How to Love One Another... Even Other Christians

Whitney Hopler

Crosswalk.com

Editor's Note: The following is a report on the practical applications of Gerald L. Sittser's new book, Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs For, (InterVarsity Press, 2008).

 

His extroverted personality annoys you. She seems too quiet. He favors a liturgical worship style, while you like a contemporary one. Her political views are too liberal for your conservative taste. Sound like any of the people at your church?

 

You may dislike them or disagree with them, but their commitment to Christ makes them your spiritual brothers and sisters. If you fail to reach out to them in love as Christ calls you to, then your fractured relationships will do great damage to all involved. But if you take Christ's command to love them seriously, that love will become a powerful force for good – both in your church, and in the watching world.

 

Here's how you can learn to love other Christians – no matter what:

 

Remember what God intends the church to be. The church should be a foretaste of what heaven will be like, with many vastly different people unified in their diversity by their love for Jesus Christ. It should be such a loving community that it's an incarnation of Christ's own sacrificial love. Realize that differences are normal and healthy; it's simply how you respond that tests whether or not you're willing to love. Keep God's desire for the church to be a loving community in mind. Don't settle for less, as far as it depends on you.

 

Welcome one another. Be willing to embrace people as they really are, rather than as you wish they would be. Remember that God doesn't play favorites; He generously loves all people, and hopes that you will, too. Don't reserve your love only for those who love you back, or who are similar to you in personality, religious conviction, interests, background, social status, economic level, race, culture, etc. Ask God to help you accept all people as equally important because they've been made in His image. When you interact with people, acknowledge them, show appreciation for their accomplishments, express affection for them, and say something that blesses them. Look for the best in people and overlook the worst whenever you can.

 

Be subject to one another. Surrender yourself to God and ask Him to show you how to do His will in circumstances that are less than ideal. Instead of waiting for people and situations to conform to your wishes (which is futile), invite God to use difficult people and situations to transform you according to His wishes – into someone who's more like Christ. Rather than insisting on pursuing your own agenda or protecting your own rights, trust God to do what's best for you in challenging circumstances.

 

Forbear one another. Let your gratitude for how often God has shown forbearance to you – loving you despite your many sins, mistakes, and weaknesses – motivate you to give other people the room to be who they are, despite all their imperfections. Remember that we're all works in progress. Ask God to give you the humility, patience, grace, and humor you need to accept people without judging them, and to encourage them to be themselves around you. Keep in mind that, while Christians need to stand for essential beliefs such as Christ's divinity, there's plenty of room for different ways of expressing faith. Rather than trying to change people who bother you, pray for them and trust God to change them in the best ways and at the best times. Don't deny people opportunities to serve simply because they have flaws. Accept and affirm the valuable contributions that imperfect people make through Christian service. Be willing to listen respectfully to people who don't share your point of view on an issue, yet still share faith in Christ. Allow yourself to learn from their perspectives.

 

Forgive one another. Since God has forgiven you, He expects you to forgive others, with His help. Don't wait until you feel like forgiving people who've hurt you; you likely never will. Instead, decide to forgive, and your feelings will eventually follow as God changes your heart through the forgiveness process. Understand that forgiveness doesn't mean excusing wrong behavior. It simply means that you're entrusting the situation to God. Even if the people who've wronged you don't apologize and repent, choose to forgive them anyway, knowing that by doing so you'll be giving God the gift of your obedience and freeing yourself from the poison of bitterness.

 

Confess sin to and pray for one another. Regularly own up to the reality of your sin, and confess it to God and other Christians. Listen when other Christians confess their sins to you. Let the knowledge that you're all desperately in need of God's grace draw you closer together. Embrace the mercy, forgiveness, and hope that God offers you. Pray for each other's concerns, seeking healing for your brokenness. Rather than praying only for certain people who seem more worthy than others, be generous with your prayers – willing to intercede for anyone.

