Interruption versus disruption. One is an interjection into an ongoing conversation. The other is something that causes a complete breakdown in the conversation. If I were to choose which of the two characterizes Advent, I’d choose disruption. The coming of Jesus disrupted everything, a 10.0 magnitude earthquake type disruption, in fact. There’s a reason why history was divided historically into BC and AD — Before Christ and Anno Domini, in the year of our Lord — with the birth of Jesus.
Of course, most everyone alive at that time didn’t even feel a tremor. “As in the days of Noah” everyone just went on with their daily lives. Even Joseph treated it more like an interruption than a disruption, at least at first. He learns that his betrothed is pregnant, a disruption to his marriage plans for sure, but he resolved he would divorce her with as little fuss as possible and then go on with his life. But that changed when he received a message in a dream that turned an interruption into a disruption. Life was not what he thought it was. This was not an unfotunate indiscretion, but an intervention of God by which he was going to turn the world on its head. In obedience, Joseph embraced the disruption.
Advent is a time when we pause and consider how God disrupts things. First with the birth of Jesus and finally when, “as in the days of Noah,” the one born to save sinners unexpectedly returns to judge sinners. Between now and then divine disruption continues every time a person places their faith in Jesus. As the New English Bible puts it, “When anyone is united to Christ. There is a new world; the old order has gone, and new order has already begun.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
As we await the return of our Savior, we need to be sure that we are treating his coming into our life as a disruption and not an interruption. What I mean is that we need to heed Paul’s instruction to “no longer walk as the Gentiles do.” Rather, we are to “put off our old self, which belongs to [our] former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and . . . be renewed in the spirit of [our] minds, and . . . put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Ephesians 4:17, 22-24) That is a disruption, not an interruption. Jesus is not someone who interrupts the conversation and then we pick up the thread of the of it afterwards. He takes it in a whole new direction. Our task is to follow where he leads.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
The Good Life
The Good Life. Life that feels complete, whole, satisfying. The good life. A phrase, a notion, that has power to stir our imagination. What comes to mind? Material goods, such as a beautiful home and a nice car? Or perhaps relationships: close friends, a spouse, children? Maybe it’s a meaningful job or activity that gives a sense of significance and self-worth? Various things can feed into the notion of the good life. What it looks like can be as different as the different people who imagine it. That there is a persistent human yearning for the good life is what drives much of the marketing of products and opportunities. If you have this car, or adventure, or set of friends, or job, you will be getting hold of the good life.
To want the good life, to be happy, is not ungodly in and of itself. God intends for his creatures to experience that which makes them feel whole, at peace, content. The problem we have is that we are too much affected by the results of the first unlawful effort at achieving the good life. Eve, and Adam after her, became persuaded that to realize her full potential, to experience the kind of flourishing she sensed was possible, she needed to eat of the “tree was good for food, and . . . a delight to the eyes, and . . . was to be desired to make one wise.” Her and Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit was an attempt to achieve human flourishing apart from God and his will. A profoundly foolish decision, and one that gets repeated daily by their offspring. All the sins of humanity could be said to be similar attempts at realizing happiness without reference to God or his will.
I think it is often the case that when we think of how we can be happy it involves access to wealth. To have the dream house, exciting adventure, or pivotal opportunity requires resources. As a consequence, though we might not offer money as the first need for obtaining happiness, it’s the silent presupposition. The apostle understands and his directive to his young protégé offers a warning. Timothy is to instruct those who are rich to not be haughty or to trust in their riches. The power and access that wealth brings offers a false sense of importance and security. Instead of trusting in temporal wealth they are to store up eternal treasure by being rich in good works. In this way they will “take hold of that which is truly life.”
For humans to flourish they need that which will allow them to live as they were created to live. This is why the psalmist likens the one whose delight is in the law of the Lord, meditating on it day and night, to a “tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither.” (Psalm 1:2-3) A tree, in the right environment, being fed with the right ingredients for its health, does what it’s designed to do — flourish! Unlike what our first parents thought, delighting in God and doing his will is what causes us to flourish, to “take hold of that which is truly life.” Being nourished by God and his word will cause us to produce the kind of fruit God desires, faith-filled lives that are “generous and ready to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18).
