Thank you brothers for the opportunity to speak to you today, even in this remote format that we're using. I'm grateful to Bryce Diswart and the other organizers for the invitation. I know that I know many of you already and many of you that I don't hope to meet over time in the future. Until then, we pray for you, our brothers in Canada. and seek to be a support to you in that way, even during these unusual times that we've experienced in recent years. I hope this conference will strengthen you and further equip you for the privilege of holding office in Christ's Church. I've been asked this morning to speak on the subject of God-centered service and responses to conflict, particularly between peers, between office bearers. So, let's jump in. A crucial part of the legacy of the Reformed tradition that we know and that we love is its focus on God's own glory. Acknowledging that God's own transcendent place over all things and our subordinate place underneath that and underneath His love, experiencing His blessing. We can think of many things in the Reformed tradition that speak to this. The five solas of the Reformation would be an example that they really, in many ways, all have to do with a proper acknowledgment of God's majesty and power in our theological formulations. So, sola scriptura acknowledges God's exclusive authority to reveal what is, in fact, true over against human opinion. Solus Christus acknowledges that no one contributes anything meritorious or efficacious to our salvation other than our Savior Himself. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide both deny human ability and merit in salvation. And then Sola Deo Gloria really, in some ways, articulates the heart of all of the others, that the work of creation and the work of redemption is God's alone, by his power and to his glory. Or we can think of a more succinct statement in Westminster's Shorter Catechism, question and answer one. It reminds us that man's chief end is to glorify God. and to enjoy Him forever. And so we're blessed to have this clear God-centeredness to our theological heritage founded upon Scripture itself. But we need to ask the question, is the God-centeredness seen in our theological formulations also something that is seen in our lives, in the way that we practice, in the way that we act? No doubt at times it is seen there, but how consistently it is is another question. One of the ironies about being Reformed is that given the nature of our theology, we really ought to be the most humble of all of God's people, because we acknowledge our own depravity, and so we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to criticism. As Reformed theologians and churchmen, We also ought to be ready to engage quite courageously when necessary in confronting others, trusting that it is God who fights the battles in the church that must be won. And so we can engage, we should engage, without fearing reprisal or repercussions from men. And as Reformed office-bearers, we ought to be the most ready of God's children to give up our interests, our own personal interests, for the sake of others. Because the efficacy of our ministries is not from us, and the goal of our ministries is not our own glory but God's. But we can ask, and we need to ask, how often is this really true of us, either individually or collectively? The truth of the matter, brothers, is that conflict with other people, and oftentimes particularly conflict with our peers, our fellow office bearers, prompt the God-centeredness of our creed and confession to vanish in actual practice. And so today I want to look at conflict with other office bearers as a very practical barometer of our actual God-centeredness and Christ-likeness in the church. Are we actually God-centered or are we actually, perhaps unacknowledged, man-centered in the way that we handle conflict with other people, particularly our peers? And to do that, we're going to look at two passages from the New Testament in particular that describe three different occasions when the Apostle Paul himself experienced conflict with other office bearers and the different ways that he responded in each case. And when we do this, it's fascinating to see, on the one hand, how different Paul's responses really are in each situation, even the very opposite of one another. but also, on the other hand, how consistent the reason for this is. The consistency of his God-centeredness or his Christ-centeredness in each situation. And the context of these passages, as I'm sure you'll agree, is one in which Paul, of course, is not telling us these things, telling us about his own experiences merely out of some kind of autobiographical interest. That would be sort of ironic in a sense. But he's really telling it to us as an example that he desires us to follow and imitate after him. So I'm going to read then two passages, the first from Galatians 2, 1 through 14. In the second, Philippians 1, 12 through 18. Starting then with Galatians 2 and beginning at verse 1, Paul has been describing his conversion and some of his subsequent experiences along the way. And