Holy Spirit - Wind

Holy Spirit – WindI would like for us to spend four weeks thinking, praying, and learning about the Holy Spirit. There are three main illustrations of the Holy Spirit that are used in the scripture:

Holy Spirit – Wind
Holy Spirit – Water
Holy Spirit – Fire
Holy Spirit - Wine

The Greek word for Spirit (pneuma) comes from a root word that means “wind,” or “to breath, or blow.” The Hebrew word for Spirit (ruach) is translated spirit or wind depending on the context. For example, God parted the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites by causing an east “wind” (ruach) to blow. One scholar counted that nearly 40% of the time, “ruach” means “moving air” (as in wind, or breathing).

Genesis 6:17: “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.”

Exodus 15:8: “And with the blast (ruach) of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.”

Jesus links the Holy Spirit with wind while speaking to a Pharisee name Nicodemus, in the middle of the night:

“Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3)

In Acts 2, the arrival of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the sound of a “rushing, mighty wind.”

On the cross, Jesus quoted a psalm that said, “into your hands I commit my “Spirit” (Pneuma). The gospel of Mark doesn’t include that quote, but says that he “breathed (pneuma) His last. " Some have suggested that when Jesus said “I commit my “pneuma,” He really meant “my every breath” not “spirit.”

Clearly, the connections, or similarities between the Holy Spirit and wind or air that is being moved / blown are VERY strong in the Scripture. I am of the opinion that this is not mere coincidence. This close association is intended to reveal critical truth about the Holy Spirit. What can we learn based on this close association between moving air (wind, or breath) and the Holy Spirit?

Genesis 1:2: “...and the Spirit (ruach) of God moved upon the waters.”

Genesis 3:8: “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy (ruach) time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard.” (This is from the NET Bible… I like it because I think “breezy” or “wind” is more closely related to “ruach,” than is the traditional “cool of the day.” Some scholars have suggested that God arrived in the midst of a might wind storm. That might be part of the reason why Adam and Eve hid.)

Healthcare Needed

I saw the pictures this morning of Paris Hilton walking out of the LA county jail. I must say that I was appalled at the behavior of the press. I’m not talking about them crowding around like a bunch of ants over a scrap of dried meat on the sidewalk. I’m not talking about the flashbulbs and shouting. I’m talking about their stunning disregard for her physical health.

The poor girl is sick!! Doesn’t anyone remember that? Just a few weeks ago she needed more medical care than the LA county jail could provide. There should have been an ambulance waiting for her! She should have been whisked away to a private emergency room facility where she could get the medical care that she needed but could not receive in the slammer!

There was no ambulance. There was no emergency team prepared for triage. The heartless beasts at the hoosegow actually refused to provide a wheelchair, forcing the poor, sick emaciated child to walk through the gauntlet of press vultures. Were they taking pictures hoping catch one of her falling from the wasting effects of her unchecked illness. Heartless paparazzi ! Heartless jailers ! Heartless family !

The poor sick child’s own mother waited inside an SUV on the other end of the gauntlet. One can only hope that the cruel police were forcing the family to stay that distance away as one last blow of vicious hatred from the establishment against one very, very sick, young lady.

America, where is our sense of outrage. We rightly get upset when police manhandle and abuse suspects. Does this poor girls neglect and abuse go un-noticed, un-mentioned? Please, please, I implore you, get this poor girl to a doctor. Even the sheriff agreed that she needed more medical care than could be provided in the slammer! Why can’t she have that desperately needed care, now? Immediately! Somebody start an I.V. !

Is this wrong?

So, we’ve been talking about conflict for several weeks. And based on those lessons I can, with some confidence, answer the question “What do we do when there is a conflict?” The answer is, “not what I have done the past two weeks.”

Before I clarify what I mean, I need to explain that some people that aren’t in our church see this. So, I’m a little cryptic with no names or specifics.

