The Ignorance of a Luke 10 Approach

When Jesus sent out missionaries, what did He do?  Do we know?  We do, because we can read about it in Luke 10.   We should also assume that this is the model that the Apostle Paul utilized in His efforts.  We will be and we should be sanctified by the truth, not by opinion and pragmatism.  I think that much of what we read in Jesus’ sending of the seventy in Luke 10 is ignored today by churches and church leaders.  How?

1.  Ignorance of the Method in Luke 10

The seventy were sent to say something.  They were sent to preach a message (Lk 10:5b, 9).   We don’t see “church-planting” per se in the Bible.  Jesus did not send the seventy out to start a church.  The Apostle Paul did not go to start a church.  Churches were started, but neither the seventy nor Paul were sent to start a church.  Scripture is sufficient.  Silence does not mean permission.  We ought not to be sending men to start churches.  Jesus didn’t and Paul didn’t.

We send men to preach.  We don’t send them alone.  We send them in twos.  That’s what we see.  We may think we have a better idea, but that’s the model that Jesus left us.  At least two men go.  They go into a town or city and preach.

As the men go to preach, they find out who receives the message and who does not.  If a person receives the message, that’s the possible start of a church.  If no one receives the message, the two don’t tweak the message or consider a different method. They leave after proclaiming judgment on the town or city.  Each home is a microcosm of this.  If a home does not receive the message, the men move on to the next home.  Look at vv. 1-17 (below) if you don’t think this is the case.  I’m open for your alternative ideas, but at least consider the text.

There is no pressure on the preachers to “produce.”  They don’t need to see a certain number in a certain number of weeks or months or years.  Their one goal is to preach just what God said.  From there, they just gauge the response.   They are not required to toil in obscurity with no one listening.  They are actually not supposed to do that.  They should preach—if no one wants it, move on; if someone does, park there.  If it succeeds, it will be because of the gospel, not the preacher.

The preachers Jesus sent out, He said He was sending as “lambs among wolves” (Lk 10:3).  Jesus didn’t say that people would like the method or the message.  It would be worse than a turn-off.  Most would hate it.

Demographics don’t relate at all to Luke 10.  Everyone was preached to.  Nobody was left out.

If the emphasis is on the preaching and not the starting of a church, then the point or the real goal will be met, that is, everyone will be preached to.  Many church planters go to a town and immediately start inviting people to church and the people of their community never, ever receive the gospel. They still haven’t preached the gospel to everyone.  They don’t even know that is what they were supposed to do.  They thought they were supposed to start a church.  They go with a pack full of non- or un-scriptural methods and get to building a crowd.  That is not the rock upon which Jesus said He would build His church (Mt 16:18).

2.  Ignorance of the Money in Luke 10

“Church planters” travel the country raising support to plant their church.  I understand that the seventy were a second phase of Jesus’ sending, after the twelve (Lk 9).  Later in Luke, Jesus sends them with money (Lk 22:35-36).  I’m not opposed to supporting missionaries.  What I think we need to know, and this is one of the lessons of Luke 10, is that money is not necessary to be a missionary.  Jesus wanted them to see that in Luke 10.

Today we hear there are “needs” in order to see a church “launched.”  One professing fundamentalist, quasi-evangelical, who had read all the studies, the missional philosophy, the cultural engagement strategy, said that he needed to raise at least $300,000 to launch his church.  People believed him. They supported him.  He was a hot commodity because he was up on all the latest techniques necessary for a successful church launch.

The building is another important “need” for the church launch.  (“Launch” is important for a launch.  Use the word “launch” if you want to launch.)  But the building must be something that people are going to want to attend, you know.  All of this really is a lie.  Jesus said nothing about a building.  Paul said nothing about a building.  A building is not necessary for a church to start.   You don’t need money, and you can see from reading Luke 10 that your first building is the house of the first person who will receive the message.

The building is really about an impression that becomes necessary for “church planting.”  You want to have a church and church has a building.  And you are not going to get a lot of people to stay if they aren’t comfortable with your building.  You won’t look classy or successful enough for those people, which the church planter perceives are a lot of people.  Plus, the program the church planter expects to succeed as part of the attraction to his church needs that facility.  That requires money.  So the desire for money relates to the alternative to the Luke 10 method.

3.  Ignorance of the Message in Luke 1o

“The Lord” (v. 1) appointed the 70 and He sent them to go ahead of Himself to towns where He would come after them.  Their message was “peace” (v. 5) in the “kingdom of God,” which was “nigh unto” them (v. 9).  A kingdom has a King.  The offering of a kingdom meant the King was coming.  If He was their King, He was their Messiah, as well as their absolute monarch.  They would be turning their lives over to Him.  If they relinquished their selves to Him, He would bring them the kingdom.  They had to receive Him as King. If He was King, He was Lord.  If He was Lord, they were His slaves.  The message Jesus sent them to preach was no different than the gospel that He preached from the very beginning of His earthly ministry (Lk 4:43).

If people receive the message Jesus expects of His evangelists, that is, the truth, the kind of building they have doesn’t matter.  Slaves aren’t offended by some discomfort.  Those who have denied themselves to follow the Lord aren’t concerned with those peripheral, superficial interests that captivate many church planters.

Jesus did send the seventy to preach.  That’s what he wanted them to do.  If a church started, it would come out of the affirmative responses to the message they preached.

For Reference, Luke 10:1-17

1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.

15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Trials and Temptations — Different and Yet the Same

Trials and temptations might seem to be vastly different, but they’re not.  As a matter of fact, the same Greek word describes a trial and a temptation—peirazo.   You see this word in Hebrews 11:17 to describe what God put Abraham through in Genesis 22:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.”

Abraham was “tried” (peirazo).  But then you get the same word in James 1:13-14:

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”

The word translated “tempted” is peirazo again.  So Hebrews 11:17 says that Abraham was tried, and it was obviously God doing the trying.  And then James 1:13-14 says that God doesn’t tempt or try any man.  Wow.  Sounds like a contradiction.   They’re the same word after all.

Tried and tempted come from the same Greek word, but what they mean depends on the context.  It is true that God does not tempt any man with evil.  That’s exactly what James 1:13 says.  God wasn’t tempting Abraham to sin.  He was trying him, that is, testing him.

Earlier in James 1:2 we read, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.”  There “temptations” are related to trials, like what Abraham went through.  It comes from peirazo again.  So God brings trials into men’s lives, like He did with Abraham.  So when do these trials become sin?

Trials become sin when a man is “drawn away of his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14).  The temptation originates in a man’s own lust.  So what occurs?

God either brings or allows a trial in someone’s life.  It’s only a test.  He can pass that test.  Or the test can move on to become a temptation when it interacts with a man’s lust.  Now he is being tempted to evil.  God never tempts man to evil.  That is man’s own doing.  They are the same situation, however.  If a man passes the test, it will never get to a temptation.  If it gets to a temptation, it reaches a whole new dimension.

The key to temptation comes at the point of enticement.  That’s when a man is fooled into sinning in his own mind.  He’s deceived.  What will combat the deceit is the truth, Scripture.  Scripture will strengthen someone’s faith for a trial or a temptation.  He can pass the test if he obeys Scripture.  If he doesn’t pass the test, it will be because of his own lust, and he will have sinned.

So trials and temptations are both the same thing, and yet they are different.  Trials are good.  We count them all joy, because when we pass them, according to James 1:4, we get stronger.  Temptations are bad, because that means the trial has been affected by our own lust.  We can still keep from sinning, but it has become a little harder than when it was only a trial.

