Ecclesiastical Tyrants? »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Some Thoughts on Authority, Power and Church GovernmentRev. Brian M. Abshire
Recently, a hot topic on one of the Internet discussion groups to which I subscribe, concerned pastoral tyranny. Various allegations of malfeasance were hurled at pastors who “tyrannized” their congregations by requiring all sorts on “non-biblical” practices. Now the point was an important one, just what are the limits of pastoral authority? Sadly, the discussion never got very far; ultimately, the definition of pastoral “tyranny” was the pastor telling someone to do anything he didn’t want to do.
My desk is littered with letters, faxes and email messages from both pastors and laymen who have been badly used by their churches. But who’s abusing whom? For every charge made against a pastoral dictator, there are three examples of pastors being persecuted because they said the right thing, to the wrong person at the wrong time.
In broad evangelicalism, churches change pastors (and pastors change churches) with alarming frequency; the average tenure is about 2.5 years. Happily, in Presbyterian circles, the average is considerably longer, but even so, when the going gets tough, most pastors pack up and leave. Part of this is undoubtedly due to poor conflict and confrontation procedures. But there is also a sociological dynamic going on of which most people are woefully unaware.
Most Christians do not seem to grasp the basic difference between authority and power. Power is the ability to influence others’ behavior. A person has power when we think he can either help us or hurt us. A cop exercises power when he turns on that red light behind you. He can make you pull over. Why? Because otherwise, he’ll give you a ticket! That ticket costs money, and time, and may hurt your reputation. He has power because he can influence your behavior.
Authority on the other hand is the right to exercise power. If I put a little bubble-gum machine on my dash, pull up behind you and tell you to pull over, you don’t have to. I am not a police officer. I do not have the right to exercise power over you in this way.
Men can have power without authority (e.g. the mugger who shoves a pistol in your face and demands your wallet). Men can have authority without power (if you haven’t fought for your second amendment rights, you’re probably defenseless when the mugger jacks you up). But true Biblical leadership is a combination of both; lawful authority, properly used (you pull out your own weapon and shoot the mugger!).
All authority comes from God (Rms 13:1). He is the One who created, redeemed and sustains the universe. Everything belongs to Him. God delegates lawful authority to various institutions, specifically Church, State and Family as well as the power appropriate to each: the Family bears the rod, the State the sword, and the Church, the Keys to the Kingdom. The Law of God details very specifically both the duties and responsibilities of each lawful institution. Anarchy is the breakdown of authority in these institutions. Tyranny is the application of power outside of a sphere’s legitimate authority.
In regards to the church, pastors obviously have God given authority delegated to them for specific purposes. The have genuine authority (or the right) to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. In the Westminster Confession and early Books of Church Order, not just anyone could stand up and preach. Preaching, teaching and administering the sacraments are, at least in historic Presbyterianism, restricted to the minister.
However, while the pastor has the authority to preach the Word, does that give necessarily him power? Maybe and maybe not. Most Christians think pastors exercise far more power than they really do. They see him leading the service, preaching the word, distributing the sacraments, etc. and it sure looks as if he’s in charge. And most pastors would certainly like to think that their preaching influences people’s behavior. But does it really? First of all, what determines the content of the pastor’s sermons? Most Christians say they want a strong pastor, preaching strong messages, but that is not necessarily the case. People have certain expectations from a pastor. If he does not meet their expectation (whether those expectations are right or wrong), he’s in trouble. If people don’t like his preaching, they either leave his church, or they can make him leave. If he says the wrong thing (i.e., something people do not want to hear) he just might end up selling insurance!
Therefore pastors tend to stay away from anything controversial, they speak only in glittering generalities, and for heaven’s sake, don’t ever make a message actually applicable to someone. You see, if the sermons actually challenge people to change their behavior, then people will be uncomfortable. And if the pastor makes enough of them uncomfortable, well, they’ll find someone else to tell them just what they want to hear (cf. 2 Tim 4:3-4). I was told in one homiletics class in seminary, “People don’t come to church to feel bad.” Our job was to make people feel good about themselves. Hence, many, many sermons are essentially, tasteless, puerile collections of anecdotes and pious sentiments. Like predigested pap they go down easily and are just what a baby needs. And that just may go a long way to explaining the infantile behavior of so many Christians.
Therefore the pastor often has to walk a tightrope, especially if the congregation is in need of reformation. If he starts preaching about specific sins the Holy Spirit just might start convicting people. Granted, in a mature church filled with godly people, those saints will receive the Word with gladness and rejoice in God’s Law. But sadly, there does not seem to be a lot of those churches around today. Instead, when the Holy Spirit starts putting the pressure on, most congregations just get rid of the pastor!
There’s an old joke about a pastor who was preaching on the Ten Commandments. After each message, one old timer would say, “Preach it brother.” When the sermon series got to “Thou shalt not steal,” the pastor emphasized that dishonesty in business dealings was a violation of the eighth commandment. The old timer, known for his shady business deals grumbled, “You’ve stopped preaching and started meddling.”
No pastor of any integrity would ever refuse to preach a message just because he knew it would hit too close to home. Yet there is a subtle dynamic at work here. Pastors want to be liked and respected just like everyone else. If people are uncomfortable with what he preaches, there is a natural tendency to shy away from those subjects, especially if the pastor has no strong convictions on the issue. Sometimes there is a little “operant” conditioning going on, people positively reinforce preaching that makes them feel good, and negatively reinforce preaching that makes them feel bad. Trust me, any reasonable pastor can read body language while he’s preaching. He knows when people like what he’s saying. And he knows when they don’t. And the natural tendency for any pastor is to tell people what they like hearing.
Furthermore, the way we train our pastors almost guarantees that they can only preach in non-threatening generalities. After all, to make the Bible applicable, you have to understand not only sound doctrine and good homiletics, you have to have lived life. Most pastors have only a very superficial understanding of the real world. They’ve spent most of their lives in academic institutions that specialize in producing men great on theory, but lousy in application. How can they not preach in generalities?
Therefore, though pastors may look powerful, in reality, most influence people very little. He cannot influence people’s behavior unless he can (in God’s grace and by His Spirit) convince people to love and obey God’s Law. But if he’s not sure what the law requires, or how it applies, then he just doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say. And if he does not effectively teach, then he cannot lead. The average pastor is much like the average husband; he has the authority to lead, but doesn’t know what’s he’s expected to do or how to go about doing it. And just as the average American husband is led around the nose by his wife, too many pastors are willing to be led around by the whims of their congregations.
There’s a reason for this. A pastor is in a very tenuous position. If you don’t like a church, you can always leave (granted people shouldn’t leave a church for just any old reason, but I’m trying to make a point here). But if you leave your church (for whatever reason) you are not out of a job, and you are not putting your family or career at risk. However for a pastor, the Church is not only his church, but also his circle of friends and his livelihood. Yet many congregations think nothing of destroying a man’s whole life, career and family for the most ridiculous reasons. Nobody ever has to state it this baldly, but every pastor knows that if he ticks off the wrong people, he could find himself on the street, maybe with a pregnant wife and hungry children, no income and no salable skills.
Thus, many pastors soon learn to be very careful in what they say and how they say it. Generalities are safe. Controversial opinions are best kept to one’s self. Therefore unless he’s that rare sort who is motivated purely by duty, honor and courage, most pastor’s will not generally preach very provocatively. He will tell people only what they already know. He’ll stay away from things that might get him in trouble. And of course, these kinds of messages will not challenge anyone. And consequently, the congregation will not grow in wisdom, knowledge and discernment. Therefore, he has precious little impact on their lives. Meanwhile, the Church can get on with the serious business of building a nice sanctuary, developing cutzie little programs and holding hands for Jesus. You see, the pastor may have the authority, but someone else has the power. He knows it, and they know it.
In most established churches, a few people behind the scenes usually exercise the real power. They may or may not hold formal office. But everyone knows who they are. These people, by virtue of their tenure, or giving, or position in secular society (or just willingness to step in and do things), run the church. I well remember the first church I ever served. I was talking to the man in charge of the physical plant about where to move some office furniture when he said, “Oh, I have to call George and ask him about that.” George at that time held no official position in the Church (the constitution clearly defined term limits and he couldn’t lawfully serve in any leadership capacity that year). Yet, no decision, no matter how trivial, could be made without George’s approval.
Interestingly, the real power is often not even held by the “Old Bulls” (the sociological term for the real power people in a church) but by their wives. In conservative churches, women are usually prohibited from positions of authority. But with the state of American manhood being what it is, men are often dominated by their wives. The wives run the church the same way they run their households. They don’t mind a male figurehead as long as they can pull the strings in the background. And pull them they do.
So here’s the situation, a pastor has the authority from God, but likely exercises little actual power. Real power in the Church is often held by those without authority. Furthermore, both the pastor and the men in titular positions, are often dominated by their wives. Now is it any wonder that the average evangelical Church is split, divided into factions, wars incessantly within itself? There can be no legitimate use of power without legitimate authority. Those who have the authority don’t have the power. Those with the power don’t have the authority. The Church then operates like a banana republic, with the same predictable results.
What happens if a pastor starts using his authority and preaches powerfully? He makes people uncomfortable. He challenges the status quo. He wants things done differently than we’ve ever done them. Maybe even God blesses the ministry and new people start coming to the church (which upsets the traditional balance of power). And the people with power, do not want to give it up. So civil war erupts. The power people may decide to get rid of the pastor. They slander him behind his back, they complain about him, they make snide remarks about his gifts, they magnify his every mistake. They have “prayer” sessions where every aspect of his ministry, life and character are gone over in excruciating detail. (If the church is weird enough, they do a background investigation through the police department; you think I’m kidding?). They seldom bring actual charges in church courts, since unsubstantiated allegations might backfire. But they do put enough pressure on the pastor so that eventually, he decides God is calling him somewhere else. And one of the most tenacious of the unsubstantiated charges is that they pastor is a “tyrant.” He is abusive. He insists on preaching and teaching God’s Word.
Now all the above is not to ignore the little tin gods that run some churches. There are pastors who see their churches as petty fiefdoms. I have known several men who would fit the title of “tyrant.” They went beyond the scope of a pastor’s ministry and tried to run people’s lives and families. Not satisfied with teaching God’s law, they then tried to make sure that nobody in the church could do anything without their permission. Yet each of these men were eventually caught by their own neurotic need for power. Nutty people drive normal people away. Thus these men usually were either driven from the churches, or so reduced the congregation that only a dedicated elite of fanatics were left.
In this age, nobody is committed much to anything. If a pastor insists on playing God, “We’re the only true church…” etc. then it is unlikely that the church will ever grow much beyond a very few, weak minded people. While the souls of those poor few are in danger, the damage such a pastor can do is limited. Granted, occasionally there arises a man with the gifts, personality, charisma etc., that allows him to mislead a great number of people. But such men are rare. This is the Age of Democracy where truth is determined by counting noses! Whatever the majority want, must be right. Therefore whoever controls the congregation, controls the church. And thus, the real tyrants are the power people behind the scenes. They are the ones dangerous to the health, purity and peace of the Church, just because they are often not recognized for what they are.
How do we handle tyranny of either sort? Reformation of the Church starts in reforming the home. One of the most fundamental requirements for an elder is that he must be able to manage his own household well (1 Tim 3:4). If we have weak men in the home, we will have weak men in the church. And if we have weak men as elders, pastors, etc., then the Church will flounder. Weak men leave a power vacuum, a vacuum that will soon be filled by someone. Therefore, the first hedge against tyranny is that Christian marriages and families must be reconstructed along God’s Law. When men assume their authority in the home, and lovingly, self sacrificially, exercise that authority over their wives and children, then the church will have a pool of godly men it can draw on for leadership. If women don’t respect their husbands, they won’t respect their pastor. Thus family worship is not just a nice thing that Christians should do, but an absolutely critical discipline for every family. Men who take their families daily into the word of God, teaching them, praying for them, leading them, are completing basic training for dominion. Churches that do not emphasize family worship are setting themselves up for disaster.
Secondly, there needs to be accountability. OK, I admit it; I am a convinced Presbyterian (and presbyteries can become their own little tyrannies, but that’s a different issue for a different article). But regardless of what one’s thoughts on church polity, church courts are a fundamental requirement for any healthy church. First Corinthians 6:1ff commands us to have ways of arbitrating disputes. Of course, just having such courts does not mean that they are properly used (church courts are only as good as the men in them). But if you don’t even have a court system, you’re lost before you’ve begun.
There must be courts above the local congregation. I don’t care what you call them, but you’ve got to have them. A neutral court takes power out of the hands of the power brokers. Justice is no longer dependent upon the whims of one local congregation, or the “Old Bulls” who pull the strings in the background. If someone is a convinced Baptist, then enter into a covenant with other Baptist churches for the sake of arbitrating disputes. You don’t have to give up any of your own rights or privileges, just agree that when a problem comes up that cannot be resolved at the local level, you’ll go to other Christians to settle them (1 Cor 6:5). Set up impartial tribunals just to adjudicate disputes. Make it a requirement of church membership to voluntarily submit to the adjudication of such courts. But if we ever want to break the power of the “Old Bulls,” we have to learn how to submit to one another.
Then, we have to use Biblical principles of conflict and confrontation. Pastors need to study the Law in regards to resolving problems Biblically. Presbyterians call their session, presbytery and general assembly “courts” for a good reason. Adjudication is a primary function of authority. A father must adjudicate disputes between his children. A church must adjudicate disputes between members. Too often, as Dr. Rushdoony points out, the elders think it their job to judge the pastor. But they are a congregation’s first court of appeals. When problems come up that people cannot handle between themselves, then the session, elder board or whatever, must be willing to get in there and resolve those problems. It is the gutless, weak minded refusal of elders (including pastors) to take a stand that allows petty complaints to grow into disastrous church splits.
But if the pastor does not understand these things himself, if he has not instructed his congregation, admonished them, trained them, warned them, etc. then the people will not know what to do. Pastors need to stop preaching sentimental slush and teach God’s people God’s Law. He needs to lovingly confront, rebuke, and correct those who are in disobedience. And the first place to begin is teaching the men how to be MEN, at home, first. Get them ruling their families with wisdom, grace, compassion, justice and love, and they will be fit to rule God’s church as well.
Granted, if a pastor takes such a stand, most churches will not want him. But is that so bad? I made a decision after years of dealing with the kind of nonsense we’ve been discussing that has saved my family, and my ministry incalculable grief. I’d rather pastor a small church of fifty, where I can preach the Word, where the saints welcome the Word, where the elders apply the Word then a church of five thousand and play the mindless power games noted above. And God is sovereign. He will bless obedience. A man willing to take a stand, and fight for truth will find others of a like mind. I want to be obedient to God, and I will only pastor a congregation that wants to be obedient to God. By God’s grace, I now have such a congregation. The others are just not worth the pain.
More of course needs to be done. But applying the Law is the only way to bring order out of chaos. God give us pastors willing to stand up and be counted. God give us godly men who can run their homes. And God give us grace until we get this mess sorted out.
