Calvin said, “among so many excellent gifts which God has adorned mankind, it is a peculiar privilege that He deigns to consecrate men’s lips and tongues to His service, that His voice may be heard in them.” It is the grace of God that He entrusts the proclamation of His word to men. He could have given this job to angels; He might have written it in mile high letters in the sky. But instead, He chose to reveal Himself in Scripture, and then allow men to make that revelation known through preaching. Therefore before a man steps into the pulpit, he must know, Who put him there, why He put him there and what He expects him to accomplish. God does not call men to preach so that they can pontificate on their own opinions, entertain people with amusing anecdotes or make a few helpful suggestions. They are there to proclaim the very words of Almighty God. Calvin said “the office of preaching is committed to pastors for no other purpose than that God alone may be heard there.” And that means our task is to love, understand and proclaim the Law of God. God is our King; and preaching is primarily proclaiming the King’s commandments to His people. Calvin said, “a rule is proscribed to all God’s servants that they bring not their own inventions, but simply deliver as from God hand to hand, what they have received from God.”

But if a preacher does not know the Law of God, if he does not understand how His precepts work out in his own life, and how they are to work in others,’ then he simple has nothing to say. Instead he fills up the time wandering around the theological landscape, blathering about nothing while the people of God starve for want of spiritual food. The Law is more desirable than gold and sweeter than honey (cf. Psa 19). But being wiser than God, too may preachers give His people pious platitudes, warmed over humanistic psychology or theological irrelevance. Hence one acid test of powerful preaching is whether or not the congregation understands WHAT God wants them to do as a result of this sermon and then is motivated to do something about it. If the congregation cannot answer that fundamental question after their pastor preaches, then he has failed them. If the pastor cannot answer that question before he preaches he has failed God.

Part of the problem of course is that there are many men in the pulpit who are clearly not called to be there. Oh, they may have all the required academic degrees, their theology impeccable and a properly constituted authority may have duly ordained them. But they are not called to preach. You can tell because they do not have “fire in the belly;” i.e., an overwhelming passion to proclaim the Word of God. A passion so powerful a man cannot just sit idly by but is compelled to preach the Word. Preaching for such men is not a chore, but rather life itself. The apostle Paul said, “I am constrained to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16). For Paul, preaching was not a ticket to an easy middle class job, it was not a way of attaining the respect and admiration of others. He had to preach. He could not keep himself from preaching. He had “fire in his belly.” If a man does not have this fire, then he is not called to preach. Calvin said, “God’s servants ought to speak from the inmost affections of their heart.” Powerful preaching is something that begins deep down inside us at the very root of our being.

Now granted, simply WANTING to preach is not exactly the same as being “CALLED” to preach. James is very clear on this, “let not many of you become teachers brethren knowing as such we will incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).” Some “preachers” ought to consider these words carefully and perhaps think about getting themselves an honest job, saving themselves and God’s people a lot of grief.

Powerful preaching gets down inside someone’s soul and transforms it through the power of the Word. It is God through His Holy Spirit Who takes His Word and rips out sinful hearts. It is God who through His Holy Spirit then uses that Word to replace that wicked heart with a new one. It is God, through His Holy Spirit Who then takes His Word and rebuilds a new life. Powerful preaching is not the same as the rabble-rousing manipulation of the street corner radical. Neither is it the crowd-pleasing machinations of the great orator. The apostle Paul was no great shakes as an orator. In fact, it certainly appears that his delivery lacked a few things (cf. 1 Cor 2:1ff). But his words changed lives. Hence a man called to preach is someone God uses to build character into His people. Powerful preaching convicts us deeply of our sins, makes us want to obey God, love our brother, enables us to grow in grace, wisdom and holiness. Powerful preaching is not intended primarily to entertain, or thrill, or excite but to change lives. Calvin said, “It is too common a fault that men desire to be taught in an ingenious and witty style.” But powerful preaching will grab the attention and demand that people listen because of the profundity of the subject matter, the clarity of the presentation, the application that it demands.

Powerful preaching also requires more than just proclaiming true doctrine (1 Cor 11:1) or giving an interesting theological treatise. Calvin says “the duty of a good teacher is rather to exhort to a holy life, than to occupy the minds of men with useless questions.” We ought to preach so that men might repent of their sins and confess Jesus as Lord. When the Apostle Peter preached at the first gospel message at Pentecost, He laid out the true doctrine of Christ by reminding them of the Old Testament prophecies and testifying to what they themselves had seen and heard. But he did not stop there, he also “kept on exhorting them saying, ‘be saved from this perverse generation’ (Acts 2:40).” His sermon demanded an application. Erudite philosophical sermons that engage the mind but do not demand a change are just so many empty words in the air. Yes, God’s people need truth, but they need truth applied!

Finally, powerful preaching is more than just jumping on the peoples’ cases. Calvin says, “Some ministers are always fulminating through a pretence of zeal, they show no sign of benevolence, hence they have no authority and all their admonitions are hateful.” The Scriptures give us a number of terms referring to how we should preach. We are to “admonish” the unruly, “encourage” the faint hearted, “strengthen” the weak (1 Thess 5:14). Thus powerful preaching will convict, but it will also encourage. We identify the problem but we also carefully explain the answer. Sometimes, people will be deeply wounded by the Holy Spirit through our preaching and our words are what He will use to comfort them in their distress. Sometimes they must be humbled before God and our words are used to bow their proud necks. But we never leave them in that state of humiliation, for we always bring back the grace of God in Jesus and our acceptance to Him through Him. We only bring them down, so that we can then exalt them with Christ. Calvin said, “Then only are reproofs beneficial when they are in a manner seasoned with honey.”

Conclusion
There is much more to say but since Andrew Sandlin’s new editorial policy limits the length of our columns these days (you would think he paid by the word!) we have to cut this short. Just let it be said that powerful preaching is not an option. God demands it, His people need it and we who are called to preach have a responsibility to provide it. Start with your own heart, wrestling daily with applying the Word of God to your own life (Josh 1:8) so that you know by experience what a sinful heard needs to hear. Love your people and know them so you can preach to the trials, tribulations and temptations they face. Cry out to the Holy Spirit to fill you (Acts 1:8), and use you for unless God gives you something, you simply have nothing to say. And then step into that pulpit, wanting to please God, present His Word clearly, and see His power unleashed.

It’s not my fault; really! I never wanted to be a pastor. Oh, I knew as soon as God regenerated my heart that being a Christian meant total commitment to Jesus as Lord. But I never thought that would require pastoring a church. When God brought me to faith in Christ, it was a total life and worldview transformation. Therefore I thought that “ministry” meant helping people change from what they were to what God wants them to be. Yet, when I looked at what churches and pastors did (or didn’t do), I failed to see how it related to the Lord’s work! The average church seemed more like a social club for the spiritually inclined. Pastors were the social directors, spending most of their time trying to create entertaining programs while playing politics and sipping tea with little old ladies. Their preaching was either a never ending series of gospel messages to the already “converted” or saccharine “sermonettes for Christianettes” i.e., painless collections of pious anecdotes with all the spiritual nourishment of a Diet Coke. OK, so maybe I had some bad experiences. Even so, I was not so much called to the ministry, as dragged in, kicking and screaming every step of the way.

As an alumnus of four different evangelical seminaries, and now having been in the ministry for 23 years, I am painfully aware that my “professional” training was woefully inadequate. Seminaries just do not do what they promise to do; prepare a man for the ministry. Think for a moment about the average seminary professor. He is usually bright and adept in academic subjects. But because of our morbid fascination with accreditation by secular authorities, he’s had to run the humanist gauntlet in graduate school and Lord knows what kind of nonsense he’s picked up along the way. Furthermore, since he’s spent up to 12 years in institutions of higher learning, he’s never had much of an opportunity to actually have a ministry in anyone’s life. He’s seldom led anyone to saving faith in Christ or discipled a person into a stable Christian life. How could he? He’s been too busy becoming proficient in ever more irrelevant areas of his academic specialty. Then, if he has the right degrees (preferably from prestigious secular universities) he becomes a seminary teacher. And what can he teach? Why those same arcane areas of his academic specialty!

What kind of graduates do such seminaries produce? If the prevailing state of the average church is any indication, sincere men who try their best but often don’t have a clue. I once counseled a young seminary graduate who thought God was calling him to the mission field. I first asked if he’d ever had a cross cultural ministry in our city, learning to communicate spiritual truths in someone else’s language. Well, no, he’d been way too busy trying to pass Greek and Hebrew to study a modern language, let alone learn to think in one. I then asked, how had God blessed his ministry of evangelism and discipleship with English speaking people? Well, he admitted, he’d never actually seen someone come to faith in Christ because he’d never had the opportunity to actually “do” much evangelism while in seminary (though he did get an B+ in Evangelism and Missions 101). You see, seminary cost quite a lot of money and he’d been working to keep his educational debt under $30,000. I then asked “How has God used you in witnessing to the people you work with?” At this point, the young man dropped his eyes and mumbled that he had never actually shared the gospel with anyone! Needless to say, though accepted by a foreign missions board, he returned from the field before his tour was up. He just couldn’t cut it. And neither can most of his fellow graduates.

The men I have the most sympathy for are the young, conscientious students who love the clarity and precision of the Reformed faith, have read deeply of the Puritans and great Presbyterians and painfully (and sometimes in spite of their formal education) managed to line up all their doctrinal ducks in the right order. But their seminary education never told them what to do with all their wonderful theology. They are like those “home improvement” men with an incredible collection of tools, but no idea how to fix a leaky faucet or hang a picture. I’ve listened to such brothers preach heartbreakingly, theologically precise sermons (praise God for sermons with no heresies!) but they just didn’t have a clue as to how it related to real life. How could they, they’ve never had a chance to live outside of the theological cloister! And the ones who trained them haven’t either!

Seminary graduates are thrust into the ministry, with an expensive education, and told to fish or flounder. Many just can’t take the heat and end up selling insurance. The ones with good interpersonal skills and no controversial opinions become managers of endless church programs. The skilled bureaucrats climb the denominational ladder (and end up designing the curriculum for future pastors!). The one’s with no firm convictions and a slick style join the church growth movement and create “seeker friendly” churches (and if successful, become the denomination’s superstars!). Of course there are notable exceptions, but sadly, it all too often seems that they are just that, exceptions.

It is obvious from the sociological irrelevance of modern evangelicalism that the contemporary church has lost its salt and dimmed its light. There are thousands of pastors who are sincerely doing their best, but are handicapped by their lack of training. What is a Biblical pastor actually supposed to do? While not intended to be exhaustive, I’d like to share some of what God has pounded into my head over the last 15 years. Believe me, I do not claim to have all (or even many of) the answers, but at least I can share my mistakes.

