Truth-Based Living
with Brian Tubbs
Demystifying the Trinity: Does the Trinity Represent a Contradiction in Christianity?
0151 days
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
1151 days
Jennifer 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?
0152 days
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
1154 days
Recent 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
4155 days
Christopher 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!
1156 days
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.
The Purpose of the Church
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?
2157 days
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?
0159 days
What 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”
What is the Biblical Purpose of the Church?
1161 days
When you think of the “church,” many people have different reactions, opinions, and expectations. Nowhere is this more evident than in the church itself. Some people believe the church should be a service or charity organization, taking care of those with physical or mental health needs. Others believe the church should be an engine for social or political action. Others believe it should be a social club for like-minded believers or a “safe harbor” for those who wish to protect their families from harmful cultural influences. What does the Bible say about the role and purpose of the church?
What is the Church?
The word “church” is used in the Scriptures in two ways. In one way, we see it used to describe the universal body of Christ, as in all those who have trusted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Even though the church is universal in scope, the second use of the word shows us how it is to function. The church is locally organized, and that is the second use of the word. In fact, that’s the most common use of the word in the New Testament. 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. For our purposes, we will be talking about the local church.
What is the Purpose of the Church?
In The Purpose-Driven Church, Rick Warren explains how “multiple driving forces” often compete for attention in churches today, resulting in “conflict” and all too often churches that try to “head in several different directions at the same time.”
Most organizations that function effectively have mission and/or purpose statements. These statements clarify why the organizations exist and they help their leaders and members set goals and establish priorities accordingly. Likewise, Jesus Christ gave His church (and, let’s be clear, it is His church!) a Mission Statement. We know it as the Great Commission. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus, based on His authority, 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)
While the church can do other things (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick, lobby on social issues, etc., etc., etc.), its primary mission 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 church is to accomplish these things. 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 “apostles’ doctrine” represents the teachings of Jesus, as given by Him personally and directly as well as by His appointed disciples, the apostles. Fellowship refers to Christians in the church encouraging one another, supporting one another, and holding each other accountable. The “breaking of bread” is a reference to the Lord’s Supper or Communion. And “prayers” is obvious.
Yet all these things listed in Acts 2:42 were in the context of movement. They were in the context of God’s people carrying out an important mission entrusted to them by Jesus Christ Himself. In Transformational Church, Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer write: “The church was designed by God to be on the move in the world, not sitting in the corner of the neighborhood waiting for the needy to show up on its doorstep.”
Scoring the Church
No matter how hard it tries, a church simply can’t do everything. It can’t please everyone in its own fellowship, let alone everyone in the community. It can’t meet every need or address every want. It can do some things, but not all things. The smaller the church, the truer this is. With that in mind, the church must focus its resources and energies around its mission. It must focus itself on the Great Commission.
In professional sports, the way you can tell whether a team is successful or not is by looking at their record. For each game, it’s the scorecard. For the season, it’s their win-loss record. With the church, the New Testament gives us the scorecard. Stetzer and Rainer explain: “The ultimate measure of a church is to see people following Christ and living on mission.”
We are to track the number of people we are reaching for Christ, those who have accepted Christ, those who are baptized, and those we are teaching and training to be disciples of Jesus Christ. That’s how we know whether a church is being successful or not.
Money and the Bible: What God Really Says About Earning a Living and the Love of Money
1163 days
Millions of Christians over the years have been misled by religious and church teachings about money. I believe that these false teachings have driven many conscientious, well-meaning people of faith into anxiety, depression, debt, and/or poverty. In some cases, these falsehoods have been promulgated by opportunistic, money-hungry cultists or manipulative ministry leaders. In other cases, the false teachings have come from tragic misunderstandings of what the Bible actually says on the subject of money. And the more I consider this issue, the more convinced I am that the latter category is actually the most prevalent. For with the latter, many Christians have been led to believe that a desire for more money as well as any effort they put into the earning of additional income is inherently idolatrous and sinful. As a result, many people of faith have sabotaged their own efforts to provide for themselves and their families. It’s time to set the record straight.
