“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44).
This is an oft-quoted verse of Scripture. To many, it enunciates something unique about Christian social ethics.
Unfortunately, it’s generally quoted in a rather formulaic fashion, without bothering to seriously determine what it means or how it applies.
1.Jesus doesn’t define who one’s “enemy” is. Of course, the Bible has a lot to say about personal enemies as well as enemies of the faith. So we might use a common sense definition. At a minimum:
i) An enemy is someone who means you harm.
We might expand that a bit:
ii) An enemy is someone to tries to do you harm.
We might expand this a bit further:
iii) An enemy is someone who intends or attempts to do you harm for no good reason.
It’s more than just wishing someone ill. It’s also about acting on that animosity in some concrete fashion. More than just a hostile imagination. That’s clear from the business about “persecution.”
Moreover, to capture the invidious connotation of the word in Biblical usage, we need to distinguish between the just and unjust infliction of harm.
A policeman intends to harm a sniper. Yet it wouldn’t be fair to characterize the policeman is the “enemy.”
In context, this verse is talking about adversaries who are wronging a second party.
2.There’s a danger of turning a prayer for one’s enemy into a self-righteous exercise in personal justification. Such a prayer can actually be a pretext to malign the person we are ostensibly praying for, under the pretense of heartfelt concern for his immortal soul-and, by the same token, portraying ourselves as the innocent, injured party who in our saintly self-abasement is prepared to absorb the blow and intercede for this misguided soul.
If we ever have occasion to pray for a genuine enemy, we must guard against the snare of spiritual self-deception.
3.On a related note, there’s more to prayer than intoning the right verbal formulas. We need to mean it. And, of course, that can be a challenge if we’re praying for someone who’s gone out of his way to make us dislike him. How do we overcome dry or grudging prayers for personal enemies–assuming we have any?
i) It helps if we don’t obsess over this individual. It’s easier to pray for an enemy if you’re a generally happy person. For if your enemy puts you in a mad mood, then you’re in no mood to pray for him.
It helps to be in a good mood generally so that when we can bring that with us into our prayer closet (as it were).
I’m not saying that we should only pray for an enemy in case we happen to be in a good mood. Just that, if we’re in a bad mood, that makes it harder to truly care about the individual and avoid a perfunctory petition.
ii) The more seriously we take ourselves, the more seriously we resent injuries to our reputation or honor. Slights are magnified by a magnified sense of self-importance.
The less seriously we take ourselves, the more easily we can pray for those who defame us. So we should labor to lose ourselves in the goodness and the greatness of our God. Not only is that salutary for the walk of faith generally, but it also softens the blow.
iii) In addition, it helps to imagine what one’s enemy would be like in heaven. If he made it to heaven, what sort of person would he be at that point? Imagine what that person would be like if God made him all he was meant to be. Brought out the best rather than the worst.
iv) There are also situations in which a Christian is just a secondary target for God. The individual is going through you to attack God. He can’t harm God. God is out of reach.
So you’re the target of opportunity. It’s a case of transference.
At the same time, we have to tread very warily here, because this can also be a snare for self-justification. My own conduct is faultless. So all their antipathy must be directed at God!
Maybe–but not necessarily.
4.There’s also the question of what to ask for. What are we asking God to do in this situation?
I think the answer is related to what it means to love one’s enemies. And I don’t think that’s about affection, per se. Rather, it’s a case of acting, where possible, in their best interests–even if you don’t like them or feel much one way or the other.
I want to be godly, so I try to be an imitator of God. I want to love what God loves. But God doesn't love everyone. So I'm not going to either. (Sarcasm to make a point).
ReplyDeleteI want to be godly, so I try to be an imitator of God. I want to know and do whatever God knows and does. But God is omniscient and omnipotent. Since I can't be omniscient and omnipotent, I can't be godly. (Sarcasm to make a point).
ReplyDeleteSince I am a Christian and I am acting under the assumption that you are, the Bible provides the common ground, the context, for how we use words.
