When to delay the immediate

“Do your best to maintain the unity of the Spirit by means of the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit. In the same way, you were called to the one hope of your calling. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all.” (Ephesians 4:3-6)

All you need to be convinced that maintaining unity is difficult is a re- read of the first three words in this text. I did a pretty extensive search and didn’t find a single verse that said that this unity happens easily.

We had some lively discussion last week because the command to deal with brewing conflict immediately seems completely unworkable and has been disastrous in some particular examples. Before discussing these situations I think it is imperative to emphasize two reasons addressing brewing conflict without delay is important.

Jesus commands it (Matthew 5:23-26). That should be all the reason we need. But it’s also true that when we are in conflict we generate victim-villain-rescuer versions of the situation. Delay gives time for this version of the facts to become entrenched. Delay makes it more difficult to discern our contribution to the conflict. Delay makes it more difficult to discern any explanation for the position of the other person that does not include the words “stupid, or mean.” Paul wrote (Galatians 6:1 & 2 Timothy 2:25 & Romans 12:18-20) that we must approach the other person in gentleness and kindness.

A key idea is that Matthew 7 says there are times when we need to do something else before we talk with the other person. Specifically, we need to take the log out of our own eye BEFORE we go talk to them.

“Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:4, 5)

I think the main “log” being mentioned here is probably the inability to talk with them in gentleness and kindness.

There may be 3 or 4 times when a delay might be appropriate. But I can’t wait to hear what y’all think about it.

To get you thinking, I remind you of a Sunday conversation we had way back in August or September. We were talking about this same pattern we all have or interpreting conflicts in light of the victim, villain, and rescuer scenario. I mentioned that God reveals a different scenario in the Trinity. The three persons do not function as victim, villain, and rescuer. They function as giver, recipient, and the agent through whom the gift is given. I think that might give us some insight as to how we can break out of the version of reality we trap ourselves in and some good ideas about when delay may be appropriate.

Resolving Conflict

I Corinthians 1:10 gives a wonderful "big G" goal for any group of believers. "Brothers, I urge all of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be in agreement and not to have divisions among you, so that you may be perfectly united in your understanding and opinions."

Unfortunately, real world experiences in the body of Christ indicate that conflict is inevitable.

The trouble is that when any of us get into conflict situation (or a potential one), we create a version of the situation that…

A. Makes me a "victim"
1. not to blame
2. justifies all sorts of evil because “I was mistreated”

B. Makes someone else the "villain"
1. they are to blame, reinforcing my blamelessness
2. justifies even greater acts of evil (I can kill Abel)

C. Seeks a "rescuer"
1. an advocate that will right the wrong on my behalf
2. or at least confirm the victim and villain roles I have created
3. justifies gossip as a coalition building strategy

That's humanity's plan A for dealing with a conflict. If you carefully consider human conflicts from minor disagreements to marital spats to world wars, you see that we use this approach all the time. It is not God's plan at all.

Matthew 5:23, Matthew 18:12-17, and Galatians 6:1, detail three times when you absolutely must drop everything and go talk to a member of the body one-on-one to get things straightened out; (1) when you have offended the other (Matt. 5), (2) when the other has offended you (Matt. 18), and (3) when anyone has been doing anything wrong (Gal. 6). It reminds me of something my grandfather used to say. "I'm only afraid of 3 kinds of snakes; live ones, dead ones, and any other kind."

Anytime there is any conflict, potential conflict, or brewing conflict it is a Biblical command that the people involved must talk about it immediately, and face-to-face.

It does not say "wait until the worst of the storm blows over." The reason delay never works is that "giving it time" accomplishes little more than letting the "victim-villain-rescuer" version of the situation, that both sides are creating, have time to become entrenched. Don’t delay. Drop everything. Address it at once. That's not my comfort level. That's the Bible.

It does not say "talk to 4 or 5 other people and ask them to pray about it." Or "double check that you're not just making something little into something big." As we have said, talking to anybody other than the person involved is continuing in the "victim-villain-rescuer" version you are creating. You are most likely looking for people to be rescuers or at least supporters that will reinforce your version of the situation.

It does not say "send an e-mail" or "send a letter." It says, seek them, find them, and talk to them. (I prefer the more distant and detached e-mail... But I am wrong.)

The Bible also makes it clear as to the attitude we need to have. Matthew 7:3-5 says to "look at the log in your own eye first, then you can see clearly to deal with the speck in your brother's (or sister's) eye." Notice it does not say, look at the log in your own eye and then don’t worry about whatever problem the brother may have.

