July 2023 – Snapshots

A Spirit of Meekness

Meekness has been defined as strength under control. Picture a warrior capable of imposing immense harm who chooses to deescalate a situation rather than do battle. These shall inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5)

The weak-minded tend to use strength to exalt themselves and control others, whereas the meek serve, protect and defend those in need. Think of meekness as love trained to overcome hardness and difficulty, humble competence, the opposite of selfish ambition.

Humility moves us to check our motives before engaging in conflict, fighting only as necessary, whereas pride and presumption search out strife and contention and thrive in it. (Ja 3:14-16)

Conflict will certainly come; being strong equips us to resist and overcome it; being meek equips us to do so in wisdom and love, looking to heal and edify rather than causing unnecessary harm. Meekness uses minimal necessary force: do what’s needful, but don’t return evil for evil: overcome evil with good. (Ro 12:21)

We’re to offer instruction to others in meekness (2Ti 2:25), truth to those who are seeking in a manner that both honors (1Pe 2:17) and edifies them (Ep 4:29), considering their true needs as well as we can. (Php 2:4)

When we’re debating spiritual topics in a spirit of mutual edification, asserting other points of view to be in error postures us as the authority, which is presumptuous and offensive unless we’ve actually earned the right by repeatedly demonstrating a competence which is being acknowledged in community. In making such claims we’re also exposing ourselves to stricter judgment (Ja 3:1). Even if we are competent and others are indeed amiss, asserting this is generally unnecessary, violating a spirit of meekness, not the fruit of the Spirit. (Ga 5:22-23)

When another is overtaken in a fault, we’re to restore them in a spirit of meekness, using only minimal necessary force, considering ourselves so we won’t fall into the same traps. (Ga 6:1) When possible, we approach such challenges in community, not in isolation: we generally don’t correct others on our own; to keep ourselves in check, we engage others in restoring the wounded, the broken-hearted and fallen.

articles ♦ blog

Mark Them

God tells us to mark them which cause divisions and offenses in a manner contrary to the law of Christ and avoid them. (Ro 16:17) To do this, we must differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable differences within spiritual community.

Since the primary goal in the church is to edify one another (Ro 14:19), fundamental doctrinal differences related to the nature of God, Man, Salvation, etc., the authority of Scripture, even varying hermeneutics, shouldn’t be allowed: they become a constant source of disruption and frustration in spiritual discussions and applications, especially if some insist on imposing their views upon others.

Yet even when we’re doctrinally aligned on a functional level, the spirit in which one engages can be problematic; we’re to honor all people (1Pe 2:17), respect and value everyone in a spirit of mutual submission within the Body of Christ. (Ep 5:20) Respectful behavior is often culturally defined, and may vary within spiritual communities, comprising all types of cultures, races and backgrounds. As such, it’s important for believers to highlight and align on communication protocols which foster mutual respect, such as:

1. We defer any topic until we’re each ready to discuss it.
2. We use non-accusatory language: rather than, “You’re being illogical!” or “You’re taking it out of context!”, prefer, “I don’t see how you are getting there”, in a tone which is more respectful, meek, gentle, humble.
3. We don’t interrupt or talk over each other.
4. We present one key point at a time, giving ample opportunity for response and clarification, to counter and/or challenge before moving to the next point.
5. We re-state what we hear in our own words, when presented with a complex or difficult idea, to the speaker’s satisfaction before responding.

In submitting ourselves to such rules of engagement we’re exercising self-control, monitoring and evaluating our own behavior (Pr 25:28), more ready to hear than to speak (Ja 1:19), listening to one another, allowing all to participate and be heard (1Co 14:31), to promote our mutual edification. Those unwilling to control their tongues inevitably cause unnecessary strife (Ja 3:14) and discord. (Pr 6:16-19)

Finally, whenever an offense develops between believers in the church, resolving this promptly is imperative (Mt 5:23-25), this must not be allowed to fester. (1Co 5:6) To avoid pettiness, minor indiscretions should be overlooked in a spirit of charity. (1Pe 4:8) Major conflicts (as defined by community) should first be dealt with privately (Mt 18:15), and unresolved disputes brought to the brothers’ attention. (16-17a) The uncooperative and unsubmissive, intent on polluting the congregation with divisions and offenses, must be removed and loved outside the Body as friends or acquaintances, not permitted within close spiritual community. (17b)

articles ♦ blog

In Himself Alone

Until quite recently, I’ve held what many might consider to be an extreme view of Total Depravity; I believed everyone (including me) will always make the most evil choice God allows them to make every time they make a choice, and that the only reason we do not act like Satan at every instant is the restraining grace of God. I can no longer hold this position, partly due to this verse: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.” (Ga 6:4-5) I am unable to make sense of this text, and many others like it, without abandoning my former position, so … I let it go, it’s history.

Evidently, there are degrees of real moral freedom within the boundaries of Total Depravity, such that we have some practical potential to do better or worse within these boundaries according to our own personal choices. Our depravity is evidently total in scope in the sense that all we do is tainted with sin (Is 64:6): we cannot ever do anything perfectly good (Ro 3:12), with 100% pure motives. (Pr 20:9)

However, while we may not be able to make any single choice with perfect motives, it is also evident we have some practical control of how far away we deviate from God’s perfect standard as we choose; we operate within some range of badness, and we can choose to be better or worse within this range. (2Ti 3:13) So, it appears that we are not totally depraved in degree, only in scope.

This is how we experience reality: we have moral freedom to make better or worse choices within some theoretical range of moral goodness, and this is also how God treats us (Mt 12:41); so, it makes sense that this is the reality, not just an illusion. Where these boundaries ultimately come from and how they appear within and impact each individual is mysterious, but a few things appear to be clear about it.

As a foundation, no human except Christ JEsus has ever been perfectly good at any moment (Mk 10:18); all the rest of us are rebels (Is 53:6), some more than others (Ge 13:13), but we’re all guilty (Ro 3:19), and God is perfectly just in punishing us in our rebellion. (Ps 145:17) We’re all sinners (1Jn 1:8) in need of a Savior to save us from this condition: we cannot save ourselves. (Ep 2:8-9)

That said, it is evidently also clear that we are not all equally bad; some of us make worse choices in our total depravity than others, and this difference is something we ourselves can and ought to control. God may even tend to reveal the gospel to those who are trying to make better choices within their unique range of moral ability (Ps 50:23), to those seeking eternal life. (Is 55:6-7)

This is not salvation by works; it is still God choosing to show mercy to the underserved (Ro 9:16), but it may also be God showing mercy to those who — though undeserving — are at least seeking mercy, trying their best (Ro 2:6-7), as bad as it is, within their own, unique degree of moral capability and freedom. (1Ti 1:13)

We perceive we are responsible to make the best choices we can, that it is up to each of us as individuals to do so, of our own free will, and that we don’t always want to make the most evil choice available to us, and that our actions are not all predetermined or compelled by any internal or external forces. Most importantly … we are commanded to live accordingly, and not assume we have no practical control or influence in determining our eternal destiny (Ps 50:23), but that we pursue God and His kingdom with all our might. (Lk 13:24)

If this is how we experience reality, and it is also how God describes reality, and it is also how He actually treats us, there’s sufficient reason to try to interpret all of scripture in accord with this perspective.

articles ♦ blog