How Do We Relate?

What were relationships like in the culture of the Roman Empire when the New Testament was written? Relationships were decidedly one-sided.

Persons with power ruled with an iron hand over those who were powerless.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. And whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt. 20:25-28).

Persons with money abused the poor.

“Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into curt? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?” (James 2:6b-7).

Fathers dominated, exasperated, embittered, and discouraged their children with harsh, dictatorial mistreatment (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Husbands were inconsiderate of their wives, disrespectful, unloving, and acted in self-centered ways (1 P. 3:7; Eph. 5:25-33).

To use a technical term, relationships were perceived to be hierarchical. People ranked one another in a tiered system. The culture of the day classified and categorized everyone from top to bottom. If you were graded and ordered as below someone else, you had to give total allegiance and due deference. Those ranked on top demanded and enjoyed every privilege that rank allowed. They gave those lower on the totem pole no respect because the worldly culture of the day said none was deserved.

Instead

I love the Bible. I love statements like “but God.” And I love “instead” statements. We read one earlier. “Instead whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (Mt. 20:26).

Peter picks up this same counter-cultural concept of servanthood when talking about elders and shepherds.

“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pt. 5:2-4).

James emphasizes the same counter-cultural concept of servant relationships when talking about the rich and the poor.

“Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, ‘Here’s a good seat for you,’ but say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor” (James. 2:2-6).

Paul, in addressing fathers and husbands exhorts them to live counter-cultural lives of Christ-like sacrificial, agape love for their children and wives.

Hierarchical or Sacrificial?

How do we relate? Do we relate in a hierarchical way or a sacrificial manner? Do we live counter-cultural to our self-centered world, or do we allow our minds to be conformed to our hierarchical world?

When church leaders demand deference and respect rather than demanding of themselves sacrificial relationships, they are modeling the world and not Christ.

When those who have lord it over those who have not, they are modeling the world and not Christ.

When fathers and husbands exasperate their children and dominate their wives, they are modeling the world and not Christ.

If anyone could have claimed the right to hierarchical relationships it would have been Christ Jesus, the Lord of all. Instead…

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:6-8).

How does this relate to us?

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:3-5).

Join the Conversation 

How do we relate: hierarchical sacrificial?

Tags: Christian Living, Humility, Pastoral Ministry, Relationships

“I’m Sorry. I Was Wrong. Please Forgive Me.”

I was recently the recipient of a humble, heart-felt apology where the person sincerely asked for forgiveness. How rare that is!

It made me think of various ways people “apologize” and how we might respond.

The “No Apology, Ever!” Person

Some people are like Fonzie from the old Happy Days TV series. Remember? He could never even mouth the words “I was wwww-r-o-n-g.”

Some folks are like that—they’re never in the wrong. You and others always are.

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone who is never willing to seek reconciliation? Are you and I ever guilty of this way of responding to our own sin?

The “If You Were Offended” Person

Then there’s the person who is a master at the apology that is not an apology at all. In fact, their apology really blames others.

“I’m sorry if you were offended by what I said.” Or, “I’m sorry if you were hurt by what you thought I did.”

The tenor, the tone, the words—they all communicate, “What I did wasn’t wrong. You’re just waaaay too sensitive.”

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone whose apology is really an accusation? Are you and I ever guilty of this way of responding to our own sin?

The “You Were Wrong and I Forgive You” Person

Somewhat the opposite of the previous “styles” is the person who brings up forgiveness only as a way of expressing alllll the ways you sinned against her or him. They use the words, “I forgive you.” However, the bulk of their words are about your wrong.

“I forgive you for the way you’ve always been so condescending and judgmental. I forgive you for the way you hurt me and offended me with your cruel and discouraging words. I forgive you for all the ways your self-centered, arrogant actions have hurt me and countless others…”

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone who seems less interested in reconciliation and more interested in humiliation? Are you and I ever guilty of this way of responding to our own sin?

The “I’m Sorry; I Apologize” Person

This “style” sure seems right about being wrong. The person says, “I’m sorry. I apologize.”

This is a great start. However, by itself it may not lead to true reconciliation. In this “style,” there are no specifics. There is no admission of wrong, guilt, or sin. And, there is no request for forgiveness—which is so central to moving toward reconciliation.

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone who apologizes but does not admit wrong or ask forgiveness? Are you and I ever guilty of this way of responding to our own sin?

