Home » Posts tagged 'mediation'
Tag Archives: mediation
Fried Preacher
Early Personal Considerations
When I was a child, growing up in an independent Baptist church, I thought God dropped pastors down from heaven, at least something like that. Even when I was in high school and college, I regarded these men with reverence. God was infinitely higher and greater to me, of course, but they topped everyone else. As I became a pastor myself, despite still highly regarding the office, I held lower estimation of the men in the office.
For one, when I became a pastor, I knew for sure pastors weren’t dropped from heaven. I knew I wasn’t. Then spending more time with several other pastors in closer relations, I had to reevaluate my lofty estimation. I don’t write this to engender any disrespect for the man or his office. I still love pastors and have a better understanding how difficult the job. Many pastors are friends.
Pastor As Sunday Afternoon Meal
The idea of fried preacher relates to a Sunday afternoon meal. In the spirit of fried chicken, a church family after church instead serves up a delectable main entre of “fried preacher.” I read someone explain: “My mother would always say we were having fried preacher for dinner.”
If you grew up in church, maybe you fried your preacher sometimes for Sunday afternoon dinner. My parents never did. I never heard one foul word about a preacher in my home from my parents. It amazes me, because my parents had negative things to say about people. Their preacher was never one of them. It happens though.
The Apostle Paul himself became fried preacher by the Athenians in Acts 17:18:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
They called Paul a “babbler.” This portends a great pastime of criticizing a preacher and his preaching. I don’t think Paul was bad. Maybe no better preacher ever existed.
Pastors Say and Do Wrong Things
Prove All Things Preached
People might say true things about a preacher and his preaching. They are sometimes right about him. He did things and said things wrong. Preachers also sin.
When someone hears preaching, he should consider whether it is true. To do that, he judges it. Paul commands this practice in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
What To Do with Error
When someone tests or proves the preaching and finds something bad, what does he do next? Does he criticize the preaching to others, maybe at home at Sunday dinner? No. Scripture reveals a certain way to deal with the error of someone else. The goal is restoration or reconciliation (Galatians 6:1). You help someone get it right, when he’s wrong. That’s God’s will.
If bad preaching becomes the pattern, this necessitates a stronger reaction. The deficient preaching should be obvious. Very bad preaching occurs all over today. Probably more bad preaching exists than good. When I say good, I’m talking about when in general the preaching is good with a small minority of duds or awful preaching mixed in.
Dealing with Bad Behavior
Every preacher will also behave badly. Hopefully that’s not normal for him. 1 Corinthians 13:7 says love “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.” You hope the best. The goal isn’t to let a preacher get away with doing something wrong, but it is to believe the best about him. That approach doesn’t tend toward frying the preacher. Fried preacher doesn’t sound like love, does it?
It is hard to talk to certain pastors. Like many other men, they don’t take it very well. They could go further than that and say it’s mutiny, worthy of church discipline, heresy, or dishonor. Some might try to destroy the critic, like Diotrephes, cast him out of the church, even without any due process.
Preachers Frying Preachers
Conference Cuisine
Preachers are also notorious for fried preacher. No one can fry a preacher like another preacher. Maybe the experience of frying prepares him to fry so well. Preachers conferences can provide a kind of industrial sized instrument of frying.
I know another preacher who in recent days attended a preaching conference. When he returned, he reported to another preacher friend of mine that the conference was a major and constant frying session of a non-attending man. It was long, high temperature frying of this third party. They disintegrated him — “for the Lord.”‘ This kind of gang-style muckraking, one could even call, ganging up on someone. Fifteen to twenty on one pouncing on him in a dark alley.
In Absentia
The crispified pastor wasn’t there to enjoy the benefits of this “helpful” criticism. It was all out of his presence. His critic preachers sat at meals doing so, identifying him by name. It was all very fun and entertaining. Sinful, but at the same time, in public they gave the impression they were in special alignment with God.
