Conference yukon::christian_v7

                Wound Licking and The Temptation of
                Envy, Hatred, and Self-Centeredness

My Father always told his congregation, "If you can find the perfect
Christian organization, don't join it because it won't be perfect any-
more."

Any group of people larger than one means that frictions may develop
over "the way things should be done" and feelings are at risk of be-
ing hurt. As long as there are people in churches, there will be some
who get their toes stepped on.

While it is important for us to be aware of the hurt in others, let
me also point out where we can be aware about the hurt in ourselves.

Can you think of a time when someone in the church has hurt your feel-
ings or gotten you mad about something? (If you can't, I suggest that
you are not as involved in the church as perhaps you should be.)

Of those times that someone caused you to feel bad, can you think of
any event where the intention was to hurt you?

Let me encourage you to recognize that in most cases, people are un-
aware that they've hurt your feelings; there was no intent to do so.
Often when people are aware that they hurt your feelings, they fall
all over themselves apologizing and vowing that it was never their in-
tent.

When we become aware of peoples' intent, we don't become impervious
to the pain, but it helps to lessen the hurt that someone may cause
us unintentionally.

One of the reasons people get hurt in the church is because they mis-
interpreted something something said or did. This is often because we
haven't gotten to know people well enough to know that they're not "out
to get us."

The more you get to know people the more you begin to realize that they're
simply tuned to a different frequency; there's nothing malicious in-
volved. When we realize that other people have other environments and
pressures that are brought to bear on themselves, just as we do, we
can learn to accept these different frequencies and value them for their
unique value. A Symphony orchestra would be pretty boring if all they
had were kettle drums.

The more people you come to know in your church, the more you begin
to appreciate the diversity and complexion of your church. The more
involved you become with people, the more you love them in spite of,
or indeed because of their unique contribution to the Body of Christ.

Now, let me also deal with temptation towards sins other than plea-
sure, such a hatred, or envy, or anger and self-centeredness.

People that I know get hurt feelings and they stop coming to church,
or some such nonsense and deprive themselves of the daily communion
with God. When one goes back to look at the offense and ask the ques-
tion that got them where they are today, man, does it put things into
perspective. "What is worth giving up your relationship with God?"

I also know people who are bitter about someone else who are supposed
Christians in leadership. Because a person perceives a problem with
*them*, that person retreats fromthe church because *they* are still
in the church. Listening to a lot of the gossip, I myself was tempted
to worry about *them*. The trouble is, MOST things are misperceptions
that people WILL NOT bother to settle face to face with the person with
whom they have a problem; a major mistake. Confronting people for clar-
ification is the loving thing to do. Sweeping it under the rug only
suppresses bitterness which will rear up at another inopportune time.

Anyway, when the temptation towards ill feelings about another due to
the wounds you have sufered because of *them*, remember the verses in
John 21:20-22. Peter is speaking to Jesus and points to another dis-
ciple. "Lord, what about him?" Jesus' response was "What is that to
you? You must follow me!"

I have turned Jesus' response over and over in my mind until it has
become a part of me. You don't know how liberating this has been! We
are told to keep our eyes on Jesus (and we all nod in agreement, but
*still* get caught up with *others*.) "He said this; he did me wrong;
how can he do that and be Christian? etc." What is that to you? Fol-
low me.

Again, if you've never been hurt in the church, then I submit that you
are not as involved as you should be. What hurt feelings are worth your
relationship with God? I intend to follow Him no matter what boneheaded
people do or say (and sometimes the bonehead is me, I think).

It does not matter if someone intends to hurt you or hurts you with-
out intent; what is that to you? Yeah, it'll sting and it'll hurt, but
we have a calling to follow.

Don't yield to the temptation of sinful pleasure and don't yield to
the temptation to lick wounds.

    Sometimes we allow conflict to hurt more than it needs to because we
    (admittedly or not) derive our self worth from other peoples approval/
    acceptance of us rather than from God.
    
>The trouble is, MOST things are misperceptions
>that people WILL NOT bother to settle face to face with the person with
>whom they have a problem; a major mistake. Confronting people for clar-
>ification is the loving thing to do. Sweeping it under the rug only
>suppresses bitterness which will rear up at another inopportune time.
    