Revivalism and Fraudulent Faith

You may have heard of the modern “word of faith” movement.  It might be the fastest growing segment of professing Christianity today.  According to those of this movement, the faith possessed by Christians can and should operate like a force or power.  If you have legitimate faith, according to them, then you have the potential for and should expect to have power as well.  In the word of faith movement, this power or force of faith exerts itself to obtain things that you want—prosperity, position, or health.   If you just believe, your faith can operate through your words with God to get anything that you want; that’s what God wants to do, and Christians should expect it.  So you could change the world, especially your own world, by means of this faith, to create a healing, cause a salvation, bring about a good relationship, or to change an economic situation.

Like the Pentecostal or Charismatic “word of faith” gets these blessings and changes individual realities, the faith of revivalists obtains spiritual results by means of personal faith.  I believe that both of these distortions of scriptural faith come from the same influence upon American evangelicalism, that of Charles Finney in the mid nineteenth century.   The perversion of revivalism is actually an earlier error, more in line with that of Finney himself.  “Word of faith” was a later development as an outcome of the revivalistic thinking.

Both revivalism and “word of faith” have a similar emphasis on the ability of man to cause his own spiritual effects by the right use of means. Both believe that faith can solve every important problem and create their own desired results.  In both cases, the results make it inappropriate to question the means—the end justifies the means.

Finney believed that the faith of a Christian could and should produce a revival.  In modern revivalism, a person reveals his faith by paying a price to get the power that comes from believing.  If he really has faith, then he will persevere to get the power from that faith by lining himself up with enough moral guidelines to reach some threshold that initiates the spiritual blessing that God wants to give, dependent on his faith.  The faith that merits revival also reveals itself in really, really wanting it, manifesting itself in praying long and hard to get it.

How does the faith of revivalism and the “word of faith” movement veer off a scriptural understanding of faith?  The faith of the Bible is not a power that someone possesses to control something in his future.  The faith of God’s Word accepts the reality that the Bible promises it.  And we can see that future is not normally one of success and great results and health and prosperity.   Faith is not an instrument that people use to acquire the future on earth that they want, but a God-given means by which men will accept the future that God has already promised them.  Faith trusts God with its future.

Jesus didn’t send out the twelve with promise that they could see tremendous results if they only had faith.  He sent them all over Galilee and said that they should shake the dust off their feet outside of the town or city that didn’t believe what they said.  At times, many believed—that is true.  But that is not some kind of paradigm that believers should take as an expectation for their future.

Genuine faith itself is the substance, not the results of that faith.  What is promised for that faith?  As you look through Hebrews 11 you see it to be a lot of suffering, difficulty, and rejection.  You see that in Abel, who was murdered, in Noah, who was mocked and jeered before he was vindicated much later by a worldwide flood, in Abraham, who never did possess the land to which he set out on his long  journey, in Moses, who gave up the Egyptian court, and then those who were tortured and saw asunder to reward their faith.  They went ahead and went through their characteristically difficult times because of faith.  Faith had no connection to worldly success or earthly results.  They did what they did because they had placed their futures in the hands of the God they trusted.  Their faith was in what God would make of their lives.

The attraction of revivalism is that it guarantees the results an individual of faith would want to receive.   The allure is not its historic or biblical theology.   Revivalists utilize proof texts out of context and then mainly stories of former revivals that have occurred since the inception of revivalism.  They brag about special moments in the past that have come because of power from God they received by faith.  No one should depend on these experiences as hope for the future.  We can’t and neither are we supposed to trust anecdotal material as a basis for Christian living or decision making.

In its own way, revivalism corrupts faith as much as the word of faith movement.  It redefines and misrepresents scriptural faith.  Revivalism doesn’t really trust in God.  Trusting in God accepts the results that God gives and is content with the outcomes from obedience to the Bible.  True faith doesn’t judge based upon assembly size, reaction to a post-preaching invitation, or numbers of professions of faith.  Faith brings its own built-in rewards—the indwelling Holy Spirit, the pleasure of God, forgiveness of sin, joy, peace, and contentment.  These are rewards of faith in the midst of a sin-loving and God-hating world, where God promises that all they who live godly will suffer persecution.

Deviating from a biblical understanding of faith is obviously going to have an effect on the nature of the gospel.   Revivalism has harmed the gospel in this way.  Revivalism diverted the focus of the gospel from God and the Bible to the short-term results of believing.  Scripture concentrates on God’s nature and His promises.   Small alterations are enough to ruin faith and then those changes become bigger through the years, enough for damning deceptions and a broad road leading to destruction.

No one wants to be seen as faithless, and yet he knows he will if his faith doesn’t produce the required result to be seen as faithful.  Men know this, so they produce the result that will merit the correct evaluation from men.  They give credit in the end to the faith that they possess, but the real praise should go to the methods that they used to produce their results.  They say it is faith, but it really is a unique mix of various technology, motivation, propaganda, techniques, and enthusiasm.  It takes the form of various styles of music, lighting, comforts, conveniences, advertising, programs, promotions, and compromises.  In many cases, the result given credit to faith isn’t a genuine result.  It hasn’t been produced by the power of God because of its mixture with the man-made method or strategy.

The manifestations of the perversions of revivalism are all over evangelicalism and fundamentalism, including in the churches or organizations or people who are critical of revivalism.  Non-revivalist preachers and their fans also judge their success by how big they are, calling that the “blessing of God on their ministries.”  And other non-revivalist preachers crowd around those men and their churches looking for what it is the “successful pastors” have in order to imitate their methods.  The sad result is that the One upon whom true faith rests doesn’t get the credit He deserves for the genuine blessing that He has produced that has nothing to do with the trappings of buildings, bucks, or books published.  Many of these well-known churches are as guilty of leaning on methodological manipulation as any staunch supporter of Finney.

May we return to scriptural faith.  May we seek to judge based upon biblical criteria.  May we correct our belief and practice according to the Word of God.

Keeping Rank, Holding the Line, and Marching Forward (Colossians 2:4-7)

As far as Paul was concerned, a war was on with the Colossian church, as much as any physical battle that could be fought, except even more was at stake.  The church was more important than anything.  I see his view of military imagery here, the picture in his mind of armies waging warfare.  So like a commanding officer, he has his orders for both the Colossian and Laodecian churches.  You find this description in the words of Colossians 2:5:  “beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”

“Order” and “steadfastness” were both military terms.  “Order” is “rank,” that is, the line that soldiers kept in their maneuvers.  He is commending the churches for still holding rank, keeping the line.   The arrows and spears of doctrinal attack may have been flying, and yet they had not broken ranks, but had held their lines intact.

“Steadfastness” had to do with firmly holding ground, keeping the line solid, not having any gaps.  Not only were they holding the line, but they were solid in it, not allowing any of the enemy to come through at any point in the line, so as to result in a flanking or being surrounded.  Nothing was breaking through their lines.  Everybody was doing his part.

Paul had great love and then desires for these churches (2:1).  These desires would be what kept their lines secure and strong.  In 2:2a it was found in their minds strengthened by the thinking the truth.   Out of that right kind of thinking came the practice of love that would unite them (2:2b), so that members would not turn on one another.  The right practice that came from the right thinking would continue into full assurance (2:2c).   They would not be wavering in their belief in the deity and sufficiency of Christ.  They were firm in their relationship with the Lord Jesus, despite the attacks on His Person (2:3-4).

With their keeping ranks and holding the line (2:5), now they needed to march forward, walk in Christ (2:6).  They shouldn’t change their viewpoint of Christ, but keep living according to His example, doing what He would do.  Walking in Christ would build up the church, establish it even more in the faith, producing thankful attitudes (2:7).  I get the picture of a company, working within an even larger army, withstanding attacks, sticking together, and gaining ground against its enemy.