 

Serve one another. Follow Christ's example by counting others better than yourself and seeking their welfare. Be willing to serve however God leads you, whether or not the opportunities He urges you to take make use of your gifts. Simplify your life so you have enough time to make service a regular part of your schedule. Allocate a regular place in your budget for generous financial giving. Develop the talents God has given you so you'll be able to use them well when you're faced with opportunities to use them in service work. And check your motives: Make sure you're serving out of a desire to love God back for loving you, rather than to try to prove something to yourself or others or to get something from the people you serve.

 

Encourage one another. Ask God to help you live with integrity so you can encourage others with a good example of what faith in action looks like. Carefully consider the impact of your attitudes and actions on other people; strive to be positive. Reach out to discouraged people in creative ways, such as by writing them cards or letters, or inviting them to meals at your home. Catch people doing something right, and let them know that you've noticed and appreciate their efforts. Whenever you spend time with your friends, do all you can to encourage each other.

 

Comfort one another. Suffering can unite people in powerful ways because it reveals their common need for God. Divisions and conflicts often appear trivial in the face of suffering. Make room in your life for broken and grieving people. Whenever you encounter someone who has suffered a loss, think and pray about what you can do to help: from providing child care, meals, or job training, to simply listening to them share their stories. Don't minimize, exaggerate, or trivialize grief. Instead, point grieving people to the source of real hope – Christ – and let your shared hope in Him draw you closer to each other.

 

Bear one another's burdens. Accept the reality of that following God's call to bear other's burdens will be costly, inconvenient, and disruptive. Ask God to help you do so anyway. Be available and flexible for when He leads you to help bear someone's burden. Seek to help burdened people take responsibility for their problems and get back on their feet, rather than fostering dependence on you. Hold them accountable for their attitudes and actions while providing the support they need to grow. Realize that it's not possible for you to help everyone you know who needs help; God only expects you to help the people He leads you help – and only in the specific ways He guides you to help them. Pray for discernment about who you should help, and how. Combine a sympathetic attitude with good judgment. As you help others, keep in mind that you're not superior to them. When someone helps you, remember that you're not inferior to them. Realize that everyone needs help at various times. Let your shared experiences of helping and being helped deepen your love for the fellow believers around you.

 

Stir up one another. It's dangerous to get complacent about your faith. Get out of your comfort zone and help other people get out of theirs. Do all you can to inspire and challenge others to follow the Holy Spirit's lead each day and take creative action in the specific directions the Spirit leads them. Meet with other Christians regularly and talk with them often about what's most important to them, and why. Invest your time, money, or talents in some of their causes. Let go of an attachment to the familiar, the past, a desire to control, or anything else that stands in the way of pursuing something new that God is calling you to pursue.

 

Admonish one another. Be willing to confront, challenge, and correct Christians who are living in disobedience to God's commands. But always do so with the goal of helping them restore their intimacy with God. Never admonish someone out of spite. Instead, let love motivate you to want the best for them and be concerned about their welfare. When you admonish someone, do so privately, positively (aiming to solve the problem), and prayerfully (as God leads you).

 

Adapted from Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs For, copyright 2008 by Gerald L. Sittser. Published by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill., www.ivpress.com. 

Gerald L. Sittser (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is professor of theology at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington. He is the author of The Adventure, A Cautious Patriotism, A Grace Disguised, The Will of God as a Way of Life and When God Doesn't Answer Your Prayer. He has also written many book reviews and articles. He speaks frequently at churches, college campuses, and scholarly and Christian conferences. Sittser has won numerous awards and honors including a Gold Medallion Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association for his book When God Doesn't Answer Your Prayer.

Theology Resource: God Is Not Dead Yet

How current philosophers argue for his existence.

William Lane Craig

source: Christianity Today

 

 

You might think from the recent spate of atheist best-sellers that belief in God has become intellectually indefensible for thinking people today. But a look at these books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, quickly reveals that the so-called New Atheism lacks intellectual muscle. It is blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy. It reflects the scientism of a bygone generation rather than the contemporary intellectual scene.

 

That generation's cultural high point came on April 8, 1966, when Time magazine carried a lead story for which the cover was completely black except for three words emblazoned in bright red letters: "Is God Dead?" The story described the "death of God" movement, then current in American theology.