To want the good life, to be happy, is not ungodly in and of itself. God intends for his creatures to experience that which makes them feel whole, at peace, content. The problem we have is that we are too much affected by the results of the first unlawful effort at achieving the good life. Eve, and Adam after her, became persuaded that to realize her full potential, to experience the kind of flourishing she sensed was possible, she needed to eat of the “tree was good for food, and . . . a delight to the eyes, and . . . was to be desired to make one wise.” Her and Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit was an attempt to achieve human flourishing apart from God and his will. A profoundly foolish decision, and one that gets repeated daily by their offspring. All the sins of humanity could be said to be similar attempts at realizing happiness without reference to God or his will.
I think it is often the case that when we think of how we can be happy it involves access to wealth. To have the dream house, exciting adventure, or pivotal opportunity requires resources. As a consequence, though we might not offer money as the first need for obtaining happiness, it’s the silent presupposition. The apostle understands and his directive to his young protégé offers a warning. Timothy is to instruct those who are rich to not be haughty or to trust in their riches. The power and access that wealth brings offers a false sense of importance and security. Instead of trusting in temporal wealth they are to store up eternal treasure by being rich in good works. In this way they will “take hold of that which is truly life.”
For humans to flourish they need that which will allow them to live as they were created to live. This is why the psalmist likens the one whose delight is in the law of the Lord, meditating on it day and night, to a “tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither.” (Psalm 1:2-3) A tree, in the right environment, being fed with the right ingredients for its health, does what it’s designed to do — flourish! Unlike what our first parents thought, delighting in God and doing his will is what causes us to flourish, to “take hold of that which is truly life.” Being nourished by God and his word will cause us to produce the kind of fruit God desires, faith-filled lives that are “generous and ready to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18).
The Church a Provocation
Jesus warns that we could be persecuted by the world because we have been chosen out of the world by the one who was persecuted by the world. The reason he gives for his persecution is because he is hated by the world; and the reason he is hated by the world is because he testifies to the world that its deeds are evil. (John 7:7) This suggests that Jesus’ relationship with the world is fundamentally antagonistic. Even though he comes in love to rescue the world, the fact that the world needs rescuing suggests that what Jesus represents is a reality that pulls back the curtain on the false reality that props up the world, a reality marked by a persistent and pervasive opposition to God. That fundamental posture, ethos, or characteristic spirit of humanity, is what John’s gospel identifies as the world. So, when his gospel famously proclaims that, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life,” it is, as D.A. Carson notes, “far from being an endorsement of the world, it is a testimony to the character of God.”
Everything that Jesus does, from his teaching, to his healings and deliverances, to his re-humanizing of the likes of Zacheaus or the ‘sinful woman’ in Simon the Pharisee’s house, to the ‘good confession’ that he made before Pilate, all are acts that testify to the world that its deeds are evil and, as such, are a provocation to the world. Hence, the hatred.
When the Church lives up to its calling, it can expect to be hated as well. Even though we strive, by the grace of God, to be like Jesus in compassion and love, offering a foretaste of the New Heavens and New Earth, our very presence as those no longer of the world offers a continual provocation to our neighbors. It testifies that things are not as they assume them to be. For unless people are chosen out of the world they remain in the world and in opposition to God, no matter how nice or needy they seem to be.
In this country, the antagonism, while rising, is nothing compared to what brothers and sisters in places like North Korea and India are facing. That is why we must remember to pray for them. Those believers, having been chosen out of the world, stand in stark contrast to the prevailing rebellion of godless communism or nationalistic hinduism. Fatih in the King of kings pulls back the curtain on the petty tyrant, revealing him to be little more than a cruel narcissist. Worshiping the One who is the way, the truth, and the life, proclaims that veneration of the multitudinous deities of India is nothing but mindless idolatry.