We have talked about the "victim-villain-rescuer" version of the situation that we all create and have said that we need to challenge the "victim" portion of the tale we construct by asking the question "what is my role and my contribution to this conflict?" That's because while we must talk face-to-face and immediately, we must also do it humbly, with our own faults in clear perspective.

We must approach the other person recognizing our own faults which refutes the “victim” role we prefer. We must also approach the other person in kindness, gentleness, and respect, assuming the best in them. Which refutes the “villain” role we like to assign. We suggested asking yourself the question. "Why would a decent and reasonable person act this way?" It may help you see the other person's perspective more readily.

An example is the potential conflict between Paul and Philemon. Paul was in prison and could not go to Philemon face-to-face. A letter was the best he could do. Philemon would be well within his rights to severely punish Onesimus, his runaway slave. Paul did not say to Philemon. "I know you can be harsh and demanding, and you're within your rights to be very harsh here." Paul said "So, although I have quite a lot of confidence in Christ and could command you to do what is proper, I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love…. Since I was confident that you would obey, I wrote to you, because I knew that you would do even more than what I am asking you to do." Paul assumed that Philemon was well-intentioned and wanted to follow Christ.

This is another reason to address conflict and potential conflict immediately. The longer you allow you version of the situation to remind you what an unreasonable jerk the other person is being, the harder it is to approach that person assuming them to be well-intentioned and genuinely seeking to follow the Spirit.

Because we all fear that these things won't go well. The next question is always, "what do I do when they won't listen and things just escalate and get worse? Matthew 18 answers the question. You call a halt to the meeting and then meet again with one or two other people. These people do NOT need to be witnesses to the entire potential conflict. They need to be witnesses to the discussion between the people directly involved. They need to listen to both sides with both sides present. They need to help each side see how they are contributing to the conflict. They need to help each side see how the other is well-intentioned and trying to follow the Spirit. They may need to mediate a resolution. Or simply help lead to amicability and restored trust in the disagreement. Sometimes complete harmony is not possible and the disagreement accomplishes the purpose of God (Like Paul and Barnabas who separated over Mark) as long as it is done with loving and prayerful support for the heart and intent of the other.

But sometimes, none of that works. What do you do then? Again, the Bible gives us clear instruction, but that's for next time.

Turning Conflict into Dialogue

Moving from Conflict to Dialogue

In our study of conflicts in the Body of Christ, we have looked at several topics

How is the Body supposed to work? (I Corinthians 12:20-26)
The “principle of the little toe” – every member is valuable and key to the function of the entire body. It weakens the body when one member is fighting, but the body is just as weakened when one member is silent and doesn’t give input.

What causes conflicts in the body? (James 4:1,2)
One or more people set a personal agenda. These goals (with a little “g”) by definition always compete with the Goal (with a big G) of furthering the Kingdom of God. When people pursue little “g” goals, it inevitably starts fights and quarrels. Some want square wooden tables and some want round steel tables, so the fight begins.

How should we deal with conflict? (Ephesians 4:25-32)
Two keys are to get input from everyone (the principle of “little toe”) and to make sure that everyone stays focused on promoting the kingdom above all else (the principle of “the big ‘G’”).

Our next question is….
How do we move from conflict to dialogue? (Acts 15)

There are some practical things to do that can be shown by illustration in the Scripture, but aren’t really taught (that I can see). The first is that we need to challenge our own version of the events. When we are in conflict, we tend to select a version of the facts that does 4 things.

1) Makes me the victim – “That serpent gave it to me.” “That woman gave it to me.” There are many examples. In the book of Malachi at least 6 times, God says, “You have done XYZ” (it’s a different charge every time) and the people respond “How have we done XYZ?” We create a version of the facts that portray us as completely innocent victims. (This completely prevents any needed repentance.)

2) Makes someone else the villain – “That serpent gave it to me.” “That woman that you made, she gave it to me.” The children of Israel told Moses “You brought us out here to die of thirst. You should have just left us in Egypt where at least we had food and water.” (This completely prevents an open mind, an attitude of acceptance and a willingness to forgive.)

