Home » Posts tagged 'reconciliation'
Tag Archives: reconciliation
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Two)
The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
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.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(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