The Sacred Scripture is rich in stories and conflicts, bitter contrasts and divisions. The examples could be infinite; starting from the fear of “Adam” after his disobedience in the earthly Paradise (Gen. 3, 10), with the consequent “enmity” between the ancestry of Eve and that of the serpent (Gen. 3, 15), up to the angry envy of Cain before his brother Abel (Gen. 4, 1-8). Then going through the Holy Scripture, we can say that there is almost not even one page that does not show the fatigue of living in harmony, the multiplying of reconciliations and breakings off, covenants and betrayals, banquets of peace and barbarian violence. 

Fragmentary hints from the Bible

True, there are numberless Biblical episodes, but in the Bible we find also ampler perspectives of collective experiences. Isn’t the universal deluge the fruit of conflicts between the projects of God and human perversion, which becomes no longer possible to heal without the realised purification in a traumatic manner (See; Gen 6, 5-7)? Yet soon after the deluge, in the family circle of Noah itself, there is the re-appearance of conflicts among the brothers before their drunkard father (Gen. 9, 18-25). Even Abraham will have to recompose peace among his relatives, separating himself from Lot, to prevent the tension of the clans from becoming gangrene. (Gen 13, 7-9). The traumatic breaking off between Esau and Jacob represents a tragedy at dear cost for both of them and sees their mother an  accomplice of the division, rather than a reconciler (Gen 27,1-44)). Moses himself has a lot to do in keeping peace among the slaves, who do not know how to set themselves free from their quarrelsome habits and cannot succeed in re-thinking, in a creative way, their belonging to the unique history of God.

Jumping over into the activity of the prophets, we see that they often find themselves among conflicts to release tensions and hatred, but also to let the people of God look ahead, towards less tribal horizons, acknowledging their constant breaking off before God and the exigencies of the Covenant. Samuel manages the beginning of a monarchic form of government, with the choice of Saul and then of David, but at times he interferes a little too much in politics, making his life difficult and creating some problem even for the kings. Nathan re-assures David about the favours of God for the future of his progeny (2 Sam 7,1-17), but is unable to see, in the project of a central place of cult,  a political-religious manoeuvre to keep the tribes united with the central symbol of a strong religious suggestion.

Elijah cries against the idolatry of the Kingdom of the North, where queen Jezebel manipulates the weak Ahab and leads him to accomplish violent and unjust acts of violence, which the Lord punishes in the future generations. Despite many furious battles, he does not succeed in calling the people together under the unique covenant with Yahweh. The First Isaiah throws alarms everywhere against the ruin of the socio-religious situation of the kingdom in the North, just as later a grape of prophets will do at the eve of the people deportation  from the Kingdom of the South, but tragedies and divisions seem to go ahead in an unstoppable  manner. 

Yet in the context of exile and in the immediate post-exile, the prophets succeed in keeping awake the collective conscience of a destiny that overcomes every catastrophe (See Is 40-55) and urges a radical re-birth of trust and reciprocal solidarity. The work of animation and consolation on behalf of Nehemiah, but also of the third Isaiah, Haggai, Zachariah and other prophets, can hardly keep the souls united, in a socio-political context of fragmentation and remixing of expectations and memories.

We can read the history of the first covenant just as a constant re-sewing of bonds perhaps unable of finding a stable form. Conflicts keep on summing up and living in solidarity with a sense of identity that becomes gangrene. It happened as if everything were put under discussion, provoking a desegregating tension that could hardly be sewn up again. The heirs of the promises and of the covenant were fragmented in the territory and in their social desegregations, in a multiplicity of social and religious marginalisation, hitting various categories of persons, and with firm spontaneous associative forms, often quarrelsome and aggressive.

In the light of all this we can understand the intense activity of Jesus to create a less aggressive and more integrating society, in breaking off the legal, religious and cultural barriers, in desecrating the religious taboos elevated to divine precepts, in a continuous risk of the victims of discrimination, as example and protagonists. His miracles, as well as his oral teaching, his gestures as well as his frequentations, often were strong signals for the restoration of new relations, for a dynamic reconciliation, for a true and intense shalom.

