an oxgoad, eh?

In light of recent articles and comments at SI [and see here], Wednesday’s message seemed singularly appropriate. That is not to say that our church folks spend any time at SI, I doubt they are even aware of it. But many of you who read my comments online are aware, so it is interesting that we should approach this topic at this time.

Our passages for this message were 1 Corinthians 8-10. I entitled the message, “When Can I go to the Idol’s Temple?” My proposition: The principles taught in 1 Corinthians mean that Chrisitans should almost never enter idol’s temples (or their modern equivalents).

The first point of the sermon dealt with defining the subject of the argument. The Corinthians had written Paul a letter that contained assertions and questions. Some of them were apparently in response to a previous letter (now lost) that Paul had written them. One of the subjects of the Corinthians letter was ‘meat offered to idols’. There are three specific ways in which this meat was consumed: at feasts in the idol temple, at home by ‘idol-meat’ bought in the marketplace, or at a friends home with similar meat. Tom Constable in his Expository Notes on the Bible argues that the issue in 1 Cor 8-10 is primarily eating the meat in the idol temple. He cites Fee in support of his argument, although I don’t have Fee to check. The issue of marketplace meat is relegated to the end of 1 Cor 10, after Paul has concluded his argument on what to do about eating meat offered to idols. These two possibilities are dealt with as ancillary issues, issues that need to be considered as objections to the main thesis. In 1 Cor 8.10, Paul specifically mentions sitting at meat in an idol’s temple. This seems to be the point that Paul is dealing with throughout 1 Cor 8-10.

The second point of the sermon had to do with the arguments against eating meat offered to idols, i.e., in the idol temples (virtually the restaurants of Paul’s day). Chapter 8 brings up the argument of love [for the brother] or the consideration of the weakness of the brother. Chapter 9 brings up the argument of priority as Paul speaks about his willingness to give up his rights and indifferent things that don’t matter for the sake of the gospel, i.e., the consideration of the worth of the gospel. Chapter 10 brings up the argument of reality, as Paul illustrates the danger of idol meat with the example of what befell Israel. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. Paul finishes by pointing out that while an idol is just a rock, behind the idol is a demon, and real spiritual transactions occur in idol sacrifices. So Paul teaches: don’t do it, you don’t know the danger you are in, I would not have you connected to the Lord and to demons. This consideration is on the basis of the wickedness of the heart.

I touched briefly on the ancillary issues: what about idol meat bought in the marketplace? Paul says no problem, it’s just meat. Eat it and don’t ask questions. What about idol meat at a friends house? No problem eating it, as long as no one calls attention to the fact that it is idol meat. If they do, they have a conscience that it is different from ordinary meat and you must abstain for the sake of their conscience.

In the conclusion, Paul says that whether you choose to eat or not to eat, whatever your choice is, do that to the glory of God. I wrote on that extensively earlier, so you can check my post on 1 Cor 10.31 if you want to read a much more full discussion of this point.

In closing the message, I made several modern day applications. I am going to just paste that portion of my notes here. These are not exact parallels, but I think there is sufficient parallel that we ought to seriously consider drawing some lines in our lives:

· Can a Christian in good conscience go eat at the restaurant of a casino?
· Can a Christian in good conscience go to a pub?
· Can a Christian in good conscience attend a movie theatre?
Are there issues that a Christian might have with eating in a Chinese restaurant for example?
· Especially when a Buddha sits out front with offerings of food in front of it? [Now a restaurant is NOT an idol temple, but still… we must think this through.]
· If you are at a Chinese restaurant and someone mentions to you that the fortune cookies are part of demonic trust in luck and signs, what should you do? DON’T EAT THE COOKIE

We must in the things we do, consider:

1. The argument of love (or, ‘the weakness of the brother’)
2. The argument of priorities (or, ‘the worth of the gospel’)
3. he argument of reality (or, ‘the wickedness of the heart’)

If we keep these arguments in mind, and die to self, we will do well.

These issues are difficult issues in our day. A great deal of pressure is exerted by modern day Corinthians on those who want to preach the Bible as the absolute authority for life. It is a great shame that so many rebels are present in the graduates of Christian universities and colleges that have a reputation for standing for orthodoxy.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The snow stopped, the parking lot is plowed, and we are back to our regular schedule, Praise the Lord! Did I mention we don’t do snow?

