We’ve been discussing how the kingdom of God affects our political, economic, and moral/social beliefs at Trinity Young Adult Group. I wanted to take the time to address this issue in the most straight-forward fashion I am able, trying to be sensitive to a variety of contexts. All theology is contextual, even the name “Jesus Christ” is a first century Greek rendering of “Joshua the Anointed One (Messiah).” Everything we have is conditioned by our culture, including our own theology.

Biblically, we frequently see the authors of Scripture writing against the practice of homosexuality. This is seen in both the Old and New Testaments. But we also see passages in the Old Testament telling us that it is wrong to wear clothing woven of two types of material, and the New Testament teaches that women should wear head coverings and be silent in gatherings of believers. So we have to look at the text in light of the surrounding culture and context.

There were three types of laws given in the Old Testament: civil, moral, and ceremonial (religious). Civil laws were for a specific time and place culturally and no one would argue that they still need to be upheld today. Ceremonial laws foreshadowed Christ but are no longer in effect – not because they have been abolished – but because they have been fulfilled. Moral laws such as the Ten Commandments often transcend time since the New Testament repeatedly affirms and upholds them. The issue of homosexuality falls in the realm of moral law.

Investigating Culture & Context

Author William J. Webb wrote an excellent book that performs an in-depth analysis of these issues of culture and context in Scripture entitled Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Webb coins the term “redemptive movement hermeneutic” to talk about the movement of the text towards a greater ethic. He uses slavery texts as a neutral point in the argument, as almost all of of us can agree today that slavery is wrong, while Scripture seemingly condones it.

A closer look reveals that the Bible always pushed the surrounding culture on towards a greater ethic regarding slavery. While other cultures were free to rape and pillage female slaves, the Israelites were instructed that if they took a slave as a wife (slept with her) then she would have the same protection and status of being a wife. Granted, when looking at that through a 21st century lens, it still appears crude because the Bible still condoned taking female slaves as wives. But for the culture and context in which those instructions were given, this better treatment of slaves was radical, indeed this instruction was already very difficult for the culture to understand and accept in this historical context. It’s easy for us to impose our modern values on ancient cultures and judge them, but doing so fails to acknowledge our own biases.

So on and on in the Old and New Testaments, we see the Bible pushing towards better treatment of slaves, with Paul even urging Philemon to free his runaway slave Onesimus. We also see numerous passages discouraging people from becoming slaves and encouraging people to seek freedom. Thus the “redemptive movement” of the text pushes us on toward a greater ethic regarding slavery, namely the freedom of slaves and abolishment of human slavery.

In regards to women in society and in the faith, we see a similar redemptive movement in the Old & New Testaments. We see women being acknowledged for military conquests and obedience to the LORD in the Old Testament, and the acknowledgement of female prophets and a greatly elevated social status in the New Testament. The surrounding culture saw this as radical and suppressed women, while Scripture pushed the culture forward towards the better treatment of women. Women were the first witnesses of Christ’s empty tomb, and women have been included in the visible sign and seal of the new covenant, baptism (previously only men were included in the visible sign and seal of the old covenant: circumcision; cf. Colossians 2:9-12). The redemptive movement of the text is thus the greater elevation of women’s status in society and in the Church.

Now let’s look at homosexuality. Both the Old and New Testament denounce homosexuality as an abominable practice. If the surrounding culture shared this view, then we could begin looking for clues that God was pushing for better treatment of and eventually acknowledgement and tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle. But this isn’t the case. The surrounding culture was fairly open to homosexuality, yet the Bible still opposed it in both Testaments. Thus the redemptive movement is against the grain of culture; the Bible continues to affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful. If we were to continue that movement today, then we must also stand against the grain of culture and continue to confess that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Jesus Frees People Trapped in Sinful Lifestyles

This doesn’t mean that we need to single it out as the worst sin ever, though. Jesus continually loved people yet maintained a solid stance on sin. For instance, the woman who was caught in adultery was brought before Jesus (possibly naked). The Law demanded that she be stoned to death. Jesus notices that only the woman is brought before Him and not the man with whom she was sleeping, and He begins writing in the sand. The Pharisees are trying to corner Him, trying to see if He disregards God’s Law. He then says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” What a profound answer. Of course everyone drops their stones and walks away. Some have speculated that perhaps Jesus was writing specific sins in the sand that each of the men standing around had committed, but no one can be sure. Finally only Jesus and the woman remain. Jesus then asks her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:3-11).

