Give or Take, Part 2

Well, the last time we were here, we introduced the concept of givers and takers as they corresponded to the business world. And for those that were not here last time, there are a number of visitors. My apologies. You're stepping into part two of a two-part message, and so I will do and endeavor what I can to kind of connect all the dots. But the idea of this givers and takers concept is the idea that there are some individuals who approach... that individuals in business approach interactions with different outcomes in mind. Some individuals approach interactions concerned only with what they will receive from that particular interaction. We refer to those individuals as takers. They often take the credit. They often find some way to profit personally from every interaction that they go into. And they look at every interaction with the idea of, what can I get out of this? How am I going to benefit from this interaction? What is it that I can somehow advance my career? I can somehow do this and move myself forward in some way. Now, the giver is kind of the diametric opposite. When they go into an interaction, they're not worried about credit. They're not worried about generally what they can receive. They're ultimately concerned with what the other person's needs are in that particular interaction. They desire to serve the customer. They aim to please. As a result, we mentioned, givers sometimes find themselves at the bottom rung of the corporate hierarchy. You know, they don't find their way into middle-level management all that often sometimes, just because they're not as focused on advancement. They're not as focused on taking the credit for the job. They simply want to ensure the job is done right and that the customer is happy. The takers, on the other hand, always looking out for number one, tend to find themselves in more of those mid- to upper-level management positions. And this is, you know, you think about this type of person oftentimes, they have a really good sales pitch. They have a very good sales pitch for number one. They know how to sell themselves. They know how to make sure that they can advance.

And this is partly due to that sales pitch, but also they seek advancement. It's in their nature.

Now, research that we mentioned in the last message has shown that those individuals at the upper echelons of companies, so you move out of mid- to upper-level management. You get up into the CEOs, the members of the board, the individuals that are in charge of serious decision-making things for that particular corporation. Research has shown that those individuals are almost exclusively givers. They're almost exclusively givers. They're concerned not with advancing themselves at that point. Now, it could be that their advancement run is done. They've reached the top and they're kind of finished. But they're more concerned about advancing the company.

They're more concerned about advancing the product or service that they provide.

They're not worried about their own place in things. They want the customer to be happy, and in return, the company to be successful. Now, we established throughout Scripture, we saw biblically there were examples of both. We looked at Saul, and we looked at how God called him when he was still little in his own eyes, how God chose and anointed him as king. But as time went on and Saul's pride grew, he made some egregious errors in God's eyes.

We saw that he offered the burnt offering himself after he grew tired of waiting for Samuel to arrive and waiting for him to do what he was told to do. We saw that he was commanded to slay the entirety of the Amalekite army. We see that he didn't. He saved back the best of the livestock, spared their king instead. As his life goes on, he consults with a medium. We see he attempts to kill David numerous times in order to kind of solidify his own reign, to kind of watch out for number one.

We looked at Uzziah as an example. We saw how he served God faithfully for the majority of his life.

However, like Saul, in a moment of pride, he took a censor of incense, and he attempted to offer that incense to God. He overstepped his boundaries. It wasn't his place. He may have been king, but there were certain things that even the king didn't have the authority to do. That was reserved for the priesthood. We saw that God struck him with leprosy for the remainder of his days. We looked at Gideon. We looked at even after all of his exploits, after all the things that God had done through Gideon, his refusal to be king over Israel, even though the guys that he was dealing with almost just offered it to him to establish a dynasty right then and there on that spot. He got him and his sons and his sons, and on down the line it goes. But instead he told them to return to God, to let God rule over them. He was less concerned about heaping up for himself and more concerned with turning his people back to God. Now, we saw that attitude may have changed slightly in his later years. There's some indication mentioned he named his son of Bimalek, which means the son of the king. And so it's a possibility that he saw himself maybe in a little more of an elevated fashion later in life. But at the time when we looked at it, he instead turned his people back to God. Finally, we looked at the example of Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. We looked at him as an example of someone who had been really in kind of both places in life. Someone who had tried to advance along the pharisaical side of things until he was called, but after his dramatic calling, understood what it truly meant to be a giver. To be someone who is concerned more with the needs of others than for his own life. A person who served others selflessly, who really recognized his life and his role. Really a man who emptied himself of pride and served God humbly. He recognized, as we mentioned, that he was just another tool in the tool shed. God would use him as he saw fit. And as a result, his desires, his wants, his needs, they really didn't matter. He didn't glorify himself because of his service to God. He glorified God through his service to man. There's a passage in Isaiah 10 that helps us kind of solidify this. I hadn't come across it before the last message. As sometimes happens, you'll be reading things afterwards and go, oh, I wish I would have found that one before. Isaiah 10. Isaiah 10. Let's turn over there real quick to get started this morning. This afternoon, rather. Isaiah 10.