The Essential for Ministry (Colossians 1:24-25)

Paul refutes the Colossians false teachers’ attack on the identity of Christ (1:15-19) and the ability of Him to save (1:20-23).  He could save because of Who He was, so the two build upon one another.  And Jesus Christ was Whom Paul served, to Whom he had given his allegiance.  He was a servant of Christ, the term “minister” at the end of v. 23.  Having used that word, Paul segues to a section about ministry as he so often does in his epistles.  He spends vv. 24-29 on what his ministry was all about.

Paul didn’t choose what he was doing—he was made a minister (vv. 23, 25).  So Paul wasn’t doing what He felt like, but exactly what God wanted.  When Paul got started, the first thing he asked was, “Lord, what will you have me to do?”  We’re ministers of God because we are called by God.  “Called” is salvation terminology and every believer is called to a new vocation (Eph 4:1), which is a minister of God.  And God has given to us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18).

In v. 25, Paul calls his ministry a dispensation of God.  The word “dispensation” comes from a Greek word which speaks of a stewardship, the management of someone else’s possession.  Paul had been given a stewardship, something to manage; it was God’s and he didn’t want to blow it.  We have been handed something to take care of and we must be faithful to take care of this task.  It isn’t ours; it’s God’s.

Because this is such a great thing to be, that is, a servant of the Lord, we rejoice in it.  It’s not a bummer, even if it means suffering.  We’ve got a definite purpose, it’s Divine, and so it counts for eternity.  We’ve got a reason to go through afflictions, so we can go at it with the right attitude.  Paul was one joyful man, and that should set the example for how we go about stewarding the service that God has given us.  And the ministry will include suffering.  Paul characterized his job as one that would carry with it affliction.  Paul assumed that this came with the territory and kept the positive, upbeat outlook about it all.

Paul loved Jesus and so he loved the body of Christ.  His service was through, in, around, and for the church.  He paid the price to build up the body of Christ through evangelism and edification.  While he was out preaching, he faced opposition.  People tried to kill him and beat him in the process.  To Paul, to be a servant of the Lord was indistinguishable from being a servant to the church.  Ministry is about the church.   Ministry isn’t a camp, an association, a board, but the church.

The purpose of Paul in all of his ministry was “to fulfill the Word of God” (1:25b). I’m calling this the essential of the ministry.  We have joy in fulfilling the Word of God.  We have joy in managing God’s work according to the Word of God.  We go through affliction in order to accomplish the Word of God.   Ministers are not responsible to win the whole world to Christ.  They are not required to have a big church.  What they do need to do is fulfill the Word of God.   The Word of God tells us how ministry should be accomplished.  God’s faithful servants will not diminish the Word of God in order to cobble together alliances and associations.  Ministry was obeying the Word of God in, through, and for the church, enduring suffering with joy.  It’s God’s work and we keep it going by means of the guidelines He has given us in His Word.  Of course, to do that, we need to study to know it.  We won’t fulfill it if we don’t know what it says.

If someone asks you what you do, you could answer, “I fulfill the Word of God.  That’s my job description.”

Why Are We Losing the Kids?

Bobby Mitchell, pastor of Mid-Coast Baptist Church, Brunswick, Maine, sent me an email in which he and his father chronicled the reasons why churches and their Christian families are losing their children to the world.  He was asked by someone doing research for a book to give his explanation.  I thought they were bullseye at diagnosing the problem, so I asked Pastor Mitchell if we could publish it here or at my blog, What Is Truth. Here is the answer that was authored by his dad and him

1.  Many are not genuinely converted because of the watered down Gospel presentations that are so prevalent.  They are told to acknowledge a few facts, they are led in a prayer, then they are told to never doubt their experience.  Of course, over time, if they are never genuinely converted then they either continue on trying to “fit the mold” of their church, or they just walk away from it when they are able.

2.  Many are told what to do, but not taught why to do it, or what not to do, but not why. They have been told that baptism is by immersion only, that the KJV is the Word of God in English, that women should be modest, etc.  But, these things are not taught to them from the Scriptures.  They grow up just thinking that these are merely the rules of life for independent Baptists.  So, they are not really convinced, or convicted, and it is easy for them to slip into other doctrines and practices.

3.  Many grow up in homes that are plagued with inconsistency.  The standards change based on who the family is around.  The family Bible time is hit-and-miss or non-existent.  Discipline is not consistent.  There is an open or even silent disagreement with what is taught by the church concerning entertainment, dress, roles in the home, etc.  The inconsistency relates to young people that the parents are not really set on doing things the Biblical way.  They become unstable and are easy prey for the world.

4.  Many hear their parents criticize the pastor and other strong Christians in the church.  This can result in confusion.

5.  Many times when the pastor is seeing the young people really embrace the truth and Biblical living the parents become obstacles.  It seems the parents are bothered by their children surpassing them in the things of the Lord.  The parents pull them back and some even express jealousy concerning the influence the pastor has concerning their children.

6.  Many times the parents get their children wrapped up in the things of this world.  The parents are concerned about their children loving the Lord and walking in the light, but they are just as concerned with their kids playing organized sports, becoming popular, being fashionable, seeing the latest movies, making a lot of money, having the newest video game systems, acquiring every type of technology without proper accountability regarding those “toys,” etc.  Through it all the dad and mom seem to be sowing thorns that choke the seed of the Word of God.  This is especially true when the sports, fun, and such ever come before any of the aspects of New Testament ministry.

7.  Many times the young people are not really involved in the ministry of the church until they are pressed to do so in their late teens.  Too many are just observers and not participators.  All that is expected of them is to sit and be entertained instead of training and serving.  They are not taught that we exist to glorify God.  Practically, they are being taught that the ministry exists to make sure that they are having fun.  They are not taught to “buy in” to the work of the ministry.  Eventually, they realize that the world’s entertainment is better and they look for fulfillment in getting involved in worldly groups and activities.

8.  Many Christian young people are not taught to pray, study the Bible, meditate on the Word, memorize the Scriptures and appropriate them practically in real-life situations.  Real life then comes along and they don’t respond Biblically.

9.  Many times young people grow up knowing of all sorts of sin in the church that is not dealt with Scripturally.  Of course, they also see young people leaving the church and that not being dealt with Biblically.  They don’t realize how wicked this is and they have no fear of God concerning it.

10.  The bar is set too low for so many young people.  They are treated as if they are expected to be “silly teens.”  As long as they don’t do a few really bad things and as long as they do a few good things they are treated as if they are Godly.  So many of the young people in churches that I have been familiar with are good (in the commonly used sense of the word) but they are not Godly!  Good kids will eventually get devoured by the world, but truly spiritual ones will develop into mature Christians.   Too many are treated according to the worldly concept of “teenager hood.”  The Bible speaks of infants, children, young men, young women, and older men, and older women.  I think that a lack of teens understanding that they should be Godly young men and young ladies is hurting many.

11.  Many young people have heard very little of the “fear of God.”  They have a warped image of God that magnifies his love and mercy while almost completely ignoring his holiness, majesty, and wrath.  Subsequently, they walk in pride and rebellion.

12.  Too often the preaching to young people is just fluffy and light, and often-times it is just motivational speaking.  Too many young people do not grow up really learning sound doctrine and being taught through books of the Bible.  Too many preachers that are youth-focused are trying to be “cool” and “hip.”

