I’ve written 12 installments of a series on Relationship, but I’m taking a one post break today.  I’ve got other things to write on, but I want to finish the Relationship series as far as I want to take it.  I’m not done yet, so I’ll get back to it.  Look at part twelve for links to every part of the series.

*******************

At this year’s Shepherd’s Conference at John MacArthur’s and Phil Johnson’s Grace Community Church, prominent among conservative evangelicals, the normal panel discussion, a question and answer time, turned more tense than normal.  Phil Johnson hosted the panel, made up of him and Mark Dever (Southern Baptist pastor, 9 Marks, Washington, DC), Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian, Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS), Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY), Sinclair Ferguson (Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, St. Peter’s Free Church pastor, Dundee, Scotland), and John MacArthur.

Phil took the discussion into the newest and biggest controversy in evangelicalism and now conservative evangelicalism, social justice or “wokeness,” that has become a factor of division among evangelicals.   MacArthur and Johnson have just led in the crafting and publication of The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel.  They were concerned for the perversion or corruption of the gospel akin to other twisting or ruination of the gospel of previous eras that had invaded evangelicalism:  social gospel and then emergents.  I had watched this in a livestream that afternoon and I was surprised a how confrontational Johnson was and how “testy” things got in this conversation.

Johnson asked how far apart they were on the statement, since none of them had signed.  Dever said it was too broad a question.  He wanted to answer specifics.  MacArthur intervened to say that there was a lot of heat on the internet before the conference related to the differences between them on social justice, questioning why those on the panel would even be invited.  In part to that, MacArthur said the following:

I said, look these are my friends. These are men I love. These are men who serve Christ. They have given their life to him. God has given each of you guys a formidable place in the kingdom and you’ve all had an impact on my life.  I’ll fight error, but I don’t fight my friends. Why would I do that? I don’t want to become an island. My enemies have already eliminated me, if I get rid of my friends, I may have nobody but Phil.

The next statement I noticed was from Ligon Duncan, who wrote the foreward to an important book on the approval of a “Woke Church,” entitled Woke Church:

My concern on racial issues is that I do not drive our grandchildren into the arms of the LGBQTIA issue, where already our younger people don’t want to touch that issue, because they know that immediately it marginalizes them.

Phil Johnson said in response to more of what Duncan had said:

Wouldn’t you agree though that desire to get the culture to love and appreciate us is a pathological cancer on the evangelical movement? . . . I would say that’s the defining mark of big EVA (evangelicalism).

Visibly angry at the next question by Phil Johnson about social justice rhetoric at T4G and TGC, Mohler answered and at one point raised his voice:

I’m not going to be forced into a situation before thousands of people in which I have to say, I’m going to do it your way.  Sorry.  Okay, I’m just not.  And if that’s a test of fellowship amongst us, this would be a good time to find out.

This was the apex of the panel discussion, what has generated the most post-conference discussion by far, whole articles written about it (here, here, here, and here, interesting video discussion here, among many others).

Just listening to the conversation, it is easy to see how bad it is in the country if this is where it’s at in conservative evangelicalism.  They are afraid to say certain truth in public.  They are filtering themselves on issues that do relate to the gospel.  Common ground among the six is Calvinism, so what they call the “big God theology,” that is, the sovereignty of God.

I want to go one by one through the pieces I quoted.  First, MacArthur’s statement about why he couldn’t break from these men.  I’ve heard this before as a reason from evangelicals for not separating.  “I can’t separate from my friends, because then I’ll be alone.”  Jesus said, we might have to separate from our parents and our children.  He came not to bring peace, but bring a sword.  “I don’t want to become an island” isn’t a basis for disobedience to scripture, or sin.

Ligon Duncan talks about “big God theology,” but you really can’t push “converted grandchildren” into LGBQTIA, can you?  Isn’t that perseverance of the saints?  Or do we keep them by our humanistic or naturalistic means?  If we just preach a true gospel, we’ve solved that problem, right?  This is where I see a sort of revivalism or Finney-esque “new measures” among professing Calvinists.  Preach the truth in love.  Depend on God.  Stop pandering.

