Peace Among the Brethren
Peace Among the Brethren
In these pages you'll often find the phrase personal peace used in a negative context, and you might be tempted to conclude that we think personal peace is a bad thing. Not at all. Like many other good and desirable things—wealth, happiness, secu- rity—it is not the thing itself that is bad, but how and why we pursue the thing. It is a good thing to be at peace with all men (Romans 12:18, Hebrews 12:14) , and it is a good thing to live in ways that promote such peace (2 Corinthians 13:11, 1 Timothy 2:2). But it is a bad thing to value personal peace so highly that we compromise in other important areas so that we might obtain that peace.
The Bible commands us to resolve our differences with others in one of two ways—either we are to confront those with whom we have the difference (Matthew 18:15) or we are to forgive and forget (I Peter 4:8). And we are to choose between confronting our brother and letting the matter go, based not on our own preference, but on what would be the more loving path to pursue with him. No third option is offered.
And yet our wicked hearts cry out for one. Confrontation is so—well, confrontational. What if our brother should take offense at our meddling, or throw our own shortcom- ings back in our face, or inform us that we have completely misunderstood the situation? And letting the matter go—well, the part about taking no action is agreeable enough, but it's difficult to forgive and forget over a matter where a brother is so obviously wrong. Is there no Plan C to deliver us from this body life? How shall we escape such grave conflagration?
The world offers us an escape, a Plan C. Tolerance is a byword of modern secular society. It is the mindset, we are told, which makes it possible to keep peace between the citizens of a diverse society, the outlook by which citizens are to maintain their equanimity as they bump heads with those headed in other philosophical directions. And like so many other things we are told, it is totally at odds with observable reality. As society commits itself ever more deeply to resolving differ- ences by grinning and bearing them—indeed, as the authorities become ever more insistent that this be so—peace becomes ever more elusive.
But as is usual with specious secular advice, the church eagerly adopts a sanctified version for its own use. We are encouraged to be tolerant towards our neighbors in the pews—by dispensing with divisive doctrine, by downplaying denominational distinc- tives, by disregarding differences over how our children should be raised or how our lives should be lived out. Getting along becomes the goal toward which we direct our energy. Rather than resolving our differences, we minimize theni.
But can we all just get along? Despite our tolerance, churches continue to disintegrate and split. And contrary to the tales we tell ourselves, it is a rare thing that this happens because of differences over essentials of the faith, or over non-essentials, or even over the color of the carpet. It happens because of interpersonal conflicts, conflicts which have been minimized but remain unresolved. Instead of clearing the air by confronting our brother, we piously elect to overlook his offense against us—this time. And rather than forgiving the matter completely, we privately make an entry to his ledger, adding it to a list of earlier offenses (both real and imaginary), a list to be brought out and shared with others at opportune moments. Such is the stuff that church factions are made of, factions that don't hesitate to destroy the peace of the commu- nity in the name of preserving said peace.
Notice that, unlike our Plan C, the two paths that God provides for us are both effective in eliminating a difference between us and our brother. If and when we are called to confront, we may risk discomfort and embarrassment as we do so, but we make it possible to identify, resolve, and thereby eliminate the difference. If we have imagined the offence, we can now repent. If we misunderstood the situation, we can now learn the true circumstances. If our judgment was unreasonably harsh, we can now soften it. And if our judgment was accurate, our brother can now repent. In every case, the difference is eliminated and peace is restored.
But before you rush off full of renewed zeal, eager to confront your brother over all those minor irrita- tions you've been patiently enduring for years, under- stand that the goal is to eliminate difference and restore peace, not to harden hearts and increase friction. It is true that we are commanded to confront others about their sins—but only such sins as cannot be covered by our love. And Peter teaches us that our love can and must cover a multitude of sins, a sizeable pile indeed.
So how do we decide whether to confront or to forget? By setting aside our own concerns and looking to the welfare of our brother (Philippians 2:3-4). We must certainly forget those offenses in which our brother has failed merely to treat us with the love or respect we think we deserve. We must be charitable to our brother, assuming if at all possible that the offense was not intentional. And we must acknowledge that for many sins, chastisement is better left in the hands of an all-knowing and all-loving God.
During a recent teaching on this subject, the Saint Peter coilgre- gation was exerted to employ the following guideline for dealing with citizens of the kingdom: if you are unable to forgive and forget, then you must confront; but if you do not confront, it is your duty to forgive—completely—and to forget—completely.. Let us pray that God will give us the strength to adhere to this guideline, and let us praise and thank hum for the peace which will surely follow.