First and foremost the most fundamental quality of a pastor is something that no academic institution can teach: mature Christian character (cf. 1 Tim 3:1ff). A pastor first, last and always must be a man of God, a man submitted to the Lordship of Christ, a man who loves God’s law and is personally committed to making it work in his own life. If it doesn’t work in his life, he’s not going to work it into anyone else’s. But no seminary I attended ever asked me about my own spiritual life. Oh, we knew that we were supposed to have “devotions”, but no one ever told us what they were supposed to be or how to actually go about doing them (well, one school did offer a course in eastern meditation, but I didn’t take it!). I learned, painfully, that if I wanted to see God’s power in my ministry, it began by getting on my knees, in humble submission to God, with the Scriptures open. God’s law, His principles, statutes and commandments had to be worked into my own life before I ever had a hope of making it work for others.

Secondly, our cultural concept “ministry” needs to be replaced. The pastor’s job, according to Ephesians 2:11-12 is to train and equip the saints for their work of service. Thus the pastor is not the “man with the ministry” but the man with the ministry of training others for ministry. Ministry must be divorced from vocation. Every Christian has a ministry, i.e., a gifted calling that every individual saint is given by God to exercise dominion in the areas God has entrusted to them (cf. Gen 1:28, 1 Cor 12:4-7). The ministry of every Christian is to build up the body of Christ by bringing a fully orbed Biblical world view to bear on family, friends, work, time, wealth, recreation, etc. The ministry of the pastor is to preach, teach, encourage, exhort, admonish and discipline his people in developing this orientation (2 Tim 4:1-5). Yes, the pastor has some special ministries, such as preaching and administering the sacraments. But even these are given to strengthen God’s people for their work of service. Thus rather than trying to make the church the center of the Christian life, the pastor needs to break down the walls and help his people take the power of the resurrected Christ out to where they live. No program can do this. No spiritual social club can accomplish this. No twenty minute sermon once a week will change people’s hearts. And no church can possibly afford the number of highly trained experts to personally oversee people’s lives to see that it is done. We don’t have to. God has already provided the perfect mechanism for accomplishing just this task. It’s called the family.

The Directory for Family worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1647 (republished by Greenville Seminary Press, SC), mandates that heads of households are responsible for daily, family worship. It was a disciplinable offense if a father failed in this duty. The family is the training ground for dominion. As Rushdoony has said, the home is a child’s first church, school and government. It is the responsibility of the parents, not the church, to teach their children how to internalize the word of God. The law of God is to be the center of the home (cf. Deut 6:4ff), and fathers are to train their children in applying that law in daily, practical ways (e.g., Josh 1:8). Yet an article I recently read had the pastor catechizing the children once a week in his office. But this is the father’s job! Wouldn’t the pastor, the children, and the entire church be better off if he focused his time and energy training the fathers to do what God has clearly called them to do?

A pastor must be careful not to destroy the integrity of the family. This same article had the minister visiting people in their homes three afternoons a week. I’m not sure what kind of church the author pastors, but the only people home in the afternoon in my church are young housewives. Now what is a pastor doing visiting young women when their husbands are at work? Not only does this give an appearance of evil, but it undercuts the husband’s spiritual authority. If the wife has a problem or question, Scripture requires her first to go to her husband (1 Cor 14:35). The husband, as the covenant head of the household has the primary responsibility to teach and encourage his wife. Granted, there may be issues a husband is not yet able to address (or he may be deficient in his duties). But then the wife should ask to see the pastor, with her husband present.

The pastor can nurture the men in his church by spending time with them (Hebs 10:24-25). An old adage says that values are caught, not taught. People have to see how the principles actually work out in your own life if you ever want them to apply them in their own. This means spending time together, and not just in church or Bible studies. Some of the best times of spiritual growth for the men in my church come when we get together to help a family move, grab a bite at lunch, punch holes in paper targets at the range, etc. It is at these times that the men loosen up and share what’s really on their hearts. And it gives me the opportunity to bring God’s law to bear on the specific situations facing their lives.

In line with this, the pastor needs to open his home and let the other families see how his works (or doesn’t) (cf. 1 Tim 3: 6, Hebs 13:2). Sadly, new members often tell me that in previous churches, they had never even seen the inside of their pastor’s home! I can understand that. When people come to your home, they see you as you really are. Every mistake, every flaw, every failing is clearly visible, from how you handle the fussy child, to how you treat your wife, to the pile of messy books stacked on top of the toilet tank. Some pastors cannot stand to be thought of anything less than perfect and fear that having people in their home might lessen their respect and authority. But God’s people need to know whether what he says on Sunday really affects the way he lives on Monday. Of course, this requires the pastor’s wife to be a gracious, godly woman with a spirit of hospitality. I have such a wife, but sadly many do not.

But what about that bulwark of the average church, the women’s ministry? We do not neglect our women. We have women’s studies, led by older women. They focus on teaching younger women how to be godly wives and mothers (cf. Titus 2:3-5). Our single women without Christian families are usually “adopted” by an older family with the wife discipling and encouraging them. But the men are the primary focus of our formal ministry. The men are taught to be men; men of God, and then required to exercise loving, gentle headship in their homes.

Once families understand headship and hospitality, the pastor can then help form small groups that share a common calling (cf. Rms 12:6ff). Since every household is responsible for exercising dominion in the area God calls them to, households with a similar vision can use the principle of the division of labor to more effectively carry out that calling. For example, at our church, some families are committed to the pro-life movement; they gather facts, picket clinics, and encourage the rest us in our prophetic witness against this monstrous evil. Others have a heart for foreign missions. Still others have a burden for evangelism. Several couples are legislative watchdogs. We don’t try to get everyone singing the same note, just trust in the sovereignty of God to make harmony out of the notes he gives each one to sing. And since it is the household that has the ministry, everyone’s involved. When someone comes to our session and says, “Hey guys, I think we should be doing this…” the session usually responds by saying, “Great idea, how can we help you to get such a ministry going!” A Biblical church has a plurality in leadership. Rather than one full time elder (and a couple of part time kibitzers) it can have as many leaders as there are godly heads of households. And yes, I am unapologetic in saying that apart from some specialized ministries to women, these leaders in our church are men.

There are other principles of course; this is an article, not a book. But maybe these few are enough to whet our appetite for a different kind of Christianity, and a different kind of pastor. The benefit of formal training for the ministry is that young men get to learn from the mistakes of others so that they don’t have to repeat the same errors over and over again. But sadly, powerful, life transforming churches are rare. And young pastors are often forced to reinvent the wheel because no one ever told them any better. We will continue our slide into apostasy and judgment until God grants His church repentance and revival. But God’s people cannot hear, unless God’s messengers tell them. And the pastors cannot tell what they have not been told.

It’s time for Christians to start exploring creative new ways to train pastors because the present system just doesn’t work. All the academic information a pastor ever needs could be fit on one CD-ROM for a minimal cost. Then, under the tutelage of a godly, older pastor, a young man could spend three years learning how to minister to God’s people rather than incurring debilitating debts that impoverishes his family. If older, wiser pastors would take younger men under their care, apprentice them in real ministry, the church could be reconstructed and God’s people led out of the wilderness.

Now I can already hear the PC crowd screaming for my head for saying this, but hey guys, someone, somewhere has to take a stand on this controversial issue and let the chips fall where they may; men and women are different. There, I said it. Furthermore, the differences go beyond plumbing fixtures but extend to the very center of their beings. Hollywood, that bastion of political correctness, understands and capitalizes on the difference, even while they decry it. They intentionally make “men’s” movies and “women’s” movies. Men’s movies are action flicks where every problem demands a clear-cut answer (usually involving explosions, automatic weapons and a large body count). Women’s movies focus on relationships. I did my husbandly duty this year and watched the new version of Jane Austin’s “Sense and Sensibility” with my wife. She loved it, was enthralled by the historical costumes, entranced by middle class 19th century morals and consumed by the plight of three sisters looking for love in all the wrong places (I may have the plot wrong here, I slept through most of it). However, Elaine certainly did not appreciate my comments that the movie could have been improved greatly with a few light-saber duels or maybe a car chase or two.

I am NOT an insensitive cad! Hey, I still got misty-eyed when Sergeant Striker takes a sniper bullet in “Sands of Iwo Jima” as they raise old glory in the back ground (not to mention the tightening in the throat as he wins the loyalty of his men by breaking that guy’s jaw during bayonet practice! Ah, what memories of boot camp that brings back, sniff!). The point is, if even Hollywood can capitalize on the fundamental differences between men and women, and create entirely different genres of films to suit them (not to mention spending 100 million dollars hiring Arnold to thwart the bad guys), maybe Christians need to take a hard look at what those differences mean in the Church.

Though the evidence is often suppressed, sociological and psychological studies done over the past fifty years, have repeatedly demonstrated differences in how men and women not only react to the world, but how they even perceive it. For example, men tend to think with either one hemisphere of the brain or another. Women tend to think cross laterally, using both hemispheres at the same time (thus resulting in what used to be called “women’s intuition” i.e., gestalt thinking). Men’s emotions are most significantly influenced by the hormone testosterone, which leads to certain kinds of reactions, both emotionally and physically. Women’s emotions are colored by estrogen (and women body-builders must ingest testosterone in the form of steroids to get those huge muscles. “See son, one day you can grow up big and strong, just like Mummy…”). Men and women think differently, act differently, and perceive the world differently because God has created them for distinct roles. Man is to exercise dominion, to fill the earth and subdue it. The woman is to assist in that role as a help meet. Both are important, for neither can fulfill their God given duties without the other.

In line with this, the first sin was a revolutionary act based upon both the man and woman failing to fulfill their distinct roles. Ironically, Adam’s attempt to usurp dominion by eating the forbidden fruit began with an abandonment of dominion within his own home. Rather than protect his wife from the serpent, or rebuke her for her actions, Adam instead allowed her to eat the fruit and then followed her example. Yet Eve was not blameless. When confronted by the serpent, Eve did not go to her covenant head and seek his wisdom, counsel or advice. She acted like a modern, independent, liberated woman, choosing for herself whether she would obey God. And not being satisfied with sinning herself, she then becomes the medium by which Adam sinned.

Eve’s desire for “liberation” is reflected in the curse. While the Hebrew may be problematical here, personally speaking, I think when God says, “your desire shall be for your husband, but he will rule over you…” He has made Eve’s independent spirit a part of the curse on women throughout time.

