The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture. Part II: Our Preaching

I mentioned last time the sermon illustration about the mother who took her kids to the zoo and they got too close to the lion enclosure, endangering themselves with the possibility of falling into it. The preacher wanted to present God's disposition toward us by likening him to that mother's appeal, "Boys, come give Momma a hug." The boys quickly ran from the enclosure and into the safety of their mother's arms. It's a very sweet story. It moved everyone in the assembly. It's a fantastic example of what a mother should do in that situation. And, as I said before, it is absolutely the opposite of what God does with us when we are in sin and the way His Word should be preached. We know this because we have more than enough examples in Scripture of God rebuking people both directly and through human agents. 

Unfortunately, most people are stirred emotionally to the point of convincing themselves that God does speak this way to us, and therefore, our preaching should mimic this mother, and in some cases, that may be true, but in most cases where sin is present, it is not. The mother's way of convincing others to do what is good is the way most people in the congregation should probably talk to one another about their sins, but pastors are fathers. It is not a father's way, and God is described most as Father, not mother. 

You see, a mother appeals. She does not command, as she is not made to be a commander. She's not the one in authority. When she does command, she should do so only to convey the father's authority but commanding is not fitting for her role and so she tends to appeal instead. The father's response would be very different. As I commented last time, it would have looked something like, "Hey Boys, Get your butts over here right now!" Both parents are afraid they would fall in but the father fears that if he leaves it up to the boys, they'll end up in the lion's mouth. He, therefore, commands with authority, as that is fitting to his role. If the kids are playing in the street with a car racing down it, he doesn't offer them sweeties to get out of the road. He orders them out of the road immediately. 

This is the difference of speaking with authority and speaking with an appeal. An appeal is really an attempt to convince someone to agree with what you want them to believe or do by pointing out a benefit to them so that they decide by their own authority to believe or do that thing. It's the mother in the grocery store who offers her kids a candy if they stop screaming rather than ordering them to stop screaming whether they see the personal benefit of it or not.

The problem with the appeal is not that it does not work when you want your kids to do something. The problem is that it leaves the ego intact. I am asking you, leaving the choice up to you as the sovereign lord of Selfville, and in doing so, not infringing upon the person's autonomy.

This is the central theme of the book, How to Make Friends and Influence People, I mentioned last time. Although written decades ago, it is just as relevant today because people are the same in every generation. The book recommends that if you want to be liked by people and have them listen to you, you must not bruise their ego in any way. They must be allowed to maintain their own lordship and not perceive you as attempting to exert any authority over them. Hence, we like people who appeal to us but hate people who speak authoritatively to us because we don't like anyone asserting control in our lives that was not granted by the supreme chancellor of the galactic self, us. 

This is all well and good and why most people who are liked appeal instead of command. The problem is that God isn't asking anyone. He's not appealing to us to obey Him in the sense that we appeal to someone so as to not infringe upon their self authority. Instead, God speaks as only God can speak, from authority. He is the Lord of all things and He speaks accordingly. This means that His Word is one that is spoken from authority and not from appeal. This is why the most common response to authority in Scripture is offense: "Who made this man a judge over us?" (Gen 19:9; Exod 2:14 // Acts 7:35; Mark 6:2-3).

In fact, the goal of the Word of God is to crucify the self of every person to whom it is proclaimed. This cannot happen if the self remains intact when God's Word is spoken with nothing but appeal. What this means is that if God's Word that is to be spoken from authority is instead spoken in appeal, it is not really accomplishing its goal, which is to expose the self-exaltation of every human to which it is speaking. And the reason why it is not accomplishing its goal is because it isn't the Word of God that is being preached.

I realize that might be a shock to the one who reads this but the Word of God, if spoken in appeal rather than in authority, isn't the Word of God. Let me explain. I can say the phrase, "Good morning" in a few different ways. I can say it in a friendly tone, a sarcastic tone, a quick and dismissive tone, an angry tone, etc., all communicating completely different things depending upon what tone is used. Yet, I've said the exact same phrase. Some languages even have different intonations for the same word that have different definitions altogether. We're all aware of emails or texts that we have either written or read by others where different tones were assigned to them, which gave the intent and result of that text or email a completely different flavor. This is because words are not soundless things. Half of what is said is communicated in the way it is said. That's what I mean that one who speaks the Word of God that is meant to be spoken from authority and is instead spoken in an appeal is no longer the Word of God. God doesn't ask people to do things and give them an option to dismiss them without catastrophic consequences. God is authority, and therefore, all that He speaks is authoritative. He's not asking for our kingly permission to rule over us. So when we speak in such a way so as to honor, not God's authority, but the authority of the autonomous individual, we are not speaking God's Word, even when it uses the identical grammar and vocabulary we read in the Bible. They're not technically different words that the preacher is preaching, but they are practically different words, phrases, messages. The people who hear a sermon about a particular command of Christ in an appeal are not hearing the same sermon as those who are sitting under a preacher who preaches that same command of Christ as a command.

