Conflict Management and the Apostle Paul

Conflict Management and the Apostle Paul

Edited by

Scot McKnight

and

Greg Mamula

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND THE APOSTLE PAUL

Copyright © 2018 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-5066-6

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-5067-3

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-5068-0

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Names: McKnight, Scot, editor. | Mamula, Greg, editor.

Title: Conflict management and the apostle Paul / edited by Scot McKnight and Greg Mamula.

Description: Eugene, OR : Cascade Books, 2018 | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: ISBN 978-1-5326-5066-6 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-5326-5067-3 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-5326-5068-0 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Paul, the Apostle, Saint. | Conflict management.

Classification: LCC BS2505 C58 2018 (print) | LCC BS2505 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 05/25/18

Table of Contents

Title Page

Contributors

Paul and Conflict

An Introduction to Modern Conflict Management

Chapter 1: Hello, Goodbye!

Chapter 2: Paul Pleads with Philemon

Chapter 3: Crucial Conversations at the Jerusalem Council

Chapter 4: Learning to Love in Faith, Rather than Fight with Power

Chapter 5: All Too Human

Chapter 6: The Corinthian Conflict and the Collection

Chapter 7: The Table and the Cross

Chapter 8: Mission in Tension

Chapter 9: Addressing False Teaching and Heresy

Contributors

Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary

Greg Mamula, Associate Executive Minister, American Baptist Churches of Nebraska, Omaha, NE

Jeff Blair, Pastor, Locus Grove Freewill Baptist Church, Locus Grove, OK

Andrew Gleddiesmith, Lead Pastor, Fraserview Church, Richmond, BC, Canada

Derwin Gray, Lead Pastor, Transformation Church, Charlotte, SC

Amanda Hecht, Pastor, Faith Community Church, Wakaw, SK, Canada

Randy Johns, Preaching Minister, Mayfair Church of Christ, Oklahoma City, OK

Kristen Bennett Marble, Senior Pastor, West Morris Street Free Methodist Church, Indianapolis, IN

Doug McPherson, Family Pastor, Mayfield Road Baptist Church, Arlington, TX

Ray P. Miller, Pastor, Crievewood Baptist Church, Nashville, TN

Shawn O’Brien, Pastor of Shred, Torrance, CA

Brett Sanner, Lead Pastor, LifePoint Church, Quincy, IL

Ric D. Strangway, Lead Pastor, North Point Community Church, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Ben Tertin, Lead Pastor, Central Bible Church, Portland, OR

Michael C. Thompson, Pastor, New Life Baptist Church, Bellevue, NE

Paul Trainor, Director of Las Vegas Extension and Associate Professor of New Testament Theology, Lincoln Christian University

Chandler Vinson, Senior Pastor, Rutledge Baptist Church, Rutledge, TN

Lauren Anders Visser, Adjunct Professor of Communication Arts, Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, IL

Jared Willemin, Pastor to Children and Their Families, Cross Pointe Church of the Nazarene, Salisbury, MD

Paul and Conflict

Example or Not?

Buried into the back of your copy of Paul’s letter to the church of the Roman colony, Philippi, is an apostolic urging that may well be the precise reason Paul wrote this short (in Pauline standards) letter. Two women, Euodia and Syntyche, are urged to be of the same mind in the Lord (Phil 4 : 2 ; NRSV). Lynn Cohick, in her commentary on Philippians, observes some argue the situation in Philippians 4 : 1 – 3 about Euodia and Syntyche is minor, unimportant, or incidental. She’s right, and one could create a long list of scholars who agree. But Lynn turns the corner noting, most recent commentators hold that Paul’s concern for unity between these [two female leaders and] believers is central to the letter. ¹

The story repeats itself. Bible read by males, Bible read for males, women in the Bible ignored or silenced or unnoticed. In a letter about unity shaped by the word same (1:27; 2:2; 3:15; 4:2), in a letter justly famous for the Christ hymn (2:6–11) but which is provoked into appearance in this letter to teach Christoformity and sacrifice for others in order to maintain unity (2:1–5), and in a letter where fellowship (1:5; 2:1; 3:10), the first real mention of anyone in particular is these two women. What are they told? To have the same mind (3:2). I am of the view, with many others, that the division between Euodia and Syntyche both shapes the problems at Philippi and represents the problem. The problem is division and the need is unity.

Granting that non-controversial conclusion, I want to approach this from another angle, one I have not seen or heard. How do you think Euodia and Syntyche responded to Paul’s putting them on the spot? To Paul’s degrading of their status in the community by calling them out in this letter, which would have been performed publicly for all in the congregation and house churches to hear?