The conference attendees didn’t say anything to the preacher. I know the preacher they fried. He had no opportunity for self-defense. He wasn’t there. Fried preacher only occurs with the preacher gone. Every preacher knows that.
The Prayer Request
In the fried preacher recipe book, the best chefs call fried preacher a prayer request. Pray for preacher so and so, because he’s blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. “Help me with my prayers. What else can you say about him?” Nothing to see here, they’re just praying for the guy. Nothing to smell like fried foods. You can smell that aroma from three blocks away.
Getting Caught
Fried preacher is a whole lot of fun in a conference setting. The closer proximity brings a bonding among the participants, what some call a benefit. If you can’t find doctrinal or practical unity, you could find a common enemy to bring everyone together. It take just one person to report in order to cool the fry temperature. Everything just turns soggy then. Maybe you try to find out who reported to make the subject of your next gathering.
Accuser of the Brethren
One might wonder if anyone needed to say anything negative about someone who wasn’t present. Scripture says a lot about the habit of this. Everyone does it at some point. Sometimes, people need to talk about a problem with another person. When it spreads to an all-out gossip convention, this requires a commercial kitchen for such a fry fest. This cannot, is not right. Ever. It requires at least a food service license in most states.
Revelation 12:10 says:
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven,, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Who is the “accuser of our brethren”? God doesn’t need any “help” from the accuser. This is Satan obviously. Satan is the master chef of fried preachers. To mix my metaphors, nothing is gained by backing up the dumpster and practicing demo-day on an absent fellow brother, stripping him down to the studs.
What Is Fried Preacher?
What is “fried preacher”? About one hundred percent of this cuisine is personal aggrandizement. It accomplishes lowering of the one fried and the supposed elevation of the fry chef. Psalm 52:4 says, “Thou lovest all devouring words.” Words are the oil in which a fried preacher fries.
The nature of the flesh, it loves hearing the scoop about someone when he isn’t there. The flesh of someone loves gossip, except when it’s about him. Then it’s something insidious or evil.
Is it ever wrong to say anything critical or negative about a preacher? People must say the truth at times in a certain setting and in a particular way. It usually starts with trying to help the man with whatever they think worthy of frying him. Warning of the danger of a man or his teaching could come if a man is dangerous. He should have heard about the kind of danger he is, first, at least from someone.
Men can expose false teaching in a public presentation. They review the material and point out the error. So then it becomes two people with public positions, who both interacted in public. Both are now open for review, which includes criticism. No one is anonymous. This isn’t fried preacher.
For talk to be gossip, it must be without the target of the gossip present. If he’s there, then it isn’t gossip. That would be something akin to admonishment or exhortation. Also, saying nice things about someone isn’t gossip. Only disparaging comments about a missing person fit into the definition, even if they’re true. That’s Fried Preacher.
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part two)
Why criticize in particular a debate between George Farmer, Candace Owens’ (Farmer’s?) husband, and Allie Beth Stuckey? On the other hand, why not find better representatives for a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? I say, George and Allie bring a teaching moment in this controversy. They deal with the issues on more a popular level, something the Daily Wire might appreciate.
Overall Part Two and a Little More Sola Scriptura
I decided this morning to write on part two of the debate because Stuckey’s inadequacy at unmasking false doctrine espoused by George for his Roman Catholicism. By George! Trigger alert. Women should not debate men, but Allie’s unwillingness to fight, to do necessary warfare, hurt the cause. I’m glad for her feminine instinct not to push in an authoritative way over a man. It explains a poor job with a commendable reason.
Overall, Allie Stuckey in the end parked on the two verses: Ephesians 2:8-9. This rescued her contribution with this brief, rare reference to scripture. Someone believing sola scriptura, however, should have reeled off incessant verses, pounding with the hammer of God’s Word. From watching her, one might think her positions don’t have much biblical support. Yet, they do. She just didn’t or couldn’t recall verses to use with Farmer. I saw Owens growing more Roman Catholic by the moment.
