Sometimes I think it would be a worthy project just to teach fellow Christians how to fight well, how to draw a line in the sand fairly, how to defend the ideas and the people that need to be defended, how to argue with one's spouse well, how to engage in political discourse well. That's sorta what I have tried to model in the segments I have done in which I have talked to liberals. We need a lot more of that, I think. Rather than a default 'peaceful' mode, I think it might be better to propose a default 'faithful' mode. Such a default would be eager to unite with those whose hearts are, as ours, seeking Christ, but also quick to acknowledge an enemy of the cross as such. Much misery is caused by this lack of discernment, or giving in to the urge to agree rather than the call to stand faithfully by Jesus. Of course, we will all draw that line in different places. I'm just in favor of moving the needle more towards healthy division. I think, despite our hyper individualism, the West has actually been more conflict avoidant than lots of more communally-minded places. Perhaps it is because, when we are centered on the level of the individual, such compromises to the faith don't seem so consequential. Anyway, I appreciate your pushing your audience towards more conflict. Yes, Jesus explicitly pushes us there. Let's be better at it in the GMC than we were in the UMC!
Great point! Just yesterday I was discussing with some students that we often avoid conflict because we’re so bad at it. If every disagreement turns into a shouting match or name-calling contest, it’s no wonder people are afraid to voice their disagreements.
Dr. Watson, In my opinion, this post serves as a warning to those Christians who’ve been deluded into believing that tolerance to culturally accepted sins and practices should be tolerated within the Church, as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. But Paul made it clear to the Church in Corinth that this type of attitude towards culturally acceptable sin was unacceptable within Christ’s Church (1 Corinthians 5). Had Paul exhortation been followed by the UMC at its inception, this implosion of itself could have been avoided.
This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 11:19: “…there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized”. Also, the entire book of 3 John is written to a minority faction in a church that has stayed faithful while the leader of the church strayed from sound doctrine. On the other hand, I was once part of a church that refused to associate with any other christians. They divided over literally everything. I was eventually removed from the ministry for going to conferences belonging to other (quite orthodox) denominations. It seems to me that the one of the important tasks of our day is determining which doctrines are first tier, which are second tier, and which are third tier, and then deciding how to respond to differences in each case. We won’t always get it right, but at least we can be conscious about our decisions and not just go with the flow.
Could you help me understand why MAGA proponents want our altars to promote the American Flag and our special music to be about pride in America for at least there I know I am free; even in the new global churches? If we are not to muddy waters by blending allegiances could we have some help via a healthy discussion on keeping the church separate from the state of our government? There's even discussion on why we have to be globalist by virtue of our new name. Seems to be a quiet disaffiliation already running afoot from globalism?!!
I agree. I'd also add that Conflict avoidance is also paired with Conflict pursuit. Jesus does, sadly, divide people but his goal is to reconcile all to God. He also confronted evil specifically and sometimes with a very strong rebuke. My attempt, and I hope a growing approach is avoid needless and unproductive conflict. Paired with this is the need to confront as the Spirit leads. Jesus brought a sword. He also told us not to live by it. I'd also note that when the prophets denounced people they were on their face before God interceding, with groaning and weeping pleading for mercy on those very ones their vocation forced them to confront. A prophet without tears is in danger.
Very much agreed in nearly every particular. A church exists according to its agreements and its peace and love and togetherwalk in the one Spirit that is holy; as any of these falter, so falters the church. There is one element I should point out:
> Each of these acts he commands them to perform is a sign of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God does not take over this world. It disturbs this world, irritates this world, motivates this world to hate us. But it does not break into this world. It only visits, before the end of this world.
Sometimes I think it would be a worthy project just to teach fellow Christians how to fight well, how to draw a line in the sand fairly, how to defend the ideas and the people that need to be defended, how to argue with one's spouse well, how to engage in political discourse well. That's sorta what I have tried to model in the segments I have done in which I have talked to liberals. We need a lot more of that, I think. Rather than a default 'peaceful' mode, I think it might be better to propose a default 'faithful' mode. Such a default would be eager to unite with those whose hearts are, as ours, seeking Christ, but also quick to acknowledge an enemy of the cross as such. Much misery is caused by this lack of discernment, or giving in to the urge to agree rather than the call to stand faithfully by Jesus. Of course, we will all draw that line in different places. I'm just in favor of moving the needle more towards healthy division. I think, despite our hyper individualism, the West has actually been more conflict avoidant than lots of more communally-minded places. Perhaps it is because, when we are centered on the level of the individual, such compromises to the faith don't seem so consequential. Anyway, I appreciate your pushing your audience towards more conflict. Yes, Jesus explicitly pushes us there. Let's be better at it in the GMC than we were in the UMC!
Great point! Just yesterday I was discussing with some students that we often avoid conflict because we’re so bad at it. If every disagreement turns into a shouting match or name-calling contest, it’s no wonder people are afraid to voice their disagreements.
Dr. Watson, In my opinion, this post serves as a warning to those Christians who’ve been deluded into believing that tolerance to culturally accepted sins and practices should be tolerated within the Church, as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. But Paul made it clear to the Church in Corinth that this type of attitude towards culturally acceptable sin was unacceptable within Christ’s Church (1 Corinthians 5). Had Paul exhortation been followed by the UMC at its inception, this implosion of itself could have been avoided.
This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 11:19: “…there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized”. Also, the entire book of 3 John is written to a minority faction in a church that has stayed faithful while the leader of the church strayed from sound doctrine. On the other hand, I was once part of a church that refused to associate with any other christians. They divided over literally everything. I was eventually removed from the ministry for going to conferences belonging to other (quite orthodox) denominations. It seems to me that the one of the important tasks of our day is determining which doctrines are first tier, which are second tier, and which are third tier, and then deciding how to respond to differences in each case. We won’t always get it right, but at least we can be conscious about our decisions and not just go with the flow.
Could you help me understand why MAGA proponents want our altars to promote the American Flag and our special music to be about pride in America for at least there I know I am free; even in the new global churches? If we are not to muddy waters by blending allegiances could we have some help via a healthy discussion on keeping the church separate from the state of our government? There's even discussion on why we have to be globalist by virtue of our new name. Seems to be a quiet disaffiliation already running afoot from globalism?!!
I agree. I'd also add that Conflict avoidance is also paired with Conflict pursuit. Jesus does, sadly, divide people but his goal is to reconcile all to God. He also confronted evil specifically and sometimes with a very strong rebuke. My attempt, and I hope a growing approach is avoid needless and unproductive conflict. Paired with this is the need to confront as the Spirit leads. Jesus brought a sword. He also told us not to live by it. I'd also note that when the prophets denounced people they were on their face before God interceding, with groaning and weeping pleading for mercy on those very ones their vocation forced them to confront. A prophet without tears is in danger.
Very much agreed in nearly every particular. A church exists according to its agreements and its peace and love and togetherwalk in the one Spirit that is holy; as any of these falter, so falters the church. There is one element I should point out:
> Each of these acts he commands them to perform is a sign of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God does not take over this world. It disturbs this world, irritates this world, motivates this world to hate us. But it does not break into this world. It only visits, before the end of this world.