The Faith of Ronald Reagan
0This is a wonderful tribute to Ronald Reagan, with an emphasis on his Christian faith…
Lee Strobel Offers the Case for Christmas
0Christmas is full of tradition, but can Christians credibly embrace the claims of the Bible surrounding the birth of Jesus, even in our present age of skepticism? Bestselling author Lee Strobel lays out the evidence for Jesus Christ and why we can trust the Gospel accounts of the first Christmas…
Demystifying the Trinity: Does the Trinity Represent a Contradiction in Christianity?
0
The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that God is one God in three Persons. It is perhaps the most confusing and contentious belief in evangelical Christianity. The Trinitarian view has drawn the scorn of numerous critics of Christianity, and even from some who consider themselves Christian.
The Trinity in the Bible
While the word “Trinity” appears nowhere in the Bible, the apostle John wrote in his first epistle that “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (I John 5:7). With the advent of textual criticism, a majority of biblical scholars have called the authenticity of I John 5:7 into question, pointing out that most of the Greek manuscripts do not contain verse. Even if I John 5:7 is set aside, however, the doctrine of the Trinity can still be inferred from other passages, including the account of Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-23).
The author of the Gospel of John describes Jesus as “the Word” and writes that the “Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1.) And references to the Spirit of God abound throughout Scripture. In the Great Commission, Jesus ties all three together, instructing his disciples to baptize new believers “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:18-20).
Is the Trinity Logical?
Critics of the doctrine of the Trinity maintain that a Triune God smacks of polytheism and contradicts the way Jehovah is presented in the Old Testament. Christian theologian Norman Geisler argues that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction. Says Geisler, “A contradiction occurs only when something is A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. God is both three and one at the same time but not in the same sense. He is three persons but one in essence. He is three persons but only one in nature.” (Zacharias, Ravi and Geisler, Norman. Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
The late great Christian thinker C.S. Lewis explained that the human mind often has a tough time grasping the Trinity because we are limited to one-dimensional experience. However, once we remove those limitations from our mind (or at least open ourselves up to the possibility of their removal), we begin to see reality in a different perspective. In Mere Christianity, Lewis explains:
A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.
In a talk at Penn State University, brilliant Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, picks up on Lewis’ argument. While strongly defending the Law of Non-Contradiction as a key pillar of Reason, Zacharias argues that the Trinity represents no logical contradiction whatsoever. In fact, Zacharias says that the Trinitarian God avoids breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Bible, for example, presents God as a God of Love. How would this be possible if God were a singular Being with no one to love? With the Trinity, one can appreciate the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each loved one another before the human race was created.
Jennifer Keeton and the Decline of Religious Freedom
0Jennifer Keeton, a graduate student with Augusta State University, is yet another casualty in an ongoing war against Christianity and religious freedom. While pursuing a degree in counseling at Augusta State, Keeton was forced to undergo a “remediation plan,” due to her biblical worldview. Keeton, you see, is a Christian. So long as Christians set the Bible aside or water down their views or keep them private, there’s no problem. Not yet anyway. But when a Christian actually takes the Bible seriously, particularly on an issue like homosexuality, and then dares to express her biblically based views, well, quite a few people do have a problem with that….as Ms. Keeton is learning.
When Keeton was assigned this remediation plan (which reportedly included a requirement that she attend a gay pride parade), she filed suit. A U.S. judge ruled against Keeton, saying that the remediation plan was “academically legitimate.” With support from the Alliance Defense Fund, Keeton appealed. Now, a three-judge panel has upheld that ruling, dealing Keeton another setback. Her attorneys have now filed for an appeal with the Circuit Court.
Keeton probably believed that, because of the Bill of Rights, she had the freedom, even as a graduate student, to believe the Bible and express her religious views. Unfortunately, Keeton is learning that when those views come in conflict with an agenda that modern society has declared politically correct, then religious freedom takes a back seat in an increasing number of places in American society today, including Augusta State University.