Owens started part two of the debate by informing that she got over sola scriptura easily because she couldn’t find it in the Bible. This might relieve her husband and their future relationship. Stuckey then compared the biblical support for sola scriptura to that of the Trinity, that it’s not explicit. This is utterly false. Scripture is explicit that the Bible is the only infallible authority or the ultimate authority for faith and practice. When Stuckey loses on this point, she really does lose the debate, because all the extra-scriptural writing comes into play for Farmer. He then uses this source material for the rest of his defense of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Mary, Mother of God?
Danger with Historical Theology
On the first subject after ending the sola scriptura conversation, Farmer shows the danger of perversion in one’s use of historical theology. He is crafty. He asks Stuckey if she believes Mary is the mother of God? It’s a tricky question. I’m sure the wheels were turning in her head: “Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary Jesus’ mother? Yes. So is Mary God’s mother?” It seems like, Yes, might be the right answer. It is a gotcha question.
Farmer said that the Protestants do not reject the Council of Ephesus. Why would Stuckey then do that if she is Protestant? The Council of Ephesus concluded Mary the mother of God. Yes, Reformers have supported the language, “mother of God.” That does not then mean that they receive Catholic teaching on Mary. They go as far as the reception of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus, the view rejected by Nestorius. The Council then excommunicated Nestorius for heresy.
Excommunication?
As an aside, what gives a council authority to excommunicate someone? Jesus taught that an individual assembly only practiced church discipline, removing someone from that church (Matthew 18:15-17). The council of Ephesus isn’t a church. It was an unbiblical institution with no authority, not following the teaching of Jesus in church discipline.
Nestorianism and Two Natures?
Mr. Farmer teaches error when he says that Christ was one nature. Furthermore, he said, “You don’t want to split the natures of Christ.” Stuckey sat and nodded, yes, to this error. The error of Nestorius was that of “two persons,” that Christ was two persons sharing one body (prosopon), not two natures (hypostasis). Christ had two natures: divine and human. This is not Nestorianism. Christ was one Person with two natures. The hypostatic union is the mysterious joining of two natures in one Person.
Jesus was a Divine Person. When He died on the cross, He was not a finite Person but an infinite One Who could pay for infinite sins for all eternity. He needed to be God to die for all of mankind. By calling Mary the mother of Jesus, they thought they would be undermining the true incarnational teaching of Jesus, so they called her the “mother of God.”
Mother of God Ideas
“Mother of God” emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but it did nothing to extrapolate a divine nature to Mary, an immaculate conception of her, or veneration of her. Even if Reformers and some Protestants today agree with “mother of God” terminology in refutation of Nestorianism, they reject the pendulum swing away from scripture by Roman Catholicism about Mary.
A good book that traces the source of the Catholic version of Mary teaching is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Much Roman Catholic teaching is neo-Platonic and proto-Babylonian. Worship of Mary takes a trajectory from Venus and Astarte, goddesses of Babylonianism.
John Owen and Scripture
The post-Reformation reformed John Owen, no relation to Candace Owens, did not approve of the terminology, “mother of God.” He wished the Council of Ephesus had “forborne it.” He spoke of the miraculous creation of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was a “fit habitation for His holy soul.” Owen called the Holy Spirit the “active, efficient cause” and Mary the “passive, material cause.” The “material cause” aspect of Jesus’ physical body traces to verses such as Galatians 4:4, “made of a woman,” and “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Mary calls Jesus, “God my Savior” (Luke 1:46), and described herself as “the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). This contradicts “mother of God.” True Baptists and New Testament Christianity reject both Catholic and Protestant teaching. Baptists may quote church councils for their history of doctrine, but they reject the notion of church councils. Pope Pius IX took mother of God to a further corrupt extreme when he called Mary sinless in his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.
Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Saints
Farmer uses the term “saints” in an unscriptural manner. In Ephesians 1:1, Paul writes to the “saints at Ephesus” and he defines “saints” there as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” literally “believing in Christ Jesus.” Anyone with saving faith in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is the famous Granville Sharp rule. “Holy” (adjective, “holy ones”) and “faithful” (adjective) are connected by one definite article (tois). That means “saints” and “believing” (faithful) are the same people. All those in Christ are saints, not some special caste of characters designated such by a state church.
