New Thoughts (10/26/14-10/30/14)
As Peter is summarizing his message at this point, so verse 11 would seem to summarize the summary. In a simple couplet, the Psalmist has captured the habit of holiness. Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it. The first demonstrates real repentance, which must not stop at words of apology but must consist in a moral U-turn. The second provides us with the proper activity by which to occupy ourselves. Seek and pursue peace. I will dwell on that at length later. For the moment let us recognize that these two clauses taken together draw a picture of the humble in spirit, which is a description Peter enjoins us to seek as our own.
The habit of holiness is found in the humble in spirit. Look at the other character traits Peter urges us to develop. Be harmonious. Nothing, Calvin says, produces more discord than thinking too highly of ourselves. You can’t be harmonious from a prideful foundation. Be sympathetic. Again, this will require a humility of mind, for the mind occupied with its own troubles has nothing left for the hurts of others. Be brotherly, as the NASB has it; love as brothers. Again, this will require us to be possessed of a certain humility of mind. To love our brother suggests a deep interest in our brother.
In my first pass through these verses, I considered how we understand this love when we use the term in other settings. Philosophy – the love of knowledge; philology – the love of language: We look at such words and take the meaning more as the study of than the love of. Perhaps we would do well to make the same connection in this call to brotherly love. Study your brother. How better to be sympathetic to him? How better to be compassionate towards his trials? If they are but names – vague acquaintances we know only by their usual seat on Sunday, we are in no position to fulfill this call as it concerns them. We have not sought to know them and therefore cannot really sympathize with them, nor can our compassion be more than a general emotional response to the implications of pain. We may have the sense of what their pain might be, but it is still more on the level of considering what our own pain would be if we were in their boat. That remains a prideful, self-centered response and not the outworking of humble mind. The humble-minded, truly counting others as more important than self, make it their purpose to study these others, minister to their needs and seek their good.
One other aspect of this matter of brotherly love is that it rather implies that we indeed think of our fellow believers as kin. They are, you know. We all share the same Father. Ergo, we are brothers and sisters one to another. Well, let us consider how we relate to our fleshly kin. Certainly, as kids we experienced that blood loyalty. My brothers may say what they like about me, but they will not tolerate anybody else badmouthing me. (I speak from having been the youngest. I would like to believe that had the situation been reversed, I would have the same loyalty towards them.) We understand, almost without ever being told, that there is no offense greater than to cast aspersions on a man’s kin. Nothing will stir up ire faster.
Within proper bounds, I think that is what Peter is urging us to feel towards our church family. No, vengeance is not ours, we will not seek to repay the abuse our brother has endured. We will minister to his hurts and pray for his abuser. But, think how much of Peter’s message has involved libelous false charges made against you. Move that over one step, and let it be equally libelous charges laid against your brother. Maybe you’ve met a mutual acquaintance at work, and that one has been dishing the dirt on your brother. Maybe you’re reading something about him in the paper, or hearing it from the clerk at the grocery store. Maybe, though we’d prefer to think it doesn’t happen, you’re hearing it from a fellow parishioner. What do you do with this information? How do you respond? Do you eagerly lap up the gossip that has come your way? Or, do you shut it down and stand up to defend your brother?
Believe me, there are going to be occasions where what you are hearing is true, and the brother in question needs confronting rather than defending. But, by and large these are not the occasions we encounter. Few of us are called to be in the place of administering church discipline. Few of us, when we feel ourselves offended by a brother, have sound basis for those feelings. But, if we supposed these people to be family, how much would our reaction differ? If the one being spoken against was to me as a brother, would I tolerate so much as the first words? If you spoke that way about my sister, is it likely I would have anything further to do with you? No.
The problem is that we do not yet find each other family. Oh, we have our particular acquaintances. In fairness, the church is a large enough family that we cannot really be as close as we ought to each and every member. Even in our church, which is relatively small with its few hundred attendees, time does not permit of being closely connected with each and every one. Even if time did permit, I dare say our personalities would preclude it from happening. We are going to tend to clump together in what are derided as cliques, but which could as easily be described positively as affinity groups. Indeed, as we have looked at the nature of small group ministry, we have found this a good thing: Of course, such a small group will do better if they share an affinity for something. But, this is still a clique, or at least in danger of becoming one. It’s a matter of attitude, I suppose. If the group is open to welcoming others of like interests, it’s fine. If it’s become a closed society unto itself, a church within the church, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed. It’s a fine line.