The Ministry of Deacons »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. AbshireIn Acts chapter 6, the Apostles had to deal with a practical problem in the infant church. Jews had come from all over the world to the feast at Pentecost. The Lord God then brought more than 3000 people to saving faith in His Son Jesus. But with great spiritual blessing, also came real practical problems. All these new believers were far from home, short on resources and many needed food and covering. Some Christians began selling off their property and putting it at the Apostle’s feet to help meet these practical needs. However, a dispute arose when the Hellinistic Jews complained that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. The Apostles responded that it was not good for them to neglect the ministry of the Word and prayer to wait on tables. The Apostles told the congregation to choose out seven men, full of the holy Spirit and gave them the responsibility of tending to the needs of the poor. Thus was constituted what most commentators believe to be the first Deacon Board.
Acts 6 not only gives us the example of the office of Deacon, but also provides a case law example of how the office is to function. By analyzing the specifics of Acts chapter 6, we can gain much insight into what the office is and how it is to function. First of all, note that the Apostles themselves decided not to get personally involved in this ministry. This was not an assertion that they were too important for practical ministry but rather an example of the importance of the division of labor. The Apostles simply borrowed directly from the management policies Jethro advised when he insisted Moses delegate responsibility. Time and resources are finite. God’s people are called to be good stewards of both. The Apostles had been entrusted with the responsibility of the Great Commission. If they spent all their time and energy on sorting out the distribution of food, they would not have time to preach and teach and establish the Church. Only they could do what they were doing. But others could organize the resources of the Church to do other ministries.
The ministry of Deacons in Presbyterian polity is to care for the physical well-being of the Church, even as the Elders care for their spiritual needs. It is not a second class office, though it is a subordinate one. Deacons are to be godly, practical men of Biblical wisdom who are entrusted with the responsibility of meeting physical human needs.
Secondly, the Deacons main responsibility was the poor. Widows in ancient Israel had no social security programs, no insurance policies, no retirement plans. If the husband died, often his property might be assumed by another member of the family. When such widows embraced Christ, their families often rejected them, thus excluding them from the only source of financial support they had. Thus widows were poor, in the Biblical sense, because they lacked the very necessity of life. They did not have food or covering (1 Tim 6: ). It was not just they didn’t have a nice home, car, lovely clothes, two TV’s or their kids could not get into the best colleges. They were destitute. This ministry was not a new addition to the Church, but continued the ministry of the Levites in Old Testament Law. Like Deacons, Levites were responsible for distributing portions of the tithe to meet the needs of the poor.
Thirdly, it is assumed that the family bears the primary responsibility for caring for charitable needs. Widows by definition have no family. Thus the Church stepped in only when the family could not assume their responsibilities. Yet in the normal course of events, families took care of their own. This worked against an impersonal bureaucracy siphoning off limited assets to maintain itself. It also prevents sinful creatures abusing what is supposed to be a ministry to the needy.
Fourthly, notice that the poor were worthy poor. These were not women who were spending their social security checks playing bingo. They were ministering to the needs of the saints, not living a profligate lifestyle (cf. 1 Tim 5:1ff). Thus the charity of the early church was not indiscriminate. Just because someone had a need did not mean they had a legitimate claim against God or His Church. Their need had to result from no fault of their own. The early church did not subsidize sin.
Fifthly, the poor were Christians. There were many poor widows in early Israel. The Church did not automatically assume responsibility for every poor person. The Church’s primary responsibility was to take care of their own and the first Deacon board was constituted to meet their needs, not to develop a social action program for Israel.
Sixthly, notice the means by which the poor were provided for. Rich Christians sold their property and laid it at the Apostles feet. Some have concluded that therefore the early social policies of the Church were socialist or even Communist. The question immediately arises what would have happened when all the rich had sold all their property? Once the capital is gone, the poor are still with you but you no longer have any property left to sell. What happens then? But remember, Jesus had specifically prophesied that Israel and her temple were soon to be destroyed. Jerusalem Christians were thus not communists but really acting as good little capitalists using “insider trading” to rid themselves of assets that in the near future would be worthless. But they were also Christian capitalists, using the proceeds for the glory of God and the extension of the kingdom. It is quite probable that the rich also sold their other property, kept the capital gains and then reinvested it in other cities.
Finally, the Church’s response to the need was to organize a specific ministry to deal with this problem. While private charity is assumed to have been a normal part of the Christian life, in order to meet a specific need, there had to be an organized ministry. Needy people were being overlooked in the distribution of food. Now there is no evidence that this was deliberate, it may have been simply a result of poor organization. There were lots of needy Christians and perhaps the system was just inadequate for the job. Men were chosen who were godly, spiritual, good managers to administer the program. The worthy, Christian poor have genuine needs and a slap happy, irresponsible approach is not acceptable.
Thus the diaconal ministry of Lakeside Church, if it is to function biblically and achieve God’s blessing must be structured according to these (and other) principles. It is a vital ministry that is a normal part of a Church. Even as the Lord Jesus ministered to the poor, so also do we have the privilege and honor to stand for him in this day.
The problem comes, not just in understanding the principles, but in practically applying them into modern day situations. I am going to make a radical statement that will undoubtedly cause some people to become quite upset at me. But, quite frankly, in most situations, it is my assessment that the average Church does not see many people who meet the above qualifications. We live in a culture that has been greatly blessed by two thousand years of Christian influence. That influence is now sadly almost gone. But the result is that no one in America has to go to bed hungry and no one has to go naked. The public outrage against homelessness in America is a media fantasy. The overwhelming number of the “homeless” in America are either drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally unstable people who in earlier decades were hospitalized in state institutions. Liberal outrage in the seventies (and declining state revenues) closed most of the state institutions and forced these people out on the street. They are homeless, because their families refuse to support aberrant, nonproductive lifestyles. Meanwhile, the State steps in, at great expense and administers a welfare system that subsidizes evil and destroys the economy.
There are not as many deserving, worthy poor, as we may think. Most Christians live responsible lives. Accordingly, they are blessed by being able to take care of their own needs. By God’s grace, some Christians will be afflicted by His sovereign hand. It is these people who have first call on the ministry of Deacons. However, the vast majority of people who ask the Church for help do not meet the criteria listed in Acts 6. As a pastor who normally has had an office in a Church building, I am used to people dropping in on a regular basis asking for help. They need gas money for their cars, they say they have no place to sleep, they are hungry and ask for charity. But never have they been members of my Church (or any other church). Never are they living responsible lives (they often smell of tobacco or alcohol, which if you are desperate for food, how can you afford to smoke or drink?). They are living in immorally. All of them assume that their present need requires that the Church support them. All of them become outraged and angry when I suggest that their spiritual poverty caused their physical poverty. They do not want to solve their problems, they want the church to subsidize their sinful lifestyle.
Prospective deacons at Lakeside Church have a homework assignment before they are ordained. They are required to interview at least one of the “Will work for Food” sign carriers so prevalent today. The prospective deacon is then to offer the individual a job, for the day, for food. Not once have we found someone who would take us up on the offer. In fact the usual response is one of anger, outrage and even threats that we should require what the person is advertising. The simple fact is that they do not want to work. The signs are merely a gimmick to make people think they are responsible when they are not.
The Myth of Homelessness needs to be exploded less false guilt divert limited resources to counterproductive activities. Our God is sovereign, His resources are unlimited, but He entrusts His people with limited time and limited assets. We are to be good stewards of what we have been given so that His name is glorified. False guilt about the plight of the “poor” only weakens the Church’s ability to minister in ways that will solve the problem.
Does this mean the Church should just close its eyes, turn its back and ignore the people who come to us for help? No, not at all. But we cannot fix the problem until we understand what the problem really is. Nor should we just become another handout agency.
First of all, Deacons must develop a ministry of helping Christians to live responsibly and righteously, especially in regards to their finances. Christians should not be living in debt, should live according to a sound budget, should tithe and should have enough material assets to give gifts of love. But you cannot give liberally, if you are not living responsibly. Christians need to “owe no many anything except the debt of love…” (Rms 13:6). Christians need to get out of debt, they need to pay off their credit cards and save them for short term emergencies. Christians need to learn how to live a simpler lifestyle, save for the future and make wise investments. Christians need to pay off their mortgages within seven years, rather than stretching themselves to the limit to buy houses they cannot afford.
Single Christians need to live at home, save their money and prepare for the responsibilities of married life. Rushdoony notes in his chapter in “Towards a Christian Marriage” that ancient Israelite men had to demonstrate their ability to care for their families before they were allowed to marry. A single man had to give his prospective father-in-law a dowry worth almost three years of his wages. The father-in-law then gave this money to the daughter as a protection against divorce, death or disaster. Singles today ought to carefully consider doing the same. Thus if both husband and wife started out with $60,000 of capital, (assuming the husband makes $20,000 a year) they could buy their first house outright (granted, $60,000 does not buy much of a house in most communities in America). Thus rather than wasting their income on living in rented accommodation, or bearing a back breaking mortgage, they could begin their married life debt free and bless their family for generations.
Thus the first task of the Deacons is educational. Unlike the early Church, we have no prophecies of immediate judgment that allow us to make great short term capital gains. The ministry to the poor will have to be subsidized from the tithes and gifts of God’s people. If they are in debt, they cannot give.
Secondly, the Deacons are to form a Board which will ensure that real needs are being met. I almost always am against bureaucracies of any form taking the initiative away from individuals. The family is the primary source of charity and concern for the poor, but that is limited to the poor that we come into contact with. There needs to be some men responsible for reaching out beyond our immediate contacts. Men who can investigate the situation, make wise judgments and offer a Biblical response. I am reminded of a situation in a Church I was in some years ago (as a member, not a pastor). One family was hit with an extraordinary large tax bill. The Deacon board should have issued the appeal (but no one really knew what the deacons in that Church were supposed to do, lest of all the deacons themselves!) after a careful investigation of the situation. Instead, it was left to the “Spirit” to lead people as He would. Since the Deacons did not deal with the problem, the pastor and elders let it be known that so and so has a real problem and we should help out. Individuals did. The family was very touched by the very gift, paid off their tax bill, and then went out and bought a brand new car. Now since I was hitchhiking to work every day, being unable to afford a car and not willing to go into debt, I was more than a little outraged. So were most people. Most Christians start with tender hearts, hearts that quickly become hardened and callused after being ripped off time and time again. The Deacons, are entrusted with the responsibility to make sure that God’s money is handled appropriately. They can ask the hard questions that an individual may rightly be embarrassed to ask.
After taking care of our own, the Deacons can then extend the ministry of reaching out to the poor by coupling it with evangelism. Galations 6:6 says that we are to do good to all men, especially those of the household of God.” We do have responsibilities of reaching out beyond the Church doors. But simply giving away assets is not the answer. The Deacons must think practically how they can use their office to glorify Christ. Our church is in an affluent, white, upper middle class community. While this community desperately needs the gospel, it is insulated from the worst physical effects of sin. However even so, there are ministries that can be developed. In fact, if we want to avoid social disaster, we will have to.
Our vision at Lakeside is to minister to the needs of the inner city by first planting a Reformed Church with a vision of bringing every area of life under Christ’s Lordship. To do so, we will have to underwrite a large part of the startup costs. We also need to have a Pastor who shares our vision. He will need a corps group to start his church. Lakeside can help by pioneering a ministry that will give him that corps group. How to start? First by developing a social action program based on Biblical principles rather than secular humanistic ones. In the past, Christians have built hospitals, orphanages, poorhouses and all sorts of practical ministries. There are worthy poor who want to change their situation. As a part of sharing the grace of God given to us, we can and should explore ways of meeting these needs. We have a divine responsibility to do so. Thus for example we could plant a job placement service to help people find work. By using our contacts, we could screen prospective candidates and hook them up with Christian businesses. We should be starting a Christian school, subsidized by our affluence as an alternative to the bankrupt government school system. We need to buy an apartment building, staff it with a Christian family and then open our doors to women who will not abort their babies (though in so doing, we ought to strongly encourage such mothers to give their children up for adoption to Christian families). It is possible that the first full time staff member we bring on at Lakeside may not be another Pastor, but rather a full time, paid Deacon to oversee and organize these ministries.
Therefore the Deacon Board will start with helping our own families become faithful stewards of what God has given. Their responsibility will be to equip the entire church in developing the gift of “liberality” that we might profitably use what God has entrusted. Then, the Deacons will ensure that our own poor are taken care of. We will not subsidize sin or irresponsibility, but we will take care of our own. Finally, the Deacons will oversee the development of our outreach programs through social action. They will offer specific plans on how the Session and the Church can be actively involved in bringing the grace of God in Christ to the most hurting sections of our city. In all these activities, the Deacons should be taking the lead to develop programs, faithful to Biblical principles. We start with our own, we progress to reach out to a dying community. If we prove faithful in little things, God will entrust us with greater responsibilities.
Communion Wine or a Purple Euphemism? »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. AbshireWine, in Scripture, is a promise from God of the blessings of the covenant (Psa 4:7 “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than when the grain and new wine abound.”). Though sinful men misuse and abuse this gift, yet God Himself uses it as an example of His goodness towards us. (Ps 104:14-15 “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man’s heart.”). In fact, wine is a blessing that God specifically promises to those who honor Him with the tithe. (Prov 3:9-10, “Honor the LORD from your wealth, and from the first of all your produce; So your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new win”.). As in all things in creation, wine itself is a symbol, a picture, a reflection of something bigger and greater. It is a picture of the blessings that come from a right relationship with God (Isa 25:6, “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. Isa 27:2 In that day, “A vineyard of wine, sing of it”). In fact, it is a picture of the new life we have in Christ; (Isa 55:1 “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.). Jesus used wine as a symbol of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited by old traditions (Matt 9:17 “Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”) This is possibly, why the very first miracle that Jesus performed before His disciples, authenticating His ministry, was to turn water into wine. (John 2:9-11 “And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.). This miracle, demonstrated not only His lordship over creation, but was also a picture of what the Messiah would do in His ministry; i.e., take up common, dirty elements (water was practically undrinkable in those days) and transform them into something sweet and wonderful.
Some people have argued that the wine in Scripture was unfermented grape juice. But this is both linguistically and contextually untenable (see “Objections section for a detailed refutation). Grape juice rapidly ferments into wine. It is the fermenting process that bursts old wine skins. It is the alcohol in wine that, when used lawfully, lifts broken spirits, and makes the sad, glad. Drunkenness is forbidden, for that is dissipation; instead, we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The alcohol in wine is a picture of the Holy Spirit.
Thus for churches to use grape juice instead of wine, is to destroy the imagery of the Holy Spirit in communion. Yes, some people refrain from any alcohol because they are concerned about drunkenness. But for a church to refuse to drink wine at communion is to implicitly reject the very image God has given us of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that modern evangelicalism has widely substituted grape juice for wine.
Thus, we need to reclaim this biblical imagery for communion celebrations to be complete. It is the Holy Spirit who gladdens our hearts, fills our lives with goodness, bursts the old wineskins and gives us new life. We want the Holy Spirit’s fullness in our lives and our Churches. Therefore, as a symbol then of the Holy Spirit’s work and power, real wine needs to be used instead of the “purple euphemism” in our communion.