This brings us to ask the question as to whether modern preachers in the West are actually preaching the Word of God. Are they being fathers or mothers? Are they commanding as God commands or appealing as a mother would so that people will be less offended and the preacher will be more liked by the hearer? 

This is why our culture hates fathers and loves mothers. There is no toxic femininity to our modern culture, just toxic masculinity, and this is often defined as a masculinity that asserts itself in authority over others. This would explain why so many modern preachers are liked by people who should actually hate them. People may disagree with you but as long as you leave their egos intact by communicating in appeals, you convince yourself that you're preaching the Word of God, as is your duty, but are still able to retain the likeability factor that so many of us crave as human beings. You're saying the same words that the Scripture says. Those words just aren't being said the same way that Scripture says them.

This is what I have often described as being a politician rather than a prophet. We are called, as preachers, to be prophets, not politicians. Politicians are running for office. They need to be liked. Hence, they appeal to the masses rather than command them. Prophets, however, have their office from God, not men. They don't need to be liked by anyone in order to have that office. They need to please God by representing Him and His commands accurately. Hence, they speak the Word of God in commands. "Thou shalt," "Thou shalt not," "Believe," "Repent," etc. They're not sharing suggestions. They're not giving you their personal testimonies of what has worked for them. Our postmodern generation loves it for you to share your personal experience. They see it as loving even if they don't adopt what's worked for you for themselves. You've tried a new product and now you want to lovingly let them know about this product that worked so well for you. You've merely offered them something they can reject and not feel inferior to you for not having received it. "This is just what I believe." "Jesus has really changed my life and you might want to consider Him." But that isn't what Christianity is. It's not something that works for you. It's not a product to share. You're not offering them a beverage. You are a messenger of the living God who has commanded all men everywhere to repent and give their allegiance to His Son because He has set a day to judge them in their sins and if they are not found in Christ, they will perish, period.

Megachurches tend to appeal. That's how they get so mega. Smaller churches tend to pander to their specific group by just saying the things that that group likes and is used to hearing without stepping on any toes. In other words, if sin is brought up at all, the preacher makes sure most, if not all, already agree that it is sin and that they already agree that they should be rebuked for it. But dare rebuke them for things they don't agree are sin and do so in a command rather than an appeal and you will quickly see the spiritual state of that congregation that has largely gone unnoticed in an effeminate/motherly environment of appeal. Egos remain on the throne where the mighty voice of the Lord commanding them to vacate His throne remains absent. 

Now, as I said before, there is nothing wrong with an appeal when that appeal is coming from a mother who is not speaking in the authority of the father. But the mother is unfaithful if she softens a father's commands to appeals when she communicates them to her children. The task of the preacher has the  goal of destroying human autonomy and taking every idea and person captive to Christ as Lord. Many preachers remain well liked and convince themselves they are preaching the Word of God so as to never really feel much commonality in their ministries with the prophets or apostles of old who were hated by so many within their own religious audience. They often come to the conclusion that perhaps they are just more likeable people than those ancient iconoclasts who were hated by everyone; but people are only likeable to those who are the stars of their own show when they become a part of the supporting cast and not those who want to cancel any further seasons of their program. People are still in rebellion against God and God hasn't changed, nor has His authoritative speech, and so the only culprit here is compromise. 

My appeal (pun intended), nay, my command, to every preacher, therefore, is the command of the Lord through the apostle, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach [imperative command] the word; be ready [imperative command] in season and out of season; reprove [imperative command], rebuke [imperative command], and summon [imperative command], with complete patience and teaching." (2 Tim 4:1-2)

The Great Commission is not, "Go into all nations, make disciples, baptizing and teaching them all that I suggested to you." We make disciples by teaching what Christ commanded, and we teach what Christ commanded by actually teaching them as commands and not suggestions. If we preach the words of God as the words of men then the Word of God has gone unspoken, and therefore, unheard.

(As an aside, I'm well aware that the word "appeal" is used in Scripture but it is not what I mean here. "Appeal" in Scripture has the idea of pleading with someone to put away his self exaltation and obey the Lordship of Christ. The command has already been given and now there is an appeal to those in disobedience to obey it since they will be placed under judgment if they do not. It is not a stroking of the ego by attempting to sell an idea to someone without suffering any personal damage to that relationship. Hence, even the appeals carry with them the authority of the command and the consequences for not obeying it).  