ReplyDeleteI am using the word "godly" the way the Bible does. You are not. The biblical authors use the word to mean righteous, holy, upright, as in Titus 2:12, "...instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age..." Either you know that the Bible uses the word "godly" this way and are being intentionally thick by re-defining it to mean omnipotent or omniscient, or you don't know that the Bible uses the word this way, in which case you need the read the Bible in context.
Christians are supposed to be "imitators of God" (Ephesians 5:1). But since you re-define "godly" as omniscient and omnipotent (which ignores the way the word is used by the biblical authors), you turn it into nonsense and act like you don't have to try to live godly.
Even though you try to use slight-of-hand to avoid the conclusions of your position, my point still stands. We are supposed to be imitators of God. If God doesn't love everyone, I shouldn't either.
1 Peter 4:11 says, "Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies..." In the same way, we must love with the love God provides. After all, love is of God. But if God doesn't love everyone, then He can't provide us with the love to love everyone.
I'm not attacking you. I want to know how you respond. I shouldn't have been sarcastic in my first post, because then you responded sarcastically. Forgive me for being sarcastic in my first comment.
The concern that I've voiced with your position that "God doesn't love everyone" is sincere, and I hope in your response you will give a sincere answer. Honestly, it seems to me that the Calvinist position is the most logical one, but I have to say that the way you represent the Calvinist position on this blog is off-putting. Even if commenters are rude or make snide remarks, you shouldn't stoop to their level. I also realize that typing is not the best way to communicate because it is easier to misinterpret tone and impossible to communicate body language.
I am asking the questions that are my biggest hang-ups with Calvinism, not to argue with you or put you on the defensive, but to see if Calvinism has a good answer. If it does, then I will embrace it. I look forward to hearing your response.
ZGFXXMGQWZB95MLLCIDCOM.SZYAPXKEX.KRZTKE- SAID:
ReplyDelete“I am using the word ‘godly’ the way the Bible does.”
Of course, you didn’t define how you use the word “godly” in your sarcastic sound-bite.
“The biblical authors use the word to mean righteous, holy, upright, as in Titus 2:12, ‘...instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age...’”
That definition is entirely compatible with Reformed theism.
“Either you know that the Bible uses the word ‘godly’ this way and are being intentionally thick by re-defining it to mean omnipotent or omniscient, or you don't know that the Bible uses the word this way, in which case you need the read the Bible in context.”
i) To begin with, I respond to what you say in the way you say it at the time you say it. You don’t get to smuggle in a lot of caveats after the fact, backdate your argument as if that’s what you said all along, then insult me for failing engage an argument which was never on the table at the time of my initial reply.
ii) And since you bring it up, the meaning of “godliness” in Pauline usage is rather complicated to ascertain, as Towner makes clear in the 4-page excursus of his commentary (171-74). He has to sift through a lot of data to arrive at his conclusion.
“Christians are supposed to be ‘imitators of God’ (Ephesians 5:1). But since you re-define ‘godly’ as omniscient and omnipotent (which ignores the way the word is used by the biblical authors), you turn it into nonsense and act like you don't have to try to live godly.”
i) You’re shifting from “godliness” to “imitators of God,” as if these share the same semantic domain. But Eph 5:1 requires a separate discussion.
ii) You also jump from one occurrence of Pauline usage to Biblical usage in general, as if that’s inherently synonymous.
“Even though you try to use slight-of-hand to avoid the conclusions of your position, my point still stands. We are supposed to be imitators of God. If God doesn't love everyone, I shouldn't either.”
i) Actually, I don’t think, as a universal rule, that we do have to love everyone. Is Rev 6:10 a loving sentiment?
ii) You also make the illogical leap from the meaning of godliness to God’s love to Christian love. You’re giving us a series of gaps where all the supporting arguments need to be.
“In the same way, we must love with the love God provides. After all, love is of God. But if God doesn't love everyone, then He can't provide us with the love to love everyone.”
The words you quote from 1 Pet 4:11 say nothing about God’s love. They don’t present a symmetry between God’s love for all men and a corollary obligation on the part of Christians. If you want to draw that inference, then you need to find a different prooftext.
“Even if commenters are rude or make snide remarks, you shouldn't stoop to their level.”
