Handling Adversity ...

“Onward Christian soldiers …” - Imagine an army that was not required to follow orders, and could at will completely ignore the chain of command; or how about a business where the threat of discipline or consequences was wholly absent from the HR policy of the company.  Soldiers could feel free to do as they please even in times of war; similarly company employees could choose to work or not work as they saw fit.  How long would you expect either of these organizations to survive?  Minutes perhaps.  Yet the church functions exactly in this fashion.  The church is a wholly volunteer organization where members can do pretty much as they please.  The only “threat” that can ever be imposed is dis-fellowship, and as the number of other churches is so plentiful, this really only translates into moving a mile or two down the road to the next group meeting place.  So how can any group like this ever survive?

Of course the goals are different for a church.  Where armies or businesses can expel those who do not fall into line, a church has the goal of retaining EVERY single person, regardless of their performance.  A church has the goal to keep even the “problem people”, in fact churches are supposed to specialize in attracting and retaining the “problem people”.  Each soul is precious to the Lord, therefore each member of His church is precious and cannot be expelled for merely being obnoxious, offensive, ill-tempered, foul mouthed, impatient, imperfect … the list continues.  And this description does not merely apply to new converts who are young in the faith, and perhaps still carrying the baggage of their former weaknesses into the sanctuary.  No, the list of faults more often applies to members who are known to have been in the ranks for years, sometimes decades, and still come across in this way.  These even more “experienced” Christians can often test the patience … well of everyone they encounter.

So how do we handle the adversity that is bound to come from people with differing ideas, differing interpretations of duty or doctrine, or who simply appear to be combative in nature always spoiling for a good fight?  How do we maintain the goal of inclusion when controversy will surely give cause to thin the ranks?  This is perhaps the most difficult problem a Christian will face, not how to reach those who are ignorant in the Word, but to reach those who are fluent in it.  While the goals of a church are for inclusion and thus very different from the world, the problems that arise between people are all too similar.  Two equally paired executives argue about a strategy to move a company forward, each believes firmly in their own ideas, and each believes firmly the opposing ideas are bad.  When facts have been exhausted, ego will gladly maintain the dispute.  A personal surety, a personal certainty, these ideas are prevalent in the business mind driven for success and without the ability to consider the idea that “I might be wrong”, I am destined for conflict.  It is the same within the church.

Those seasoned Christians with years under their belts, sometimes fall into the idea that their experience makes them “better” Christians.  It is easy to believe that the amount of study one has invested in doctrine makes them “more” knowledgeable on these topics.  The time spent in the pews listening to many pastors, studying in many groups, reading many books – these things are designed to improve the Christian experience and over time can lead one to believe it makes them “better” understand the ideas in question.  To think that a brand new convert might have something new, relevant, and perhaps even deeper to offer on a truth long taught in the ranks is considered nearly impossible.  New converts then are supposed to talk less, listen more, and take their cues from the seasoned members of a church.  As humility lessens so does the ability to learn anything new.  As humility lessens, the ego, even an ego that is centered in a knowledge of Christ and scripture, can grow to the point where it is comfortable seeing itself as “an authority” on spiritual matters.

Thus conflict between Christians with similar years of experience, but differing ideas on doctrines or policies, is bound to occur.  It is not a new phenomenon.  Instead of sharing their enlightenment with all the nations around them, the children of Israel walled themselves off and attempted to only promote ideas from within.  But even this failed as two prominent religious groups emerged in the time of Christ, the Pharisees and Sadducees who disagreed violently over the ideas of resurrection.  Within the early Christian church, there was a disagreement over John Mark that led to a split between Paul and Barnabas.  In later protestant churches divisions have arisen over various doctrines that lead to the fragmentation of churches and the foundation of yet another Christian denominational church.  Religious people have an equally embarrassing history of arguing over ideas to the point of segregation.  Not exactly the unity our Lord prayed for.

So recognizing that our human condition has led us in the past into conflicts, how can we use what we know now, to avoid it in future, or to handle it differently when it occurs?  First, we must keep our priorities straight, and our goals in the forefront of our minds.  The goal of our church is inclusion, not the forced change of another’s opinions or beliefs to align with our own.  Christ did not command us to go out into the world and become the “Borg” from the Star Trek series, telling those we encounter that resistance is futile, and attempting to absorb them into the collective.  We are first and foremost to share a message of love, love that offers hope, hope that offers a pathway to perfection – a pathway out of our slavery to ourselves (and our own ideas).  Every Christian must remember that the pathway with Christ leading, often leads us into thinking we did not consider before.  In short, we are all of us, wrong.  Wrong about what we like, what we want, and how we think – about a GREAT many things.  Christ is patient with us, and slowly leads us to see our errors, then as we allow Him, He fixes them.  But this process does not happen in the blink of an eye, so we cannot expect it in our brothers on our own timelines.

