27. Question: What attitude of the heart is often a frequent companion of conflict?

Participant reads Romans 13:8-14

28. Question: How do I encourage wronged persons to deal with their urge to get revenge?

Participant reads Romans 12:14-20

29. Question: What caused the jealousy? What resulted?

Participant reads Genesis 37:3-11

30. Question: What might be a possible solution if a conflict becomes too emotionally charged for immediate resolution? Does the subsequent narrative in Colossians suggest that the dispute between the missionary team of Paul and Silas and the team of Barnabas and John Mark persisted?

Participant reads Acts 15:36-41 and Colossians 4:10

31. Question: Is there precedence is there in the Bible for referring a complicated matter for evaluation and recommendation to other Christians? Describe it. What happened?

Participant reads Acts 15:1-11

32. Question: What other benefits might come from our use of common sense to solve administrative problems and the conflict that can come from them?

Participant reads Acts 6:1-7

33. Question: What can we learn from Abram (later "Abraham") when confronted with a dispute with another person about two earthly opportunities? What eventually happened to Lot in the land he chose?

Participant reads Genesis 13:5-18.

34. Question: How did Joseph respond to an embarrassing situation that he did not cause and would have presumably given him every right to cause conflict? Can you think of such a situation in your life?

Participant reads Matthew 1:18-25

35. Question: What guidance has Jesus given to us on going to court to determine a dispute involving money? How might this principle affect a decision to "settle" or "go to trial?"

Participant reads Matthew 5:25-26

36. Question: Does Jesus really want us to turn the other cheek? Does Jesus want us to give a person who sues us for our shirt our coat as well? What does it mean not to resist an evil person? What should we do instead? Does this scriptural guidance mean we are left without options? What other options are there? What is the principle behind these instructions that Jesus wants us to learn? How does this principle change our perspective? Would your answers be different if the person suing you is a believer? What might you do then?

Participant reads Matthew 5:38-48

37. Question: What are possible consequences of vigilante justice or “taking the law into your own hands?”

Participant reads Genesis 34:1 to Genesis 35:5

38. Question: How does Peter corroborate Paul’s lofty rhetorical question in I Corinthians VI, “Why not rather be wronged?” Could this include “suffering?” What might you receive if you so suffer?

Participant reads 1 Peter 3:8-14

39. Question: How does Paul describe our “connectedness” as Christians? How does our connectedness affect the exchanging of information in the dispute resolution process? What does Paul say about the importance of our connectedness as Christians in telling each other the truth about a matter?

Participant reads Ephesians 4:25-32

40. Question: How does the story of Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation illustrate the modern saying, “You can catch more flies with honey?” What can we learn from the story about the importance of understanding our emotions in dispute resolution?

Participants read Genesis 32:3-8; Genesis 32: 9-21 and Genesis 32:22-32

41. Question: How did the new perspective gained by Jacob while “wrestling” with God affect Jacob when he first “faced” his brother Esau at the moment of reconciliation? How should it affect us?

Participant reads Genesis 33:1-10

42. Question: What role did Jonathon play in the dispute between Saul and David? What motivation prompted the dispute?

Participant reads I Samuel 18:30-19:7

43. Question: What advice did Moses receive from his father-in-law Jethro about the role that knowledge of biblical dispute resolution principles and proper organization can play in satisfactorily settling conflicts and restoring relationships?

Participant reads Exodus 18:5-26

44. Question: How does the counsel of Esther’s uncle Mordecai illustrate the point of view disputing parties and their conciliators should have about the dispute situation they find themselves in?

Participant reads Esther 3:8-11 and Esther 4:1-15

45. Question: Are we taught anywhere in Scripture to affirmatively forgive a fellow believer who has wronged us before we ask God for forgiveness for our own wrongs? Why?

Participant reads Matthew 6:12

46. Question: Which virtue does Paul exhort us to exhibit as God’s chosen people toward each other, even in the midst of ongoing grievances against each other?

Participant reads Colossians 3:12-14

47. Question: Is it possible there may be instances of conflict in which a church may have to establish boundaries for some of its attendees with respect to which roles or relationships they may have in the church? What kind of boundaries? Why? How does one of Paul's instructions to Timothy echo Christ's in Matthew 18?

Participant reads 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and 1 Timothy 5:19-20

48. Question: How does the story of Jacob and Laban in Genesis lend credence to the modern saying, “Fences make good neighbors?” What can we learn from the story about the importance of establishing boundaries in dispute resolution? What might be a modern “heap?”

Participants read Genesis 31:3-13, Genesis 31:22-29, and Genesis 31:36-55

Suggested Answer Key

1. Answer: Jesus wants to draw our attention to what’s going on in our hearts when we are confronted with conflict.

2. Answer: Presenting a gift or sacrifice was an act of personal worship.

3. Answer: Reconciliation in both instances. Notice Jesus instructs us to resolve our "horizontal" relationships before we direct our attention to the vertical one. He treasures our relationships with each other.

4. Answer: It goes much further. Merely attempting to resolve a situation misses the point. We must also attempt to reconcile with each other. These are opportunities to solidify and even enhance the depth of our Christian relationships.

5. Answer: God seems to want us to take personal responsibility for our own relationships. In addition, as a practical matter, the one-on-one approach will minimize gossip, unproductive meddling, and unwarranted loss of reputation.

6. Answer: They create an atmosphere of accountability, affirm the concept of Christian community, and serve as corroborating witnesses in the event they must be questioned by church leadership should the second effort at reconciling prove unsuccessful.

7. Answer: These provide at least two opportunities for reconciliation before increasing the level of public exposure and consequence.

8. Answer: He directs us “to the church.” Spiritually speaking, the church is the body of Christ. A church family is a body of Christian believers organized on a local level. In this context, Christ is telling us He wants problems resolved as a church-family matter, not as a secular or governmental matter. Notice He did not direct us to any other institution or authority but His own.

9. Answer: His line of rhetorical questioning is best summed up, “How dare you!” Paul was concerned because the Corinthians lacked a godly perspective about earthly conflict.

10. Answer: Paul did not ask them to wait for him. He also did not direct the Corinthians to appoint someone from their pastoral staff, the board, or the wealthy and powerful members of the church to conciliate the dispute.

11. Answer: Paul implies that any believer “wise enough” might be eligible. In other words, he opens up the door to us to turn to our peers for help. These could be the persons sitting in the pew right next to you. Notice he did not insist that a “conciliator” be legally trained, educated, powerful, wealthy, democratically elected, permanently designated for the position, or even hold a position in the church. Rather, it would seem these individuals are best drawn from a pool of spiritually mature lay believers on a case-by-case basis as God provides. (It couldn’t hurt, however, if they had familiarity or experience in the field in which the dispute occurred. For example, other plumbers might help two disputing plumbers.)

12. Answer: Paul wants us to know the process of resolving conflict has spiritual importance. Not only must we exercise the necessary wisdom here on earth, he suggests we may also have to exercise it in heaven. In addition, he wanted the Corinthians to see that our relationships with each other are very important to God. Why else would he direct us to personally participate in judging conflict? Conflict is a barrier to relationships … perhaps even for angels. Resolving conflict therefore is an important spiritual skill for believers to develop.

13. Answer: We must really believe this "stuff," so to speak, in order to be willing to walk away from a significant financial remedy we might otherwise gain by pursuing a secular lawsuit. Just as Christ paid the ultimate price, we must be willing, if necessary, to pay a price. It is an exercise in faith.

14. Answer: Passionate study and prayer. Solomon says we must look for it as silver. He also says we must cry aloud for understanding.

15. Answer: He detests that person.

16. Answer: Wisdom tells us certain kinds of people will react with insults and abuse. Others will react with gratitude and love.

17. Answer: With patience and graciousness.

18. Answer: Sometimes such a person will reveal more than they he or she planned.

19. Answer: Pride.

20. Answer: Godly people of goodwill. Foolish people, however, will demean that practice.

21. Answer: Sometimes the truth could mean the difference between life and death.

22. Answer: It has an affect on the heart and emotions of the person with whom you are in conflict.

23. Answer: You will become wise and grow in understanding.

24. Answer: Solomon tried to discover the underlying motivations and values of the disputants. Disputing parties generally act consistently with them. Solomon posed a clever test to the disputants to ferret out the truth.

25. Answer: Paul wants us to be able to glorify God with one heart and mouth.

26. Answer: Consider Paul’s exhortation to us that we step out our comfort zones and bear the failings of the weak.

27. Answer: Paul identifies jealousy as one of the deeds of darkness which accompanies dissension or conflict.

28. Answer: Invite them to demonstrate that they truly believe what they purport to believe by encouraging them to leave room for God to do as He pleases about a problem situation. Remind them to reach for a heavenly perspective and do what is “counter-intuitive;” that is, meet their adversary’s needs.

29. Answer: The favoritism of Jacob (also called Israel in the Bible) for his young son Joseph created deadly jealously in Joseph’s older brothers’ hearts. Where you see conflict, look for jealousy.

30. Answer: Consider a cooling off period. Otherwise sincere Christians might need time to compose themselves before the process of reconciliation can continue. Paul and John Mark eventually worked out their differences.

