Toward being a peacemaker

Posted on February 28, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Toward being a peacemaker – #11 in the Sermon on the Mount Series

Blessed are the peacemakers

According to the Bible, human history began in peace and will end in peace. The middle part has been a little rough.

John Lennon asked us to give peace a chance, but how can we do this? Even if you define peace as the absence of war, humanity does not have a very good track record. According to Will Durant, out of 3421 years of documented history, there were only 268 years without war at the time of his writing. That means that roughly 92.2% of the time, some part of the globe was in open hostility. With the rise of Islamic unrest in the Middle East, this percentage is likely to rise rather than fall. Human history cannot bear out any assertion that man is capable of producing peace, John Lennon notwithstanding.

To be a peacemaker first requires that one be at peace. Even Muddy Waters knows that you can’t give away “what you ain’t never had.” Man has not been at peace since our initial rebellion against God as recorded in Genesis 3. Beginning with that initial rebellion, man has been at war with God, his neighbors, his world and himself. The external conflict is a product of the conflict within. Until that internal conflict is resolved, there is no chance of anything better than a superficial peace.

Paul tells us in Romans 5:1 that the path to peace with God is through Jesus Christ. It is by being justified by faith in Jesus that peace can be obtained. This is the first step to being a peacemaker in the sense that Jesus presents in Matthew 5:9.

In 2 Corinthians 13:11 Paul tells us to “rejoice, be made complete, be comforted, be like-minded, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” Elsewhere Paul tells us to live in peace with one another (1 Thess. 5:13).

If we accept God’s provision in Jesus Christ for fixing the vertical relationship with God, it will then allow us to work on the horizontal relationships with our neighbors. I do not think that it is possible to over emphasize the two Great Commands that Jesus catalogs in Matthew 22:37-40. Love God; love your neighbor. They must be done in that order.

It seems obvious, in light of these verses that a peacemaker cannot be self-focused. I am not at peace with God or my neighbor when I am focused on my wants, my needs or even my rights. A true peacemaker is one who surrenders to God and trusts in him.

A peacemaker is one who is redeemed and justified by faith in Jesus Christ, who is actively developing his relationship with God and who is actively seeking to share that relationship with those around him. A peacemaker is one who takes seriously the call of Jesus to make disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. For it is only as a disciple that I can begin to know peace.

They will be called children of God

Paul tells us in Romans 8:14 that all who are being led by the Spirit of God, are sons of God. The author of Hebrews tells us that God disciplines us as sons (Hebrews 12:7).

By being in relationship with God through Jesus Christ, we are adopted into God’s family. We have become sons and daughters and will be treated as such. This verse emphasizes that one of the hallmarks of a son or daughter of God is that he or she will have a legacy of peacemaking. When we are at the end and stand before Jesus, we should be able to hear him point to that legacy as evidence of our relationship with him.

A call to action

Even as I write this, I am convicted that I do not take every opportunity to be a peacemaker that is presented to me. I am often self-focused, insensitive or insecure. To be a peacemaker, I should have a strong desire to share the good news of Jesus Christ with anyone who hasn’t heard it.

Not only does our peacemaking have a passive component, it should have an active component also. Let’s make it active and see what happens to our churches and our communities.

The rejection of a made-up God

Posted on February 26, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

If you are going to reject God, please be sure that you have an accurate understanding of who you are rejecting. Carol Hoenig’s article in the Huffington Post entitled Santorum Reminds Me Why I Wrote ‘Of Little Faith’, is an example of the rejection of a caricature of Christianity.

The God that Mrs. Hoenig has rejected appears to be a genie-in-a-bottle god who is supposed to do what we want if we display enough faith. This type of belief does not stand up because it will eventually be disappointed. God does not exist to do what I want; it is the other way round. This genie-in-a-bottle god is not the God of the Bible.

Whether they were taught to me or I misunderstood what was being taught, I absorbed many wrong ideas about God and Christianity while growing up in the Church. I do not think that I am alone in this and apparently Mrs. Hoenig’s experience is similar. The question I would ask of Mrs. Hoenig is that when she was studying the Bible on a regular basis, was she doing so to hear from God or was she studying to support her beliefs? There is a big difference between the two.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 12:1-2 that we come to Scripture in need of transformation. Our minds and thinking are not aligned with reality about God and who we are before him. We have to make a choice when approaching Scripture to be open to what it is really saying or to only hear what supports our preconceptions. The theological words describing these two positions are exegesis (ex – out of) or eisegesis (eis – into). In other words, we can draw from Scripture what it means or we can read into it what we want it to say.

This is not a new problem. In his epistles, the Apostle Paul was dealing with those who distorted what he was saying. The Old Testament prophets offered correction to Israel’s misunderstanding and misapplication of the law. Jesus contended with the Pharisees who misinterpreted Scripture to the point that they did not recognize their Messiah when he appeared.

I am not shocked at Mrs. Hoenig’s reaction to what appears to be a feeble, man-centered pseudo-Christianity. When we want to prevent a disease, we inoculate a person with a weakened form of the disease so that immunity can be formed. Our Enemy is aware of this tactic and uses it in a spiritual sense all the time. What better way to prevent belief than to expose people to an inadequate, uninformed, feeble Christianity? Sadly, there are many in “ministry” that are willing accomplices in this tactic of Satan. As a result, the “Christianity” that many reject has very little to do with Jesus Christ.

