Blog Menu

Can we handle conflict like Jesus?

Mark Woods writes: Conflict in churches can be horrible. We are, after all, supposed to be able to get on with each other, and most of the time we do. Relationships can be close, friendships warm, trust absolute. When that’s broken, it’s really hard to deal with.

Sometimes these conflicts arise because of human cussedness, otherwise known as original sin. At other times, though, there are deeper-rooted issues about the nature of the gospel and the mission of the church in a particular place. Inevitably, the minister becomes the focus of disagreement as he or she is tasked (as the congregation sees it) with keeping the show on the road.

How to cope? Even the title of Colin Patterson’s Grove booklet, Embracing Conflict: Jesus as a Model for Church Leaders, is a challenge: many pastors would rather run from conflict than embrace it.

But Patterson – who before retirement this year specialised in mediation, consultancy and training church leaders in how to handle conflict – uses the life of Jesus to reflect on how we can do conflict better. He writes from personal experience and is honest about the cost of this side of ministry.

What makes it particularly difficult is the emotional pressure that I feel under, maybe that others deliberately exert upon me as a leader….I know lots of relevant principles, but what will they look like worked out in sleepless nights, sweat and tears, here and now?

We hear you. It’s easy to theorise, but as von Moltke remarked, no plan survives contact with the enemy. But Patterson’s hard-won experience has a lot to offer those who are in the middle of that fray.


He suggests four different models of leadership style – the standard-bearer who prizes passion, the enabler who prizes gentleness, the teacher who prizes wisdom and the director who prizes courage. He has more to say about them all and acknowledges that we’ll draw on any of these in different contexts, but says we’ll tend to default to one. Each of the gospels, he says, speaks to one of these four types, and he suggests reading through the one that corresponds to our own leadership style and putting ourselves in the shoes of Jesus as he appears in it.

Patterson notes that Jesus has no simple pattern in his approach to conflict, and this is the most interesting part of his argument.

In Jesus I see someone whose inner question seems always to be, “What is needed at this moment?” This suggests I should resist any approach to conflict that smacks of simply having a few good tricks up my sleeve.

But that’s not to say we can’t learn from what Jesus does.

We see him navigating ‘everyday tensions’, resisting the ‘scripts’ he’s presented with. He resists being blamed when his parents lose him in Jerusalem as a 12-year-old; he resists the instantaneous urge to help at the wedding in Cana; he declines the ‘alliance’ script where he’s invited to take sides in a dispute about inheritance. Reflecting on these provides with with tools that we too can use for resisting conventional scripts – though, Patterson says, ‘they may not avail much without also having something of the underlying poise that Jesus brings to the encounters’.

As well as everyday tensions, though, we’ll sometimes meet real concerted hostility – and here too we can learn from Jesus. The key, Patterson says, is to see how he engages with the ‘web of power’ with which he’s confronted. Sometimes it’s appropriate to contest the space; sometimes it’s appropriate to make more room. And ultimately, he surrenders to the ‘web’. This, says Patterson,

…has a shocking significance for us. For we have no example of Jesus deliberately bringing concerted hostility to a head, except in the case where he intended to bear the pain himself…If I wish to take Jesus as a model of pointed rebuke to the powerful, then I should expect to do so sparingly, with a specific sense of call, and ready to be a loser by all conventional scripts.

He does not, perhaps, make as much of this insight as he might; after all, leaders, in the (secular) narrative that’s infected so much Christian discourse about this subject, are winners; Jesus, at the crucial point of his ministry, was not.


One of the strengths of this short book is its stress on being rather than doing. The inner life is the key to the external. So, ‘being like Jesus means attending to things of the heart’, says the author. Among these are open, trusting relationships, face to face encounters and honesty about issues. There’s also to be an awareness of the shadow side of leadership – destructive traits like bitterness, timidity, contempt and force. ‘Seek the corresponding constructive traits regularly in prayer, if you are to grow more like Jesus,’ says Patterson.

I admit to not being a fan of Christian books about leadership. All too often they’re thoroughly secular, with a veneer of Christianity to appeal to the worried clergy market. But there’s real wisdom in much of what Patterson says – and all of us, clergy or not, will face conflicts in church sometimes. Perhaps we can learn to embrace it.


Mark Woods is Editor at Christian Today, where this review was originally published.

You can buy the booklet Embracing Conflict: Jesus as a model for church leaders from the Grove website for £3.95, post-free in the UK or as an e-book PDF.


Follow me on Twitter @psephizoLike my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?

, , , , , ,

3 Responses to Can we handle conflict like Jesus?

  1. Will Jones November 9, 2017 at 11:32 am #

    Thanks for sharing this.

    Just one point. Jesus was victorious. He is the greatest Winner of all. Worthy is the lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing. Being a Christian and imitating Jesus is not about embracing and accepting failure, even if we must sometimes suffer for our faith and what’s right.

    • David Shepherd November 9, 2017 at 7:41 pm #

      Hi Will,

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      Jesus didn’t so much ultimately surrender to the ‘web’ as He surrendered to His divinely appointed destiny.P

      Christ was not extolling moral reticence when He eulogised John the Baptist as a ‘burning and a shining light’ (John 5:35), so I disagree strenuously with Patterson’s conclusion (on the basis of Jesus’ presumed surrender) that ‘if I wish to take Jesus as a model of pointed rebuke to the powerful, then I should do so sparingly.’

      However, in doing so, we need to examine ourselves humbly and readily in that self-same light, to resist the temptation of short-lived points-scoring and to be prepared to suffer the earthly consequences of following St. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy: ‘In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.’

      Luke’s account of Paul’s trials and the apostle’s letters testify to the patience and careful instruction with which he proclaimed the truth and handled conflict in the early Church: virtues which are so woefully lacking among ‘jobsworths’ in the Church of England today.

      In describing to the Galatians his conflict with the Judaizers, St. Paul wrote: ‘We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you’ (Gal. 2:5)

      Patterson makes a fair attempt at contrasting Christ’s response to conflict with conventional approaches. However, one vital conclusion that this piece misses, or inadvertently obscures is that Christ attracted conflict by refusing to placate the powerful with a diluted and compromised gospel.

  2. Marie Woodward November 10, 2017 at 5:36 am #

    Thank you for this. I agree with the comments above, but as a lay person in a leadership position, I am intrigued by Patterson’s suggestion that there are four leadership positions, each linking with the gospel writers. I had seen leadership rather, as an amalgamation of these positions, involving all aspects, but application needing to be dependent on the differing circumstances of the conflict. Is there any other research available on this?

Leave a Reply