Christians, like Jesus, by reason of their not being of this world, are a provocation. And the more we live as we are called to live, we testify to the world that its deeds are evil. Hence, the hatred. May we give no other cause for the world’s hatred but our striving, for their sakes, to live for Christ.
Everything that Jesus does, from his teaching, to his healings and deliverances, to his re-humanizing of the likes of Zacheaus or the ‘sinful woman’ in Simon the Pharisee’s house, to the ‘good confession’ that he made before Pilate, all are acts that testify to the world that its deeds are evil and, as such, are a provocation to the world. Hence, the hatred.
When the Church lives up to its calling, it can expect to be hated as well. Even though we strive, by the grace of God, to be like Jesus in compassion and love, offering a foretaste of the New Heavens and New Earth, our very presence as those no longer of the world offers a continual provocation to our neighbors. It testifies that things are not as they assume them to be. For unless people are chosen out of the world they remain in the world and in opposition to God, no matter how nice or needy they seem to be.
In this country, the antagonism, while rising, is nothing compared to what brothers and sisters in places like North Korea and India are facing. That is why we must remember to pray for them. Those believers, having been chosen out of the world, stand in stark contrast to the prevailing rebellion of godless communism or nationalistic hinduism. Fatih in the King of kings pulls back the curtain on the petty tyrant, revealing him to be little more than a cruel narcissist. Worshiping the One who is the way, the truth, and the life, proclaims that veneration of the multitudinous deities of India is nothing but mindless idolatry.
Christians, like Jesus, by reason of their not being of this world, are a provocation. And the more we live as we are called to live, we testify to the world that its deeds are evil. Hence, the hatred. May we give no other cause for the world’s hatred but our striving, for their sakes, to live for Christ.
Corem Deo
As Paul draws his letter to a close, he issues Timothy a charge, “[I]n the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:13-14). With these words, the apostle invokes a reality that in Latin is called, coram deo, before the face of God. The phrase communicates a seriousness, a gravity, about our existence. God is. There is never a time that he is anything but who he is in all his fulness, and in that fulness he sees all that transpires in the universe that he has made — and that includes each of us. We live before the face of God.
We need to grasp this reality because of its implications for how we live our lives. For Timothy, it meant that he must pursue the kind of spiritual integrity that would enable him to carry out his task and bring honor to the gospel and to Christ. For us, it is no different. Though not everyone will be called to step into the role that Timothy had to fill, we are all expected to live lives of integrity. That is perhaps the most important implication of living coram deo. The psalmist asks, “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?” (Psalms 139:7). God is aware of us no matter where we are. For the psalmist it is a source of comfort, and it should be for us. But it also makes him petition, “Search me, O God, and know my heart! / Try me and know my thoughts! / And see if there be any grievous way in me, / and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalms 139:23-24). We cannot pretend that how live behind closed doors has no relationship with how live live publicly. Who we are at home should be who we are at work. Who we are in church should be who we are out “in the world.” Our responsibilities will be different in different settings, but who we are as followers of Jesus must be consistent.
How can we cultivate consistency? The four strong verbs with which Paul admonishes Timothy are instructive: flee, pursue, fight, and seize. We are to flee falsehood and the fruit it produces, but pursue the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We are to fight for the revealed truth, and seize hold of the hope that our faith in the revealed truth gives us. This is living intentionally, coram deo, before the face of God.
We need to grasp this reality because of its implications for how we live our lives. For Timothy, it meant that he must pursue the kind of spiritual integrity that would enable him to carry out his task and bring honor to the gospel and to Christ. For us, it is no different. Though not everyone will be called to step into the role that Timothy had to fill, we are all expected to live lives of integrity. That is perhaps the most important implication of living coram deo. The psalmist asks, “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?” (Psalms 139:7). God is aware of us no matter where we are. For the psalmist it is a source of comfort, and it should be for us. But it also makes him petition, “Search me, O God, and know my heart! / Try me and know my thoughts! / And see if there be any grievous way in me, / and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalms 139:23-24). We cannot pretend that how live behind closed doors has no relationship with how live live publicly. Who we are at home should be who we are at work. Who we are in church should be who we are out “in the world.” Our responsibilities will be different in different settings, but who we are as followers of Jesus must be consistent.