The “I’m Sorry; I Was Wrong; Here Are My Excuses” Person

No one apologizes using these exact words. However, the sense is more of excusing behavior than accepting responsibility.

“I’m sorry. I was wrong. Everybody was jumping on me all day long. My parents were dysfunctional when I was growing up. I was having a bad day. The boss was a jerk. No one ever taught me how to relate or handle my emotions. I have this medical condition. Your words and actions were just too much for me or any normal person to handle. And…”

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone who blames others (including you) for their wrong? Are you and I ever guilty of this way of responding to our own sin?

The “I’m Sorry. I Was Wrong. Please Forgive Me” Person

This “style” is how I was recently approached. It’s the person who says, “I’m sorry. I was wrong for __________.” They fill in the blank with the specific way(s) they sinned against you. No excuses.

They continue. “I sinned. Would you please forgive me? How can I make this right? How can we reconcile and get our relationship right?” They move from admission to the offer of a conversation about reconciliation.

What is a biblical response in cases like this? What biblical principles of reconciliation do you follow with someone who is seeking biblical reconciliation? Are you and I ever this mature in responding to our own sin?

Join the Conversation

Which “style” of reconciling do you seem to most often receive? How do/should you respond?

Which “style” of reconciling do you seem to most often offer?

Tags: Conflict, Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Relationships

Learning to Love…All Over Again

This week, Shirley and I watched a show that depicted a brain-injured husband whose personality drastically changed. The show raised the dilemma of how his wife would deal with being married to a man who was very different from the man she had married decades earlier.

In the episode, they faced three logical options:

1. Remain committed to the marriage without really knowing, liking, or “loving” each other.

2. Divorce.

3. Learn to love the “new you.”

Fortunately, and atypical for most TV, they chose option three.

The Mid-Marriage Years

Shirley and I reflected on the show in terms of our own marriage—now in its 30th year (and having known each other for 33 years—since our late teen years). We also reflected on our past five years—our empty nest years where both our children are now out of the home and on their own.

After twenty-five years of marriage as parents, Shirley and I faced the reality that we had to get to know each other all over again—not just as parents, but more importantly, as husband and wife, as soul mates, as best friends.

In our early 50s now, we are not the same people we were at 19! In fact, we are not the same people we “fell in love with” over three decades ago.

As we faced these realities, we never wavered in our commitment to our marriage. But I’m not convinced that that is “Christian enough.” We’ve all seen Christian couples remain committed to the institution of marriage for decades, while obviously not continuing to live loving lives with one another.

Loving with the Whole Heart

The Bible calls us not only to commitment to the institution of marriage, and not only to a moralistic commitment to one person. The Bible calls us to a growing holistic loving relationship.

God created and designed us to be relational with affections, longings, and desires; rational with thoughts and beliefs; volitional with motivations and actions; emotional with feelings and moods; and physical with bodies. Thus God calls us to love one another with the whole heart—relationally, rationally, volitionally, emotionally, and physically.

In the past five years, Shirley and I have had to re-learn how to love the new “us.” We’ve had to get reacquainted.

We’ve worked to renew our affections (relational) for the new “us.” This is romantic love if you will—which is a biblical love (see Proverbs, Song of Solomon) just as much as “committed” love is.

We’ve worked to renew our knowledge (rational) of each other. We’ve worked to live together with our spouse according to knowledge/understanding/consideration (1 Peter 3:7). We’ve gotten to know, like, love, appreciate, and respect the people we’ve become and are.

We’ve worked to renew our committed love (volitional) for each other. We are called to love each other with Christ-like/God-like agape love—self-sacrificing, giving love (John 3:16; Ephesians 5:21-33).

We’ve worked to renew our emotional connection (emotional) to each other. I know, in “Christian circles” we act as if “emotions” are bad and we should ignore them. God, who is an emotional Being, created us in His emotional image. He calls us to develop emotional connection to one another (Romans 12:15)—to like and enjoy and care about each other.

We’ve worked to renew our physical connection (see Song of Solomon…enough said).

We now are best friends all over again. We would marry each other again if we met today. We’ve learned to love each other…all over again.

What’s the Point?

Though this is a much more “personal blog post” than I normally share (and, yes, I did ask Shirley’s permission), this post is really not simply about my marriage. It’s about all relationships.

People change. Love needs to grow with those changes. Our relationships need to mature as we mature.

Recently married? Allow this post to be your “marital counsel” that I wish someone had offered Shirley and me decades ago.

