radical relationships part 9

part 9 conflict management

Last time, I drove home the point that effective communication is necessary for radical relationships is effective communication and that it can help to avoid unnecessary conflict.  I also planted the seed that not all conflict is bad and that it is how we handle conflict that counts.  I’m going to expand on that idea this morning as we take a look at conflict management.

By definition, conflict is: variance, disagreement or contradiction.

Conflict is a natural part of life.  The only way that life could be void of conflict is if we were all hardwired the same exact way and operated much like robots.  But God created each of us as unique individuals with our own thoughts, ideas, and preferences.  At some point they will vary, they will disagree; there will be conflict.

Often times people view conflict as a bad thing.  “Oh they had a conflict.  Eeeeew.  That’s terrible.”  But conflict is not inherently bad.  In fact, we should see conflict as a wonderful thing since it displays our differences.

In an essay entitled “Conflict: The Birthing of the New” Caroline A. Westerhoff writes:

“Conflict is not just inevitable, as we are prone to say wisely and with a sigh of resignation.  Instead it is part of the divine plan, a gift.  Disruption is integral to God’s order.  Conflict doesn’t sometimes provide us with energy, insight, and new possibility as reluctant by-products; newness cannot come without conflict.  It is not a price to be paid and endured, but a condition to be sought and welcomed and nurtured.”

She points out that conflict is a good gift from God to be enjoyed as it has the potential to yield positive results and bring about freshness.

This puts conflict in a new light.  It’s actually conflict that makes for productive meetings and exciting bible studies, especially when they take place in an environment of trust and vulnerability where we know that our relationships are not at stake when we disagree with one another.

Yet, people often view conflict as a bad thing to be avoided.  In the midst of that kind of thinking is the misconception that the church should be void of conflict.  However, from the earliest days of the church, conflict was present.  The church began with the conflict over who this Jesus was.  Some said he was the Christ.  Others said he was a demon possessed blasphemer.

The church began with the Jews and in the earliest days of the church conflict arose over matters of the Law.  Do we keep observing the Law or do we not?  Do we allow gentiles into the community or exclude them?  If we include them, do we impose the Law on them?

Throughout the gospels and acts, in the development of the early church we find disputes and disagreements; we find conflict.

In fact, I propose that many of the letters in our new testament are the result of conflict.  Recall our series on hermeneutics. (plug)  I shared with you that the epistles are occasional.  They were written as the result of such and such occasion.  Often that occasion was a conflict.  This is most clearly seen in 1 Corinthians.  Throughout the letter Paul addresses conflict after conflict.  Some said “I follow Paul” while others said, “I follow Cephas” while others said “I follow Jesus.”  There were conflicts over food sacrificed to idols.  There were conflicts over observation of the Lord’s Supper.  There were conflicts over spiritual gifts.  In fact, in chapter 6 Paul points out that the fact that their conflicts were even ending in lawsuits.

We might shrug that off and say, “It was Corinth.  That church is the worst church ever.  Of course we will see conflict evident in that letter.  Many of Paul’s words to them were rebuke, it seems.”

But even in a book like Philippians in which Paul had very little to say that was negative, we find in chapter 4:2 “I plead with Euodia and Syntiche to agree with each other in the Lord.”  Apparently there was a conflict between these two women that Paul calls out by name.  Even in the best of churches we find conflict.

Therefore, it is a foolish notion to presume that the church is void of conflict or even that it should be void of conflict.  Conflict has been a part of the church from the beginning and as long as the church is made up of unique individuals who think for themselves there will be conflict. 

But that doesn’t mean that our conflicts should resemble what we see on Judge Judy or worse Jerry Springer.  As the body of Christ, we should be able to resolve conflict peaceably.  We should have such radical relationships that when conflict arises, it results in swift reconciliation and restoration – as the goal is right relationships to the glory of God.

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but there basically 5 outcomes or results when dealing with conflict:

·         Alienate: lose/lose

·         Dominate: win/lose

·         Accommodate: lose/win

·         Negotiate: win/lose win/lose

·         Collaborate: win/win

ALIENATION

When the result of conflict is alienation, it is a lose/lose situation in which nobody wins.  The people essentially say “Since we cannot agree on this issue, I’m just going to alienate you; I’m not going to talk to you.”  In many cases the individuals part ways feeling they cannot co – operate.  This can actually end a relationship altogether.  Alienation is the worst possible outcome of conflict.

