Part One
by
Keith Hunt
Paul was inspired to inform Timothy about the basic
qualifications that a man should meet who desire the office of
OVERSEER in the Church, and also to retain that function.
I have written in a more specific way concerning the
"dis-qualification from the ministry" in another article, which
the reader can obtain upon request. I have also shown elsewhere
that the NT uses the words "episkopos"(1 Tim.3) and
"presbuteros"(Titus 1) to mean the same function within the
Church. This truth can also be found in a long explanation by
William Barclay in his DAILY STUDY BIBLE( 1 Timothy), and also in
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NT. Today we called such men as "minister" -
one who ministers or serves the spiritual need of the Church. In
the NT they were also known by the term "elder."
Paul tells Timothy, chapter three of his first letter, that
there is nothing wrong with a man desiring the function of a
pastor(bishop/elder/minister). He then does not yet have
this function per se but could qualify for it. Paul then relates
to Timothy a number of specific areas in which a man must reach a
certain standard to qualify for such a serious function within
the community of the Church of God. Obviously then, by Paul even
suggesting such standards, it should be clearly seen a man does
not function automatically as a bishop, as a Elder/Pastor, just
because he is "x" number of years in the Church, though not a few
years is required according to a few of the qualifications we
shall be looking at later. These qualifications and attaining
them make it impossible to adopt the ministerial policy that some
have adopted, namely, that all men in the Church can takes turns
in overseeing or pastoring the congregation.
Paul was instructing Timothy with no such ideas or theology.
To him, it was not wrong to desire that function but it was not
automatic, you had to meet a very demanding criterion.
What Paul laid down to Timothy was specific qualifications
BEFORE and leading up to a man's official recognition by other
Elders and the Church, but the principle does carry over after
that Eldership is passed on to him, with a few other principles
involved(which I shall get to later) in handling Elders who were
"to be blamed" (Gal.2:11) after their function had been in place
for some time.
Before we look at each qualification, an over-view I think
would be of benefit to us. For that over-view I shall quote from
the DAILY STUDY BIBLE by Barclay:
"This passage is further interesting in that it tells us
something of the appointment and duties of the leaders of the
Church.
(i) They were formally set apart for their office. Titus was
to ordain elders in every Church(Titus 1:5). The office-bearer of
the Church is not made an office-bearer in secret; he is set
apart before the eyes of men; the honor of the Church is publicly
delivered into his hands.
(ii) They had to undergo a period of testing. They had first
to be proved(1 Timothy 3:10). No one builds a bridge or a piece
of machinery with metal which has not been tested. The church
might do well to be MORE STRICT THAN SHE IS IN THE TESTING
of those chosen for leadership.
(iii) They were paid for the work which they had to do. The
laborer was worthy of his hire (1 Timothy 5:18). The Christian
leader does not work for pay, but, on the other hand, the duty of
the Church which chose him for the work is to supply him with the
means to live.
(iv) They were liable to censure (1 Timothy 5:19-22). In the
early Church the office-bearer had a double function. He was a
leader of the Church; but he was also the servant of the Church.
He had to ANSWER FOR HIS STEWARDSHIP. No Christian office-bearer
must ever consider himself ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE; he is ANSWERABLE
to God, and to the people over whom God gave him the task of
presiding.
(v) They had the duty of presiding over the Christian assembly
and of teaching the Christian congregation (1 Timothy 5:17). The
Christian office-bearer has the double duty of administration and
instruction. It may well be that one of the tragedies of the
modern Church is that the administrative function of the
office-bearer has usurped the teaching function almost
entirely........
(vi) The office-bearer was not to be A RECENT CONVERT. Two
reasons are given for this advice. The first is quite clear. It
is "in case he becomes inflated with the sense of his own
importance." The second is not so clear. It is, as the Revised
Standard Version has it, "lest he fall into the condemnation of
the devil." There are three possible explanations of that strange
phrase. (a) It was through his pride that Lucifer rebelled
against God and was expelled from heaven. And this may simply be
a second warning against the danger of pride. (b) It may mean
that, if the too quickly advanced convert becomes guilty of
pride, he give the Devil a chance to level his charges against
him. A conceited Church office-bearer gives the Devil a chance to
say to the critics of the Church: 'Look! There's your Christian!
There's your Church member! That's what an office-bearer is
like!' (c) The word diabolos has two meanings. It means devil
and that is the way in which the RSV has taken it here; but it
also means SLANDERER. It is in fact the word used for slanderer
in verse 11, where the women are forbidden to be slanderers. So
then this phrase may mean that the recent convert, who has been
appointed to office, and has acquired, as we say, a swelled head,
gives opportunity to the slanderers. His unworthy conduct is
ammunition for those who are ill-disposed to the Church. No
matter how we take it, the point is that the conceited Church
official is a bad debt to the Church.
But, as the early Church saw it, the responsibility of the
office-bearer did not begin and end in the Church. He had two
other spheres of responsibility, and if he failed in them, he was
bound also to fail in the Church.
(i) His first sphere of duty was his own home. If a man did
not know how to rule his own household, how could he be engaged
upon the task of ruling the congregation of the Church?
(1 Timothy 3:5). A man who had not succeeded in making a
Christian home could hardly be expected to succeed in making a
Christian congregation. A man who had not instructed his own
family could hardly be the right man to instruct the family of
the Church.
(ii) The second sphere of responsibility was the world. He
must be 'well thought of by outsiders' (1 Timothy #:7). He must
be a man who has gained the respect of his fellow-men in the
day-to-day business of life. Nothing has hurt the Church more
than the sight of people who are active in it, whose business and
social life belies the faith which they profess and the precepts
which they teach. The Christian office-bearer must first of
all be a good man"(Emphasis mine).
End of quotes from William Barclay.
The points Paul gives to Timothy here are points of GENERAL
principle. As I expound each area you will see why I say they are
of general principle. Paul did not go into all and every unusual
situation that could arise within the life of the Church, where
these principles would have to fit.
BLAMELESS:
The Greek word is "anepileptos." The Greeks themselves define
the word as meaning "affording nothing of which an adversary can
take hold." Some would say it means "un-rebukable" or "not open
to attack" or "beyond criticism." This Greek word is used of an
act or technique which is so perfect that no fault can be found
with it. On the surface it would disqualify just about any man
(except the few humanly righteous individuals like Job) from ever
becoming a minister or holding on to such a function.
Thankfully the NT shows through the lives of two of the
greatest apostles that there is a deeper meaning here meant by
the word "blameless." For Paul and Peter could, even after their
start in the ministry, sin, or be "blamed" (Romans 7:14-25;
Galatians 2:11-15), and in Peter's case, that publicly before
others. While 1 Timothy 5:19,20 shows that two or three
witnesses were needed to bring an accusation against an Elder, it
also shows that ministers were not beyond criticism - not beyond
attack - they were rebukable, and if found guilty of sin, it
requires "rebuke before all" as a punishment and as a detriment
to others. Peter was rebuked by Paul before all for his fault
and sin (Gal.2). After a man has become a Christian, is he going
to be a "good man whose life cannot be spoken against" (Living
Bible) 100% of the time? He will somewhere, at sometime, said or
done something to someone in the church or outside the church, in
fact or in the mind of that person, who will feel they can
"blame" him.
Some believe that after a man enters the faith and becomes a
Church leader, there can be no reproach worthy of public rebuke
at all of any kind. They say such a man can be forgiven and come
back into the Church, but not as an elder or overseer, because
his Christian life can now be spoken against.
Paul does not go into elaborate detail with this
qualification, so we must not jump to any hasty conclusions and
we must let the rest of the NT throw needed light on any
questions we may have as to what Paul was meaning in laying down
this first qualification.
The whole NT shows that "blameless" here used CANNOT mean he
may never make an error or sin which is worthy of public rebuke.
For when Peter sinned and was to be blamed in front of the whole
Church (and maybe outsiders got the wind of it all as well -
Gal.2) his ministry would have come to a quick END! But we find
Peter years later (about A.D. 63) still calling himself an
Apostle and Elder (1 Pet.1:1; 5:1) under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit. He was recognized by the Church as a true servant of
God.
There is a way that a man can be "blameless." It is the way
that all true Christians can be blameless. This qualification
was put first because it is probably the most important one. A
man can be blameless when he is fully and totally REPENTANT!
When he exhibits the quality of being humble and always willing
to admit his errors and sins, willing to see himself as a sinner,
and is always in that repentant attitude of mind. When he does
not PRACTICE as a way of life, sins, but repents of them when he
does sin or makes an error, then God can forgive such a person -
he is washed clean in the blood of the Lamb - he is counted as
righteous, he is held is under grace, he is held as in a state of
BLAMELESSNESS! Please read carefully 1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2. Now
read Luke 1:5,6. Zacharias the priest and his wife Elizabeth had
that right repentant attitude and so it is recorded that as far
as God was concerned they were "righteous" and they were
"blameless." Paul was inspired to say that "all have sinned" and
the NT tells us that only Jesus Christ of all humans NEVER
SINNED, not even once. All other living human beings have sinned
at some point in their lives(of course we are excluding little
babies that die as babies). Zacharias and Elizabeth did sin, but
they were forgiven because of their repentant attitude of mind,
as was the great King David of old, and so they were held under
God's grace and declared as was Abraham - righteous, blameless.
The man who will serve in the overseership of the Church must
be a man of repentance, and the Godly kind of repentance, not the
repentance of the world, needing to be repented of again and
again( Cor.7:8-10). David sinned by committing adultery, his
sin was pointed out to him, and he truly repented, never to
commit that sin again. Peter sinned and led others into sin and
error. He had that missing of the mark shown to him and he
repented, never to fail in that manner again (Gal.2).
So it must be, at the top of the list, the servant of the Lord
and the Church must be in such a repentant attitude of mind at
all times that he will be held by God as a blameless man.
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE:
There is no secret meanings to the Greek words used here. The
literal Greek means and reads, "the husband of one wife."
William Barlay has a long section on this matter in his Daily
Word Study. It is good for us to record some of his words.
"......Some few take it to mean that the Christian
leader cannot marry a SECOND TIME, even AFTER his wife's
death......But in its context here we can be quite certain that
the phrase means that the Christian leader must be a loyal
husband, preserving marriage in all its purity. In later days the
APOSTOLIC CANONS lid down: 'He who is involved in two marriages,
after his baptism, or he who has taken a concubine, cannot be an
episkopos, a bishop.'
We may well ask why it should be necessary to lay down what
looks obvious. We must understand the state of the world in which
this was written. It has been said, and with much truth, that the
only totally new virtue which Christianity brought into the world
was CHASTITY. In many ways the ancient world was in a state of
MORAL CHAOS, even the JEWISH world. Astonishingly as it may seem,
certain Jews still practiced POLYGAMY. In the Dialogue with
Trypho, in which Justin Martyr discusses Christianity with a
Jew, it is said that 'it is possible for a Jew even now to have
four or five wives' (Dialogue with Trypho, 134). Josephus can
write: 'By ancestral custom a man can live with more than one
wife' (Antiquities of the Jews, 17:1,2).
Apart altogether from these unusual cases, DIVORCE was
tragically easy in the Jewish world. The Jews had the highest
ideals of marriage.......For all that, the Jewish law allowed
divorce. Marriage was indeed the ideal, but divorce was
permitted......(Note: the two main schools of the Pharisees had
different views on divorce, the one held it was only possible
under very strict circumstances, while the other school said you
could divorce for just about any reason, large or small. You can
imagine which school was the more popular - Keith Hunt).
.......The tragedy was the that the wife had no rights
whatsoever. Josephus says, 'With is it is lawful for a husband to
dissolve a marriage, but a wife, if she departs from her husband,
cannot marry another, unless her former husband put her away'
(Antiquities of the Jews, 15:8,7).
In the case of a divorce by consent, in the time of the NT,
all that was required was two witnesses, and no court case at
all. A husband could send his wife away for any cause; at the
most a wife could petition the court to urge her husband to write
her a bill of divorcement, but it could not compel him even to do
that......
In the HEATHEN WORLD things were infinitely WORSE. There, too,
according to Roman law, the wife had no rights. Cato said: 'If
you were to take your wife in adultery, you could kill her with
impunity, without any court judgment; but if YOU were involved in
adultery, she would not dare to lift a finger against you, for it
is unlawful.'........"
Barclay goes on to give more examples and historic words from
the Roman Empire to show how bad the state of affairs was for
marriage under their system. He ends by saying, "Happy marriage
was the ASTONISHING EXCEPTION. Ovid and Pliny had THREE WIVES;
Caesar and Antony had FOUR; Sulla and Pompey had FIVE; Herod had
NINE; Cicero's daughter Tullia had THREE husbands. The Emperor
Nero was the third husband of Poppaea and the fifth husband of
Statilla Messalina. It was not for nothing that the Pastorals
laid it down that the christian leader must be the husband of one
wife. In a world where even the highest places were DELUGED in
IMMORALITY, the Christian Church must demonstrate the CHASTITY,
the stability and the sanctity of the Christian home" (Emphasis
mine).
We know from the words of Christ Himself(Mat.19 etc) that
divorce is allowed for sexual unfaithfulness. Paul was also
inspired to state other situations where divorce and re-marriage
is acceptable and allowed by God(1 Cor.7). I have covered that
very fully in my 70 page study called "Divorce and Re-Marriage,
What the Bible Really Teaches." So this here cannot be saying
that a man in the ministry can only be married once, and can
never marry again under any circumstances, not even the death of
his wife. This here is not saying that such men must remain
single until their death. Paul, once said that they (Barnabas and
himself) had the power or authority to carry about a wife as did
Peter. Most scholars agree that Paul was a married man at one
time, but nothing is said what happened to her. Not allowing
servants of the Lord to marry when within the law of the Lord to
do so, has brought many sad and terrible consequences upon the
largest of all the Christian Churches. Every day it seems to
hear or read about single men in the ministry of that large
Christian denomination that have fallen into sexual abuse with
those they were sent to serve and care for.
It is also obvious that here the allowable "polygamy" life
style that was found under the Old Covenant, was not to be
allowed for the NT minister.
Albert Barnes in his commentary on this has what I consider
some good logical words of understanding, he writes in part:
"......There has been much difference of opinion on the
question whether the passage means that a minister should not
have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits
the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first...That
the former is the correct opinion seems to me to be evident from
the following considerations;
(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language....At a
time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should
'have but one wife' would naturally be understood as prohibiting
polygamy. (2) The marriage of a second wife after the death of
the first, is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as wrong. The
marriage of a widow to a second husband is expressly declared to
be proper (1 Cor.7:39)and it is not unfair to infer from that
permission that it is equally lawful and proper for a man to
marry the second time. But if it is lawful for any man, it is
also right for a minister of the gospel........Marriage is
as honorable for a minister of the gospel as for any other
man......(3) There was a special propriety in the prohibition, if
understood as prohibiting polygamy. It is known it was
extensively practiced, and was not regarded as unlawful. Yet one
design of the gospel was to restore the marriage relation to its
primitive condition; and though it might not have seemed
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to require of EVERY MAN who came into the
Church to divorce his WIVES, if he had MORE THAN ONE, yet, in
order to fix a BRAND on this IRREGULAR practice, it might have
been deemed desirable to require of the ministers of the gospel
that they should have but one wife. Thus the PRACTICE of polygamy
would GRADUALLY come to be regarded as dishonorable and improper,
and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to
introduce correct views in regard to the nature of this
relation........" (Emphasis his).
It is more than interesting to note that the NT is SILENT in
any specific way as to the subject of polygamy. What I mean is,
you cannot find any verse in the NT that addresses it in a direct
way such as : "We know under the OT God allowed polygamy, but
from this moment on all men wanting to come into the Church must
divorce all but one wife." For starters, how would you determine
which wives to divorce? The man may have married two or three at
the same time, and a few others later. They were legal
marriages, and God had laws governing such allowances. Then, what
would happen to these women who had been cared and provided for?
Would the Church just coldly cast them aside and say "tough luck,
your own your own." What if the wives to be divorced had
children? Where would they go and with whom? Ah, there is much
we have not given thought to concerning how the NT Church dealt
with the very real issue of polygamy. The Church today can face
the same situation as it goes into certain parts of the world
where it is still practiced. Certainly it would be taught that
under the NT polygamy is not the marriage ideal God wants for His
children, but to immediately cut families apart who have known no
difference would probably bring more evil and harm on them than
allowing the situation to continue until nature or death takes it
course, with the understanding that such men now coming into more
light, will not acquire to themselves any more wives.
As Barnes said, with the ministers setting the NT example on
marriage, and the process of time taking its natural course, the
Church would eventually only have a man married to one wife at
one time, and polygamy would be a thing of the distant past.