we pick up midstream, Galatians 2, 1, he says, Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them, though privately before those who seemed influential, the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek, Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus so that they might bring us into slavery, to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential, what they were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality. Those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised, for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles. And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? That's thus far in Galatians 2. And then we compare that with this from Philippians 1. Philippians 1 verses 12 through 18. Paul says there, I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Well, the first thing I want to reflect on this morning is the conflict that Paul describes and how he addresses it in Galatians 2.2. Galatians 2.2 where we see Paul giving an example of submitting to one another out of reverence for God. Submitting to one another out of reverence for God. As we turn to think about Galatians 2.2, we need to back up and remind ourselves a bit about the resolute focus that this letter has already from the beginning upon God and God's power and glory rather than that of man. This characterizes Galatians from the outset. We can see it right off the bat in Galatians 1.1 as Paul describes himself and his own ministry. He says, Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. Immediately then, a contrast between God and man. then Galatians 1, 11, and 12, something similar. For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Already in the opening and then continuing into the body of the letter, then Paul pits human agency quite strongly against divine agency. And he does so especially to emphasize how his vocation and his message have their source in the monergistic work of our great God and no one else. But given that emphasis, early in Galatians, it might surprise us to see what Paul then goes on to describe in Galatians 2.2. The great apostle to the Gentiles, whose vocation and message are from God and not men, takes his message and his ministry and purposefully submits them to the scrutiny of the leaders in Jerusalem when he's experiencing conflict with them. At first blush, we might almost think that he's being inconsistent here, like there's a bit of a gap in the letter or that this is something of a liability to Paul's overall point. And yet further reflection suggests just the opposite. Instead, here is a crucial starting point, I think, for considering God-centered interaction with our peers. Because Paul shows here a more radical form of God-centeredness than we might at first be inclined to consider even ourselves. Paul's concern in the ministry brothers was so theocentric that his actions were not directed by the concerns or interests of any man, even of himself. What Paul sought to protect in his ministry was the fidelity of his content, not his own pride or even how he would appear before others. In essence then, Paul's submission and deference towards his Heavenly Father mean that he does not think about his own stature in the ministry as something to promote or to defend in and of itself. He does not feel that protecting or promoting his God-given ministry entails protecting or promoting himself. Instead, his devotion to God leads him to humble himself before others, voluntarily offering himself up for their evaluation. If you step back and think about it, this is quite a remarkable text. Because already at this point in his ministry, Paul was a seasoned and successful missionary. He'd been serving for at least 14 years, as the chronology of Galatians goes. He had opened up far more territory to the gospel than those in Jerusalem had up until that point. And he'd done all of this on the basis of a direct commissioning from the Lord Jesus Christ himself from heaven. Would it not have been easy then for him to just soldier on independently of others? In fact, we could argue that practical human wisdom might have told him to do just that. It's going to damage your reputation and your ministry, Paul, if you go and subject yourself to these Jerusalem pillars. It's going to look like you're unsure of yourself or like you're underneath them. People won't look at you as an authority anymore in the same way. You won't project the same kind of confidence. Others will be hesitant to follow you. And honestly, such ideas may well be true, humanly speaking. People do often want a strong self-made leader. But even if that is true, and submitting to others could damage Paul's effectiveness in human terms, so be it. Paul does not operate here on the basis of these sorts of humanly calculated practicalities or probabilities. He doesn't operate toward his peers on the basis of what is smart politically. He doesn't even have to do, he doesn't even do what might seem on the surface to be consistent with his own theology, right? Trust in God alone. So, deal only with God about all these things. Rather, pitting