Some people wonder if this is really necessary. Does it really matter if we use grape juice as a symbol of real wine? R.C. Sproul said it best. He said, if it’s only a symbol, then why not use peanut butter and jelly? God Himself declared what symbols we are to use. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian Churches requires wine; hence all PCA and OPC elders are oath bound to serve wine in the Lord’s Supper. God did not choose grape juice to represent His precious Son’s blood, but rather wine. He superintended creation so that sugar would ferment into alcohol, to symbolize the effects of His Holy Spirit leavening and working His will in our life. Let us not allow the wickedness of others, who abuse His good gifts, to steal from us, the imagery God Himself has provided. Let us approach His table with humility, and reverence and obedience.
The Role of the Old Testament in The Church »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. AbshireAs I write this column, I am also celebrating (?) my 44th birthday. Middle age has come with an unexpected vengeance. Emotionally, I still think of myself as fairly young until reality confronts me every morning by the old man staring back at me out of the mirror. My manly red beard has more than a few strands of white in it these days, and the once bulging arm and shoulder muscles of my youth now seemed to have all migrated South around my mid-section. Just so I wouldn’t miss the significance of the loss of youth, cards and letters have poured in from friends and family commiserating with me for reaching such an advanced age; my wife teases me about the inordinate amount of pink scalp peering through the crown of my head (”My, my Dear, looking a bit Benedictine these, days are we?”) while my children warned me about not blowing out my birthday candles too hard lest my teeth fall out. And sadly, there is some measure of truth to these comments; though I am still vigorous enough to chase my wife around the house, when I finally catch her, by mutual agreement we usually decide that a good night’s sleep is ample enough reward.
There is a relationship I think between our attitudes towards age, and our appreciation of the Old Testament. In our youth oriented culture, age is often associated with obsolescence; what’s new, is by definition superior. The broad evangelical Church right across the world has largely abandoned the Old Testament as anything other than the quaint musings of an old man not quite in touch with today’s modern world. Consequently, while we may occasionally pay polite attention to his reminiscences, we do not really think he has anything of value to say. Right from the start, when the church imbibed deeply from the wells of Greek philosophy, there has been a problem both in understanding and applying the Old Testament. It has either been spiritualized away, or simply ignored. Old Testament religion is a gutsy, earthy, visceral faith that quite frankly, offends the sensibilities of Greek-influenced Christianity. Modern Christians are sundered from their past and ill equipped for their future because they fail to understand the unity of the Scriptures.
Yet, New Testament Christianity sits on a pyramid of Old Testament religion. If you remove the foundation, then the capstone collapses. Without a proper understanding of the role and significance of the Old Testament, the Church is susceptible to every kind of error. The apostate, bland, ineffectual, culturally compromised Church of today has only to look at its rejection of the Old Testament to discover the source of many of its errors.
In Authority 2 Tim 3:16-17
When the Apostle Paul wrote to encourage Timothy in his duties, he says, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.” Amazing that this verse, so often quoted as evidence of the authority of the Bible, is seldom understood in context. The Scriptures he was talking about here was NOT the New Testament (after all, it was still in the process of being written!) but rather what we call the Old Testament. The Bible for first century readers WAS the Old Testament and Paul consistently appeals to them as his source of authority. God had spoken to his church authoritatively and sufficiently through the Old Testament. They were sufficient to “make one wise unto salvation” (2 Tim 3:15) and therefore were to be revered, read, studied and applied. True, Jesus rebuked the traditions of men that had grown up around the Scriptures, but He fully affirmed their authority (Matt 5:17-19). Granted, the Old Testament spoke in shadows, types and figures and a great part of the New Testament revelation was designed to show the reality that the ancient writers only dimly glimpsed. But the fact is, one cannot understand New Testament revelation without understanding the Old Testament foundations. Hence, repeatedly, Paul appeals to the Old Testament to demonstrate the authenticity of his message.
In today’s church, the authority of the Old Testament is either ignored, or so re-interpreted to be meaningless. I remember once a most painful sermon, preached by a friend of mine on Elijah and the Shummanite woman. She and her husband built and furnished him a little room on the top of her house. We then listened for a good hour about all the hidden, spiritual meanings behind the furniture (as I recall the bed represented rest in the Lord, the lamp for study, the chair for discipleship, etc). But we never did hear about the necessity of hospitality. In other words, the CLEAR message is ignored and instead we are treated to men’s imagination. The Old Testament is simply not allowed to speak for itself, and therefore the Church’s foundations are undercut and destroyed.
In Worship; the Regulative Principle
As much as I deeply appreciate our Puritan and Presbyterian ancestors, they must be understood in their historical context. Coming out of the corrupt Church of Rome, they struggled against the apostate, man-made religious practices that like weeds had choked out true worship in the church. As a consequence, it can be argued that they sometimes over-reacted in their own theology of worship. It’s almost as if they said, “If Rome did it, then it MUST be wrong” rather than develop a consistent Biblical view. Hence, while most Christians take for granted today singing hymns with musical accompaniment, this was utterly rejected by 17th century Reformers in Scotland and England; strict psalmody with no instruments was the rule. There are still a few brothers today who maintain this position, but in doing so, I fear that they have become operational Dispensationalists, demanding a radical break between Old Testament worship and New. Old Testament worship was replete with musical instruments of various kinds all making a joyful noise unto the Lord. I always find it a bit amusing to worship with my exclusive psalmody brethren, and while singing the Psalms with them, watch them pointedly ignore the commands to worship with stringed instrument, flute and lyre!
When Scripture enjoins us to clap our hands, or raise them in prayer, most Reformed people just wish those verses would ago away because you see, if the Charismatics do it, then it MUST be wrong! And hence, a full-orbed worship service, demanding all of our strength and heart and soul is often missing, because we do not appreciate God’s requirements for worship. Those commands cannot possibly be relevant today, because of course, we have never done it that way. “Can any good come out of Charismatics?” And we maintain this position even though there is not a shred of New Testament evidence that these practices somehow passed away with the establishment of the New Testament Church. A strong argument can be made that many Christians are drawn into the deviant theology of so many Charistmatic churches, simply because their worship is so heartfelt, so vigorous, dare one say, “so BIBLICAL!” We ignore the Old Testament at our peril. As a friend of mine once noted, many Reformed Christians worship as if they were baptized in pickle juice! It is astounding that so many sing the Psalms to tunes that deny the very joy the words so powerfully command!!
In Polity: 1 Tim 3:1ff
As a convinced Presbyterian, I believe that our form of government is the one ordained by God Himself (notice I said the FORM of government, not necessarily all the particulars). God’s church is to be ruled by elders. This is very clear from 1 Timothy 3:1ff, 5:14ff, etc. But this method of church government did not just spring full-blown from the Apostle Paul. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, the Apostles and Elders were already ruling the Church. Where in the New Testament do then we find the specific instructions that this is the right form of government? Simple answer; nowhere. It just suddenly seems to appear! The reason of course is that the church is to be governed exactly the way that Israel was to be governed under Moses; by elders. Elders were to govern their homes, their families, their tribes and ultimately the nation. Elders were to govern the Tabernacle and Temple. Elders governed the local synagogues. But you will not find this in the New Testament, it is found only in the Old. One cannot possibly understand, let alone rule God’s church apart from the theological and practical basis laid out in the Old Testament. Bannerman, the classic Presbyterian apologist for church polity understood this and based his concepts on their Old Testament origins.
A related area is the way that elders were to be placed over the church. Presbyterians, at least in this country, have always elected their elders by the congregation. But in the two passages that actually teach on elders, they were to be appointed by Timothy and Titus. Think about this for a moment, especially you good Presbyterians. If we base our polity ONLY on the New Testament, then guess what, the two relevant Scriptural passages would seem, on the surface to support Episcopacy, rather than historic Presbyterianism? However, if one finds the origins of Church government in the way that the congregation of Israel was to be ordered, then Jethro’s advice to Moses allows an avenue of escape. The people were to elect their elders from the people. Moses then ORDAINS them to rule over the people. Hence, when the Church is being organized, one can assume, because of testamental continuity, that a similar process was followed. When Paul therefore instructs elders to be “appointed” Timothy and Titus would then have followed the same procedure as ancient Israel; i.e., they would have gone to the congregation, asked them to select worthy men, and then, they would have been approved, appointed and ordained by the apostolic messengers. This in fact is very similar to the way that modern Presbyterians choose their church officers. Men are elected by the congregation, but ordained by the Session or the Presbytery.
Think about this; a subject near and dear to every pastor’s heart is where his paycheck is coming from (and how much is in it!). While Paul does say that elders are worthy of a double honor (1 Tim 5:17) he bases their RIGHT to be paid for their ministry (as opposed to all the other ministries that people do for the church gratis) on the Old Testament Law regarding muzzling the ox. Hence the theological basis for paying elders is not out of expediency, and not by direct command (though Jesus did say the “laborer is worthy of his hire,”) but rather an obscure Old Testament reference to animal welfare!
But look what happens if we ignore the Old Testament basis. Pastors are either starved into submission (people will give money to anything in the church EXCEPT to pay most pastors a living wage) or the pastor becomes a vampire, sucking the life out of the church. There is no balance, because there is no theology of how much is enough. Broad evangelicals do not know the theology and therefore they pervert the practice (how would you like to submit YOUR tax returns to the church so everyone can criticize how you have spent the Lord’s money? You think I am joking?).
The point here of course is that the New Testament, in and of itself, does not and cannot form the foundation of the doctrine of the Church. Without the Old Testament, we are left in a morass of subjective opinion, with no clear basis for developing a Biblical church polity.
In Vision Matt 28:19-20
One of the first verses I was required to memorize years ago when I was involved with a para-church ministry, was the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. Evangelism and discipleship were the lifeblood of this ministry and we were all expected to share a “simple” explanation of the gospel and then when people prayed the prayer with us, “disciple” them by taking through one of those fill-in-the-blank bible study booklets. Even with all the simplistic theology and practice that this method represents, it is still LIGHTYEARS ahead of where the average broad evangelical church is. At least we took these verses seriously and were personally committed to doing something about them. The average broad evangelical is quite happy leaving the Great Commission to the Bible geeks and four-eyed girls with sensible shoes who want to go to the mission field.
Neither the modern church nor the para-church can either adequately understand or fulfill the Great Commission because they do not acknowledge the Old Testament background. Jesus was not doing something new here, He was not instituting some radical new program, for the Great Commission is simply the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:27 all over again! We are to fill the earth and subdue it, not just through natural generation, but by evangelism. Furthermore, it is not just the odd branch plucked from the fire, instead, it is entire nations that are to be discipled to obey Jesus. In the Great Commission we simply have the final statement on how the original Covenant of Creation is to be fulfilled. It is a resounding postmillennial commission, implicitly assuming that as the church goes forth and depends on the sovereign power of the resurrected and ascended Christ, that our enemies will be converted, the nations subdued, and that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Therefore the church cannot know who she is, where she is going, or even what she is supposed to be apart from understanding her Old Testament roots. Without the Old Testament, the church is susceptible to every kind of error and heresy. There is no doubt in my mind, that the current deplorable state of the church is directly attributable to her abandonment of truly Biblical religion. Hey folks, there are no “New Testament” churches; there are only Biblical ones. And that means understanding and applying what the WHOLE Bible says, not just a few bits here and there.
Why Won’t People Change? »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
There are probably as many expectations of a pastor’s job, as there are members of his congregation. Some people want a sympathetic ear they can bend whenever the vicissitudes of life become too much. Others want a strong authority figure that can speak authoritatively from the pulpit, but not necessarily one who gets involved in their own life. There are those who want to be intellectually stimulated by well-reasoned sermons, and articulate personal expression. But in all these and a thousand other expectations, there is one quality that is often NOT desired in a pastor; yet is perhaps his fundamental qualification for the ministry; the ability to change people’s lives.
Change is what the Christian life is all about. By an act of God’s grace, He changed us from being aliens and strangers to members of His own household. By another act of grace, He works on our characters, day by day, conforming us to the image of Christ (Rms 8:29). The Apostle Paul exhorts Christians to not be conformed to the world, but to be changed by the renewing of our minds (Rms 12:1-2). The whole point of our teaching, preaching, exhorting, fellowship, worship, etc., is to facilitate this change as the gospel of Christ permeates and effects our entire being.
A good pastor knows all the above, even if he may not always articulate exactly the same way as I have. He wants his people to grow in grace, wisdom, understanding, love and worship. He pours himself every week into studying the Scriptures, learning from our elders in the faith through reading good books and then trying to share that wisdom with his people. He prays for them, visits them in their distress, and counsels them as occasion permits. He works with his elders to develop programs that will encourage and facilitate holiness in his church.
But all too often, as he lays his head down on his pillow, too many of my brother pastors have this nagging thought at the back of their mind; “Are they really changing? Is my work really having any effect?” At least the good ones have these thoughts. The “not-so-good” ones do not even worry about it because they are having so much fun managing their programs and being the center of attention that they just are not bothered. Actually demonstrating that people are growing in grace and holiness is not an easy task. Hence pastors can either put all the responsibility on God (”it’s up to me to speak the truth, it’s up to God to change the people” or search for another measure of success. Often that measure is church growth. You can MEASURE whether your congregation is getting larger. And if more people are coming to your church, then you MUST be doing SOMETHING right! I am reminded of the old proverb; “if you set yourself on fire for the Lord, people will come from miles around; to watch you burn.” Simply getting people to come to your church, and stay awhile means nothing. In fact, in sociological surveys I conducted in “mega-churches” in the eighties, it seemed an extraordinary number of people attended simply because they liked the anonymity. The LIKED the idea of showing up for church, doing their bit, and then leaving without having to get involved in the church or the people around them. Other studies have shown that up t 70% of Christians think showing up at 11 AM on Sunday morning is all that God really requires of them. Hence, the “seeker-friendly” approach, so often criticized for its superficial theology, insipid worship and cultural accommodation may well owe its numerical success to simply effectively marketing a product that fits a religious niche; people who do not want to be changed by the gospel.
There is no need to go over the sad state of American Christianity yet again (see my book; “The Church as God’s Armory” for a detailed analysis of the sociological impotence of modern evangelicalism), yet the truth remains, in today’s church, Christians are by and large NOT changing. Every decade sees them becoming more and more like the world around them in their values, priorities, life-style and life-choices. The average broad evangelical Christian church has lost its savor as salt in the world. No matter how big your sanctuary, or well attended your services, what good does it do if the people who fill them are just like their pagan neighbors outside your church? How could a majority of evangelical Christians vote for Bill Clinton TWICE, even though the newspapers were FULL of his scandals? How come Christian marriages are failing so frequently? Why are so many covenant children growing up to abandon the faith? How is it that Hollywood can continue to constantly ridicule Christians and get away with it (when they wouldn’t dare do the same to Muslims or Buddhists or any other religious group)? Where is the world conquering faith that subdued the Roman Empire, converted the pagan tribes of Europe, built EVERY aspect of Western Civilization and brought the world liberty and constitutional government? Could it be that we can no longer change the world, because we have forgotten God’s requirement that we need to be changed ourselves?
But if “good” pastors WANT to see their people changed, then why aren’t they being changed? Are we doing something wrong? Allow me please to speculate why Christians are not changing the way that God would have them change, and offer some practical suggestions as to what we could do differently.
Now several caveats before we begin. Because this is an essay, not a book, I am assuming (always a dangerous thing to do) that the reader is already familiar with the mechanisms of Godly change (see my related essay, “The Dynamics of Biblical Change.”). Sanctification is a process, governed by the Holy Spirit wherein by His grace and the application of godly discipline (1 Tim 5:8), we put off the old, and put on the new (Eph 4:17ff). What we are specifically concerned with here are the factors that inhibit people applying those principles in the specific problems they are facing.
