Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

The Ministry of the Reconciliation

We have seen the effect lately of messages given in a way that caused offense. It made me think of conciliation, that idea of bringing two parties together, and the gospel message of the reconciliation, of bringing people to a God who would like to be on good terms with them.

These definitions are from dictionary.com, pasted in for the sake of clarity:

1. to overcome the distrust or hostility of; placate; win over: to conciliate an angry competitor.

2. to win or gain (goodwill, regard, or favour).

3. to make compatible; reconcile.
–verb (used without object)

4. to become agreeable or reconciled: Efforts to conciliate in the dispute proved fruitless.

The question is how should the message be delivered? Was the message always delivered ‘seasoned with salt’ or was it sometimes delivered in a very direct way? Is there a difference in how the message is delivered to the world of unbelievers and the world of fellow believers, or the world who accept the message and the world that rejects it? Do we always deliver the message using the fruits of the spirit or should we let go sometimes and give vent to the fruits of the flesh? Also, when a messenger of the ministry of the reconciliation is about their business, are they also in the spirit of Christianity trying to make friends? When they speak to their fellow Christians, does friendship come into it, or is interpretation and delivery of doctrine the most important part of the ministry?

How do we reconcile people to God, then? If they refuse to be reconciled in the manner we see fit, what do we do? From the other perspective, if we receive a message that is just plain wrong in our opinion, and it is delivered in an unacceptable manner, what do we do in terms of using the fruits of the spirit and trying to gain a fellow Christian? If we receive a message that is right but has been delivered in an unacceptable manner, what do we do then - reject the message out of annoyance, accept it but reject the messenger, or accept both warmly? I’m sure it is even more complicated than this.

I hope it is understood that I’m coming from a background on internet forums where I have been in trouble a few times for standing up for my interpretation of some matters. This is why I would like to explore both sides of the issue. Perhaps this side of the matter is worth thinking about too – the dimension of time. Something is a matter to die for (not really, I hope) at one time, and later, through insight, mellowing or weakening of the spirit, it isn’t so important later. Let us hope it is not the last reason. But we do change. Some of us well understand how our attitude to parents with children changed when we had a few arrows in our own quiver. How are these attitudinal changes reconciled with the unchanging spirit of the commands of God? Should we have a ‘static’ view of scriptural law in the face of so much ignorance of law and application in time and circumstance? But when the law is beyond dispute, what then? I guess that’s at the heart of the problem. I can’t imagine Christians not following indisputable laws, so what is obvious to one is not to another.

The result of this is obviously frustration. How do is it dealt with? The fruits of the spirit? Good ol’ no-nonsense common sense? That combination of crafty putdown couched in Christian terms? The type of anger Jesus displayed when He threw out the money changers?

So many questions – can we answer any of them and change the usual process forums go through in these situations:

• Quarantine the accused
• Warn them to quit
• Take their membership away

Granted, it’s a two-way process. I think it is fair, but also completely subjective, to say that everyone made leave forums in recent years has been a self-proclaimed teacher. So many forum members have been at the receiving end of the teacher/pupil relationship that they cannot take it anymore. The teachers are driven by such determination that they cannot slow down, converse, test the atmosphere – no, they are on a mission. And they usually ruin their mission through lack of patience. Something always has to give, majority rules, and the solitary preacher goes their way to another forum, to repeat the process.

Perhaps it could change?

Brendan.

Brendan, you've just written out all the questions swirling around in my brain for the past 2 weeks - and more.

Really, what is justice? The one doling out justice deems it fair - but the one on the receiving end may not agree.

What do you do when all forms of 'reconciliation' are rejected by the one you're trying to reconcile with?

The daily text for 8/25 addresses some of these problems with how we are to rightly present the Good News and Bible teachings. I don't understand how any Christian can reject all those scriptures in deference to their own personal 'style' of preaching, especially when their preferred method doesn't work and they're not successfully drawing people to Jesus. I would think they'd think "maybe I should do something differently" - to make sure the all-important Message is delivered effectively and not spurned because of the messenger's lack of those desireable qualities of compassion, respect and reasonableness with a foundation of brotherly love.

If at all possible we keep on inculcating(never thought I'd use that word again!) AND displaying those good fruits of the spirit - the toughest one for me, evidently, is patience. If we lose self-control out of frustration, then Satan wins that round. I HATE for him to win at anything - but it's just one round and the fight's not over.

You ask some awfully good questions, bro! We know how it should be in ideal circumstances... but the situations you describe are far from ideal, as are we... thus the problems...