 

But to paraphrase Mark Twain, the news of God's demise was premature. For at the same time theologians were writing God's obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was rediscovering his vitality.

 

Back in the 1940s and '50s, many philosophers believed that talk about God, since it is not verifiable by the five senses, is meaningless—actual nonsense. This verificationism finally collapsed, in part because philosophers realized that verificationism itself could not be verified! The collapse of verificationism was the most important philosophical event of the 20th century. Its downfall meant that philosophers were free once again to tackle traditional problems of philosophy that verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence of interest in traditional philosophical questions came something altogether unanticipated: a renaissance of Christian philosophy.

 

The turning point probably came in 1967, with the publication of Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. In Plantinga's train has followed a host of Christian philosophers, writing in scholarly journals and participating in professional conferences and publishing with the finest academic presses. The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat.

 

In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments what he calls "the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s." He complains about naturalists' passivity in the face of the wave of "intelligent and talented theists entering academia today." Smith concludes, "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."

 

The renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in natural theology, that branch of theology that seeks to prove God's existence apart from divine revelation. The goal of natural theology is to justify a broadly theistic worldview, one that is common among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and deists. While few would call them compelling proofs, all of the traditional arguments for God's existence, not to mention some creative new arguments, find articulate defenders today.

 

The Arguments

First, let's take a quick tour of some current arguments of natural theology. We'll look at them in their condensed form. This has the advantage of making the logic of the arguments very clear. The bare bones of the arguments can then be fleshed out with further discussion. A second crucial question—what good is rational argument in our supposedly postmodern age?—will be dealt with in the next section.

 

 

The cosmological argument. Versions of this argument are defended by Alexander Pruss, Timothy O'Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, among others. A simple formulation of this argument is:

 

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

 

This argument is logically valid, so the only question is the truth of the premises. Premise (3) is undeniable for any sincere seeker of truth, so the question comes down to (1) and (2).

 

Premise (1) seems quite plausible. Imagine that you're walking through the woods and come upon a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would find quite bizarre the claim that the ball just exists inexplicably. And increasing the size of the ball, even until it becomes co-extensive with the cosmos, would do nothing to eliminate the need for an explanation of its existence.

 

Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Besides, (2) is quite plausible in its own right. For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."

 

 

The kalam cosmological argument. This version of the argument has a rich Islamic heritage. Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and I have defended the kalam argument. Its formulation is simple:

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic. Nonetheless, it's remarkable how many nontheists, under the force of the evidence for premise (2), have denied (1) rather than acquiesce in the argument's conclusion.

 

Atheists have traditionally denied (2) in favor of an eternal universe. But there are good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, to doubt that the universe had no beginning. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. If the universe never had a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. Not only is this a very paradoxical idea, but it also raises the problem: How could the present event ever arrive if an infinite number of prior events had to elapse first?

 

Moreover, a remarkable series of discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics over the last century has breathed new life into the kalam argument. We now have fairly strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang.

 

 

The Big Bang is so amazing because it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. While some cosmologists have tried to craft alternative theories aimed at avoiding this absolute beginning, none of these theories have commended themselves to the scientific community.

 

In fact, in 2003 cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. According to Vilenkin, "Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." It follows then that there must be a transcendent cause that brought the universe into being, a cause that, as we have seen, is plausibly timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal.

 

 

The teleological argument. The old design argument remains as robust today as ever, defended in various forms by Robin Collins, John Leslie, Paul Davies, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and others. Advocates of the Intelligent Design movement have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This finetuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy.

 

These constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and life would not exist.

 

Accordingly, we may argue:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

 

Premise (1) simply lists the present options for explaining the fine-tuning. The key premise is therefore (2). The first alternative, physical necessity, says that the constants and quantities must have the values they do. This alternative has little to commend it. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for the constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a unified theory of physics to date, superstring theory or "M-Theory," allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different possible universes governed by the laws of nature, and only an infinitesimal proportion of these can support life.