3) Makes me helpless – The children of Israel never said “Moses, we’re sorry for following you out here because now you’re going to feel responsible for our thirst. But we don’t want you to feel bad, it’s our own choice to follow you or not that put us here.” David actually blamed Uriah for his own murder. In so many words, David concluded, “I had to have him killed because he wouldn’t go sleep with his wife but insisted on sleeping on my doorstep. He gave me no other option.” (This rationalizes sin – “It wouldn’t do any good to tell her what I think, she wouldn’t listen anyway, I’ll just be quiet.” Which we noted a few weeks ago is theft.)

4) Need for a rescuer – This springs out of the other three. Since I am the victim, and you are the villain, and I am completely helpless, then clearly I need someone else to make this right. The northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah both repeatedly turned to treaties with Assyria, Egypt, each other, and whatever other power they could identify. God saw every one of those treaties as worshipping other gods. (Jeremiah 2) (This creates a wrongful dependence on something or someone that is not God. This also motivates a lot of gossip.)

On Sunday we’ll look at Acts 6 (and the conflict over the food distribution) and Acts 15 (and the conflict over the Jewish law) specifically asking how people did or did not create a version of the facts that accomplished those 4 keys and how we can challenge ourselves and each other when we begin selecting a version of the facts that fits this description.

How different perspectives become different goals.

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No-one claimed any stake to personal property but they shared freely with anyone in need. The apostles testified to Jesus with great power and they all enjoyed abundant grace. No believers were needy because periodically somebody would sell a house or land and give the apostles the money from the sale. That money was distributed to anyone in need. One man named Joseph sold a field and gave the money to the Apostles (they called him Barnabas which means: son of encouragement).” Acts 4:32 and following (paraphrased)

In our national capitalistic ideal the communalism of this and similar passages often takes our attention. But please notice that communalism is not the key. The key is (in The Message Bible):

“The whole congregation of believers was united as one - one heart, one mind!”

It’s easy to have generosity at that point. It’s also the Biblical foundation to avoid conflict. Conflict is never avoided by one person running his own agenda regardless of what anyone else thinks. Conflict is never avoided by just being quiet and not speaking up. God is honored when we are truly one heart, one mind. He is not interested in peace obtained through dominance or deceit.

As we discussed last week, we lose the unity of one heart and one mind when we fail to stay focused on the one Goal (what we called the “Big G” goal)

“There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

So, the questions are, how and why do we shift from being united in one Goal (big G, furthering the kingdom of Christ) and allow differing perspectives to become different goals (little g’s).

On Sunday we’ll discuss together:

Ananias and Saphira in Acts chapter 5
The widow’s distribution in Acts chapter 6
The persecution in Acts chapter 8
The sorcerer named Simon in Acts chapter 8

In each of these we’ll ask “How and why, did people make the downward shift to pursuing lesser goals?”One hint to understanding how we make the (little g) goals into matters of inappropriate importance is found in the verses that precede Ephesians 4:4.

"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:2,3)

Conflict

“There are many parts, but one body. Every individual part is valuable and necessary.” (Very brief summary of I Corinthians 12:20 and following).

The perspectives of each one are important to understand the entire picture on any issue we address. If the little toe were cut off, it would die, but the entire body would suffer loss of blood, pain, imbalance, and difficulty walking. If you think the little toe on the body isn’t very important you would not mind cutting yours off to make your point.

“What causes conflict, quarreling and arguing in the body of Christ? It happens when people in the church have the wrong goals. When they are chasing all the wrong things, for all the wrong reasons, they end up fighting over meaningless stuff and it escalates to violence.” (James 4:1 and following, paraphrased)

When we have different perspectives…For example, if I think we need more room to grow numerically while you think we need to grow numerically before we worry about needing more room… that does not inevitably lead to any conflict. Different perspectives are a normal treasure-filled resource for the body. Different goals on the other hand, will inevitably lead to conflict. James, the brother of Jesus, says that we get angry when we can’t obtain the things we want… our goals (James 4). When our goals are blocked we react with anger. In our anger, we act aggressive, hostile, pushy and caustic or we become silent, withdrawn, passive, and helpless. Please note that both patterns of behavior are rooted in anger.

It’s easy to see the aggressive, hostile and pushy acts as hostile. But we tend not to think of silent withdrawal as anger. But, silence and passive withdrawal can be just as much an act of anger as screaming and yelling. What makes silence a hostile, angry act is the principle of “the little toe.”

“I am angry with you, so I will punish you and get even with you by denying you any real access to my heart and soul. That will show you. That will leave you just as lonely and isolated as you deserve to be.”