Certain things under the NT did not just come to an end
over-night. The use of the Temple and sacrificial laws continued
within the Church for decades, note Acts 21. The process of time
and correct teaching, with physical circumstances, eventually
ruled the day. Even the truth about the OT doctrine of
"circumcision" took many years before it prevailed, together with
some big theological battles along the way, as recorded in Acts
15.
Do we here find that a pastor is to be a married man? Or at
least a man who had been married at one time, if not at the
present?
Paul is giving GENERAL principles without introducing all the
exceptions to the rule, without going into all the various
different specifics that could arise within the life of a
Church or those being selected for the Eldership. Overall then,
he is instructing Timothy and the Church, that for a man to be a
wise and understanding overseer in the Church, for a man to be
able to give wise and helpful service to the married, with all
the problems marriage can bring, it would be better for him to be
a married man, or a man who has experienced marriage at some time
in his life. In verses 4 and 5 Paul once more, practically
taking for granted, automatically assumes the men chosen to
oversee the Church will be married men.
Certainly, some of the men in the ministry of the first
century were by all indications, living as SINGLE men. Jesus said
there would be some, to whom it was given, who would make
themselves without sex(eunuchs) for the Kingdom of heaven's sake.
These men would be the exceptions and not the rule. Paul may have
been such a "eunuch for the Kingdom's" sake, as his writings
indicate at times.
If such men had wives at home, or if they had lost them
through death, or had never been married(being eunuchs for the
Kingdom from the beginning) is not made clear.
The GENERAL principle of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is that a
minister should be married. It is hard for me to imagine and to
understand how a man pastoring a flock of the Lord's could do so
effectively (with all the married couples it would undoubtedly
contain) if he himself was not married or had at least been
married at some point in time. The most effective instruction is
given by those who have experienced what they are instructing. Of
course this does not hold true to the !00% mark. A man should not
MURDER in order to teach someone not to murder. But for
counselling married couples with their various trials and tests
and problems, it sure does help to have been there.
If a man looses his wife in death during his ministry, does
that mean he is then taken out of the Eldership? Of course not!
All indications are that Paul, during his service in the ministry
lived as a single man. There is no indication he had a wife, and
some sentences of his give strong teaching that he was living as
a eunuch - sexless, and not married.
SOBER:
The word "vigilant" as in the KJV is not in the Greek. The
Greek word for "sober" is NEPHALIOS. It means, sober, watchful,
vigilant. His mind is "sound." He is not "double-minded" as
James wrote about, one day this way and the next day that way,
one day spiritually hot and the next day spiritually off the
wall, and out in left field. He is not easily swayed from truth
to error, not easily tossed about with every wind of doctrine
that floats by his mind. He is not ruled by his emotions or
outside pressure or circumstances, that do not pertain to the
solid truth of the matter. He certainly will have emotions as did
Jesus, but he knows how and when to use them. He will not be
perfect in this area, as he is still human, but most of the time
his mind is sober and sound.
He will be decorous and know how to act properly towards
people. He will have a sound and sober mind in this very
important area of life, as much of his work is related to dealing
with people, to talking to people. He will know the customs and
etiquette of the people he serves, or he will endeavor to learn
them and use them when conversing with different people from
different nationalities and races.
Can a man desiring the office of pastor or one who is now a
pastor, not ever make an error in knowing how to deal with
people? Again, if we are looking for 100% perfection in the men
called to oversee the Church, then we would have no overseers or
pastors in the Church. We strive for perfection but fully and
complete perfection waits for the resurrection.
The overall general principle is that the Church leader
basically and for most of the times, by far most of the times,
knows how to deal with people. He is generally very sober minded
in his thoughts which translate into actions as he leads and
takes care of the Church of God.
DISCREET, WELL BEHAVED:
Two Greek words are found here whereas the KJV has "of good
behaviour." The Greek words are SOPHRON and KOSMIOS.
I will use the words of William Barclay to describe and
expound what these two words relate to us.
" We have translated 'sophron"'by 'prudent,' but it is
virtually untranslatable. It is variously translated 'of sound
mind, discreet, prudent, self-controlled, chaste, having
complete control over sensual desires."' The greeks derived it
from two words which mean 'to keep one's mind safe and sound.'
The corresponding noun is 'soophrosunee,' and the Greeks wrote
and thought much about it. It is the opposite of intemperance and
lack of self-control. Palto defined it as ' the mastery of
pleasure and desire.' Aristotle defined it as 'the power by
which the pleasures of the body are used as law commands.'
Philo defined it as 'a certain limiting and ordering of the
desires, and which adorns those which are necessary with
timeliness and moderation.' ........Jeremy Trench describes
"soophrosunee" as 'the condition of entire command over the
passions and desires, so that they receive no further allowance
than that which law and right reason admit and approve.'
Gilbert Murray wrote of 'soophroon' : 'There is a way of
thinking which destroys and a way which saves. The man or woman
who is 'soophroon' walks among the beauties and perils of the
world, feeling love, joy, anger, and the rest; and through all
he has that in his mind which saves. Whom does it save? Not him
only, but, as we should say, the whole situation. It saves the
imminent evil from coming to be.' E.F. Brown quotes in
illustration of 'soophrosunee' a prayer of Thomas Aquinas which
asks for the ' quieting of all our impulses, fleshly and
spiritual.'
The man who is 'soophroon' has every part of his nature under
control, which is to say that the man who is 'soophroon' is the
man in whose heart Christ reigns supreme.
The companion word is 'kosmios,' which we have translated
'well-behaved.' If a man is kosmios in his outer conduct it is
because he is 'soophroon' in his inner life. Kosmios means
ORDERLY, HONEST, DECOROUS. In Greek it has two special usages.
It is common in tributes and inscriptions to the dead. And it is
commonly used to describe a man who is a good citizen. Plato
defines the man who is 'kosmios' as 'the citizen who is quiet in
the land, who duly fulfils in his place and order the duties
which are incumbent upon him as such.' This word has more in it
than simply good behaviour. It describes the man whose life is
beautiful and in whose character all things are harmoniously
integrated.
The leader of the Church must be a man who is 'soophroon,' his
very instinct and desire under perfect control; he must be a man
who is 'kosmios,' his inner control issuing in outward beauty.
The leader must be one in whose heart Christ's power reigns and
on whose life Christ's beauty shines."
This is what Albert Barnes has to say: "........he should be a
gentleman. He should not be slovenly in his appearance, or rough
and boorish in his manners.......A minister of the gospel should
be a finished gentleman in his manners, and there is no excuse
for him if he is not.......He has usually received such an
education as ought to make him such, and in all cases ought to
have had such a training.......He should be an example and a
pattern in all that goes to promote the welfare of mankind, and
there are few things that are so easily acquire that are fitted
to do this, as refinement and gentility of manners. No man can do
good, on the whole, or in the 'long-run,' by disregarding the
rules of refined intercourse; and, other things being equal, the
refined, courteous, polite gentleman in the ministry, will always
to more good......."
Wow! Now if we read all that again, I guess we could question
if any man is fit for the overseership in the Church of God. Let
us remember a leader must have a large dose of those qualities,
but perfection in those areas will not come until he is no longer
human but divine, and carnal human nature is no more. Still, the
man who would qualify for Eldership in the Church will have
proved that such qualities are a big part of his character here
and now as he conducts himself within the congregation and those
on the outside in the world.
GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY:
I like what Richard Nickels (founder of "Giving and Sharing")
wrote on this: " to 'enjoy having guests at his home' (Living
Bible). Certainly this means more than putting up with people who
drop by. It means having a great care for serving others, getting
to know and appreciate others, listening to their problems,
lending them help when in need, and so much more. Care and
concern for other people is certainly a major criterion for a
faithful minister."
Barnes writes: "This is often enjoined on all Christians as a
duty of religion......It was a special duty of the ministers of
religion, as they were to be examples of every Christian virtue."
William Barclay says: "This is a quality on which the NT lays
much stress. Paul bids the Roman Church to 'practice hospitality'
(Romans 12:13). 'Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one
another,' says Peter (1 Peter 4:9). In the Shepherd of Hermas,
one of the very early Christian writings, it is laid down: ' The
episkopos must be hospitable, a man who gladly and at all times
welcomes into his house the servants of God.' The Christian
leader must be a man with an open heart and an open house....The
ancient world had a system of what were called 'guest
friendships'. Over generations families had arrangements to give
each other accommodation and hospitality. Often the members of
the families came in the end to be unknown to each other by sight
and identified themselves by means of what were called 'tallies.'
The stranger seeking accommodation would produce one half of some
object; the host would posses the other half of the tally; and
when the two halfs fitted each other the host knew that he had
found his guest, and the guest knew that the host was indeed the
ancestral friend of his household.
In the Christian Church there were wandering teachers and
preachers who needed hospitality. There were also many slaves
with no homes of their own to whom it was a great privilege to
have the right of entry to a Christian home. It was of the
greatest blessing that Christians should have Christian homes
ever open to them in which they could meet people like-minded to
themselves. We live in a world where there are still many who are
far from home, many who are strangers in a strange place, many
who live in conditions where it is hard to be a Christian. The
door of the Christian home and the welcome of the Christian heart
should be open to all such."
Coming back to the local town and congregation that Elders
serve in, a minister I once knew very well, being a part of his
congregation, would, during the cold winter months on the
Canadian prairies, have three couples or couples and singles,
over each Saturday night to his home. He and his wife and the
other six, would simply play table games together and fellowship.
This way he said he could really get to know the people he
served, in an informal relaxed manner. He himself was "down to
earth" as they say, and with his friendly hospitality, he built a
warm and loving Church. I well remember the day he and his wife
went back to the USA, where they were from. The whole
congregation felt that a part of them had been ripped away.
Indeed he was a fine example of a minister "given to
hospitality."
Sorry to say I have also known ministers who were not
hospitable at all. Ministers who were cold, distant, never had
anyone in their homes unless it was on "official church" business
of some kind. Obviously and as a natural outcome of this type of
personality, they tended to be harsh and dictatorial in their
conversations and in their sermons. People wanted to avoid them
as much as possible. Few were sorry to see them "saddle up and
move along" except they did feel sorry for the next congregation
who would have to endure such a minister.
They were probably "ministers falsely so-called" who should
never have been ordained to the ministry in the first place, but
somebody was taken in by their "good looks" - "bright education"
- "charisma" - "powerful preaching" - "gift of the gab" or some
other Hollywood attributes. And then they may have been ordained
by some "politicking" going on the their church organization. I'm
sorry to say but such evil has and does exist in some quarters of
some Church denominations.
The true servant and minister of the Lord will be a man who is
"given to hospitality."
APT TO TEACH:
Adam Clarke in his Bible commentary says: "Seventh - He should
be APT TO TEACH; one CAPABLE OF TEACHING; not only WISE himself,
but READY to communicate his wisdom to others. One whose delight
is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of the
way.......the bishops have been in general men of great learning
and probity, and the ablest advocates of the Christian system,
both as to its AUTHENTICITY, and the PURITY and EXCELLENCE of its
DOCTRINES and MORALITY........" (Emphasis Clarke).
Albert Barnes writes: " Greek, DIDACTIC; that is, capable of
instructing, or qualified for the office of a teacher of
religion. As the principle business of a preacher of the gospel
is to TEACH, or to communicate to his fellow men the knowledge of
the truth, the necessity of this qualification is obvious. No one
should be allowed to enter the ministry who is not qualified to
impart INSTRUCTION to others of the doctrines and duties of
religion; and no one should feel he ought to continue in the
ministry, who has not industry, and self-denial, and the love of
study enough to lead him constantly to endeavour to INCREASE in
knowledge, that he may be qualified to teach others. A man
who would TEACH a people, must himself keep in ADVANCE of them on
the subjects on which he would instruct them." (Emphasis Barnes).
William Barclay writes in his Daily Study Bible: ".......It is
one of the disasters of modern times that the teaching ministry
of the Church is not being exercised as it should. There is any
amount of topical preaching and any amount of exhortation; but
there is little use in exhorting a man to be a Christian when he
does not know what being a Christian means. Instruction is the
primary duty of a Christian preacher and leader. The second
thing is this. The finest and most effective teaching is done not
by SPEAKING but by BEING.......that in him men see the reflection
of the Master......" (Emphasis his).
I also like what Richard Nickels has to say: " A keen ability
to teach is not something one picks up overnight. It takes
patience to be a teacher, being gentle unto all, 2 Tim.2:24,25.
It is not an erudite scholar......Teachers need to adapt what
they say to each individual pupil........Some ministers are on an
'authority binge,'......not recognizing the fact every good
teacher should know that some of his pupils have more potential
than their teacher. One apt to teach helps each student fulfil
his or her potential. Also, any real teacher teaches so well that
his students are able to master the subject and teach others
as well, 2 Tim.2:2. show me a true minister, and he will be
surrounded by faithful men he has trained, who are able to teach
others also."
You will notice Paul does not say a man qualified for the
ministry must be a "great preacher." There is a difference
between "preaching" and "teaching." A man may have a wonderful
gifted voice for preaching, he may be able to "spell bind" his
audience with oratory and the inflections of the voice, he may be
able to put together a great message with words and examples, but
out of that "preaching mode" he may be a dismal failure at
"teaching" the heart and core of Christianity to anyone.
All ministers of the Lord must be apt to teach, but they do
not all have to be apt to preach. Preachers are needed in the
Church and in the Evangelistic field, but be assured those gifts
will be given to those ministers whom the Lord chooses to receive
those gifts. The one requirement for all in the Eldership is that
they are able to "teach."
Does a man need a Ph.D. in "Bible teaching" before he can be
ordained to the ministry? Of course not! He will no doubt make
teaching errors of one sort or another before his ordination, and
no doubt after it also, during his ministry. No human, except
Christ Jesus, had perfect knowledge in his physical life time.
Knowledge is something we are to continually grow in and seek
for. The teaching of true Bible knowledge and the Christian way
to live is a life time commitment and vocation. The man for the
ministry must certainly show he has ability to teach the words of
the Lord to others, but he must also show within that ability
that he has the attitude of mind to be willing to be corrected,
to admit errors, to prove all things, to love the truth, and to
ever seek for it, to stand on it when found, so in all that he
can continue to teach it to others.
NOT GIVEN TO WINE:
The Greek word is PAROINOS. From the DAILY STUDY BIBLE by
Barclay we read:
" In the ancient world wine was continually used. Where the
water supply was very inadequate and sometimes dangerous, wine
was the most natural drink of all. It is wine which cheers the
hearts of gods and men (Judges 9:13). In the restoration of
Israel she will plant vineyards and drink the her wine (Amos
9:14). Strong drink is given to those who are ready to perish,
and wine to those whose hearts are heavy (Proverbs 31:6).
This is not to say the ancient world was not fully alive to
the dangers of strong drink. Proverbs speaks of the disaster
which comes to the man who looks on the wine when it is red
(Proverbs 23:29-35). Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler
(Prov.20:1). There are terrible stories of what happened to
people through over-indulgence in wine. There is the case of Noah
(Gen.9:18-27); of Lot (Gen.19:30-38); of Ammon (2 Sam.13:28,29).
Although the ancient world used wine as the commonest of all
drinks, it used it most abstemiously. When wine was drunk, it was
drunk in the proportion of two parts of wine to three parts of
water. A man who was drunken would be disgraced in ordinary
heathen society, let alone in the Church........
'Paroinos' means ADDICTED TO WINE, but it also means
QUARRELSOME, and VIOLENT. The point that the Pastorals make here
is that the Christian must allow himself no indulgence which
would lessen his Christian vigilance or soil his Christian
conduct" (Emphasis his.
Adam Clarke writes: "An eighth article in his character is, he
must not be given to wine. This word not only signifies one who
is INORDINATELY ATTACHED TO WINE, A WINEBIBBER or TIPPLER, but
also one who is IMPERIOUS, ABUSIVE, INSOLENT, whether through
wine or otherwise. KYPKE contends for this latter acceptation
here. See his PROOFS and EXAMPLES." (Emphasis Clarke).
Banes' Notes on the NT says: "......The Greek word occurs in
the NT only here and in Titus 1:7. It means properly, BY WINE;
i.e., spoken of what takes place BY or OVER wine, as revelry,
drinking songs, etc. Then it denotes, as it does here, one who
sits BY wine; that is, who is in the habit of drinking it. It
cannot be inferred, from the use of the word here, that wine was
absolutely and entirely prohibited; for the word does not
properly express that idea. It means that one who is in the HABIT
of drinking wine, or who is accustomed to sit with those who
indulge in it, should not be admitted to the ministry......"
(Emphasis his).
