Principles of Peace (Part 4)

Love

Some may be thinking, “Sure, I knew that sooner or later in discussing principles of peace that we would get around to some kind of touchy-feely, mushy comments on love.” First, one could scarcely expect the second greatest commandment to be ignored when considering problems between brethren, but, second, there’s nothing mushy about it. So, what does it mean when Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 about loving one’s neighbor as himself?

Jesus is not talking about a group hug or holding hands and singing, “Kumbaya.” Neither is He talking about a group of men waxing sentimental while drinking beer and confessing, “I love you, man.” To what does love refer? 1 Thessalonians 5:15 provides a good definition of the way love behaves: “See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.”

One implication of this definition is that we put our brothers and sisters ahead of ourselves and think about what is best for all (the church does not belong to us). It indicates that we maintain a healthy measure of objectivity. When problems arise between us, being fair-minded becomes the first casualty. Suddenly, the situation has evolved into us versus them, and from henceforth it will be, “Whose side are you on?” Even those who have nothing to do with the original conflict will be pressed to make a decision, although they have only heard one side of the story.

Does this approach to conflict resolution sound like love in action? How do we love ourselves (Matt. 22: 39)? Do we refuse to talk to ourselves for days or weeks at a time? Once, one member learned he had offended another, and he wanted to speak to that individual to clarify what had been said. That conversation never took place due to a stubborn resistance on the one offended. Is that the way we would deal with ourselves? Is that the way a husband would treat a wife, or vice versa? Would we callously exclude a parent or a child from our conversation? We would not because we care about them. Don’t we care about members of the church?

Suppose a Christian received some unpleasant news about a brother or sister he was particularly fond of? Would he immediately dispense that information to the rest of the congregation? Or would he tell what he had heard to his friend and give him an opportunity to make a defense (Gal. 6:1)? But if the same thing happened to a brother who had been a thorn in his side, he might feel justified in repeating what he had heard without giving that person a chance to explain. “Yeah, he’s guilty; it’s just the kind of person he is.” Isn’t that favoritism? How about hypocrisy? Shouldn’t we extend love and fairness to all brethren?

Love does not attempt to judge the motives of others when brethren are at variance with one another. “I know exactly why he said that; he was taking a dig at me.” Preachers sometimes get accused of behaving in such a way. And there might be some truth to a subconscious thought finding expression when it was not planned. But quite often someone will take a remark from the pulpit personally when no slight was intended.

When Jesus taught that we should not judge others, He was not referring to defining or applying Scriptures to some sin, as Jesus Himself did in Matthew 15:18-20, for example; He was talking about judging others more harshly than oneself (Matt. 7:1-5). A corollary to that point is judging those with whom we may have differences more harshly than those close to us. We must always make it a point to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24).

Excursion into Imagination

The congregation in Corinth was divided—but not over a doctrinal matter. No, apparently, they thought it was all right for a man to live with his father’s wife (chapter 5), or to go to law against a brother (6), or even to have chaos in their worship assemblies (14). They did not even take a firm stance against some who were saying Christians could not count on the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). No, they did not oppose the introduction of false doctrine or immorality, but they did experience division over opinions. Interesting!

So, how did it get to be that way? Below is a fictional suggestion for the way it might have happened. A few brethren are talking after worship, perhaps at a fellowship meal. One says, “We are truly blessed to have had well-known brethren to visit with us and preach here.” They reminisce for a while; finally, someone says, “I wish Apollos would come back; he’s my favorite. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone more eloquent—in or out of the church.”

“That’s for certain,” chimes in another. “It just thrills me to listen to one of his messages.” But someone takes offense to all the compliments being paid to Apollos, and so he (designated PA) says, “Wait a minute. Apollos is good, but he had to be taken aside and be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly—and not that long ago, either. [See Acts 8:24-19:1.] How does someone not know the baptism of John is not valid after all these years? A person should be sure of his facts before he starts to preach.”

“That’s not fair!” a brother (designated AP) responds swiftly. “He was so busy spreading the message that he was not fully informed, but that’s no reason to criticize an honest and devout man. Besides, if you want to criticize someone, how about Paul, who once persecuted Christians?”