I remember once on a grade school playground, one little girl had her feelings hurt. She yelled at her friends that had hurt her. “You just wait till I’m dead, then you’ll be sorry!” She then stomped off. Sometimes the angry edge to silent withdrawal is easily evident. Most of the time we are more sophisticated than the grade school level.

Silence is a refusal to share the deep value of the “little toe” perspective. It is theft.

Eph. 4:25-29 begins talking about speaking truth to one another. It specifically says that we need to speak the truth to each other because we are one body. Then it either changes the subject abruptly to discuss anger or the topic shifts to anger because refusing to speak truthfully to one another is rooted in anger. Then it either changes the subject abruptly to discuss theft or the topic shifts to theft because refusing to speak truthfully (rooted in anger) is essentially denying the other person what they really have a right to… i.e. theft. Finally the topic abruptly jumps to speaking to one another in encouraging ways, or it is contrasting the same theme all along. “You owe it to the members of the body to bring your perspective in honesty and humility, rather than lashing out or withdrawing in anger and thereby stealing from them your input, to which they have a right.” I would argue that the Holy Spirit did not jump from one disjointed topic to another (starting and ending with how we speak to one another) but that He skillfully and wonderfully made the connections that refusing to speak truth to others in the body is rooted in anger and is theft.

Once we move past the point of speaking truthfully and lovingly from different perspectives, we set different goals. Once we set different goals, we begin the conflicts and quarrels.

Growing

I never spent much time watching the grass grow. I appreciated the fact that it is a slow and barely discernable process. I generally find it more rewarding (and distressing) to look at the grass now and then in two weeks. The impact of growth is much more obvious.

The same is true in personal and spiritual growth, but once in while a moment of growth is noted and should be celebrated. One of the hardest things for me to deal with is when I feel I have been falsely accused. Everything within me screams for the justice that would come from a clear hearing of ALL the facts. (Yeah, I know, I should read the book of Job more often.)

But this morning I got an e-mail that accused me of some things that weren't really an accurate appraisal of the facts. The girl that wrote the e-mail felt like she had a good idea and I took it away and took the credit. (To trigger my defensiveness even more, she copied my supervisor.)My first reaction was to explain that her perceptions were inaccurate. Instead, I took a deep breath and prayed. Rather than clarify the facts my accuser had misunderstood or misstated. I supported and apologized for the hurt she felt from the facts as she saw them. In the process I clarified the ways in which my actions were not intended to take her idea out of her hands, but to put her idea in the hands of people who could much more successfully bring it about. The real difference was that my explanation was not an excuse, it was an agreement. I recognized that her initial idea was great and wanted it to succeed as grandly as possible. So I had put it in the hands of the best people to push it forward. I emphasized that I greatly appreciated her contribution and regretted that her continuing contributions were not sought as others were "given the ball." I recognized her wound, approved of it, apologized for it, and asked for her help to make sure I didn't hurt someone like this again.

It felt clean. I felt clean. She softened, apologized, and agreed to meet. (For what it's worth, she also copied my supervisor on her apology and expressed her appreciation and support of me.)

Why it's so hard for me to remain non-defensive when accusations don't accurately reflect all the facts, is an interesting and profitable topic of consideration. At the same time, however, the explanation is irrelevant. It excuses nothing. Repentance is still called for, no matter the underlying reasons. It is my responsibility to react in an "other-centered" way every time.

I'm just afraid it will be like watching the grass grow.

Including the kids

I was recently challenged to work hard for ways to include the kids in everything we do as a church. So, this past week when I knew we needed to pray for one of our members, I asked Caleb, who just turned three to "ask Jesus to help...." He got all shy and silent, so I just prayed outloud on his behalf and thanked him for praying with us.

I just heard from the person we prayed for. A tremendous, wonderful, clear answer to that prayer came last night. I know God answers prayer, but sometimes His clear and timely answers seem more clearly to be the result of a specific prayer. I think this was one of those times. I suspect that letting a three year old lead in prayer played a role. Don't ask me for the doctrinal explanation of that, I don't have one. But I know that it felt right to have a three year old lead the church in prayer, and the timely, clear answer just makes me more confident that God was in it.

Blogging through church conflicts

A local church has been dealing with the very public moral failure of its founding pastor. A local blog has been one resource. It has been healing for some who have had long-term wounds from this man. But much of it has been unfounded accusations against him, and many others that are even marginally involved with his ministry or his failure.

