When I was a younger firebrand, I cranked out a steady stream of blog posts and undergraduate papers about the problems in the church. Whenever someone challenged me to “do something about” I replied, “I am!” That’s because I mistakenly believed that sharing my brilliant insights (otherwise known as complaining) on Xanga, Myspace, and in my papers was an effective way to effect change. I would say, “I’m just trying to get people to think about what’s going on so they’d stop being stupid” (as if our problems were essentially sins of the mind).

My desire to make the church into my own image eventually petered out. As Christ loved me into maturity, and the ideas in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book Life Together took root, I began to do the kind of reflecting I wanted everyone else to do. I’d like to share a couple of thoughts to help anyone who might be dealing with an immature whiner like me (a few years ago).

1. “No Church is perfect.” Though this is 100% true and wise, we need to realize that this sounds like a copout and infuriates whiners. This truism makes them scream, “that’s exactly the attitude I’m fighting against!” Having been on both sides of this truism now, it’s important to consider what’s behind this phrase.

Some may use it to head off further whining: “Bam! Here’s the truth. Get over it and stop whining.” Others may use it with kinder intentions: “Don’t you see? As long as the church involves imperfect people, it will never be perfect.”

Either motive fails to adequately shepherd the whiner’s heart, and thus works to harden rather than soften it toward Christ’s Church. At least two things are going on in the whiner’s heart: a desire for God-glorifying reform and an exact idea of what God-glorifying reform looks like. The desires is good, the idea is not. The idea is idolatrous. Great progress can be made if the whiner can be shown that his particular idea of God-glorifying reform is at least as idolatrous as the idols he sees in the church.

2. The Holy Spirit. Or perhaps it would be helpful to discuss the role of the Holy Spirit in effecting change and how he isn’t the Holy Spirit. Discussing the slow process of sanctification and how the Holy Spirit is immeasurably more invested, committed, and able to bring about change than the whiner could shed some light on the reform he seeks.

We must shepherd the whiner in such a way that his energies are directed to more fruitful endeavors, like maturing and being able to live with other imperfect people. To shut down or fail to lovingly correct such a brother feeds his antagonism. A firm, yet loving word may be all he needs to abandon his crusade against the imperfect church.

First, favors cannot be earned. Not only because they are given without merit, but also because the person granting the favor has determined it to be free. A calculated favor is not a favor, but a bargaining tool. To repay a freely given favor in any way is an over payment and at best abolishes our debt to love one another and at worst lords the other person’s debt to us over his or her head. Favor’s only appropriate repayment is acceptance.

Second, there is no way to calculate the objective value of a favor. Who determines fair compensation for a task that had been freely given? Would it be based on the cost of time, energy, expertise, and resources, or would it be based on the value of the favor to the recipient? Commerce differs from favor in that both people settle on the lowest acceptable value for a transaction, which is not necessarily the most equitable price. Favor differs from commerce in that usually only one person is concerned about the equitable price and it is not the one granting the favor.

Third, the attempt to repay a favor could insult the other person’s desire, or hinder the other person’s need to, put someone else’s concerns above his or her own.

Favor trumps commerce. If someone decides to do something for free, it cannot be repaid. Commerce is dependent upon transactions. Favors are not dependent upon transactions. Commerce cannot exist in the presence of favor.

I was thinking about a particular conflict and how I would totally blow up at this person if one more thing happened. Then I thought about how crazy I would sound; how my threats would seem like they came out of nowhere. I had become a bottler without realizing it.

In high school I spoke my mind without caring about how it made others feel. I liked conflict because I thought it was a great way of making people face the truth. If someone was wrong, a conflict with me would show them their error. There was no sense in pulling any punches. If someone was wrong, they needed to know. I was the opposite of a bottler.

Then my best friend told me about how much PR damage control he had to do for me behind my back. He told me about how I hurt many of our friends with my “straightforwardness.” I was ashamed beyond words. I swung to the opposite extreme.

After that, I automatically assumed the guilt in any conflict, no matter what it was. I would “roll with the punches.” The person would yell at me, and I would apologize profusely, assuming that they must have had some good reason for yelling at me. I would later justify my pacifism by thinking that it was good that I didn’t say anything, or else things would have gotten worse. I thought I was a peacemaker.

