Christians should entrust mortality to God. Life is not something we own. Rather, the opportunity to experience life is a gift from our Creator, and the possession of life is a stewardship trust. God always remains the true “Owner” of life; so it is never ours to do with as we want. Death’s timing is God’s choice, not of an individual or society. Life is valuable to the Lord, and even the life continuation of the murderer Cain was protected by the Creator of life.[1]

The way in which people think or feel about human life is of major importance to morality. Scripture declares the sanctity of life, and the attitudes towards life which should follow.[2]  Life is borrowed, transitory, dependent upon and at the disposal of God (cf. Mt. 4:4). Man can neither prolong his soul-life nor destroy it (Mt. 6:25 ff.; Lk. 12:25; Jas. 4:15); God can either forfeit it or redeem it to resurrection-life (Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:44; 1 Jn. 5:16; cf. Jas. 5:20). (ii) Life is ebb and flow: to live is to live in health (Jn. 4:50).[3]  The Bible teaches that only God gives life and that only God should take life away (Exod. 20:13; Job 1:21; cp. Rom. 14:7–8). Human life is a sacred and precious gift because each person is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27; Ps. 8:5). The writers of the OT voiced a strong preference for life over death (Deut. 30:19), even in the face of crushing pain and defeat (Job 2:9–10).

God places special value on human life (Gen. 1:26, 27; Ps. 8:4–6). Human life is sacred because the man and woman alone were created in the image of God, and that life deserves protection. God commands His people to protect and defend innocent human life (Ezek. 16:20, 21, 36, 38). Under the Mosaic Law, the murder of another person deserved punishment by death because of the value of the life that was destroyed (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13).

Scripture extends this special status and protection to human life in every stage of development and need (Is. 46:3, 4). The unborn child shares in God’s image (Ps. 139:13–16) and is protected under Old Testament law (Ex. 21:22–25). Believers are exhorted to defend and care for the sick, the elderly, and the poor (Lev. 19:32; Deut. 15:7, 8). No one is excluded from protection and care.[4]

 

Yet there comes a God-appointed time for everyone to die (Eccles. 3:2; Heb. 9:27). Although Christians value life highly, they need not fear death (1 Cor. 15:54–55; Heb. 2:14–15; cp. 2 Cor. 5:8). The Apostle Paul, who was torn between life on earth and eternal life in heaven, was willing to follow either path that God desired for him (Phil. 1:19–26).[5]

The sixth commandment establishes the sanctity of life.[6]

Throughout history this biblical view of the sanctity of all human life has faced opposition—most notably from those who advocate a “quality of life” viewpoint, suggesting that human life must possess certain qualities and abilities before it can be considered truly valuable and worthy of life sustenance. According to this distorted humanistic view, if the unborn child, the handicapped infant, or the elderly person does not possess these qualities, that individual is not entitled to the protection which Scripture or the Law would give.

The Bible rejects this “quality of life” view. The value of human life does not depend upon the person’s functional abilities or independent viability but is assured because of the image of God which is found in every human life. God does not measure the quality of a human being before He bestows His image. God calls upon us to extend our care and compassion to every life He has created, in every stage of development and in every need.[7]

Though the issue is sometimes argued in terms of when life begins, more often in recent years the key question is when personhood begins. Harold O. J. Brown rightly observes that in the present discussion, a biological term, life, has been exchanged for a legal term, person. It is further argued that only persons have rights, one of which is the right to life, with corresponding obligations to others not to take one’s rights. This switch is not insignificant, as rights no longer are grounded in natural law or biological considerations, but are granted by the state. Of course, what the state grants, it may take away.

Paul Ramsey, formerly a moral theologian at Princeton, concurs. He has argued that the debate has taken a new turn. Previously, while there might be disagreement as to the beginning of human life, it was agreed that whenever it did begin, there was a person with rights. Now there is an attempt to divorce human life and personhood. No longer is personhood grounded in the possession of biological human life.[8]

The issue of personhood is crucial to the abortion debate, and it is equally important in debates over euthanasia. We have already noted contemporary criteria for determining personhood (criteria used in both the abortion and euthanasia debates), so we need not repeat them here. Those who use the argument to support euthanasia argue that an individual once possessed personhood, does not as his life nears its end, and has no potential of regaining it. Thus, someone in an irreversible coma, for example, is no longer a person but only a biological organism. There is no need to maintain biological life that does not sustain personal life. [9]



[1] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995).