“What?” PA is mortified. “Surely, you’re not going to bring up what he did before the Lord appeared to him.” “That’s easy for you to say,” AP replies, “but you did not have a brother that he forced to blaspheme and had put in prison.” PA responds with, “Of course, that was a sinful action, but Paul has repented of all such things. Besides, your brother had a choice in the matter, don’t you think?”

Before any answer can be offered, a third brother (designated PE) broke into the conversation: “Well, I like Peter, who first proclaimed the gospel on Pentecost. The first is always the best.” PA protests, “But he denied the Lord the night of His betrayal.” PE explains, “Yes, but just like Paul, he repented of his error. He went out and wept bitterly. Besides, Jesus still trusted him enough to let him speak on Pentecost.”

AP says, “Well, he may have preceded Apollos and Paul, but Apollos still far exceeds him for eloquence.” PA snaps, “Will you get off the eloquence bit, it’s beginning to wear a little thin. Besides, don’t forget that Paul began this congregation; we owe him a great deal more than we do Apollos.” PE asserts, “But who was the apostle who stepped out of the boat to walk on water?” AP interjects, “And nearly sank.” PE continues, “I’ll ignore that snide remark. Who was it who first confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God? And who was the leader of the faithful when everyone went back and walked no more with Jesus? And who was the first to race to the empty tomb?” PA interrupts, “But who has traveled more miles in spreading the gospel?”

Escalation and Spin

So, what does such an imaginary conversation reveal? First, notice how things quickly escalate from, “I like Apollos, Paul, or Peter,” to, “Here’s what’s wrong with your guy.” Unfair criticisms are launched at a brother against whom moments before no one had any objection. Everyone becomes defensive, and part of that defense includes attacking one another.

Then, too, everyone’s actions and motives become suspicious. Any weakness (real or imagined) is brought up and circulated among brethren. A faithful brother finds himself being vilified and treated worse than he would from Nero, who is actually persecuting the church. How easy was it to slip into attack mode? Suddenly, people become both indignant and outraged by the actions of others that were never intended to offend anyone. Someone’s good deeds may even become evil spoken of.

“I Won’t Back Down”

All of these problems are then aggravated by an attitude of, “I won’t back down”—or, “I can’t back down now.” Sometimes, brethren actually realize that things have gotten out of hand, but they refuse to admit it because it might be perceived that they are weak. Which is more important—pride or saving face?

For that reason, this series of articles focused on pride and humility earlier (Matt. 5:3). How much trouble would it be to say, “I was out of line when I called you a sniveling coward”? “Yes, and I shouldn’t have called you a dirty skunk.” As human beings, we can allow certain words to trigger harmful responses, if we are not careful—something Satan knows quite well about us. In one controversy, a person had written a particularly over-the-top letter and allegedly was going to walk it back. But then when he was in turn attacked, he dropped his plans to apologize. The situation had escalated even further than he imagined.

Sometimes, both parties realize, after much damage has resulted, that they overstepped the boundaries that Christians should observe. And they would be amenable to reconciliation—if the other side would only make the first move. How many hurt feelings remain unhealed because neither side would venture to take a chance on the other giving a kindly response? Paul is not going to write us a letter, saying, “I implore Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2). But the principle he already gave us. And it is an important one—so much so that he made it twice before in the same epistle: “Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ…that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (1:27). He also said brethren should not be motivated “by selfish ambition and conceit” but to “esteem others better than himself” (2:3).

Different Beats

With respect to music, some enjoy classical, some prefer jazz, and others like rock. Each of us responds to different styles in music and different ways of thinking in life. Some people are task-oriented. The completion of the goal is foremost. All benefit from the work when it is finished; therefore, the task is paramount. If society or a business did not have these people, it would be a mess.

But some are people-oriented. If the task gets completed, that is all well and good, but the way people are treated is the first order of business. We don’t want people with hurt feelings; they will not be productive. They must know how important they are. If those who think this way did not have a role in society, we would likewise fail to accomplish our goals.

Both perspectives are needed. They may at times clash, but when successfully harmonized, the results are beneficial. The two perspectives cannot be allowed to attack each other. Take any two emphases and apply the same principles to each. Some in the church are goal-oriented. They will make sure that evangelism is done and that we earnestly contend for the faith.

Others may lean more toward resolving conflicts in relationships, promoting love towards one another, and maintaining fellowship. Both are right; both are necessary. The church must stand strong; love and unity can make that happen. We must all learn even more fully the principles of peace the Scriptures give us.