While a public blog has potential to be healing, it also has the potential to be divisive, unfair, backbiting, and false accusation laden. One advantage of a small church is that if we have a conflict, we can bring it up and talk about it openly and publicly. I wonder if a large church could not gain that benefit by creating a discussion page that required all posters to use their real name. That way, venting of emotion as well as an open sharing of all pertinent facts and viewpoints is possible, but there is some safe-guard against unsubstantiated slander, and malicious postings.

Just reading a blog from another pastor:

"Is it just me or is Easter one of the toughest messages to preach? I think I put a little extra pressure on myself :) And it is so hard to approximate the emotion we ought to feel. I really think the greatest truths are the toughest to put into words! No combination of the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet can adequately praise God for the victory He won over death. That is when you feel most dependent upon the Holy Spirit to do what only the Holy Spirit can do!"

I included the whole paragraph to make the point that his comment seems very reasonable, normal, and right. He shows good self awareness in the first two sentences. He also shows an appropriate humility and awareness of God's amazing strength and what a necessity it is. But the 3rd sentence confuses me:

"And it is so hard to approximate the emotion we ought to feel."

The assumption that there is an emotion we ought to feel is interesting. I hope it doesn't imply that there are wrong ways to feel. Easter is the height of contradictory emotions. About any of them seems reasonable if you focus on only one thing. But more disturbing to me is the apparent attempt to approximate the emotion that's right. If there is a right emotion, and a pastor is not feeling it, there should be brokenness, confession, and repentance. Not an effort to approximate what's right. The most wrong feeling at Easter is disinterest, or boredom, or numbness. If you feel those, drop to your face in fear, brokenness, and repentance. Don't try to approximate what you "should feel." Jesus has enough pious frauds representing Him already.

The Power of Easter

Anybody coming back to life after being dead is a pretty amazing event. I've certainly never seen it, and find it highly unlikely that any reader has. But it has happened. When Elijah laid himself over the widow's son, the boy came back to life. The will and the power of God, in conjunction with the will and the faith of Elijah accomplished an incredible miracle. When the son of the widow of Nain was raised and when Lazarus was raised. It was similar. The will and the power of God, mediated through the incarnation of God accomplished an incredible miracle.

But Jesus' resurrection was different. In a very real sense, there was no living being with the power to accomplish the miracle. The will and the power of God were effective and working when God was dead!

He raised Himself. That means that He could apply His will and exert His power while dead. (He was just as dead as anyone else has ever been dead.) His dead body, like all dead bodies, could not enact its will, or display its power. But God could and did.

It causes me to wonder again at His amazing "otherness." It also re-confirms the reality of conscious existence after death.

This may be obvious and self-evident to every believer on the planet, but me. But I was just struck by this thought during this Holy Week.

1 out of 3 ain't bad

Some tests have different sections. It’s possible to pass one section of the test but fail others. The first time Abram appears in scripture, he is given a three-part test. Three commands wrapped into one moment of contact with God. Abram, on this first opportunity passed one part of the test, but failed the other two. (It’s a pattern we will see him repeat.)

We know that Abram lived in Ur (Genesis 11:31). We know that he lived there with his father Terah, and that they were idolaters (Joshua 24:2). We know (Acts 7:2-3) that while they were in Ur, God spoke to Abram and gave him three commands. (The timing of this can be a bit unclear in the Genesis record. It helps to realize that Genesis 12:1 is probably best translated as “The LORD had spoken” rather than “The LORD spoke.”)

The three-command-test of Abram was:

1) Leave this country.

2) Leave your family, specifically your father’s house.

3) Go to a place I will show you.

Abram passed the first test, but failed the second two. He left Ur. But he failed leave his father’s house. Terah (his father) and Lot (his nephew) both went along. He failed to go to where God would show him. He went to “Haran” and stopped for several years.

If we understand the reasons he only obeyed one of three commands, it might help us understand ourselves a bit better.

While the scripture does not give any underlying reasons for Abrams actions, one reasonable possibility is that his relationship with his father may have been a contributor. As noted, Terah moved with Abram when Abram should have been moving away. They all stopped in Haran (apparently named after Terah’s deceased son, Lot’s father) rather than go until they came to the place God would show Abram. I suspect (with admittedly little more than a hunch) that Terah was still grieving for his son Haran, when Abram announced his intent to leave. If that were the case it would make sense that Terah might have insisted on going along (unwilling to lose another son) and Abram lacked the strength to say “NO.” It would also make sense for Terah to insist that Haran’s son Lot also join them. It would also explain why they stopped when they came to a place called “Haran.” (It would be very reasonable for a grieving father to pick a place to stay that wasn’t so far away from the rest of his family, name it for his deceased son, and just stay there) Finally, they stayed in Haran until Terah died, and Terah means “delay.”