[2] Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manser, 2009).


[3] E. E. Ellis, "Life" In , in New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard et al., 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 689.


[4] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995).


[5] Paul H. Wright, "Life Support (Artificial)" In , in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1039.


[6] James E. Smith, The Pentateuch, 2nd ed., Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1993), Dt 19:1–22:8.


[7] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995).


[8] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 58-59.


[9] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 106.

The term evil relates to those things that are morally wrong and reprehensible. Theodicy, meaning “the problem of evil,” is considered a theological/philosophical quandary. Its roots stem from ancient theological works declaring the goodness of divinity, despite the existence of evil (Ehrman, God’s Problem). The term was coined by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) in his Essais de Théodicée.[1]  The greatest challenge historically to Christianity is the problem of evil: How can an all-powerful, all-loving God tolerate evil and suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or if He can, He doesn’t want to. In either case, it proves He doesn’t exist as Christians believe.[2]

The Torah teaches how Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world—no explanation is given as to why sin was allowed to enter the world. God later allowed the Israelites to endure evil and overcome it because of the covenant He made with them at Mount Sinai. Theodicy is a common theme in Old Testament writings:

•  Abraham asks the Lord: “Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?” (Gen 18:25).

•  Sacrifices were often considered efficacious in preventing woe in the Old Testament (Kraus, Sacrifice).

•  Moses asks that the Lord write him out of the record of history in Exod 32:32 after His massacring of those who constructed the golden calf at the base of Mount Sinai (Horeb).

•  Amos 3:6; Jer 12:1; Ezek 18 brought up the idea of God causing woe.

•  Isaiah 45:7 says of God: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

•  Jonah prefers God’s justice over His mercy when related to the Gentiles at Nineveh, but God contends it is because Jonah did not create them (Jon 4:9–11).

The book of Job deals directly with the subject of theodicy. The Israelites believed a doctrine known as retributional theology, in which sin resulted in punishment. In chapter 1, God gives Satan (שָּׂטָן, satan; “adversary”) permission to tempt Job—an upright man—only up to certain points to see how Job reacts. The subsequent narrative of Job and his interactions with friends presents the classic problem of theodicy: How can a good, all-knowing God allow evil to happen to someone as upright as Job? No answer is given—God allowed it to happen to Job based on His sovereignty. Job shows that not all evil is a punishment for sin.[3]

 

Job is the fullest development in Scripture of the issue referred to by theologians and philosophers as “the problem of evil” or “theodicy.” Simply put, the matter is this: since humans, especially the seemingly innocent, suffer pain and evil, then what kind of God must there be? Logic suggests one of three answers: (1) God is righteous, but he is not powerful enough to prevent suffering; (2) God is all-powerful, but he is not truly good and has elements of evil in his nature; or (3) all pain and evil is in fact deserved by the sufferer and sent by God (in other words, the truly innocent do not suffer).

The biblical view finds these answers unacceptable, and the book of Job wrestles with the alternative. Job reveals a wider arena than humanity can observe. The conflict of the ages between God and Satan must in the end demonstrate both the righteousness and supremacy of God. He lets the innocent suffer to demonstrate that in his sovereignty he receives glory even when his people suffer and persevere in faith without understanding why. From a merely human point of view, the answer is that there is no answer given to the problem of evil. From a divine perspective, the answer is that God’s glory is served even when evil is permitted. (Christ’s death is God’s ultimate answer to the problem of evil.) Those who study Job today should interpret it in view of its original purpose.[4]

The New Testament shows how God uses and allows evil for His greater purposes. It teaches how believers can live in the strength and grace God gives. Three approaches are given in the New Testament literature concerning evil and how believers may understand its presence in the world.

1.   Evil is a natural repercussion of free human choices. Romans 2:3–5 explains how persons who practice evil do so out of the hardness of their hearts. While this approach does explain the evil actions caused by the evil choices of humans in the world, it does not explain every form of evil, such as painful deaths caused by natural events.

2.   Evil may be used by God to help shape a believer and sanctify them further (1 Cor 9:24–27; Heb 12:3–13). Human suffering comes as God either directs or permits suffering to teach. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul states that God disciplines those He loves. As persons suffer, God is bringing about discipline and maturity in their lives. They must walk by faith to eventually understand what is happening.