Praying to Saints or Mary
Next, Farmer moves to praying to saints and Mary as a kind of intercessory prayer. These “saints’ and Mary have been given a kind of veneration below that for God, but veneration high enough that Christians should pray to them. I won’t deal with the scripture he adduces in the debate to support this. Scripture does not evince this.
Farmer’s argument is praying to saints equals intercessory prayer. Nowhere in the Bible do we see praying to dead people. The best argument might be the faithless, perverse intercession of King Saul in a seance with the witch of Endor. I’m glad he didn’t use that one though.
I’ve never heard Stuckey’s view of intercession. She spoke of intercession as interceding with a fellow believer for prayer. Intercessory prayer is another believer praying to God on our behalf, not for himself. The intercession is not the asking for prayer. I understand the intercession of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in prayer. Scripture teaches both of those. On the other hand, the veneration of dead saints and Mary, I see this as blasphemous.
Stuckey does right to quote 1 Timothy 2:5, that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. Not only is scripture silent on the mediation of Mary and “saints,” but the Timothy verse repudiates it. Believers, true saints, can pray for one another, but there is no doctrine of earthly ones praying to heavenly ones for them in turn to pray for the earthly ones. I’m sure there is a long explanation for this false doctrine somewhere, but I’ve never read it. I don’t find Roman Catholics usually who can name their seven sacraments, let alone break down why they pray to saints. They stray from scripture a lot, because it isn’t their only authority.
Evangelicals and Modernity Versus Roman Catholics
Candace Owens takes the conversation to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals in their modernity and trendiness. This took off of a little riff by her husband, when he used timelessness as an argument for praying to saints. Owens does not like the direction of the style (what I would call aesthetics) of Protestant evangelicals.
I don’t think Stuckey does great in dealing with the loss of beauty in evangelicalism and why. She doesn’t seem to get it. In my next post, I will come back to this. For awhile, I’ve seen this as one legitimate allure of Roman Catholicism. With all the faults of Roman Catholicism, they emphasize the transcendence of God more than evangelicals. Evangelicals feel proud of their worldliness. The nature of Roman Catholicism keeps a serious nature in line with scriptural worship. Catholics do not worship in truth, a requirement, but they come closer very often in beauty than evangelicals. I know some people who went back to Catholicism for this exact reason.
More to Come
Changes in Personal Belief and the Effects on Relationships (part one)
Growth and Change
No one comes into this world knowing every doctrine of scripture. For someone to grow in grace and knowledge, he will change in his personal belief. He could go either way, better or worse. A person won’t remain static. Growth requires making good changes and avoiding bad ones.
Like anyone else, I have a story of change in personal belief. I have often told people that I changed on eight to ten biblical doctrines or issues of various significance through the years. No one should change from something right to something wrong. I always believed I was moving from wrong to right, but not everyone agreed with that.
Adding and Subtracting
God says, don’t take away from or add to scripture. Both directions are bad, subtracting and adding. Furthermore, someone doesn’t do better if he takes every doctrine or issue to the most strict or extreme place that he could.
In the Garden of Eden, Eve said the following in Genesis 3:2-3 to the serpent:
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
God had said the following in Genesis 2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
When you read the two statements, you can see that Eve added to what God said. God said nothing about touching the fruit of the tree. Yet, Eve did. She took an even more extreme position than God, which was wrong.
Almost every change I ever made in belief or practice, I moved in a stronger, more strict or conservative direction. Certain other Christians opposed some of those changes. In a most recent change, that developed over a number of years, I loosened in my belief or practice. I see liberty on something where I once saw regulation. Those accustomed to my rightward movement saw this as inconsistent.
