Dealing With Church Conflict
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.
-1 Timothy 5:17-22
In the last post, we looked at how stirring up division in the church is a grave sin that may even point to a lack of salvation. If we stir up division that is damaging to the church, we prove that we love ourselves more than the church, so we do not love the church. If we do not love the church, Scripture is clear that we do not love God. We greatly dishonor Christ when we dishonor His Bride. I concluded by saying that where there is division, there is necessarily unbelief. But I also said that sometimes division is necessary, so how can these both be true? Are there times in which division is appropriate, and what role does unbelief play in those cases? This post approach church conflict practically and lay out when division in the church is appropriate.
There Must Be Division
While Paul spends much of the first part of 1 Corinthians strongly exhorting his readers to abandon their sinful divisions and return to unity, he admits later on that divisions are necessary. When beginning his rebuke about how their factions were disgracing communion, he says, “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Corinthians 11:19). This obviously means that there will be people in the church—whether individuals or factions—who are not genuine believers. The Judaizers confronted in Galatians would fall into this category. We should expect that some people in our churches are not actually followers of Christ and will therefore be condemned in the end.
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
-Hebrews 6:4-8, ESV
While this passage is sometimes used to argue that we can lose our salvation, it is actually saying the opposite. Those who are in Christ cannot be be lost by Him. Our salvation is in His hands not our own. Instead, this passage is saying that there will be some people in our churches who appear from the outside to be genuine Christians. They may say and do all the right things. They may be leaders in the church or even pastors. But at some point, they will fall away. It will appear that they have lost their salvation, but this passage proves that it is impossible to regain salvation, meaning it is impossible to lose salvation in the first place. The soil will ultimately be revealed by the fruit it bears. For those that are genuine, this should actually increase their assurance of salvation, as seen in the verses that immediately follow it:
Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
-Hebrews 6:9-12, ESV
Nevertheless, this and many other passages prove that we must be ever vigilant about those who are in the church but not actually in Christ. God has promised that what is hidden will ultimately come to light, and that often happens in conflicts.
Causes of Church Conflict
Last time, we established that pride and self-centeredness motivate those who stir up division, but they are not the cause of all conflicts. In one sense, anything that causes conflict outside the church can also cause conflict within the church. Personalities and differing viewpoints can spark conflict in the church just as easily as they can outside the church. The Christian life is meant to be lived in fellowship with other believers, so the fact that we are all sinners means that we will hurt and wrong each other, which can also lead to conflict. We can also disagree on various doctrines. Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 talk about such conflicts. All of these are areas in which genuine Christians can disagree and therefore come into conflict with one another.
Other conflicts arise from much more serious causes, often revolving around either primary doctrines or secondary doctrines that some consider to be primary. The former is heresy, so all division caused by false teachers falls into this category. Scripture compels us to expose these false teachers and their heresy so that they will not spread like gangrene through the church (2 Timothy 2:17). In this case, either there are factions that are genuine vs. heretical or the entire church is heretical, thus division in this case is necessary and actually healthy. But these primary doctrines are limited to what every Christian must believe in order to be a Christian. This includes the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the depravity of man due to sin, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the church, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ in the past and us in the future, and final judgment—and nothing else. These things are all clearly taught in Scripture and cannot be disputed. There is room for honest debate about many of the particulars in each of these categories, but the doctrines themselves are primary. Essentially, everything found in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed is primary doctrine. All who teach doctrines contrary to these have no place in the church. They should be rebuked, and if they don’t repent they should be excommunicated.
But many conflicts arise because people elevate secondary doctrines to the same level as primary doctrines. This was the case in both Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10, where people disagreed over matters of conscience that were not primary doctrines. Specifically, they disagreed on whether it was sinful to eat meat connected to idol worship, drink alcohol, or observe festivals. Any number of issues can be similar. Should we baptize infants? Should we allow children to partake of communion? Should we sing psalms only or also sing hymns and other theologically accurate songs in worship? What is appropriate to do on Sundays? Should children be in the worship service for the entire time or should there be nursery or Sunday School for them? How should the church be governed? Which translation of Scripture should we use? These and many other questions fall into the category of topics that Scripture informs but where there is room for honest debate. On top of this, there are enumerable topics such as the church’s strategic direction, major decisions, and worship preferences that can be elevated to primary doctrine status, which causes conflict.