3.   Though evil may be carried out and performed, God will one day execute justice and fairness on all evildoers (John 14:1–3 and 2 Cor 4:16–18). The suffering in this world is small against the perspective of eternity. All suffering and wrongs will be righted at the end times when God will judge the world.[5]

 

God is separate from all evil and is in no way responsible for it. Moral evil arises from man’s sinful inclinations (Jas. 1:13–15). Israel repeatedly ‘did evil’ and suffered its consequences (Jdg. 2:11; 1 Ki. 11:6, etc.). Behind all history is a spiritual conflict with evil powers (Eph. 6:10–17; Rev. 12:7–12), ‘the evil one’ being the very embodiment of wickedness (Mt. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38; Jn. 17:15; Eph 6:16; 2 Thes. 3:3; 1 Jn 2:13–14; 3:12; 5:18–19). Satan’s power is under divine control (cf. Jb. 1–2), and will finally be broken (Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12:9–11).

God is against evil, but its existence is often a stumbling-block to belief in a God of love. It can only be attributed to the abuse of free-will on the part of created beings, angelic and human. God’s whole saving activity is directed to deal with evil. In his life, Christ combated its manifestations of pain and sorrow (Mt. 8:16–17); but the cross is God’s final answer to the problem of evil. His love was supremely demonstrated there (Rom. 5:8; 8:32) in the identification of the Lord with the suffering world as the Sin-bearer. The moral change effected in men by the gospel is evidence of the reality of Christ’s triumph over all evil powers (Col. 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:8), and therefore of the final victory of God. Evil will be eliminated from the universe, and the creation will share redeemed man’s glorious destiny. Both physical and moral evil will be banished eternally (Rev. 21:1–8).[6]



[1] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[2] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 166.


[3] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[4] Kendell H. Easley, Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding the Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2002), 112.


[5] D. A. Neal, "Theodicy" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[6] G. C. D. Howley, "Evil" In , in New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard et al., 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 349.

  The Augustinian doctrine that the election of some people to salvation on the basis of God’s sovereign choice rather than on human merit. The stronger view, known as double predestination, holds that God elects some for salvation and damns others, while the more moderate view, known as single predestination, holds that God only elects some for salvation while others are passed over and left in their sin. While most Reformers agreed on the elect, views differed on the non-elect.[1]

The Reformed view sees election as unconditional. Classically associated with Augustine and John Calvin, this view understands God as choosing individuals for salvation. Differing opinions exist concerning when this choice occurred (e.g., before or after the Fall) and whether this choice includes the direct or indirect condemnation of the non-elect. The emphasis of this view is generally upon the depravity of humankind, and their inability to contribute anything to their salvation.

Others view election as conditional. This position (often called Arminian) emphasizes people’s free will and their need for repentance and faith in order to receive God’s gift. Under this view, God has predetermined the conditions for salvation, but does not orchestrate who will meet these conditions. In other words, God has foreordained the necessary characteristics of His people but has not chosen the constituent members of that people.[2]

The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28–39; Eph. 1:3–14; 2 Thess. 2:13–14; 2 Tim. 1:9–10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32).[3]

A mediating position between the Reformed and Arminian views seeks to retain a belief in God’s choosing and humankind’s free choice. It suggests that God chose those whom He knew would “meet the requirements” of repentance from sins and faith in Jesus. God’s foreknowledge and election are thus integrated with the free choice of humanity.

Other views describe the doctrine solely in corporate terms. The emphasis here is on God’s creation of a people rather than His calling of individuals. Where individual calling is in view, it is generally seen as a calling unto a task rather than a calling unto salvation. This view holds God’s election of a people as unconditional in a corporate sense, and unlimited in an individual sense. His choice of a people, and what that people will be and do, has been made—but He has not predetermined who will be a part of that people.[4]


 



[1] George Thomas Kurian, Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary: The Authoritative Resource on the Christian World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001).


[2] A. Chadwick Thornhill, "Election" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[3] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993).


[4] A. Chadwick Thornhill, "Election" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).