Even with his own disciples, Jesus had often to operate for a re-sewing of conflicts among them or with Him. For instance, the discussion on the first seats in the Kingdom (Mark: 10,35-45), which the two boanerges brothers would have wanted to book, to the disadvantage of the others who “got angry with James and John”. There was also the more complex case of rebuilding the group and the reconciliation between the Master and his disciples, after the disintegration due to the passion. Those forty days (at least according to Luke) which Jesus dedicated to them with dialogues and apparitions, were signs of a healing from fears, anguish and reciprocal conflicts. Perhaps they were not even totally healed when Jesus ascended to heaven, leaving his own mission in heritage to them,. without expecting excessive guarantees from them.  

An example of the primitive Church

I like to give the example of an intelligent and successful management of conflicts, as it is presented in a well known episode of the primitive Church: the choice of the first seven deacons (Acts 6,1-7). The text speaks explicitly of a murmuring (gonghysmòs), namely a dissatisfaction that poisoned the community relations. The concrete fact, at least according to the text, was the disparity of attention paid to the Hellenist widows, if compared with that paid to the Hebrews. This irritated the Hellenists: probably, however, this was just the peak of the iceberg, of a sensitivity concerning many more aspects, untold by Luke.

Luke wants to show the emergence of the “Hellenists” as protagonists, whom he himself belonged to, as a peaceful evolution without notable traumas. In reality the transition was surely not very “idyllic”, as we learn from several signals, scattered here and there in the texts of the Acts and the Pauline letters. In fact, the Hellenists did not feel at home also because of the cultural shut up attitude of the Twelve, who were very much attached to the Hebrew tradition and to the Hebrew/Aramaic language they used in the synagogues, though the Hellenists themselves had also their assemblies in their own language, despite their lack of influence in the group. However, qualified personalities were emerging from among the Hellenists and the dissatisfaction offered them the occasion of coming to light as protagonists. 

Let us go back to the text. Luke had already given hints of less serene moments in community, for instance the scandal of Ananias  and Sapphira, who kept for themselves part of the income from the sale of a field (Acts, 5,2), and there was also an uneasiness provoked by the arrests of Peter and John, which did not allow a serene and orderly management. The tumultuous and disorderly growth of the believers also needed a supervision that could not be improvised. The dissatisfaction, however in the eyes of the Twelve appeared as an opportunity better to clarify their own responsibilities and role. They acknowledged, first of all, that there was a fundamentally objective truth that, apart from their fault, was to be attributed to them: “It is not right to neglect…” This self-criticism leaves us speechless, but very seldom it re-echoes in our ecclesial assemblies. They were not there to hunt people who had always something to criticise, but sincerely found defects in their own way of acting, confessing their faults and confusions. The process of understanding better their identity started from there, with the consequence of a new altruistic responsibility.

They gave the precedence to the new protagonists, “Brothers, find seven men among you….While we shall devote ourselves….”. They did not stick to their portion of authority to grant just a crumb of it to others, but did it without losing time. The new responsibilies given with clarity and esteem, “whom shall we entrust this office to?”, and then they stated their own role, as a task, which was not reduced, but rather better focalised and more manageable, “We, instead, shall devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word”,

It is not the matter of pouring one’s duties on to others, but of recognising that there is always enough space and responsibility also for all brothers and sisters; we need the courage of sharing and calling others to co-responsibility. The assembly of the primitive church did not feel accused of making the “usual criticism”, of allowing themselves to be influenced only by the dissatisfied members; rather they felt encouraged to start the search of true leaders for the new job, to be fulfilled with wisdom, with a sense of faith and honesty.