Jesus shows this woman great mercy, yet at the same time He never dismisses the fact that her behavior was sinful. No doubt the woman understood that she was wrong, yet still felt loved by Jesus. This is the PERFECT example of how we are to love all sinners (not forgetting that we ourselves are sinners). Regardless of the specific sins, we are called to show God’s love and mercy to sinful people. At the same time, we are not to ‘dismiss’ sins and pretend as though they are not an issue.

I’m all for having struggling sex addicts, couples struggling with premarital sex, porn addicts, cohabiting couples, homosexuals, etc. in the Church. All of these behaviors fall under the category of “sexual immorality.” At the same time, we must not neglect Scriptures dealing with sexual immorality while ministering to these individuals. These individuals must recognize that their behavior is sinful and not pleasing to God. They should be making an active attempt to leave their lifestyle of sin (repentance), and faithful preachers of the Word must exhort them to do so (just as Jesus told the woman to leave her life of sin).

My problem with many churches today is that we allow open homosexuality, cohabitation, and premarital sex in the church to go unchallenged. In our efforts to love those trapped in these lifestyles, many pastors fail to faithfully proclaim God’s Law and Gospel to these hearers. This was Jesus’ example: He loved the sinner, yet still called sin as it is and exhorted people to leave that lifestyle.

But They Can’t Help It

Many folks actively living these lifestyles will not admit that they are doing anything wrong. In fact, many homosexuals now believe that genetics has more to do with their lifestyle than personal choice. Many Christian apologists spend countless hours trying to prove that there is no “gay gene.” But it doesn’t matter whether there is or isn’t. Genetics is irrelevant in the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality as a sin. It has already been discovered that there is a gene predisposing people to alcoholism, but when these individuals go to court for drunk driving, can they plead, “but I have the alcoholism gene?” NO! They are still wrong for not controlling their behavior despite their genetic predisposition to it. Even if a solid genetic link to homosexuality is established, the same is true: it is not an excuse to invalidate clear Scriptural teaching regarding homosexual behavior. The Holy Spirit can and does enable people to overcome any genetic predisposition to sin that they may have.

But All They Want is Acceptance

Many people these days are not looking for a loving God who is also just and punishes sin. They are looking for ‘acceptance.’ To them that means accepting their sinful lifestyle as being OK (I’m not talking exclusively about homosexuals in this sentence). The problem is, a Christian cannot approve of a sinful lifestyle, but they can love the individual trapped in it. I sincerely hope that Christians can better show love to homosexuals and all those trapped in sexual immorality. It is also my sincere hope that preachers faithfully proclaim God’s truth concerning sexual immorality while showing love to those ensnared in it.

Speaking the Truth in Love

Proverbs 27:5-6 reads: “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” We are not doing our homosexual neighbors any favors by glossing over God’s holy standards. In fact, we are merely sending them kisses as an enemy, since we are lying to them about God’s judgment. “Wounds from a friend can be trusted….” Sometimes we have to tell people the truth, even if it hurts their feelings, in order to truly be a friend to them. Don’t get me wrong, I am angered when I see radical evangelicals holding up signs that say “GOD HATES FAGS” and other such thoughtless hatred. But at the same time, we cannot go to the other extreme and give the false impression that God tolerates homosexual behavior; He makes it clear that it is an abomination in His sight.

The key is to show love to our homosexual neighbors by befriending them, serving them, and helping them as you would any neighbor. But when the topic comes up (and it will), don’t withhold the truth from them. Be honest about God’s Law, but also share the Gospel. The Bible is clear, “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1 John 1:10). If your homosexual neighbor refuses to believe they are living in sin, they cannot know God, and telling them that truth means they may not like you very much. Welcome to the lot of a true Christian, the same lot that belonged to the prophets. Most true Christians were never very popular, neither was Jesus. That’s why the world killed Him.

What About Gay Christians?

The final group that we must consider are unrepentant homosexuals who believe themselves to be Christians. Homosexual orientation is temptation, homosexual behavior is sin. There are many true Christians who struggle with homosexuality. But someone who believes their homosexual lifestyle is compatible with God’s Word and does not believe it is sinful is simply not a child of God – and as a faithful ambassador of Christ, it is your responsibility to show them why that is the case using God’s Word. 1 Corinthians 5:11 says, “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” This is very intolerant – yet this is God’s Word. Tolerance is a cultural value, not a biblical value. Be careful to note that this does not mean shunning those who make no claim to be a believer, verses 9-10 make this clear: “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.”