 

            The tension between the Sovereignty of God and the exercise of human will is the age old question of theology and ethics. What is ordained by God and what ethics acts is man responsible for? The ability to choose between good and evil without reference to the grace of God or any external constraint or imposed necessity. Normally, the issue pertains to the question of free will after the Fall. The apparent conflict between the exercise of free will and the sovereign omnipotence of God is the subject of endless theological debates, between Augustinianism and Pelagianism in the early church and between Calvinism and Arminianism in the latter-day church. Augustinianism held that after the Fall the will is inherently enslaved and corrupted by original sin. Calvinism held that God has a predetermined plan for each human being. In matters of salvation Calvinism emphasizes the weakness of the will and the power of sin. Both taught the liberating power of grace.[1]  Predestination is among the most important and controversial matters with which Christians, as well as adherents to other monotheistic religions professing divine sovereignty (e.g., Judaism and Islam), have historically grappled. In the Old Testament, predestination is a facet of Yahweh’s reign over all that He created and sustains. Yahweh is the ruler of all history who can infallibly declare the future before it happens (Isa 48:3–5; Dan 4:35), while other gods are the powerless, ignorant, and lifeless creations of human beings (Isa 41:21–24; 44:9–20; Jer 10:1–16). Yahweh predestined the nation of Israel among all the peoples on earth to be His chosen and holy people (Deut 7:6; 14:2), a light to the rest of the world[2].  The best known and most loved New Testament summary of the gospel is Ephesians 2:8–9, with its emphasis on grace and faith. Ephesians also notes God’s delight in electing persons to salvation. The language of predestination to eternal life is pronounced (1:5, 11), as is Paul’s notion that “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (5:25). (The long-standing theological dispute about divine election—predestination—is a matter of discerning the basis of God’s choice. All students who take the Bible seriously affirm divine predestination; the debate is simply over its basis.)[3]

            These ideas lead to thoughts on ethics and how the Divine interacts with them.  The key, of course, is that God’s will determines the norms. The basis of his choice, however, is understood differently depending on the theory. Divine command theories can be roughly divided on this matter in terms of the question raised pointedly in Plato’s Euthyphro. That dialogue discusses whether an act is right because God wills it, or whether God wills it because he knows it is right. Divine command theories vary in their answer to Plato’s question, but during the Middle Ages divine command theorists typically chose the former option. A prime example of such a theory from medieval times is William of Ockham’s. According to Ockham, whatever God wills must be done simply because he says so. If God had wanted, he could have ordered men to obey the opposite of the Ten Commandments. Even now he can rescind those laws and will their opposite.

On the contemporary scene there are proponents of the divine command theory. Some give the impression that God chooses his commands completely arbitrarily; others hold that God’s choices are not purely arbitrary, though they do not always explain God’s rationale for his choices.

In addition, some ethicists hold a modified divine command theory. Robert M. Adams is a well-known proponent of such a view. He follows divine command theories in that he claims that ethical prescriptions say something about God’s will and commands. On the other hand, Adams says every statement of ethical right and wrong presupposes that “certain conditions for the applicability of the believer’s concepts of ethical right and wrong are satisfied.” Among those conditions is that God is love. Thus, Adams’s theory amounts to the following: “x is ethically wrong” means “x is contrary to the commands of a loving God.” For Adams this implies that while it is logically possible for God to command cruelty for its own sake, it is unthinkable that he would do so.[4]

 



[1] George Thomas Kurian, Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary: The Authoritative Resource on the Christian World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001).


[2] Kirk R. MacGregor, "Predestination" In , in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry, Lazarus Wentz, Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).


[3] Kendell H. Easley, Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding the Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2002), 298-99.


[4] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 26.

(From the ProPreacher Blog)

Sometimes I complain about being a pastor.

There are times when I have Elijah moments. I feel depressed and whine to God about how I don’t have the strength to keep going.

I think, if we are honest, we would admit that most of us have felt this way about ministry.

Ministry is difficult! It can be extremely discouraging and defeating.

It is times like these, when you feel down or discouraged in ministry, that you have to remember why you got started in the first place. You have to remember why you made the decision to follow God’s calling to ministry.

I have to constantly remind myself why I should be thankful. So, I made a quick list over Thanksgiving of ten reasons I am thankful to be a pastor.

No matter how difficult ministry may get, I can look at these things and know I am truly more blessed than I think.

10 Reasons I Am Thankful To Be A Pastor

1. I get to tell everyone about the hope and salvation I have found in Jesus, and have a front row seat to see God change people’s lives.
   
