When good motives go bad: Further thinking about the pulpit and other churchy type stuff
Recently, my good friend Lew wrote an interesting post called “Words Not Found in Scripture – Pulpit.” (By the way, this post is part of a series in which he traces words/concepts that are not found in Scripture. If you haven’t read it yet, then you should.)
Lew begins his post like this:
What is said and done behind a pulpit is serious business to the average churcher. Sometimes you might hear someone say, “Can you believe what he said behind the pulpit?†Another may believe that the pulpit is a ministry that is “absolutely essential to the vitality and health of the church as a whole. †Some even believe that a pulpit shows our dependence on God and his Scriptures. I could go on and on about what people see the pulpit as; or believe what the pulpit means.
Lew then points out that the term “pulpit” is not found in the New Testament at all. Because of Lew’s post, I started thinking about things that are started for good reasons, but end up harming the church… or, if not harming, at least hindering the church’s maturity.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Are you saying that ‘the pulpit’ may harm the church or hinder the church’s maturity?” Well, yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Let me explain.
Now the pulpit is ancient. It originally referred to a stage for actors, then eventually began to refer to a podium used by speakers. In the Reformation, the pulpit took on a different significance… not a different purpose, but a different significance. Pulpits and podiums had been standard furniture in church buildings for centuries, and people stood behind those podiums to read from Scripture and to present sermons. But, the Reformers decided to de-emphasize the Eucharist and emphasize the Scriptures. Thus, they began to put more and more significance on “the pulpit” and less and less significance on “the altar.”
Good motives, right? I mean, it’s good for people to think about the importance of Scripture. But, something began to happen.
People began to lose sight of the fact that “the pulpit” was meant to point to the Scriptures, and began to see “the pulpit” as something that almost stands on its own. Christians began to argue about what kind of language could be used “in the pulpit” (and they still argue this point), completely missing the fact that the passages of Scripture used to argue against coarse language “in pulpit” actually said nothing about “the pulpit.”
Similarly, others began to find authority “in the pulpit” such that only certain people were allowed to speak from “behind the pulpit.” Once again, the passages of Scripture used to defend this line of thinking did not mention a pulpit or any type of furniture. “The pulpit” became so important for some that the thought (and God-forbid the practice) of removing the pulpit meant a slide toward atheism.
Soon, “the pulpit” began to replace the Scriptures instead of pointing to the Scriptures. (Obviously, this didn’t happen for all believers.) Even the fact that pulpits seem to be irreplaceable and necessary to our understanding of the church shows just how far this line of thinking has progressed. “The pulpit” no longer points to the Scriptures, but has replaced the Scriptures.
When the reformers began to focus attention on “the pulpit,” they had good motives, but I think the outcome has actually worked to harm the church by hindering the church’s growth and discipleship.
The same thing could be said of church buildings, pews (or chairs) in rows, choirs, baptistries, etc. As with the pulpit (the piece of furniture), none of these things are evil in and of themselves. However, without recognizing it, things that we use for good reasons can actually work against the edification of the church.
So, should we stop using podiums? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop sitting in pews or chairs lined up in rows? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop using baptistries? Maybe, maybe not.
How do people view these things? Are they distracting the church? Are they causing believers to misunderstand who they are in Christ and their responsibilities in Christ? Are we willing to take a close look at the things that we consider to be indispensable? Are we willing to change if we find these things are actually hampering the church in their life together?
Manage his own household?
I’ve read several books and blog posts that mention 1 Timothy 3:5 as an indicator that elders/overseers are to “manage” the church – with “manage” meaning “be in charge of” or “direct the affairs of”. First, let’s look at that verse in context:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:7 ESV)
According to the ESV, if someone cannot “manage his own household”, then that person will not be able to “care for God’s church”. Let’s begin with the last part of that phrase: “care for God’s church”.
“Care for” is a translation of the Greek verb á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai). In the New Testament, the word always means something like “care for a person or thing”. It is used twice in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan:
He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care [á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai)] of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care [á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai)] of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ (Luke 10:34-35 ESV)
It is pretty clear what á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai) means in the context of 1 Timothy 3:5. If X happens (the first phrase that we’ll examine next), then the same person will not take care of the needs of God’s people.
But, what about that first phrase? What does it mean for someone to “manage his or her own household”? The verb translated “manage” is Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi). This verb has three different meanings: 1) to be at the head of, rule, 2) be concerned about, care for, give aid, and 3) busy oneself with, be engaged in.
The question is, which definition should be used in 1 Timothy 3:5? The ESV, and most English translations, opt for definition #1. Thus, Paul would be saying that a person who cannot rule his household will not know how to take care of people.
