Tag: context

Contending For The Truth In Love

I was recently watching Gavin Ortland’s “Are Catholics Christians? Why Protestants Can Say Yes.” Setting aside the point of his video, and even (mostly) his ministry and conclusions, there was something he said that really resonated with me.

…let’s conduct our disagreement going forward in a way that honors Christ where we contend for the truth, and we do so in love.
Gavin Ortland

Contend for the truth…in love. It seems so simple. Orland acknowledges that he falls short, as do we all.

I’m part of a number of groups and people that stretch, shall we say, me. Okay, I flat out disagree with much of the content they share and propound. Yet, I have found it to be critical to my growth as a person, Christian, father, husband, and pastor.

The language seen is “sinner”, “sin-lover”, “heretic”, “bigot”, “hater”, “hate-filled”, and most of this is from purported Christians to purported Christians. The presupposition of so many is that who ever the target of the person’s words are is coming from a morally or theologically wrong position. By wrong, I don’t mean in error or differing of opinion. By wrong, they put themselves in a place of condemnation and judgement of the other.

The Hard Part

By my words before, I could easily be accused of putting myself in the same place of condemning and judging others. I recognize that, but I’m also not sure what else I am supposed to do. Do I think any of these people will themselves be condemned to Hell (whatever iteration you presuppose)? Not because of their words, necessarily. It is still about their heart and their relationship with God.

While I am glad, on one hand, that the church universal (dare I say, the church catholic) is publically discussion theology and ethics, I think we have neglected to contend for the truth in love.

This is far more than LGBTQ+. There is MAGA and Trump, politics in general, Christians behaving badly (take that however you want).

In my denomination, there has been public trials in regard to LGBTQ+ (granted, being publicized by the person on trial kind of minimized the publicization). There are ongoing issues with misuse of Pentecostalic gifts while condemning non-problematic ones (in other words, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). There are issues about how we view the Scriptures.

My denomination long called itself a “big tent” denomination, but there are multiple camps trying to shrink the tent. My heart aches because too many are not contending for the truth in love, they condemn.

I am currently in a space where I wonder if our denomination can get to a point of discussion without declaration. We are in danger of abandoning,

Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another.
Proverbs 27:17 NRSVue

Via Media

My denomination draws heavily from John Wesley. One of Wesley’s phrases was via media. In other words, the middle way.

Let’s set this in its proper context, and that is the Church of England. The Church of England had a philosophy of via media. It was walking the line between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the offshoots of Protestantism. As it became the official church of England, in many ways it ceased being the via media by the very nature of its societal and governmental (the CoE has ex officio seats in Parliament) position. It’s hard for many of my Church of the Nazarene friends to see that the Church of England used to be the via media. Granted, in many respects, the transformation of the Protestant Christian landscape, it seems kind of odd that the Church of the Nazarene is in any way a via media denomination.

Yet, if we really want to hold onto via media as core to our identity as a denomination, then we need to relearn contending for the truth in love.

Loving Contention

How do we contend for the truth in love? First, remember Proverbs 27:17. That’s a good starting point. Some translations of this verse use friend as the sharpener. While that might not be accurate insofar as the Greek is concerned, perhaps that ought to be the place we begin our contention.

The starting point of love, however, isn’t our fellow man, it’s God. Some argue, with good reason, that if we love our fellow man, we are loving God. When one holds onto an imago dei concept (that each person has the image of God in them), this makes good sense, except when it doesn’t.

Except When it Doesn’t

When doesn’t it make sense that loving a person is equal to loving God? When loving that person allows, permits, or (especially) endorses behavior that appears contrary to the Scriptures. Depending on who you are that reads that, you will come up with an issue that I must be implying. You’re probably right, as long as you recognize that whatever that one issue you inferred is one of many I implied. I won’t put any issues here, because there are far more than even the issues I’ve stated elsewhere.

This continues to be the hard part for me, as it is for many pastors I know. We love our people. We see the many places their lives do not conform with the Scriptures. It’s not as if we are perfect, either. We, too, have aspects of our lives that need to be further conformed to Jesus, sometimes more desperately than our people.

Just as we are to be held accountable, so too are all who are in the Body of Christ.

Elevating Sin Over Love?

There are plenty of issue where this happens. Perhaps elevating is overstating it. Perhaps. Yet, if we all “know” it’s wrong (whatever it may be), but nothing changes, and we continue to say nothing, then where does that leave us?

We don’t want to talk about a person’s sin publicly (or at least not to identify a sin with a particular sin), which makes sense…except for public sin. We also don’t want to condemn. That’s above our pay grade (so to speak).

Go and Sin No More

Does this apply anymore? Do churches care about this? Do the people care about this? I want to say, “yes.”

Where do toleration, acknowledgment, accepting, admonishing all start and end? Within those, where does love start and end?

What if every Christian has to account for other people’s sins (in particular Christians) that they did not call out? This might seem extreme hyperbole, yet Ezekiel can be seen as the archetype of a Christian watchman (yes, I’ve seen that many places).

We are to be a community, and a community holds its people to account.

January 10, 2025
No Perfect Witnesses
In my denomination, there has been a lot of conversation regarding the Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette 2024 Olympics Paris Opening Ceremonies. Perhaps conversation might be overstating it.

There have been a lot of words, and I’ve shared the words of others.

What is prompting this particular post is It’s Not What You Think It Is by Andy Lauer on the Holiness Partnership¹ website.

I have to admit that my first response was not overly positive. Lauer’s article kept circling in my brain, however, and I have come to the point of recognition that it is worth reading and pondering.

