Elk Point Baptist Church

Philippine Mission Dec 5-21, 2011

2012-01-03T07:54:00.000-08:00

Christianity Explored

2011-09-27T13:54:00.000-07:00

This coming year we plan, God-willing, to engage in this evangelistic program entitled Christianity Explored. Here is a program, discussing Christianity Explored with the founder: Rico Tice. The program is called The Connected Kingdom podcast produced by Tim Challies and David Murray.

You can click 'play' and listen online, or download mp3 file HERE.

The Elder's Perspective of Youth Ministry

2011-09-19T09:13:00.000-07:00

God's Blueprint For His Church - The Reception of Members

2008-04-21T13:46:00.001-07:00

Reception of Members

Introduction

This is likely one of the most difficult topics for me to preach on within this series. It is difficult for 2 reasons:

1. Church membership, as we know it, is an alien idea to the New Testament. The New Testament shows that a new believer was baptized and immediately considered part of the Christian assembly. The idea of applying for membership status as we know it was non-existent; and

2. There is no prescriptive text in Scripture that specifically set out the prerequisites for church members. Of course all of the inspired canon of Scripture is given that we might know how to live, as God’s people. But any specific teaching on membership, as we know it, is based upon implications and principles.

I believe that Christians can have varying degrees of commonality depending on the type of association. For example there are:

Varying Degrees of Commonality

A. Co-belligerent Association.

This relationship is typified by this image. If the blue describes what we have in common and the red describes what we differ on, this is obviously a very distant relationship. It is best described as co-belligerent. In other words we work together on a specific and common goal, but it is very focused and temporary – and certainly not intimate. We might join all kinds of people for a pro-life demonstration. That would not at all assume we have close fellowship on other values and beliefs.

B. Co-operative Association.

This relationship describes greater commonality. It describes, perhaps a situation where churches of like faith serve together for a cooperative ministry such as humanitarian aid, missions, education, etc. This relationship assumes that we have a high degree of common values and beliefs.

C. Co- Congregant Association

As the concentric circles become tighter and more intimate we see that there is less and less area that divides; and more and more area that is in common. This, I believe, ought to be the image of congregational membership.

Now of course this is the issue of contention. This is the motivation behind this message. How do we decide what areas must be agreed to; and how do we decide what differences we can live with?

Someone might say, “Shouldn’t we agree on everything?” My answer is “no”; and I say that for 2 reasons:

#1. The Great Commission: According to Matthew 28:19-20 the Church is to be active in evangelism, baptizing converts (e.g., assimilating them into the church); and teaching them. There is an underlying assumption that when you become part of the Church – you don’t know everything yet!

#2. The Love Chapter: According to 1 Corinthians 13:11-12 the current status of every believer is to some degree immaturity (i.e., the role of the church to bring people to maturity (Eph 4:12-13); and we all “only see in part”.

Therefore there will not be absolutely perfect unanimity on all and every issue. There will always be some red areas in our relationship! Norman Geisler[1] asks an important question: “Is the local church an institution of the edified or of edification? Is it a group of people who are already perfect or who are being perfected?” How you answer that question is a key determining factor in membership prerequisites.

What Are The Essentials?

Dr. Gary Inrig, in his book: Life In His Body[2], says, “The Bible does not make a distinction between requirements for membership in the Body of Christ and its local manifestation.” What he is saying is that there is no evidence in the Scriptures to differ between the requirements of salvation (thus becoming part of the universal Church) and the requirements of membership (becoming part of the local church). If Inrig is right (and I think he is) I believe there are 7 essential truths that are not for sale – they are ‘hills to die on’! (Now let me affirm that I’m not recommending that a church statement of faith be reduced to these. I’m simply suggesting that these are ‘must believes’ in order for any kind of congregational membership.)

A. WHAT MUST YOU KNOW TO BE SAVED?

#1. You must believe there is an infallible, inerrant, inspired Bible that is the basis for truth.

#2. You must believe there is a personal God. You must believe there is a God. In doing so, you acknowledge all the essential qualities of Deity. To believe He is personal, though, means He can be related to through His three essential personalities: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

#3. You must believe that there is an incarnate Lord and Savior. God became man, Jesus of Nazareth to show us the Father and to establish His lordship over our lives.

#4. You must believe that this Lord died for your sins, suffered triumphantly for your complete salvation and rose from the dead.

#5. You must believe that you are totally incapable of saving yourself and that salvation rests solely upon the gift of God, received by faith alone in Jesus the Lord.

#6. You must believe that this Lord and Savior is coming again as King of kings to judge and to rule; and without holiness know one will go to Heaven and that He has given the believer His Holy Spirit to enable us to progress toward that end.

#7. You must believe in the Bible’s demands on what to “do” to be saved.

B. WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED?

Salvation is impossible apart from profession of faith. Only the Lord truly knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19) but we are expected to receive people based on their profession of faith. By what means does this profession take place? Answer: By repentance; belief in the Truth and baptism (for example: Acts 2:37-41). This baptism is a believer’s baptism. It is the choice of a maturing, rational person. It does not include infants. At no time in this discussion am I granting any validity to infant baptism in regard to the salvation or profession of the child. There is but one baptism that equates to a profession of faith and that is by a maturing, rational person.

“Is that all there is?” Of course not! That profession of faith with the mouth and that profession of faith in baptism ought to be supported by a lifestyle that is consistent with the New Testament’s characteristics of born-again people (1John, particularly).

Why Did Paul Call Us to Unity in Mind and Purpose?

The question might be asked, “Pastor Jim, then why did Paul call the church to such a high standard of unity in mind and purpose if your teaching is correct?” Well let’s look at each one of these ‘calls’ individually. (I’m not doing a comprehensive, technical exegesis on each of this. I share my conclusions and you can search the Scripture to discern the truthfulness of it.)

A. Philippians 2:2 (page 154 in the N.T.)

This verse says, “make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” Now what did Paul mean when he wrote that? Did he mean that there needed to have unanimity on all matters? How would the Philippians have understood him? Well a careful reading of the text and context would point us to this: Jesus Christ is shown to be the archetype. What was the mind, intent, and purpose of Jesus? Answer: He became a servant. He lovingly identified himself with man. He was intent on obeying the Father – even to death. I am convinced that Paul is calling this Church to have that same mind of Christ: humble, obedient service. I believe that all church members ought to be unified on this: we serve God and one another with humble obedience (N.B.: This is what Christ taught in John 13).

B. Romans 15:5 (page 128 in the N.T.)

Now Paul makes a similar exhortation in this verse. He writes in Verse 5: “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus.” Now again the context dismisses the notion that we are all to think exactly alike. The context dismisses the notion of “cookie-cutter Christians”. What does the context teach? John MacArthur sums it up beautifully in his Study Bible:

“Paul urges the strong and weak [those who differ over debatable issues of conscience], despite their differing views on these non-essential issues, to pursue loving, spiritual harmony in regard to matters on which the Bible is silent.”

I think that is very evident in the text. The third one is found in ….

Romans 12:16 (page 126 in the N.T.)

The verse reads, “Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.” Again the context gives light to the meaning. Like James (chapter 2), Paul picks up this theme of partiality. To have the same mind to one another is to be devoid of conceit and feelings of superiority.

Summary of Unity Exhortations

In the membership of the local church then, we are all to have the same mind, same attitude, same purpose, etc. What should that look like? Absolutely no difference in doctrine or understanding? No! What the New Testament teaches is that unity on display means that we humbly serve one another, seeking to obey God, no matter what the cost. It means also that we don’t make non-essential issues divide us. It also means that we view each other without superiority or conceit.

The Case Before Us!

Now there is an issue before us that must be considered. Our current church position states that membership in Elk Point Baptist Church must comprise of people who profess faith in Christ and are baptized by immersion. Stated otherwise, we are saying that any maturing, rational person who repents and believes the Gospel and who publicly professes their faith through believer’s baptism – must be baptized by immersion. Let me say some things about that:

#1. That is not an unwarranted demand in a Baptist church. It ought to be deemed normal that a Baptist church teaches and practices baptism by immersion. It is not unusual that such a church would require acceptance of this of its members.

#2. Having said that, we recall that nearly 19 years ago, this membership did already take three individuals who had been affused or sprinkled into membership. We recognized them as having a true and credible profession of faith and acted accordingly. These people are still members.

#3. The issue that is being discussed and debated is NOT baptism. I am neither recommending nor advocating a change in baptistic mode. I am convinced that the Bible teaches believer’s baptism by immersion. As long as I pastor this church, this will be the mode taught and practiced.

The key question in this discussion is, “What is the essential criteria by which a person is taken into membership?” Let me remind you that the task of the local church is to ascertain whether or not a person has a credible and observable profession of faith. That is what recognizes a person as part of the Body of Christ. It is not the role of the church to demand perfection in all things. Growing in grace and knowledge is what ought to occur in all our lives.

If you arrive at a point where an immersed person is deemed to have a credible profession of faith and a person sprinkled is viewed as NOT having a credible profession of faith – you can readily see how odious this.

As John MacArthur writes^{^[3]}: “. . . if a person, in good faith, was raised in that environment, or converted in an environment where sprinkling was the mode of baptism, and in good faith they made their public testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ, and were instructed that this is the manner in which you do that--their conscience was clear and they were obedient to that which was taught to them--we would acknowledge that . . . we wouldn't want to eliminate their membership because of the mode.”