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part I: Appeal vs. Command in the Exercise of Fatherhood

 When I attended Moody, I perhaps heard the most emotionally stirring story in a sermon that I have ever heard. It was about a young woman who had brought her two boys to the zoo for an afternoon of fun. While in front of the lion exhibit, one of those open ones that were shielded by a pit of water and a fence, she glanced away for a moment only to look back and be filled with absolute terror at what she saw. While she had looked away, her two boys had slipped through the fence that separated the edge of the enclosure and were now playing on that edge. "If they slip," she thought, "because I scream out to them and stir them, they'll be killed for sure." So she got down on her knees and in a tender voice called out to them, "Boys, come give momma a hug." The boys quickly came away from the danger and ran safely into her arms.

It's a stirring story indeed. The preacher then argued that God is this way with us and we should be this way as well. 

The problem with this statement is that it's completely false. God is not this way with us, and neither should we be with others who are in the peril of sin. The real problem here is that the preacher was telling men to act like women by speaking the way women do, in an appeal rather than in a command.

I'm sure many of you have been shopping at a grocery store when a screaming child is demanding something from his mother and the mother attempts to bribe the kid by telling him that if he's good she'll buy him something. What she has done is made an appeal. She has attempted to communicate to him that it is in his best interest to obey her. He will get something out of it. So she can appeal to him, give him the choice as to whether he obeys, and hope for the best. In this scenario, the authority remains with the child. At no time does the mother take it away from him by commanding him to be quiet and behave because of no other reason than who she is as his mother.

Now, it's understandable why women appeal. They can probably command a small child but its much more difficult to do so with a bigger child who has not been raised to respect his mother for who she is rather than for what she can give him.

However, this would be the fault of the father, as long as she didn't get rid of the father or diminish his authority to her child. 

You see, fathers should not appeal to their children in sin. Fathers need to command because that's what God does to His children when they are in sin. 

Now, I don't mean that God does not display the benefits of following Him to His people and urge them to repent, even pleading with them sometimes. What I mean by "appeal" is that the ego is either stroked or at least uninjured by the person making the appeal in order to get a desired result. An idea is presented to a person in sin or error in such a way so as to pay homage to the person's autonomy rather than to draw out his rebellion by presenting the idea as non-negotiable, i.e., a command to which he is bound to obey.

The problem with this is that fathers need to represent God in His authority to their children and their goal is not to get their children to do what they want them to do, but to expose their rebellion so it can be addressed with the Word, repentance, and prayer. Rebellion is not exposed if no command is ever given. For this reason the command, not the appeal, is the tool of the true father that allows him to see where the work of the law and the gospel need to be applied. Where the mother may ask for a hug, the father, filled with the same terror as the mother, would yell out, "Boys, get your butts over here right now!" because they would not leave the decision up to the boys. The situation is too dangerous and there is no time to experiment with what bribe may work.

This runs completely contrary to our culture. In the book entitled, How to Make Friends and Influence People, the author makes an argument that could probably be summarized in one statement, "Don't bruise anyone's ego."

You see, people love people who appeal to them because it supports the idea that they are autonomous, i.e., they have the freedom to choose whatever they want to believe and do without accountability. They are the ones in control. There is nothing to trigger an angry reaction. There is no reason for the one to whom the appeal is made to dislike the one making it. We appeal to kings because they are kings, so the appeal itself confirms one's own view of himself.

The problem, unfortunately, for everyone who has to represent God is that part of that representation is conveying that God is king and demands to be obeyed whether the individual likes it or not. This is conveyed not only in particular wording but in the way that those words are spoken. If I teach my kids that God is the authority and their egos have exalted themselves as a replacement authority due to our sinful tendencies, but then do nothing but appeal to them when they need to be rebuked for their trespasses and sins, what I have done is undermine the explicit message with a much louder and far more potent implicit one. If, however, I demand that they repent as God does, I don't convey to them that they can decide to take God or leave Him. Even if they do reject Him, they reject the full message of His authority, that He is Lord, despite what I have conveyed to them rather than rejecting Him because of what I conveyed to them.

The goal of fatherhood is to represent God so that children understand who He is in relation to them, but a father who seeks to appease his children and appeal to them even when they are in sin conveys a God that has less authority than they do. Eventually, kids will grow up to realize that such a god is not worthy of their worship since their supreme being resides within.

The problem, however, is that we have a culture that does not like fathers because it does not like external authority because it does not like God who is the external authority. So we have been doused with the waters of the feminist ideal of men, a man who is frankly more like a woman in the way that he speaks. 

Anyone who does not fit this image of this man who is more in tune with his feminine side is considered arrogant, angry and mean, or in Christian circles, ungodly and un-Christlike. 

This fits well within our postmodern culture where truth is not something that can be fully known by the individual and therefore the fabric of our relationships must be sewn with how we make one another feel when we talk to one another about anything. If I feel offended, that means that you have exerted yourself over me and that does violence to who I am as regent over my life. As the Sodomites say to Lot and the Israelites to Moses, "Who made you a judge over us?" or as the Nazarenes said about Jesus, "Isn't this the son of the carpenter?" All were offended that anyone would bring a rebuke and stand in judgment over them. They were made to feel bad about themselves and felt judged, so they hated those who spoke in such ways to them.