I think we can get the true picture of what Paul was saying
and laying down here as one of the qualifications for the
ministry. Anyone who is controlled by wine or alcohol, who
cannot live without it as we say, who must have it on a regular
basis, and/or who must always be in the company of those who sit
by wine, etc. to partake of it and their revelry, cannot be in
the Eldership of the Church.
It would seem the days of Paul were not unlike our days today
in some regards. Then as today, certain individuals must meet
together in the local taverns/night-clubs or pubs(as they call
them in Britain) to drink and socialize, or their day was not
complete. I have know people in my immediate family of relatives
in Britain, who organized their day around the local evenings
drinking fellowship in the pub. A huge tidal wave had to come
before they would miss that daily sitting by the wine.
A Christian minister cannot be such a person in the daily
habits of his life.
We note here that Paul is NOT prohibiting the use of wine per
se. Jesus was called a "winebibber" by some of the religious
leaders of his time, not because he regularly drank Welch's Grape
Juice from the corner store. If that was all Jesus drank, simple
grape juice, they would have had no reason to try to claim He was
over-indulging in alcohol. They really were trying to claim he
was an alcoholic, because they knew He did partake of fermented
juice of the grape - wine.
Jewish theology (the main common theology) from way back when,
has always taught and understood the words of God to allow the
consumption of alcohol in moderation. They have always understood
that God condemns getting DRUNK, or being an alcoholic, and not
the drinking of alcohol per se.
A man wanting to be an overseer, or a man who is already one,
cannot exhibit a way of life that shows he is under the control
of alcohol. If that is the case, then such a man cannot be
ordained to the ministry and if he is already a minister, he must
be asked to resign. He must have all ministerial duties removed
from him and should himself seek help, be encouraged to seek
help, to overcome his problem. I do not say he may not at some
point in the future be allowed back into the ministry, but that
is another matter I will not take up here, but leave to be
covered under the subject of "Church Discipline for the Members
and the Ministers."
Suppose a man who could be ordained to the ministry should,
under some trial or temptation, fall and become on one occasion
"given to wine" - become under its control - in plain language,
DRUNK. Does that single error of sin FOREVER disqualify him from
being considered for the ministry? I think not! Oh, sure there
may have to be help given to him. He certainly will have to
repent. A number of things may have to be looked into to see if
this was just a one time fault, or if other underlying weaknesses
of character are included and part of a larger problem. Yet
finding this is not the case, we must realize then that this is
not his way of life, alcohol does not control him as a practice.
He is not one who sits by wine. Giving the man time, proving the
man, could still lead to him being called to the ministry.
If he is an ordained minister who gets drunk one day, he has
indeed sinned, just as Peter sinned in his error (Gal.2). If it
is clearly shown that it is not a life style of sin with wine,
and upon deep repentance as I'm sure Peter exhibited over his
sin, then he should be allowed to function in his office as an
Elder, just as Peter did. If his error was in public, he may need
a public rebuke or at least a rebuke before the Church
congregation, again as in the example of Peter.
Does that single sin disqualify him from the ministry? I think
not! Not anymore than Peter's single error disqualified him.
NOT A STRIKER:
Banes: "He must be peaceable, not a quarrelsome man. This is
connected with the caution about the use of wine, probably,
because that is commonly found to produce a spirit of contention
and strife."
Adam Clarke: "He must be no striker; not QUARRELSOME; not
READY TO STRIKE A PERSON who may displease him; no PERSECUTOR of
those who may differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said,
'To prove his doctrine orthodox by apostolic blows and
knocks.'
It is said of Bishop BONNER, of infamous memory, that, when
examining the poor Protestants whom he termed heretics, when
worsted by them in argument he was used to SMIGHT THEM WITH HIS
FISTS, and sometimes SCOURGE and WHIP them......from such a
scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of
surrendering his mitre" (Emphasis his).
Barclay says: "That this instruction was not unnecessary is
seen in one of the very early regulations of the APOSTOLIC
CANONS: ' A bishop, priest or deacon who smites the faithful when
they err, or the unbelievers when they commit injury, and desires
by such means as to terrify them, we command to be deposed; for
nowhere hath the Lord taught us this. When He was reviled, He
reviled not again, but the contrary. When He was smitten, He
smote not again; when He suffered, He threatened not.'
It will not be likely that any Christian leader will nowadays
strike another Christian, but the fact remains that blustering,
bullying, irritable, bad-tempered speech or action is forbidden
to the Christian."
We have had some religious leaders in the very real present
age lead their followers by words and actions to their very
death, as if they were pleasing to God, and would somehow be
rewarded even more on the other side, for killing themselves
under the order of their physical leader. That of course is the
ultimate in striking someone down.
Far more religious abuse in this area has taken place through
the "mouth" and certain "actions" on the part of Church leaders.
Members have been raked up one side and down the other, called
out, marked and slandered from the pulpit, given orders to
have certain persons removed literally from the Church service.
Orders have been issued that not even family members in the same
congregation speak to those so cast out. Some ministers have
acted like Hitlers towards their congregations. So great has been
this kind of abuse in the last half of this 20th century that it
prompted an investigation by Ronald Enroth, out of which came his
book called " CHURCHES THAT ABUSE." It is still in print and
obtainable in paperback from your Bible Book store.
To be continued
............................
First written in 1986, re-written and expanded in January 1998.
Church Minister Qualifications - Part 2
An expounding on the teaching of Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 Part 2
by
Keith Hunt
GENTLE (Patient):
Barclay in his DAILY STUDY BIBLE writes, " The Greek is
'epieikes,' another of these completely untranslatable words. The
noun is 'epieikeia,' and Aristotle describes it as 'that which
corrects justice' and as that which 'is just and better than
justice.' He said that it was that quality which corrects the law
when the law errs because of its generality. What he means is
that sometimes it may be actually unjust to apply the strict
letter of the law. Trench said that 'epieikeia' means 'retreating
from the letter of right better to preserve the spirit of right'
and is 'the spirit which recognizes the impossibility of cleaving
to all formal law.....that recognizes the danger that ever waits
upon the assertion of legal rights, lest they should be pushed
into moral wrongs.....the spirit which rectifies and redresses
the injustice of justice.' Aristotle describes in full the
action of 'epieikeia,' - 'To pardon human failings; to look to
the law-giver, not to the law; to the intention, not to the
action; to the whole, not to the part; to the character of the
actor in the long run and not to the present moment; to remember
good rather than evil, and the good that one has received rather
than the good that one has done; to bear being injured; to wish
to settle a matter by words rather than deeds.'
.......The atmosphere of many a Church would be radically changed
if there was more 'epieikeia' within it."
Is there anyone - would be Church leader - present overseer -
or any Church member - who can say they are ALWAYS patient and
gentle, that they are never impatient? What if a would be, could
be, pastor shows on a few occasions impatience, would that
disqualify him from being considered to such a function and
office within the Church? Now, if it was quite noticeable as a
way of life with him, yes, it would disqualify him, until
overcome. What if a present pastor or elder should become
impatient at some time, should be less than gentle, would that
error cost him his function as elder? If it becomes his life
style - his practice - yes, but otherwise, no. It is rare indeed
for ANYONE never to become impatient with something, somebody,
somewhere along life's road. And again, in dealing with different
people, one person may claim a minister was not gentle with them,
yet another person would consider his manner very gentle. So to
a point, and only to a point, I say, gentleness is in the eye of
the beholder. But I think we all understand what I have stated
as compared to a leader who rides rough-shod over people. Those
who are bombastic, cutting, hard of speech, blunt and untactful,
in conversation with people have no place being in the ministry
of Jesus Christ.
Even with dealing with those who are out of the way, and in
total error, Paul was inspired to say that the true servant of
the Lord had to be gentle, patient, apt to teach, and in meekness
instructing such individuals, if God peradventure would grant
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth
(2 Tim.2:24-26).
NOT GREEDY OF BASE GAIN (filthy lucre):
Barclay: "He will never do anything simply for profit's sake.
He will know that there are values which are beyond all money
price."
Albert Barnes: "Greek, Not a lover of silver; that is of
money. A man should not be put into the ministry who is
characteristically a lover of money. Such a one, no matter
what his talents may be, has no proper qualification for the
office, and will do more harm than good."
Now with that said, there is a contention that the above words
are not a part of the original writing of Paul. I refer you to
Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary for that matter. We seek just a
few words later where the Greek word for "not loving money" is
used, the KJV has, "not covetous."
Would this be saying the same thing twice around? Maybe it
would, then again, the first(if we conclude it is in the original
Greek) would be a general statement, and including all one could
imagine as "base gain" while the second pin-points a specific -
the love of money.
COVETOUS (not a lover of money):
See the comments above.
Adam Clarke: "......not desiring the office for the sake of
its 'emoluments.' He who loves money will stick at nothing in
order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to him alike,
provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of
reputation he may wish to get all honorably; but if that cannot
be, he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother
heathen gives him this counsel: 'Get money if you can by fair
means, if not, get it by hook and by crook.' "
NOT CONTENTIOUS (not a brawler):
William Barclay: "The Greek means 'disinclined to fight.'
There are people who, as we might put it, are 'trigger-happy' in
their relationships with other people. But the real Christian
leader wants nothing so much as he wants peace with his
fellow-men."
Barnes: "Comp.2 Tim.2:24. That is, he should not be a man
given to contention, or apt to take up a quarrel."
The man of God is an individual who is not prone to enter into
quarrels or contentions with people. He is not going about to see
who he can fight with over this matter or that matter. There is
a difference between having a discussion or even a debate with
someone over a religious matter, and keeping it within the
"spirit" of Christianity, and stepping over the line where it
becomes a "knock down drag out fight" of verbal abuse, where the
evil side of contentions step in.
And there is also a difference between that unrighteous
adoption of verbal fighting, and the now and again time when
righteous indignation and "righteous judgment" must be employed
with some individual.
The true minister of the Lord will know the differences and
will know how and when each is occurring, and govern himself
accordingly. Again, let me say, the servant of the Eternal is not
perfect, he is still flesh and blood, he may make an error some
time, but what makes him a true Elder of the Lord is that he will
repent of it, as soon as he sees it, or when it is pointed out to
him.
Overall, the man of God is, as a person and as a way of
practical life, NOT A BRAWLER. He is not a hard-nosed street
fighter with words or with actions. Anyone who is, and will not
repent and change, cannot and should not be in the ministry of
the Church of God.
ONE THAT RULES WELL HIS OWN HOUSE:
As Richard Nickels has noted: "This qualifications for an
overseer covers two areas of his personal life: (a) management of
the home and (b) training of children. Is his home neat, clean,
orderly? Does he manage his finances well? Does he provide well
for his family? Are his children respectful, eager to learn more
of the Eternal's truth?.........
Here is something that takes time. Obviously, an elder or
overseer is just that, an older man who has had the time to prove
his spiritual maturity........"
Albert Barnes has a lot to say on this point, and I will take
the time and the space to quote much of what he has written.
"One that rules well his own house. This implies that the
minister of the gospel would be, and ought to be, a married man.
It is everywhere in the NT supposed that he would be a man who
could be an example in all the relations of life. The positions
which he occupies in the Church has a strong resemblance to the
relationship which a father sustains to his household; and a
qualification to govern a family well, would be an evidence of a
qualification to preside properly in the Church. It is probable
that, in the early Christian Church, ministers were not
infrequently taken from those of mature life, and who were, at
the time, at the head of families; and, of course, such would be
men who had had an opportunity of showing that they had this
qualification for the office. Though, however this cannot be
insisted upon now.......yet it is still true that, if he has a
family, it is a necessary qualification, and that a man in the
ministry should be one who governs his own house well.......
(Note: We have covered the fact that some in the ministry of
the NT apostolic Church were not married with families, but that
was the exception and not the rule. Remember these are general
rules of qualifications Paul lays down, without going into the
exceptions. He himself knew the words of Christ that some to whom
it was given and could receive it, would make themselves eunuchs
for the Kingdom of heaven's sake - Keith Hunt).
Continuing with Barnes:
Having his children in subjection with all gravity...........He
should be a grave or serious man in his family; a man free from
levity of character, and from frivolity and fickleness, in his
intercourse with his children. It does not mean he should be
severe, stern, morose - which are traits which are often mistaken
for gravity, and which are as inconsistent with the proper spirit
of a father as frivolity of manner - but that he should be
a serious and sober-minded man. He should maintain proper
dignity, he should maintain self-respect; and his deportment
should be such as to inspire others with respect for him.
For if a man know not how to rule.........A Church resembles a
family. It is, indeed, larger, and there is a greater variety of
dispositions in it than there is in a family. The authority of a
minister of the gospel in a Church is also less absolute than
that of a father. But still there is a striking resemblance. The
Church is made up of an assemblage of brothers and sisters. They
are banded together for the same purpose, and have a common
object to air at. They have common feelings and common wants.
They have sympathy, like a family, with each other in their
distresses and afflictions. The government of the Church also is
designed to be 'paternal.' It should be felt that he who presides
over it, has the feelings of a father; that he loves all the
members of the great family; that he has no prejudices, no
partialities, no selfish aims to gratify. Now, if a man cannot
govern his own family well; if he is severe, partial, neglectful,
or tyrannical at home, how can he be expected to take charge of
the more numerous ' household of faith ' with proper views
and feelings? If, with all the natural and strong ties of
affection, which bind a father to his own children; if, when they
are few comparatively in number, and where his eye is constantly
upon them, he is unable to govern them aright, how can he be
expected to preside in a proper manner over the larger household,
where he will be bound with comparatively feebler ties, and where
he will be exposed to the influence of passion, and where he will
have a much less constant opportunity of supervision?......."
End quotes from Albert Barnes.
Again, I must emphasis that Paul gives here a "general" rule.
To insist that a man MUST have children or MUST even be married
to qualify for the ministry, is to lift this instruction
completely out of the context of the NT. For what about a man
and his wife who were unable to have children(I guess some would
argue they could adopt children)? What about those who lost their
children in some terrible accident(I guess some would argue they
could have more or adopt)? What if a man was on the verge of
being ordained to the ministry(say in one week) and through a car
crash he lost his wife and children? Would that mean his
ordination was on an indefinite hold? Oh, no indeed not, for he
had already proved himself qualified and called to the ministry
of Jesus Christ.
This is an important matter, a man ruling well his own house.
Many variables come into play, and must be taken into
consideration by the ministers and Church as this qualification
is acted out in a man's life. I will give some examples to
illustrate.
(1) A man has six children. Five are model children, well
behaved, respectful and a pleasure to know, but the sixth one,
that is another story altogether, a long way to go to catch up to
the other five. Does that one out of six children disqualify him
from being ordained to the ministry? I am not saying that sixth
child has murdered someone or anything of that nature, and we are
talking about "children" - under the age of 18 in North America.
The whole situation would have to be looked at I know, but my
general opinion would be that the one unruly child out of six
would not disqualify him from the ministry.
(2) A man raises his children well(I realize his wife is
probably just as much or even more responsible for this). They
are young teenagers. He is ordained to the ministry. Then a few
of his children some years later as older teens, go wild and
become a disgrace, yet most of his family stay true and strong in
the Christian faith. He and his wife did the very best with all
of them in very way, but a few got in with the wrong company.
Some could contend he did not do enough and he failed. He did not
have 100% complete success. Is he now to resign from the
ministry, or have this function taken away from him? Again I
realize each situations would need to be looked at within its own
context. But do you see that Paul was giving a general principle
qualification, without going into all the fine points.
(3) Now here's one for you to think about. A man raises his
children very well. They are all say under the teenage line, but
the oldest is not far away from 13. The youngest we shall say is
10 years old. And we shall say there are three children. This man
for many years, since the children were babies, has ruled well
his own house in every way. He and his wife have been model
parents, and tried to do things by the book. The husband/father
has proved himself in all the qualifications Paul here lays down.
He is ordained to the ministry.
Then as the years slowly roll by and the children become
teens, the troubles really start. All three children start to get
into troubles, and troubles, and more troubles. It becomes quite
obvious to all in the Church, these three children from one of
the Elders are way out of control, and they finally do things
that bring open disgrace on the congregation and community.
Should that Elder step down from the function of the ministry?
Should other Elders and the congregation ask/demand that he step
down?
Don't think this never happens, for it indeed does. I have
witnessed it personally with men I knew.
The above is something like an overseer who, during his
ministry becomes controlled by wine/alcohol for whatever reasons.
Is such a man to be allowed to continue in the function of a
Church leader while being an alcoholic? Or should he not step
down until at least the problem is overcome?
Let's remember, Paul here gives general over all principles of
qualifications without going into all the varying details of
exceptions and individual specific cases that could possible
arise in the life of people and the Church of God.
It's something like what God established with ancient Israel.