How can we cultivate consistency? The four strong verbs with which Paul admonishes Timothy are instructive: flee, pursue, fight, and seize. We are to flee falsehood and the fruit it produces, but pursue the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We are to fight for the revealed truth, and seize hold of the hope that our faith in the revealed truth gives us. This is living intentionally, coram deo, before the face of God.
Godliness with Contentment
“Easier said than done,” an aphorism that is often true, but sometimes used as an excuse for not attempting what has been said. Considering Paul’s call for “godliness with contentment,” and then combining two of the definitions I have offered, one for godliness and another for contentment, we get at what he means and we can appreciate why someone might respond, “Easier said than done.” The welding of the two definitions results in, “living as one should who believes in God [while possessing] internal satisfaction which does not demand changes in external circumstances.”
Any sincere Christian says, “I want to live as one should who believes in God,” but few can readily add, “No matter where that obedience leads me.” Getting to that place is a sign of maturity and something that even the apostle had to grow into: “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content” (Philippians 4:11). And he had been in some serious situations! “Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure” (2 Corinthians 11:24-27) Such is the catalogue of circumstances that resulted from his godliness, and he testifies that through it he learned to be content. Easier said than done? Yes, but apparently, it can be done.
It is not unexpected that some would ask how being content squares with working hard to achieve goals, or endeavoring to change circumstances. Does wanting something other than the status quo represent discontent? I don't think so. Perhaps it would be helpful to speak of negative discontent and positive discontent. Negative discontent gives rise to grumbling, complaining, envy, covetousness. Positive discontent looks at a situation and seeks wisdom and means by which it can made better, all the while trusting that God is in the midst of the situation. And, if in the end there is nothing to be done about the current state of affairs, trust that God is ‘on the throne’ remains.
Our ability to be content whatever the circumstances is fostered by trusting God’s promises. This principle is evident in Hebrews 13:5. The writer offers teaching regarding money that is similar to Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy: “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have.” But he goes on to support his directive by reminding his readers of God’s promise, “for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’” That promise of all-encompassing care, grounded in the character of an all-righteous God, points our faith to the one who can and will “work all things together for good” for “those who love God . . . who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). With our faith fueled by his promises we can say with Paul, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).
Any sincere Christian says, “I want to live as one should who believes in God,” but few can readily add, “No matter where that obedience leads me.” Getting to that place is a sign of maturity and something that even the apostle had to grow into: “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content” (Philippians 4:11). And he had been in some serious situations! “Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure” (2 Corinthians 11:24-27) Such is the catalogue of circumstances that resulted from his godliness, and he testifies that through it he learned to be content. Easier said than done? Yes, but apparently, it can be done.
It is not unexpected that some would ask how being content squares with working hard to achieve goals, or endeavoring to change circumstances. Does wanting something other than the status quo represent discontent? I don't think so. Perhaps it would be helpful to speak of negative discontent and positive discontent. Negative discontent gives rise to grumbling, complaining, envy, covetousness. Positive discontent looks at a situation and seeks wisdom and means by which it can made better, all the while trusting that God is in the midst of the situation. And, if in the end there is nothing to be done about the current state of affairs, trust that God is ‘on the throne’ remains.
Our ability to be content whatever the circumstances is fostered by trusting God’s promises. This principle is evident in Hebrews 13:5. The writer offers teaching regarding money that is similar to Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy: “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have.” But he goes on to support his directive by reminding his readers of God’s promise, “for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’” That promise of all-encompassing care, grounded in the character of an all-righteous God, points our faith to the one who can and will “work all things together for good” for “those who love God . . . who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). With our faith fueled by his promises we can say with Paul, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).
