I want to respond to a comment that was left on yesterday's posting, which I hope will be read by anyone who read yesterday's blog. Two questions were asked: 1) "..divorce happens and the application of one wife is clear. But...one wife at a time or ever?" and 2) "I wonder how many divorced couples...are shunned by the church who if welcomed might serve God in all ways imaginable. Might some in the church change their mind?"
In addressing both questions, let me begin with this statement that is critical, I believe, in how we view leaders in the church versus non-leaders: God's own Word seems to indicate to me that He places more responsibility on leaders (such as pastors and teachers) than on others in the church, and thus more accountability:
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief..." (Hebrews 13:17)
"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: This is what the sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?...you have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered...and when they became scattered they became food for all the wild animals....therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock..." (Ezekiel 34:1-10)
Here is yet another scripture passage, "To whom much is given, much is required" (Luke 12:48). Is this not speaking of shepherds as well; of the souls that are "given" to pastors and elders so that they might teach or disciple those souls correctly; just as Jesus was "given" certain men to teach and disciple?
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them." (John 17:6-8)
The Father still "gives" those souls who are to be part of a church body to the shepherd who is to feed and protect them; and the Father "gives" the food (words) that are to be fed (taught) to the flock. This is a big responsibility to one called or elected to be a pastor or elder.
The teachings that "feed" the flock must be the words that the Father Himself has given to the pastor/teacher/elder through the Word of God, rather than the pastor/teacher/elder's own thoughts and words; thus humility helps one to do as Jesus did, not walking by his own ways, but only as the Father is leading him. When humility is absent, much damage can be done to the sheep.
There is definitely much more required of those who are in leadership, and for good reason: when public teachers and leaders, such as the Jimmy Swaggarts and the Jim Bakkers, fall in the Christian world, then "great" is the fall (Matthew 7:27), especially in the secular world where any scandal among Christians is eagerly grabbed hold of in order to justify the world's rejection of all things Christian, and, in their minds, allowing them to continue in their rebellion against the Most High God.
Thus, church leaders must be carefully chosen according to the Word of God rather than according to popularity or any other criteria. Yes, the authority to choose such leaders is placed in the hands of the church, but the God-given instructions on how to choose such leaders must be observed completely or disaster will follow. "A king who is not subject to God becomes subject to the devil." (Dr. Del Tackett, The Truth Project).
So, if, for example, God's Word says an elder must be the husband of one wife, then how important might it be for the church to take time and care to rightly divide that Word, rather than to quickly assume a rule that is either overly-legalistic and harsh, or lax in their thinking that it must be better to err in grace than err without grace? Why not spend time to get it right, rather than take the easy, lazy way out and jump to whatever "feels" right?
I am not suggesting we over-do it as the church in yesterday's posting did to the pastor whose wife divorced him; again, they were divorced only in the eyes of the civil authorities, but they answer to a higher authority who had not to my knowledge given authority for the marriage covenant to be dissolved. The church therefore stepped outside of its God-given authority, by overstepping what the Word of God instructs.
But neither is the more lax church in a better position. Best yet is a church who follows the Word of God explicitly, AND in love. Such love will never contradict the Word, but will be completely obedient to the Word, or it is not love. The chuch has gone overboard in its "touchy-feely" love, susbsituting that kind of love for the Godly love that wants the best for others. Godly love encourages each other towards obedience to God for eternal rewards; strengthening the church to endure injustices and persecutions, counting it as "all joy" to endure such suffering. Touchy-feely love, that is not Godly, wants to make sure everyone feels good and everyone likes everyone else.
