Something There Is That Doesn’t Love a Wall
Yesterday I preached on the story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho. Afterward, our dear friends Bill and Sherry Rankin led our time of communion. Here are the words Sherry wrote. I thought you’d enjoy them:
Robert Frost said: “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” He didn’t say what that something was, but whatever it was, it wasn’t human, because we humans love walls. There are some amazing walls in this world, most of them built to keep people out.
The longest man-made structure on earth is a wall: the Great Wall of China, begun in the 5th century before Christ to keep out the Mongol hordes. Then there’s the wall the Emperor Hadrian built in the 2nd century after Christ across Northern England, to keep the out the Scottish hordes. And there’s Offa’s dyke, built in the 8th century along the boundary of Mercia and Wales to keep out the Welsh hordes. And then there’s the 7-foot privacy fence we put up in our back yard this summer, to keep out the neighborhood hordes. And if I asked for a show of hands here today, I bet most of you would have to admit you have a fence in your yard, whether you need it or not. We just like our walls. We like our space. We like to control our own territory.
Jericho was a city famous for its walls. Every one of us learned the song as kids: “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the walls came tumbling down.” Now that I’m older, I don’t have the same easy view I did as a child of that story. I don’t know that I understand all of the complexities of the situation; I don’t know that I can explain the violence of what happened there. But something there was that didn’t love that wall around Jericho. God wanted to show his people entering that promised land that walls might keep out men, they might keep out an army—and the people living inside might feel safe, self-sufficient, in charge of their own fates. But walls crumble before the will of God, and the wall around Jericho didn’t stand a chance before him. Joshua’s army didn’t even have to touch the walls. They just obeyed God, marched around the city, blew their horns, and the walls came down.
God has this thing about knocking down walls. Walls bother him, for some reason. So hundreds of years after Joshua marched around the walls of Jericho, another Joshua, God himself in human flesh, visited Jericho and knocked down another kind of wall. Zaccheus, that wee little man from another childhood song, lived in Jericho, and he had built a great big wall in his life. Like most walls, it was about keeping some things out and some things in, about reassuring himself of his own power and control. His wall wasn’t made of brick and mortar, though. Zaccheus had walled up his heart. He had convinced himself that things were more important than people and that being rich was more valuable than being righteous. But maybe because he felt safe inside his wall or maybe because his wall was starting to crumble, he climbed up in that tree to see Jesus—Joshua, in Hebrew—when the Teacher came to town. Jesus saw the man hiding safe and self-satisfied behind his wall, and he knocked the wall right down. Zaccheus’ barriers collapsed: all the barriers he’d built between himself and others, and between himself and God. He invited Jesus inside his house, but more importantly, he let him inside his life. He went from being a guy who keeps people out to a guy who lets people in.
That’s what God does. Walls bother him. And they’re not part of his original plan: there were no walls in Eden—just God walking with his people who were caring for and cultivating his creation, plants, animals, the world itself. If you think about it, the first consequence of the fall was the building of a wall: they realized their nakedness, their vulnerability, and they sought to hide it, to separate themselves from God. The story of much of the rest of human history is a story of walls. But one moment changed all that—a moment whose season we’re preparing to celebrate. It was a moment of the tearing down of all walls, a moment when the barrier between spirit and flesh, Jew and Gentile, male and female, God and human—a moment when all of these walls collapsed before God. Paul admits as much when he says to the Ephesians, “For Christ himself is our peace, who has made us one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”
We build walls, but God destroys them. We’re sitting here now, about to take communion, but most of us are still sitting behind walls. The word “communion” means to commune, to share, to communicate. You can’t truly do that from behind a wall. As we eat this bread and drink this wine, let’s remember the story of walls, let’s let Jesus inside, and let each other inside. Something there is that doesn’t love a wall. That “something” is God.
I’m passionate about this because words mean things and our churches are choking on the chaff. Just like we cannot search the scriptures for only that which we find nourishing and reject the rest, we cannot accept this practice in our pulpits. If Jesus Christ is being preached, there should be no chaff to be blown away.
Sherry,
I certainly didn’t mean to pick apart what you were saying. I don’t quite understand all of the comments here, but I enjoy coming here and reading Mike’s posts. I tend to view things more conservatively than Mike but alot of the things he puts up here challenge me. But, I’m not the kind of guy to just change my mind because I read something. So the blog format gives me a chance to comment on things that challenge me. In a way I’m testing out new ways at looking at things and at the same time testing my old ways. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I become more firm, and quite a bit I do neither but walk away with a more open mind waiting for God to grant me more clarity in his way and in his time.