Keeping the goal of inclusion in our mind, we must remember that every word we offer another must be a word of love.  No hate, dislike, apathy, disdain, condemnation has ever made a person reform their thinking, change their mind, or feel loved.  Inclusion will require us to bite our tongues, deny our first impulses, refrain from throwing a counter punch, and sometimes swallow a ton of adrenaline.  It is not about the compromise of our values, it is about the effective ability to share our values with those who disagree in such a way that the ONLY message they see in them is one of love.  If our ideas cannot be relayed in such a way as to show only love, they are not worth expressing. 

Christ always was able to deliver pure truth in pure love and thus lure His listener to the source of all love in the process.  So should we strive for this in our own interactions.  Imagine how difficult it must have been for Him, the true source of all truth, to have to debate doctrines with the poisoned minds of the Pharisees bent on His destruction.  They were intent on killing Him, trying to trap Him into “no win” situations, while He was bent on saving each of them, trying to show them their error while never stating it in such a way as to offer them no hope, no love, and no redemption.  Christ was here even for His most devout enemies, those in His own church.

Often conflicts that arise in a church have less to do with doctrines and more to do with control, or the lack of it.  An idea is only as good as the person who came up with it – thus if “I” did not think of it, I am less likely to support it.  This thinking pervades the board rooms of corporate America, but all too often finds its way into Church board meetings as well.  There are those professed servants of Christ, who will refuse to serve in anything less than a leadership capacity.  Our character flaws are carried with us into His service, and despite our tepid willingness to work for Him, we still wish to exert our own ideas, our own conditions, on whether we will actually work for Him or not, or how much.  True servants, who in humility will serve in any capacity they are called upon, and perform to the best of His ability, are few and far between. 

In business it is said 20% of the people do 80% of the work, this truism may also apply to your local congregation.  Each church requires a wide variety of support positions for it to function well, from greeters, to deacons and deaconesses, to teachers, elders, administrators, musicians, and ministers.  But in most congregations, the same few folks tend to fill the same types of positions year after year.  This is not just due to their own desires, often it is due to a lack of interest by others content to do little for their own congregations.  As long as someone else is willing to take the vacant post, why should “I”?  Instead of 100% participation, which you might expect from those whose lives are supposed to be a profession of service to Christ, the percentage is far less.  Inaction, or conflicts over leadership, are an embarrassment to the ideas of true servitude in His mission.

When a conflict does arise over a doctrine of truth, the stakes can rise much higher.  It is not just the belief that “I” am right that is so driving, it is the combination that “you” are both wrong, and putting the church in moral jeopardy with your heretical teachings.  This is just the type of perfect storm designed to split the church.  One feels compelled to tell the other of the error in their doctrines.  One feels compelled not to stand by and allow other less educated sheep fall into the traps set by false doctrines, and doctrines of devils.  One must “stand” for Christ by opposing these heresies, for the protection of the flock.  All of these sentiments are keenly felt by the believer who is devout and cares about His church members.  But all lack one thing – a complete lack of self in the process.  The true leader of a Christian church is not the pastor, or the elders, or the church board, or the treasurer or other administrators, it is not even the entirety of the congregation by majority fiat: instead it is Christ alone.  Christ alone is the only true leader, and it is His church, that He cares about, and wishes to see escape the chains of evil, and avoid the traps of the evil one.

It is Christ alone, who is able to protect His church from falling into false and devil’s doctrines.  It is He, far more than “me”, that cares about what happens in His church.  And His motives are not corrupted with ego, or a desire to exert leadership, or a desire to be seen as “an authority” on spiritual matters.  So when a case of doctrinal dispute arises in a group designed for inclusion, perhaps each of us on both sides of the issue at hand might do well to first remember it is not OUR ideas that matter, but His alone.  If we are able to humble ourselves, and seek the leadership of Christ in this matter, in our own hearts, minds, and lives – perhaps Christ will lead us into a deeper truth, a better understanding, and with it a better approach on how to address the topic with those with whom we disagree.  In truth if both sides of a Christian conflict were to really use this approach, conflict would disappear through osmosis.  Christ would lead the erring one into a better position.  The reason why this is seldom seen in our churches, is that each believes it is ONLY the other person who requires His leadership and needs to change.  Each refuses to look in the mirror and find the heart that requires changing.  Yet our entire Christian lives are a series of self-recognition that truly “self” or “I” am the enemy of God.  We are constantly unlearning the poison of the world, in how we approach it, through the gentle leadership of Christ.  Perhaps it is time now, for us to recognize the process may also apply to deeper doctrinal understanding.

