Principles of Peace (Part 1)
Satan has flooded the world with false doctrines to move people away from the truth, and we recently discussed some of the principles that leaders of heresy use. But not all divisions in the Lord’s church result from those devoted to introducing error among God’s people; many church splits occur for other reasons—even if they are sometimes tied to a matter of doctrine as a pretext.
Your congenial editor has been involved in three “situations” and has heard of a few others. Many of these were needless, pointless, and very damaging to what the church otherwise might have accomplished. The repairing of reputations of both individuals and congregations may last for years, and the influence on non-Christians will be negative. What motivation exists to be evangelistic when prospective converts observe that Christians cannot get along? They see division in the world daily; cannot the church offer something better? Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6) Who promised peace (John 14:27).
The Church Belongs to Christ
Therefore, the first principle of several is simply this: Everyone needs to realize that the church belongs to Jesus. He promised to build it (Matt. 16:18)—and did. He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). He is the Head of the body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23), and the church is subject unto Christ (Eph. 5:23-24). Yes, we all know these Scriptures, but do we realize their significance?
They mean that an elder or a preacher is not always going to have his way regarding the ongoing operation of the congregation. A preacher may clash on occasion with one or more of the elders over what is the best course of action to take. Elders may disagree among themselves. If a business meeting serves as the best way to make decisions, all need to realize that no one owns the church; Jesus does.
Many decades ago, a preacher presented several lessons on “the spiritual” person. He later heard that two brothers almost came to blows in a business meeting; both accused the other of not being a spiritual person. Apparently, they missed some of the crucial points of the series. To whom did they think the church belonged—themselves or the Lord?
Another business meeting situation involved an argument over an unauthorized expenditure on the part of a preacher (no, this incident did not involve me). One brother spent several minutes berating a preacher for not having permission of the brethren to spend the money that he did. What was the fuss actually over? A plastic microphone clip had broken and needed to be fixed to hold the microphone. Several minutes of the meeting were wasted on this issue—over twelve cents!
Did someone have a control problem? Many divisions boil down to exactly that—which individual or which group within a congregation will prevail—as if the church belonged to them. Where did we get the idea that we should fight one another instead of loving one another? In any group of people there will always be different ideas of the way to accomplish something. No one can have his way every time. For some, it may involve control; others sincerely believe that what they think is absolutely the best way. During such conflicts we ought to first discern whether we disagree over doctrine or opinion.
Opinions are funny creatures. For some reason, we think our own are the best. Often times a husband and wife have difficulty agreeing on what color a room should be painted. Now add a half-dozen more views on the subject and see what happens. Apply these views to the way evangelism is being carried out or the way a class is taught or the way a sermon is presented, and once again many perspectives will surface. Everyone’s views and advice cannot prevail.
Humility
The quality of humility goes a long way in preventing squabbles. Since brethren will always see things differently, each Christian must be ready to concede if the majority of men agree on a solution—or the elders make a decision. A member may be convinced that the decision is totally wrong (and it might be, since human beings are not infallible). But, in all humility he must tell himself, “Maybe my view is the defective one.” This observer has been convinced that pursuing a certain course was both a waste of time and money. In the end it would accomplish nothing. Imagine his astonishment when the seemingly totally erroneous proposal worked! All the indications were that it was a mistake; yet it turned out to be the proper course of action. For this reason, matters of judgment must not be treated as matters of Scripture.
In another instance, a decision was made that was actually the wrong thing to do, which has subsequently been established. Some within the leadership strongly but kindly disagreed. The course of action decided upon, though a matter of opinion, was hurtful to the other leaders. Still, the decision (although protested privately within the leadership) remained intact. No one made known the disagreement to other members. However, those in the majority could not be satisfied with anything less than vanquishing the others, which they succeeded in doing. But it led eventually to a significant amount of people leaving the congregation. The entire matter could have been avoided and prevented with the realization that the church belongs to Jesus and that we should walk in humility. Treating brethren in a high-handed manner does not help any situation (Phil. 2:3).
So many passages of Scripture deal with humility and its opposite, pride, that one would think we all would be sufficiently forewarned and forearmed. Is it too difficult to see it in ourselves? We can see it clearly enough when King Saul is jealous because of David being more popular than he was (1 Sam. 18:7-8). His pride felt so attacked that he tried to kill David—repeatedly. We can see Nebuchadnezzar’s pride when he took credit for the greatness of Babylon (Dan. 4:30)—just before he had a change of diet. We have no problem seeing Uzziah’s heart being lifted up when he entered the temple to burn incense (2 Chr. 26:16).
