What are the keys to resolving conflict?
A while ago I preached on Galatians 2.1–ten as part of our sermon serial on this letter. Stranded on a train at the weekend because of a landslide, I spent some fourth dimension wrestling with the main question that has dogged study of Galatians in recent years: to whom was it written and when? There are two main issues here:
- Was information technology written to those who were indigenous Galatians, in the northern area of the Roman province (the 'Due north Galatian hypothesis'? If so, then the letter must be quite late, since Paul is writing to people who know him, and he has not visited this region in his early ministry according to Acts (which doesn't make whatever articulate reference to a visit at all).
- Or was information technology written to those in the s, including Lystra and Derbe, who were not ethnic Galatians, but did live in the Roman Province named Galatia (the 'South Galatian hypothesis'). This would hateful the letter of the alphabet was (as is ordinarily thought) one of Paul's earliest, and prior to Romans.
Until the modern era, anybody believed the North Galatian hypothesis. Just that all changed when archæology and epigraphic evidence fabricated it clear that it was quite possible for Paul to address those in the s equally 'Galatians', even though that was not true ethnically. (Call up of the exercise of addressing people in the U.k. as 'Britons' even though ethnically many of us come from unlike racial stock, including Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian, earlier you fifty-fifty consider more recent clearing.)
(As office of my preaching in the evening, I included an 'Merely Connect'-style quiz: what is the connection between the proper name Fiona, the metropolis of Vienna, Turkey's capital Ankara, and Galaxy milk chocolate? The answer is: the Celts, or Galatikoi as they were known in Greek. Originating in the Danube bowl, they emigrated south-east into the center of Turkey, where their capital was Ancyra, mod-twenty-four hour period Ankara, and northward-westward to France, United kingdom and Ireland. Both Fiona and Vienna mean 'off-white' in Celtic, and they were known in Greek by the corresponding term derived from the word for milk 'gala'. 'Galaxy' in English comes from the Greek 'milky way'.)
Even given the now-majority consensus on the Southward Galatian hypothesis, there still remains the question of how Pauls' two visits to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 and 2 chronicle to the three visits recorded in Acts 9, 11 and 15. Did the visit in Acts 9 really happen? Is Paul's first visit in Gal 1 in fact the same as the 2 visits in Acts 9 and 11 combined? Is Paul's visit 'once more' in Gal 2 his second visit in Acts 11, or his third visit at the 'Council of Jerusalem' in Acts 15? Exercise both Acts and Galatians offering reliable accounts of Paul'south travels, or are i or both of them asunder from any historical reality? The arguments are finely counterbalanced, though at that place are some helpful explorations by Richard Fellowes and my colleague in this diocese, John Allister.
Whatever the resolution to these questions, Paul's business relationship in Gal 2.i–x offers some key insights into the resolution of conflict. Justin Welby recently commented on this question in relation to social media. He starts past speaking from his own feel almost the harm that conflict does:
In a procedure of reconciliation in which I was involved recently, one of the questions that people were asked (quite a standard question in these circumstances where the disputes are within the church) was, "What has this dispute washed to your soul?"
You lot could conform the question to unlike sorts of disputes, not to the lowest degree by changing the give-and-take 'soul' to 'spirit' or 'inner self' or something like that. Just it is a very valid question: the touch of disharmonize is not only external, but deeply internal. It causes trauma and lasting harm even where there has been no physical violence.
I will remember for a long time a alphabetic character I received in the last few years from someone who'd gone through a particularly difficult conflict in the church. It was total of what can merely described as deep trauma and sorrow. It had been securely damaging.
Paul offers us four key principles in our own approach to resolving disharmonize.
1. Don't blitz in, but trust God'southward timing
In his account, Paul emphasises the time elapsed earlier he comes to Jerusalem, whichever occasion nosotros empathise this to be. 14 years has gone by (Gal 2.1), and Paul's visit is prompted by a 'vision from God' (Gal 2.2). If this second visit corresponds to Acts 11, and so this 'vision' might exist the prophecy of Agabus; if information technology corresponds to Acts 15, then information technology looks as though Paul is referring to something revealed to him. (It is worth noting hither that Paul was in the habit of sharing whatever vision he has received with those around him—meet the episode in Acts sixteen.nine–10; 'After Paul had seen the vision, nosotros got ready at once…')
There are times when we demand to have the initiative to be reconciled (Matt 5.23–24, 18.15), and nosotros are non to behave resentment from ane day to the side by side (Ephesians 4.26). But there are other times when our desire to resolve disharmonize is actually driven past our own anxiety to put others right, or to avoid a situation we observe as well painful. The danger hither is that nosotros recall God is non as interested in resolving conflict every bit we are. And yet it is God who gave himself, in Jesus, to 'reconcile the world to himself' (2 Cor 5.19).