Conclusion

So in conclusion, those who claim to be Christians (“anyone who calls himself a brother”) yet live in unrepentant sexual immorality are to be excommunicated from our fellowships (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13), and this is actually the loving thing to do (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). To those who are not Christians and make no claims to be, we are to befriend and declare God’s Word to them (be honest about what sin is, and show them how Christ lovingly desires to set them free from the power of sin and death). Many in our culture are not really looking for a holy God, they want a false God that will excuse their behavior, so long as they are “happy.” The most loving thing the Church can do is stand against the grain of culture and proclaim God’s Word as it really is, not as our culture would like it to be. This is the redemptive movement of the Scriptures and of our God. He wishes to redeem sinners from the homosexual lifestyle. He wants to free them from this painful way of living and restore them to a right relationship with Him as their Heavenly Father. He loves them very dearly, and we should too. It’s simply hard for our culture to understand that sometimes being honest is hurtful, yet being honest is the only truly loving way to be.

I will best love my homosexual neighbor by being his or her friend, and hopefully they will learn the profound truth of Proverbs 27:6, that even though the truth about their behavior may hurt their feelings, wounds from a friend can be trusted. Even more so I pray and hope that they will encounter Jesus Christ, whose love can cover a multitude of sins.

No related posts.

“If your sermon is just as true had Christ not died and risen from the dead, you did not preach the Gospel, you gave advice.” – JR Vassar

Related posts:

1. A powerful sermon about sin…

I had to share this. This is “I Shall See” by composer Michael John Trotta. It is performed by UAB Chamber Choir, conducted by Dr. Brian Kittredge. The lyrics are based on Psalm 27.

No related posts.

It’s no secret to anyone who knows me well that I have little to no sense of fashion. If there really were a fashion police department, my rap sheet would be a foot-high stack of paper. Here’s one of me and Tiffany’s finer fashion highlights:

OK, it’s not really that bad all the time. That was from a murder mystery dinner party, and we were playing the role of a TV preacher couple. I think we nailed the part

Tiffany actually has a really good sense of fashion (when she chooses to exercise it). On several occasions she has stopped me before I left the house by asking, “Are you really wearing that?” Whether it’s the combination of my dress pants, collared shirt, and grass-stained tennis shoes or my jeans, t-shirt, and sandals with white socks, I can never seem to keep the fashion police off my back.

In all my fashion quandaries, I sometimes wonder what the purpose of clothing is, which reminds me of what happened in the garden. After Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree,

“…the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’  The man replied, ‘I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.’ And the Lord God said, ‘Who told you that you were naked?’ … The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:7-11a, 21, NET).

Clothing covers our nakedness. But why is nakedness a bad thing? Why does it need to be covered? Because after the rebellious act of Adam and Eve, they could no longer stand before God without fear. In their shame they hid from God. It is God who ultimately covered them completely. Some have speculated that since garments of skin were made, this may have been the first animal sacrifice, thus covering both their nakedness and their guilt. Either way, God points to their redemption in the One who will attack the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15).

But what has become of clothing? As I tweeted recently, “Clothes were originally to cover our nakedness. The objects made to cover our shame are now designed to bring us glory and divide us.” A couple thousand years ago, the apostle Peter taught Christian women:

“Let your beauty not be external – the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes – but the inner person of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and tranquil spirit, which is precious in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:3-4, NET).

In other words, our adornment (the appearance we project) should not come from our worldly sense of fashion, but rather from our character. This is not to say that it is wrong to wear current fashion trends, but we should be modest and not seek to glorify ourselves by our clothing (which is what modern clothing is often designed for).

Clothing divides us. Something as simple as a purse can create a class distinction between a girl who shopped at the Coach store versus a girl who shopped at the Goodwill. But this isn’t just picking on ladies. A Boss, Cerrutti or Zegna suit will set a man apart from a guy who shopped for a suit at JC Penney. Once again, I’m not saying that it is wrong to own nice things, but we should examine our motives for why we purchase certain clothing and accessories over others. This can also be more subtle, such as the priest or pastor in a collar and the ‘layperson’ in jeans and a t-shirt. I’m not opposed to clergy garments, but once again, our motives must be examined. Some clergy would do well to ditch the collar and dress more casually, while others may need to consider donning it more frequently.

Christians are clothed with (His) righteousness. Romans 13:14 says to “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” Ephesians 4:24 says to “put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” Just as God completely covered Adam and Eve’s shame and guilt by clothing them in the garden of Eden, He also completely covers our guilt and shame by the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ:

“Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, ‘Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?’ I said to him, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the ones coming out of jthe great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 7:13-14, ESV).