They were given basic laws and regulations to live by, but the
answer to every specific situations that could arise in Israel
was not all written down and answered in hundreds of books to be
kept in the Tabernacle for reference when needed. God set up
"judges" in Israel who had the job of deciding all the various
specifics of the many variants that could arise within the lives
of people - see Deuteronomy 17:8-13.
What must govern is that a man shows he has all these points
of qualification under basic control, way more control than not
for sure. He must have shown he has passed the exam on these
points, scored a very good grade, very close to the top of the
class, along with other men who could qualify with him, if there
are any others of course(remember Jesus said we should pray the
Lord of the harvest to send more laborers into the harvest, for
the harvest is ripe and ready to be gathered in). This man
is not ruled by covetousness, impatience, wine, money, etc., but
has the mastery over these. And he has shown that he leads his
own home well. He does all these things well, very well in fact,
notwithstanding the errors and slips he may make sometimes on
account that he is still flesh and blood.
NOT A NOVICE:
Richard Nickels: "A minister cannot be a recent convert, lest
he become proud and conceited at his authority and fall into the
same sin as Satan did. Any organization that send young men fresh
out of school to be 'spiritual leaders' of Churches is heading
the way of satan. A true elder has been trained for years under
another man. He knows life's problems because he has lived many
years, and worked with a great number of people."
I understand fully the comment by Nickels, as I have
first-hand experience in being, at one time, a part of an
organization that did send young men fresh out of Theological
School to be "spiritual leaders" of Churches. Most of them had
never experienced walking as a Christian in the world, with all
its trials, temptations, job problems for those who keep the
Sabbath and Feast days, and all the other things that life in
society can bring. Most were young in marriage with no children
or very young children, having little experience in this aspect
of life. And indeed, many did become inflated with pride and
vanity, until the whole organization eventually became filled
with the cancerous way of the deceptions of Satan. It was only
the few that remained faithful and had to pull away from the body
of sickness, to learn from the errors committed and move forward
in spirit and in truth. It is a hard way to learn. They say
experience is the best teacher, but it is often not the most
pleasant, as those who have gone through the experience I mention
above will quickly assert.
It should be obvious to most Christians that a man serving as
a Church overseer should be well grounded in Biblical knowledge,
understanding, and PRACTICE. The average person wanting the best
possible job done on his house plumbing, electrical work,
carpentry, or his children's dental work, eye care etc., is going
to find someone who he knows is WELL QUALIFIED in that area of
work. with many years of study, knowledge, and PRACTICAL
experience behind them. It should be no different for those
entrusted with the care and guidance of the Church of God. If he
lacks knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and practical experience
in the things of God, and living as a Christian in the world, how
easy it would be for Satan to catch him and reap havoc within
the flock of the Lord. To try to save-guard this happening, Paul
was inspired to lay down a basic qualification for the ministry -
no novice to Christianity was to have the function of overseer
within the Church. This would help to guard against the attack of
Satan, but as we see from Acts 20 it would not guarantee complete
elimination of false seduction from Elders within the Church.
Paul knew well that even Elders who were not novices could go
astray and be caught in the web of Satan. There is much the NT
has to say about apostasy entering the Church from WITHIN the
Church itself via ministers who would fall away from the truth of
the word of God. That is another subject for another time.
Here is what Albert Barnes writes:
".....The Greek word, which occurs nowhere else in the
NT, means, properly, that which is NEWLY PLANTED. Thus it would
mean a plant that was not strong, or not fitted to bear the
severity of storms; that had not as yet struck its roots deep,
and could not resist the fierceness of a cold blast. Then the
word comes to mean a new convert; one who has had little
opportunity to test his own faith, or to give evidence to others
that he would be faithful to the trust committed to him. The word
does not refer so much as to one young IN YEARS, as one who is
young IN FAITH. Still, all the reasons which apply against
introducing a very recent convert into the ministry, will apply
commonly with equal force against introducing one young in years.
Lest being lifted up with pride. We are not to suppose that
this is the ONLY reason against introducing a recent convert into
the ministry, but it is a SUFFICIENT reason.........He fall into
the condemnation of the devil. That is, the same kind of
condemnation the devil fell into; to wit, the condemnation on
account of pride.......
The idea of Paul is, that a young convert should not suddenly
be raised to an exalted station in the church. Who can doubt the
wisdom of this direction? The word rendered LIFTED UP, is from a
verb which means, to smoke, to fume, to surround with smoke; then
to INFLATE - as a bladder is with air; and then to be conceited
or proud; that is, to be LIKE a bladder filled, not with a solid
substance, but with air" (Emphasis his).
A GOOD REPORT OF THEM THAT ARE WITHOUT:
Richard Nickels has truly written: "Last but certainly not
least, is this important must for a would-be elder or overseer.
Those outside the Church are the best judge of religious
hypocrisy. They are quick to detect the fakes who don't practice
what they preach......"
Once more we shall hear from Albert Barnes: "Who are without
the Church; that is, of those who are not Christians......The
idea is he must have a FAIR REPUTATION with them.....He must be
true, and just, and honest in his dealings with his fellow
men.....He must not give occasion for scandal or reproach
.....with the other sex......The reason for this injunction is
too obvious. It is his business to endeavor to do such men good,
and to persuade them to become Christians. BUT NO MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL CAN POSSIBLE DO SUCH MEN GOOD, UNLESS THEY REGARD HIM AS
AN UPRIGHT AND HONEST MAN......Go to a man whom you have
defrauded, or who regards you as having done or attempted wrong
to any other, and talk to him about the necessity of religion,
and he will instinctively say, that he does not WANT a religion
which will not make its professor true, honest, and pure. It is
impossible, therefore, for a minister to over-estimate the
importance of having a FAIR CHARACTER in the view of the world,
and no man should be INTRODUCED INTO the ministry, or SUSTAINED
IN IT, who has not a fair reputation.......
Lest he fall into reproach......His life will be such as to
give men occasion to reproach the cause of religion.
And the snare of the devil.......The snare to which reference
is here made, is that of BLASTING THE CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF
THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL......If there is anything of this kind
in the life of a minister which they can make use of, they will
be ready to do it......Satan is constantly aiming at this thing;
the world is watching for it; and if the minister has any
PROPENSITY which is not in entire accordance with honesty, Satan
will take advantage of it, and lead him into the snare"
(Emphasis his and mine).
Paul is saying that generally, overall, a man chosen for the
ministry must be well liked and respected by the overall
neighbors, business associates, etc. To be sure, given enough
time, and enough people, someone you rub shoulders with in the
world is not going to get along with you for one reason or
another(sometimes it's just personality clashes), and would be
happy to blackball you if asked about you. Often such may be
due to misunderstanding, or not getting what they wanted from
you, disagreeing with you over some issue, maybe it is pure
jealousy. Whatever, there is probably someone, somewhere, that
you have crossed paths with, that has it in for you and will be
glad to speak evil of you if given the chance. This Paul I'm
sure knew very well, from his own personal ministry and the
enemies he had. This is not the point Paul was addressing.
What he was stating is the overall points that Albert Barnes
talked about in his comments.
We must also remember this report comes from "those without"
the Church, not from those within on this particular
qualification. The general opinion must come from the
world, without any influence from the Church. The world must
speak for itself fair and square.
This point of qualification also shows forth the truth that in
the mind of the apostle Paul, a man fit for the ministry was a
man who had working experience within the daily life of the
working world. He was not a man straight from High School into
Theological School and out to pastor a Church or serve as
assistant pastor for a year or two before moving on to full
pastorship. He was a man who had served in the working world for
quite some time, because he was able to have built up a
reputation among the people of those without the Church.
Again, what better way to serve those in the Church who have
to deal with and live as a Christian on a daily shoulder rubbing
basis, with the world, than having the personal experience of
"being there." They will truly know what it is like and can be a
faithful helper, guide, comforter, and server of their needs,
because they have walked the same road at one time.
Jesus, it is written, is a faithful High Priest for us,
because He became flesh and blood. He was tempted in all points
as we are, yet was without sin. He knows exactly our
needs, our pains, our trials, our fight against Satan and his
world, as well as the pull of human nature. He has been there,
experienced it all in an overall way, and so it fitted Him
to be a better High Priest in heaven above.
QUALIFICATIONS IN TITUS
Paul was inspired to tell Titus the qualifications needed for
a man to attain the function of Elder or Overseer in the Church.
Below I give the list of comparisons between Timothy and Titus,
as drawn up by Richard Nickels in his study paper on this
subject.
1 Timothy 3 Titus 1
(1) Blameless. (1) Blameless as the steward of God.
(2) Husband of one wife. (2) Husband of one wife.
(3) Vigilant, sober, good behavior. (3) Sober, just, holy, temperate.
(4) Given to hospitality. (4) Lover of hospitality, over of good men.
(5) Apt to teach. (5) Holding fast the faithful word as he has
been taught, that he may be able by sound
doctrine both to exhort and convince(convict)
the gainsayers.
(6) Not given to wine, no striker, (6) Not self-willed, not soon
patient, not a brawler. angry, not given to wine,
no striker.
(7) Not greedy of filthy lucre... (7) Not given to filthy lucre.
not covetous.
(8) Ruling well his own house, (8) Having faithful children
having his children in not accused of riot or unruly
subjection with all gravity.
(9) Not a novice. (9) Holding fast the faithful
word as he has been
taught.....
(10) A good report of them which (10) .....(absent).
are without.
We can see from the above that in nine of ten qualifications,
Titus 1 agrees with Timothy 3.
CONCLUSION
As we evaluate the guidelines for those called to the ministry
of the overseership in the Church, as given by Paul to Timothy
and Titus, we must be very careful to always put those basic
qualifications within the context of the whole NT. This can be
the only correct way if we are to avoid a distorted view of those
qualifications.
We must keep firmly in our mind that Paul is giving GENERAL
statements only, without going into all the various variables on
each, that could arise within the context of any particular
Church, as it moves through time.
There is of course little problem in applying these
qualifications to a specific man if he refuses to accept the call
to the ministry, or if he himself wilfully resigns from the
Eldership. The difficulty for the individual member of the Church
arises when a minister has sinned and continues to sin, but will
not step down from the function of overseer/elder. I hope this
study and my paper on "When Does a Minister Disqualify Himself
from the Ministry?" will help the inquiring mind regarding this
important doctrinal topic.
The overall determining factors I believe can be broken down
into THREE basic areas or points:
1. Repentance 2. Practice 3. Doctrine
I have covered these points in some detail in my article on
"Disqualification" mentioned above. But I think it is
appropriate to briefly summarize them again here.
Repentance:
A minister does sin. Sometimes his sin may be open before
others and correction may need to be given before others(the
example of Paul with Peter - Gal.2). A true servant of the Lord
will repent with real repentance as exhibited by people like Job
and David.
Practice:
This covers an undetermined amount of time. What must be
watched for and noted is a wrong attitude towards the weaknesses
a man possesses(ignoring them, denial of them,
self-justification, lying about them etc.) and repeating or
practicing of them, as a way of life.
Doctrine:
A man who has or is presented with the facts of truth and
given time to digest them, who is confronted and debated with,
but refuses to repent of teaching clear and obvious
error, as established on the plain word of the Lord, is a man who
is no longer being led by the Holy Spirit. For the simple
teaching of Jesus was that, ".....when he, the Spirit of
truth is come, he will guide you into all truth....."
(John 16:13).
Jesus said He would build His church, and He also said the
gates of hell would not prevail against it, meaning death would
not overcome it. His NT Church would never die out. Then Christ
inspired Paul to say that God had put certain functions within
the Church. The ministry would have men working within it that
would have different gifts and responsibilities, some would be
apostles, some would be evangelists, some prophets, and
some pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11,12).
Jesus also told his followers to pray to the Father to send
more laborers into the harvest to reap because the harvest is
great. certainly every Christian can be a harvester for the Lord,
but the flocks gathered in from the harvest do need to be guided,
led, pastored. All flocks must have a least one shepherd to
oversee them, to help them, to serve them.
True Godly men who can be called to the Eldership in the
Church is needed in a HUGE way. It is a vital part of the health
of the Church of God. A calling to the ministry of Jesus Christ
is a tremendous responsibility. When that calling is accepted it
should be a life time commitment. I was just reading in one of
the Sabbath keeping Church of God publications, that a certain
Elder just died last September 1997. He was 95 years old, and
upon his death he was still an active overseer/elder in his local
Church. If health of body and mind holds to the end, then this
is how it should be in the ministry. This does not mean a man is
an Elder till death regardless of how he lives etc. We have seen
that a man can disqualify himself from the ministry(certainly my
study paper on that side of the topic shows it).
We need as individuals to pray that more men will become
qualified to enter the calling of the overseership in the Church.
We need to pray once they are functioning in that capacity, that
they will remain true and faithful to the end. For out of all of
them who start out correctly with the Lord on this road of
service, some will go astray, fall into apostasy, be caught in
the snare of Satan (Paul knew it would be so - see Acts 20).
All individual Christians have a personal responsibility.
They are never to give their mind over to any man, or any
organization of men. They are to have a personal relationship
with the Lord, which means in part, that they search the
scriptures daily, prove all things, and personally keep their
nose in the Bible, so they will always know who speaks the truth
of the word of God.
The Eternal DOES have and WILL have, His true faithful
ministers on this earth. Hopefully this study article will help
you determine who they ARE, and who they possibly CAN be.
..........................................
Written first in 1986. Re-written and enlarged in January 1998.
Permission is granted to photo copy, print, publish, distribute
all studies by Keith Hunt, as the Spirit of the Lord leads. Mr.
Hunt trusts nothing will be changed without his consent.
2. Church Minister Dis- qualifications?
When is a minister dis-qualified from serving as a church leader? by
Keith Hunt
A NOBLE TASK
The office of an OVERSEER, elder or minister is a noble task
indeed (1 Tim.3:1 RSV). It is a VERY HIGH responsibility to
guide, oversee, to teach, and to take care of the Church of God.
So much so that the Eternal God inspired Paul to lay down certain
very strict and severe qualifications on anyone whom an elder or
elders(and congregation backing) were considering to ordain into
the ministry. These qualifications are found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7
and Titus 1:5-9. I have a separate in-depth study article on the
subject of those two passages of Scripture.
A man may have committed many sins - even some very grievous
(as the apostle Paul did, and some of those he tells us about in
his writings) BEFORE his conversion and becoming a child of God.
These are washed away at baptism by the blood of Jesus Christ. A
man may have slipped and fallen into any sin AFTER his baptism -
deeply repented and never fallen into that sin again. His life
and fruits of conversion will clearly show his fruits of
repentance were genuine.
Over a period of time (probably many years as a Christian,
how else can he have proved himself as "ruling well his own
house, having children in subjection.....children not accused of
riot or unruly.....Not a novice......having a good report of them
outside the church......" 1 Tim.3:4,6,7; Titus 1:6) a man must
meet the qualifications as given in 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1. It has
become very clear through FASTING and PRAYER (Acts 14:23) of
other ministers, that this man is called of God to be ordained to
the office of OVERSEER in the Church of God.
The problem with too many church organizations in the past
and maybe in the present, is that not ENOUGH TIME was given for a
man to really prove he had been called to the ministry by the
Lord. Far too often the men were far to young when ordained with
little "life" experience, and with little personal family
experience of their own. Too often it was done for "political"
church reasons, or for expediency of one kind or another. The sad
result of such actions was that many of these men became either
"yes men" to other ministers, or they became so full of vanity
they acted like little Hitlers towards their congregations. Some
placed in a higher organizational profile even thought they were
above any law(including God's) or/and that they had a "special"
calling from God so the Church of God could not possibly function
without them. But the truth of the matter is the Church of God
was alive BEFORE they were born, and it will still continue AFTER
they are dead.
It should not be easy to be ordained to the ministry, it
should take quite a while, of testing and proving, growing
spiritually and moving from being a novice of the word, into
personally being able to correctly divide the word of truth, and
to show leadership qualities within his own family. No one in
Israel could become a Priest until the age of 30 years at least,
that should tell us something. And Paul maybe laying down such
strong qualifications that may take it past age 30 by some years.
To find such qualified men would not be as easy as attending some
Theology University, or putting on your work clothes. That is why
Jesus said as He look at the vast crowds of people out there, the
harvest is GREAT, pray to the Lord of the harvest that he will
send men into the harvest to reap. People were to continually
pray for men to come who could qualify for Jesus' ministry, for
such true servants of God would not come easily, or without pray
and fasting.
Again, let me emphasize - the qualifications for a minister
as given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are VERY demanding. If the
reader has never studied these point by point, then I suggest you
do so with the help of a Greek Lexicon and some of the popular
Bible Commentaries such as William Barley's DAILY WORD STUDY, or
Barnes' NOTES ON THE NT.