To eliminate a person from membership in the Church due only to the mode of their believer’s baptism is to essentially deny their profession of faith. That is why I see this as incredibly detrimental to the Body of Christ.

Some Objections

I have sought for some time to requisition objections from formidable Christian leaders and our denomination. There have been mainly 2 objections offered. The first I won’t deal with very extensively. The second more so …

#1. The Denominational Association Issue

It is viewed by some that to officially adopt a position permitting, at some level, non-immersed, baptized believers into membership would break association with our Fellowship. To that concern I suggest the following:

a. We have asked that the matter be discussed and debated. That request was refused.

b. I have asked that if I have erred in the Biblical understanding as I have expressed it, that I be shown how that is so. I was told that essentially there was no dispute with. In fact the two pastors that were sent to interview me said they agreed with the position.

c. Most importantly, as on any issue, we are left to resolve the matter on our own and do what is right, first and foremost, according to Scripture.

#2. The ‘Slippery Slope’ Issue

Someone might say that they understand the rationale of the argument and even agree with it, but to let a non-immersed believer into membership would slowly erode the baptistic position on immersion. They call it a slippery slope.

Let me suggest a number of responses to that:

a. The 20 year history of our membership would refute that fear.

b. We already permit membership wherein we do not require absolute agreement with doctrines that are far more significant than the mode of baptism. There are members who have or would disagree on other doctrines including God’s character, man’s nature in sin, predestination and eternal security to name a few. It is my opinion that it is illogical to hold the line on lesser matters of faith while being tolerant on momentous ones.

c. Prospective members are normally not asked to agree without reservation to the Statement of Faith, but are asked to respect it and abide by it.

d. I would also suggest that it be requisite for the elders of the Church to agree with the current statement of faith without reservation and in its entirety. I also suggest that teachers in the church who knowingly give instruction contrary to the Statement of Faith ought to be subject to corrective action.

e. I have drafted a statement that would call for a serious dialogue and decision to occur prior to anyone being recommended for membership who has not been immersed; but who has been affused or sprinkled as a maturing rational believer. It is worded like this:

A person may be considered by the membership wherein an individual:

(1) Has been baptized with understanding and by personal decision, as a believer in Christ, by another mode, proclaiming his/her saving relationship with Christ Jesus;

(2) Where after considerable prayer, study, and interaction with our church elders, the candidates are taught biblical immersion with the aim of bringing about a change of mind;

(3) Where they can give satisfactory and biblical understanding of their baptism;

(4) Where they sincerely and humbly believe that it would be contrary to Scripture and conscience to be re-baptized by immersion;

(5) Where the individual(s) being considered will respond in submission to the Church Statement of Faith and resolve not to be contentious;

(6) Where all other applicant requirements are satisfactorily met; and

(7) Where the church elders unreservedly recommend to the membership the reception of these applicants.

This does not open the door widely, but it does permit an attitude of Christian charity where an individual with deep biblical conviction and conscience holds to baptism by affusion or sprinkling.

Conclusion

Again, am I backpedaling on immersion? Not in the least! Am I backpedaling on the necessity of baptism for membership? No! I’m simply suggesting that there may be cases where mercy takes precedent over ritual. I’m suggesting that there may be cases where it amounts to idolatry to strain at the gnat and fail to have compassion.

Obviously this teaching places me in a very tenuous position as a pastor of a Baptist church. I choose not to be melodramatic, but unless convinced of Scripture and of Biblical wisdom, I hold this position with great humility. If you as a congregation choose not to accept this position, I will accept your decision as from the Lord until He shows otherwise. I simply ask that you give prayerful, Bible saturated consideration to this. I ask that you be Berean in every sense of that word (Acts 17:11). The primary ethos of this teaching is that the mode itself is not a “hill to die on”. I will not make it so no matter what the final outcome is.

[1] Geisler, Norman L., “Let’s Drop the Unbiblical Rules for Church Membership”, Christianity Today, January 1969

[2] Inrig, Dr. Gary, Life In His Body, Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, Ill, 1975, Page 137

[3] http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-5.htm

God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 3

2008-04-13T13:42:00.000-07:00

Church Discipline Part 3
Correcting the Body

Introduction

For the past few Sundays we have been discussing the difficult topic of Church Discipline. I think you can see with me that this is an accurate title, but at the same time it lacks the richness and the depth of this ministry in the church. Visions of tribunals, censure, punishment, etc. all come from this word: discipline.

Some of you may be saying, “It’s a lot easier to talk about confronting someone than actually doing it.” You are right. So let me start by saying a couple of personal and pastoral things.

#1. 99% of the time the fear and the anxiety of approaching someone never is realized. (I have to remind myself of that all the time.)

#2. I would say, on a conservative estimate, that I am involved in at least 2 to 3 situations per month, and have been for the last 19 years – and very few of you have ever noticed. Most of this type of ministry is like an iceberg --- the mass of it is usually unseen. Can we improve? Yes! Have we made mistakes? Yes! I can think of situations where I have grievously erred in not dealing correctly with certain situations. I have to live with the regret of that; but also live with the forgiveness and grace of God.

#3. Thirdly, I have been greatly helped in a number of ways:

a. In the first message I pointed you toward a ministry I think is 2nd to none: Peacemakers Ministries. They have great resources available that you would find of great assistance. They can be located at www.peacemakers.net.

b. Probably the most practical of writers in this area is a man by the name of David W. Augsberger. His series such as Caring Enough to Confront, etc. is deeply practical. We have some of his books in our library. I highly recommend them.

c. Lastly, I have enjoyed, for the most part, men on our leadership team that have helped me immensely. Being part of this type of leadership council and the friendships that have ensued has benefited me exponentially. I cannot overstate this. None of us are sufficient for the task – it is as we serve with each other we gain counsel, encouragement and wisdom.

So today we want to look at the 3rd and last part of this topic.

I - THE ATTITUDE OF CORRECTION

I think one of the greatest examples of “attitude” that helps us in dealing with this very difficult ministry is the Apostle Paul himself. Turn with me to 1 Corinthians chapter 1. As you look there, let me remind you of the context.

1) Paul is principally writing a letter of correction. There are 15 and one-half chapters of “correction” in this letter.

2) The litanies of crimes against this church are infamous. These Christians:

a. Were divisive (torn apart by factions),
b. Were Carnal,
c. Were Immature,
d. Were Proud;
e. Were abusing the Lord’s Table;
f. Were disorderly in worship;
g. Were morally confused;
h. Had major, significant theological problems;
i. Lacked love; and under all this they
j. Were critical of Paul, their founding pastor.

Under today’s market-driven, success-oriented culture, this church would have been disbanded without question. It was riddled with problems. Listen to the heart of Paul as he confronts these hard issues with the Church – listen carefully, listen prayerfully: Turn to 2 Corinthians 7:2-4 (page 143 N.T.):

2 Make room for us in your hearts; we wronged no one, we corrupted no one, we took advantage of no one. 3 I do not speak to condemn you, for I have said before that you are in our hearts to die together and to live together. 4 Great is my confidence in you; great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled with comfort; I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction. (emphasis mine)

Now the skeptic would say, “Paul, this is political baloney.” This pragmatist would say, “Paul you are self-deceived.” The critic would say, “Paul you are demented.” But there was a reason why Paul could look at the people of God in Corinth, who are exceptionally dysfunctional, and be proud, loving, and confident of them. There is a reason for this; and this reason is key to our relationships. Turn back a couple pages to 2 Corinthians 5:16.

"Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer."

After Paul was saved he not only viewed Jesus Christ differently (remember Paul was from mixed ancestry: Jews thought of Jesus as a heretic; Gentiles thought of Him as a fool.). He now saw Christ it a totally different light. Likewise he no longer looks at people the same way. He no longer evaluates people through the glasses of externals, outside appearances and worldly standards. He did not “recognize” (oida; lit. “know,” or “perceive”) people the same way anymore.

If we go back to 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 (page 130 N.T.) we will see more clearly how Paul viewed these people. What did Paul look for that gave him loving, proud confidence in them?

4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Let us make some important observations and formulate some principles regarding what Paul saw!

1. It is characteristic of Paul to always express thankfulness to his congregations. (In Romans 1, Philippians 1, Colossians 1, etc. he begins with thankfulness.) Now when you consider the list of 10 key areas where this church was incredibly deficient, you might suggest that thankfulness is a formidable task, if not a fiction! Paul makes the most incredible statement: “I thank my God always concerning you.” Notice that he is thanking God for them!

When you and I truly understand the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints (as we discussed it earlier) we will be able to look without question to God in thankfulness for one another. Why is it important to be truly thankful to God for someone prior to applying correction? There may be many reasons, but the most important reason to be thankful for our brothers and sisters is that it acknowledges the sovereignty to God. To pray, “God I thank You for these people” is to acknowledge that these people are God’s sovereign gift to you. That means that they are in my life because God put them there and their existence is precious and for a purpose.

Suppose you had an heirloom in your family. You are now the 4th generation to have it. It needs cleaning. If you are not thankful for the one that gave it to you, you might fail to treat it with honor and care.

Before we correct someone we must find ourselves in honest, heartfelt thanksgiving to God for that person or persons – because they are God’s gracious gift to us.

