I wanted to take a break from my normal ultra-political writing to focus on an area that is tremendously important to my faith. As a Christian, I am thrust into a body of believers, all of whom I will be spending an eternity with in heaven. I hope God has got a plan for making everyone get along when we’re up there, because down here it seems that Christians are at each other’s throats just as much as anyone else.
As I see conflict in my church, and hear of it in other places through anecdote, I have noticed what appears to be a basic divergence from scriptural teaching on dealing with the inevitable personality clash. Often, it seems the most minor disagreement or misunderstanding has a propensity to balloon into a bigger issue - and soon people are no longer speaking, leaving churches or having emotionally charged confrontations. While not all of this can be avoided, I think there are some clear principles in scripture that help us to handle one another.
Jesus Speaks on the Issue
In two separate places, Jesus himself dealt with the issue of interpersonal conflict. Here is Matthew’s account:
…if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector (Matthew 18:15-17).
And also in the sermon on the mount:
Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:23-26).
Clearly, the bible declares that we should confront these issues head on, even forsaking spiritual things for a moment to “be reconciled.” A church full of smiling people, singing together and worshiping - who also happen to be in unresolved conflicts, or at enmity with each other is a major problem if we take these verses at face value.
Authority is Last, Not First
However, I think much of the conflicts within the church, especially in mainline American churches, are less about enmity and more about communication breakdowns (not heeding the primary advice in the passage to “go and tell him his fault”).
As far as I know, I have had very few conflicts in my own church of ten years. But it is alarming that when I have been informed of a word in error, or an insensitive action, it has been from authority first, and rarely ever from the person whom I have faulted. It seems that Christians have bought into the “tattle-tale” victim-based society in which we live. For example, when Billy calls Jamie a name, Jamie runs screaming to the teacher. In my wife’s classroom, she won’t even listen to Jamie until she goes to Billy and attempts to resolve the conflict with him herself. This is successful often, and so Christians are made to look more immature than first-graders.
How to Handle Confrontation
Scripture gives clear guidance on how to deal with confrontations as well.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another (Galatians 5:22-25).
This famous passage of scripture is a pragmatic guide to dealing with other people in the body. First of all, we are to take a moment (my recommendation) and consider that we are to be kind in confrontation, and exercising self-control. This is critical if we are to accurately communicate our case to the believer without being inflammatory or offensive ourselves.
This is easier to do if we remember some basic things that are true of many conflicts:
- Christians are on the same team. Many conflicts arise because of a disagreement on how to arrive at a shared goal. It is critical to acknowledge that the other person still shares Christ in common and isn’t trying to undermine our whole world. It is often helpful before a confrontation, to work down from broad things of agreement so as to reveal the detail that is in conflict.
- Presumption of innocence. Most people don’t deliberately like to go around offending or hurting people. In most conflicts I have observed, one party is either ignorant or unaware that they have even done anything. Rather than retreat into self-imposed victimhood (”they should know what they did”), we have to assume that the other party really did not want to cause such distress.
- Pray for them. This is not to be confused with fake “prayer requests” to others, which are gossip-based. This is individual prayer, to God, praying for the other party in general. Prayer for their marriage, or job or whatever. This helps acknowledge the first two principles.
- Forgive. Forgiveness is not conditional. We are not to hold grudges until someone apologizes or pays us back or whatever. We are to forgive without question, because we were forgiven in the same way.
Doing these things before addressing a conflict are helpful ways to dispel the discomfort of confrontation. In fact, if successful in practicing these things, a confrontation is no longer a battle of enemies, but an opportunity to resolve an error in communication between to allies.
How to Perpetuate and Augment a Conflict
Even if none of the above seem correct or accurate, or another way seems better, there are basic things that are almost always going to make a conflict much worse. Again, I have seen all of these destructive things in practice in both church and non-church environments. I have placed them into two categories, as usually people prefer one style of conflict augmenters over others.