31. Answer: Yes, Paul and Barnabas disagreed with some men from Judea about the practice of circumcision and its effect on salvation. Consequently, they went to Jerusalem to seek counsel from others.

32. Answer: The Twelve gathered the disciples to discuss the developing conflict which involved caring for the widows. They then resolved to delegate certain practical responsibilities, such as providing a fair distribution of food, so the Twelve could continue to give attention to prayer and ministry of the Word. This administrative solution so impressed the Jewish priests in Jerusalem at that time that a large number became obedient to the faith.

33. Answer: Instead of fueling the brewing conflict, Abram generated a selfless solution and trusted in God for his future. At first it seemed that Lot took the better land, but considering it included Sodom, and the later tragic circumstances that town brought to Lot’s life, it seems Abram’s second choice may have actually been the best. Like Abram we may also discover we are sometimes blessed, though we receive second choice, if we follow God in faith.

34. Answer: Consider the story of Joseph when he first discovered Mary was pregnant. He had the right to have her punished according to Jewish law but acted with discretion, love, and dignity.

35. Answer: Jesus advises us to settle the dispute before going to court. By doing so, Jesus seems to acknowledge an element of inevitable human unpredictability in the civil court system of his day and perhaps also in ours.

36. Answer: The principle Jesus gives is really a call to believers to expand their perspective beyond the here and now to eternity. The big picture is that the world we now know is broken with sin. We are passing through it as redeemed sinners living lives that say something about our faith on our way to the Kingdom of God. Does it ultimately matter if a wrongdoer gets our coat or if we have turn the other cheek, so to speak? Instead, we are called upon to do the counter-intuitive thing; that is, to pray for those who persecute us and love our enemies because we understand their earthly predicament. Then we are truly sons of our Father. Maybe we can win them to Christ with the integrity of our conduct in love. Part of that show of love may include finding a way to settle a case with an unbeliever before it gets in front of a judge, as indicated earlier in the passage. When in conflict with a believer we have additional options. We can follow Matthew 18 and then I Corinthians 6, if necessary.

37. Answer: Not good ones. Revenge, not resolution and reconciliation, is the motivation. Moreover, you may find yourself compromising your most basic values and religious beliefs. Deceitfulness and dishonesty may be employed. Greed and looting may result. Innocents may perish. Finally, you will almost certainly bring trouble back on yourself as your revenge will prompt further retaliation.

38. Answer: Peter also acknowledges we may be suffer insult or evil from time to time at the hands of a Christian brother or sister. He tells us we are called to bless rather than repay with evil when we are wronged and that we will inherit a blessing if we do so. With a pastor’s heart, he encourages us to strive to live in harmony, even if that means following Christ’s example of suffering.

39. Answer: Since we are all members of one body, we lie to ourselves when we deliberately tell a falsehood or even fail to fully or accurately reveal the truth to a fellow Christian believer.

40. Answer: Jacob sent out reconnaissance and discovered Esau had an army of 400 men with him. Jacob then divided his entourage into several groups to diversify his exposure if attacked. After praying he then sent waves of gifts ahead of him to meet his brother. He also showed great respect and deference to his brother when he confronted him. These gestures evidently had a significant effect on softening the obstacle that emotions sometimes present in dispute resolution and reconciliation.

41. Answer: Jacob likened his perspective at the moment of encounter with his brother Esau with the encounter he had with God while struggling the night before. In a sense, the experience of facing Esau was like the memory still fresh in his mind of seeing the face of God. In both instances anxious struggle preceded glorious reconciliation. In both instances he gained a godly perspective about relationships. The moment Jacob feared most is also the moment we often fear most when we are actually to meet with the person with whom we have a dispute.

42. Answer: Saul’s jealousy of David’s successes prompted the deadly dispute. Jonathon articulated the advantages to Saul of maintaining his relationship with David. Saul relented as he gained perspective.

43. Answer: Jethro advised Moses to delegate the process of resolving disputes to capable persons who were familiar with God’s principles. He encouraged Moses to train and organize these persons to evaluate disputes efficiently and effectively, with only the most difficult disputes being reserved for Moses. Understanding and applying these principles in an orderly fashion was the key to sending the people home “satisfied.”

44. Answer: The dispute situation may be providential. Notice how Uncle Mordecai wondered out loud whether his niece Esther had been prepared by God for this very instance of conflict between Haman (an official of King Xerxes) and the Jewish people.

45. Answer: Jesus wants us to see the relational linkage of forgiveness "horizontally and vertically" which flows from our gratitude and submission to the Father in this passage. We must forgive others just as we have been forgiven. Note Jesus went further and forgave others though he himself never needed to be forgiven.

46. Answer: Love.

47. Answer: Forgiveness should not be equated with passivity in the face of sin and the conflict it sometimes predicates. In the situation with the Corinthians it was a specific instance of sexual immorality that caused controversy. This controversy undoubtedly led to paralyzing conflict about what to do about the conduct as a church body. Paul was clear with the Corinthians. Have courage and take decisive action as a community when the situation calls for it. Paul seemed to be irritated with the vacillating inactivity of their leadership. In the situation in Timothy Paul addressed controversy caused by an elder's sin. This sin may involve conduct which precipitates conflict with another believer. It may not. In either instance Paul makes it clear that alleged sin should be carefully investigated (in conformance with Christ's instructions in Matthew 18 which calls for interviewing two witnesses) and decisive action as a community taken.

48. Answer: God blessed Jacob's efforts while employed by Laban. Jacob learned Laban’s two sons had become envious of his success. Jacob also noticed Laban himself began treating him differently. God then spoke to Jacob and told him to return to his homeland. Jacob listened and set off in the will of God. Laban and his sons chased him and caught up. Jacob and Laban then sat down together in peace at a neutral location in the wilderness and discussed their differences. Eventually, they reached an agreement. To memorialize their pledge to each other they gathered stones at the site of their meeting and piled them up in a heap. Next, they shared a meal. Jacob thereafter offered a sacrifice to sanctify and dramatize the importance of the site to them. Moreover, the heap was to serve as a boundary geographically dividing the disputants. It was not to be crossed for the purpose of harming the other. By creating such a heap Jacob and Laban established clear boundaries for their obligations in family and employment matters to each other in the future.

Appendix B

Use of Sample Forms

The forms in this section are sample forms. In other words, they only contain suggested content. You should adapt them for your use. They will assist you in setting up your on record keeping and administration in the event you decide to start a Conflict Resolution Team in your church. It is recommended that you have a qualified professional such as an attorney or lawyer review the forms you propose to use in your program.

Please note that the forms sampled are not intended to exclude competent legal advice nor are they intended to be the practice of law. YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO CONTACT YOUR OWN LAWYER AT ANY TIME FOR ADVICE AND INSTRUCT OTHERS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE CONTACT ABOUT SUCH MATTERS TO DO LIKEWISE. Instead, the format set forth in this model represents the author’s religious beliefs about the process of dispute resolution between disputing individuals or organizations who also share similar religious beliefs. It is based on my own understanding of biblical principles.

DISPUTANT’S BILL OF RIGHTS

1. You have a right to stop the conciliation process at any time.

2. You have the right to be treated with love and respect.

3. You have the right to be listened to.

4. You have the right to be safe.

5. You have the right to request your concerns

be treated with confidentiality.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLEDGE

(Sample)

WE, THE BELOW SIGNED DISPUTANTS, each individually make the following truthful representations and promises to each other upon which we understand others will rely. We further make a spiritual (but not legally binding) pledge to fulfill any resolution we may achieve:

1. I believe in the God revealed in the Bible and have gratefully accepted reconciliation with Him earned by the efforts of His Son Jesus who was crucified and resurrected to life again to pay the penalty for my wrongs.

2. I would like my dispute (identified below) to be settled according to the principles in I Corinthians VI and other relevant sections of the Bible. I believe that it is better to be “wronged” and forfeit any rights and benefits I might otherwise receive under the law than to take this dispute into a secular court against another believer. It is my own desire to exercise my faith and conciliate my dispute with the help of likeminded fellow believers. They are present to help facilitate or encourage a resolution not dictate one. I believe resolving civil disputes between Christian believers this way is what the Bible teaches. I understand I can terminate the process at any time.

3. I understand that the conciliators who will be participating in resolving this dispute are not acting (and do not represent me or any other party) in a professional capacity (such as attorney-client). I acknowledge that there are risks of proceeding without legal counsel and am willing to proceed despite these risks. I further understand and agree that the conciliators, if they reasonably believe it necessary for health and safety, for church discipline purposes, or to avoid imminent catastrophic financial consequence affecting others, may disclose confidential information obtained by them in the course of the dispute resolution process.

1

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLEDGE

(Page 2)

4. I represent that I have consulted with my attorney (or had the opportunity to do so) about my desire to participate in this process and am proceeding willingly and with good faith. I understand and agree that any new information learned by me during this process shall not be used by me in any current or future legal proceedings (unless such information is independently originated) without the express, written consent of both disputants. Further, I agree NOT to require or subpoena any conciliator to testify or produce evidence in a secular discovery procedure or at any hearing before any secular court concerning these dispute resolution proceedings or information disclosed therein. I further agree and stipulate that any pending legal proceedings be suspended until the conclusion of this process. I will direct my attorney to secure any court orders necessary to effectuate this stipulation. I have investigated the applicable Statutes of Limitations and other relevant laws and taken such steps to preserve my legal or contractual rights, including those leading to insurance and other statutory benefits, as I deem necessary.

