The good fight: do we argue too much?

I know the article that Tony Payne wrote, about disputes within the church, (Briefing #353) was primarily about different sections of the church. And I know that there is a follow-up article which may cover what I want to write about, but can I suggest that dispute resolution was covered by Jesus himself in Matthew 18:15-20. This passage may have more to do with congregations than denominations but it might still be helpful. I happen to think this passage is really about prayer and finding the will of God with the dispute resolution material being an example, but Jesus did manage to kill two birds with one stone here. Jesus suggests three steps to resolution:

1. Approach the offending brother personally: The object here is to get the problem aired in a simple and private way so any misunderstandings can be sorted out quickly. If they are not so simply resolved, then,
2. Involve one or two senior members of the congregation: These should be people both parties can respect, are understood to have an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures and who have some authority (official or otherwise) to intervene. They should wish to resolve it simply also. But if they cannot,
3. Involve the congregation: The congregation has the authority to override everyone involved and make the final judgement.

The key to this passage is in the final verses: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” and “if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven” and “wherever two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst”.

I think Jesus is trying to show that truly godly people who together prayerfully wrestle with a problem will find the mind of God. And if not, then God will acknowledge their attempts to find his mind and act on their decision, making “all things work together for good”.

The object of the three-step procedure is to discover whether this is something that needs fighting for or is in fact something that should be tolerated in the weaker brother for his sake. Hopefully steps 1 and 2 will decide this. If it gets to step 3, then it is because there is really something worth fighting for and someone, either the accuser or the accused (or perhaps both), is unrepentant.

If the congregation prayerfully sees fit to pass the judgement to treat one of them as a “pagan and tax gatherer” what does this mean? Many people would say excommunication in the old sense of banishment from the congregation, as the Pharisees were doing in Jesus' time: shunning. But I think Jesus wanted us to treat them as he did—that is, socialize with them and evangelize them. In other words, treat them as one that is not saved and therefore not a member of the Kingdom. This will probably have one of two outcomes:

• The judged one will repent and come back into the family of God seeing the error of his ways, or;
• He will not repent and, sadly, leave. Maybe he never really did believe.

In this way, God's will is done through his people who truly sought after his will.

I do not know how or even if this can be applied to disputes between different denominations or factions within the church, but it should be the way we sort out differences within a single congregation.

Laurie Parks of Ashfield, NSW, AUS (05/02/2008)

While recognizing the variety of ways in which God's word is communicated, I am a little surprised at Gordon Cheng's lack of comfort “with the evangelical emphasis on preaching sermons” (February Briefing). Our Lord himself certainly discoursed, as did Paul, (on one occasion, at the risk of a young man's life who sat perilously close to an open window). Nor should we too quickly adopt the assumption that monologue is less effective than group discussion.

In the preface to his book I want to be a Christian, JI Packer makes the following observation: “C.H.Spurgeon's wicked story of the Irishman who, asked how he got on at a Plymouth Brethren meeting, said, ‘Oh, it was lovely; none of us knew anything, and we all taught each other,’ has a message for us here.”

Not only is it better to listen to one person who knows what they're talking about than a dozen who don't, preaching sermons is the most effective way of teaching the largest number of people on one occasion. The history of the church would seem to demonstrate the profound effects achieved when sermons are preached in the power of the Spirit and in faithfulness to the Bible.

Malcolm Jones of Elmstead Baptist Church, Chislehurst, Kent, UK (07/02/2008)

I found the review of Douglas Wilson's book A Serrated Edge by Ben Beilharz very helpful. The article addressed a range of styles of humour and included insights into both the helpful and the hurtful use of sarcasm in particular. As a writer of biblically based drama, I have had to also give careful thought to the way that humour might be used in the telling of the gospel.

In addition to the examples given in the article, I would add the wonderful irony found in the Book of Esther. The first is when Haman, the enemy of God's people, is asked by Xerxes what should be done for “the man the king delights to honour”. Haman, of course, assumes that he is the man and suggests a magnificent display, only to discover that “the man” is Haman's antagonist, Mordecai. The second occurs when the status-seeking Haman discovers that the Queen of Persia, whose hospitality he is so obviously enjoying, is also a Jew, and that she has his downfall in her sights. His attempts to extricate himself only serve to exacerbate his situation. The third is when Haman is hanged on the giant gallows that he had built to execute Mordecai.