DOMINATION

Domination is the result when we seek to dominate or win, but it is a win/lose situation where only one person wins – the other loses.  It’s when we overpower the other; the mentality is “I’m going to get my way here and you’re not.”  Domination is better than alienation because it at least results in a conclusion and the relationship remains intact.  However, it is far from optimal.

ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation is the inverse of domination.  Where domination is a win/lose situation in which we overpower the other, accommodation is a lose/win situation in which we just accommodate; we say, “Fine, you can have your way.”  Sometimes this can result in bitterness or resentment, frustrations that can build up over time and drive wedges in the relationship.  Accommodation is certainly a step up from domination especially for us as followers of Jesus Christ who are called to ³ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than ourselves…[to] look not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others (Phil 2:3-4).  But in accommodation, there is still only one winner.  In accommodation, someone still loses.  Thus, while it’s better than alienation and domination, there is still a more optimal outcome.

NEGOTIATION

Negotiation is when we are in a conflict and we negotiate with the other.  We are willing to continue the discussion until we can come to a conclusion or conflict resolution that we can agree on.  Whereas domination is win/lose and accommodation is lose/win, negotiation is win/lose – win/lose.  The result of negotiation is we don’t get exactly what we were hoping for, but neither do they.  While negotiation is far better than alienation, and certainly better than domination and accommodation, there is still one option that is better.

COLLABORATION

Collaboration is the most optimal outcome of conflict.  It recognizes the other person as a teammate with whom we can and should collaborate and results in a win/win situation.  In collaboration, both parties win.  It takes time, patience, and willingness to work together through perhaps lengthy discussions in order to discover an option in which everybody can win.  Collaboration is the goal of conflict resolution in radical relationships.

I CAN’T WIN IF MY TEAMMATE LOSES

The first principle that we should embrace in order to get there is I can’t win if my teammate loses. 

If you’ve ever played team sports you know that in order for you to win, your team must win; if your team loses, you lose.  Often times when conflict arises we can slip into the mentality that sees the other person as an opponent to be defeated rather than a partner or teammate.  All of a sudden because our spouse/friend/coworker disagrees with us they are now the enemy.  The result of that mentality is usually either alienation or domination. 

Winning this argument becomes more important than our relationship.  We may win that argument, but in the end we don’t really win because we can’t win if our teammate loses.

Imagine a conflict with a co-worker.  We are in a staff meeting in which I present a brilliant idea but my co-worker presents a counter proposal.  Conflict; winning this becomes my goal and I seek to dominate my new enemy (my coworker).  I’m going to prove that my idea is better than his so that the company implements mine.  What if my idea is actually not as brilliant as I thought and would actually hurt the company?  What if the counter proposal of my coworker is actually far better and would yield far greater profits?  If I win the argument in the meeting and my proposal is implemented did I win?  Not if the company loses money and has to lay people off and I’m one of them.  In such a case I lose in the end even though I won the debate.

Success in the business world is easy to measure because the metrics are monetary.  In business, it’s easy to define the win (profit margin).  If the company (my team) doesn’t make money, then my team loses and I lose.  I can’t win if my teammate loses.

But success in our relationships isn’t based on monetary profits and can sometimes be more difficult to measure.  How do we measure success in our relationships?  How do we define the win?  Conflict ending in alienation or estrangement is certainly not success.  Dominating others and winning arguments isn’t the win.  It seems that the picture of success painted by the Scriptures is right relationships to the glory of God.

If right relationships to the glory of God defines the win, and we can’t win if our teammate loses, we have to keep in mind that our spouse is our teammate, our boyfriend or girlfriend is our teammate, our coworkers are our teammates, the other people in this room are our teammates, the countless other individuals gathered in the name of Jesus this morning at other churches are our teammates. 

One of the things that has helped Breann and I for years now is in the midst of conflict, if we are getting a sense domination or accommodation we will say “hey, same team, same team.”  We will remind one another that we are not against one another.  If we have a disagreement on how something should be handled with the kids, it’s not about winning the argument so we can get our way, it’s about deciding to do what is going to be best for our children in the long run in order to create loving, responsible, self-disciplined adults.