5. In exchange for the participation of the conciliators I hereby release, and forever discharge the conciliators, their church or organization and ICORVI Ministries and all of its officers, agents and employees, acting officially or otherwise, from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action, on account of any injury to me which may occur from or as a result of said process and for any other reason without limitation.

6. We summarize our dispute as follows:

Dated: _______________ Signature: ___________________________

Dated: ___________ Signature: ___________________________

2

CONCILIATOR’S PLEDGE

(Sample)

I, THE BELOW SIGNED CONCILIATOR, make the following spiritual pledge before God and my fellow believers:

1. That I will diligently devote myself to a biblical resolution of disputes referred to me.

2. That I will seek reconciliation between the disputing believers.

3. That I will prayerfully listen to both sides of a dispute, look for a creative God-pleasing resolution together with the disputants, and not recommend a resolution unless specifically asked.

4. That I will insure I neither have a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the conciliations I will participate in nor will I show bias or favoritism.

5. That I will not accept any compensation or financial benefit for my participation or accept business or professional referrals thereby.

6. That I will cooperate with fellow conciliators on the panels to which I am assigned.

7. That I will maintain the confidentiality policy of my church or organization and respect any wishes concerning the same expressed by the disputants.

Dated: ________________

Printed Name: __________________________________

Signature: _____________________________________

CHURCH PLEDGE

(Sample)

WE, THE BELOW SIGNED AUTHORIZED LEADERS OF THE CHURCH OR ORGANIZATION LISTED BELOW, AFFIRM FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS THE FOLLOWING:

1. That we purpose to resolve civil conflict among ourselves by resorting to biblical procedures, principles, and examples rather than the secular legal system.

2. That we view resolving conflict in this way as a significant element of the free exercise of our faith as set forth in Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 6 in the Bible.

3. That we will honor the authority of government God has placed us under for our protection so long as it does not require us to compromise our core beliefs.

4. That we will neither compel any constituent to participate in our Christian Dispute Resolution program nor knowingly cause any constituent to forfeit any rights he may be otherwise entitled to exercise by law by our conduct.

5. That we believe our constituents always have the right to contact an attorney of their choosing while in the midst of conflict and should always be encouraged to do so.

6. That we will study biblical procedures, principles, and examples of dispute resolution in an effort to become confident in relying upon them for the resolution of our disputes and the reconciliation of fellow believers.

CHURCH PLEDGE

(Page 2)

7. That we will maintain the confidentiality of disputants and the nature of their disputes wherever possible unless we reasonably believe further disclosure is necessary for health and safety, for church discipline purposes, or to avoid imminent catastrophic financial consequence affecting others.

Church or Organization _________________________________________

Dated: __________________

Authorized Leader’s Signature __________________________________

Authorized Leader’s Signature __________________________________

Authorized Leader’s Signature __________________________________

2

SAMPLE INVITATION TO CONCILIATE

Date __________________

Dear __________________:

I would like to invite you to resolve the dispute you and I have by relying on biblical principles. You and I share a common faith. As you know, we have met privately and with two fellow believers without success. I would like to reconcile with you and resolve our differences before our dispute escalates further.

Would you be willing to try the Christian Dispute Resolution program at ____________________________? I understand three neutral lay believers could be assigned to meet with us at no cost in a private attempt to facilitate a resolution. If you are willing, please call _______________ at _______________. This person is in charge of the program and is very helpful. He will set up the initial meeting. Remember, any resolution you and I reach would be voluntary and not-legally-binding.

Sincerely,

(Signature)

Date ____________

Dear ____________:

I am a pastor at ___________________________. I understand your may represent ______________________ in a dispute about ______________________ I understand the dispute is with ________________________ who may also have an attorney.

We have a dispute resolution program at our church which relies on ordinary lay people who have been trained in biblical dispute resolution principles. Neutral three-person panels are assigned on a case-by-case basis from a pool of volunteers. It is not unlike “facilitative mediation” with which you may be familiar but it relies on a biblical perspective. I believe the two disputants share a common faith. The program is purely voluntary and any resolution they may reach is non-binding. Moreover, a resolution is never imposed or even suggested by the lay conciliators. In short, we offer your client an opportunity to try a faith-based alternative dispute resolution program at no cost.

Would you be amenable to encouraging your client to try it? I am contacting the other disputant and his attorney to see if they are interested.

If any court deadlines have been scheduled can we postpone them and put the case on hold for now? Also, will you work with the other attorney to take any steps necessary to not compromise any possible government benefits, insurance timetables, or statutes of limitation which may apply?

Sincerely,

(Signature)

SAMPLE LETTER TO ATTORNEYS

Appendix C

The Nuts and Bolts of Setting Up a Team to Resolve Conflict in Your Church

Your church leadership may already be aware of the existence of conflict in your church. However, they may not know what to do about it as a practical matter. Interpersonal conflict is certainly predictable. We shouldn't be surprised by it. Isn't conflict just another consequence of a fallen world, even for believers? Conflict and its resolution are abundantly discussed in the Bible. Indeed, the Bible gives very specific procedural directions for dealing with it.

But why wait for conflict to start? You wouldn't buy a fire extinguisher after a fire, would you? Urge your church leaders to let you help them start the process of implementing a Bible based conflict resolution process in your church. Churches have processes for evangelizing, discipling, baptizing, marrying, and burying fellow church members but do they have a process for resolving their disputes? Churches point sinners to reconciliation with God but do they point them to reconciliation with each other? The first commandment says to love "vertically" but do churches remember the second which says to love "horizontally," so to speak? We need to remove the impediments to loving each other fully and properly. The flip-side of conflict is fellowship. After all, we are all going to spend eternity together. Some say the only things you can take to heaven are your relationships with fellow believers. What a treasure we miss in each other!

Sure your church leaders are busy. Few professions can match the demanding days church leaders put in. Exhaustion and burn-out are not uncommon. Tell your church leaders you will do the footwork, they will get the credit, and your church will benefit. Just think of the peace of mind you can offer your church leaders if you help them establish a team of trained volunteers to whom they can refer interpersonal conflict. Jesus didn't instruct us to "tell the pastor" in Matthew 18 he told us to "tell the church." That means the ecclesia or the body. In other words, "lay people." That's us. And, "telling the church" doesn't mean tattling it means reaching out to our fellow believers to help us reconcile with each other while in conflict. The whole thrust of the passage is oriented towards reconciliation not shame or church discipline as some suppose. The "politics" will just evaporate for your church leaders. What's more, setting up an independent process will free up church leaders and his staff to come in afterwards for counseling and restoration, if necessary. One final note. Don't use the word, "Program." Church leaders are besieged with "programs" nowadays. This is a resource not a program. It will save your church leaders time and shift the burden where it belongs.

Get Approvals from Staff and The Board

Assuming you get the go ahead the next step is church staff and the board. You don't want to be a lone ranger. Jesus created the institution of the church. We need to work within it. Therefore, we need to consult our leaders. We want them to "buy" into the process so it will work. The objective is to change church culture for the long haul and make the process self-perpetuating not just be another trendy "flash in the pan" program.

Ask your church leaders if you can present your idea to church staff first. Very likely, they will be the ones helping you to administrate the program (oops, team!) You will probably discover they like the idea. Staff often gets wind of problems first. They will be the ones to take calls from someone who "tells it to the church." Now your church staff will have something they can do about it. Explain how the process works. Staff may have ideas about who might be good candidates for the Conflict Resolution Team.

Next, you will want to present the idea to the church board. It may be sufficient to have your church leaders bring it up for approval. Alternatively, you could provide a summary in writing for their review. Be prepared. Boards are often on the lookout for preemptive ways to head off trouble. They may want you to explain the idea in person.

Ask For Possible Candidates for the Team

Depending on your church leader's experience at your church they may have an excellent idea about who might be possible candidates for the CRT. Church leaders are often "people" persons and have a knack for knowing the strengths, weaknesses, and gifts of those in their congregation. They may come up with a dozen or more names right away. Get a church registry and ask them to check the names they suggest. If you church has 10-50 members ask for 3 names. If 50-100 members ask for 6 names. If it has 300 members ask for a dozen. You get the idea. Because conciliation groups are assigned in panels of three from the team it might be best to ask for names in increments of three. Not everyone will sign up. You can always ask for more names later.

Make sure the suggested names have varied backgrounds, experiences, and spiritual gifts if you know them. Part of the ingenuity of God in conceiving the "body" for us is in its strength of diversity. Remember? The arm doesn't do what the leg does, etc. All candidates must have the minimum quality of wisdom, however, according to Paul in I Corinthians VI. Bottom line is you are looking for candidates with a heart for relationships.

Initiate contact with these individuals with your church leader's permission. Ask your church leader if you can use their authority saying something like, "Our church leaders thought you might be a good candidate for our new Conflict Resolution Team." You could use email followed by snail mail followed by a personal phone call to each one for best results.

