What does the Bible say about conflict resolution?

Romans 12:18. "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." All who know what human nature is, what the affairs of life are, know the difficulty of living at peace with all men. The apostle acknowledges the difficulty and limits the injunction by saying, "If it be possible." But the precept is plain and the duty most important; and the believer, notwithstanding the difficulty, is to do all in his power to live at peace with all men. "As much as lieth in you" — as to what is of you, as far as depends on you, live in the spirit of peace with all. The Christian is called, not only to preserve peace, but to be a peace-maker; and a blessing of peculiar honour and dignity belongs to all such. "Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God." To recompense evil for evil necessarily leads to contention and strife, while peace is the happy fruit of a forgiving disposition.

But here, again, my soul, thou must weigh up things. Consider, I pray thee, that from the wickedness of those by whom thou art surrounded this may sometimes be impossible; but let nothing fail on thy part; ever guard against giving any occasion to any one to complain of thee. Living near to God is the surest way of living in peace with men; for when a man's ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Avoid the snare of courting the favour and the praise of men, for this will surely lead thee to unfaithfulness in thy testimony. Some, in this way, may think themselves possessed of the spirit of peace; but it is rather a spirit of selfish indifference to the claims of Christ, and the salvation of our neighbours.

It is noteworthy that personal trespass between brother and brother is the first disturbing element mentioned in Scripture in connection with the gathering together of the saints to the name of the Lord Jesus, and He proceeds to lay down in the most simple and explicit manner what is to be our line of conduct under such circumstances. Let us carefully consider these important communications. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." Mark well, in the first place, there is to be no making light of the trespass: "Tell him his fault." In the gospel of Luke (Luke 17:3) it is even stated more strongly than this: "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him: and if he repent, forgive him." The natural course might be to avoid him, and to say nothing to him about his fault; or we might be determined in our own mind to bear the injury in longsuffering towards the offender, and, as it is sometimes expressed, "try to live it down." Such might at first sight seem very plausible, and have the appearance of grace on my part; but it omits one all-important item of consideration; viz., the spiritual condition of my offending brother; and whoever may commend it, it is certainly not the Lord's way of treating the matter. Besides, staying away from my brother might leave a tinge of bad feeling in my own heart; and even if it did not, am I to rest while knowing that the conscience of my erring brother is defiled? (See Lev. 19:17.) No. I am to go and plainly lay his fault before him; for if he is to be truly recovered it must be through the exercise of conscience and the judgment of his state before God. "Go and tell him his fault" are words that cannot very well be mistaken. It is not even, "Go and write him a note." Alas! who can measure the mischief that has come in among God's people by this very thing, either through ignorance of the Lord's mind about such matters, or through failing to act upon it when known. To send what I think a very faithful letter may both spare my feelings and suit my pride; but He who knows us far, far better than we know ourselves says plainly, "Go and TELL him his fault."

Then, again, what wisdom and grace are embodied in the next few words - "Between thee and him alone." Yet is it not sadly too common to discuss a personal trespass somewhat more publicly than this? Perhaps there is some brother whom we know to be not on the most amicable terms with the one who has injured us. We have but little doubt that he (i.e., the brother just referred to) will lend a ready ear to the tale of our wrongs, and the danger is that, in our selfishness, we go to him, though, if we considered his soul's welfare, he would be the last person in the assembly to whom such a thing would be breathed. But it suits us better to share the story of our grievance with others, who may be ready to sympathize with us, and tell us how shamefully we have been treated, and the like, than to go and seek "to gain" the one who has done us an injustice. How is this? It is much to be feared that we are not altogether sorry to be able to inflict a punishment upon our brother by lowering him in the estimation of others. But is it obedience to the Word thus to act? Is it the Spirit of Christ? Is it not rather only another, though more subtle, form of the same flesh that manifested itself in our brother's trespass?

Next comes a sentence of the very deepest importance to us - "If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Does not this let us into the secret of why I am to tell him his fault, and why it is to be between him and me alone? It is "to gain" my brother. The Lord had, just before (v. 12), been speaking of His own search among the mountains for the lost sheep, and of His joy when the straying one was brought back, in order, no doubt, that we might see the value which He put upon one of His own, and that we might learn to act toward them accordingly. Notice here that nothing is said about the redress of any wrongs. The Lord does not say that "if he hear thee, all thy wrongs shall be put right," but, "If he hear thee, thou has gained thy brother." No doubt, if grace really works in him, if he is really "gained," one of the earliest fruits of it will be an ardent desire for the redress of those injuries; but the securing of this is not to be the motive which prompts me to go to him. Leaving my wrongs with the Lord, I am to seek my brother's blessing. But this going to "gain" him will necessarily put my own soul through deepest exercises. If, in true love to him, I am set upon his recovery in a righteous way, what godly watchfulness and carefulness will be wrought in me? With what earnestness and fervent desire shall I plead for him before God! When a bird has left his cage, any rude hand or discordant voice can drive him further away; but how great the care and caution that is exercised by the one who really desires to bring him back to food and shelter! If my errand to my brother were only to pain him, the task might easily be accomplished without a particle of exercise; but if I am to gain him, then grace must work both in him and in me.

