The Avoider's Creed

Unity does not equal avoidance.

Confrontation does not have to be an evil, divisive thing for believers.

The Church has somehow, through the years, arrived at a point where we want to avoid controversial topics at all costs. And Christians are fantastic avoiders. We have relationships that are superficial and non-accountable. We have sermons that feel good, but aren't convicting. We have church politics and leaders that often don't know how to deal with bad behavior.

Why are we so scared of conflict? Is the charge for Christian unity among brothers and sisters a call to sweep things under the rug? Can love and admonishment coexist?

We know the answer to that, but we rarely put it into practice.

Colossians 3:16: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

Teaching and admonishing go together, don't they?

Galatians 6:1-2: Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

We are to restore our brothers and sisters, and at the same time, we are to help carry their burdens.

Matthew 18:15-17: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Christians know these verses. They get thrown around all the time, yet rarely put into practice. Because it's UNCOMFORTABLE. We've somehow been trained to avoid confrontation. A lot of people won't like to be confronted! It's true. It will be uncomfortable.

But it's needed. It has to be done. The church isn't going to grow and thrive without it. Without gentle admonishment, without some serious talking, without confrontation, the church will remain lukewarm.

In our quest to put all believers on the same level, in our desire to see the lines between leadership and layperson dissolved, we have to make sure we don't forget that there IS a Biblical call for confrontation and gentle admonishment. A church full of "avoiders" may grow in numbers, but it will always be a mile wide and an inch deep.

I Thessalonians 5:12-14: Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

So I ask -- Why have Christians become so scared of confrontation? Are we so frightened of the "hypocrite" tag that we avoid any direct accountability whatsoever?

Women! Teaching in Your Church! Call the Authorities!

When I was 17, and not very smart, I dated a girl from a Methodist church for awhile.

The "not very smart" thing had nothing to do with the girl I was dating. I just wasn't very smart. Most 17 year-old guys aren't. I'll get to that in a minute.

Anyway, some Methodist churches had women as pastors. Growing up, I had always learned that this was a big no-no in churches. So some debate ensued between this girl and I. Pretty soon I even brought her pastor into the discussion, as well as some others in my church.

Yeah, like I said. I wasn't very smart. These are not necessarily the type of discussions that go over well in a teenage romance. Nothing was resolved, and obviously it did nothing to enhance my relationship with the girl.

Fast-forward 15 years to present day. I'm still in a church that frowns upon the notion of women being in teaching positions over men. It's not talked about, of course, because Big Churches don't like to put those kinds of topics front and center, for fear of offending the masses. But the leadership of the church will have to bring it up on occasion -- for instance, if a woman wants to teach a mixed-gender Sunday School class, or lead a small group, or maybe, I don't know, lead worship on a Sunday morning.

Yes, it's fifteen years later, and I'm so much more grown up. I'm an adult. Fifteen years of additional Biblical wisdom, teaching, and counsel. Obviously I should be an expert on the issue by now.

And I have no idea where I stand. The older I get, the less sure I become of the things that I once thought I knew.

I Timothy 2:11-15:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is nothing if not straightforward. There doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room, and that's why so many mainstream churches -- such as mine -- adhere to it. But, as I said, they don't want to OFFEND anyone. It's not like most churches have a "We are men, and all women must be silent and barefoot and in the kitchen!" mentality. It's just... No one seems to be sure what else to do about it.

So we push it to the side and hope that too many people won't rock the boat.

Churches -- and when I say "churches," my knowledge is limited to the three or four I've attended in the last fifteen years -- apply the "women teaching" passages a number or ways. The mentality seems to be thus:

• Women can't "teach" adult men in a group setting.
• Women can teach boys, generally up until those boys are somewhere around junior high age.
• Women can be on paid staff of churches on certain terms, as long as, again, they aren't teaching adult men. And for some odd reason, many churches (read: mine) don't like to give out titles like "Minister" or "Pastor" to the women on paid staff.

Leading worship is another topic altogether, because some mainstream churches will allow women to do this, and some won't. In my current church, I'm fairly certain that they'd never hire a woman to be the "Music Minister."

So how do people debate this whole "women-teaching" topic?

Here is one side you might find interesting. Starting on page 179, check out the chapter entitled "What Does It Mean Not To Teach or Have Authority Over Men?" This logical and well-researched argument holds that the restrictions from I Timothy 2 are permanent and authoritative for the church, in all times and places and circumstances.

And a seemingly opposing view, which is also well-written and well-researched, is here. The discussion on the I Timothy passage begins about halfway down the page.

A number of counterarguments have been made, from the culture of the first century church, to the original audience and how the Greek was used and translated. Logical, understandable arguments, that have me shaking my head and saying, "Yeah, I can see that course of reasoning." But in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "We're still having to try awfully hard to disprove something that is written out in black and white."

Here's what I wonder: Why does Paul make these statements? Why does he, in one instance, say that in Christ there is no male nor female, yet here he gives such huge restrictions upon women? What about the different spiritual gifts that Paul talks about elsewhere? Can't women have those gifts? And what's with the "women will be saved through childbearing" in verse 15? Doesn't that contradict numerous other passages about how we will be "saved"?

Much has been written about this topic (and I'll admit I only skimmed the articles I linked above). I still don't know where I stand on the issue. The I Timothy passage seems straightforward to me -- even regrettably so -- and I'm not sure I could come up with a good, Biblical argument that perfectly refutes those verses.