Addressing Disagreements
With the varied causes of conflict, it should come as no surprise that division in the church can come from anywhere. In the last post, we talked about members stirring up division by opposing church leaders, but church leaders themselves can be the cause of the division. It is also possible that some church leaders may be divided against other leaders. Therefore, all Christians need to know how to address these disagreements. The first step is to determine whether the disagreement is about a primary doctrine or not. If it is the former, it must be addressed–likely without any possibility of compromise. If it is the latter, there is much more room for compromise. The amount of compromise possible will depend on the nature of the dispute. If it is a matter of strong conscience, very little compromise may be possible, whereas something more preferential leave much leeway to compromise or even overlook the disagreement entirely. Then, it is important to consider who the disagreement is with. If it is with someone in a position of authority over us such as a pastor, we are commanded in Scripture to submit to their authority as long as that submission does not cause us to sin. Even when we must disobey in order to avoid sin, that disobedience must not be sinful but maintain the honor due to the one in authority. Therefore, everything discussed in my previous post about respectfully disagreeing applies to church conflicts.
Regardless of what the dispute is and who is causing it, we must follow the church discipline process set out in Matthew 18. The first step is always to go to that person directly and discuss the issue with them in a loving and respectful manner. In this, you also need to determine if the disagreement is brought about by sin or simply differing opinions. That will then determine how you proceed from there. If it is a sin, continue along the Matthew 18 path. Depending on the threat of that sin on the health of the church, public rebuke may become necessary. This is what happened when Paul openly rebuked Peter for caving in to the Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter took the rebuke and clearly repented. Their relationship was restored such that near the end of his life, Peter referred to Paul as a beloved brother (2 Peter 3:15). And we must not fail to notice that Paul rebuked Peter because his actions were condemning him. This was the faithful wound of a friend for Peter’s own good and was by no means disrespectful. In this case, Paul’s open rebuke was the best thing for the good of the Gospel and the church—and Peter’s own good too.
If it is a differing opinion, work to resolve it other ways or simply agree to disagree. Some of these disagreements may be serious enough that it is appropriate to leave the church. Differing views on topics like baptism and communion have practical implications that may make it impossible for some saints to worship in a church with the opposite view. If this occurs, the exit should be made quietly, lovingly, and without causing division. Differing convictions on topics without such ramifications are typically not valid reasons to leave a church. We will never find a church in which we agree with absolutely every doctrinal view and practice. God has not called us to find a perfect church but to commit to a faithful church. We must protect the unity of the church, so we need to have much patience with each other and bear with each other in our disagreements. When the world sees that we can disagree strongly and yet still love each other as Christ loves us, they will see the greatness of Christ. And as always it is vital to keep the main thing the main thing: focus on the Gospel.
An Example from Scripture
Let’s look at an example of a conflict over a secondary doctrine made primary. In Numbers 12, Moses’s sister Miriam, along with their brother Aaron, opposed Moses because of his interracial marriage. Moses had married a Cushite—a black woman from the region south of Egypt—which Miriam clearly did not approve of, so it seems that after conferring with Aaron, the two of them together opposed Moses.[1] This was clearly not a private rebuke from one saint to another but an act of open and brazen opposition. Still, it was not immediately clear whether Moses’s interracial marriage was sinful or not. Certain commands in the Law can be (and often have been) interpreted as outlawing interracial marriage. Miriam clearly held that view, but rather than verifying with Moses (or with God) that her interpretation was correct, she reasoned that she was in a position to oppose him because God spoke to her like He spoke to Moses. Listen to God’s response:
And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
-Numbers 12:6-8, ESV
First, Miriam had mistaken a disagreement with sin. As we saw here, the commands seeming to ban interracial marriage actually prohibit the mixing of religions not races, so Moses was not sinning. More importantly, the way Miriam approached the disagreement gives us an example of what not to do. By opposing Moses, Miriam was opposing the one God had placed in a unique position of authority. God affirms the authority of Moses in the strongest possible terms, twice repeating the incredibly rare position Moses held as His servant. God praises Moses’s faithfulness in fulfilling His unique position over all of God’s people. He makes clear that this unique authority should have made Miriam afraid to challenge him as she had. Even though she was his sister and enjoyed immense prominence in Israel, Miriam was sinning by placing herself on the same level of authority as Moses. God had appointed Moses as His servant, not her, so in claiming equal authority to him, she was rebelling against the authority God had put in place. In punishment for this and to highlight the fact that Moses’s interracial marriage was not sinful, God struck Miriam with leprosy—a disease in which the dying skin turns white. Bur remarkably, unlike those who had rebelled before and been killed as a result, Miriam’s leprosy was gone within a week and she was restored to fellowship. This likely indicates that she repented of her opposition to Moses. So we should not follow her example in how we approach disagreements with other believers—especially our pastors—but we should follow her example of repentance.
What About Bad Leaders?