Haman's humiliation is not just a matter of deflating an ego or cutting an upstart down to size, it is the outworking of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, repeated to Israel in Numbers 24:9: “May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed”.

Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls, NSW, AUS (18/02/2008)

Benny Hinn has just completed his ‘concert’ in Brisbane and I'm terribly concerned. His ridiculous prosperity message is so blatantly selfish, I can't understand what it is that makes a sane person want to give him anything, let alone sums of money amounting to four figures. Sure, the paraplegic who has got nothing to lose might get sucked in, but why so many healthy and normal people? This is a man who has a multimillion dollar estate and a private jet.

It's certainly not because he's a nice guy. That can't be right because during his 90-minute sermon, he objected to a baby crying and told the mother to do something about it: “People have come to hear about God, not hear a baby crying”, he said.

So what can I do? I can continue to work hard at the relationships I am building with people around me, and I can pray that Benny Hinn might follow Matthew the Tax Collector in giving away his money and following the compassionate Jesus who “came not to be served but to serve” (Matt 20:28).

Josh Mansfield of Redbank, Ipswich, QLD, AUS (25/02/2008)

Please! please! please! stop making concessions to those who are criticizing your critiques about Hillsong. Hillsong's leader has put out into public domain his book You need more money. This book advocates the ‘prosperity gospel’. 1 Timothy 6 speaks of those who imagine that godliness is a means of gain. It states that such people “are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth” (v. 5). There you have it very clearly. If Scripture is true, then Brian Houston has a depraved mind and is deprived of truth.

It may be fair enough to say that a person should go and dialogue with Houston and his pastors prior to going into publication criticizing them, but will they listen to you? Are they teachable? What your critics may not be aware of is that, over the years, numerous people have tried to raise their biblical concerns with Pentecostal leaders and have been rejected. Such people have even included people from their own ranks. Philip Powell, for instance, formerly one of the Assemblies of God National Executive, sought to point out biblical abberations, but was quickly dubbed “accuser of the brethren” and ignored.

Mark Crabb of Mount Evelyn, VIC, AUS (25/02/2008)

Ben Beilharz' article regarding the use satire provoked in me much thought on the subject. Satire is a medium that I have frequently used in ministry in the past, particularly in the writing of drama. I have also often used it wrongfully on a day-to-day basis. There were two things that stuck with me. Firstly, the issue of our motives for exposing a practice, habit, belief or self-perception. Are our motives to illuminate ridiculous or sinful ways for the purpose of building up, laying something that we are blind to before us, or to rebuke? Or are we seeking to boast self-righteously or appear clever? In essence, for people, particularly Christians, I believe that we must always consider the questions “Am I speaking out of humility or pride?” and “Am I seeking to build insight, and offer warning and correction, or am I seeking to judge and condemn?”

Secondly, in my experience in drama, satire provides excellent opportunity to draw attention to flaws that may be ‘planks’. It can do so through the use of animated hyperbole in partnership with Bible teaching that may challenge a person to attend to the dust in their own eyes as they grin, laugh and recognize those things that need attention and correction, and heed sound teaching. Challenges that may close unwilling and hardened hearts may engage with ideas through the use of caricature, familiarity and nonsense directed toward pertinent pitfalls. People too ‘institutionalized’ in churches may be prompted to question whether they really have heard it all before.

People are generally more inclined to see the faults in others. I have found that satire can open an avenue to place a challenge in the context of its logic, consequences and absurdity in the context of the ‘other’. It thus provides a stepping stone toward a teaching toward the self. One of the strengths, I thought, of the Adrian Plass series mentioned in the article is that, as the satire is self-directed by the protagonist, the reader is drawn into the flaws in Plass' perceptions, understanding (or, at times, lack of it) of what is going on around him as well as his motives and blind spots. They are invited to walk beside him, to recognize the familiarity of some of his experiences and to grow.

Used well, I believe that satire opens up opportunities to look into the mirror and see oneself and one's interaction with the world with a starkness that may, at times, prove to be more tangible than statement of facts alone.

Thank you for an interesting and thought-provoking take on the use and place of satire. May we be discerning in its use, and may the planks before our eyes be removed by a growing understanding their presence as well as the humility to acknowledge our own absurdity.

Jacqui Nettleton of Penrith, NSW, AUS (06/03/2008)