Meanwhile, we face a challenge because we are, in spite of being children of God, fallen creatures with too much in common with the world around us. Our inclination, as the JFB points out, still tends towards evil-speaking. We know it shouldn’t be so, but we also know it is. I’m sure there are those amongst us who tend to see everything as good, and interpret everything in the best possible light. I’m sure there are those who have never had ought to say against anybody; who have taken that lesson about saying nothing if you can’t say something nice to heart. But, it takes effort, even for them. It doesn’t just happen, however much they may make it look like it does. (As I’m typing this, I can think of a few individuals who do indeed appear to have such a natural inclination to niceness towards everybody. But, then, I’m not with those individuals day in and day out.)
Our inclination is toward evil-speaking and because of this we have to make a concerted effort to cause that habit to cease from us. The subject of spiritual discipline came up during Sunday School this week past, and there was an advocating of such disciplines as help us or even require us to depend more thoroughly upon God, such as fasting. To be sure, such disciplines have their place and enjoy the commendation of God. But, here is what may well prove a much more difficult task of self-denial: Stop speaking evil. Repent of it. Turn away from it and do good. To be sure, we can handle this for the two or three hours we spend at church of a week. That’s not so hard, is it? But, that’s only a first step. That’s running with the training wheels on. How about the workplace? How about dealings with co-workers? There’s that one guy (probably me) that’s near impossible to deal with. He’s ornery. He’s negative about everything. It seems like no matter what the task is, he can find something wrong or stupid or aggravating about it. How’s your response to that guy? Or, if you are that guy, let’s ask: How well does this represent the God you serve? Did He look down on, say, day two of creation, and complain to Himself, “What? These waters I made yesterday can’t subside on their own, I’ve got to spend my day piling up the mud? Surely they could have found somebody else to do the drudge work here.” No! He creates and he looks upon the work of his hands and says, “Good!”
What if we went to work with that same character? What if we refused to speak evil of the means of our provision? What if we ceased from deriding our offspring for their myriad failures and instead encouraged them in those places where they are succeeding? What if we refused to speak evil, but instead spoke blessings? You may look at this and think I’m wandering into the territory of the purported power of positive thinking. I hope I am not. But, there is this call that God has set upon us to bless and not to curse, to turn the other cheek. We are to be a people who persist in doing good no matter the evil done to us. How are we to do so if we cannot even manage speaking what is good and lovely and true when nobody’s doing anything to us?
As I said at the outset, the call to seek and pursue peace seems to me the ‘big idea’ of this entire section of the letter, which began back in 1Peter 2:12. In all of these examples of difficult relations, the call has been the same: seek and pursue peace. Don’t react, respond. If those you deal with are unreasonable, be the reasonable one. If they demand more than is right, try your best to give more than is absolutely required. Be prepared to bear their reproaches, as Barnes advises, and wish them well none the less. That’s a high calling and difficult. But it is our calling.
It has been interesting to me to see how three separate streams of study have reached something of a confluence this week. In my morning devotions, Table Talkhas been working through the book of Romans, and reached the section discussing indifferent matters of conscience. In Sunday School, we have reached the record of Isaac’s life in our study of Genesis, and then, of course, there’s this study. Now, what Peter is addressing here is not matters of conscience. This is not optional behavior, where the less mature may feel the righteous response is one way and the more mature perceive it another way. What is shared with these three texts is the direction of pursuing peace.
Paul speaks more directly to that point earlier in his letter (Ro 12:18), but the same principle is at play as he discusses matters of conscience. Interesting to note from the last few days of articles that Paul is not suggesting that either answer is fine and we should just leave people to believe what they like in these matters. He is saying that indeed there is a correct perspective but you who hold it cannot make your understanding a claim to superiority nor allow it to become a matter that disturbs the peace between you and your weaker brother. It has, if I were to set it in Peter’s context, set you in the place of the master or the husband as he has been drawing things for us. You are in the place of strength. Deal with this weaker one as Christ has dealt with you. Cherish them as fellow believers, and take the greater care for them in their weakness. Teach, by all means, but do so in a loving, understanding fashion. Help them to mature, don’t crush them under your maturity. Seek and pursue peace.