This week we began 1 Corinthians with the message previously scheduled for last Sunday afternoon. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, in the midst of very successful ministry in the Roman province of Asia (see Ac 19). While there, news came to him of difficulties in the Corinthian church. These were addressed in a letter which is now lost. But the difficulties continued so Paul wrote a second letter which is preserved for us as 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians Paul deals with various difficulties, discovered either by way of bad reports that came to him, or by way of questions asked by the Corinthians.

The first issue Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians is the issue of the party spirit that was dividing the church. Our message was entitled, “Great Opposition in Corinth“. Our proposition: “Conflict and division in a church are evidence of a failure to fully accept the implications of the gospel.” Paul begins by stating the problem – the division is around well known Christian leaders, Paul, Apollos, Peter, even Christ are set up as heads of ‘factions’ in Corinth. In arguing against this kind of spirit, Paul points out that the preaching of the cross is the power of God, therefore let us glory in the cross, not men. He also points out that the wisdom of God, manifested in the cross, is incomprehensible to the world. The world is ‘natural’, we are ‘spiritual’ [or we should be], but the Corinthian problem is that they are ‘carnal’, and act like men who don’t understand the wisdom of God, though they should. Since we are spiritual, we should have the mind of Christ, and if we did divisions would disappear. We would not unduly exalt men, and men would not unduly exalt themselves, pastoral (and even apostolic) leadership would be viewed as household slaves who serve the living word to God’s people. The only solution to this problem is humility of mind and submission of spirit. Paul closes the section by warning them that they can have him come with a rod or with gentleness, the difference in approach depends entirely on whether they will adopt humility of mind and submission of spirit now … or later.

Our second message was from 1 Cor 5-6, “Struggling with Immorality“. Three issues are dealt with in these two chapters: the man who had his father’s wife, lawsuits among believers, and the problem of harlotry. In some ways all these problems may have been interrelated. Our proposition: “Spiritual immaturity can produce grievous spiritual blindness that allows astonishing levels of wickedness.” The first evidence of spiritual blindness was the toleration of the man who was at least living with or perhaps even married to his step-mother. The church was puffed up, tolerating this man’s sin, and thinking of itself as doing the right thing, hence the idea of blindness. Paul said, “don’t you know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” [The first of 7 ‘don’t you knows’ in the two chapters.] Paul’s judgement is that they ought to know better, you can’t tolerate that kind of sin in the midst without it having a corrupting influence. The second issue, the lawsuits, involves ignorance of the relative status of believers and unbelievers in the universe and the damage done to the gospel witness as a result of the lawsuits – don’t you know, Paul asks, that saints will judge the world and angels? Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? You are qualified to make judgements between yourselves, unbelievers are not qualified to judge you. You were such, but now you are something different. The last issue is the issue of actual immorality of some with harlots – they appear to have been under the impression that since the body will be destroyed anyway, and the body has physical desires, there was nothing wrong with indulging those desires in any way convenient. Paul says they are blind, they aren’t realizing that physical union also involves spiritual union and they are joining Christ and the temple of the Spirit with harlotry, a grave matter of spiritual confusion and spiritual blindness. The question in all of this is if the blindness is merely ignorance or if it is wilful self-deception. I tend to suspect the latter. The way Paul asks the “don’t you know” questions implies that they surely ought to have known, by the indwelling conviction of the Holy Spirit or even by natural human conscience. In any case, the cure for this kind of blindness is to open your eyes and see the truth.