Yes, it might be a tad over the top. On the other hand, I think that there was too quick of a response by those against the Opening Ceremonies, and by those (like myself) who felt the need to mitigate the expressed outrage.

So, we are clear, I do think the Opening Ceremonies were kind of meh. I think it was an overreach that didn’t work out well. I also did find The Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette tasteless, but its entire context within the fashion/catwalk larger vignette had already turned me off.

Jan Hermansz van Bijlert’s Le Festin des Dieux (The Feast of the Gods ) does seem to be very much based on Leonard da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Van Bijlert is not unique in this as this seach page on Artsy shows. Thus, one of the claims many have made that the vignette wasn’t about The Last Supper might be correct on the surface, yet The Last Supper is very much a part of it.
In his article, Controversy, Context, and Creativity in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, John Squires preaches (he’s a pastor) about context, context, context. In response to much outrage, I shared his article with others, so that there was indeed some context.

Squires is correct, context is key. The context is a broken and fallen world that does not have a functional relationship with God. Sadly, as much of the acrimony surrounding this vignette showed, it seems to apply to Christians, too.

Many, such as myself, were responding to what was perceived has angry, hurtful, even hateful responses to the vignette. We saw this as damaging our ability to be effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. We understood that the world would first respond to Christian outrage with more outrage and shutting of doors to conversation.

What we didn’t do, however, is ponder. Honestly, neither did a lot of the outrage against the vignette.

We have been well trained to react, respond, react, respond. Maybe later we’ll think.

We are not perfect witnesses. Those that tried to defuse the anger and those that were angry were actually not on opposing sides. That’s the part that really struck me with Lauer’s article.

It’s not that we all don’t see a fallen world. It’s not that we all don’t see a world that is turned from God.

Where people, such as myself, got a bit lost, perhaps, was that there is a distinct difference between trying to defuse, trying to understand, and trying to apologize. By apologize, I’m referring to the classic apologia, which seeds to defend or justify.

It’s that last word, justify, where it seems that Lauer and others are rightly disturbed. Much of the defusing appeared (and may well have been) an attempt to justify the vignette.

There are a number of conversations in the Christian world, including the Church of the Nazarene, where justification is equated to explaining, seeking to understand. This is vignette was one of them.

Let’s be clear though. Squires, and many like him, used language that seemed more justifying than explaining.

It’s not that I don’t understand that, but this impacts our witness.

I get that there are many disagreements among and within the many Christian traditions (denominations and non-denominationals). I am becoming more convinced that it is not that we disagree, but how we disagree.

Yes, there will be times where breaking of fellowship will occur, and I hope all parties involved are deeply grieved by that. I hope that the grief and sorrow is far outweighed by the sense of justification and righteousness.

While I think this vignette is relatively minor, the hubbub that occurred around it is the point of greater reflection.

We are imperfect witnesses for Christ. How we witness is very important. We may well have the right answers, but the right answers are only heard within relationships, and often not even then.

As we come to the next outrage, let us think deeply if we are reacting and responding, or thinking, praying, and witnessing.
1. The Holiness Partnership is a collective dominated by a group of Church of the Nazarene pastors who seem to be of a very traditionalist mindset. This can be good, as it ought to keep a balance to the progressive wing of the Church of the Nazarene. However, there is some concern, that the Holiness Partnership might have too much influence and control within the denomination, outsizing its numbers. ↩︎
August 15, 2024
Digital is #IRL

Back in January, I had posted a comment on Online + Digital Church Leaders (Facebook ⧉) regarding the language used in the context of physical and digital expressions of church.

I realized that it might be time to adjust some language. If we really are going to believe that digital community can (and does) happen, then perhaps we ought to drop In Real Life (IRL). We all (I think) believe that the digital expression of church is valid. Therefore we ought to not diminish it by using IRL, as it implies that online isn’t real. I understand that this is a cultural thing. However, as we train our leaders and churches about digital church, we shouldn’t even inadvertently reinforce the bias against digital expressions.

If you are not familiar with #IRL it is the abbreviation for “in real life”. It is used in online and SMS messaging to indicate that something is happening outside of the digital realm. The problem is, especially when considering online church and discipleship, is this constant comparison of digital to “real”. We all do understand some of the “false” digital life pieces, much of which revolves around games. Yet, at the same time, we understand just how real the digital is with concerns about “flame-wars” and cyber-bullying. There is a constant tug between the “unreal” part of digital life and the “real” part.

My role as Online Campus Paster at Generations Community Church has forced a lot of this to the fore in my mind and heart. I’m not much of a gamer…okay, I’m not a gamer at all. Like many, the extent of my “gaming” are those mobile games. My interest wanes pretty quickly, as I am just not willing to invest that much time into any of it. Many people view games as fake or false, and thus “not real.” It’s then easy to put any such digital “thing” in the “not real” category.

Part, maybe even most, of it is this concept/perception that if the flesh can’t be touched, then it is not “real”. There is this idea back from the old days of the internet, that everyone behind a screen is just a persona. That just isn’t true. Is there some of that? Absolutely! There is just as much of that in the world of “touching flesh”. In fact, there might even be more. What if the digital does a better job of separating our personas from our true and deep selves?

Someone (I’ll give credit if I can figure out who) recently noted that the Roman Catholic church has had a practice of anonymity when it comes to confession. There was no question as to the integrity of what was confessed, though the confessor’s integrity in pursuing confession could be different. Yet, somehow we have this mindset that everything else must be “in the flesh” to be real.

February 24, 2020