Subtle Augments
- gossip and “prayer requests” that are really gossip
- attempting to bury or ignore hostile feelings
- passive aggressiveness
- authority first
Subtle augments are preferred by people who absolutely hate confrontation. Usually they pursue these means, not because they want to hurt the other person, but because they are too terrified of the emotion, insecurity and risk of a confrontation.
For example, Jamie would go to her friends and describe what Billy did in the hopes that a mutual friend would tell Billy what a jerk he was. It would be an added bonus if Billy, upon learning this, apologized to Jamie. However, this is only going to augment conflict because now more people are involved. Billy is now demeaned (or maybe feels this way) and the conflict has been added to, and is farther away from being resolved. On the other hand, malicious gossip, to tear others down, is definitely not going to help. If this is the case, the conflict is definitely going to get ugly fast.
Passive aggressiveness is defined as “resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness” usually in authority situations, but it applies to conflicts in general as well. This is almost always the result of an offended party attempting to ignore or bury hostile or hurt feelings. In reality, it is destructive to both parties, as one is in silent anguish and the other is suddenly dealing with a friend or acquaintance who is behaving “unfriendly” to them. I’ll never forget the time an acquaintance of mine pulled me aside in clear emotional distress, barely able to talk, and described how she had been upset with me for six months(!) because of an inadvertent comment I had made about something special to her. I had been unaware of both the value of the thing to her, and that the comment was even offensive, but had I known it hurt her so, I would have apologized on the spot. She put herself through half a year of torture in avoiding confrontation, one that would have been easy to resolve.
The move to go to authority first has been dealt with previously. I will add that it has the same effect as gossip, but usually worse, as the authority is usually a person that both parties respect. The party finding out about a conflict through authority feels like a court session has been held without their knowledge, and they now have to start the resolution process from a position of presumed guilt. They also may be upset now with the other party for not dealing with them directly (and even possibly the authority for going along with it).
Overt Augments
- angry response/confrontation
- manipulative outbursts
- assembling a lynch mob
Obviously the most overt is the traditional angry response and direct confrontation. This can be public or private, but either way results in an immediate adversarial environment. It devolves into a fight to “win” the argument, and not to resolve a conflict between two allies.
A manipulative outburst is similar, but usually is a little more indirect that overt accusations or anger. Typical manipulation would set up a false scenario, sometimes elaborately so. Jamie would scream, “Billy spilled paint on my dress” and perhaps say, “now you’ve ruined my dress, is that what you wanted?” Sometimes, a third victim is brought in: Billy tells Jamie to get him a book from the shelf. Jamie doesn’t want to. Billy says, “I want to read with John! Do you want John to suffer because of your refusal to get me a book?”
In many ways, this leads into the overt augment of a lynch mob. Whereas a gossip would look to gain sympathy or fellow silent “judges,” the lynch mob organizer wants overt hostility and ostracism for the other party. Usually this is an outward projection of the sense of hurt and frustration the “victim” feels. Ironically, the lynch mob is rationalized as a mechanism of “justice” for the “victim” - however, there is nothing rational or just about a lynch mob. Justice is best served by a careful, compassionate confrontation, and after that, a mediator - but a mob is not justice.
Final Thoughts
Conflict is impossible to avoid. Even the most kind, gentile and cautious person is going to offend people in some way. But how one deals with this inevitable part of social interaction speaks of their maturity as a Christian. Fortunately, almost all conflicts are reconcilable, many with relative ease. The bible provides both pragmatic steps, and abstract attitudes for dealing with the inevitable clash. Pursuing “justice” via fleshy or manipulative ends is only going to make things worse for all involved. In general, before attempting to fight a battle, it is best to do everything possible to avoid friendly fire.
Good article. I’ve had to deal a little while back with a Sunday school class woman complaining to my wife in front of the rest of the class women about some supposed exclusion of her husband that I had done. Suffice it to say that she was completely incorrect and probably hadn’t even talked to her husband about it, but I was torn between talking to them or just letting it blow over. I opted for the latter because it was a REALLY small issue and figured she would get over it eventually. But definitely an issue where I would have appreciated if she had used the format you described above.