Hence from the very beginning, there has been a “war” between the sexes, with men tempted to abandon their covenant responsibilities, and women seeking to usurp them. With all other things, Christ redeemed the family and brings peace, yet there is still a critical need for reformation. By God’s grace, it is a crucial part of the church’s ministry to preach, teach, admonish and instruct the family. But sadly, those entrusted to reconstruct the family are often little better off then the people they are supposed to shepherd.

It has been noted so many times, that it is almost a cliché; the worst kids in the church are often the elders’. In the same way, the most acrimonious women, are the pastor’s wives. Yet one of the primary requirements for an elder in the church is that “he must be one who manages his own household well…” (1 Tim 3:5ff). The Church can function, only if it has godly men at the helm. And godliness starts within the home. However, being much wiser than the Apostle Paul, we have today substituted a seminary education for Biblical character qualities and ordained whole generations of “girlie-men” into the ministry; men who do not act like men, do not think like men, but instead have adopted an essentially feminine view of life and ministry with disastrous effects on the church. I will not say that girlie-men in the pulpit is the worse problem facing the church, but it certainly is a large one. A wimpy man in the pulpit means a weak faith in the church, and an emasculated witness in the world.

One of the first signs of God’s judgment on a culture is gender role confusion (Rms 1:26ff). Men no longer act like men. As they become self-conscious in their rebellion, the image of God within them becomes more twisted and distorted. Therefore, the more that a Church is accommodated to cultural norms, the less likely that the men in that church will be able to resist the pressure to conform to cultural norms (e.g., Rms 12:2). As a result, instead of men proclaiming the law and statutes of our God and King, we have spiritual eunuchs, playing silly word games while an entire civilization sinks into decay. Conservative churches rightly insist on having only men in the pulpit. But what good does it do the church if the men in the pulpit think, talk and act like women?

A feminized clergy means that the church does not function Biblically. A crucial part of man’s dominion duties is adjudication. A godly man is a problem solver, focusing his attention on the issues of hand. Women on the other hand, created for a relational role, often want to talk about problems. A common complaint from wives is that “he doesn’t talk to me” when in reality she means that he does not want to talk about problems, he wants to fix them. But she does not necessarily want a problem fixed; she probably already knows the solution anyway. She wants to relate, and that means talking, and talking and talking…. When the clergy is feminized, the men tend to treat problems in the church the way women do problems in the home, something to talk about (dare I say, “whine” about?) but not something to be fixed. As a result, problems tend to grow and fester, because no one will confront sin.

Secondly, feminized men can’t stand pressure. Instead of taking a stand for what is right and then doing what is right, a feminized pastor wants peace, peace at any price. A couple of nasty phone calls, a few complaints about his preaching and he folds like a busted flush. Over the years I have counseled more than a few young men desirous of entering the ministry. For me, the acid test of whether or not they are truly called by God is whether they can stand the heat that even the healthiest churches generate on a regular basis. The pastor rightly or wrongly, is often the focus of the most inane criticisms. A godly MAN can do what is right, regardless of what others may think or say. A feminized one is crushed by criticism, and drives himself crazy trying to placate everyone.

Thirdly, feminized pastors preach fluff. They preach fluff because modern Americans have been seduced by a sensual Arminianism that appeals to the emotions. Women tend to find Arminianism more emotionally attractive than the “cold” precision of classic Reformed orthodoxy. An so, since “girlie-men” pastors want to appeal to women, the most vocal and influential members of the church, they preach sermons with all the spiritual nourishment of a pixie sticks (remember that colored sugar candy in a straw?).

Some “men” however, manage to avoid the heat by preaching interesting but irrelevant sermons aimed at keeping people happy. Sadly many examples abound in Reformed circles where sound theology is still somewhat in demand. Pastors preach purely theoretical sermons focusing on obscure doctrinal issues, which while true, are never specifically applied. You see, it’s the application that’s dangerous; much, much safer to keep it theoretical. If you get practical, people might actually get challenged to do something. And if they don’t want to do that something, well then, the phone calls begin!

How do we solve the problem? It has to begin with husbands taking responsibility in the home. And they cannot and will not do that unless they have a full-orbed Biblical worldview. It is a man’s task to take dominion, and therefore, we need men who can think and act Biblically. But to be a leader you have to know where you are going, and what is necessary to get there. If you are not a man of the Word, then you will not be the man of your household.

Secondly, fathers need to train their sons for dominion. This requires at least spending time with sons and not leaving all childrearing to Mom. Children need to see a strong father, solving problems, taking responsibility, and leading the family. Dads need to conduct family worship, catechize the children, and work with them on projects. They need to get their gluteus maximi off the couch and get involved with their kids. If you are not a tiger at home, then you are just a paper tiger in the world.

Thirdly, what the kids see modeled in their parents, will tend to be reproduced into their own lives. Therefore Dad has got to learn how to love his wife, nurture her but most importantly LEAD her. If Mom runs the household, you’d better believe that children will see and follow the model. Little girls will grow up into big girls, believing that bossing the man is the normal, natural thing to do. And little boys will grow into permanent adolescents, thinking life is about irresponsibility and playing games rather than dominion, leadership and service.

Biblical Christianity is neither masculine nor feminine; it encompasses both. But within the Church, as in the family, God has called men and women to mutually affirming, though distinct roles. And those roles require men to be men; taking a stand, speaking the truth, solving problems and making a difference in the world for Christ. And if we want men in the Church, we have to have real men in the pulpit. Let the “girlie-men” go play with their platitudes, while the men sit down to some spiritual meat.

“Jesus stated that anyone who calls his brother a fool is guilty enough to be thrown into the fiery furnace (please forgive me if I am not getting the wording exactly straight). And yet, on occasion aren’t there some brothers out there that are…well fools-primarily because they don’t have a teachable spirit won’t receive correction and continue doing dumb things even though it just gets them into trouble? Am I misunderstanding this verse” Hey Frank!

How are the Cowboys looking for next season? Any chance enough of the team will make bail before kickoff?

Anyway great question; a lot of people really do not understand what Jesus was saying here and your question gives us a great opportunity to point out some often neglected aspects of interpretation and application of Scripture. First, the whole issue of the “fool” and “folly” has to be understood in the broader context of Scripture. Solomon in the book of Proverbs has much to say about “the fool” and clearly has no problem applying this appellation to an entire category of human beings. As you note above (and as we detail in our book “Proverbs on Wealth and Wisdom”), the “fool” is not a clown, but a rebel. He is a fool, just because he insists on living life according to his own rules and ignores God’s. As such his life is full of pain, frustration, poverty, and self-deception.

Clearly, if God, through Solomon gave us so much identifying information about the “fool” He intended us to be able to identify such people so that (1) we would not emulate them and (2) we would not associate with them. Thus we MUST be able to do more than just have a “theoretical” understanding of what constitutes being a fool, we must also be able to recognize such people when we meet them. After all, if we cannot say, “This person is a fool” how could we ever then decide not to become like them?

That being said, we then have the Lord Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:21-26. Again, as we have stated repeatedly, “context determines meaning.” If we want to understand what Jesus was saying here, we need to look at the overall context of His remarks. In this case, He had just finished affirming the abiding relevance and application of the Old Testament Law. Then in verse 21 He shows how the contemporary Jews were failing in their application of that Law by giving an illustration based on the sixth commandment. “Thou shalt not kill.”

Jesus said that being angry with your brother makes you guilty before the courts and that calling him “raca” (Aramaic for “fool”) makes him guilty enough to be convicted by the supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and calling him “fool” (in Greek-moros) is enough to make him guilty enough of eternal damnation.

There are several things possibly going on here some of which are a bit hard (at least for us) to understand. There seems to be an increasing penalty from simply being angry with one’s brother, to calling him a fool in Aramaic and finally calling him a fool in Greek. From the research we did in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia we do not find historic precedent for this type of judicial process. In other words, Jesus does not seem to be referring to actual judicial practices of his day; i.e., people were not arrested or convicted of calling each other “fools” in either Aramaic or Greek, let alone for simply being angry with each other.

Perhaps instead it ought to be understood that Jesus is making a statement about what the courts OUGHT to be doing, if in fact they were ruling properly according to God’s law. In other words, being unjustly angry with your brother is as sinful as murder; calling him a “fool” in the local vernacular is even worse, but announcing it in the universal language of the day is the ultimate. He certainly is trying to show that for all their external conformity to ritualistic religion, the Jews of His day were in flagrant violation of the Law of God; they could not console themselves that simply because they refrained from actual murder, they were innocent of violating the sixth commandment. Certainly, the Pharisees saw themselves as morally superior just because they avoided certain sins. Certainly, one of the prime purposes of this entire passage is to show that they were all guilty of sin. Thus the main point of Jesus’ comments here is to strip away the false piety that the Pharisees used to justify themselves.

But if Solomon called some people “fools” how does that square up with what Jesus said here? Well, we would suggest that in calling a particular person a “fool” one is making a moral judgment about their nature and character. Remember, the word “fool” is not really the equivalent of us saying today, “You idiot!” When we hurl that insult at someone, we are disparaging their intelligence; meaning that their words or actions are stupid, ill-informed, irrational, etc. While this is a serious insult, it does not carry the same connotations that the term “fool” had in Jesus time.

As mentioned earlier, the “fool” was a moral reprobate, in rebellion to God, devoured by his own appetites and therefore headed for temporal and eternal destruction just because he refused to accept admonition, correction or rebuke. Thus to call a man a “fool” in the Biblical sense is to call his salvation into question; more than that, you would be denying the very possibility of his salvation.

Clearly, there are people we all know who fit that category today; men who reject the law of God, spit on the gospel, living dissolute lives and are headed for destruction. To call such a man a “fool” would not necessarily be in conflict with what Jesus was saying here. After all, it is not inappropriate to call a man who lies habitually, a “liar.” However, if you are angry with your brother because you have some unresolved conflict with him, and in the heat of the moment scream out “you fool!” then you WOULD be violating what Jesus was addressing here.

The context is clearly about sinful anger and hurtful words. The term “fool” ought to be understood as one of the most destructive and painful accusations one can make against another because it implies that such a person is beyond redemption. But who are we to make that statement lightly, just because we are angry with someone? To do so is blasphemy because only God can make that kind of assessment. In His righteous wrath, He does bring His eternal (and temporal) judgments against wicked, foolish men who deny His righteous rule. But that is HIS right as the final judge, not ours. For us to issue such a declaration is implicitly to assume to ourselves the prerogatives of Divinity. Hence, someone committing such an offense is in fact blaspheming and therefore guilty enough of eternal damnation.