Again, collaboration is the goal.  Working towards a win/win solution is ideal.  The first principle we should adopt in striving to resolve conflict is: We can’t win when our teammate loses. 

The second principle we can keep in mind is that often times the issue is not the issue.

What I mean by that is in a conflict, the issue at hand is not necessarily the real issue.  One way to discover the real issue is to ask the question: what do we want with what we want?

Conflict arises when we want something different from the other person; our wants differ – or so it seems. 

When it comes to conflict, at times there are different layers we must peel away.  It’s like an onion.  When you look at an onion, you see that outer layer that’s flaky and brown and sort of peels off easily.  That represents the issue at hand.  When you start asking the question what do you want with what you want, you peel away a layer and see a new layer.  What do you want with that?  Peel away another layer and eventually you get deeper down to the core where the real issue lies. 

Once we were going to grab some lunch so we asked the kids if they wanted Chick Fil A or Burger King.  One said Burger King and the other said Chick fil A.  Conflict.  But we eventually realized that the issue was not the issue.  In other words, for Bre and I the issue was food.  For them, the issue was not food.  The issue wasn’t that BK chicken fingers were more tasty than Chick Fil A chicken nuggets.  We found this out by asking what do you want with what you want?  Why do you want to go to CFA?  Why BK?  The answers indicated that the real issue was the play area.  The issue wasn’t the issue.  It rarely is.  When it comes to a conflict over where to eat, for children, the issue is rarely food.  It’s usually, over which playscape is preferred or where they remember getting a balloon or an ice cream one time.  In fact, Anika has recently disavowed McDonalds after seeing that their playscape is no more.

We do this without realizing it.  We tend to find ourselves in the midst of conflict where often times the issue is not the issue.  In order to get at the real issue, it helps to ask “what do we want with what we want?”

Let’s look at an example.  A family is planning a trip to sea world.  The wife does some research online and finds that the season pass is only twice the cost of a day pass.  She says I want the season pass.  The husband says, no let’s just get the day pass.

It seems that the issue is sea world (day pass vs season pass).  But the issue is not the issue.  To determine the real issue, they can ask What do you want with what you want?  Why the day pass?  His answer lies in his values.  He values being a good steward and doesn’t want to accrue debt since season pass is not in the budget. 

Why does she want the season pass?  Because going to sea world means time with her family.  She feels that if they get the season pass it will force them to spend more quality time together as a family; otherwise the hustle and bustle of life will prevent them from scheduling quality family time.  She’s not even a huge fan of sea world, but a fan of her family. 

So by asking that question What do you want with what you want? They can work through a healthy discussion in order to collaborate and arrive at a win/win solution.  Once they get to the real issues, they can work out a solution in which they can both get what they really want.  Because they both value stewardship and want to avoid debt.  They both value quality family time.  They may arrive at a solution in which they agree to be intentional about scheduling more regular family times to some more budget friendly things like going to the lake or picnic at the park.

Often times, we find out that what we want with what we want is rooted in a virtuous value and thus important or even necessary.  The other person may see this and agree.  Conflict resolved.

Sometimes when we really get to the root of what we want with what we want, the answer sounds silly, vain, selfish and we realize, “Maybe I don’t need that…maybe I don’t even really want it.”  Conflict resolved. 

 

The third principle that will help us to resolve conflict in a way that cultivates radical relationships is: resolve conflict sooner than later.

Conflict provides opportunity for growth in a relationship while unresolved conflict interferes with that growth and results in stagnant, dying relationships.  Our goal, however, is radical relationships.  Thus, the earlier we can resolve conflict, the better.  Nip it in the bud, as they say.  Otherwise it can grow and become a monster.

In conflict management in congregations Speed B. Leas says there are different levels of conflict: “level one conflict remains focused on the problem; level two conflict is characterized by self-protection; level three conflict focuses on winning; level four conflict tries to remove the opponent; and in level five conflict “people become religious fanatics about their position…called by God to eradicate from the earth those to whom they are opposed” (16).

Unresolved conflict escalates. When we have an issue with a brother or sister, let’s deal with it sooner than later so that it does not create bitterness in us as we stew on it allowing it to escalate to a level five conflict in which we see our teammate as an enemy to be defeated.  If we deal with the issue sooner than later, we can prevent such escalation and keep the discussion focused on the actual issue rather than it turning into a personal attack.