In the vast majority of cases, the pastors of the church are not the ones in error. But as alluded to earlier, that is not always the case, so we need discernment in how to approach situations in which pastors may be in grave error. History is replete with examples of pastors leading their congregations into theological error and immorality—the two often go hand-in-hand. In our day, prosperity gospel preachers and many celebrity pastors fall into this category. They twist Scripture to enrich themselves, use their position to abuse their members and compromise their morals, and then accuse anyone who confronts them of either heresy or stirring up division. For the good of the church, this must be opposed.
When confronting this issue, we first need to do what we do in every other case—ensure the doctrines or actions in question are actually sinful. If they are sinful, we must use discretion on how much private rebuke to attempt before public exposure. Again, the good of the church is the deciding factor on what we do here: “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Timothy 5:19-20). In other words, public rebuke should not occur unless the sin is substantiated by multiple witnesses, and even then the purpose must be the good of the whole church, not the vindication of individuals. Such public rebuke is only appropriate for serious sins that threaten the good of the church.
All pastors are human and therefore sin in various ways, which is exacerbated by the incredibly high standards to which pastors are held. It is impossible for even the best pastor to constantly meet all of the character criteria in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, so failure to meet those standards while genuinely stiving for them is not grounds for public rebuke. While 1 Timothy 5:17 does say that it is the elders who rule well that are worthy of double honor, we must be careful to avoid judging our pastors too harshly in an attempt to absolve ourselves of the need to honor them. We do not get to decide if a pastor has ruled well, but God does. He has defined ruling well as shepherding the flock of God following the example of Jesus (1 Peter 5:1-4). Ruling well does not mean making decisions I like but feeding the sheep. Ruling well does not mean being popular but faithful to Scripture. Ruling well does not mean avoiding tough and convicting topics but following the example of Christ in lovingly calling people to repentance. In the end, many pastors who are regarded by their congregations as ruling poorly will be told by God “well done”, whereas those who rebel against them risk being told to depart from Him. Rebellion is an abomination to God, so we must be very careful to avoid sugarcoating it by caveats about how we think our pastors aren’t ruling well.
This is immediately followed by the command to submit to the pastors: “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble”” (1 Peter 5:5). We are in no place to judge another servant of God except by the criteria He has established (Romans 14:4). This passage clearly states that it is only those who persist in sin that should be rebuked. Even then, we are never absolved of our obligation to honor our pastors, so we must not overlook the log of pride, self-righteousness, and rebellion in our own eyes while trying to remove some speck from our pastors’ eyes. Everything must be done in love, especially rebuke. Only after we have humbly and lovingly confronted pastors in errant primary doctrine or actual unrepentant and persistent sin can we think of causing division—and such division must be for the ultimate good of the church.
It is only in these times of persistent grave theological error or sin that division in the church is appropriate. I stated last time that division in the church is a sure sign of unbelief, so it either points out unbelief in those causing it or those exposed by it. In the vast majority of cases, it has been the former, which is why I wrote so strongly last time against those who stir up division. But as we saw earlier, when the errors and sins become severe enough to threaten the church, there must be divisions. In that case, a division has already formed between the pastors and sound doctrine and practice—both of which pastors are charged to keep close watch over (1 Timothy 4:16). The faithful saint in that situation then is not stirring up division but recognizing it. The pastor or faction standing contrary to sound doctrine and practice then would be in unbelief, so division is still a sign of unbelief somewhere. If it becomes widespread, the whole church may become infected by it. Therefore, the faithful saint would be right to leave that church and lovingly encourage others to leave as well. But such situations are rare and must be approached with extreme caution and humility.
Conclusion
In the end, church conflict is one of the most difficult situations churches and individual Christians can face, but we have ample guidance in Scripture with which to address it. We need to be careful to avoid letting disagreements over secondary doctrines or practices threaten the unity and joy of the church, but we also need to keep errant primary doctrine and persistent sin from threatening the unity and joy of the church. Paul sums this up well to Titus:
The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
-Titus 3:8-11, ESV
For all who are in Christ, we will spend eternity together with one another, so we should do our best to live in harmony now. That will not always be possible in our fallen world, but it is much more possible than it often appears. Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25), so divisions in the church are the quickest way to stunt the growth of the Kingdom. Let us strive for unity to the detriment of our pride and selfishness but not at the expense of sound doctrine. Let every person and church be excellent in all that is good and innocent of all that is evil, knowing that the God of peace will soon crush Satan under our feet (Romans 16:19-20).
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
-2 Corinthians 13:11, ESV
NOTES:
[1] John Piper, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2011: 203-215.
