How often has a headline like the one above appeared in the newspaper? Most religious groups do not make their appeal in such a manner. In fact, they would probably be horrified if anyone were to make such a suggestion. But Jesus made it clear that He came to bring division.
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I am come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.’ And ‘a man’s foes will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:34-37).
This teaching is expressed in bold and unmistakable terms, and it provides for us a paradox since Jesus is usually associated with peace, having even taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). But in this passage He is endorsing division. Why?
His purpose is not just to startle or shock us but to illustrate a point that is overlooked and ignored (especially in our society)-that there is something more important than unity or peace: Jesus Himself.
When He places Himself ahead of all else, it is understood that along with Jesus certain concepts that He represents are also included. But before discussing those matters, let’s notice first of all the existence of some groups devoted exclusively to peace above all else-including Jesus.
“Peace Is a Priority for Baha’is”
The above title appeared on the front page of the “Religion” section of The Dallas Morning News on July 13th of this year. The religious group of five million adherents is dedicated to the concept of global peace (an ambitious objective for anyone to hold). They believe that the main barrier to effecting world peace is racism; they are working diligently to provide solutions to this social ill. They conduct workshops and volunteer “to mediate disputes” (1G). These actions are commendable; certainly we all would like to see the ugliness typified by racism die and be permanently buried.
But there is more to the Baha’i agenda than resolving one of the world’s great problems. Baha’u’llah, the founder of the religion, “taught 150 years ago that he is the culmination of all the great prophets (which itself contradicts the New Testament gws) and that after a period of war, poverty, and famine, the world will experience unparalleled unity” (1G).
Does this statement bring to mind the words of John Lennon’s “Imagine”: “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will live as one”? The Baha’i dreamers “believe they can speed up what they have long called the New World Order by bringing together all the races.” Further, a local spokesman says there is a purpose for the painful conflicts that now exist: “It’s because the world is pregnant and about to give birth to the New World Order” (1 G).
“New World Order”
Many people are not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a “new world order,” and there are at least three good reasons. The first is that the last time there was a one world government, all citizens were expected to conform to the thinking of the state. Christians were put to death in cruel and vicious ways because they refused to agree with and submit to the thinking of the empire of that day. If they would have admitted that there were many gods and that Caesar was one of them, there would have been no conflict. But they stubbornly persisted in the belief that there was but one lord, Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). That truth netted them persecution and death. They chose loyalty to Christ (division) rather than peace (which would have been compromise).
And what would happen today if there were another “new world order”? Who would be in charge of the ideology-the “politically correct” crowd? Horrors!! We would probably be forced to give up capitalism, freon, and a juicy steak. Schools would rewrite history (even worse than they do now) to serve the interests of the state. Anything divisive (such as Christianity or Truth) would be outlawed; books would be banned or burned. But the leaders of the “new world order” would consider these “necessary evils” for the good of society as a whole. No thanks.
A second reason that Christians find a one-world mentality disagreeable is that experience has shown that any kind of unity not based upon the word of God champions practices that are contrary and disobedient to its teachings. The last time the entire world was united, it was in rebellion against God. After the flood, God again commanded man to “fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1). But the whole earth decided to remain in one place and build a city and a tower “whose top is in heaven; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).
What is the unity suggested by the Baha’is based upon? As much as can be determined from the newspaper article, unity is based upon the teachings of the founder of the Baha’i religion. His original name was Mirza Husayn-Ali, but while imprisoned for claiming to be the new messenger, he changed his name to Baha-u-llah (“the glory of God” ) (6G). “Baha’is believe in one God and regard Baha’u’llah as the most recent of divine messengers who include Abraham, Moses, Khrishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, and Mohammed” (6G). What, no Joseph Smith? “We believe Baha-u-llah is the return of Christ, the fulfillment of the prophecies of all other religions” (their spokesman affirmed, thus showing little familiarity with the Scriptures. When Jesus returns, it will not be for a prison term but to render judgment (2 Thes. 1:7-9).
The third reason most are opposed to the “new world order” is due to its associattion with Secular Humanism. In fact, it is one of the five tenets of that system of belief, along with atheism, evolution, moral relativism, and personal autonomy. Furthermore, the idea blends in with “New Age” philosophy, also. Again, if this ideology were ever to reign supreme, Christianity would be the first religion to be outlawed. To be sure, the leaders of this movement might leave a few of the liberal denominations around, as a sort of token representation of their magnanimity, but those rabble-rousers clinging to the archaic notion of absolute truth would be eradicated in this new “tolerant” system.
Jesus and Division
Unity can only really be attained when man sets aside his own thoughts and submits to God’s, as revealed in the New Testament. Man-made religions contradict one another, as do even false interpretations of Christianity. The Baha’is, for example, meet for worship every 19 days (does Louis Farrakhan know about this?). From whence springs such a notion? The Law of Moses had its Sabbath, and the Christian system observes the Lord’s day; what is the basis of meeting every 19 days?
Unity will probably never be achieved on humanistic grounds; let’s pray that it does not. At the same time, we ought to be encouraging all people to obey the gospel, thus putting on Christ, in Whom is genuine unity. Returning to Matthew 10:34-37, let’s once again focus on His statement of division. What did He mean by it, and why did He say it?
He obviously wanted us to know that He is greater than unity based on anything other than Himself (secular humanist ideas, Baha’u’llah, etc.). Not only can unity not be based on men or non-Christian ideology, all such efforts to divide our allegiance to Jesus must be rejected. In other words, we must be united with Him and stand for His teachings first and foremost-even to the point of separating ourselves from any hindrance. WE DARE NOT COMPROMISE JUST TO GET ALONG!
In putting Him first, we also put Truth first. Opinions may be compromised; expediencies may enjoy a measure of flexibility; but Truth cannot be altered. The teaching of Christ was revealed to mankind just as God wanted it. Christians do not have the right to diminish the potency of the Word or to demean it by allowing that although God said it, we don’t necessarily have to be hard-nosed about it (translate “believe it and practice it”).
Yes, Jesus wants us to have peace with all men, but not at the expense of renouncing Him or Truth!