“No Man Can Serve Two Masters”
When someone or something is your “Master,” it has your devotion along with a definite hold on your life. In the first century Roman world, a master had almost full control over his servants. The servant’s business was the master’s business. The servant could do nothing without the master’s permission, and declaring allegiance to a second master was naturally out of the question. This is the context within which Jesus was teaching. Everyone in his audience knew what he meant when he used the term “master.”
In the fall of 1988, long before I felt God leading me into the ministry, I took a semester off from George Mason University to intern with a congressional campaign in Mississippi. During my time there, I met a gentleman I’ll call “Jeff,” who served on the campaign’s leadership team. Jeff talked money so much, that on one occasion, this naive 19-year old intern blurted out: “There are things more important than money.” After the laughter in the room died down, Jeff looked at me, smiled, and asked: “What else is there?”
Clearly, Jeff would’ve fallen into the category of individuals that Jesus describes in Matthew 6 as having made money their “Master.” Jesus correctly points out that a person can only serve a single Master. One Master will achieve primacy in that person’s heart. Any attempt to serve both will inevitably lead to resentment toward one or the other.
When an individual positions himself or herself at the head of a ministry and uses that position for personal enrichment and gain at the expense of God’s people and/or God’s work, then that person has made Money his Master. We’ve all seen and read numerous examples of ministry leaders succumbing to greed and excess. It’s tragic. And when it happens at the expense of God’s work or people, it’s reprehensible.
Nevertheless, I believe there’s a more subtle and more dangerous teaching regarding money in the “mainstream” Christian community. As a result of this false teaching, honest Christians have been made to feel guilty for wanting extra money or striving to earn additional income. Jesus never said it was wrong for people to earn extra money. He said it was wrong for them to make money their “Master.” The desire for additional money is not necessarily making money your “Master.”
“Go to the ant, Sluggard!”
According to the Bible, a person who needs additional money to live should take inspiration from the ant! In the book of Proverbs, we read: “Go to the ant, sluggard; consider her ways and be wise; who having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provides her food in the summer and gathers her food in the harvest.” (Proverbs 6:6-8)
While I don’t necessarily intend to make a political statement here, ants don’t complain about how unfair or tough it is to make a living. You won’t find ants lobbying for minimum wage laws or holding “Occupy Roadkill” protests. Again, I’m not trying to be political. I’m not suggesting that all protests are bad or that it’s necessarily wrong to (at least on some occasions) address grievances, but sometimes, we invest too much of our most precious resource – time – into complaining, when we’re supposed to be working and producing!
Yet many Christians (in part due to terrible teaching from churches and ministry leaders) sabotage their efforts, because they feel guilty about wanting additional money. Do you realize that, in the ancient world, God’s people often worked sunup to sundown to put food on their tables? Hard work was not only a part of their everyday life. It was something God affirmed. You should work hard to provide for yourself and for your family. And, if the regular full-time job isn’t providing enough for your needs, then you should take a second job or start a part-time, home-based business. That’s taking an ancient biblical principle and applying it to the 21st century!
If you’ll allow for an aside, this principle applies to evangelists, pastors, and ministry leaders specifically as well as Christians in general. (See “Extra Money for Pastors?”) I know several pastors who don’t make enough money from their churches to meet all their needs. Well, to be blunt, Pastor, if your church isn’t providing adequately for your needs, then you need to take a lesson from the Apostle Paul. When the Apostle Paul needed income above and beyond what the churches he was planting were able or willing to provide, he made tents. And let’s be clear. Paul was not working as a part-time employee at Corinth Tents, Inc. He was undoubtedly a small business owner, an entrepreneur. Was Paul making money his “Master” when he set up his own tent-making business? When a pastor today chooses to mow lawns, work a part-time job, start a home-based business, write books, and/or give outside speeches or talks to supplement his income, is he making money his “Master”?
An evangelist recently came to our church to do a revival and asked to sell some of his books in the foyer. I had no problem with this, but asked if other churches had a problem. He said that a few did, and would be happy to remove the books if it were a problem. I told him I thought it was a shame that some professing Christians, including pastors, have a problem with him making money from his writings. He acknowledged that it was difficult as writing and speaking is how he makes a living. Some churches and some Christians have gotten downright ridiculous about this!