13.  Many kids from good homes and churches graduate high school and are pushed into the Christian college environment.  Sadly, most (prayerfully, not all) of the Bible colleges are anemic in their teaching and practice.  There is almost an idolatry of fun and good times at many schools.  One college has even been heavily promoting a water park with a wave pool and a place for the young ladies to tan (as if that is so important).  When I visited that same school I was awestruck with the amount of money and time put into “fun.”  The young adults are, in a great way, withdrawn from their parents, church, and pastor.  What little time they have with godly teachers and staff is outweighed by the influence of so many worldly students in the dorm rooms and activities.  There is a mixture of doctrinal persuasions among many of the student bodies.   Their parents and pastors are compared to those of the others and often the lowest common denominator is embraced in matters of holiness.  The dating game is played.  Endless debates rage among peers.  The “pillar and ground of the truth,” the local NT church, is downplayed.

14.  The local New Testament church is treated by many parents as optional instead of vital to spiritual growth and New Testament Christianity.  The same goes for the pastor.

Shameful Alternatives for Church Discipline pt. 4

The word “shun,” I’d think you’d admit, has negative connotations.  It now sounds like something bad that people would do.  I was talking to a Hyles-Anderson graduate recently and he was criticizing a church in the area of his own.  He said, “We don’t get along with them.”  I asked, “Why?”  One of his two reasons was: “When they discipline people out of their church, they practice shunning them.”  He said it with incredulity.  I kept a deadpan face and nodded to him.  I was preaching at a conference and he was a missionary there to get some contacts, and I didn’t want to make a scene.  I was very surprised he was even there.  I didn’t think our orbiting paths would ever cross.  My mind told me that he didn’t know what he was getting into.  I figured maybe he could get some help.  I never gave away that I liked the church he was talking about, that we supported two missionaries from that church.  However, I was thinking this:  “What do you think church discipline is?  It is shunning!”

Here’s the definition of the English word “shunning”:  “To avoid deliberately; keep away from.”  That sounds just like what we read in Romans 16:17:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

And it also matches up with 2 Thessalonians 3:14:

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

“Avoid them” and “have no company with him.”  What is church discipline if it is not shunning someone?  The point of it is to make him ashamed, to remind him that he needs to get right with God before he’s going to be right with you.

Alright, but this is a series on shameful alternatives for church discipline.  You might be trying to guess where I’m heading with this.  Good job.  Is it the alternative of not shunning?  No . . . . . . . . it is shunning.  The shameful alternative is shunning.  Is shunning?!?!  Didn’t I just say that shunning was what we’re to do?  Yes.  So what’s wrong with shunning if it’s what we’re supposed to do?  Good question.

Shunning is the third and final step of church discipline.  It isn’t the first step.  Fundamentalists and now conservative evangelicals are the kings of practicing the shun as the first step of church discipline.  It may be called different names, but it is a kind of shunning.  So in our four part series, I come to number four of the shameful alternatives for church discipline.

The Cold Shoulder

The Cold Shoulder isn’t a scriptural form of church discipline, but it is one used an alternative in many fundamentalist churches.  I know it is used by evangelicals as well.   The Cold Shoulder is nothing more than a church discipline methodology that practices shunning while a person remains in the church, skipping the first and second steps of Matthew 18.  He hasn’t found out officially that he has done anything wrong.  I say “officially” because he may have heard through the gossip grapevine.  Information may have made it to him.

A church member receives the Cold Shoulder after other shameful, alternative forms of church discipline will have taken affect, probably a couple of the first three that I’ve mentioned in this series.  Someone has violated a church standard or scripture or an obvious desire of church leadership.  This has been mentioned to the pastor or him and his staff.  This has been whispered among church members.  The one in violation hasn’t been called on the carpet, but he is out of social and political good standing.   He may think that he’s getting mentioned in sermons.  At least it sounds like it.   Does he know it?  Maybe not.  But he might figure it out if he is able to read the tea leaves properly.  He will begin to get the idea that something is wrong.  It might be obvious to him that something is wrong.  How?  He gets the Cold Shoulder.

There are various degrees of the Cold Shoulder.  People that once talked to you are now avoiding contact with you.  Conversation with you is kept to a minimum.   Things you were asked to do—you’re not being asked to do them anymore.  People who were your friends aren’t as friendly.  When you are walking toward someone and you smile, he turns his head to lose eye contact.  Wherever you go, people seem to walk away from you.  Responses are terse, minimized to the smallest amount of information.

Often you won’t get the Cold Shoulder from everyone.  You’ll still have people that will be OK with you, although they know that if their status doesn’t change with you, theirs will with everyone else.  They’ll start getting the cold shoulder too.  There are probably some that can’t pick up on the Cold Shoulder you’re getting.  The news of this has lost them.  So they keep treating you well.   But then they’re told not to keep hanging around you.  “Why not?”  “Because he’s not a good influence.”  “How so?”  “Believe me, he isn’t, so you’d best stop hanging around him if you know what’s good for you.”

With the Cold Shoulder you are now receiving, you may or may not know why you’re getting it.  You may have an idea, but it isn’t clear.  You’re probably right about what it is.  It is likely whatever comes to mind when you ask yourself why it’s happening.   It reminds you of getting benched by a coach who is a poor communicator.  Suddenly your playing time has shrunk and no one has told you why that’s happened.  It’s supposed to be obvious, you guess.  Whatever it is you have done, it isn’t being dealt with properly, because if it were, it would start with telling you exactly what it is that’s wrong.  There would be attempts a reconciliation.  None of that has happened.  You are in somebody’s doghouse, everyone’s doghouse maybe.

The practice of the Cold Shoulder is a particular favorite of fundamentalists even outside of the church.  You’ll find out that you are no longer in good standing in several different ways.  You aren’t being invited to speak any more or very infrequently.  You won’t get mentioned in a positive light.  You don’t get your comments answered or responses to your emails.  People stop talking to you.  You’ll have to figure out why this is on your own.  You might notice that you get some derogatory references in what people write.  All of this occurs without one conversation explaining what is wrong.  There is no resolution to whatever is the issue.

For whatever the real reason that you get the Cold Shoulder instead of a scriptural treatment, what you’ll hear is that you are someone who doesn’t listen.  You are someone past dealing with.  It’s a waste of time.  They’ve got too many other things to do than to be chasing you down and explaining something that is obvious.  What’s the real reason?  Faithlessness.  Cowardice.  The flesh.  A pattern of not handling things the right way, and it doesn’t matter, because after all, no one can be 100% consistent anyway.  It’s too much of a hassle for their time.  You aren’t contributing to them in a way that would make it worthwhile to continue a relationship.   If something financial was at stake, maybe you’d get an opportunity.  Or if you are popular, they may see a need to do something in the way of returning to a right relationship with one another.

Doing the right thing really isn’t that difficult.  You talk to someone, laying out from scripture what he’s done wrong.  If he hears, then you have regained the brother.  If he doesn’t, you get witnesses.  It may be at that point that you find out that you’re the one who doesn’t have evidence.  He really may be innocent or at least not guilty.   Others are able to judge whether something wrong has actually happened.  It could be that you find out that you were mistaken when more witnesses are involved.  If the witnesses corroborate, then it goes to the church.  If it is outside of the church, once he won’t listen to witnesses, you have a basis for separation.

No one wants to be shunned, except for certain eccentrics.  No one especially wants this shunning without the due process that everyone should anticipate before a shunning occurs.  Giving the Cold Shoulder without any kind of possibility of repentance or reconciliation is as bad or worse than the behavior resulting in that treatment.  Let us all together decide that we will not be the individual or the church that uses shameful alternatives for church discipline.  Let’s follow Christ in what we do and allow His Words to regulate our lives out of love for Him.

