Deprecated: Function jetpack_form_register_pattern is deprecated since version jetpack-13.4! Use Automattic\Jetpack\Forms\ContactForm\Util::register_pattern instead. in /home4/uwrxgmmy/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6078
Archives | Tactical Christianity
“Defusing” Misunderstandings                    

“Defusing” Misunderstandings                    

by | Mar 11, 2015 | Relationships

Picture

The Book of Joshua records a powerful example of how misunderstandings can become deadly dangerous and then need to be “defused” with extreme care.   The story, like all the recorded events of the Scriptures, is written for our guidance, and we can learn some important lessons from it.

Joshua  tells us that as the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh asked permission to stay on the eastern side of the Jordan as their own area of inheritance.  Joshua gave the two and a half tribes permission to do this on condition that they fought alongside the rest of the Israelite tribes till the Promised Land was occupied, and then they could return to claim the area granted to them (Joshua 22:1-9).

Returning home, the two and a half tribes built a large altar next to the Jordan, on their own side of the river (Joshua 22:10).  It was at this point that the potentially fatal misunderstanding occurred. The other tribes were immediately incensed at what appeared to be the rapid apostasy of the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh into their own system of worship rather than honoring the main altar of God which was with the rest of the tribes.  The Israelites were acutely aware that they had only recently been punished by God for disobedience (Joshua 7), so the Book of Joshua tells us that “the whole assembly of Israel gathered at Shiloh to go to war” against the eastern tribes (Joshua 22: 11).

This is the point at which tempers flared, and many were calling for the destruction of the apparently apostate tribes.  But due to the wisdom of Israel’s leaders, an effort was made to defuse the situation.  The priest Phinehas, along with ten tribal elders, bravely went to confront the eastern tribes and to tell them:

“The whole assembly of the Lord says: ‘How could you break faith with the God of Israel like this? How could you turn away from the Lord and build yourselves an altar in rebellion against him now? … And are you now turning away from the Lord? If you rebel against the Lord today, tomorrow he will be angry with the whole community of Israel.  If the land you possess is defiled, come over to the Lord’s land, where the Lord’s tabernacle stands, and share the land with us. But do not rebel against the Lord or against us by building an altar for yourselves, other than the altar of the Lord our God’” (Joshua 22:16-19).

It was at this point that the eastern tribes explained how they had not built an altar in disobedience to the commands of God, but had built a structure to serve as a “memorial” to remind their descendants and those of the other tribes of the connection between them and the shared heritage of the tribes on both sides of the Jordan (Joshua 22:24-29, 34).

Fortunately, war was averted – but only narrowly.  Had the ten tribes simply moved on the misunderstanding they had, there would have been great bloodshed and lasting animosity between them and their eastern cousins.   But we should notice how this catastrophe was averted by the skillful defusing of the situation.  The account tells us a number of important things. 

First, we should notice how Phinehas and the tribal elders presented their case clearly, giving all the facts they knew, but then asking: “… are you now turning away from the Lord?” (Joshua 22:16). This asking rather than accusing was probably the primary reason the negotiations were successful in defusing the potential disaster.  Notice that the discussion was framed from this perspective throughout. The Israelites said “If you rebel against the Lord…” (Joshua 22:18), not “You have rebelled against the Lord….”  This is treading lightly on the already heightened emotions of those with whom the misunderstanding had occurred.

The other aspect of the story that we should clearly note is the way in which Phinehas and the elders did not back the eastern tribes “into a corner” in the process of defusing the situation.  They did not pronounce judgments or rebukes or issue ultimatums before they had heard the other side of the story.  But notice how they left a way open to still be in harmony with  the eastern tribes, even if they were guilty of what they suspected: “If the land you possess is defiled, come over to the Lord’s land, where the Lord’s tabernacle stands, and share the land with us” (Joshua 22:19).  This is handling things very carefully so that the situation does not blow up in terms of open accusation leading to angry denial and reaction.

The analogy of bomb disposal is a useful one in studying this account. Like Phinehas and the ancient elders of Israel, the brave individuals who take on great personal risk to defuse actual bombs in today’s world have only two basic rules: they tread lightly and they handle things very carefully with a soft touch.   Those basic rules have saved many lives in the course of disarming live munitions and bombs; and they can save a great deal of heartache if we apply them to ”defusing” misunderstandings and other tense situations in our lives, too.

It’s Not How High We Climb …

It’s Not How High We Climb …

by | Mar 8, 2015 | Growth

Scripture: Philippians 3:12 “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.”

Something to think about:  So often in life, we tend to judge success in what we do by how far we have climbed up the ladder (or the climbing rope!) we are on. But, of course, if we are on the wrong ladder or rope, it doesn’t make a lot of difference in the last analysis. In this scripture, the apostle Paul extends that thought to remind us that even when we are on the right climb we must never be satisfied with how far we have come. If we were given greater abilities and opportunities, perhaps more will be expected of us. But beyond our own lives, whatever we may have accomplished for good, God can always do more through us if we continue to press on.
Walking Wisely with Others

Walking Wisely with Others

by | Mar 4, 2015 | Relationships, The Church & the World

Picture




“Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.  Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person”  (Colossians 4:5-6 ESV).