So let’s imagine what they might have said in their defense, and we’ll get to what he said that they surely needed to be of the same mind about below. It would not have been a stretch of imagination for the Christians of Philippi to know, first, about some of the Apostles Behaving Badly. I’m speaking here of the public outburst of Paul against Peter and Peter’s rather obvious failure to live up to the gospel that includes gentiles. The story is told from Paul’s angle in Gal 2:11–14. Details aside—was Peter eating pork? Were the Jewish believers demanding circumcision?—the incident itself is enough to tell the story of apostles. One mind, Paul? Euodia and Syntyche ask.

And, second, we can reasonably think that Paul was not himself of one mind with either Barnabas or John Mark. One can read up about Paul’s strong disagreement with Barnabas over taking John Mark on the mission trip subsequent to the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:37–40). Earlier John Mark had jumped the mission trip ship and headed back to Jerusalem (13:13) and Paul didn’t like it. Barnabas, correctly it turns out, saw more in John Mark than did Paul at the time. Euodia and Syntyche could have looked Paul square in the eyes and said, One mind, Paul?

It takes no imagination to know that what festered between Paul and the Corinthians was anything but unity, fellowship, and one mind. In a close reading of his letters, and maybe it will take more than one close reading, we encounter one communication after another. We find 1 Corinthians, and then what is called the severe letter, then we get 2 Corinthians, which may be more than one letter. In addition to the letters, we also discover that Paul crossed the Aegean from Ephesus to Corinth one trip after another. We learn it was not just Paul travelling but also Timothy and Titus each trying to work things out. Any reading with sensitivity can see that 2 Cor 10–13 is Paul’s response to accusations made against him by the Corinthians. They couldn’t be entirely wrong, could they? One mind, Paul?

These three examples could at least have flashed through the mental screens of Euodia and Syntyche when they, sitting in the house church—one of theirs?—heard their names and heard as well Paul’s urging of them to be of the same mind. Did they even hear Paul continue with help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are in the book of life (4:3)? And who is this companion? Perhaps Epaphroditus, perhaps Luke, perhaps Timothy. Whoever it is, he is being urged to work with Euodia and Syntyche to come to agreement. There are many things we don’t know—including what the point of their dispute was. What we do know is that they were fractured and they were contributing to fracturing in the Philippian house churches.

If they continued to listen, however, they heard Paul affirm them publicly, and that was noteworthy and valuable in a world driven by status and public honor. If they listened they heard him tell the whole church that they have been companions with Paul in gospel work—which means evangelism and teaching and discipline and suffering. If they listened they heard him label them with his most noble term: coworkers. If they listened they heard they were to be classed with the leader Clement. Most noticeable, they heard him say they—in spite of their tension—were names listed in the book of life. This is Paul’s way of saying they are on God’s side all the way.

Whatever they heard they knew that the tension at work between them, however, was at work in Paul’s own life and mission. Paul could surely point to fractured relationships now healed—which is the case with Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6), Peter (9:5; 15:5), and John Mark (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:9, 11), and it is noticeable that Peter is now getting along with John Mark too (1 Pet 5:13). I am not suggesting directly that Paul could respond to their flashing mental screens with his stories of fractured relationships now made healthy again, but we could.

What I am saying is that Paul is not perfect; only Jesus gets that place in our minds and hearts. What I am saying is that Paul is not a perfect pastor and his approach to conflict is not always consistent with Jesus’ or even with his own gospel of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:16–21). What I am saying is that in the book that follows we will take conflict management theory at its best, which for pastors at least is Christian principles put to use in management theories, and examine the Apostle Paul. He comes out pretty well, but not unscathed.

What I am saying is that Paul is like us and he needs to grow just as we do.

This collection of essays around a given theme—conflict management—and using a theory of conflict management to provoke questions about the Apostle Paul’s management style emerged from a Doctor’s of Ministry course at Northern Seminary. My hope for the papers that were presented in class was that they would be solid enough for publication was realized. The opening sketch of recent studies on conflict management by Lauren Visser and Greg Mamula set the tone but also gave to the rest of the students categories by which to assess Paul. The week-long intensive revealed to me that pastors, who often live weekly with conflict in the church setting, see dimensions of Paul’s own ministry that non-pastors often do not see. So, as the papers were presented and the discussions followed I sat back and watched veterans in conflict management ply their trade with skill and wisdom.

I asked Greg Mamula, who as a church administrator for the American Baptist Churches is called routinely into conflict situations in local churches, to edit this book with me and I did so for this major reason: I knew he could make suggestions for each chapter on how conflict management theory might apply to a specific incident in the life of the Apostle Paul. I am grateful for his wisdom and careful attention to the details of bringing our book to completion.