trust in God against godly submission to our peers in the ministry is really a false dichotomy, isn't it? And it's so often a smokescreen that we devise for our own self-protection. And that's what's really at issue here, isn't it? The temptation to self-protection and self-promotion rather than to a proper God-centered transparency with one another. But what Paul does here is actually practice what he preached in one of the most profound ways. The gospel is not from men or about men. It's God's work, and so it's not about me either, other than as a mere servant. The gospel does not have power, brothers, because of the alpha males who propounded, and all of their assertiveness or their swagger. No, the gospel does not work within the established pecking order of human society, of human influence, otherwise conceived of. And so if I am diminished in the eyes of others by submitting my message and my methods to the scrutiny of others, rather than just defending myself or going alone or stonewalling, so be it, my vocation is from God himself. God must make my vocation successful if it is to have any true success at all. And it's precisely because Paul understands this that he takes the initiative in response to revelation given to him to submit himself and his ministry to those who are qualified to examine it. Even those same peers who might seem to be, who might even act like his competitors. But what they seem to be, or what they act like, is ultimately of no concern, as Paul himself states. Their possible calculation of what this means politically is not Paul's concern. No, his concern isn't political at all. It's principial that he not run or labor in vain, as Galatians 2.2 says itself. And so Paul purposefully and actively subjects himself to the scrutiny of his brothers. And I suggest to you that here we see this reformed principle of theocentricity expressing itself in Paul's own ministry and in his activity towards his fellow office bearers. Brothers, I think it's so easy in practice to treat the Church of Jesus Christ as a mere human institution. Even though, of course, we know in our heads that it is not that. And it's so easy to try, because of this wrong way of thinking, this wrong set of habits that we have, to have a habit also of avoiding scrutiny. We want to take pride in our own abilities or our accomplishments, and so we feel like we're above submitting ourselves to others. It's so easy to cover over potential problem areas in our ministry in order to maintain the appearance of confident authority. It's so easy to come up with the most pious-sounding reasons for doing this. Well, you know, this church needs a leader, and so I need to look respectable. No, brothers. The church has a leader, and his name is Jesus, and he is sufficient for the church's needs. Or we may say to ourselves, well, the Lord didn't give me this position for no reason, or, well, I've served just a lot longer, or even maybe with more distinction than them. Let Peter come try church planting first, and then he can talk to me if he wants. but all these things end up as different forms of self-protection. And because of that, they're really different forms of man-centeredness, aren't they? If the Apostle Paul, who had received a direct revelation from Christ, needed to subject his ministry to his peers, then how much more do we? And so it's important that we ask ourselves, Do we think and act in accordance with what we profess to be true about God and of His Church? Do we actively subject ourselves, our actions, our words, to the scrutiny of those who are fellow office bearers? Do we make excuses for ourselves to protect ourselves? Or do we think of the Christian life and of the Christian ministry competitively on the basis of our comparison to others, outwardly speaking, Do you assess yourself and your ministry then in a God-centered way? Really, the gospel is not about human comparisons. The gospel is not even about self-preservation. It's not about our names. It's not about our reputation. It's certainly not about appearing quite formidable and without error before others. No, brothers, the gospel is about humility. and self-sacrifice after the pattern of Jesus Christ, which Paul himself shows us here. It's about submission to God, and because of that, proper submission to one another as well. Why is it, I ask you, that office-bearers in particular are so difficult to disagree with or confront? Too often we treat our churches as our territory, and our ministries, therefore, as something simply to defend. I was corresponding with a ruling elder in one of our churches recently, and this man was exhausted from the emotional turmoil of having to tell his pastor that he thought his pastor had made some errors in the pulpit. And brothers, this elder really, really loves his pastor and appreciates him and often sings his praises, values his ministry, and works hard in support of him. And yet, he laments, Bill just doesn't take criticism well. I trust that that probably resonates with all of us. But it shouldn't resonate quite as much as it does. in the sense that we