I have no problem with a university teaching its students to be sensitive and compassionate in how they express their views. If Keeton were abrasive or hateful in her comments, then I can certainly appreciate the need for Augusta State University to deal with that accordingly. But, according to what I’ve read, this was not the case. Keeton simply said she believed homosexuality was “morally wrong,” a position that is certainly in line with Scripture. This case has wide ramifications. For example, now that gays and lesbians are serving openly in the armed forces, will chaplains (including evangelical, Bible-believing chaplains) be required to counsel gays and lesbians in ways that conflict with their biblically held beliefs? There are already indications that the answer to this is yes.
Must Bible-believing Christians operating in academic, military, and government settings be required to jettison their beliefs or openly work against them in order to pursue successful careers and make a living for themselves and their families? If the answer is yes, then religious freedom is perhaps seeing its last days in the United States of America.
Since the President Referred to Christ, Can We Now Have a Christmas Party?
0
Is it okay to say “Merry Christmas,” now that the President of the United States publicly identified the December 25 holiday as being about the birth of Christ? Since our public schools tend to be among the most sensitive battlegrounds of political correctness and the censorship of anything religious, I wonder if it would be okay with the American Civil Liberties Union or the Americans United Against the Separation of Church and State for public schools to post the President’s Christmas message. Maybe that might be pushing it, so how about just calling their season parties “Christmas parties”? No, still too much?
Pardon my sarcasm, but the Christmas season always brings out the ridiculousness in our society. In order to avoid offending people who don’t believe in Christianity, our society (local schools, government agencies and offices, private businesses, stores, restaurants, etc.) will often bend over backwards to offend only those who consider themselves “Christian,” which, interestingly enough, describes the majority of the American population! “Merry Christmas” is out. “Happy Holidays” is in!
Well, this “holiday season,” the President of the United States publicly linked Jesus Christ with the December 25 holiday that still legally bears His name. He did so, while lighting the National Christmas Tree. So, if the President can do that before the nation, is it okay if we mention “Christmas” in our schools and communities? Hopefully, for most of you, the answer is yes.
Merry Christmas!
What a Father Punching His Son at a Youth Basketball Game Says About Parent Involvement in Youth Sports
1Recent news about a Lakeville, Minnesota father punching his son after a youth basketball game has many people understandably shaking their heads at such a horrific display of child abuse. And while this tragic and shameful incident should cause us, as a nation, to consider the horrible reality of child abuse, it should also cause us to soberly consider the state of parent involvement in youth sports. If news reports are correct, this hot-tempered Minnesota dad is the natural outcome of a society full of hot-headed, overbearing parents in youth sports today. We shouldn’t be surprised. We should be sobered.
Youth sports are a great opportunity for boys and girls to get exercise, learn the importance of teamwork, develop important leadership and social skills, and discover much about themselves in terms of their gifts, talents, likes, and limitations. It should also be a place where they encounter positive role models and learn respect for authority. Unfortunately, many parents involved in youth sports make this increasingly difficult. Overbearing parents who push their kids to excel in sports, often beyond their kids’ maturity or physical capacity, have added tremendous stress and anxiety to their children and those around them.
In fact, overbearing parents can often be seen cursing officials at sports games, berating coaches in front of their kids (and other kids too, for that matter), screaming at other parents, and chewing out their own children for mistakes on the field. This kind of toxic influence is disheartening and, in some cases, destructive. How in the world can kids gain any kind of positive influence from this?
Years ago, I read a letter to the editor in a community paper that was written by a 15-year old referee in youth sports games. The teenage referee publicly expressed his sadness at how parents often conducted themselves. To be cursed out by a grown man or woman in front of dozens of spectators for an alleged bad call is not something any teenager involved in community service should have to go through. And it’s not something a child should have to watch his parent engage in. Yet this kind of thing is common.
