Part One   Part Two   Part Three   Part Four   Part Five   Part Six   Part Seven   Part Eight   Part Nine

God provides massive amounts of direction in His Word on relationship.  All of that material in the Bible needs to be consulted on every facet of relationship to guide what and how a relationship works or succeeds.  Most people, I’ve noticed, prefer their own opinion or what I call, the seat of their pants.  We’re going to be judged by God for relationship.  Based even on the treasure of biblical data, relationship is a big deal to God.  It’s not just relationship, but what God wants in relationship.  Not just any kind of relationship is acceptable.  It’s got to be God’s way.

Terms of Reconciliation

In part eight, I began a scriptural coverage of reconciliation with attention to the necessity and then the corollary of mediation.  I did not begin the terms of reconciliation.  Terms don’t matter if someone doesn’t even care to reconcile in obedience to God.  He’s got his own ego, his group of friends who don’t care about submission to God and His Word, his lust, and popularity that all compete with obeying God in relationship.  For him, it’s better to redefine relationship or conform relationship to what he wants.  It’s not true though.  God is still Who He is and relationship is still defined by Him.

When someone is to reconcile, the offense severing the relationship is to be judged on the truth both by the two parties and the mediators.  Scripture provides for the opportunity to conclude.  It may be judged that either no offense has occurred or that no offense can be proven to have occurred by the witnesses.  That doesn’t mean nothing has happened.  The mediators have got to do their best.  They’ve got to help as much as possible, if it seems like something is there.  When something can’t be proven, and it actually happened, it appears to many to be a cover-up.  A frustrating byproduct of the the present culture very often affects decisions in the church.  The ruling must be made on actual witness and not a hunch or a gut-feeling.

Sometimes someone is offended by what is only personal opinion or preference.  That doesn’t mean no offense has occurred.  The mediators may think there is some action required.  One can see this in the illustration of meat offered unto idols (1 Corinthians 8-10).  It wasn’t wrong to eat the meat, but that doesn’t mean that no offense occurred, because the conscience may have been violated, a bad testimony given, a cause of stumbling, and or a wrong association.  A mediator may think a wrong association is being made, so that the action through its association is a wrong one.  Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 10.

Just getting close to evil, let alone doing evil, is often enough to cause someone else to stumble, and scripture forbids causing someone to stumble.  The mediators can bring a correction in that situation, if it couldn’t be settled by the two parties.  Someone could have been offended by an illegitimate association with idols.  Jesus prohibited eating the meat in two different places in His letters to churches in Revelation 2:14 and 20.  A good way to see it is that it isn’t wrong in and of itself, but it is wrong because of other legitimate reasons.  Not everything that isn’t wrong to do, isn’t wrong.  It can still be wrong because of association, offense, stumbling, proximity, and other violations of what Paul himself calls love of God and others (1 Corinthians 10:31-32).

Mediators must consider biblical principles in settling offense.  There may have not been any clear discernible offense.  Many years ago, a division existed between two men in our church.  Maybe you’ll be amazed at the story, but these are much more typical situations of need of reconciliation.  One man would open a window in the auditorium.  He didn’t have “permission” in the estimation of another man.  He opened on his own initiative.  The other man didn’t want it open, so he closed it.  The first opened it again.  The second closed it again.  An angry confrontation ensued.

The mediators required both to apologize, to say each was wrong for the way it was handled.  After this same conflict occurring several times, one of the two wouldn’t reconcile.  He was disciplined for an unwillingness to forgive.  He wouldn’t forgive, because he thought the other man wasn’t repentant.  “If he was repentant, he wouldn’t have kept closing the window, which was causing the offense.”  Opening or closing a window wasn’t a sin.  The two could not negotiate it alone.  In the end, it was too much for one of the men to tolerate.  He wanted his way without challenge.  This is often what causes problems in relationships.