On one occasion, one of the elders in a congregation was asked for an explanation for a certain decision the overseers had made. He was told, “Because I am an elder, and I said so.” That same elder could undoubtedly have seen such arrogance in another, but apparently he was blithely unaware of the problem within himself. The church belonged to the elders and not to Christ.
Although bad examples of pride could be multiplied, it is worth noting that examples of humility also exist. A few good men have, when they discovered they were wrong, apologized for having made an erroneous statement. The apology was sincerely and graciously accepted as well. If more of us would be concerned about treating others properly, more problems could be avoided.
Haman had the world at his feet. Everyone bowed down to honor him—except one man named Mordecai. Did Haman rejoice that thousands honored him? No! He said, “Yet all this avails me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the King’s gate” (Esther 5:13). So long as one human being refrained from praising him, life was unbearable. Truly, pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Soon a second man grew to despise Haman—the king himself. Because of his own pride, he was put to death; had he been more humble, he would have lived.
Simeon and Levi
The twelve sons of Jacob had one sister. Naturally, one might expect that they would be very protective of her. However, they may have been absent when she decided to go out to visit the daughters of the land (Gen. 34:1). Unfortunately, the prince of this new country saw her, desired her immediately, and violated her (v. 2). He was “strongly attracted to” her and wanted her to be his wife (vv. 3-4).
Jacob was the first person to hear about what happened, but he did not react until his sons came in from the field (v. 5). When the brothers heard what had happened, they “were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done” (v. 7). Did Jacob and his sons have a right to be outraged? Absolutely! Shechem clearly had done something incredibly shameful!
But now how should Israel respond? Such a crime cannot obviously be allowed to stand? Should they take up arms and destroy the people? But before they can take action, the father of Shechem intercedes on behalf of his son. Although his behavior was abominable, he now wants to do the right thing; he wants to marry her. Furthermore, the father, Hamor, suggests a political merger—with intermarriages between the two peoples (vv. 8-10). Shechem himself joined the appeal, promising Jacob and his sons to do whatever they required; he would pay any amount of dowry they named (vv. 12-13). Granting that he was wrong in the first place, there is nothing more that he can now do to atone for his sin.
The agreement was made between the two peoples—provided that Shechem and his people would be circumcised, which was done (vv. 14-24). However, three days later, while all the men were in pain, Simeon and Levi killed them; they plundered their city and took their wives for themselves (vv. 25-29). Were their actions any better than Shechem’s? How should we view what they did? Jacob’s initial response proved to be pragmatic. He pointed out that all the inhabitants of the land might gather together to kill him and them. This was not the best response (v. 30).
Simon and Levi had their own view: “Should he treat our sister like a harlot?” This response is born of pride. The problem had seemingly been resolved in as amicable a manner as possible, but, no, Simeon and Levi decided, “No one gets away with assaulting our sister. We won’t tolerate such behavior no matter what the other side agreed to or what we promised. He can’t treat our sister like a harlot!” As often happens in controversies, the facts became skewed—or do men usually marry women they treat like harlots? Simeon and Levi are so motivated by pride they have developed tunnel vision concerning the event. They only see one viewpoint.
What was God’s view? Through inspiration Jacob blessed his sons at the end of his life. Reuben, his firstborn, lost the privileges he would have had because he was unstable as water. Among other things, he slept with one of his father’s wives. Simeon would be the one to receive a double portion, and if he failed, then it would fall upon Levi. God counted both of them as ineligible. Why? “Instruments of cruelty are in their dwelling place” (Gen. 49:5). “For in their anger they slew a man” (v. 6). “Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (v. 7). The scepter passed right over Reuben, Simeon, and Levi—and went to Judah (v. 10).
God did not comment on what Simeon and Levi did at the time they killed Hamor, Shechem, and the others. He did not indicate then as to whether they were right or wrong in seeking vengeance, but His later words show plainly that what they did was evil. It caused them to lose their inheritance and the rights that Judah obtained instead. Pride causes people to behave inappropriately—perhaps even to do damage that cannot be undone. People have lost jobs, social standing, and marriages for letting their pride control them.