Several years ago, I myself witnessed a father reprimanding his son for a poor performance after a football game. When the son defended himself, the father told him to “shut up.” I remember thinking, Is a ball game worth that? I recall my father having strong words for me when it came to issues of honesty or respect, but not about what I did on the ball field. Dad would never have chewed me out for making a mistake or having a bad day…in any arena of life, certainly not sports.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of politically correct, excessively egalitarian sports leagues that strip out all aspects of competitive achievement. I’m all for competition. It’s good for kids to learn to set goals, strive hard for those goals, and sometimes recognize that they will fall short. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of kids getting trophies just for being on the team. I think that’s also bad. Children should learn that it takes hard work, discipline, and solid teamwork to win at sports. And not every team can win every game. Sometimes, they will be on the losing team. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I also think parents should encourage their kids to be the best they can be. But there’s a difference between a child being the best he or she can be versus a child being the best of what the parents want him or her to be. Parents don’t have the right to impose their lives on their children. They may want their children to be star athletes with sports scholarships and all that, but they shouldn’t decide their children’s lifelong fate. My parents never pushed me to a specific career path. They wanted me to follow God’s call on my life, wherever that would lead. They focused on shaping my heart and teaching me important life lessons in discipline, integrity, and faith. With that in mind, my parents encouraged me to be involved in sports, even though they knew I had very little athletic ability. (I still have very little athletic ability). They encouraged me to do so, for the benefits of learning self-discipline, teamwork, physical fitness, and (frankly) being able to take a hit and get right back up again! Mom and Dad wanted me to do my very best in every area of life. They knew I wasn’t great at sports, but they knew youth sports would teach me some important lessons that I would apply in my life overall.
Allow me to cite a personal example of picking up life lessons in youth sports. I recall my days in high school football. While I never amounted to much in football, I remember the punishing hits I took in football practice and the times I wound up at the bottom of an unpleasant pile-up, and the coaches encouraging me to get back up again – and get ready for the next snap. At one summer football camp, I experienced a minor injury, which I saw as an opportunity to skip out of a few practice sessions (and thus postpone any additional pain). I wasn’t very good anyway. I knew it. The coaches knew it. And I figured I wouldn’t play anyway, so what’s the big deal? Well, it was a big deal. Looking back, I remember Coach Perdue taking time to give me a lesson in following through on my commitments. I had a made a commitment. I was part of the team. I needed to participate and give it my very best. While I unfortunately didn’t fully embrace Coach’s lesson that day, I did years later. In fact, lessons like that have stuck with me my whole life. They are important lessons for life. And they are what youth sports are all about.
Youth sports are great. And I applaud parents who encourage their kids to get involved and who faithfully attend games and practices to show their support. There are wonderful coaches and parents in youth sports.
Nevertheless, this tragic incident in Minnesota should give all parents in youth sports an opportunity to reflect. A child deserves to know that, no matter how many mistakes were made on the field or how much of a bad day he had, he can always count on coming home with a father and mother who love him unconditionally and will encourage him to get back up and, once again, do his very best.
Farewell Christopher Hitchens
4Christopher Hitchens, one of the most outspoken critics of evangelical Christianity (and religion, in general, for that matter), died yesterday, December 15, of esophageal cancer. A powerful intellect with acerbic wit, Hitchens was both prolific and provocative. In fact, his entire public identity revolved around provocation. Matt Schudel of The Washington Post accurately describes Hitchens as a “sharp-witted provocateur who used his formidable learning, biting wit and muscular prose style to skewer what he considered high-placed hypocrites, craven lackeys of the right and left, ‘Islamic fascists’ and religious faith of any kind.”
My first brush with Hitchens came several years ago, when I explored some of my own doubts with Christianity. Having been brought up in a Christian family and placed in church at a young age, my decision to accept Christ as a pre-teen was more a natural outcome than turning point. Starting in my twenties, however, I began to experience sharp emotional and intellectual doubts about the faith my family and I had always claimed. In my early to mid thirties, I went on a spiritual and intellectual journey, willing to set aside my Christian beliefs if I could not find some logical and compelling justification for them. As part of this journey, I read, watched, and listened to several of the so-called “New Atheists,” including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and (yes) Christopher Hitchens.
