"God wants you to be happy" And Other Un-Biblical/ Un-Christian Christianese th

Have you ever heard a good, Christian-sounding advice from a popular personality and wonder where he/she got that? Have you even had a friend whose statements are so Christian-like and even says that "God says that...", but upon scrutiny, you can never find it in the Bible? We all have that kind of experience and often times, we simply gloss them over, either because the sentence sounds good anyway or we simply did not bother at all.

As the concept of religion and spirituality secularize, which means that everyone can simply utter "divinity" from/as the "here-and-now", Christians (i.e. those who are regenerated in the spirit) face a crisis of pointing out what the Bible really says versus mere human opinions, in lofty phrases. Sadly, even those who are professed Believers tend to express self-made opinions as if they were Scriptures[1], by authority and practice.

Here are some top five (5) Christian lingo (Christianese) that, I am convinced, we should let go due to lack of Biblical warrant and by implication, advocate an un-Christian mindset or, even worse, counter-Christ-like mentality. 2. "I've been defending you to people."

Just very recently, some of my friends talked to me. They asked me something regarding an issue I involved with. I admit that there are issues that need to be settled with me, first and fore mostly with the Lord. I am fairly conscious that I am in the process of Sanctification as any regenerate is. I also believe that they had the best intentions for discussing things with me. They are my brothers in the Lord, anyway.

What I find somehow unsettling is the phrase, “Bro, I have been defending you to people.” While we understand and appreciate what this statement means on the surface, I somehow got the impression that I needed to assess this ‘brotherly’ (?) remark. Is this Biblical? Are Christians really to “defend” each other to “people”?

Here’s my inquiry of the Scriptures.

On a positive note, we see in this statement a Biblically Christian principle of “unity” and solidarity, especially in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:20, 4:2-4b). Equally, however, the statement clearly indicates that there are parties involved: the brother/sister to be “defended”, the brother/sister who “defends”, and the party whom the “defender” talks with. Now, the one who mentioned this statement to me said that “for the lack of a better term, let me use ‘defend’”. Regardless of the semantic acrobatics, though, “to defend”, in ANY given situation, is always the act of giving a reasoned explanation (hence apologia see 1 Peter 3:15). But by logical persuasion, we will understand that if the brother/sister to be defended is really in error, s/he does not need defense to anyone, but reconciliation and restoration. This, again, is regardless of the intent for the term “defend”, due to its objective meaning.

Therefore, there is an assumed issue to be clarified with the one being “defended” and more often, the one who “defends” stands in between. But is this supposed to be the case? With the following points, the scale seems to point to NO. Why? 1. Christians are called to the “Ministry of Reconciliation”, not ‘Ministry of Defense’

The Scripture is clear. Not only that there is no such thing[3], but every believer is called to the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). And reconciliation, yes, might need mediation for the sake of witness and ensuring the peacefulness and rightfulness of the process; but this has to be done face-to-face. Now there are two situations that the Bible paints in this regard.

a. Reconciliation with an “outsider”

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself teaches this. Matthew 5:25 and its context is clear that the effort must come from the offending or the erring party.

The wisdom that we see here is that reconciling, perhaps even with the presence of a mediator/witness (though not indicated in the verse), shows the distinction of the Christian ethic related with the issue of integrity and personal devotion and worship with the living God. This subsumes the embedded sense of social justice. No one is immune to this framework; yes, even the “children” of the Author of that sense of justice and order, no matter how seemingly secularized (Cf. Romans 13).

Simply, it is a testimony that the Christian way is the better manner of dealing with the issue whatever that is.

NONETHELESS, we do not see that there was a need for a mediating “defender”.

b. Reconciliation with a brother or sister in the faith

This brings the topic to an “in-house” level. Again, we hear the Lord Jesus Christ’s firm, immutable wisdom on this issue even more (Matthew 5:23-4). As if the matter were not as clear as it already is, Jesus Christ even gave a more particular teaching (Matthew 18:15-7).

We see the clear levels of “engagement” and attempts at reconciliation[4]. The concentric circle of witnesses is all the more necessary. Jesus Christ has painted, one may say, the worst case scenario that requires levels of discipline.

