I Have A Peace About It: Or Do I?
God's Will
03/18/10
Christians often justify their decisions by saying, "I have a peace
about it." Is that a cop-out? Is God's peace subjective? “Peace” is one
of those Christianese terms that is sometimes used in the
context of decision-making as a test for God’s will. Often when a
Christian says, “I have peace about this or that,” they mean that they
take that particular thing to be God’s will for them. Every Christian
I’ve gotten to know over a length of time, no matter what country or
culture they are from seems to have this universal catch-phrase in
common. “Peace” is used as a barometer to determine the right thing to
do in a given situation. Many go so far as to say, “God has given me a real peace about it.” (As opposed to him giving a false peace?)
In my Christian experience I’ve sometimes taken to using the peace barometer to aid decision-making. Rather, I should say that I used to do that. I don’t do it anymore because, uh, well, because…
I don’t have a peace about it.
In all seriousness, as a Christian when you say you “have peace”
about something it means nothing more than you “feel good” about it or
there is an absence of emotional conflict. Some Christians refer to a
“supernatural peace” taking their cue from Philippians 4:7, “The peace
of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and
your minds in Christ Jesus.” This is a comforting passage, but one that
is often mistakenly called upon when trying to determine God’s
will. This is a mistake because the scripture never gives us instruction
to use “peace” as a barometer for determining God’s will—rather, the
scripture uses conviction. Peace can be a byproduct of an already-made choice, but not always.
“Peace” from a biblical view is first “peace with God” (Romans 5:1),
meaning that our enmity with God has been erased by the atoning working
of the Lord Jesus on the cross. Because of Jesus, God is no longer in
conflict with those who have received him. We are “at peace” with him.
Second, biblical “peace” is a lack of internal conflict, or perhaps we shall also call this internal enmity, with
ourselves about something. In both cases this kind of peace does not
proceed or coincide with a decision to do something, rather it is a
byproduct of an already-made decision—sometimes. I’ll explain that
qualifying “sometimes” in a moment.
Take a close look at the book of Philippians for the context in which
Paul was speaking when he briefly, almost in passing made his reference
to the “peace of God which surpasses all understanding.” First look at when Paul
said what he said, as it will aid our understanding of Paul’s context.
Paul wrote this epistle while imprisoned by Rome awaiting judgment by
Caesar for his evangelism activities (1:7). This was equivalent to a
charge of political treason, punishable by death. Paul had peace about
what he was doing and about what he would suffer because he had already
made a decision—in advance—that it was right for him to set his face
toward imprisonment and suffering.
How many of us would have peace with that kind of decision?
Paul’s imprisonment is fascinating since he deliberately set out on a mission that he knew beforehand would get him arrested. Let that sink in. I think I’ll go to jail and be executed. Yes. Ah, yes, I have peace about that. Paul’s
imprisonment was no accident. He intentionally worked in such a way as
to keep himself in Roman custody after he was arrested.
During Paul’s time in Ephesus he set his face to go to Jerusalem
knowing full well that if he preached Jesus while there (and being Paul
he could not avoid it) he would be confronted and arrested. Look
carefully at Paul’s words to his Ephesian brothers. “I am going to
Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me
there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that
imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not count my life of any
value nor as precious to myself…” (Acts 20:22-24). Did you notice that
phrase, “constrained by the Spirit?” This is Paul’s way of saying, “I’m
not really sure I like this idea, but God is moving me in this direction
so I must do it regardless of my personal feelings.” Now, does this
sound like Paul used “peace” to make his decision about God’s will? Not
at all. Paul didn’t need supernatural peace for the decision-making
process, he used conviction provided by, as he said, the Holy Spirit.
Upon his arrival in Jerusalem Paul attempted to appease an angry mob of
Jews that God had given the same blessing of salvation to Gentiles (Acts
22:21-22). At every step making his defense over a period of years Paul
upped the ante saying things to his prosecutors and accusers that were
all but assured to get him into further trouble. It was as if Paul was
orchestrating things so that he could get to Rome, under Roman guard, to
force a hearing for Christianity before the Roman emperor himself (Acts
25:11-12, 26:31-32, 28:18-20). In fact that is exactly what one late
professor of theology taught Paul was doing. “[Paul’s] appeal to Caesar
brought Christianity directly to the attention of the Roman government
and compelled the civil authorities to pass judgment on its legality. If
it was to be allowed as religio licita, a permitted cult, the
persecution of it would be illegal, and its security would be assured.
If, on the other hand, it was adjudged to be religio illicita, a
forbidden cult, then the ensuing persecution would only advertise it and
offer an opportunity for a demonstration of its power” (New Testament Survey, Merrill C. Tenney, “Results of the Pauline Imprisonment,” page 329).