two. Play it straight
Despite debates about the way Paul uses language after in this letter, at this indicate his date is past (to use a cricketing metaphor) playing it with a straight bat. In a rather unusual turn of phrase, he talks of 'setting before' others his understanding of the gospel (Gal 2.2); it is equally if he and his dialogue partners are sitting across from each other around a table, and Paul has simply bundled his ideas on the table in front of them all, open up to discussion and scrutiny. Initially, he does this in private; this is non an practise in manipulating public opinion. It is not about scoring points, but almost honest date—including an honest account of what others have and take not done (in this instance, in relation to Titus).
And playing with a straight bat also ways being ready to stand firm on the issues that thing (Gal ii.5.)
three. Requite due respect
Three times in this passage, Paul describes his give-and-take partners with respect: they are 'those esteemed every bit leaders' (Gal 2.ii); they are 'held in high esteem' (Gal ii.6); and they are 'esteemed equally pillars in the church building' (Gal two.nine). I retrieve it is unfortunate that, along with Paul'southward apparent qualification of this ('God shows no favouritism', Gal two.6), most English translations brand this sound slightly sarcastic—those 'thought to exist' of standing. In fact, commentators are broadly in agreement that Paul is hither giving genuine credit. And this of course supports the example he is making to the Galatians: those of continuing in the early Christian community back up his ministry and agree with his agreement ('they added nothing to my message').
I think this is supported past Paul's slightly odd switch in referring to 'Cephas' in Gal 2.9 when he has just, twice, referred to him equally 'Peter'. The most plausible explanation is that he is remembering that Peter was deputed by Jesus own words. Paul recognises the importance of the person who is potentially his greatest rival, and emphasises (as does Luke in Acts) the parallels between his ministry to the Gentiles and Peter's to the Jews (Gal 2.7–8).
Paul does non brand his case look good by trying to make others' look bad. He doesn't make himself wait taller by making others look smaller. It has been said that humility is standing at our total height adjacent to God at his full acme—and that ways standing next to others at their full height too.
When you are in a situation of conflict, are yous ready to requite due credit to your (actual or potential) opponents? Paul is clear that this is not about fawning to people; God does non pick and cull favourites. Simply it means being open virtually the value of other people'south state of affairs every bit you are nigh your ain.
iv. Go along the master thing the principal thing
Paul finishes this section by agreeing on a central concern of the gospel—'to remember the poor' (Gal ii.ten). Some have argued that this is about remembering the Jerusalem church, often known as 'the poor'. And the Ebionites, a Jewish Christian group that many retrieve derived from Paul's 'Judaizing' opponents in Jerusalem, derive their name from the Hebrew ebyonim, the 'poor ones'.
In fact (equally Bruce Longenecker has persuasively argued) business for the poor was a consistent feature of Paul'south ministry, and was in line with Jesus' own teaching. He who was rich for our sakes became poor (2 Cor 8.9); it is the poor (in spirit) who know their need of God and are open to the grace of God in Jesus' preaching of the kingdom (Matt 5.3).
So Paul offers these fundamental insights into resolving conflict. So far, and so business school common sense. Mayhap the most fascinating thing virtually these insights is non and then much what nosotros ought to do, merely what God has done for us. In defending his preaching about the freedom we have in Christ, Paul is actually exercising this very freedom.
All as well ofttimes, it is the things which imprison us which foreclose united states from doing what Paul does hither. Trapped in our anxiety, we rush in to ready things right. Trapped in our insecurity, we effort to manipulate the truth. Trapped in our lack of self-esteem, we are tempted to belittle others. And trapped in our pre-occupation with our own interests, we take our eye off the ball. That is why this morning'south Thought for the Day on Radio 4 from a Buddhist was mistaken—the speaker claimed that existence virtuous was a learned skill like whatsoever other, a belief which denies the powerful grip that sin and failure have in our lives.
For Paul, the skillful news about God's grace in Jesus liberates us from all these fears, anxieties and insecurities. We tin let get of our own limited perspectives as nosotros take been chosen to a bigger vision of what it ways to be whole in Christ.
It is for freedom that Christ has set united states of america gratuitous (Gal 5.1)—that we might be free to proclaim to others the freedom we ourselves have experienced.
(Starting time published in 2015)
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If yous have valued this post, would yous considerdonating £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you tin can brand a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the mail, and share in respectful debate, can add together real value. Seek commencement to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
rodriguezparacce1990.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/what-are-the-keys-to-resolving-conflict/
0 Response to "What are the keys to resolving conflict?"
Enregistrer un commentaire