BUT… this is done urgently and face-to-face with the erring (and in this doctrinal context, tendentiously reprobate) brother. And if we may conjure up scenarios from this even further, the erring party is the one doing the explanation (i.e. “defense”) him/herself. As if hitting the nail of this issue with the hammer of authority, Jesus Christ exclaims Luke 17:3! Paul even builds on this train of thought in Galatians 6:1, warning that surrounding parties to “watch themselves”, alongside the heart of “restoring” the brother/sister in gentleness.

Needless to say again, but there was not any “defending to people” that happened. The events do not even call for it. Now we wonder: Where does that “I have been defending you to people” ground? Is it really Biblical or is it just a product of self-righteous tendency of the human heart to show that s/he is compassionately in keeping with the Written Word, yet misses out the Living Word? The answer seems to surface fairly now as the issue peels off layer by layer.

2. Nowhere in the Bible do we see the need to “defend” someone to anyone.

While this point might be taken as a subset of what’s above, it will be very beneficial still to stress out that…

a. “Defending to other people” is necessary only in ministry and doctrinal matters (see 2 Corinthians 10).

b. Christians “attest”, not defend, the brothers/sisters to other people as Paul did for Titus (2 Corinthians 8:23) and Timothy (Philippians 2:22-3).

3. This is an unqualified, unmindful position to take.

This point might not have much of Bible verses as support, but this does uphold the principle of “speaking the truth in love” (See Ephesians 4:15). What I mean is the step at dealing with any brother or sister in the faith must be always for the building up of the church in clear, levelheaded, doctrinally sound and encouraging manner, which will not give the devil any foothold in the mind of the parties involved.

We can’t just blurt out: “Bro/Sis, just let go of what you know for a while…”. That, to me is a bad advice, since the Scriptures tell us to hold on to whatever is true (2 Timothy 1:13) at all times. How we understand the culture and issues must be shaped and viewed under the sound Biblical-Theological worldview and not just to what sounds or feels right regardless of the BIG PICTURE.

We can’t just set it aside in order to pave the way for the convenience of flippant thinking and rash judgment(-alism). God is the God of clarity, and so we must be children of clarity as well. Let us unclothe this expression and expose its divisive fashion.

a. “I have been defending…”

So, this is in present perfect progressive, which means that the issue has been there for a while now. If the act of “defending to other people” is PURELY out of concern, why not summon the brother/sister right away in the authority of the Spirit of Truth?

Why wait for some time and just tell at the moment of confrontation when things are starting to precipitate? Is there awkwardness? Is there unsaid fear? If so, why? Is there any fear that supersedes the fear of God? That surely does not sound “concern”, but choked idolatry.

The principle is simple: If the accusation is well verified and it is really out of pure concern and without even a hint of malice of any sort, in view of God’s authority, there must be no delay in the confrontation… most especially if the matter is really Spiritual and Truthful.

b. “…you…”

Here comes the part of the one being “defended”. We have to understand that each Christian is in the process of Sanctification. Yes, even the one who is trying to do the defense is in the process of Sanctification. So, more often, the brother/sister in ‘warm water’ is aware of his/her spiritual standing: Perfect, but not yet. (Unless, that brother/sister does not, EVEN ONCE, lend him/herself to any prior life-on-life conversation).

The problem with this “I have been defending you to people” is that one being “defended” is kept in the dark and does not know (AND DOES NOT HAVE TO KNOW) that people are “defending him/her” to other people, without him/her knowing (BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY UNNECESSARY). Hence, s/he has people around him/her, who, in the supposed context of trust and open-wound level relationship, are talking at his/her back, though in ‘Christianly’ language (otherwise known as GOSSIPING! More to this later). That sounds more opposite of “care” and “concern”, which is “betrayal” and “treachery”, no matter how seemingly mild.

Let us remember that “defense” has to be always personal and first person. If the “accuser” has real grounds, the “accused” has all the right to know the details of the accusation. Sadly, this does not happen in the event of “I have been defending you to people”.

Sadly, the “defended” brother/sister ends up surprised that s/he is being defended against his/her knowledge, as if his/her dignity rests on the hands of the, supposedly trusted “defenders”. This leads us back to idolatry… again.

c. “…to other people”

This is the most confusing part. Other people? People?! So there are many who know and talk behind him/her? How many people? Who are they? Why should they know? Why won’t they have the courage to talk to the brother/sister right away? Why should there be a “mediator” in the event of real spiritual emergency?

It is as if looking at an accident of someone we know and instead of calling an ambulance, we just stood by the side and discuss why the accident happened, deliberate whether or not the person needs the help and muse at the hemorrhaging body.