“It is indeed a blessing to attend a church peopled largely with kindly souls who are willing to sift through the grain of other Christians’ feeble verbal offerings, take what is nourishing, and with the breath of kindness blow the chaff away.”
This is what I try to do. For me these comments are part of that sifting process. Thanks for your willingness to offer that grain.
there was a man named Lot had a wife he thought was hot…
The beauty of a metaphor is that it provides some fresh insights.
The problem with a metaphor is that it doesn’t answer every possible question, explore every nuance or facet of what it tries to describe. Metaphors, even the best ones are good – up to a point.
Sherry’s use of the Jericho story probably wasn’t meant to be a comprehensive theological statement, and definitely not THE comprehensive theological statement (“Hey, I’ve finally figured out the point of that whole Jericho thing!”) to which all other Bible stories must conform.
So, for the sake of this communion meditation, the walls of Jericho are bad. That doesn’t negate Nehemiah’s wall being good; anymore than Jesus describing yeast as being hypocrisy (Luke 12:1) negates his use of yeast as symbolising the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:20-21).
This doesn’t answer every question or point raised in this discussion; but, like a metaphor, it wasn’t intended to do so.
Kerry, the feeble verbal offerings Sherry was referring to, chaff and all, were her own.
Kerry, the feeble verbal offerings Sherry was referring to, chaff and all, were her own.
At least, that’s how I read it, and not as an attack on anyone else’s comments.
Troy, please refresh my memory — what needs defending?
Kerry, what constitutes gibberish?
My guess is that Sherry used the Jericho story because it tied in with Mike’s sermon on Joshua and the walls of Jericho.
First, I thought Jamie B. makes a humdinger of a point about metaphor. They’re used to provide insight but not to explain every jot and tittle. (Or is it tiddle, Dr. Freud?) Let’s all just try to relax and enjoy it.
Ane here are just a few thoughts on Nehemiah, a favorite OT narrative of mine –
One reason for the wall was to separate the Jews from the people of Moab, Ammon, and Ashdod and to keep the Jews from inter-marrying with them. This was not like keeping them away from the Baptists and Methodists or those who allow women to speak in assemblies (*grin*); these folk believed in multiple gods, their worship assemblies were drunken orgies, and they sacrificed their children in fire. Yowza.
And as it turns out, the wall did very little to keep that from happening anyway, which I find to be quite telling. When Nehemiah leaves the wall behind for a while and comes back (chapter 13), it’s all happening again. The Sabbath is being ignored (13:15ff), godless Tobiah has actually been given a room “in the courts of the house of God” (13:7), the priests are nowhere to be found (13:10-11), and intermarrying is back in fashion. Nehemiah is so frustrated that he resorts to violence to try to make it stop (13:25 — “I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair.” Again I say — Yowza.) And history tells us that Nehemiah’s noble but sometimes violent efforts didn’t really change things. Walls can’t force change. Only Jesus — the one who destroyed walls –could change things.
From Ephesians 2:
“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.”
Gotta get back to work. It’s been fun. Sort of.
Gonna print the chorus to that song anytime soon, Someone/Someone Else?
Ha! Probably not…
Sherry’s words remind me of Jesus’ words from Matthew (ch. 5): “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” Clearly Jesus was about reconciliation.
Some have objected to Sherry’s point on the basis that Jerusalem had a wall. The walls of Jerusalem represented God’s protection of his people. In fact, in Zechariah (ch. 2) God said Jerusalem would one day be a city without walls, because HE HIMSELF WILL BE THE WALL. The image here is not of division, but of protection. And Nehemiah wanted to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem because, as he says, it was a disgrace for the city to be in ruins. The fact that Jerusalem had a wall doesn’t seem to me to rebut Sherry’s message in any way.
Some here seem to have less a problem with what Sherry said than the fact that she was allowed to say it at all. I won’t try to convince anyone otherwise. I’ll just say I’m so glad she did.
Thank you Sherry for your words. And thank you Mike for posting them here.