   
2. I get the privilege of preaching God’s word to His people.
   
   
3. I get to spend every day seeking Jesus and doing my best to do what he says.
   
   
4. I get to meet and enjoy relationships with all kinds of people from all different ages, races, backgrounds, and walks of life.
   
   
5. I have a church community that genuinely loves my family and I.
   
   
6. I have the peace of mind knowing that if any hardship or tragedy may strike me or my family, my church family would be there for us.
   
   
7. There is no better accountability system for sin than knowing that everyone in the church and the community is watching how I live.
   
   
8. I actually get paid to do ministry so that I can focus on it full-time.
   
   
9. God uses my imperfect efforts to accomplish His perfect mission.
   
   
10. I am investing my life in the only thing that will last.
    
    

What about you? Why are you thankful to be a pastor? And for those of you who are not pastors, what should pastors be more thankful for?

Staying on Top of Conflict

Harmful conflict is usually triggered by unmet desires. "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it" (James 4:1-2). Even good desires can evolve into controlling demands or idols that can lead us to judge others and then avoid or punish them until we get what we want (see Luke 10:38-42). This progression often starts with minor differences, but before we know it we're sliding down a slippery slope of conflict that can drop off in two directions.



Escape ResponsesPeople tend to use escape responses when they are more interested in avoiding unpleasant people or situations than in resolving differences.

Denial—One way to escape from a conflict is to pretend that a problem does not exist. Another way is to refuse to do what should be done to resolve a conflict properly. These responses bring only temporary relief and usually make matters worse (see 1 Sam. 2:22-25).

Flight—Another way to escape from a conflict is to run away. This may take the form of pulling away from a relationship, quitting a job, filing for divorce, or changing churches. Flight may be legitimate in extreme circumstances (see 1 Sam. 19:9-10), but in most cases it only postpones a proper solution to a problem.



 

Suicide—When people lose all hope of resolving a conflict, they may seek to escape from the situation (or make a desperate cry for help) by attempting to take their own lives (see 1 Sam 31:4). Suicide is never a right way to deal with conflict.

Attack ResponsesPeople tend to use attack responses when they are more interested in controlling others and getting their way than in preserving a relationship.

Assault—Some people try to overcome an opponent by using various forms of force or intimidation, such as verbal attacks (including gossip and slander), physical violence, or efforts to damage a person financially or professionally (see Acts 6:8-15). Such conduct always makes conflict worse.

Litigation—Although some conflicts may legitimately be taken before a civil judge (see Acts 24:1-26:32; Rom. 13:1-5), lawsuits usually damage relationships, diminish our Christian witness, and often fail to achieve complete justice. This is why Christians are commanded to make every effort to settle their differences within the church rather than the civil courts (see Matt. 5:25-26; 1 Cor. 6:1-8).

Murder—In extreme cases, people may be so desperate to win a dispute that they will try to kill those who oppose them (see Acts 7:54-58). While most people would not actually kill someone, we still stand guilty of murder in God's eyes when we harbor anger or contempt in our hearts toward others (see 1 John 3:15; Matt. 5:21-22).

The Gospel—The Key to PeaceThe key to changing the way we deal with conflict is the gospel—the good news that God made peace with us and between us by sending his Son to die for our sins and give us new life through his resurrection (Col. 1:19-20; Eph. 2:14-16). When we believe in Jesus, we receive forgiveness and are united with Christ and one another (Acts 10:43; Phil. 2:1-2). God then begins to transform us into the likeness of his Son, enabling us to break free from sinful escaping and attacking habits and mature into peacemakers who reflect the glory of God's reconciling love in the midst of conflict (2 Cor. 3:17-18; Col. 3:12-15).

Peacemaking Responses







Peacemakers are people who breathe grace. Inspired by the gospel, they draw continually on the goodness and power of Jesus Christ, and then breathe out his love, mercy, forgiveness, and wisdom to dissipate anger, improve understanding, promote justice, and model repentance and reconciliation.

The six responses found on the top portion of the slippery slope may be divided into two categories: personal peacemaking responses and assisted peacemaking responses:

PERSONAL PEACEMAKING

There are three biblical ways to resolve conflicts personally and privately, just between you and the other party.

Overlook an Offense—Many disputes are so insignificant that they should be resolved by quietly overlooking an offense. "A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense" (Prov. 19:11). Overlooking an offense is a form of forgiveness, and involves a deliberate decision not to talk about it, dwell on it, or let it grow into pent-up bitterness or anger.