Let me see if I can illustrate this with a common example today; why is it that we rightly see the phrase “God damn it” as blasphemy? Most people do not really understand why it is wrong to say this; it is just something “good” Christians ought not to say. However in reality, the reason why “God damn it” is blasphemy is because we are calling down the eternal wrath of God just because WE are angry, impatient or frustrated! God’s damnation is real; it is eternal, and there are some things that really do deserve His condemnation. But it is usually blasphemy for us to say this just (at least 99.9% of the time) we are not thinking about God’s righteous standards or His eternal judgment, but rather that we are outraged at something; and hence we are taking His name in vain! We are judging by OUR standards, not God’s and invoking HIS name to do OUR will. That my friend is blasphemy and taking the Lord’s name in vain.

I think it is the same with calling our brother a “fool” in the heat of the moment; this is not just an insult but rather a moral judgment; a moral judgment we have no right to make.

For the sake of discussion, let’s compare and contrast calling a man a fool in the sense that Jesus meant to calling a man a “bastard” today; they are similar but not equivalent. The word “bastard” was once s a perfectly “good” English term which simply referred to a person whose parents were not married. Today, the word has very negative connotations; so negative we do not use that word anymore in polite company. If we want to make a statement about whether or not a person’s parents were married when he was born, we today substitute the word “illegitimate.”

But originally, that offensive term (just writing it makes me feel “uneasy” as I am sure it makes you feel reading it) was just the normal, English word that applied to certain people; it wasn’t a “bad” word any more than “illegitimate” is a “bad word” today. Granted, in previous ages when there was a moral consequence to fornication, to identify a person as a “bastard” was hurtful; just because it meant that such a person was outside of mainstream culture. Nobody likes to have their shortcomings pointed out; even when the “pointed” remark is true!

Over time, in popular usage, the original English word came to have a moral connotation as well as a technical definition; since a woman, who bore a child out of wedlock, was usually of poor moral character, her “illegitimate” child grew up in an immoral environment, without a father to teach and correct him. Thus by the time he was an adult, he usually lived an immoral, self-serving life. This is clearly what Hebrews 12:8 is talking about; “illegitimate children” (the actual Greek word here is the English equivalent of “bastards”) grow up without discipline and therefore tend to live godless lives.

Thus today, when some men call other men “bastards” they are not usually referring to a person’s parentage but rather to their character; i.e., implying that they are a self-serving, nasty person with no regard for others. The reason why this word is SO offensive is that it is asserting that the other person is of poor moral character. Seldom, if ever do people use this word to insult another’s parents. The meaning has changed.

But as offensive as the term “bastard” is today, it STILL does not have the same quality or intensity as the word “fool” had in the first century. A “fool” by definition was unsalvageable because he was uncorrectable. Not even the word “bastard” has that implication; i.e., even self-serving, egotistical, cruel persons with no regard for others MIGHT one day repent!

Thus the most offensive term we have today does not even begin to carry the depth of moral condemnation that the Biblical term “fool” does. Therefore, to hurl it against one’s brother, simply because one was angry, frustrated or irritated with him was not just blasphemous towards God but the most destructive thing one could say to one’s brother. To say such a horrible thing lightly, just because one is angry or upset shows complete disregard and contempt for another human being. This I think is what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 5:22.

Our word “fool” does not carry this same connotation. In fact, it has taken us three pages to even define the word and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that when we use the word today, most of us do not have the Biblical definition in mind at all. When we call someone a “fool” we usually mean that they are acting stupidly or irrationally. In medieval times, Kings used to have “fools” who entertained them; they were the stand-up comedians of their day. Today, we can “fool around” meaning just acting silly or having fun (and of course there is as seriously immoral aspect to “fooling around” as well).

Remember, translating from one language to another is never a simple task because there is not always “one for one” equivalence between a word in one language with a word in another. The word “fool” may be the best translation we have available of the Greek or Hebrew terms, but it is not and exact equivalence.

OK, now that we have done the background work, is it ever legitimate for a Christian to use the term “fool” in describing another? Yes, I think there is. Jesus called the Pharisees “fools” in Matthew 23:17-but as the incarnate God, He certainly has the right to pronounce judgment that we might not have. Yet clearly, there were some people He could legitimately call fools and expected His disciples to recognize the appropriateness of His description. The apostle Paul clearly calls idol worshippers “fools” in Romans 1:22, thus we have at least one divinely approved instance where the term can be rightly used. Paul also uses the term “fool” in 1 Corinthians 15:36 to refer to “Christians” who deny the bodily resurrection. And there are other examples in Scripture; sometimes using the Old Testament definition of “fool” and sometimes using the more contemporary Greek definition as a “block-head” or “stupid” (much as we would use the word today).

However, we do have in the New Testament at least three distinct incidents when some men are legitimately called fools; (1) Pharisees who denied the Messiah (2) Idol worshippers and (3) “Christians” who denied or ridiculed the bodily resurrection (most likely because they had adopted some form of Greek philosophy).

In each instance, a moral evaluation was being made; never was this simply an insult hurled in a fit of temper, but a sober evaluation of serious doctrinal error and the stubborn refusal of men to repent of that error. Thus, there may well be cases today when this same kind of thoughtful evaluation is perfectly appropriate.

For example, a man who teaches heresy, and refuses to repent, might be convicted of that heresy in a church court. Rather than repent and change his thinking, he insists on maintaining his error. This man is a “fool” and could be rightly called such, not as an insult, but as an assessment of his character.

Another example might be a professing, baptized “Christian” who stubbornly insists on live according to his own rules and ignores God’s law who then finds himself in trouble time and time again. Furthermore, he refuses to receive counsel, correction or rebuke, fulfilling all the requirements of the “fool” in Proverbs. Perhaps there is no church court to convict such a man of his “folly” (perhaps because he belongs to a church which does not even have church courts). Such a man might well be considered a “fool” after the steps of Matthew 18:15 are followed in so far as they can be. One might even say to such a person, “You are living like a fool” without violating our Lord’s instruction in Matthew 5. One certainly has the right to end all association with such a person (Titus 3:10).

Finally, one might well say, in general, “There are many professed Christians who are fools” and this could be an apt and accurate description. However, specifically applying this generality to a particular person risks the judgment Jesus warned about and therefore ought to be avoided. After all, we will be judged by the standard we judge others. If we declare that “So and so is a fool” we are likely to find that God will then judge us as we have judged our brother. We might have made here an accurate assessment of a person’s moral character, but the risks are very high. We cannot see the heart and ought to be very careful in any assessment we make about another; simple humility and charity ought to make us cautious in such things. Perhaps the best way to deal with that kind of person is to carefully bridle our tongues and learn how to say, “So and so is ACTING like a fool” (cf. James 3:2).

In conclusion, remember that the basic Scriptural principle regarding speech is that it is ALWAYS supposed to build others up, not tear them down (Eph 4:29) and that we will be judged for every word spoken. Hence, insults by definition are never appropriate for Christians because the whole point of an insult is to hurt, rather than heal. Christians are supposed to love one another and help one another become what God has called them to be. Thus we must not intentionally try to hurt one another with our speech.

Yet, having said that, simply because a word hurts, does not mean that it is sin. If our motivation is to call evil, what God calls evil, and to bring our brothers and sisters back from sin, it might be perfectly appropriate to identify their sin for what it is, even if it “hurts” them in doing so. This is a recurring problem today where Christians cannot seem to find a balance; they KNOW they are not supposed to intentionally hurt one another, but often err by refusing often to call sin, “sin” and therefore help bring a brother to repentance. Instead, they often refuse to confront, even in love, and their brother then continues in his error, storing up judgment for himself. This is not dissimilar to a parent who refuses to spank a disobedient child; they are so concerned about causing their children pain, that they do not correct destructive behavior. Their feelings have taken precedence over their duty to raise a child in the “fear and admonition of the Lord.” As a consequence, they will face judgment one day when their child grows up to be a dissolute, immoral, disrespectful “child of hell.”

Let us be blunt; a man who commits adultery and does not repent is an adulterer. A man who lies and does not repent is a liar. A man, who steals and does not repent, is a thief. None of these words carry the same amount of emotional connotation as some of the culturally offensive terms we discussed earlier. But all of these words correctly identify unrepentant sinful behavior and we can RIGHTLY use them, IF our purpose is to call such men to repentance. We are not being judgmental or hyper-critical or nasty IF we look to our own hearts and recognize our own sinful temptations (Gal 6:1), and then reach out in love to our brother to win him back from sin.

And therefore, if a man is resisting God, living contrary to His law, refuses to repent, will not hear correction then it might well be appropriate to label his actions “folly” and even go so far as to call him a “fool” just as long as we are trying to bring him to repentance, and not just hurling an hurtful insult. This is called, “speaking the truth in love” and something we all need to work on.

]]> http://christian-civilization.org/articles/the-acid-test-i-pity-da-fool/feed/ http://christian-civilization.org/articles/the-acid-test-binding-and-loosing/ http://christian-civilization.org/articles/the-acid-test-binding-and-loosing/#comments Thu, 15 May 2008 04:06:12 +0000 Rev Brian Abshire http://localhost/christian-civilization.org/?p=117 What about all that “binding and loosing” Jesus talks about in the Bible? Does He mean that Christians have the authority over the demonic?

There are two passages in particular that are most relevant to this question; Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. And as we say every week, the first step in interpretation is to understand the CONTEXT of a particular passage.

In Matthew 16:19, the context is Peter’s proclamation of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (vs. 16). When Peter makes this declaration, Jesus affirms that it is true, and that God Himself revealed it to Peter. Jesus then goes on to give Peter his nickname and then makes a “pun.” The word “Peter” is a transliteration of the Greek word “petros” which means “little stone.” Jesus then says that on this “petra” or large rock or “bed-rock” He will build His church.

Roman Catholicism turns to this passage to prove the authority of the Pope as having ultimate authority over the church; a conclusion with which we most heartily disagree. Peter was a “little stone” not the “bed-rock” of the church; there is a clear difference between the two terms.

Most Reformed scholars have understood the “bed-rock” on which Christ builds His church to be the confession of faith that Peter made, not Peter himself. The true church is established on no other foundation than the profession of faith, and faith alone in the Lord Jesus.

This then brings us to the “binding and loosing” passage. Jesus does not explain here what He means. He simply states that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His church, and that the church has the power of “binding and loosing.”

However, in the Matthew 18 passage I think we get a better picture of what Jesus is talking about. The context here is clearly church discipline. When a brother is in sin, we are to go to him privately and confront him. If the brother does not repent, then we are to take two witnesses and confront him again. And if he STILL will not repent, then the church is to cast him out, treating him as a “gentile” and “tax-gather.” In Jewish culture, one could not even eat with a “Gentile” since there were almost always ritually unclean. And of course, the tax man was no more popular in the first century than he is today!