 

As for chance, contemporary theorists increasingly recognize that the odds against fine-tuning are simply insurmountable unless one is prepared to embrace the speculative hypothesis that our universe is but one member of a randomly ordered, infinite ensemble of universes (a.k.a. the multiverse). In that ensemble of worlds, every physically possible world is realized, and obviously we could observe only a world where the constants and quantities are consistent with our existence. This is where the debate rages today. Physicists such as Oxford University's Roger Penrose launch powerful arguments against any appeal to a multiverse as a way of explaining away fine-tuning.

 

 

The moral argument. A number of ethicists, such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended "divine command" theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God's existence. One such argument:

 

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

 

By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

 

Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.

 

Nontheists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called "the Good" is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore, the good is not independent of God.

 

Moreover, God's commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.

 

The ontological argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

 

Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, allknowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

 

 

Why Bother?

 

Of course, there are replies and counterreplies to all of these arguments, and no one imagines that a consensus will be reached. Indeed, after a period of passivity, there are now signs that the sleeping giant of atheism has been roused from his dogmatic slumbers and is fighting back. J. Howard Sobel and Graham Oppy have written large, scholarly books critical of the arguments of natural theology, and Cambridge University Press released its Companion to Atheism last year. Nonetheless, the very presence of the debate in academia is itself a sign of how healthy and vibrant a theistic worldview is today.

 

However all this may be, some might think that the resurgence of natural theology in our time is merely so much labor lost. For don't we live in a postmodern culture in which appeals to such apologetic arguments are no longer effective? Rational arguments for the truth of theism are no longer supposed to work. Some Christians therefore advise that we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.

 

This sort of thinking is guilty of a disastrous misdiagnosis of contemporary culture. The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism! That's just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can't prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist.

 

Otherwise, how do we make sense of the popularity of the New Atheism? Dawkins and his ilk are indelibly modernist and even scientistic in their approach. On the postmodernist reading of contemporary culture, their books should have fallen like water on a stone. Instead, people lap them up eagerly, convinced that religious belief is folly.

 

Seen in this light, tailoring our gospel to a postmodern culture is self-defeating. By laying aside our best apologetic weapons of logic and evidence, we ensure modernism's triumph over us. If the church adopts this course of action, the consequences in the next generation will be catastrophic. Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality. Meanwhile, scientific naturalism will continue to shape our culture's view of how the world really is.

 

A robust natural theology may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general, Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated Western society. While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

 

 

Properly understanding our culture is important because the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the current cultural milieu. A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel. But you may as well tell the secularist to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ!

 

Christians who depreciate natural theology because "no one comes to faith through intellectual arguments" are therefore tragically shortsighted. For the value of natural theology extends far beyond one's immediate evangelistic contacts. It is the broader task of Christian apologetics, including natural theology, to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. It thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved.

 

As we progress further into the 21st century, I anticipate that natural theology will be an increasingly relevant and vital preparation for people to receive the gospel.

 

William Lane Craig is research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. He is the coeditor with J. P. Moreland of the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. His website is reasonablefaith.org. All of the traditional arguments for God's existence find intelligent and articulate defenders in the contemporary philosophical scene.

good resource: Gary Chapman Shares Ways Ministers' Wives can 'Love a Leader'

Shannon Baker

Baptist Press

INDIANAPOLIS (BP)--Gary Chapman, author of The Five Love Languages, addressed a sell-out crowd of 1,500 at the 53rd annual Ministers' Wives' Luncheon June 10 during the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting in Indianapolis.

Chapman is the senior associate pastor responsible for adult discipleship, marriage counseling and pastoral care at Calvary Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, N.C.

Liz Traylor, president of this year's luncheon, said she chose the theme, "How to Love a Leader," because it was the call of her heart to learn how she could love her leader husband more efficiently, lovingly and like Jesus would. Traylor's husband Ted is pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla.