    I think you've hit on the heart of it all here.  We have to love and
    trust one another enough to risk conflict.  If I know you love me,
    then I know that you have no ulterior motive in confronting me, and I
    can trust that the conflict will be used to correct one of us!
    
    Sue

    Well, I'm gonna say my bit and sit down.  Sorry to be so long winded:
    
    I'll happily debate about things that I'm willing to change my position
    on (and that I care enough to debate about).  Seems to me that when one 
    enters into debate it is assumed that the winner's position is the one 
    that will be adopted by all parties after the debate is concluded.  This 
    also assumes that debate will conclude when all have presented their 
    evidence and arguments.  If there is new evidence or arguments, then 
    there may be justification for a new debate.  Otherwise, all should be
    agreed to act upon the results of the old debate.
    
    I do not happily debate about ideas that I have no intention of changing.
    The irony is that many of my ideas are founded in my understanding of
    Christian belief, which includes a belief in "warning" my neighbor
    concerning the Gospel.  I think I have resolved this dilemma.  (This is
    a debatable point, by the way, that I present here.)  The way I have
    resolved it is that I have a responsibility to present to my neighbor
    the Gospel.  My neighbor may accept or reject it.  I have a
    responsibility for making available to my neighbor sufficient for
    rendering a fair judgement of my words.
    
    But, this is NOT a debate.  I have no intention of changing my belief
    system, regardless of evidence and arguments that my neighbor might
    present in THIS situation.  On the flip side, my neighbor is justified 
    in accepting or rejecting the message and is under no obligation to 
    adopt my beliefs as might be assumed in debate.
    
    When I was younger I got into "Bible bashing" with Jehovah's Witnesses
    and others.  I thought I was pretty slick at times.  Other times, I
    went away angry and dived into books, Scripture and whatever to work on
    a good "comeback."  They or I would "win" these debates.  And, then
    they or I would basically get mad when the other person didn't join the 
    religion of the winning debater.  Each of us was maybe envisioning
    ourselves to be like Paul - fighting and boldly proselytizing to other
    Bible-wielding "sinners."  What a waste of time ...
    
    I met a Danish lady who had a knowledge of the Scriptures and of the
    Gospel that was remarkable.  She had such insight and closeness of the
    Spirit that it just made you want to do well and be close to God.  But,
    she seldom cited Scriptural references.  Oh, they were there.  But, she
    had so embraced the Gospel that she could explain its concepts in
    simple, everyday language that was easy and simple to understand.  And, 
    you know after meeting a person like that, that they are close to the
    Lord.  More, you know that this person has the kind of spirit that
    couldn't have been much different from the spirit of those that wrote
    the Scriptures in the first place.
    
    I suppose that's when a person is really getting in touch.  They need
    to study and to know the Scriptures.  They need to draw close to the
    Lord.  And, somewhere something clicks.  They "get it" and the Gospel
    opens up in its simplicity and understanding.  It "makes sense."  There
    isn't a need to enter into conflict with others or debate to try to win
    over their belief system.  They'll either get it or they won't.  
    
    Debate can be a waste of time when it comes to deeply personal and
    religious beliefs.  But, sharing of love and fellowship as part of
    sharing in understanding is never a waste of time.
    
    So, I guess my vote is that if we're talking ideas here that folks
    don't plan to back down on, conflict is a waste of time.  If we're
    talking about sharing ideas, no problem so long as the feeling of
    fellowship and love remains intact.  If we lose the love for each other
    that is a characteristic of the Gospel of Christ, then we are not doing
    as He would have us do.
    
    Steve 

>    So, I guess my vote is that if we're talking ideas here that folks
>    don't plan to back down on, conflict is a waste of time.  If we're
>    talking about sharing ideas, no problem so long as the feeling of
>    fellowship and love remains intact.  If we lose the love for each other
>    that is a characteristic of the Gospel of Christ, then we are not doing
>    as He would have us do.
>    
>   Steve 

Thanks, Steve.  I think you may have missed another aspect of public debate,
which is not to convince the other side to win them over.  Many of the debates
in this conference begin from someone asking a question.  "I want to know 
what the Bible (or Christians) say about {subject}."  And off we go.
We have our perceived truths and this is why debate between those who
already hold and have convictions continue, to this day, with recycled
topics.  At first I though this woefully unproductive, but I have found
it to the contrary at times with read-onlies, who are often too timid to
join the fray, as it were.