need to work against the mentality that produces this problem. Not possible to criticize. I think there's a temptation in our churches for us to misunderstand the legacy of somebody like a Martin Luther, or a Guido de Bray, or a J. Gresham Machen, and to think that the Reformed ministry is about strong men who won't budge in the face of opposition. Well, sometimes it is that, but not others. What we need is a God-worked humility before the Lord of Glory, before Jesus Christ, and before the truth, whoever speaks that truth to us. And so that means submitting to others' proper judgment, just as much as it means defending the truth in stalwart fashion. It depends on the situation. Technically, I think we acknowledge this to be true, but in practice, I'm afraid, we're often not up to our own profession of faith, in a sense you could say, and not consistent. Yes, brothers, God-centered bravery means being willing to stand up against others as needed, which we'll look at in a moment, but also first let's consider this, being willing to submit ourselves to others out of reverence for God. Well, secondly, We can look later in Galatians 2, particularly in verses 11-14, to see a different response that Paul has to conflict, even some of it with the same people. Galatians 2, 11-14 show us the response of confronting one another out of reverence for God. One of the things that's often neglected about the book of Galatians generally is how the root of the problem that Paul confronts among the Judaizers involves a clear desire to please people. This is one of the topics that's being debated in a sense back and forth between those in Galatia and Paul. the desire to please people, and so to treat the church as an essentially human institution in which we might gain praise from others. In fact, Paul says quite plainly, toward the end of the letter, that this desire to please others is exactly what motivates the Judaizing preachers. He says this in chapter 6, verses 12 through 13. He says, it is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. And then he goes on, "...they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh." And here it is then in 6, 12 through 13, we see kind of both sides of man-centeredness. We see fear of man on the one hand, not wanting to be persecuted, and then we see a desire to gain recognition from man on the other, and to boast in the flesh. And yet, ironically, it's precisely because the Judaizers have this man-centeredness and this desire to look good in front of others that they also accuse Paul of the very same thing. So early in Galatians, in chapter 1, verse 10, we see this lurking in the background. Paul says, as he's describing his gospel and the fact that he's concerned about the Galatians abandoning it so quickly, he's confronting them right out of the gate. And then after he confronts them, he says, Galatians 1, 10, Am I now seeking the approval of man or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were, I would not be a servant of Christ. in the larger context, the Judaizers and others seem to be accusing Paul of being inconsistent in his ministry, that he flip-flops and that he changes back and forth, saying different things to different people in different contexts in order to please them and not ruffle their feathers. And this is a big part of the reason why Paul launches into the long account of his own ministry that he does in Galatians 1 and 2, which we've read part of, because he's trying to show that he was not unduly influenced by people's opinions. And he did, in fact, speak and act consistently in the company of different people in terms of the content of his message. But while Paul insists that his message and his guiding interests were consistent, in other words, that his commitment to God in Christ was unswerving, the same at each juncture, we do need to notice how the way that comes to expression, the way that his God-centeredness comes to expression in verses 11 through 14 is quite different in one sense than it was in Galatians 2.2. We saw in Galatians 2.2 Paul's God-centered commitment to the gospel led him to submit himself to others. Now in Galatians 2.11-14 we see that this same commitment to pleasing God rather than people leads him to confront others who are undermining the gospel of God's free grace through their public actions. Here we can see even more clearly than in Galatians 2.2 that just as Paul himself was not the center of his own ministry, neither were his peers. Paul did not submit himself to Peter and others in chapter 2 verse 2 because he was entangled in the fear of man, or because he was drunk with a desire to please people and to gain their approval. You see, it's one thing to be self-protective or arrogant and so refuse to be criticized, but it's another thing to be led or to be consumed by the opinions of others, yet both are, in essence, man-centered. And this desire to please others or a preoccupation with the opinion of others could come from fear of their opinion, or it could come from a desire to gain something by their approval. But in either case, the main thing to