Secondly, a lot of the below comes from studies in psychology, cognition, learning theory, etc. However, I am NOT compromising with modern psychologists. I need to say upfront that I believe that all humanistic psychotherapy is a counterfeit religion, antithetical to the gospel and dangerous to the extreme. But there is a difference between experimental psychology, an empirical discipline concerned with studying how people learn, and counseling psychology, which is just, applied humanism. All of the principles I list below are VERIFIED by God’s Word, and ILLUSTRATED by empirical research.
Intellectual Problems
First, obviously, people often do not change because there are problems in thought, or cognition. People cannot change unless they know and understand that they OUGHT to change, not to mention what they are to change from, and what they are to change to. Ideas do have implications, what we think affects what we do (Pvbs ). People can do pretty stupid things, over and over again because they just don’t know any better or they are not thinking clearly about an issue. There is an old story (probably apocryphal but we hope it’s true anyway) about a bride making dinner for her new husband. She was preparing a pork roast and began by sawing off the end of the leg joint. Hubby asked her, “Why?” and she responded, “Well, because that’s the way my Mom always did it at home.” Intrigued, the young woman then called her Mom and asked, “Why do we saw off the leg bones? Does it help the cooking, or release some juices or something?” Her Mom replied, “To be honest, I don’t know. This is just something that MY mother always did.” Mom then calls Grandma and says, “Why DO we always cut off the leg bones?” Grandma sheepishly replies, “Well, we never had a roasting pan big enough!”
Often, people do things unthinkingly, without ever considering the reasons behind the actions. We live in a complex world and much of what we do we learned from “modeling” or seeing the example of others. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, in fact, if we had to study EVERY issue before taking an action, we would doubtless never do anything. As long as the action is not immoral, in and of itself, there is no harm, and no foul.
But in the Christian life, God DOES command us to do certain things, things that are often in conflict with cultural norms. Furthermore, He promises to discipline His children who do not learn to do His will (Hebrew 12:10ff). We live in a cause and effect world, governed by a sovereign God who works His will out in time. Christians therefore who are not growing in conformity to the image of His Son Jesus (Rms 8:29) often experience pain, turmoil, real moral guilt, etc., because these things are tools in the Divine hand to teach and train us.
Thus sometimes, Christians do not change because they do not know what they are doing wrong. They do not understand God’s precepts, principles and commandments and are not living accordingly. Sadly, though God has given the church pastors and elders who are to TEACH the people the content of the Christian life, many times these people those responsible do not always teach what needs to be taught. Sometimes because the teachers themselves are only passing on what THEY were taught in seminary; academic and intellectual information that never goes beyond the spiritual. If a pastor for example, has been discipled and instructed in the importance of secret and family worship, if for him sermons are to be interesting intellectual exercises in esoteric aspects of theology or whims of mystical experience, then he himself simply may not KNOW what God requires. He cannot then pass it on to others.
However, the solution is NOT always as easy as simply telling a person the truth, and leaving it at that, as many good pastors seem to think. Granted, sometimes all that is needed to see a person undergo significant life changes and grow in grace and godliness is simply saying, “Stop doing that, and start doing this!” But I can number on the fingers on one hand the times this has worked in the last twenty years of ministry. Real life just does not seem to work that way.
There is an interesting phenomenon called “assimilation” associated with human learning. It seems that when people hear new information, there is a tendency to incorporate that information within an existing intellectual framework (or “paradigm”), rather than changing the framework to reflect the new information. This makes sense, in an odd sort of way. As people grow up and develop, they try to make sense out of the myriad thoughts, ideas, values, facts, etc., they encounter. Facts by themselves are useless unless they can be meaningfully related to OTHER facts. The connections we make between how one fact relates to another, is called a paradigm. The paradigm attempts to organize all the data we discover in life into meaningful relationships (if I drop the hammer, the hammer falls. If the hammer falls on my toe, it hurts. Therefore, don’t drop hammers on your toes!) Now there are paradigms, and there are paradigms. For example, there is an old joke about a Christian missionary trying to witness to a South Sea Islander where they used to throw virgins into the volcano to keep it from erupting. The missionary is trying to show how stupid this idea is by pointing out the scientific facts about volcanoes. But the wily old chief is not to be demurred because, as he says, “We’ve been throwing virgins into that volcanoes for years and we have NEVER had an eruption!” His paradigm was wrong, and therefore he was not able to correctly deduce the relationship between his actions (throwing young girls into volcanoes) and the result (not having an eruption. The entire process of scientific progress is often testing various paradigms against reality.
While paradigms are only as good as the data in them (which we may not always interpret correctly), a paradigm itself often discards some data because it does not fit. As Van Til said, “There are no brute facts, only interpret ones.” And the paradigms we form, determine not only how we interpret facts, but whether we even recognize them as facts, at all.
So, say for example, you jump on Brother George’s case through vivid and powerful preaching, followed up with intense personal conversation and cap it off with some good ole one to one counseling on an issue he needs to get right in his life. You finally get him to cry, “Uncle” on the issue and he gives assent that the new data you have been trying to get him to accept is true, valid and Biblical. Does that mean he automatically changes his life as a result? Not at all. Because of the above process of “assimilation” he is likely to take that new data and then try and fit it into his intellectual paradigm of the way the world works, even though it may be in conflict. Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, people are quite capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast, if it allows them to not have to do the hard work of rethinking everything they have ever learned.
I have seen this dynamic time and time again. Say Brother George is in debt, heavily in debt due to irresponsible credit cards, foolish spending, bad budgeting, etc. It is very possible that he got into this mess in the first place because he simply did not understand God’s commandments forbidding debt. Our culture has no sanctions against debt, and by appealing to men’s covetousness, actively encourages people to spend far more than they earn. Most Christians have no problem running up huge credit card debt, and then paying the minimum amount each month. So George may not necessarily be wicked; just ignorant. Nobody ever told him that debt was bad, and now he is in trouble.
OK, now you come along as a brother in Christ, and you take him through the Scriptures. You show him all the relevant passages that compares debt to slavery, that it is a curse, and that we are owe nothing but love to one another. After wrestling with the fact that it HURTS when we are convicted of sin and he is therefore resistant to admitting that he has sinned, he finally admits that his debt is wrong, bad, and that he ought to get himself out as soon as possible.
Does he then necessarily get out of debt? Not on your life! Intellectually he is very likely, even though he now KNOWS that debt “in general” is bad, to find reasons why in HIS case, it is not only allowable, but unavoidable. Now we are not talking here about a sinful refusal to repent (we will deal with that later) but rather an intellectual problem, where in HIS mind, your teaching is not just not applicable to HIS situation. Furthermore, there is a big difference between intellectually realizing something, and then being able to take the practical steps necessarily to solve the problem.
Take the example of being overweight. It ain’t rocket science, being fat is a result of taking in more calories over the amount being burned during daily life. The only way to lose weight is by either reducing the amount of calories consumed, or by increasing the amount of calories burned through exercise. That being true, why are so many Americans FAT when they would rather be thin?
Now granted, there are some poor fools who just do not understand the above dynamic. They think the grapefruit diet, or some metabolism pills, or some cream bought from an ad in the back of the National Enquirer will magically take away fat (and if they read the Enquirer, their intellectual problem falls into a different category). So you come along and show them the research. But they reject it; why?
Man is not necessarily a “rational” being; he is a rationalizing being. Because of the corruption of our nature caused by Adam’s sin, man does not necessarily use his reason to arrive at a correct understanding of the world around him, but often sinfully uses his reason to justify his own prejudices. The world IS a very complex place, and often, there ARE legitimate differences of opinion on many matters; it might be this way, OR it might be that way. Sometimes, reason in and of itself cannot come to a conclusion, for in order to make the RIGHT decision, we would have to know ALL the facts and be able to organize them together properly.
Only God who is omniscient can do that, and that is why our knowledge must be founded upon His Word, the Bible. But even here, our sinfulness and limited understanding often causes “sincere” Christians to disagree on just what God meant when He said something. But now add this dilemma to the mix; if our paradigms govern our interpretation of “facts,” and the value of paradigms differs from individual to individual; SOME people are going to be more able to create better paradigms than others. Let us be honest and frank, some people are not as smart as other people. Therefore, such people are not going to relate the “facts” very well together. Often, their paradigms have very little rational basis. In other words, MOST people are not capable of systematically organizing their facts into a coherent paradigm. They do not live in a world governed by reason, logic and sound deduction. Thus is Pastor Bob comes along, and through brilliant exegesis, logical arguments and well-reasoned debate attempts to get them to change their minds about something (and change their lives accordingly) he will often find his message falling on deaf ears. Some will not understand him. Others will simply take what he says and add it to their existing paradigm, without having to actually change anything in their lives as a result.
Thus simply telling a person he must change is not enough. Furthermore it is not enough to tell him “why” he must change. We might even be able to intellectually convince him that he ought to change, but still, for all the reasons mentioned above, he might not change. There are other factors that go into the equation.
Problems in Practicality
Pastors who are “ratiocentric” (i.e., “reason” oriented) assume that if only they marshal all their facts, make good sound logical deductions and present their case fairly and equitably, then people will just naturally accept their conclusions and make the relevant changes. In fact, again and again as I have listened to my Reformed brothers preach, I have been amazed by the lack of practical application. When I query them about this surprising lack, they are astounded. Well, the application is just “obvious.” They have assumed that people will make the leap from the insights they provided. My experience in the counseling office is that the above just isn’t true. Even if a person does understand, intellectually, what the problem is, not everyone can then figure out what then needs to be done to correct it.
I understand this problem all too well. When it comes to mechanical type things, I am a complete idiot. Oh, I can understand the theory well enough, and can even draw a diagram, but that is a far cry from actually turning a wrench. When I was younger, all of my three older brothers were car fanatics. They loved cars, loved working on them and spent all their time up to their elbows in grease. They eventually all found vocations that would allow them to indulge in their love of cars.
I on the other hand hate cars with a passion. To me, they are tools, no more, no less. My one vocational goal in life was to make so much money I could hire someone else to get greasy and dirty crawling under the darned thing and replacing a broken drive shaft during a Maine winter. Now my brothers know my hatred of mechanical work and often teased me about it with all the mercy and charity big brothers have for younger ones. I well remember a discussion with one of them about the effects of higher-octane gas on performance. In chemistry class we had gone over in quite some detail the relationship between octane and compression ratios on internal combustion engines. I remembered the lecture well, and in the discussion with my brother actually had the temerity to disagree because he was repeating a popular myth that my chemistry professor had gone out of his way to refute. I understood the physics and the chemistry of the internal combustion engine. I understood theoretically exactly how the engine worked, could diagram how the fuel was compressed in the cylinder until at a certain point the spark ignited it, etc. I KNEW it, and took more than a little sinful pleasure demonstrating my brother’s theoretical ineptitude. (My brother, being the kind of guy that he is, simply threw me down on the ground and sat on me to shut me up.)
But the point is, while his theoretical knowledge was lacking, his practical ability far exceeded mine. I have never been able to get a nut off without either stripping the bolt, or busting my knuckles. If I take something apart, I can guarantee you that when I put it back together there will be pieces left over.
A lot of people have the same kind of difficulty when it comes to relating insights about their situation to the steps necessary in actually fixing the problem. This is one of the difficulties that very bright people have in relating to the rest of us “nobs.” The brightest people often make the WORST teachers, because they cannot understand why other people do not see what is so perfectly clear to them. Since I am bearing my soul in this essay, one more example of abject failure from my own past. I went to college after serving six years in the military. Math had never been one of my favorite classes in High School (it was the only one I had to work at and for someone who could get reasonable grades simply by reading the textbook in the first week of class and then goof off for the rest of the semester, math was just too much like work. As a result, I stunk at it, managed a C and decided to take less rigorous courses as often as possible). I breezed through college in two years, but my last required class was in statistical analysis. This was the first, and only math class I had to take for my undergraduate degree. But I hadn’t had algebra in 10 years and had long ago forgotten what little I had learned. But I had been a Christian for seven years, and had learned a little diligence and self-discipline and figured that with some hard work (and a lot of prayer), I could get by. And I was right, until I had to take several statistical labs taught by fellow students. The students obviously were exemplary at math (that’s why they were TA’s). They stood in front of the class and said things like, “now this obviously reduces to this and that’s how you solve this equation.” Well, it wasn’t obvious to me! In going from one aspect of solving a statistical equation to another, they ASSUMED everyone else could plainly see what was obvious to them. Inside their brains, there was a dynamic going on that other people, not having that innate skill, just couldn’t do. So I had to ask them to break it down, step by step. At first, they looked at me like an idiot (and I admit it, I was dumb). But since I was paying them to teach me statistics, I insisted they give value for money. So talking to me like someone who has to have their mittens pinned to their jackets, they took us slowly, and painfully, step by step through the process. And they were smart guys; once they realized that they were making assumptions they could go back and fill in the steps. And not unsurprisingly, about half the class started catching on and consequently, improved their grades (for they had the same problem I had, but were too afraid to look like an idiot. You see, I am not afraid of looking stupid anymore, after all, I’ve had lots of practice!).
But often, pastors and counselors do not see people change because they assume that the person WILL be able to see those steps by themselves. After all, your average pastor is a bright guy. He has spent a lot of time in serious academic endeavors. He wouldn’t have done well, unless he had some sort of “knack” for intellectual things. And he assumes that what is so clear to him, MUST therefore be clear to you, once he delineates his three points, tells his two anecdotes and the mandatory joke. He expects that YOU the average person in the pew, will just SEE what he is talking about and will take the proper actions. But the reality is, that just does not happen very often. People need to not only told WHAT to change, and WHY to change, but also HOW to change.
Note that people only understand about 30% of what they hear, the first time they hear it. They retain about 10% of that. So when a pastor or counselor instructs a person, even if done powerfully, clearly, articulately and evocatively, we must not assume that the person understood all that we said, or that he will retain it so he can apply it later. He needs to hear it three or four times, at least (and preferably from two or more sources). He then needs to have the process broken down into small, intermediate steps so he can see what he has to do on a daily basis. In the hilarious critique of the psychopathology of modern psychotherapy “What About Bob?” they introduce the concept of “baby-steps.” And as even a broken clock is right twice a day, so also does this movie get it right here. How to you make major changes in your life? Often, by taking small steps, day by day.
Emotional Problems
But, for what it is worth, in my experience over the past twenty-five years of ministry, even if the pastor understands the dynamics of cognition and learning, and governs his ministry accordingly, he STILL may not see people change, as they ought to. For many, many Christians, the problem is NOT one of intellect, but one of emotion. Sadly in modern America, “feelings” are what governs the average person’s life and since the church is so accommodated to the world, often we mimic them in this cultural value. People have been taught, admonished, encouraged and had modeled before them that their feelings are what is really important.
And since even Christians too often live according to their feelings, when God says one thing, but their feelings are telling them another, they will often follow their feelings. In fact, I have heard it argued repeatedly that God MUST not have meant what He said in His Word, because otherwise I wouldn’t feel the way I do!”