Isaiah 64:6 says “all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in [God's] sight” (NET), but God loves His Bride, the Church, so much that He gave up His life for Her “to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:25-27, NET).

Our feeble attempts at earning God’s grace are the equivalent of sewing fig leaves together to cover our shame, but He has freely and mercifully provided us with spotless garments of righteousness and holiness. Let us glory in this free and eternal clothing, and not in man-made fashions which divide us and cause us to glorify ourselves.

No related posts.

There are tons of denominations and factions within the Christian Church. The comic above made me chuckle out loud; but then it made me think. It made me think about how arrogant and rebellious I am, and how this same arrogance and rebellion exists in most Christians, especially in North America. Church planting movements and missional networks abound. And while there are many faithful Christians who genuinely are reaching out to unreached populations, there are equally as many who are planting something new because they don’t like how things have been going in their previous fellowship, or because they believe they can do a better job, or because they think they understand the scriptures in a unique way that is superior to others’ interpretations. Jesus said,

“You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life” (John 5:39-40, NET).

I have read this passage repeatedly throughout my life and not a few times have felt God convicting me of my own pride and stubborn rebellion. My spiritual journey has run the gamut from LCMS Lutheran > agnostic > Pentecostal > non-Trinitarian neo-Pentecostal cult > non-denominational > Reformed > Christian Churches/Churches of Christ > Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) > back to LCMS Lutheran, flirting with NALC Lutheran and Eastern Orthodoxy. At various stages I’ve also been part of house churches, new church plants, and recently, missional communities. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with any of these, in fact many of them are great and have been beneficial to my faith. But the most important thing is simply being a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ and “the Way” that He taught His disciples, the first ones sent to proclaim the kingdom of God (which is the meaning of apostle: one who is sent away). But to be a Christian is also to be part of His Church, not simply to follow Him in our own little kingdoms.

“Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us” (1 John 2:18-19, NET).

This passage of Scripture is often interpreted to be referring to the concept of unconditional security in salvation. I frequently participate in the Christianity Stack Exchange community, and a recent question asked how this passage is interpreted by proponents of conditional security. As I studied the passage while formulating my response, I began to realize that beginning with the paradigm of conditional vs. unconditional security unnecessarily reads a cultural and theological bias into the interpretation of this text, namely by saying that it is talking about salvation in terms of “in” or “out” and our soteriological context. That is a very Western concept, and was largely foreign to the apostles. For them, salvation was found only in the Church (referring here to the gathered and ‘sent’ people of God, not to a building nor an institution), and to leave the Church was to leave Christ. Granted, this has soteriological implications, but primarily as a consequence of leaving the Church and remaining outside of Her.

The context of this passage is that the αντιχριστοι (antichrists) were teaching false doctrine, and they “went out” from the κοινωνια (fellowship, participatory community, mentioned in 1:3). The verb μεμενηκεισαν implies that they did not remain, abide, reside, continue, stay, endure, and/or were no longer present. We don’t have a great English term to effectively translate this concept, so you often see it in all of the above forms (and some others as well).

The apostle’s view was that we come to the Church and we remain in the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ, and to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4). Thus there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation apart from union with Christ’s Body (which is the Church). This is very sacramental (mysterious) and involves how we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Trying to understand this passage within the worldview of Western Christian philosophy compartmentalizes salvation as a divine singular action that can occur outside of the Church if someone confesses Jesus as Lord and believes certain historical facts about Jesus or simply prays a special prayer. James reminds us that even the demons believe correct doctrine about God (James 2:19) and that “faith apart from works is dead” (2:26).

I came to realize that this passage has very little to do with the doctrines of conditional vs. unconditional security. The meaning is simply that these false teachers left the Church (the apostolic fellowship), and by doing so proved that they also left Christ; for to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body (the theological implications of this passage have more to say about the concept of apostolic succession than they do about Western soteriology). The real question it should cause us to ask is whether or not we are part of the Church that has remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles. Not to a specific denomination. Not to a certain emphasis on the Christian faith, whether it be missions, evangelism, worship, or discipleship. But to Christ. Not a specific doctrine about Christ, but faithfulness to the Messiah Himself.