The last message dealt with 1 Cor 7, the great marriage question chapter. The title was, “Answering Questions Concerning Marriage“. The questions apparently came from the Corinthians themselves and perhaps involved some of their Greek background and philosophy that considered the physical body and its drives to be evil. In any case, Paul deals with the marriage question in a number of ways. First, at a basic level, one reason for getting married is simply ‘on account of immoralities’. In other words, one function of marriage is to protect from the temptations to immorality, so married couples should make certain to give themselves physically to one another on a regular faithful basis, in order to minimize physical temptations. Paul turns from the basic question to deal with questions that apply to a whole host of categories: should I get married, should I stay married, if my marriage ends, what then? In general, Paul urges contentment with one’s state, including for the single the possibility that they remain single in the ‘present distress’ to devote themselves to Chirstian service with less entanglements. But Paul recognizes that not all are given such a gift by God (i.e., to endure long singleness without experiencing great temptation) so many (perhaps most) should marry. For those in marriages, the prime directive is to stay married, even those married to unbelievers, unless the unbeliever wants to depart. In such cases, the believer is no longer bound by the marriage and should not fight the breakup if the unbeliever departs. The final admonition about marriage is given to the widow – if she remarries, she must only remarry ‘in the Lord’, i.e., to a believer. This admonition is legitimately applied to all, but here is applied to the widow. All in all, Paul’s teaching is to encourage the fullness of marriage and the fulfillment of the marriage vows, both physically and temporally. Be thoroughly committed to your marriage through thick and thin, never yielding to the blandishments of the world around you.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I always cringe when the ‘L’ word is raised. Usually it means someone is about to attack the notion of holding to Bible based standards of some kind. Some are positively virulent in their opposition to rules. They hate it so much that they make rules about it. Seems kind of ironic, eh?

In the paragraph above, I almost typed “Biblical standards”. I think the adjective “Biblical” does cause some confusion. If I were to use it, I would mean “Bible based” as opposed to “Bible commanded”. Bible based standards are choices of wisdom. They are based on principles derived from scripture and should be followed in order to avoid being a fool. They will not produce righteousness, but a righteous person will live by wisdom. A righteous person will not be a fool.

On the other hand, there are these crowds of people railing against what they call “rules-based” Christianity. If they mean that you cannot become righteous by keeping rules, I agree. If you mean, however, that an anti-rules-based Christianity = I can drink alcohol, go to movies, listen to degraded and degrading music, etc., etc., then you are a fool.

I am not particularly worried if someone calls me a legalist. I am particularly worried about being a fool. I try to live my life by the wisdom found in the Bible. I don’t always succeed. When I don’t, I at least feel a little foolish. Sometimes I am so ashamed of my foolishness that I cry out to the Lord as Paul did in Romans 7, “oh wretched man that I am”. But I am not so foolish as to think that I can just dispense with wise rules of conduct that hold me and those for whom I am responsible accountible. For whom am I responsible? My family, our church members. To whom are they accountible? In some respects to me, but in all respects to God.

This post was prompted by a few others, one at Touchstone, and two at Sharper Iron (here and here). I can understand Hutchens posting as he does, but I am increasingly dubious of the wisdom and judgement of those in charge of the front page at Sharper Iron. The postings appear to have an antinomian tendency of late. They reflect something. I don’t think it is fundamentalism.

We will have no sermon summary for tonight since we cancelled our service for this evening. We are having a bit more snow tonight and we didn’t want to risk any falls, especially for our seniors. The forcast tomorrow is to reach a high of 7 degrees Celsius, a number I don’t understand, except that it is above freezing. We should get some rain as well, hopefully the basement won’t flood! At any rate, we should be able to get rid of the white stuff and be back to our normal dreary rain in the next day or two.

We’ll be back at it Sunday, though, with a full slate of services. I’ll have to figure out whether to consolidate some of our material or not… just when I had everything nicely planned out!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am continuing to study this passage for a more solid understanding. The key verses for my contention concerning the nature of this discipline are vv. 3-5. These verses are one long sentence in the Greek, with the main idea captured in these words: “For I verily … have judged … to deliver such an one.” Paul made an apostolic judgement which he says the Corinthians should have made themselves. Charles Hodge notes that the sentence of judgement (vv. 3-5) is connected with Paul’s reproach of the Corinthians in v. 2 with the particle ‘for’: “The connection with what precedes is indicated by the particle for. ‘I would ye were in a state of mind to remove this offender, for I have determined to cut him off.'” [Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 83.]

Paul calls on the Corinthian church to assemble and to pass judgement. He does not call for confrontation on the part of one, consultation on the part of one plus elders, or for the church to gather and call for repentance (the Matthew 18 process). He calls for the church to pass judgement. Hodge gets it mostly right in this note: “The sentence was not to be passed or executed in secret, but openly. It was to have the solemnity of a judicial proceeding, and, therefore, the people were convened, though they were merely spectators.” [Hodge, p. 84.] Hodge misses the point of the assembly because of his Presbyterian polity. The people were assembled to pass the judgment as a body.