Meanwhile, in Genesis, we have met Isaac. Many of the commentaries point out his tendency towards being the non-confrontational peacemaker. It is particularly in evidence as he digs new wells, and his neighbors the Philistines keep chasing him off the land. Does he stand and fight? No. Does he seek to barter his way to maintaining possession? Abraham might have pursued such a course, but Isaac prefers to simply move on and try someplace else. Eventually he does so. He seeks and pursues peace.
I have to say that as I have been teaching that class, there is a strong tendency in me to look at the failures of these men. It’s particularly easy, I think, to look at Isaac as something of a failure. Abraham is more heroic in spite of his failings. Isaac seems to have followed only the bad examples of his father, and Jacob, for all his early trickery, seems to find a closer walk with God. But, there’s an alternative lesson there, one that accords with Paul’s word to the Romans, and shows Isaac to be fulfilling this instruction of Peter’s.
Isaac and Abraham are clearly of very different temperaments, but those temperaments are matters of indifference. Indeed, in this case I don’t think we can even declare that the one is right and the other wrong. They both, as at least one commentary noted, have their place. It’s not a matter of situational ethics, but there are situations that require the confrontational character – let us say a Matthew 18 sort of moment where the Church must discipline. There are other situations of the 1Peter 4:8, Love covers, nature that call for a peacemaker. The lesson we might more properly derive from the lives of the patriarchs is that God as creator of these varied temperaments has established them all as good and is certainly able to work His good through those of such temperaments. Consider them more in the nature of spiritual gifts, gifts distributed according to the plan of God and all for the building up of His church. Even in those confrontational settings, what is the desired outcome? Seek peace and pursue it. If peace can be had through a reconciliation instigated by such confrontation, you have saved your brother, and isn’t that greatly to be desired? If peace cannot be had by such means and that brother must be expelled, it is done in hopes of his repentance. And, in the meantime the sanctity of God’s house is preserved in peace, which is also surely to be desired.
Another point of confluence has been the appearance of this passage in the commentaries. “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Pr 16:7). This is brought up in conjunction with Isaac settling finally at the well in Rehoboth. Here he is in the place God would have him and those enemies that have chased him off the preceding wells have finally left him be. Indeed, it is here that Abimelech and his commander, Phicol come to establish peace with him, pronouncing, “You are now the blessed of God.” How wonderful when even our enemies cannot but recognize the hand of God upon our lives!
That same verse has come up in discussion of Peter’s message, and I find it echoes a thought I had pursued in my first journey through these verses. As we pursue peace with men, it cannot be at the expense of peace with God. That is never our call. Paul’s instruction, “insofar as it lies with you,” leaves that limit in place. It does not lie with you to be at peace with all men if that course requires angering God in the process. It is peace with Him that matters. If we would pursue peace, surely we must first pursue peace with God. Look at that promise in Proverbs: If we are pursuing peace with God, which is to say shaping our ways to please Him, He makes even our enemies to be at peace with us. If you would pursue peace with men, then, the way to do so is by pursuing peace with God. That is not going to strike us as the obvious answer, but it is the answer. Appeasement is not. Accommodation is not. Look at verse 13. “Who is to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?”
Now, don’t suppose that is some guarantee of an end to hostilities. If it were, then all that has led to that point could have been dispensed with. There would be no challenges that these believers were facing, no overbearing masters, no abusive unbelieving husbands. Everything would be a garden path of delights. But, that’s not the life promised us. Quite the opposite. “In this life, you will have tribulations.” It’s not a mere possibility. It’s a statement of fact, a guarantee. Yet, at the same time, the promise holds. Who is to harm you? God has you in hand.
[10/30/14] The confluence of studies continues. This morning I was struck by a curious thought. I have addressed Paul’s discussion of handling indifferent matters, how he calls for the strong to restrain themselves for the sake of the weak. Here, of course, we read Peter’s perspective: Seek peace and pursue it. And he clearly has the backing of Scripture for this statement. What struck me this morning was the interchange between Peter and Paul in Antioch. Paul writes of how he confronted Peter for refusing to eat with the Gentiles after some ‘men from James’ came to town (Gal 2:11-12). To be sure, both men were aware that this old Jewish prohibition was not to be applied amongst Christians. To be sure, Peter knew better, having been told this very thing in a vision.