Almost all of the conservative evangelicals want to be very, very, very careful about things said in public, so that they don’t lose a generation or half of the evangelicals, as Mohler said.   If they’re actually saved, they can’t lose them, right?  Shouldn’t they be preaching that to the next generation?  They are either with you or they’re not with you.  This is why it’s concerning that people won’t just ‘come out’ and say the bold truth.  Not being truthful should be the concern.

A major aspect of the capitulation, the incrementalism to the left that Mohler mentions, is an unbiblical view of the church and of unity.  They are trying to keep together a large coalition, so that they won’t be alone, as MacArthur opined.  They shouldn’t be worrying about being alone.  Noah was alone.  Jeremiah was alone.  Just do right and then attempt to persuade with spiritual weaponry, the truth of God’s Word.  This is actually from which comes the “pathological cancer” that Phil Johnson talked about.  Because evangelicals have been feeding their constituents with the world as a means of pragmatism for church growth, including Grace Community, they have to “keep them how they won them.”  This really does clash with their Calvinism too.

Finally, Mohler asks if something is going to be a “test of fellowship.”  I thought that was very interesting “fundamentalist” language, test of fellowship. Mohler has heard it before.  Does any evangelical have a “test of fellowship”?  Evangelicals don’t even talk about separation, but MacArthur — after Mohler got testy with Johnson — said that a stand needs to come somewhere.  He was very ambiguous and they left that meeting with nothing, except they’ll still be friends, seemingly around, “we’re all Calvinists.”

Again though, Mohler brought in separation language.  That would bring me to the question to them, “so what are your tests for fellowship?”  That would have been an interesting follow-up question.  The gospel is being perverted all over evangelicalism, and they are losing, because they will not state a “test of fellowship.”  I call on them to do so.  Join Jesus outside the camp.

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

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never have to reconcile.  Why?  They never sin.  Nothing separates them from one another.  They always function within their nature and they never act insubordinate to their own hierarchy, which is within their own will.  They would not, and this is also a model for us.

The best people can do, since they will sometimes sin, is reconciliation, which is based on the truth, on the light of God, scriptural belief and practice, and not some type of compromise or negotiation down from the teaching of God’s Word.  We can count only upon believers to reconcile.  It’s not in the nature of unbelievers, except according to the rarity of a matter of conscience, common grace, or natural law.  Even among unbelievers, some reconciliation is necessary to continue favored relationships.  However, reconciliation is characteristic only of believers.  They must reconcile.

There is a process to reconciliation, presented in scripture cumulatively in numerous places.  We should assume it should be followed.  It makes sense.  As I take us through the process, I’ll also point out where it goes wrong in the process.

Offended or an Offense

No one needs to reconcile until someone has offended.  It could be a sin, but it also might not be a sin.  The apparent offense might need to be judged by a mediator.  If someone is offended something must be done toward reconciliation, even if it is just finding out that no offense has been committed.  This was Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:21-24.  If someone has sinned, which is an offense, that must be confronted, which is Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.  In either case, reconciliation is necessary.

A prerequisite for anyone to deal with an offense is what Jesus called, pulling out the beam or the mote out of one’s own eye first (Matthew 7:3-5).  Someone might not be spiritually equipped to deal with a situation, as implied in Galatians 6:1 with “ye which are spiritual.”  Someone might not have the knowledge or the discernment even to counsel someone else on what he’s doing wrong.  He’ll need to get that settled first, but it should be an active pursuit, not just kicking that can down the road.

If someone has been offended, and is not willing to do anything about it, he must forbear and “turn the other cheek.”  If he isn’t going to fulfill the biblical requirement for an offense, he can’t stay angry, hold a grudge, or gossip about it.  Neither can he just end the relationship, just because he doesn’t want to do anything about it.  If he isn’t willing to reconcile, he’s got to let it go.  He’s got to put it away, and then treat the person as if nothing is wrong.

Some people don’t want to do the hard work of reconciliation.  Perhaps they don’t like the conflict.  They aren’t sure what the reaction will be.  They don’t want to deal with it.  If that’s the case, this is a person who must endure at least personal offense.  Turning the other cheek is an option that Jesus said could be chosen, even if a real offense has occurred (Matthew 5:39).  If someone is fine weathering poor treatment, he can avoid the confrontation.