Northern Seminary deserves our gratitude for the freedom it is giving to this professor to chart some unexplored waters in some of our classes. I want to express my thanks to President of Northern, William Shiell, for his enthusiasm and support of this book.

Scot McKnight

Julius R. Mantey Professor of New Testament

Northern Seminary

Lisle, Illinois

Bibliography

Cohick, Lynn H. Philippians. Story of God Bible Commentary. New Testament Series 11

. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

2013

.

1. Cohick, Philippians,

208

.

An Introduction to Modern Conflict Management

By Lauren Visser and Greg Mamula

Pastor X has been the pastor of her church for three years. She thought she had a good working relationship with her congregation, but after the last committee meeting, she is now unsure. The committee is composed of six members, and the meeting started the same as always: pray, review minutes from previous meeting, and work through the agenda items. At the very end of the meeting, one of the committee members added a last-minute agenda item: education. He was adamant that children’s ministry should be the most important focus for the next month, and since Christmas was coming, they should create a children’s Christmas program. Pastor X immediately responded that while involving children is a wonderful idea, there was not enough time to pull together an entire Christmas program on such short notice. The committee member then loudly proclaimed that Pastor X was disengaged from the community, disrespectful, and did not care about the church or its future. The other members remained silent until the tirade was done and the committee chair responded, Okay. Let’s be done for now and pray. As soon as the prayer was done, the angry committee member stormed out of the room. Everyone else left in silence without looking at each other. Hurt and confused, Pastor X now wonders, What do I do next?

The situation above is fictional, but it represents very real, hurtful conflicts that many pastors have experienced in ministry. Conflict is inevitable. People have different goals, views, and personalities, and the church is full of imperfect people. But conflict does not have to be destructive. The Chinese character for conflict is the combination of two characters: danger and opportunity. With this realization, conflict can be seen as a challenge that can lead to new opportunities. For pastors like Pastor X, who are wondering where to start after experiencing conflict and how to move from danger to opportunity, this book will provide insight into what Paul says about conflict. Before we listen to Paul, though, there are many other helpful conflict management resources. Some deal with general contexts while others specifically relate to church contexts. All provide a framework for managing conflict, and this introduction will provide a brief overview of various conflict management strategies.

Research on Conflict

Some of the best research regarding conflict and conflict management comes from the Harvard Negotiation Project. For the past three decades, Roger Fisher and William Ury (of the Harvard Negotiation Project) have had a dramatic impact on conflict management. Their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is an international bestseller in its third edition.² The principles of Getting to Yes have inspired many other conflict managers and their teachings. Their greatest contribution to conflict management is their perspective on what is actually being negotiated in the negotiation process. Many conflicts center around what Fisher and Ury call positional bargaining, where each side takes a position, argues for it, and compromises those positions until an agreement is reached or an impasse occurs. Taking a position is helpful in that it informs the other party in the conflict what you want and helps guide you into producing terms for an agreement. However, positional bargaining has several weaknesses. It does not guarantee an agreement can be reached, sometimes produces hostile actions outside of the negotiation process, hinders the ability for an ongoing relationship once the negotiations are over, and, when multiple parties are involved the issues become even more complicated.

What makes Fisher and Ury’s approach different and effective is how they view the process of a good negotiation. For them, Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.³ The ability to look beyond positions and begin looking toward substance is important. In other words, begin to focus on the issue itself and not the individual personalities involved. Then begin to develop procedures for dealing with the issue in partnership with the other parties involved in the conflict. This is called principled negotiation by Fisher and Ury. The good thing about this type of alternative to conflict management is that it can be done unilaterally. One side can begin to deal with the issue in this manner and it will begin to affect the approach of the other parties involved in the conflict.

Fisher and Ury’s Basic Four

There are four basic points that summarize all of Fisher and Ury’s teaching on principled negotiation. First, separate the people from the problem. People often have difficulty with effective communication, especially when strong emotions are involved. When people take a positional bargaining approach, it exacerbates the problem because our emotions get connected to their positions. A good conflict manager must learn to be able to separate the individual personalities involved in the conflict from the issue at hand. At some point, they also seek to help the parties involved begin to see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem together. A simple action I have found helpful in separating people from the problem is once gathered in the negotiation room to put the opposing parties on the same side of a table facing a white board with the main issue written on it. When the parties involved are not looking across a table at one another they begin to see each other less as combatants and more as partners facing the problem together.

Next, focus on interests, not positions. To really resolve a conflict, understanding the deeper interest is of paramount importance. Positions are usually indicative of underlying issues. Making both parties aware of their interests helps them better understand where each side is coming from. When all the parties involved better understand the ultimate interests of those involved it helps them begin to frame possible solutions that meet the interests rather than a hardline position.

