¹⁸ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. ¹⁹ Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by families from the ark. ²⁰ Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. ²¹ And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. ²² While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

Genesis 8:18-22

A new year provides an opportunity for a fresh start. But does it? Isn’t January 1 just another day? The problem with New Year’s resolutions is that we often lack the resolve to keep them. We inevitably ruin our new year with old habits. And if we believe all the new-year-means-a-new-me stuff, this makes us feel like we’ve blown our chance and the only option is to wait for another new beginning to roll around so we can start again.

There is such a thing as a fresh start and a new beginning but we have to avoid the myth that we must wait for some drastic event or a significant date on the calendar to make positive changes in our lives. Relapses happen but that doesn’t mean we have to scrap everything and start over. We just need to press on by God’s grace and take the next step.

Noah’s story illustrates this truth. If anyone had a fresh start it was Noah. He was a righteous man living in a world where “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5) Noah and his family were saved from the destructive flood waters by God’s grace through faith. When they stepped off the ark they stepped into a new world. You might say they had a fresh start.

Things began well when they disembarked. Noah built an altar to the Lord and honored him with a sacrifice. The Lord responded by promising he would never again destroy the world by water (Gen. 8:18-22). The reason for this promise comes in verse 21: “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Apparently the flood did not rid the human race of evil. God knew we had a heart problem that would continue to infect subsequent generations. Yet, despite our condition, God promised that the world would not get stuck in an endless loop of increasing evil, divine judgment and newness. Creation would continue until the very end (2 Pet. 3:1-13). “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (8:22). So the world’s future did not depend on man’s morality but on God’s mercy. This is why God gave us the sign of the rainbow, to remind us of the covenant he made between himself and “all flesh that is on the earth” (9:16-17).

The next chapter illustrates this. It tells of Noah’s drunkenness and Ham’s utter disdain for his father’s honor (9:18-25). The ink had barely dried on God’s covenant before the curse sunk its claws into creation again (cf. 3:14-19). At this point, Noah and his family had a choice. Will they say, “We’ve ruined this brand new world. We're doomed to be sinners so we might as well continue down this road of rebellion because it’s too late for us”? Or will they say, “God be merciful to us! Help us take the next step by faith and move forward by your grace”?

This text teaches us three practical lessons about fresh starts.

We take old weaknesses into our new beginnings — Whenever we make a fresh start, whether it is a new year, a new job, getting married or moving to a new area, we must understand there will be setbacks. Some of these will come from our bringing old failings into new situations. Knowing this humbles us before God. We cannot move forward in life by depending on “the flesh” because it is weak. When we rely on our own moral perfection and fail, we may think our fresh start is irrevocably ruined. But our progress does not depend on our perfection.

God’s mercy makes moral progress possible — Progress ultimately depends on God’s mercy. When we come to God with broken hearts, he can renew us through his forgiveness (Psa. 51:10). That mercy allows us to move forward. But grace is no get-out-of-jail free card, an excuse for sinners to sin. God wants to work within his forgiven people: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:13) Grace transforms us to serve him with divine strength (1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Tim. 2:1). Grace teaches us to progressively say no to sin and yes to God (Titus 2:11-14). Just as Noah moved forward by God’s mercy and covenant promise, we too can move past our sins.

When we fail, don’t wait for another fresh start — We don’t need a new year  or an outward change in our circumstance to tell us when to change. God’s “steadfast love never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning” (Lam. 3:22-24). If you want to start reading your bible every day but you skip a day or two, that doesn’t mean you should scrap your plan. Just pick it up the next day. If you want to stop losing your temper but you blow your top, don’t wait for another fresh start. Ask for forgiveness and move on.

The only real fresh start we are given is new birth in Christ (Jn. 3:5). This is where we find God’s steadfast love, evergreen mercy and strength to move forward. Peter says that our baptism corresponds to Noah’s story (1 Pet. 3:20-21). God can cleanse our conscience as he cleansed the world in Noah’s flood. And, like Noah, we can move forward based on God’s mercy and faithfulness.