But I'm with you on the love bit.  Can we oppose one another's opinions,
even strenuously, and still exhibit love?  if not, why?  If so, how?

Mark_who_really_takes_a_beating_because_of_his_reputation_as_debator

    Perhaps someone's memory will prove a little sharper than mine--at 42,
    some of the synapses aren't firing quite like they used to. :-)  I
    recall hearing someone say something to the effect of "A belief that is
    not worth defending is not worth believing".  (I hope I haven't messed
    this quote up so badly as to destroy everything that follows.)  To me,
    the "meat" of this idea is that it is important to know why we believe
    what we believe.  In this conference, most of us come from different
    backgrounds and various sources of teaching.  Whereas in a single place
    of fellowship, the basis of a belief may be "common knowledge", in this
    conference a statement can be made where things are not so clear.  It
    often may not be accepted to just state a something -- another may ask
    "Why?" or "On what basis?".  While on the surface this appears as a
    point of conflict, it can also be a point of digging down deeper and
    being better established.  "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write
    unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto
    you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
    which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3)  It is important
    to know how to stand for what we believe.
    
    Mark L.

    This stuff is all my opinion and I believe it to be in harmony with the
    Scriptures.  We can get into citing references, but I'd rather not.
    
    re: .5
    
    That's an interesting idea about a belief needing to be worth defending
    if it is worth believing.  Though I basically agree, I disagree with 
    some of its implication.  I disagree with the implication that an idea
    cannot stand on its own without having to be defended.  That is, I
    believe in the concept that some ideas (truths) are self-evident.
    
    More, I have beliefs that I value but which I may not expend a lot of 
    effort on defending.  (I may, however, work hard to make sure they are 
    made available to my neighbor.)  It is because I believe these to be 
    truths and that some truths are self-evident as part of their character.  
    By self-evident, I mean that upon close and objective scrutiny such 
    truths stand on their own.
    
    This seems a reasonable position to me because if one is not interested
    in truth or one is not objective there is not much point in discussion.
    Without unbiased interest in truth I doubt that there will be any
    "conversion."
    
    On closer inspection with respect to proselytizing and in light of the
    Scriptures, I sense a duty to make my understanding of the Gospel
    available to others.  But, I may not be in the right to force it (through
    debate or some other means) if they are not ready to hear it.  Being ready
    to hear it to me means being ready to scrutinize and to decide for
    onesself whether or not the ideas contain truth.  Thus, the focus is
    not on my debating, speaking or writing abilities.  The focus is on the
    ideas themselves.
    
    re: .4
    
    I at first thought that when people debate they can walk away without
    surrendering position.  You just "win" or "lose" and that's the end of
    it.  But, that doesn't explain to me what seems to happen in real life. 
    
    After someone has "won" a debate, what do they wait for?  What does it
    mean when the "loser" concedes defeat and why is the loser considered
    to be illogical when still clinging to defeated ideas?  It was in
    observing this that I discovered the implicit agreement often made at
    the beginning of a debate about adopting the winner's ideas.
    
    In practice, this can be productive.  In meetings a good debate can
    result in a decision rendered and it can be reasonably expected that
    all parties will support the decision (and not just to convey to
    outsiders a feeling of "unity").  That seems to be pretty much the rule
    when committees and boards meet.  But, when this is not understood 
    before "conflict" of debate it is easy for bad feelings to ensue.
    In fact, both sides can be angered:  the "winning" side because the
    loser didn't adopt the new position, the "losing" side because the 
    winner might have apparently "changed the rules" by imposing a penalty
    for losing the debate that was not made clear at the start.
    
    This recognition of what the rules really are and what happens at the
    end of debate is basically part of a paradigm of mine.  It seems to help 
    me understand many of the situations I've been in over the years and 
    to keep things friendly and above-board.
    
    Steve

    .6 Steve
    
    >In fact, both sides can be angered:  the "winning" side because the
    >loser didn't adopt the new position, the "losing" side because the 
    >winner might have apparently "changed the rules" by imposing a penalty
    >for losing the debate that was not made clear at the start.
    
    Even if the "rules" for debate have been discussed prior, neither side
    believe he or she will be proven wrong.  And in some debates, no clear
    universal right and wrong is ever concluded.
    