Isaiah 10. We'll pick it up in verse 15.

Isaiah 10 and verse 15. It says, Shall the axe boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, or as if a staff could lift up as if it were not wood. You know, we take a look at the context of this passage in this section of Isaiah and why Isaiah was inspired to record it. God had chosen to use the Assyrians as an instrument of his wrath against Israel. He gave him incredible victories, large swaths of land, allowing them to conquer really the northern half of the nation, its capital, and take captive and disperse the northern ten tribes. But what they didn't recognize is where that great power came from. They felt they did all these things through their own strength, and they really exalted themselves as a nation. They didn't realize, just like Paul realized later on, that they were just a tool in God's hand. Isaiah's writing in Isaiah 10 and 15 is making the point, can the axe itself boast against the one who wields it? Can the saw magnify itself? Can the rod or the staff lift up the one who wields it and swing that person around instead? And we all know the answer to that. No, it can't. The tool is the tool, and the wielder is the wielder.

Paul recognized that he was the instrument. He recognized that he was the tool, that God wielded him, and as a result, the instrument didn't get the glory. The wielder of that instrument got the glory. And this realization really allowed Paul to serve God very effectively as a giver. Now, we finished the last message up with a question that we would be left to explore in this message, and that question is where we'll spend the remainder of our time today. What about us?

What about us? What about us? What about our interactions with others? Do we interact with other people as givers, concerned about their well-being, concerned about their needs, or do we interact with other people as takers? Do we focus on me, me, me, myself first? And does it really matter how we interact with other people? According to Adam Grant's research, which we quoted in the last message as well, it does matter. He found that the majority of the time, during the taker's kind of relentless pursuit up the corporate ladder, they managed to burn a lot of bridges along the way. And you can kind of intuitively recognize this. You can really only snag credit for other people's work for so long before people get kind of fed up with that. And you've all probably met people within corporations or school or work that are this kind of person. And it's frustrating, you know? When it all costs leaves collateral damage. I mean, when it all costs leaves collateral damage. If you're only concerned about yourself when we interact with other people, it's going to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. And as a result, as you might imagine, takers aren't everyone's favorite person in the office. They tend to be the ones that people tend to avoid at times unless they need something, and they need somebody who's willing to, you know, kind of suspend all morality in some cases to get it. But while that doesn't seem to have a major effect on their rise up the corporate ladder, it does greatly affect those whom they work with, or in particular the clients whom they interact with, and that client's perception of that individual as well as the company whom they work for. And brethren, in our business interactions, when we interact with our church family, when we're out in public, when we're quote-unquote about our father's business, our choice of interaction has an impact on those whom we interact with. If we're burning bridges through our interactions with other people when we discuss religion, when we discuss politics, we're not necessarily doing God any favors. I've noticed kind of a somewhat fascinating thing lately, which really was the ultimate inspiration for this message. As you've probably noticed, politically, culturally, socially, our country is becoming more and more contentious. Far more contentious than it was in past years. Social media platforms, obviously, have given everybody a voice, and it's really made it easier for individuals to share their opinions on a wide variety of topics. The past six months, think about kind of what we've seen in the past six months in the United States. We have seen the rebirth of Caitlyn Jenner.

We've seen the outrageous debacle that revolved around Rachel Dolezal. For those that aren't familiar, she was the Caucasian president of the NAACP in Spokane, who was outed as Caucasian after living life as an African-American woman for almost 20 years. We've seen continued issues in race relations. We've seen Supreme Court decisions which have legalized homosexual unions, mandated national health care, and additionally, we have seen the abortion debate completely 100% reignite.

In the last six months, all of that has happened.

As someone who exists in two very different worlds in life, and many of you do as well, I exist part of my life in the extremely liberal bastion of the world of public education.

