Church Discipline
Examples of Personal and Doctrinal Conflict Resolution by Dave Brown
Restoring Erring Brethren by Bryan Gibson
Return to the Bible Archive Articles Index Page
Example of Doctrinal Conflict Resolution
by Dave Brown
Introduction
There are two types of conflicts that occur among Christians: personal and doctrinal. This article deals with doctrinal conflicts, or in other words, issues regarding what should be taught, practiced and thus bound within the local church. The subject of personal conflicts between Christians is covered in the next article below.
We feel it is no coincidence that Acts 15 contains both an example of a doctrinal issue (circumcision and keeping the Old Testament law), and a person issue that arose between Paul and Barnabas over whether they should take John Mark on the second missionary journey. The contrast between how these two types of issues were handled is a very interesting study, and we encourage the reader to study Acts 15 from this perspective by comparing this article with the next one below. See also the discussion in the commentary Acts 11-15.
In this article we wish to enlarge upon our study of authority by considering how it applies to doctrinal conflict resolution. The two are not mutually exclusive since quite often personality issues will surface under the guise of doctrinal issues. In fact, rarely is a point of doctrine really the issue. In Acts 15, for example, circumcision was the doctrinal issue that was masking an attempt to grab power in the church on the part of the Judaizing Christians (those who felt that they would have much more power in the church if they could bind the Old Testament law). We see jealousy motivating very similar actions from opponents outside of the early church (Acts 5:17). And we see the persistence of those who taught this error referenced in Acts 21. Those intent on preserving their power would not allow it to be resolved, and, of course, they will be held accountable for their persistence in sin.
Conflict Resolution — Doctrinal Matters
Doctrinal conflict is not a subject foreign to the New Testament. The first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about doctrinal matters? Why not just live and let live? Let us take a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from Judea and (began) teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, (the brethren) determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”
Paul and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we agree to disagree. So you go your way and we will go ours, and we will act like there are no differences among us.” But that is not what they did. They immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23). (It is interesting that "agreeing to disagree" was exactly what they did when it came to their personal disagreement, which had nothing to do with doctrine, and it did not affect the churches in either Jerusalem or Antioch.)
It is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth on this matter. This is clearly not so. This issue had previously been raised in Jerusalem and it had been resolved there as recorded in Acts 11 based upon Peter's experiences as well as the witnesses who went with him described in Acts 10. So the apostles as well as Paul and Barnabas already knew the truth on this issue, and they taught that truth during the first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14) and on their way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3). Thus, their goal was mainly to inform the apostles in Jerusalem of what these false teachers were saying. It would also tend to validate their teaching so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem, they found that the source of the problem were some Pharisaic Christians who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4).
The Issue Resolved - An Approved Apostolic Example
Acts 15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also as an example to us so that we can follow the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit. We might ask, “Why did the Holy Spirit not just give them the answer miraculously and let it go at that?” Answer: He did — read Acts 10 and 11. So, there was no reason to reveal it over and over again. This in itself is a principle of revelation -- once something is revealed God expects us to draw from what is established, not to seek for additional revelation, which at this point would not be necessary. We see this principle illustrated throughout the bible.
The elders and apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict over things already revealed. So we can see even clearer how this example would apply to us. Authority for any doctrine can be established from scripture in only three ways that this was accomplished:
1. Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11). Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again, review Acts 10-11).
2. Approved apostolic example (Acts 15:12). Paul and Barnabas related what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision. This was confirmed by miracles. This was verified truth when they accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it further verified God’s will on this matter.
3. Necessary implication. James then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12): “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, ...” Is there anything in this passage about circumcision? Yet, James is applying it to that. Why? Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the Jewish nation. Thus, circumcision was absolutely not to be a requirement of their salvation. To impose it was to bind where God had not bound and to impose an unnecessary and terrible barrier to the Gentiles becoming Christians.
So we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary implication/inference. When these were applied in the first century, the doctrinal issue was resolved! Does that mean that everyone went along with it? No. For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish Christians just would not let go of. But just because some would not accept apostolic authority does not mean that the truth was not established on this issue. Just as those who do not accept biblical authority today will never be in accord with those who do.
We can apply the very same principles today to resolve doctrinal issues. Those who were faithful abode by the resolution that was made based on a total review of the truth. The scriptures can be understood. We should search out all possible references to an issue when it arises, and abide by the preponderance of scriptural evidence to establish the truth on the matter. When we do this there will no longer be divisions over doctrinal issues.