Before the keynote address, Janet Hunt, wife of Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., honored the memory of minister's wife Tammy Litton, who was killed in a car accident Aug. 16, 2007. On behalf of the ministers' wives, she presented Litton's husband Ed, pastor of First Baptist Church of North Mobile, Saraland, Ala., and their family a framed copy of the day's program and printed tribute. Also, $500 was given in Litton's name to the Ministers' Wives' endowment fund.

Joy Cullen, a pastor's wife, Sunday School teacher, adjunct professor and former International Mission Board missionary in Asia, was honored with the 2008 Willie Turner Dawson Award, which recognizes ministers' wives who have made a distinct denominational contribution.

Chapman offered seven things ministers' wives must know to truly love their leader husbands:

Praise is always better than criticism.

Many pastors are praised within their churches and communities, but when they come home they are criticized by their wives, even if the criticism is well-intended, Chapman said.

He suggested a better approach, likening it to the praise given to a toddler learning to walk for the first time. When the child falls, the parent applauds his effort and encourages him back up again.

"When you give him praise, he will keep trying to do better," Chapman said.

 

Requests are more productive than demands.

"None of us like to be controlled," Chapman said, urging wives to make requests instead of demands. "Don't say, 'You don't spend enough time with the kids.'" Instead, ask him if he can do specific things with the kids. Likewise, he told wives to ask for what they want.

"That's what God asks us to do. Why wouldn't we do that with our husbands?" he said.

 

Unconditional love is the only true love.

"Any woman can love a husband who loves her, but as Christians we're called to love our enemies," Chapman said. "But what makes you feel loved isn't necessarily how your husband feels loved."

He explained the five love languages, the key ways people feel loved: words of affirmation, gifts, acts of service, quality time and physical touch.

Chapman also explained that while every person has a primary love language, rarely do a husband and wife have the same love language.

"In our nature, we do what our love language is. The problem is that we are not speaking our husband's language," he said.

 

Learn from his defensiveness.

Chapman noted there are certain things wives say and certain ways they say them that cause men to be defensive. When that happens, men's self-esteem is threatened, and they feel that wives are trying to control them, he said.

He urged the wives to write down their husband's reactions. Later, when things are calmer, ask them why their words stimulated the defensiveness. Talk about what to do when that situation happens again.

 

Understanding male sexuality is essential.

Noting that men have a physical need for sex, Chapman encouraged wives to be understanding when their husbands seek intimacy with them.

 

Learn to apologize.

"Ever wondered why you haven't been able to forgive your husband? It could be that he hasn't apologized to you in your apology language," he said, pointing to his new book, "The Five Languages of Apology," which explains the different ways people have been taught, and therefore expect, apologies.

 

Don't expect perfection.

Acknowledging that all humans fail, Chapman said couples should help each other in areas where they are weak.

Chapman encouraged wives to ask the same questions that turned around his once-struggling marriage: What can I do to help you? How can I make your life easier? How can I be a better [spouse] to you?

"I believe that God did not ordain marriage to be miserable," he said, adding that when Christian couples do marriage God's way, other couples will be drawn to learn from them.

Officers for the 2009 luncheon in Louisville, Ky., with the theme "Presentation Is Everything," are Diane Strack of Orlando, Fla., president; Mary Mohler of Louisville, vice president; Liliana Lewis of Austin, Texas, recording secretary-treasurer; and Karen Crowe of Colorado Springs, Colo., correspondence secretary.

 

 

---

Shannon Baker is the national correspondent for BaptistLIFE (www.baptistlife.com), newsjournal of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware.

(c) 2008 Baptist Press. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

10 Rules for Respect

10 Rules for Respect
One way to build trust.
Charles W. Christian

When I came to this church five years ago, many of my board members had grandchildren older than I was. Most of the rest had children my age. At age 23, I was their pastor. That was intimidating.

 

I was told by a mentor that I would have to have some rules of the road for communicating with my congregation. How would I get people so much older than I to talk to me rather than among themselves?

 

The list I drew up has evolved into ten principles that have transformed the way our church communicates. They now form a covenant signed each year by all the leaders, including me.

 

• If you have a problem with me, come to me (privately).