We are required to confront only someone in the church.  If we should keep in good relations with someone else, then we’ll need to confront them too.  We don’t have to try to reconcile everywhere, as explained in an earlier post, but we’ll need to do it in order to maintain biblical relationship.

The Confrontation

Scripture lays out variations of confrontation, among others described as entreaty, rebuke, admonishment, reproof, appeal, and correction.  Entreaty is a requirement for a younger person to an older person (1 Timothy 5:1).  Proverbs speaks about tone:  “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1).  This doesn’t mean a soft answer is required in every instance, just that it is choice of tone that might turn away wrath.

If the goal is reconciliation, one should take the best tack possible.  If it is a church situation, that must be solved, a gentle albeit firm conversation with the use of scripture should initiate the process.  2 Timothy 2:24 says,

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient.

One should assume on the first encounter that one is talking to someone who wants to listen.  We shouldn’t start by expecting the worst.  The intensity of tone or voice might increase with a lack of listening and respect.  I’ve been in many of those, where I started with an attempt to keep it civil and then it escalated.  A listener has a requirement (James 1:19):

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

Anger, disdain, visible stubbornness, or some other kind of negativity at the prospect of being confronted at all shouldn’t occur, but if it does, the listener might expect a rougher time.  Somebody practicing sin shouldn’t expect to be treated nicely.  He’s doing bad things.  Those don’t merit a cheshire cat grin.  Smiling at sin could be construed a level of insanity.  It deserves at least a frown.

Bad reactions to the initiation of the reconciliation process are the number one reason confessed for never starting.  It can’t be an excuse for not doing it.  Scripture provides such encouragement and preparation as “be strong,” “put on the armor of God,” and “stand fast.”  These types of commands are given because this isn’t easy.  Sometimes it ends in a catastrophic and hurtful way.  When we do the right thing as a Christian, that is, we’re faithful to what God said to do, the labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58).  This is a strengthening thought after a bad experience in repairing relationship with attempted reconciliation.

More to Come

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

Not reconciling, Jesus says is comparable to murder.  Someone says he’s a Christian, so why wouldn’t he initiate reconciliation or welcome someone else doing so?  If someone is saved, he would.  He wouldn’t continue making excuses for not reconciling with the people he can and should.  This is not as much as possible living peaceably with all men, it is not being a peacemaker, it is rejecting a ministry of reconciliation, is not loving a neighbor, and not endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit.  I could say he’s just disobedient and unrepentant, but there are often underlying causes that  should be explored.

Two root origins of reluctance or unwillingness to reconcile, as told by scripture and what I’ve seen in my experience, are, first, lust or the opposite of which is not acknowledging goodness, essentially the goodness of God, because, as we’ve previously considered, relationship is hierarchical.  Children might ignore all their parents have done for them, choosing instead to hone in on what they might think they are missing  because of their lust.  This is discontent.

Both the first and the second are related, but second, someone doesn’t get his way, and he just wants his way or is proud.  Lust and pride are closely related.  Both elevate self.  For instance, there’s someone I want to reconcile with right now, same person I mentioned earlier, but this person won’t talk or listen with no good reason given.  It’s both lust and pride.  These are the direct opposite of love.

Lust or Not Acknowledging Goodness

Before someone is forgiving and stops holding grudges, that is, puts away all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil speaking, and malice (Ephesians 4:31), he might “esteem other[s] better than [him]self” and “look not . . . on his own things, but . . . also on the things of others” (Philippians 2:3-4), which is the mind that was in Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:5).  The strife that occurs and continues between people James describes in his epistle (James 4:1-2):

1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Most often the divisions relate to lust, even as James evinces.  Wars and fightings come because someone wants something more than the relationship. If the relationship doesn’t allow for him to have what he wants, he will shuck the relationship for the thing.  Or a kind of relationship that favors lust.  A teenager fights with his parents over a girl.  He has no future with the girl, but he wants her, and his parents don’t want the pairing.  Think Samson. The strife proceeds from the lust.

In Romans 2:4, Paul asks:

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

The excerpt above is from Wilhelmus a Brakel’s 4 volume systematic theology called The Christian’s Reasonable Service, which has been made available in an indexed form online. 