I am about the only conservative in my building when it comes down to it, and so I have very good friends on both sides of the aisle, from conservative Christianity to, you know, the most liberal of the liberal. My Facebook feed, guys, has been a war zone for the last six months, an absolute war zone. I'm sure many of you can kind of relate to this. Just back and forth, back and forth. One side kind of volleying in this piece of artillery, the other side counter-attacking with this piece of artillery, and me in the middle kind of flak jacket and helmet on with my fingers in my ears just going, I just want a bunch of cat videos. Like, seriously, stop lobbing all this stuff in. You know, it has been pretty toxic, but what I've seen in the last few months is I've seen some styles of attack, and they're kind of passive-aggressive, but there's a couple of different styles of attack that I've seen from both sides, and today what we're going to look at is these couple of styles of attack, and I'm going to try to convince you not to use these as we go forward from here. The first of these styles of attack that I've noticed is the, I'm just going to leave this here. In other words, I'm just going to pretty much post this article that I agree with 100%, and then I'm going to walk away. I'm never coming back to it. Anybody who responds to it, anybody who argues with it, they're never going to get a response. This is what I think. Walk away, leave it at that. What that doesn't allow us to do is expound on why we believe what we believe. It doesn't allow us to get into the background of that. There's a second one that I've noticed, the drop the mic. The drop the mic attack, which basically is, this is my statement, done. Walk away, it's over, it's finished, and very rarely do we again come back to that topic to discuss it, to allow people to kind of go back and forth a little bit on it. The last one is the one that I think I've seen the most frequently, and I think it is the one that is the most damaging, and I'm referring to it as the sledgehammer. And the sledgehammer consists of, why won't you submit? I'm just going to continue beating you over the head with my personal beliefs until you eventually give up and walk away. That's probably what I've seen the most in the last little bit from both sides.

And there's a number of other methods as well, and I'm sure many of you have seen different styles of attack on a variety of topics, and perhaps you've been guilty, as I have, of utilizing these styles of interaction on various topics in the past. But as I contemplated this, and as I witnessed these things in the aftermath in particular of the same-sex marriage decision, in the Caitlyn Jenner reveal, in the Planned Parenthood debate, I had to ask myself, what sort of interaction is this? Is this give, or is this take? Does this kind of interaction ultimately glorify God, or does it exalt the self? Is our only goal to win the argument at all costs, no matter the collateral damage, and if that's the case, are we winning it for the right reasons? Are we winning it so that we can look good? Are we building bridges, or are we tearing them down?

And there is a big difference between building bridges and tearing them down. One encourages continued conversation, the other illustrates that you're closed off and the conversation is over.

The reality of it is, brethren, we have been called to preach the gospel to the world, and I think sometimes we seem to think that that world consists of those who agree with us.

Those of a Christian background, those that are disgruntled with their own religion and perhaps searching for something different. But if we look at Christ's example in Scripture more often than not, it appears that he spoke with those who disagreed with him quite a bit. He associated with tax collectors, harlots, sinners, the real dregs of society, so to speak, and he treated them with love and with service. He dined with them, he spoke with them, he taught them, and often he healed them. Let's go over to Mark 2. Mark 2 will see Christ's own explanation as to why he does this. Mark 2 and why this practice was because he was actually directly questioned at one point in time while his disciples were directly questioned as to why their leader does this. Mark 2, we're going to pick it up in verse 15. Mark 2, verse 15. Right after the little section here where it talks about the calling of Matthew, we see that he ended up going to Levi, Matthew here's house, that he was sitting at meat with a number of sinners, a number of tax collectors. Verse 15, now it happened as he was dining in Levi's house that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many and they followed him. And when the scribes and the Pharisees saw him eating with the tax collectors and with the sinners, they said to his disciples, how is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he said to them, those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Brethren, sinners just like you and me, we were called out of that life sin. We responded to that calling and ultimately we're learning and working to become more and more like Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1, 16, we won't turn there, it's one of the actual memory scriptures from camp this year. 1 Peter 1, verse 16, admonishes us to be holy, for I am holy.

We know that that's not just flipping a switch and suddenly, bing, we're holy. It's a lifetime of learning, continually submitting to God, growing spiritually. In fact, the word in 1 Peter 1, verse 16, for B, is the Greek word, ginomahi. It's the Greek word, ginomahi, and it's more appropriately translated to become. It's also translated in some places to be assembled, to come into being. So if you think of someone as becoming holy over time, or being assembled piece by piece to become holy, or to come into holiness as time goes on, we recognize that it's not automatic. It's a process. It's a process. And if it's a process, that process has a beginning.

It has a moment where it starts, a place where someone's heart is pricked and they come to a certain understanding. Brethren, what if that moment is your interaction with that individual?

What if that moment is your interaction? You know, the individuals we interact with on a daily basis, no matter who they are, what they might even be involved in, they'll represent potential members of God's family. They are the world that we are to preach the gospel to. And if we're not careful with our methodology, we run the risk of alienating them, we run the risk of leaving a bad taste in their mouth, burning bridges, or worse yet, we run the risk of tarnishing the holy name of our Heavenly Father in their eyes.

