Authority -- is it good or bad? (Part I -- Should we have leaders?)

Someone I know (Let's call him "Mark") happened to quote Wm. Young (author of The Shack) in a facebook status update.

I am unable to quote it exactly, as he has since removed it, but the quote was typical of the tone of the book. Authority is viewed as a Bad Thing, and a cudgel the strong use to bully the weak.

I didn't ask whether "Mark" (himself a parent) feels that the exercise of parental authority constitutes bullying, but I doubt that would have really helped us engage the topic.

It was pretty clear he wasn't planning on listening to what I would say. I say this because he called me a liar claiming I hadn't even read the book when I explained my concerns about it. (I have read it.)

While considering how I would have answered him, in an actual conversation, it seemed this would be a good topic to explore a little.

Let me preface this by saying this is not to pick a fight with "Mark" specifically. My intention is to use his view (which, in light of the book's popularity is pretty widespread) to address those who share that view, generally, or know others who do.

There are so many angles to approach this question from, it's difficult to chose only one. Let's start by focusing on the Biblical role of leaders.

There are background factors that shed more light on "Mark's" use of that quote. He has a strong [think: All-caps, bold type, double-underlined "strong"] opinion that traditional Churches with paid pastoral staff, and that meet formally to worship as a group are somewhere between "inferior" and "heretical". (I say somewhere between, only because I'm not clear how far he's willing to take his opinion.)

"Mark" quotes the Bible often, nearly as often as he quotes his favorite scholars to prop up his position. To be fair, some of his objections are perfectly true. (I could give textual support for each, but as we are in agreement, it seems unnecessary.)

For example:
1) Any believer, however new in the faith, ought to have his concerns truly heard when he speaks about the Bible, or offers correction (personal and/or theological) to a brother in Christ.

2) Every believer is a minister. (This was foundational in Luther's Refomation, and continues to be a key distinction between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics).

3) There should be an attitude of mutual submission within the Body of Christ, with nobody Lording themselves over one another.

4) It was never the Biblical mandate for people to lock themselves into a building for an hour or two a week, and spend the next six days and twenty-some-odd hours completely disconnected from that time spent together.

BUT -

That does NOT mean that the Body of Christ is to be without leadership and direction, or that there are not people who have a special role, purpose, and function within that body.

Examples.

In Acts 6, there was rapid growth in the Church.

Part of that growth included widows who required their daily needs to be met. The Apostles recognized that their day was being spent in meeting the natural needs of the widows, and that was limiting their ability to do what they were supposed to do. What was that? Prayer, and the ministry of the Word.

The Apostles passed off the responsibility of "waiting on tables" (deacon translates roughly into "waiter") onto others, so they could dedicate themselves to "prayer and the ministry of the Word"

Why is this important? Because the deacons also did things like Preach (Stephen gave a tremendous sermon just before becoming the Church's first Martyr), Pray for the sick, and other things that 'every minister' can do. They were ALSO ministers of the gospel. So a close look at the text shows us that the time of prayer and ministry of the Word in the life of the Apostles was to be even more jealously guarded by the Apostles, than by the Deacons.

Notice that even becoming "just" Deacons, involved being set apart as leaders. (Laying on of hands) and it was not "everyone" that ordained them as leaders, but the Apostles who laid hands on them.

Ask yourself, does a stricter set of requirements and qualifications not Automatically create a distinction between two groups of people?

To be Redeemed, you must simply repent of dead works, and trust in the completed atoning work of Jesus Christ.

But that is not sufficient to be a LEADER in Christ's body, is it?

What does God say?
In Titus chapter One:

⁵The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. ⁶An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. ⁷Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. ⁸Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. ⁹He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

It was a high priority of Paul's that particular people with pretty rigourous qualifications were set in place to "oversee" the Church. The terms "Elder" and "Overseer" (bishop in some translations) refer to the same people. Men of proven integrity and character who are able to rightly divide the word, and stand as a defense against those who would introduce heresies into the congregation.

A new convert does not have to uphold the same standards, (although there should be that desire) as someone who has been more firmly established in his faith.

The Body of Christ is more than an amorphous blob of individuals forming a Collectivist gathering where the parts are more or less interchangeable.

There is a wide gulf between the Biblical description of Community and the Communes of the Sixties. God has ordained the former, but denies the latter.

What we are instead offered is the Biblical Picture of the Body (Romans 12) where there are both prominent parts and modest ones, each having their unique value and contribution to the whole. They cannot be swapped out like cogs in a machine, because no two are quite alike.

And some have been equipped to minister to and strengthen Christ's Church, to help her endure various trials and temptations, and prepare her to fulfill the work of the Ministry.

Like all other things, it is centered on Christ. He is the Chief Shepherd, but he has appointed some as Under-shepherds of His Flock. (1 Peter 5:2) All Authority has it's center and Locus in Christ (Matthew 28) but He has appointed some to be Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers. (Eph 4) for the equipping of the Saints for the work of the Ministry.