Responding to a critic on his own terms can simply be a way of making him see the logic of his own position. Nothing rude about it.
“I am asking the questions that are my biggest hang-ups with Calvinism, not to argue with you or put you on the defensive, but to see if Calvinism has a good answer. If it does, then I will embrace it. I look forward to hearing your response.”
Well, if I were to follow the logic of your objection, since God destroys his enemies through plagues, floods, fire and brimstone, &c., then, to be imitators of God, we are also entitled to destroy our own enemies.
If you disagree with that conclusion, then there’s something wrong with the structure of your argument.
If you want me to answer you according to the way in which you framed the question, then that’s the inference I’d have to draw.
Mind you, that’s not my own framework.
Then what is your framework? That is my question?
ReplyDeleteYou keep acting like I'm making an argument and I'm wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not making an argument for any position. I'm asking a question that seems to be a flaw in your position. I'm wondering if I've correctly understood your position and if you agree with what I see is a problem with the logical out-workings, or if I've misunderstood your position.
You deny that God loves everyone. I'm just wondering what that means for me. Do you think I should love everyone or at least try? If so, why?
This is the simplest way I know how to ask this question. I've been trying to get a straight answer, and it is probably my fault for not asking it more directly before, but you keep avoiding giving a straight answer.
As for how you respond to commentators, you should not return evil for evil. You should overcome evil with good. Being reviled, you shouldn't revile in return. Plus, if you want to persuade your audience, you should know, "Sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness" and "A harsh answer stirs up anger." If you want to alienate your audience, continue on the path you've chosen.
ZGFXXMGQWZB95MLLCIDCOM.SZYAPXKEX.KRZTKE- SAID:
ReplyDelete“I'm wondering if I've correctly understood your position and if you agree with what I see is a problem with the logical out-workings, or if I've misunderstood your position.”
1.I don’t agree with your topdown methodology. I wouldn’t begin with some generic principle like “Be godly,” or “Be imitators of God,” then try to infer some specific obligation like “Love everyone.”
For one thing, to say “Be imitators of God” tells me nothing about what Paul thought God was like. You’d need to take the preliminary step of defining God in Pauline terms.
Perhaps you have in mind something like this:
i) God is love
ii) Be imitators of God
iii) Ergo, be loving
Even if that were a valid syllogism, we also need to pay attention to the various ways that God is actually described in Scripture. If, for example, God damns evildoers to hell, then that qualifies our understanding of divine love.
2.I don’t need infer my duties by starting out with some generic principle, then work my way down. I can employ a bottom-up approach. I can begin with specific obligations or exemplary illustrations in Scripture.
“You deny that God loves everyone. I'm just wondering what that means for me. Do you think I should love everyone or at least try? If so, why?”
1.Divine rights and obligations aren’t identical to human rights and obligations. Why assume there has to be a one-to-one correspondence in the first place? God and man are significantly different, both morally and metaphysically. There are continuities, but there are also discontinuities.
Take, for example, the statement that we should leave vengeance in the hands of God. That doesn’t assume a parallel between divine rights and human rights. To the contrary, that underscores a basic difference between the two. God has judicial prerogatives which we do not.
2.You also need to define what you mean by “love.” As a rule, we should act in the best interests of everyone concerned.
3.But there are times when we should not act in the best interests of everyone concerned.
If I’m a man with dependents, and I have an enemy who is a threat to my well-being, then he’s also a threat to my dependents. I can’t simultaneously act in his best interests and also act in their best interests. He has created a set of conflicting duties.
In that case, the higher obligation suspends the lower obligation. I have a higher obligation to my dependents.
4.Likewise, there are eschatological distinctions. The obligations I have in this life don’t carry over in toto to the next life.
“This is the simplest way I know how to ask this question. I've been trying to get a straight answer, and it is probably my fault for not asking it more directly before, but you keep avoiding giving a straight answer.”
If you pose a question a certain way, with certain build-in assumptions, then answering you on your own terms is giving you a straight answer. You act as if it’s devious or evasive to answer someone on his own terms. Why you think that is a bit mysterious.