Our interaction may result in losing any future opportunity that we had with that individual.

Today, with the time that we have left, I'd like to spend some time looking further into the life of the Apostle Paul. Paul's interactions with the Gentiles seem to be the most similar to the interactions that we would have with people in the world today. And if we kind of take a look at that, it's kind of important to remember, in many cases, he had the opportunity to interact with non-believers very regularly out in his journeys. While the other disciples were sent to the House of Israel, to the Jews, people with at least some kind of background to this type of life, Paul was specifically sent to those with no background in the faith. The Greeks, the Romans, and he was sent because he had what it took to reach them. He had an incredible amount of empathy and love for the people that he was going out and working with. He had a strong desire that really, regardless of that individual's background, whatever they found themselves involved in, his desire was that they came to Christ. Let's go over to Romans 9. Romans 9.

We'll go ahead and pick it up in verse 1 here, just to get an idea of what Paul's mindset was when it came to dealing with individuals. Now, this particular context deals more so with his kinsmen, but this is the kind of person and the kind of thought process and mindset that the Apostle Paul had when he dealt with individuals that he worked with. Romans 9, verse 1, says, Paul was heartbroken by those that didn't see and didn't understand Christ. In this passage, again, we see particularly his own kinsmen. But when you see how Paul, in other places, advocated for, interacted with the Gentiles throughout his ministry, his empathy was extended to them as well. It didn't stop with his own people. He was so heartbroken in Romans 9 that he would himself be willingly cut off if they would just come to Christ. When we see people we know on social media, when we see people that we work with, when we see people out on the streets who are engaging in openly sinful behaviors or who support those in openly sinful behavior, does our heart break like this? Does our heart break like this? Do we wish that we could help in some way? Do we want to help them understand? Or do we kind of quickly scan past, thanking God that we're not like this robber, this evildoer, this adulterer, or this tax collector? Every day provides us with numerous opportunities. But again, if that opportunity isn't with the right attitude in the right time, we'll likely do more damage than good. Paul's example provides us with some principles we can glean in the modern era of the church today. And I told you when we started part one, part two would really focus on a lot more tangible things that we can implement. And I'm going to deliver on that today. I've come up with three tangible things that Paul did throughout his work that we could implement tomorrow in our interactions with other people to help them to be more effective and to increase the chances that they will be successful. The three things that Paul did was, number one, he was all things to all men. He was all things to all men. He was also, number two, an expert swordsman, an expert swordsman. And number three, he did not compromise on the truth. Paul was all things to all men. He was an expert swordsman, and he didn't compromise on the truth. You know, Paul's approach to his ministry is extremely important for us to consider. He actually mentions his strategy very clearly in 1 Corinthians 9. Let's start there. Start there with this particular point. 1 Corinthians 9. And we'll see his general strategy when it came to approaching individuals that he interacted with. 1 Corinthians 9. And we'll pick it up in verse 19. 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 19. It's not often we get really good insight into the actual strategy. It's almost like Paul's mission statement, so to speak. This is the way that he went through the process of his interactions when he was out dealing with other people. 1 Corinthians 9, verse 19 says, For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews. To those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law. To those who are without law, as without law, not being without law towards God, but under law towards Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be a partaker of it with you. You know, Paul strove to understand where his audience was coming from, whomever they may be. He endeavored to meet them at their level.

He tried to empathize with whatever they were dealing with, whatever they found themselves in, where they were coming from, and he wove that into their response for a singular purpose.