This isn’t just about pastors and evangelists, of course. It applies to any Christian. Let’s take someone who chooses to set up a home-based business to add additional income to her household. When she does this, is she making money her “Master”? If so, why is the woman in Proverbs 31 praised as “virtuous,” for that is precisely what she did? All Christians need to embrace this truth: There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with wanting to earn additional money or working toward the earning of additional money. Nothing.
“The Love of Money is the root of all evil…”
At this point, many Christians say: “Wait a minute! The Bible says money is the root of all evil!” Nope. It never says that. The Apostle Paul wrote of the “love of money,” not money in and of itself. According to the classic King James Version, Paul wrote: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (I Timothy 6:10)
Many scholars involved in translation work argue that the classic KJV is incorrect when it renders Paul’s words as “the root of all evil.” They say it should be “at the root of all kinds of evil,” which is what most of the other English translations say. Smarter people than me have debated this, but I tend to agree with the classic KJV. I don’t think there’s any need to reword or redefine what Paul said. The reason why is because most people don’t quote the whole verse. Here it is again (in the classic KJV): “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Note that Paul ties the “love of money” in with covetousness, which brings to mind the Tenth Commandment, which in the classic KJV reads: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his [donkey], nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” (Forgive me for not using the original three-letter KJV word for “donkey” ).
Today, we think of money as currency – either paper currency or coinage. In the ancient world, “money” took on many forms, including the exchange of goods and services. In Old Testament times, for example, the Levites were not paid a check by the other tribes. They lived off the sacrifices of the people from the other tribes. That meant crops and livestock. Even as recent as colonial times in America, ministers were sometimes paid by the congregation in crops. Also in the ancient world and even into the medieval world, people labored for masters in exchange for food, shelter, and protection, not necessarily currency. You need to put yourself in the mindset of a first century Christian reading Paul’s letter to Timothy. Money had a much broader meaning. It referred to whatever you earned to make a living.
With that in mind, Paul is talking about gain, not necessarily currency. He’s talking about the means by which people accumulate things and services in general. And when people’s desire for more things and services turns into love, it plants seeds in their heart — seeds that can form a root system for greed and covetousness. And that is most certainly at the root of all evil.
Greed = Bad, Making a Living = Good
Biblical teaching on the subject of money can be expressed in the above formula. It’s wrong to desire additional money so that you can accumulate more things and serve your own lusts. But it is not wrong to recognize that you need additional revenue to meet your needs and/or the needs of your loved ones AND to then take the steps you need to take to earn that additional money.
How do you know when you cross the line? There are two tests. First, would you be willing to give up all that you have to follow God’s call on your life? Think about that question. If God asked you to walk away from a high-paying job and all the comforts you enjoy in your lifestyle and head to a foreign field as a missionary, would you do it? If God asked you to take a huge chunk of money you’ve accumulated in your savings account and donate it to a ministry or a family in need? Would you do it? Are you willing to give up what you’ve gained? If you’re not, then money is more important to you than God. Money is your master.
Second, are you tithing? The tithe is, in fact, God’s simplest test. Are you giving Him at least a tenth (that’s where we get the word “tithe” from) from the “first fruits” of your labor? See Genesis 14:20, Leviticus 27:30-32, Nehemiah 10:37-38, Proverbs 3:9, Malachi 3:8-10, I Corinthians 16:1-2, and II Corinthians 9:7. If you’re not obeying God with what you have, then you’ve told God He can’t trust with you more. You need to obey God in your tithes and offerings, if you want Him to bless your efforts to earn more for your family.
Assuming that you pass the above two tests, then there’s nothing wrong with your seeking out ways to earn additional money for your family. I believe that Christians should be the very best they can be in their jobs and businesses. If you work at a restaurant, you should be the most reliable, most conscientious, and most trustworthy employee there. If you’re in law enforcement, you should be the most trustworthy and diligent public servant in your agency, department, or police force. If you’re a sales professional, then you should be among the top producers for your company, assuming that you can do so with integrity, of course. I could go on. Christians should be the best, because we’re working not for ourselves, but ultimately we’re working for God.
And if, right now, you are in a situation where your needs are not being met or your income goals (retirement, savings, paying down debt, etc.) are not being reached, then you have the liberty from Christ to take action to improve your financial situation. Just make sure that you keep God as your Master, with money being but a tool. And never let the tool become your idol.
For more articles related to this subject, check out…