“As for how you respond to commentators, you should not return evil for evil.”
If someone frames a question a certain way, and I answer him according to his chosen framework, that’s hardly returning evil for evil.
“You should overcome evil with good. Being reviled, you shouldn't revile in return.”
You’re very sensitive to the tone of others, but you’re hard of hearing to your own rhetorical tone of voice.
“If you want to alienate your audience, continue on the path you've chosen.”
You’re answerable to God for what you believe, not to me. You and I are obligated to believe whatever God has revealed to us.
Personalities are irrelevant to duties.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. The issue of love, who, how, etc., seems of great importance to me, because of the emphasis Jesus put on it. I do appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a smart person, but I know no other way to combat my ignorance than ask questions of people who are smart (even if I display my ignorance in the process). If I seem resistant to your ideas, it isn't out of disrespect or antagonism. It is simply that what you are saying doesn't mesh with what I've believed for a long time. Long-held ideas are hard to uproot, but if you are right, I hope God will give me the grace to be persuaded. If not, I pray I'm not deceived.
I see that Divine rights and obligations aren’t identical to human rights and obligations. I see that
there is discontinutity and continuity. What we do on earth (pray for our enemies) is different from what the martyrs do in heaven (pray for God to execute judgment).
You wrote, "If I’m a man with dependents, and I have an enemy who is a threat to my well-being, then he’s also a threat to my dependents. I can’t simultaneously act in his best interests and also act in their best interests. He has created a set of conflicting duties.
"In that case, the higher obligation suspends the lower obligation. I have a higher obligation to my dependents."
I don't think you're right about this. Since when did self-preservation and the preservation of our families become a Christian virtue? If all Christians believed as you do, no one would become a missionary. Someone who has this same idea as you would never move with his family to a country where the people of that country want to kill them are not being loving towards their families. It seems to me that a missionary, who is acting out of love for God and the lost, willingly puts his family at risk out of love for his enemies.
Jim Elliot had a wife and daughter. Many of his companions, including Nate Saint, had families, too, yet they decided to act in the best interest of their enemies. Jim Elliot declared, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." The five men were killed by a tribe of Wadoni (Aucca). Their example of willing laying down their lives out of love regardless of personal sacrifice, seems much more in keeping with Jesus' example than what you've proposed.
Let me ask you this, do you think God loves Bengali people? For generations, less than 1% have been Christians. For you, does this mean that God doesn't love 99% of Bengalis?
When communicating through typed messages, tone is important. We don't have the benefit of seeing each other's body language or verbal cues (which communicate much when persons interact face-to-face). I again apologize for the tone I used at first. Please forgive me.
ZGFXXMGQWZB95MLLCIDCOM.SZYAPXKEX.KRZTKE- SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't think you're right about this. Since when did self-preservation and the preservation of our families become a Christian virtue?”
i) You’re conflating two distinct issues. Self-preservation isn’t necessarily the same thing as protecting your family. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.
You might be a bachelor with no dependents. That’s a different situation than if you have a wife and kids, or if you’re an only child with elderly parents to care for.
An unattached male may be justified in assuming certain risks which a male with prior social obligations shouldn’t.
If, say, you father a child, then you assume an obligation to that child. A “call” to the mission field doesn’t cancel out your prior obligation. Don’t take on new duties if you can’t discharge the duties you already have.
Likewise, if you have several siblings, then you’re freer to assume a risk than if you’re an only-child. As an only child, your parents may need you around if they become enfeebled in old age. If, on the other hand, you have several siblings, then there’s a fallback.
ii) Finally, even if you’re an unattached male (or female), we are not to hazard the gift of life unless we have some overriding reason.
“If all Christians believed as you do, no one would become a missionary.”
That’s a wild exaggeration.
i) To begin with, the mission field isn’t inherently dangerous. It all depends on the region.
ii) Likewise, missionaries don’t have to be married couples with kids. If the mission field is dangerous, we could leave that to single men or married couples with grown children.