He became all things to all men to save as many as humanly possible. Now that doesn't mean in the modern era that in order to reach a drug addict, Paul would become a heroin addict. That doesn't mean that at all. It doesn't mean he would have started shooting heroin. It doesn't mean he had to literally become them in order to understand them. He wouldn't have done anything that would have compromised his beliefs. He's simply stating that he uses their culture, he uses their background, he uses their understanding to reach them, to find them where they are. It's a great example of this in Acts 17. Let's turn over to Acts 17. I'll actually see this strategy in practice. Acts 17. This is one of those really awesome examples of interactions that Paul had with non-believers that you kind of just go, man, that was actually really genius. It was a good maneuver. That worked out really well at that point in time. Acts 17. We'll go ahead and pick it up in verse 16. Acts 17 and verse 16. Again, keeping in mind that Paul was all things to all men, that he would use their background, he would use their culture, he would use whatever he could use to reach them and bring them to him. 17 verse 16. Now while Paul waited for them in Athens, so here he is in Greece, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. Again, he was pained. It was painful to him to see that the city of people were given over to idols. Therefore, he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers and in the marketplace daily with those who happen to be there. So we see that he starts with those and meets with those initially that have that background understanding, those who were already believers. And he's reasoning with them. He's reasoning with all comers, working desperately to convince them that this can't stand, that this needed to change. Verse 18. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him, and some said, what does this babbler want to say? Others said he seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. Verse 19. They took him and brought him to the Arpagus, saying, may we know what this new doctrine is, of which you speak? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore, we want to know what these things mean. For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there at this particular location, the Arpagus, spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. So here's Paul before a group of men who do this very thing day in, day out. Philosophy is their thing. This is their bread and butter, so to speak. They sit around all day long and they philosophize on life. They talk about life. They talk about the afterlife, feelings, pain, pleasure. In this particular situation, the many dealing with are Epicurean and Stoic in their philosophies. Epicurean philosophy is a hedonistic philosophy that it deals entirely with the ultimate purpose of life as pleasure, that that is the greatest good that one can achieve. And if you can do that, if you can achieve that, you can live modestly, you can gain knowledge, you achieve this state known as tranquility. And in this state of tranquility, you have no fear, you have no bodily pain, you can only feel pleasure. That was their goal in life. Now, Stoicism, on the other hand, taught virtue was based on knowledge, taught that knowledge was important, that those who can live in harmony with reason or wise, and they become indifferent to pain or pleasure, that they endure it without any kind of display of feelings. But the men who Paul is talking to in this in this particular section are experts in their respective philosophies.

These guys, all day long, they sit here and just go back and forth, just wordplay, all day.

So let's see what Paul does. Paul, verse 22, then Paul stood in the midst of the Aeropagus and said, men of Athens, addressing these philosophers, I perceive that in all things you are very religious. For as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God. Therefore, the one whom you worship without knowing Him I proclaim to you. In other words, I'm going to use your culture, I'm going to use your background, I know that you're Greek and I know that you have this whole pantheon of gods, even one that you don't know anything about.

It's unknown. You just kind of wanted to hedge your bets just in case you missed one. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to tell you about this god that you don't know and that you don't understand. Boy, talk about meeting them where they are.

You've gone by the nostrils at this point. Tell us more. Please, tell us more about this god that we don't know about. We want to know more. Verse 24, God, who made the world and everything in it since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, slight little dig there on some of their nice fancy Greek temples, nor is He worshiped with men's hands as though He needed anything since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

Verse 26, and He is made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings so that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. He basically lines out the basics of who and what God is, what He desires in us. He's right here standing in the middle of the arpeggus, preaching the gospel to any and all who would hear. And they don't realize it, of course, per se, at this point.

You know, they're not quite fully aware of what's going on. At this point, they're just philosophizing as well. But notice the next statement. This is what I really want to draw your attention to. The next statement, verse 28. For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said. For we are also His offspring. Paul references their own poets. He didn't only quote scripture at them.

He came at them from what they knew and what they understood. He referenced Greek poetry, Greek work, that he had read. Paul was well read. It wasn't just scripture. This enabled him to be on the same level as his audience. To the philosophers, he became a philosopher. Think about how much more that increased his credibility to be able to quote something that these guys knew or be able to reference something that they understood.

Suddenly, this outsider, well, he's one of us. He knows our works. He knows our art. He knows our culture. Maybe we should listen to this guy. Verse 29. Verse 29. This is where you see him kind of drop the hammer a little bit. Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art in man's devising. In other words, these idols are doing you no good.

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent because He's appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He's given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked while others said, we will hear you again on this matter. Notice He didn't win them all over. Some still mocked. Some still mocked. But others were willing to listen to more. You know, Paul had this uncanny way of meeting people where they were.

In this particular group of idolaters, the basic instruction of his argument consisted of five things. One, I perceive you are very religious. Two, so religious, in fact, you even have an inscription to a God you don't even know. Three, I can tell you who that God is, what that God is all about, and what He desires you to become. Four, your own philosophers have touched on aspects of this concept in their writings. And five, God will only overlook ignorance for so long. He expects His creation to obey, and He will judge the world according to Christ's standards. Notice His entire argument didn't consist of, you're breaking the second commandment! You're a bunch of sinners! You're all going to the lake of fire! That wasn't His argument. However, He touched on bits and pieces of that argument within His discussion. It was just put out in a more reasoned manner, in a more gentle manner. How many of you guys are familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church?

