On late Saturday or early Sunday, I’ve been posting either an essay on a trip to Europe last May/June or the debate once appearing online between Frank Turk and me on the preservation of scripture.  This week I decided to postpone either of those two instead for another post on relationship.  I will return to either of those on the weekend, when I deem fit.  Here are links to the first seven posts on relationship and then the publication of part eight underneath.

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

Relationship Requires Rules

Relationship isn’t rules versus relationship.  Relationship has rules, which is easy to see — everyone applies rules to relationship, even if they still deny it.  I understand where the idea comes from, that rules and relationship apparently conflict.  In Ephesus, the Jews used their own rules upon Gentiles that caused sinful division in the church, as communicated by Paul in Ephesians 2:15:

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

Enmity existed in the church between Jews and Gentiles because of “rules,” which were actually civil and ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ.  One of them was “circumcision,” even as the Jews were mocking the Gentiles as “uncircumcision” in Ephesians 2:11.  Those “ordinances” shouldn’t cause division, because they aren’t legitimate anymore.  It wasn’t a sin to eat meat for the Ephesians, because God had lifted that restriction.  Instead, now it was a sin to add the restriction, even as Paul withstood Peter to the face because he stopped eating with Gentiles at Antioch to appear acceptable to the James gang in town for a visit.  Unscriptural or non-scriptural rules can ruin relationship, but not all rules.  Legitimate, God-ordained rules are necessary and even a basis for relationship.

I understand some of the thought behind “rules versus relationship.”  Somebody breaks a rule, let’s say, “drinking booze,” something newly permitted, even celebrated, in evangelicalism. The one drinking doesn’t appraise it a problem, counting the rule as arbitrary, whether it is or not, or maybe even certain foul language, listening to or playing rock music, or women wearing short pants.  Someone else, maybe a parent, rebukes the behavior, and uses scripture to disapprove.  A parent has previously taught from scripture those “rules,” and the offspring knows that in advance.

Rules in and of themselves aren’t the problem.  The division between people comes because someone doesn’t know the rules or misunderstands them.  The parents can’t approve of what they understand and have taught as sin.  Just because one of their offspring has changed doesn’t mean the parents are the cause.  They might be.  Maybe their rule has no scriptural or historical basis to it, but it isn’t a rule itself that causes discord.  Rule is part of hierarchy, the archy part of that word, means rule, and God’s rule is at the top of it.  That’s the problem.  God isn’t ruling somewhere and that needs to be resolved.

Scripture establishes that violation of scripture is what impedes a relationship, actual relationship modeled after the Three Persons in the Godhead.  God is light, and walking in the light is the basis of relationship, which is the light of scriptural doctrine and practice.  Toleration of sin isn’t light — that’s darkness.  Confession of sin characterizes those walking in the light.  Everyone is going to sin, but relationship continues with confession of sin and reconciliation with God and man.

“Rules versus relationship” is saying that the person rebuking sin impedes relationship.  It says that confronting the sin causes disharmony in the relationship, and suggests ignoring or tolerating the behavior in favor of getting along.  It proposes that getting along is foremost to relationship.  What I’m describing is a very popular millennial understanding of relationship.  It’s false.  It is an error that has also corrupted the biblical understanding of love, turning it into mere sentimentalism.  Love is a warm aura or a good feeling, which some have an impression is the Holy Spirit.  The overall good feeling between two people, built upon toleration, is a “relationship” that is superior to “rules.”

There is one large, overriding rule for “rules versus relationship,” and that is, don’t rebuke someone for sin.  That’s the one rule that cannot be violated, an alternative sort of first and great commandment.  Very often millennials know with certainty that rule and enforce it with dogmatic assurance.  The relationship church then panders to them by reducing rules to almost none except for that rule, emphasizing only relationship, the faux relationship described in previous posts.  The relationship churches read the demographics and know that millennials are leaving traditional churches, so they customize their message to fit them.  Rapid numeric growth gives them the impression, one in error, that this is evidence that God must be approving of their strategy.