I became somewhat of a debate addict, watching recorded encounters between atheists and Christians. YouTube was a favorite place for me to go and watch these clashes. And I experienced mixed emotions as I saw Hitchens sarcastically and convincingly eviscerate standard Christian arguments that, in my youth, I had all too casually accepted. In the book of Proverbs, we’re told that “iron sharpens iron” and that “one person sharpens another.” I doubt Hitchens wanted to sharpen my faith, but that was the outcome. My journey through doubt led me to become even stronger in my faith.
When the Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University, passed away in 2007, Christopher Hitchens displayed an animosity that can only be borne out of a bitter and hateful heart. By the time Falwell passed, I had already emerged from my period of doubt, though there remained a shadow of appreciation for some of Hitchens’ more effective arguments. That appreciation all but vanished as I watched Hitchens celebrate Falwell’s death and more or less dance on the man’s grave. Hitchens viciously assaulted Falwell’s character, intellect, appearance, and very soul. In one TV interview, the atheist Hitchens openly wished hell were real, so that Jerry Falwell could go there.
As angry as I was at Hitchens’ over-the-top antics and insensitivity to Falwell’s family and friends, I nevertheless glimpsed the hatred that propelled Hitchens onto his atheistic crusade in the first place. This was not a man with honest doubts about God. It was a man who, deep down, suspected the Judeo-Christian God may indeed exist – and hated the very thought, idea, and concept of such a God. Christopher Hitchens didn’t simply disbelieve God. He hated God and all of God’s followers. I believe it’s the same for many atheists, in fact. If you doubt me, I encourage you to read The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens, younger brother of Christopher Hitchens.
I take no pleasure in the demise of Christopher Hitchens. On the contrary, I extend my sincere best wishes to his family and friends. I sincerely hope he read his younger brother’s book and that he and Peter had many talks since its publication. I hope that, by some miracle, God broke through the bitter walls around Hitchens’ heart. I hope that, as Hitchens entered the last days of his life, that he reflected on the loving message of Jesus Christ. After all, God did it before nearly 2000 years ago with a vicious anti-Christian named Saul of Tarsus. Why not Christopher Hitchens as well? We can hope.
What Most Congregations Want From Their Pastor and Church — And Why It’s Not Biblical!
0
As an occupation group, pastors have alarmingly high rates of depression, obesity, anxiety-related health problems, divorce, and loneliness. And church congregations must accept the lion’s share of the blame. The solution is for God’s people to renew their commitment to the Bible, to embrace Jesus’ original intent for the role of the pastor (an office He gifted to the church), to grow spiritually, and to affirm their pastor with love, encouragement, and support.
What Healthy Churches Expect of Their Pastor
What is the role of a pastor? What are a pastor’s priorities? How should a pastor spend his time each week? These questions came to my mind as I visited Saddleback Church in California on a recent Sunday evening, where I experienced Pastor Rick Warren challenging his congregation to plant churches in twelve international cities as part of an audacious effort in 2012 to reach over 3,500 people groups that are yet without a Bible-believing church proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ.
As I looked around the crowd of people gathered that Sunday evening at Saddleback’s campus, I could tell that Saddleback is not an internally-focused church. There wasn’t a sense of “Hey, what about me?” I got the impression that all those with complaints about Rick Warren not visiting them enough or being too focused on the outside world as opposed to his own congregation had long since departed. The members of Saddleback Church recognize the purpose of the church and the biblical responsibility of their pastor. Other churches could learn a lot from them.
That Sunday morning, I attended Grace Community Church and heard a wonderful message on the Holy Spirit from John MacArthur. I reflected on how Grace Community has also impacted tens of thousands, dare I say more, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And Grace Community has helped numerous Christians grow in their faith and spiritual walk.