In my mind we should be able to get along with each other out of real love for one another. But then someone comes along and portrays their love differently... are they wrong, or could it only be our perception of how love should be portrayed? I've known love - know what it feels like, sounds like and looks like - or rather what it was to me. Can I discount others' experiences of love that were different from mine?

Looking forward to others' thoughts on this bushel of good questions!

Love to you, Brendan and Rhonda:friends:
:peace:

Wow,

This thread sounds like moderating team topic. I get the impression that brendon wants democracy rather than theocracy in this forum.

Brendon, following Jesus is not about popularity and political correctness.

Just my two cents.

thanks,

h

Hey their brother,

Love the post, all are really noble questions, That I personally believe any sincere christian is going to mitigate at some point.
God created us to be creatures of principle as far as i can tell, so thoses type of questions are exactly what i would expect to come to mind, the digging process of the principles of God. search for his treasure.

These are really trully lifes questions, I am a landlord as well as a boss in many things at my regular job. "would give it all up for a moments peace"

The reason I have shared that is , I have done tried so many things dealing with people. I was so torn with my first eviction, tempers flared, angry that people could take advantage of me without so much as a hint of remorse. "same goes when firing someone anger/remorse" by the 2nd time I began to see a pattern in my own behavior that allowed others to walk all over me. by the 3,4th times I was on these boards and discusing reall christian matters with people who gave serious thought about these things. I have recieved so mcuh from so many thru all the disputes and misunderstandings.

What I have come to realize is that for some people their reaction is just habitual, while with others it is thought out so as to stir up contentions or trouble. I have been on the recieveing end of violence on more then a half dozen occasions, the people were just animals no amount of talking would ever change the outcome.
That is why we have laws!!! boards have rules, people who disrespect the rules should have consequences. GOD evicted Adam and eve along with their children. knowing that they could and would DIE.
they didn't want to obey his rules for tenancy.

So in short wisdom is our gut feeling that tells us that the other party is not listening and will not listen "do not throw your pearls before swine" It is a God given wisdom we just need to listen to it. and patience is the part that allows us to walk away.

Absolutely all true TD. There is absolutely Nothing one can do about another person. Having lived a life where they keep showing up (difficult people) I have learned this also. The thing that has been impressed upon me is the necessity to learn how to handle one's own self so as not to escalate matters to make them worse. It can be an excellent training ground for development of the fruitage of the spirit if one wants to look at it that way. I am remembering a quote I heard somewhere along the way and it simply says ''First, do no harm.'' I have attempted to apply this in my own personal life with those who I would wish to reconcile with. My Mom and I were actually estranged most of my life and totally estranged for a part of it throughout my 20's. I have often said I didn't really find my mother until I was 35 and we had alot of history by then that I had to make a decision on how to handle. I had longed for my mother all my life. I could have lived disappointed in her forever or I could forgive and move on. I decided to not only forgive and move on but to love her no matter what with absolutely no expectations of being loved in return. I loved her because I did indeed love her and I allowed myself to feel that love but gave up the notion that she was going to be my ''mother.'' In effect I became hers. I was able to do this because she told me a story of her own childhood and I saw clear through to her heart and the little girl she had been--and in ways still was and is. She responded to my love for her but it doesn't always work that way. I tried it again in a different situation and it wasn't effective that time. I have learned a few things by dealing with extremely difficult people tho and one thing is to take Nothing personally as best you can. That can be a real hat trick but some people have given themselves permission to treat other people poorly and if you take it personally you miss the fact this may be a coping mechanism for them--it can be a habit and it can be a reaction to something you aren't even aware of. Sometimes I think that the most we can do--or the best we can do is to do what I did with my Mom--find a way to love them anyway. It won't hurt and it might make all the difference--even if it is from a safe distance... :heartbeat:

Yes sis,

I too have been thru similar experience, my dad was foced to live with me, let me just say he was the type of man you would not want to meet in a dark ally.

I have come to Love as you have.

I want to add thou, I have been to the do no harm school under any circumstance, I have all the metal hardware in my face to show for it.

I speak to this topic from a standpoint of been there as a MAN and as a boy, both from others imposed concience and my own conscience.

As I have stated before on other threads, violence solves nothing. Then again when confronted by animals I am a firm believer as of now that sometimes you need a stick with wild dogs.
In my direct experience some people actually become more feirce the more passive you are as they know you aren't going to hurt them. IT is amazing how couragous some men are when no one is hitting back.
My life has been threatend many many many times. And I am tired of it.

I was tuaght to take it. But I have found no scriptuaral support for this way as of yet. and as I have grown I think it would be more difficult to watch it happen to someone else.