However, tonight I realized that I had unknowingly become a bottler because I didn’t want to be like I was in high school. I always knew bottlers were a disaster waiting to happen, but I never thought I was a bottler. It turns out, every time I uncritically accepted blame for something, I subconsciously told myself “here is another example of your failure to be perfect.”

Knowing that perfection is an unrealistic standard, I would agree, stuff this message in my bottle, and move on. I can’t tell you what happened to warrant these kinds of messages. I simply don’t remember. All I know is that I have accumulated a bottle full of failures from times when I should have spoken up but didn’t.

I discovered the bottle a while ago when I tried to stand up for myself in a conflict, but ended up crying like a little girl. It didn’t really have anything to do with the person. The fail bottle defeated me. While it’s true that perfection is unattainable, my bottle full of failures fermented into the message that I could never meet anyone’s expectations, but was still expected to try.

Only people who are convinced they’re right enjoy conflict because they don’t have anything to lose. People who tote the fail bottle don’t enjoy conflict because they have everything to lose.

Interestingly, a few days ago, I decided to go on the attack the next time I was in a conflict, regardless of the consequences. I was so tired of rolling with the punches that I needed to do something extreme to shake the passivity, even if I’d regret it later.

Because, when I “roll with the punches” I deny the other person an opportunity for growth. Just because they’re the one on the attack doesn’t necessarily mean they are right. Emotions do not validate truth. Statistically speaking, there is no way for me to have been wrong 100% of the time. I know I walk around with feet of clay, but Calvinists don’t even believe in that degree of Total Depravity.

It’s a lose-lose situation: The other person loses because they’ve been denied an opportunity to learn that frustration does not justify disrespect, or that they are simply in the wrong. And I lose because I internalize a message that sets me up for failure.

There’ll be times when I’m wrong and I’ll need to graciously own my mistakes. And there’ll be times when the other person is wrong, and I’ll need to graciously help them realize their error. I can’t continue bottling up these hurts because it will all just explode in an irrational frenzy of bad, unjustifiable decisions. I want to be free to deal with conflicts on a case-by-case basis, without the additional burden of the fail bottle.

So, there are some people I will need to apologize to this week. Not only for denying them the opportunity for growth, but also because I h

The parental appeal to the indefensible “because I said so” is a perfect example of indoctrination in action. When used appropriately, and not in defense of a mere preference, parents are telling their child that there is a reality beyond the child’s comprehension or capacity for judgment.

Good: “Why can’t I cheat on my homework?” “Because I said so.” (There is no use in trying to explain the virtues of growth, honesty, integrity, etc.)

Bad: “Why can’t I tap incessantly on the table with my pencil?” “Because I said so.” (Beyond being annoying, there is no real reason for the child to stop.)

There are some things children simply must accept as fact before the time when they are capable of comprehending and/or judging those realities on their own. To wait and try to teach virtue by the time children are capable of comprehension and judgment is to jeopardize their ability to judge rightly once they have the capacity to cast such judgment. If children are not actively indoctrinated in what is good, true, and beautiful, they are vulnerable to be passively indoctrinated by that which is evil, false, and base. So, the issue is not whether or not indoctrination should happen, but what should be the content of that indoctrination.

In the chart, we begin with whether or not abstract realities like goodness, truth, and beauty exist. If they do, then great! If not, then indoctrination could only consist of socially-defined ideas (which are also abstract, but anyway…).

The next step is to determine whether they can be known. If they can be known, then great! If not, then there is no use in discussing them.

However, just because they can be known does not mean that everyone at all stages has access to them. Are there conditions to knowing these realities? I reduce it to capable and not yet capable. If we are not capable, then we should have gotten off one level above, where we assert that they cannot be known.

There exists a tension and obligation between the capable and not yet capable. The obligation itself is an abstract that only the capable can understand and cannot be defended by any lower standard. Simply put, if good is good, the capable are obligated to the not yet capable to help them identify and love good even before they are capable of it on their own, so they will be able to do it on their own once they are capable.