We leave the Church when we neglect to gather with other believers. But we also leave the Church when we seek to preserve or advance the goals of an institution or an organization more than we do the mission of God. As I’ve pointed out before, the mystery of God’s will is “to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:9, ESV, emphasis mine). Earlier today I tweeted that “The revolution will transcend institutional factions,” and I included the hash tag #postdenominational. I’m not talking about a blind ecumenism that trades truth for false unity. I’m talking about the kingdom of heaven, united in Christ Jesus our King and sent on His mission.

No related posts.

Thanks to Tim Harvey of Christ Church in Fort Wayne, IN (Ben Sternke leads this missional community), the fivefold ministry test (APEST) from Building a Discipling Culture is now freely available online. Check it out.

Related posts:

1. N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry
2. Spotlight on Stephen Ministry
3. Women in Ministry: Inconsistencies

I thought I’d share a quote with you. I recently shared this as my Facebook status, so I simply copied and pasted it here:

We truly are addicted to sin and the theology of glory. Only God’s divine intervention can save us from ourselves – not any amount of self-help or positive thinking.

No related posts.

This is part 4 of a series where I’ve been thinking through what it means to be in community and to be a true friend. In part 3 I discussed our fear of vulnerability. Here is my fourth observation:

We often mishandle conflict. In part 3 we discussed that when we make ourselves vulnerable to others, they will inevitably hurt us. And we will hurt them. But the benefits of community and friendship far outweigh the pain encountered in the long run. I am talking about interpersonal conflict in this post, not persecution or other external forces. Allow me to share a passage of scripture with you:

“Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses” (Proverbs 27:5-6).

In other words, true friends WILL hurt you. And they will do it because they really love you. And you will hurt them if you really love them. You will hurt them in order to help them (your intention is important here). This is the purpose of discipline in parenting, and it is also a source of conflict among adults. I will continually refer back to this verse throughout this post. None of us is perfect, and the more vulnerable we make ourselves to one another, the more apparent this will become. Jesus gives us a great model for handling conflict when it comes to dealing with serious, unrepentant sins of a brother or sister in Christ (Matthew 18:15-17). This model should not necessarily be applied as a blanket conflict resolution model, however, for reasons too lengthy to expound upon here (Hint: Jesus is quoting a passage in Deuteronomy when He is making these statements, which gives clues for the context.). As such it will not be discussed further, except to say that it applies primarily to major church discipline issues, not petty miscommunications between two people (which is what most conflicts are).

Some conflict is healthy, but too much can also be indicative of other problems. Here are some ways we mishandle conflict:

Some people fear conflict. These folks avoid conflict as much as possible, and often run when serious conflict occurs. This breaks a community because the conflict, rather than being an opportunity for growth, now becomes a point in time where a member of the community abandoned friendships rather than dealing with the conflict. The problem with this fear is that it often creates bigger conflicts. Let me share a story:

Heather is the church secretary. She feels that her pastor is disrespecting her when he asks her to make coffee. It’s not that she minds making coffee, she simply feels that his tone of voice is demeaning. She doesn’t ever bring this up with the pastor because she fears this would just make it worse; and besides, it’s not that big of a deal. Months go by and Heather feels like the pastor is becoming more and more demeaning. She often has arguments with him in her head, and her anger and frustration with him gradually increases over time. Of course she never lets the pastor know this. She is losing sleep over this because she is going over conversations in her head that she would like to have with the pastor – it consumes her thoughts. She decides not to say anything to him in person, however, because she knows how he will respond. Heather begins coming in early to make coffee just so she won’t have to deal with the pastor asking her to do it. One day a few months later she is running late to work and the pastor asks her if she’ll make the coffee. She angrily storms off to to make it, too frustrated to speak. The pastor is utterly confused.

Sound familiar? If so, you might be someone who avoids conflict. The driving force behind a fear of conflict is being afraid of losing possible outcomes to a situation, which is a form of fear of losing control. This also conceals a prideful belief that she perfectly understands the pastor and knows how he will respond to her feelings (which isn’t true). In Heather’s mind, her current situation (having to continue feeling demeaned) is better than what she perceives to be a worse situation (telling the pastor how she feels). She hopes that eventually the issue will simply disappear. This is why she began coming in early. But avoiding conflict never resolves it. It only makes it worse.