While honoring our families is clearly good, an inability to say “no” and even to disappoint them may be a danger sign.

After Terah died, Abram, Sarai, Lot and all they owned (animals and servants) left Haran. Abram completed his obedience to the third command by continuing on until God showed him the place to stay. But Abram was still disobeying the second command. Abram was supposed to leave his father’s house behind, but he still had Lot, his nephew, tagging along.

When they arrived in Shechem, the Lord appeared and promised that Abram’s offspring would possess the land. Abram built an altar to the Lord, there.

SUMMARY REVIEW:

God gave three commands. Abram obeyed one right away. He obeyed the third after a long delay. At this point in time, he has still not obeyed the second. But please note Abram’s failure did not negate God’s promises. God was faithful to every promise he made to Abram despite Abram’s failure to obey completely or immediately.

While God kept his promises, we will see (as we continue with this story) that there were consequences to the partial and delayed obedience.

How often do we get in trouble because we obey only one of three commands (leave Ur), or because we delay our obedience to a time that seems more convenient for us (stop in Haran rather than go all the way to the place He shows us), or because we simply don’t obey at all (keep our nephew around despite the command to leave our family)?

God's Silence

God’s silence can be frustrating. Most of us, at some time, have sought His answers to pressing questions and heard a blaring silence in reply.

God appeared to Abram in a vision that confirmed the sure promises of God in Chapter 15 of Genesis. Chapter 17 is AT LEAST 14 years later. For those entire 17 years there is NO communication from God to Abram. Partly at least, because God was not sought.

After the vision in Chapter 15, Sarai got a creative idea for how Abram father a child, so that God’s promises could be accomplished. Abram, and Hagar went along with the plan. But note this…NOBODY sought input from God in all the plans, discussions, and actions leading up to the conception of Ishmael. Some have said that Abram’s failure was in trying to “serve God presumptuously, in the power of the flesh.” I disagree. I don’t think anyone EVER "serves God presumptuously, in the power of the flesh.” In the power of the flesh we ONLY serve ourselves. We just put it under the pretence of serving God. Abram’s failure was that he served his own interests under the guise of serving God, the fact that he never SOUGHT God is convincing proof of this. God did not speak to Abram at all in Chapter 16, that’s at least 14 years of silence. Fourteen years since God has spoken. God didn’t withdraw all his blessing. He was faithful to His covenant with Abram. He did withdraw the experience of His presence. Most of us understand the pain and emptiness that comes when we cannot sense His presence. May the cause never be, for us, that we failed to seek His guiding presence and pursued our own agendas under the guise of serving Him. In Chapter 17 God graciously appeared to Abram (God has spoken to Abram before, and appeared in a vision, but God has never “appeared” to Abram before this.) His first words, after 14 years of silence, were… “I am El-Shaddai, live your life in My presence and you will stay pure.” Don’t miss this point. After 13 years of silence, God’s first two statements are: 1)"I am El-Shaddai” (which means “God Almighty”) i.e. “I don’t need your help to keep my promises to you.” And 2) “Live your life in my presence, and you will stay pure.” God wants us to live pure lives but His method for accomplishing that, EVEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, is not legalism, performance, and sacrifice. The means to live a pure life is, “Life your life in His presence.” May we ever do so. To Abram’s great credit, he does “live in God’s presence” through the rest of this discussion with God and for the next several weeks or months (but unfortunately, no longer than that). He “wrestled” with God over having another son when he is 99 and Sarai is 90. He “wrestled” with God over blessing Ishmael. At the end of this chapter, we learn that Abram is obedient to God’s commands, which include circumcision for Abram, Ishmael, and every male in the household, including servants. I think it’s an important part of God’s plan that Isaac was to be conceived after circumcision. Ishmael, the human plan, was conceived before Abram was circumcised. It may be, that God had been silent waiting for the time for His promises to be more clearly revealed and completed.

Silence from God is always painful whether it's caused by His wise delay, or our failure to seek Him. Our prayer should be that His silence is always the result of His wise and loving delay and never the result of our self-serving failure to seek Him.