Invite the Candidates to an Introductory Presentation

So your candidates won't feel pressured invite them to an introductory presentation without obligation. You might want to set this up on a Sunday before or after a service so no one has to make a special trip. First, explain the problem conflict is creating in the church at large. Show them statistics and magazine articles you may have obtained. Show them problems you believe your church may be having or might have in the future with conflict. Ask your candidates about their experiences with conflict. Introduce them to several passages about these concepts from scripture. For example, cite Matthew 18, First Corinthians 6, Jacob and Esau in Genesis 33, Solomon and the prostitutes, Joseph and his brothers, David and Saul, etc.

Next, provide an overview of the biblical process and how it will be administrated in your church. There is a summary of how to conduct the process in this book. There may also be resources at your local bookstore and on the internet you can consult for your team's strategy. ICORVI Ministries at www.icorvi.org has extensive materials you can draw on. In addition, your church leaders and the church board may have provided guidelines you must respect. Spend time especially with the objective of conflict resolution; namely, reconciliation between disputing fellow believers. Review Matthew 5 and John 17 together. You might consider developing a computer projected presentation. Visual aids enhance communication. Allow for a question and answer time. From this group your best candidates will emerge. If you don't get enough ask for more names and try it again.

Interview Your Team Members

After you have a list of candidates who want to proceed the next step is to interview them individually (or as married couples). You may want to meet them over coffee or lunch. Get to know them personally one by one. Conflict resolution is highly relational. As a group you want to set an example of outstanding fellowship to others in your church. Start right away. You should try to ascertain in an appropriate way an individual candidate's background, life experiences, spiritual experiences, and spiritual gifts if possible. Follow any procedures you church might have with respect to screening volunteers as well. A written application kept on file is probably a good idea.

Conduct Basic Training

Once you have your candidates prepared and interviewed it is time for training. You can ask you church leaders to help you with this step or you can recruit a qualified training consultant to assist you. Resources are listed in this book or you can visit you local Christian bookstore or the internet for guidance. ICORVI Ministries at www.icorvi.org also offers training. What you want for your people is the best training you can find for "church based lay conciliation." You want to learn how to solve your own church's problems internally.

Publicize this Resource in Your Church

When training is complete its time to publicize your team. You could make a short presentation before the whole church body announcing you are in "business." You could list a phone number or email address in the church bulletin or mailers. You could also offer a small group or Sunday school bible study on the subject. Anything which raises awareness about the problem of conflict in the church and the biblical remedy is helpful. Don't forget to re-publicize it from time to time or people will forget.

Practice Practice Practice

You should plan on meeting with your team periodically. At this time you could practice your skills on hypothetical situations, conduct additional training, exchange reading lists, pray, discuss problems, and generally increase the group's quality of fellowship and friendship.

Replicate

In anticipation of interchurch conflict; that is, conflict between believers attending different churches you may want to consider encouraging other churches to start their own teams. Joint conciliation panels can be assembled from teams at several participating churches, if necessary. By replicating in that way, you will serve the larger body of Christ and fulfill Christ's prayer in John 17, "that they may be one, Father . . . ."

Appendix D

Profile of a Lay Conciliation Team

What is a Lay Conciliation Team?

A lay conciliation team is a group of lay believers who have volunteered to assist disputing believers in their church resolve conflicts according to biblical principles.

Who can participate in the team?

Believers who attend regularly and optimally share the following characteristics; are biblically motivated, unbiased, wise, spiritually mature, of adult age, and of good reputation. Also members of the team should be willing to help disputants reach their own solutions not impose them. Finally, members must truly be lay people meaning they are not employed by a church, serving on its board, or acting in any professional capacity. Training is preferred and should be offered.

Who will the team report to?

Team members will receive their assignments exclusively from church staff. As disputes manifest themselves they will be reviewed, qualified, and assigned typically to panels of three conciliators from the team on a case by case basis. The team will meet periodically for updates, prayer, and additional training and program refinement.

How does a dispute become qualified for the program?

At least one of the disputants must show he or she has exhausted the first two directives given by Jesus in Matthew 18. Church staff will then interview the "two witnesses" (referred to in biblical passage) to privately assess acceptability for the program. For example, disputes of a criminal, attention-getting, personality conflict or so-called political nature will not be accepted. Also, contentious matters better served in counseling may not be accepted. Church staff retains the right to refuse to accept any dispute in its sole discretion.

How does the team do a conciliation?

Once a dispute has been qualified the assigned panel of conciliators from the team will arrange to meet with the disputants for a preliminary session. This session might occur over coffee on a Tuesday evening for an hour, for instance. The primary purpose of the session is to acquaint the panel and the disputants. Typically, there will be two disputants and three conciliators in attendance. Another purpose will be to isolate the disputed concerns. Ideally, the conciliators will begin to discern the underlying heart issues and start to breathe biblical perspective into the conflict. Finally, the participants will schedule a second session to conduct the actual conciliation. Keep in mind that conciliators facilitate a resolution to a conflict they don't "dictate" one. Moreover, the ultimate objective of conciliation is reconciliation not just resolution.

What are the goals of the Lay Conciliation Team?

The goals are remedial, preemptive, and developmental. First, the goal of the team is to consistently respond to conflict when it happens in a biblical way in order to preserve blood-bought relationships and enhance the churches testimony to the community. It provides a remedy. Such conflict, if ignored, could result in a disruption in fellowship, departures from a church, lawsuits, or even a church split. Second, the goal of the team is to act as an inhibiting influence to insulate the church from dissension before it escalates or replicates. It is preemptive in nature. Third, the goal is developmental. Conflict is inevitable as a consequence of the interaction of sinful natures in community. Learning to deal with conflict in a biblical way will help the church develop into a healthy body handling dissension just like white blood cells react to infection in the physical body.

How does the lay conciliation team know when ministry success occurs? Success occurs when the average congregational member's response to unresolved conflict with another believer will be to call on the Lay Conciliation Team for help rather than break off a personal relationship, depart from a church or file a lawsuit.

Review Questions

1. Why is it important to get the "buy-in" from church leaders, staff, and the board?

2. Why is it better to set up a team before conflict starts?

3. What are the advantages of drawing on a local body of believers to resolve a local problem?

4. Why is it important to build team cohesiveness?

5. Why is on-going training helpful?

6. Describe how you personally would set up a conflict resolution team.

7. What are the two benefits which are a by-product of managing conflict?

8. How does the process draw us "closer?"

9. How does the process make us more mature?

10. How does the process affect our testimony?

11. How do we turn conflict into an opportunity?

Appendix E

Setting Up a System for Resolving Disputes

Let me describe the ideal administrative setup at the local church level for dealing with conflict in today’s churches in my judgment. I believe this administrative setup most readies itself up to implement and manage the biblical dispute resolution sequence which will be described later. It has three facets.

To begin, I envision one person (or committee) in each church taking responsibility for administering its Christian Dispute Resolution program. Administrative responsibility would therefore be local. That person does not conduct the conciliations; he or she merely oversees the program. He could be an elder, staff person, lay leader, or even pastor or organizational leader. The dispute resolution coordinator’s primary responsibilities would include being alert for conflict and acting as the contact person in the event when a constituent wanted to “tell it to the church.” His responsibilities would also include the recruitment and cultivation of lay conciliators, their assignment to particular disputes, supervision and encouragement, and follow-up. The idea would be to develop a team of trained lay conciliators and a procedure for effectively using them. Conciliators would be drawn from the pool to form recommended three-person panels on a case-by-case basis.

Next, the church would begin efforts (and periodically renew them) to systematically educate its constituents about the relevant biblical principles, responsibilities, and procedures. Educational opportunities which would be administrated could include small group Bible studies, Sunday school classes, and teaching from the pulpit. Prospects could also include training with qualified Christian conciliation consulting organizations in formats like the more familiar marriage or financial stewardship seminars which are now popular. The minimum objective would be raising the level of awareness of the conciliation alternative and its value.

Lastly, as part of the ideal setup of the process, the church would encourage replication. Once their own program is in place and functioning, experienced participants would attempt to encourage other churches and organizations to incorporate these biblical procedures. They would set up their own systems. The point of replication, of course, would be to prepare us to resolve interchurch and cross-organizational conflict as well. Administrated properly, we would soon find we can cooperate in the resolution of conflict on a larger scale. In short, then, we must set up to conciliate, educate, and replicate.

Which Conciliation Strategy?

There are three basic strategies for approaching civil conflict in the church today. I subscribe to the last strategy for reasons I will discuss in a moment. All of these strategies are useful and helpful, however.

The first is what I call “The Lone Ranger” approach. Individuals attend commercially available training seminars and then return to their churches and volunteer to act as mediators. The advantage of this approach is that the volunteers are highly motivated and have training. The disadvantage is that volunteers are transient and may not always be available or as motivated. Moreover, this approach is not self sustaining.

The second approach is what I call “The Swat Team.” Churches and Christian organizations hire commercially available firms to come in as consultants and recommend or impose solutions. The advantages are significant. These consultants are usually highly trained and have broad national or international experience. The disadvantages are cost and the hazards of a “blunt tool.” On occasion, mediation consultants through no fault of their own will miss tiny organizational “nuances” which may be destructive to the long term viability of an institution. For example, a recommendation to fire the entire church staff to “clean house” in a conflict revolving around the ethical issues of just a few of the senior staff might overlook trauma to the balance of the staff and their relationships with church constituents.