CASE STUDY IN ACTS 10-11

Acts 10 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. ² He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. ³ One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

⁴ Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. ⁵ Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. ⁶ He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

⁷ When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. ⁸ He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.

Peter’s Vision

⁹ About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. ¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

¹⁴ “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

¹⁷ While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. ¹⁸ They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

¹⁹ While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. ²⁰ So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”

²¹ Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”

²² The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” ²³ Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.

Peter at Cornelius’s House

The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. ²⁴ The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ²⁵ As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. ²⁶ But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

²⁷ Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. ²⁸ He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. ²⁹ So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

³⁰ Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me ³¹ and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. ³² Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ ³³ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”

³⁴ Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism ³⁵ but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. ³⁶ You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. ³⁷ You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— ³⁸ how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

³⁹ “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, ⁴⁰ but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. ⁴¹ He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. ⁴² He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. ⁴³ All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

⁴⁴ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. ⁴⁵ The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speaking in tongues^[b] and praising God.

Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” ⁴⁸ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Chapter 11

11 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. ² So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him ³ and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

⁴ Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: ⁵ “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. ⁶ I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. ⁷ Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

⁸ “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’

⁹ “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ ¹⁰ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

¹¹ “Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. ¹² The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. ¹³ He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. ¹⁴ He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’

¹⁵ “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ¹⁶ Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with^[a] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ ¹⁷ So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

¹⁸ When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

There was a conflict.  Peter went to the gentiles to eat with them and ultimately include them into the family of God.  His fellow Jews wanted to avoid the gentiles and criticized him for going to them.  How did they resolve this conflict?

The text doesn’t give us a timeline, but from what we do have, it seems that they dealt with the issue immediately.  The text doesn’t convey the idea that Peter went to Jerusalem but they avoided him for months.  It seems that they went to him immediately.  This didn’t continue to remain an issue that festered and became a monster (level 5 conflict in which they sought to eradicate Peter).  They dealt with it sooner than later.

This conflict didn’t result in alienation.  They didn’t alienate Peter.  They didn’t say you are now excommunicated from our assembly, end of story.  They criticized him but then they heard him out.  As they discussed the issue, it didn’t seem that they tried to dominate him, nor did they simply accommodate him.  They worked through the issue and collaborated to come to a win/win solution. 

They recognized that they were on the same team as Peter.  And we cannot win if our teammate loses.

It seems safe to say that if asked “What do you want with what you want?” both Peter’s answer and theirs would have been, “I want to do what will be pleasing to God.”  They wanted to please God by avoiding the gentiles; Peter wanted to please God by including the gentiles.  They wanted the same things.  They came to a peaceable agreement in which they had a win/win solution (collaboration).  They both got what they wanted (doing what pleases God).  They concluded that if it is pleasing to God to include the gentiles, let’s do that!

In summary:

·         Conflict is part of life because we all have differing thoughts and opinions.

·         We should not view conflict negatively, but celebrate it as a means by which our relationships can grow and we can be enriched.

·         There are five main outcomes of conflict: alienation, domination, accommodation, negotiation and collaboration.

·         Radical relationships should result in collaboration (a win/win solution).

·         We should remember that we can’t win if our teammate loses.  We should remember that when we have conflicts, the other person is not our opponent to be defeated; they are our teammate.

·         We should also remember that often times the issue is not the issue.  The issue in debate is not the real issue. 

·         To get to the real issue we can ask the question “what do we want with what we want?”  This will help in conflict resolution and can act as a good litmus test to determine if we should even want what we think we want.

·         We should deal with conflict as early as possible.  We should seek to reconcile matters quickly.

Finally, we should remember that the win in all conflict is radical relationships, right relationships to the glory of God.

www.ncfgeorgetown.com  Church in Georgetown, Texas. Reformed church Georgetown, Texas Preterist church Georgetown Texas. Pastor David Boone. Sermon audio mp3 sermon download Full Preterism. Covenant Eschatology. New Covenant Fellowship Georgetown. Page House 10:00 am Loving God. Loving Others. Realized eschatology fulfilled eschatology  Preterist church Austin Texas.  Bible church Austin Texas Second coming of Jesus Christ churches in Austin area. Non denominational Churches in Georgetown TX

You can watch sermon videos or listen to sermon audio .mp3 at www.ncfgeorgetown.com/media.html

www.ncfgeorgetown.com