On Investigating a Predator Pastor

First, we should be very clear that this post is not talking about a pastor who yields to temptation and stumbles into sin. The Bible is very clear that in such a case, when a pastor is overtaken in a fault, the spiritual are to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.

But our confusion often begins at this particular juncture. How are we to know the difference between a pastor who uses his position to prey on people, and a pastor who genuinely was overtaken in a fault? For starters, the pastor who stumbled in the heat of the moment will not be demanding forgiveness and restoration. Nor will he be insinuating or implying that we ought to be thinking restoration. Nor will he wait to get caught. He will come forward with his sin himself. His first desire will be to come clean, to make himself accountable, submitting to the church, and making things right. If his sin has disqualified him either temporarily or permanently from ministry (and he will not use semantics for a covering — see Psalm 51 for a sample of true confession), then he will step down immediately. It is absurd to argue that a pastor who refuses to confess his sin, who demands forgiveness and demands that we ignore his sin, who refuses to step down, should be restored to anything.

When a pastor sins and immediately does the right thing, submitting himself to the Word of God and to the spiritual authority of the church, then Galatians 6:1 comes into play; restoration can take place to the extent allowed by Scripture. In this case, we are not dealing with a “Predator Pastor.” But when a pastor is busily (and overtly) attempting to cover his sin, to diminish it, to rationalize it, and to force your hand through demands for submission, forgiveness, and/or restoration, then we have a predator on our hands. How then do we deal with such an one as this?

First, we must remember our Scriptural duty to maintain the purity of the church, and as with our children, we must not let our soul spare for his crying. Because of their position, pastors have a particularly potent ability to manipulate. We must not be manipulated. When we combine the trust normally vested in a pastor with the position of authority inherent to pastors, we get a dangerous mixture, and any attempt to go against that pastor can be fraught with danger, full of confusion and difficulty. In such a case, our love for the truth must trump any loyalty to a man.

Any charge of sexual misconduct must be taken seriously. We must examine evidence. Churches often make the mistake of ignoring the obvious in favor of feelings. Church members rarely feel that their pastor is capable of sexual misconduct. But our feelings about the possibilities say nothing about the facts of what actually happened. We must weigh evidence, not feelings.

But weighing evidence, unfortunately, is not always an exact science. As has been mentioned previously, cases of sexual misconduct can be difficult or nearly impossible to investigate by their very nature. Sexual sins rarely have witnesses. Establishing two or three witnesses could require waiting for two or three victims to suffer abuse and to come forward. That can be next to impossible. Certainly, if there is more than one accuser, or if witnesses do come forth, their testimony should be heard, and if their testimony agrees, let every word be established.

Some will insist that “if you didn’t see it happen, then you can’t know.” Not so fast. Other evidence must also be considered. For instance, we often overlook “boundary violations,” those violations of space and time and appropriateness and ethics that always accompany any sort of sexual misconduct, and particularly are always present in the case of a predator pastor. Those investigating allegations of misconduct must always be alert to inappropriate contact and conduct on the part of the accused. Boundary violations must not be taken lightly, and certainly cannot be ignored. Does the accused admit to “inappropriate contact?” Are there witnesses who can establish unethical behavior? Have witnesses observed procedural violations? While certainly not conclusive, these are or should be obvious warning signs, and must be taken seriously.

During an investigation, church leaders should also pay attention to the way the accused answers questions. Rather than thinking that we will be able to detect a lie, based purely on feelings, we should instead look for deflections masquerading as answers. Above all else, predators wish to escape detection. We should note that goal. They do not want you to find the truth. Predators want to continue with their behavior. They want to protect themselves. They don’t care about the truth.

This means they are good liars. Not that lies can ever be good, but that they are practiced and polished in the art of lying. They are not novices in this area. And being skilled liars, they know what you are looking for. They know that they must keep their gaze steady. They have heard all about the “gaze aversion” secret, and they will avoid that mistake at all costs. Their body language will exude confidence, nor will they show any sign of nervousness. They have practiced the poker face, and the innocent routine. Go ahead! Try to catch them changing their story! But they have an explanation for everything, and you will need providential aide to catch them in a lie.

Rather than looking for the “obvious” signs of lying, which do not actually exist, we should pay attention to the more subtle signs of deception that are common amongst liars. Much has been written about this already, and a thorough discussion would take some time, but we should look briefly at a couple of indicators. One would be what psychologists call “emotional leakage.” Essentially, this indicator surfaces through odd emotional contrasts. For instance, a person is very warm and friendly, and suddenly shifts to cold and unfriendly. Another person goes out of their way to flatter, and suddenly insults you. Or, the happy suddenly becomes angry; Mr. Nice Guy inexplicably changes to Mr. Hateful. These Jekel and Hyde changes indicate deception.

A second subtle sign of deception is deflection and evasion. When the question is asked, does the suspect answer directly, or does he attempt to deflect and/or evade the question? There are many ways that liars will use deception. For instance, when asked, “did you touch her in any way?” he might respond by saying, “I would say no.” On the surface, an answer like that seems straightforward enough, until you consider that he did not actually say “no.” He only said that he would say “no.” Trite as that seems, it is a world of difference to a liar. Another example of deflection or evasion would be feigned shock and outrage that the question is being asked, or that anyone would think such a thing. A good liar uses very subtle changes to deflect or evade questions that he does not wish to answer. Anna Salter lists several ways, which I will include below:

1. Unfinished business: “That’s about all.” “That’s pretty much it”; “That’s about all I can remember.”
2. Answering the question with a question: “Why would I do something like that?”
3. Maintenance of dignity: “Don’t be ridiculous.”
4. Commenting on the question: “That’s a hard question.”
5. Projection: “Someone would have to be sick to do that.”
6. Denial of evidence: “You have no proof.”
7. Accusation: “Are you accusing me?”
8. Qualifiers: “I can’t say”; “I could say”; “I would say.”
9. Answers: “My answer is…”; “The answer is…”(1)

Note that none of these answers directly answer the question. Although these kinds of answers do not prove that the person is lying, they are warning signs, red flags waving furiously back and forth, bidding you to look closer.

In the absence of conclusive evidence, and when suspicion lingers and evidence is lacking, the Bible gives us another way to find the truth, one that we often overlook. Consider Exodus 22:10-11:

If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

Numbers 5:11-21 also tells us what must be done in a case when there are no witnesses. Namely, the accused must swear an oath in the name of God that the charges are not true. Now, some no doubt will object to this advice. The Bible says “swear not at all.” But the Bible is not forbidding oaths. Instead, the Bible teaches that we should not need to swear an oath in order to tell the truth. God’s people love truth. If we only tell the truth when we swear an oath, then we are miserable liars. Rather, the truly honorable man swears to his own hurt without needing to change his story.

Whenever we have a lack of evidence but a persistent accuser, the investigators must explain the gravity of the situation, along with the serious nature of swearing an oath in the name of God. They should then require the accused to take such an oath. In doing so, we trust God to expose any lie. In other words, we put the case in the hand of God, asking God to bring the truth to light.

Above all else, we must remember that allegiance to the truth is our first allegiance. No pastor should ever put his own personal reputation or his own ambitions for position above the truth. No deacon or church leader should put his loyalty to a man above his loyalty to truth and justice. I would rather step aside one hundred times than allow justice to be perverted, or shelter a predator.