The third and final approach is what I call “The DNA Approach.” The process I will describe later follows this strategy. Borrowing a term from the medical field this strategy fully integrates a local church or organizational body in the process. Problems in the body are solved by the body. Common lay people form the core resource. They act not as mediators or “go-betweens” but as conciliators or “reconcilers” in face-to-face spiritually prompted meetings between disputants. Biblical principles, examples, and procedures become the guide.

The advantages are abundant. The process becomes part of everyday “body life.” It becomes preventative in nature not reactive. It understands, respects, and draws strength from the relational “nuances” of particular institutions. Moreover, since it is part of body life the system perpetuates itself.

In the DNA Approach church “professionals” are not involved in the actual conciliations. Instead, pastoral (or organizational) staff people stand by like coaches. They supervise and encourage. In addition, staff acts administratively most notably by being available when a disputant wants to “tell it to the church” and by assigning recommended three person panels of lay conciliators to disputes on a case-by-case basis. Staff also assumes responsibility for the training and education of lay conciliators in biblical procedures, principles, and examples of dispute resolution. They along with their respective boards oversee the process.

Additional advantages of this strategy of using “the body to fix the body” include preserving staff for objectivity in follow-up counseling and church discipline. Moreover, it rightly minimizes organizational liability and politics. Most importantly, it permits lay people to participate in a biblically legitimate opportunity for Christian growth and blessing.

Review Questions

1. Why is it important to name an administrator for a Conflict Resolution Team in a church or Christian organization?

2. What advantages are there to making the administrative function local?

3. What functions does the administrator fulfill?

4. Why is periodic education for the congregation important? How could it be done?

5. Which strategy do you like best? Why?

Appendix F

Beneficial Conflict

To be fair not all conflict is bad. Some conflict is unwanted yield a beneficial result provided the appropriate faith driven response is made to it. Progress towards Christian maturity is the by-product in that wisdom, courage, and faith are called for. Examples might include ejecting a person from a congregation for reasons such as those discussed in 1 Corinthians 5. Another might be removing a divisive elder. (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 5:19) Still another is contending with an errant believer who has violated the law. (1 Peter 2, Romans 13) There are, in fact, biblically legitimate reasons to reduce or eliminate the influence of a person within a church. I fear many of us are too timid to accept this reality.

Or, perhaps God is using an unwelcome conflict situation to fulfill a purpose. There is precedent in the Bible where God intervened in our time and space to allow unpleasant circumstances for our greater and eternal benefit. For example, He allowed persecution in the first century to drive the new Christians out of Jerusalem to evangelize the world. It was an external attack which precipitated a providential switch in strategy or operations within the church which in turn increased its effectiveness. Such an attack occurred in Acts when Stephen was stoned.

Saul approved the stoning of Stephen. Some faithful followers of the Lord buried Stephen and mourned very much for him. At that time the church in Jerusalem suffered terribly. All of the Lord’s followers, except the apostles, were scattered everywhere in Judea and Samaria. Saul started making a lot of trouble for the church. He went from house to house, arresting men and women and putting them in jail. The Lord’s followers who had been scattered went from place to place, telling the good news.

Acts 8 (MSG)

Do you recall the story of Esther from the Old Testament? Esther was a Jew living in ancient Assyria in the household of King Xerxes. The King took a special interest in Esther and made her his queen. Unfortunately, one of the king’s officials, Haman, hated the Jewish people and enlisted the King’s help to exterminate them. However, he and the king did not know Esther was Jewish. A deadly conflict subsequently mounted between the Jewish people and the Assyrians.

Fortunately, Esther had an uncle devoted to God named Mordecai. He was a man of wisdom and faith. Mordecai looked carefully at the way circumstances in the conflict were shaping up. He also looked at the roles and relationships of the lead players involved. Mordecai then wondered whether God for this very instance of conflict had prepared his niece Esther. Relying on his conviction, Mordecai sent an insightful message to Esther:

“If you persist in staying silent at a time like this, help and deliverance will arrive for the Jews from someplace else; but you and your family will be wiped out. Who knows? Maybe you were made queen for just such a time as this.” Esther 4 (MSG)

In faith Esther then acted on the message, spoke to the king, and saved her people. She knowingly risked the king’s fatal displeasure. Do you have faith like Esther? Have you ever wondered if God was arranging circumstances for your benefit or perhaps for another believer’s benefit? He did for Esther. Esther was certainly willing to be wronged. She was prepared to sacrifice herself in a conflict situation for God’s purposes, if necessary. May God give us such faith.

Appendix G

Application of the Template

These principles can be applied to a variety of situations. It may take some creativity to put together just the right participants and protocol but as long as the concepts set forth in Matthew 18 are respected then the process will have its best chance.

Here are suggestions:

1. Husband and Wife Instead of “stewing” over an issue and then becoming passive-aggressive why not go to your spouse and talk it out? If talking doesn’t work then maybe some close friends who will remain objective and guard your confidences can help. If that doesn’t work join a support group, Sunday school class or attend a seminar where issues like yours are discussed. The couple might find they are not alone in the kinds of disagreements they are having. Note that all three principles have been followed. You may think of other ways to apply them.

2. Customer and Business Owner There are, of course laws which govern the transactions in this relational context. However, if the participants subscribe to the tenets of the Christian faith then they may benefit from the wisdom in Matthew 18. Obviously, the first step is for the disgruntled customer or business owner to confront each other. Where the principle “gets wheels” and faith begins to speak is in the approach taken in the process. Will the confrontation be hostile or will the approach taken evidence a desire to work the dispute out in Christian love? Does it have in mind the end goal of reconciliation? If this effort doesn’t work then perhaps bring a couple of fellow believers (or peers) along and try it again. This is way better than going to small claims court in preserving relationships. As a last resort, they might utilize the services of a panel of unbiased fellow believers at their church (or a panel composed jointly if they attend different churches.) Again, all three principles have been followed. You might invent other ways to implement them.

3. Congregation and Pastor Conflict in this relational context is a little more complex. There is the pastoral relationship in addition to the role the pastor plays as simply a fellow believer. In addition, the pastor may have a board to which he is accountable. He may even be “friends” with the person or group with whom he is disputing. There may be a denominational authority. All of these levels of relationship have different dynamics. Each one must be respected. The first principle calls for the direct approach. Part of the genius of Matthew 18 is that it starts out small. The scope of those involved is just the actual participants. Next a few peers as witnesses are added. Lastly, a community of peers is assembled. An ever widening circle of eyeballs and ears are progressively added until resolution, if possible, is reached. To be sure, the protocol followed will have to be tailored to the specific situation. The nature of the conflict itself will also have to be considered. The “witnesses” referred to by Christ in the second principle might be fellow pastors in one situation. It may be parishioners in another. The panel in the third principle may be at the denominational level. It may be a church wide meeting in another. The ever present goal in any event is reconciliation. (And, if reconciliation is not possible then at least not alienation.) The process if applied correctly will provide the best possible chance for preserving the relationships in the end.

4. Parent and Child In all likelihood the predominating principle of Christ in Matthew 18 which will be used in this relational context is the first one. To illustrate, don’t parents almost daily confront their teenagers with constructive discipline? How might peer accountability be employed then? Surely parents don’t refer the contested matter at issue to the teen’s friends for resolution, do they? No, but asking your teens lots of questions about how other responsible parents handle similar matters in their homes might help. How do they stack up with their peers? Of course, such a line of questioning is a two edged sword. The teen may say, “Sally’s parents don’t make her come in at midnight.” Get to know your teen’s peers and parents so you can be prepared. You want to be able to implement a pseudo “peer accountability” of sorts. If that doesn’t work, principle three may come to the rescue. Here, the extended family’s tradition and history of good behavior are the community which conciliates. It may take a serious “sit down” and talk with the child to generate the perspective needed. “The Smith’s have always tried to follow the rules and hold certain values. Don’t you agree such behavior pays dividends?”

Appendix H

Rebuttal of Argument that Matthew 18 Intended Strictly for Church Discipline

Matthew 18 is typically understood one of two ways. One way says that Christ’s response to the question “What shall I do if my brother sins against me?” was intended to serve as our model for the procedure to follow in exercising church discipline - in other words, how and when to put someone out of fellowship. The other way says the response serves as a model for the procedure to follow in reconciling disputing believers. I believe the passage serves to advise us on both procedures but will find its greatest use in the second way.

Church Discipline

The argument for the “Church Discipline” position assumes one believer has sinned against another in a serious moral or perhaps even criminal way sufficient enough to remove the “sinner” from fellowship. It says Matthew 18 is not intended as a process for the resolution of minor “civil” disputes between believers. A proof provided in support of this position involves Christ’s reference in Matthew 18 to a passage in Numbers 25:30 that requires the testimony of two eyewitnesses to accompany an accusation of serious sin. “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”  A second proof sometimes offered is the subsequent admonition to treat the unrepentant sinner as a tax collector – a demonstration that he or she has been removed from fellowship. Hence, the argument goes that his passage must only be intended for serious moral sin. It is for use in so-called “church discipline” situations. “Telling it to the church” means scolding or “shunning” an unrepentant sinner in front of a congregation and then ostracizing him or her.