2. He reminds himself of the grace that brought them salvation. To quote our friend Pastor John McGregor, he said, “Under the Cross the ground is level.” If we believe we are saved by grace – alone, apart from works, apart from merit, apart from anything good foreseen in us, then our attitude toward an erring brother or sister has to change. When Paul reminds himself of the grace that saved him and them, he is intentionally humbling himself.

Thomas Watson[1] has been a huge help to me in understanding what humility truly is. Listen to how he describes a humble man:

a. A humble man has lower thoughts of himself than others can have of him. Paul thought of himself as the “chief of sinners”. If the truth be known most of us are far more wretched than we like to consider ourselves. To correct someone thinking that you and I are somehow better than they, less worthy of Hell, less worthy of God’s justice is to deny the grace of God. A humble man sees his own sin before others and cries, “Oh wretched man that I am!”

b. A humble man has low esteem of his duties. After all is said and done, those of true humility can only say “I have only done my duty – and that not very well – and that only by the grace of God.”

c. A humble man is willing to have his gifts, abilities, talents, successes and reputation “eclipsed” so that God receives the glory. To understand grace is to be able to say, “Let this ______?_______ make much of Christ. Let me decrease and let Him increase.”

3. He is aware of the grace of God that is evident in the daily lives of the Corinthians. “God had so enriched the lives of these people in spiritual perception and expression that they had been given increased ability in speaking. The extent of their enrichment is seen in the use of the adjective "all" with both concepts—"speaking" ("word," logos) and "knowledge" (v. 5). Paul is convinced that this was a real work of God's grace because he saw his witness about Christ established in their lives at the time of their conversion and had heard about it since then.”[2]

What’s the point for us? Well just like the Corinthians, when we necessarily need to correct a fellow-believer we ought to bring to mind the work of God’s grace in their lives. Before you go to someone to correct their lives you ought to follow the example of Paul and identify and rejoice in the grace of God that IS evident in their lives (And tell them!).

4. Paul also says, “In everything you are enriched … you are not lacking any gift.” By this he means that they lack nothing of God’s grace that is able to counteract “the sins and faults so prevalent in the Corinthian congregation.”[3] To give correction to someone and not encourage them in the resources of God to be able to change is to leave the person exasperated. Do you recall that fathers are told not to exasperate their children? Exasperated people are left without help, without tools, without understanding. Paul told these saints that God’s grace has given them everything they need to make the necessary changes.

I sometimes have to counsel couples who are having difficulty. The most common trait that I have witnessed to date is this: one or both have been left without hope. You can correct a person’s habits. You can correct a person’s attitude. But if you rob that person of hope you have robbed them of life. Paul was confident in the grace that God had given these people to bring about His will.

5. He is confident of God’s promise to bring them into perfection. Paul believes in God’s faithfulness and he is assured of hope. Correction (whether it is parent-child or between people, that leaves the other hopeless is cruel. Paul is saying to them as he said to the Philippians, “"For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6).

In summary, before Paul corrects this erring church, we see within him:

#1. An attitude of thankfulness for them;
#2. An attitude of humility;
#3. A focus on the grace of God within them; and
#4. Confidence that’s God’s grace is sufficient, His power is able and His faithfulness is certain to bring about the necessary change.

Eugene Peterson writes:

Paul doesn’t disown them as brother and sister Christians, doesn’t throw them out because of their bad behavior, and doesn’t fly into a tirade over their irresponsible ways. He takes it all more or less in-stride, but also takes them by the hand and goes over all the old ground again, directing them in how to work all the glorious details of God’s saving love into their love for one another.[4]

John Newton was once asked for assistance from a friend as to how to approach someone with whom he is having conflict. Part of Newton’s letter to this friend was this:

‘I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. [5]

Did you catch that? Previously I said that the goal of correction is to “save the mind” – to bring health to the mind. It is through correction we seek to apply the wisdom and truth of God to the mind. We all assumed that this only applied to the one being corrected – but this is where we miss it dear brothers and sisters:

IT IS ALSO THE ONE DOING THE CORRECTION
THAT MUST HAVE THEIR HEARTS AND EYES OPENED!

Conclusion

To seek to bring correction upon another person without the right attitude is encourage failure. If you do not find it in your heart to love someone; if you do not find it in your heart to thank God for the evidence of grace in their lives; if you do not find it in your heart to find hope and confidence in God’s faithfulness – you will be a very poor instrument of peace – and so will I.

[1] Watson, Thomas, The Godly Man’s Picture, The Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA, 1992, Pages 77ff
[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Corinthians/Exposition of 1 Corinthians/II. Paul's Thanksgiving for God's Work in the Lives of the Saints (1:4-9), Book Version: 4.0.2
[3] “Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Corinthians/Exposition of 1 Corinthians/II. Paul's Thanksgiving for God's Work in the Lives of the Saints (1:4-9), Book Version: 4.0.2
[4] Peterson, Eugene, The Message, 1 Corinthians, NavPress, Colorado, CO, 1993, Page 398
[5] Cecil, Rev. John, The Works of the Rev. John Newton, Uriah Hunt Pub., Philadelphia, 1839, Page 154 (Can be viewed at: http://books.google.ca/books?id=uHZWgFhIC9YC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=%22As+you+are+likely+to+be+engaged+in+controversy,+and+your+love+of+truth+is+joined+with+a+natural%22&source=web&ots=EAwAE0UhMI&sig=sSTrYxIdbWD3wuFl7CSYZrE-iBY&hl=en )

God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 2

2008-04-06T15:11:00.000-07:00

Church Discipline Part 2
Correcting the Body

Introduction

Turn with me to 1 John 3:2, where we read:

2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.”

The Church is committed to the hope that some day we will see Jesus and we will be like Jesus. Why is it so hard for us to realize, that if this monumental event is going to take place someday -- somebody has to change? And Beloved, it won’t be Jesus who is required to change! It is us. Therefore we need correction. We all need correction.

To review the steps we took last Sunday, consider the chart above.

We learned that some discipline is preventative in nature. For Christians who have a daily walk with the Lord that includes acknowledgment and cleansing of sin; and for Christians who attend regularly to the “spurring-on” of church ministries – Type 2 Discipline may become irrelevant. And for those who respond to the Private Discipline loving brought by others, we learn that Type 3 Discipline also may become unnecessary.

#1. TYPE 3 DISCIPLINE

Now before we look at a couple key texts regarding dealing publicly with a sinning brother or sister. Let me draw you attention to one that some use in conjunction with this type of correction. Let me walk you through it and you decide whether it is appropriate to do so.

A. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

Verse 6 is the imperative:

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Paul writes, “We command!” (note the Greek word is parangellō which is a very strong and authoritative word; it denotes standing beside someone like a drill sergeant and telling him what to do.) And if that wasn’t enough, Paul writes “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” He calls upon us to withdraw (stellomai) meaning “come away from”. Now who is the Church to withdraw from? Answer: A fellow believer who is leading an unruly life. This, by is original writing (atakios), indicates a continual pattern of life.

Now the question we have to wrestle with this morning is what does it mean to walk unruly? How broad is this command?

Now verse 7 and 8 give us a clue to this. "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;"

What was going on here? It seemed that some people in the Church at Thessalonica got so excited about the Second Coming of Christ they just up and quit working. They thought, “We’ll just sit here and wait for the trumpet to sound.” Paul said, “OK, you don’t want to work – don’t eat!” Now if they had just ignored that and sat waiting to die it would have been bad enough, but look carefully at what else they were doing:

They were “acting like busybodies” (v11). Paul’s command to them is “to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.”[1] “They were using the extra time to interfere in other people's affairs. ("They are busybodies," v. 11) They were meddling in the lives of others.”[2]

What’s Paul saying here? He’s saying that when John and Mary Smith choose to sit around and be idle, disobeying the Apostolic injunction to work; and they use their time to meddle and gossip and bother those who are trying to work – tell them that you do not want to have anything to do with them. But Paul adds, “Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”[3] The point is that I would not find exegetical evidence to apply this to every scenario. I believe the principle is this: Christians are to be busy in God’s will – disassociate with those who draw you into idle, meddling behavior and exhort them not to do that – but exhort them as fellow Christians to get to work.

I would not apply this to corporate Church discipline with my present understanding of the text and context of the command. It ought to be applied to our own daily lives though.

The most familiar passage regarding public discipline is Matthew 18.

B. Matthew 18:15-17

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)

In this case the sin is private, but it becomes public because the erring brother fails to heed the admonition of those who go to him and care for him. Now notice that the church is not the Court. The Church takes up the role of exhortation – the role of pleading. “If he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church!” How might this play out? Probably during a worship service, with the erring member present or even if they are not, the elders tell the church briefly what the problem is. Then at this point the Church takes it upon them to go to that erring brother and plead with him to reconcile and make it right. The entire congregation is released to minister to this person.

If this individual fails to respond to the one person; if they fail to respond to the 2 to 3 persons; and they fail to respond to the entire Church, Jesus says then they are treated as an unbeliever. How are unbelievers treated? Are they not treated with love, with concern, with kindness? They would not hold office in the church. They would lack many of the privileges of membership. But they would not be barred or treated unkindly. The goal is restoration not separation.

Probably one of the most serious passages that deal with public church discipline is in 1 Corinthians.

C. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

In the Church at Corinth a well-established, well-known sin was being lived out in their fellowship. It had been going on for some time. This was not recent. It was not only repulsive to God, but it was repulsive to the world. It was a sexual sin. Ironically, rather than dealing with it, there was something that crept in even making the Church “proud” of it. It is only a matter of speculation on my part how a congregation could avoid dealing with this and even be proud about it. My best guess is that they were perhaps “proud” in the sense that they were extolling their virtues of tolerance, grace, mercy to the sinner and so on. “Look how forbearing we are?” they may have said.

For Paul that didn’t work. The issue was so undisputable that even from a distance Paul judged the situation as sin. He said that such a person ought to have been “removed from their midst” (v2). Later in the chapter Paul quotes the Old Testament: “REMOVE the wicked man from among yourselves.”[4] Apparently Paul had previously written them and told them “Do not associate with immoral Christians” (v9). “Don’t even eat with them!” I write Christians because Paul makes it plain he is not referring to the unregenerate. He is referring to the unrepentant believer. If he doesn’t deal with it, it will work itself in destruction through the whole Church.

Now I take the phrase: “hand this man over to Satan” to be identical in essence: “treat him as an unbeliever.” Let me explain. We are either in the reign and under the rule of Christ or Satan. There are only 2 options. When a person is accepted as a church member, they are not transferred from one kingdom to another; nor does membership make them a Christian. We accept a person into membership because we primarily say that “our life gives every indication that you are saved.” When we “treat someone as an unbeliever” or “hand them over to Satan” we are saying the same thing but opposite: “your behavior gives every indication that you are not.” In the first instance we are NOT saying that a person is a Christian; and in the second instance we are NOT saying they are NOT a Christian. We are saying that there lifestyle doesn’t indicate they are.

Why would Paul use the term “hand over to Satan” instead of “treat him as an unbeliever”? Please note carefully, the goal is not there damnation (just as Matthew 18). The goal is there salvation (see v5! Let me tell you what I think and you weigh it carefully.

Point A. The god of this age is Satan (1 John 5:19). He is in subjection to Almighty God and he is under God’s sovereignty. But he has been given dominion in this life.
Point B. The Christian who is in right relationship with God is under the protection of God (Psalm 91:1-2) and Satan cannot touch him (1 John 5:18).
Point C. One of the temporal means that God employs to display His judgment is the Divine initiative called “handing over” (see Romans 1:26). I take that to mean that He removes His protective care and “hands one over” to the natural (Satanic) consequences of their behavior.

So I am convinced that what the Apostle is saying is this. Rather than put up with obvious, flagrant immorality and even gloat over it, the church is to seek correction from the individual(s) and if they refuse, they are to remove them from the privileges of membership and thus the protection of Christ. That is scary!

Interim Summary

Paul’s hope is that the unhappy and grievous effects of living life outside of the will of Christ will bring the prodigal home. All this work of correction is not the civil authorities; it is neither the elders nor the deacons; it is not just the individual Believer – this work of discipline at this level is the congregation! It cannot possibly be accomplished with successful results unless the Church sees that this is our Divine commission – albeit regrettable. That is why we are teaching on this matter.

There are two other areas that the Scripture speaks to that are to be handled in a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 5 in the case of wanton immorality. We will look at them briefly. The first is found in 1 Timothy.

D. 1Timothy 1:18-20

"This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:18-20)

Here we have another situation of someone being “handed over to Satan” (“treated as an unbeliever, by my understanding). What’s going on here? These two men have somehow rejected “their faith”. In 2 Timothy 2:17, Hymenaeus is mentioned as someone who has strayed from the truth. My understanding of this is that these two people are likely teachers in the assembly and have deviated from the established faith. They are teaching heresy.

Now when it comes to Christian doctrine we need to accept the reality that some aspects of the faith are more significant than others. There are some things that are disputable and at least for the present, unresolved. There are certainly issues where people can disagree and the integrity of the faith is not damaged. But there are cardinal, absolute and unalterable truths that if you mess with them you are a heretic and you are blaspheming the truth. This is not the time nor the place to go into this in great depths but this must be clear in all our minds:

a. We only see in part in some areas therefore we must express humility and kindness to those who disagree.
b. We differ as Christians on important issues. Healthy, meaningful intramural debate is good. None of these things ought to interrupt our fellowship.
c. But there are some hills to die on. Some truth is unalterable and the denial of them must affect our fellowship.

Just so we’re clear, let me give you an example of this: I will die on the hill of Biblical inerrancy and authority. I will not die on the hill of translations. I will die on the hill that the Holy Spirit is the absolutely the Third Person of the Trinity. I will not die on the hill of the gift of tongues. And of course my list and yours will go on!

Elk Point Baptist Church needs to come to grips with this. In a few weeks I will preach on Membership as to what must be the criteria for receiving people into membership. Please remember this point: Some issues must not be allowed to divide our fellowship. Some will. The wisdom to know the difference is critical.

Whatever these characters were teaching in Ephesus, Paul ascertained that it was a hill to die on.

One further instance where the Church needs to consider association with someone calling themselves a brother is found in Titus.

E. Titus 3:10

Let’s see the context (vv9-10):

"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:9-11)

Here we have a factious man. This is a man that is a trouble maker. This is a man that is consistently causing divisions and conflict. As we examine this passage though, like in other instances, we must consider carefully the context. That word translated factious is the Greek word hairetikon where we get our English word, heretic. It literally means “to choose, prefer, or take for oneself.” It means to hold an opinion despite the clear and obvious instruction from God’s Word. It “essentially characterizes what is a self-chosen opinion or viewpoint; because of their insistence on their opinions devoid of a true scriptural basis, the dissidents stir up divisions.”[5] So there is a sense where this scenario is similar to the last.

Here’s the point, brothers and sisters: Pastors and congregants can easily develop theological hobby-horses. They are based upon sheer speculation. The integrity of biblical exegesis gives them no credence. They only cause division and they are rooted in pride and self-adulation. Get over it! The context speaks of speculations and ideas that emerge from Judaism. I have only been in ministry for a few years, comparatively, but I have seen movement and movement even in that short period of time that is here today and gone tomorrow. To mention some would offend some of you. Stay away from such and after warning people --stay away from people who promote such things.

Application

Generally speaking then, when someone is known to have sinned, you have the responsibility to go to them and “show them” their sin. If they don’t listen you should return at a reasonable time with 2 or 3 others. If that brings restoration we are thankful, if not the entire church is mobilized for ministry. If all attempts to restore fail then the individual loses the privileges and protection of being right with Christ and His Church. Hopefully the misery that results will bring them to repentance. They are not to be avoided. They are to be loved and shown kindness. They are to be objects of your affection and mercy. They forfeit the privileges of Christian membership but they do not forfeit your love.

[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Th 3:12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:2 Thessalonians/Exposition of 2 Thessalonians/IV. Encouragement to Gainful Employment (3:1-15)/B. Proper Solution for Idleness (3:6-15)/2. Renewed instruction (3:11, 12), Book Version: 4.0.2
[3]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Th 3:15). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[4]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 5:13). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[5] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Titus/Exposition of Titus/IV. Concerning Believers Among Men Generally (3:1-11)/C. The Reaction to Spiritual Error (3:9-11), Book Version: 4.0.2

God's Blueprint for His Church - Church Discipline Part 1

2008-03-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

Church Discipline Part 1
Correcting the Body

Introduction

R.C. Sproul writes, “The church is called not only to a ministry of reconciliation, but a ministry of nurture to those within her gates. Part of that nurture includes church discipline. . ..[1]” If Church Discipline is so important to the nurture and care of the Body of Christ, why is it so difficult for us? Let me suggest a few reasons:

1. “Fear of man” comes to mind at the top of the list. What will they do to me? What if they hate me? What if this all blows up in my face? Fear of man is probably the most significant intimidator to Church Discipline. (“The fear of man brings a snare, but he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted.”[2] )

2. “Love of man.” There is a love and compassion that does not readily seek to inflict pain upon another. It is real. It is not a rationalization. Paul experienced that. He was reluctant to cause pain. In fact in 2 Corinthians 10 he diffuses arguments that he was a wimp in person but only bold when he wrote. I would be concerned about someone who said, “Oh boy, I get to go hurt someone!” There is a compassionate angle to this.

3. Skill and knowledge play an important role. How do I approach someone? What do I say? Lack of understanding can cause us to avoid such confrontation.

4. Personal sin. When I our lives are less than desirable it is very difficult to point out the speck in your brother’s eye. (see Matthew 7:4)

5. Prevalent sins in the Body. When the Church fails to live in obedience, to single out someone for correction is virtually impossible. (“we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.”[3] )

I – WHY SHOULD WE EXERCISE CHURCH DISCIPLINE?

God’s Design for His Church in disciplining one another is not only based on clear Biblical commands and examples, but is founded on solid Christian doctrine. The necessity to discipline is enveloped within two of the important truths that we taught in the previous lesson. They are:

The Doctrine of the Communion of Saints. We are all part of the one Body and are responsible to one another; and The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers. We all are expected to be in ministry.

However there is another important doctrinal area that gives rise to the importance of Church Discipline. Theologically it is called The Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. (I have placed a summary pamphlet at the literature table that describes this is greater detail.)

The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints essential states the following: That any person truly born of the Spirit unto eternal life “can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but they shall certainly persevere in grace to the end and be eternally saved” (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith). The application then is that those who profess faith in Christ and are struggling with their faith will ultimately and gladly welcome those attempts by the Church to enable them to persevere. In other words, for people who are truly Christ’s sheep, they will be truly warned by the Word of God; and they will hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:3-4).