• If I have a problem with you, I'll come to you (privately).

• If someone has a problem with me and comes to you, send them to me. (I'll do the same for you.)

• If someone consistently will not come to me, say, "Let's go to the pastor together. I am sure he will see us about this." (I will do the same for you.)

• Be careful how you interpret me—I'd rather do that. On matters that are unclear, do not feel pressured to interpret my feelings or thoughts. It is easy to misinterpret intentions.

• I will be careful how I interpret you.

• If it's confidential, don't tell. (This especially applies to board meetings.) If you or anyone comes to me in confidence, I won't tell unless (a) the person is going to harm himself/herself, (b) the person is going to physically harm someone else, (c) a child has been physically or sexually abused. I expect the same from you.

• I do not read unsigned letters or notes.

• I do not manipulate; I will not be manipulated; do not let others manipulate you. Do not let others try to manipulate me through you. I will not preach "at" you on Sunday mornings. I will leave conviction to the Holy Spirit (he does it better anyway).

• When in doubt, just say it. The only dumb questions are those that don't get asked. We are a family here and we care about each other, so if you have a concern, pray, and then (if led) speak up. If I can answer it without misrepresenting something or breaking a confidence, I will.

While they have not eliminated every problem, the principles have provided a strong foundation for loving, Christlike communication.

 

Recently two members asked a longtime leader to "tell the pastor" about some idea that was not working. At first, this leader agreed to speak with me. Then, she called the two members back and said, "I've thought about what you asked me to do. I know that the pastor would appreciate it if you told him yourself. He always wants to hear what church members think. If he does not respond, then call me and you and I will go together."

 

That afternoon, the members sat with me in my office, and we worked through their problem. I did not know about their request of the person who sent them to me.

 

"I'm so glad you came to me personally," I closed our conversation. "Around here, all of our leaders believe in open communication, even about difficult matters."

 

Later, when I learned the rest of the story, I knew our adherence to the road rules had given that leader an opportunity to communicate her confidence in me. And I was allowed to cement two other relationships that might have presented roadblocks later on.

 

Charles W. Christian is minister at
Canby Chapel
Church of the Nazarene
2323 N.E. Territorial
Canby OR 97013

Copyright © 1999 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal.

Tuning In to Your Husband’s Needs

Written by Kenneth Sanderfer

from HomeLife

source: LifeWay

David grabs a quick lunch. Although he's off the clock, his mind is still working. What if I don't finish that project on time? I know the boss is edgy.

 

I really need to talk to Suzanne, but I don't have time. It bugs her when I cut the conversation short or she senses I'm distracted.

 

The weatherman's predicting rain tonight. The kids' soccer game will be cancelled. I need to call Suzanne and see how that changes our evening.

 

I promised to help with the new outreach program at the church tomorrow night. How am I going to do that and get everything else done?

 

Work. Marriage. Family. Ministry. David fears he'll never get any of it right.

 

 

The Heart of the Matter
Is it possible for you to understand what your husband is feeling and to support him as he fights to balance work, marriage, family, and ministry? The answer is yes, and it may not be as complicated as you think. Look no further than your own heart.

 

Sure, men and women are different, but after many years of counseling married couples, I believe husbands and wives are more alike than not. This is especially true when it comes to relational needs.

 

Scripture sheds light on this. Jesus never let culture, gender, or race get in the way of meeting the needs of those He encountered. He never allowed outside stuff to distract Him from the divine reality that, at the center of our being, we all are alike. Jesus always spoke directly to the common place, the heart. And He always spoke to the heart in love.

 

Jesus exemplifies a term used in counseling called empathic attunement. It's the act of leaving the comfort of one's existence with the purpose of entering the experience of another. Envision someone's hand turning a radio knob so it moves from its resting place through the static to another station. To be empathically attuned to your husband, you must momentarily leave the music of your choice to tune in to the music of his choice.