Thanks, Mark. Funny thing is: I grew up in a very traditional C of C, and it’s incredibly hard for me to overcome that early conditioning, even though I’ve been convinced in my mind and heart that what I was taught as a child regarding the role of women in the church needs to be re-examined. Even after I reached those conclusions myself, it was a long time before I would speak publically in church. I worried that it would cause someone else to stumble. I’ve never been one of those women fomenting to get up in the pulpit–I’ve been dragged there by study and conviction, not by desire. Ironically, Bill asked me to lead the prayer for the bread on Sunday but I declined, not because I think it’s wrong: it’s just too far out of my childhood comfort zone. That’s some baggage that’s hard to shake, and it takes time for the feelings to line up with the brain.
I’m sure this will only re-inforce the convictions of some, that my words were spoken with a feminist agenda in mind. I can’t help that. All I can say is that, while there may be some women wanting to push their way to the front, my experience with women in the churches of Christ is that they primarily want to do what is right, please God, and nurture the body of Christ. They are willing to step out and brave the insults and false accusations of others for the sake of the gospel of truth, but it’s not a fun thing. It’s not what they would choose, except that they feel compelled by the Spirit of God.
Peace to you all.
C.- Thanks for asking. There are several statements that I can find no real basis for. They are as follows:
1. “Walls bother him(God).”
2. “They’re(walls) not a part of his original plan.”
3. “There were no walls in Eden.”
My biggest concern was the twisting of Gal 3:28 to fit this anti-wall premise. “For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The way that I understand this verse, within its context, is that the wall(law) is not between each of these, but between all of these and salvation. In other words, the law was removed, and the promise was fulfilled, not to equate men with women, but to equate men and women with heirs.
The addition of spirit and flesh, and God and human, in this context, begs an explanation as well.
Isn’t it a blessing to have that wall of the law torn down between all of us and God (salvation) and that through Christ we don’t have to have a perfect understanding of scripture. I hope we can all celebrate our salvation even in our disagreement…. can’t we??
Troy?
Kerry?
Sherry, I am blessed by your courage and that of the other women you mention.
I hope that one day you feel comfortable accepting the invitation to pray. How I wish I had grown up in a church where each person was encouraged to express themselves, both to the church and to God in the presence of the church. Instead, I was cheated out of the opportunity to be blessed by more than half of those I worshipped with. We will never know what they might have been able to offer.
Generation after generation of young women have grown up in this environment, learning through observation that what they have to say is not regarded as important. I’m so thankful for churches like Highland and women that, as you said, “step out and brave the insults and false accusations of others for the sake of the gospel of truth.” My two daughters will not be taught (by word or deed) that their voices are insignificant. I am no longer part of the Church of Christ, and this is one of the reasons I can’t return. But I pray that one day all of the daughters of Churches of Christ everywhere will have women like you to look up to and learn from.
Sherry Rankin – I love you. I think you are strong and courageous.
Candy, you are so sweet
“All I can say is that, while there may be some women wanting to push their way to the front, my experience with women in the churches of Christ is that they primarily want to do what is right, please God, and nurture the body of Christ. They are willing to step out and brave the insults and false accusations of others for the sake of the gospel of truth, but it’s not a fun thing. It’s not what they would choose, except that they feel compelled by the Spirit of God”.
Oh, Sherry-thank you so much for saying that, and for being willing to re-examine on your own what you were raised to think. It is not an easy process, but I am incredibly thankful for people who are willing to step out there and examine this issue through the lens of scripture in a new light. I know that is scary for many-I understand and empathize with that, and that is why it is even more encouraging when people are willing. I completely resonate with what you wrote-having heard the calling of God to enter into ministry in the churches of Christ, this journey has not always been easy or fun, but the rewards and blessings have been AMAZING-because I know I am (trying to) follow what God wants, and NOT what I want (I have never had any kind of agenda)-although I know that would be hard to convince some. I have become ok with that, and I continue to try to be faithful to what God has called me to, even when humans to do not approve.
“Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ”. ~Galatians 1:10
Thank you again, Sherry, Mike, Highland, Mark, and others for being willing to be open and honest about this topic-even when it may be tough. May all of you struggling with this idea be blessed and may the Spirit guide you in your study…
May ALL of us on this journey continue to be blessed as we seek to become more like Him~
Leland,
My much earlier reference was not to you, in fact, I did not think anyone would refer to it, or me, as chicken poop. I was just stating my amazement that such a beautiful sentiment and message of God’s love for all could be turned into however many different things it was turned into.
