Somebody Always Wants to Fight

Several years ago I spent ten days in Ukraine on a mission trip. Driving through its beautiful rural countryside and then serving in a small community, I decided there were few places on earth that could claim your heart so fast. The beauty of the land was reflected in the hearts of the people.

For the last fifteen hundred years or so, Ukraine has known little freedom. Its people have been under the thumb of empires to the east and the west throughout the centuries as the foreigners traded power grabs. The Ukrainian people always seemed to be the losers. With few natural barriers in their country, the open land served as an unobstructed highway for one invading army after another. Now they are facing it again after less than 25 years of self-rule.

The list of “hot spots” in our world today would more than fill this page. Nation against nation gets the big headlines. Tribe against tribe comes in a close second. Then of course there is faith against faith, the haves against the have-nots, the powerful against the weak, and ultimately those who just disagree. No matter where you look, it seems there is somebody who is more than willing to fight to settle the issue. Why can’t we just get along?

I detest that naïve, polly-anna question. As long as one person has an opinion of what is right and what is wrong and another person has a different right-wrong perspective, we will have discussions that degenerate into disagreements and ultimately into fights. Call it what you will, but sin defined as a self-righteous stranglehold on truth can usually be seen as the culprit.

This problem exists on the international scene. It also exists at the very personal level of one person relating to another. In that setting the disagreement gets settled in the classic, “I’m right and I’ll bust your nose to prove it!” As we all know this proves nothing when it comes to what is true. It merely reflects the fact that words have failed and the muscle in the arm has trumped the muscle between the ears.

The Apostle Paul says we should make the effort to live at peace with those around us. (Romans 12:18) He recognizes that making peace has to be a two-sided affair. Unilateral peace only goes so far. He continues, however, with the idea revenge cannot be the answer. That belongs to God alone. Our response must take a different form. (Romans 12:19-21)

Jesus gave us a better way to handle our conflicts. In Matthew 18 he outlined a series of steps that were meant to lead to open communication, mutual understanding, and finally reconciliation. We are sinful human beings with limited perspectives and egos always eager to assume the exalted position. These must be acknowledged and overcome so that the goal of reconciliation can have a chance of being reached.

These are some guiding thoughts for striving for peace between individuals and within groups.

·         Listen to reach full understanding of the other perspective

·         Find common ground for agreement

·         Identify areas outside the critical core of non-negotiable absolutes

·         Determine areas allowing for mutually acceptable compromise

·         Seek to disagree in agreeable fashion

·         Give others the benefit of the doubt

·         Give others a second chance when mistakes are made and admitted

·         Be ready to forgive

Even with all this there are still the black and white issues of right and wrong. These are grounded in the foundation of our absolutes. Jesus had them. He expects his followers to have them. He did not hesitate to take a whip into the Temple and clean house. (Matthew 21:12-13) At the same time he could disagree with ritual demands and still feel he needed to go along with them because the issue wasn’t worth the fight. (Matthew 17:24-27)

Jesus got his non-negotiable absolutes from the nature of his Father as should all his followers. This doesn’t make settling conflicts necessarily any easier on the personal or the international level. It is, however, where we are called to start and end.

The Cost of Controversy

One of the most awesome statements of divine wisdom I find in the words of Jesus are "...not to give offense to them,..." (Matthew 17). Reading the gospels does not reveal in Jesus an individual who worried about causing offense, irritation, or hurt feelings when he felt it appropriate. Even those who vehemently disagreed with him recognized that he spoke from the heart and did not mince words. How did Jesus know when it was time to "shoot straight and let the bullets fly" and when to decide "this is not a hill worth dying on"? When was a controversy worth the conflict sure to follow and when was it not worth giving offense? How much simpler life would be for us if we knew the answer 100% of the time!

Jesus' standards though high were simple. Glorify and honor the Father in all that you think, say, and do. That sounds easy enough. Jesus was perfect at the process. Even when he might have preferred a different path as in Gethsemane, he still put obedience and honoring his Father first in his decisions and his actions. The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) stands as a great statement of the ways we can honor the Father in our daily lives. Jesus' response to questions raised by the religious rulers of his day also reveal his perception of how to glorify the Father. (Matthew 12; 15; 19; 22)

The two Great Commandments are described by Jesus as a summary of all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22) We don't have much of a problem in understanding what Jesus meant by the first and greatest commandment: love God with your total being. Of course following through has always been limited by our sinful and self-focused natures. Loving something other than God as the focus of our lives or even in the momentary decision is a constant problem. It is the second commandment about loving our neighbor as we love ourselves that gives us fits.

We make jokes about it. "Love your neighbor, but don't get caught." We try to qualify it under such phrases as "tough love". We even try to compartmentalize our expressions of love by "loving the sinner, but hating the sin." (guilty as charged!) Are any of these wrong? I would avoid the relationship with your neighbor that your safety would demand be kept secret. The other two expressions we often try to live out in our dealings with others.

In both cases the effort is being made to express a love that includes acceptance, the opportunity for forgiveness, and a realization there is a right and a wrong choice being identified. Anytime we identify a right choice and a not so right choice in a situation made by someone else, we are called upon to decide how we will respond in love. We must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. It is the only way we can allow the Father's forgiving love shown to us to flow through us to others who also need it.

Jesus made his decisions about controversy based upon the Great Commandments which have their goal of honoring and glorifying the Father. He recognized that decisions pertaining to the law had right answers and wrong answers. He also knew that not all legal decisions had any bearing on how we might glorify the Father. It was these questions that Jesus disdained to give the importance needed to raise them in a discussion.

There is a cost to controversy. How high a price should we be willing to pay? If God is honored when we take a stand, then the price we are called to pay is worth it, even required of us. If God sees the controversy as of significance to man alone, then the answer is to seek peace, go catch the fish, and pay the tax. The Pharisees saw the tax as important. Jesus did not. Love for God and fellow man were not a part of the equation. Causing a stir just wasn't worth the price.