Peacemaking—Appeasement Vs. Reconciliation—Matt 10:27-30

Russ Ramsey

Peace as Appeasement—Appeasement is the same thing as ignoring problems in order to maintain civility. When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, this is the kind of peace he was referring to: appeasement. He did not come to pacify or appease or be soft. He came to change the world. This is important because every day we are given opportunities to appease people when doing so not only fails to bring about peace, it actually prevents it. If Jesus had appeased the people wanting to crown him King by allowing them to define what His Kingship would entail, rather than allowing the purposes of God to define it, He would have submitted to the very thing Satan himself tempted Him to do—become a reigning political king. We are so tempted to appease, but this can prevent peace, not just avoid it.

Peace as Reconciliation—Reconciliation presupposes brokenness. Peacemaking presupposes strife. Peacemaking as reconciliation causes pain and initiates inevitable conflict. Why? Because it is done among sinful people all wanting to be right—6.3 billion of them at last count. Reconciliation is not for the faint of heart. Everything about it is hard, yet necessary for peace. Asking for forgiveness hurts but is necessary. Forgiving the sins of others is hard but needed. Urging a friend or family member to repent of their sins hurts. And in the role of mediator between the conflicts of others, listening to the confession of another’s sins or to their tangled and opposing viewpoints sympathetically can lead to the risk of misunderstanding and failure. But peacemaking initiates inevitable conflict because it is seeking reconciliation where there brokenness—and there is brokenness between you and others and between you and God.