That Sunday, after experiencing those two dynamic and wonderful churches, a truth became crystal clear. Healthy churches are God-centered, mission-minded, and outward-focused. They want their pastor to lead them, teach them, and pray for them. They are focused on the Great Commission. They don’t get preoccupied with whether the music is too loud, what style of music is being played, whether their pastor pays them enough attention, whether their idea or agenda is being considered by the church leadership, or any of that. They want more souls saved, more people baptized, and more people growing in Christ. And they are following the men God has put in their pulpit to lead them in that quest. They are on mission. They are making a positive difference for the Kingdom of God. And they will be rewarded accordingly in Heaven. Sadly, this is not the case with most churches today.
What Most Congregations Expect From Their Pastors
Most churches have a small vision, complete with a narrow mindset, and are full of self-centered people. And nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to what typical church congregations in America want and expect from their pastor.
In a recent conversation I had with a fellow pastor, one much older and more experienced than me and a man of God I greatly respect, we talked about what people expect from their pastor. He said that Jesus would not survive more than three weeks in the average Baptist church today as their pastor. I mentioned Paul, and he said that Paul wouldn’t even get out of the parking lot!
I believe this pastor is absolutely correct. In the post-Industrial Age 20th century, American Christians became accustomed to the small church complete with care-giving pastors who functioned more like chaplains than pastors. Typifying Norman Rockwell images of simpler times, these chaplain-pastors regularly visited every member family, paying particular attention to the elderly, the widows, the shut-ins, and those in the hospitals and nursing homes. And this is the kind of pastor preferred by most small, tradition-oriented, congregationally-governed, evangelical churches in America today.
Don’t get me wrong. I love ministering to people. Some of the warmest and most rewarding episodes in my life are when God has graciously given me the privilege (and I most certainly count it as a privilege) to encourage a broken heart, comfort those in grief, help mend a relationship, shine some hope into a difficult situation, or lead someone to a personal decision for Jesus Christ. I do not wish to remove myself from this type of ministry. I simply want to point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say this kind of ministry is exclusive to pastors. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that pastors are to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. That means the pastor is to be one among many doing this kind of work.
Most churches today don’t look to the biblical role of a pastor. They want their pastor to be a people-pleaser. They are not interested in their pastor leading them or challenging them or rebuking them or calling them to sacrifice. They want their pastor to “take care of them.” When they have a complaint or a grievance, they expect their pastor to solve it. When they don’t like something, they expect their pastor to fix it. When they object to something the pastor is doing, they expect him to stop it. And when they hit a crisis or problem in their life, they expect their pastor to drop everything and come running to their aid. Little wonder that the average church in America has fewer than a hundred members, and that pastors, as an occupation group, have alarmingly high rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, and divorce!
While God has given me the privilege to serve two wonderful congregations, no church is perfect. And even I have experienced these kinds of expectations. Several months into my time at my current church, a lady looked at me and said: “Brian, you’re not available to people!” The very next day, I officiated a funeral, and that weekend, I conducted two weddings – in addition to performing my regular weekend duties as pastor. Obviously, I was available to some people that week, not to mention I was available enough to her to hear her accuse me of not being available. (I doubt that irony even crossed her mind). In fact, I spend a great deal of each and every week, ministering to individual church members by phone, email, cards, or in-person meetings (either at church, in the hospital, or in their home). The accusation was unfair, inaccurate, and hurtful.
While in Ohio, a dear lady in our church went into the hospital. I missed going to see her by a couple days, because I was not feeling well. I asked about her and knew that one of the deacons was following up on her, but I was pacing myself to get over a cold and didn’t want to give her my germs. She was in her eighties and quite frail. That didn’t matter. I was the pastor, and she expected a visit from me right away. And she let everyone who would listen to her know about it.
Yet I could point to several situations like the above, where some members insist on immediate attention, no matter what else may be on my plate, whether I was in or out of town, whether I was sick or not, or whether it’s my day off. I’ve had members upset with me because they find it difficult to reach me on my day off! The nerve of me to actually turn off my cell phone – on my day off – and spend time with my wife or do what the Bible says and rest. Some people, I’m convinced, don’t actually believe a pastor should have a day off, never mind that the Bible says about taking at least one day of rest. Their attitude is: “You can rest, pastor, as long as we don’t need you.”