“Someone who has this same idea as you would never move with his family to a country where the people of that country want to kill them are not being loving towards their families. It seems to me that a missionary, who is acting out of love for God and the lost, willingly puts his family at risk out of love for his enemies.”
i) A married man with kids doesn’t have the right to put his family at unnecessary risk. To the contrary, he has a standing duty to provide for them and to protect them from harm. Shirking our domestic duties is not a godly way to act out of love for God.
ii) Moreover, the lost are not, ipso facto our enemies.
iii) And even as far as enemies are concerned, loving our enemies doesn’t trump loving our spouse or children. In case of conflict, a prior obligation takes precedence.
“Jim Elliot had a wife and daughter.”
I’m familiar with that story. However, we know how the story ends. Elliot did not. We see this in retrospect.
If Elliot had known that by trying to evangelize the Aucca, he’d leave his wife a single mother, then it would have been wrong of him to martyr himself for the cause. That would be a form of desertion.
“Their example of willing laying down their lives out of love regardless of personal sacrifice, seems much more in keeping with Jesus' example than what you've proposed.”
i) Jesus did more than come here to set an example. His redemptive death is unique.
ii) In addition, I don’t think he laid down his life for everyone. Rather, he laid down his life for his “friends” (Jn 13:1). Scripture doesn’t command Christians to die for their enemies. There are limits to love.
“Let me ask you this, do you think God loves Bengali people? For generations, less than 1% have been Christians. For you, does this mean that God doesn't love 99% of Bengalis?”
i) I don’t think God loves those he intends to damn. I don’t think he loves those he created with that destiny in mind.
And I don’t have to be a Calvinist to say that.
ii) Let’s also keep in mind that at one time my Celtic/European ancestors were in the same situation as modern Bengalis.
God saves a representative sampling of different people-groups at different times. It moves around. Europe and the UK are now highly secularized while the Gospel is pressing ahead into the South and East.
You said, "i) To begin with, the mission field isn’t inherently dangerous. It all depends on the region."
ReplyDeletePlease name a place that isn't. Europe has many Muslim fundamentalists. Africa has many Muslims, diseases, and governments hostile to Christianity. The Middle East is a very dangerous place for Christians. South Asia has more Muslims than the Middle East and many radical Hindu groups. Pacific Rim and Oceana are filled with people hostile to the Gospel. Places like Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos are not safe by any stretch. East Asia [China] is only favorable to the State-controlled church. All else is seen as a dangerous cult that is a threat to the State. Russia and the former soviet states are filled with mofia and atheists who do not want to see the Gospel spread. Now let's go to South America. Christianity isn't outlawed, but the Catholics won't be happy if you spread any form of Protestantism. And FARC and drug cartels regularly kidnap foreigners. I can't think of a place that isn't dangerous.
The fact is, Satan is at work all over the world, and he takes hostile measures against anyone who shares the Gospel. Not only that, but "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." Persecution goes with the territory, not just for missionaries, but all followers of Christ.
If a missionary goes to a place and DOESN'T suffer, I'd be surprised. In fact, 1 Peter 4:12-13 says that we should not be surprised by "fiery ordeals."
You wrote, "ii) Likewise, missionaries don’t have to be married couples with kids. If the mission field is dangerous, we could leave that to single men or married couples with grown children."
ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you know how few missionaries would be left on the field if all the couples with kids left? You've got to be kidding. Jesus did NOT restrict the Great Commission only to singles and older couples with no or grown children.
Suffering goes along with following Christ, regardless of marriage status.
You wrote, "i) A married man with kids doesn’t have the right to put his family at unnecessary risk. To the contrary, he has a standing duty to provide for them and to protect them from harm. Shirking our domestic duties is not a godly way to act out of love for God."
Where is your argument from Scripture? The Bible actually teaches the exact opposite. For example, Luke 14:26–27 says, "“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."
What takes precedence is OBEDIENCE to God.
I am baffled that you would discourage anyone from serving God to the uttermost.
You wrote, "I’m familiar with that story. However, we know how the story ends. [Jim] Elliot did not. We see this in retrospect."
ReplyDeleteDo you think Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, and Pete Fleming thought moving to Ecuador was going to safe and easy? Do you think the danger caught them totally by surprise? Don't you think they contemplated the ramifications or potential consequences from trying to bring the Gospel to a tribe that was famous for being extremely violent? I don't understand your argument. We know what happened, but don't you think they could anticipate what might happen?
You wrote, "If Elliot had known that by trying to evangelize the Aucca, he’d leave his wife a single mother, then it would have been wrong of him to martyr himself for the cause. That would be a form of desertion."
I think you are wrong. One of Jim Elliot's life verses was 2 Timothy 2:3, "Suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of Christ Jesus." Jim Elliot was trying to live fully surrendered to the will of God. You NEVER hear Elizabeth Elliot condemn Jim's decision. You never hear her call it "desertion." You never hear Valerie, their daughter, begrudge her father for sacrificing his life. Elizabeth and Valerie are convinced that Jim was walking the path God had for him.
The impact of his life would have been small if he had not been martyred, but because of his death, untold thousands of lives have been impacted. Even today the ripples are being felt. Hundreds of little Indian boys in south India are named "Jim Elliot."
You think all of the missionaries who live with their families in hostile places are "wrong" or foolish. You are right—from the world's perspective. But from heaven's perspective, such men and women who bring the love of Christ to difficult places are among God's most precious servants.
You wrote, "i) Jesus did more than come here to set an example. His redemptive death is unique."
ReplyDeleteDuh.
But you can't deny that "leaving us an example" is PART of what Jesus did while he was on earth. 1 Peter 2:21 says, "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps."
Steve, you seem to have bought into the western mindset that thinks if you have family you are exempt from having to suffer for Christ. But church history is filled with examples of martyrs who had families. John Bunyan could have been released from jail to care for his wife and children (one daughter was blind). But instead of getting a simple preaching license, he stayed in prison for 12 years! Countless children have watched with pride as their mothers or fathers refused to deny Christ and preferred to be burned at the stake.
Or consider Graham Staines. He lived in India for 30+ years ministering to lepers and the extremely poor. On January 23, 1999 he had his two sons, Timothy (age 6) and Philip (age 10) were burned alive because of the One they served. Was he a fool? Yes, he was a fool for Christ's sake. And I'm sure his welcome to heaven was grand. I don't think God rebuked him for bringing along his family.
Friend, here we have no lasting city. If we suffer for Christ's sake, it is an honor. If God decides to take a father, I believe God will be father to the fatherless. He will take care of our families. If we grasp and try to hold onto the illusion of safety, as if we really have any power to protect our families, we are deluded. The safest place we can be is following in Jesus' steps.
You wrote, "ii) In addition, I don’t think he laid down his life for everyone. Rather, he laid down his life for his “friends” (Jn 13:1). Scripture doesn’t command Christians to die for their enemies. There are limits to love."
Does it say Jesus died "only" for his friends? No. Instead, Romans 5:6 says, "Christ died for the ungodly." 1 Timothy 1:15 says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." Jesus was a friend to sinners. Everyone fits into the categories of "ungodly" and "sinners."
If Jesus only loves those who will love him, what's the big deal? In His own words, "Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Isn't the whole point of Matthew 5:43–48 to teach us to love the way God loves? Jesus says, "Love your enemies." What is the reason he gives? "In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Jesus is teaching that God doesn't ONLY love the righteous. Jesus said, "He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." We, as sons, are supposed to love the way our heavenly Father has demonstrated." The argument Jesus used was, "It doesn't really prove that you are loving if you only love those who love you in return."
You wrote, "i) I don’t think God loves those he intends to damn. I don’t think he loves those he created with that destiny in mind.
"And I don’t have to be a Calvinist to say that."
I don't have to agree with that statement to be orthodox.
Actually, the Bible doesn't say, "God demonstrates His love by sending Jesus to die for those He intends to save." It says, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
While you're out telling people, "God doesn't love everyone," I'll be out telling people, "God loves you so much, Christ died for the ungodly." If that involves suffering, I'm ok with that because suffering cannot be avoided as a Christian. To the degree that I suffer with Christ, I will rejoice. Because I love you as my brother in Christ, I hope you come around to this point of view.