II – WHAT IS CHURCH DISCIPLINE?

So we’ve been discussing this thing called Church Discipline for the last few moments, what is it? Knowing what it is will give you greater courage and confidence to face this difficult ministry.

The word “discipline” often conjures up ideas of censure, spankings, punishment and so on. So let’s go back to the basics and ask, “What is discipline?” W.E. Vine defines discipline as “sophronismos” and he defines it literally as “saving the mind.” [4]

This word is made up of 2 words: One is sos (meaning safe) and the other is phren (the mind). Thus the New Testament often interpretes the same word as self-control, sound mind, etc. We see that in a particular passage:

2 Timothy 1:7 (NASB95) reads, “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” [5] The KJV renders the phrase: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Church Discipline is then the application of sound, healthy, Biblical THINKING. What and how we think is what is affecting our behavior. This is the foundational ethic behind cognitive therapy. It is biblical. Solomon writes: “For as he thinks within himself, so he is . . ..”[6]

So ultimately the role of Church Discipline is enabling a brother or sister in Christ to think correctly, thus live correctly. How is this encouraging to the one that is called to do that?

a. It means that you need not seek to manipulate the other person. They are simply invited to examine their wrong thinking in light of God’s Word.

b. It means that you are not responsible to affect the change. You are responsible to the person but not for them.

Even the Apostle Paul understood this truth. When Paul had to write a letter of rebuke to Corinth he noted clearly, “"Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy . . .." (2 Corinthians 1:24a). John MacArthur comments:

Ever sensitive to avoid provoking unnecessary conflict, Paul quickly added the very positive disclaimer, Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy. Paul never abused his apostolic authority to gain prestige or power, or to further his own selfish aims. His goal, even in disciplining the unruly Corinthians, was the joy that holiness would bring them.[7]

III – THREE TYPES OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

As I examine God’s Word I find that there are 3 types of Church Discipline. It becomes blatantly obvious to me that if Type 1 was not happening, Type 2 will be necessary. And if Type 2 is not successful, Type 3 will become required. So what are these types of Church Discipline?

#1. Type 1 Discipline – Preventative Discipline.

Most of us don’t look at the Church, particularly life in the Church as a form of discipline but it is. Let me remind you of how this works:

1. There is “private” preventative discipline. If you are truly a member of Christ’s Body then you must be engaged regularly in the “washing of your feet”! (“If I do not wash you have no part with Me,” Jesus said.[8]) Our daily lives, our daily walk down life’s road needs cleansing. It is a characteristic of a true child of God that they are continually recognizing their sin and seeking God’s cleansing (1 John 1:9). In fact if you notice John’s teaching you will see that this comes from a daily walk in the light and it brings fellowship with each other (v7). How do you and I walk in the light? " How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments." (Psalm 119:9-10). Have you ever noticed that the profit that comes from the Word of God includes “correction” and “rebuke” (2 Timothy 3:16). When Christians are not seeking the enlightenment and cleansing that comes through the Word and by the Spirit there will be trouble. I will offer to say that the root of all public Church Discipline is someone who is not “hearing and obeying Christ’s words” (Matthew 7:24ff)

2. There is public preventative discipline. We’ve spoken on this in the past that that God has established the assembly of the Church in it’s various forms to “spur us on and stimulating us to love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24f). It is part of Christ’s Great Commandment to the Church – the entire assembly to "“Go therefore . . . teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”" (Matthew 28:19-20) Ken Sande from Peacemakers Ministries describes this type of discipline as “formative” discipline. He says,

“First there is formative discipline. This is the idea of bringing people to maturity in Christ the way a football coach disciplines his team through daily practices. This includes encouragement, practice, instruction, and showing them what is right and good. This is what a church does through its ministries.”

Again, when Christian neglect a daily walk with the Lord; and neglect the ministries of the Church, we can be assured that it will not be long before serious problems emerge.

#2. Type 2 Discipline – Private Discipline.

I am convinced that if we all kept short accounts with God and frequented the ministries of the Church that further discipline would almost become irrelevant. However when this does not occur, the next level of discipline is required. I refer to it as private discipline for it’s that encounter that takes place privately with the hope of seeing resolution, reconciliation and restitution. The Bible draws our attention to 4 opportunities for this type of Church Discipline. Let’s look at each of them:

1. Matthew 5:23-24. In these verses we are reminded of the first occasion when private resolution ought to take place. “"“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matthew 5:23-24) Jesus has just spoken quite directly about the seriousness of being angry with your brother. The insinuation might be that we can appease our consciences by bringing a gift to God … an act of worship. The principle is clear: If there is conflict between two Christians it is God’s desire that they be reconciled before engaging in worship or service. The case given places the responsibility upon the person who is aware that a brother has “something against [him]”. He is to make reconciliation before he offers service. This is something that the people of God must consider constantly. It is the one with cleans hands and pure heart that can approach God (Psalm 24:3).

2. Matthew 18:15-16 This passage is one that we are probably most familiar with. In the previous account, you are aware that you have wronged someone and you do something towards restoration. In this passage the opposite is true, you are aware someone has sinned against you, or you have knowledge of his sin. “If your brother sins go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother." Again we see that your responsibility is to “go and show”. We pray for a listening heart and responsive will. We have grown up in a culture that would rather not get involved. This verse says the opposite. Failure to speak up will lead to a worsening situation, for the individual and the purity of the Church. If it is you that has been wronged it will nearly always lead to bitterness if you fail to act.

3. Galatians 6:1 is another passage that speaks of a private encounter. "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted." Now this a different scenario apart from the previous two. This is a brother “caught in a trespass”. Literally the Greek reads “to take before”. We know there is willful sin and deliberate sin. But there are sins that overcome us because we are walking unaware. It is an unexpected failure. There was a lapse of judgment. There was a deviation from the path that has brought a brother into a situation of bondage. Those who exemplify the fruit of the Spirit are to go with humility and meekness (Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.”[9] ) are to restore him. “This word (Gr katartizō) is used as a surgical term, of setting a bone or dislocated joint. It is the same word used in Matthew 4:21 of mending nets.”[10] We are to help him and bear his burden (6:2). Why? The idea here is “there but the grace of God go I.” This is truly helping the weak.

4. 1 Timothy 5:19. There is yet one other scenario where a private confrontation is to take place. In this passage we read, “"Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." Obviously any accusation of any saint of God is serious. It can destroy an elder and a church. Before grounds are sought to publicly rebuke an elder, we are cautioned to determine the truthfulness of the matter first. This means that it “must be witnessed before two or three persons or not at all.”[11] This is why elders ought always to minister in plurality – never alone.

[1] Sproul, R. C., In Search of Dignity, Regal Books, 1983, p. 182.
[2]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Pr 29:25). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[3]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Co 10:6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[4]Vine, W., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1997, c1996). Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (electronic ed.) (2:172). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[5] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[6]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Pr 23:7). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[7]MacArthur, J. (2003). 2 Corinthians (p47). Chicago: Moody Publishers.
[8]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 13:8). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[9]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 10:12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[10]KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (electronic ed.) (2400). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[11]KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (electronic ed.) (2504). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

God's Blueprint for His Church - The Congregation

2008-03-09T15:51:00.000-07:00

The Congregation

Introduction

It was in 1912 that music publisher Dr. Adam Geibel asked C. Austin Miles to write a hymn text that would be "sympathetic in tone, breathing tenderness in every line; one that would bring hope to the hopeless, rest for the weary, and downy pillows to dying beds."[1] From this request eventually emerged what is purported to be the Church’s most favorite hymn apart from The Old Rugged Cross. The hymn is “In the Garden”.

In the Garden

Verse 1
I come to the garden alone, While the dew is still on the roses; And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, The Son of God discloses.
Chorus
And He walks with me, And He talks with me, And He tells me I am His own; And the joy we share as we tarry there, None other has ever known.
Verse 2
He speaks, and the sound of His voice Is so sweet, The birds hush their singing, And the melody that He gave to me, Within my heart is ringing.
Verse 3
I'd stay in the garden with Him, Though the night around me be falling, But He bids me go; Through the voice of woe, His voice to me is calling.

This hymn, that so many people love, makes me cringe. In excess of 12 times in 3 stanzas the personal pronoun is used. This hymn is riddled with neo-Gnostic, narcissistic sentimentalism. Now, already, I’ve probably disenfranchised half of my congregation. Hear me: it’s not that this hymn is not appropriate as relating to one’s own walk with the Lord; nor is it that the author ever intended it to be so (for he was recounting the story of Mary’s encounter with the risen Lord). No, the problem with this hymn is that countless numbers of people today equate this experience with Christianity. It’s all about, “Me and Jesus, Got a Good Thing Going” (Tom T. Hall)! It’s spirituality without the Body!

As I considered this concept, I started to think of the funerals that I have done for people who are not Christians. Nine times out of ten (with no exaggeration) the family of the deceased as taken pains to tell me that their loved one was not a “religious person – but was spiritual.” Translation? They didn’t go to church but they had a relationship with God.

Principle: It is an alien concept to the Word of God that a person is in relationship with Christ, but not His Body, the Church!