⁶ For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. ⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. ⁸ Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

2 Timothy 4:6-8

These verses are often referred to as Paul’s “Last Will and Testament.” The apostle knows his life has come to an end—he will be executed, probably that winter (4:9)—so he reflects on his life and looks confidently to his future reward with Christ. There is no boast in his claim, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” As always, Paul means to encourage others through his example. Timothy would have been brokenhearted to learn that his mentor’s death was imminent (“I am already being poured out… the time of my departure has come”). So Paul cheers his protégé with the knowledge that he meets death with the confident, joyful anticipation of receiving his crown. But he also challenges Timothy to persevere in the same spirit of faith after his death.

Note that Paul spells out his present (6), past (7) and future (8) in this passage.

Paul’s present: sacrifice (6) — The legal machinations that would lead to his execution were “already” at work. He is “being poured out as a drink offering,” a reference to an Old Testament ritual in which worshipers poured out a libation before the altar as a sacrifice. Paul’s life is like one of those drink offerings, given sacrificially to the Lord. And this was no epiphany that his impending execution brought about. Paul always viewed his life as a sacrifice. Consider his words to the Philippians (which he wrote from an earlier imprisonment he was released from), “Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.” (Phil. 2:17) The same can be said about his view of death as a “departure.” His desire was always to “depart and be with Christ.” (Phil. 1:23) His death, shameful as it might have looked to others, was no defeat but a passage, literally a “loosing,” akin to sailors loosing a ship from its moorings. Paul views death as weighing anchor from this earthly life and setting sail for heavenly shores and the presence of the Lord.

Paul’s past: completion (7) — Paul reflects on his past with three verbs that share the concept of fulfillment. He records his spiritual legacy not to boast but to exhort Timothy (and us) to the same perseverance. In the Greek, Paul places the object first in each case to emphasize not what he has done but the fight, the race and the faith that are the Lord’s (each with the definite article “the” before it). It’s about what the Lord has accomplished through him in the fight, the race and the faith (1 Tim. 1:12-17; 2 Tim. 2:1). All three of the images he employs—the tough soldier who continues to fight (2:4; 1 Tim. 6:12), the single-minded athlete who competes according to the rules (2:5; 1 Tim. 6:12; cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-27) and the disciple who keeps the faith (1:13-14; 2:15, 22; 1 Tim. 6:14)—were used previously to encourage Timothy to persevere. It is not that Paul has won the race or that the battle is over, but rather that, by God’s grace, Paul has completed his part in them. This assurance allows him to face his “departure” with confidence.

Paul’s future: reward (8) — “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day.” Paul is not trumpeting his accomplishments or stating that he has earned this crown. His certainty lies not in his own achievements but in the Lord himself, that “righteous judge,” who will “award” him the crown. Paul assures Timothy that the same awaits him and “all who have loved his appearing.” This kind of certainty and self-confidence can only come from a humble recognition of the great power that enables them to be what they are: God’s grace (1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 4:13; 1 Tim. 1:12). Paul’s aim here is to encourage Timothy (and us) to share his confidence in receiving our eternal reward.

And what is that reward? Paul calls it a “crown of righteousness”. James and Jesus use the same image of a victory wreath but call it the “crown of life” (Jas. 1:12; Rev. 2:10). Therefore, the reward is eternal life and righteousness, both things saints already possess in this life (1 Jn. 5:13; Rom. 5:1). If we already possess them how can Paul say we will be awarded them “on that day”? Prior to the judgment (“that day”), we still “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5:6) and still experience death, that final enemy yet to be eradicated (1 Cor. 15:26). Though we are already declared “righteous” in Christ and have “passed from death to life” (Jn. 5:24), we will not receive those gifts in their fullness until they are awarded to us “on that day” of judgment. Then death will be swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:54) and we will live in “a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Pet. 3:13) God has this crown waiting for “all who have loved his appearing.” The ESV renders this in a way that suggests Paul is speaking of Jesus’ previous “appearance,” his first coming. But the context suggests he is referring to his second coming, when he will vindicate the faithful and punish the wicked (2 Thess. 1:5-12). It works either way. We show our love for his first coming and his second coming in the same way, by living a life of faithfulness and perseverance, the very thing Paul is encouraging in these verses.