I think this same idea is applicable to conflicts within marriages. People can sometimes hold stuff in and think that their spouse should just KNOW that they said or did something hurtful.
I think this same idea is applicable to conflicts within marriages. People can sometimes hold stuff in and think that their spouse should just KNOW that they said or did something hurtful.
I do my best not to evaluate or judge people, but I can not help but notice that those marriages where there seems to be some difficulty are usually the ones where there is a lack of communication. It is one thing to let small things go in a relationship where you may only see a person 50 times in your life. It is another to do this with someone you live with and see the rest of your life. Those small things compound very quickly.
Even though it is difficult at times, Sadie and I do our best put communication first. We have a rule where our discussion and resolution of issues takes priority over everything - absolutely everything. We will not stop a conversation about such an issues without seeing it resolved fully - whether we have to cancel other plans, not go to bed or miss important events.
I don’t like confrontation. I think that is both good and bad, but I’m more likely to let things blow over. I have never gotten so offended at someone that I go and confront them.
When I was teaching a youth class once, I evidently upset one of the kids’ mothers. She never came to me, but my wife accidentally overheard her going to the pastor. He defended me, and never said anything about it to me. My wife got upset, but I didn’t. My whole attitude was like, “whatever”. Eventually this lady got over it, whatever the offense was. I really don’t know what I said or did. Either way, I never held it against her. If people want to be mad at me, that’s between them and God. I’ll pray for them, but what can I do? For all I know, they’re just being babies.
However, if someone were to approach me, I’d be more than happy to listen to their grievance. And if I did them wrong in any way, I’d want to make it right as soon as possible.
Ditto to Chris’ comments. Sometimes people just need to grow up.
It seems to me that scripture clearly commands confrontation in certain circumstances. I agree with the idea in general that battles should be picked wisely, and not all issues are worthy of a confrontation. At the same time, it is a fleshy attitude to avoid confrontation because we simply don’t like it or find it uncomfortable. I think the scripture clearly indicates that, even if we blow an issue off as not worth a confrontation, if we find ourselves gossiping, going to authority, getting angry or it interferes with our worship - then it must be confronted.
“It seems to me that scripture clearly commands confrontation in certain circumstances. I agree with the idea in general that battles should be picked wisely, and not all issues are worthy of a confrontation. At the same time, it is a fleshy attitude to avoid confrontation because we simply don’t like it or find it uncomfortable. I think the scripture clearly indicates that, even if we blow an issue off as not worth a confrontation, if we find ourselves gossiping, going to authority, getting angry or it interferes with our worship - then it must be confronted.”
I think you are basically right. I have had to confront people, and I really don’t like to do it. I know that is my personality, and yeah, if you choose not to confront a situation that warrants it, that’s not cool. In cases when I deem confrontation to be the only option, I will do it. But I think many minor conflicts just go away after people have had time to cool off and think about things. But I make the choice not to get angry or offended, and there’s no way I’m going to gossip or go tell on someone. I think some key virtues to keep in mind are love and patience. Sometimes love brings correction, but it also covers a multitude of sins.
Colin said, “I wanted to take a break from my normal ultra-political writing… I could vote for that!
Chris said, “I think many minor conflicts just go away after people have had time to cool off and think about things”
Yes, this is what I Cor. 13:5 says …love is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
If we really love someone we should aim to let the wrongs they do to us go. However, that is kind of tricky to do, and, having an amazing capacity for self-delusion, sometimes we move on, thinking all is well when it really isn’t. I think sometimes we know we should do keep no record of wrongs, so we tell ourselves we need to do that, and we try to do that, and we go on for a time acting like we did do that, BUT deep inside we are indeed still holding a grudge. That’s when we have to face the ugly truth that we haven’t really forgiven someone and many times we need to at least talk to the person, if not confront him.
Colin said, “We have a rule where our discussion and resolution of issues takes priority over everything - absolutely everything.”
I admire this, and I think it is a great rule to have. However, there may come times when it is not possible to settle the matter in one sitting (when you have kids you’ll know what I mean) and you may have to just agree to come back to it tomorrow. The trick is to then actually go back to it, don’t just fall into the temptation of “letting sleeping dogs lie.”