DO CHRISTIANS AND MINISTERS SIN?
After a person has repented, been baptised and received
God's Holy Spirit - after they have had all their sins forgiven
and blotted out by the blood of the Christ (Rom.3:23- 25; 5:8-10)
and are now completely clean, is it IMPOSSIBLE for them to sin
again?
God's word answers us very emphatically on this question!
Christians, walking down the Salvation road, are deceiving
themselves if they think they have no sin and no need of
continual repentance(a repentant attitude) before God
(1 John 1:8). An ordained minister is still flesh and blood, as
are all the living members of the body of Christ. An Elder is
still subject to the pulls of the flesh and to the attacks
of Satan as are all other Christians. A minister DOES SIN at
times (as Paul confessed he did - Rom.7:14-25). But a minister
will have proved himself in areas of life and conduct
(as shown in 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1) that give him a high moral and
spiritual step or standard in everyday life (but still humble and
not self-righteous) or he would never have been ordained in the
first place, if 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1 are being followed, and much
time is given to prove such men are qualified for the ministry of
God.
Christians and Christian ministers may at times sin. We all
have our own personal sins to overcome and repent of. Sometimes
a sin may be more OPEN than personal as Peter's sin was,
mentioned by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. Paul, in this particular
case, with all other avenues tried I'm sure, had NO CHOICE left
but to OPENLY denounce Peter BEFORE OTHERS concerning his wrong
actions and conduct. Paul gave instructions to Timothy about
openly rebuking a minister before other ministers and God's
people IF the situation warranted it (1 Tim.5:19-20). One
important rule was that there had to be two or three witnesses
before such an undertaking of rebuking a minister for a serious
sin, was determined to be the appropriate way to go in the
situation. Obviously, from the rest of the NT, including the
important passage in Matthew 18, all other instructions of
offending brethren had been followed first, and the men Paul is
talking about to Timothy, are truly guilty of serious sin and
unrepentant in attitude. Such was Peter at one time and Paul had
no choice but to rebuke him before others (Gal.2).
As there is no indication that Peter CONTINUED in his error
after having it clearly shown to him, as it was NOT a
RE-OCCURRING sin and Peter did not make it a part of his life, a
practice to live this way - it is, I think, just, to conclude
that this was a ONCE ONLY error, an error and sin that was DEEPLY
repented of, and that Peter never committed again. Thus Peter was
able to continue as a minister of God.
Now, there may be sins committed by an individual minister
THAT ARE re-occurring (I'm now talking about sins that are more
than personal) and involve ONE OR MORE other participants, AND
MAY NEVER BE DISCOVERED BY OTHERS (1 Tim.5:24). Yet God knows
those sins and so does the minister. With what Paul was inspired
to write regarding the qualifications of an Overseer in 1 Tim.3
and Titus 1, should not that man be honest enough and humble
enough to admit his CONTINUAL PRACTICE of sins that are other
than his personal individual sins (that we all strive against,
i.e., impatience, thoughts of jealously, bad temper, revenge
thoughts, lust of the mind etc.), have DISQUALIFIED him from
continuing in the ministry. Should not such a man VOLUNTARILY
RESIGN from the Overseership office in the church?
Oh, yes indeed, but to find such a sinning minister that
will do such a humble move, will be like looking for a needle in
a hay-stack. Especially if such a man is a full time paid
minister, or has some high profile function in his church
denomination, or has been led to believe (by others) that he has
a special calling from God to the world or to the nations of
Israel.
There have been some few individuals recorded in the history
of the Sabbath observing churches, who, reflecting on their life
style and practices while in the ministry, DID HUMBLE themselves
and voluntarily RESIGNED from the Eldership (i.e., C.W. Stanley
of Lodi, Wisconsin, upon his resignation from the ministry in
December of 1860 said, "I have so poorly filled the office of a
good minister of Jesus Christ......during the eleven years past,
I do this day resign holy office." From, "The Advent Review and
Sabbath Herald, Dec.18th 1860, pp.39-40).
The Lord will honor such humility!
DISFELLOWSHIP AND THE MINISTRY
I have written very extensively on the doctrine of
DISFELLOWSHIPPING, as it applies to the members and the ministry
of the church. I will only say here that if the church has the
right to sanction and disfellowship a member (and they do) who is
known to be PRACTICING open sin (1 Cor.5 is an example), how
much MORE do they have the right to sanction and disfellowship a
minister who is known to be practicing sins that would bring
shame and reproach upon him and the church?
Is the physical act of having hands laid on a man by other
ministers in an ordination ceremony, an automatic (for the rest
of his physical life) GUARANTEE that he is a minister until DEATH
- regardless of how he lives from then on out? Surely no
God fearing person can uphold this kind of theology!
God is NO RESPECTER of persons! If disfellowshipping can be
applied to the members of the church, it can be applied to a
MINISTER! Paul says all in the body of Christ are part of His
body, all are needed, all are given different functions, and none
are greater or above any other in that sense. Certainly in the
disciplinary action of sins and disfellowshipping within the
church, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
The subject of "church disfellowshipping" has been greatly
abused by some and not understood by others. I have a full
in-depth study paper on the subject if anyone cares to request
it. I can send it via E-mail.
If, we as Christians, can FALL from the grace of God (loose
out on Salvation and inheriting eternal life) as we can (request
my study called "Saved by Grace" to see that truth expounded and
how we are saved by grace not works), HOW MUCH MORE can a man
DISQUALIFY himself from the office of DEACON, or ELDER as a
function within the church?
HUMILITY A RARE JEWEL
There have been ministers in the past (and some will no
doubt yet appear) who after their ordination fell into practicing
sins of one kind or another (lies, thefts, maliciousness,
immorality, drunkenness, extortion etc.). They have been guilty
of PRACTICING things as a wrong way of life, that were not only
against the 10 commandments of God, but also broke the
qualifications required of an Overseer in the church, as outlined
in 1 tim.3 and Titus 1.
Some of these individuals, if they were not asked to or made
to resign from the ministry by other ministers or their
respective congregations DID NOT VOLUNTARILY RESIGN, OR IF MADE
TO RESIGN, claimed they were still a chosen minister of God,
and kept on preaching and teaching while CONTINUING TO PRACTICE
SINS contrary to 1 Tim.3 and the 10 Commandments.
What is it that these men have that they believe they are
"above the law" of God, or above the strict requirements outlined
in 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1, for BECOMING and STAYING an elder or
Overseer? Why is it that they may feel and even teach, that 1
Tim.3 applies to others but NOT to THEMSELVES?
The answer is simply, VANITY!!
The heavens did not open to them as they did to Paul - they
were not struck with blinding light - they never heard the voice
of God personally talking to them (as Paul did) that they were
now a minister UNTIL DEATH and could never be disqualified.
They had none of this, yet some have felt that being
ordained by other ministers, having a good voice, being able to
preach dynamically and expound many truths of God's word, being
used on Radio or TV, writing articles in their church's
magazines, somehow gave them a SPECIAL calling - a unique calling
- something different than other ministers - an "individual
mission to Israel."
These individuals have become so filled with SELF-esteem and
PRIDE about what earthy success they have had in forming an
ORGANIZATION, or getting others to follow them, searing their
mind with the idea that they, above others, or along with others,
have some special ministerial calling that knows no boundaries.
They have forgotten or blinded their minds to the truth that a
calling to the ministry is a TRUST that God gives a man, not as
an "automatic until death, irregardless of how you live
commission" but a GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY that requires the meeting
of difficult qualifications BEFORE and AFTER his ordination.
They have forgotten that God is not dependant on man, but man
on God. they have forgotten that the Eternal is able to raise up
and call other men to write and speak and proclaim His gospel if
they should fall and disqualify themselves from the sacred trust
of the ministry. They have forgotten that God needs them not,
but they need Him, and that means the humility to REPENT and to
RESIGN from the ministry if their practices have been such as to
bring reproach and evil speaking against the Church of God.
When the Almighty is able to raise up the stones of the
ground to preach His word if needs be, what right does any man
have to vainly think or say that he has some unique commission
that overrides how he lives? Let such men and all of us learn a
lesson from John the Baptist, who WAS specifically called to do a
work of the Lord in Israel, but when asked if he was the Elijah
that was to come, denied that he was! So great was the humility
this man had that Jesus said none among men, none born of a
woman, had ever been greater.
It is a GRAVE and SERIOUS responsibility to be a TEACHER and
OVERSEER among the people of God. That is why James was inspired
to write: "My brothers, don't let MANY of you BECOME TEACHERS or
MINISTERS, because those who are shall be under GREATER JUDGMENT
and scrutiny" (James 3:1, paraphrased myself).
THE ACID TEST
Jesus gave us one of the main tests whereby we can determine
WHO HAS NOT DISQUALIFIED himself from the true ministry, or who
was perhaps never a true minister at all: "You shall know them
by THEIR fruits....." (Matt.7:16).
Notice, it does not say, "you shall know them by how large
an organization they build around them, " or "how many people
they get to follow them," or even "how many persons come to the
truth through their preaching," BUT IT IS "by THEIR fruits" -
how they conduct themselves in their daily life and activities,
and what fruit is shown in THEIR lives, judged in the light of
God's law and the high standards for those in the ministry as
outlined in 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1.
Teaching the correct DOCTRINE of God's word is the other
important test of a faithful minister (2 John 9-11). This means
not teaching falsehoods that are PLAINLY revealed to be false by
the word of the Lord (i.e., The immortality of the soul doctrine,
denying that Jesus was born of a virgin, denying Christ will
return literally and bodily, believing Jesus sinned while flesh
and blood on earth, claiming that the whole law, or one of its
ten points, is "done away with" today, teaching that one man is
head of the Church of God, with all final authority)
If a man cannot pass these TWO tests, he is not a minister
of the true God. If a man DURING his office as a minister
PRACTICES contrary to these two tests, he has DISQUALIFIED
himself from being a minister, and should for the love of the
righteousness of God, and a desire not to bring reproach upon the
Church of God by outsiders, humbly RESIGN !
If any minister shows over a period of time that he has
failed these two tests, other ministers and members of his church
should demand he resigns from the ministry. If he will not, then
the doctrine of disfellowshipping must be implemented and carried
through to the end if needs be. If such a man leaves and
continues to claim he is a minister, then all who know the truth
should stand away from him, and by no means whatsoever endorse
his work. If such men are able to control and create a following
from within an oraganization, then those who have stood up for
the righteousness of the Lord must depart and leave such sinners
and move on to walk in the light of truth.
It is possible for a minister to disqualify himself from the
ministry, so ministers be ware, all members of the body of Christ
be ware. Let's pray for the true ministers of the Lord, that
they will be kept safe from Satan, and from falling into sins
that will take them out of the ministry. The true ministers of
God need your prayers. And please also remember to pray that the
Lord will send more laborers into the fields for the harvest is
great.
...........................
Written first in 1982. Revised and re-written January 1998.
3. Tongues - rules for use in the church
A study on 1 Cor.14 and the use of the gift of tongues
by
Keith Hunt
This study is pertaining to the true spiritual gift of TONGUES
in the context of divine worship services, the rules of how this
gift is to be used as laid down by the apostle Paul in his letter
to the Church of God at Corinth.
I recommend you read 1 Corinthians 14 as found in AMPLIFIED
BIBLE. I believe this translation gives the intent of the Greek,
especially the word " prophecy."
I want you to grasp the OVERALL point of what Paul is
concerned with when it comes to the use of tongues in the public
worship assemblies, in comparison with "prophecy."
I will start with the last words of Paul in this chapter.
Whatever the gifts of the Spirit, to Paul there was NEVER AT ANY
TIME TO BE DISORDER OR CONFUSION (see also verse 33) IN THE
CHURCH ASSEMBLY. To him, any disorder or confusion was NOT from
God. If such was not of God, then it left only two other sources
from where it came - 1)carnal human nature, and/or 2) the demonic
world.
I am not saying the gift per se was of demonic power (yet we
must remember that demons can copy the gifts of the Spirit and
thereby deceive many) but using it wrongly and disorderly could
be influenced by the forces of the evil one.
Let me make this crystal clear with this illustration and
example. I have the God given gift of being able to YODEL. I have
control over this gift, I can choose to yodel or not yodel.
This gift does not control me but I control it. When in Church
worship services I still have complete control over this gift. I
can be joyful and very enthusiastic or quiet and meditative,
my gift of being able to yodel is under my control, never does it
control me. I can at any time I choose start to yodel. There is a
time and place to use this gift. If I should rise and start to
yodel in the middle of the sermon, it would be disorder. It may
also lead to someone else thinking they could stand and say or do
something, and before you know it there is confusion on every
side.
Paul STRESSED very clearly that all things were to be done in
ORDER and CONTROL.
To Paul the exercising of the gift of PROPHECY in the worship
service was far more important than the gift of tongues.
The gift of tongues was not to be disallowed BUT PAUL HAD
GIVEN SPECIFIC RULES AND COMMANDS AS TO HOW AND UNDER WHAT
CONDITIONS THIS GIFT COULD BE USE IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLY.
Please NOTE, the things Paul had instructed, ruled, and laid
out to be followed were NOT his suggestions, but were THE
COMMANDS OF THE LORD (verse 37).
We do well to TAKE HEED and UNDERSTAND the things said by
Paul in this 14th chapter of Corinthians. I have found that VERY
FEW of the ministers, let alone the members, of the Church of
God, understand Paul's teaching of the use of tongues in the
worship services, which in turn leads to a breaking of the
commandments of the Lord.
PAUL'S OVERALL THEME
Note again all the sections I have underlined. Verse one -
"especially that you may prophesy."
Verse three - "prophesies.......speaks to men for their
upbuilding and constructive spiritual progress and encouragement
and consolation."
Verse four - "....but he who prophesies edifies and
improves the church...."
Verse five - "....so that the church may be edified and get
good out of it."
Notice verse twelve - ......concentrate on striving to excel
and abound (in them) in ways that will build up the church."
Verse seventeen - "....but the bystander is not edified - it
does him no good."
Then there is verse nineteen - " Nevertheless, in public
worship, I would rather say five words with my understanding, and
intelligently in order to instruct others, than ten thousand
words in a (strange) language."
Verse twenty four - "But if all prophesy.......outsiders come
in, he is told of his sin and reproved and convinced by all."
Look at verse twenty six - "What then, brethren, is (the
right course)? When you meet together.......(But) let everything
be constructive and edifying and for the good of all."
Verse thirty one - ".......so that all may be instructed and
all may be stimulated and encouraged."
The main concern and theme of Paul in this chapter regarding
the church assemblies, should now be clearly seen. Church worship
to him was for EDIFYING, for INSTRUCTION, for CONSTRUCTIVE
TEACHING, for CONVINCING SINNERS AND UNBELIEVERS TO
REPENT, for the UNDERSTANDING and GOOD of ALL.
To Paul, those that spoke in tongues (without any
interpretation, and obviously that was happening in the church at
Corinth) were speaking only TO GOD, while no one else UNDERSTOOD
or was EDIFIED by it (verse 2, 9, 11, 16).
This practice of speaking in tongues in church AND NO ONE
BEING EDIFIED BUT THE ONE DOING IT, WAS TO PAUL COMPLETE
SELFISHNESS THAT HE COMMANDED NOT TO BE DONE BUT PRIVATELY
BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND GOD.
The important theme of worship services to Paul was
EDIFICATION! If anything was done that did not impart
understanding, knowledge, and/or conviction of sin and Godliness,
for EVERYONE PRESENT, it was not to be engaged in, it had no
place within divine public worship.
OTHER DRAWBACKS TO TONGUES NOT INTERPRETED
Besides it being only a selfish type of "good" to the
individual using the gift of tongues where no interpretation was
given so all present could be edified, there was a deeper and
darker drawback to this happening in public worship services.
Paul elucidates on this darker side in verses 6-11, 23.
For those outside the church, not knowing the word of the
Lord, not understanding the doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit,
those outsiders coming into the assembly and hearing people
uttering things none understand or can interpret, they will think
the people of God are MAD!
Truly this would be a natural reaction from outsiders, and
Paul knew it. It would bring shame upon the Church of God, it
would cause the wrong kind of talk about the people of God. You
can imagine words being spread around like, "Those people are out
of their mind" or "They are a bunch of mad-men" or "What a
lunatic house that is."
Paul could have no part with this and laid down rules that
became the commands of the Lord.
ONE RULE
The first edification rule laid down by Paul is in regards to
the situation where some in the church have the gift of tongues,
but there is no one with the gift of interpretation. He covers
this situation in verses 12 to 19.