Often, the source of conflict is simple miscommunication. Simply stating the facts in a situation on both sides can resolve many would-be arguments. The person who is afraid of conflict needs to learn to view conflict as an opportunity for communication and growth, rather than immediately assuming that conflict will always result in an argument. You rarely have to argue in conflict resolution, if done right. The funny thing is that most conflict does result in arguments for those who fear it, because they have waited so long and resentment has begun to build up for the other party. Had they simply communicated early on, many conflicts would no longer exist. In this case, the pastor kindly asked Heather to make coffee daily because he didn’t want to make her feel like a maid by simply ordering her to do it as one of her daily job tasks. He didn’t mind making it himself, but he knows that other staff members complain about the strength of the coffee when he makes it, but people are very appreciative when Heather makes it. Had Heather communicated her feelings to the pastor early on, he would have apologized and offered to make the coffee himself. Heather and the pastor could have discussed a simple solution that would result in the best scenario for everyone, and no argument would have occurred. But Heather (incorrectly) assumed that she already knew how he would respond; after all, she had played the scenario out in her head hundreds of times….

Often our perception may not be reality, but the person who avoids conflict assumes that their perception of others is perfectly accurate. This deprives the community of this person’s insights, and he or she is actually being an enemy of the community when they fail to wound a friend who needs to hear the truth. The first step to overcoming fear is admitting it! It is OK to let the community know that you fear confrontation. This will help the community know to show extra grace towards you when dealing with conflict. But you must let them know when you perceive conflict, most groups can’t read your mind!

You can also identify someone within the community you trust who can help you learn how to safely approach conflict in an assertive way. Addressing conflict with factual, non-emotive language is often a great start. Instead of Heather saying, “When you tell me to make coffee, I feel demeaned by you,” she could have simply stated, “I do not mind making coffee, but I do not appreciate being asked to do it every day; I will remember to do it on my own.” This most likely would have prompted discussion, not an argument. The pastor would have a chance to explain that he did not mean to demean her, and she would come to see that his intentions were good and he did not expect her to make it all the time if she does not want to. The community can help the person who fears conflict by intentionally appreciating their insights and observations about the community, especially when sharing them involves stepping out of their comfort zone.

Some people have an overly aggressive response to conflict. These people are driven by a fear that they are inadequate for handling the situation. Only instead of admitting their weaknesses, they blame others for them and put others down so that they can feel better about themselves. These folks tend to be performance-driven and will typically explode over seemingly insignificant things. For instance, take the following story:

Michael is a worship leader at a local church. Michael loves playing music and he loves the Lord, but he’s not the most tech-savvy guy. He often feels stupid for not having better worship software, but he barely knows how to use PowerPoint and he can’t seem to find anyone reliable who is willing to handle the slides on Sundays for him. A new member, Jim, joins the church who formerly ran MediaShout for his old church. He tells the pastor that he is willing to handle MediaShout for the church and the pastor excitedly tells Michael about this. Michael is worried that Jim won’t be able to make it to church one week and no one else will be able to run the software. Begrudgingly, he asks Jim to teach him MediaShout. A few weeks go by and Michael’s worst fear is confirmed: Jim is unexpectedly ill and cannot make it to church that Sunday. Michael scrambles to get MediaShout up and running, but cannot seem to get it to work right. The pastor asks Michael if he’s ready for the service and Michael snaps back, “NO! If this stupid software would work right I’d be ready to go! After Jim installed this new software everything is always jacked up!”

Rather than acknowledging his insecurity about the technology, Michael blamed Jim and the technology itself for the problems. Too concerned about his reputation and not the more important task at hand (worshipping God), Michael failed to admit his own lack of knowledge about the software and did not attempt to identify other options for sharing the songs with the congregation during worship that Sunday. Michael overreacted to the situation, and his tendency to explode will damage his relationships with the community.

Those who react aggressively to conflict need to learn to be honest about their fears and insecurities, rather than trying to maintain a reputation for something they are not. The community needs to give extra grace to these individuals to make them feel comfortable admitting their weaknesses. It is important for these people to know that the community still respects and values them despite their weaknesses. These people often measure their value by their performance, and they need to have the gospel applied to them by the community to realize that they are accepted not on the basis of their own work, but by grace through faith in Christ.