My recent policy on such situations has been to attempt to correct that authority lovingly. It is not just unwise of them to bring someone else’s criticisms to me, it is un-Biblical. A pastor should NEVER entertain criticisms that have not first been brought to the person directly, and if they DO get involved the accuser should accompany them to the confrontation. Being told that “someone didn’t like XXX that I did” is not right. My position remains that if “Someone” had a problem with XXX, that “Someone” should talk to me about it themselves. I will not modify my behavior based on gossip being spread that a person doesn’t like what I’m doing. (Though I will take this as an opportunity to ask “Someone” how they feel about my doing XXX.)
Atanamis, I have taken the exact position you have described and applaud you for doing so, as many people would be uncomfortable with it. However, I agree - it is clearly not a matter of style or etiquette, but biblicality.
I have yet to encounter a point where it has been necessary, but I have prepared a gentile response and protocol
ifwhen I find myself in that situation again.I will remember this, and also add it to my growing list of reasons why not to procreate!
“My recent policy on such situations has been to attempt to correct that authority lovingly. It is not just unwise of them to bring someone else’s criticisms to me, it is un-Biblical.”
I don’t necessarily agree. If the pastor has at least two witnesses, he may well have an obligation to address some things. I don’t think that would be unbiblical at all in cases that warranted immediate attention. But it is definitely not biblical to correct your pastor, whether he is wrong or not. Its not your place. I realize this is not a popular point-of-view, but I believe it is correct. The pastor is the shepherd, the congregation are the sheep. The sheep do not, under any circumstance, correct the sheep. That undermines his God-ordained place of authority. The pastor cannot adequately rebuke, reprove, and exhort (2 Timothy 4:2) when the sheep don’t respect his authority or see their authority as equal to his. This is dishonorable. Jesus did not establish the church as a democracy.
Chris said, “But it is definitely not biblical to correct your pastor, whether he is wrong or not. ”
Chris, I admire your respect for the pastorate, and I think we all have to be careful how we approach our shepherds. But, sadly, pastors are no more infallible than you or me, and we all need correction from time to time. Congregations who allow their pastors to go unchecked can end up being the followers of a cult leader. A pastor who is truly serving the Lord in grace and humility will welcome correction, just like any believer should.
Having two witnesses is fine - in biblical order. Direct, interpersonal confrontation must occur before appealing to arbitrators and witnesses. This is in the passages I cited.
I admire you for bringing up a position you know will be unpopular, and I agree with the sentiment that the church is no democracy and that godly authority must be respected. However, authority is judged by it’s actions - authority claiming to be of God, but not acting in consistency with scripture is out of order and needs to be wisely, lovingly corrected.
Chris, in your view, how should a congregation go about correcting a pastor who has gone astray in his teaching/living/etc.?
We can use a corollary to Postel’s law - be careful in what you say to others, and don’t be offended in what they say to you. You’ve going to both offend people, and be offended - that’s human nature. It’s how you deal with it that counts. As you point out, in the end, we’re all on the same team.
Why do Christians arrange their firing squads in circles?
[Postel’s law “be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others” (RFC 793 part 2.10)]
I have not heard of Postel’s law before, but it sounds exactly right as a general rule.
Chris,
Sadly, I speak from the voice of experience, having been in one of those churches where the pastor ran off with the organist, leaving his wife and children behind. About 100 years later I’m still hurting from the experience of trusting him without thinking.
“Chris, I admire your respect for the pastorate, and I think we all have to be careful how we approach our shepherds. But, sadly, pastors are no more infallible than you or me, and we all need correction from time to time. Congregations who allow their pastors to go unchecked can end up being the followers of a cult leader. A pastor who is truly serving the Lord in grace and humility will welcome correction, just like any believer should.”
What you have said is partly true. Certainly pastors are no more infallible than other Christians, and yes, they may need correction from time to time. What I am saying is that it is not up to the congregation to keep the pastor in check. Again, we are talking about what is and is not biblical.