Considering Slavery
It is not unusual for someone who is not a Christian, when urged to accept the Bible as an authoritative text, to raise the challenge, “Doesn’t the Bible condone slavery?” It is not an unfounded objection. Slavery is present throughout a good deal of the Bible, even in the New Testament, the portion of Scripture that seems more reasonable to contemporary ears than the Old.
I think it’s accurate to say that the Bible does not condone slavery, but acknowledges it’s existence and regulates it. There are a number of directives in the Mosaic law regarding the just use of slaves, and in the New Testament the apostles tell masters to treat their bondservants “justly and fairly.” (e.g. Colossians 4:1) Additionally, slavery was not part of the created order but a product of sin, and the repeated calls for stewardship in all areas of our life points to using any authority we possess in a manner that benefits others. That might not satisfy the objector, but the protest might be due more to the knowledge he or she has of the institution as it was justified and so inhumanely practiced in this country, rather than the Bible. While slavery always involves the owning of one human being by another, it has not always involved the dehumanizing of the one who is owned.
But Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 is not slavery per se, but the attitude and witness of the one who is subject to a master. It is possible to interpret his remarks as addressing the effect the gospel might have had on those who found freedom in Christ. Considering that those who “were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” and are therefore “Abraham’s offspring” and “heirs according to promise,” a status in which there “is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-29), it is not difficult to imagine that some might have construed such egalitarianism as negating all existing differences in station or role. Newly minted Christians might buck against the authority of their masters, whether Christian or non-Christian, because God revealed that the gospel is needed, and believed on, by all manners of people.
Paul does not want such behavior to persist, however. Why? Might not his reason be the disrepute it would bring upon the gospel in a society that was not ready for such a profound shift in the culture? And are there not resources in the gospel to sustain the one in servitude as he or she endures their bondage? Do they not follow the one who came not to be served but the serve? (Matthew 20:28). Such thinking might very well have shaped Paul’s teaching. He is not indifferent to the plight of slaves (nor should we), but he is also smart enough to recognize the insignificance of the church as an institution at the time that he was writing. While they did not have political power, they did have power that changes lives. And it would be changed lives that would allow masters and slaves to walk in unity, despite differences in station or role, for he who is Master of both, “is in heaven, and . . . there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9)
I think it’s accurate to say that the Bible does not condone slavery, but acknowledges it’s existence and regulates it. There are a number of directives in the Mosaic law regarding the just use of slaves, and in the New Testament the apostles tell masters to treat their bondservants “justly and fairly.” (e.g. Colossians 4:1) Additionally, slavery was not part of the created order but a product of sin, and the repeated calls for stewardship in all areas of our life points to using any authority we possess in a manner that benefits others. That might not satisfy the objector, but the protest might be due more to the knowledge he or she has of the institution as it was justified and so inhumanely practiced in this country, rather than the Bible. While slavery always involves the owning of one human being by another, it has not always involved the dehumanizing of the one who is owned.
But Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 is not slavery per se, but the attitude and witness of the one who is subject to a master. It is possible to interpret his remarks as addressing the effect the gospel might have had on those who found freedom in Christ. Considering that those who “were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” and are therefore “Abraham’s offspring” and “heirs according to promise,” a status in which there “is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-29), it is not difficult to imagine that some might have construed such egalitarianism as negating all existing differences in station or role. Newly minted Christians might buck against the authority of their masters, whether Christian or non-Christian, because God revealed that the gospel is needed, and believed on, by all manners of people.