Whether Paul would be executed or set free it was a win/win
situation for Paul and a lose/lose for Rome. If Rome had simply ignored
Paul and sent him on his way, Christianity would have remained in
further obscurity. Paul’s strategy would either bring greater freedom to
Christians to advance their faith, or cause greater suffering for the church at large. Some might have asked, who was Paul to make such a decision for the whole church?
It was in this environment of difficult, sacrificial, painful choices
and imprisonment that Paul wrote to his Philippian brothers, urging
them to sacrifice themselves for one another, writing that his own life
was nothing apart from Christ, even noting his suffering and many
sacrifices to get to where he was. Isn’t that an interesting notion? I’ve
sacrificed a lot to get to prison where I can suffer and be mistreated
for the sake of Jesus, and possibly cause you more suffering.
In the midst of all of this, when Paul knew that great suffering
awaited him still, then and only then does Paul refer to the “peace that
surpasses understanding.” In fact, Paul went on in the same chapter to
describe how to attain that peace: “What you have learned and received
and heard and seen in me, practice these things and the God of peace
shall be with you” (4:9). What example did Paul set for his Philippian
brothers? He was an example of a man who lived godly as he embraced suffering and imprisonment with both arms for the sake of the Church and
the sake of Christ. It was in that context that Paul wrote about peace –
a context where Paul intentionally chose to intentionally suffer though
he could have if he wanted, intentionally avoided it. By chance, do you
see a pattern here?
In this context what do we learn from Paul’s admonition of peace? It
is that “peace that passes understanding” isn’t something that is given
to make decisions. Where will I live, where will I go to school, what will be my job, who will I marry, etc? Paul didn’t even use the peace barometer to make decisions about the persecution of the church. He used conviction.
Feeling good or bad about decisions is not abnormal, and does not
require Paul’s “peace that passes understanding.” The peace that Paul
refers to is supernatural because extreme circumstance require extreme conviction, and sometimes extreme encouragement. Feeling
good or non-conflicted is not peace in the biblical sense. Peace in the
biblical sense is that jaw-dropping, “how does he do that” sense of
security and firm conviction in the face of absolutely overwhelming odds
and opposition where no sense of sense makes sense to accept it. It is
what the Apostle Peter had when he walked calmly to his own execution
and begged to be crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of his
Lord. It is what the early martyrs experienced when they smiled at the
flames alight under their feat as the kindling began searing their
flesh. It is what Paul experienced after he resolutely, firmly,
and purposefully with deep conviction set his face to go toward
imprisonment and suffering and embraced it at every step of his journey
until the butcher’s axe severed his head from his neck. It is not to
stand when the world demands you sit. It is the conviction to stand when
the world cuts off your legs and greases the floor—and your conviction
persuades others to stand with you. THAT is the kind of peace the Bible
promises.
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s a bit delayed.
The night before the Lord Jesus was lead away to be crucified he
prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane asking the Father to, “remove this
cup from me” (Luke 22:42). Yet at the same time his resolution was set,
“not my will, but yours be done.” Did Jesus have “peace” at this
momentous moment of decision – the decision to embrace the cross? Not in
the slightest. Look at the following passages: “And there appeared to
him an angel from Heaven, strengthening him (22:43). Rhetorical
question: Why would Jesus need strengthening?
Answer: Duh! Look at the following verse, even more revealing: “And being in agony he
prayed even more earnestly” (22:44). Jesus’ stress was so great that it
brought about hematohidrosis, causing blood vessels around sweat glands
to burst so that he “sweat drops of blood” (22:44). Was this a Jesus
“at peace” or was this a Jesus resolute in his decision regardless of his feelings? Clearly, the latter.
He was suffering great mental and emotional stress knowing what was
to come. Yet remarkably he embraced the cross anyway. In stark, almost
violent contrast Hebrews 12:2 paints the picture of Jesus’ kind of peace
this way: “Who for the joy set before him endured the cross,
despising its shame…” Jesus didn’t embrace the suffering of the cross
because he “had peace about it.” He embraced the suffering of the cross
for the peace it would bring us later.
When you make decisions about what course your life will take
remember that “peace” is not designed to help us make decisions. If that
were the case then all of our decisions would be designed to run from
suffering like children. Rather, peace is the byproduct of decisions
that are pleasing to God, regardless of suffering or joy. Yet also
remember the suffering of the Lord Jesus who did not experience peace in
the immediate aftermath of his decision. Instead he set himself
resolutely to go to the cross because of his conviction and love for us.
“Peace” had nothing to do with it except for the peace he was making
between God and men.
Whom do you admire in the scriptures or in history the most? Chances
are, like Jesus they are people who endured great suffering or turmoil,
and either because of it and/or through it transformed the world around
them.
And they didn’t always feel good about it.
In contrast to the worldview that runs from suffering, that makes it
decisions through escapism, the scripture encourages times when we must
embrace suffering, for out of it and through it great deeds are done,
lives are transformed, and yes, even heroes are made. For there is
nothing admirable about the man who embraces his personal peace at the
expense of doing the right thing.