Reconciliation—If an offense is too serious to overlook or has damaged our relationship, we need to resolve personal or relational issues through confession, loving correction, and forgiveness. "[If] your brother has something against you ... go and be reconciled" (Matt. 5:23-24). "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently" (Gal. 6:1; see Matt. 18:15). "Forgive as the Lord forgave you" (Col. 3:13).

Negotiation—Even if we successfully resolve relational issues, we may still need to work through material issues related to money, property, or other rights. This should be done through a cooperative bargaining process in which you and the other person seek to reach a settlement that satisfies the legitimate needs of each side. "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4).

ASSISTED PEACEMAKING

When a dispute cannot be resolved personally, God calls us to seek assistance from other believers.



Mediation—If two people cannot reach an agreement in private, they should ask one or more objective outside people to meet with them to help them communicate more effectively and explore possible solutions. "If he will not listen [to you], take one or two others along" (Matt. 18:16). These mediators may ask questions and give advice, but the parties retain the responsibility of making the final decision on how to resolve their differences. 

Arbitration—When you and an opponent cannot come to a voluntary agreement on a material issue, you may appoint one or more arbitrators to listen to your arguments and render a binding decision to settle the issue. "If you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church" (1 Cor. 6:4).

Accountability—If a person who professes to be a Christian wanders from the Lord by refusing to be reconciled and do what is right, Jesus commands church leaders to lovingly intervene to hold him or her accountable to Scripture and to promote repentance, justice, and forgiveness: "If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not ... go to look for the one that wandered off? ... If he refuses to listen ..., tell it to the church" (Matt. 18:12,17).

As you can see, the escape responses only postpone a proper solution to a problem, and attack responses usually damage relationships and make conflicts worse. Therefore, you should generally try first to deal with conflict personally and privately by using one of the first three conciliation responses (overlooking, discussion, or negotiation). To learn how to carry out these steps in a biblically faithful manner, see The Four G's.

If repeated efforts at personal peacemaking do not resolve a matter, then you may need to pursue one of the other conciliation responses (mediation, arbitration, or accountability), which will require the assistance of other people in your church or community. For more information on these assisted responses, see Resolving Conflict through Christian Conciliation.

- See more at: http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBIpH/b.958151/k.5236/The_Slippery_Slope_of_Conflict.htm#sthash.i6BT8Kke.dpuf

.  The Book of Proverbs is what is known as “wisdom literature.” In Scripture, wisdom is a moral and practical quality: wisdom guides the individual of sound character to make decisions which are both right and beneficial.[1] The proverb referenced spoke of being sure to listen.  “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak,” commands James 1:19. Too often we are slow to hear—we never really listen to the whole matter patiently—and swift to speak; and this gets us into trouble. It is wise to “restrain the lips” until you really have something to say (10:19). A godly person will study to answer, but a fool will open his mouth and pour out foolishness (15:28). [2]

One should listen carefully before answering, making sure that he understands the import of what is being said. A wise person does not interrupt the speech of his fellow, and is not hasty to respond to his proposals.[3]  Listening to the other person’s “heart” as well as his words is an important aspect of interpersonal relationships.[4]  God wants us to search out each matter carefully (25:2) and then give fair judgment. Proverbs 18:17 warns us not to agree with the “first cause” that we hear but to seek to understand both sides of a matter. Even where dedicated Christians are involved, there are two sides to a story. This is not because people necessarily lie, but simply because no two people see and hear the same matter in the same way. David jumped to conclusions about innocent Mephibosheth because he failed to get the other side of the matter (2 Sam. 16:1–4; 19:24–30). All of us need to pray, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips” (Ps. 141:3). See Ps. 39:1.[5]



[1] Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 343.


[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), Pr 18:13.


[3] James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), Pr 18:13.


[4] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), Pr 18:13.


[5] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), Pr 18:13.

Tomorrow morning I will begin a new sermon series on the book of Genesis at Brumley Baptist Church.  I am excited to look at this book.  I had someone ask me this week why I would preach from such an old part of the OT.  



The Foundation of History—the “Beginnings” of Everything

Genesis is not just the first book of Scripture, it is the foundation for the rest of Scripture. If you do not understand Genesis, you cannot fully understand the person and attributes of the Creator Himself—Jesus Christ.