Precipitating Change
In every instance I changed, some event precipitated the change. Very often I changed while preaching or teaching a series through a particular book. Sometimes I was faced with a situation that I had never encountered. I had to make a decision.
In all my years of pastoring, that I know, I have never believed and practiced in an identical way with any other church. I know of no Baptist church that is identical to another in its belief and practice. Beliefs and practices might be close to the same, but with slight variation.
Here at this blog, Thomas Ross and I don’t believe or practice exactly the same. We have differences. We’re very close, but not the same. Some of you readers have read our debates here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, we still partner on this blog.
Through the years, our church still fellowshipped with other churches even with the differences we had. It’s usually not easy to clash with another church on doctrinal and practical differences. Even interpretational differences might bring conflict between believers or churches. Almost everyone thinks they’re right.
Reasons for Change and Differences
When I change, why believe or practice different than before? Why do Bible believing and practicing churches still have some differences with each other in doctrine and practice?
Direct Statements, Plain Inferences
Differences in belief and practice start with variated understanding of either direct statements of scripture or of the plain inferences from direct statements in the Bible. Not every teaching of the Bible comes from a direct statement. Some comes from a combination of direct statements and plain inferences. In general I haven’t changed in my adult life on anything in a category of direct statements or plain inferences from scripture.
When I say direct statements and plain inferences, I also say that these proceed from only a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture. Direct statements and plain inferences come from the actual meaning of the words of scripture in their context. I also consider the laws for the usage of those words, their syntax, and their meaning in their textual and historical context.
I take a stronger position on repentance and Lordship than I did forty years ago. In the past, I never denied that teaching. However, like every other doctrine and practice proceeding from direct statement and plain inference from direct statements, I grew in my grasp and conviction.
A Series of Overlapping Statements and Inferences
Some doctrines and practices proceed from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in the Bible. When you read all of the passages combined, you will come to certain conclusions that are also your beliefs and practices. The nation Israel, one third of its total number of people according to Zechariah, will receive Christ as the Messiah during the seven year tribulation period. Nations will surround her and at this juncture, Israel will repent with a confession such as Isaiah 53. God will save Israel.
I get my belief about the event of the salvation of Israel from conclusions arising from a series of overlapping statements and inferences in scripture. Furthermore, almost every belief and practice, comes from both the interpretation and the application of scripture. Application almost always depends on the reality of certain self-evident truths, assumed by God. God expects us to apply what He said. Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Separating Differences
Many professing believers take what I call, unscriptural positions. Differences occur between believers and churches when one or more veer away from the teaching of the Bible. They might do that for many reasons. Some of them are just personal. An individual believer or a church leader may have a personal issue with someone. People might not like the way someone treated them or others with whom they fellowship.
Differences between churches may not be doctrinal or practical, but personal or political. They fellowship with others with different doctrine or practice, even with the same differences as someone with whom they won’t. Their decisions about relationship relate to hurt feelings or bruised egos. They won’t reconcile, forgive, or seek mediation because of pride. They wait for the other party to initiate reconciliation, and even if it does, they reject reconciliation or mediation. True churches separate, but scripture teaches constructive reasons, not personal or political ones.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Evangelism itself is a form of mediation, what the Apostle Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” An evangelist mediates between God and a lost soul toward salvation. The sin of a soul offends God, one estranged from Him, and the evangelist mediates with the gospel. When I write that, I do not mean that an evangelist is a mediator, like 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is. No man comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Ambassadorship Mediation
2 Corinthians 5:18 gives the sense of mediation in evangelism, when it says God “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Then it follows, “and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” Jesus Christ reconciles to God as the Mediator. Still, however, God also gives believers the ministry of reconciliation. In the next verse, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” but he has “committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” The mediation believers do is by “word.” We talk to people.
Verse 20 says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” so this is like diplomacy. Ambassadors represent one nation to another nation. “We are ambassadors” is the Greek presbeuo, used only here and in Ephesians 6:20. Presbeuo is “to be a representative for someone” (BDAG). The way we participate in this mediation is through word, and the message of words that we speak as ambassadors Paul writes in verse 21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
That one sentence encapsulates the gospel. It’s something believers can speak as diplomats for God with total authority from Him. The goal is to bring someone in the kingdom of this world or the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God.