Then, after that statement about what we call today “excommunication” (i.e., breaking off all communication or “communion” with a person) Jesus then again uses the same formula about binding and loosing. Thus clearly, the binding and loosing has something to do with the decisions made by the church here on here, being recognized and accepted in Heaven.

Therefore, the “binding” and “loosing” must refer to judicial acts of the church, when the church lawfully follows the instructions of our Lord. It is significant to note that in both passages, a legitimate alternative translation is “whatever is bound on earth has already been bound in heaven.” Do you see the difference? In this translation, it places the emphasis not so much on the authority of the church which implies that Heaven has to follow along, but rather that when something has been judged by Heaven, the church ought to make the same assessment. Hence the church’s authority to bind and loose is “declaratory.” This is not unlike what a judge does when he applies the law to a particular criminal case. The judge’s authority comes from the law; he does not make it up as he goes along and he can be over-ruled by higher courts if he gets his interpretation wrong.

Going back to the Matthew 16:16 passage which does not seem to deal directly with judicial decisions of a church court, we will argue that the meaning however is still similar. What God binds in heaven, His church must bind on earth. What God looses in Heaven, the church must loosen on earth. But what in this context is the church supposed to be “binding and loosing?”

We think it refers to the forgiveness of sins. Men are bound by their sins until by the grace of God their hearts are regenerated, they are given saving faith where they can turn away from the dead works and trust in Christ, and Christ alone. The church declares the gospel of Jesus Christ, and when men repent of their sin, profess faith in Christ (as Peter did) and then are baptized they are loosed from those bounds of sin and received into the visible body of Christ. Thus the church lawfully admits, or refuses membership into the visible communion of the saints when it bases its actions on what God Himself declares them to be.

Thus the Matthew 16 passage deals with ENTERING the church by a confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ (i.e., literally, the “Anointed One”) who is the Son of the Living God. The Matthew 18 passage deals with LEAVING the church when someone who has made a profession of faith, denies that faith by refusing to repent of his sin (note; no one is ever excommunicated for sin; they are excommunicated because they refuse to repent of their sins-see Matthew 18:21-22 where this issue is clearly the unstated question in Peter’s mind).

In neither passage is there any indication of some supernatural power to “bind” demonic forces. Think with us for a moment; it certainly makes sense to “bind” evil forces, but why would anyone ever want to “loose” them? So why then would God give Christians the ability to loose demons?

The one passage of course that does seem to deal with “binding” supernatural forces is where Jesus talks about “binding the strong man” so that his house can be plundered (Matthew 12:29) and of course the Bible does talk about demon-possessed people as being “bound.” The context of Matthew 12:29 clearly deals with demonic possession; Jesus is refuting the foolish idea that he casts out demons by the authority of Satan.

However, a couple of quick points; Jesus did drive out demons, and He did of course give this authority and ability to His disciples. But that does not necessarily have anything to do with the two passages about “binding” and “loosing” we just discussed. Furthermore, if want to generalize His comments here to apply to ALL Christians, then we will need better evidence than this verse; just because Jesus did something, does not mean that you or I can do the same thing. Just because He gave the same authority to His holy Apostles, does not necessarily mean that He gives it to us! Furthermore, there is that interesting little passage in Acts 19:13ff who thought they could do what Jesus and Paul did, and got “whupped” for their insolence!

Finally, Jesus definitively “bound” the “strong-man” (i.e. Satan) at the cross. Satan’s name means “Adversary” which is a legal term meaning “prosecuting attorney.” Satan is the great accuser of the brethren because he could hold our sins against us. When Jesus died in our place, He removed all of the accusations Satan could make. Therefore there is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus; the strong man has been “bound” because he no longer has any right to accuse the elect. Jesus died for us, God accepted His sacrifice, and therefore we have been “loosed” from the bonds of sin, and judgment.

But having said all the above, and sincerely meaning every word of it, if you DO happen to run into someone whose head does a 180 degree turn and they start levitating, START praying!

The Problem: Romans 1:18ff

Where does liberty, wealth, security, safety and prosperity in a nation come from? Why do some nations prosper and others suffer poverty, disease and revolutions? Are such things mere accidents of history? Are they simply the result of certain social, cultural or environmental processes? Or does the sovereign God really rule heaven and earth?

Many Christian academics, often unwittingly become operational humanists when it comes to social and cultural issues. They develop their understanding of the world, from the world, rather than the Word of God. And yet, God’s Word is so simple to understand here, that only an academic could miss it! God rules! He raises nations up and He sets them down. Kings, princes, presidents and prime ministers reign only at His will (cf. Psa 2:1ff). And the Apostle Paul is very clear in Romans 1:20ff that evil men, build evil nations. They cannot help but do so. When sinful men turn their backs on a holy and righteous God, that holy and righteous God turns His back on them. They become foolish in their speculations and fall into depravity and sin. In trying to live their lives in defiance of God, they inevitably bring His curses upon themselves in the form of poverty, tyranny, anarchy, perversion and finally, destruction. This is the clear, unambiguous message of Romans one.

In this century, few people in the West still bow down before idols (though this is increasing), but they do bow down before the myth of the omnipotent State. Humanism has taught that the State is the solution to all our social and personal problems. If we just elect the right people, who develop the right programs, all our problems will be solved. But God is flagrantly left out of the equation, as if His will, His commands, His principles are unimportant.

This is the fundamental problem facing every democratic system. In a nation filled with unrighteous people, wicked men demand that the civil government do things for them that it cannot possibly do, because such things belong only to God. The politicians have to promise to deliver them, or they won’t be elected. Yet, they KNOW that they cannot give the people what they want, so they learn to lie. It does not matter what the politicians promise to do, but rather what they actually can do that is the issue.

Even godly elected officials are caught up in this. In order to be elected, they must promise to meet the people’s expectations. But if the people’s expectations are wrong, or sinful, then either the godly politician has to compromise, or he won’t be elected in the first place, or stay in office long enough to do any good.

Therefore, the one fundamental basis of bringing Biblical Reformation to any nation is that the people themselves must be reformed first! This is crucial; the very first and most basic form of government under God is self-government. If a people are to receive God’s blessing, they must learn to live their lives in submission to King Jesus, bringing every thought and action to obedience to Him (2 Cor 10:4-5).

But how are the people to be changed? Can the King, (or President, Prime Minister, etc.) change people by passing laws or developing certain programs or policies? This is the fallacy of legalism, that laws can make people good. Biblically all that law can do is restrain sin, it cannot make people better. People are, what is in their hearts, and unless their hearts have been changed, their natural inclination will be to rebel against God (and coincidentally, they will rebel against their King as well).

Hence, godless cultures tend to swing like a pendulum between two extremes. On the one hand, without some kind of law, the nation becomes anarchic, where everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Anarchy results in every man’s hand being set against every other. Because all men need a certain amount of security just to live, civil governments tend to become tyrannical dictatorships in order to bring order. The King (President, Prime Minister, or what-have-you) has to pass ever-restrictive laws, employ secret police, etc., just to keep the population under control. People willingly trade their liberty to the State for the promise of security.

You cannot change a nation, unless you first change the people in it. Unless a people have been freed from slavery to sin, they can never be freed from the slavery of other men. Think about the former Soviet Union. In 1917, the Russian people overthrew the Czar, who was an oppressive tyrant. Did they then become free? No, they only exchanged one master, for another. The Czar murdered at best a few thousand Russians to stay in power. The Communists murdered millions, all while promising security and prosperity. Think about what has happened in the former Soviet Empire since it’s collapse. Marxism destroyed those nations and finally fell of it’s own ineptitude and gross mismanagement. But what did the people of many of those nations do with their newfound freedom? They elected the very same Communists who used to oppress them right back into power! This is one of the reasons why Zambia is so important in the family of nations! When the people of Zambia got rid of their dictator, you replaced him with committed Christian leaders! No one else did that! God’s hand is on this nation!

Therefore, if a people want to be blessed by God, they must be obedient to God. They must walk according to His statutes, commandments and principles, acknowledging Him as the one true God. But they will learn this, only if there are courageous men, willing to stand tall in an evil age, and proclaim the whole counsel of God’s Word. The role of Pastors is therefore central to reforming the nation.

The Sacraments and the Church

God has entrusted to His Church, and more specifically, to His Church’s officers, pastors and elders, two fundamental ministries; (a) preaching the Word and (b) administering the sacraments. On these two ministries, rest the health, well-being and success of the Church in God’s plan. And on the well being of the Church, will depend the well-being of the nation.

R.J. Rushdoony has noted that the word “sacrament” is from a Latin term that referred to the oath of allegiance that a Roman soldier took when he joined his legion. It was an oath of loyalty to the emperor and to his comrades that he would do his duty, even unto death. When we talk about the sacraments in Christian terms, we must understand that they are symbols, pictures of God’s grace to us. But they are also oaths, or vows, of obedience and submission that we make to Him. We don’t tend to think about it that way, but really, this is what we are doing whenever we perform either of the sacraments.

In the Church, the sacraments are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In baptism, we are united with Christ as a member of His covenant people. It is a visible sign of God’s promise of regeneration and restoration, marking off God’s people from the world, and of their new status in Christ.

The visible church then admits a baptized person to the Lord’s Table. While there are theological differences among Christians as to what this means, ALL Christians, regardless of denomination, will agree that Christ promises to be in Communion with His people through the Lord’s Supper and that He strengthens, encourages and prepares us for spiritual war. At the Lord’s Table, all of God’s people are united with Christ, and with each other. That’s why we call it “communion.”

And ALL Christians will agree that to take the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner is to bring God’s judgment against the individual and the Church (1 Cor 11:29-32) In Corinth, some people were sick and others had actually died because they did not examine themselves and repent of their sin. Therefore, the true church must practice spiritual discipline against unrepentant sinners, lest they bring judgment on themselves. These spiritual oaths have very real physical implications.

Now, there are two kinds of discipline related to the Lord’s Supper; preventative discipline and reactive discipline. Reactive discipline is when we excommunicate someone for unrepentant sin. To excommunicate means to expel an unrepentant sinner from our midst so that God might bring Him to repentance (1 Tim 1:20). A person is “excommunicated” when they are no longer allowed to take “Communion.”

Sadly, most Christian churches today do not practice Church discipline. Some do not know about it, many are afraid of it. But according to 1 Corinthians five and six, it is a vital ministry that we neglect at our own peril. Perhaps God does not grant His Church more success in this age just because we refuse to follow His commandments regarding reactive discipline (1 Cor 11:31).