One final example: Billy feels that it is wrong for Heather to wave her arms in the air during worship; it is distracting to him and he feels that she is seeking attention when the focus should be on Christ. Heather is a new believer who is very excited about her newfound faith in Jesus and feels moved by the Holy Spirit to wave her arms in worship to the Lord; when Billy brings this up with her, she is devastated and keeps her hands at her sides from then on, but always feels constricted in worship (I have actually dealt with this exact scenario a long time ago). Billy took an aggressive response to what he perceived to be conflict, incorrectly calling Heather’s pure motives into question. Heather avoided the conflict by simply complying with Billy’s preference. This is an unhealthy resolution to this conflict, and will result in more problems over time (especially in Heather’s worship life). Billy should not have been aggressive and assumed that he understood Heather’s intentions, and Heather should not have conceded his point and avoided asserting her honest intentions. A better solution could have been for Billy to begin sitting closer to the front so that Heather is behind him and would not be a distraction. Heather would then be cognizant of this and could make it a point to always sit behind him. She could have asserted that she felt free worshipping in this manner, and Billy could have communicated that this was his own personal distraction and weakness, not that she was wrong for worshipping in this manner.

MANY conflicts have a miscommunication or misunderstanding at their root, and can often be resolved simply through courteous discussion. It is also common that conflict occurs due to conflicting preferences. In these cases, sometimes a compromise can be reached and sometimes the parties must agree to disagree. It is OK to agree to disagree. Someone does not always have to assign blame, especially when conflicting preferences are the root of an issue. Stick to the point of the conflict, and avoid arguing. If there is disagreement, negotiate an outcome – do not argue. In this case, Heather wants her boss to stop asking her to make coffee. It does not matter whether or not the boss agrees that he was demeaning her or not. Her perception may not be the reality, and feelings are subjective. A negotiation is not about blame nor about who is right or wrong. It is about accomplishing the desired outcome. This is important. Keeping these pointers in mind will help resolve conflicts in community, which are opportunities for growth – not problems.

There is much more that could be said about conflict, and about community and friendship in general. But that’s all from me, folks – for now. Do you have any additional thoughts? What am I forgetting about that is important? What needs further explanation. What is good about it? Anything else you’d like to share? Comment all you’d like….

Related posts:

1. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 1
2. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 3
3. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 2

This is part 3 of a series where I’ve been thinking through what it means to be in community and to be a true friend. In part 2 I discussed how we make authenticity into an idol. Here is my third observation:

We fear becoming vulnerable. I wrote on a recent Facebook status that “vulnerability almost always involves getting hurt and resolving those hurts. Forgiveness and reconciliation are the keys to success here. But the benefits of community and friendship far outweigh the pain encountered in the long run.” I’m going to discuss handling conflict in part 4, but for now let’s consider vulnerability.

We all fear vulnerability. It’s natural – to an extent. When you open yourself up, it’s possible for others to wound you more deeply. If a complete stranger insults me, it will not bother me too much in most circumstances. But if my wife insults me, it will deeply hurt. Why? Because I love her and value our relationship, and I have made myself extremely vulnerable to her. I could waste a lot of words on this, but instead I’ll use some pictures (Tiffany always tells me I need to improve my methods of communicating with visual learners!):

Battle Armor
I’ll use my relationship with Tiffany as an example, shown in the above photo. As a former soldier, I know that I am least vulnerable when wearing my “full battle rattle,” the modern equivalent of medieval armor. This involved a bullet-proof vest, Kevlar helmet, rifle, sidearm, and more. When wearing this armor I am also typically paying closer attention to my surroundings – looking for signs of danger. I am continually in defensive mode when visibly carrying a weapon. While I am fairly secure in my “armor,” I am also not able to truly focus on Tiffany, and the armor is not conducive to relational intimacy in the context of our home.

When I remove my armor, as shown above, I can then best focus on Tiffany and I’s relationship and intimacy. The armor is not the problem. It has/had its appropriate context, but my relationship with Tiffany is not that context. The same is true for our emotional armor. For many of us, it had or still has an appropriate context. Perhaps you were physically/verbally/emotionally abused in the past. These experiences will cause you to form heavy armor in order to survive. But this same armor will need to be removed in order to have meaningful relationships. And the more we’ve been hurt, the harder it is to remove this armor. Why?

Because of trust. When we make ourselves vulnerable and are continually hurt as a result, the natural defense mechanism is to begin distrusting people. This takes time to overcome, but trust can be rebuilt in the context of a loving community and family. It’s no accident that Christians are called to treat one another as siblings; the family is God’s appointed means of discipleship and His chosen image of His relationship with us. Even if our biological family was a poor model of God’s grace, the Church can function as a healthy family. This doesn’t mean that it won’t have problems, but it means those problems are handled in the light of God’s love and grace.

The key to removing battle armor is intentionally deciding to learn how to trust again.

Armor as a Disguise
But battle armor is only one of two common kinds of emotional armor that many people don. The second is armor as a disguise.