Third, the conflict manager is also invited to help the parties involved create multiple options for mutual gain. Searching for one right solution can be a roadblock to the conflict management process. Developing a wide range of possible solutions that advance the shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests is a creative way to get the parties involved working together.

The fourth and final task of principled negotiation is insisting on using objective criteria. Developing a fair standard on how to reach an agreement is helpful. All good negotiation should include the three principles of wisdom, efficiency, and relationship building. However, to give shape to those principles, an outside standard that speaks to the issue at hand might be helpful such as market value, cultural contexts, legal standing, or even an outside expert opinion.

These four principles from Fisher and Ury and their larger implications and detailed applications have been lifted up across cultures and contexts as standard practices when approaching conflict situations. These principles have been used in global politics, business deals, peace negotiations, community debates, and even church struggles.

A Conversational Perspective

While Fisher and Ury approached conflict management from a negotiation standpoint, other members of the Harvard Negotiation Project focused on conflict management from a conversational perspective. In the book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen offer a way to deal creatively with tough problems while treating people with decency and integrity.⁴ The authors start by explaining that all difficult conversations share the same structure, which breaks into three categories: the what happened? conversation, the feeling conversation, and the identity conversation.⁵ Managing conflict means managing these three underlying conversations.

When discussing the first conversation, what happened?, Stone, Patton, and Heen warn against three assumptions. The first is the truth assumption, which often leads people to argue about whether or not they are right. But the authors warn that difficult conversations are not about what is true; they are about what is important. This thinking thus causes a shift from proving the truth toward understanding different perceptions, interpretations, and values.⁶ The second assumption is the intention invention, which is an assumption that one person can judge another’s intentions or motives. The authors issue another warning: intentions are invisible and inventing them leads to unfounded assumptions. The third assumption is the blame frame, which seeks to discover who is at fault. Unsurprisingly, the authors warn yet again that this distracts people from discussing what is actually important and prevents them from correcting errors and moving forward.⁷

In the second category, the feeling conversation, one acknowledges that conflict involves emotions. While it is sometimes unproductive to discuss feelings, there are also times when it is essential. Therefore, one needs to learn how to discuss feelings as a part of managing conflict.⁸ Whether feelings are shared or left unexpressed, they can still affect a conversation. Therefore, the authors urge those managing conflict to explore their emotional footprint and to learn to acknowledge that others’ feelings are just as important as their own.⁹ When describing feelings, the authors also helpfully suggest that feelings should be described carefully, be connected to the problem, and be shared without evaluation.¹⁰

The third category is the identity conversation, and it is perhaps the most challenging category. This category causes one to look inward, to discover who they are, and to ascertain how they see themselves. When managing conflict, one must also manage one’s inner dialogue and discover what one believes the conflict is saying about their own self.¹¹ One of the fundamental questions one must ask is, What is at stake? Three core identities that often seem threatened by difficult questions are: am I competent?; am I a good person?; and am I worthy of love?¹² A key to managing these questions is to become aware of them and then to adopt the and stance, which allows for people’s identities to be complex, such as making wise and unwise choices or having noble and less noble intentions. When unpacking one’s identity, three realities one ought to accept are that one will make mistakes, intentions are complex, and all parties have contributed to the problem.¹³

In order to effectively manage conflict and embrace difficult conversations, all three categories need to be balanced. Once a balance is present, Stone, Patton, and Heen state that the nature of the conversation changes. One is no longer focused on proving their point, getting their way, or convincing the other person that they are wrong; instead, the conversation is focused on learning. Once this is a learning conversation, participants focus on what has happened from the other person’s point of view, explain your point of view, share and understand feelings, and work together to figure out a way to manage the problem going forward.¹⁴ Throughout their book, Stone, Patton, and Heen provide real life examples and alternative solutions to difficult conversations. They also provide a concise checklist, summarizing the five steps one takes when engaging with difficult conversations:

Step 1: Prepare by walking through the three conversations.

Step 2: Check your purposes and decide whether to raise the issue.

Step 3: Start from the third story.

Step 4: Explore their story and yours.

Step 5: Problem-solving.¹⁵

At the crux of the book is the reminder that one cannot change other people, but one can change the way they converse with them. ¹⁶ By starting with acknowledgment of the structure and forces underneath conflict, and then finding a way to share stories, difficult conversations can become less difficult and more productive.

General-situation theories are always helpful for laying foundations of understanding, and the Harvard Negotiation Project has done a masterful job of providing tools for effectively managing conflict and handling difficult conversations. But for those pastors who are