Yet the few bad experiences I’ve had pale in comparison to what other pastors have endured. I know of several pastors personally who have had to put up with ridiculous expectations and absurd demands from their congregations. In one case, a friend of mine told me a member got upset with him one time for not visiting her in the hospital. When my pastor friend pointed out that no one told him she was even in the hospital, she responded: “Well, you’re just supposed to know!” The ridiculousness is never ending. Some of the stories I’ve heard and read have, in fact, left me speechless.
None of this is to suggest that pastors shouldn’t see to the valid needs of people in their congregation. I’m simply saying that pastors alone can’t carry that load. The pastor can only be at one place at one time. He is finite. He doesn’t have all the spiritual gifts. He is limited in what he can do and provide. What’s more, people aren’t supposed to look to their pastor for rescue or fulfillment. They are to look to Jesus and the Holy Spirit for those things.
How do we set things right? Frankly, in my flesh, I’m not very optimistic. Most churches in America are inwardly focused with a DNA that demands care-giving, people-pleasing pastors. They are not passionate about the Great Commission. They are passionate about creating an environment in their church that serves their needs and their agenda. Changing this will require courage on the part of our pastors as well as humility, grace, selflessness, and sacrifice on the part of our churchgoing Christians. And it all starts with understanding the purpose of both the church and the pastor, according to God’s Word.
As we explored in a previous post, the church of Jesus Christ is universal in scope, yet local in its organization. This is clear from the New Testament, where you had the church in Jerusalem, the church in Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Philippi, the church in Rome, and so on. Obviously, with this article, we are talking in terms of the local church.
The purpose of the local church is to carry out the Great Commission. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus issuing the following directive: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20, KJV)
The church’s primary mission and purpose then is to lead people to Jesus Christ, baptize those who accept Christ, and then teach them what Jesus taught. In other words, the church’s mission is to produce more disciples of Jesus Christ. In Acts, we see a picture of how, practically speaking, the early church went about accomplishing this mission. According to Luke, the early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, KJV).
The Purpose of the Pastor
Since the church is given the overall and very comprehensive task of reaching the lost world with Jesus Christ and producing disciples of Christ, Jesus gave the church “gifts” to help it fulfill those tasks. Among those “gifts” is the office of pastor-teacher. According to the Apostle Paul, Jesus gave “some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12, NKJV).
In this passage from Ephesians, each particular office is preceded by the word “some” (tous de). Yet the recurring “some” (tous de) is not given before the word “teacher” (didaskalous). “Pastors” and “teachers” are instead connected by the simple conjunction “and” (kai). This indicates Paul is referring to a singular office with dual roles. The pastor is, at once, the pastor (poimen meaning “shepherd”) and teacher.
Note also that the purpose of the pastor-teacher is plainly stated. It’s not to visit the sick, call on the shut-ins, perform weddings, or take care of the needs and wants of the flock per se. According to Paul, who is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, pastors and teachers (again, same office with dual roles) are “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ…” (Ephesians 4:12, NKJV).
Of course, the classic KJV inserts a comma after the word “saints,” thus implying to some that “the work of the ministry” is the purview of “pastors and teachers” and not the congregation in general. Scholars well studied in the original Greek argue that this comma was inserted by the KJV translators because it fit with their medieval understanding of the role of a pastor, not because the Greek text called for it. (See “The Importance of a Comma!” by Dr. Larry Perkins). Accordingly, most of your other English translations, including the New King James, do not have the comma, allowing the reader to more easily understand Paul’s likely meaning, which is that the pastor-teacher is to equip the saints, so that they (the saints) carry out the work of the ministry.
I would argue, however, that the insertion of the comma hardly takes congregations off the hook. If you read through Paul’s letters, one does not come away with the impression that only or primarily pastors are to do the work of ministry. On the contrary, Paul repeatedly talks about congregations doing the work of the ministry, including evangelism, caring for those in need, bearing one another’s burdens, etc. Even with the KJV comma in place, the most one can conclude is that pastors should do the work of the ministry along with all the other saints in the church!