Brief Defense of that Principle:

Hebrews 10:23-25 tells us clearly that we should gather together and encourage and spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

In Ephesians 5:21-33, Paul tells us how husbands and wives ought to relate to one another. There, he teaches that Christ relates to the church as if it were His "bride." He always wants the best for her and loves the church so much that He gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25). To say, “I love Jesus, but I don’t want to have anything to do with Jesus’ Bride seems preposterous.
1 John 4:20 teaches us that to say we “love God” but we “hate” our Christian brothers, condemns the person as a liar. “Love in “word” is not real; it remains to be demonstrated.”[2]

Within God’s Blueprint for the Church, the congregation plays a key role. This morning I’m going to discuss this significant responsibility under three headings:

#1. Communion of Saints
#2. Priesthood of Believers
#3. Congregationalism

The first heading is going to tell us what it means to be a Christian. The second heading is going to tell us what it means to be a Protestant. The third heading is going to tell us what it means to be a Baptist.

#1. Communion of Saints

You probably recognize this phrase from the Apostle’s Creed. The last sentence in the Creed states:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

A layman’s definition of this phrase might go like this: The Communion of Saints means that every person who is united to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, through faith, is united to every member of the Church. The Biblical grounds for such a statement is found in 1 Corinthians 12 (page 136 in the N.T.)

Now Paul starts the chapter by discussing spiritual gifts. We conclude that first of all every Christian has been gifted by the Holy Spirit “distributing to each one individually just as He wills.”[3] Some of these gifts are listed in these first few verses. And these “gifts” are given for a vital reason: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good,” says the Apostle.[4] The point is that you and I have been given gifts intended by the Architect of the Church to be a benefit to one another.

The Paul states the doctrine:

"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

When you and I received Christ as our Savior, repenting and believing on Him, His Holy Spirit made us one with Christ and one with every other Christian. That’s the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints.

The people of God have been immersed into His Body and gifted to serve and care for one another. And no one can say, “I have no need of you.” Hear the apostle’s words again: “NO ONE CAN SAY I HAVE NO NEED OF YOU!” If you say to the church, “I have no need of you,” there is either a serious problem in your biblical understanding; or more seriously, it is unlikely that you have been born again (cf: 1 John 5:1-5)

To be a Christian is to be drawn into a dependent relationship on Christ the Head of the Church; and an interdependent relationship with His children! That is what it means to be a Christian!

#2. Priesthood of Believers

The second important topic that one needs to consider as part of God’s Blueprint for His Church is this phrase: Priesthood of Believers. (Now last October (07) I preached on this topic so I won’t go into the kind of detail that I ought.) Christians take this doctrine primarily from 1 Peter 2:9:

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Of course this text is originally from the Old Testament. It is a marvelous passage to show some degree of continuity between the People of God in the Old Covenant and applied to the Church in the New. The Bible clearly calls the Church a royal priesthood. The concept was re-born in the Reformation by Martin Luther who opposed the Church’s view of clergy and priests. The importance of this doctrine to Protestant churches is to affirm the truth of Scripture that every single born-again child of God is EQUALLY granted such grace that they themselves can know God individually and follow God’s will. The executive word here is equally not individually.

Now one important point to be made though is that the Reformers took great pains to call this doctrine, The Priesthood of Believers! It is plural. Peter wrote it as plural. It is this congregation of the redeemed that are a chosen race – a race of people after the second Adam. It is this assembly that is the priesthood, a nation, and a people.

Being a priest in the Old Testament meant offering worship to God, interceding for people. The priest was a minister. Every child of God has been placed into ministry the moment you are saved. You are enrolled in a priesthood. In the Old Testament the priest brought a sacrifice. In the New Testament the priest IS the sacrifice (cf: Romans 12:1,2)! Contextually Peter makes it very plain:

“But you are . . . a royal priesthood . . . so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”[5]

The New Testament priesthood is a people of God on a mission. “The word show forth (Greek: exangellō) means literally “to tell out,” and refers to the “preaching” of the gospel, the good news, or praises of God. His marvelous light (see I2 Corinthians 4:6) is probably a reference to Isaiah 9:1, and Christ as the “Light of the World.”[6] Does this not conform to the Great Commission of Christ, the Head of the Church (see Matthew 29:19-20)?

The doctrine of the priesthood of believers teaches us that as a member of Christ’s body we have a job – we are ALL ministers within the household of faith; and we are ALL evangelists!. As a member of this priesthood we are to go out into the world “as though God were making an appeal through us; [begging men and women] behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”[7]

Summary:

What have we said so far? To be a Christian is to be related to the local church; to use your gifts to the building up of others. To be a Protestant is to be a minister. You cannot rightly call yourself a Christian if you are not connected to His Church; nor can you call yourself a mature Christian if you do not see yourself as a minister. What of the third category? What does it mean to be a Baptist?

#3. Congregationalist

Although I started to introduce you to this term last week, some of you may not be familiar with the term Congregationalist. Others of you may think you know what it means, but your idea may be skewed somewhat. In simple terms, to be a congregational church means that the local congregation is independent and self-governing. Churches started to call themselves congregational, primarily during the Puritan movements, when people broke away from the state run, hierarchical forms of church government. Baptists, of course, are not the only congregational type churches.

Congregational churches are different that Episcopalian churches that are governed by a hierarchy of bishops; or the Presbyterian churches that are governed by a higher assembly of congregational representatives (a presbytery).

We believe that congregationalism is biblical. In our Church Statement of Faith we write: “We believe it [the local Church] is sovereign, independent body, exercising its own divinely awarded gifts . . . under the Lordship of Christ.” The Scriptural support for such is taken from the following places:

#1. In Revelation 1 local congregations, typified in perfection (The number 7) are represented as independent churches with Christ Himself being the Divine Superintendent. Revelation 1:12-20 reveals to us, “12 . . . And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; 13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man . . . 16 In His right hand He held seven stars . . . 20 “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”
#2. Revelation chapters 2 and 3, the infamous Seven Churches are represented as unique and separate entities and instruction was given directly to the church authority by the Lord Jesus Christ.
#3. As we have stated earlier, the local congregation is to ordain its leaders ( e.g., Acts 6:3-6). It is the local church that commissions people for specific ministries (Acts 13:1-3). They are also to discipline their own members (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13).
#4. Furthermore, Christians in New Testament times resisted the efforts of governmental and religious authorities to dictate religious belief and practice (Acts 4:18-20; 5:29).

Now here is where there is a lot of confusion: Is the congregational church democratic? There is a huge similarity between congregationalism and democracy. Some of the similarities include:

1) (As stated previously) It is the membership that is the “final court of appeal” (in a human sense) on matters of discipline (Not the elders and deacons.)

2) Every member is practically given a voice and in most congregational churches – a vote!

3) Every member is called upon to give input to matters such as the church constitution (because the church is autonomous); and the selection of leaders.

4) And every member bears a responsibility for the doctrine that is expressed in the assembly.

But in a very real sense congregations are NOT democracies. In addition, one should never be able to say that congregations are governed by:

A human monarchy – rule by one! When one person dominates the decisions of a congregation you have a dictatorship. It is manipulative.
An oligarchic rule – rule by a few!
An aristocratic rule – rule by the fittest.
An anarchic rule – rule by no one!
A democratic – rule by all!

Congregations are THEOCRATIC! Congregations are ruled by King Jesus! And King Jesus has given us His royal constitution: The Word of God! And King Jesus has appointed delegates to rule under Him in this Kingdom. That means that where the Bible calls for the congregation to exercise authority they are to do so. It also means that where the Bible calls for elders and deacons to exercise authority they are to do so. Congregationalism, practically exercised in this life is called “Rule With Consent”[8]. Consent is given in two ways:

#1. Implicitly. Where the Word of God gives direct application to the faith and practice of the congregation authority is understood.

#2. Explicitly. Where the congregation has given authority and responsibility to the elders manage the affairs of the church. Such explicit authority is given through constitutional and/or congregational decisions.

In such cases the congregation is called upon by the Word of God to obey and honor its leaders (Hebrews 13:7). The beauty of congregationalism is that “Elders do function most biblically in the context of congregationalism; but congregationalism also functions most biblically under the godly, wise, loving authority of biblically qualified elders.[9]”

APPLICATION

So let’s get down to where we live. You are hearing this today as a Christian. I challenge you in the light of God’s Blueprint for His Church to some penetrating questions:

If you say that you are rightly related to Christ; the are you also rightly related to His Body - the Church?
Are you interdependently living and serving the Body of Christ with the unique giftedness He has given you by His Spirit?
Are you living as a minister of Christ every day?
Are you a person that can be found in the Holy of Holies – in His Presence, before His Word?
Are you walking in the Spirit?
Are you intentionally proclaiming the Gospel to the community around you?
Are you living responsibly in the Church by sharing in the decisions and living in respect to those who will give an account for your soul?

You see beloved, the governance of the Church is certainly the responsibility of the elders. There is no biblical doubt about that; but it is to some degree shared governance[10]. There are those that love to criticize those in authority (and the Lord knows we sometimes deserve it!); but the question is: Are you holding up your end? The next time you point at a church leader, look at the 6 points above that are pointing back at you!