Please see the articles on Biblical Examples and Biblical Implications, where we discuss these two methods of establishing biblical authority in more detail.
Acts 15: Conflict Resolution – Personal Matters
by Dave Brown
Acts 15 shows that once the Holy Spirit reveals a doctrine, Christians can obtain its validity by examining all applicable direct commands, approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences from scripture. The scriptures totally furnish us unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so we can resolve all doctrine issues by considering the alternatives that are available to us, and then choosing the one that comes closest to what we find taught in scripture.
This includes issues regarding personal conflicts. The subject of personal conflicts and their resolution is given in Matthew 18:15-17. If this procedure would be applied to the maximum extent possible to resolve personal conflicts, they would all be resolved one way or the other. Unresolved personal conflicts can tear up a local church and thus it is a grave sin not to practice the remedy of Mt. 18:15-17.
Matt 18:15-17
15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he hear (thee) not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.
17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.
If one decides for whatever reason not to do what it says there, then that person should resolve to never bring up the perceived wrong again, for any other action will have far more grave consequences than just taking wrong (reference 1 Corinthians 6:7).
In fact, the very same chapter of the book of Acts, Acts 15, where we found the early Christians dealing with doctrinal conflict, we also find an example of a personal conflict. This conflict did not require further steps in the procedure given above because Paul and Barnabas resolved it between themselves in a harmonious manner. So, essentially they resolved in as indicated in Matthew 18:15.
Let us see how Luke described the circumstances of this disagreement.
Acts 15:36-38
And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, (and see) how they fare. And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
Note that what arose between these two great men of faith was described in the next verse as a “sharp contention.” It was not over doctrine, and that is why we are calling it a personal conflict. Further, we have here two of the greatest Christians who lived in the first century. Barnabas was noteworthy in that he sold a field to contribute to the work (Acts 4:36f). He stood up for Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:27). He was sent by the church of Jerusalem to encourage the disciples (Acts 11:22-30). And he was singled out by the Holy Spirit to go with Paul to the gentiles (Acts 13:2), which he did on what has been come to be known as Paul’s first missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas were the greatest of Christians and the best of friends. If they could have a “sharp contention” over a personal matter, than any two Christians can. This is the first lesson of Acts 15:35f — Christians can and will have personal conflicts, often over what is best for the cause of Christ, which was exactly what was motivating both Paul and Barnabas. Thus, we should expect this and prepare ourselves, whether we are involved directly or are to help when others are involved.
Acts 15 showed us how to resolve doctrinal conflict. It also presents some major principles with regard to the resolution of personal conflict. The argument in Acts 15:35 to the end of the chapter was over John Mark, a cousin (close relative) of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). He accompanied them at the beginning of the first missionary journey, but went back to Jerusalem early in the trip (Acts 13:13). No reason is given, and we should not assume that he did not have what he (and perhaps Barnabas) considered a good reason. It is clear that whatever the reason, he put it before the work for which Paul and Barnabas had enlisted him. And, it was surely Paul’s opinion that this disqualified him for a similar work in the near future. Let us examine the principles that are given by this example:
1. Christians can and will have bitter disagreements. Suppose Paul and Barnabas just had a small problem and worked it out. That would probably not have been recorded by Luke.
2. Some of the most difficult issues involve judgments regarding the work. Both Paul and Barnabas felt that their position was in the Lord’s best interest.
3. It did not become an issue in the church. There is no evidence that anyone “took sides” on this issue. Churches should never divide over issues of personal opinion.
4. It was not allowed to affect the Lord’s work. Neither the church nor the individual work of these men was hampered by the way that they resolved this issue. Both continued to serve the Lord.
5. It did not have any lasting ramifications. We can imagine some of the arguments that might be made by Christians. Barnabas could have argued that it was he to whom Paul owed all of his status as a Christian, since he defended him at Jerusalem and also sought after him when he apparently went home to Tarsus (Acts 9 and 11). Paul could have responded that Barnabas was not being objective because of his family relationship with John Mark. But such cheap shots would have left lasting scars that may have prevented any possibility of reconciliation. Let us be thankful for the example provided by these two mature Christians.
The resolution of the issue was fairly obvious when you think about it. If Paul and Barnabas could not agree about John Mark, then they could each go their separate ways and still serve the Lord. This is exactly what they decided to do, as recorded by Luke:
Acts 15:39-40
And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus; but Paul choose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
Was this problem and its resolution allowed to cause future animosity among those involved? Unlike many arguments today, this was not the case. Consider Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” Mark is also commended by Paul in Colossians 4:10, and mentioned positively in Philemon 24. Paul’s love for John Mark and the work overcame any lasting bitterness, and the story has a happy ending.