Genesis reveals the beginnings and foundations of reality—of our very existence. Without a clear understanding of these basic concepts, we are sorely lost among today’s plethora of conflicting ideas concerning the origins of:

• The universe, solar system, earth
• Life, man, marriage
• Language, government, culture
• Nations

The Foundation of All Biblical Structure and Theology

All of biblical structure and theology is set in the book of Genesis. If Genesis is not accurate history, then the rest of Scripture is little more than “tradition” and “viewpoints” that were written by ignorant sages of times past—and is therefore irrelevant today.

Origin of Evil: If the Fall of man recorded in Genesis 3 is not true, then the gospel is both foolish and unnecessary. In fact, if man did not rebel against his Creator, then the death of Jesus Christ is nothing more than an idealist’s martyrdom—not a total substitutionary atonement and reconciliation of God with man.

Origin of Death: If Adam’s sin is not an actual event, then death is nothing more than a “natural” means to weed out the unfit. Indeed, the evolutionary system insists death is good. In Scripture, death is a judgment and an enemy that will be eliminated.

Origin of Chosen People: The Old Testament is mostly a history of Israel. Why such a selective record if not to inscribe the supernatural protection of the Messianic line and the unique fulfillment of the hundreds of prophecies focused on Jews?

Origin of Many Descriptive Names of God: As the great history of the world unfolded, God revealed His attributes to early patriarchs through the majestic Hebrew terms used to describe God’s dealings with men. He is theElohim of creation; the El Shaddai of power and might; the ever-present El Elyon, the Most High; the One who sees, the El Roi; the Owner and Master,Adonai; and the eternal El Olam.

Perhaps if pastors and Sunday school teachers spent more time teaching the Lord’s people about the absolute truths of Genesis, we would have less difficulty UN-teaching the errors that abound in our churches. (part of an article from Dr. Henry Morris III, http://www.icr.org/article/preaching-genesis/)

Over the last few decades, people in the field of management have been involved in a search for a “best” style of leadership. Yet, the evidence from research clearly indicates that there is no single all-purpose leadership style. Successful leaders are those who can adapt their behavior to meet the demands of their own unique situation[1].  The choice of a leadership style has intrigued both academicians and practitioners[2]. 

Situational Leadership requires incredible judgment based on task knowledge and human assessment[3].  It is the responsibility of the leader to use his or her skill to assess what type of leadership technique to use. 

Situational leadership is a management style developed by noted management gurus Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey. The fundamental precept of situational leadership is that there is no one "best" style of leadership, and that the most successful leaders are the ones who can adapt their style to a given situation. Situational leadership consists of four general styles of management[4]. 

 A leadership model that links the effectiveness of a leader's style to the current work environment is referred to as situational leadership[5].   Situational Leadership focuses on the appropriateness or readiness of the follower[6].   The leaders' perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation. The leader's perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders' behavior[7].

The two basic leadership behaviors are directive and supportive.  Directive leadership allows the one in authority to make decisions and demands on those he is leading.  Supportive leadership gives tools from the leader to the followers to allow them to be involved in the decision making process.  Blanchard derived four situational leadership styles, which were based on these two basic kinds of leadership behaviors, directive and supportive:

Directing:  provides specific instructions and closely monitors progress; works best when followers are inexperienced[8].

Coaching:  With the selling and coaching style of leadership, the leader is still very involved in the day-to-day activities. The decisions still ultimately lie with the leader; however, input is requested from the employees before the decision is implemented[9].

Supporting:  provides direction and works together with followers to solve problems; works best when followers are not yet comfortable making decisions.

Delegating:  turns over responsibility for making decisions to followers; works best when followers are experienced and comfortable making decisions[10].



[1]Schermerhorn, John . "Situation Leadership." Mid-American Journal of Business 12 (1997): 5-12.


[2]Butler, John K., Jr. and Richard M. Reese.   “Leadership Style and Sales Performance: A Test of the Situational Leadership® Model.”  The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp. 37-46


[3] http://engineering.ucsb.edu/~tacy/capstone/leadership/my_leadership_style.pdf


[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-basic-leadership-styles-used-situational-managers-2982.html


[5] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/


[6] Schermerhorn, John . "Situation Leadership." Mid-American Journal of Business 12 (1997): 5-12.


[7] http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership.htm


[8] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/


[9] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/define-situational-leadership-2976.html


[10] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/