If we are to reestablish a Christian culture in the church, however, our duty to represent God and His authority accurately in our families must be understood and practiced to the best of our abilities, but this first must be pictured in the church. That will be for our discussion next time.

The Pastoral Role and the General Life of the Church

 I think many people hear me say that pastors need to be focused on their role in ministry, which, according to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is making themselves "busy with prayer and the diaconate of the Word" (Acts 6:4), and think that means that I don't think that pastors have personal interactions with people of their congregation. That, of course, is absurd. 

All Christians everywhere fellowship. The issue is what one "exhausts" (1 Tim 5:17) himself doing. What is his role in the fellowship of the saints. As Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 12:4-31,

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. 

Each have a role to play, and the pastors/elders have their role which is clearly distinguished in Scripture with the fact that they are the instructors of the community. Anyone who speaks against this, speaks against the Word of God because of their personal theories and opinions that are not rooted in Scripture. Imagine someone arguing that those who need to fulfill the role of administrations must also heal or they aren't doing their job well, or those who speak tongues must also work miracles or their ministry is lacking. Imagine if someone said that a pilot must also serve the passengers as a steward or he's a bad pilot. Wouldn't that actually make him a bad pilot if he got up from the controls and served peanuts to hang out with the passengers instead? Isn't his service to them his actually flying the plane and making sure they get to their destination safely? Isn't that what his care for them looks like? The stewardess may seem a lot more friendly and likeable but she has a different role than he does.

The ear does not see, nor the eye hear, nor the foot speak. Pastors don't do what deacons do. Deacons don't do what pastors do. Deacons exhaust themselves finding out and filling physical needs of the church. Pastors find out and fill what God says are the spiritual needs of the church first and foremost, and after that, anything brought to them by the deacons or their personal interactions. 

Pastors counsel as one form of teaching, so they have plenty of interaction with those who seek counsel. But they are not politicians running from house to house in order to make sure their congregation still wants to pay their salary. If you think about it, a pastor isn't just going to your baseball games, banquets, and birthdays. He's going to everyone's baseball games, banquets and birthdays. Baby showers, graduations, dinner parties, etc. A pastor has to choose between exhausting himself, making himself busy, with prayer and teaching or with partying. 

Obviously, all pastors are going to be able to go to some things, but expecting them to go to everything is neither realistic nor even close to the biblical requirements God lays down for their ministry in Scripture. This is a far cry from arguing that pastors never fellowship or visit the sick or oversee the needs of people. Of course they do. But I have seen so many pastors just throw stuff together on Saturday night because they were busy with other things all week. What that does is create a spiritually weak church that has not been prayed for as much as they should have been and has been taught a superficial understanding of the text that will provide no defense of God's people from the demonic attacks they will face through the deception of the world.

Jesus only really hangs out with twelve men out of the thousands in His "congregation." Prophets seem to do the same. The apostles have a close group to them with whom they fellowship, but seem to not know most of the congregations to whom they are writing personally. This is likely the way it should be, as pastors need to mentor a small group of people so that he creates leaders for the next generation. But imagine having to go to every event of every single person in even a 70 member congregation. When exactly would this guy be studying and praying for everyone? And even if he fits it in, as many pastors do, fitting it in is not exhausting oneself or making oneself busy with prayer and Word, it's making oneself busy and exhausting oneself with leisure. 

The priests don't get to do the same things that others do. It would be wonderful to just spend all of our time hanging out with the people of God, but we do a disservice to them by doing so. Our great adversary is crouching down and ready to pounce upon their souls through deception, and it is only the truth of God that can thwart his intentions. We must study to show ourselves approved so that we can thwart him and allow the rest of the congregation the leisure, peace and prosperity that our hard work will bring. 

Again, pastors will always fellowship because fellowship is a part of the church but they will not neglect their duty to give the bulk of their time and energy to other things over prayer and the study and teaching of the Word of God.

The Roles of Elders and Deacons and the Confusion of the Two by the Modern American Church

 Expectations are everything when it comes to evaluating a person's performance. False expectations often lead to disappointment and resentment when those expectations are not met. Such is the case of the modern American church's expectations of their pastors.

 I remember sitting in the office of one of my friends who was a pastor when someone from the congregation came in and busied him with the task of calling around to find a tech to fix the air conditioner. When I first took the position of a pastor, my youth minister would argue with me that ministry was all about relationships. Having devoted my life to the teaching of the Word of God, and having seen what God does when I get out of the way, I vehemently disagreed and asked him whether he could apply his philosophy of ministry to Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles and still think that they were good pastors. I never got a response. In many ways, I'm still waiting for a response from those who think like he did. He went away to serve in a megachurch to do relational ministry and soon quit after that because of the trainwreck that such ideas create in the church. But more on that for another time. 