avoid if you're preoccupied with the opinion of others is, of course, confrontation. It's much more expedient instead to downplay issues even if they really need to be dealt with, to delay, to hide. But Paul's confrontation of Peter and of others in Galatians 2.11-14 goes precisely in the other direction. Again, because of Paul's God-centered orientation towards God himself and God's own glory, rather than to practical expediency in human terms. Clearly, brothers, the stakes in this confrontation at the end of Galatians 2 are quite high for Paul. He says repeatedly in this chapter that those in Jerusalem are highly influential and well regarded in the church. They were established. Everybody already thought highly of them and looked to them, and so Paul's risking quite a lot to confront them. Peter's approval of Paul's ministry, The financial support of churches that look to Peter as a leader. The possibility of greater persecution as his opponents gain more fuel for their resistance to him. If Paul could simply be more politically savvy, we might think. Seek to get along better. Is Paul not walking away here from a great opportunity to promote his mission if he could just curry favor a bit more? But brothers, when the issues at stake concern compromising the gospel message itself, avoiding confrontation is sinfully man-centered and self-serving. Again, we can often concoct many explanations for how our man-centered fear or our man-centered opportunism is really somehow something that's serving the gospel. But Paul doesn't. Instead, he again remains consistent, acting out of theological principle, acting out of theological conviction, not acting out of what is comfortable to himself or pragmatic. On the one hand, then, if there is a question of Paul's own fidelity that he might be running in vain, he submits himself to others for their scrutiny. But on the other hand, if others are compromising the gospel and calling the full legitimacy of Gentile Christians into question by their actions, and therefore, of course, calling the completely grace-based nature of the gospel into question as well, Paul rises to the occasion, even at risk to himself, and he went to Peter directly to seek his repentance. Now in our day, it's worth noting at least two things about how Paul confronted Peter. First, Paul went to him personally. Second, he went to him to recover Peter for the sake of restitution or, as I said, repentance. In other words, Paul did not first get on email or social media and blast Peter or badmouth him to other people. Those tend mainly to be ways either to protect ourselves or to get glory for ourselves. If Paul had wished to be pragmatic, He once again might really have been able to advance his own cause at this time when Peter was being inconsistent. What a great opportunity to show that his cause, Paul's cause, is correct and Peter's is the one who needs to be taken down a few notches. Come to Paul's church. Go to Paul's conferences. But Paul's way of dealing with this issue shows what his true goal is. and shows yet again how he's not out for his own gain. If he wanted a following and if he wanted recognition, he could have used Peter's inconsistency to his own advantage. If he was fearing Peter, he could go and get others in his corner first and bring a whole group of people to confront Peter, allies on his side. Instead, Paul takes the lonely walk to Peter's door, as it were, to speak to him face to face, come what may." We can reflect here again how Paul's actions go against so many different forms of human wisdom. Often we're tempted to stand back in fear. Well, what will Peter think of me? What will others think of me? I'm confronting Peter for crying out loud. It'll be a huge mess. Difficult to resolve. Better just let things lie. How big of a deal is it really anyway? Peter's only not eating with Gentiles sometimes. And after all, Peter's just trying to keep peace with some of the men who came from James. Does Peter really have to eat with Gentiles all the time? Out of fear, we can often rationalize ourselves to think that a problem isn't consequential when it really is. On the flip side, human wisdom might say that, well, you know, you get more with honey than you do with vinegar, right? You need Peter's support, don't you? Look at the big picture, Paul. Don't make too big a deal out of this. Having Peter's support could really help the Gentiles in the long run. It's better to let this issue of inconsistency go. The sake of gospel effectiveness, we might even convince ourselves, I won't confront someone with as much stature as Peter, because it will do more harm than good. But is that truly serving God's kingdom purposes? Or is it, again, just pragmatism? The purity and the unity of the church are truly at stake in Galatians 2, in what Peter is doing. And in such situations, it's not gospel-centered, but in fact, sinfully man-centered to avoid conflict. In the end, Paul must understand, as this letter makes clear, that he does not actually need Peter's support for his gospel if it were truly to come to that. The gospel, again, is the