Now several comments are in order here Without getting side-tracked by Tim LaHaye’s books and ideas in this regard, let us here restrict the term “temperament” to its most broadest meaning. A person’s temperament is their basic emotional disposition towards the world. An argument can be made that each person has certain neurotransmitters, hormones, brain secretions (such as serotonin and dopamine), etc., in different configurations that affects how we “feel.” Feelings are biochemical responses. Because each person is unique, each person responds slightly differently to the same stimuli. Thus broadly speaking, some people are more extroverted; others more introverted. Some are more boisterous; others more shy. Some people are detailed oriented; others are “big-picture” folk.
Now if there is a genetic component to temperament, there is obviously nothing innately sinful about one’s tendency to emote one way or the other in a given situation. Clearly, the moral dynamic is whether we obey God despite how we feel at any given time. But it can be argued that a person’s emotional predisposition may influence your efforts at helping them change.
For example, a person who is more boisterous, outgoing and extroverted, may have trouble actually HEARING what you say. They may nod approvingly, smile knowingly and give every evidence of understanding and accepting your counsel, when inside their minds are racing a thousand miles an hour flitting from one topic to another. It does no good to say they OUGHT to listen, for that is the reason why they are in trouble in the first place.
Other people may be more “stubborn” or resistant to ANY change. Stubbornness CAN be a moral trait (i.e., a refusal to repent) or it can be a temperamental trait (just a personal disposition). As a result, if a person is innately conservative and resistant to change ANYWAY, then you come along and insist that they MUST change, they may disregard your counsel altogether.
Emotions are also a factor in whether or not another person will understand, and accept reproof, rebuke, correction and training in righteousness. Why do some people reject what a pastor says, out of hand it seems? It could be that whether he realizes it or not, he may be stepping on some emotional toes. And since many people are more motivated by emotions, than reason, no matter how clearly and logically he presents his case, some will simply not respond because he has not touched them emotionally (or inadvertently touched the wrong emotions).
OK, obviously, such people ought NOT to be living their lives on their feelings. Fine, but how are you going to change them from the kind of people who are emotionally oriented? Gonna give this emotional person 15 reasons why they ought not to live according to their emotions? But if they live their lives based on emotions rather than reason, they will reject your reasons! You see, that is the problem, many, many Christians today DO live according to their feelings, and that is what got them into trouble in the first place. You come along and reason with them and they blow you off (seldom to your face, often behind your back) because emotionally, they cannot handle being rebuked or corrected. It is HARD to change. It requires humility; something foreign to human nature since our father Adam fell into sin. It requires WORK to stop doing one thing and learn to do another, something made onerous by that same sin.
I would suggest that a pastor must be as wise as a serpent, and yet as gentle as a dove in dealing with people. Think about how the Apostle Paul rebukes various people in his Epistles. He almost universally begins (after acknowledging the sovereignty of God) with words of encouragement, affection and love. While not for a moment suggesting that he is being duplicitous (he really did love them) or manipulative, I think he was also implicitly recognizing that it is easier to get people to do what is right, when they feel affectionate towards you. Think with me; two people come to you about a problem you have. The first is a warm, intimate friend, who has demonstrated repeatedly that he likes you, wishes you well and is willing to make sacrifices as necessary to help you in life. The other person does not like you, does not get along with you all that well, and though there may be no real problems between you, you two just don’t “click.” Now BOTH have exactly the same problem with something you said and did. The “facts” of the situation are exactly the same. But which rebuke do you find easier to take?
WWJD »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Every so often, another silly fad hits Christian circles. Years ago, it was an upraised index finger calling for “One Way.” Later it was little fishes (my wife and I have one on our wedding rings!). Mostly these fads are harmless enough, just a bit tacky, and sometimes perhaps a little insipid but nothing really to get upset about. They too will pass and do no real damage to the Kingdom.
The most recent craze is “WWJD” or “What Would Jesus Do.” The idea behind this of course is that throughout the day, when confronted with various decisions, the little logo is supposed to remind us to ask ourselves, “What would Jesus do in this situation.” First, these initials were put on a bracelet, then like some horrible, growing blob creature from a 1950’s B movie, they began appearing on anything and everything. (”It’s ALIVE!”)
Now, really, I don’t have a problem with the WWJD bracelet, bumper sticker, baseball cap or pen and pencil set. Marketers have to make a living too. And though I think it a little adolescent, it is no big deal. However, I DO have a problem with WWJD being touted as a SERIOUS aid to Christian ethics. A number of emails, cards and advertising blurbs have recently crossed my desk telling me that THIS little logo is THE cutting edge of responsible Christian living.
Now look, I know that I am a nasty, cynical and unsentimental type, caustic in nature with millennia to go in my sanctification, but come on people, doesn’t anyone else see a problem with this? First, the very question itself borders on blasphemy. Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. We cannot always know let alone DO, what Jesus would do. If we saw thousands of people hungry, could we do what Jesus would do, i.e., feed them with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fishes? If we were out on a boat and the wind and waves threaten to capsize us, could we still the waters with a word? Could you do what Jesus did if the IRS man came and demanded an unlawful tax? (”Well Mr. Taxman, if you’ll just go down to the local fishing hole, you’ll find this year’s taxes in the mouth of a big fat trout…). When was the last time someone wearing a WWJD bracelet stood up in a church business meeting and whipped the money lenders, (er, I mean “finance committee”) out of the church for going into ungodly debt for the building program?
Furthermore, we do not always know WHAT Jesus would do because the historical situation has changed since He came. Therefore, what He did THEN might not be the same thing He would do today. For example, say Jesus was driving in bumper-to-bumper freeway traffic (I have visions of Him parting the Los Angeles rush hour traffic jam like Charlton Heston… sorry!) and some numbskull cuts Him off in traffic. Would Jesus just smile and drive on His way? In His first advent, He might have because He was in His state of humiliation. He came to serve, not be served. But today He is the risen and ascended King of Kings and Lord of Lords. If Jesus were physically here today and somebody flipped him a rude gesture wouldn’t this be an affront to His divine majesty resulting in a squadron of angels blasting this sacrilegious turkey off the face of the earth? (Well, we can only hope). The point here of course is that Jesus had divine prerogatives that we do not. He had divine power we do not. He had divine knowledge that we do not. We do not always know what He would do, nor would we necessarily have the power to do it, even if we did.
But even more importantly, the REAL problem with this little catch phrase is that few Christians today in broad evangelical circles really have a clue as to what Jesus would actually do in any given situation because they are Biblically illiterate. When they give their cliche, most people immediately turn inward and subjective and ask themselves “What do I THINK Jesus would do?” They do not know the Scriptures so they look to their feelings as their guide. And so in reality, they substitute the sinful impressions of men for the power and clarity of the unchanging Word of God.
What would Jesus do? Really? He would keep the Law. Yup, that’s right. Jesus would keep the whole law (Matt 5:19). But since we live in an antinomian age, most Christians don’t have a clue as to what the Law requires. For example, the average born-again, Bible believing, broad evangelical Christian cannot even state all of the Ten Commandments. Seriously! Back in the Dark Ages when I went to a Christian college, one of the professors had us write down the Moral Law as a quiz. In a class of 30 odd students, (well, not really THAT odd) only one was able to list all ten (modesty forbids identifying the one spiritual giant in the class). Here were Christian kids, who had grown up in the church, been to Sunday School, VBS, innumerable Christian camps, sat through thousands of sermons and they did not even know the God’s Top Ten.
Hence, if people do not even KNOW the Law, how can they possibly do what Jesus would do? They can’t. And they don’t. And that my friends, helps explain much of the utter irrelevancy of modern, broad evangelicalism.
Unlike modern Christians, David loved God’s Law; it was his meditation all the day (Psa 119:97). Joshua was told to meditate on the Law day and night so that he would be careful to do all that was written in it (Josh 1:8). Jesus said, “if you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15). But we live in a lawless age, where even the King’s own household believes that they are under “grace” not law. And so they think up witty catch phrases, put them on bracelets, bumper stickers and baseball caps, and then go right on doing their own will.
Jesus said that His great commission for us was to disciple the nations, teaching them to observe all that He had commanded (Matt 28:19-20). But if we do not know His commandments, we cannot teach His commandments. Thus in one sense, we are worse than unbelievers; for at least they can plead ignorance. But “to whom much is given, much is expected.” And Jesus expects us to obey Him.
Some people will say, “isn’t it enough just to love God and one another?” And of course, these are the two greatest commandments. And what Jesus would do is always the loving thing. But what is the “loving” thing? Love is the summary of the Law. The Law tells us what it means to love God and to love one another. You cannot use a summary to deny one of the things that it summarizes! Hence, we cannot understand the content of love without knowing the Law. If we do not know the Law, we cannot love in spirit and truth. But God’s love is often hard for us. Christians today define “love” as a warm mushy feeling. God defines it as keeping His commands. Most modern Christians hate and fear the Law because to their unsanctified eyes it appears hard, cruel, and “oppressive.” They don’t want that nasty old God of wrath from the “Old” Testament, but the “loving” god of the New, not realizing that without the Law, there is no content to love.
So the next time some genius says, “What would Jesus Do,” be gracious, be kind, be gentle. But also be firm. Remind them, “Jesus would keep the whole Law.” And once they understand and apply THAT, then they can expect to see the power of God unleashed.
Tough Times Makes Tough People »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
The worst nightmare of my life happened in February, 1973. After six weeks of Air Force basic training I had finally graduated and was awaiting orders. Casual squadron was a great relief after boot camp. No one yelling at you, cursory inspections, and you could actually eat in relative peace without some sloped headed, beetle browed, fanatic suffering from an undiagnosed but obviously serious psychopathology standing behind you screaming “Move it! Move it! Move it!”
The nightmare happened my first night. I woke up about 3:00 AM trembling in fear and sweating through my bed-sheets. I had dreamed that I had not really graduated from boot camp, but still had another six weeks to go! Arrrrrgh!
What makes this anecdote even more pathetic was that boot camp was hardly arduous. I should have known better because my Dad and one older brother had also been Air Force vets. But I really did think that the military was going to turn me into a hardened, steel eyed, cold blooded killer, something I thought would be a nice change of pace from being a long-haired, sandal wearing, peace loving freak (OK, we’re NOT discussing MY psychopathologies here). Instead, the only difference between Air Force basic training and Boy Scout summer camp is that the Boy Scouts got adult supervision. Instead of becoming the airborne commando ready to fight and die for my country, I discovered a world of petty bureaucracy, silly regulations, blind eyes and pencil whipping. Even worse, I wasn’t very good at it. I failed both the physical conditioning examination and the rifle qualification (how utterly devastating for a country boy to admit) but I did get extra points for neat penmanship!
Even more amazing was that out of the forty-four men who started training in my flight, fourteen of them gave up because it was too “hard.” I would have quit too, except the Air Force was my final hope. I had no place else to go, no skills to find a job, no money to go to college, nothing back in Maine except long winters and having to admit I had failed. So, by God’s grace (even though I didn’t know what that meant at the time) I stuck it out, and learned one of the most valuable lessons of my life. Tough times make for tough people. While I wish I could share war stories about how armed only with a rusty pocket knife, I won undying glory against impossible odds by sheer force of right, instead I spent six years doing hard, unglamorous work, for low pay, under sometimes appalling weather conditions. But I did learn how to keep my mouth shut (not always practiced), how to take orders (even dumb ones), submit to authority (even when the authority had IQ points roughly equivalent to room temperature) and do my job as unto the Lord.
I treasure my Air Force memories because they were a tempering process. They forced me to do things I would never have done, they stretched me in ways I never knew I could be stretched. The Air Force, through the grace of God, helped transform a lazy, insolent, self-oriented young punk into a responsible citizen. Yeah, it was tough, and humbling and much better to remember than it was to live. But it was necessary.
God in His sovereignty uses many things in our lives to create the character of Christ. Hardship, affliction and sometimes, even persecution are all tools in His hands. God is always in control, God always knows what He is doing. God is always working to advance His kingdom in history through the work of His people, and a large part of that work is preparing us for dominion. He purposely put enemies before Israel to prepare them for war. He scourges us when we fall into wickedness to bring us to repentance (Hebs 12:7ff). He shapes and molds our experiences to prepare us for future glory (Rms 8:28-29).
Hence it astounding that a great number of people in our camp seemed consumed by fear of the future. Whether it be the conspiracies of evil men in high places, nuclear missiles pointing at our cities, the growing federal deficit, fractional reserve banking, Y2K, etc., many, many people who claim to be postmillenialists seem to live their lives in fear of the immediate future; fear that colors their work, worship and ministry. Some retreat to the hills, stock their survival retreats with MRE’s and assault rifles, fearing the day when the BATF comes a’calling. Others are consumed with uncovering the latest conspiracy. Neither is really dominion oriented.
Not for a moment am I blind to the dangers of living in this present world. Crime is rampant, the Federal Government IS out of control, evil men ARE conspiring against the Anointed. Certainly, wise men WILL take certain precautions to protect their families (see my essay, Y2k and Disaster Preparedness). But, and this is an important “but,” God is in control. Granted, this nation deserves judgment, and unless she repents will receive judgment. But we do not have to live in fear. God is in control, and God is a whole lot more gracious, kind and forbearing than most of us realize.
Israel repeatedly apostasized but God did NOT bring His judgment against them for almost FIVE hundred years; from the time of David to the fall of Jerusalem. Then, He gave them another five hundred years before destroying them by Rome. Rome was certainly an evil, tyrannical and Satanic empire fully worthy of divine judgment. But God postponed their judgment for FOUR hundred years until His fledging church was ready.
Yes, we deserve judgment, but God reveals Himself as slow to anger and abounding in loving-kindness. Of course we must not presume upon His mercy, of course we should be calling from the roof-tops for widespread repentance, of course there are many institutional evils that must be rebuked, and in God’s timing, replaced. But God will not bring His judgment UNTIL He is ready, and more importantly, until we are ready.
One of the ways that He prepares us for future dominion is through giving us small tasks to handle that toughen us up for greater works down the road. Hence, with all due respect to certain brothers, the doom, gloom and BOOM! Scenario that some seem so enamored of is unlikely. Life has always been tough. God’s people have always been surrounded by death, disease and disaster. Millions died in World War One but millions more died in the Great Influenza Epidemic that came soon after. In the nineteenth century, women routinely died in childbirth while men routinely died of old age in their forties. In our own history, we fought one war to gain our independence, another to preserve it, still another to free it, all while building the freest, most prosperous, most godly nation in history. Our ancestors were men and women who had been tried by God. They were not pessimistic about the future even amidst circumstances that most of us would find unbearable today. The problem is, we are too soft. Does anyone deny that the great appeal of a pre-tribulation rapture is the fear of persecution? Is it any wonder that our brothers in Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, Zambia, Sudan, China, Romania, Albania, North Korea, etc., all scratch their heads in bewilderment of this doctrine of escape? No rapture prevented their persecution and suffering. But they survived. And they thrived!
Conclusion
Instead of giving into fear, Christians should be preparing for victory. Granted, we may not see that victory, and neither may our children. But our grandchildren just might. And it is certain that each generation brought into the world grows closer to the day when the whole earth is full of the glory of God. Therefore, we ought to be focusing on preparing for long term dominion by learning the lessons now that our descendants will need.