Hi Frank--and wow Frank :love: You have really been through it. I understand what you are saying I truly do. In my thoughts I wasn't addressing cases of physical violence at all. I was really tallking about how we treat those who go after us and give us a hard time for either no reason or that they can't accept our opinion is different from their own. There are people that you just have to get away from and stay away from. Difficult people are difficult people but Violent and dangerous people are in another catagory. I worked once for a woman who was so politically angry that she would talk and talk all the time about the political things in the news and be mad all the time--I was her target for awhile because I was not only politically neutral but politically unaware for the most part and she seemed gunning for me when I came in the door. Then one day as she got ready to start her rant about President so and so and did I know this and did I do that (and her anger levels would increase rapidly as she spoke) I simply put my hands up in the air and I said ''I can't do this anymore--please--this has nothing to do with me'' and it was like watching the air come out of a balloon and she never spoke to me again about the political things that made her angry altho she was on a short fuse all the time and she was tough water to navigate. Nothing I did or said to her or for her made a bit of difference either. There are people you just can't make a dent in no matter how hard you try. You can seek out some compassion but from that safe distance. There are times we do have to draw a line in the sand to protect our own well being--and mental health- but in general I was referrencing reconciliation through an avenue of peaceful manuevering (and counting to 10 :love: ) when the circumstances warranted it... ....

Hi Willa,

Is this the daily text you referred to?

Monday, August 25

Let your reasonableness become known to all men.—Phil. 4:5.
The apostle Paul wrote: “Whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling.” (1 Cor. 10:31, 32) At a social gathering, Christians may talk about various subjects, read some material aloud, or relate interesting experiences. If the conversation strays, the host can tactfully redirect it. He should also be alert that no one person dominates the conversation. If he sees that developing, he can judiciously speak up and provide for variety, perhaps by drawing out the young ones or introducing a subject that invites varied comments. Both young and old will be delighted with this aspect of the gathering. If, as the organizer, you guide matters wisely and tactfully, your ‘reasonableness will become known’ to those present. They will sense that yours is a living faith, one that affects all phases of your life. w06 10/15 2:4, 6

This seems like a sensible approach to discussion. It is a congregation and not a discussion forum, but I think the same reasoning applies. It does not say that the host should not dominate the topics, but I think we can infer it from the context. It is loving to share conversation, and to allow everyone have a view. I am sure that the scripture elsewhere, which speaks of ‘readjusting a man’s thoughts in a spirit of mildness’ could be used here. The second last sentence speaks of reasonableness as a great quality.

What could we make of this?

Welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings. 2 One [man] has faith to eat everything, but the [man] who is weak eats vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed that one. 4 Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.- Romans 14:1-4

Is it fair to extend the principle here into the general area of different perspectives as what is right and wrong? Here, we definitely are in a congregation setting, with different viewpoints regarding an issue, and Paul wants the judging to stop and allow personal conscience to decide.

For me, Willa, your most important point is about means and ends. If the end is being missed by a mile, so the point of the input is wasted, what would make a Christian continue with a failed method? I don’t want to ‘psychobabble’, so I’ll stay away from psychology and just appeal to logic or at most basic, common sense. One other matter, though, must come into this and it is the one I think Wolfie mentioned – what if we misunderstand the end the person has in mind? For example, what did Don Burney and Mars really want to achieve? Perhaps they actually do achieve their goals; we simply never get to do anything but guess what they were.

Regards,
Brendan.

Hi again sis,

I Did understand your point, but I am trying to bring out that in many cases their simply is to many possibility's. I trully avoid trouble. if I see someone in my way I will walk to the other side of the street.

My whole reasoning on this matter is exactly what's bredans topic is about in my mind.

How do we become reconciled?
IS this a matter of just walking away from trouble? I think it is not as that reconciles nothing. is it a matter of talking things out. Iw ould say with a reasonable person it is.

BUt then comes the part that I was bringing out. People who simply just don't care "for themselves" or others"
This is where a self searching person is going to really put their concience to the test.
I am a peacefull yet exitable person in person of corse. So I can become upset yet not violent. But I have always stood up to anyone no matter what the size of the group. "I was naive" Not knowing that many out their would hurt you in a second. After many occasions I began to question why God allowed people to do what they do. I was taught to not even fight to never even pick my hands up to others for the most part. yet over time and many painfull experiences it left me with an "explosive fuse" I always fought the feelings but as the scripture goes"if you even hate" you are a manslayer.