Conciliation of Conflict

The argument for the “Conciliation” position assumes one believer has sinned against another but not necessarily in a way sufficient to remove the believer from fellowship. That is, this passage may be employed for less serious interpersonal conflicts. The context of Matthew 18 shows Christ was trying to redirect the attention of his disciples from their status in the future kingdom to the needs of the “little ones” here on earth. His passion for relationships in the coming institution of the “church” was what drove his response. Had it been “justice” alone his response to the question might have different. Knowing that interpersonal conflict was inevitable in any group or “body” to be assembled he set forth a simple process to follow for its resolution. Matthew 18 is conciliatory not punitive. The apostle Paul picked up on it in 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, James in James 3:13 to 4:3, and Peter in 1 Peter 3:8-18. This passage must therefore be intended for any kind of conflict that breaks fellowship between a believer and his brother not just cases of serious moral sin or criminal behavior.

But what about the second step in the process which speaks of witnesses? Witnesses serve many purposes in the Bible and in jurisprudence. Not only are they eyewitnesses to crimes or serious moral acts they are also present to acknowledge the occurrence or non-occurrence of an important event. Think of the transfiguration, Pentecost, and the like. People have also “witnessed” wills and other important legal documents throughout history. The reference to Numbers by Christ may have served to remind his listeners that witnesses to “Step Two” in the reconciliation process would raise the gravitas of the moment and be available later to corroborate the victim’s efforts to restore the relationship when at last he or she “tells it to the church.”

What about the portion of the Matthew 18 passage which refers to tax collectors? The argument is that the reference to tax collectors is simply an illustration of those who don’t show “faith.” Christ is emphasizing that faith is an integral part of the process. In other words, if we really “believe” what we say we believe we will take the faith steps necessary to complete the process. If we don’t we won’t. Consequently, our true colors are revealed. We are no better than faithless tax collectors.

Finally, what about the phrase “Tell it to the church?” Doesn’t that prove the process is intended to be punitive in nature by invoking the power and authority of the “church?” Not necessarily. Could it not simply mean reaching out for help? Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 6:4 “Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” (NIV)

Conclusion

If Matthew 18 was intended just for serious moral sins or crimes such as murder which have at least two witnesses to their occurrence the usefulness of Matthew 18 would be limited indeed. Nevertheless, the Matthew 18 procedure provides many wonderful safeguards in such cases. Moreover, it serves to buttress the procedures for church discipline described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 and accusations against church leadership referenced in the letters to Timothy.

Having said the forgoing, this author believes Matthew 18 does more. Given the context and the guidance provided by other New Testament writers Matthew 18 finds applicability in any kind of relationship-robbing sin or conflict that disturbs the health of our interpersonal associations in the body of Christ. After all, relationships are “what it is all about.” Such an understanding of Matthew 18 opens it up for use in one of the most prevalent and pervasive of all concerns in the church today – namely, civil disputes and disagreements between believers. More than a mere difference of opinion these kinds of conflict are the ones that most often find their way into the secular courts if not intercepted. Christ gives us a roadmap to follow in such cases. We need to follow it.

Appendix I

Simple and Complex Conflict

Conflict between believers can manifest itself in many relational contexts. It can occur in business associations, relationships between friends, marriages, church staff, and even between pastors and congregations. Most of the time, the relational context is simple. The conflict is just between people who happen to be believers. They have no other relational connection other than that. Sometimes, however, the relational contexts overlap. There are multiple ways the parties connect. The conflict becomes more complicated. It is considered “complex.” For example, let’s suppose an associate pastor has a dispute with his senior pastor. In such a situation, there may several different but overlapping relational contexts. One is employer/employee. Another is mentor/mentee. Still another is the simple relationship all believers have with each other. They are fellow Christians. And finally, the associate pastor may be the son of the senior pastor! Different “rules” and considerations apply to each context. All need to be considered in the reconciliation process.

Appendix J

Sample Scenarios

For practice, why don’t you see how the principles from Matthew 18 can be applied in the following true-to-life situations.

The stories below are very loosely based on actual disputes I learned about through research obtained from over 50 churches and Christian organizations. Some facts have been changed to protect identities. However, the dispute patterns have not generally been altered. Some stories are composites of several anecdotes. Any similarity between the stories below and incidents you may know about are purely coincidental. In fact, if you think you recognize a particular situation in a story it is probably because conflict often follows similar patterns, though it may have different participants and details. Please note that the stories are not intended to teach a proper biblical response to conflict. The purpose of the stories is merely to illustrate different kinds of conflict, so you can examine how conflict develops and how various individuals have dealt with it.

Remodeling Ruffles

A homeowner hired a contractor in his church to do a remodeling job and paid him $10,000 up front to do the work. The contractor, however, did not complete the job to the homeowner’s satisfaction. The homeowner left phone messages with the contractor over a period of several months. These were not answered. Neither party spoke or even looked at each other at church on Sundays. Eventually the homeowner approached his pastor and expressed his concerns. The pastor talked with the contractor and homeowner independently. No written agreement for the contracting work had been prepared. On the one hand, the contractor complained the homeowner’s expectations were unrealistically high. On the other hand, the homeowner complained the contractor’s expectations were unreasonably low. A conciliation session was scheduled with several other contractors and homeowners the pastor had recruited in their church. The conciliators shared their own experience and wisdom, reviewed biblical principles, and offered perspective. In the end, a resolution was reached. The homeowner became more realistic about what to expect. The contractor took more responsibility. Following the conciliation session the contractor returned to the job and completed the work, within reason, without further delay. For his part, the homeowner was so delighted that he asked the contractor to do an additional project. The two are on friendly terms now and understand each other in a new way.

Inappropriate Insurance Influence

A new member in a church who sold insurance policies for a living began aggressively marketing his product within the church. Several individuals in the church were offended by his sales methods and apparently insincere motives. They contacted the pastor with their concerns. The pastor suggested they follow Matthew 18 and contact the new member directly about their concerns. The salesperson listened, adjusted his conduct, and developed a new level of fellowship with the members who contacted him.

Vexing Ventures

Three members of a congregation who were best friends started a joint business venture. For a while, they enjoyed success together. Eventually one of the partners wanted to take the business in a very different direction. She prevailed over the others, but their success soon began to evaporate. Conflict ensued. The partners then met with their church leaders. After conciliating the dispute, the two partners ended up buying out the one who had the more divergent path in mind. All three partners are still in their church, but struggling to maintain their fellowship.

Cottage Conflict

A property-sharing dispute arose not long after two families built a summer cottage together. The strong friendship between them became seriously strained. Lawsuits were threatened. Both parties attended churches in the same state. An elder from one church contacted an elder at the other church about resolving the conflict biblically. Each church arranged to have one or two lay people meet with the families in group conciliation to discuss the matter. No property-sharing resolution was reached, however. Instead, one family decided to sell their share to the other, and the other agreed to pay a premium for it. Each party agreed reconciliation between the families was biblically important. The families are no longer best friends but are working at reconciliation and occasionally see each other socially.

Domestic Dispute

A married couple who attended church together for many years decided to divorce. Counseling had been unsuccessful. There were allegations of infidelity, violence, and financial mismanagement both ways. However, to their credit, the couple agreed to try to settle matters as amicably as possible and keep their hostility out of the public courtroom. Several laypersons in their church (two of whom had also been divorced) volunteered to assist them “talk out” a settlement. Eventually, the parties reached an agreement and made a list of the major points of settlement to take to their respective lawyers. Agreements were drawn up, but before the divorce could be finalized the parties decided to reconcile. The loving process of dispute resolution applied by their church family and the biblical perspective of the conciliators who assisted them persuaded the disputing couple to try again to make their marriage work.

Compromising Correspondence

A married man sent an allegedly inappropriate letter to a young single woman in his church. She felt threatened and told church leadership. However, before telling church leadership she told other church members about the communication. The pastor wondered if perhaps the young woman was enjoying the attention she received while spreading the news, because she told so many other members and seemed to be exaggerating the nature of the communication. The married man considered hiring a lawyer to sue for slander. The elders confronted the man, he repented of the wrong, and boundaries were established. The elders also approached the young woman and cautioned her about inappropriately “capitalizing” on the wrong.

Limp Loan

One church member loaned money to another. No terms were discussed or written down. However, the lender anticipated a short-term loan with a reasonable amount of interest paid in regular installments. The borrower anticipated a long-term loan with no interest and payments when and if they could be made. No payments were made after a few months and the lender became nervous. The lender sent a letter asking for a payment and asked for interest to be paid. The borrower sent back a letter saying interest was “unchristian” and that he was not able to make any payments yet. Animosity festered. The lender investigated filing a lawsuit. Church leadership became involved. Before anything more happened, however, the borrower suffered additional unrelated financial reversals and filed for bankruptcy.

Faked Foundations

A dispute over the sale of a home developed between two couples attending different churches. The couple that bought the house discovered several of the representations made by the couple that sold the house were untrue. Upon being confronted, the selling couple became hostile and unresponsive. Their respective pastors decided to call a council of pastors to mediate in a series of meetings. Some wise laypersons were also invited to participate. After listening to the presentations of the respective couples, the conciliators recessed and at the request of the couples developed a nonbinding recommendation for resolution. The couples thereafter pledged to follow the recommendation.