This MUST be talking about when there is no person in the
assembly with the gift of interpretation of tongues, otherwise
there would be no need to raise the question and give the
answer, if Paul knew that there would ALWAYS be an interpreter
when someone had the gift of tongues.
Paul had already made it clear in chapter 12 to the
Corinthians, that the gifts of the Spirit were not given to
everyone, but to those whom God chose, as He chose, and when He
chose.
It was not promised that all churches would have these gifts,
nor how many a church congregation would have, if it had any. The
gifts were individual and not necessarily given in pairs. They
were personal, given as God directed. Paul knew there could be
some in a congregation who had the gift of tongues yet not one
person in the same assembly had the gift of interpretation. So,
the question could be asked, "What can be done about that
situation?"
Paul gives ONE answer to that question in verse 13,
"Therefore, the person who speaks in an (unknown) tongue SHOULD
PRAY (for the power) to INTERPRET AND EXPLAIN what he says."
Paul knew that any given congregation, its regular members,
WOULD KNOW EACH OTHER - THEY WOULD KNOW WHO HAD WHAT GIFTS OF THE
SPIRIT, especially in a congregation like Corinth, where there
was many spiritual gifts evident. Spiritual gifts are to be used
in the proper way and opportune time within the order of the law
of God, for the furthering of the gospel. A congregation would
know who had what spiritual gift, it would not be hid. An
individual would know what spiritual gift they had been given.
Those within a church group who had the gift of tongues, but
there was no one with the gift of interpretation, could do
something, they COULD PRAY TO GOD THAT HE WOULD ALSO GIVE THEM
THE POWER, THE GIFT TO INTERPRET AND EXPLAIN WHAT HE HAD SAID, IN
EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE FOR THE EDIFYING AND UP-BUILDING OF
ALL IN THE ASSEMBLY.
If there was no edifying to all present then no one could say
Amen. No one will receive any good for none will know what has
been said by the speaker of tongues, and to Paul that was USELESS
WITHIN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLY, because the "bystander is not
edified."
So if there was no interpreter (and people would know who had
that gift in a congregation) the one with the gift of tongues
could ask God to give them also the gift of interpretation, yet
if God chose not to give them or any one that interpretation
gift, then Paul clearly instructed (which was a command of the
Lord): "Nevertheless, in public worship, I would rather say five
words with MY UNDERSTANDING and INTELLIGENTLY in order to
INSTRUCT OTHERS, than ten thousand words in a (strange)
language."
People with the gift of tongues but did not have the gift to
interpret (and they and the congregation knew of no one with the
gift of interpretation in their midst), those persons should NOT
EXERCISE that gift of tongues as it would edify not one single
soul outside of themselves.
Paul, who had the gift of tongues above them all, would not
have used that gift unless he could have interpreted, or he knew
someone in the group DID HAVE the gift of interpretation. He
would have asked or inquired before hand from the leaders of the
congregation if any did have the gift to interpret before he
would have used his gift of
tongues.
This is what I clearly see from how Paul wrote, the words he
used, the emphasis he put on EDIFICATION and having all
UNDERSTAND what God wanted to say during church worship services.
He would have been happy to only say a few words that all could
understand than ramble off in a tongue that none understood and
were not one wit edified by.
As the gift of tongues need not be used in a congregation
where all understand each other within their common language,
Paul would have gone the extra mile to make sure he would
not appear vain, selfish, or a "chance taker" (just taking a
chance that someone was there who could interpret). Paul is
teaching that tongues should only be used in public worship IF
the one using tongues KNEW they could also interpret, or KNEW
there was someone there present who could interpret. Making sure
this was possible would then EDIFY everybody, otherwise it was
pointless and useless within public worship, except for the
negative of unbelievers among the assembly of the church thinking
such are mad, and silently laughing to themselves.
In verse 20 Paul asks them to be MATURE in THINKING, in their
MINDS. They were not to be BABES in their reasonings.
I believe the mature thinking of what Paul is teaching in this
chapter so far discussed, IS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS ARTICLE
THUS FAR.
Paul did not want one word said in the public worship assembly
that could not be understood by all present. His reasoning:
Public worship was for edifying, teaching godliness, building-up,
convincing of sin, and bringing unbelievers to repentance.
The use of tongues to Paul, in the public service, was of no
value unless interpreted by the user or another, as they would
only be speaking into the air. The sound of the Trumpet is
only edifying if those listening UNDERSTAND the sound they hear.
The tongue and sounds produced by it is edifying if those
listening understand with their minds what is being voiced.
I find that many who use "tongues" in public assembly worship,
and KNOW they cannot interpret, and KNOW there is no person
present with the gift of interpretation, are either
lacking in the ability to grasp what Paul is teaching in 1
Corinthians 14, not willing to acknowledge the command of the
Lord through Paul, and/or just wanting vain public atten-
tion. It can also be due to out and out uncontrolled emotions
that can be manipulated by the world of the Adversary. Not that
the gift is not from God (as my gift to yodel is from God)
but the using of it can be at the wrong time or outside the
boundaries God has laid down
pertaining to public worship.
Those who say, "Well maybe there was someone present who could
have interpreted, so I took the chance to use tongues." I answer:
Paul is MUCH TO STRONG on his teaching for EDIFICATION in public
worship (that all words spoken should be for all to learn the
truths of God, nothing said that is speaking into the air, or
having some think the church is mad) TO TAKE ANY CHANCES.
If time is not taken to enquire who if anyone has the gift of
interpretation within a congregation (a few seconds of inquiry
from the ministers or deacons would answer it) then I believe
Paul would call tongue users who only have THEMSELVES in mind,
immature children in polite language, and much stronger language
if he felt they were willfully rebelling against the commands of
the Lord.
STILL FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TONGUES USER
In verse 26 Paul starts to lay down some specifics, some rules
and regulations, which later he says are the commands of the
Lord. Again he is concerned with everything being done in a
constructive, edifying, instructive manner.
Verse 27 is very clear. The number of persons who may speak in
tongues during public assemblies must NOT EXCEED THREE. Notice
also what is said, "and each one (taking his) turn, and LET ONE
INTERPRET AND EXPLAIN (what is said)."
Paul did not say, "If there is someone who can interpret, let
them do so," or "We will hope there is someone in the assembly
who can interpret."
Paul was quite emphatic in his statement and instructions -
LET ONE INTERPRET!
From what he has already told them, as previously discussed in
this article, it is natural he would be dogmatic and very clear
with his words to them that an interpretation in understandable
language for the edifying of all would be A MUST. His following
words make this VERY PLAIN if any thought differently.
"But if there is no one to do the interpreting, LET EACH OF
THEM KEEP STILL IN CHURCH and talk to himself and to God."
The argument of some is: A person is allowed to talk in
tongues in the assembly, and all will wait to see if there will
be an interpretation given by the speaker or someone else. The
argument continues: How do we know if there is an interpreter in
our midst unless someone speaks in tongues first.
Such reasoning goes on: If there is no interpreter the
speaker in tongues will be asked to be silent if they want to say
more.
This is to some extent a "wait and see" a "chance we'll take"
a "hit and miss" conduct and proceeding of divine public worship.
To which Paul in his writing to the church at Corinth WOULD NOT
GIVE NOTION TO IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. He is expounding that, "all
things should be done with regards to DECENCY and PROPRIETY and
in an ORDERLY fashion" (verse 40).
The very wording of verse 28 shows that Paul had in mind
NOTHING CLOSE TO THE ARGUMENT ABOVE, namely, one is allowed to
speak in tongues UNTIL no interpreter is found, or one is allowed
to use tongues TO SEE IF there is someone with the gift of
interpretation.
Paul is predisposing NOTHING OF THE KIND, but contrary, that
KNOWLEDGE among the assembly is the natural ORDER of the day and
the gifts of the Spirit are known among them, who has them, and
what gifts they are, especially the VERBAL gifts.
There was no "chance taking" with Paul. This is proved by
the VERY WORDING OF VERSE 28.
Notice it carefully, "But if there is NO ONE to do the
INTERPRETING" are words that carry with them BEFOREHAND ORGANIZED
KNOWLEDGE that such was the situation. This is clearly what Paul
was saying with these words as shown by what he said next.
".... let EACH OF THEM KEEP STILL."
He did not say that after the FIRST one had spoken with
tongues and there was found to be no interpreter (no one with the
gift of interpretation among the assembly) the OTHER one or two
were to keep silent and not use their gift of tongues as they
were planning to.
ALL OF THEM - EACH OF THEM - FROM THE FIRST ONE TO THE SECOND
ONE TO THE THIRD ONE were to be still, be SILENT and keep their
gift of tongues in the public assembly to themselves and God.
To Paul, the very FIRST person who wanted to use tongues in
the public worship service, was to REMAIN SILENT, not even START,
keep it to themselves, between them and God only, IF THERE WAS
NOT AN INTERPRETER!
All this shows that Paul had no thought WHATSOEVER in his mind
about public church services being "hit and miss" or "taking a
chance" type of assemblies. Everything done and SAID was to be
for the edifying, understanding, upbuilding, instruction,
teaching and correcting of ALL PRESENT, which the speaking in
tongues, WITHOUT AN INTERPRETATION, did not fulfil, was useless
for others, as none could say Amen. And it was speaking into the
air, purely vain selfishness, which could lead some unbelievers
to think the people of the Church of God were mad.
Paul in verse 28, was saying that NOT EVEN THE FIRST of the
two or three should START with their gift of tongues, unless
there was an INTERPRETATION to be given by themselves or another
who had that gift to interpret.
All this shows that Paul taught and believed that ANY local
congregation would have KNOWLEDGE BEFOREHAND of the gifts within
its midst. That they would possibly INQUIRE from those visiting
if any had the gift of interpretation, prophecy, tongues, or
revelation, IN-ORDER that services would be conducted with
decency, propriety, and with no confusion.
Why should this seem strange to some today? Possibly because
they have not meditated upon and understood what Paul is teaching
in this chapter of 1 Corinthians, and/or, because the practice of
their church is very much in contradiction to all or nearly all,
that Paul instructs to the church at Corinth.
Any church, with its Elder/s and Deacons, together with its
local members, would have enough inter-action to know who had
what gifts of the Spirit.
With a church like that at Corinth where many had various
spiritual gifts, there would need to be KNOWLEDGE and ORDER
especially emphasized or utter confusion would prevail, as it
apparently did, so Paul had to correct them and set rules to
follow.
In such a church they would probably have to enquire with a
public announcement before services began, if there was any one
present with the gift of interpretations of tongues. If there was
NOT, then those with the gift of tongues WOULD KNOW TO KEEP STILL
AND BE SILENT WITH THAT GIFT AS IT WOULD NOT EDIFY OR IMPART
UNDERSTANDING TO ANYONE PRESENT IF USED WITHOUT AN
INTERPRETATION.
To Paul there was no such thing as "well I just could not help
myself, the Spirit made me do it."
It was not in the theology of Paul that the gift of the Spirit
was in control of the individual. To him it was always the other
way around. The person always had control of their gift, as he
said, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets"
(verse 32). Because of that, God's order of divine public
worship services was NEVER confusion, but PEACE and ORDER, verse
33.
WOMEN TO REMAIN SILENT?
I have covered this teaching of Paul elsewhere in some depth,
notably in my article called WOMEN'S WORK (now in two parts). I
will not here restate all that I have previously written on it.
But I will give an overview.
Paul's context is TEACHING INSTRUCTION TO EDIFICATION AND
UPBUILDING OF THE CHURCH IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. To that intent all
gifts of the Spirit could to be used in public services. And with
all that, Paul's instruction (which was the command of the
Lord - verse 37) was that "women should keep quiet in the church,
for they are not AUTHORIZED to speak, but should take a secondary
and subordinate place, just as the LAW SAYS" (verse 34).
As the gifts of the Spirit could be given to ANYONE - male and
female, with what Paul had already said it would have been a
natural question to have asked: So is it true that women can use
their gift to TEACH and EXPOUND the oracles of God to all (men
and women) present in public worship assemblies.
Paul anticipated such a question and GIVES THE INSPIRED ANSWER
in verses 34 and 35.
Women are not permitted to use their special gifts of the
Spirit in and during public divine worship.
What this amounts to in our specific study is this: Even if
there is someone with the gift of interpretations of tongues in
the assembly. A woman CANNOT use that tongues gift in public
worship, as it constitutes TEACHING THE ORACLES OF GOD, which
during public services she is not authorized to do. She is in
such services to take a secondary and subordinate role as
required and taught by the law from the Lord.
The public worship service was to Paul a time of TEACHING and
LEARNING for all present. That duty fell upon the MEN of the
congregation to the point that Paul said if any woman has a
question on anything said, they had to note it and ask their
husbands at home concerning it, and not to bring up their
question in worship services.
All this outlines, underlines, and follows through with God's
order as he created, that man is head of the woman. The spiritual
conduct of the Church of God in public worship services was to
reflect that order of creation as instituted by the Eternal God
who established that headship and order at creation.
In verses 36-38 Paul pulls no punches as they say. Anyone
claiming some spiritual gift or special power from God, will
KNOW, Paul says, that what he has spoken IS THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER - IS THE COMMAND OF THE LORD. Those that disregard it,
will not acknowledge this truth, then Paul puts them in with a
group that shall not see the favor of the Lord.
Again let me say, this question of "women speaking in the
assembly" is covered fully in another two part study of mine,
which will be sent free to anyone who requests it, please ask
for the article called "Women's Work?"
Then I also recommend the book (300 pages) by Dr.Samuele
Bacchiocchi, entitled "WOMEN IN THE CHURCH - A Biblical Study of
the Role of Women in the Church."
Chapter 6 will be of special interest with regards to our
study in this article of mine.
For those interested in obtaining this book, you can write to
Dr.Sam (as he likes to be called)
at:
Biblical Perspectives, 4569 Lisa Lane, Berrien Springs, MI
49103, USA.
................................
Written June 1995.
4. A KEY FOR LOCAL CHURCH -- HARMONY AND PEACE
by
Keith Hunt
Jesus taught that people in general would know His disciples,
if, ".....you have LOVE one for another" (John 13:35). The
apostle known by many today as the "apostle of love" - John, had
quite a lot to say on the matter of brotherly love within the
community of the Church of God.
Here is just a sample. "He that says he is in the light, and
hates his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loves
his brother abides in the light......We know that we have passed
from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves
not his brother abides in death......Beloved, let us love one
another: for love is of God......if God so loved us, we ought
also to love one another......By this we know that we love the
children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments" (!
John 1:9,10; 3:14; 4:7; 5:2).
John, in his letters, mentions in some specifics, how love to
others is manifested.
The apostle Paul was inspired to relate on many occasions to
the churches he wrote to, what loving your brother and sister in
Christ (and even those outside Christ) really meant. Here are
some of his words. "Love works no ill to his neighbor......Fulfil
you my joy, that you be likeminded, having the same love, being
of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife of
vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better
than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every
man also on the things of others" (Romans 13:10; Phil.2:2-4).
The New Testament is full of instructional edification for the
child of God as to what is "love one towards another."
Yet, our heavenly Father knows we are still but flesh, with at
times, lots of carnal nature showing up in our relations one with
another as to walk and fellowship together in the spiritual
body of Christ. It was no different in the days of John and Paul
when they wrote the words we have just read. People, just acted
way too often towards each other with carnal nature. Some
knowing the liberty that they had in Christ(knowing perhaps more
technical knowledge than others) were using it to bite and devour
other Christians. "For, brethren, you have been called
unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh,
but by love serve one another......But if you bite and devour one
another, take heed that you be not CONSUMED one of another"
(Gal.5:13-15).
Human nature is such that in most cases when one person starts
to bite and devour another in words and actions, the other comes
biting and devouring back. Before long many people in
a local church can be consumed with the lusts of the flesh one
towards another. Paul went on from this thought to bring his
famous section of Scripture on the works of the flesh and the
fruits of the Spirit, verses 16-26.
Paul instructed the church at Ephesus to watch careful what
came out of the mouth in words to each other, and gave
instructions on how to correct the situation when through the
carnal flesh, wrong words to others or about others did come
forth. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,
but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may
minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the Holy Spirit
of God......Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and
clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all
malice: And be you kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving
one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you"
(Eph.4:29-32).
Oh yes, how such carnality of words and deeds that we may
exhibit from time to time towards another Christian, GRIEVES the
Holy Spirit. We all know it should not be. God and Christ know it
should not be. But they also know we are still flesh and that we
can fall into such sins at times.
The Father and Christ have not left us without some direct
instructions on righting the situation, of hurting and offending
someone, or knowing that someone has hurt or offended us.
Part of correcting the situation was given by Paul in the last
verse quoted above.It involves kindness, being tenderhearted, and
forgiving.