Week before last, I was uncomfortable with a disagreement that came up between two of our people (I’m related to both of them). It’s a situation that, in my opinion has just dragged on far too long. At this juncture, years later, the victim and villain roles are deeply entrenched from all sides. When the conflict has been going for so long, no-one can possibly be blameless, so it’s easy for everyone else to justify the view that the others are villains. I was uncomfortable with the discussion so I clammed up.

I was uncomfortable last week for a different reason. I felt like our consensus (“bless his heart, the poor thing doesn’t know any better”) missed two big points.

1) A member of our body has been devalued, maligned, and mistreated. She should be supported, encouraged and praised by us. The person avoiding her is costing himself tremendous blessing for his grace-less approach. She is being wounded because he is behaving badly. (Please note that I harbor no resentment or ill will towards him in that. I join his family in praying only for God to bless him bounteously. But my prayers add that a tremendous blessing would be his if he would restore the relationship with her. She is wise and delightful, I’m praying that God would bless him with a restored relationship.)

2) 2Th 3:14, 15 “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of him. Have nothing to do with him so that he will feel ashamed. Yet, don't treat him like an enemy, but warn him like a brother.” There are many other passages, including Matthew 18 that can be summarized “if the sinning brother refuses to repent, shun him.”

Our discussion Sunday yielded a pretty clear conclusion that sometimes you just “put up” with people as an act of grace, turning the other cheek, and repaying evil with kindness. But, it’s also clear that sometimes we need to do like Jesus and rebuke Pharisees, and throw out money changers. Sometimes we need to do like Paul teaches and refuse to associate with someone.

Even in Matthew 7 we are to “not judge” and to remove the beam from our own eye. But Jesus gives a reason for this “self-surgery.” The reason is not to just “overlook” real failures in the lives of other believers. He says to do the “self-surgery” to remove the beam “Then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (vs. 5) Sometimes, it’s wrong to leave the speck unaddressed.

The body reflects Christ best when it is unified. Conflicts occur. When conflicts occur, they must be urgently addressed. It is important to address conflicts with the perspective that

· “I have contributed to the conflict and I must confess and repent of my contributions.” (I am not entitled to the victim chair.)

· “I will assume that the other party is attempting to act in a reasonable and decent manner and desires to follow the Holy Spirit” (They are not likely a villain.)

· “God has empowered His people to be unified.” (We have an advocate and a defender who empowers us to be in unity. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”)

The conclusion to be long-suffering with mistreatment is absolutely right in some instances. But it seems to me that we sometimes settle for that as a solution when we don’t have a firm enough grip on the third perspective. God Himself, in the person of Holy Spirit, is battling for unity. Sometimes that battle must go through a stage of separation, for unity to be real.

If it’s sometimes right to overlook an offense, and sometimes right to gently rebuke an offense, and sometimes right to refuse to tolerate an offense, how can we tell which is right when?

I Corinthians 5: 9-13 “I wrote you in my earlier letter that you shouldn't make yourselves at home among the sexually promiscuous. I didn't mean that you should have nothing at all to do with outsiders of that sort. Or with crooks, whether blue- or white-collar. Or with spiritual phonies, for that matter. You'd have to leave the world entirely to do that! But I am saying that you shouldn't act as if everything is just fine when one of your Christian companions is promiscuous or crooked, is flip with God or rude to friends, gets drunk or becomes greedy and predatory. You can't just go along with this, treating it as acceptable behavior. I'm not responsible for what the outsiders do, but don't we have some responsibility for those within our community of believers? God decides on the outsiders, but we need to decide when our brothers and sisters are out of line and, if necessary, clean house.” (The Message)

Does the scripture give us any direction to determine when is the time to “repay evil with kindness,” when is the time to “rebuke in gentleness,” and when is the time to “shun the evildoer?” Was it right for me to be silent when I was uncomfortable? Is it wrong for me to argue another perspective now? (although it’s clearly foolish to put it in writing… OOPS) Should you all shun me if I insist on posting this?

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.