The pastoral office is an extension of Jesus’ own ministry as the Great Shepherd. The same way in which he fed and led the sheep is the same way he has ordained his undershepherds to feed and lead the sheep. Let’s look at Ephesians 4:
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
So when Jesus ascended to heaven, he gave these ministry gifts to the body of Christ. Each of them has their own function, but collectively they are to work toward the spiritual development of other believers. The Bible uses the idea of children that are growing up and maturing in Christ. It is no more the job of someone under a pastor to correct him than it is the job of a child to correct his parent. It undermines his authority, and frustrates the grace of God given to him to fulfill his God-given gift. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is dishonorable.
We don’t often think of those in church leadership as fathers, and some of us probably think Catholics are wrong for referring to their leaders in this manner. But this language is consistent with the New Testament. Paul referred to the Corinthians and the Galatians as his children (2 Corinthians 6:13; Galations 4:19). He also called Timothy his “own son in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). John spoke in exactly the same way, and more so (I John 2:1,12,13,18,28; I John 3:7,10,18; I John 4:4; I John 5:21; 3 John 1:4). Here are some choice passages from the list:
“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth”
(3 John 1:4).
“Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged” (2 Corinthians 6:13).
So there is no biblical precedent for believers to assume it is okay to correct their leaders. This begs the question: who then can correct a pastor or leader? The answer is those to whom they answer. If they don’t answer to anyone than that is the problem. Paul, as an apostle, had a right to correct Timothy, a pastor. First, because Paul had built the church at Ephesus, and secondly, Timothy was Paul’s son in the faith.
The Bible is very specific about honor and whom should defer to whom. Much of this has to do with age. They younger should always defer to the elder. Even Timothy, who was a pastor, was warned by Paul not to rebuke an older man but to treat his as a father (I Timothy 5:1). There is a specific order where correction is concerned, and just because someone needs correction doesn’t mean it should come from us.
“The Bible uses the idea of children that are growing up and maturing in Christ. It is no more the job of someone under a pastor to correct him than it is the job of a child to correct his parent.”
Chris, I don’t want to pick a fight with you here, but I don’t think your argument is actually biblical. In other words, no where does scripture actually say “don’t correct your pastors/leaders.” Rather, your argument is based on an analogy to a human relationship where you assume children shouldn’t correct parents, not actually on anything that scripture specifically says. I do know that analogy can be a powerful tool for our understanding, etc. I’m just saying we need to be careful about making strong arguments that might not really be there.
Also, if you have kids (I don’t know if you do or what age they are) you will undoubtedly eventually have the experience where you will be corrected by them. We parents aren’t infallible, and sometimes we just have to admit to our kids that yes, we were wrong and yes, they were right. Does that undermine a parent’s authority? No, not really. It just shows the child that you are a person able to admit your sins and ask for God’s forgiveness just like they should.
yes you do, you fight picker! Them’s fightin’ words!
What I mean is, I like Chris, I appreciate his gentle attitude, and I don’t want to fight just for the sake of fighting.
I don’t agree with him, however.
Furthermore, I might be a nose-picker, but I’m not a fight-picker!
“Chris, I don’t want to pick a fight with you here, but I don’t think your argument is actually biblical. In other words, no where does scripture actually say “don’t correct your pastors/leaders.” Rather, your argument is based on an analogy to a human relationship where you assume children shouldn’t correct parents, not actually on anything that scripture specifically says. I do know that analogy can be a powerful tool for our understanding, etc. I’m just saying we need to be careful about making strong arguments that might not really be there.”
We all know there are a lot of things the Bible does not specifically forbid, but we know that we could never do some of those things in good conscience. Sure, to my knowledge the Bible never explicitly says that parents should not correct their parents. However, we have plenty of scripture that refers to correction, and none of them involves children correcting parents. Many of them do mention parents correcting children, so we have to assume that it’s the parent’s role to discipline the children and not the other way around. I realize that we have gotten away from some of these things culturally, so its not the easiest pill to swallow. But I encourage you to study in the Old Testament to get the bigger picture. The idea of children correcting their parents is as foreign to the Bible as anything. We know that proverbs speaks about parents using a rod to enforce correction. So we know that parents are authorized by God to use corporal punishment as a means of correction. However, we also know that the Law commanded children to be put to death if they struck their parents.