God then wants unity between those in His kingdom. The New Testament shows that to be in a true church. It also reveals that churches should want unity with each other too. These realities I wrote about earlier in this series.
Mediating Harry and William as an Example
The Situation
True reconciliation necessitates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of the members of the Trinity. No true peace will come without the Lord. He provides the basis of peace, first getting right with God through Jesus Christ. Harry and William won’t have that without humble submission to God’s Word.
Much of the world knows about the rift now between the two brothers, sons of King Charles of England, William, the heir to throne, and Harry. Harry came out this weekend in anticipation of his published autobiography and said he wants his father and brother back. Is this to say, he wants reconciliation and mediation?
In accordance with true reconciliation, Harry cannot have it on his terms alone. He announced to the world that the relationship between him and his dad and brother did not have to be this way. On the other hand, Charles and William view the relationship a different way. If they were talking, I think they might say the same: “It didn’t have to be this way.” What would it take to restore a relationship, so it is no longer ‘this way’?
Mediating The Conflict
I use Harry and William as an example because they are a prominent conflicting relationship with an obvious barrier between them. Anyone can see both what the discord or dispute between them is and how reconciliation and mediation could occur.
Harry might not take take reconciliation or mediation. He receives his greatest income by telling family secrets. In mediation, if that could occur, I would confront both sides about keeping internal family disputes secret. They settle them in private only. If Harry chooses to leave his royal duties, he must give up his titles. Any money he makes must exclude public ties to the monarchy.
I would take Charles, William, and Harry through their grievances. Each would confess what I knew, what is proven, to be true. Both must repent, and then forgive. Each party must keep all listed ground rules for the future. As a result, both sides have their brother, their sons, and their father again.
Realities of Mediation
When I write about mediation, I am not writing about compromise, the wrong idea that two sides get together and come to some middle ground. It may seem like that, because the mediator listens to both sides. They both may have different versions of the same event. Both parties also might have their own set of grievances against the other party. When the mediator listens to one side and agrees with that side, the other side might view that as compromise, when it isn’t.
Sometimes what one side sees as a violation the mediator says is Christian liberty. He may identify it as a doubtful disputation. One side may think something is what it thinks it is, but a mediator says, “No, it isn’t.” Coming to some of those types of decisions is why two sides get a mediator. In general, a party does not want to see it a different way than what he or it sees it. He very often won’t. If he agrees to a mediator, he might have to do that. This is mediation.
A mediator very often sees what two conflicting parties do not or cannot see. He can point out inconsistencies on either side. If he does his job, he wants true, legitimate reconciliation between the parties, that is, biblical peace.
If a party only wants to hear its side, what some may portray as its echo chamber, it can choose to do that. It is choosing then not to reconcile. Mediation reveals or tests the desire for reconciliation. It provides that last plank or marker toward reconciliation. It follows the model of the Lord Jesus Christ and the example of the apostles.
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 4
The Superior Mediation of Jesus
Moses and the priests of the Lord mediated the Old Covenant, a revelation of God’s usage of mediation. Even though they were mediators God used, the author of Hebrews describes their inferiority to Jesus as a mediator. Jesus was better than Moses and the priests (Hebrews 4:14-10:18). However, He was still a mediator.
The author of Hebrews argues for the New Covenant because of Jesus’ superior mediation. In so doing, he explains why Jesus was better as a mediator. First, God uses mediation. Second, Jesus is the best. Third, Jesus is a model then for mediation. Hebrews then also gives qualities that hurt or harm mediation.
You want a mediator like Jesus. Look for the qualities of Jesus in a mediator of relationships. Hebrews manifests Jesus as identifying with those He represents in mediation. Jesus became like men. Mediators do not sit above the two parties. They identify with both parties. Mediation probably will not occur when one party sits above the other and dictates the terms.