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.

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

Reconciliation or restoration is a necessity for and in relationship, but how far does this responsibility extend?  With whom are we required to reconcile?  Everyone knows people with whom they will never have a relationship, because there are not at all even open to biblical reconciliation, which is one consideration for what Paul wrote in Romans 12:18:

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

It’s not possible with some people to reconcile, because no one has within him everything necessary to do it, as informed by God in Paul’s teaching.  When I was young, I had a much greater estimation of my ability to solve relationship problems.  Like Paul said, do “as much as lieth in you.”  “As much as lieth in you” is at least what the Bible teaches someone has to attempt so that it can be accomplished.

When the Apostle Paul speaks of “all men” in Romans 12:18, it reminds me of the goal to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).  The free offer of the gospel is an ongoing attempt of reconciliation with everyone.  It is being the “peacemaker” of Matthew 5:9.  This is what Paul calls the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18).

Sheer proximity and time limits relationship.  Paul’s instruction above in Romans 12:18 tells believers that they’ve got to do the best they can to keep things right with other people, even though it is an impossibility to keep it with everyone.  Sin is what severs relationship and most people are not going to repent of sin.

Very often when Christians today think about keeping relationships, they often consider certain arbitrary non-scriptural spheres, like high school and college friends or acquaintances.  I know a professing Christian who is careful to maintain his relationship with a college atheist friend, as if some loyalty is deserved there.  Life is short, a vapor (James 4:14).  If someone won’t be a friend of God, that should matter to a Christian.

I have no one too near where I live with whom I went to high school or college, so everything would be distance for me anyway. From afar, I keep a relationship with high school or college friends or acquaintances based on belief and practice of the Word of God.  In any regularity, I see one person.  When I see him, we talk a lot about the Bible.  Scripture is the basis for all relationship.  I’ve told my own children their entire lives that classmates are not necessarily their future friends.  Having lots of friends when they’re young isn’t important.

The Bible will tell someone who his friend will be.  All relationship comes through God, and whoever is not fine with that, a believer cannot be okay with that person.  After attempt at reconciliation and even mediation on scriptural terms, if that can’t happen, then the relationship won’t be there.  Keep everything good with God as a rule, and leave behind whatever human relationship that will not fit into that.

Spheres of Possible Relationship Where Reconciliation Occurs

I see only three spheres of possible relationship in the Bible for a believer, where reconciliation should be attempted, if that relationship is severed.  First, relationship is required in a church.  As a body part, each member of a church, like a body part is dependent upon the others. Scripture requires reconciliation in a church, when it is necessary, again “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3).  The Lord gives the church the tools necessary to keep and maintain relationship.  Much of the teaching of the New Testament is about churches manifesting the relationship of God.  A church should do everything scripture teaches to keep biblical peace between its people.  A person should do everything scripture teaches to keep biblical peace with his church.

My fellowship with church members is enough to keep me busy with relationship.  I can spend almost all my time with church members and that is what I see in the Bible.  I have time for others who want to be in our church.  I spend time every week with possible church members through evangelism and discipleship.

A second sphere are the churches of like faith and practice.  There are the people in the churches I know our church is in fellowship with.  That is a lot of people.  All of the relationship with fellow believers is around the truth.  I get a lot of this from all over.  I try to increase it.  I see this laid out in 2 John (read that epistle).  When the two churches of Jerusalem and Antioch had a division, they sought to reconcile and did (Acts 15, Galatians 2).  Those two churches provide a model.  Churches, the members of those churches, should try to stay in good standing with other churches.

True Christians of all people have a basis for peace with one another.  Since genuine believers are children of God, they are brothers and sisters in Christ and that implies relationship.  The Lord wants Christians to have relationship.

The third sphere is family.  I spend more time with the believers in my own family than anyone.  My three daughters and my wife are all in our church.  My oldest daughter’s husband is in our church.  My elderly parents live with my family and go to our church.  Of all the people with whom I’m not in relationship, I try with my family.  That is in the Bible.  It starts with my wife’s parents, two Christians, who I love dearly, and I know they love the Lord.  God says, honor thy Father and thy Mother, and we have tried to keep that going with both sets of parents, and put the time into doing that.