Preventative discipline is the other side of the coin. Rather than react when someone sins, instead we disciple Christians, teach them, train them, instruct them how to live their lives in conformity to God’s Word. Or at least, that’s what we’re supposed to do. Sadly, the church often sees so many cases of reactive discipline (even if she doesn’t know what to do about them) because of a lack of preventative discipline.

The Preaching of the Word

The key to effectual preventative discipline is the faithful preaching of the Word. It is by preaching the Word that hearts are convicted of sin, regenerated by God’s grace and brought to saving faith in Christ. It is by preaching the Word that individuals grow in conformity to the image of Christ and are equipped for spiritual warfare (Col 3:16, Eph 6:12-17). If the key to reforming the nation lies in first reforming the people, then the people will be reformed as they become saturated with the Word of God (Psa 119:9-11, 2 Tim 2:15).

But pastors cannot preach, what they do not know. If the pastors do not read the word of God daily, if they do not meditate upon His precepts, if they do not consider their own ways, then they will not be able to teach and train the people in their churches. Remember the great high priest Eli who though himself a godly man, then lost his own children? He failed to teach and refused to discipline his own family and as a result, the Philistines defeated the nation and captured the Ark of the Covenant (cf. 1 Sam 2:12-17, 4:11).

Therefore, the key to reforming the nation is in raising up godly men who will preach the truth of the gospel and it’s requirements. But notice something important here; the purpose of our preaching is not to make people feel good, nor to attract people to our churches, nor to be well liked and respected in the community. A wicked people will call to themselves pastors who tell them only what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3). But like Nathan, standing before King David, the nation needs pastors who will call even the King to account when he is sin. Do you think Nathan was concerned about being liked by the King when he told him that he was in sin with Bathsheba? Do you think he was worried about his church growth figures? NO! He feared God, not men, not even the King who could have done to him, what had just been done to poor Uriah the Hittite! Nathan feared God and preached the truth.

Therefore, the nation needs Pastors who seek to please God, not men. And that will mean telling people things that they would rather not hear. Most people today, sadly, don’t mind at all if the pastor preaches about heaven and hell, because it all seems so safely removed from real life. But let him start teaching about how the gospel ought to change your personal life, your work ethic, your relationship skills, your way of handling your family or finances, and brother, he’s stopped preaching and started meddling!

Yet, this practical dynamic is so often missing in even the best of our preachers. I have heard many fine sermons throughout the years preached by very eloquent, able men. But too often, the problem was that they didn’t get specific. They preached in wonderful generalities that everybody could agree with. But as someone said, “God is in the details.” Pastors must understand that every area of life belongs to King Jesus and God’s people how to obey Him. If we don’t know how to apply the Word of God, who does?

But that will offend many people. You won’t always be popular. There is safety in ambiguity. It’s comforting to think that when the pastor is preaching, he’s preaching about someone else’s sins. But when he gets specific, and applies the Word of God to real life situations, that is going to get some people upset. And sometimes, your church won’t grow as fast, or as much as those who compromise the Word. But let’s get serious for a moment. Do you really think that on the Great and Glorious Day of Judgment, when all men must give an account of their labor before God, that Jesus is really going to give out prizes for who had the most people attend his services? Or is Jesus going to be a bit more concerned with how faithful you were in preaching His Word?

Pastors must preach Christ’s commands (cf. Jn 14:21), God expects His covenant people, who have been redeemed from the marketplace of sin to obey HIM! We are now slaves to Christ (Rms 6:22), and if the pastors do not teach this, then the people will not grow and the nation will sink into sin. There is a Christian and Biblical way to think about money, time, politics, economics, work, family and church. When we study Christ’s commandments, when we repent of our sins and strive by His grace to obey Him, then He blesses us. But sadly, most pastors replace the commandments of Christ with the commandments of men (Col 2:20ff).

The Great Shepherd has entrusted His sheep into the care of pastors, for that is what the word “pastor” means, a shepherd. When Jesus gave Peter his final orders, he repeated three times, “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15ff). But what do we usually feed them? They plead for the bread of life, and we give them bad doctrine, empty sentimentality and pious platitudes. How can they grow if we do not feed them spiritual meat (Hebs 5:12ff)? They long to drink from streams of living water, and we give them the stagnant pools of human wisdom. Powerful, life-changing preaching does not come from the academic cloister, but out of the practical applications of the Word of God to real life situations.

Where to Begin

The problem of course, is that all too often, pastors live lives not very different from the people we are supposed to be helping change! For example, in my country, pastor’s children are notorious for being rebellious, disrespectful and disobedient, causing much turmoil in the church. You see, the problem is that Daddy is so busy having a wonderful ministry and being thought well of by the community, that he has no time to minister to his own family. He breaks God’s own commands that an elder must be one who manages his own household well (1 Tim 3:4-5), and then wonders why his church is weak and sick and ineffectual.

Pastors, need to start in their own homes, in their own families, loving their wives, bringing their children up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord, having consistent family worship, catechizing their children, disciplining them, making the Scriptures work in their own lives. If we do that then the heathens will beat a path to our door crying out “what must I do to be saved?”

National reformation thus begins with personal transformation. But personal transformation will not occur apart from the normal ministries of the sacraments. If we do not preach the truth, the people will not know what God expects. If we do not hold people accountable, through access to the Lord’s Table, then they will have no incentive to change. Think with me for a moment. A godly father teaches his children the truth, right? He teaches them right from wrong, the good from bad. But all children disobey their parents. What does a godly father do? Does he smile indulgently, pat them on the head and send them on their way? Well, if he wants to raise sons of hell, I can think of no better way.

A godly father not only teaches his children what is right, he also disciplines them when they do not do what he told them. Does a father spank his children because he hates them, because they make him angry, because he’s fed up and he wants to hurt them? Of course not! He spanks them, just because he loves them. They need the pain from the spanking to learn to hate evil. Church discipline is a spanking from God’s church. You cannot and will not have a healthy church, unless you have both sound preaching, and discipline.

Pastors must teach the people how to show Christian virtues in the homes, work diligently at their calling, and demonstrate in deeds, not just words, that the Love of Christ is in them. A nation is transformed, not from the top down, by electing politicians who promise us what we want to hear, but from the bottom up as God gives grace to individuals, families and churches. As individual hearts are changed, as men learn to live self governed under God’s commands, as they teach their wives and children, as they reach out and share the gospel to their friends and neighbors, then the blessings of God begin to flow.

Conclusions

We are a covenant people. God did not create us to live as autonomous individuals. We have a relationship with God, our families and with our brothers and sisters; we need each other. Godly pastors need to learn how to work with their brothers in other churches. Now this may not be a problem in Zambia, but in the United States, Christian pastors often refuse to work with each other because they think they are in competition! Therefore they won’t read certain books, attend certain conferences, or work together on important projects, because they are afraid that their people might like some other pastor better than them! And as a result, the work of reformation is impeded and frustrated.

But there are many things, too great, for individual churches to do. What happens when a man is found in sin in one church and if in God’s grace, that church has the courage to discipline him? Why he runs right down the street to another church, which is all too willing to take him in! And does that man change the behavior that got him in trouble in the first place? Why should he, if the pastors will not work together? There are children to be educated, widows to be cared for, men without jobs that need to be put to work, and no individual church can hope to meet all these needs. But together, we can accomplish miracles, if we trust in Jesus and obey Him.

As pastors preach the whole Word of God, His people are motivated to step out in faith and struggle to conform their lives to God. As the sacraments are received by grateful, humble hearts, repentant for their sins and depending upon the grace and mercy of God in Christ, then God gives greater grace, the scales fall from blind eyes, and the calluses removed from hardened hearts. When the gospel is adorned with the good works of His covenant people, the heathen are befuddled and amazed at the mercy of God and through that witness, He is pleased to bring them to repentance and faith.

The role of the pastor in reforming the nation is often a lonely one. Real, reformation, like revival is not something in the hands of men, it depends upon the sovereign grace of God. Therefore, Pastors must be men of devout prayer, on their faces before God, asking His grace and mercy. National reformation begins with pastors getting on their knees, alone, beseeching the Almighty creator for mercy.

But our God is a gracious and kindly God who hears the prayers of His people. If we seek, we shall find, if we ask, it shall be given unto us. John Knox was the great reformer in Scotland. The nation was spiritually dead and under God’s curse before he was raised up to preach the reformation. His daily prayer was, “Lord, give me Scotland lest I die.” God gave John Knox Scotland, and through Scotland, God gave him the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. These nations were all distinctly influenced by the grace that God poured out through one lonely pastor. Are there such men in Zambia? Is there someone here who will pray, “Lord give me Zambia, lest I die”? Your nation, your future, your children, and your God, all await your response.

Now I am not special pleading here for pastors. There are great rewards in being one of God’s shepherds. There is something simply wonderful about being paid to study the word of God, teach it to others and counsel them how to make it work in their lives. And though I may be giving too much away here, for a poor boy from a working class background, it is pure joy to work at a job that doesn’t involve picks, shovels or moving large heavy objects around by hand. I still can’t believe that people actually PAY me for doing something I love so much.

But as noted above, being a pastor also has its downsides. Every single person in a church has a certain picture of what they want their pastor to be, and it can be maddening to try to live up to all those expectations (and devastating to your career when you can’t). Granted, Christians rightly expect their pastor to be consistent with what he teaches, but often they also import a whole other series of expectations that no one man can ever fulfill. That’s why they call the time when a pastor first comes to a church the “honeymoon” period because people still have idealistic expectations of their new pastor and he hasn’t had a chance yet to disappoint them (which he invariably will). At the beginning of a new work, the pastor is everyone’s darling. But normally, within 18 months, the “honeymoon” is usually over and unless the pastor is able to handle the situation wisely, things can soon start going wrong for him and the church. People will begin see that he is NOT perfect, he makes mistakes, gaffs and sometimes-even sins (even if it is just by not always doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way). If the church has not been taught good conflict and confrontation skills, problems will go unresolved, resulting in some people becoming disappointed, angry, embittered and frustrated.

Often, within another year or so, there is resistance from various “power” people within the church who once were avid supporters, but now seem dedicated to making his life and ministry difficult. The pastor then finds that he is frustrated as well, some people don’t like him anymore, they talk about him behind his back, and sometimes they will even attempt to throw him out or split the church. Around the three-year mark, too often, many pastors have had enough and will start to surreptitiously place their resumes out at other available ministries. When he finally gets a call somewhere else, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, the church calls a new pastor, and the same dynamic begins all over again.