Not married? This applies to you also. Maybe you’re a young adult or a late teen—are you working hard (relationships take hard work) to re-learn how to relate to and love your parents?

Parents, are you working hard to re-learn how to relate to and love your children? The relationship can’t get stuck in the idealized “I miss when they were little kids.” They’re not little kids—learn to love and to like the new “them.”

Single? You and your friends change. Re-learn how to love them…all over again.

Church? Oh my! Churches change. I could write a book on how people need to re-learn how to love one another in local churches as new members join, as new pastors come, as new ministries are launched.

Relationships aren’t static—frozen in time. They change because we change. Keep knowing and growing. Work hard each day to re-learn how to love each other…all over again.

Join the Conversation

Who do you need to re-learn to love…all over again?

Tags: Marriage, Parenting, Relationships

How to Get Along When We’ve Been Wronged (Or With People We Think Are Wrong)

Part One: Avoid One-Sided Thinking

In the past few weeks, I’ve had two comments on my blog that each stirred the same question: “How do we get along when we’ve been wronged? Or, put in more detail, “How should we respond to people with whom we disagree, or who have hurt us, or we think have sinned against us, or who we think are wrong in some way?

Neither comment was about me or my posts, so I don’t think my response is “defensive.” Prayerfully, my responses will be constructive and helpful.

The first comment related to one of my four posts on Reformation Sunday. The poster’s comment was about twice as long as my post (there should be some rule, shouldn’t there, that your comment should not be more than 25% of the length of the original post?). More to the point, the post ripped Luther mercilessly. More on this in a moment…

The second comment related to one of my This Week’s Top Five: The Best of the Best on the Net. A commenter shared a link about a pastor whose post I highlighted that week. The link, according to the person who posted it, had one major purpose—to allow people who were hurt by this pastor’s ministry to have a place to share all the failure of this ministry and the pain it caused. More on this in a moment…

I noticed several things in common with both posts. Today, let’s ponder the first: one-sided thinking.

One-Sided Thinking: We See What We Are Looking For

Reading the comments on Luther, and having written my dissertation on Luther’s pastoral counseling, it was easy to tell that the commenter had one-sided thinking. They focused 100% on what they perceived to be Luther’s failures. Looking at Luther exclusively through negative lenses, they could see nothing positive. So they then took even good that he had done or said, and, taking it out of context, made it to be evil.

When I read some of the posts on the link about the pastor, I saw the same one-sided thinking. I don’t know this pastor personally (nor did I know Luther personally, seeing how he died 400ish years before I was born). I have, however, followed his ministry from afar, read his sermons, his books, and know many Evangelical leaders who know and respect him. Yet to read these posts, you would think this man was Satan-incarnate. You would think he had never done a godly thing with a godly motive in his entire life.

So my first thought was, we see what we are looking for. Once we decide that someone is wrong, or that they have wronged us, then no matter what they do or say, we look at their life and ministry through a grid that forces us to see evil motives and actions.

When we choose one-sided thinking, we lose our ability to think robustly. I find the same way of thinking with book reviews. As many of you know, I have reviewed nearly 500 books. I try hard to: a) offer a fair and balanced summary of each book, b) suggest strengths in each book, and c) ponder possible weaknesses, or omissions, or suggestions for improvement for each book. I find that some reviewers can’t do this very well, especially when they review a book from someone “outside their camp” or from a group with whom they tend to disagree. All they can find in a book are all the (perceived) negatives.

One-sided thinking results in black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. And when the one side is a negative side, then all we can see in a person—whether a pastor, an author, a famous historical theologian, or a boss, a friend, or a spouse—is the negative.

I’m not suggesting that we should ignore the weaknesses, or theological errors, or relational offenses of others. Not at all. I am suggesting that one-sided-thinking doesn’t help anyone—not the person doing the thinking or the person being thought and talked about.

I am suggesting that when we think someone is wrong or someone has wronged us, we need, at the very least, to pray that we could have an accurate perspective—both in what we think and in what we say (to that person or others).

The Rest of the Story

There’s much more to say, isn’t there? So there’s more to come in future posts about how to get along when we’ve been wronged or when we think others are wrong.

Join the Conversation

Why do you think we sometimes turn to one-sided thinking? When have you, like me, been guilty of one-sided thinking? How could we overcome one-sided thinking?

Tags: Criticism, Relationships