 

The sole purpose is to understand what life is like for him. It's not about what you would be experiencing if you were juggling work, marriage, family, and ministry. It's about what your husband is experiencing at work, in your marriage, in your family, and in ministry. When Suzanne turns to David and lets him know she's tuned in to the music of his day and validates his struggle, he will feel understood and authenticated. This is speaking directly to the heart of the matter.

 

 

Medicine for His Soul
Words of validation and affirmation aren't really hard to come up with: "I was thinking today about how difficult it must be for you to balance all you do. I really appreciate the sacrifices you make for me and the children." This statement likely will reach your husband's heart. The clear message of understanding translates into "I care." Marriage is all about being emotionally available to each other.

 

Words of affirmation not only calm the static in his life, they connect you to each other. Are these words really all that different from what you, as a wife, would like to hear?

 

 

A Bond of Strength
Long-term studies about why marriages succeed or fail indicate what successful marriages share: a strong emotional bond. Emotional bonds develop in relationships that provide a safe haven — a place where a husband and a wife know they are a priority, where there is contact and connection, and where both partners can turn to each other in a vulnerable way. Sounds surprisingly similar to the relational model Jesus exemplified, doesn't it?

 

If it's true that, at the heart level, husbands and wives need the same things, then how do you cross through layers of outside differences that can impede the journey to your husband's heart? How do you meet his needs? Consider the following.

 

Acquire 20/20 vision. Many times spouses develop an eye for the negative. You can see negatives clearly from 20 feet away. The challenge is to acquire an eye for the positive. You might have to strain at first, but with practice, you may be surprised by how fast positive 20/20 vision can change your view of your husband — and, in turn, how he views you.

 

Improve your hearing. Acquire an ear for information that will lead directly to your husband's heart. Think about it. What are some subtle messages you receive from him on a routine basis? What requests has he made in the past but now has given up on?

 

Tuning in to your husband's spoken (and unspoken) needs — and then meeting them — is living your love out loud.

 

Amplify your voice. This may sound contradictory, but if you want to meet your husband's needs, it's imperative that you clearly and loudly express your needs — and shoot straight. There's nothing more satisfying than when both spouses actively meet each other's needs.

 

Are you tuned in to your husband's needs? If not, today is a great day to turn the knob and listen to the music of his heart.

 

Kenneth Sanderfer is a marriage and family therapist in Nashville, Tenn.

Invitation to join a short inspirational (13 hours from this post)

Have you received an email with the title, "The Paradox of Our Time"?

Origins:   In May 1998, Jeff Dickson posted the 'Paradox of Our Time' essay to his Hacks-R-Us online forum, loosing it upon the Internet. The essay has since been attributed to comedian George Carlin, an unnamed Columbine High School student, and that most prolific of scribes, Anonymous.

The true author of the piece is neither George Carlin nor Jeff Dickson, nor is he anonymous. Credit belongs with Dr. Bob Moorehead, former pastor of Seattle's Overlake Christian Church. (He retired in 1998 after 29 years in that post). The essay appeared under the title "The Paradox of Our Age" in Words Aptly Spoken, Dr. Moorehead's 1995 collection of prayers, homilies, and monologues used in his sermons and radio broadcast...

 

...from snopes.com

 

 

Though not free from serious controversy himself, still, Dr. Moorehead's meditation on the sad state of the human race today really hits home. If you haven't read this article or if you hadn't had the chance to really think on the content,at the end is the article for you to ponder on. We invite you to join us for a short time of fellowship and mutual encouragement 13 hours from now at our resource site chat room. (mwfrc3.blogspot.com, if the room does not load, you need a quick download of Java at Java.com, you may IM at yahoo msgr if you have problems, my ID is lyka927 )

 

We will be talking about ways, we as children of the heavenly father, can live out the life and purpose He desires of us. We will talk on how we as wives and mothers can lead and influence lives positively for the glory of God.

 

"I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly."

John 10:10 NKJV

------

 

Let's not let this paradox be our life's description.... 