However, in context, it seems that definition #2 fits better. A person who does not know how to care for his or her own family will not know how to care for the people of God. Both verbs then – Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi) and á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai) – would be translated as “take care of”, meaning that Paul is using them synonymously.
Of course, we don’t have the option of changing the meaning of á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai). It does not carry that meaning. Thus, there is no option for Paul talking about “ruling the church of God”. However, this is how this passage is often understood because of the translation of the first verb Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi).
However, if we take these two verbs together, it seems that Paul is not talking about ruling/managing a household or ruling/managing the church. Instead, he’s talking about taking care of people.
If you don’t read anything else about leadership among the church, read this!
Lionel at “A Better Covenant” has written an excellent post called “Elder’s Responsibility: Heart Intimacy.” If you don’t read anything else about leadership among the church, read Lionel’s post. He concludes that the main responsibility for elders is something he calls “heart intimacy”:
So what are elder’s roles? Plain and simple “heart intimacyâ€. They are to cultivate intimacy within the body by living an intimate life (hospitality) and a morally upright life (the qualifications) and then teaching others by both word and deed (a qualfication of him being able to teach). They are to be examples of: Mutual Understanding, Deeping Committment and Personal Sharingâ€.
Elders (Pastors) are to go before the church in developing the family atmosphere, cultivating love, stimulating mutual edification and finally producing an atmosphere of openness, in order that people begin to love one another from the heart and be conformed to Christ’s image! These are roles of elders, but too often they are stuck in “business meetings†or meeting with architects, or they are the body’s local business man and his biblical roles and functions become a distant second in his overall responsibilities.
I think Lionel is correct! Elders, as mature believers and examples to others, are to lead by loving, serving, and caring. If these are not first, then all the teaching, preaching, administration, planning, etc. will be worthless. Without “heart intimacy” the elders may create a great organization, but it will look very little like the church of Jesus Christ.
Of course, this is the main problem. Many churches have already created an atmosphere where elders are not allowed to develop discipling relationships with other people, because they are kept too busy doing other stuff. Of course, some elders (pastors) think the other stuff is their primary responsibility. They never get around to the “heart intimacy” (and some are taught to stay away from it) because of all the other stuff.
And all the other stuff is just other stuff.
Ordination
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël and Cindy” has started publishing a paper that he wrote on the topic of ordination. His introduction is in his post called “Ordination – Intro.” I’ve read his paper, and I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it garnered some great discussion when he presented it in a PhD seminar.
I wonder… what do you think about ordination?
Moving away from ‘the sermon’
My friend Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” is in a bit of a dilemma. He talks about it briefly in a post called “50 Reasons for Discussion.” As a pastor of a traditional baptist church, Eric is in charge of a preaching sermons… probably two or three per week. Recently, on a Wednesday evening, he led the church in discussing a book. This is what he said:
The point was that we discussed it as a group. As we talked, there was a spirit of community, togetherness, and mutual edification. I know I gained a lot from it and I think everyone else did as well.
As I think about this, I have to say that I’m beginning to seriously doubt the effectiveness of what is known as “the sermon.” One-way communication is just not that effective. Might there be a way to take the existing sermon and transform it into more of a group discussion? I’m pondering this.
First, I think that Eric has noticed the same thing that I’ve noticed. “The sermon” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Notice, I didn’t say “teaching” or “Scripture”, I said “the sermon.” There’s a HUGE difference.
Second, the church benefits when they hear from one another, not just one person – regardless of how trained or talented or gifted that one person may be – and Eric is a talented teacher.
So… I thought I would ask my readers on Eric’s behalf. Do you have any suggestions for moving a group from relying on a monologue sermon from the same person week in and week out toward mutual teaching that would include discussion?
1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure
New Testament Introduction is primarily that information concerning the New Testament that deals with authorship, date of authorship, recipients, etc. But, while this information may not be primarily about interpretation, the decisions made always impact our interpretation. For example, consider a post that I wrote 2 1/2 years ago called “1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure.”
————————————————————
1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure
I have recently finished a study of the “Pastoral Epistles”. I prefer to call them “Paul’s Personal Letters”, since Paul does not indicate that these are addressed to “pastors”. As I studied 1 Timothy and Titus especially, I noticed that most commentators date these two epistles late in Paul’s life (or after Paul’s life, if they do not hold to Pauline authorship). But, I’m not sure that this is a valid date.
In his commentary The Pastoral Epistles, I.H. Marshall offers four theories for the authorship and dating of 1 Timothy and Titus [66-74].
1. The theory of a second imprisonment. According to this theory, Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus sometime after the events in the Book of Acts, after being released from his first imprisonment, after another missionary trip through Macedonia, and before a second imprisonment in which he was eventually executed.