How Predator Pastors Escape Detection

According to Anna Salter, only about three percent of sex offenses are ever caught. Only about five percent of offenses are ever reported (1). All things considered, there are hundreds, probably more like thousands of sexual predators on the loose. If this is the case among all predators, and I have no reason for doubting these numbers, then one has to think that the number of Pastors or Clergy who have been caught or even reported for such crimes must be even lower. After all, who would believe a pastor to be capable of such crimes? Even with the recent arrests and prosecutions of high profile religious leaders, we still don’t want to believe that a Pastor could or would do a thing like this.

We trust a Pastor. We want to trust a Pastor. We want to believe that if we couldn’t trust anyone else, we could still trust our Pastor. I for one do not wish to undermine this inherent trust that we have in Pastors. For, after all, I am one. But like it or not, there are men who have found that the ministry is the safest place for them to conduct their sexual misconduct. They use the position of trust that they have in a community in order to gain greater access to children.

Unfortunately, we as church members often unwittingly play into their hands. For example, in the case of John Price, the Predator Pastor which we have been exposing on this blog, those on John’s side will normally argue that since he is not in jail, we should be quiet about it. In their defense, let me say that I understand why they think this way. If John was in fact guilty as we claim, then he should be in jail. And I agree. He should be in jail. But should be and would be are two entirely different scenarios. Research will support the argument that in the case of sex offenders, guilt will not normally be reflected by jail time. Is says nothing about ought, and ought does not necessarily follow from is.

Predators escape detection for several common reasons. These reasons are universal among all predators, no matter their status in life, whether a plumber, a doctor, a grocery bagger, or a pastor. But these reasons apply especially to Pastors who prey on children.

Predators escape detection because these crimes, by their very nature, are committed privately. There are no witnesses, besides the victim. The Bible demands two or three witnesses, but that is impossible in this case. That is why, when a predator is arrested, the police will often ask other victims to come forward. If other, separate victims come forward, then the prosecution can collaborate testimony. If not, then it is a case of the victim’s word against the perp’s. And in those cases, a tie goes to the perp.

Predators escape detection because they prey on the vulnerable. Though certainly not unheard of, predators usually steer clear of girls who have a strong and secure relationship with their father. Predators normally work on the insecure, the unprotected, the needy children. Experts tell us that predators will begin grooming a potential victim, often taking months to build a bond with the victim before even attempting any sort of sexual contact. Only when the bond is built does the predator proceed with the abuse. In the case of John Price’s victims, all have confirmed this modus operendi. Price chose girls whose relationship to their father was not strong, telling them that he would be a “father” to them. Then later, as he groomed them for his designs, Price began to tell them that “God made them for this purpose.” “Everyone has some purpose in life,” Price said. “You were made for me.” Then later, after they had fallen prey to his deceptions, Price again used their insecurity and vulnerability against them, promising to embarrass them if they tell, promising his devotion if they will keep silent.

Predators escape detection because their victims suffer from shame and guilt so severely. Often when a victim will not come forward, it is because they feel that they were equally responsible for what happened. They feel ashamed of what they did, ashamed that they enjoyed it. Predators know this. They know that if their victim feels pleasure, if they can get their victim to enjoy the act, then that is insurance for later. Because the shame and guilt will silence the victim. Churches and pastors do little to help this situation. Often, we insist on blaming the victim for what happened. I’d ask all who read here to consider the irony of this. The victim, who is not responsible for the sin, because of the guilt and shame she feels, keeps quiet about what happened, taking the responsibility on herself. Meanwhile, the perpetrator feels no guilt or shame, relying instead on Christian culture to keep his victims from telling. It seems to me that we’ve turned the proper use of conscience on its head. Churches should be teaching diligently where the responsibility lies, and making it clear that victims need to come forward so that they can put away their guilt. But often, we pile the shame on top of the shame, shaming the victim rather than offering comfort and help.

Predators escape detection because their victims fear them. Especially when the predator is the victim’s pastor. Almost universally, once the sexual contact commences, the grooming changes from an emotional bond to a more sinister nature. Predators notoriously make their victims feel important and wanted before contact, and regularly threaten them afterwards. Beforehand, they promise love and affection. Afterwards, they promise exposure and shame. Beforehand, they promise pleasure. Afterwards, they promise pain. Beforehand, they promise friendship and security. Afterwards, they promise physical harm. Predators threaten their victims, once they have committed their crimes. They threaten to expose them, to embarrass them, they threaten that nobody will believe them, they promise to deny everything, and sometimes, they threaten physical harm. Thus, the victim does not come forward.

At this point, it should be noted that “Biblical convictions” will not normally cause a victim to come forward. In a home where the father teaches his children diligently, it certainly is true that the children are less likely to become victims (though this is not unilaterally the case). We certainly could argue that taught children are more likely to come forward if they become the victim. But predators know this as well. They often check out the relationship between parents and children, looking specifically for closeness of communication. Predators are cowards. They avoid situations where they might get caught. Since victims are often weak and insecure to begin with, it is unlikely that their knowledge of God’s Word will motivate them to come forward.

That is not all. Predators often escape detection because of who they are. This is never more true than when a pastor turns predator. We want to trust our pastors. We do not want to believe anything bad about them. And rightfully so. Not wanting to undermine this natural trust we have for people in general, and specifically for pastors, we need to think instead of the demands of justice. Justice requires us to lay aside our feelings about the people involved, and instead to weigh the evidence. In determining who we will believe (and don’t think that predator pastors forget who we are most likely to believe), we must examine the evidence in the case, following Scriptural standards of justice. Since it is unlikely that there will be any witnesses, we must look instead for signs of deceit. Disharmony will sometimes be the best indicator of this. Lies of omission are more common than lies of commission. Deceptions often take the form of deflection. Almost always in a case like this, there will be situations where the predator invaded the victim’s privacy and violated normal standards of behavior. All of these things need to also be considered.

Predators escape detection because they are good liars. When dealing with a potential predator, we must always remember this. Of course, we all know the signs of lying… gaze aversion, shifty eyes, nervousness, shaky voice. So, we figure we will catch it. But we overlook the fact that the liar knows what the signs of lying are, just like you do.
Finally, predators escape detection because we are afraid to believe such a thing about them, because we are afraid to lose their friendship, because we are afraid of confrontation. Don’t think that predators never thought of this one either. They know that we will most likely believe them over a child. Especially if that child has been in trouble, or has a troubled past.

May God give us wisdom in dealing with this problem in the future.

Footnotes:

(1) Anna Salter, Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, & Other Sex Offenders: Who they are, How they Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children (New York: Basic Books, 2003), pp. 11-12.

On Predator Pastors

Some no doubt have followed my postings at another site, dealing with the issue of Predator Pastors in general, and the issue of one Predator Pastor in particular. Recently, I was interviewed by a reporter from the Associated Baptist Press about those articles, and she has written an article that was published here. I wish you would read it, and feel free to comment here at JackHammer. The Baptist Standard has published a series of articles on this issue, which you might find interesting.

Over the course of this month, I hope to write one or (maybe) two articles on this issue, which I will post both here and on my other, not so regular anymore, site. Meanwhile, I trust that God will use these things to help us learn to deal with this important and unfortunate issue.

How God “Calls” a Man to the Ministry

Many men do not trust the way God has said and, continues to say, how He works today. They have become cynical of church authority.  Many of the same men do not show the same doubt about non- or un-Scriptural institutions.  Ultimately, the nature of the flesh manifests itself in rebellion against God-given authority.  When a church makes a decision, many men do not equivocate that with God making a decision.   If our churches do not represent God and do not know, and perhaps even can not know, the will of God, they should get right with God or close down. Disrespect of a church decision is disrespect of a church itself, and if that church obeys the Bible, disrespect also of the Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Godly men and churches should not fellowship with this unfruitful work of darkness.

