A hill to die on

In ministry there are critical times of decision making that effect not only us, but our families, congregations, volunteers, friends, and even the Kingdom. These decisions can be minuet or cataclysmic in scope, depending on whom or what they concern I guess, and yet you have to make the call. I have had really tough decisions to make in life and in ministry, some were navigated better than others, still all were beneficial for growth!

I have heard the term, “Choose what hill you will die on wisely”. The basic tenet is there are some things worth fighting, some things not worth fighting, so choose those scenarios wisely. Now no matter the case, I believe that we should/must operate on a level of scriptural conviction that is THE guide of all decision making. Without biblical wisdom there is none, so therefore all decision making must come under the authority of the scriptures. However what happens when the “scenario” is not black and white in the scripture? In the world of Christian Ethics, the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct, decision making is comprised of at least three basic “avenues” by which a decision can be made:

Deontologically- relating to philosophical theories that state that the moral content of an action is not wholly dependent on its consequences

i.e. - God has a standard that he has set and you must obey that standard no matter the cost


Teleologically- relating to the study of ultimate causes in nature or of actions in relation to their ends or utility

i.e. - The decision must be made to bring a better end for the whole, even if it adversely affects the minority


Relationally- relating to the behaviors that are addressed in a manner consistent with human nature and reliant upon the existing relationship between parties

i.e. - the decision to be made is made based upon the given outcomes affect on the personal relationships involved and what is the better outcome for both parties.


The whole reason I’m saying all this is b/c I was reading Acts 16:1-3

Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Wait, wait, Paul, the guy who wrote the Galatian church and hoped that some would emasculate themselves for proposing that anyone should be circumcised when coming to faith? Yes this very same Paul took Timothy and circumcised him. Why? B/c it was for the greater good. The last part of that passage shows that even though there was a biblical mandate in place, even though there was freedom from legal requirements found in the grace of the cross, this was the best decision for both Timothy’s call and the greater ministry that he would go on to carry out!

This isn’t a lesson in ethics, this was a slamming reminder to me that even though I have some pretty strong convictions about certain things (especially concerning the church and how it is “operated”), even though I may be justified and perfectly in harmony with the Gospel in having these convictions, and even though I have perfect peace and freedom from the cross to stand by these principles, there are decisions to be made that are NOT “hills worth dying on”

May we approach life and ministry with the humility of Paul……………….