I’m not going to get into my relationship with those family not mentioned, what some might call extended family, but I want relationship with them, and want to do what it takes to reconcile with them, as a sphere of relationship.  My immediate family and I, those who live in my home, are not going to veer outside of scripture to see it happen.  Jesus talked about this, and he was very, very clear.  I’ve talked about family as one of the biggest idols in the United States and the rest of the world.  Many times family is what leads people either to Hell or to a poor relationship with God.  Jesus said (Matthew 10:37):

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

He also said (Luke 12:53):

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Sometimes family acts like they don’t remember those statements by Jesus.  They are in the Bible.  They must be obeyed, because the relationship with God is the priority relationship, and all other relationship proceeds from that one.  This is law.  I will try to keep in good relations and reconcile with family members, but not at the risk of my relationship with God.

Some reconciliation with family requires personal admission of sin and willingness to set terms for restoration.  I’ve offended family.  When I do that, I’ve got to say when I’m wrong.  Like I’ve written elsewhere in this series, genuine relationship is not some arbitrary connection.  It is based upon scripture.  It starts with being obedient myself.  I can’t expect other family to be that way and do that, if I’m not going to do it.  That doesn’t require sinless perfection, but it does require enduring, continuous work at it.

The Ground for Reconciliation, and Relationship to Start With

The ground for peace between God and man and between man and man is the truth.  It isn’t peace if it is not founded upon the truth.  Reconciliation observes the truth.  Does scripture show that I did something wrong?   What does scripture say someone else did that is hindering or severing the relationship?

For myself, the relationship isn’t foremost, but the ground for reconciliation itself.  The truth itself is bigger than the relationship.  The truth must be preserved and passed down to the next generation.  The truth sanctifies.  The truth saves, sets us free from the bondage of sin.  The truth needs to be upheld in relationship and for relationship.  Relationship is never bigger than the truth or higher than the truth.  Relationship is placed under the truth, even so that relationship can occur.

When an attempt at reconciliation occurs, judgment is based upon the truth.  If someone has been offended, it relates to the truth.  An offense is a violation of the truth.  It might be a preference, not something taught in the Bible.  The relationship should be greater than a preference.  This is how 1 Corinthians 6-11 reads in that section on Christian liberty.  Love for a person supersedes preferences. They’re only preferences.  Something can be given up in order to help the relationship.  This goes either way, either discontinuing a practice or putting up with one because it is just a preference.  This might need to be negotiated and mediated, one or both.

The truth, however, is the basis for reconciliation.  The mediator or mediators will judge based upon the truth. Like the connection isn’t arbitrary, the dealing with scripture isn’t either.  Everybody has opinions, but judgment won’t be based upon an opinion, or a feeling, about scripture.

Whether it is the truth, that is, a doctrine or practice of scripture, must be exegetical and historical.  The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not one person or a whim.  People can shop for their interpretation.  Someone will say it is valid.  Authority must be involved.  The church is the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).  As I revealed earlier, God has given authority to the church to judge.  The church isn’t going to conform to one person, but the one person needs to conform to the church.

If the position isn’t historical, it better have very good exegetical proof.  I doubt a doctrine that arises out of some kind of apprehended total apostasy.  I would need to understand why what scripture teaches wasn’t being believed and practiced.  I also want to know why what Christians believed and taught and obeyed for centuries has now gone by the wayside.

What I see with millennials today is looking for the book, the church, and the counselor that supports their opinion.  This is actually how apostates behave.  Jesus is the Head of the church.  God sets members in the body.  It shouldn’t be easy come and easy go.  Many millennials are like doctor shoppers, trying to find a doctor who will write the prescription they want.  Today anyone can find anything that he wants to believe.  It’s somewhere.  That doesn’t make it acceptable.