God “calls” through the recognition of a legitimate, New Testament church. God does not circumvent the church to inform a man of his ordination by God to the office of a pastor. God has given the church authority to judge in matters as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul tells the church,

“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?  and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? The least esteemed in the church” (vv. 2-5).

God has equipped the church with the necessary ability to make right decisions.

How can a church decide for God? The key to understanding this is in Ephesians 4. “There is one body, and one Spirit . . . one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (vv. 4-6). When a characteristically obedient church unifies on a matter, this is “the unity of the Spirit.” Previous to the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 2, the Lord Jesus Christ had taught His disciples the importance of agreement of the church. The Lord promised to be in the midst of these agreeing brethren. Church members should come to agreement. When a church does agree, this is the means by which God guides His people in His will in matters. In Acts 13, even the apostle Paul submitted himself to the decision of the Godly men of a church.

A church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27). Christ is the head of His body (Colossians 1:18). He is above, through, and in the members of His church. When a church moves, He moves. The church is a supernatural organization headed by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. When a church says that a man is qualified to pastor and sets a man apart for that office, that man is ordained by God. This does not occur when a man unilaterally says He’s called and relates an experience, but when a church agrees there is a desire and that the man fulfills the qualifications. The church can also disqualify a man either temporarily or permanently.

I hate to say this is the alternative to the weird or spooky call. The other is an imposter and the faux alternative to this, the Scriptural doctrine of the call of God. We should all notice that it is through a church that God decides. A pastor can show leadership, but the church makes these types of decisions. Even when a pastor wants to move, it should be a church agreeing that he should move and then sending him to greater ministry by the grace of God. Until the church agrees, the man should stay put.

A whole other thread in this discussion is how a church is led by the Spirit. Churches should learn to make decisions based upon Biblical principles. First, the church understands God’s Word, rightly divides It. Second, the church accurately applies what God said in the decision making. Godly leadership toward right decision making would include careful exegesis of Scripture, looking for thoughtful consideration of the text of Scripture. This too is how God will be glorified in the decision made (1 Peter 4:11).

Dropped Calls

The fact that he had no business being in the ministry never even slowed him down. He loved mammon, loved to have the preeminence, loved pleasures, especially the pleasures of sin. He sought his own, not another’s. Far from blameless, he had had only one wife at a time. If he was sober, he was vigilant… vigilant to end that condition. When it came to the neighbor’s wife (or the deacon’s for that matter), he certainly was given to hospitality. He was apt to teach, for by it he seduced many. Never had he been given to wine, though plenty had been given to him. No striker could match his tantrums. He was not greedy of filthy lucre. He liked the clean kind, which was why he insisted that money always be laundered. When it came to getting an angle, he was the most patient of men. Give him his way, and he wouldn’t be such a brawler. He was not covetous, he just wanted lots of things. His children all followed in his footsteps, of course. Just that they weren’t so sly about covering it. You can believe that this man was not a novice. His chicanery came from years of experience. He had a good report card, though. Back in first or second grade – he couldn’t remember which. But hey, he desired the office of a bishop. It had filled his coffers, and made him fat.

You might be thinking that it obviously is not God’s will that this man be a pastor. But then again, you could be wrong. Sometimes, God brings these men to such positions. After all, God chose Saul to be the first king of Israel. God called Judas Iscariot to be a disciple. Sometimes, God chastises a nation with such men. God raised up Pharaoh. God gave Israel ungodly preachers (I Kings 22:22-23). Joseph’s brothers fulfilled God’s will, even as they didn’t. Surely, this reveals something about God’s will.

This reminds us that men often displease God even as they do God’s will. Was God pleased when David committed adultery with Bathsheba? Yet David’s act most certainly fulfilled God’s will (consider Matthew 1:6 with Psalm 119:152; Isaiah 46:10-11). It pleased the LORD to bruise Christ, and God was displeased with those who bruised him. Even so, a man may advance to the pastorate without the call of God, and may displease God through his grasping, and this may be according to God’s will. I dare say that if the man is in the pulpit, that means it is God’s will that he be in the pulpit, even as it isn’t.

Those who seek a pastoral position must be concerned about this. Yes, you can take a pulpit without a divine call. But that doesn’t mean God will be pleased. God uses usurpers, though not usually for their own good (see Jeremiah 14:14-15ff and Jeremiah 23:21-22ff). Disqualified pastors are a scourge on a nation.

Sadly, stubbornness keeps men in pastoral ministry who long ago disqualified themselves. They destroy and devour the flock (Jer 23:1-2, 9-15), and by them many are devastated. And despite the carnage, these wolves in shepherds garb will smugly insist that the “gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” demonstrating that God’s Word is to them a lever for gaining advantage over God’s flock.

Jack Hyles taught us that repentance is not necessary for salvation. And his “preacher boys” learned their lessons well. If salvation comes without repentance, then so does “the call.” And once you get “the call,” this too is without repentance. The smart ones connect the dots well. They can live like the devil and still go to heaven. So they do (live like the devil, at least). Ironically, if one gets caught, all one needs to do is “repent.” Not that repentance is necessary. Just that if he wishes to keep preying on the sheep, it is.

Whether God actually calls a man to pastor who later disqualifies himself or not is a discussion for another time. For now, we can be sure that this too was God’s will, and according to his plan. In other words, it was God’s will that there be a First Baptist Church of Hammond, that Jack Hyles pastor it, that he found Hyles-Anderson College, and that this college produce graduates like John Price. It is God’s will that Jack Schaap pastor that church today. And that should bring us to repentance if nothing else does.

You Call Me

We’re called to salvation.  We receive Christ, having counted the cost.  We volunteer for some realm of service in and through the church.  We desire the office of the bishop.  We’re not called to pastor; we desire it.  “But isn’ that just a matter of terminology?”  Of course, but we base our doctrine on terms.  “Desire” and “call” are different.  When a man talks of a call, it should be ignored unless we see a desire.  Desire is what we’re looking for.  It’s what the Bible says to look for (1 Timothy 3:1).

When a man desires the office, others will know it.  They are the ones responsible to make sure that the desire is legitimate.  Who are they?

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The Presbytery.  Who are they?  Older, Godly men.  Elders, which would for sure include any other pastors.  The word is presbuterion. The word is used only three times in the New Testament and only once like it is here in 1 Timothy. Related words and usage demonstrate that they are older, established, Godly men who bear witness of the adequate existence of the qualifications for a bishop in a man, rendering him fit for the office.  Many of the qualities have to do with character.  Some hint toward some observed ability.  I will expand on a few.

Not a Novice

HALOT says a novice is a new Christian.  The novice hasn’t proven himself in the ministry. There’s not enough of a resume to know whether the desire is there or not. He hasn’t displayed the qualifications long enough to make a decision on him.  Another potential complication that the text mentions is pride.  Axiomatically, 1 Timothy 5:22 says:  “Lay hands suddenly on no man.  As a rule, someone should be seasoned first.

What does seasoning look like  It should look like what a pastor is supposed to do.  A man should have already been involved in the work of the ministry.  Why?  That is what Ephesians 4:11-12 says the job of the pastor is–“to perfect the saints for the work of the ministry.”  I would hope that he understands the ministry first.  I often say in our church that the ministry in a technical sense is “making disciples.”  That’s what I conclude from what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20 among other places.  Is this young man involved in making disciples?  Does he do the work of the evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5); does he love preaching the gospel to every creature?  You can’t perfect others if you are not doing it yourself first.  A man with the desire should hunger to reproduce himself through bold evangelism and persistent instruction of the new saint.