Yet in the larger context of things, it just doesn't always make SENSE in my mind. In the vast majority of scripture, we tend to equate the words of the author with the words of God. But this is one of those passages where it seems to come from a very HUMAN vantage point. Granted, my understanding of God is very small, and very finite. But I still have a hard time grasping why God would tell us that.

Of course, this is the reason that Teh Interwebs was invented: So that we could debate and argue about it here.

The God Battle: O.T. vs. N.T.

Funny thing happened last night... I was with a group of friends outside of Starbucks, and I walked next door to grab a drink about 11:30 pm. When I came out, they had all left! Can you beleve that? They all left! What a bunch of maroons.

So instead of bringing up rousing philosophical and theological topics in person, I shall do it the old-fashioned way -- by blogging.

One of the more common discussions I have with Biblically-educated non-Christians (i.e., people who are fairly well versed on the Bible but who just don't buy into it) is the topic of the Old Testament God versus the New Testament God. They talk about how the God of the OT is a wrathful God who seems to fit the profile of a mass murderer, killing women and children and doing a lot of stuff as an Angry Powerful Being. Yet, they say, we want to reconcile that with a New Testament God -- a God of love and peace and hugs and happy trees. Is our God distant and wrathful, or near and loving?

One of the things I usually talk about in these instances is Jesus, his death on the cross, and the temple veil tearing in two. Giving us access into the Holy of Holies, God's presence. To me, it's the perfect symbol of how our relationship with God "changed."

Yet we say that God doesn't change. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. Joe talked quite a bit in the comments on the tithing post about how God changeth not:

Why would he require us to be people of faith for a millennium, then cold legalists for a couple of millennia, and then people of love thenceforth? Do we have a better covenant because we got a better God? Did the Son overthrow the Father? Did Paul overthrow Jesus?

Good questions, all. In my mind, if I keep things simple, I can understand. Yet the hard truth of God's wrath is shown time and time again in the Old Testament. Do we see that today? Did God just stop killing people for either sin or because they were in the way of his chosen people?

It seems as if we've got a couple of choices. Either,

• God still does many of those things -- He shows wrath through disease, weather ("acts of God") and war. To be honest, my 21st century, peace-loving mind doesn't much like this idea.
• Or, he doesn't do those things any more, or at least not to that extent, and he somehow has changed. Maybe we don't call it "change." Maybe it's his evolving nature, or an adjustement to his relationship with his creation.

I agree that "God changeth not," but the fact remains that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was a major turning point in how God interacts with his creation. If we go by what most of our churches teach -- and most of them teach the New Testament 90% of the time with a few select Old Testament verses thrown in only to back up a specific topic -- then God doesn't seem to require as much of us as he did of the Jews 5000 years ago.

I ask these questions for the sake of discussion. It's difficult to know how to respond when people ask me about "the two Gods," especially because they aren't really ASKING, they are ACCUSING the God I serve of being the architect of genocide in many cases. We don't like to think too much about death and killing -- Christians generally pride themselves on valuing life, after all.

How do we reconcile many of the actions of God in the Old Testament with how we portray God now? And how do we respond when people charge God with mass murder?

The Tithe Blessing

The discussion in the post below continues, but it's time to move along to something else. I think we can manage two discussions at once.

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

The passage from Malachi chapter three is an interesting example of the "Tithe-and-Be-Blessed" mentality, and it's a fascinating one. You can't argue that God is telling his chosen people, "Stop robbing me. Give back to me a full 10% of your crops and food, and I will bless you abundantly."

That's not the only verse in which God tells us that we will be blessed through our giving. And we do hear stories from numerous people about God blessing those who give sacrificially.

Yet, I sometimes hear an argument against this mentality. "That's not what it's about," some say. "It's not about GETTING SOMETHING. It's about giving. You can't just tell people to give because your life will be blessed."

The thing is, I often agree with that critical sentiment. Even though it's fairly Biblical, it seems a bit strange. How is it giving sacrificially if we're going to be so hugely blessed by God as a result?

And, as Biblical as that is, is it true?

I sometimes wonder if there are stories about a family giving a tithe and then not being able to pay the rent. I wonder if there are stories about a person giving sacrificially, but then having the electricity turned off because he couldn't afford the electrical bill.

The simple answer is that we should be good stewards of our money, right? We can live off 90%. And he'll provide.

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." [Luke 21]

Hmm. Well, okay. We all know that passage. It's about giving sacrificially, of course! But look at it for an extra moment... Do you wonder what happened to the widow after she gave? She's broke! Did she starve? Did she die in obscurity? Did a non-profit charity feed her a meal and give her a cot to sleep on?

Quite honestly, I don't think giving your last dollar to the church would count as being a good steward of your money. I think God would want your family fed first.

Everyone says that giving is a heart-issue. It's about intent, it's about how we feel about it. "If you don't do it joyfully, don't do it at all!", we'll say.

I'm not even sure about that. I'm not very joyful to pay my student loan bills every month. But I do it, because it's required of me. I suppose one could say I'm blessed as a result of the education I received.

Are we to give because we'll be blessed financially? Or just because God requires it?

Once again, I'm full of questions and very few answers.

But hey, isn't that what blog comments are for? Answers?