Paul does not want such behavior to persist, however. Why? Might not his reason be the disrepute it would bring upon the gospel in a society that was not ready for such a profound shift in the culture? And are there not resources in the gospel to sustain the one in servitude as he or she endures their bondage? Do they not follow the one who came not to be served but the serve? (Matthew 20:28). Such thinking might very well have shaped Paul’s teaching. He is not indifferent to the plight of slaves (nor should we), but he is also smart enough to recognize the insignificance of the church as an institution at the time that he was writing. While they did not have political power, they did have power that changes lives. And it would be changed lives that would allow masters and slaves to walk in unity, despite differences in station or role, for he who is Master of both, “is in heaven, and . . . there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9)
Conferred Authority
There are several ceremonies in the Bible (I think it’s right to call them that) by which authority is conferred to people. There is, for instance, the anointing of kings, the setting apart of priests, and the breathing upon the disciples by Jesus that they would “receive the Holy Spirit” in whose authority and power they would forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins (John 20:22-23). There is also the laying on of hands. It’s this last ceremony that Paul references in his letter to Timothy. Timothy himself underwent this conferring of authority (1 Timothy 4:14), and now he was to lay hands on those chosen to shepherd the church in Ephesus.
Earlier in the letter, Paul offers qualifications for those who would serve as elders. He teaches that those who serve well, “especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” are deserving of “double honor.” By double honor is meant respect and material compensation. He likens the situation to an ox threshing out grain. The ox is to be able to eat from the labor he provides lest he be unfit for carrying out the work. You might recall how the apostles in Jerusalem, when confronted with a need to sort out distribution issues among the widows of the church, instructed that others should be chosen for the task, saying, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The expectation Paul describes is of the same spirit.
Those so supported are often referred to as pastors. This is not to deny that all men who serve as elders help shepherd the sheep, nor that all are expected to be “apt to teach,” but there will be those particularly called to the task who need to be freed up to pursue it. Hence, the need for adequate compensation.
In our country, it’s common practice to call one who holds, or has held, the office of President to be addressed as “Mr. President.” That is showing honor to the office despite who they are or how well they have done their job. In the church, however, just bearing the title is insufficient for receiving such honor. Indeed, double honor is uncalled for for those who persist in sin. To the unrepentant, the only appropriate address is public rebuke. The position is too important for mere decorum.
The conferring of authority brings with it grave responsibility, so pray for pastors. Assuming a position of leadership makes them prime targets of the Enemy and the enmity of others. Satan would like nothing more then to sow disunity in the very entity that is charged to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), and going after the pastor is a good way to do it. And believers in a church should remember that pastors are not perfect, nor should they be expected to be. But if they are thought to have done something wrong they are deserving of a proper hearing. This is part of the honor of which Paul speaks. Care should be taken to establish the truth of the charge and, if found to be false, should be quickly put aside. If true, then repentance and forgiveness is called for.
Earlier in the letter, Paul offers qualifications for those who would serve as elders. He teaches that those who serve well, “especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” are deserving of “double honor.” By double honor is meant respect and material compensation. He likens the situation to an ox threshing out grain. The ox is to be able to eat from the labor he provides lest he be unfit for carrying out the work. You might recall how the apostles in Jerusalem, when confronted with a need to sort out distribution issues among the widows of the church, instructed that others should be chosen for the task, saying, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The expectation Paul describes is of the same spirit.
Those so supported are often referred to as pastors. This is not to deny that all men who serve as elders help shepherd the sheep, nor that all are expected to be “apt to teach,” but there will be those particularly called to the task who need to be freed up to pursue it. Hence, the need for adequate compensation.
In our country, it’s common practice to call one who holds, or has held, the office of President to be addressed as “Mr. President.” That is showing honor to the office despite who they are or how well they have done their job. In the church, however, just bearing the title is insufficient for receiving such honor. Indeed, double honor is uncalled for for those who persist in sin. To the unrepentant, the only appropriate address is public rebuke. The position is too important for mere decorum.
The conferring of authority brings with it grave responsibility, so pray for pastors. Assuming a position of leadership makes them prime targets of the Enemy and the enmity of others. Satan would like nothing more then to sow disunity in the very entity that is charged to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), and going after the pastor is a good way to do it. And believers in a church should remember that pastors are not perfect, nor should they be expected to be. But if they are thought to have done something wrong they are deserving of a proper hearing. This is part of the honor of which Paul speaks. Care should be taken to establish the truth of the charge and, if found to be false, should be quickly put aside. If true, then repentance and forgiveness is called for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