As for the genocide, I can state nothing more than Mike did. I’m not saying the he speaks for me or for any group of people, but I agree with what he said and can’t think of another way to phrase it.
Sorry you were offended.
Hey Sherry! It was great to hear that you and Bill served communion Sunday… wish I could have been there to commune with you! Thanks for you words of reconciliation– which IS what we’re called to a ministry of… right? What else would be appropriate for the table of the Lord other than a word of togetherness and barrier breaking!
Blessings to you and Bill!
Scott Simpson
Paul Mathis,
You have my unqualified apology.
What about the few? On November 30th Mike wrote, in reference to this issue at Highland, that “A few have left, but not many.” What about those few? Where have they gone? Are they safe? Do you even know their names? Have they switched churches or left the body of Christ completely? If I was responsible for someone leaving our church, I could not sleep at night until these questions were answered.
How many members is the body of believers at Highland willing to sacrifice to make this statement? If it were more than a few, would you change course?
I know that some are thinking that if changes are not made then people will leave. My answer to that is that if what you are doing is consistant with the Word of God, then if people leave, they’ve got a problem with the Message and the messenger is not at fault.
Troy, and I know you’ll never gain the circumspection needed to internalize this observation, but your attitude, approach and views are simply poisonous.
Why don’t you start your own blog and rant there. It would take you 60 second to create one through Google. I checked and the address http://www.poisonousstuffisayonpreacheremikesblogbutshouldsay herebutamafraidtobecausenoonewillreadme.blogspot.com is available to you.
Is that divisive of me to say? Probably, but I think all rational readers of this thread locate the origin of the divisive tone with you. The crap is on your doorstep.
Richard- Do you realize how many Bible scholars read this blog? Not the least of which is Mike. If I am in the wrong, I would welcome any of them to correct me with scripture.
As far as your entry, it speaks for itself.
Hurray for you, Richard! I think you speak for 99% of the people reading this blog, including the “Bible scholars.” Troy, you need to learn the difference between “correcting with Scripture” and “throwing pearls before swine.” Maybe the reason no one corrects you is that you clearly wouldn’t recognize legitimate correction if it jumped up and bit you on the nose. Or whatever.
Who’s next?
I’ll take another shot at it. Why not?
Troy, God “sends rain upon the just and the unjust,” and apparently, so does Mike Cope, since he could cut you off at any time but chooses not to, because he is gracious, open to other opinions, generous, and not mean-spirited.
Too bad the same can’t be said of you. Or me, either. I’d cut you off in a heartbeat. But then again, I’m not God. Or Mike. Good thing, too. There SHOULD be room for open discussion of opinions, even odious and offensive ones. In our better moments, most of us realize that. The sheer entertainment value of this blog would drop significantly if you left it.
So preach on, dude!
Okay Troy, I’ll show you why you are wrong. Here is your initial post in full:
I think that Mrs. Rankin got it exactly backwards with regard to the garden of Eden. It is because a wall was breached (that God put in place) that caused the fall of man. Not the other way around.
My suspicion tells me that all of this talk about walls, by Mrs. Rankin, was said in order to drive home the point that there should be no distinction between the roles of men and women in the church. That is not what Gal.3:28 says.
My complaint is that when a church pursues an agenda, based on such a divisive issue, then unity is the ultimate casualty.
Let’s break it down.
I think that Mrs. Rankin got it exactly backwards with regard to the garden of Eden. It is because a wall was breached (that God put in place) that caused the fall of man. Not the other way around.
If you read through Sherry’s post the “wall” is a metaphor for separation between Man/Man and God/Man. True, a prohibition was in place in the Garden but it wasn’t a wall of separation between God and Man. And that is precisely Sherry’s point.
Now, you have a point as well, but your reading of Sherry was willfully uncharitable. In her use of the metaphor of “wall” she was correct in her characterization of the Eden condition: There was no initial wall between God and Man. Do you dispute that point? If not, you agree with Sherry. You seem smart so I guessing that missing this obvious point wasn’t a lapse of intelligence and more a lapse of character on your part.
My suspicion tells me that all of this talk about walls, by Mrs. Rankin, was said in order to drive home the point that there should be no distinction between the roles of men and women in the church. That is not what Gal.3:28 says.