God is more concerned with holiness, and righteousness, than He is about our self-esteem. After all, our purpose is to bring GOD glory, not ourselves. One who feels self-pity because he or she is not in the position of leadership that they believe they should have, is not serving for God's purposes but for their own agenda. I want to refer once more, this time in detail, to David and the building of the temple, which clearly shows David's humility in obedience to God's will. These are David's words:
"Listen to me, my fellow Israelites, my people. I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, for the footstool of our God, and I made plans to build it. But God said to me, You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood." (1 Chronicles 28:2-3)
Thus, by God's own Word, David, the King of Israel, was not allowed to build the temple which forever after was known as Solomon's Temple since Solomon, David's son by Bathsheba, was the one God chose to build it.
Will we call God harsh and brutal, or say that He did not treat David with grace and love because David missed out on the "honor" of building it? After all, it could have been known as David's Temple, not Solomon's Temple! Should David have retreated in disgrace, walking completely away from God because he was no longer in the forefront, as so many Christians do in similar situations of God's sovereignty today?
If David had gone to sulk, he would have missed out on being used by God in a different but still extremely vital way: as the conduit for the inspiration of the temple's design.
"Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things. He gave him instructions for the division of the priests and Levites, and for all the work of serving in the temple of the Lord....he designated the weight of gold for all the gold articles to be used in various kinds of service...He also gave him the plan for the chariot, that is the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and overshadow the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this, David said, I have in writing as a result of the Lord's hand on me, and He enabled me to understand all the details of the plan." (1 Chronicles 28:11-19)
Wow! David was used even in these later years in a prophetic appointing of everything pertaining to the temple of God. But would he have been, had he not been humble and allowed himself to be overshadowed by the one who would follow him as future king of Israel? If he had not been humble, David would have gone the way of Saul, who was jealous of God's anointing over David. We have those who are moved by jealousy in our churches still.
But here is what is vital to us: David was not chosen because God's temple was HOLY, containing HIM and representing HIS NAME. David had blood on his hands; can things of death touch that which is holy? Weren't those things considered unclean?
God still used David greatly, but not in the things that were sacred and holy in the place where God Himself would live. Could this be why God holds elders and deacons (those who govern His body, His temple; those who lead and feed his sheep) to an even higher standard of holiness than the rest of us? Could it also be because the responsibility and thus the accountability is so much greater that, out of love, He will not put at risk those who are not proven and solid in their faith as evidenced by their life experiences? Need it be a tool of punishment if we are not chosen to be elders and deacons because our lives have not lined up, even in the past, with the Word of God? Mightn't it instead be a tool of divine protection from a loving Father? But often, we judge the Word of God as being too harsh, and not relevant to our times, and go our own ways instead, contrary to the Word of God.
Then there is self-pity. Self-pity is a tool that the devil uses to hinder our usefulness to God. It is something EVERY Christian must guard against, especially if they have been ill-treated by other church members or leadership or by brothers and sisters in the church; and especially if they are given to being jealous. To guard against self-pity, we must recognize always that God is a sovereign God who remains in control even when the worst of unjust situations happens to us (as it did to Joseph at the hand of his own brothers!)
In all of this, we are trying to rightly divide the Word of God and thus all of these issues must be hashed out in a sense. We must not take the quick and easy way out. We must dig into the hard issues and face them head on. We cannot run and hide from hard issues, either as a church or individually.
Now, I end this posting with a question of my own that is also a result of the comment to yesterday's posting due to a statement that made me stop and think. I don't know that my answer will match yours, or vice versa, but I think the discussion about it (if there is to be one) will help us as we continue in this study.
Is the church today a democracy or a theocracy?
I will supply some additional information that might help us decide, taken from Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.* Here are Webster's 1828 definitions for democracy and theocracy:
Democracy:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."
Theocracy:
Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species, the Israelites were an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted til the time of Saul."
[*Note: Did you know that Noah Webster felt "called by God" to write a dictionary? Although I have not been able to access it myself yet, Webster apparently says such in his preface to his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, according to Dr. Del Tackett of The Truth Project. Webster believed that as God created the worlds by His spoken word and as He reveals himself to us by words as well, that the definitions of words were therefore very important, and thus he felt called by God to undertake the task of providing accurate and uniform definitions of words to Americans who, at the time, still believed that Christianity and morality were the most vital pillars of a free nation and its government. Imagine that!)