Christian School Conscripts

A private Christian school permitted members of its clerical staff to enroll their children at a discounted rate. An office secretary enrolled one of her children under the program. Unfortunately, she was terminated shortly thereafter for allegedly embezzling school funds. The school could not substantiate its claim against her with the local prosecutor’s office, however. It was largely based on circumstantial evidence obtained from a rival secretary in the office. Her child nevertheless continued to attend the school and was doing exceptionally well. A dispute ensued about whether or not the discounted tuition should still apply. The office secretary hired a Christian lawyer to speak for her. The discount policy had been written down and formally adopted by the board but was somewhat vague on the issue. The board met to consider the issue. Rather than take the dispute into court, the parties compromised. A limitation was placed on how long the discount should apply, and the secretary pledged not to press a claim for wrongful termination.

Appendix K

Research

Years ago I represented a large evangelical ministry located in the Midwest. I remember sitting at a board meeting of the organization at its invitation, listening to a report about how the ministry had been “wronged” by another Christian organization. The more I listened, the more uncomfortable I became. Options were being discussed, including the filing a lawsuit. The debating started. Tempers flared. Just then, an elderly board member stood up and announced his concern that it may be unbiblical to file such a lawsuit…at least at the outset. I had been studying the Bible myself about lawsuits between believers and was also concerned. The meeting ended.

I went home worried I might be asked to represent the organization in a lawsuit. I wondered what other churches and Christian organizations would do in such a situation. Since I had been studying the biblical concepts, I thought it might not be a bad idea to investigate what was going on “out there” in ministry with this vexing topic. I decided to interview a sampling of pastors and other Christian leaders for their personal experience with conflict. I hired a graduate student attending a local seminary and with his help interviewed over 50 pastors and Christian leaders. These individuals headed a variety of evangelical churches or organizations. The sample included a broad cross section of denominations, sizes, and types of ministry.

First, I wanted guidance on what a biblical perspective toward conflict might look like. What had these leaders learned from their study of Scripture and experience that I could draw on? More specifically, what could they tell me about the sort of attitude of the heart “disputants” should have and why? My hope was to digest some of this wisdom and then pass it on to my Christian clients. What I learned from these leaders I have incorporated into this book. In short, aside from the fact that there are plenty of good biblical and common-sense reasons not to sue your Christian neighbor our point of view on the meaning of conflict is what counts. We must see our neighbor as God does; on an eternal timeline. Is this temporary earthly conflict really worth compromising a relationship that will go on forever? In other words, how valuable is a $10,000 legal judgment to people who will someday walk the streets of gold together? Consequently, it may be necessary to prepare in our hearts to remain “wronged.” However, far from being passive there is much we can do to resolve conflict as we shall see shortly.

Next, I wanted to know how typical disputes were handled when they reached the level where, as Jesus instructs in Matthew 18:17, disputants should “tell it to the church.” That is, what procedure was invoked after efforts using the first two of the three remedies described by Jesus had been unsuccessfully exhausted? What do churches do when they have been advised about a dispute? How did the processes they may have followed work? Did these procedures strictly or loosely track Paul’s instructions in I Corinthians VI? Did they involve lay persons? Did they involve elders? Was the pastor expected to deal with conflict alone? Were disputes farmed out to Christian professionals? Were Christian mediators called in?

What I learned from these Christian leaders is also woven into this book. In it, I develop ten model steps which churches, Christian organizations, and individual Christians can follow in a biblical endeavor to conciliate a dispute. I have further augmented these steps with insights from the practical experience I have gained in managing litigation over the years. It is most emphatically not the practice of law but an expression of our shared fundamental religious beliefs to conduct such conciliations within our churches and Christian organizations. With that in mind, I believe the model procedure I describe honors Paul’s comments in I Corinthians VI .

In addition, I wanted to know how much conflict actually manifested itself out there. How often do disputes come up in a year in churches of a certain size, for example? I myself had met with numerous believers in conflict over the years in my law office. I therefore knew disputes existed. Other Christian lawyers told me the same thing. The apostle Paul addressed the topic with the Corinthians, so I knew it was a meaningful issue to him. What about local churches and Christian organizations in this day and age? How much conflict of a litigable nature was actually quantifiable?

The conclusions I drew from this particular line of inquiry were surprising. It appears the level of litigation inside the church is not a whole lot different from that outside of it. There are roughly 30 million lawsuits filed each year in the United States. By some estimates approximately one-third are filed by believers. Assuming about one-third of the general population subscribes to the Christian faith that means the rate of filing is about equal.

In addition, while interpersonal confrontation is generally not something people want to remember most Christian leaders during my interviews could recall at least one litigable dispute specifically between believers in their recent professional history. Many could recall several. In the larger churches the question was not whether a serious dispute or lawsuit would occur in a given year but how many. I calculated approximately one lawsuit between believers per 500-person church per year. Was this rate too high? Is any level of litigation amongst believers acceptable?

Then, I wanted a feel for how much conflict was not surfacing. In other words, how much of it stayed “underground” unknown to anyone except the disputants? I hoped for an estimate of how much conflict between church attendees was not coming to the attention of church leadership and was instead allowed to fester with potentially disastrous results. While tallying figures about the number of less-than-obvious disputes might be difficult, there are other ways to infer the presence of unseen conflict. For example, the velocity of church-hopping in a particular city might tell the story. The quality of Christian unity and interaction in a particular church might also be a barometer. In addition, the subjective impressions of pastors and church leaders could provide suggestive input.

Here’s what I learned. While many pastors and church leaders had difficulty quantifying the actual number of subsurface disputes, they were still painfully aware from time to time about the existence of simmering conflicts within their spheres of influence. They often became aware of it through piecemeal personal interaction and rumor. Stated more simply, these leaders sensed something dangerous lurking in the bushes. All too often, unseen and unchecked conflict in advanced stages would evidence itself in full-blown personal warfare, retributive conduct, and departures from the church or organization. Frustrated by an inability to discover the root causes, let alone intervene, many leaders were looking for preemptive strategies.

More distressing were comments from those interviewed who naively did not believe conflict existed in their churches or organizations or discounted it as outside the scope of their responsibility. The percentage of those who held these views was significant. Having become convinced through my own experience and the anecdotal evidence I obtained through the interviews, I was incredulous. Conflict does exist, even if we choose not to see it. It is a predictable manifestation of our sinful natures, is it not? It is abundantly discussed in the Bible. My conviction to write this book grew.

In addition, I concluded that these leaders need to be encouraged to more fully appreciate the biblical reality that the dispute resolution process is, in fact, our responsibility. Dealing with conflict is a “faith building event,” and the stakes are vast and eternal. What is at stake is nothing less than the body of Christ’s reputation on the planet earth. The church’s testimony as a collection of diverse people reconciled to God and each other is compromised when we miss the opportunity to solve our disputes ourselves and instead take our battles into the courtroom. Just as Christ was wronged and yet reconciled us with God, so also must we be reconciled to each other even though we may wrong each other from time to time. Faith is built in the crucible of conflict. The testimony of our conduct in conflict shows our faith.

Furthermore, I wanted to know what kinds of conflict were typical. Were the disputes like other lawsuits that run through a general practice law firm? Most lawsuits in general law practice experience are either about money or failed relationships. Examples might include building construction problems, breached business deals, or inheritance contests between family members. It is my observation that the most common kinds of conflict that occur in the general population are not a whole lot different from those that occur within the believing population.

Next, I wanted to know whether nurturing a culture in our churches and Christian organizations of resolving disputes biblically among ourselves would have a preemptive effect on conflict development. In other words, if preventative health care reduces health problems why wouldn’t teaching Christian dispute resolution principles reduce conflict? I received a glimmer of hope that such might be the case in my interviews. Only a few churches had fully developed conflict management procedures in place, maybe five percent, but in those churches the anecdotal evidence was that these procedures were, if in fact, having a preemptive effect.

Finally, I wanted to know whether unresolved conflict at a personal level ever expanded to institutional conflict. I discovered it did, invariably. Little conflicts mushroomed into big ones. Disputes originally involving only two persons eventually encompassed large numbers of believers or whole congregations. Occasionally, these disputes even led to lawsuits. I was dumbfounded by the reports I heard. For example, I learned about power struggles between rival lay individuals for board control within a church resulting in institutional-wide trauma. I learned about turf battles among church employees leading to disillusionment in the pew and church-hopping. I also heard a disquieting number of times about immorality at or close to the leadership levels, resulting in polarization within churches and mass exodus. I even heard about disagreements involving the kinds of music played in a Sunday Service becoming the fuel that ignited division. Financial issues, leadership issues, denominational issues … the list went on and on. Virtually every major cataclysm on an institutional level could trace its origin to disagreement at the personal level. What a market for very personal, faith-driven biblical dispute resolution principles do we have among ourselves!

In conclusion, it seems clear that litigable conflict exists in a sufficient quantity to require our heightened attention. Lawsuits both in and out of our churches and organizations are more prevalent today than they have ever been. Before we actually get into the ten steps we can follow to reconcile our differences we need to evaluate the current strategies for conflict resolution and lay the groundwork for the administrative setup in our churches which best accommodates those strategies.