The Paradox of Our Age

 We have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways but narrower viewpoints; we spend more but have less; we buy more but enjoy it less; we have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, yet less time; we have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge but less judgement; more experts, yet more problems; we have more gadgets but less satisfaction; more medicine, yet less wellness; we take more vitamins but see fewer results. We drink too much; smoke too much; spend too recklessly; laugh too little; drive too fast; get too angry quickly; stay up too late; get up too tired; read too seldom; watch TV too much and pray too seldom.

 

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values; we fly in faster planes to arrive there quicker, to do less and return sooner; we sign more contracts only to realize fewer profits; we talk too much; love too seldom and lie too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space; we've done larger things, but not better things; we've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom, but not our prejudice; we write more, but learn less; plan more, but accomplish less; we make faster planes, but longer lines; we learned to rush, but not to wait; we have more weapons, but less peace; higher incomes, but lower morals; more parties, but less fun; more food, but less appeasement; more acquaintances, but fewer friends; more effort, but less success. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; drive smaller cars that have bigger problems; build larger factories that produce less. We've become long on quantity, but short on quality.

 

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, but short character; steep in profits, but shallow relationships. These are times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure and less fun; higher postage, but slower mail; more kinds of food, but less nutrition. These are days of two incomes, but more divorces; these are times of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, cartridge living, thow-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies and pills that do everything from cheer, to prevent, quiet or kill. It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stock room. Indeed, these are the times!

The Worship Christ Seeks

Dr. John Barnett
Discover the Book


"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [material possessions]." —Matthew 6:24, emphasis added

 

The church at Ephesus had been loyal to God and His Word in spite of being surrounded by strong materialism in their city. Because of the nearly universal worship of Diana, no one would dare to rob her; thus, behind the altar was the World Bank. One might say that Ephesus was the New York City of the ancient world. Perhaps the evil influence of this materialistic environment may have gradually weakened the first love of some of the Ephesian Christians. For lusting after money and possessions is certain to cool a believer's love for Christ.

 

How did the devoted Christians at Ephesus resist Satan's stronghold of materialism? As Paul said in Colossians 3, they set their affections on things above, not on things on the earth. As specific biblical principles were followed, they broke free of the lust for money and possessions. These same principles apply to us today as well.



 

Live for your new inheritance reserved in heaven: In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).



 

Rejoice in your secure inheritance: [The Holy Spirit] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:14). God is safeguarding our inheritance! After the Resurrection, Jesus went back to prepare a place for us. In light of the fact that it took Jesus only six days to make the whole universe, the heavenly mansions He is preparing must be spectacular (John 14:2).



 

Rejoice in your magnificent inheritance: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. (Ephesians 1:18). What Christ has in store for us is far greater than we could possibly ever imagine, for His riches are unsearchable (Ephesians 3:8)!

 

 

Rejoice that your wealth in Christ is more than can be counted: In the ages to come He [will] show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:7). The only way to get victory over the lust of materialism is to rejoice wholeheartedly in Jesus himself—and the richness of what Christ has in store for you. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21).



 

Our greatest treasure is to be Jesus—whom we are to worship with our whole heart, mind, and soul. In contrast, the full worship of Diana involved silver "letters" (the images made and sold there), which led to very alluring, sordid, and ecstatic worship. How did the Ephesian Christians keep from getting caught up in such false worship? They saw that their access in Christ was instant and universal through prayer, and not localized to a pagan temple. They understood that true worship is spiritual: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24; see also Ephesians 5:18-21). Diana's temple fell into ruins, but Christ's church can never be destroyed: The whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord"(Ephesians 2:21).

 

Now then, what seems to be the root cause behind the Ephesians' loss of their first love? Although materialism may have cooled the passion of some for Christ, I believe the root cause is that they stopped worshiping because they were so busy. Regardless of what competes for our affections to rob us of our first love—even service for Christ himself—we need to repent and return to the way things were at first with the Lord (Revelation 2:5).

 

Jesus says, "Worship before You serve Me! You can't worship Me 'in spirit and in truth' if you have left your first love! And see to it that you maintain your passion to be with My people every time they meet!"

 

Do you have "an ear to hear" His voice speaking to you? I pray so!