Sadly, most churches today don’t even know what the ministry is. Young men cannot grow up in those churches with even a rudimentary understanding of it.  Many learn that some program organized in the church is ministry–youth, seniors, school, children, music, ushers, clean-up, decoration, etc.  At most, these young men learn how to run to McDonald’s for the orange kool-aid, air up a big ball, give an object lesson, and sing a special number.  They have never made a disciple.  They wouldn’t even know where to start.  Even in a sense of Scriptural, corporate ministry, they do not regularly provoke anyone to love or good works (Hebrews 10:24, 25), warn the unruly (1 Thessalinians 5:14), or restore one who is overtaken in a fault (Galatians 6:1)  Every one of these are the duty of the rank-and-file church member, let alone someone who will lead them.  If a young man is not to be a novice in the ministry, he’d better know what it is.

Sober, Temperate

Someone sober is restrained in his conduct, stable, and level-headed.  The temperate is self-controlled. A young man should have a disciplined life who says he has that desire.  He needs to finish things on time, not procrastinate, and be someone who can be counted on to get a job done.  He must show some tenacity.  You have to be able to take him seriously.  He can’t be so silly that you don’t know when he’s being for real.  He can’t become easily distracted from finishing a task.  He should be someone you wouldn’t at all mind hiring as an employee because you know he will do a good job.

Apt to Teach

The pastor must be a master teacher.  This man will show his desire by developing the skills and acquiring the knowledge necessary to teach.  He must have a solid handle on his doctrine, know his way well around the Word, and understand how to rightly divide it.  He must have the ability to break down a passage and explain what it means and how it applies to someone’s life.  The one who rightly divides the Word of Truth is a workman.  The man apt to teach wants to teach as well as He can.  He will be willing to get whatever tools in his life that will take.

Lover of Good Men

Does he hang around the right type of people?  Does he like being with Godly, disciplined men who will challenge him?  Is he only a user of men? Someone ready to pastor will pick high quality friends.  He won’t look for people that make him feel good or with which he can just have a good time.  He won’t shy away from those who have a convicting and holy presence.  He loves solid, good men, even if they don’t have his type of personality, loves them for their character and holy work for God.

A man will strive for these and other qualities (the lists are in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) if he desires the office of a bishop.  You won’t have to call him to develop these traits; he’ll call you.  Whatever gauntlet you want to run him through to get them, he will be ready.  He isn’t striving for a temporal crown, but an eternal one, which he knows works a far greater, eternal weight of glory.

If You Can(t) Do Anything Else

The first sign of the heavenly call is an intense, all-absorbing desire for the work. In order to a true call to the ministry there must be an irresistible, overwhelming craving and raging thirst for telling to others What God has done to our own souls; what if I call it a kind of στοςγη such as birds have for rearing their young when the season is come; when the mother-bird would sooner die than leave her nest. It was said of Alleine by one who knew him intimately, that “he was infinitely and insatiably greedy of the conversion of souls.” When he might have had a fellowship at his university, he preferred a chaplaincy, because he was “inspired with an impatience to be occupied in direct ministerial work.” “Do not enter the ministry if you can help it,” was the deeply sage advice of a divine to one who sought his judgment. If any student in this room could be content to be a newspaper editor, or a grocer, or a farmer or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a senator, or a king, in the name of heaven and earth let him go his way; he is not the man in whom dwells the Spirit of God in its fulness, for a man so filled with God would utterly weary of any pursuit but that for which his inmost soul pants. If on the other hand, you can say that for all the wealth of both the Indies you could not and dare not espouse any other calling so as to be put aside from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, then, depend upon it, if other things be equally satisfactory, you have the signs of this apostleship. We must feel that woe is unto us if we preach not the gospel; the word of God must he unto us as fire in our bones, otherwise, if we undertake the ministry, we shall be unhappy in it, shall be unable to hem’ the self-denials incident to it, and shall be of little service to those among whom we minister.

Bona Fide Calls

In the year that King Uzziah died, God commissioned Isaiah the prophet. Isaiah’s commissioning service was unlike any other, before or since. Isaiah saw Adonai. He saw the Sovereign God. He saw dominion and power enthroned in the heavens. He viewed that throne, high and lifted up. He saw the majestic train of the most high God, and that train filled the temple.

Above that majestic train stood the winged serpents, the burning ones of heaven, the celestial dragons, six-winged, and crying out to one another,

Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Symbolizing God’s presence, the thresholds shook at the sound of his voice, and a cloud like the Shekinah filled the house. Isaiah saw God in all his glory, in all his splendor. Isaiah saw a vision of the holiness of God, of the sovereignty of God, of the power of God. And unlike many of the Bible College students of our modern day, he did not begin to feel that since he had a superior knowledge of God, and had experienced God in a more real way than the average Christian, he must be called to preach. No, Isaiah saw the Lord in all his glory and holiness and power and dominion, and Isaiah cried out

Woe is me! For I am undone…

This was not simply textbook knowledge with Isaiah. His cry came, not from the thoroughness of his courses in Systematic Theology, but from the weight of guilt laid on his soul. Isaiah cried out in sorrow and wretchedness, and made full confession of his sin.

…because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

And I say, Woe unto us! For we have Ministerial students who have never known God outside of a textbook, whose knowledge of the holy was memorized for a test, who know their own worth better than they know God. A bona fide call to the ministry will come, must come after a bona fide glimpse of the King, the LORD of hosts.

When God calls a man, he first smites that man with his unworthiness, with his failings, with his sinful and ungodly ways. God shows that man His holiness, and reveals that man’s wickedness. Are you called of God? Then you have seen God. And you have seen yourself.

When Isaiah cried out because of his sin, one of the burning ones, the winged serpents flew to him, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He laid that live coal on Isaiah’s mouth, and said,

Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

When God calls a man, he convinces that man of his wretchedness, and then God himself cleanses that man, takes his sin away, and purges him. God uses clean vessels. But not all those sparkling examples of piety that infest the modern Fundamentalist Bible College. Those guys are holier than thou art, and too holy for the work of the Lord. They are too right, too righteous. Their piety exceeds that even of the pious in Christ’s age. They have washed their own garments, made them ever so white. They are fundamental pharisees, too good to be true, and certainly too good for the ministry.

God showed himself to Isaiah in a powerful way, and Isaiah was broken by the view. God convinced Isaiah of his sin. God himself purified Isaiah. And then, God said,

Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?

God caused Isaiah to volunteer for the ministry. We should not be surprised at the number of people who misinterpret this particular call. We should not be surprised at the rates of “volunteerism” that prevail among Independent Baptists. After all, we value free will above God’s will. We say that it is all of grace, when it actually is all of man. We volunteered, we say. We are humbled to do so, in a proud sort of way.

Isaiah 6:8 is not a proof text for volunteerism. God revealed himself to Isaiah, convicted him, cleansed him, and called him. Isaiah’s response was one of submission, not usurpation. God called, Isaiah responded. God called, Isaiah surrendered. God called, Isaiah obeyed. When God calls a man, God does the calling. The man who calls himself is not called of God. He has not sent them.

When God called Isaiah, God also commissioned him.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

God called Isaiah to preach, not to be successful. In fact, God called him to preach, and promised that he would not be successful. Some would hear, most would not. With some, the preaching would turn them. With most, the preaching would harden. And yet, God sent Isaiah to do a work of hardening, to make them fat, their ears heavy, their eyes blind. How long? Until God was done with those people.

Why is it that Youth Conferences and College chapel messages sound so different than Isaiah 6? Why do we preach the calling of God with such a different tone? We make it sound exciting, romantic, cool. Preaching is neither a burden, nor a flowery bed of ease.