The Requirement of Reconciliation

At the end of part seven, I introduced the first rule of relationship, which could be declared in different ways, but I stated it:  “A first rule for relationship is have and keep the relationship.”  To keep the relationship, reconciliation must occur on a regular basis.  When someone sins against or offends someone, reconciliation must occur.  Someone either offends or is offended.  The person offended and the person offending both have a responsibility for reconciliation.  This is modeled after reconciliation to God.

Every human being offends God.  To return to peace with God, a person must reconcile to God, and that message of reconciliation is the gospel.  The gospel allows for reconciliation by means of the substitutionary death of Christ and repentance by a person.  I’ll return to that thought, but it must be considered as a basis for all reconciliation.  Horizontal reconciliation arises from vertical reconciliation.

As mentioned at the end of part seven, Jesus taught reconciliation as a rule for relationship between people in Matthew 5:21-24.  He connects the rule to the sixth of the ten commandments.  A person who will not reconcile hates the person and commits murder in his heart against him, this based on God’s untainted judgment.  To accord to that rule, our church mandates that no one can continue in unresolved offense against each other.  Unity must be kept, even if mediation is required.

How much does God want reconciliation?  I used the word, “modeled” two paragraphs ago.  It is more than modeling.  We needed reconciliation.  Our future is Hell without it.  We are “condemned already” (John 3:18).  The plan of God for the redemption of man is reconciliation.  Jesus humbled Himself (Philippians 2:5-8).  The Father sent His Son.  Jesus provided for reconciliation.  Jesus mediates the reconciliation.  God wants reconciliation.  He wants reconciliation with us, who are so much less than Him.  This helps to understand how horrible it is for us not to want reconciliation, not to attempt to initiate reconciliation, let alone not accept someone else’s attempt.

Jesus became sin for us to reconcile us to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).  Less is required of us, but we might still reject reconciliation, very sadly, and still claim to be a Christian.  We’ve been given the ministry of reconciliation — this is the job of Christians — which is why saved people are “peacemakers” and only peacemakers shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9).

In conformity to God’s will on relationship, churches must maintain unity between church members.  The church is where relationship occurs like God wants.  The New Testament says a lot about this, and all the appropriate passages reveal sin is the cause of disunity, the severing of relationship.  In 1 Corinthians 1:10, a pivotal verse to the message of Paul’s entire first letter to the Corinthian church, he writes:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The verse is clear, and yet this is very often not the standard for churches.  Churches disobey it.  Most millennials wouldn’t join a church that believed it and practiced it.  This same teaching repeats itself all over the New Testament.  The relationship that Paul required of the Ephesian church, he represents in Ephesians 4:2-6:

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is one God, one Holy Spirit, and the unity of the Spirit is everyone in a church submitting to the Holy Spirit, which is the basis of the oneness.  Keeping the unity of the Spirit necessitates Spirit empowered lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, and forbearing.  All of those are vital to maintain the unity that God requires of a church.  Central to this is reconciliation.

In Matthew 5, Jesus correlated the horizontal with the vertical when He said don’t come to me in worship until you first reconcile with your brother.  In 1 Peter 3:7, God said He wouldn’t hear prayers until a man reconciled with his wife.  In 1 John 3:14, John wrote, “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.”  When offense separates two parties, both are required to initiate reconciliation.  In Matthew 18:15-17, it is the offended initiating, and in Matthew 5:21-24, it is the offender initiating.  Either way, someone is initiating reconciliation.  Relationship with God is hindered with resistance to reconciliation.

Initiation of reconciliation is where lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, and forbearing come into play.  Someone must humble himself to initiate reconciliation.   He elevates the other person ahead of himself to initiate reconciliation.  He is meek, that is, he does what God wants instead of what he wants in order to initiate reconciliation.  He suffers whatever ill treatment he thinks he’s received to initiate reconciliation.  He bears whatever offense he thinks he’s been given to initiate reconciliation.  I’ve initiated reconciliation many times and it is never easy, because of the nature of the flesh, expressed by one word: pride.  Pride keeps people from reconciling.  They love themselves more than God at that moment, because God requires reconciliation.

People can find excuses for avoiding reconciliation. “I’m too angry.”  “He was too offensive.”  “He won’t listen anyway.”  “I don’t how I can forgive.”  “It was his fault.”  “I didn’t do anything wrong.”  “It should be him talking to me.”  “It’s not going to work.”  Scripture deals with all of those excuses.  They are not legitimate reasons not to obey God’s command to reconcile.