2. A setting earlier in Paul’s career. According to this theory, Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus sometimes during the events recorded in the book of Acts, after his extended stay in Ephesus (or an unrecorded visit to Crete in the case of Titus), and before his imprisonment in Rome.
3. Theories based on fragmentary hypotheses. According to these various theories, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the other personal letters (besides Philemon) were created from various Pauline fragments, or, as Marshall explains, “[T]he PE (Pastoral Epistles) are artificial compositions incorporating fragments of actual Pauline letters.”
4. The fictitious character of the evidence. According to these various theories, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the other personal letters are pseudepigraphal – unnamed authors (not Paul) wrote the letters to unnamed recipients (not Timothy or Titus) and included fictional historical events to make them appear to be Pauline.
In this post, I only plan to discuss the first two theories. While there may be good reasons to hold to the last two theories, both theories assume that the letters themselves are a sham – either Paul did not write the letters, or he did not write them to the named recipients for the reasons stated in the letters themselves.
Almost every commentary that I’ve read supports theory number one (unless, of course, the commentator supported theory 3 or 4). I appreciate the way the Marshall approached this topic in his commentary. Consider his words here carefully:
Other attempts have been made to fit the PE into Paul’s missionary career as recorded in Acts. Lestapis 1976 argues that Tit and 1 Tim were written while Paul was at Philippi in AD 58 (Acts 20.30)… Van Bruggen 1981 in essence takes the same position. He argues that 1 Tim dates from Paul’s third missionary campaign before the events described in Acts 20… Much the same line was adopted by Reicke and Robinson… Like the theories of a second imprisonment, theories of this kind cannot be refuted by showing that the correlations do not work, since the record in Acts is sufficiently fragmentary to allow for all kinds of reconstructions. They show that the PE as they stand can be fitted into Paul’s lifetime. the great difficulty is rather that these three letters, which differ from the Hauptbriefe (i.e. Paul’s principal writings – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in linguistic and theological style but manifest a close unity among themselves, are interspersed with them over the same period of composition, and we are left wondering how and why the same writer could move so easily from one style to another. [71-72]
Because of the difference in style, and other considerations, Marshall believes that the second imprisonment theory offers “less difficulties” for the person who holds to Pauline authorship. However, the idea of an author writing to an individual in a different style with which he writes to a group does not leave me “wondering”. In fact, I would almost expect it, especially if the individual is a “dear son” as Paul describes Timothy.
But, why does this matter? That is the real question that we need to ask ourselves. Does it really matter when Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus? I think it does, and for a very practical reason.
Primarily, Timothy and Titus are unique for the amount of information included about “church order”, that is, elders, deacons, widows, etc. This is sometimes overstated, as Marshall explains, “Although questions of church ‘order’ are important in the PE, they are by no means central. Approximately one sixth of the letters is taken up with church order in the strict sense…” [52] It is a following phrase by Marshall and an assumption by most biblical scholars that prompts this blog post. Marshall says, “Clearly there has been some development in the organisation of the church from the period of Paul’s Hauptbriefe (i.e. Paul’s principal writings – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians)…”
The argument goes something like this. The church in Acts and in Paul’s earlier letters are still developing. They are not mature churches. We should not model ourselves after the churches in Acts, Romans, and Corinthians because those were early churches, and the structure of the church was still developing. How do we know that the “structure” of the church was still developing? Because Paul spent more time explaining church government in his later letters. Which later letters? Specifically, the Pastoral Epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus. How do we know these are later letters? Because the styles is different and because the church is more organized. Thus, we have circular reasoning.
What if, on the other hand, 1 Timothy and Titus were actually written earlier in Paul’s career – about the same time that he wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians? This leads to a problem, because suddenly church structure and leadership takes on a completely different role. Similarly, the idea of the development of church structure and leadership falls away.
Honestly, I don’t plan to change anyone’s mind about the date that 1 Timothy and Titus were written. However, I do hope that you will think seriously about the idea of the “development” of church structures and leadership. Besides the possibility of 1 Timothy and Titus being written early, also remember that elders (Acts 14, 15), deacons (assuming Acts 6 is describing deacons), widows (Acts 6), and other leadership and structures are mentioned very early in the life of the church. This does not seem to be an idea that developed in the mind of Paul or other New Testament authors.
Thus, while Paul was writing his other letters, he was well aware of the role of elders, deacons, and other leadership in the church. However, for some reason, he never felt it necessary to instruct the leadership differently than other believers. He did not find it important to submit problems to the authority of church leadership. He did not turn sinning brothers and sisters over to church leadership. He did not tell church leadership to handle the meeting of the church. Instead, he constantly and consistently instructed all believers. In the entirety of the New Testament, there are very, very few passages that are directed specifically to church leaders (Acts 20; 1 Peter 5).