In addressing both questions, let me begin with this statement that is critical, I believe, in how we view leaders in the church versus non-leaders: God's own Word seems to indicate to me that He places more responsibility on leaders (such as pastors and teachers) than on others in the church, and thus more accountability:
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief..." (Hebrews 13:17)
"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: This is what the sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?...you have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered...and when they became scattered they became food for all the wild animals....therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock..." (Ezekiel 34:1-10)
Here is yet another scripture passage, "To whom much is given, much is required" (Luke 12:48). Is this not speaking of shepherds as well; of the souls that are "given" to pastors and elders so that they might teach or disciple those souls correctly; just as Jesus was "given" certain men to teach and disciple?
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them." (John 17:6-8)
The Father still "gives" those souls who are to be part of a church body to the shepherd who is to feed and protect them; and the Father "gives" the food (words) that are to be fed (taught) to the flock. This is a big responsibility to one called or elected to be a pastor or elder.
The teachings that "feed" the flock must be the words that the Father Himself has given to the pastor/teacher/elder through the Word of God, rather than the pastor/teacher/elder's own thoughts and words; thus humility helps one to do as Jesus did, not walking by his own ways, but only as the Father is leading him. When humility is absent, much damage can be done to the sheep.
There is definitely much more required of those who are in leadership, and for good reason: when public teachers and leaders, such as the Jimmy Swaggarts and the Jim Bakkers, fall in the Christian world, then "great" is the fall (Matthew 7:27), especially in the secular world where any scandal among Christians is eagerly grabbed hold of in order to justify the world's rejection of all things Christian, and, in their minds, allowing them to continue in their rebellion against the Most High God.
Thus, church leaders must be carefully chosen according to the Word of God rather than according to popularity or any other criteria. Yes, the authority to choose such leaders is placed in the hands of the church, but the God-given instructions on how to choose such leaders must be observed completely or disaster will follow. "A king who is not subject to God becomes subject to the devil." (Dr. Del Tackett, The Truth Project).
So, if, for example, God's Word says an elder must be the husband of one wife, then how important might it be for the church to take time and care to rightly divide that Word, rather than to quickly assume a rule that is either overly-legalistic and harsh, or lax in their thinking that it must be better to err in grace than err without grace? Why not spend time to get it right, rather than take the easy, lazy way out and jump to whatever "feels" right?
I am not suggesting we over-do it as the church in yesterday's posting did to the pastor whose wife divorced him; again, they were divorced only in the eyes of the civil authorities, but they answer to a higher authority who had not to my knowledge given authority for the marriage covenant to be dissolved. The church therefore stepped outside of its God-given authority, by overstepping what the Word of God instructs.
But neither is the more lax church in a better position. Best yet is a church who follows the Word of God explicitly, AND in love. Such love will never contradict the Word, but will be completely obedient to the Word, or it is not love. The chuch has gone overboard in its "touchy-feely" love, susbsituting that kind of love for the Godly love that wants the best for others. Godly love encourages each other towards obedience to God for eternal rewards; strengthening the church to endure injustices and persecutions, counting it as "all joy" to endure such suffering. Touchy-feely love, that is not Godly, wants to make sure everyone feels good and everyone likes everyone else.
God is more concerned with holiness, and righteousness, than He is about our self-esteem. After all, our purpose is to bring GOD glory, not ourselves. One who feels self-pity because he or she is not in the position of leadership that they believe they should have, is not serving for God's purposes but for their own agenda. I want to refer once more, this time in detail, to David and the building of the temple, which clearly shows David's humility in obedience to God's will. These are David's words:
"Listen to me, my fellow Israelites, my people. I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, for the footstool of our God, and I made plans to build it. But God said to me, You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood." (1 Chronicles 28:2-3)
Thus, by God's own Word, David, the King of Israel, was not allowed to build the temple which forever after was known as Solomon's Temple since Solomon, David's son by Bathsheba, was the one God chose to build it.