Appendix L

Two Brothers

To illustrate the importance of following Christ’s advice to take the initiative in conflict I offer a story based in part on a real life situation. Names and circumstances have been altered, of course, to protect the participants.

Two adult sons were to inherit a successful manufacturing business from their father. One son, Joe, who worked for his father wanted to take over and continue to operate the business. His father had high hopes for him. The other son, Sam, was not interested in participating in running the business personally but still wanted the business to continue so he could benefit from its income. He had other interests.

Eventually, the father passed away. He had anticipated his sons’ wishes and came up with a rather complex formula for dividing the income of the business over the years to come in a way in which he considered fair. Joe assumed control of the business. Sam awaited his cut of the profits. The formula was complicated because the father wanted his son Joe to have financial incentive to make the company grow. Sam accepted the idea grudgingly.

The years past. At the end of each fiscal year Joe would calculate the portion of profit he believed his brother Sam was to receive according to the formula left by their father. Sam enjoyed his dividends and pursued his other interests. The business prospered and Joe was recognized for his business acumen and financial success. Sam became jealous.

Sam stopped attending family events and holiday occasions with his brother. Their wives stopped talking to each other. Sam became suspicious that he was not received his proper cut according to the formula. Somehow, he believed his brother was cheating him. Ten years past. Then, fifteen years past. Very few words had been spoken between the brothers during this time. Eventually, Sam could take it no longer. He has “stewed” long enough. Time to hire an attorney, he thought.

Sam’s attorney asked to see the formula and “numbers” so he could do the calculations to see how much his client had been cheated over the years, if at all. Joe had provided reports each year for review but Sam had never bothered to see if the numbers checked out before now. The formula was just too complicated to bother to sort out.

After awhile, Sam got a call. His lawyer indicated that there was indeed a problem. He had spent a great deal of time reviewing the numbers and running the formula. However, as it turned out the problem ran the other way! Joe had overpaid Sam! Sam owed his brother a great deal of money; not the other way around. How ironic! What now?

The real tragedy, of course, isn’t the money. It was the breakdown in the relationship between the two brothers. Though they grew up in a Christian home and knew about Matthew 18 it hadn’t occurred to either of them to rely on it. If Sam had only gone to his brother with his suspicions earlier on in their lives he wouldn’t be confronted with this tragic dilemma. More importantly, their wives and families could have enjoyed many happy holidays and events together over the years. Now, it was incumbent upon Sam to try to explain this mess to his brother and try to reconcile so they could make up for lost time.

Appendix M

Kneedy and Sharp

To illustrate the relevance of Christ’s instruction to us in the accountability approach I offer the following story which is a composite of several similar stories based on real situations. You may remember a similar one yourself as you read!

Two new visitors showed up for church one Sunday morning. They weren’t together, however. They continued to attend and eventually got to know each other. As it turns out, one of the individuals was a divorced insurance salesman. We will call him Mr. Sharp. The other individual was a widow. Her name was Mrs. Kneedy. Both were in their sixties.

One day, Mr Sharp asked Mrs. Kneedy if she wanted to review her insurance needs. Mrs. Kneedy thought she might. They met for lunch and discussed Mrs. Kneedy’s concerns. A week later the pastor got a phone call.

“I think Mr. Sharp wants to take advantage of me. I think we should get the elders involved.” complained Mrs. Kneedy. Instead, the pastor calmly suggested she go back and confront Mr. Sharp with her concerns. He believed that Matthew 18 directs individuals who believe they have been wronged to try the direct approach first. Mrs. Kneedy explained that she had already tried that approach and been unsuccessful. Pastor then suggested she try step two in Matthew 18. “What’s that?” she asked.

“Think of it as the accountability approach,” replied the pastor. “Why don’t you get out our church register and invite two individuals to go with you and confront Mr. Sharp again? Keep in mind the goal is to resolve your concerns and preserve your relationship. Be careful, however. The Bible instructs us to invite others to witness our efforts to reconcile not take them along as advocates. So, don’t invite any bullies. Spiritually mature fellow believers who don’t know either of you very well would be ideal.”

Mrs Kneedy thought that was an acceptable idea and proceeded to call several individuals to whom she explained the whole story with relish. Eventually, she found two fellow congregants who agreed to go with her. She set up a meeting with Mr. Sharp. They got together at a local coffee shop.

At the meeting, Mrs Kneedy feeling emboldened by the presence of two fellow believers again confronted Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp listened patiently and then responded. “I think you may have misunderstood. I was not trying to sell you any insurance. I just offered to review your existing policies to see if they were adequate for your needs. If you are uncomfortable perhaps you could bring your adult son to our next meeting. I’m sorry if you thought I was being too aggressive with you. I am retired now and couldn’t arrange for your policies anyway. I would have to refer you to another insurance salesman. I advise seniors down at the community center on Saturdays. Since we both go to same church I was just trying to help out.” The two witnesses said very little beyond the initial niceties. The meeting broke up without success.

Mrs. Kneedy became stubborn and insisted she still thought she was being taken advantage of. She went back to the pastor. “Mr. Sharp is taking advantage of me. I demand you bring him up on the stage next Sunday and confront him publically with his awfulness!”

The pastor responded, “Why don’t I question your witnesses? Then, we’ll see. After all, that’s what witnesses are for. It’s their job to establish the facts. They also watch what the two of you say and do. What’s more, they increase the sense of seriousness of the concern; what I like to call the accountability level. I assume they didn’t speak up for you?”

“Not at all. They just listened and asked a couple of questions,” Mrs. Kneedy mused. “When will you talk to the witnesses?”

“I will call them right now. What are their names?” asked the pastor. The pastor then requested the witnesses to come in to his office and describe what they had seen and heard.

The witnesses described the details of the encounter, the explanation provided by Mr. Sharp, and the demeanor and conduct of Mrs. Kneedy. In their opinion, there was no conflict at all. It just seemed that Mrs. Kneedy had taken a dislike to Mr. Sharp. In addition, it was their speculation that Mrs. Kneedy was just trying to get some “attention.” They had checked it out and Mr. Sharp indeed was retired and no longer writing new insurance policies. He also worked, as he said, down at the community center advising seniors on insurance needs.

The pastor invited Mrs. Kneedy into his office. The pastor’s assistant was there to take notes. “I am sorry, Mrs. Kneedy. I don’t believe the Bible teaches us to embarrass fellow believers by dragging them up in front of the church every time someone thinks they have been wronged. I am not saying Mr. Sharp hasn’t wronged you. He may have. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been demonstrated at least in your witnesses eyes that a wrong has been committed. What’s more, they were concerned your motives may not have strictly been to reconcile with your Christian brother, as the Bible teaches.”

Pastor went one to say, “In situations where we can verify the existence of a genuine dispute about a matter and the parties unsuccessful but sincere efforts to resolve it Matthew 18 describes a procedure for providing help from the church. As you know, we have team we have trained in our church of concerned laypeople who are willing to volunteer their time to ‘walk together’ with two fellow believers in conflict. I am sorry to say you are not ready for that procedure. Is there some o

To continue the illustration mentioned previously let’s suppose Mrs. Kneedy and Mr. Sharp do have a verifiable and legitimate dispute. Sometimes Christian believers have honest differences of opinion. More often, there is underlying sin or sinful attitudes such as jealousy, pride, envy, or greed. But not always. In this case, Mr. Sharp stood to receive a commission split if, in fact, Mrs. Kneedy bought an insurance policy. In the state in which he lives he was not required to disclose commission splits to people who buy from the insurance people he refers. Was Mr. Sharp wrong not to reveal the split to Mrs. Kneedy?

“Pastor, you are not getting it. Mr. Sharp may not have been trying to sell me an insurance policy directly but I suspect he may be getting a kick back from the insurance person he referred me to,” retorted Mrs. Kneedy.

“A kick back, you say? I know insurance people share commissions but I don’t know exactly how. The way insurance people do things between themselves can be confusing. Maybe what Mr. Sharp is doing is legitimate. Maybe, its not. Well, in any event, you don’t have to buy a policy do you?” opined the pastor.

“Too late,” interjected Mrs. Kneedy. “I already signed with a friend of his. I am just mad now because when I told him I changed my mind he said the premium was non-refundable.”

Pastor hesitated. “Oh. Ok. Maybe its time to ‘tell it to the church’ as Christ says. This sounds like a job for our lay conciliation team. As your pastor, I don’t want to get in the middle of you two. I am of the opinion that ‘telling it to the church’ means enlisting the help of fellow believers as I mentioned earlier. First Corinthians 6 teaches us that bringing a disputed matter ‘before the saints’ means relying on our wisest people to help resolve conflicts internally. They can help you and Mr. Sharp clarify the real issues, sort out who is properly involved in the process and encourage you both to reach a satisfactory resolution. The goal is for you to reconcile with each other, preserve your relationship, and set it up to grow. Paul really puts our relational values to the test when he poises the question, ‘Why not rather be wronged?’” Of course, your participation is voluntary and any resolution you might reach is not legally binding.

“Ok, fine let’s do it,” replied Mrs Kneedy.

“Fortunately, we have a strategy in place for conflict,” said the Pastor! He then asked his assistant to make a note to contact the conciliation team administrator.

For more information visit www.icorvi.org.