But, aren’t his actions in keeping with Paul’s own teaching? He is with men of weaker conscience. Ought he, then, to flaunt his quite proper freedom in Christ to the hurt of their consciences? Is this not seeking and pursuing peace, which is surely God’s plan? And yet, the nature of the coverage given this event makes it clear that in God’s sight Paul was in the right. What makes the difference here? It’s certainly reasonable to suggest that this was not a matter of indifference. Indeed, given the development of the Church and God’s clear concern with expanding it to encompass the Gentiles, it may be that we cannot possibly think this an indifferent matter. It had to be established early and with no doubt that Jew and Gentile were equal in God’s sight, and that every hindrance to their mutual pursuit of peace with God must be eradicated.
Here, then, we find the boundary line. It is well to pursue peace and to give way where our exercise of legitimate liberty might wound the conscience of a fellow believer. But, we must take care that the matter is truly one of indifference and if it is not, we must educate rather than give way. If it is a matter of doctrine, we cannot and must not give way, even in the name of maintaining fellowship. This is where the urge towards ecumenicalism hits a snag. Yes, there are numerous occasions where we can join together across denominational lines to pursue our shared purpose of advancing the Gospel. But, there are far more cases where we cannot. Where the church across the line has taken a stance clearly in conflict with sound doctrine, we are called to John’s instruction. Don’t even give a greeting (2Jn 10). Now, I think we may consider Paul’s action here as well. It is not that we write them off as a loss and never again consider them. No, there is a place here for confrontation, done in the hope of restoration. We do not willingly cede ground to the devil. Neither do we leave captive to him those who might yet be restored to Christ.
This brings me round the long way back to the topic at hand – the pursuit of peace. Even where we find we must enter into a confrontation, still that pursuit of peace holds. This is the whole counsel, and it is something I find commentators across the spectrum advancing. Clarke, for example, instructs that we are to do our utmost not only to be at peace with all men, but to restore peace where it has been broken. Put that in the setting of such a disciplinary action. We do not revile the church or churchman gone astray. We rightly decry his sins, but we also rightly pray for his restoration. Matthew Henry writes, “It is the duty of Christians not only to embrace peace when it is offered, but to seek and pursue it when it is denied.” Again, let me put that in the setting of church discipline. To pursue peace when it is denied in that setting is to seek that the party in the wrong recognize their wrong and repent of it, returning to the path of Truth.
Of course, it is not only in such weighty matters that these instructions hold. They hold in the day to day. They hold, in proper degree, in all our relationships and interactions. In the workplace, we are to turn in a good day’s work, and we are to do so in a manner which honors our employers. We ought also to work so as to honor our coworkers, which at minimum means we do not unduly belittle them. There is that difficult line to observe, that we do not unduly belittle them but we also do not do our employers the disservice of hiding it if their efforts are truly insufficient.
The same instructions hold in family relations, as Peter has been laying out for us. We instruct, and we reject what is false in our own, but we do so in love and in hope that such rejection is a temporary act of discipline and not a rending of the family fabric for all time. Parenting is particularly difficult in this regard, because we want to be the gentle, loving, peace-seeking men of God that Scripture urges us to be, and yet we also must be the voice of discipline for our children. A good father disciplines the child he loves. To refuse the first is to fail at the last. But, discipline in love. That may sound impossible. It certainly will to the child. But, it is our call. What does it look like?
It looks like a man whose passions are on leash. It requires that we discipline without resorting to wrathfulness. Save your wrath for the enemies of God. Indeed, even there, as we see Peter and Paul both instruct us, save your wrath. Let God’s wrath have its place. For your part, bless. Certainly, where you are called to be the disciplinarian there can be no place given to wrath. Wrath and vengeance do not lead to discipline. They lead to destructive punishment. Mercy and love lead to discipline. That may be too abstract to be of concrete use, but it is the best I can do at this hour.
Now, Calvin makes a point that I do well to contemplate. Wrath being the very opposite of peace, he considers that side of the coin. If our wrath is so quickly stirred up, he suggests, it is evidence that we either suppose God’s care for us is insufficient or that we have utterly failed to even think about God’s care for us. This is a point of concern for me, for I know my ire can still too easily be stirred. I do not handle conflict all that well. Calvin builds on this point by concluding that all God’s attempts to teach us patience will fail until we have trained our minds to think thusly: God does and will care for us.