When church mediation is involved, the lack of reconciliation isn’t just between two people, but now a person with the whole church.  He disrespects the mediators and the authority of the church.  The whole church is wrong, and he is right.  A disrespect of the church is the violating principle.  The Bible says nothing about opening or closing a window, so someone in authority, a pastor, says, stop touching the window.  Or, I don’t want either of you to touch a window.  Authority is the principle here that has to be respected.  Churches need pastors with the authority to make these decisions, so that two people stop fighting.  Churches need referees for relationship that can blow the whistle and the participants heed their call.  Not wanting to be refereed in relationship, I’ve found, is a major reason why some, who claim to be a Christian, don’t want to join or become involved in a church — they like relationship only on their own terms.

Any relationship to reconcile needs biblical terms.   Certain principles surpass others, related to hierarchy, something this series established earlier as a fundamental in relationship.  The Rechabites and Jeremiah 35 are an example.  The patriarch of the family had several requirements of his family that all the family members were mandated by him to keep, because he wanted them kept (read the chapter).  These were not out of left field.  They were wise and helpful.  God made a point of blessing the submission to them and pointing out the blessing for other families to emulate.  If a father says, don’t drink, don’t listen to rock music, don’t go to movies, don’t hang around with that atheist, and don’t miss church, even and adult child should honor, even if he disagrees. None of these requirements are wrong to expect. It’s called leadership by a father, and it is loving whether the son wants to admit it or not.  If there isn’t reconciliation, this is on the adult child, not on unreasonable expectations.  The book of Jeremiah in God’s Word is teaching this way of living.

The mediators might say to the son, the father isn’t wrong to expect these of you, these are the beliefs of the family, so you should keep these edicts.  It’s the right thing to do.  Don’t sever a relationship with family because your preferences are elevated above the relationship — that isn’t loving, but hateful.  Relationship requires fulfilling terms of reconciliation.

The Two Vital Terms for Reconciliation

Two vital terms are necessary to accomplish reconciliation, even through mediation:  repentance and forgiveness.  Lacking in either one or both, a relationship could end.  Both of these have to be judged in many cases by a mediator.  What is biblical repentance and when has it occurred?  What is forgiveness and when has it occurred?  Reconciliation won’t usually happen without both sufficiently occurring.

If this is so simple, just two vital terms, then what goes wrong?  In my experience, usually somebody doesn’t want to repent. He just wants to be accepted, let alone be forgiven.  He can’t be forgiven, because he doesn’t want to take responsibility for doing anything wrong.  He says, I just disagree, and thinks that should be accepted.

However, 2 Corinthians 7:11 defines biblical repentance, whether salvation or sanctification:

For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

One would expect godly sorrow.  Carefulness and clearing would mean stopping the behavior, which is actually caring about what’s been done, commitment to stop doing the offensive thing.  Instead of being indignant at the one offended, be offended at one’s own self for doing it.  The fear relates to offense of God and others, being afraid of harming the relationship.  Vehement desire and zeal show the spirit behind it.  Revenge is remuneration, if necessary.

A leader should set terms for repentance, markers, that would show that someone was serious about an offense, even if there is no mediator.  Someone can say he’s sorry, but there should be discernible changes that manifest the fruit of repentance.  A person truly humbled will act different.

Once someone repents, and even from the observation of the mediator, the offended needs to forgive.  No one gets to hold a grudge or stay angry.  Holding a grudge and staying angry are wrong for a Christian anyway.  Paul commanded (Ephesians 4:26, 31):

Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. . . . Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice.

A true believer doesn’t have to stay angry.  If he’s staying angry, he’s either not saved, or he needs to repent of the anger.

Some say, I can’t forgive.  That might be very understandable, depending on the offense.  However the Bible requires the forgiveness, and says that the way to accomplish it is “even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Ephesians 5:32).  How does someone forgive?  Like God and Christ have. All offense against God and Christ is greater than any merely human offense.

More to Come.