I think the word suspicious is very apt here. You took a very spiritual message and read it suspiciously. Again, you were the one who inserted the nasty tone. Sherry clearly didn’t.
My complaint is that when a church pursues an agenda, based on such a divisive issue, then unity is the ultimate casualty.
Note that Sherry was speaking to her own church who was being overseen by its local elders. What is this “church” pursuing “an agenda” you speak of? Highland is local congregation of the CoC, so its spiritual life is accountable to God. Highland can’t pursue an agenda outside of its local scope. And it’s not showing up at your door trying to change your church. So be a good CoC member and let the local congregational structure discern the will of God as it sees fit. What do you want to be, the pope?
Richard- Sherry said,”The first consequence of the fall was the building of a wall.” The fact is that the wall(prohibition) was already in place, and it was the crossing of that line that resulted in the seperation of man and God. In other words sin is what seperated Adam and Eve from God, not guilt as Sherry described. The underlying point here is that it is easier to tear down a wall that man has built than one that God has erected. Meaning that man is responsible for the wall between women and the pulpit and not God.
No one has disputed my suspicion that the underlying theme of this message was that there should be no ditinction between the roles of men and women in the church. Are you telling me that it is a coincidence that this topic was chosen, and that Sherry was chosen to present it? I would like to know the circumstances surrounding the selection of the topic. Who had their material first, Mike or Sherry. Why didn’t Sherry speak about grace or forgiveness or love? Why else would she speak on this topic if she had no axe to grind?
I completely repect the autonomy of Highland. They can do whatever they want. However, with this blog and Mike’s role as Bible professor, he has brought the issues of Highland into the public arena.
Attaboy, Troy.
Troy, it’s clear you win the prize. I’m sure you’ll be raptured right away. Indeed, many of us are counting on it…
Oh, and by the way, thanks for all of your talk of grace, forgiveness, and love. You’re an inspiration and a model for all of us… A veritable little Christ for us to follow. Thanks for staying suspicious. I’m sure God appreciates your protection.
“Meaning that man is responsible for the wall between women and the pulpit and not God.”
What specific chapters/verses in the Bible back this claim? I’m just curious.
crutcherfam- This statement was in the context of the point that I beleive Sherry was making. Namely, that man is responsible for all walls, including the wall between women and the pulpit, and not God. See I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12.
Speaking of walls: I can’t resist the temptation to indulge in a little psychoanalysis (I admit, this is the ultimate ad hominim argument, but that’s something you clearly know how to dish out, so presumably you can take it): Troy, you are named after a famous town whose walls fell down. Clearly, that has scarred you for life. It is touching and a little sad to watch you work through those issues in such a public venue, but I admire your courage.
Is this what happens to someone at Highland when they disagree with you? I’ve been called an unjust, meanspirited, poisonous, scarred pig whose death has been called for. Maybe there are greater issues at hand.
Yeah, Troy. And they eat children at Highland too.
Troy, while I appreciate the nefariousness you suspect in each element of this story, I can affirm to you a few pertinent facts: first, Mike chose the topic of Jericho and its walls some time ago–probably months ago–as part of a series he’s preaching at Highland. Sherry and I got an email (I’m the Bill whom Mike notes helped deliver these thoughts at Highland on Sunday–a fact you seem to have conveniently elided in much of your “analysis”) early last week asking us to do communion thoughts and presenting us with the topic for the week. So Mike had the topic first…
As an independent congregation, Highland has men, women, and families present communion thoughts–something the Highland eldership and Highland congregation have overseen and by which we’ve all been richly blessed. So yes, the topic and the choice of our family was “planned,” but not on the basis of any particular “axe to grind”–other than the fact that BOTH of us believe that the overall trajectory of scripture is, indeed, about the tearing down of walls (a theological point that you perhaps don’t share–though it’s hard to tell from the subtlety of your posts). As for your suspicion that it’s part of a nefarious plan, that would be stupid since the participation of women in public worship is already a done deal at our congregation. No nefariousness necessary, you see…we can be open about our belief (along with a wide variety of biblical writers) that Christ and his kingdom have erased divisions among us…
And while I realize that your reading has been driven by your own “ideology” (the most charitable way I can put it–”hidden agenda” seems like a misnomer since you’re not doing a very good job of hiding your own “axe”), the whole contemplation is pretty obviously about love, grace and forgiveness.