Furthermore, just because a millennial or anyone else disagrees doesn’t make it a valid basis for belief and practice.  I often hear, “I just disagree.”  I say, “That’s obvious.”  New positions and opinions arise on a regular basis, especially today in a postmodern culture.  Someone’s “truth” is “his truth.”  No one should bow to, “I disagree.”  That doesn’t work for almost anything in the real world.  When NASA attempted to prepare for its trip to the moon, “I disagree” might get some attention, but it wasn’t enough to alter a plan.  The Bible is viewed with such disrespect today, especially millennials think they can twist it into whatever they want and invent a different position on the spot.  If you don’t allow it, then you are the cause of the disruption in relationship.  It’s not that simple or easy.  Hard work has gone into the passing on, keeping, or preservation of a belief and practice, and it shouldn’t be shucked for the immediacy of millennial convenience.  This is actually fleshly lust that wars against the soul, that Peter talked about.

Paul in Philippians 1:9 expresses:

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.

Love is tempered by knowledge and judgment.  As Paul also defined love in 1 Corinthians 13, that it rejoices in the truth and rejoices not in iniquity.  It’s not love if it isn’t rejoicing in the truth and rejoicing not in iniquity.  Unscriptural behavior isn’t loving.

Reconciliation must be grounded on actual teaching of scripture, and this is serious.  Relationship is not based on discounting of truth.  Today truth after truth is relinquished for the sake of holding people together.  Truth can’t be discounted for real relationship.  This is faux relationship, not acquiescing to the authority of God and the model of relationship in the Trinity.

More to Come

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

The excerpt above is from Wilhelmus a Brakel’s 4 volume systematic theology called The Christian’s Reasonable Service, which has been made available in an indexed form online. 

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

No Relationship Between Believers and Unbelievers

Believers in Jesus Christ are in the world (Philippians 2:15), but they are not of the world (John 17:14).  Scripture many times says that believers are “children of God” (Galatians 3:26, 1 John 5:2), also referred to as “children of light” (Ephesians 5:8).  On the other hand, Jesus said that unbelievers are of their father, the devil (John 8:44), John called them the “children of the devil” (1 John 3:10), and they’re also called “children of disobedience” (Eph 2:2) or “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3).

A relationship between a believer and an unbeliever is incongruous and incompatible.  If relationship is defined by what is between the members of the Godhead, it is non-existent.  Paul writes that believers will need to be with unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:9-10):

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Believers will be in proximity to unbelievers as neighbors, at work, on public transportation, and a host of other ways.  I recognize that they function together in the world, just like Paul wrote above. That happens, but the nature of a believer so clashes with an unbeliever, that there is no relationship between them.  Only one has the life of God in him.  At best, a believer and an unbeliever can experience in a joint way, the grace of this life (1 Peter 3:7), which is given to both saved an unsaved.  The “common ground” is “common grace,” both the just and the unjust experiencing gracious life-sustaining rain (Matthew 5:45).  God provided food for everyone.  There are things to talk about that both share that both enjoy as travelers on this earth.  These graces of life, provided by God, are far inferior as an attraction than Jesus and eternal things for a believer.  The unbeliever isn’t even giving God credit for them, and the believer shouldn’t be okay with that.

The scriptural goal with an unbeliever is evangelism.  Relationship comes, not by common ground or interests, but by evangelism.  A believer comes into relationship with an unbeliever, when the unbeliever believes.  Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament teach preaching the gospel to the lost.  If an believer, however, wants to get along with an unbeliever, he might not preach, because preaching, although required by God, is unacceptable to the unbeliever.

Danger for Believer and Unbeliever Relationship

The relationship with the unbeliever for a believer calls for tolerance.  Instead of reproving sin, he tolerates it.  Sin offends God, but the believer is more concerned with pleasing the unbeliever, so he permits or excuses it.  The path for the believer looks like the regression of Psalm 1.  He walks with it, then stands with it, and finally sits with it.  He becomes accustomed to it.  He doesn’t hate it any more like God does.  This is poison for anyone, but especially a believer.  A believer will not keep living this way, because it conflicts with his nature.  Unbelievers hate light.  Believers hate darkness.

I witness this on a regular basis on social media.  I see professing believers who maintain rapport with unbelievers by not pointing out their sin.  The name of God or Jesus is never mentioned.  It’s as if scripture is off limits.  The use of foul language is often deemed acceptable.  The temporal, popular, or worldly are welcome and celebrated.  No criticism of that is tolerable.  The offense of an unbeliever is unacceptable, while the offense of God is rampant.