You guys familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church? Okay, Westboro Baptist Church, how is their message resonating with the general public at this point in time? It's not. They have lost any and all credibility, any and all credibility, whatsoever by the message that they proclaim. Now, their message is not the gospel message. They claim it is. It's not.

But they've lost their credibility by how they've presented their message. Not their message per se, but by how they've presented it. Paul didn't use the word of God as a sledgehammer. He used it as the sword that it's intended to be. We need to ensure that we have a level of empathy for people as we run into people out there in the world as we have these interactions. We need to ensure that our heart breaks for what these people are going through and what they're dealing with, and that we ensure that we temper our emotions, and that we reason in a way that we don't burn our bridges and leave a bad taste in their mouth. Because if we want to win hearts and minds, we need to let that person come to that understanding on their own.

We can't tell them what they should think. We need to give them enough of a question to get them thinking about it and come to it as much as possible on their own.

So that they don't, oh well, this is what this person says I should think, but this is what I now think as I've considered this and as I've mulled it over. That type of interaction, that type of discussion, that type of... I don't want to call it an argument because argument makes it sound like it's an emotionally charged... you know, but it kind of is. It's a debate. That takes skill. It takes practice. And it takes a lot of prayer, you know, if you're dealing with individuals that are out there. The second thing that Paul was was an expert swordsman. He was an expert swordsman. Now he was so humble he didn't consider himself to be a great orator. He actually refers to himself as not a great orator, but you look at the way that the man wrote and you know that he must have been a good speaker. You look at the one... unless he, you know, just could not speak in front of people. But looking at his address of the Arab-Pagas, that was pretty solid right there. So he likens the Word of God to a sword in a number of different places in his epistles. A sword, obviously, is something that people of that time frame would have been very familiar with, and it makes for a very strong analogy in how he looks at it. Ephesians 6, 17, we won't turn there, but it refers to the Word of God as the sword of the Spirit. Hebrews 4, 12 tells us that the Word of God, the message that he's given us in this Bible that you've all got, you know, in front of you or on the shelf at home, that it's active, that it's sharper than any double-edged sword, that it penetrates to the division of soul and spirit, to joints and marrow. So it's referred to as a sword in a number of different places. In 2 Timothy 2, 15, though, he takes it one step further. Let's go to 2 Timothy 2, verse 15. 2 Timothy 2, verse 15. Turns out it's not located in Hebrews. There it is, right before Hebrews. Well, before Titus, I guess. 2 Timothy 2, and verse 15. In kind of the midst of admonitions to Timothy himself, as well as those that Timothy would ultimately oversee, we see verse 15. Verse 15 specifically states, 2 verse 15, not 3 verse 15, be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Rightly dividing the word of truth. And the word divide there in the ESV, the version in the English Standard Version of that particular passage, specifically states, rightly handling the word of truth. Rightly handling the word of truth. And if you think of that word of truth as a sword, what does it take to rightly handle the sword that God has given us? I've mentioned this before. Most people are pretty intuitive with a sword. You pick it up, you know, pointy end goes out. Most people can kind of get that down. But to become an expert with a sword, to become an expert in a way that can wield it so that they are capable, that takes time. It takes study. It takes practice. It takes a lot of work. There's a guy by the name of Yoshinoro Kouno in Japan, and he is a modern-day samurai master. Now, he is about the close thing that we have to a samurai today, as they existed in the in the Mabel times during in Japan.

He has dedicated his entire life to learn and to become skilled in the way that samurai move, in the way that they engage the enemy, and particularly in the use of the katana as a weapon. And he has the following to say regarding the level of training for someone to become capable with a katana. He says it takes decades to become battle-ready with a katana. In other words, to where you can hold on to this sword and face somebody else with a weapon. It takes decades to become comfortable enough with it. Anyone with less experience, this is his quote, anyone with less experience is likely to cut off their own leg or foot on a deflection or on a missed attack.

Decades to become skilled enough not to lop off your own limbs, essentially. But not only must we rightly handle this sword that God has given us, we have to study to show ourselves approved. We have to gain skill with our blades, so to speak. We need to practice regularly. We need to study to learn more about how to use it, when to use it, and ultimately show ourselves approved to the master who trains us. But that also doesn't mean that to show ourselves approved, we run out and jump into every fight that comes our way. Sun Tzu, the legendary Chinese general and the author of The Art of War, gives the following advice, do not fight a battle that cannot be won. Do not fight a battle that cannot be won. And that doesn't mean we shy away from tough fights. Instead, it means we look at the situation wisely and we decide whether in this instance is there an endgame.