Remember when Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent? You may argue that Ham, Noah’s son, had a right to expose his father’s wrong. Certainly people shouldn’t drink in excess and pass out naked. But the Bible demonstrates that what Ham did was dishonorable. It wasn’t his place to expose his father’s wrong, and he paid dearly for it.
Rather than my having to prove that it is unscriptural for a member of a congregation to correct a pastor (or anyone else of authority), can anyone show me a biblical reason why this argument is incorrect? Just as in the case of the child/parent relationship, we know that it is the pastor’s duty to correct, rebuke, and encourage (2 Timothy 4:2). Can anyone show me where that same authority is given to the ones who are subject to correction from the pastor? In every given situation, you are either a leader or a follower. Even a pastor should be accountable to someone.
Someone needs to read my authoritarianism article!
But seriously, I think this is ultimately the philosophy that you are appealing to and I think it is not a natural or scriptural principle. I am not saying authority doesn’t exist, but authority is not as black and white as this.
Clearly there are more general philosophical issues that must be dealt with before applying this to pastoral authority. I will agree to disagree for the time, as I think it would be a long and weary discussion. A discussion like that is more plausible in person.
Chris, your position is quite Catholic, in that you argue that apostolic leadership should not be corrected even when clearly in contradiction to the Word of God. As a Protestant, I firmly oppose the idea that any human authority, including church authority, comes before the Word of God in its Authority over believers. It is my firm belief that even pastors make mistakes in their conduct. A Christlike pastor will react as Peter did when corrected by Paul (Gal 2:11-14), and amend his ways. A pastor more interested in earthly power than obedience to God will take offense at correction. As a result, their flock will either follow them away from the truth or leave to find a shepherd that seeks to follow the example of Christ and the apostles.
“Chris, your position is quite Catholic, in that you argue that apostolic leadership should not be corrected even when clearly in contradiction to the Word of God. As a Protestant, I firmly oppose the idea that any human authority, including church authority, comes before the Word of God in its Authority over believers.”
I never said any such thing. Apostolic leadership should not be corrected when they contradict the Word of God? Where are you getting this? Everyone may need correction at some point in time. The question is: whom should correct whom? Paul was able to correct Peter only after his apostleship was recognized by the other apostles.
I am merely saying that Jesus, the Word of God incarnate, established ministry gifts that are to be leaders in the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:8-13). These “gifts”, as the scripture calls them, are not mere structures of human authority; they are instituted by God Himself. (Certainly there are people in ministry who made a decision to do so independent of God, but that’s a separate issue altogether.) Listen to what Paul told the elders at Ephesus.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
So by this scripture we can gather that Jesus, who purchased the church with his own blood, ordained certain people to oversee the ones he redeemed. Notice that it says, “the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” If God elected these men to oversee the church, how then can those whom they are to oversee correct them?
I understand that many people disagree with this, but my question is: are you disagreeing on biblical grounds. I thought this article was about “Solving Personal Conflicts Biblically.”
*Interpersonal, that is.
” ‘In every given situation, you are either a leader or a follower.’
Someone needs to read my authoritarianism article!
But seriously, I think this is ultimately the philosophy that you are appealing to and I think it is not a natural or scriptural principle. I am not saying authority doesn’t exist, but authority is not as black and white as this.”
This is a verse that best sums up what I meant by the leader/follower quote:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1).
Question: Was Paul a follower?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was Paul a leader?
Answer: Yes.
Paul was a leader and a follower. All Christians should be followers. Some Christians should be leaders and followers. Husbands should be leaders of their homes, but should do so in accordance with the example Christ set forth. The same thing goes for pastors and other leadership.
If by authoritarianism you mean the tendency to control other people by abusing one’s power, that is obviously unbiblical and unchristian. That’s not what I am proposing at all.
Chris, that clarifies. Thank you.