The word "pastor" means "shepherd" and the analogy Scripture gives to us is that between a shepherd and a flock of sheep. Countless expansions of this analogy have led to all sorts of distortions of what the Scripture is actually saying with this analogy, mainly because many people don't know how analogies work. I have heard that sheep are stupid and so are the people of God, shepherds have to know all of their sheep (a sentiment that is not necessarily true depending upon the size of the flock), shepherds nurse their sheep back to health one by one, etc. I always wanted to add that shepherds also fleece their sheep and often eat them as well. None of these are the point of the analogy being made in Scripture. The shepherd cares for the sheep by leading them through the Word of God, feeding them the Word of God, and protecting them with the Word of God. This can be done individually or collectively in a larger group. It can be done in person or by letter (as most of the shepherding of the entirety of the church throughout history has been by the Word of God through the writings of the apostles and prophets), which means it can be done in person or via any means that the Word can travel to the ears of God's people. Today, we utilize various forms of media: podcasts, books, Youtube, etc. as well as various forms of in person communication: preaching from the pulpit, teaching in small groups, fellowships, etc. 

It is not through a pastor petting the sheep that they grow, but through his continual commitment to study and teach the Word of God and pray for the flock. The Scripture knows all things common to man, so that even though Paul, for instance, may not know each individual personally, the Word is completely and without hindrance effective to equip the man of God for every good work with nothing lacking.

 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Hence, a man who shows himself to be approved by God is a man who studies the Scriptures diligently.

Make every effort to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15).

We notice here that one who is an unashamed worker is one who handles the Word of Truth accurately in contrast to the context of speculations and word-wranglers that are merely attempting to justify their own opinions. Instead, the work of ministry is the work of studying the Word of God in order to teach it accurately.

This is why Paul charges Timothy with the sum of his ministry as follows:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: proclaim the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into false narratives (2 Tim 4:1–4).

In 1 Timothy 5:17 states:

Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν,* μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. 

It is the well-ruling elders who are worthy of double honor, specifically speaking, those who exhaust themselves in Word and teaching.

Notice that the elders who are ruling well are the elders οἱ κοπιῶντες "who exhaust" their time and energy with the Word and teaching it. 

In fact, the only difference between a deacon and an elder is that the elder is to "be able to teach" (1 Tim 3:3). He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).

This difference is vital for understanding the role of the shepherd versus the role of the deacon. 

In Acts 6, the widows of the Hellenized Jews are not being attended to properly. The apostles, i.e., those functioning as elders, state that "it is not appropriate for us to leave behind the Word of God in order to serve tables" (v. 4). So they choose seven men to be deacons, i.e., "servers" of the widows, to make sure the widows are attended to without the apostolic neglect of their own ministry. They conclude that the ministry of the apostles/elders is summed up as follows: ἡμεῖς δὲ ⸆ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου ⸀προσκαρτερήσομεν "But we will busy ourselves with the service of the Word and prayer (v. 4). The word service there is also the word for "service" but their service is one of the Word and prayer not the physically attending and relational ministry to widows. That is the job of the deacons who are tasked by the elders to make sure the congregation in physical need is supplied with what they need. The ministry/service of the apostles/elders is the service of spiritual needs that are met with the constant exhaustion and busying of the elders with the Word and prayer. 

In other words, relational ministry is the job of the deacon, not the elder. If the elder is busying himself with going around from house to house or attending every birthday party or baseball game then he isn't busying himself with the spiritual nourishment and protection of studying and teaching God's Word and prayer. The elder has a spiritual battle to fight against the forces of darkness in the lives of his flock and he, therefore, must engage the flock differently than the deacons. 

This is why relational ideas of ministry could never be applied to Moses who is placed over 2 million people. It could never be true of any of the prophets who were commanded to engage Israel, Judah, Nineveh, Egypt, etc. through the proclamation of God's Word. It could never be applied to the apostles who were over a congregation in Jerusalem of many thousands and were mainly absent from most subsequently established churches and yet shepherded them as a fellow elder (2 John 1:1; 1 Pet 5:1) through the medium of writing and ambassadors. Above all else, it cannot be said of Jesus who did not just have a flock of 12 apostles, but a congregation of up to 10,000. If your philosophy of ministry would make Jesus a bad shepherd, you have an unbiblical view of pastoral ministry. 

But all of them had a ministry of the Word to the flock of God that was not restricted to personal relationships. In fact, the elders are never told to go have personal relationships with everyone. Instead, they are told to shepherd the flock of God among them by ἐπισκοποῦντες "supervising" "exercising oversight" (1 Pet 5:2). In other words, he is an overseer, a supervisor, one who stands on the hill and looks over the sheep so he can see where the green pastures are as well as the cliffs and wolves ahead. He directs the sheep with the Word of God, he fights wolves with the Word of God, he fights the Lion with the Word and prayer for the flock. This is the duty of the elder. This is the duty of the shepherd. He has no other. Let me say that again, HE HAS NO OTHER. His task is clear. He must devote his life to the service of God's people by exhausting his time and energy with prayer and the study and teaching of God's Word. It is the sword of the Spirit, and by it, he fights an invisible battle for the minds and souls of Christ's people. 