So how to become reconciled with God / Myself / others.
Was it a matter of Black /white. do no violence turn the other cheek?
I think that many preach this all loving "Idea" yet I think it to be unloving to throw people into a pile of combatants with their hands tied. so I think people misapply Jesus teaching on that topic. that is my personal opionion.

So this topic is timely to me. I think this applies in many things also.
when we discuss things, Such as what we teach and or discuss.

Because it was when my mom was a JW that iwas taught to take a beating.

SO to me Patience with people is key but not allowing all sides to get their thoughts across is from a mental attititude of haveing to be right in my opionion.

A good debate on issues is not always a bad thing it depends on the people in the debate. IT has and does turn into a fight at times.
when it does I think that is where Brendans topic brings us.
how to handle a quarrel or a topic that people are not comfotable with..
Qaurell turn into fights and fights escalate if someone is unreasonable.

which can even lead to War. It is an age old issue.
again cuase sometimes we are going to be forced to deal with the problem. God has been forced to deal with it. He came up with solutions. their has to be answers even before his kingdom is in full effect.

I hope I was clear, I confuse myself alot.

Hi Guys,

Theocracy is an interesting concept. I guess it comes from God-rule over the nation of Israel. I’m not sure how the idea was reinterpreted over time to suddenly turn up as a concept so central to Watchtower structure. I really believe it has no part in the administrative structure of a congregation (probably a topic of its own), and definitely not on a discussion board that makes no pretence at being a congregation.

I’m almost certain that admin have categorically stated that this forum is not a congregation. On Shelter, the same attitude prevails, and I remember the reason given there was that it would not work due to the diversity of beliefs. It saw itself as a democratic group of believers. Some of the democratic processes never took effect, though. Paradise Cafe comes across as more hierarchical with the power concentrated at the top.

If equality is out of the question on a forum, and democracy is not Christian enough, is theocracy the answer – or something else completely. How would theocracy work? Who will determine God’s will? I’m told that if God does not rule directly, it is technically not theocracy. They say the proper word for a group that determine the will of God is ecclesiocracy. If one single person determines the will of God on a forum, what is that called?

Brendan.

Hi Brendan! Well, that was a good application of that verse, to be sure. I was referring to the daily text posted here daily - http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...p?tid=4007
However - you made excellent points with the other one! And Frank and wolfie too - iron sharpens iron! I think our reactions or non-reactions cannot be planned for every situation... sometimes you're thrown into a situation and required to act quickly, instinctively - like when yourself, your family or a loved one is threatened. That instinct for survival is no doubt there for a good reason, eh?

Love to you all -
Willa:peace:

Hi Willa,

I guess you can take the man out of the Watchtower but you can’t get the Watchtower out of the man! I read that page. You put a lot of thought into that post; thanks a lot! I particularly liked this scripture:

1 Peter 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

And one from Lynn :

James 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

This is part of an article about the different types of teachers in our world. I’m not sure about the context, but different fruits are definitely exhibited by different types of teachers. If you have time to read it, and would like to read the web site, let me know.

Introduction

The letters to Timothy are acknowledged to be “pastoral epistles” in that they are from a teacher [Paul] to a teacher [Timothy] about teachers [true and false]. It is therefore curious that many Bible commentators interpret the “men” in Second Timothy, Chapter 3 Verse 2 as simply “professed Christians” or, more prosaically, “humanity estranged from God”.
A careful examination of the context of First and Second Timothy reveals that the subject under consideration is not simply “developments among professed Christians”, but, more specifically, the downward decline accompanying the advance of self-serving teachers [Christian rabbis]. These “men” in authority appear to be the source of the “critical times hard to deal with.”

Background and Context

References to teachers and teaching abound in First and Second Timothy. “Command certain ones not to teach different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3), “qualified to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2), “teaching other doctrine” (1 Tim. 6:3), “adequately qualified to teach” (2 Tim. 2:2), “qualified to teach” (2 Tim. 2:24), and so on. Further, note how Paul contrasts competent, caring teachers with Hymenaeus and Alexander “whose word [teachings] will spread like gangrene and who are likened to vessels “lacking honour” (2 Tim. 2:20). Though Timothy is exhorted to “put up a hard fight for the faith” by remembering his mandate (2 Tim. 2:23-26), he is simultaneously cautioned that conditions will worsen as teachers within the Christian community betray the characteristics he proceeds to catalogue.