Trusting the true leader of our church to preserve the church He cares about, is the same requirement we have to trust the savior of our souls to complete the changes He has promised within us.  Too often we do not trust God to rid us of sin as He has promised and therefore believe we must “help” Him do so.  Our own self efforts to control our sins fail miserable time after time, yet we stubbornly refuse to let Him do all the work.  Instead we hold on to some of it ourselves, and continue to fail.  The same is true in the larger church.  We do not trust Christ to be the actual leader of our faith, and therefore believe we must “help” Him defeat ideas we believe to be in error.  We therefore cling to our own ideas, never realizing it was us who needed to change, and thus continue or promote controversy well after it might have otherwise gone away.  Christ does not need our help when it comes to removing evil, either from us, or from His church.  Instead He needs us to stay focused on “allowing” Him the complete freedom to remove evil from inside of us.  As this occurs, the evil in the church is removed as well.  One cannot remove evil from a group body, while consumed with it ourselves.  It was the lessen of the spec in a brother’s eye while a beam exists in our own.  Let us trust the Master Physician to remove both.

“It takes two to tango.”  And it takes two for conflict to remain.  If “I” can go humbly back to Christ, repent of my actions, and truly allow Him to change my mind on the topic as He needs to, whether in whole or in part, my part in the conflict can come to an end.  If “I” can seek the leadership of Christ in my church, and pray for the outpouring of His Holy Spirit on me, and on my enemies, to change me even more than He changes my enemies, my part in the conflict can come to an end.  But “I” have to resign myself, that my ideas must be totally placed on His alter, and He is free to change my thinking as He sees fit.  Even if my positions on doctrine turns out to be what He intended after all, my ability to express it in love will come from the divine reacher of souls who because of my abject willingness to be wrong, can place His words in my tongue that LOVE remains at the forefront of every communication with those who disagree with me.  For if “I” submit myself wholly to Him, it becomes less about what I would say, and more about what He would say through me.  He might even remind me that silence while He works on my enemy might be actually more effective, and joy over the changes I see in myself and in others is worth expressing.  Not all disputes must be solved in our own ideas of time.

Have you considered the parable of the wheat and the tares?  Those who are mistaken, the tares, are not immediately pulled out.  They too are watered and allowed to grow right in the midst of the wheat.  Only at harvest are they finally sorted out.  NOT in the growing process, not while there remains hope that the tare might look around him, and find it is better to be a wheat, and allow the creator to transform his life into that of a wheat.  It is not for the sake of the wheat that the tares are allowed to remain, it is for the sake of the tares.  The wheat have already been saved by grace, and are already transforming in the power of Christ into something of even more value.  It is the tares who are in need.  They should not be removed, but instead included, surrounded by the love of the wheat, that they too might also be transformed and saved. 

Cutting the tares out of the congregation early is condemning them to certain destruction, while doing nothing to enhance the wheat.  In fact, there is danger that cutting out the tares will also damage the wheat.  The wheat do not die because of the presence of the tares.  In fact, the wheat, having the knowledge of saving grace, cannot be deterred or tempted into darkness by those who have not yet seen the light.  The wheat grow up just fine, being nurtured by the Lord of the Harvest until they finally reach their goal.  It is the tares who so desperately need to be around the love reflected in the wheat.  It is the tares who need every opportunity to see love, and desire to be changed by it.  This is the role, those who believe themselves to be wheat in the church, must take on – to be a beacon of love that inspires change – not dogma desiring adoption.  Leave the tares alone, let them be, and show them nothing but love.  Their erring ideas will do nothing to pluck the wheat from the Master’s hands.  We can trust the Lord of the Harvest to protect His own, it is the tares who need our love, not our ideological domination.  If we can remember this, “we” can function differently on our way to His kingdom, leaving behind the conflicts of the past, and trusting in Him to light up the road as we move forward in grace.