Part of the problem is a basic failure on the part of both the pastor and the congregation to understand their duties and responsibilities under God to each other. Sadly, most of us have formed our concept of a pastor, not from the Word, but from our own experience. As a consequence, we do not know understand a pastor’s role and have unrealistic and unbiblical expectations of what he can and should be doing. Even worse, many pastors, whom one might rightly expect to know better, do not have a clue to what God really requires of them. If however, we educate our people AND OURSELVES as to God’s requirements, it just might be that we can forestall the frustration, animosity and failed expectations that are so common.

Ezekiel 34: The Duties of A Godly Pastor

During a recent day of prayer and fasting, I came across Ezekiel 34 that seems to directly address the duties of a pastor and why they so often fail. Now Ezekiel was given a direct prophecy about God’s judgment on the failure of Israel’s shepherds. But if they were judged for what they did NOT do, then perhaps we can learn what TO do so save ourselves, and our congregations from unnecessary grief (Hebs 13:17).

God begins in verse 2 by saying “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, Woe shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock?’” God condemns the shepherds of Israel for feeding themselves, rather than feeding the flock. In other words, they forgot that their basic function was to care for the flock and instead used them for selfish reasons. Sadly, this is not uncommon today. Too often, some pastors see their congregations as sources of income, power, position, etc. In effect (if not by intent) the congregation is sometimes regarded as a means of feeding the pastor’s ego and sense of self-importance. There are some pastors who enter the ministry because they LOVE to study the Scriptures and great theologians. But the danger here is that the ministry can become a source of self-improvement and enrichment for the pastor, but has little to do with meeting the actual needs of the flock.

Then there are those pastors who rule with an iron hand because they want the benefits, the respect, of being a pastor, but are not really concerned about doing the work of a pastor. God says in verse four “but with force and with severity you have dominated them.” Such men may be able orators, but essentially their “ministry” is more about being in charge, about being “top dog” or the “big fish” rather than serving their people. Such pastors cannot handle disagreements, differences of opinion or anything that might threaten their power or position. They have to be right, at all times, in every little thing. And the flock better get in line or else!

I know personally of a number of churches with pastors insisting literally on a double-honor salary. Granted, many, many pastors are underpaid, but there are also wolves out there who ravage the flock with totally unreasonable demands. The deacons repair their houses, cut their grass, wash their cars, and are told they ought to be thankful for the opportunity of serving the “great” man. There are Reformed churches where widows and orphans are neglected so that the pastor can make twice the going salary of the average person in the church. There are men so “important” that the church MUST pay for first-class air-tickets and 4-Star hotel accommodations when they travel. There are Reformed churches where there is inadequate funding for dominion work, for missionaries, for church planting, for Christian schools, for charitable ministries, etc., because all the money is tied up in the pastor’s compensation package.

Granted, in American today, there are probably ten churches that UNDERPAY their pastors for every one that is being abused. But the principle remains whether financial, emotional or psychological; too many pastors fleece the flock rather than feed the flock. To a certain extent, these abuses are not unexpected. It takes a certain kind of man with a certain kind of confidence to stand in front of a congregation week after week, teaching, exhorting, admonishing, and leading the flock. Many churches rightly respect and look up to their pastor. It is a simple process then for this confident individual to slide into arrogance without even knowing it. (That’s why a good pastor MUST have good elders to keep his sense of proportion). And in this sinful world, there are always going to be men who are drawn to the ministry because they crave the power that being a pastor gives them.

Therefore, we must fight against this temptation. Certainly not all, but a great deal of the frustration that so many pastors have with their churches may well be caused by an inflated view of their own importance. They become disillusioned, disheartened, and despondent because they want to be the center of attention, the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral. The world must revolve around them and their desires. And when reality forces itself into their awareness, they too often get fed up, pack up and leave.

But God is clear here that the shepherds work for Him! Their job is to care for HIS sheep. Ephesians 4:11ff is clear that the main work of the pastor is to equip the REST of the saints for THEIR work of service. The pastor is not and never was supposed to be the center of the church. Therefore his preaching, teaching, counseling and discipling ministries are supposed to be OTHER oriented.

Sadly, many pastors feed the sheep on spiritual junk food and so starve the flock. Their preaching and teaching has at its basic orientation making people “happy” or “feel good about themselves” rather than challenging them to become what God wants them to be. Hence, rather than the flock growing in grace, wisdom and holiness, they become weak and sick because they are deprived of the spiritual food they need.

Think about this, I would suggest that one of the most basic failings of good Reformed preaching today is the lack of practical application. We Reformed types are often brilliant at theoretical considerations; oh we can be cerebral with the best of them. But how often have you come away from an intellectually stimulating sermon and then wondered, “but how does this apply to my life?” Sadly, a great many Christians have been starved for so long, they don’t even notice the hunger pangs any more. They don’t even realize that they are spiritually emaciated. Like those poor children in Africa suffering from severe malnutrition, edema swells their bellies, giving the appearance of a full stomach, when in reality they are starving to death.

A godly shepherd will understand that true greatness comes from SERVING the people of God, not by being served by them (cf. Mark 10:45). He serves them by teaching them the truth, regardless sometimes of whether they want to hear it! He then teaches them how to apply that truth so that their personal lives, their families, their work, their relationships, their ministries can all be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. A godly pastor serves his flock by striving to facilitate holiness and godliness in their lives. One might say that the acid test of a shepherd’s ministry is NOT how big is his congregation, or how fancy the building, (and certainly not the size of his compensation package). Instead, it is whether the people of God are growing in righteousness, holiness, grace and peace.

Which brings us to the next aspect of the shepherd’s failure that God rebukes in Ezekiel 34. God says, “Those who are sickly, you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sight for the lost, but with force and severity you have dominated them.”

The shepherd does more than just feed the sheep, his is also supposed to care for them. Accidents happen. Sometimes sheep go where they are not supposed to go. They eat things they should not eat. They fall off ledges, they break legs, or they get infected wounds. Sometimes they wander away and get lost. The shepherd is supposed to be concerned about binding those wounds, healing their diseases and restoring the lost to the flock. As important as the pastor’s preaching and teaching ministry is, it is not the ONLY thing he is called to do. A godly shepherd must be concerned with what we call today “pastoral care.” He must know his sheep as individuals, and minister to them as individuals. He must be willing to get involved with the “nitty-gritty” details of their lives and help them through difficult times.

Yes, that means the traditional hospital visit when a member of the congregation is sick. But this is not just an empty formality, but rather a duty and a privilege to give them comfort and encouragement. Yes it means visiting people in their homes, but not just as a pastoral ritual, but as a means of getting to know them so he can share in their lives and minister to their needs. This kind of ministry means knowing your people, laughing with them, crying with them, counseling them through difficult times, rebuking them when necessary, holding them accountable for their sins. In other words, CARING for them and their needs.

Obviously, in a church with more than just a few families, no pastor can possibly minister to every single member of the flock. His time, energies and abilities are limited. But that is why God gives us a plurality of elders. ALL the elders, yes especially the ruling ones, share in this pastoral concern. A wise and godly shepherd will make it a top priority to find, recruit and train a multitude of other shepherds to assist him in this task. For EVERY sheep is precious to God and EVERY sheep needs care, counsel and concern. But a pastor more interested in his career than his calling will invariably allow wounds to fester or the sick to go untreated. After all, he’s an important man and treating the spiritually sick is messy business. How much easier to think great thoughts in the security of his office and then pontificate on Sunday morning then actually getting involved with the day to day needs of the flock? Sometimes, the best of us, who do share a genuine concern for the people of God are not wise, and are overcome by the sheer amount of work to be done. In this case, we are in danger of either working ourselves into a nervous breakdown (yes, I know, psycho-babble, but an apt description) or can become callused to the cries of the sheep.

One of the crucial aspects God mentions here is bringing back the lost sheep. Jesus even spoke a specific word about the importance of seeking lost sheep. Today, too many of us are just glad that the troublesome ones wander off and become somebody else’s problem! One probably has to be a pastor one’s self to appreciate this; but the average pastor gets an incredible amount of grief from some people. They criticize, complain, find fault, and subject the pastor to the most excruciating scrutiny of the minutest details of his ministry and personal life. And pastors, are people. Nobody likes other people constantly “at” them. When such sheep eventually become so dissatisfied they leave the flock, it is quite understandable for a pastor to say, “good riddance.”

But if they ARE a member of your flock, then you have a covenant obligation to them. They are YOUR responsibility, no matter how much trouble they are. You have got to LOVE them MORE than your own comfort or convenience. And that means you must go looking for them. You must try to find them and restore them. You have got to try and bring them back, even if you know that they are likely only to wander off again.

Granted, some sheep are really goats in disguise and no matter what you do you lose them. But remember that section in the 23rd Psalm that says “Thy rod and they staff, they comfort me…” What was David talking about there? The staff is easy, it was a device for guiding sheep. The long staff (sometimes with a crook in the end) was used to gently nudge sheep in one direction, while also yanking them back from dangerous situations. But the rod is a little different. It seems that a rod was used to break the legs of certain sheep that had a habit of wandering away from the flock. A sheep without a shepherd is simply a meal on four legs. By breaking the legs of a recalcitrant sheep, the shepherd was basically keeping it from getting lost, injured or devoured. The shepherd would them bind up the broken leg and carry the sheep around his neck until the leg was healed.

As a result, the sheep came to associate the smell of the shepherd with his care and concern. Sheep whose legs have been broken deliberately, become the most loyal of animals, never wanting to leave the shepherd’s side. In the church, the rod we use is church discipline. By bringing discipline against a recalcitrant member, we are in effect “breaking” his rebellion (cf. 1 Tim 1:20, 1 Cor 11:32, etc.). But sadly, church discipline is very seldom applied today, and even when done, is usually the result of frustration and anger on the part of the elders, rather than as a tool to bring someone to genuine repentance. As a result, when someone IS disciplined, it is usually the last act before we lose him for good. The elders are not saddened, simply fed up.

The reason is often that we have not LOVED the recalcitrant sheep enough in the first place. We did not spend the time to get involved in his life, become familiar enough with his problems, concerned enough about his soul to actually provide what he needed. So when he does something stupid and sinful, discipline is used as a way of getting rid of the troublesome person, rather than restoring him to the flock.