We need to become self governed people, industrious, diligent and conscientious in our labor. We must restore the Biblical family, making men into elders of their homes, women confident of their calling, covenant children who embody our values and priorities. We must reclaim a sense of genuine Christian community and establish churches that work, learn how to persevere through problems, trials and difficulties until we establish a genuine counter-cultural movement. We must discard the transient values of apostate America and rebuild a genuine Biblical concept of relationships. We need to learn how to handle authority when it is given to us, and how to submit lawfully when it is given to others.
Whatever comes, comes from the hand of a sovereign and gracious God. If there are things we can do, or our families can do, or our churches can do, to have a prophetic witness against evil, or stem the tide of wickedness, then we must will dedicate ourselves to them. But we do not have to give into fear. We do not have to become paranoid. We do not have to frighten others. By God’s grace, we can survive, we can grow, we can flourish, and we will conquer in Christ’s name.
“‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ says Jehovah, ‘plans of peace, and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. And you shall call upon me, and you shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And you shall seek me, and shall find me, when you search for me with all your heart.” Jeremiah 20:11-13
Restoring Family Finances »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008A Cheap-skate’s Guide to Economic Dominion
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Growing up in rural Maine in the 50’s was hard and I guess by modern standards we would be considered poor. Not dirt poor, mind you, we could afford the occasional rock (about the only thing our land would grow). But poor enough as my parents raised five kids in a two bedroom house with no indoor plumbing (ever try tackling a two-holer during a -40 degree below zero Maine winter? It’s not so bad, the chemical decomposition actually generates considerable heat, and the homemade methane has the most “interesting” aroma!). At least we never went hungry. For breakfast we’d be served up a big mess of uncooked beans. For lunch we’d get all the water we could drink. And for supper, we’d just let the beans swell! Sunday dinner however was finest kind! Dad would go to the smoke house and get a great big smoked ham, hang it over the table, and we’d all get to sop the shadow!
Though poor, my family’s greatest boast was that we never went “on the county” or took financial assistance from the State. Though plagued by “bad luck” (one summer was so hot that the few meagerly stalks of corn in the fields actually started popping! The stupid cows thought it was snow and all froze to death!), lack of education and a harsh environment, my family knew the value of hard work, prudent living and thrift. Each generation was thus able to improve its economic lot. Granddad never did learn how to read and write, and my Mom never made it past the eighth grade. My generation was the first to actually finish high school. Yet, each of my brothers, with no capital except their own sweat parlayed a commitment to hard, diligent labor into profitable, privately owned businesses. Me being the lazy one of the family (as one uncle said, “Brian’s not afraid of work, why he can go right up next to it, lay down and sleep), I decided that education was the key to a job that did NOT involve heavy lifting, sweat or calluses. But since my family had no capital for educating their children, if I wanted to go to college, I’d have to pay for it myself. One thing they would NOT do was co-signing a student loan.
So, I sold myself into bond service to the Federal Government for six years. The US Air Force promised me free room and board and half the minimum wage if I would volunteer to let myself be used as target practice by pragmatic Marxists. I took the bet, and won. The war ended before our little brown brothers had a chance to warmly welcome me to South-east Asia and I spent my time in the military slugging it out in the pubs of East Anglia (a dirty job, but someone had to do it). In return for my “sacrifice” the Federal Government gave me “veterans” benefits that essentially paid the costs of college, seminary and grad school. For the entire six years of bond service, I sent half my paycheck back home. As a result I financed my entire education, debt free (in fact, when I finished college, we had $10,000 dollars in the bank, enough for the down payment on our first house). Now, 20 years later, we are about to buy a new five-bedroom home and we’ll pay cash for it. Granted an inheritance paid for some of that house, but please note that for most of the eighties I was in seminary or grad school, raised a family and the best paying job I had paid four hundred a month + room and board. How did we do it?
I hesitate to offer the following principles of economic dominion because they sound so basic that I fear offending my betters. And yet, repeatedly, when I talk personal finances with otherwise highly educated, extremely bright and well-read people, I have found that many, many just don’t have a clue as to why they have financial problems. Ironic isn’t it that we are proudly ready to rebuild the entire world according to God’s Law-word, yet are often unable to balance our own bank accounts! Please notice that I give no formulas for getting rich quick, or how to maximize your investments (I’ve never had any capital to invest!). Instead, I’d like to offer some practical suggestions as to how to get out of the financial hole that so many of us are in.
#1 Trust in the Sovereignty of God Deut 6:10-15
The Lord of Creation blesses according to His divine providence. There is no true wealth apart from Him. Therefore obedience to Him is fundamental to everything else. A commitment to personal holiness is absolutely fundamental to prosperity in any area. This personal holiness means that all that we have, all that we are must be dedicated to Him. We own nothing, but are simply stewards of what God has given. Therefore my health, my wealth, my family, my time, my energy, whatever, belongs to God and must be used according to His Law, not my wishes. Every moment of every day ought to be lived in conscious recognition that we bring nothing into the world and will take nothing out of it. While our God is gracious and allows us much latitude, we ought to be firmly aware that one day the Master will demand an accounting for every deed done, every penny spent, every minute wasted. The chief end of Man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Therefore, life is not a game, but a solemn duty to live in humble submission to Christ. Perhaps God does not bless more of His people financially, because they would abuse the resources He would entrust to them. With great wealth, comes great responsibility. And too many of us, if given wealth, would just waste it on foolishness (Pvbs 30:8-9).
God in His sovereignty chooses to bless some with greater skills, talents, intelligence or ability than others. He may prosper their labors differently than our own. We must never be envious or covetous of other’s prosperity, but rather be content with what God has given us. “Contentment with godliness is great gain” says the Apostle Paul. “Cease worrying about acquiring wealth” says Solomon. Instead, the real issue is obedience to God. Get that right, and the material blessings will flow.
#2 Tithe Malachi 3:8-12
The tithe is God’s tax for living on the earth, the recognition that He is the sovereign Creator and sustainer of the Universe. When we tithe to God (not the Church) we demonstrate our faith in His gracious provision. He is our Lord and will watch over and protect us. There were three tithes in Scripture that Rushdoony says added up to 13.3% of total income. While part of the tithe went to support the temple and the Levites who taught the law, there was also a tithe to help the poor and destitute and a Festival Tithe to celebrate God’s gracious redemption. Thus as well as advancing the work of the Kingdom, God also commands His people to enjoy the fruit of their labors, and even commanded them to put aside a portion of the tithe so they could eat, drink and be merry! Our God is gracious, and while there is serious work to be done, and it must be done diligently and conscientiously, there is also a time and a place to relax and enjoy the benefits that comes from God’s grace.
#3 Live debt free; Rms 13:8
A man in debt is a slave to the lender. Slavery is contrary to the Christian gospel. Therefore, Christians ought not to acquire long term debt. For example, if you have to borrow money to buy a car, you can’t afford that car. By the time you finish paying it off, it will be a piece of junk and you’ll have to go into debt all over again to finance a new one. Hence a vicious cycle begins that can be hard to break. Instead, buy only the car you can afford, and save your money so that when it finally does die, you can buy a better one. It doesn’t make sense to pay the bank to borrow their money, when they could be paying you to borrow yours.
Similarly, buying a house with a thirty year mortgage is economic servitude. Granted, it’s better to pay a mortgage every month and have a house after thirty years rather than pay rent and end up with nothing but a stack of receipts. Better yet, if Christians do not have the capital assets to buy a nice house when they are first married; let them purchase a cheaper, smaller home that they can pay off in seven years, saving a fortune in interest payments. Let them live in that smaller, more uncomfortable house until they have enough money to buy another, larger house which they can then pay off in seven more years. Eventually, they will have a major financial asset, debt free and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest charges. Granted, the first house will be cramped, inadequate and not in the best neighborhood. But forgive me; most modern Americans are sissies. They’ve never had to suffer any real hardship in life and are totally unprepared and unwilling to suffer any in the future. Just spend a few days with the saints in Kiletchie township outside of Capetown where the houses are made out of packing crates and cardboard boxes and then say “but that house is too small.”
#3 Live frugally; e.g., Pvbs 30:24-27
Life does not consist of things so don’t buy things you don’t need. Simple right? When is the last time you’ve moved? Amazing just how much “stuff” even the poorest Americans acquire. The question is, did you need that “stuff” or just want it? Christians have got to differentiate between wants and needs. A need is something without which we cannot function. A want is just something that makes life a little nicer and easier. There is nothing wrong with having “stuff” if one can afford it. But our greed and envy often outrun our income. Hence, we have got to learn to live within our means; if you ain’t got it, don’t spend it.
Many Christians spend themselves into poverty. For example, Christians will spend a fortune on such things as Internet connections, cable television, movies, videos, CD’s, eating out, etc. They think nothing of dropping 20-50 bucks at fast food places every WEEK! And the fact is, they don’t NEED any of it. A fundamental problem is that too often we look at what others have and want the same lifestyle even if we do not have the income to support it. Consequently we live above our means because we think that is the norm. But so what if you don’t have nice new clothes, a house full of fine furniture, vacations, etc. Life consists of making decisions with limited resources. Every dollar we spend on “stuff” we don’t really need, is a lost asset that could be put to work, some place else.
Now, if you have the money, if your debts are paid, if you are saving and preparing an inheritance for your children, then fine, you have discretionary income to spare and if you want you can lawfully buy these things. But they are wants, not needs. You need food, you need clothes (but most Americans have closets full of clothes they never wear) you need a roof over your head. Most Americans need transportation of some sort. “With food and covering, with these we will be content.”
A great way to distinguish between wants and needs is to keep track of where your money goes. Buy a small book and simply record what you’ve spent money on this month. It can be quite eye opening to see how much we waste in useless and foolish expenditures. Then think what you could have done with that same amount of money!
#4 Buy wisely e.g., Pvbs 31:16
When you do determine that certain “stuff” is really a need, and not just a want, then buy wisely. Over the years I have always bought cheap and this has not been the best use of money. Shop around, find the best value for the money, and buy only the quality you need. Finding a quality item, even if one has to pay a little more, is often a better investment in the long term. The problem is that Americans don’t think long term anymore and therefore do not build things to last. Most goods, even expensive ones, are shoddy and will self-destruct in a few years with normal use. So we have to be more diligent in finding the right item at the right price. Second hand shops are great places to buy things like quality furniture that will last.
We decorated our first apartment with “Brick and Board,” (you know, boards placed on top of bricks to make tables, book-cases, etc.,) that saw us all the way through grad school. We then moved up to genuine, imitation, pressed wood, furniture because that was all we could afford. Finally, recently, we were able to purchase a couple of pieces of good quality, real wood furniture (the kids got the old pressed wood stuff!). No, our home is not in any way a showcase. We are not out to impress anyone with the splendor of our furnishings. My wife was committed to getting that pesky mortgage paid off, and paid off now! And after 20 years of marriage we can finally afford some of the good “stuff” (and see it as a part of the children’s inheritance). Yet, many young people look at their parents’ homes full of nice things and forget that it took their parents a lifetime to acquire it. They then buy on credit. Don’t do it!
#5 Always put a certain percentage of income into savings, regardless, for emergencies 1 Tim 6:17-19
This can be hard, especially if one is in a financial hole, but in His sovereignty God does afflict His people occasionally with trials and tests because they prove our faith and develop our character. Savings keep a trial from becoming a disaster. Hence a good rule of thumb is to adjust your living expenses (remember, life is a process of making decisions with limited resources) so that 10% of your income is put in savings. Then when the inevitable emergencies arise, you can deal with them. Now my wife has often confessed that her faith was sometimes in our bank account rather than in God. And so because He loves us, on several occasions He has emptied that bank account, forcing us to make decisions that we would not otherwise have made (it’s not all her fault, sometimes God had to blast me out of my security so that I would be willing to take a few risks for the Kingdom). As a result, no matter how hard we worked, scrimped and saved, we eventually had to throw ourselves on the mercy of God and trust in Him completely for relief. God was gracious and ALWAYS replaced the capital that he had taken. But we learned that our security is from the Lord. An expensive lesson, but one well learned.
#6 Eating out is a luxury not a lifestyle Pvbs 23:1-3
This sounds so silly, I hesitate to include it as a separate category, but in modern American life, Christians spend an inordinate amount of money on eating out. Food in America is cheap and convenient and I refuse to condemn a tired Mom with hungry kids who gives into the temptation by buying a round of Happy Meals. The question of course is, can you afford it? Some of the families I know who are in the worst economic straits, are also the very same ones that eat out at fast food places several times a month! For the price of three meals, they could buy enough groceries to feed the entire family at home for an entire week. Now I say this, as an addict to high fat, processed, fast food. To satisfy my cravings, my wife once copped a stack of coupons from a local mall that offered a “Buy one Big Mac, Get one Free.” Then as a special treat when we were both working, we would use the coupons to buy two burgers, (but no fries or a drink). Total cost of the meal was under a buck. We ate there for months!
#7 Work is good and takes priority over entertainment Pvbs 21:17, Col 3:23-24, Pvbs 13:4, 27:23-27
Man is called to work as the means of subduing the earth. Work is good. Work is not a means of getting money so one can buy “stuff” but is valuable in and of itself. God blesses diligent labor and all men ought to expect to work long and hard. This is the key to long term career development and advancement. Power flows to those who serve (Mark 10:45). In American culture today, work is seen as a way to increase one’s self esteem, or subsidize one’s affluent lifestyle. Nonsense.
Now it may be that different people are suited for different types of work and there is certainly nothing wrong with looking for a vocation that takes full advantage of one’s gifts and natural talents. But all work is meaningful and rewarding, if it is done to the glory of God.
Sometimes, a family with no inherited capital may find that a single income from Dad is not enough to support the family. The American solution has been for Mom to leave the home, put the kids in public schools and take a job herself. But I would argue that this is contrary to Biblical norms. It is the man’s responsibility to work at a dominion calling, the woman to help him. If two incomes are needed, then Dad had better think of getting a second job. Wow, a Dad sacrificing his leisure time to provide for basic economic necessities for the family. What a concept! Yet our immigrant ancestors did exactly that. The men labored 12 hours a day, six days a week for their families. Remember the fourth commandment is to WORK six days and rest one, not work five days, rest one and putter around the house on Saturdays. One of the families at our last church was experiencing financial difficulties. They had taken a pay cut in order to be a part of Lakeside Church. So Dad went to work on Saturdays at another company to pay for basic necessities. Eventually, the work experience gave him a superior resume eventually leading to a job at almost twice his original salary!
Working two jobs does not mean that the family has to suffer. The godly Dad mentioned above spent the Lord’s Day resting from his labors by spending quality time with his children, catechizing and instructing them. He was also faithful and diligent in daily family worship. Yes he sacrificed some personal peace and all his leisure time, but starting with literally nothing, he is building up economic capital for his family.