All reconciliation requires first trying one on one.  Matthew 5:21-24 says, go, that is, go to the brother.  Matthew 18:15 says, go and tell him.  Paul withstood Peter “to the face” in Galatians 2:11.  Meeting face to face is better than a phone call or a letter, but the latter are better than nothing.

The Requirement of Mediation

When one on one doesn’t work, scripture requires a second phase, two or three (Dt 17:6, Mt 18:15-17).  Another way to look at phase two is mediation.  Paul mediated with Onesimus and Philemon (the entire epistle of Philemon).  This principle is laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-5:

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Some situations need to be judged by other people.  A person who initiates reconciliation should be willing also to recruit a qualified mediator.  One on one might work.  Sometimes it doesn’t.  When it doesn’t, reconciliation requires mediation.

In my past, I’ve tried to reconcile with individuals one on one and it didn’t work.  I called for a mediator, which was rejected. That’s a person who doesn’t want to reconcile.  Willingness to reconcile is also the willingness for mediation.  The one who rejects mediation is at fault in failed reconciliation.  Finding an agreed upon, fair, discreet mediator (or mediators) is based upon biblical teaching.  The biblical mediator won’t gossip or tale bear, but keep everything said in this second phase just the parties involved.

Right this moment a division exists between me and someone very dear to me.  It brings me severe pain just to think about it.  I want reconciliation.  I’ve initiated reconciliation with a petition for a mediator.  I would allow for this person to choose the mediator, who would fulfill the above qualifications.  I’m open to the prospect that I’ve done wrong.  I want reconciliation.  God requires me to initiate reconciliation and I love God.  I seek it out of love for God and this person.  I know mediation is necessary. This is not a first for me.  Anyone in leadership will need mediation.  This person is not attempting reconciliation or looking for mediation — at the same time though attempting to grow as a Christian.  I would be happy if the latter could be true.  I warn those who embolden or reassure this behavior:  you are also partakers of it.

Let’s remember.  Jesus said the person who will not reconcile is committing murder, implied murder in his heart, “in danger of the judgment,” and “in danger of hell fire.”  In essence, not reconciling is a companion to not forgiving.  In Matthew 18:21-35, the person not forgiving won’t be forgiven.  That’s saying this is an unsaved person.  No one should encourage that.  It should be the opposite if they call themselves Christians.

Paul requires mediation for the confrontation of a pastor (1 Timothy 5:19).  I ask for mediation when I’m approached with offense.  I want witnesses.  I’ve had accusations without mediation.  I’ve listened to accusations against me with no recourse to defend myself.  The other side accused and then would not listen.  I was not allowed what is called, due process.  Due process is a requirement in the American justice system, but sometimes accusers just want to accuse.  This belies reconciliation.

The presence of witnesses characterizes due process, which is defined as “fair treatment” in which “the person must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision maker.”  An accusation might be made, but the person accused must be given an opportunity to be heard,” which is akin to defending himself.  He can mount a defense if he thinks he’s being unfairly accused.  When the goal is reconciliation, the accusations have the purpose of reconciliation, so will not be shared with others in the way of gossip.  The witnesses are in the room, not outside of the room.

I’ve been accused many times without due process.  The people making the accusations did not want their accusations being judged.  That, however, is the scriptural means of reconciliation.  If someone is offended or has offended, and the relationship can’t be reconciled, mediation is required.

Relationship has a basis for reconciliation — the truth.  A mediator or mediators can listen to an accusation of offense and judge the accusation based upon scripture.  A judgment can be made that is acceptable between two people willing to submit to mediation.  A relationship can be restored.  The idea of restoration of a relationship equals reconciliation.  Paul writes in Galatians 6:1:

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

The purpose of initiating reconciliation, the one on one meeting, is for the purpose of restoration.

When someone is offended, and the requirements of proving the offense are met, repentance is necessary for reconciliation, based upon scripture.  When the offender repents, the one offended then forgives.  It might be that both sides have offended or are offending, so both need to repent.  Then both need to forgive.

More to Come