Reflecting on these verses causes us to ask ourselves three questions. Are we presently living a life of sacrifice to God? (6) Can we look to our past with a sense of completion? (7) Are we confident in receiving a reward in the future? (8) If not, the words of the apostle motivate us to make any necessary changes.

¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ¹⁷ So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. ¹⁸ But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ¹⁹ You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! ²⁰ Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? ²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? ²² You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; ²³ and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. ²⁴ You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. ²⁵ And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? ²⁶ For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

James 2:14-26

The Great Reformation changed the way many people read and interpret Scripture, but not always for the better. Reformers like Martin Luther were reading Romans and Galatians in light of the perversions of the Roman Catholic Church. In those letters, Paul emphasizes that we are not justified by works but by faith in Christ. This seemed to contradict certain practices of the Catholic Church (e.g. the sale of indulgences, a practice that involved the purchase of a certificate to reduce or eliminate punishment for sins in purgatory [another erroneous concept]). Over time, this doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) became so engrained within the minds of those who held to the Reformed tradition that any mention of ‘works’ in connection with one’s salvation would be viewed as heretical.

However, James says in his letter that ‘a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.’ (Jas. 2:24) Are James and Paul at odds? Certainly not. Paul and James were battling two different problems and used similar language in different ways to suit their unique arguments. Like brothers in arms with their backs to each other fending off attacks from either side, they were both ‘fighting the good fight of faith.’ (1 Tim. 6:12) Let’s try to correct this apparent contradiction.

James’ style in this section (James 2:14-26) is called a ‘diatribe’; he introduces an imaginary objector who states his own viewpoint as a foil for James’ argument (18). He attacks the person holding that viewpoint as if he were present (‘you foolish person’, 20); and he appeals directly to his readers to judge the truth of what he is saying (‘you see’, 22, 24). This style strongly suggests that at least some of James’ readers held this incorrect view of faith—that they could be justified by their faith alone, apart from any works.

It is likely that James’ audience had heard Paul’s teaching on ‘justification by faith’ (in Romans and Galatians) but misunderstood it. Properly understood, James and Paul are united in their teaching of ‘faith’ and ‘works’ and their relationship to justification. Any appearance of a conflict is created for two reasons:

1. They are using the same term in different ways — ‘Works’ in Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians refers specifically to ‘works of the Law of Moses’ by which no one is justified (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16). ‘Works’ in James refers to works of obedience to God, something Paul taught as well (his mission, after all, was to bring about “the obedience of faith” Rom. 1:5; 16:26). These are two completely different things. Paul’s use of ‘works’ is very specific while James’ more generally refers to obedience to God.
2. They are seeking to correct different problems — Paul is correcting the view that one can be justified in God’s sight according to the Law of Moses. That is, that the way to be right with God is by keeping the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant (circumcision, kosher diet, rituals, feasts, etc.). But this is impossible, as Paul expertly shows, because no one is without sin and the Law made no provision for sin. James is correcting the view that a mere verbal profession of faith in Jesus is enough to be justified and saved. A faith that does not ‘work’ is bogus and good for nothing.

James argues that ‘faith without works is dead’ (17, 26) and ‘useless’ (20). It does not have the power to ‘save’ (14) or to ‘justify’ a person before God (24). True faith issues in ‘works’ (14, 17); faith works with active obedience and is ‘completed by works’ (22). It is the kind of faith demonstrated by Abraham (21-23) and Rahab (25). It is absolutely vital to understand that the main point of James’ argument, expressed four times (17, 20, 24, 26), is not that works are a kind of second, unrelated addition to faith but that genuine faith naturally works.