One last observation for today. In commenting on verse 2, on the words ‘be taken away from you’, Hodge says this: “It is a right inherent in every society, and necessary for its existence, to judge of the qualification of its own members; to receive those whom it judges worthy, and to exclude the unworthy. This right is here clearly recognized as belonging to the church. It is also clear from this passage that this right belongs to each particular church or congregation. The power was vested in the church of Corinth, and not in some officer presiding over that church. The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of discipline; but the church itself, in its organized capacity.” [Hodge, p. 83.]

The issue in 1 Corinthians 5 is purity, both of the outward testimony and the ongoing life of the local church and its members.

In getting back to the comment that prompted my expressing these thoughts, it was suggested that a period of time must be involved to ‘work with’ an adulterer, attempting to effect repentance and restoration. I find no warrant for such in the text. If you use this approach, it seems to me that you are committing the Corinthian sin. There is ‘fornication among you’ and ‘ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned’.

When uncontrovertible evidence arises of egregious sins (such as those listed in verse 11), the church MUST expel the individual. This is the judgement of the apostle. From that standpoint, you can work with the man (or woman) to attempt to effect repentance. But to fail to expel is to tolerate the besmirched testimony. If true repentance is effected, I think there certainly is grounds for restoration, based on 2 Cor 2.4-11, but the apostle’s instructions are quite clear here.

Finally, as an aside, if you don’t have Hodge on 1 Corinthians, I highly recommend it. He is Presbyterian, so his polity is off in places (an example noted above). But he is an excellent expositor, with tremendous insight into the text. I have heard and read snippets of his personal testimony which reflect a life filled with devotion to the Lord and love of the saints. He was a worthy man.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In recent discussions over at Sharper Iron, we got off topic on a particular thread by observations concerning 1 Corinthians 5 and its teaching with respect to church discipline. I will try to reconstruct some of the discussion here, then offer a bit more argumentation concerning the topic.

Larry Rogier used this illustration in making a point:

Let’s use an example: You find out that a man in your church is committing adultery. Is your first response separation? Or “stay in and work”? It better be the latter. But after a period of time of repeated counsel and work, biblical confrontation and prayer, the former becomes the biblical response. If you, after a year or more of working with an unrepentant adulterer are still “staying in and working” with him, you are biblically disobedient.

I objected on a point of fine distinction with respect to his illustration by saying this:

Hey, Larry, I agree with the gist of your post, but I don’t think you are right in your illustration. The apostle Paul makes it clear that you kick an adulterer out immediately. Read 1 Cor 5 carefully. Shoot first and look for repentance later.

My friend Chris Anderson chimed in with:

Don, buddy, I disagree. I think Scripture teaches that you don’t really discipline for a particular sin; you discipline for obstinate refusal to turn from that sin. And I think that fits I Cor. 5. So if a man committed adultery and repented, he would not be a candidate for discipline.

Well, all of that set the stage for some back and forth on ‘what does 1 Cor 5 really mean anyway?’ I am going to include snippets of the conversation here, then give you my commentary on 1 Cor 5, from our Bible Study Guide that I am compiling for our church and close with a few thoughts on the subject. I invite comments from Larry and Chris either here or on their own blogs.

In response to my objection above, Larry said:

I think you are seriously misreading 1 Cor 5. The point there is that they willfully tolerated such without addressing it. As Chris point out, the basis for church discipline is not a particular sin, but the refusal to turn from it. The only way you know a person has refused is if you have counseled them biblically. Correlating that with Matt 18, Gal 1 and other passages, we see that we must confront and counsel biblically, urging repentance. Only “if he does not hear the church” should church discipline be carried out.

To which I replied:

Well, I obviously disagree. I don’t believe there is ANY correlation between Mt 18 and 1 Cor 5. I am not sure what correlation you see between Gal 1 and those passages. And this obviously is not the place to discuss it. I am planning to blog some on this on my own site later, or perhaps we can start a new thread. I think that we would see whether repentance was genuine or not if we booted the adulterers from the get go, though.