G. K. Chesterton wrote, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:22-23 that many who purported to be speaking for God will be found to have been operating with no relationship with Jesus Christ. It is not surprising therefore that many who operate under the banner of Christianity are deceived and deceive others.

It is incumbent upon anyone who rejects Christianity to first understand who it is that he is rejecting. Sadly, most reject a caricature such as that presented by Carol Hoenig in the Huffington Post.

Please make an informed choice.

Water, chisel or dynamite? Choosing the right tool to drive change

Posted on February 24, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Rock is a material that is resistant to change and provides a good analogy for an organization or people that need to be lead. Rock likes to stay as it is, it will not change on its own.

Having worked in the mining industry I know what impact explosives can have on rock. Explosives experts can take a large chunk of solid rock and make into very small pieces. This process is fast but the result looks nothing like what you started with. It also cannot be very fun for the rock.

Water is also effective in changing rock. If you have been in a cave or canyon, you can attest to this. Water dissolves minerals and slowly changes the shape and size of the rock. This process is agonizingly slow but the result allows the rock to retain its previous form and often enhances the beauty to the point where we make it a national or state park. This process is not directed by a leader and the result is dictated by the type of rock, quantity of water and other factors beyond the control of a leader.

The chisel falls somewhere in between water and dynamite as a means of changing rock. Under the hand of the sculptor, the chisel can take away the bits of rock that are not contributing to the desired result. The chisel is faster than water and is more selective and controlled than dynamite. Used with skill the chisel shapes the rock in accordance with the sculptor’s vision.

Leaders have to choose whether they want to use dynamite or a chisel to change their organization. Or they can allow the organization to change via natural process like water dissolving rock. All three methods are valid depending on the quantity of change needed, the urgency of the need and the current make-up of the organization.

An organization that is severely dysfunctional may need to be blown up and reassembled. An organization that is basically functioning but has some pieces that are not contributing to the desired result, may need to have some members removed. Some organizations which are functioning should be allowed to change at their own pace. It takes wisdom as a leader to know which method is appropriate.

I have seen leaders who grow impatient with the speed of change and therefore use too much force trying to drive change. Often the result is ugly. In the case of an organization that is largely made up of volunteers, the leader who uses too much force can find himself very alone. Never use dynamite when a chisel will do. Never use the chisel when the process is already taking place but is slower than you would like.

True change in people has to come from the inside. There is a big difference between true change and organizational conformity. As church leaders, we are looking for true change. This is often an agonizingly slow process, therefore patience is required.

Church leaders also have the added dimension of trusting that God is also involved in the process and he is working in the leader and those he leads to bring about his desired result. We, as church leaders, are responsible to follow God’s lead and not try to drive change faster than God is bringing it about.

It is God’s church. In the end, the church is to reflect God’s glory, not the leader’s.

Beware the leaven . . . thoughts on contemplative prayer

Posted on February 22, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

There has been some discussion lately about the danger of contemplative prayer in the Church. While I understand that some proponents of this practice lean heavily on eastern religious practice and error has crept in, I am concerned that an over-reaction is taking place.

There was one group that Jesus singled out in his warnings, the Jewish religious leaders. Jesus did not say “beware the leaven of the philosophers.” Nor did he warn us against the leaven of the false religions. He warned his disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6). We have been warned against the leaven of the Orthodox, the Biblically correct, the ones who should have known better. Jesus warned us against smug confidence that we have all the answers.

Now I’m not saying that orthodoxy does not have value, it does. Nor am I saying that eastern religions provide adequate answers to life, they do not and we should be wary of anyone who wants to borrow from eastern religions. We do have an obligation to be sure that our belief and practice correspond to the revealed truth of the Bible.

What I am saying is that rather than decrying the wrong ways to pray, it is more profitable to teach the valid ones. Let us not have a knee-jerk reaction to error and throw out the good with the bad.

The good part of the discussion about contemplative prayer is the move to make prayer less transactional and more relational. Too often in the prayer meetings of my youth, prayer consisted of listing situations where God’s help was required with a good bit of advice for God on how he should handle those situations.

There is mystery in prayer that much of the doctrinally correct, Bible believing church has lost over the years. Say what you want, but Psalm 46:10 tells me that I need to spend more time listening and less time talking to God. Whether you call that contemplative prayer or not, I need to stop striving and listen.

My own experience is that when I take the time to ask God to instruct me he does. When I take the time to meditate on a verse and seek deeper understanding of what it is telling me, God is faithful and often provides the insight. When I focus my attention on God, as he has revealed himself to me in Scripture, then my prayer becomes less transactional and more relational. When I am in the right mindset to listen, God answers.

When a finite human interacts with an infinite God, there is bound to be mystery. When we, being bound by time and space, interact with a God who is outside time and everywhere, there is bound to be mystery. We cannot fully understand God, our vision is like the view in a foggy mirror (1 Corinthians 13:12). We cannot take the mystery out of prayer; prayer in its very nature is mysterious.

While we cannot remove the mystery, we can confront known error. But error can only be effectively confronted by replacing it with truth. If people are looking for relationship with God through prayer, we should encourage this with the focus being on the nature of God as he has revealed himself in Scripture.

Instead of spending time condemning contemplative prayer in its entirety, we need to do the hard work of understanding what practices which claim that title are wrong, but also which are right. Our response then is to jettison the wrong and embrace the right.

We don’t want to throw out the wheat along with the chaff.