The practices of the Roman Catholic Church were wrong and Luther was right to criticize them. But his narrow interpretation of ‘works’ in Paul’s writing was unmerited. We should be careful that in our respect of such historical figures, we don’t become blind to their faults. In the Bible, faith in God and obedience to God go hand in hand. We dare not make the error of thinking that a mere verbal profession of faith, without an accompanying life of obedience to God, can justify us before him. But nor should we make the opposite error by thinking we could ever earn God’s mercy through our obedience, as if God could be put into our debt. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

²³ Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ²⁴ the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, ²⁵ the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, ²⁶ the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, ²⁷ the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, ²⁸ the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, ²⁹  the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, ³⁰ the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, ³¹ the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, ³² the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, ³³ the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, ³⁴ the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, ³⁵ the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, ³⁶ the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, ³⁷ the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, ³⁸ the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Luke 3:23-38

The above might not be gripping reading to modern people but genealogies serve many important functions in ancient literature. Sometimes, they stitch the narrative together, spanning great lengths of time to connect two stories, as in Genesis. They also hold important clues about a family or an individual within the family. Such is the case here. The Gospels give us two genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. They both have their puzzles and they are both very different from each other. Whenever there are parallel passages in the Gospels, it’s always instructive to hone in on those differences because they usually reveal details that the author wants to especially emphasize. Let’s briefly examine some of those differences between Luke’s ‘family tree’ of Jesus and Matthew’s.

First, notice the scope of Luke’s genealogy. Luke takes in seventy-seven names from Jesus back to Adam. Some see eleven groups of seven names, but I can’t detect any clear pattern or purpose behind it. As we read our way back to Adam, we get the impression that it’s all part of a long story which culminates in Jesus. Matthew’s goes back only to Abraham, emphasizing that he is Israel’s Messiah, whereas Luke’s goes back to Adam, emphasizing that he is the Savior of the whole world, Gentiles included. This fits with Luke’s primarily non-Jewish audience and focus in his Gospel account.

Second, notice the direction of the genealogy. Whereas Matthew’s reads forward from Abraham to Jesus (Mt. 1:1-17), Luke’s goes backward in history from Jesus to Adam. I’m not sure what to make of this but it’s there.

Third, notice the placement of Luke’s genealogy. Matthew puts his smack at the beginning of his account, laying out Jesus’ royal pedigree for his Jewish audience. Luke places his later, inserting it between Jesus’ baptism (Lk. 3:21-22) and his temptation (Lk. 4:1-13). In Luke, we go from connecting Jesus to Adam and then straight to his temptation by the devil. This is Luke’s subtle way of telling us to read the temptation story in light of Genesis 3. Matthew, on the other hand, writes his temptation story in such a way that we would contrast Jesus’ faithfulness with Israel’s unfaithfulness in the wilderness (Num. 14). But by mentioning Adam, Luke wants us to put Luke 4 side by side with Genesis 3.

This helps us see the temptation in a new light. In the beginning, the first Adam was tempted and failed. Here, the second ‘Adam’ is tempted and succeeds. In Genesis 3, Adam faced temptation in the abundance of the Garden. Here, Jesus faced temptation in the desolation of the wilderness. The first Adam was surrounded with provision; the second ‘Adam’ with destitution. Genesis 3 depicts the fall of man. Luke 4 reports the standing of man. Luke 4 is 1 John 3:8 illustrated: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” That’s what Jesus is doing in the wilderness. He is beginning to reverse the effects of the fall by meeting evil head on. Jesus is showing us the new way—which was God’s original way—to be human. Jesus is showing us how to overcome temptation and trust in God. He’s proving that temptation can be overcome, but to do so, we’ve got to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.

That’s the ‘easy’ stuff about Luke’s genealogy. There are some puzzles that remain, however. Why are the names in Luke’s genealogy so different than Matthew’s? The list of names are almost in total disagreement. As stated before, Matthew and Luke both have their points to make about Jesus. Matthew traces David’s descendants via the royal line of Solomon and Judah’s kings, while Luke traces his physical descent through another little-known son of David, Nathan or Nahshon (3:31; 2 Sam. 5:14). Both lines converge at Joseph, but both lines have a different precursor to Joseph (Jacob in Mt. 1:16, Heli or Eli in Lk. 3:23). Some speculate that a second marriage is the explanation, one gives Joseph’s physical father while the other lists his legal father. But who knows?

So, there are difficulties here that seem to lack clear answers. What do we do in the face of such textual problems? One thing I’ve learned not to do is to allege that the Biblical authors were careless and made a mistake. Both Matthew and Luke have acquitted themselves over and over again as the most thoughtful and brilliant historians and theologians. They were not sloppy. When there are unanswerable questions like these, I’ve learned to assume the ignorance in mine as a twenty-first century reader and not to pontificate too much on the issue.