#8 Start your own business Pvbs 16:26
A Christian is a free man and ought therefore to live a free and self-governed life. Employers know something that most employees don’t; you don’t get rich working for someone else. Because of the division of labor in this country, the right man, with the right skills can demand a very reasonable wage. But he is still working for someone else, and the man who owns the business makes more than those who work for him. Hence, men should try, whenever possible to work for themselves. This gives a self-governed man the most freedom (and the least security) to live his life responsibly before God. It is interesting, that in one church I pastured; the family with the largest, nicest home (and the biggest annual income) had the least exciting job. He ran his own carpet cleaning business. Though the man was a seminary graduate, he found that he had no calling for the ministry and no marketable skills. So he bought a carpet-cleaning machine and went to work. His hard labor and conscientious attention to detail made his customers very happy. Soon, he bought a truck, then another. Eventually he had to stop expanding the business because of a chronic labor problem; most people just will not work, even if they are extremely well paid. Now no one ever got excited about a glamorous career in carpet cleaning, but this godly father is capitalizing his family. His beautiful home is paid for. He supports several missionaries. He gives generously, above the tithe to his church. His children are home-schooled and will inherit a family business that will bring them economic dominion (when the boys get old enough, he will let them do the sweaty stuff while he manages the business end).
#9 Education is expensive and ought always to be tied to dominion Pvbs 21:5, 24:27
There is perhaps no more controversial stand that I have taken then that formal academic education is an expensive luxury and is not for everyone. People get real upset at me when I say this, because a college degree has always been seen as a ticket into the middle class. It is a status symbol and one that working class families are often proud for their children to have (except in my case where my brothers kept asking me, “When you gonna get out of school and get a real job?”). When only a small percentage of the population had a college degree, then it was something special to have one and made one competitive for jobs and promotion. But there is and will continue to be a glut of college diplomas over the next fifty years. Rich parents can afford to send their children to prestigious schools to give them a life experience (or send them around Europe during the summers). Those without economic capital must not ape their upper class betters if it means investing limited resources in non-productive ends.
Vocational goals should be set early. In Europe, a thirteen year old already has a pretty good idea of what specific job he or she intends to do, and takes high school and college courses that are germane to their eventual career. In America, the average Christian teenager is clue-less. Most Americans will change careers three or four times before finally settling down. Hence all that time, and money and effort spent in acquiring an academic degree is for many Christians wasted. Instead, parents need to work with their children at a young age, gauge their abilities and seek a vocation that is compatible with their gifts. Then purchase only that education that is pertinent to that vocation. Don’t let your kids waste their lives in studying nonsense while you are paying for the privilege.
If it is absolutely necessary for your kids to go to college, short cut the process. The average home-schooled child is years in advance of those who have suffered in public education. The College Level Examination Program allows college students to test out of many college courses. In fact I did a full, four-year degree at an accredited Christian Liberal Arts College in two years, simply by testing out of most of the first two years’ courses. Why pay for your children to sit in a classroom studying the same things they should already know (and no doubt learning heresy at the same time)?
But I fear what I am saying here will fall on too many deaf ears. A college degree is just too prestigious for most people to resist. And the formal academic community has a vested financial interest in convincing Christians that they really do need to send their kids to their schools. Look, if you have the financial resources and want to send your kids to college, then fine, do so. Rich people have more options than poor people. But don’t be hood winked into thinking you are failing your kids if you use the time and money to capitalize them in a self-owned business.
#11 Delay getting married and raising a family until a man is secure in his vocation Luke 14:28
The normal process for American children is to go through school and college without a clear vocational objective in mind. Along the way, they meet somebody, fall in love and get married. Christians want children; they are a blessing from the Lord and so they start a family as soon as possible. But families are expensive, Mom does not want to work and let some childcare center raise her kids, or put them into the public schools. However, both Mom and Dad probably have considerable debts from school. Dad may find a good paying job, but then has to go into debt again to buy a house, furnish it and provide basic necessities. Hence the family is behind the economic power curve from the beginning and they spend a lifetime trying to play “catch-up.”
A better way is for a man to have a clear vocational objective in mind from a young age and work diligently at acquiring the skills necessary to prosper in that vocation. Then, he should live at home and save every spare cent until he has considerable savings. Rushdoony wisely notes that in the Law, a man had to pay a purchase price for a bride that was the equivalent of three years labor. This is a good practice to follow. Say a man only makes $30,000 a year. Now there are some expenses (taxes, necessities, etc.,) so maybe the man can only save $20,000 a year. Three years of labor equals $60,000 for a bride price. That bride price PAYS for their first home! (Granted it’s no palace, but it does have indoor plumbing!)
In the same way, young girls ought to be thinking about what they will bring into a marriage. In rural Maine, every young girl received a “Hope” chest when she was about thirteen (I have my mother’s which was hand crafted by my Grand-father). In that hope chest went the linens, silverware, curtains, etc., that would all be necessary for setting up her new home. If a young girl worked outside the home, every cent was put away for her future. My Mom actually bought her first house, out of her own money before she got married (you remember, the two bed-room place with rustic “accommodations?”). Thus instead of starting married life in debt, young families need to sacrifice now to benefit later generations.
Of course, the family can and should capitalize the young couple (Elaine’s Dad gave us a wedding present that bought our first car). But if the family cannot provide an inheritance, or does not, then the young couple must be willing to sacrifice. Elaine’s Dad went to work at fourteen to pay off family debts. He then worked and scraped and saved until he could buy a farm. He refused to get married until he could bring his bride into their own home. In England, where land is very expensive, his hard work and thrift resulted in him owning his own farm outright in just a few years. You see, it can be done, and more people should do it.
Of course there is more that can be said, but Andrew Sandlin is already screaming about the length of this article and it is time to wrap it up. The real problem facing Christians regarding economic dominion is an unwillingness to sacrifice or endure hardship for long-term goals. Though they may SAY they are postmillennial in their eschatology, in reality they lack a future orientation; they live for the present and thus cannot see the long term consequences of their actions. We want the easy way and if that means enslaving whole generations so we can eat Big Macs and watch cable TV, then so be it. Long-term prosperity requires prudence, frugality, thrift and a willingness to roll up the sleeves and get your hands dirty when necessary.
Compound interest takes time to work. If you started out with no capital, it will take a while to see the effects of your labor. But time is something we have plenty of. Postmillennialist see not only the trials of today, but the victories of tomorrow. Therefore of all people, we ought to be the most willing to sacrifice for the future. Dominion begins with the family. And family finances play a key role in subduing the earth.
If you enjoyed this essay, you will want to order Dr. Abshire’s new book, “The Foundation of Christian Finances; Wealth, Wisdom and Poverty from Proverbs.” This important new work explains why some Christians struggle financially, and offers the basic principles of long-term prosperity that can change your economic life.
Faithful Martyr or Evangelical Weenie? »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008A Practical Guide to Handling Persecution, Suffering and Adversity
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Introduction
I think every school has one. You know the kind of kid I am talking about. Perhaps he was an only child, or maybe he was sick as a baby or somebody dropped the poor thing on his head or something. Whatever the reason, his parents were almost neurotically over-protective of him. If little junior fell down and scrapped his knee, Mommy would wail and cry and carry on as if he lost a leg or something. When the other boys were roughhousing and wrestling, his mother would come screaming to chase away all those nasty ruffians, lest her little precious get a bump or bruise. In the inevitable scraps that young boys are prone to, one little punch and he would cry like a baby. In short, he was a sissy-boy, a weenie; someone who couldn’t stand up on his own two feet because nobody had ever taught him how to deal with the pain and vicissitudes of life.
Now nobody can be crueler to one another than kids, especially in a public school. And every godly parent wants to protect his children from pain and suffering. But the reality is that in this world, a man has to be able to face a certain degree of pain, affliction, suffering and sometimes down right persecution. If a man cannot take the heat, then he becomes a slave of whatever he fears. And that in a nutshell is one of the most serious failings of the modern evangelical church. When we need valiant warriors to stand up and fight for the crown rights of King Jesus, instead we have evangelical weenies that run home crying to Mama when the going gets tough. They then, sometimes unconsciously, compromise the faith and become acculturated to the present age because they fear the consequences of being different.
In my family, Mr. And Mrs. Abshire didn’t raise any sissy-boys. Standing order #1 in our house was, “no broken bones, no spurting blood, no fussing.” As a result (and with the benefit of three older brothers who often exerted their authority in ways that stopped just short of spurting blood and broken bones) we learned early that pain was no big deal. Lacking a formal education, my parents would not have recognized the ancient Roman maxim “with your shield or on it” (i.e., it is better to be a dead lion than a live dog) but they certainly would have approved of the sentiment. Growing up during the great depression, they expected life to be cruel, difficult and unfair. In my parents’ view (and that of my extended family) a man ought to be able to stand up, face his fears and do his duty. We were taught never to look for trouble, but if it came, to face it squarely and meet it head on. We were not expected to win every fight, just not give up. Dad’s standing order #2 was that we had to get up one more time then we were knocked down.
This has served me well since the time I was a youngster. Once there was this time in a certain third world country, I found myself with only one bullet left and surrounded by… No, never mind; you’d think I was bragging. Perhaps Brian’s Nostalgic Anecdote #327, “The Case of the Dangerous Dog,” better illustrates this principle. Every afternoon when I was twelve, as I rode my bike home from school, a big, nasty mastiff would come roaring out from behind one certain house and nip at my heels. Twice he actually managed to knock me off my bike. I hated that dog. He scared me so bad I seriously considered going almost a mile out of my way just to avoid him. Someone (probably a weenie teacher) suggested I try making friends with him by giving him pieces of meat. He bit my hand.
Instead I took the advice of a old Mainer who said something to the effect that, “You got to use diplomacy; just say ‘nice doggy’ until you can find a great big rock.” However, usually, we cannot handle matters in such a “direct” manner and may have to find other ways of dealing with our fears. Adversity is a tool in God’s hand to train us for dominion in a sin cursed world. And while living in a land where the blessings of the covenant are evident is a great blessing, with that great blessing also comes a greater responsibility.
Affluence makes us soft, not only around the waistline, but in the head as well. American evangelicals have had it so easy for so long, that we have lost our edge. We fear affliction, persecution and suffering and therefore often do not have the moral fiber to take a stand. Can anyone deny that the psychologicall reason behind the almost fanatical devotion some Christians have to the pre-tribulation rapture is that they fear persecution and suffering? Again and again, Christians have stated to me that God loves them too much to let them go through “the Great Tribulation.” Their fear of suffering leads them to a defeatist theology and an abandonment of the cultural mandate. They are willing to give up because they fear the pain from standing up to a hostile world. It is interesting that in nations where the church has suffered the most horrendous persecution, almost no Christians look to the rapture for relief. They know what suffering is and while they are not romantic about it, at least they are schooled to handle adversity.
Modern Christians need to re-discover a theology of suffering. The bill is now coming due for a hundred years of cultural retreat. The God-haters have control of our nation and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Like the martyrs of the early church, Christians today face a hostile culture and a state all too willing to persecute those who will not burn incense to Caesar. Think I am paranoid? Well, a lot of people died at Waco because the Federal government didn’t like their theology. But they were just a bunch of heretics and cranks weren’t they? Surely it couldn’t happen to us? But are you so sure YOUR church is BATF approved?
Therefore, with the idea that evangelical weenies will never advance the kingdom, and that we need men who can persevere despite adversity, the following principles from 1 Peter 3 are offered for consideration. This is not intended to be the last word on how to handle difficult times, just some practical suggestions on how to develop the right mindset.
“And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?” 1 Peter 3:13
Let’s put the issue of persecution into perspective. Essentially Peter is saying here that if we are zealous for doing good, people will not harm us. The best way to deal with persecution is that, as far as it depends on you, never give them an excuse to persecute you in the first place! To the contrary, we need to be as “wise as serpents” and as “gentle as doves.” Let us develop a reputation for charity and good deeds. Even wicked men can recognize good things, and approve those good things, despite their moral bankruptcy. For example, even unregenerate men will throw themselves on hand grenades to save the lives of their friends (usually not the best way to handle the problem. If you have enough time to throw yourself on a hand grenade, you probably have enough time to pick it up and throw it back at the enemy. Furthermore, if it goes off, experts tell me that most likely, you will lose your hand, but because of the blast pattern, you probably will not lose anything vital. On the other hand, throwing yourself on the grenade means that the fragments will penetrate your center mass where you keep all the important stuff). Even unrighteous men, because they are created in the image of God, can respect, admire, approve of deeds of mercy, grace, charity, etc.
Thus even when they hate us, they can still approve of our righteous acts. In fact, it disarms them, confuses them and undercuts their own persecution of us. Early Christians were marched into the arena to be eaten by voracious wild animals. Rather than cower in fear or plead for mercy or agree to sacrifice to the emperor and be freed, instead, they met their fate singing psalms and hymns to the glory of God. The Romans were astounded, and to a certain degree, the people themselves demanded an end to the execution of Christians. In an age of cruelty beyond our imagining today, the Romans saw the dignity, courage and faith of our fathers and were moved by it. Not all men are epistemologically self-consistent with their own rebellion. They want to live autonomously, but they cannot, and as a consequence, find themselves loving and approving our good deeds.
However, the key here is “good deeds.” If Christians DO what is right, good, and proper with a humble attitude and servant’s heart, it will be approved. But that’s the problem isn’t it? What is the most common concept of a Christian today? A self-righteous, pompous, money grabbing hypocrite interested in only fleecing poor unsuspecting yokels while sleeping with their daughters. And let’s be honest, that’s not all that unfair a caricature of some segments of the Christian community. Christians are hated and ridiculed today not just because the world hates Christ, but also because most Christians do NOT serve, minister, or demonstrate the character of Christ. Why was “Mother” Theresa held in such high esteem when she had such deviant theology? She put her faith in action. Even God-haters saw her good deeds and approved of them.
Sometimes, Christians bring persecution on themselves, not because of their stand for truth, but because of their actions and demeanor. More than a few Southern Presbyterians have told me that the cause of Christian Reconstruction was destroyed in the PCA by the intemperate words of just a few people back in the late seventies and eighties. Reconstructionists were perceived as arrogant, obnoxious, insensitive and unkind. They wrote huge volumes acerbically (and often correctly) critiquing the follies of modern evangelicalism, but produced very few actual, successful ministries. If instead of just pointing out the errors, Recons had just quietly built several successful charitable ministries, who knows, things might have been different. If nothing else, the broader Reformed community might have left them alone, because they would not have seemed a threat to the status quo. But it is a whole lot easier to write witty tracts humiliating others, than it is to quietly serve them (and yes, I know, “Physician, heal thyself…”).
Hence diaconal work is not just a nice thing we ought to do, it may well be a central survival strategy and the salvation of the Church during times of persecution. Caring for the poor, adopting unwanted babies, ministering to bums, schizophrenics and drug addicts (excuse me, I meant “the homeless”) is not glamorous and not nearly as exciting as spitting in Caesar’s face. But it is God’s desire for His people.
“But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled…” 1 Peter 3:14
Doing what is right, because it is right, will often, generally and in God’s providence inhibit and even prevent persecution. Persecution in the Roman Empire was often intense, but of limited duration because quite frankly, the needed us. Roman Christians were the hardest workers, the most conscientious craftsmen, the most loyal slaves, the most honest businessmen and sometimes the only ones who paid their taxes. If they killed too many of us, the empire would have collapsed of its own weight. Like the Jews in medieval Europe, we were a despised minority, but also an indispensable one.