Counterfeit Teachers Bring Critical Times

Because of the impact of corrupt and corrupting teachers on the Christian Community Paul proceeds to paint a composite portrait of them as a class. They are described as “wicked men and impostors” who “will advance” but in the wrong direction--“from bad to worse” (2 Tim. 3:13). Men [in authority] would be:
“lovers of themselves” [ego-centric, egotistical and conceited]
“lovers of money” [greedy, converting Christianity into a business]
“self-assuming” [presumptuous—incapable of impartially listening to the facts of a case since they ‘know better’. They go to great lengths to defend their position even when they know they are in the wrong]
“haughty” [exhibiting excessive pride, snobbery, and contempt toward those outside the ‘administrative family’]
“blasphemers” [when challenged they become contemptuous, abusive, and disrespectful in speech; they brook no dissent or disagreement]
“disobedient to parents” [relations and honorable traditions count for nothing; their word, and not the teachings of their Jewish forefathers, is all that matters]
“unthankful” [ungrateful, especially to God for the sacred privilege of serving his people in such a capacity]
“disloyal” [no relationship is precious if it interferes with self-promotion; they will compromise any relationship to further their ‘advancement’. They succeed at such a ruse by stating that they are ‘serving the greater good’ or serving their respective organization. Service to systems supersedes service to individuals]
“having no natural affection” [the natural feelings such as kindness and empathy have been blanched from their characters by their devotion to impersonal systems and institutions. The institution takes precedence over the individual; conformity and control ensure that roles rather than persons are paramount; their obsession with control renders them incapable of what may be termed ‘friendship’; a superior-subordinate status is the norm unless they decree otherwise; the result: fanatical sects rather than genuine communities]
“not open to any agreement” [they are pig-headed, stubborn, antagonistic to reason when it does not support their conclusions; “Not open to discussion!” “Just do it!” and “Obey!” are their mantras]
“slanderers” [if they cannot control people through guilt, fear, threats and intimidation, they will resort to character assassination. They are quick to label their opponents “rebels” and take pains to generate antipathy for them through public tirades and innuendo]
“without self-control” [they will use their tongues in any fashion that suits their needs; they are capable of great mischief toward those whom they consider ‘enemies’]
“fierce” [brutal, hostile, and violent when confronted or provoked. Through fear and intimidation they engender a culture of ‘yes-men’ wherever they go]
“without love of goodness” [force is what they know best. References to Scripture, appeals to conscience, and invocations of higher principles, such as freedom and truth, do not avail because these men in authority share no common ground with those who do love goodness;]
“betrayers” [not only do they encourage Christians to betray relationships when there is no apparent violation of Christian principle, but they themselves will compromise any relationship and betray any confidence if such betrayal advances their careers]
“headstrong” [these men in authority are determined to have their own way, whatever the cost]
“puffed up with pride” [their egos are hopelessly inflated. While they should be concerned with the upliftment and well being of the individual, they are men who live for self and roles; impression management is one of their most important considerations; “authority” proves to be one of the most conspicuous words in their vocabulary; concepts such as ‘servant-leadership’ seem preposterous to them]
“lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God” [they are guided by self-gratification and self-interest rather than an authentic spirituality]
“having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power”
[their official status as teachers (“form of godly devotion”) is at odds with their practice (“false to its power”). They also “have a form of godly devotion” in terms of glowing descriptors of what they “should be” as teachers. But these prove “false to its power” especially when one calls upon them for help or needs them in any way. When their ‘services’ are most needed, these men are conspicuous by their absence. Kindness, goodness, trust, love, and peace [the real power behind genuine service], are simply not in their collective mental repertoire. Because they have not cultivated the mental attitude of the Master, Christ, they are hopelessly incapable of demonstrating the power of Christianity as a force for good].

That's the end of that section. Life can get so strange that the self-proclaimed teacher can inform a 'pupil' that they are going to be ignored because they reject their reasoning, while scripture says:

2Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Who should ignore who?

Regards,
Brendan.

You should learn to accept agreeing to disagree instead of trying to change your opponent's view. It is that simple.

I am so sorry to say this but you sound like you want to ban people who is not one of the majority. Is that really christian thing to do?

h

Dear Brendan,

This is pretty insightful stuff. Even as an elder I'd often thought to myself: "How much of this 2 Tim 3:1-5 actually points back toward us?" There isn't a few JW elders who fall into these categories from what I've experienced. And the GB power brokers are strengthening the hands of such loyal "company men" as we speak.

And just as you surmised, if it can't be ignored, who can you trust? :scared:

Agape,

sw

You should learn to accept agreeing to disagree instead of trying to change your opponent's view. It is that simple.

Exactly! It is that simple. Welcome to a Christian forum!