To the Jews of the apostle Paul’s day every non-Jew was an outsider, and this concept is true in Christianity also: every person who is not a Christian is an  “outsider” in being outside the church and the Christian faith. This is not a negative concept, it is just as much an understanding that Christians have a special responsibility toward those whom they could help or hinder in terms of coming to faith.

It is important to notice that in discussing how to interact with those outside the Faith, Paul could have mentioned  scrupulous financial dealings,  avoiding inappropriate dress or behavior,  general helpfulness  or many other things, but he doesn’t.  These things are all important, of course, but Paul singles out two other aspects of our Christian walk instead.

First, Paul urges us to make the best use of the time we have.  This could mean two things: either using time wisely so that those outside the Faith see our diligence in the calling we have, or, alternately,  that we use the time we are with those on the outside to maximum advantage by making sure our behavior is always a proper witness.    In Paul’s words “making the best use of the time,” the Greek expression is “buying up the opportunity,” so the latter possibility is perhaps more likely – that we use the time with those outside the Faith to maximum advantage.

But in any case, after admonishing his hearers to use time wisely (see also Ephesians 5:15-17), Paul continues by stating the one aspect of our interrelations with others that he wished to stress above all others at that time:  that our speech should  always  be gracious and “seasoned with salt,” so that we know how to answer each person with whom we deal.

“Gracious” speech was something noted about Christ himself (Luke 4:22), and Paul stresses that His followers must reflect that same aspect in their own lives if they are to reflect Him truly.  Gracious speech is the opposite of words that are unpleasant, unkind, unedifying,  unclean or in any way unwholesome.  Why stress this above other things? Perhaps Paul  had in mind the ease with which many people slip into the wrong kind of speech when they are with others whose speech is not gracious. And our speech, along with our actions, is certainly one of the two things that define us to others. In fact, we are often with others in situations where we have no opportunity to show our faith through our actions, yet the need for right speech is always present.

An interesting aspect of this is seen in Paul’s mention that our speech should be “seasoned with salt” – a figurative way of saying that it should not become corrupted.  The Greek expression is in the “perfect” tense giving the meaning of a past action with continuing effect. We need to remind ourselves that our speech has been cleansed and needs to be kept that way in interactions (Ephesians 4:29).  It is with that meaning rather than being “ready to discuss our faith,” as is often said, that Paul ends his exhortation by saying that we should “know how … to answer each person” – know how to answer them graciously and “seasoned with salt.”  Paul makes it clear that this is one of the most important things we can, and must, do in interacting with those outside the Faith.

The Parable of the Tower and the King at War

The Parable of the Tower and the King at War

by | Mar 1, 2015 | History & the Bible

Picture



“For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:28-31)

In this parable with complementary halves, Jesus gave back-to-back examples of the potential problems resulting from a lack of planning. The first example, of building a tower without first counting the cost, is sometimes thought to be based on a failed building project in Jerusalem planned by Pontius Pilate – which may be possible if the allusion is not to building a watchtower on an estate or vineyard. The principle is straightforward, and the example expands upon the concept of building on a firm foundation given in the Parable of the Two Builders (Matthew 7:24-27). In that parable the focus is the nature of what we build upon, in this parable it is our spiritual preparation and dedication that is at issue, even if we have a proper basis for our faith.

In the second example Jesus gives, he does appear to make an allusion to a specific event of that time. Herod Antipater (c. 21 BC – AD 39), known by the nickname Antipas, was the first century ruler under the Romans of Galilee and Perea on the east side of the Jordan. Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, the daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea, to marry his brother’s wife Herodias (as condemned by John the Baptist: Luke 3:18-20), and this divorce added further friction to a dispute with Aretas over territory on the border of Perea and Nabatea. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Antipas declared war on Aretas without proper planning, and his army was routed by the larger forces of the other king. These contemporary events would have been clear in the minds of Jesus’ hearers and would have made the allusion to the king at war seem particularly real.

Many commentators explain the verbal pictures used in this parable as simply prompting us to count the cost before engaging in the struggle that the follower of Christ faces against the many forces that “war” against him or her: not only those of our own human nature, but also external physical and spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12). But if that is the meaning, the allusion to asking for “terms of peace” when realizing one is outnumbered does not seem to make sense. Other commentators see the parable differently – that the king with a much stronger force represents God, with whom we should ally ourselves rather than becoming His enemy. In this case the terms of peace make better sense and perhaps tie better to the words that follow the parable on being willing to renounce everything that we have (as “terms of peace”), which was the point that Jesus was making as he gave these two small parables:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-27).

The spiritual costs of building the “tower,” like the cost of engaging in “war,” Jesus tells us, are the costs of being willing to give up family, friends, possessions, position or anything else that might be necessary in order to succeed in what we set out to do – though, as biblical scholar Joachim Jeremias has written, this double parable is an “exhortation to self-examination” – are we willing to give up anything necessary –  rather than to planned self-denial.

* From our FREE eBook, The City on a Hill:  Lessons from the Parables of Jesus, available for download on our sister site here.