How does this accord with experience? If I am discussing a matter with a coworker, and we seem to be at loggerheads as to the right way to proceed, how does this apply? I know well that there are certain among my coworkers who, when such occasions arise (and they do more often than I would like), I find myself grow very unreasonable and unreasoning in my response. Sad to say, this is most prevalent with a brother in Christ. Yes, there is something of that ‘worst behavior at home’ aspect. I know, for we have known each other many years now, that I can get away with it with him. He’s got to forgive me, right? But, that doesn’t make the reaction right. Our mutual tendency to see our own perspective very clearly and as very clearly the right answer doesn’t make the reaction right. What’s needed? What’s needed is to recognize that here is another attempt by God to teach me patience. What’s needed is to turn my mind to Him, and to recognize that He cares for me, and I can even say he cares about this situation, however trivial it may seem.
The same can be applied to dealing with my daughter. Her choices in recent months and years are not as I would have them to be. Rather like Isaac, she seems inclined to repeat the worst lessons of her father and to ignore the good ones – at least I trust there have been good ones. She is, as we would describe it, running away from God as fast as she can – for all the good that will do. God is faster by far, and there is, as the Psalmist writes, nowhere she can go that He is not there. But, it is great sorrow to see her thus. It is also deeply frustrating to tolerate much of her activity in my house. Some of this is the standard generational thing. You call that music? Can’t you keep a civil tongue in your mouth? Don’t talk to your mother like that! Much of it is the absent minded negligence of that age. If I but consider my own brilliant decisions at that stage of life, I must recognize that she is not evil incarnate any more than I was. Neither is she making wise decisions any more than I was.
How to respond? I feel rejected, my very way of life trampled under foot. No doubt, my parents felt the same way. But, here’s the thing: God does and will care for us. Not just me. Her. If indeed she is counted among the elect, then God will care for her through this time in the valley, just as He did me. She won’t see it now. We may not see it now. But, His care is nonetheless present. If, God forbid, she is not to be found among the elect, then nothing I or her mother can do will alter her course, and we would be wasting our time to try. But, we continue to pray that her life will find its proper course in Christ. We continue to pray that God will guard her ways until He sees fit to call her back – that He will see fit to call her back. And, where a window opens to speak, to demonstrate the life of the upright, we shall avail ourselves of it. But, to rail endlessly against the things that bother me? Worthless on the surface, and evidence of my own lacking trust in Christ’s sufficiency underneath. Or, which is no better, my failure to keep Christ in mind.
The call remains. Follow and practice peace. Pursue it. Pursue it first and foremost by living a life of integrity. Turn from evil and do good. When done evil, do good. When cursed, bless. When wronged, persist in doing what is right. And, in all things, keep your eyes on Christ. Recognize those lessons in patience and rather than kicking against the goads, seek how God is caring for you in the midst. Seek to see what He is teaching and learn it. Seek the lesson’s instruction that the instructing may end. That may seem a rather poor motivation, but I am quite certain those disciplinary lessons are not intended to be stretched out that we may enjoy them the more.
Follow and practice peace. This must be our determined effort. It must first and foremost consist in practicing and pursuing peace with God, for if we are not at peace with Him we cannot be at peace at all. But, it also must apply in our dealings with our fellow believers, and even with the unbelievers around us. A peaceful spirit, Barnes notes, contributes to length of days. It is good for your health. By way of contrast, passions corrode. They wear us out. You need only think of the last argument you were in to see the truth of that. Fighting, even verbal sparring, takes energy. That energy, once expended, cannot be reclaimed. Peaceableness energizes. It is the great recharger of the soul. Far better, then, to be recharging.
Pursue peace by living a life of integrity. This may not guarantee a life free of conflict. Indeed, if it were so, we should hardly need to pursue it, would we? But, even in a dangerous and wicked world, this course offers us the greatest security, and even should the world respond to our integrity with vicious rejection, yet the Scriptures hold. “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?” If God is for you, who can be against you? Remember your God, that He is caring for you even in the midst of trial, and be at peace.