And then Larry offered a post quoting mine above and interspersing comments and questions:

Larry: So you are saying 1 Cor 5 is not church discipline? What is it?
Quote = Don Johnson: “I am not sure what correlation you see between Gal 1 and those passages.”
Larry: Those who are spiritual are to restore those who are overcome in sin. That is the precursor to church discipline. The goal is restoration in purity.
Quote = Don Johnson: “I think that we would see whether repentance was genuine or not if we booted the adulterers from the get go, though.”
Larry: How so? How can you see repentance if you are not there to see it? Repentance manifests itself in the life.

What follows is my commentary on 1 Cor 5. I attempted to make it appear in outline format as I have it laid out in Word, but Blogger just isn’t conducive to that. I have turned it into mostly paragraph format, but I think you can see how I am working through the text. Verse references are bracketed like this (1).

1. From the report of division within the church, Paul turns to another very serious report, a report of gross immorality within the church (1 Cor 5.1-2).

The particular offense that revealed the sin of the church was a man within the church who was immorally involved with a woman who was his stepmother (1). The wording of the text suggests (but doesn’t conclusively say) that the man’s father may have died, and that the man was now living with his stepmother in a ‘common law’ relationship. The barest of details we are given here give rise to more questions than we can answer. This particular sin was prohibited both by the OT law and by Roman law, it was considered extremely improper, even by pagans. The greater offense, however, lay with the church: in their arrogance they had tolerated this deed, perhaps even congratulating themselves on their ‘Christian love’. Paul instructs that they should have mourned and expelled the man from the assembly (2).

2. Paul pronounces the judgement that must occur (presumably immediately upon their receipt of this letter): they are to assemble and expel this man (1 Cor 5.3-5).

Paul pronounces his judgement as an apostle and exercises his authority as if he were physically present with them – there was to be no deliberation on this question, only obedience (3). The judgement of the apostle demanded immediate expulsion of this individual, delivering him unto Satan ‘for the destruction of the flesh’ (4-5). The full meaning of the phrase ‘destruction of the flesh’ is not explained. Various interpretations have been offered, but it likely means a deliverance into the power of Satan in a way different from the way Satan has authority and influence over everyone in the world today. In Job, we see that the righteous man Job was delivered to the power of Satan by God’s permission. This deliverance is something similar, but presumably with less restrictions. Satan hates God and his creation. A man delivered to his power in this way would likely find himself under severe physical affliction, perhaps terminating in premature death. In any case, it is important to note that the process here does not involve the ‘three-step’ process described in Mt 18.15-20. There, the issue is bitter unresolved personal offenses between brethren (much like the troubles described in 1 Cor 1-4). Here the issue is blatant immorality, a blight on the church and mark on the testimony of Christ – there is nothing to discuss, judgement must be made.

3. Paul’s concern in this matter is particularly for the church – the toleration of sin infects the spiritual life of the whole church and destroys the relationship between Christians and God (1 Cor 5.6-8).

Sin spreads in a Christian body like yeast does in bread (6). Paul uses the picture of Passover, one of the most important festivals of the Jewish calendar. At Passover, the house was scoured to make certain every particle of leaven had been purged from the house, an act symbolizing the purging of evil that Christ, the Passover Lamb provided (7). Continuing the metaphor, Paul urges the Corinthians to worship God in spirit and in truth, in purity and holiness, as partaking of the unleavened bread of the Son of God (8).

4. From the particulars of this case, Paul changes the subject to teach the proper relationship of the believer with fornicators (and other sinners) of this world, as opposed to those found within the church (1 Cor 5.9-13).

Here Paul alludes to his previous letter (see comments on ‘the rest of Ac 19’, just prior to the introduction to 1 Cor in Study Guide 13), where he had instructed them not to have company with ‘immoral people’. This letter no longer exists, though the fact of its teaching makes the sin of the Corinthians more serious: they had previously been instructed on this subject (9). Paul clarifies that by this instruction he had not meant to forbid all contact with immoral people (or other kinds of sinners) ‘of this world’ for that would mean total removal from society (10). What Paul means by his prohibition is that when a professing Christian is guilty of one of these gross sins demanding expulsion, he was to be completely shunned in every way by the believers, going as far as refusing to partake a meal together (11). It is not the business of the church to judge outsiders, but to judge insiders when it comes to these matters (12). God is the judge of those on the outside (13a). You (the church) are to judge those guilty of these sins on the inside, therefore the command is ‘Remove the wicked man from among yourselves’ (13b, Dt 13.5, 17.7, 17.12, 21.21, 22.21).