The light of a believer will clash with an unbeliever.  In the same context as John 3:16, speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus explained the contradiction (John 3:19-21):

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. 

Professing believers, in order to get along with unbelievers, have to hide their light.  At the beginning of His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:14-15) and in describing the nature of true believers, those who are saved, Jesus says they will not hide their light under a bushel, but will let it shine.  In a wonderful expression of his own life, Paul exclaimed that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).  Hiding light is the same thing as being ashamed.  It’s actually that we are ashamed of Jesus Himself, who died for us, if we are truly saved people.  It could also just be fear or a harmful love for the world.

God created man with a need to belong.  It was not good that Adam was alone (Genesis 2:18), but believers belong in the church with other believers.  There is actually no alternative to that if they live according to their own nature.  Jesus warned the disciples about this in the upper room discourse, especially in John 15:18-25:

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

This is a long bit of text that is worth reading.  It was fulfilled in Acts just like Jesus predicted.  If it isn’t happening, it’s because the professing believer has changed, not the unbeliever.

The Harm of Association with an Unbeliever

When a believer decides he will try to get along, like Lot, many harmful effects come with his attempting to keep the gap bridged between himself and an unbeliever.  The Bible warns all over about this.

One, he will not grow like Psalm 1 describes, as a tree planted along a river of water.  He will dry up spiritually, because there is no sustenance.  He will bring forth less fruit.  I say less, because believers will bear some fruit.  Two, his own behavior will be corrupted.  Paul told the Corinthians that their doctrine denial came under the influence of “evil communications.”  In order to to try fit in with the world, believers attempt to conform.  Paul commanded in Romans 12:2, be not conformed to this world.  When believers fellowship with the lost, they adapt their behavior to lost behavior.

Sadly, today whole churches have become worldly churches, because they have conformed themselves to unbelievers.  Instead of worshiping God in reverence, they offer God fleshly, worldly worship, which God doesn’t accept.  These churches become more worldly, like we see with the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2.  More and more toleration begets acceptance and then conformity.  In the Old Testament, this is Jeroboam building golden idols at Dan and Bethel.  Today you see pictures of churches or at least gatherings that look like night clubs.  To justify this kind of worship and behavior, they have to change their doctrine, especially their view of the grace of God.

A person who tolerates unbelievers will develop a taste for worldly things and then very often seek out a worldly church that will accept his worldliness.  These churches have become expert at condoning their behavior.  They even proclaim a superiority, because they emphasize (as I covered in part 3) “relationship” and grace and the internal over the external.  They scoff at pure churches with the notion that these churches are about “rules” and not “relationship.”

Darkness is not some arbitrary essence.  Darkness is not submitting to light, which includes rules.  Eating of the tree in the garden was darkness.  Obeying God is light.  Sin is the transgression of the law.  The law is a set of rules.  When someone steals from a person, that’s violating rule, which affects the relationship.  The rules that are the ten commandments are loving God and loving others, which is a relationship with God and with men.

Rule for Relationship

A first rule for relationship is have and keep the relationship.  The relationship with God must start through reception of the gospel and then through submission to God.  This requires the disciplines of living the Christian life.  Because of the relationship with God, which I will explore in future posts, a believer will start, have, and maintain relationship with other believers.  The relationship between believers is a familial relationship that will occur in and through a church.  It is characteristic of a saved person, no clearer explained than in 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

An alternative to this example is that of Demas in 2 Timothy 4:10:

For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.

If you are a believer, then you will experience being forsaken by someone.  Forsaking other believers, 1 John 2:19 shows, manifests unbelief.  Someone who professed to be a child of light actually loved darkness more.  He was willing to forsake a relationship for the world.  This is not like God in the Trinitarian relationship.  God didn’t abandon His Son, nor the Son His Father.  It wasn’t possible.  In the same way, it’s not possible for a true believer.

As we before established from scripture, light is truth and obedience, the right belief and practice of scripture.  Darkness is not believing and practicing the truth.  Not maintaining the relationship between believers is very serious. Jesus preached in His longest sermon (Matthew 5:21-24):

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

An unwillingness to reconcile is murder in the heart, and I’ll start there in the next post.

More to Come