The Qualities of Jesus’ Mediation
A mediator does not elevate himself above and talk down to either party in a dispute, and especially only one. He sympathizes with both. The goal isn’t a comeuppance for one party. He wants reconciliation between the two and a restored relationship.
The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth as a man to reconcile man to God. He loves both the Father and men. Jesus shows compassion to men. Hebrews shows Him as an approachable high priest (Hebrews 4:6). 1 John portrays him as an advocate. In Luke 15, Jesus is the good shepherd, who goes out searching for the lost sheep.
In the relationship between man and God, man repents and confesses to God. Man alone offended God, not vice versa. God has nothing to confess. God also has nothing for man to forgive. He forgives the repentant sinner.
Between Man and Man
Between man and man, very often both parties require repentance, confession, and forgiveness. It may be that only one side sees himself as the aggrieved and offended one. If both parties offended the other, reconciliation might not occur unless both sides will agree to have done that. The neutral mediator expedites a hearing from and for both sides.
Sometimes the process of reconciliation starts with only one party admitting wrong. The other takes the role of sitting in judgment and above the other person. Reconciliation most often will not occur when one side holds on to resentment with the other. He cannot admit wrong, because none of it was his fault.
One party may see forgiveness as a way to avoid accountability. The only terms for reconciliation are his terms. A mediator can and should bridge that gap. Maybe only one side really did offend the other. That would be like God and man. The mediator still helps the two sides come together. Philemon offended Onesimus and Paul initiated the path back for Philemon.
The Bible requires forgiveness for repentance. It is as serious in scripture not to forgive as it is not to repent. Except a man repents, he will perish (Luke 13:3, 5). Except a man forgives, he will perish (Matthew 18:21-35). In many places, forgiveness of man is a prerequisite for forgiveness from God (Matthew 6:12, 14-15, Mark 11:25-26, Luke 6:37).
The willingness to forgive is forbearance. Before that, I believe it is true that a willingness for mediation is forbearance. He so wants reconciliation that he will submit to the judgment of someone other than himself.
We Can’t Solve Every Problem
Early in my adult life, I thought I could solve every problem. I had God. I had the Bible. It did not take too long for me to understand that I could not do it on my own. I needed someone else to intervene.
Matthew 18:15-20, the church discipline passage, like others in the New Testament, works with a baseball analogy. Strike three and you are out. You tried three times to have a conversation for the purpose of reconciliation. With every conversation, the situation escalated. The two parties cannot talk without mediation.
Sometimes one of the sides will not submit to mediation. You might not be able to resolve that relationship. A believer can pray that God will work. He will. God will work, but a person still must acquiesce to the work of God in his life. Some will not.
I am less surprised now that men reject mediation. People you think would accept mediation very often will not. I want to mediate between two parties who want reconciliation. I am thankful for other men who will do the same. Blessed are the peacemakers.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 3
Whatever came between two parties that was a barrier for reconciliation most often continues to be why they need a mediator. Before they can reconcile, they must come together, but they cannot even come together without mediation either. The two sides need a mediator before a conversation can or will occur that could lead to a restoration in the relationship.
A first party says the fault is on the other side. The second party says the first party is the one at fault. Both sides dig in or stiffen their backs. They both at the same time say, “It’s not my fault! He started it!” Now they cannot even listen to each other. It’s possible that emotion and personal grievance disallows either side from seeing their own fault.
I grew up playing chess, but not enough to be any good. Even when I did, I played with a self-destructive myopia. I was so focused on my own pieces and where I would move them, that I missed what the other player was doing. I lacked perspective to see all that happened or was happening.
A mediator has an opportunity to see both sides and to call out either one. All each can see is his own side of the board, to go with the chess analogy. He does not see the big picture. He does not see his own offenses, only the ones of the other party. The other side is solely responsible for this break in relationship.