work of God, not of Peter, and not even of Paul. Our job, brothers, is to be faithful to the Lord and to his word and to let him take care of the outcomes. Maybe we will be less effective, humanly speaking, due to faithfully engaging a conflict that must be engaged. We may perhaps become marginalized, even as Israel's prophets of old often were. But that, in the end, is for the Lord to choose. Ours is to follow His will. And so I ask you, how do you do with this? Is having to confront others a bigger struggle for you than having to submit yourself to others, or vice versa? Thirdly, we look at Philippians 1, 12 through 18. And there we see Paul giving yet another different response to conflict with other office bearers. In this case, it's not submitting himself to others out of reverence for God, or confronting others out of reverence for God, but instead, quietly rejoicing out of reverence for God. Against the background of these other two examples that we've just seen in Galatians, we see Paul dealing with a different sort of situation in which one and the same attitude of God-centeredness guides him to a different sort of response as well. Interestingly though, here in Philippians 1, Paul's God-centeredness does not express itself in activity, at least at the horizontal level, in relationship to other office bearers that he describes. It actually instead expresses itself in his quietness, in the self-control and the resolve that he shows in his private response to the Lord in his heart to rejoice. Paul doesn't schedule a meeting here to submit his message to other people's scrutiny or to confront others for their inconsistency. Instead, he simply steps back. He pauses in the midst of conflict to rejoice for what God himself is doing, even in the midst of others' wrongdoing. And even despite the negative effects that others' wrongdoing is having upon him at that time. Now to understand why Paul's response is so different in this case, and what a profound example of Christ-centeredness this really is, we need to look a little bit at the circumstances in this particular text. One of the things we need to notice in Philippians 1, 12-18, is it's important to consider the nature of the conflict that Paul experiences here, which is quite different than the nature of the conflict in Galatians. In particular, we need to carefully take care to note how this particular conflict in Philippians 1 is not centered on the message of the Gospel itself, the content of the Gospel. Paul's not dealing with a false gospel being preached by others in Philippians 1 the way that he was in Galatians. He's also not dealing with disciples like Peter who were accommodating aspects of that false gospel through their activity, and therefore sowing this sort of confusion in the church about what the gospel actually was. Instead, if we read Philippians 1 carefully, we notice how Paul does not question the content being preached by those who oppose him. He says instead that there are two groups of preachers, in verse 15, both of whom are among the brothers, mentioned in verse 14, and the content that both sets of preachers, both sets of brothers, preach is described in exactly the same way in both instances, those who are for Paul and those who are causing problems for Paul. Both, he says, simply preach Christ. Some preach Christ, indeed, out of envy and rivalry, and others out of goodwill, but the content is the same. Evidently, then, there's nothing noteworthy that distinguishes the message of the one group from the message of the other group, and this goes a long way, again, to explaining why Paul can say that he rejoices when both groups preach. Despite what some have assumed then in Philippians scholarship, Paul's not dealing here with the conflict over Judaizing, as he was in Galatia. Or in other words, we could put it this way, this is not a conflict over doctrine, or of compromising doctrine through public hypocritical actions. Yet, we must be clear that just because this is not a conflict over doctrine, doesn't mean that the conflict here is a light one for Paul himself. In fact, in some ways, this may make it harder for him personally speaking, but it also helps us pinpoint exactly why he says that he does what he does. You see, while these rivalrous preachers are preaching Christ, The problem is that they're doing so with wrong motives. They're doing so out of envy and rivalry. The words that Paul uses there suggest that these brothers are motivated by covetousness and resentment over the influence that Paul has in his ministry. These men, whoever they are, struggle under the weight of their own ambition, desiring to obtain more of Paul's influence for themselves. And because of this, they actually see the Apostle Paul's imprisonment as an opportunity for themselves, something to exploit so that they can increase their own following. They jump into action while Paul is literally held captive in chains to preach Christ and gather more people around their ministry. It's really very galling in its own way, isn't it? And so what is Paul to do? How should he respond to this sort