The assembly answered the honesty of the Twelve with a similar honesty, but also with courage: the seven names were all “Greek names”, to show that actually the minority assumed a new and not purely complementary role In fact, these men did not limit themselves to the service of the “meals”, but, for instance,  Stephen was a preacher of a strong personality as well as the first martyr of the young community, while Philip was the first itinerant missionary, who carried on the good news to Samaria and then towards far off lands, with the Baptism of the Ethiopian functionary on the way to Gaza.

To learn something useful

I would like to draw some useful criteria from this episode to read our conflicts in a changing world, which mixes up cultures and urgencies.

Firs of all, the capacity of intuiting that behind certain”murmurings” there might be very serious motivations, like the cultural differences. It looked like a somehow fanatic and stubborn pretext”, while it was an ampler and deeper indisposition, demanding a serious and courageous reflection, in which the heads, the ones who presumed of doing so very much all by themselves and in their own way., were the first to be called to the truth. To focalise the implicit motivations of certain dissatisfactions helps us to take adequate and correct solutions. Unluckily, very often we see defensive and obtuse reactions, refusals to join the community’s discussions and balances without the least sense of an honest self-criticism.

In the second place, the management of the conflict was made with creativity:  overcoming the fear of losing authority and control, they acknowledged that it was an occasion also for them to understand their function and identity in a better way, and that the concentration on one specific role would make more credible and efficacious the leadership, without the presumption of having the good competence for everything and for all. At the same time, just thanks to their experience, they could give criteria for the selection of collaborators, who would answer the exigencies of that service, which perhaps had not been carried on well, but with seriousness. Three indications on the quality of these “servers” offer us some profiles where the interest of keeping and controlling does not enter: the assembly answered with courage and full autonomy. The twelve accepted the choice with trust and full solidarity, imposing their hands on the new co-responsible persons.

The new exigencies pushed them to have the courage of inventing new roles, new styles, new stable and autonomous services, without the imposition that the “new chosen ones” should remain  in their specific role without interfering elsewhere. Rather –as we see in the event of Stephen and Philip- the “deacons”, who were specialised for the “meals”, felt simultaneously co-responsible for all the other exigencies of the good news and nobody reprimanded them for going outside the task assigned to them. . There was a clear awareness both in the deacons and the Twelve that the “general” task of the Church is a commitment for everyone and not the monopoly of a group or an elite of specialised people

Conclusion

We have given just some speedy hints of the Biblical mines and seen a little closer the episode of dissatisfaction in the primitive Church, a dissatisfaction that led to the choice of the seven deacons. We can, anyhow, conclude with some general indications.

The conflicts are not a disease: very often they are a physiological situation of growth, of adaptation and evolution and, therefore, they are to be managed rather than being simply suppressed and demonised. We need wisdom, intuition and, even more, discernment to interpret and manage them well, so that a progress may derive from them, rather than involutions and gangrene. 

Let us not be afraid of mediating when it is the matter of exigencies that seem to be opposed: the mediation could be an indecorous compromise and fruit of sluggishness, but could be also a sign of capacity to distinguish the essential from the secondary reality, urgencies and tendencies, responsibility and co-responsibility. However, mediation cannot fall from above as a “shut up” of authority of the problem and dissatisfaction, but must be a fruit of wisdom and research, a mental opening and acceptance of the provisional reality, in reciprocal trust

Let us leave open spaces for further evolutions: every solved conflict does not eliminate future contrasts, the need of re-thinking and of new balances, suffering and fatigues. The Acts of the Apostles prove this with incontestable evidence. That first mediation will have to be repeated in other circumstances and with an increased courage, as the Council of Jerusalem shows, as well as the Church History proves in every epoch of history, the recurring tensions between centre and periphery, culture and sensitivity, languages and institutions. 

The anthropological and cultural event of the primitive Church –but also the entire Biblical event in its multiple seasons- proves that the insurgence of conflicts is a healthy therapy for situations, which at times risk to miss vigour and creativity, and their solution to be managed time by time, rather than to be imposed or improvised, even less, slavishly copied from the past

Bruno Secondin
Pontificia Università Gregoriana
Borgo S. Angelo, 15 – 00193 Roma