The apostle Paul asked the question about pleasing God or man in Gal. 1:10. In that passage he makes it plain that to please men in that context would be to displease Christ. Yet the question of pleasing God and man is much more complex than that. Should you please men? Yes – 1 Cor. 7:33,34; 10:33. Should we please God? Of course 1 Thess. 4:1. Can you please both man and God? Apparently you can – Prov. 16:7. But we have to immediately add but not always. This is a good illustration of the nature of proverbs: whilst they are a general summary of the principles and trends that operate in life, often they are not absolute – cf. 1 Pet. 3:10-13,14 cf. Matt.5:10. Also, consider Jesus on the cross – why did He end up there when He obviously strove to please God and man?
So what’s the answer to this seeming conundrum? It is much like the call for us to be obedient to human authorities (Rom. 13:1ff) when yet there are times when we shouldn’t (Acts 5:19). So we should strive to please men (rather than be cantankerous and hard to get along with – 1 Thess. 2:15), but draw the line when it displeases God. To say it another way, we should become all things to all men, yet not without law to Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-22).
But there is a particular problem associated with pleasing people. We want to leave a good impression – not always out of pride for ourselves (although some people are desperate for everybody to like them) but because we want our actions to reflect well on God. We want people to think, she was nice, and she is a Christian, so if I’m ever in the market for a religion I will check her religion out – that sort of idea. We are trying to embody Christ-like-ness and thus advertise Him.
Obviously there is some value in that consideration but there is danger. Which comes first – pleasing the Lord or pursuing peace? Yet we are to seek peace. But purity first (Jas. 3:17). We can get things back to front. A good example is the example of the golden calf. Things were getting a bit disquieted. Where is Moses? He’s been gone six weeks – he’s probably dead. Aaron tried to pacify and please the people and gave them the golden calf. I don’t believe Aaron believed in the idol;, but he wanted to keep the peace and prevent rebellion. Things went well. The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Moses turned up and everything went pear-shaped and ugly! Should Moses have taken a course on How to win friends and influence people?
When Saul returned from the slaughter of the Amelekites he allowed the people to carry off some of the spoils of war despite God’s instruction to utterly destroy everybody and thing (1 Sam. 15:3,21). Spoil was one thing that encouraged men to go to war (remember Achan?). Soldiers weren’t well-paid in that day, especially when you consider the work, conditions and risks involved. Doubtless there were those in Saul’s army who wanted to carry some things home to their families. Saul is well-pleased until Samuel turned up and things went pear-shaped and ugly. He told Saul that God would remove him from being king, and he hacked Agag, the Amelekite king to pieces. Should he also have taken a course on “How to win friends and influence people?”
And who can forget the 401st prophet, Micaiah? Four hundred prophets (false) all prophesied a favourable outcome for kings Ahab and Jehosophat in their war against Syria (1 Kings 22). Then along comes Micaiah who spoils the party by offering a contrary view! As Jesus said in Luke 6:26, Woe when all men speak well of you, for so did the fathers to the false prophets.
Herod Philip had married Herodias. He had inherited none of Herod the Great’s, his father, dominion. He lived as a wealthy citizen in Rome. Herod Antipas, his half-brother, visited him there, and whilst there he seduced Herodias and persuaded her to leave her husband and marry him. She came back to Palestine with him and life went along as life often does after divorce and remarriage in a routine that suggests all is well with God and man on the issue – that is, until that day came when John the immerser, in an audience with Herod, said to him it is not lawful for you to have her! (Mk.6:18). Consequently, at the conspiring of Herodias, John the immerser, that bright and shining light for God, was beheaded. Should he have been more diplomatic, even excusing Herod on the basis that you can’t unscramble eggs. Or perhaps have not included adultery as something Herod needed to repent of?
Something closer to home, both geographically and chronologically, is an event in the life of Stephen Cheek whose body lies in the Warwick cemetery. He wrote of the digression occurring in the church at the time with these words, Love, nowadays, is often an excuse for error, apology for wrong-doing; glossing over, and winking at departure from the straight line of God’s Word. If you allow all religiously-inclined persons are Christians, address them as such, act with them as such, and…bid them God-speed, then you will be spoken of as a large-hearted man, big with sympathy, and full of love. But on the other hand, if you stand for the truth of God, if you cry aloud and spare not against the latitudinationism of the age, if you insist on calling those Christians whom the New testament calls Christians, and only such…then you will be called narrow-minded, a bigot, and wanting in love.
When he first came to Queensland he went to Zillmere with a brother named Fred Troy. They met with a group in an old slab chapel. As Cheek and Troy entered the building one man who had met them earlier rose to his feet and pointed to them, saying, These are disciples, and pointing to another group, he said, We are baptists. Then, indicating all, he said, But all present are Christians. Cheek replied good-humouredly, I will soon show you that they are not all Christians present. Should he have agreed with all for the sake of good relations? Whatever, he baptised 16 that week, unto the remission of their sins.
We do nobody any favours by sacrificing the truth on the altar of peace and harmony. Jeremiah accused the false prophets of his day of crying, peace, peace, when there was no peace.
It is possible to disobey God in a vain attempt to curry favour for God. We can lie for God supposedly to advance the cause of Christ. Under Catholic doctrine there is a provision for lying in certain situations. When John F. Kennedy was running for President he was at a candidate’s debate and people were allowed to ask questions from the floor. One of the questions referred to this doctrine and whether, if he was elected President, he would avail himself of it. A catholic clergyman who was with him as one of his aides whispered to him not to answer the question and he didn’t.
We can fail to disfellowship disobedient brethren because we don’t want them to get mad or sad etc. We want them to have a good opinion of the church, but that’s hardly the issue – the issue is doing what God says and let the chips fall where they will.
Should we be nice? I guess it depends on what we define as “nice”. Charles Hodge posed that question some time ago. Was John the baptist always “nice”? When the Pharisees turned up for baptism he didn’t say, “It sure is good to see you fellahs come out today, and I’m going to make this as enjoyable and pain-free as I can”. John was a preacher, not a dentist! Was Jesus always “nice”? Peter’s affirmation to not let Jesus be taken was met with “Get Thee behind me Satan”. See also Matt. 23. Was Paul always “nice”? I fear that niceness will destroy us. If niceness becomes our guiding star instead of truth it will. We will never say anything controversial – we will never confront people with their sin; First pure, then peaceable (Jas. 3:17) – not peace at any price.
So much of the ground of truth has been given up in an attempt to please man. The Bible starts with Genesis and the desire to please man starts with the way Genesis is treated. A professor in the American Lutheran Church said some years ago, To call himself reasonably well-educated and informed, a Christian can hardly not afford to believe in Evolution. Evolution, including human evolution, is no longer in contention…to announce that you do not believe in Evolution is as irrational as to announce that you do not believe in electricity.
Why do some insist that we have to reinterpret Creation in terms of evolutionary dogma? If we have to do it on that subject why not on all others too? As Dr. John Martin says, Why do we Christians accept the Biblical ideas of virgin birth and resurrection, which go against known ‘science’, but we do not accept the Biblical teaching on the age of the earth or the flood of the days of Noah when much true science is in support of the Bible? Perhaps we love the approval of men more than the approval of God (John 12:43).
Brethren, let us preach the truth in love, not sacrifice the truth for love, so called.