of competitiveness that others are initiating? Well, how he does respond is simply to rejoice. Of course, Paul's not saying that the fact that these preachers are envious and motivated by selfish ambition is fine, doesn't matter at all. Really, the whole thrust of so much of Galatians, certainly in Galatians 1 and 2, we can see this. is that we ought not to act out of envy or out of a desire for personal recognition and glory. Chapter 2, verse 3 states as much. Paul wants the Philippians to be of one mind, to have unity in the way that they think, in what their goals are, to be in full accord with each other. And, of course, he knows that to do this, they have to consider others' interests before their own, rather than act out of selfish ambition and envy. So again, it's clear that Paul's point in Philippians 1 is not that the motivation of these rivalrous preachers is okay, it doesn't matter, nothing to be concerned with in any way at all. But his point instead is this. If all that somebody else's envy and ambition produce is a trampling on my rights while Christ himself is still preached and his cause advanced, then I take my own interest out of the equation and simply rejoice. You see, brothers, the envious preachers in Philippians 1 are not preaching another gospel. They're not threatening to split the church with their public actions to accommodate another gospel. And so Paul rightly recognizes that the main problem that their actions create is for himself. They seek to afflict Paul by insinuating themselves into his sphere of influence, and yet, as they do so, they are preaching Christ. And so, Paul says, what should our response be? Our concern should not be with who gets credit, who has the influence, whose following is bigger. In essence, Paul says it should not be with which servant of Christ Jesus does which work or even seems to do which work and get the credit in the eyes of others. Instead, my concern when others succeed, even because they're being competitive with me, my concern is simply with this, is Jesus Christ nonetheless being served, even if it's at my own expense? So if the real consequence of all of this is that I lose something, even as Christ does not, then my own chief concern is actually still being met, if I think like a servant. If the upshot of somebody else's actions is that somebody else jumps in to benefit from or take credit from my work, If the upshot is that people jump from my church to some other church that's still preaching Christ, where God's sheep are still being fed, then this is simply my opportunity to give up my own personal interests, just as Christ himself gave up his personal interests when he came to earth for all of us to die. Philippians 2, 6-11. If it's really the case, as Paul says of himself in Philippians 1.1, that he's nothing more than a servant of the servant, Jesus Christ, who made himself nothing, then if Christ's interests are being served, that is all that ultimately matters to Paul. If I'm offended or mistreated, if I'm marginalized in some particular context where Christ's kingdom is still being advanced, then what? Is that fair? Well, no, it's not fair. But does it matter? Well, yes, it matters some, but it matters much less than other things. And so while I wait quietly for the Lord to do his own work, knowing that he himself will settle all accounts justly on the day of his return, while I commit myself to the Lord and to his glory, I can simply also rejoice." Brothers, this may be the most difficult of the three passages that we've considered, at least in one respect. because it involves not solving the problem, but contenting ourselves with the Lord's provision in the meantime. It exposes our heart's intent and our private religious response to the Lord behind closed doors. Do we rejoice before God himself? when his cause is served, even at our expense. Even when we ourselves are wronged and must give up our own interests. Often I think we are so worried about how successful other people are or are not. It galls us, doesn't it, when somebody else gets more credit than we do? Especially if it's for the wrong reasons. Whose church is bigger? Whose Facebook account has more friends? Who gets the credit for having helped somebody in a particular counseling situation? Who's thought of as a really good teacher or theologian? Who gets elected to classes or federation committees? Or asked to speak at conferences or to write for magazines? Who speaks the most in consistory meetings? Whose explanations are praised or followed? Sometimes we get upset with others who pursue those sorts of accolades and that kind of attention, but the fact that we get so upset about it often really shows how much it matters wrongly to us too. Truly, isn't it often man-centered people who find other man-centered people most bothersome? Isn't it competitive people who get most riled up and bothered by others who act competitively or seem to act competitively? Paul tells us here that in the end these human accolades and these human degrees of influence don't matter. All that should matter to us is the cause of