Will we call God harsh and brutal, or say that He did not treat David with grace and love because David missed out on the "honor" of building it? After all, it could have been known as David's Temple, not Solomon's Temple! Should David have retreated in disgrace, walking completely away from God because he was no longer in the forefront, as so many Christians do in similar situations of God's sovereignty today?
If David had gone to sulk, he would have missed out on being used by God in a different but still extremely vital way: as the conduit for the inspiration of the temple's design.
"Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things. He gave him instructions for the division of the priests and Levites, and for all the work of serving in the temple of the Lord....he designated the weight of gold for all the gold articles to be used in various kinds of service...He also gave him the plan for the chariot, that is the cherubim of gold that spread their wings and overshadow the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this, David said, I have in writing as a result of the Lord's hand on me, and He enabled me to understand all the details of the plan." (1 Chronicles 28:11-19)
Wow! David was used even in these later years in a prophetic appointing of everything pertaining to the temple of God. But would he have been, had he not been humble and allowed himself to be overshadowed by the one who would follow him as future king of Israel? If he had not been humble, David would have gone the way of Saul, who was jealous of God's anointing over David. We have those who are moved by jealousy in our churches still.
But here is what is vital to us: David was not chosen because God's temple was HOLY, containing HIM and representing HIS NAME. David had blood on his hands; can things of death touch that which is holy? Weren't those things considered unclean?
God still used David greatly, but not in the things that were sacred and holy in the place where God Himself would live. Could this be why God holds elders and deacons (those who govern His body, His temple; those who lead and feed his sheep) to an even higher standard of holiness than the rest of us? Could it also be because the responsibility and thus the accountability is so much greater that, out of love, He will not put at risk those who are not proven and solid in their faith as evidenced by their life experiences? Need it be a tool of punishment if we are not chosen to be elders and deacons because our lives have not lined up, even in the past, with the Word of God? Mightn't it instead be a tool of divine protection from a loving Father? But often, we judge the Word of God as being too harsh, and not relevant to our times, and go our own ways instead, contrary to the Word of God.
Then there is self-pity. Self-pity is a tool that the devil uses to hinder our usefulness to God. It is something EVERY Christian must guard against, especially if they have been ill-treated by other church members or leadership or by brothers and sisters in the church; and especially if they are given to being jealous. To guard against self-pity, we must recognize always that God is a sovereign God who remains in control even when the worst of unjust situations happens to us (as it did to Joseph at the hand of his own brothers!)
In all of this, we are trying to rightly divide the Word of God and thus all of these issues must be hashed out in a sense. We must not take the quick and easy way out. We must dig into the hard issues and face them head on. We cannot run and hide from hard issues, either as a church or individually.
Now, I end this posting with a question of my own that is also a result of the comment to yesterday's posting due to a statement that made me stop and think. I don't know that my answer will match yours, or vice versa, but I think the discussion about it (if there is to be one) will help us as we continue in this study.
Is the church today a democracy or a theocracy?
I will supply some additional information that might help us decide, taken from Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.* Here are Webster's 1828 definitions for democracy and theocracy:
Democracy:
"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."
Theocracy:
Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species, the Israelites were an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted til the time of Saul."
[*Note: Did you know that Noah Webster felt "called by God" to write a dictionary? Although I have not been able to access it myself yet, Webster apparently says such in his preface to his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, according to Dr. Del Tackett of The Truth Project. Webster believed that as God created the worlds by His spoken word and as He reveals himself to us by words as well, that the definitions of words were therefore very important, and thus he felt called by God to undertake the task of providing accurate and uniform definitions of words to Americans who, at the time, still believed that Christianity and morality were the most vital pillars of a free nation and its government. Imagine that!)
No comments:
Post a Comment