Of course it’s wonderful when pastors do hospital visits, look in on the elderly and shut-ins, help out the disabled, perform weddings, officiate funerals, and so forth. But they should do these things in the context of teaching others to do them. It was never God’s intention for pastors alone or even pastors primarily to do the work of the ministry. It’s for every member of the church to do these things! The pastor’s primary responsibility is (in the words of the late Adrian Rogers) to “feed and lead” the flock. This is clearly seen in not only Ephesians 4, but also in the pastoral epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) as well as I Peter 5 and Hebrews 13.
Putting Jesus Back in Charge of His Church
I realize that some pastors have abused their positions of responsibility, and have “lorded” over their flocks, something that I Peter 5 warns against. I know that, in many cases, the pastors are the main problem, not the congregation. I’m certainly aware of my limitations and the fact that I’ve made mistakes in the ministry. I don’t want anyone reading this post to take away that I’m advocating pastoral dictatorship or a pastor-centered church. On the contrary, I’m arguing for a Jesus-centered church. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. He is our Lord.
Is the pastor in a leadership position? Yes. Jesus put him there. The pastor is, in essence, the under shepherd of Jesus’ church at the local level. A local church should be pastor-led, but it should most importantly be Jesus-focused and Jesus-driven. Jesus must be the One ultimately in charge of the church. And if the pastor fails to lead the church in the direction Jesus wants it to go, then the church needs to find another pastor.
How will a church know whether their pastor is leading them correctly? Well, the criteria for deciding whether a pastor is successful or not or in God’s will or not should have nothing to do with the opinions, tastes, or preferences of individual church members, no matter how much money they give or how long they’ve been attending! A pastor should be “graded” (for lack of a better word) on the qualifications for his office, which Paul lays out in I Timothy and Titus, and by whether or not he is leading the church effectively in carrying out the Great Commission.
When it comes to the emotional, mental, physical, and even spiritual “burdens” of the congregation, don’t push those on the pastor. He is to help with those things, but mainly in a teaching and leadership role. The Bible teaches that all the members of the church must bear the burdens of the congregation. In Galatians 6, Paul makes clear that we are to “bear one another’s burdens,” while of course bearing our own. Those congregations who have tried to delegate these care-giving responsibilities to the pastor are out of God’s will. The role of the pastor isn’t to bear the burdens of the flock. The pastor can only be at one place at one time. He does not have the physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual capacity to personally “chaplain” every member of the congregation. Requiring or expecting him to do so will insure that your church remains small and that your pastor remains perpetually exhausted and frustrated. As the late Adrian Rogers said, the pastor’s job is to “feed and lead.” And to do so as he himself follows Jesus Christ.
This is something that the folks at Saddleback clearly understand, and it’s why they are embracing the vision God has placed on their pastor’s heart and why, I believe, they will succeed. While most churchgoing Christians in America are preoccupied with how many times their pastor has visited them, whether he wears a tie on Sunday, or how loud the music is, Jesus’ servants at Saddleback understand that they are on a mission. And they know Jesus has given them Rick Warren for “such a time as this” to lead them on that mission. They understand that they need to take up the work of the ministry and let their pastor focus on “prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6). They understand the Big Picture and their place within it. They know what a pastor is supposed to do and what they as a church are supposed to do. I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate on whether you agree with all that Rick Warren says or does or whether you’re comfortable with the “seeker sensitive” model or any of that. Let’s put that aside for now and instead agree that Saddleback is committed to reaching the lost for Jesus Christ, equipping the saints for ministry, and cultivating a spirit of love, joy, and fellowship among the family of God.
If more Christians in America had the heart of those at Saddleback, churches across America would experience more joy and love with less strife and internal conflict. Pastors would not be experiencing burnout, depression, health and marriage problems at the ridiculously high levels they presently are, and more people would be coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The United States of America would be a better nation today, and the world would be rocked to its spiritual core. Jesus’ churches would be unstoppable. Let us pray and work for such a day.