But now we proceed a step farther. Suppose that the best-intentioned efforts to restore my brother prove fruitless, what then? Am I therefore to take it for granted that he is henceforth beyond recovery? Not so. How do I know that my manner of dealing with him was not the cause of my failure? Or perhaps our interview has made the discovery to him that I have put what he considers to be an unwarrantable colour upon his conduct, or attributed motives to him which he is conscious he never had. In that case, I should only have given to him what he judges a righteous ground for resisting me, and have left him harder than I found him. I am therefore now to take with me "one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." And even should this prove unavailing, another step is yet to be taken; the assembly must be told. If, after all this, the offender still manifest wilfulness, if repentance be not wrought in him, the word then is, "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican;" for there is no higher court of appeal for the saint upon earth than the "two or three" gathered to the name of the Lord. (vv. 18-20.)

It is clear that we are called upon to act, and to do so as soon as we realise that there is a problem. This is emphasised by the Lord’s words in Matthew 5:23–24: ‘If therefore thou shouldest offer thy gift at the altar, and there shouldest remember that thy brother has something against thee,leave there thy gift before the altar, and first go, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.’ Although the context is clearly a Jewish one do we not feel the force of the Lord’s words? A ‘gift’ is taken by which it is intended to honour God and in going up to the temple one’s conscience is in exercise. Then, at the altar, it is brought home to the conscience that his brother has something against him. We might have thought that it must always be right to put God first, that the gift should be offered and then reconciliation with one’s brother actively sought. The Lord, who knows our hearts, shows that in these circumstances the gift is unacceptable. One must leave the gift at the altar and first be reconciled to one’s brother, and then the gift can be offered.

We come, now to matters between the saints. The Corinthians were going to law with one another, bringing in the world to witness their sad condition and to set right amongst them the things which it was a shame should be wrong. He asks them if they do not know that the saints shall judge the world. That is, of course, in the coming day of the Lord's rule over it, but it is for this that we are being trained and educated now, and how could it be possible that those who were on their way to such a place as this could be unfit or unworthy to judge these small matters, matters in the apostle's estimation of such very small account? Do ye not know, he asks, that we shall judge angels, how much more then matters of this kind? Still, if judgments were needed as to the things of this life, those practically of no account in the assembly were sufficient for such things as that. He does not, of course, literally mean that they were to choose persons of that character, but that these were matters that did not require even any extraordinary spirituality and were of too little importance to require any great ability of this sort to decide them; but they were exposing their shame before the world. They had better suffer wrong; they had better suffer themselves to be defrauded. There was to be no exaction even of their rights. Grace does not exact. One may say, can we suffer the wrong to go on in the assembly? That is another matter. The question here is entirely of seeking our own things. If the matter is grave enough to touch the assembly, Matt. 18 has given us the rule with regard to it. There the first effort is that which is to be characteristic of our whole course; it is to gain one's brother. That is, as already said, that which discipline aims at. It may be, in fact, for the moment, impossible to be attained; and then we have the steps needed to place any matter that requires it in the hands of the assembly. Put in their hands, it is to be left there. It is for them, to say as to what will set things straight. Just because they are our own things, we are not to be judges of them. No man was ever thought to be a rightful judge in his own cause, or could take the law, as people say, into his own hands. These are principles which are surely as good for us as they can be in the world at large. They are the result simply of the knowledge, alas, of our poor fallen nature.

This same truth is found in more than one of the epistles. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, says, "Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you. Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children." (Eph. 4:32; Eph. 5:1.) It is not as in our version, "as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you," but as we have given it, "as God in Christ." For the apostle here presents God in the riches of His grace, acting, without motive, except in Himself, and needing therefore no inducement to forgiveness; but acting solely from His own heart — these forms of display being but the manifestation of what He is as seen in redemption. But he presents Him in this way as our standard, and hence he says, "Be ye imitators of God as beloved children." As in the gospels, so here, the children are desired to present in their conduct the character of God as their Father. And thereon the apostle shows us God as love, and God as light — the two words which tell out all that God is; and he says to us, "You are also to display love and light." Thus he says, "Walk in love," (v. 2); and, "walk as children of light." (v. 8.) Christ Himself is brought in as the example of love in His having loved us, and given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; for in this act of sacrifice He is the expression of the whole heart of God. And inasmuch as we are now light in the Lord we are to walk as children of light, and the fruit of the light (it is light, not Spirit) is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth — in such a walk proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