But I suppose that won’t be satisfactory to you, so let me offer another option: Rather than merely critiquing this devotion, please show us how it ought to be done. I invite you to write a communion contemplation using the story of Jericho as a theme. Your presentation should take no more than 5 minutes to deliver–so it should be no more than a page and a half. There. Now your assignment mirrors our assignment. I’m sure we’ll all look forward to seeing what you come up with. And please feel free to treat as merely optional your tacit call to cover every theological point and every point at which someone might disagree if this would hinder your combined tasks of being devotionally relevant and meeting the time requirement…
You clearly seem to have the time on your hand to produce something like this–and maybe it could be the first post on your blog!
Troy, nobody was calling for your death…
Bill- Thank you for the response. I think.
Your use of the phrase “overall tragectory of scripture” could not more perfectly illustrate our differences. I believe that scripture has already hit its mark and is not on a tragectory that is subject to every wind that blows.
My primary concern goes back to what Mike wrote on Nov. 30 with regard to a few leaving Highland over this issue.
I will accept the challenge to write a communion contemplation using the story of Jericho as a theme. To give a more accurate comparison, I will re-write the last three paragraphs of your wifes piece. Look for it tomorrow. It seems all this time on my hands has slipped away.
Troy, “re-writ[ing] the last three paragraphs” might make you feel pretty good about yourself, getting to dole correction ex cathedra, but frankly, that’s not your assignment. Start from scratch. Write your own contemplation. Your differing theological starting point should mean that your whole devotional is different. And you’ve had more than ample opportunity for rebuttal here. I’m nauseatedly disinterested in more of the same. I want to see you create something from your own mind and understanding. That’s your assignment. If it’s just more of your critique, don’t bother posting it.
Let’s see you put something of your own out there for a change. Or are you going to let a change-agent woman with an “axe to grind” set the agenda for you?
Oooh. Harsh. I wouldn’t worry about it too much, though, Bill, even if he does just “re-write.” It’s hard to imagine that someone who doesn’t know how to use a little thing like a possessive apostrophe properly will be able to correct weightier matters like theology…
77, you seem bitter, although you’re right that facility with grammar is a good predictor of theological acumen. What’s wrong? Did you pull a hamstring or something? Or has it been leftovers for the past three nights? Problems with the missus?
Just teasing you, buddy. You know how I feel aboutcha.
P.S.: Bill, you’re my hero.
I’ve been teaching all day and just checked in. I have entered the twilight zone.
Go back to teaching, Mike. Blogging can be seriously bad for your blood pressure…
Troy,
Give it up buddy. When are you going to figure out you’re not welcome? Why put yourself through this? You’re not going to change anyone’s mind here and you subject yourself to ridicule and condacension. This blog is a lovefest for Mike and his groupies. Leave it be my friend.
gt – What are you smokin’, man? I can only assume you haven’t been a longtime reader of this blog. I seriously don’t know of any blog that permits such a wide variety of opinions. This is hardly a lovefest.
What strikes me is that small people take potshots and then they can’t take the heat. When heat comes then they whine and say, “bullies!”
It’s sad, really.
I think what heated this up considerably is that the attacks didn’t come against Mike but against a guest writer — someone from his own church who had shared a communion meditation.
I can’t read his mind, but I’d be willing to bet that in Mike’s wildest imagination he couldn’t imagine this to be controversial. God’s against walls and for reconciliation. Stay with the metaphor. Don’t read into it. It’s just a meditation on Ephesians 2.
Here’s my suggestion: if you want to participate and express an opposing view:
1. State it kindly, in Christian love. (I’d suggest you use the model of Mike’s response to Leland above.)
2. Assume the best about what others have written. Ask questions to clarify.
3. Quit being so incredibly small when people answer you. Don’t act like elementary age children and say, “Mommy, they’re being mean to me.”
Just suggestions. Seriously, qt, what have you been reading? Not the same blog I have.
Thanks for the support gt. No, this is something I must do. I do have a secret weapon, sharper than any double-edged sword. However, in the interest of peace and unity, my last entry on this blog will be in the morning.
AlGuy,
You’re right, and thanks for your charitable and very Christ-like reply. Your words weren’t directed to me, but I’ve taken them to heart: I’ve been guilty today of letting Troy get under my skin, with the result that I’ve been less than charitable. I’m ashamed of myself. Why is “turning the other cheek” the hardest thing in the world? Beats me…