When preparing to preach recently, I came across some well-meaning followers of our Lord responding to critical situations in inappropriate ways, ways that required correction.  When Jesus is arrested, Peter brandishes a sword in defense, slashing off Malcus’ ear.  Perhaps his first instinct was to open up a window of opportunity for Jesus to escape into the darkness?  I don’t know.  That would be a swift-thinking, logical reaction, however.  But it would not take into account Jesus’ own descriptions of what he must face.  It would not be informed by what we know of Jesus’ character, that he is not one to hide in darkness, but rather that he boldly brings light.  So while it seemed good at the moment, perhaps, to Peter, it wasn’t connected to Christ.  Amazingly, in the midst of the scuffle, in the high stakes of that moment, Jesus takes the time to rebuke Peter and set him straight. This must be important. 

Likewise, Paul, a converted and convinced follower of our Lord, stops in Caesarea on his way to Jerusalem.  There, Agabus, God’s prophet whose credibility has already been established earlier, demonstrates how Paul will be taken and bound when he arrives at his destination.  On the basis of this prophecy, faithful Caesareans urge Paul not to go a step further.  Again, this sounds both logical and responsible.  But Paul corrects them despite their heart-felt arguments: “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart?  I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 21: 11).  It’s a conversation-stopper, but more than that, it’s a perspective-righter. 

God has given some persons very acute minds, minds that research, analyze, formulate, and articulate statements that are both persuasive and impressive.  He has called some of these to leadership in the church.  Many persons are inclined to nod as they listen to such arguments, following their logic and resonating with the issue they address.  The persuaders.  The persuaded.  I've met these persons often and I find both  difficult to talk with. 

I read one such persuasive argument in a recent blog written by a colleague who claims we are not able to find the unity we long for and pray for because we do not agree on the essential elements on which unity is to be based.  It was a persuasive argument and, to my mind, quite airtight.  Yet, I do not believe it is true.  I have no debate.  I offer no anecdotal evidence otherwise.  My concern is that the argument wields fear instead of the two-edged sword I am more familiar with.     

As Christians we need to be careful that we advise on the basis of God’s will, humbly as we understand it from God’s Word, and that we follow advisers that we recognize to be following Christ.  That we do not follow those who counsel us on the basis of sharp, even brilliant, analysis if it capitalizes on fear, any more than we would follow those who offer tender encouragement if it requires a naïve view of security on our part.   Survival on this earth is not an ultimate Christian goal.  Seeking God’s will is.

In the midst of complicated decisions and in the malaise of troubling times, I am all the more earnest about listening for, watching for, waiting for the wisdom of the mature Christian person of faith. I long to hear that perspective in every small group, every board meeting, every spoken prayer, every sermon.  It’s that essential.

Jesus says:  “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:11).  It’s a rhetorical statement, for what possible faithful answer could be considered as an alternative?  Yet, it  requires time spent with God and a willingness to act on what we trust to be true.

And – one more thing --sometimes it requires us to stop in the middle of what we’re doing or where we’re headed, to explain to those around us that, when we are following Christ, our choices don’t have to look good to everyone and they don’t have to feel good either.  The way is good simply because it leads where God calls us to go.

God’s will, God’s redemptive plan, God’s future of hope – these still unite us.  Our failure to get the details organized to the point of consensus does not diminish any of the above.