We’ve come a long way baby
Recently, I was talking with some brothers who are part of Messiah Baptist Church. If you didn’t know, I’m one of the elders (pastors, if you prefer) of this group of believers. We’ve been meeting together for several years now, and our meetings and our interactions today look much different than they did when we first started meeting together.
As we talked about this, I told the guys that it was exciting to see what had happened in the last few years. If someone had asked me then what I would want the church to “look like” today, I probably would have described some things that are happening now, and other things that are not happening now.
But, “back then”, I decided not to push my agenda, even if some wanted me to push – and as tempting as that was. Instead, I taught and modeled and served and let God do the work of changing people. I didn’t want this to be my church.
I told my brothers that I think God has done a better job of growing his church than I would have done growing my church.
Employment
“Employment” is a post (really an observation and a set of questions) that I published three years ago after a conversation at work. This short post triggered some good discussion. Hopefully, it will do the same this time.
———————————————————————
A few days ago, we were discussing employment at work (of all places). I asked some of my coworkers the following question: If this company stopped paying you, would you still come into the office and do what you do now? (This assumes that they are working.) No one would continue doing their job if they were not paid.
So, I asked the follow-up question: Would your pastor continue to do what he does if he were not paid?
So, I ask this to my readers… What are pastors responsible to do because they are believers and followers of Christ? What are they responsible to do because they are pastors – examples, teachers, and leaders to God’s flock? And, what are they responsible to do because they are employed by a church organization? Which of these responsibilities does God allow them to stop doing if the pay stops?
Considering Mutuality – Implications for ‘Non-Leaders’
So far in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“), and explored the scriptural connection between mutuality and maturity for believers (“Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?“). Finally, in my previous post in this series, I discussed some of the implications of living mutually interdependent lives for leaders among the church (“Considering Mutuality – Implications for leaders”).
There are many, many among the church who desire to live mutually interdependent relationships with other believers, and who recognize the importance of these relationships for the maturity of the church. However, these people are not considered “leaders” among the church. They are not elders, or deacons, or pastors, or teachers, or whatever other titles the church may use to recognize leaders. What do these people do? Is it hopeless? Must they “leave their church” in order to find and nurture these kinds of mutually interdependent relationships?
The simple answers are: No, it is not hopeless, and no, they do not have to “leave their church” in order to live mutually with one another.
However, they many need to become leaders. What?!?!? Am I saying that people will need to become elders or pastors for their church in order to seek and see these mutual relationships? No. That’s not what I said.
Instead, I said that they may need to become leaders… meaning, they may need to lead others in forming mutually interdependent relationships. They may need to become the examples that others will need in order to recognize the importance of mutuality.
I get calls and emails from believers all the time. I meet with people for lunch. And, eventually, a question like this comes up: “But, how do I begin to form and live in this kind of relationship with others when our church and church leaders don’t seem interested? Should I leave my church?”
I have never suggested that someone “leave their church” for this reason. Instead, I encourage people to begin forming and living in relationships with those people who are already in their lives. They may know these people through church organizations, work, neighborhoods, etc. Eat together. Serve together. Get together. Play games together. Go to movies together. Help one another.
Invite your church leaders to your house and spend time with them outside of the “formal programs” of the church. Relate to them as brother and sister. Ask them about their problems and concerns and hopes and struggles etc.
In other words, if you want live mutually with others, then you may need to “lead” in this type of relationship. Share your life with others and provide opportunities for others to share their lives with you. And… be PATIENT! People do not naturally think mutually. You may need to listen to others for months, years, decades before they start listening to you. You may need to care for others for a long time before they start caring for you.
But, that’s okay… even though it is very difficult. The goal of mutuality and maturity in Christ is worth the hard work… and it IS hard work. In fact, once there is a group of people living mutually with one another, the hard work remains.
But, mutuality and maturity are worth the hard work. And, remember, you are never working along. In fact, you are never working at all… you are simply allowing the Holy Spirit to work through you doing the work that he already wants to do.
Recent Converts as Elders?
My previous installment of “Scripture… As We Live It” was based on Acts 14:23:
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:23 ESV)
In this passage, Luke records that as Paul and Barnabas traveled back toward Antioch, they stopped in the cities that they had previously visited and “appointed” elders among the believers in each of those cities. More than likely, only a few months to a year had elapsed since Paul and Barnabas had first proclaimed the gospel in those cities.
As Lionel and Jeff pointed out in the comments of my other post, this seems to contradict what Paul later writes to Timothy:
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6 ESV)
So… is this a contradiction?