Jesus also gave us instructions as what to do under those
"offense" circumstances that do crop up at times in any local
congregation. "......if you bring your gift to the altar, and
there remember that your brother has aught against you; Leave
there your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be
reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift"
(Mat.5:23-24).
This is YOUR responsibility, yes, you personally are to do
this, to reconcile with your brother or sister. There is nothing
here about telling your troubles that you may have with a
Christian brother or sister to the Eldership, so they can fix it
for you. Nothing here about telling your mate so they can mend
the problem for you. Nothing here about telling another church
member your difficulty with someone, and asking them to reconcile
the situation. If you have a problem with another Christian YOU
are to "Leave there your gift before the altar, and GO YOUR WAY;
first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your
gift."
Even under a VERY SERIOUS problem and situation that may arise
between you and another in the church, a situation where finally
others may have to be brought in, and where a person may have to
be, if no repentance is forthcoming, a "heathen man and a
publican," it is YOU and you alone, that must make the first
attempt at reconciling the problem. Notice it:
"Moreover if your brother shall trespass against YOU, go and tell
him his fault BETWEEN YOU AND HIM ALONE; if he shall hear you,
you have gained your brother" (Mat.18:15).
If we want peace and harmony in the churches of God. Every
member needs to fully understand what has been covered in this
article. We have MANY personal responsibilities as
Christians, and going personally to another brother or sister in
Christ, in an effort to resolve a problem you have with that
individual, is one of those many responsibilities. We should not
be gossiping to others about that problem. We should not be
trying to build up a football team with you as quarterback, in
order to slay the nasty villain, at some ambush time. None of
this carnality is to be engaged in. YOU PERSONALLY are to go to
the one you have a problem with, and YOU are to try and bring
about a reconciliation.
It should all be done in love, all done with kindness, with a
tender heart, with a readiness to forgive, or to ask the other
(if you are to blame) that they will forgive you.
You need to remember that every Christian has some carnal
nature still within them, INCLUDING YOU, and you also need to
remember that every Christian, including the one who has "done
you wrong," has Jesus Christ within them, and hence some truly
good works and fruits of the Spirit. You may want to, I strongly
suggest you do, start off your conversation with this person by
telling them you appreciate some of their good strong points of
their character, their God given abilities and talents, and then
proceed to the problem you have come to reconcile.
I guarantee that if the above is followed and practiced by
every member of a local church of God, it will go a mighty long
way in having peace and love within that congregation, for this
instruction on the way to peace and love is not from the ideas of
a man, but is the word and teaching of Him who is the Prince of
peace.
SHALOM to you all.
...............................
Written August 1999
5. CHURCH
DISCIPLINE
I have written quite extensively on the subjects of
"Qualifications for the Ministry" - "Disqualification from the
Ministry" - "Church Disfellowshipping, What the Bible really
Teaches." There is yet one book that I highly recommend to everyone.
Certainly all Church of God libraries should have it, and all
Elders within the Church of God should have their own personal
copy. The book is called "A GUIDE TO CHURCH DISCIPLINE." The
author is J. Carl Laney. The publishers are: Benthany House,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55438, USA.
Let me give you what is written on the inside sleeve cover:
"Contending that many Christian leaders have accepted a
'don't-rock-the-boat' attitude towards church discipline,
Dr.Laney challenges the church to accept her God-given
responsibility. Focusing on the goal of church discipline - the
restoration of the believer to God and to the church body - the
author shows Christian leaders how to use it correctly.
In his research on the subject, Dr.Laney surveyed hundreds of
pastors from over 60 denominations. Their response provides
valuable insight for questions such as:
* Why is church discipline necessary?
* What sins require church discipline?
* What are the steps to be taken in disciplining a church
member or leader?
* What are the dangers inherent in discipline procedures and
how can they be avoided?
* What are the legal ramifications of church discipline?
On the back sleeve we read:
" Fears of disunity and even legal problems have caused many
church leaders to avoid confronting Christians who are living in
sin. Challenging the church's reluctance, Dr. Laney provides a
biblical, practical and loving handbook for pastors and lay
leaders alike on church discipline. "
The chapter contents are:
1. The Church Without Discipline.
2. The Pattern for Church Discipline.
3. A Time for Discipline.
4. The Steps for Discipline - The Teaching of Jesus.
5. The Steps for Discipline - The Teaching of Paul.
6. The Authority for Discipline.
7. The Purpose of Discipline.
8. Restoration After Discipline.
9. The Results of Church Discipline.
10. The Discipline of Christian Leaders.
11. The Dangers of Church Discipline.
12. Church Discipline in America.
13. Questions Concerning Church Discipline.
Conclusion: Calling the Church to Discipline.
A VERY FINE BOOK. ALL CHURCHES AND ALL CHRISTIAN LEADERS
SHOULD HAVE THIS BOOK WHICH COVERS A SUBJECT MOST WOULD LIKE TO
IGNORE, OR WISH THEY DID NOT HAVE TO STUDY. BUT IT IS ONE OF THE
DOCTRINES OF THE ETERNAL, A SUBJECT THAT THE NT SCRIPTURES ARE
NOT SILENT UPON. A SUBJECT ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH
OF THE MATTER ABOUT, SO THEY MAY NOT BE UNWISE BUT UNDERSTANDING
THE WILL OF THE LORD
...........................................
Written in January 1998
6. Importance of the Local Church
What it should do Pastor Marcelo Herrera Garcia
I was born in the state of Zacatecas, Mexico. I have 22
years experience in the ministry, and I am married with three
children. What I offer in this article is the product of many
years. My readings, experiences, and reflections will be a
confirmation of what many already know, yet perhaps there will be
something that can help. My focus will be the local church and
its mission.
Each group of believers must understand the reality of the
Gospel. The reality is this: We are commanded to understand, to
help, and to conquer all for the Kingdom of God. Within our
surroundings, there are human masses of the lonely, injured,
rejected, and abandoned. Many are without hope. Many lives would
be different if someone would be interested in them. Sadly,
violence, torture, deceit, falsehood, and misery are very
typically in many cities; it seems that nobody has successfully
stopped the destruction and corruption of evil.
One day Jesus told his disciples to go to those human
masses, to give them their time and their aid, to go and
encounter their inexhaustible needs, and to be dedicated for the
needs of others (see Matthew 9:36-10:1). He has established his
Church in the middle of this world to be a light and to be salt
(see Matthew 5:13-16).
GOD'S INTEREST IN THE LOCAL CHURCH'S HEALTH
The Lord has always been interested in the welfare and
the health of the local church. He knows that if it's healthy, it
will be able to carry out the mission for which it was created.
We can, as a local church, cause great joy to the Lord's heart,
but we can also be the biggest shame for his presence and
Kingdom. During the time of Isaiah, Israel was confronted with
unfaithfulness. There were many who had been unfaithful, and even
the animals seemed to have more knowledge and obedience than
they. Israel had many chances to repent and return to the Lord.
The New Testament, consisting of the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline
letters, and Revelation, mentions that there are all kinds of
churches.
There are those churches that tradition, legalism, and
exclusivism reign and the Gospel suffocates. In those churches
the methods of pursuit, manipulation, and sectarianism are used
too much. There are also those churches where idolatry, false
doctrines, sin, disorder, divisions, and the lack of forgiveness
are common mainstays.
But allow me to say that there are also churches worthy of
mention and recognition. There are churches of love, work, and
faith; they may show their defects sometimes, but they present
very positive aspects most of the time. We surely remember the
first church in Jerusalem. It was there the public proclamation
of the Gospel occurred, and prayers, the communion of goods, and
miracles made it a church that impacted its city. Jerusalem, and
the world.
We also have the church of Antioch, the site where the early
believers in Jesus were referred to as "Christians" for the time.
The early believers are an example of bravery, ministry,
discipleship, and missions. Another ancient group of believers,
the church in Philippi. was characterized by its great interest
in supporting missions and the apostles. There are many examples
of exemplary churches. Such as those in Revelation 2 and 3.
They were praised because of their fidelity despite existing
in the midst of persecution and death. Each time, in each place,
we must wonder if the purposes of the church are being fulfilled.
It can be that we receive strong reprimands for our negligence or
worthy praises for our fidelity. Each one should examine his
faith.
IN SEARCH OF LEADERS
The harvest is great, but few are the workers-it has always
been this way. God is looking for brave people, those whom he can
give dreams. He desires men and women who have Him in first
place. Those who have known Him and who will never go back.
Leaders will allow the power of God to shine, even in moments of
weakness. Those who yearn and desire to work, do so for the glory
of God.
God uses us to accomplish his plans. He trusts that there
will always be someone to trust his projects. He used Noah to
save the prediluvium generation from extermination, Abraham to
found his people, Moses to confront pharaoh, Joshua for the
conquest, Nehemiah for the reconstruction, Peter to open the
Kingdom to Jews and gentiles, and Paul to preach to all the
nations.
The leaders whom God is looking for are in the benches of
our churches. There are many future leaders who still don't know
him yet, but we should go for them so that the Lord can use them.
Everything begins with one who is willing. Will you be the leader
whose heart is afire for God's sake? Are you willing to do what
God wants you to do? To go wherever he wants you to go?
LEADERS TRAIN OTHER BELIEVERS
(see Ephesians 4:11-12)
Leaders become leaders because they are the people who share
their experience, their knowledge, and their life with others.
Leadership is a gift from God to the local church for the pur-
pose of the patient and continuous training of all believers. As
Ephesians 4:11-13 states, "It was he who gave some to be
apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some
to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of
service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all
reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God
and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness
of Christ."
Leaders don't live their lives for themselves. but they live
to train the community of believers in the work of the ministry.
Leaders work in the name of God to go forth presenting Christ and
him crucified. Every leader works according to how the Lord has
gifted him by the Spirit. We are not able to do this alone. The
work of the ministry is so big that we have to make it the work
of a team, as Jesus did with his twelve. Like Paul did with his
partners or the local ministry in the ancient church of Antioch,
we all should be trained to develop our part.
EACH ONE HAS HIS PART
The work of the Kingdom of God involves several parts. There
is the divine part, the personal part, and the part of the local
church. For starters, the call is always from God. He examines
the hearts of individuals and groups. Then he invites us to
participate in his work. He gives us the privilege to contemplate
about him and to listen to his sweet voice saying, "Follow me."
There isn't a patriarch, prophet, or apostle who has been able to
serve without listening to God. All of them had the conviction
that they were in the presence of God. Jesus called his disciples
so :hat they were with him, and he taught them to be fishermen of
men. We must remember that God has promised to be with his
servants everyday. We can be sure that God will always fulfil his
part.
OUR PART
In order that God's invitation may be successful, we should
always be willing to say, "Here I am, send me." Those who accept
their part are the men and women who live and dream God's vision.
This is what makes them passionate; it consumes all their
strength. Those who fulfil their part accept that their personal
plans no longer exist. Instead, what exists is their faithful
obedience to God's voice. For those who accept God's call, life
makes sense only because God directs their life. Whether one is
rich or poor or one is young or old does not matter. Where are
those who will accept Gods call? Will you accept God's call? The
Church needs to fulfil its part and respond to the call.
THE PART OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
It is here that we have to emphasize there is not a
missionary without a church. The local church is the instrument
that God uses to start discovering the potential leaders. giving
them support, orientation, and guidance. When the time arrives,
after the potential missionary has been faithful in the little
things. the local church should send its best men and women into
the mission field. It is the local church's duty to finance them
while they are doing the work of the Gospel. The local church has
a great responsibility to sustain, to encourage, and to pray for
their missionaries. The local church is like a mother that has
children. raises its children to maturity, and then sends them to
continue the work. Imagine how many more people we could reach
for Christ if every church sent out missionaries.
EVANGELISM AND THE LOCAL CHURCH
It is the duty of each local church to reach the lost for
Christ. to evangelize. When one receives Christ, the new
Christian automatically becomes our partner in his mission. From
our location to the areas that surround us. our limit is the ends
of the earth. Our loved ones, our neighbors, our city, and our
state are among the objectives. And many will be waiting to
receive Christ. God is waiting for the local church to seriously
conduct evangelism.
TO CELEBRATE
To celebrate is to praise and worship together to the
Almighty God. Every detail of this time must be taken with care.
Filled with prayer. with the Word, with music, and with silence.
the Holy Spirit needs to have freedom to touch our lives and to
bring the sinner to the conviction of sin by the presence of God.
At that time, God alone is the object of our adoration and our
recognition. Our part must be to take care of the details
concerning the church, including the space, the climate, the
instruments, the reception, and the illumination. This must be
done in such a way that the place can offer the answer to the
necessity of every occasion.
INTEGRATION
Those who have been evangelized and have visited the
celebration usually will want to be part of the church when the
time arrives. They will want to be integrated to the community of
believers that is Christ's body. They will want to be part of
God's people. This is the time to baptize them and to place them
in a small group. Let us remember that baptism is the public act
of joining ourselves by faith to the group of saints. In this
time it is very healthy for the newcomers to join a small group,
whereby it can take care of them very closely so they can have
the opportunity to have contact with believers in real life (and
outside of the service).
DISCIPLESHIP
If evangelists, missionaries, and preachers do evangelism
and bring people into the church and the musicians, worship
directors, ushers, and pastors do their part in the service, and
then teachers are needed to discuss the first steps of the
Christian life. Potential believers need to know their first
responsibilities as Christians as well as the dangers that they
might face after they accept Christ. Sometimes we Christians are
ridiculed by the world. But this step is very important because
many churches do not properly teach discipleship to the newly
converted.
THE MINISTRY
Finally, each local church or group of churches should be
equipped with the type of training to develop young Christians
beyond the first steps. Those whom God has called need to be
trained in the local churches. This prepares them to be sent out
into the world. Here the process finishes and begins again,
meaning that when a Christian has arrived to a certain degree of
maturity he should begin looking for others to convert. To
conclude, let us see the details of a special church.
The Church at Antioch (see Acts 11:19-30, 13:1-3)
The church at Antioch dared to reach the lost ones who were not
of their own race, breaking a tradition and passing an impassable
barrier. God powerfully approved and supported the ministry of
the church at Antioch. It was so visible and overwhelming that
Christianity was known for hundreds of miles away because of this
church. What made this church unique? Its ministers worked hard
and guided the church to grow and mature. Notice at what the
church did-they prayed, they taught, they helped the poor, they
sent missionaries to other regions, and they gave the Holy Spirit
freedom so that it could work among them. They did everything
according to their own abilities, abilities that God had given
them.
My reflection is that the Lord can indicate to us which
place we belong, and he can show us and give us the strength to
do what is missing. What are we waiting for? We must be the
church that God wants it to be! We must work!
................
Pastor Marcelo Herrera Garcia has ministered for 22 years. He
studied at the Iglesia de Dios (Septimo Dio) seminary in
Cuernavaca, Mexico and has served as a pastor in the Yucatan.
Afterwards, he worked as a missionary in Uruguay. Currently, he
is a Church of God (Seventh Day) pastor in Monterrey MX.
................
December 2004 ACTS magazine
A publication of the Churches of God (Seventh Day), Meridian,
Idaho, USA.
7. Comparison of Elders and DeaconsThey are not the same FunctionCOMPARING "ELDER" WITH "DEACON"
A study by the late Carl Shaeffer (1983)
I was pleased to know and work with (for a short time before his
death) Elder Shaeffer. I am pleased to present to you his
comparison study on Elders and Deacons. Many today are saying
there is no difference, and they try to go to the Greek words to
prove their point. But such is useless arguing over meanings of
words. As Mr.Shaeffer shows in this study outline, the NT clearly
tells us the differences between Elders and Deacons in the church
- Keith Hunt.
Some churches, without realizing it, are not knowledgeable
as to what is expected of an Elder, his qualifications, or his
Scriptural knowledge.
Nevertheless, many men are ordained each year, being saddled
with an office they truly cannot handle.
Often they will go through the motions, stumbling through
what they hope will pass as a sermon, hoping no one will notice
it. Or, they will push on ahead, thinking everything is great,
"my congregation is growing Spiritually", until sometime later
they will realize the truth, as they see their congregation
dwindle away, and not from normal causes.
Who is to blame in these cases, who is responsible?
Both parties are to blame, the Elder, or Elders,
representing the church, as well as the man who is being ordained
are to blame equally.
The Elders who ordained the man did not look into the total
character of the man, the sum total of his Spiritual gifts of I
Cor.12, as well as the fruits of the Spit of Gal 5:22.
Man times a man will be ordained because he has been in the
church a long time, has hung in, and hung on, during times of
crisis, and is somewhat of a speaker. This is not to say that
good, sound Spiritual speaking cannot be obtained by patience,
practice, perseverance, and classwork, together with extra help
from God---God loves this attitude in a man.