>    This recognition of what the rules really are and what happens at the
>    end of debate is basically part of a paradigm of mine.  It seems to help 
>    me understand many of the situations I've been in over the years and 
>    to keep things friendly and above-board.
    
    And what are the real rules?  In this world of conferences, debate just
    happen.  Someone interjects a point of view, and the next thing you
    know, we're 100 replies into it.
    
    I've tried a place for stating beliefs without argument.  It was given
    short shrift by almost everyone.  It's not the real world.
    
    And I again reiterate that debate is not merely for the convincing of
    the other side.  We know that rarely if ever happens.  Debate is for
    influencing (of the truth, we hope) those who are not as firmly
    convicted as the debators.
    
    The question remains: how can brothers and sisters enter into conflict
    without disowning each other from the family?
    
    MM

    Mark,
    
    There's a quote I love, which says "Work everyday as if it were your
    first, yet tenderly treat the lives you touch as if they will all end at
    midnight."  I think gentleness is key in conflict.  We all have
    negative tools at our disposal, sarcasm, retaliation, cursing, etc.,
    but we can choose not to use them.  In a format like this conference, most
    of us don't know each other at all, and some know each other well. 
    Where we don't know one another, it's important to be as clear as
    possible and important that if something is taken wrong, that it be
    talked about directly so that the air can be cleared.  I know that when
    I write and speak, I tend to assume too much, that the other person
    will know where I'm coming from, and I don't always go deeply enough
    into explanation of the thoughts or motives behind my words. That's
    corrected more easily in face to face conversation than note
    conversation. 
    
    Where people do know each other well it's sometimes even more difficult. 
    Unfortunately, a good many people, (me too) tend to be freer and less
    guarded with people we know better.  Really our loved ones should have
    more consideration and kindness from us than a stranger we're just
    meeting or someone new we want to impress. Instead they often get our
    ugliest and meanest moments, or we assume they'll understand if we're a
    little short or whatever. It's also easier to lash out at people you
    know, because you know where their weak spots are and how to push their
    buttons. Instead of viewing knowing someone so well as a gift to be
    guarded from our self, we often use our knowledge of them against them. I 
    don't know anyone who isn't guilty of that from time to time.  But we 
    can try not to do it.  I'm not addressing you, Mark, in particular, these 
    are just some thoughts about people interaction that I think would help in 
    avoiding negative conflict, and it's something I'm dealing with in my
    personal life as well, since someone I'm close to is often in the grip
    of extreme anger and says things that would be better left unsaid.
    
    Be passionate and firm in expressing your opinions/conviction, but gentle 
    and loving in tone as well.
    
    In His love,
    
    Rebecca  

    re: .7
    
    If neither side is going to abide by agreed upon rules, then someone is
    being dishonest.  Whether one or the other side thinks they will win is
    beside the point as far as honesty is concerned.  I agree that in some 
    debates there is no clear winner.  These are "draws."  (Or, if one believes 
    politicians, both sides win. ;^)  My understanding is that in a "draw," 
    neither side tends to be compelled to change position.
    
    As for notes ...  <sigh>  People often get miffed because they aren't 
    clear on the rules when they debate.  Oh, I guess I said that already.
    Debating is a contest.  A successful debate has winners and losers.
    To the winners go the prize, which I continue to assert tends to be 
    an agreement with the winning ideas.  That's a debate.
    
    What you are describing sounds to me to be more along the lines of some
    other form of discussion.  (Just like when politicians debate and both
    sides claim to have one.)  The real point of the discussion described
    seems to be to allow ideas to interact but no conclusion (or "winning" 
    debate) is necessarily expected.  It's not necessarily a contest 
    to see which ideas are best.  I suggest that in such a format it may
    well be customary and appropriate for participants to "give short 
    shrift."  Partly this is because in this type of "no commitment" format 
    all are free to accept and reject ideas no matter what the outcome of 
    the discussion.
    
    Notes is an interesting phenomenon.  I consider readers-only to also
    be participants.  By silence or apathy, they sometimes endorse what is 
    said and concluded.  That's certainly how politicians treat those who
    are silent.  And, that's partly why it is such a bad thing for good men 
    to do nothing.
    
    
    Steve