We may well, in the face of such scriptures, challenge ourselves as to whether these desires of God for us are sufficiently borne in mind. The temptation to measure ourselves by one another is so great that we cannot be too frequently reminded that God Himself, according to what He is as displayed in redemption as love and light, is our standard for walk and conduct. And with what motives are we herein furnished to become imitators of God as beloved children! Thus, for example, we are to forgive one another even as God in Christ has forgiven us; we are to act from our own hearts in grace, even as God acted in our salvation — seeking no motive outside of ourselves (save indeed in the God of our salvation), but finding our delight in the expression of that unspeakable grace of which we ourselves have been the subjects. It is, however, by no means intended that we should always pronounce our forgiveness to those who have sinned against us; but as to our own feelings we are ever to be in a state of forgiveness. We are never to retain inwardly the sin of a brother. However we may be sinned against, before God we are instantly to forgive; and then, as already explained, when the one who has committed the wrong, as our Lord taught Peter, comes and says, "I repent" (Luke 17), forgiveness is to be granted him. God Himself acts in this manner. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." and we, because His children, are to act on the same principle. Grace retains nothing, always forgives; but for the offender's own sake, for the glory of God indeed in the first place, it waits for the sinner's self-judgment before it openly absolves from the sin.

Much as thou art to seek after peace and pursue it, neither truth nor principle must be sacrificed to maintain it, either with the world or with Christians. The love of popularity is a great snare to many; even a Peter might be drawn aside for a moment by it; but Paul could not have peace on such terms. (Gal. 2) The great apostle, much as he loved peace and desired it, knew very little of it during the whole period of his life, because of his faithfulness. But though he had little outward peace, he was kept in perfect peace with God because his mind was stayed on Him. May we all know this solid, lasting peace with God, which the world neither can give nor take away.

Much that is written in the Book of Proverbs is a reiteration of what is written before, which surely indicates a very real need on our part to be reminded again and again of what is wise and becoming. We may think it faithfulness to strongly, even harshly, reprove the words of an unwise person but God tells us, "A soft answer turns away wrath" (v. 1). For gentle words can still be faithful and true, and it is wise to cultivate a habit of calm, sober wisdom in answering unwise words. For "a harsh word stirs up strife." And the servant of the Lord must not strive, and should be gentle to all, able to teach, and patient (2 Tim. 2:24).

“Be at peace among yourselves”. There is the ever present danger of falling out by the way. Of old, the Lord could ask His disciples, “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” They were silent, for by the way they had “disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest” (Mark 9:33-34). Behind all the disputes that have ever taken place among the people of God, it will probably be found that, whatever the immediate subject of dispute, the root cause was, someone wanted to be great. Otherwise, whatever the difficulty, there would be no need to “fall out”. Only as we esteem each other better than ourselves, shall we be able to “be at peace” among ourselves.

Incidentally let us at this point take note that the idea that church in the apostolic age was the abode of peace and free of all contention has no support from Scripture. From the outset the truth had to be won and maintained through conflict — a great deal of it internal, and not merely with the world without. We have no right to expect absence of conflict and trouble today. Occasions are sure to arise when peace can only be purchased by compromise, and he who sees most, and hence is constrained to raise his voice in protest, must be prepared to be accused of uncharitableness. Failing such protest peace is maintained, but it is the peace of stagnation and spiritual death. The quietest spot in the throbbing heart of London is the city mortuary! So beware!

Euodia and Syntyche were two sisters in Philippi between whom a misunderstanding, or quarrel, had arisen. Paul knew these two sisters well for they had shared his contest in the Gospel in the early days, when first he preached there. We do not know what was the cause of the quarrel, but we do know that "Only by pride cometh contention". (Prov. 13:10). It is probable that Epaphroditus had brought word to Paul of this sad trouble in the assembly at Philippi: and I think it had weighed heavily on the apostle's mind as he has been writing. In the second verse of the second chapter, he had written: "Fulfil my joy when ye mind the same thing". Now he uses exactly the same words, but this time addressed directly to the ones quarrelling. It would seem that he had them in mind when he wrote these words the first time.

Notice how wisely he speaks to these sisters: "Euodia I urge, Syntyche I urge, to mind the same thing in the Lord". He does not say, "I urge Euodia and Syntyche". But he speaks to each one separately: not suggesting one is more to blame than another. Indeed he makes no suggestion of any blame. You remember our Lord said: "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift". (Matt. 5:23-24). That is what these sisters should have done. The Greek word for "be reconciled" is di-allasso. This word is never used for man to be reconciled to God. Then it is a different word, kat-allasso. Di-allasso denotes mutual concession after mutual hostility, an idea absent in kat-allasso. (Abbott-Smith, quoting Lightfoot). It would seem that when saints have a quarrel or misunderstanding, the Lord sees that generally, if not always, there is fault on both sides; and both need to make concessions. Euodia would have to make concessions to Syntyche, and Syntyche would need to make concessions to Euodia. There is a possible exception to this in the case of a wife who had left her husband and wished to be reconciled to him again: 1 Cor. 7:11: here katallasso is used. But this, perhaps, we can understand, as she (a Christian woman) had been told not to depart from her husband. I think every other case where this word is used, is speaking of man being reconciled to God: where, of course, man only is wrong, and makes concessions.