[1] http://www.joyfulministry.com/inthegart.htm
[2]KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (electronic ed.) (2638). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[3]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:11). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[4]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:7). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[5]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 2:9). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[6]KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (electronic ed.) (2607). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[7]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Co 5:20). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[8] Sing, Poh Boon, The Keys of the Kingdom: A Study on the Biblical Form of Church Government, Good News Enterprise, Malaysia, 1995, Chapter 9.
[9] Quoted from an article from Paul Alexander entitled Is Congregationalism a Democracy? http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2008886,00.html
[10] Phrase taken from a paper by Dr. Larry Perkins, The Delicate Dance of Congregational Government, Northwest Baptist Seminary, 2007

God's Blueprint For His Church - The Caregivers

2008-03-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

The Caregivers

Introduction

One of the women’s bible studies in our church has engaged in a study sponsored by Focus on the Family, entitled The Truth Project. The lecturer is Dr. Del Tackett. In this presentation he develops a thesis that charges all his lectures. His thesis is based on what he calls The Divine Imprint. The Divine Imprint, he shows, is the unity and harmony within the Triune Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that is stamped on every social sphere in the world. For instance we see how that divine imprint is pressed on the family; and on the governance of the family! This impression is also stamped upon the Church.

Where do we see that? Turn with me to the letter of Philippians, chapter 1 (page 154 in the N.T. of the pew bible)

" Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons:"

Last week we taught that the overseers (literally episkopos) were the spiritual leaders – the guardians of the flock. That title is synonymous with elder (presbyter) and pastor (shepherd). And now we see added this second office of the church, the deacons. How do we understand that word “deacon”? Well A.T. Robertson in his Word Studies of the New Testament suggests that the “etymology (Gr: dia, konis) suggests raising a dust by hastening.” In English the word has been simply translated “servant”. The idea here is that they are “quick to serve”!

Again, like the work of elders, everyone is, in a sense, to watch over one another, to teach one another. The elders were to be examples of that. Likewise every Christian is to serve one another … but there are also some called lead and exemplify this --the office of deacon. We see that proven for us as we look at 1 Timothy 3 (page 163). Let’s read that together:

⁸Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, ⁹but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. ¹¹Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. ¹²Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. ¹³For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The word “likewise” causes us to see a close connection with Paul’s previous list of qualification for the office of elder. A close examination of the two offices reveals very little difference except primarily that elders are called to “able to teach”.

Here is my first important point: The office of deacon is a high and holy calling. What the Holy Spirit is to the Father; what the wife is to the husband; so the deacon is to the oversight of the church. THE DEACONS ARE HELPERS! Deacons are ‘parakletos’ …. “one who comes along side”!

Who are the deacons to help? Well, as I noted previously, there is no job description for a deacon. But we can see an illustration of this if we look at Acts 6:1-8 (page 96):

¹Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. ²So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. ³“Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. ⁴“But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” ⁵The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. ⁶And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. ⁷The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. ⁸And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Please be careful to note that this is not taught as a prescription for the church. It is a description. I rest my position on the two offices from Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8ff. But this is a great illustration of how the elder-deacon relationship works. So back to the question, “Who do the deacons help?” Answer?

They help the elders by freeing them to focus on their priorities; and
They help the needy in the congregation.

The office of deacon is first and foremost a ministry of helps! “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.” ^{^[1]} )

Who are the needy? Well the Scripture does not leave us without a witness. They are the:

Aliens & strangers (i.e. visitors & newcomers)
widows & fatherless
elderly
sick & shutins.
poor
imprisoned
and so on.

Listen carefully to the heart of God:

Exodus 22:21
²¹“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:34
³⁴‘The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 25:35
³⁵‘Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.

Deuteronomy 27:19
¹⁹‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

That is just a sampling. What was one of the primary sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? "“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). What was James’ summation of true religion? (“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress”^{^[2]}.)

In one church[3] when deacons are called into office they are asked called to the following:

I charge you, deacons, to inspire faithful stewardship in this congregation. Remind us that “from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” (Luke 12:48). Teach us to be merciful. Prompt us to seize new opportunities to worship God with offerings of wealth, time and ability. Realize that benevolence is a quality of our life in Christ and not merely a matter of financial assistance. Therefore, minister to rich and poor alike, both within and outside the church. Weigh the needs of causes and us the church’s resources discerningly. Be compassionate to the needy. Encourage them with words that create hope in their hearts and with deeds that bring joy into their lives. Be prophetic critics of the waste, injustice, and selfishness in our society, and be sensitive counselors to the victims of such evils. Let your lives be above reproach; live as examples of Christ Jesus; look to the interests of others.

I love that ‘charge’ – it is charged with truth and responsibility. When I look at that statement of responsibility I envision tremendous giftedness among the diaconate. Gifts as:

giving,
administration,
teaching,
helps, and
mercy.

But let me ask another pertinent question: What of the ‘women’ mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11?

Before I launch into this debate let me make one disclaimer. I find no grounds to be absolutely dogmatic to the point of indifference to other interpretations. I am convinced of what I will teach you, but I also am very aware that godly people (who may all love Jesus more than I) would disagree. I will simply give you my reasons for why I believe what I believe and permit you to become convinced based on your own study.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary[4] helps me summarize the jist of the argument.

In the Greek language the same word, gyne, [goo-nay] is used for "woman" and "wife."

Since this single word is found here for "their wives," there are three possible interpretations as to what group Paul is talking about:

NIV follows KJV in assuming that these women were the wives of the deacons.
Some have suggested that he is speaking of women in general.
Some (I used to J ) argue that the reference is to deaconesses.

I believe that Paul is addressing wives of the deacons. For the following reasons:

#1. The Greek word here which literally means “women” or “wives” allows for such.”

#2. The most compelling argument for me is that Paul placed this verse right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons. We know that by his continuation in verse 12.

#3. The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 is to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men.

#4. My fourth reason is less compelling but seems absolutely rational. If the task of the deacon is to conduct a ministry of helps, both in and out of the church. It seems logical and prudent that his wife assist him often. Therefore, her character ought to be considered also. Dealing with the type of issues a deacon is to be engaged in would require that his wife be godly and speech and conduct. Because of the nature of such ministry they are to be faithful, not malicious talkers, not gossipers, and so on.

Of course there are some arguments against that.

#1. Some would say why then is there no character qualifications for an elder’s wife. My answer is that Scripture demands that elders serve in plurality and are they are to be self-disciplining. It would not be the ‘norm’ that an elder’s wife serve along side of him regularly. (For example when someone comes for prayer for healing – they are to call the elders! James)

#2. Secondly there is evidence (such as Phoebe in Romans 16:1) that seems to give rise to an office of deaconess. The illustration of Phoebe does not demand that view though and is likely not a separate church office but in fact an example of Christian behavior that we all are obliged to consider.

Summary:

So how does the Bible understand the role of the deacon within the governmental sphere of the church? I believe it could be described as this:

A deacon has a ministry of helps, liberating the elders to concentrate on their priorities while ministering, often with their wives, to the needy, within and outside of the church.

Application:

In my instruction on elders I suggested that there ought to be times in the life of the congregation whereby they forget that it is a human ministering to them, but they sense the very Lord of the church, Jesus Christ is serving them. In relation to deacons, let me draw your attention to this passage: (Turn with me to Matthew 25:34-40 (page 22)

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; ³⁶naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ ³⁷“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ³⁸‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ³⁹‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

Now this teaching on the office of deacons will be a radical change of thinking to some of you. I am convinced it is biblical. I am also convinced that we (particularly in the Baptist tradition) have erred. The missing ingredient to many of our so-called congregational or baptistic churches has been the biblical view of the diaconate. I am aware of a forward-thinking church that even has a ‘global diaconate’[5] – serving the needs of the world!

May God grant us the courage to envision such a change in this holy calling, that many see Christ through this ministry of helps!

^{^[1]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Co 12:28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^{^[2]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jas 1:27). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[3] Christian Reformed Church of North America – Ordination of Deacons

[4] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Timothy/Exposition of 1 Timothy/V. Worship and Conduct (2:1-3:16)/E. Deacons (3:8-13), Book Version: 4.0.2

[5]http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2004/1735_Bethlehem_Baptists_Global_Diaconate/

God's Blueprint For His Church - The Guardians

2008-02-24T13:37:00.000-08:00

The Guardians

Introduction

Debra and I wrestled with a difficult decision several years ago. The issue was about who would look after our children if we both died at the same time. Who would we designate as their guardian? Some of the things that one has to consider are:

• Whose parenting style, values, and Christian beliefs most closely match ours?

• Who is most able to take on the responsibility of a caring for our girls — emotionally, financially, physically, etc.?

• Who does our children feel comfortable with already?

• Where would our children have to live in this eventuality?

• Does the person have enough time and energy to devote to your child?

But the most important question was this: “Who would care for our children as we would?”

This is a very real and important scenario. One that is further away from our own immediate families but equally as important is this question? “Who would care for the Church when God would take Jesus to glory?” The answer is found in Acts 20:17

" From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time . . . Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:17-18, 28)

The short and obvious answer to the question is this: The Holy Spirit and the elders! When Christ was exalted and restored to His former glory, God the Father sent another Comforter, the Holy Spirit to care for the Church. In this transfer, we read, that the Holy Spirit has delegated that work also to some people called elders. What’s going on in this passage?

Paul had called the elders of the Church at Ephesus. In his instruction to them, fully believing that he was going to suffer and die, he gave to them and to us a revelation of the progress and the structure of the early church. There is important teaching here on a number of topics, but what is key for us is the perspective this gives us on the leadership of the church. Not to be cute, but to provide a means of us remembering, I want you to consider this passage in terms of the following:

a. God’s singular will for the care of the Church.

b. The dual focus of Church leadership; and

c. The triune function of that leadership.