What is the Biblical Role of a Pastor?
1
What is the biblical role of a pastor? What does the Bible say about pastors? Few offices in the church have stirred as much controversy or confusion as that of pastor. Some denominations claim that pastors (or priests) are necessary to intercede on behalf of the people before God. Others claim that the office itself is never called for in Scripture, and that the church should be “organic” with every church member functioning on a coequal basis as the Holy Spirit leads. As this article will hopefully show, the truth lies with neither extreme.
What Does the Bible Say About Pastors?
According to the Apostle Paul, Jesus gave “some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-12, NKJV).
Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus explains that these “gifts” (or people) were intended by Jesus to advance His work via His church. This passage is notable, because it is the only time that the Greek word “poimen” is used to denote a church position. “Poimen” means “shepherd” and is the basis for the English word “pastor.” The significance of this word becomes clearer when one considers how often Jesus refers to His followers as “sheep” (John 10:1-6; John 21:16-17, etc.). Paul’s use of the term “poimen” in Ephesians 4 thus indicates that Jesus calls some (but not all) of His followers to serve as leaders (or “shepherds”) of His church.
Pastors, Elders, and Bishops
Peter confirms the interchangeable nature of the words “pastor” and “elder,” when he exhorts the “elders” to “be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve” (I Peter 5:2, NIV).
The word “elder” is also used, on occasion, to denote an older person (I Timothy 5:1), but a pastor need not be an “elder” in the sense of age. Timothy, after all, was evidently fairly young (his mother and grandmother both apparently still living) and was taking over as head pastor in Ephesus (I Timothy 4:12). A pastor is, however, not to be a “novice” to the Christian faith (I Timothy 3:6) and must accept the responsibility of leading by example (I Timothy 4:12).
What about the office of bishop? By the second century, bishops were serving as regional heads of local congregations, thus giving rise to the hierarchical character several denominations manifest today. In the first century, however, it appears that a bishop was essentially the same as a pastor.
The only possible distinction might be that a bishop was the senior pastor. Timothy, for example, was taking the office of bishop (I Timothy 3:1) and was serving in an oversight capacity in relation to other elders (or pastors) in the church (I Timothy 5:19). There’s not enough scriptural or scholarly evidence, however, to make too much of this distinction. For all practical purposes, Timothy (as a bishop) fulfilled the same basic role as any pastor or elder.
God’s Design for Church Leadership
While the church is universal in scope, it was intended to be locally organized. And pastors are at the center of that local organization, being tasked with pastoral “oversight” and ultimately being held responsible to the Chief Shepherd (I Peter 5).
The biblical principle is clear: Pastors, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and within the parameters of their biblical qualifications (I Timothy 3:1-7; I Peter 5:1-4), are to pray for, lead, teach, and equip for ministry their respective local congregations. And those local churches in turn are to follow and take care of their pastors (Hebrews 13:17; I Timothy 5:17-18). The healthiest churches are those that practice this arrangement.
For more on this subject, check out a similar version of this article which appeared in Suite101 Protestantism in 2009 by clicking on the link below…
Suite101 Protestantism: “What is the Biblical Role of a Pastor?”
What Does the Bible Say About Church Services?
0What does the Bible say about the worship service? Should there be an order of worship or should churches have open participation with no script? What does the Bible say?
There’s a growing and popular movement in Christian circles alternately called the “organic church” and “house church” movement. Advocates for the “organic church” or “house church” argue that the early church was characterized by “Spirit-led” open participation, whereas the modern church is too scripted, too hierarchical, and completely outside of what the New Testament teaches.
Most Christian churches today, however, feature scripted and rehearsed worship services. Most people sit through their Sunday morning sermons, complete with singing, an offering, and a sermon, with an assumption that this is more or less how things happened in the early church. Is it possible this assumption is wrong?
To continue with this article, visit Suite101 Protestantism by clicking on the following link…
“What Does the Bible Say About Worship Services?: Examining the Myth of the Organic Church”