Is there an endgame in this instance? Some battles are not winnable. Some battles are not winnable in discussions and interactions with individuals in the world. Sometimes it may be wiser to not engage in the first place. Other battles, maybe the battlefield itself, if we think about a battlefield as a place of our argument, there's certain things you just don't air out on Facebook and get into arguments on Facebook. There's just certain places that maybe that's not appropriate. They may not be conducive to a win. Now, just a verse prior to this, in verse 14, Paul warns Timothy of the dangers of battles over words. He puts Sun Tzu's quote just a little bit differently. He illustrates the danger in these kind of verbal sword fights. Second Timothy 2, verse 14, says, remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit to the ruin of the hearers. Not to strive about words with no profit to the ruin of the hearers. Now, ultimately, Paul is referencing the men that Timothy will be instructing. He's telling Timothy, be sure to teach them the importance of engaging in these battles that maybe don't have a good endgame.

But really, he's telling him to wisely choose their battles. Berkeley's study Bible mentions on this particular passage, and I don't like the terminology that he uses in this, but I'm going to use it anyway, and just I'm not a big fan of it. It says, discussion can be invigorating for those whose approach to the Christian faith is intellectual, for those who have a background of knowledge and of culture, for those who have a real knowledge of or interest in theology. But it sometimes happens, and this is the term I don't like, that a simple-minded person finds himself in a group which is tossing heresies about and propounding, unanswerable questions, and his faith, so far from being helped, is upset. It may well be that this is what Paul means when he says that word battles can undo those who listen to them. The normal word used for building a person up in the Christian faith, for edification, is literally the same word as building a house. The word which Paul used here for ruin, catastrophe, is what might be used for the demolition of a house. And it may well be that clever, subtle, speculative, intellectually reckless discussion may have the effect of demolishing and not building up the faith of some simple person who happens to become involved in it. You know, if we stick with our sword analogy, you know, we're starting out in our, as a swordsman, you know, you don't go take on the blade master. You know, you don't jump out there and go against somebody who's got 15, 20, 30 years of experience in these particular places. You know, if we're unfamiliar with the blade, or if we struggle to read kind of the ebb and flow of the sword fight, we might not make it out alive, or we might be very humiliated in the process. Maybe we, we thrust when we sort of should have parried, or maybe we parried when we should have gotten out of the way. You know, our discussions and our debates over the truth of God are not unlike a sword fight. They're not unlike a sword fight. They consist of a natural give and take. At times, we may find ourselves on the defensive for quite some time. Just taking argument after argument after argument after argument, and just really waiting for that opportunity. Trying to turn their own movements against them, trying to, you know, defensively parry whatever they bring at you. Just waiting for that opening, just waiting for the right time to make our move. Other times, we might gain the advantage from the beginning, and really can control the conversation as it goes, because we've got them kind of on the defensive for the majority of the time. Regardless of where we find ourselves, it's really important for us to recognize that on the other end of that sword is a potential member of the family of God, whose time of judgment may not be now. That may change, it may not, but the most important piece for us to remember is that in this interaction, our time is now. And in that case, the how of our interaction is more important than the result. The how of that interaction is more important than the result. We have to study that we might show ourselves approved and rightly handle that word of truth.

The last thing the Apostle Paul did was he didn't shy away from the truth. He didn't compromise what he knew to be true, and he most certainly didn't shy away from tough conversations.

There were times when he was more forceful with people, as you look through some of his epistles, but more often than not, these times were times when he addressed people who knew better. The times when he was more forceful, he addressed people who knew better. His own people, believers within the Church. You look at 1 Corinthians 5 as one example of Paul being a bit more forceful. He really takes the congregation to task over their acceptance of an individual in that situation, living a life of sin. There are other locations, but one of my favorites is in Galatians 2. Let's start turning over there real quick. Galatians 2. Just kind of a quick brief run down on the on the book of Galatians. The book of Galatians addresses the believers in Galatia that were being bombarded from both sides. They were kind of the ones in the middle with the flack jacket going, just please stop. Everybody stop. On one side, you had a group of Judaizers saying, look, you have to become Jewish in order to become Christian. You have to go through all these things. You have to be circumcised. You have to do this. You have to do that. You have to do all these things.