The Olive Branch
Real peace does not come through the threat of destruction or annihilation. It comes by offering what some people call the “olive branch.” The olive branch is a symbol that comes from the Bible, because the dove, which also symbolizes this peace, came back to Noah’s ark, signaling a future on earth for Noah and his family. Through the intermediary, the dove, God offered man an olive branch. Noah and his family offered God a sacrifice.
God had already offered man a way out, a way of salvation through the ark. Noah preached over a hundred years, warning man of his predicament. But man rejected reconciliation and the mediating work of Noah. Later in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that Jesus Himself preached through Noah to those people.
A mediator is an olive branch. The offer of an olive branch, a mediator, says, I want this relationship. I am even willing to sit under judgment, but it must be neutral, it must be just. When the mediator is rejected, that says, I do not want this relationship.
For my lifetime, I have always judged rejection of mediation as rejection of reconciliation. This is not in the nature of a good and loving God, who provided a mediator. It is the opposite of Him. Nothing characterizes God more than forgiveness and reconciliation. The opposite is also true.
Fear or Rejection of Mediation
I understand the fear of mediation. We like to be in control. We want a conversation to turn out like we want it to turn out. That might even seem right to us. “We know the truth and everyone else should believe it like we do. Others just need to kowtow to us, because we have an ethic and method that surpasses others. The mediator would just mess things us. There is a risk that the mediator will say that I have been wrong. I know I’m not wrong.”
Both parties may think the other is proud, both pointing their fingers at the other’s pride. Mediation is a tonic. The proud reject the mediator. He cannot submit to another authority than himself.
No doubt two sides must agree to a good mediator, a neutral arbitrator. True mediators are out there. This is the classic Elijah statement of 7,000 not bowing the knee to Baal. Not every possible mediator has yet bowed the knee to Baal. Some possible mediators have departed from the faith, but not everyone.
Mediation within the church should stay in the church. This is 1 Corinthians 6. When the two parties reside in different churches, however, then a third party comes in. True mediation, just and fair mediation, is very unlikely when the mediator comes from one of the sides. Mediation requires neutrality. No one should hand pick a mediator for his bias.
In my past, I have agreed to mediation from the other side. I just wanted a mediator. A hand picked mediator by only one side is not a good way to go, definitely not the best, but in my opinion it was better than nothing.
The Peacemaker
For my salvation, I trust Jesus Christ. I trust my advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. For earth, I trust someone who I do believe loves both sides. He will obey the truth. I would want him to know the Bible. Use it. He should be strong enough to stand up to either side, unlike the debate moderator I talked about earlier.
Reconciliation, mediation, forgiveness, and restoration are greater than the grievances, the felt personal wrongs. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph 4:26). Jesus said, Turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39). Someone turned the other cheek after someone had slapped him. Cheek slapping produced a personal grievance. With mediation, a neutral arbitrator, two people can trade in their grievances for restoration.
The peace of reconciliation contradicts anger. Peace relates to at least two truths. One, peace erases the barrier. Two, peace is an effect of calm or tranquility. Anger keeps from peace and peace solves the anger.
As you read this, I hope you consider or reconsider mediation of a relationship for the purpose of reconciliation. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Like all the other beatitudes, this is strong language. Children of God want a peacemaker. It characterizes them to want it. A tougher question is, what is a person who does not want a peacemaker? Peacemaking in the Bible means a mediator most of the time. May we consider or reconsider once again by the grace of God.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2
Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.
Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.
The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.
Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons. Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.
Mediation and Neutrality
I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos). He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”
When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones. Neutral ones stand under cross examination. Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.
A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.
Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too
Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each. The true mother deferred. She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one. Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts. The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.
You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased. Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.
Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation. When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.
Pitfalls to Mediation
What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation? The other party rejects. Maybe you reader too reject mediation. Think about it.
People very often want vengeance in an issue. Maybe they have a grudge. They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea. At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader. Mediation will require humility.
Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences. Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination. Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.
During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.” With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could. The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.” Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy. Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.
More to Come, Lord-willing
Recent Comments