Luke 12:51-53,
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather
division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three. 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."
This morning, too
often the world and society rubs off on God's people. When the winds of change
blow through modern man's thinking, those things have a tendency to subtly
distort the mindset of the saints to be more accepting of things that they would
not have at other times and seasons. Consider as an example the modern
perception of homosexuality vs. 30-50 years ago. Little by little and bit by
bit the general perception of society has been shifted in thought regarding this
particular sin. People that would not have entertained nearly as accepting a
mindset toward it 50 years ago promote tolerance and open-mindedness today. The
problem with being too open-minded is that eventually your brains will spill
out. The gears of the mind should be firmly rooted in the tenets of Scripture,
for they do not shift and change like the doctrines of men and their cunning
craftiness do.
One of the problems
that modern-day Christianity faces (regardless of denominational affiliation) is
that many professing Christians allow current thinking of openness and tolerance
to blind them from appreciating real and absolute truth. The tenets of
Scripture are non-negotiable. The way of Christ is changeless. Tolerance in
the world’s modern sense basically equates to swallowing something that should
rightly disgust us. Now, we should follow after liberty and not seek to bind
people as slaves to our way of thinking, but in turn, we should not be bound by
the fetters of tolerance to have to accept theirs whether we like it or not.
The liberty must be bi-directional.
One of the great
misconceptions about the way of Christ is that He simply promoted peace and
goodwill. This is the same misconception about God in general when people only
see the God of love. To see Christ properly, we have to indeed see Him as the
Prince of Peace, but in order to appreciate the peace that He is for us, we have
to be grounded in truth as the truth was vitally important to Him. To see and
appreciate the God of love and mercy, we have to also understand the justice and
judgment of God as well. One without the other makes for short-sighted and
dangerous ground for God's people as they contemplate God and Jesus Christ.
Christ in our study verses plainly says that His way will bring division, even
down to the midst of families. This is not something we have to actively pursue
(trying to make people mad), but the nature of following Christ will anger
others.
Generally speaking,
when people disagree about the right thing, correct thought, or proper course,
argumentative techniques are employed. Many of these techniques add nothing to
the conversation but rather dodge the real and main issue of the discussion.
Have you ever talked with someone and been met with any of the following
responses: 1. Can't we all just get along? 2. Don't make such a big fuss over
this. 3. That just can't be right. 4. You must be foolish to think that.
Each of these avenues that so often rear their heads during a conversation fail
to seek the truth of the discussion but rather seek to win by way of
ill-designed techniques (sometimes called logical fallacies).
When having a
discussion with someone that uses #1, they make the plea that different mindsets
should just be able to find some common ground to agree on. While there may be
common ground between two people, that still does not change the fact that there
is disagreement over the portion of ground currently under discussion. When
Christ walked and talked here, He could have simply avoided the disagreement
with the Pharisees and scribes by using the common ground that they had. They
could have used Moses as their example, and Christ could have said that Moses
was a good man and example. Then everyone would have gone home happy. They
properly taught the tithing of various things, and Christ could have said that
those were correct teachings. However, Christ showed them that there was
something important missing and being neglected in not only their teachings but
also in their perspective of Moses.
If someone uses
argument technique #2, they are trying to say that the discussion point is not
essential. We must take special care to ensure that we are earnestly contending
for something essential (that cannot be compromised without damaging the
teachings of the Bible)1, and if we are not, then we should follow their advice
and leave it alone. If however, the point is essential to our view of God and
our behaviour in return, then we should not yield the ground. Again, using
Christ as an example, He could have yielded ground by simply saying it was not
important enough to continue on. However, when the questioning came and He
responded to the silencing of His interrogators, He showed that certain ground
should be contended for.
When #3 raises its
ugly head, the person is simply resorting to base opinion without grounds. The
reason something is right or wrong is because God has said so. It matters not
what some man's opinion might be. God's mind is what truly matters. Recently,
I read a rather foolish article in which the writer asserted that the Bible was
full of glaring contradictions and was based on confused 1st century Christians
that scrambled to assemble a religious structure after discovering that Christ
was not imminently coming back. Due to their foggy recollections of the
Saviour's teachings, they could not assemble an error-free creed as their
doctrine was made in their minds and hearts. Truly, if any group of disciples
had less fuzziness than anyone else, I would stake the argument that those in
those early days did. Not only did they have the Master, but they initially had
His apostles and the very men that would be divinely inspired to pen His Book.
What was written must be right, regardless of what any man (including myself)
might think about it.
Technique #4 is
perhaps the basest of the fallacious techniques. It seeks not to arrive at the
truth but rather to make a personal assault on the other party. Resorting to
personal attack rather than conceptual discussion not only detracts from the
conversation but it quickly kills it. However, what I have always found
interesting about those that employ this technique is that they always accuse
the other side of doing what they do all too often. When arguing a principle,
the other party will play like they are being martyred unnecessarily, though
they are some of the first to launch personal assaults rather than raising valid
points and logical reasoning.
Regardless of what
technique(s) we are posed with in discussion, the point is clear from the
Saviour. It happened to Him and because of Him, and we can expect that same
kind of division today. People resorted to name-calling against Him, and we can
expect the same against us. They dodged the issue(s) time and time again, and
no less should be expected today. However, what should never rear its head
among us is the slow but silent poison that affects our minds away from the
Bible. Yes, the teachings contained therein are still just as relevant today as
ever. Morality and immorality are still just as pointed and valid now as ever.
Sins then are sins now. Righteousness then is righteousness now.
One final thought
that will hopefully bring some of this together is how the world has affected
many Christian's view of Biblical doctrine. They often today claim, "Doctrine
divides, Christ unites." Their message is transparent - don't stand for
doctrine as that will run people off; let's just all follow Christ together.
However, the problem becomes manifest in our verses above. Christ Himself
divided people. The doctrines of the Bible such as salvation, redemption,
justification, glorification, the church, etc. will divide people. However,
they are worth contending for, even if that means standing in opposition to our
own natural families. Again, this is not something to necessarily go and seek
out, but if we try to follow the way of Christ, rest assured dear friends that
it will find us. We will have to deal with the heartaches that come with
division as a result of it. However, all the heartaches we might experience
when trying to follow the way of Christ all pale in comparison to one smile from
the portals of glory. As the hymn writer wrote, "And the smile of the Lord is
the feast of the soul."
In Hope,
Bro Philip
|