¹ What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? ² You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. ³ You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

James 4:1-3

You have to be careful restringing your guitar. When turning the tuning pegs to reach the desired pitch, the tension audibly builds higher and higher. If you over-tighten one it can easily snap, lashing out wildly to scratch you.

Some local congregations can be ‘high strung’ too. It may be just an undercurrent for a while, but little things can increase the tension over time until… SNAP! The flood gates open and people get hurt. What causes tensions in the church and what are we to do about them? The Christians addressed in James’ letter were an agitated bunch. Both external and internal factors contributed to their tension.

Outwardly, they were facing persecution. They were poor and being taken advantage of by wealthy landlords (5:4-6). They were also being hauled into court by the rich (2:6) who scorned their Christian faith (2:7). These outward pressures were no doubt a great source of stress so James admonished them to meet their trials with endurance, trusting that through them they were being shaped and strengthened by God who would eventually give them victory (1:2-4, 12).

Inwardly, they were struggling with worldliness. James was concerned that their culture was influencing them instead of the other way around. He warned that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (4:4) and highlighted that one key ingredient of “religion that is pure and undefiled before God” is keeping “oneself unstained from the world” (1:27).

When we think like the world instead of like Christ (what James calls “earthly wisdom” in 3:13-18) and then encounter some form of persecution, we are not poised to respond in God-honoring ways to that stress. Worldliness in the church manifested in several ways: a deference to the rich and a callous indifference to the poor (2:1-4); uncontrolled, critical speech (3:1-12; 4:11-12; 5:9); envy and selfish ambition that degenerated into quarrels (3:13-4:3); arrogance (4:13-17); and, most of all, an essential “double-mindedness” with respect to God that short-circuited the effectiveness of prayer (1:5-8) and resulted in a failure to put faith into practice (1:22-27; 2:14-26). James called upon these Christians to repent from this worldliness by humbling themselves before the Lord so that the Lord might exalt them (4:7-10). Then they could work diligently to bring other sinners back from the error of their ways (5:19-20).

Perhaps we can attribute tensions within the church to three failures:

A failure to think like Christ — Jesus has sanctified us (‘set us apart’ from the world) “in truth” (Jn. 17:17). We are called to shape our thinking after God’s word and resist the world’s efforts to squeeze us into its mold (Rom. 12:1-2). James tells us to adopt the wisdom from above that is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere” (3:17). When we think according to Christ’s wisdom we begin to sow seeds of peace within the church, reducing and resolving tensions, producing a “harvest of righteousness” (3:18). If there is tension within the church, check your heart first. Is there tension there? James says that his readers were at war with each other because their “passions [were] at war within [them]” (4:1). Many quarrels between Christians are not due to justifiable zeal but self-indulgent desire.

A failure to forgive like Christ — Many tensions can be traced back to an unwillingness to forgive those who have wronged us in the past. We must remember that wisdom from above is “full of mercy” (3:17) and that “judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy” (2:13). It may be argued that Jesus taught us only to forgive those who repent of their sins (Lk. 17:3). While true reconciliation (the repairing of the relationship) cannot take place until there is contrition and ownership of one’s sin, we must always have the mindset of mercy. When we truly want reconciliation, we are ready to forgive and pray for it. Jesus prayed for those who crucified him, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Lk. 23:34) Many of those for whom he prayed never repented but some did. The point is, Jesus had a heart primed with mercy and ready to reconcile.

A failure to restore like Christ — Perhaps all the steps have been taken to reconcile (Mt. 5:21-26; 18:15-17) but tension still exists. When full restoration is lacking it may be due to a failure to forgive as we have been forgiven. Paul clobbers us with instructive grace: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:28) How did God in Christ forgive us? Once we repented and came to him for mercy, he did “not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.” (Psa. 103:9-13) So Paul urges us to look to God as our model for forgiveness. Psalm 103 poetically describes how God forgives us in Christ: he does not dwell on our forgiven sin, use it against us, gossip to others about it or let it come between us and him.

Christians will always experience tension as we live in this world while not being of this world. But the church should be a place of peace, mercy and goodwill.