For a story about personal conflict, it sure has a lot to offer us today.
Acts 16:1-3: A Postscript to Acts 15
by Dave Brown
Acts 15 is a chapter on both doctrinal and personal conflict resolution. Doctrine involves the entire local church (or churches) in which the false doctrine is being taught. Personal conflict should be isolated from the church so as not to cause the work of the Lord to suffer. Further insight into the difference between collective and individual responsibility is obtained by continuing our reading into Acts 16:1-3: “And he [Paul] came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” The natural question is: “Why would Paul, who spoke out so effectively against circumcision just a few weeks before (Acts 15:1f), now take and have his gentile companion circumcised?”
Some scholars proclaim Paul to be fickle and inconsistent, and use these events to discredit his writings. However, Paul himself explains his actions quite effectively in 1 Cor 9:19-22: “For though I am free from all {men,} I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” Paul’s actions are totally consistent when seen as a response to his desire to save the souls of all men.
Paul’s actions in Acts 16:1-3 are totally consistent with those of Acts 15 when we recognize that, under the New Testament, there is no directive with regarding circumcision. This means that while it was wrong to mandate circumcision as doctrine (which was what the Jewish Christians were attempting to do at Antioch), it would be equally wrong to deny the individual the right to practice it. In other words, this was a matter that was left to the individual to determine.
But how did Paul resolve this? In 1 Cor. 9:19 we have the criterion that he used. If there was any way that his freedom could be used to influence someone in the direction of hearing and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ, then that was the course of action that he took. In the case of Acts 16:3, there was bias on the part of the (non-Christian) Jews against Timothy that would cause some of them to fail to consider the gospel, and perhaps prejudice others to do the same thing.
When we consider the list of things mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:19f, we see this principle exemplified over and over again. To the extent that he conscientiously could, Paul behaved as a gentile when in the midst of gentiles so as not to unnecessarily violate their sense of right and wrong. His extreme statement is that he “became all things to all men that by all means he might save some.” And yet these means did not and could not transcend the law of Christ, for he clearly stated that he was acting totally “under law to Christ.” We can never win anyone to Christ by violating the law of Christ.
We see then, that God has given us latitude, i.e., individual freedom, in some areas. However, it is up to us to use this freedom wisely. Circumcision was one of these freedoms. However, if, as a church, we either mandate it or deny the right of the individual to practice it, we violate God’s law. For, we can only require of our fellow Christians that which the New Testament requires. This is where many religious organizations go wrong. For, what seems good for one individual to practice should not be mandated upon all. The simple work and worship of the church as given in the New Testament is exactly what God wants of his people collectively. When we go beyond this, we are acting presumptuously and without divine authority (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9).
Restoring Erring Brethren
by Bryan Gibson
“Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:1-2).
The above two passages speak of restoring erring brethren. Obviously, this is a very important work, a work that requires special attributes. Consider the following:
- It requires the participation of people who are spiritual (Galatians 6:1), people who are producing the fruit of the Spirit in their own lives (Galatians 5:22-23).
- It requires a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1). Restoring erring brethren is delicate “soul surgery,” so this is no time to misuse the “sword of the Spirit!”
- It requires a constant sense of self-examination (Galatians 6:1). If we are not careful, we can easily fall into the same or similar faults!
- It requires a willingness to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2). Our responsibility is not fulfilled by simply pointing out our brother’s faults! It will take some time (sometimes years) and energy to help them overcome them.
- It requires humility. This is implied in Galatians 6:3, and stated outright in 2 Timothy 2:24-26. People are not prone to accept correction when it comes from an arrogant person.
- It requires an ample knowledge of God’s word (2 Timothy 2:24). We must be able to teach and apply God’s word to the situation. We want them to respond to God’s word, and not just to OUR views or opinions!
- It requires patience, or longsuffering (2 Timothy 2:24), the same kind that God shows toward our own faults. If repentance is not forthcoming, we can wait for only so long (2 Corinthians 13:1-2; Revelation 2:21), before further action is required (Matthew 18:15-17).
- It requires a sincere demonstration of love, both at the time of rebuke (2 Corinthians 2:4; Revelation 3:19), and at the time of repentance (2 Corinthians 2:6-8).
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
Return to the Bible Archive Articles Index Page