However, if in His divine providence, God chooses to say, “suffer,” there is still no reason to lose hope: we are blessed! We are special! God uses suffering as a tool in His hands to do deep heart surgery on His Elect, preparing, molding, and reshaping us for the Kingdom and His glory (cf. Rms 8:28-29ff). And as others witness this work of grace in our lives, it moves them, warms them, softens them in ways we cannot understand and thus our reward is eternal (cf. Rms 8:18).
Therefore, while persecution should never be encouraged (Christianity is not masochism) it is not to be unduly feared. If it comes, it comes. Let us just make sure that we are persecuted for Christ and not for being obnoxious.
“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” 1 Peter 3:15
This is probably the most often used proof-text for apologetics, but seldom is it considered in its proper context; suffering. When we suffer for righteousness sake (whether by persecution, sickness, or whatever) we are given a powerful moral platform to share our hope in Christ. Pagans see the adversity we suffer, but we do not whine, complain or break God’s law through revolutionary acts. We are able to suffer with dignity and persevere, despite adversity, because we “sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts” i.e., Christ is actually Lord of our lives; we are submitted to Him, not just in words, but in realty. Persecution and affliction are often ways of testing our faith to demonstrate to ourselves and the world what we really believe.
Hence we have to be ready. We have to not only understand the hope, but to be able to explain it to others, to articulate the gospel. It has gone out of style among many Christians, but we are called here to be able to testify of our trust and dependence in saving work Christ and of His generous provision. When pagans say, “how can you still believe, even when you suffer such horrible things” we must be able to tell them why.
The word “defense” here is the Greek word apologia, which means “a word for.” This was a legal term referring to a formal speech given in a courtroom for the defendant. We get our theological term “apologetics” from this word. But sadly, most Christians, if they know what apologetics are, think of it in purely academic and philosophical terms. This does us a great disservice. The great spiritual battles will not be won in the academic classroom; this is the Greek heresy of neutrality of ideas. Instead, it is the spiritual power of a faithful servant who will not deny his master, even to the point of death that has the power to transform the world.
An “apology” is not an excuse, but a reason for why we did whatever we did. In this sense it means being able to demonstrate from the Scriptures why we believe what we believe, and why they ought to believe it as well! It means that we trust in the providence of God and His great and precious promises and that the worst that men can do to us is simply inconsequential to the life herein to come.
“…and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” 1 Peter 3:16
God places the responsibility on us, to do what is right regardless of what others may do. Yes there is injustice, ungodliness and evil in the world. We have lived in a Christian culture so long that we take certain things for granted and get grossly outraged when we find some new example of corruption and tyranny in Washington. Some Christians seem to act as if their perfidy justifies our rebellion. But, regardless of what other men may do, our responsibility is to obey God. He expects us to be a light on a hill and to live lives above the moral cesspool of contemporary culture.
To have a clear conscience does not mean perfection, but rather that we deal with our sin in an open and Biblical manner. If Christians had disciplined the Televangelists 10 years ago, the media would not have had to. Instead we turned a blind eye to their wickedness, continued sending money to their “ministries” and refused to hold these men to account for their immorality. Eventually God exposed their wickedness to the entire world, and the church suffered a black eye from which she has not yet recovered. Every Christian organization since the eighties has suffered hard times financially, partially due to cynicism stemming from the expose of the scam artists a decade ago.
Furthermore, not only are we to have a clear conscience, we are to “keep” it; i.e., to treasure it, to maintain it. A clear conscience is a precious thing and must not be squandered for the sake of expediency.
The “thing in which we are slandered” could and does apply to whatever issues are current at the time. But in context, I would argue that it most likely refers to rebellion; either to king, master, parent, husband, etc. The entire book of 1 Peter keeps going over the same two themes, the reality of persecution and the necessity of submission to lawful authority. It is not unreasonable to think that Christians were already getting a reputation for being a danger to the social order. The freedom that comes from Christ is a mystery to the world; they cannot understand how we live outside of man’s rules, and yet do it effectively and successfully without being in rebellion. Furthermore, our cry that “Jesus is Lord” was rightly seen as a direct challenge to Caesar’s claim to ultimate authority. However, just like today, the Empire assumed that this would mean rebellion and political revolution; something Peter goes out of his way to address. The nations are transformed, not by political activism, but by evangelism and discipleship. Christians do NOT believe in revolution, but in Reformation.
A regenerated heart, submission to God’s Law, and a full-orbed faith would transform the Roman Empire, not political activism. True freedom comes through being freed from the wages of sin, so that we might then live a life of love and service to God. Hence, the world was rightly concerned that the Christian commitment to freedom might lead to anarchy in the home and state. They feared those who were outside the established order. Christians needed to demonstrate to fathers, masters and yes, even those pointy headed civil bureaucrats that we were responsible citizens; that we lived sober, self disciplined lives. Therefore we were not a danger to them (at least in the way they thought of danger).
Hence we need to keep a low profile while we disarm the enemy’s fears. Our victory will not come about by rebellion, revolution or violence and we must constantly stress this aspect to whoever is in power. Our victory will come over time, gradually, as Christians love and serve those around them (Mark 10:45ff). Submissive wives, obedient children, respectful workers, diligent citizens who render “honor to whom honor and custom to whom custom” lessens the likelihood of persecution. Why do you think Paul commands Christians to pay their taxes, (illegal taxes, ungodly taxes!), to a pagan and idolatrous state (Rms 13:5ff)? Because though Caesar is often destructive, he is not stupid. He wants people who pay their taxes and will often turn a blind eye to a great many things as long as those revenues keep rolling in.
“…it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.”
Let’s get something straight; suffering will happen, bad things do happen to good people, and sometimes for no reason that we can see. God is sovereign; He knows what He is doing and why He is doing it. If He allows us some pain in this life, He will remember us in the life to come. Therefore, we need to make sure we are suffering for doing what is right, rather than suffering for being rebellious, sinful, etc. This is something that some well-intended brothers do not seem to understand. If the FBI is outside your house threatening to burn out your family, it is too late. Granted, there may be times when that will happen and there is nothing we can do (right now) except trust in the sovereignty of God. Sometimes there is no recourse for injustice until the life to come. But sadly, sometimes, perhaps even often, the FBI is there because you did something stupid. You aroused their fears when you could have just laid low. You got involved in some sort of shady monetary deal, you hid money from the taxman, you wrote newsletters advocating violent over-throw of the government. In short you made yourselvf a target (that’s not always the case, but it has happened too many times to be ignored).
Look, sometimes you have to have an Alamo to give a General Houston time to gather and train the troops. But the men at the Alamo sacrificed themselves for a greater good. Sometimes, we get sacrificed because we are too stubborn and too stupid to shut our mouths. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are living in a post-Christian nation that is already under God’s judgment. Our goal ought to be to live our lives in submission to King Jesus despite the circumstances we find around us (2 Thess 3:12, Rms 12:18, etc.). We don’t run in fear of the bad guys, we just bide our time until God gives us the victory. We don’t have to launch suicidal frontal assaults against the citadels of the enemy; we can just work quietly and steadily, knowing that eventually, God will destroy His enemies and we will inherit the earth.
Conclusions and Applications
Suffering is an opportunity to glorify God, witness to men, and demonstrate that our faith is more than empty sentiment and pious platitudes. Suffering sharpens our focus and helps us keep our priorities straight, To get through it, we must constantly remember the sovereignty of God. There is always a reason, even if it is beyond human understanding. Our God is not vicious, arbitrary, etc., If we only trust Him when things go the way we want them to, how are we any different from pagans in the world? Let’s just make sure we are suffering for the right things, and doing so in the right way.
Conflict and Confrontation Series »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008#3 On the Application of Matthew 18 to Public Sin
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
When it comes to Matthew 18:15ff, most Christians just cannot seem to find the balance. On the one hand, when it suits their purposes, the principles and procedures of Matthew 18 are largely ignored in the average American church, even Reformed ones. To go privately to a brother, when one is offended, or when one believes the brother to be in sin is personally threatening and uncomfortable. Hence, the most common response is to gossip behind the person’s back, conduct “prayer” sessions for the offender, or even to ask the pastor or elders to confront the person. But rarely will the average person actually go to the person in private and deal with the issue.
On the other hand, when certain sins ARE confronted in public, almost the first cry will be “Was Matthew 18 followed?” I have witnessed this personally for years at Presbytery in the PCA. No matter how grievous the sin, or how public the matter; presbyters will still insist that the court can take no action unless Matthew 18 was first followed. Sadly, these same men, themselves will often not go privately to someone to resolve differences, speak the truth in love or deal with an offense. It seems the real, underlying motivation is not to have to deal with “messy” situations, either personally or corporately. The end result is that often, Biblical justice is subverted, the truth obscured, and unwitting people are led astray because the mechanism that God has given for dealing with sins, offenses and problems is just not understood or followed.
In previous essays in this series, we have examined in detail the purpose of Matthew 18 and its use in resolving personal offenses and individual sins privately. But are we ALWAYS required to go privately to a brother? I would argue, “no.” The basic principle is that private sins are confronted privately, but public sins may need to be rebuked, or corrected publicly. The question is, “what constitutes a public sin?”
First, let us consider the situation in 3 John 9-10, where the Elder says of Diotrephes, “For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words. And not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.” Diotrephes was the elder (or pastor) of a local church. He was slandering the Apostles and their representatives. Furthermore, he went so far as to forbid support for traveling missionaries and even excommunicated those who did. The Apostle John did not confront Diotrephes personally and privately, but based on testimony, he rebuked him in a public letter. Of course, we assume that two or more witnesses could verify the accusations against Diotrephes (1 Tim 5:19), but the fact is that John judged this situation in absentia, without even giving him a chance to respond. John could only do so if the sins were well known for everyone to see. Diotrephes’ actions were public, and therefore, his rebuke was public as well. The principle here would appear to be that a man may be rebuked without following the first step of Matthew 18 if his public actions endanger the reputations of others or the welfare of the church.
Consider a second example from Galatians where the Apostle Paul says of his encounter with the Apostle Peter, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabus was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that there were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all” (Gal 2:11-14).
In this situation, the gospel of Jesus Christ was under attack. A party within the early church wanted Gentile converts to keep the ceremonial law. Peter did not believe this, and even spoke against it at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7). But he was afraid to offend the party of the Pharisees and so, he held himself “aloof” from eating with the Gentile Christians. Paul realized that more than just a personal issue was at stake here but rather the very gospel itself. Peter was in effect, “adding” to the gospel by acting as if the ceremonial law was still in force. Therefore, when Peter committed a public sin against the gospel, Paul confronted that sin, “in the presence of all.”
One must assume this was at least embarrassing for Peter, who had been at the Lord’s right hand during his earthly ministry. Peter was the acknowledged leader of the early church, a first among equals. Yet, because of his very position, he had a much greater responsibility. Peter was leading other men into hypocrisy and sin by his example. And so, this public sin, received a public rebuke. The application here would appear to be that sins may be confronted publicly without following Matthew 18 if the essence of the gospel is in danger, especially by a leader of the church who can lead others into error.
The third example comes from 1 Timothy 1:20 and 2 Timothy 2:17-18 wherein the Apostle Paul publicly condemns the words and actions of Hymenaeus and Alexander. Apparently, these men had been ordained and were recognized as teachers. But then they went astray from the truth, denying the resurrection (1 Tim 1:17). There is no record of a personal confrontation or even ecclesiastical trial; the Apostle Paul simply makes a public statement, to Timothy that they had been “handed over to Satan.” The reason was that their dangerous heresies were spreading like gangrene (2 Tim 2:17). Their errors needed to be condemned, because it was in danger of infecting others. Hence, it would appear that the first step of Matthew 18 does not need to be followed if public heresy, which could leads others astray, needs to be rebuked.
The common thread to all these “exceptions” to the first step of Matthew 18 is that there is more than the individual sinner’s welfare is at stake. This actually makes sense in the context of Matthew 18:15. The Majority Text of verse 15 adds the words “against you.” Our Lord’s words should perhaps be best understood in reference to personal offences, rather than public sins. In the three “exceptions” we have been looking at, never is it a personal offence, but a public sin that affects the spiritual health and well being of the broader church. In the 3 John situation, the integrity of the Apostolic message was being damaged and people were being intimidated or thrown out of the church by an ecclesiastical tyrant. In Galatians, Peter was in danger of splitting the Antioch church apart because of his own bad example. Hymenaeus and Alexander were spreading heresy that endangered whole churches. In each case, the danger was more than to the individuals themselves. Furthermore, neither John nor Paul found it to be contradictory to our Lord’s command to privately rebuke those in error.
Now however, simple charity means that normally speaking, if a teacher, elder or other influential person makes a mistake, we ought to go to them before denouncing them to the world. I have (and I am sure you have as well) occasionally sat in Sunday School classes (or in my case, even some seminary classes) where the teacher did not understand his material all that well. Nobody likes a “know it all” who challenges the teacher and corrects him in public. Generally speaking, if a man makes an inadvertent “slip of the tongue” and the issue is not serious, a kind, compassionate word to the man in private after the class is certainly the best way to handle the situation.
But what if the man is in fact a heretic who is promulgating serious error? Do we just quietly sit by when not only the honor of our Lord, but the souls of others are in danger? Though probably apocryphal, this story is too good not to pass on. In a first year seminary class where I attended, the professor stated that the purpose of his course on Form and Redaction Criticism was to discern the “authentic words of Christ from the inauthentic words of Christ.” One student stood up, stated that he had a red-letter edition of the Bible, and asked if he could get advanced credit! The point is; this first year student had more integrity, and courage than most. He publicly took a stand against the Higher Criticism heresy at an evangelical seminary (and eventually suffered for it). But at stake was the integrity of the Word of God. People STILL talk about that student, decades after he left, and according to some accounts, his stand here, (and on several other issues) brought about a house cleaning at that seminary. For years, students had gone privately to their professors, administrators and others, and no one would do anything about the theological liberals who were destroying a once fine institution. (By the way, I personally went to this same professor privately as per Matthew 18, heard him state his theologically liberal views, wrote them down, took it to the administration and was rebuked because “we don’t teach those things here!”) But because one man publicly confronted heresy, the word got out to the donors, and change occurred.
If pastors, elders, seminary professors or others speak and write publicly, then they should be held accountable for their words. Heresy is dangerous and must be confronted. James puts it this way, “Let not many of you become teachers brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment (Jas 3:1).” When a man ascends to the pulpit (or when he writes articles for the general public) and declares, “Thus says the Lord” he had better be sure that it IS the Lord’s words, and not his own invention. If his words are contrary to sound doctrine, then it is not only the right, but the responsibility of other Christians to call him to account, publicly (after all, that’s why most publications have a “Letter to the Editor” column!)
It is interesting to note that even the PCA’s book of church order, though insisting that the steps of Matthew 18 MUST be followed (BCO 27-5) does allow for one exception to the first step of personal confrontation; when the court itself institutes process (BCO 31-7). Apparently, the reasoning is that a court of the church does not institute process unless a sin is already public, or of such a grievous nature that the souls of others are in danger (though even in these cases, a private confrontation, though not required, is also considered not inappropriate).
Therefore, let us be charitable when a man makes an honest mistake (”For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he ways, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.” Jas 3:2). However, if a man is leading others astray, if his words or actions are contrary to the gospel, if his actions are a public scandal, then he must be rebuked “in the presence of all.”
You are currently browsing the site archives
for
April, 2008
.
Check the