He doesn't have time to neglect the diaconate of the Word and prayer to go to a graduation party, to hang out and drink all day, to attend every occasion so that he makes you feel good about him, that he cares and is present in order to punch in his time card and make you feel like you're getting your money's worth. He will answer to Christ as to whether he worked his butt off to understand the Word of God, to handle it accurately in order to show himself approved. 

The ministry of the deacon is the ministry of relationships. They, as ambassadors of the shepherds, must care for the flock on a more personal level. Hence, they do not need to spend all of their time studying and teaching the full counsel of the Word of God, but they do need to be men of wisdom who understand the gospel and are able to communicate it.

There has been a clear confusion of these roles in the American church today. Deacons are viewed as elders in many congregations, e.g., some Baptist congregations, and pastors are viewed as both deacons and elders rolled into one. It is no wonder that the typical pastor in America can't handle the Word of God in context half the time and instead preaches a message of the gospel over and over and over and over and over again. It's because they're deacons in shepherd's clothing. They're great at relational ministry. Because they're deacons. 

The church in America is largely being led by deacons. This is why I sometimes get the remark that I should go back and teach in a seminary instead of the church. It's because the pastor isn't viewed as a Bible scholar by the American church. He's viewed as a deacon and a Bible scholar is just some weird animal that belongs in another zoo. Bible scholars are those puffed-up arrogant people who just think they know everything. They're not my friendly neighborhood pastor who comes over for dinner and hugs my kids. Yet, the difference between a deacon and an elder is the fact that the elder is to be a Bible scholar and theologian, specifically, because his role is different than the deacon's role. His fight is different. He wages a spiritual war on your behalf so that you can rest in the peace of your own ministry to your family. His weapons are different. His ministry is different. "Word and prayer" is what he exhausts himself doing. This ensures that the sheep of God's flock will get more than just basic Christianity over and over again. It ensures that he will know what good green grass looks like and what is poisonous to consume. It ensures that Christians will grow into the depths of the Word of God because the foundation of the gospel that has been laid is now being built upon with solid teaching into a monumental temple of God. 

When Paul is leaving the Ephesian church he exhorts the elders to mimic his ministry. That ministry is described as follows:

Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from church gathering to church gathering, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”  (Acts 20:17–32).

Paul is innocent of their blood because he did the ministry of the overseer/elder that was given to him, i.e., to proclaim the whole counsel of God. His whole ministry is summed up by this.

Understood rightly, the ministry of the Word can come through any means that can carry speech. In the ancient world, that meant that public speeches, private teachings, books, letters, ambassadors, etc. were all fair game (and, indeed, they were all used by the apostles to teach the church). In the modern day, that means all of these mediums plus blogs, Youtube, radio, the telephone, texting, podcasts, television, etc. are fair game. The way is open for shepherds to shepherd the flock in both old ways and in new ways because it is God through His Word that feeds and protects His people and what is necessary is simply for a medium to carry that Word to the ears of God's people in order for Him to make it effectual in their lives. 

The false expectation placed upon pastors to be deacons as well is just that, a false expectation. It isn't biblical. And the American church needs to start following the Bible in all things rather than just saying that they do. Right now, ministry roles are seen as so fluid that you would think that church leaders took their ques from a genderless, nonbinary professor. It's as though God wasn't clear about what the roles are between elders and deacons and so people feel free to do what they want with them and attend churches regardless of the consideration of its leadership structure. There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof are the ways of death. A pastor who neglects the diligent study of the Word of God to hang with the people may be a greatly loved politician but a horrible shepherd. 

We must always remember the One true Shepherd's pastoral/priestly prayer to God the Father before He became physically absent from the world and present only through Spirit and truth: "Sanctify them in the truth. Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). We cannot add nor take away from this ministry of the Word, not even to serve widows.

Exegetical Hermeneutics 101: Interpreting the Ambiguous in Light of the Clear

 I don't know if you have ever taken one of those quizzes that presents a sentence with a single word missing with just a blank where it should be and you have to figure out what that word is by the context alone but the means you are using there to do so are exegetical hermeneutics. By "exegetical hermeneutics" I mean the method of interpretation applied to a text that allows the language used by an author or authors itself to determine the referents, and therefore, limitations or lack thereof, of meaning. 

We employ it constantly when we converse with one another. If I am talking about my pet dog one day and then eating a hot dog on another, and some really savvy academic chap wishes to use it all as his context to interpret my meaning, he'll end up thinking that I either have a pet hot dog or that I must be from an Asian culture.