People disguise themselves because they are not confident in their identity. This is usually driven by a fear of inadequacy or not being liked or accepted. This fear can stem from being bullied in the past or from perceived expectations (whether from family, culture, peers, etc.). There is really no underlying difference between the popular jock/cheerleader and the geeky kid everyone picks on (but who tries to act cool) – both are afraid of being themselves. They are afraid that they will be “found out,” and that people will not like or accept them anymore. They simply have varying degrees of success in playing this game.

In order to remove this type of armor, we must become assured of our identity. But this doesn’t mean “finding ourselves” and becoming proud of who we are. That is the world’s way of removing this armor. But inadvertently this method only reinforces the armor. That’s because in order to know who you are, you must also know why you’re here and where you’re going. The best answers the world can offer to those questions are that you are here as the result of a cosmic accident that resulted in an evolutionary process and you are here to breathe, procreate and then die. At best you are here to make the world a better place than when you left it. Men long for immortality, that’s why they make statues of themselves, dedicate buildings in their name, and try to leave a lasting legacy.

But Christianity offers a radically different solution. Your identity comes from God. Life is not about us. We are called to die to ourselves and live for Christ. Too many churches today make Christianity seem as though it is all about finding our purpose in life. But Christ called us to crucify our own selfish desires and follow Him in His kingdom. He then gives us a new identity as His child. You are accepted, significant, and secure in Christ. Don’t believe me? Click here to see what the bible says about you if you are in Christ. If you are not sure if you are in Christ or not, or you know that you are not, read this first. This printable truth sheet can serve as a handy reference for learning or reaffirming your identity in Christ. Simply enter your name to customize it then click “Customize.”

They key to removing armor as a disguise is knowing our identity in Christ.

Look for part 4 in a few days which will discuss handling conflicts.

Related posts:

1. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 2
2. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 4
3. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 1

This is part 2 of a series where I’ve been thinking through what it means to be in community and to be a true friend. In part 1 I discussed that relationships require significant time commitments. Here is my second observation:

We make an idol out of authenticity. Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck in their popular book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, state:

“… godliness demands a lot more than just being real. In fact, godliness demands that we stop acting like we want to and start acting like Christ. I sometimes find, especially among my peers, that authenticity is not a self-abasing means of growing in holiness, but a convenient cover for endless introspection, doubt, uncertainty, anger, and worldliness. So that if other Christians seem pure, assured, and happy, we despise them for being inauthentic.”

I’ve pointed out before that much of what passes as authentic community today is really just white, middle-to-upper class coffee shop culture. Kevin Deyoung asks: “Why does incarnational ministry usually mean hanging out at Starbucks instead of McDonalds?” False authenticity allows us to hide behind a facade while maintaining a never-ending “existential crisis of faith.” It’s cool to be on a journey of seeking God, but it’s not cool to find Him and be confident about who He is (and isn’t). I know I am probably over-quoting DeYoung here, but he says it well. In his book, Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, DeYoung writes:

“We are so in-tuned with our dysfunctions, hurts, and idiosyncrasies that it often prevents us from growing up, because maturity is tantamount to hypocrisy in a world that prizes brokenness more than health. I’m not advocating stuffing all our feelings, but we must learn that self-expression and being true to ourselves are not the surest guides to Christlikeness. Sincerity is a Christian virtue, as is honesty about our struggles. But my generation needs to realize that Christianity is more than chic fragility, endless self-revelation, and the coolness that comes with authenticity.”

True authenticity means dealing with the messy realities of life (sin) and confronting them with the comfort and power of the gospel. It means more than merely recognizing that none of us has it all together; it means growing together towards maturity in Christ. As I’ve said before, “Thinking less of ourselves doesn’t help us focus on Christ, but rather thinking of ourselves less. In other words, even though we may admit that we are sinners, the solution is not to continue professing our brokenness but to begin professing Christ’s sufficiency. Instead of dwelling on ourselves, we need to dwell on Christ. Instead of being more honest about our shortcomings, we need to be more cognizant of Christ’s perfect righteousness (that is credited to us by faith!).

The focus of our spiritual journey is a person: Jesus Christ. The journey is certainly important, but not if you never get to know the one with whom you sojourn. The beauty is that we couldn’t even make the first step along the path, yet Christ decided to carry us through the journey because of His great love for us. Jesus Christ is the path itself as well – the way, truth and life.”

Related posts:

1. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 3
2. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 1
3. Authentic Community & Friendship – Part 4