The most pertinent part of the commentary to this discussion is the last bit of Point 2, where I compare 1 Cor 5 with Mt 18. I would also like to submit a notion with respect to Mt 18, although I won’t take the time to prove it here. (I do want to write more fully on Mt 18 in a later post.) I think Mt 18 is largely misunderstood and over-applied. The Lord isn’t giving us a law of the Medes and Persians that must be followed in every case of church discipline. He isn’t giving us a template for dealing with errant teaching and errant teachers far and wide. He is dealing with personal conflicts and jockeying for position and place (politicking) among members of the local assembly. He is laying out principles to follow, not a law to be maintained or exactly followed in every case. We should follow it and apply it with WISDOM by faith without making it a LAW of the church.

To answer Larry’s last questions, then. First, I do see 1 Cor 5 as a church discipline passage. I just don’t think that Mt 18 and 1 Cor 5 are talking about the same thing. Church discipline in some cases requires Christians to employ wisdom in resolving disputes between themselves. They shouldn’t resort to the courts (Mt 18 and 1 Cor 6.1-8 are much more closely related than Mt 18 and 1 Cor 5.) They should try talking to each other, try to involve others, take it to the whole church if necessary. 1 Cor 5 has nothing to do with that. Paul is addressing a cancer in the body. You cut cancer out, you don’t keep it in. Certain egregious sins are a blight on the testimony of the church and simply cannot be tolerated.

As to correlating Gal 1 with this issue, I see where you are going Larry, that appears to be a ‘slip of the keyboard’ and you probably mean Gal 6.1. Again, I would find that passage more closely related to the wisdom of Mt 18 rather than the commandment of 1 Cor 5.

Finally, I made the comment that if you boot the fornicator out, you have an opportunity to see how genuine the repentance is. Larry wonders how so. Here is how: the fornicator who is coddled within the body may repent, but may only be doing so to protect self-interest. He can say the right things, change public perceptions, hide his sin deeper, and be even more deceptive than before. If you boot him out, he has nothing to gain by persisting in “repentance”. Now we can see if he really means it. Fence the table from him, put him under the church’s censure, insist on his expulsion from fellowship, and you will see whether he has been reformed. Many commentators suggest that this is indeed what happened in Corinth and Paul then instructed the Corinthians to reinstate the penitant. See 2 Cor 2.4-11.

The whole issue is complicated by 1 Cor 5.11, where Paul lists additional sins that fall under the category for which he gives the commands in 1 Cor 5.3-5. It appears that when a professing believer commits an egregious sin, he should be expelled from the assembly. Use the rod, and don’t be moved by the tears, until a test of time has passed and genuine repentance is evident.

The modern church is rather loose in its morality. I believe that one of the major areas where the church is lax is failing to obey 1 Cor 5. It makes me wonder if the Lord will find faith on the earth when he returns. Oh Lord Jesus, Come!

As I said, I do invite the comments of Larry and Chris, or anyone else interested in this discussion. I would like to work through these passages in detail, and the questions or comments that arise, especially pointing to specific features of the texts involved are most welcome. I may deal with such questions in future posts rather than in the comments section, however.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A good deal of recent discussion swirled around the idea of abusive pastors and the ‘suffering’ saints who sat under their leadership [also here]. I wouldn’t say that there have NEVER been manipulative liars in pulpits, it stands to reason that there have been many. But just as with secularistic social workers, I tend to look askance at most claims of abuse. First is the matter of perspective, as some have pointed out. Rebels always think they are being abused. Second is the matter of choice – church membership and involvement is based on voluntary association. Those enduring the alleged abuse do have minds, wills, and feet. They are not ‘trapped’ and can leave. And, again, this is certainly not to say that manipulative leadership does not exist. It is part of the human condition.