If you've ever conversed with a JW, you'll know that they tend to use passages about Jesus saying that the Father is greater than He is, and that He has God as His God, and that He's a man, etc. to control those passages that refer to Jesus being divine so that He ends up very less divine than the Father. They do the same with passages that refer to our being saved by works and use them to limit what those passages that refer to our justification by faith can mean rather than vice versa. These are examples of an eisegetical hermeneutic being employed, one where the referents of ambiguous texts are brought into a clear text in order to make the clear texts ambiguous so that they can be reinterpreted and given an interpretation that is legitimized, not absolutely, but enough to leave the hearer without a solid refutation of the falsehood.

In exegetical hermeneutics, however, a particular passage would be interpreted in its own context, with its own referents, and not violated by another context or another context's referents in order to muddy the authorial intent of that particular passage of study. 

What this means is the meanings of individual passages must be determined to be clear or ambiguous all by themselves without any interference from outside contexts. The hasty use of outside contexts are an employment of eisegetical hermeneutics as the methodology disrupts the ability to judge whether a passage is clear or ambiguous in its meaning when isolated within the framework its individual author intended. 

So, for instance, if Paul talks about the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15, it violates the authorial intent to bring in a foreign context full of references assigned to the word "body" and read them into Paul's provided context in 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, it even violates Paul's authorial intent to bring in other Pauline contexts, even within the same letter, because it makes ambiguous what Paul has made clear within the closed context of that particular pericope. 

So even though Paul uses the word "body" in 1 Corinthians 12 to refer to the church and not a literal physical body, one cannot bring in that referent to 1 Corinthians 15 prematurely before assessing whether the referents Paul provides in 1 Corinthians 15 are also of the church or are rather of the physical body, etc. Once one determines that the referents are the same, that the meaning is clear or ambiguous, from the context provided alone, it is then, and only then, that other contexts should be compared.

A good example of this is the divorce and remarriage texts in the Gospels. If read alone, as Paul seems to only have Mark, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are clear and unambiguous. It is the Gospel of Matthew that now brings in an ambiguity with an exception of the word porneia that everyone can posit his or her best guess as to what it refers. What exegetical hermeneutics do not allow you to do, however, is to bring the ambiguity into Mark and Luke. Instead, because referents cannot cross over contexts prematurely, what must be done is for the student of the text to come to a conclusion solely about what Mark is saying and then as to what Luke is saying and then as to what Matthew is saying, then determine which text or texts are ambiguous and which are clear, and from there interpret the ambiguous text in light of the clear.

In other words, this means that the clear texts provide the boundaries and limitations for what the ambiguous text might mean rather than vice versa. The reverse is eisegetical, but with the assumption that God does not contradict Himself in the Scripture, and that it must be brought together as one work in this manner and not in some eisegetical methodology that functions as a blender with the outcome being an interpretive mess, the clear passage or passages must provide the framework in which the ambiguous must be interpreted.

This means that if the ambiguous text is the Matthean text, and all must admit that it is since one can interpret it either in harmony or disharmony with the texts in Mark and Luke, then one must not treat it as the controlling text that provides the limitations of the way the others can be interpreted. Instead, the clear texts that do not have the ambiguities within them unless made ambiguous by foreign contexts (either Matthew or other foreign texts not referenced by Mark or Luke in their Gospels) must provide the controlling framework and limit how Matthew is interpreted.

This means that Matthew's exception clause cannot be interpreted in a way so as to violate the clear meaning of Mark or Luke. This leaves one with only the possibility of interpreting Matthew in harmony with the absolute statements in Mark and Luke as well as dismisses any claim that Mark and Luke are not absolute statements (which is a claim only made when one is interpreting the clear in light of the ambiguous and thus ends up changing the meaning of Mark and Luke that exegesis would provide without the addition of that ambiguity). 

If one fails to employ this exegetical hermeneutic, and many have, we will end up with a justification by works, a Jesus who is a creature, a spiritual resurrection without a physical body, and a whole host of other heresies and bad ethics. 

As I've argued many times before, language has a logic to it. It does not violate this logic and neither should we lest we find ourselves confessing to eat our pet Doberman rather than a Ballpark hotdog.

Of Siths and Jedis: The Devil's Path to Fatherhood

 I just watched Return of the Jedi with my kids the other day (believe it or not, they requested it), and something struck me that I guess I just never paid much attention to before. The Emperor (i.e., the devil figure in the movie) wants Luke to kill his father so that Luke can take his place. Now, that part I knew but didn't really ever connect it to the pattern we see in the devil's world of our own. This is the survival of the fittest, where the strong son now shows his right to rule by killing his father. It's a motif in most myths. The patriarchal deity is defeated in one way or another through strength and supplanted by his victorious son who now reigns as the supreme deity. The most familiar to us is Zeus who was an Olympian who defeated his father who was a Titan who defeated his father who was a primordial deity. Survival of the fittest is the pattern of the devil's fantasy because he so desires to murder his Father but cannot, so he places it into the heart of his religious myths in order to express his will. 