So let’s take the first one:

1. The singular will of God for the ongoing care of the Church.

Keeping our attention only in this passage for the moment, we can discern clearly God’s heart for the Church. Let’s look at this in more detail.

The NASB rightly says [note my emphasis], " From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time . . . Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:17-18, 28)

That is one word in the Greek language: προσέχω [prosecho /pros·ekh·o/] It’s a word that speaks of holding on, giving attention to, watch over, and so on. Guard is a great word. Contextually, if we were to read on, we’d see that Paul warned the church about attacks from without and within. He called these men to be guardians of the flock. Twenty-eight times in the New Testament (KJV) the Holy Spirit uses this term.

Matthew 16:6 (NASB95)
⁶And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Luke 21:8 (NASB95)
⁸And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them.

1 Corinthians 10:12 (NASB95)
¹²Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

1 Timothy 4:16 (NASB95)
¹⁶Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

How were they to do that?

2. The dual focus of the overseers - the plurality of protection.

Notice please that this guarding of the Church was a double prong. " From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time . . . Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:17-18, 28)

These elders were to guard, protect, “take heed” to their own lives and the lives of the Church. I see several principles here that are important:

Paul addressed to them in their plurality. There is a principle in Scripture regarding elders in that they always existed and served in plurality. It is foreign to the Bible for a church to have a single pastor, overseer or elder. That concept is alien to Scripture. Listen to Paul’s exhortation to Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.”^{^[1]} Here we also see this mandate of the apostle: “set in order” -- ἐπιδιορθόω [epidiorthoo /ep·ee·dee·or·tho·o/]. “The letter points to lack of organization (1:5), unchecked false teachers (1:10, 11; 3:10, 11), and the need for instruction in doctrine and conduct (2:1-10; 3:1, 2). Paul had observed and had begun to correct these matters; Titus must now complete the work.”[2] How was Titus to complete the work? Answer? The establishment of elders wherever there is a fellowship of believers.

Paul commanded them to be self-disciplining. I am certain that his included that personal ability to live a disciplined, guarded life before Christ and others. I am also convinced that it implies that there is a mutual accountability within the counsel of elders. What does this mean to the congregation? What is Paul essentially saying when he commands guard yourself and the flock? I believe it is this: Lead by example. This is the biblical definition of an oft-misused phrase servant leadership. Let me show you one passage that confirms that. Turn with me to 1 Peter 5 and let’s read verses 1 to 3. " Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock." Notice several key points:

By this time in the development of the early church Peter (cf 3 John 1) is viewing himself less as an apostle and more as a “fellow-elder”.

Jesus said in Matthew 10:42ff, not to lord it over others but be a servant. Peter writes elders not to lord it over others but be an example. I am convinced that servant leadership is leadership by example. So when elders watch for themselves they place themselves in a position of integrity to watch over the flock.

Paul commanded the elders to watch over, guard, take heed to the Church. You might ask, “Well what does that mean? What are they supposed to do?” The answer is rarely given. There is a principle of Christian leadership that absolutely boggles the secular mind. It is this: “You call men to leadership who conform to the biblical standards of character. Men of character desire to do what is right.” There is very little one can say about a detailed job description of an elder. There is even less regarding a deacon. Within this passage we can discern clearly that the church ought to be able to say, “I know that you care for me, because you guard me.” For those of you who understand the role of the husband, God’s design of headship, and Christ’s love for the church – this will make great sense. Elders will fight for your ultimate good and your spiritual protection.

But we are not left without a witness as to the practical outworking of an elder. Within the functional description of an elder, we can also discern further into their role.

God’s heart to care for His Church. He has ordained that elders do that by guarding themselves and the Church. In what way, you may ask? This takes me to the third point, this morning.

3. The triune function of the elder.

Within Paul’s final appeal to the Ephesian elders we see a parallel emerge. Notice this:

There is no doubt that he is speaking to elders. He “called to him the elders of the church” in verse 17. That’s plain. The word “elder” is the Greek word: presbyteros. This is where we get our Presbyterian, presbytery and so on. The word denotes spiritual maturity. The writer to the Hebrews said, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”^{^[3]} I understand spiritual maturity as that place in life where someone has a solid understanding of biblical doctrine and lives it out in their life, honing their ability to know right or wrong. Wouldn’t you want someone guarding you who fits that description?

But Paul intentionally uses another word of these same elders in Acts 20. He said that “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” There he uses the word episcopos which means to ‘look over’. This is where we get our word Episcopalian. It simply means what the NASB has translated it so well: an overseer. I understand that elders are not to do all the ministry. They are not hired men! Nor should they be micro-managers with their fingers in every pie. Elders are to oversee the ministry of the Church.

Thirdly there is another subtle phrase that mustn’t go unnoticed. We see it also in verse 28, “to shepherd the church of God.” The verb shepherd is the Greek word poimen. It means just that “shepherd”. We get our word ‘pastor’ from that. The Latin word for shepherd is pastorem. The source of the idea is the pasture. A pastor is a shepherd. We saw Peter use that in 1 Peter 5:1. He said to the elders, “Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight.”^{^[4]} In other words, “Shepherd the church by overseeing the church.” Pastoring is the action word of the role of elder. He is to feed you. What food do you think a pastor ought to feed his church? 1 Timothy 5:17 says that elders ought to preach and teach. 2 Timothy 4:2 says, “Preach the Word.”

So elders are to be grounded in Scriptural doctrine, exercising obedience and godliness in their daily lives – leading by example and giving oversight, mature direction to the flock by feeding to the Church of God. As your pastor, when you look at me as an elder you should expect that from me you can glean spiritual mature counsel from the Word of God and my life. As your pastor, when you look at me as an overseer, you should expect that I can supply vision and direction to the church. As your pastor, when you look at me as a pastor, you should expect that you are being fed by the Word of Truth that “is able to build you up and give you an inheritance with all the saints” (v.32). What guards me and guards you is that these functions are necessarily given not just to me – but to a body of elders to whom have the same calling and role.

4. But what about …

There may be many questions that arise from this, but one that I anticipate that I need to address is this: what about us the congregation? Do we not have a say in this? Or another question more specifically is, “I thought we were a congregational church? A democratic church?”

God has indeed given a role for the congregation to play in all of this. Let me quickly outline some that the New Testament either illustrates or directs.

The resolution of sin between individuals and the church is a congregational responsibility according to Matthew 18:15ff. “Tell it to the church.” The congregation makes the final disposition on these matters. See also 1 Corinthians 5:4-5; and 2 Corinthians 2:6-7
The selection and confirmation of leaders is a congregational responsibility. For instance in Acts 6:1-5 the apostles said, “Select from among you . . ..”
When false doctrine was tolerated in Galatia Paul wrote to the whole church and said, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him.”^{^[5]} The Church is to be Berean (cf: Acts 17:11) about that which is taught in the congregation. (see also 2 Timothy 4:2-3)

The bottom line is this: Because we are fallen creatures, yet to be perfect in our sanctification, the will and direction of man should never be followed without discernment. Clearly the New Testament calls upon the congregation to honor () and obey () their leaders. This is not without thought. Congregationalism doesn’t mean that the members have to vote on every issue. Primarily the task is to ensure that qualified men are ordained into office and they are treated with trust and confidence. At the same time, the church is to be discerning in who it ordains and in some cases the church ought to form give consensus or ratification to the decisions of the elders.

5. Limitations of Leadership

Within our text for this message there is a limitation of one’s scope of leadership. Notice that elders have a shepherding, overseeing role toward “the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”^{^[6]} There are many who profess to be religious or spiritual. Some people even profess to be church-goers. But the Church that Paul has defined in this passage is a people who are bought, owned outright, by the Lord Jesus Christ. And they were purchased by nothing short of the death of Jesus Christ. As your pastor, when I remember that God has charged me with the guarding, the care, the feeding of a people whom He has loved and died for in Christ – this revolutionizes my leadership.

My sister Marion and her husband Burt were asked to be the guardians of our children. If Debra and I died together I am absolutely confident that my sister will love and cherish my children as her own and as an extension of her brother. She will treat them with kindness, firmness, biblical guidance and discipline. But most of all she will love them so deeply and so desperately that they will think that their mom and dad is being expressed through their auntie.

God has called us elders to do that with His children. He has called us to treat them with kindness, firmness, biblical guidance and discipline. But most of all God has called us to love them so deeply and so desperately that they will think that they are seeing Christ displayed through the eldership.

I need to ask you a question before we close, “Are you one of God’s church, bought with His blood, purchased and owned by Him?” If you are not, one of the things you are missing is the expression of His love and care that is displayed through godly elders. But most importantly, you are missing out on the greatest relationship in the world, a person owned by Jesus! Think of it … we can belong to Jesus. To belong to Jesus is to be a partner in all His mercy and forgiveness. It is to be a partner in all his grade and goodness. It is to be a partner in an inheritance that will last forever. It is to be in a relationship with Christ, the King of glory and to know Him and love Him and treasure Him for ever and ever and ever.

^{^[1]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Tit 1:5). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Titus/Exposition of Titus/II. Concerning Elders and Errorists in Crete (1:5-16)/A. The Appointment of Qualified Elders (1:5-9)/1. The duties of Titus in Crete (1:5), Book Version: 4.0.2

^{^[3]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Heb 5:14). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^{^[4]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Pe 5:2). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^{^[5]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ga 1:6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^{^[6]}New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ac 20:28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.