Besides these issues, there is something of a matter of social psychology and prevalent moods. The days in which we live are without a doubt much more anti-authoritarian than the days in which I grew up. My childhood years were the 60s, a turbulent anti-authority decade … among the teenagers at the time. Those of us who were children in those days still lived in the culture of the 40s and 50s for the most part. The rebellion and change began to filter down to us as the decade progressed and emerged full blown (but much less radical) in our teenage years, the 1970s. When we were in grade school and even into junior high, a high percentage of us still went to school in buzz cuts … I remember the scorn we felt for those sissy guys who came to school with ‘Beatle haircuts’. Of course, by the 70s, the restraint was long gone and hair was everywhere. (Not on me, though, I stuck to my tapered cut… but I did have long sideburns!)

My point in this little illustration is that the generation that is rising to leadership now is the fruit of an anti-authority generation, whereas my generation is the fruit of an authoritarian generation. Someone gave me a tape yesterday of evangelist Joe Boyd giving his testimony. Boyd is well known in some circles, was an All-American tackle on the 1939 Texas A & M national championship football team, winners of the 1940 Cotton Bowl. He rebelled from his Christian upbringing and went into secular life, by his testimony, a life of business, gambling, and drinking. After a few years, the Lord got hold of Boyd, he went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, earning a Master of Theology degree in 1947. He then went into the Lord’s work as a pastor and evangelist. He was close to Jack Hyles and would tend to travel in those circles.

Listening to Boyd talk brings to mind the kind of preacher some folks would like to call abusive. Boyd is strong, rough, domineering in his speech, at least to some ears. One must remember, however the times in which he was reared. He is a product of the Second World War. Tom Brokaw called this generation ‘The Greatest Generation’. The men of this era built the continent. They were coming out of the horse and buggy era into the modern era of automobiles and ‘aeroplanes’. They fought the great fight of the war, or they were prepared to. (My own father was 18 when the war ended – had it lasted longer he could have been called into that struggle.) That generation built the interstate highway system, lived the oil boom, and brought an agrarian society off the farm to transform it into a society of cities. The men (and women) of that generation were strong, resourceful, opinionated, and successful.

Did they go too far? Are some of those preachers stuck in a time warp? I suppose one could say that. But are they entirely wrong? I am not sure about that. I expect that many of those crying ‘pastoral abuse’ today would have a hard time with the apostles. Too rough, too domineering. And what of the Old Testament prophets? Well! Suppose we had Amos for a pastor. How would our 21st century sophisticates hold up under his preaching?

The Scriptures teach that a pastor must not be a brawler, he must lead with love and serve the flock God has given him. But that doesn’t mean that he must be some kind of emotional lightweight who just lets people do what they want and never hear a word of rebuke either. The claims of pastoral abuse are much overdone and are symptomatic of our times. I am struck by some of the comments we are seeing at how much like liberal Democrats and the left of public society they sound like. Are these people for real? Is this the future of fundamentalism? Lord help us!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

We looked at 1 Th 4-5 on Wednesday evening, considering the topic ‘Great Expectations‘. Of course, the big thing that people turn to 1 Thessalonians for is the Rapture, found in chapter 4. I recall the tragedy of sitting at a funeral for a lost friend of mine, dead at 19 (my age at the time) who was killed in a head on collision just before I returned to BJU for my sophomore year. They read this passage at the funeral. But they had no hope. The funeral was held in the Elks Lodge, and conducted by members of the Royal Canadian Legion – well meaning, but no God and no Lord Jesus. What a tragedy.

When we consider these verses, and the whole of eschatology, we have to ask ourselves what they are intended to do for the believer. The context of 1 Th 4-5 gives us the answer. Paul says in 1 Th 4.1 that he wants to exhort the Thessalonians about how to walk and to please God. Then he proceeds to deal with two subjects, sexual purity and loving your brother. If a man lives clean and pure in both these areas, he will be well spoken of even in the secular world. But life isn’t just about success in the secular world, and our motivation isn’t the praise of men or the hope of the good life here and now. First, our hope is in the Lord who will come back with a shout (the Rapture – 1 Th 4.13-18) and our promise is escape from wrath (the day of the Lord – 1 Th 5.1-11). From eschatology, Paul turns to concluding with his wonderful exhortations in 1 Th 5 (the second reason people turn to 1 Th). All of these are meant to guide believers to a life ‘well pleasing to God’. Our motivation ought to be the hope of heaven and the promise of God’s approval for a life lived for him.