But if we are to escape God’s condemnation of ungodly shepherds, then we must do things differently. We must be involved in our flock’s lives. We must know their trials and turmoil. We must be able to correct, rebuke and reprove with a gentle spirit (2 Tim 2:24-26). We have got to create an atmosphere where human pride does not get in the way of having our character’s transformed (1 Ptr 5:5-6). This is one of the real dangers of upper-middle class, well educated, Presbyterian churches especially. We usually do wonderfully on the doctrinal (with certain, sad, but notable exceptions). But we do not do so well on the relational. Far too many Reformed churches are filled with people with knowledge, but lack intimacy, vulnerability and compassion. We are often proud, do not like to admit to mistakes or confess our sins to one another. Sadly, we often do not really even trust each other enough to be vulnerable with each other (and even worse, we fear that if we ARE vulnerable, people will use it against us!).

And as a consequence, we settle for a shallow, superficial Christian fellowship where we cannot really share our hearts, burdens, trials and temptations. It then becomes so easy for certain people to drift in and drift out again, never having their real needs addressed. Yes, we gave them good, sound doctrine. Yes, we had some amusing times together, but we did not really help to change that person into the image of Christ (Rms 8:29).

Sadly, in too many Reformed churches, we dare not let our barriers down. We are well educated, successful in our calling, articulate in our doctrine, but our pride keeps us from allowing people inside lest they discover that we are not perfect. And as a result, wounds often go untended, our lives are not really changed and our sanctification never really developed.

One major challenge for Reformed Christians is to learn how to say, “I was wrong, please forgive me.” It is amazing to me that in my circle of Reformed pastors, teachers and leaders, how very seldom I have ever heard my brothers admit to being wrong. Those simple words are so difficult because we have encouraged our people to take pride in their doctrinal accuracy, but neglected to teach them how to love each other in spirit and truth (cf. 1 Cor 8:1ff). There is a reason why Calvinists are so well known as the “Frozen Chosen.” We have often preferred academics and intellect over love when we should have had both. And the shepherds themselves are primarily responsible because that is what WE taught our people and modeled before them as the “normal” Christian life.

We Presbyterians in particular want our pastors to be rigorously trained in the original languages and theology. We want them to be articulate and well reasoned in their preaching. But so often, we have not required them to know how to love or how to show compassion, mercy and kindness. We have not encouraged them to share their hearts with their people for we fear and distrust overt displays of emotion.

Think with me, when was the last time you, or your pastor wept as the glories of our majestic God, the wonders of His gracious salvation, the marvels of His plan for us were preached to His people? Does the very thought make you feel uncomfortable? I once watched a candidate coming under care of Presbytery suffer the most incredible scrutiny simply because he expressed a fervent desire to preach the gospel. It was not his call or his qualifications that were in question, simply that he shared his passion for preaching (and this after two other candidates admitted they wanted to go to seminary simply because they didn’t know what else to do!). For you see, we Presbyterians are not allowed to feel; somehow it is beneath us.

Granted, emotional excess is no virtue; and emotional fervor without truth is simply empty sentimentality. But surely, a pastor ought to LOVE his flock and feel something for them? Surely he ought to take delight in their progress even as he is wounded by their transgressions?

Maybe I am just a hopeless sentimentalist, but there is something special that happens inside me when I serve my people communion. As I walk down the center aisle, a touch here, a smile there, a hand reaching out to mine as I pass the communion plate and my eyes fill with tears at the thought of these precious people giving ME the honor of serving them. I have held grown men in my arms who sobbed uncontrollably as God convicted them and worked in their lives. I have laughed uproariously as we shared our victories together. I have silently sat holding a widow’s hand as she said her last good-byes to a faithful husband of fifty years. And I did not lose my dignity, nor abandon my orthodoxy but instead have experienced the love of God’s Holy Spirit working in me, and through me and to me.

Conclusions

There is of course more to be said, (and later on in this same passage has some really hard things to say about the “fat” sheep) but consider what these three simple verses have to teach us about how to be the kind of shepherd God demands.

First, we are there to serve God by serving His people. The flock of God is not given into our care to build our egos, line our pockets or advance our careers. Perhaps so many pastors get into so many problems with so many churches simply because they want to be served rather than to serve?

Secondly, our calling is more than just giving intellectually satisfying and doctrinally correct exegesis of the text. We are called to bind the wounded, heal the diseased and recover the scattered. This means knowing the flock, caring for the flock and serving the flock. Therefore we have to know the sheep, and be known by them.

Finally, without excuse, this also means loving the people of God. He has entrusted them into our care. They are not a trial to be endured, but a people to be loved. We ought not fear becoming involved in their lives, but welcome this wondrous privilege that God has granted us.

If pastors want to thrive and prosper in their calling, to count their labor as a joy and not a trial, to achieve success in their ministries, then let them learn how to SERVE the people of God.

The kind of internal, humanistic reformation attempted by the Religious Right has been tried before, by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536). Erasmus is credited with laying the egg that Luther hatched. While his scholastic contributions were significant, (especially his work on the Greek New Testament) he was handicapped by his own personality and presuppositions. Theology has implications. What we believe, really does affect what we do and how far we will go. Current efforts, just as was his, are doomed to failure unless we deal with the fundamental presuppositions behind the issues. While the Religious Right (like Erasmus) could criticize the excesses and abuses of our culture (or the mother church), they are neither willing nor able to take the steps necessary to bring about real reformation of Christianity or our culture. Perhaps if we remember why he failed, we will also realize why the Religious Right’s battle, though valiantly fought, is also doomed unless they return to basic Biblical principles.

Erasmus and Personality
Erasmus as a reformer cannot be separated from Erasmus as a person. His attempts at reformation were inadequate because his early background education derided scholasticism and emphasized piety and personal religion (Spinka, PG 281). Thus, religion for him was a simple, un-dogmatic thing. He disliked and distrusted theology and his own religious convictions were such that he really had nothing to die for. Un-dogmatic people make great friends (and better enemies!) but do not lead great movements. In our age, privatized, pietised religion also makes a great placebo for the stresses and trauma of modern living, but it is no source of strength to fight spiritual wars. One pastor I heard preached passionately that the gospel gave peace in a troubled age. Thus, the cross of Christ was reduced to a divine form of Diazepam (i.e. Valium), helpful for getting through trials and tribulations, but of no use in changing the world. In the same way, without a consistent worldview tied into a sound grounding of orthodox Reformed theology, the Religious Right is fighting the battle without their biggest and most effective weapon.

Likewise, Erasmus’ own personality was such that one has the impression that he was a theological dilettante; he abhorred messy controversies, had a smug, superior and supercilious attitude and one can envision him with a slight curl of distaste at those he considered his intellectual or moral inferiors. He was a brilliant scholar with little time or patience for those not on his same level. He intensely disliked unsettling things or excessive argument. He wrote in a letter “I have never liked clamor (Murray PG 72).”

Thus, his personality directly affected his whole approach to reformation. Erasmus was more than willing to criticize the scholastics and sacredotalists for their inconsistencies, absurdities and ritualistic excesses. But he does so not in a spirit of reform, but rather to humiliate. Luther protested his tactics of “…making fun of the faults and miseries of the church of Christ instead of bewailing them before God with deep sighs” (Murray PG 71). This kind of criticism was no brave act of a stalwart reformer, but merely something found acceptable to every right minded, educated person. (Murray PG 71). Erasmus stated “More is gained by well mannered modesty than by storming” (Murray PG 73)

Granted, sarcasm and ridicule have their place, even in Biblical revelation. Some things are so ridiculous that they demand ridicule. But sarcasm is no substitute for truth, and in fact has more in common with a debater’s tactic than true Biblical reformation. An old adage concerning lawyers says, “When the facts are against you, use the law. When law is against you, confuse the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, attack the person…” But Christians are not out to win a debate, but the world! And our weapons, “are not the weapons of this world, they have divine power to tear down strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ that we might make every thought captive to Christ…” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Because our God is sovereign, our job is to preach the truth. He and only He, through His own divine will, can change hearts. Winning points in a debate and winning a soul are two different things.

Erasmus Humanist Presuppositions
Erasmus was also unable to achieve significant reformation because he was a Humanist, and the Christian adjective normally applied not withstanding, his thinking was more significantly influenced by Greek humanistic philosophy than Biblical theology. In the Enchiridon “he reduces the practical duties of religion to certain ethical requirements, the first of which he defines in Platonic fashion as that of knowing oneself (Spinka, PG 287)”. Thus man need not yield to vice, he can control his passion by reason. Ignorance was to be overcome by self-mastery, scholarly endeavor and an appreciation of the classics (Spinka, PG 287).

If it is argued that the worst features of the Roman church were the results of its eventual accommodation of man-centered religion, classic Christian humanism is simply an intellectually more palatable form of the same religion! His handling of the issue of free will demonstrates that when it came to fundamental first principles, he accepted the Roman Catholic’s claim to ultimate authority over interpreting the Scriptures (Spinka, PG 292). Thus, he has no authoritative, objective stand upon which to make the fundamental types of changes needed.

Furthermore, since Erasmus began with an unbiblical view of man, and attempted to reason on natural ground, unregenerate man rejected his reformation. A quote by James Henly Thornwell seems appropriate here: “The Word of God uniformly represents man as blind and ignorant, incapable of seeing afar off, perverted in his judgment, warped in his understanding, seared in his conscience and misguided in his affections and therefore requiring a heavenly teacher and a heavenly guide at every step of his progress… ” The Religious Right, in failing to deal with the nature of Man as taught in Scripture, shows pretty pictures to blind men and plays beautiful music to those who are deaf.

In a related vein, Erasmus humanist presuppositions worked against analyzing the root problems of the excesses he so laudably critiqued. Murry states that Erasmus did not join the Lutherans because by 1524 his own criticism and scholastic endeavors had mainly cured the diseases he had written so passionately about (PG 80). Yet, one can argue that his efforts could not cure the disease, but that he was merely successful in suppressing certain symptoms. Codeine does an excellent job of suppressing the symptoms of a cough, but it does not deal with the cause (and the “cure” can be worse than the disease since codeine is an addictive narcotic…). Suppress the symptoms without dealing with the disease and the disease is likely to grow worse.

Erasmus thought that literary culture was the great weapon to be used against the inner rot of the church (Murray PG 80). Reason and education were the answers to ignorance and superstition (Spinka, PG 286). But it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Information, reason and scholastic excellence are no substitute for repentance. Thus, he is certainly within the tradition of Aquinas who believed that total depravity did not extend to the mind, but he stands outside the teachings of the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:18ff).

Finally, the humanist attempt at reformation was doomed to fail because Erasmus did not have the courage of his convictions. “For all his biting criticisms of the clergy and monks and of the whole hierarchical regime, he was not inclined to become a martyr or schismatic” (Spinka, PG 290). He ruled out breaking with the church a priori. “I have not deviated in what I have written one hair’s breath from those who agree with the Catholic Church…” (M