August 01, 2007
Mutual Agreement
Two weeks ago a letter of resignation from our Family and Outreach Minister was read from the pulpit. Going to the source, I learned he doesn’t have a new job waiting on the horizon. He has no idea where his next ministry will be, but he knows he wants to preach and teach. Similar to a funeral and tidying things up quickly, the church had a ‘Farewell Reception’ last Sunday where well-wishers could sign a card and say their good-bys. It’s ironic that the church tells a man ‘here’s your hat what’s you hurry’, when he’s not yet made any plans to leave town. I also discovered the minister’s resignation was a mutual agreement between him and the church authorities. By definition, ‘mutual’ is something that’s directed by each toward the other. It’s hard to tell whether or not God played a role in this resignation decision, but historically I don’t see God doing things by mutual agreement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gail;
-----Although I hesitate to differ with your assessment of God’s doing things by mutual agreement, I somewhat disagree, respectfully. Maybe the first, and most important instance of mutual agreement was recorded in Acts chapter 15. The church leaders came to one accord (Acts 15:25) concerning the problem of how closely the Gentile converts should be required to follow the Jewish law. In verse 28 they testified to the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in that accord. About 275 years later, the church leaders assembled at Nicaea to consider the canon of the Holy Scripture. Again they reached an agreement with each other that was as significant to Christianity as that of the Jerusalem council. All of mainstream Christendom looks back upon these agreements and upon others following them as actions involving the Lord’s participation which clarified Christian doctrine and practices.
-----Matthew 18:18-20 indicates a high degree of regard given by God to mutual agreement between believers, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” And Paul sets mutual agreement on a very high pedestal, “I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought,” (I Cor 1:10) “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with one another in the Lord,” (Philippians 4:2) “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Romans 14:19)
-----I believe the Lord wants and uses our mutual agreements. And as I have pointed out many times before, none of us are flawless. Therefore none of our agreements are flawless. In fact, some agreements are very flawed, but the Lord still extracts usefulness from them. I personally believe that He operates among those agreeing brothers according to their flawed agreements until He is able to extract from them a more precise obedience. I reason it this way because there are so many different denominations, each convinced in their own hearts that their views of the Bible are accurate, and God blesses them all with the presence of His working. This observation is no better seen than in the testimony of missionaries who speak of the tendency for denominational lines to blur and even vanish on the mission field, where truth is dealt with more carefully.
-----So what makes the difference between a mutual agreement done in the Lord and a mutual agreement done by men and tolerated by the Lord? Notice that in the first two major councils of the church at Jerusalem and Nicaea there were three distinct factors involved. First) At Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas related their observations of the Lord’s working among the Gentiles to whom they had been preaching. (Acts 15:12) And at the Council of Nicaea there was hard and careful review of all the literature that the gatherings of the Lord’s people were using and considering to be Scripture. Speaking the truth about the facts and circumstances of the situation is a relevant part of the agreement. In fact, for God to participate in the agreement rather than to just tolerate it, the agreement must consider the truth, all of it. Second) The boundaries of the agreement are defined by the Scripture. At Jerusalem Peter found and quoted Amos 9:11-12. At the Council of Nicaea, they not only combed Scripture, but they pondered carefully the implications of certain Greek terms used in Scripture. Third) The attitude of the debate is not self serving. Instead, all parties of the debate are interested in benefit to both God and fellow men. This is the idea of “other.” It is basic to the essence of God’s participation in mankind’s troubles. Certainly He has nothing to gain from our rat-hole. He is here in His Spirit for the benefit of us, who are “others” to Him. So, by our being like-minded towards one another, we make our best effort to allow the Holy Spirit to participate in the formulation of the mutual agreement by holding to a mind for the others.
-----You and I, Gail, both know well of the mutual disagreement/unilateral agreement that has continued in the church you speak of for several years. We can see it, God can see it, and those who were not considered by the unified leaders can see it. But the leaders who unilaterally continued to agree upon the church’s “direction” could only see the unity amongst themselves and those who agreed with them. We both know they neither reviewed the truth in making their agreement, nor communicated the truth once their agreement was made. And although they knew of what would benefit those who did not agree with them, they did not consider it. That is why their decision about “church direction” was not mutual and could only have God’s tolerance.
-----Therefore, understanding the difference between God’s involvement in a decision and His tolerance for a decision, I am not surprised to be observing such ambiguous events as this quick and disorderly departure of one of the church’s ministers. Considering the possibility of what is being “trumpeted from the rooftops” about the leaders of that church, I can understand how the agreement between this minister and the church authorities could even have the participation of God. The leaders were quietly cautioned not to accost those who were trying to work for peace and truthful mutual agreement, yet they lied about them to the church. And although I have always believed God was going to receive great benefit from the leaders’ efforts in that church regardless of any “chosen direction,“ there would come a time for them to pay for ignoring the fact that God is concerned about “mutual” more than “agreement.“
Steve,
Please feel free to ‘somewhat disagree’ with me anytime. I appreciate your views and insights. As you stated, God want us to be in agreement and plainly tells us so in Scripture. However, I think we sometimes expect God to bless and be mutually agreeable with our decisions, rather than our being agreeable with His decisions. I think in this most recent staff resignation I can’t yet see the God factor. This resignation seemed out of the norm in that neither the bulletin nor newsletter suggested a love offering, money tree or loving bon voyage sentiments. Of course, it’s been so long since we’ve experienced norm, that I wouldn’t recognize him if he sat next to me in a pew.
Gail;
-----Maybe Norm no longer attends that church! You are so right. For our agreements to have His participation they must also agree with His Word. Something about this event is very out of sorts with the usual. It is not like that particular minister to just pack his bags and hike with not even a job prospect at hand. Maybe there are circumstances involved that has the Lord desiring a quick and quiet send-off as well. He does allow private business to remain private, I think. Then again, maybe not. But at any rate, God bless him, and God bless the church authorities there, too. Whether the Lord can actually participate with our agreements, or just tolerate them does mean somewhat less than the mercy we need from Him.
Post a Comment