See… this produces more hurtful questions, than relieving answers. No one has to be a rocket-theologian or licensed-counselor to understand that it is counter-restorative, but it only widens the rift. The enemy is laughing at this mentality, I am telling you right now. God is the God of clarity, I repeat, and “faceless figures” are never clear. Confusion is one of the means of the enemy to divide and conquer. And yet, we expect the brother/sister to be thankful and appreciate that “I have been defending you to other people”?

Think again.

At this point, it is as if saying that, “bro/sis.. I care for you. I defend you to other people behind you. Just don’t ask about who these people are. Never mind if they see your condition maliciously. I have been defending you anyway. I am your defender. You’re safe”.

REALLY???

4. “I have been defending you to people” is but a glorified, Christianized, nevertheless, GOSSIPING.

I gave a prelude to this point already. I understand that it sounds a bit strong to say that the act is fundamentally gossiping. The truth of the matter is, if an issue is discussed behind the involved party, it is and will always be gossip even if it was ended in a “loving” prayer.

Let us not get this wrong. I suppose it is clear now that mediation is necessary in instances to fulfill the righteousness of reconciliation and restoration. But… if it remains as half-mediation, that is, the subject is dealt with without his/her presence, given the spiritual urgency of the matter, then… it is really gossiping. Yes, there might/must be something wrong with the erring brother/sister (Of course, that’s why he/she “erred”). Truly, sin should not be dealt with lightly, while the sinner is handled lovingly (provided that s/he cooperates).

But if the party, whom the ‘defender’ has been conversing, cannot go directly to the ‘defended’, then we ask WHY? What hinders him/her/them to confront the brother/sister (in aid of the mediator, fine!) with the issue, if the intention was pure and there was not an axe to grind? Then probably, that party also needs, not only mediation, but remediation because there are surrounding issues that cloud the matter.

The Scripture is clear: “Open rebuke is better than hidden love”. In this case, is what is hidden… “love”? We can’t help but wonder.

At the end, let it be cleared that this string of thought is NEVER a defense to the brother/sister in error, especially if s/he acknowledges his/her being a conscious sinner. Indeed, sin is fatal. It is the “sting of death” that may intoxicate anyone who flirted with it, thus Luke 17:3 and Galatians 6:1.

But as the enemy is also cunning and crafty, dealing with brother/sister in error can also become a door path to spiritual ambiguities leading to the unraveling of the areas to be corrected IN EVERYONE. While the issue of sin must be zeroed in, the issues of subtle legalism, blind spot self-righteousness and hubris (which is also sin… the first sin, as a matter of fact) must never be left unaccounted for. While this crisis is an opportunity for the enemy to attack, it is also the risk God takes (so to speak) so that our spiritual growth and maturity may reach unprecedented heights. The key factor, I suppose is constant transparency, complete devotion and utter dependence to the Spirit, who teaches us of and leads us to all truth and righteousness.

The Spirit of God is powerful enough to penetrate the deepest, darkest and most secret chambers of our thought. It is He who exposes, arrests, convicts, restores, convinces, and reclaims each and every one He owns. The process does not need any more additional steps, thus we don’t have to “defend” the brother/sister to anyone anymore.

But in the binding of the truth and grace, let’s believe that God will allow each of us the situation where we will meet eye-to-eye, discuss the matter face-to-face and extend the loving truth of God… grace-by-grace.

'Defending' the brother/sister to anyone, as we see, does not really glorify God. It simply brings us closer to the demise of the enemy.

At the end of the day, however, no matter what I say, it is the Spirit who would convince us, individually and make us see the futility of this seemingly right, but nefarious scheme of the enemy. The Lord is our true and only defender. We are just His co-shepherd and we should never step in where He should be the one standing. Yes, even when we think we know better than He does. Satan tried it. Now we know where he stands.

(To be continued...)

[1] Bible verses and citations are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless noted otherwise.

[2] For contextual clarity and verifiability, I urge the reader to read each of the quoted and cited verses themselves. Read the surrounding verses or the entire chapter so they will see the big picture and assure that there was no cherry picking at all.

[3] Unless one refers to Christian Apologetics Ministry, which is clearly not the issue at hand.

[4] See Wiersbe, W. (2007). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: The Complete New Testament. p.54. CLC