What does God say regarding this? What are some of the
requirements God is looking for?
The following are only a few, but it will give some idea of
what is expected of an Elder.
This list is one of comparison of the qualifications of an
Elder, as opposed to that of a Deacon.
This is, in no way, a put down for those who are Deacons, as
they hold a dignified and meaningful office.
This list is taken from Scriptures of instructions and
requirements of Paul's Pastoral Letters to the ministry, of I
Timothy 3, and others.
But before this list is read, I Cor.13:1-3 should be
acknowledged as heading the list; because without deep love for
the congregation, and a willingness to put them before your own
interests, the rest of the requirements are useless.
If a man has a reasonably high score of all these
requirements, and possesses even some of the Spiritual gifts of I
Cor.12, and has love, he will make a good Elder, as this office
is a seevice of love.
Carl M. Schaeffer
1 TIMOTHY 3 - ELDERS
Verse
2 -- Blameless 2 -- One wife
2 -- Vigilant (I Pet.5:8)
2 -- Sober (I Pet.5:8)
2 -- Good behavior
2 -- Hospitable
2 -- Able to teach
3 -- Not given to much wine
3 -- No striker
3 -- Not greedy for money
3 -- Patient
3 -- No brawler
3 -- Not covetous
4 -- Rule well house
5 -- Take care of church
6 -- Not novice
7 -- Good report (character)
DEACONS
Verse
8 -- Not given to much wine None
8 -- Not greedy for money None
10 -- Blameless
10 -- Be proved first
Honest report (Acts 6) Holy Spirit (Ants 6) Wisdom (Acts 6)
12 -- One wife
12 -- Rule well house None
In comparing there is MUCH that is NOT required for the office of
Deacon.
I TIMOTHY 5 and 6 - ELDER
Verse
20 -- Rebuke those that sin
22 -- Don't ordain quickly
11 -- Follow righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patienee,
meekness
14 Keep these commandments
DEACON - None
2 TIMOTHY 2 - ELDERS
Verse
1 -- Be strong in grace
2 -- Teach men to be teachers
3 -- Endure hardness-hardship
6 -- Be a husbandman
10 -- Endure all things
15 -- Study to show yourself
15 -- Correctly divide Word
16 -- Shun profane babbling
22 -- Flee youthful lusts
22 -- Follow righteousness
22 -- Follow peace
22 -- Follow love
23 -- Avoid foolish, unlearned questions
24 -- Elders not to strive
24 -- Be gentle
24 -- Be able to teach
24 -- Be patient
24 -- Continue in things learned
DEACONS - Not mentioned - none
2 TIMOTHY 4 - ELDERS
2 -- Preach Word in season
2 -- Reprove, rebuke
2 -- Encourage others-doctrine
5 -- Endure afflictions
5 -- Do work of Evangelist
5 -- Prove your ministry (Service)
DEACONS - Not mentioned - None
TITUS 1 - ELDERS
Verse
6 -- Governable-not unruly
6 -- Peaceful-no rioting
7 -- Blameless as steward
7 -- Not selfwilled
7 -- Not soon angry
8 -- Love goodness
8 -- Just, Holy
8 -- Temperate (controlled)
9 -- Holding fast the Word
9 -- Exhort by sound doctrine (teach)
9 -- Convince gainsayers (know Scriptures)
TITUS 2 - ELDERS
Verse
1 -- Speak (Preach) sound doctrine
7 -- Be pattern of good works
6 -- Exhort young men
7 -- Incorruptible in doctrine
7 -- Gravity-serious,sincerity
8 -- Sound speech
8 -- Encourage servants
15 -- Encourage, Rebuke with authority
TITUS 3
Verse
1 -- Teach to obey Magistrates
2 -- Be gentle
2 -- Be meek
9 -- Avoid foolish arguments
10 -- Reject heretic - if no change
DEACONS - Not mentioned - None
1 PETER 5
Qualifications and Requirements - ELDERS
Verse
2 -- Feed flock of God
2 -- Feed flock - not by compulsion
2 -- Feed flock - with willing mind
2 -- Feed flock - not for money
3 -- Rule - but not as "lords"
3 -- Good example to flock
5 -- Younger - submit to older
5 -- Subject to one another
5 -- Be humble
10 -- Be willing to "suffer" for strength
DEACONS - Not mentioned - None
.....................
NOTE:
Studying Acts 6 we see what DEACONS were ordained to do. There is
no specific mention of any "spiritual" work they needed to
perform towards the brethren. Yes, of course, they were to be
spiritual, and sometimes God did gives powerful gifts of the
Spirit to some of those who "waited on tables" - but then God
can, if He wills, give any gift of the Spirit to any person in
the body of Christ.
More in-depth study on this subject of Elders and Deacons you
will find in my studies under "Church Government."
..................................... 8 PERSONALITY
CLASHES
DO EXIST WITHIN THE CHURCH. THEY CAN BE BETWEEN ANY TWO PERSONS.
SATAN CAN USE PERSONALITY CLASHES TO UNDO LOVE AND HARMONY - HE
CAN USE IT TO SPLIT OR DESTROY ANY GROUP OF CHRISTIANS. IN THIS
ARTICLE YOU WILL BE SHOWN HOW TO OVERCOME THIS FIERY DART OF THE
ADVERSARY.
by
Keith Hunt
You are a unique person. There has never been a person quite
like you before - Yes, there may be a look-a-like. You've no
doubt heard about the "look alike" contests for the famous
entertainment "stars". Some are quite remarkable and a few I saw
on TV on one of those interview shows said people on the street
will not believe they are not the real film star or singer that
everyone knows.
There are the "identical twins" - twins that look so much
alike it is very difficult to tell them apart. These identical
twins do often have the same likes, abilities, talents, and
often show an uncanny mental telepathy between themselves. Yet,
they are not 100%, exactly the same.
The one difference we all have, besides our finger prints,
is - we ALL have our own distinct PERSONALITY!
Your personality is made up of many varying parts. It
includes all that makes you - YOU. It contains your talents, your
likes, your feelings, your very thoughts, and everything that
just makes you "tick" as they say.
Now your personality can be shaped by your environment - the
cultural ideology you were raised in. Your personality can be
shaped by the way your parents influenced you, or other close
relatives or friends. The type of school you attended may have
helped mould your personality. Certain clubs you joined as a
growing child may have influenced the personality you became as
an adult. There are many things that can determine what
personality you will be, even heredity plays a part. But the
bottom line is that you are an individual, different from any
other individual with a unique personality.
TURN BACK THE PAGES
Think back now to when you were a pre-schooler, possibly
when you were in kindergarten or just playing with neighborhood
friends. Were there some kids you simply did not get along with -
you just plainly did not like them? There sure was! There was
that "nasty" little Sam or Sue.
There may have been those "pests" from around the corner who
disturbed everyone. Or there was that Jimmy who would love to
trip you up if he got the opportunity. And on it goes - kids you
just did not get along with for one reason or another.
Now think about your years in grade school. Did you just
love the school bully? Or that boy (if you are a girl reading
this) who kept pulling your hair? There may have been a kid that
was always putting his foot in his mouth with stupid remarks
about you, and you would have loved to put your foot in his
mouth. Did you get along with the school prankster - the one who
tied your shoe laces together when you weren't looking?
How about the time spent in High school. Was there no one
that you didn't have problems with? Someone you wished was going
to another High school than the one you attended.
After entering the adult world you probably did not "hit it
off" with everyone you met. There was I'm sure some individual
that you wished was not in your life. Someone you did not see
"eye to eye" with. You did not like their views on politics, or
entertainment, on religion, or fashion etc. You just hoped they
would move away to another place of work or another town.
You didn't get along with these individuals because of your
distinct personality which was at variance in some way with their
distinct personality. Personalities manifesting themselves as
shaped by natural heredity and environmental influences.
Personality clashes - a common occurrence in our societies
and nations. Most think little about it - most learn to live with
it as a part of this life, but when.....
YOU BECOME A CHRISTIAN.......
All that is supposed to change is it not? Are we not as
Christians to love each other, have no jealousies, animosities,
strife, dislikes, and personality clashes? Yes, that is true, but
the truth is we do not become PERFECT when we become a Christian
and receive the Spirit of God. Our carnal nature does not
disappear with the wave of a hand, and a "be gone with you"
command. At the time we receive God's Spirit there is still a
great dose of carnality within us. Because of this fact, many
are shocked when they come into the Church of God, to discover
that personality clashes can and often do - exist.
We are all growing at different rates, and we all have
varying degrees of carnality to overcome, depending on what we
came out of as far as how our personalities were shaped by our
heredity and environment. We can in time, overcome most of our
obvious bad personality traits such as bad temper, unbecoming
speech, wrong ideas based on the "way that seems right unto man"
and others. These can be put aside as we put on the new man that
is being created by Christ living in us.
Most of our personality clashes come about because of the
"open" - easy to see areas in our personality that are still "the
works of the flesh" such as the ones I've mentioned above. But
there is a more sinister and harder to recognize problem, yet
maybe not so hard to recognize as knowing how to overcome a
personality clash.
Have you ever attended a meeting, perhaps a regional or
national company meeting, where there are many of your peers
there that you have never met before? Within a few hours you have
found one or two individuals that you prefer to "stay away"
from. You do not really know them, you have not talked to them at
any length to really find what "makes them tick." There is just
something about them that irks you - something that "gets your
goat" - something that "rubs you the wrong way" so you would
prefer to leave them alone and not be around them.
Usually this reaction is not precipitated by the LARGE
personality faults we have mentioned before, but very small
incidents in fact, yet to us, to our mind, they are large
- uncomfortable - and very threatening to our peace and
tranquillity of mind. So we "shy away" from that person, hoping
we never have to spend very long in close encounters with them.
We delude ourselves into thinking that if we ignore the problem
it will go away, or that it does not really exist at all, when
deep down we know there is a problem. If we are willing to admit
that there is a difficulty between us and this other person, we
would be able to see that part of the problem is within
ourselves. It is our pre-conceived ideas and thoughts about this
person that is partly to blame, as well as some of our own
prejudice and unfairness.
Oh yes, the "works of the flesh" are still at work, even in
this instance, but they are the works of the flesh that are more
cunning and clandestine. So it can be harder to OVERCOME. But
such personality clashes can be overcome. For the Christian they
must be overcome. WE must admit it is there(if indeed it is) and
ask God to help us do our part in solving the problem.
Twice in my life(to the present writing of this article) I
have found myself in the subtle type of personality clash that
I've talked about above. I want to tell you about them and the
way they were overcome.
REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES
I was 19 when I first heard the voices of Herbert W.
Armstrong and his son Garner Ted over the radio air waves - it
was the fall of 1961. Soon I was reading every piece of
literature the then Radio Church of God would send me. After the
initial SHOCK of discovering that some of my cherished Christian
beliefs that I had, from my years of church attendance, were not
to be found in the Bible(like going to heaven when you die),
I became like a starving lion - devouring the Bible with night
and day study to find more truths. Soon I was getting strange
glances from my friends in the Baptist church I attended - they
knew who I was listening to on the radio. After some months I
knew I could not continue attending a Sunday keeping Church(my
Baptist landlord had told me to my utter shock that Sunday was
not the 7th day of the week), I was alone - there was no one who
was close to believing as I now did. It felt strange, was I the
only one who could see these basic truths that this father and
son were preaching I often thought.
One day by luck or chance(probably neither but from God) I
met a lady (a married lady - about 5 years older than me) who
also was believing as I was. What a joy - what a blessing - what
a delight - what a conversation we had. There was no personality
clash here.
Then, some time later(a year or more) came the first meeting
with a minister from the Radio Church of God (later to be called
the Worldwide Church of God) - it was a Bible study and baptism
meeting. I was there along with a few others.
I now knew about 10 more persons whom I could fellowship
with. There was Peter and his wife Nomi, there was George and
Rose his wife (farmers from not to far out of town), there was Al
and Josephine, Jim and June, and a few single guys like me. We
all immediately got along well - no personality clashes.
Then there was Don - a man about 20 years older than myself,
a somewhat quiet and reserved man. He had more experience than I
had in this world, a middle income man with a wife but no
children. I found it hard to talk to him, so I didn't most of the
time. Our personalities were different. At that time in my life
(now I look back) I was burning with enthusiasm for the truths I
was discovering, and being somewhat vociferous, I probably said
too much, too often, and without too much "tack". I remember one
day while visiting with Al and Josephine(whom I got along with
like a house on fire) there was a knock at the door - it was Don.
As we were all fellowshipping, the topic of MASONS came up. I had
read the booklet about Masons from the WCG, and as I remember
now, blurted out in a thoughtless manner that the Masonic Lodge
was another of Satan's tools. Don was a Mason and had never read
the booklet. If we didn't have a personality clash before
(which we did) - we sure had one now.
Don did eventually read that booklet on the Masons and did
drop out from belonging to that Lodge, but the personality clash
between us continued. Neither of us had ever been openly nasty to
each other - we had never had an argument. Our personalities at
that time, as newly baptized persons, just didn't "jive"
together. You couldn't put your finger on the specific problem
between us. I'm sure the problem was much more than just that
"Masonic Lodge" incident.
It was some time later (when we had our first local minister
sent to us to establish a church) that I was to discover or face
the problem head on. We had just never tried to understand or
even get to know each other - we had never made an effort to
befriend each other.
A year or more went by, and now we had a minister and the
church was growing, many more couples and singles coming to
services. I was in the Spokesman Club and so was Don. Then
another close friend of mine and I were chosen to be song leaders
in services, we took turns - he one week and me the next week.
Then I was chosen as librarian for the church (I think I had the
reputation of being a "book worm"). All of this and all of this
growth, with no serious personality clashes except with Don - it
was still an arms length relationship that we had.
ANOTHER PERSONALITY CLASH
Then entered George, a younger married man, about my age. He
was a "musician" as I was. Some of the other fellows in the
church also played various musical instruments. We would often
get together to "jam."
The minister liked to have one or two "fun nights" for the
church every year. Now the congregation was nearing 200. I was
chosen to be in charge of the fun program. I was to organize the
music and talent skits etc. making sure they were in "good"
taste.
Well, George and I didn't hit it off on the music side of things.
Again there was no arguing between us, just a kind of "cold war"
that we both endured.
I was not sure if he just did not like the way I did things,
or if he just did not think I was a good musician. Whatever it
was, it gave us a personality clash. Now I had TWO people I had
serious "unspoken" clashes with. I knew it was there and I knew
they knew it was there.
Our local minister was a wise man. He knew that with a
congregation of about 200 and increasing, there had to be some
personality clashes. I found out later there were more problems
along this line than just what existed between Don, George, and
I. So the minister, from time to time, would bring sermons along
the lines of down to earth Christian living - how to get along
with each other, how to appreciate and serve each other, how to
understand each other, and a whole lot of plain practical
suggestions as to what we could do to alleviate personality
clashes among ourselves. Those sermons hit home. I had been
trying to run from the problem that existed between Don and
George and I. If I wasn't running from it I was turning a blind
eye to it. Now I faced up to the problem and admitted to myself
that it was very real and determined to do something about it.
Upon examining the situation I realized that I had never
really acknowledged that these two men(Don and George) had their
God giver talents and abilities. I had never tried to understand
them, or listen to what they had to say. I made very little
effort to get to KNOW them and never invited them over to my home
for an evenings visit, or gave them the chance to open up to me.
I did not make any real effort to be "their friend."
I made a decision to change all that. It was not easy the
first time to ask them to come over for dinner and fellowship. I
was apprehensive that they would refuse, but they did not.
Within a few private visits with these two men (individual - one
on one visits) I was to see great changes between us. I'm sure
they were also trying to act upon the sermons we had all heard.
Our understanding of each other grew and grew. Our appreciation
of each others talents and abilities within the body of Christ
grew. We were kind and thoughtful of each other from that time
on. I got along with everyone in that congregation, some I was
closer to than others because of age and outside interests, but
these two men - Don and George - with whom I had for so long a
time this personality clash, became two of the closest friends I
had in that congregation.
That first WCG church that I was a founding member of,
became known as one of the warmest, friendliest, and loving
congregations in that part of the country. The minister at that
time must take a large part of the credit for guiding us, and
helping us get to the nuts and bolts in overcoming not only sins
in general, but also that little spoken about problem of
PERSONALITY CLASHES.
If you have a personality clash with someone, I hope you
will admit you do. Possibly this article will help you decide to
do something about it. I hope relating my personal experiences
along these lines will have shown you how to go about solving
"personality clashes." They do exist, but with love and a
determined effort, and the Spirit of God, they can be - OVERCOME.
..........................................
Written in 1991
 |
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment