The Troublesome Peacemakers!

By Curtis Lydic

[Page 24]

     How great a thing is peace! How desirable it is that men and women who are members of the same great family be at peace among themselves. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity!" exclaimed the psalmist. Hear also the Lord, praying on behalf of his disciples, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who are to believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

     Yes, peace is good. But the same Lord who blessed the peacemakers said, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household." No contradiction appears here to the one who understands. The point is that peace has its price, and in this case the price of peace is denial of carnal (human) loyalties. For one to attain the sort of relationship with God which brings peace it may be necessary for him to sacrifice the sympathy and good will which he has had from others.

     The situation which now exists among the brotherhood of Christ is more typified by the statement "a man's foes will be those of his own household" than by any sort of peace. A great deal of discussion has gone on and still goes on over the issues on which the brethren are at odds, but I believe that "symptoms" are being treated while "causes" are being neglected. The cause of factionalism must be carnality, or unspiritual point of view or attitude. "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?" (1 Cor. 3:3.) If there is fighting and falling out, there must be carnal minds involved. The pro-instrument brother might say, "Not me; it is the other who has the carnal mind in this matter!" And the anti-instrument brother will vehemently insist that the reverse is true. The premillenialist might say, "Not me; it is the 'amil' who is being fussy about this." But the so-called "amil" counters that the "premils" have caused all the difficulty with their heretical doctrine. My brothers, someone is of the carnal mind, or we would not be

[Page 25]

divided, and until the Spirit of Christ prevails in the hearts of all of us, the division is likely to remain, against all the wishes of the Lord.

     A great number of Christians today have been involved in the instigation of and perpetuation of interparty warfare. Many of these have come to see the wrong of this and have turned from it, to become just as zealous in the interests of unity. By former partisans and former opponents alike, these are being called "fickle," "wishy-washy," "faddists," etc. It is ironic that even those who opposed them in their former role most energetically have less respect for them now in their role as peacemakers. They have lost respectable foes whom they enjoyed-- to gain loving, attentive critics whom they do not want at all.

     I say that they have gained attentive "critics": these former opponents have not lost their interest in the issues, but have relinquished their role as stubborn advocates of a "position" to become inquirers or questioners. They have had to admit that all is not black and white, all is not clearly right or wrong. Some things now appear to them to need reexamination, things which both they and their antagonists once thought quite clear. So these Christians advocate such reexamination, reevaluation, and (during these processes) a more charitable and tolerant attitude toward and treatment of those who cannot agree.

     Perhaps these should he called "truce-makers" rather than "peacemakers," since further discussion is indicated on just what sort of agreement is necessary to true unity. Yes, a "truce," under which we can negotiate, is our first need. A condition of truce has some of the most important earmarks of peace, but it does not imply any surrender or compromise of principles or convictions, only a suspension of hostilities. In the current "unity movement" a great deal of emphasis is put upon the establishment of an intellectual and emotional atmosphere which is more conducive to the intelligent resolution of our apparently important differences. Our recognition of differences must not be allowed to upset our tranquillity, for without a measure of tranquillity, it is very difficult to do anything constructive about our differences.

     However, some apparently are not especially concerned about the division which exists. The status quo seems to appeal to many. I suppose that this is understandable when each member of a party is made to feel that the division exists through no fault of his, but is entirely the fault of the "hobbyist" who opposes him on the one hand and the "digressive" whom he opposes on the other hand. Furthermore, the existence of such conditions of "error" all about him doubtless enables him to feel all the more secure in his own position, simply as a matter of contrast. To take a more tolerant attitude toward those who are "in error" or to be more open-minded concerning their "error" would imply the possibility of error on one's own part, and this, in turn, greatly diminishes the feeling of security attached to his position. This is a great sacrifice, and is considered quite unnecessary, in view of the fact that both the "hobbyist" and the "digressive" can bring about unity and peace simply by abandoning their respective "errors" and accepting the "truth" (which, of course, means one's own position!). Well, the price of self-denial or of denial of party loyalties may be too high a price for some.

     Nevertheless, there must be some feeling in the hearts of many that such a philosophy is imperfect; otherwise, why should there be the quick, hot, and hostile reaction to the propositions of the "truce-makers"? In numbers of cases, antagonism has sprung up upon the mere suggestion that "our position" needs further study. What motive but fear can prompt such immediate hostility? It is interesting that some express anxiety in such cases over the effect that such study might have on the "weak members"; but often it is the supposedly "strong" members who get shaken up, while the "weak," though interested, remain unperturbed. I submit, in genuine love, that too many have gone too far, and have too much invested in their positions to be able to afford reconsideration. There is too much to be lost, should they be

[Page 26]

proven wrong. Too many things done would need to he undone, perhaps, at the risk of losing prestige, popularity, or friendship. So, the friendly critic, the advocate of peaceful negotiation and honest reconsideration is not appreciated, but is regarded as a troublemaker, as an agitator. He is called a heretic, a modernist, an ultra-liberal, a disciple-wooer. He is ridiculed and warned by brothers who do not want to take him seriously but are forced to do so by the number of Christians who are responding to his plea.

     I am reminded of the reaction of the Jewish authorities to the work of the apostles, and of the reaction of the silversmiths to the preaching of Paul, and of the reaction of the men who made gain from the Philippian soothsaying girl. Yes, what troublemakers were these men who preached the good news! What bad tidings were the good tidings to those who had something to lose!

--------------------------