our Savior. This is a great test, I think, of our God-centeredness. Do we really seek God's glory as we say we do, even when the accomplishment of God's glory means my lack of glory, my lack of recognition, at least for now? Of course, I've already said this, but the reason that Paul can act in this self-emptying way is clearly because of how Jesus Christ himself first acted for all of our sakes in a self-emptying way. The most self-emptying way in his incarnation, his life, and his death. that Jesus Christ did not consider his own self-interest. He did not grasp after equality with God. Instead, he gave up his own interests. He came to earth from heaven, took on a servant form, doing somebody else's will, even at complete cost to himself, even unto death, the death of a cross. And this is where the gospel, once again, hits home to us and refocuses our attention. The greatest man who ever walked the earth, the God-man, who actually did deserve all honor and glory and deference and recognition in ways that we never will. This one completely poured himself out on my behalf, on our behalf, to render an obedience to the Father that I could not and would not render, and to provide me with justification and adoption and sanctification and, indeed, ultimately, glorification. Here, indeed, is the one that I know that I need. to forgive me of all my perpetual and all of my inveterate and habitual man-centeredness, and to wash me clean from my shameful self-service, and to enable me to die unto sin and self, and to live unto righteousness by His own power. And if he has done all of this for us as the Lord of glory, should we not seek to follow after him as well, even as Paul describes in these verses? It's clear that Paul's point in Philippians 2 is just this. Chapter 2, verse 5. that we should have this mind in ourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus. And so we come before our Savior, and we confront both our man-centered sinfulness, which we see all the more as we look at Him, and we confront, we see graciously, His provision. time and time again as we fail. Brothers, the self-emptying cross of Jesus Christ shows us the depth and the desperateness of our own selfish condition apart from him, but it also shows us the fullness of what he has given for our sake to remedy that desperate condition. And it also shows us something else. That God's plan for all his children is that they would receive glory, that we would receive glory on the far side of God-centered self-denial during this life, just as was the case for Jesus. that this is our time of humiliation compared to the future of glorification. And when we see this, and when we commit ourselves to this and empty ourselves, then our glory truly is God-centered. Because it's not a glory that we grab for ourselves through our own ingenuity, through our political maneuverings, through our self-protection, through our self-assertion. It's instead something that we receive only from Him, only as His interests are served. And so it so clearly is to his glory alone, as it should be. Well, to close, I would like to ask you this question, as we look back on all three of these passages and Paul's different responses. Which one of the God-centered responses to conflict that we've looked at here today do you find most difficult for yourself? Is it submitting yourself to criticism? Is it confronting other people? Or is it remaining inactive and simply rejoicing when only your own interests are trampled upon, but the cause of the gospel is still served? The answer to that question, I think, is important to know in the Christian life, and it's probably particularly important to know as office bearers in the Christian church. Because the answer teaches me something about what form my native propensities to sin most often take, so that I can die to those. Do I especially tend towards a self-protection or a self-advancement that hides from criticism? Do I especially tend toward a fear of man or a trust in man that refuses to confront? Do I tend toward a self-absorption or a self-assertion that always stands up for my own interests as first and foremost? More than likely, brothers, it is some mix of all of them. But in every one of these passages, Paul practices a God-centered self-denial that refuses pragmatic man-centeredness. And he tells us about that so that we can follow after him as he follows after Jesus Christ. And so I bring this to you today seeking that each of us could look to this example to diagnose our individual sinful tendencies more closely. Know how it is that we need to mortify the effects of sin in our own lives, but also so that each of us could be encouraged to put on the Lord Jesus Christ more and more consistently and gratefully. So that by grace through faith and in the help of the Holy Spirit, we can deal with conflict in the church less selfishly, for the church's good, and for the glory of the gospel of God in the face of Christ. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you, brothers. I pray that the conference as a whole is an encouragement and a refreshment. God bless.