On the other side of that, they have all of their former friends, all their family, all their society that are trying to pull them back into all the holidays of the Roman calendar. Kind of the weak and beggarly elements that he refers to in Galatians 4. But these new believers were being pulled this way and that way. And Paul's empathy and concern for them in this letter is beautiful. He reasons, and he constructs an argument within this letter to encourage and strengthen them and to correct those of the circumcision that were creating this particular problem. And in Galatians 2, we see reference to a problem that Paul had to step up and correct. Galatians 2, we're going to go ahead and pick it up in verse 11. Galatians 2 verse 11. We see that in this particular situation, we see that Peter and Barnabas, while they were visiting the group in Antioch, separated themselves from the Gentiles when the Jews showed up, fearing their response if they were seen eating with the Gentiles. And this action only reinforced the idea that you had to become Jewish in order to become Christian, that somehow as a Gentile you were a second-class Christian, that these guys were somehow upper-tiered, that they were holier than thou, somehow this upper-tier you were second-class, which Peter himself knew wasn't true after his vision and his meeting with the centurion. But out of fear of the Jews, he allowed himself to compromise what he knew to be true. Paul wasn't having it. Paul was not having it. Galatians 2, we'll pick it up again in verse 11. Galatians 2, verse 11. Galatians 2 verse 11 says, Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, for he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew, and he separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas, the son of comfort, was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter, before them all, so in Peter's face, in front of this large group of people, if you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Now Paul got in Peter's face about this, and you can imagine this is a conversation where Paul's passion showed through a little bit.

He couldn't believe what he was seeing from Peter, and he knew that it was wrong, so he called him out on it, in his face, in front of a crowd of people. And you can imagine this was likely not a comfortable conversation. It probably got a little heated. And when you read Paul's words to the brethren in Corinthians 5, another place where it got a little heated. That was a sound rebuke.

He let them have it because they knew better. He let them have it because they knew better. But he didn't react in this way with individuals that didn't know the truth.

He was patient. He worked with them. He led them to the truth of God like a shepherd. But he also didn't shy away from correcting believers when it warranted itself.

He spoke the truth in love. As we start to kind of wrap things up today, we'll turn to one final scripture. 2 Timothy 2. 2 Timothy 2. Been here already. We're going to go a little bit further down. Verses 24 through 26. 2 Timothy 2. Verses 24 through 26.

2 Timothy 2 verse 24 says, And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God will perhaps grant them repentance so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

Paul instructs Timothy that as servants of God, as people who are out preaching the gospel, actively doing the Father's business. We can't be quarrelsome. We can't be out always looking for a fight. We have to be gentle towards all. We have to be patient. We have to be apt to teach.

We have to know the material that we're teaching. We have to be gentle towards believers and non-believers. And we have to humbly correct those that are in opposition, with the ultimate goal being helping that individual recover themselves from the trap that they found themselves in. The world around us is becoming increasingly hostile towards God, towards those who profess to follow him, and their tolerance of our beliefs are waning. You know, it was interesting, back, I know a number of you guys, we kind of all grew up together up in the Spokane area, you know, and a number of you remember the early 90s when it was everything was cool. You know, it used to be, you know, when we were in grade school, it was so hard to get time off for the feast, you know, they're just so hard. And then all of a sudden we hit this random place in the 90s where it was like, oh, that's cool! Celebrate diversity right on! You go do what you got to do! It was just easy for like 10 or 12 years. That's changing. That's definitely changing. The tolerance of our beliefs are waning. We have less and less in common with Joe Q. Public with every passing year.

And as society goes, so goes the nation. But just because things are becoming more hostile, just because our viewpoint isn't considered by some, or is considered, rather, by some to be kind of antiquated, outdated, potentially seen as hateful, bigoted, or fundamentalist, it doesn't change our mission. God expects us to preach the gospel to the world.

That requires us to approach every interaction that we interact with, people outside, people in the church as well, with an attitude of give, with love in our heart, and our words seasoned with salt. We need to wisely choose our battles, become all things to all men, meet them where they are, reason with them in a way that they will understand and lead them to a shift in their thinking, kind of carefully and thoughtfully, really thinking through how can we progress them and allow them to figure some of these things out for themselves as we work through this. We need to train ourselves in rightly handling the sword of the spirit and become a master in the blade. We need to study the opponent's strategies, understand what it is that they do and how to counteract that, becoming burst in them so that we can counter them more effectively. We can't compromise the truth. We have to ensure that we speak the truth in love. Every day we're given opportunity to interact with other people. From the moment our eyes open to the moment that our eyes close each day, we are to be about our Father's business. How will we treat those interactions? Are we in it for us? Or do we have the concern of the other person forefront in our mind? You know, as we go forward from services today, what will it be? Will it be give or will it be take?