Unfortunately, this is the pattern of much of our world and not something merely contained in myth. Many a prince has supplanted their father. The one that comes to my immediate memory is that of Sennacherib's sons pushing a giant idol onto him and then slaying him because he did not name them as his successor. Some sons just do it because they cannot wait to rule by inheriting their fathers' fortunes. The Menendez brothers murdered their parents for a much smaller empire. 

Darwinism, and the atheisms to follow, have argued for a world where killing the strong is a necessity in order to take their place, so it makes sense in the devil's world that the only way to become a father, a true man, is to defeat the person who is father already. This is the devil's rite of passage. This sentiment can be heard in the echo of every rebellious teenage son who wants to rule himself and thinks that when he rules he will do a much better job than his father did.

Many people think that the devil had a big war in heaven with God, as though he tried to kill God, which is a true fiction of the medieval world. In reality, our world is that war. He cannot kill God but he can ingrain in all of God's fallen creatures the drive for the freedom that autonomy brings and allows to rule as one sees fit without the constraints of their father.

But this is not the nature of God's kingdom. The Son in God's kingdom seeks to glorify His Father, to exalt his rule, and in doing so, the Son is exalted to rule. The path to fatherhood, the path to power, is love and submission to the Father, the honor and expansion of the Father and His rule. Unlike the devil who desires that God's rule be blotted out as Zeus subjugated Chronos, the Son seeks to honor the Father; and thus, gains honor through it not by war but by love and a desire to continue what His Father began.

Indeed, God gives the very commandment that the Son obeys in love, to honor one's father. Hence, it is God's desire that fathers be honored and not slandered, established and not supplanted, expanded and not diminished. 

The path to fatherhood is the path to power but the power to do what? How one takes power is defined by what he thinks the power is for. If to honor one's father, the path will expose that. If to honor oneself, the path will bear that out as well.

The world has become filled with murderers because the devil is a murderer, and the first person to be murdered is the one on the throne to which we aspire. Indeed, our culture has all but wiped the father from the face of the earth; but the kingdom of God is not of this world and it is not of our fallenness. Whatever fathers God gives to us in life, and he will give us only a few, let us seek to honor and establish them rather than supplant them through selfish ambition because to honor them is to mimic the Son and to honor our true Father rather than the devil that we have allowed to take his place.

In the end, it is through honoring his father that Luke defeats the devilish emperor as it is through Christ's honoring His Father that allows Him to defeat the devil. If we are to pull the world toward God's kingdom, we must first and foremost understand this in our words and our deeds. Only then will we realize what path we are on and change course before being consumed by the darkside.

The Christian Path to Good and Beauty

 We use to live in an area with a ton of caterpillars everywhere. They would be dropping out of trees and onto the path of death where they would be squashed by every malevolent kid on his way home from school. Many would make it to their cocoon stage though and would survive the afterschool apocalypse. 

There is so much talk today about making ourselves and our families the best they can be. If we do this or that, we will be families of truth and good and beauty. Everyone has their formula and flavor. Lots of rules to follow, practices to implement, structures to adhere to. This is just a repackaged works salvation where I turn from the sinner into the image of Christ through maximum effort on my part and if I fail to do this or that then I and my family and my church won't be as fully transformed into Christ's image as I would have been had I done this or that or the other thing. This sort of emphasis will eventually lead to a judgmental elitism that divides the Body of Christ because some will be employing more insightful methods than the other lesser evolved Cretans within our churches; and eventually it will lead to an exhaustion of this kind of "spirituality" that will further lead to hopelessness and apostasy because all man-made effort is futile if one's goal is to be as truthful, good, and beautiful as Christ. If the laws of God are too high, the laws of men who think they've figured out the secret to success are impossible.

Instead, the biblical concept of salvation is God's doing and transformation begins to occur once one is in a submissive relationship with Him through Jesus Christ and His local church. It is God who is the source of truth and good and beauty. He is the Savior, He is the one who transforms, not through works or the next great ideas of savvy internet gurus, but through faith, through one's submissive allegiance to Him, an allegiance that seeks to dwell humbly and quietly in His presence in every place. The joy of His salvific presence is our cocoon and there is only one cocoon, one formula that will make us like Christ, because there is only one gospel and one Savior who saves through it. God's butterflies are made by being engulfed in the cocoon of God's presence. The caterpillar that attempts to soar to the skies on his own will end up a disgusting mess of goop on the ground.

As such, I can't make myself or anyone else good or beautiful, not even by speaking as much truth as I possibly can. It is God who makes ugly sinners into His beautiful images. The truth simply is the tree upon which the cocoon must attach itself but apart from one entering into God's presence through faith alone, no one will truly change for the better or the best.