If that is not enough, let the direct command of His Word settle the matter, with a word that is not very popular in our individualistic culture:

Heb 13:17 "¹⁷Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

God does not shy away from such use of godly Authority, but then again, that word will only be received if we truly believe God has the right to make such demands of us, won't it?

Is there an "I" in your "we"? (Snippets of Spurgeon)

This portion of one of Spurgeon's sermons is taken from "Sermon VII, The Church of Christ".
(Spurgeon's text is Ezekiel 34:26 KJV.)

²⁶And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing. (Ezekiel 34:26, King James Version)

But notice, next, the personality of the blessing. "I will make them a blessing." "I will make each member of the church a blessing." Many people come up to the house of prayer, where the church assembles: and you say, "Well, what are you doing at such-and-such a place where you attend?" "Well, we are doing so-and-so." "How do you spell we?" "It is a plain monosyllable, " say you. "Yes, but do you put I in 'we?'" "No." There are a great many people who could easily spell "we" without an I in it ; for though they say, "We have been doing so-and-so," they do not say, "How much have I done? Did I do anything in it? Yes ; this chapel has been enlarged ; what did I subscribe? Twopence!" Of course it is done. Those who paid the money have done it. "We preach the gospel." Do we indeed? "Yes, we sit in our pew and listen a little, and do not pray for a blessing. We have got such a large Sunday School." Did you ever teach in it? "We have got a very good working society." Did you ever go to work in it? That is not the way to spell "we." It is, "I will make them a blessing." When Jerusalem was built, every man began nearest to his own house. That is where you must begin to build or do something. Do not let us tell a lie about it. If we do not have some share in the building, if we neither handle the trowel nor the spear, let us not talk about our church ; for the text says, "I will make them a blessing, " every one of them.
"But, sir, what can I do? I am nothing but a father at home ; I am so full of business, I can only see my children a little." But in your business, do you ever have any servants? "No ; I am a servant myself." You have fellow-servants? "No ' I work alone." Do you work alone, then, and live alone, like a monk in a cell? I don't believe that. But you have fellow-servants at work ' cannot you say a word to their conscience? "I don't like to intrude religion into the business." Quite right, too ' so say I ' when I am at business, let it be business; when you are at religion, let it be religion. But do you never have an opportunity? Why, you cannot go into an omnibus, or a railway carriage, but what you can say something for Jesus Christ. I have found it so, and I don't believe I am different from other people. Cannot do anything? Cannot you put a tract into your hat, and drop it where you go? Cannot yo uspeak a word to a child? Where does this man come from, that cannot do anything? There is a spider on the wall ; but he taketh hold on kings' palaces, and spinneth his web to rid the world of noxious flies. There is a nettle in the corner of the churchyard ; but the physician tells me it has its virtues. There is a tiny star in the sky ; but that is noted in the chart, and the mariner looks at it. There is an insect under water ; built it builds a rock. God made all these things for something ; but here is a man that God made and gave him nothing at all to do! I do not believe it. God never makes useless things; he has no superfluous workmanship. I care not what you are ; you have somewhat to do. And oh! may God show you what it its, and then make you do it, by the wonderous compulsion of his providence and his grace.

The passage quoted comes from Spurgeon's Sermons.

Moses and our Modern Mandate

The Church Militant.

You don't really hear that term anymore, but there was a time when the phrase itself would stir hearts. Why? What does it mean?

First, what it does NOT mean. It does not mean politically or economically dominating a population and coercing them to adopt your beliefs, customs and cultures. When preachers reduce spreading the gospel to a Coke vs. Pepsi, marketing battle they've got it about as wrong as it can be.

The Church militant is comprised of those people standing upright on Terra Firma, who are standing in the Here and Now, and look forward to the Hereafter. They have been Redeemed by Christ, and do (or should) contend for the faith, to persuade "whosoever will" to trust in Christ.

No armies, no bullets. Just an eternal and infallible Word proclaimed by temporal and fallible men.

Let's look in Deuteronomy 7 for a glimpse of how this looks.

(As you know, today we are not fighting to win territory but the hearts and minds of men.)

Verse 1: When the Lord brings you into the land you are entering to take possession of it and clears away many nations before you (names them) seven nations more numerous and mighty then yourselves...

When ... brings ... are entering... take possession ... clears away

There is no ambiguity in this language. There is no IF, of possibly, or conditional promise. There is a directive, and they have been thrust into it. In fact, at this point, it has already begun, because God ordained that 2 other nations initiated hostilities with Israel, that God could hand them over to Israel. (Deut 2:30-32, 3:1-11) Which can remind us that often when someone picks a fight with us, it's because God wants us to win it.

The Lord is also taking an ownership role in verse 1. He is bringing, and He is clearing away therefore, this promise is not a function of our method, our tactics, our manpower, our budget or whatever else we might trust in. The odds are against us, and that's exactly the way God wants it so He can be recognized as the ultimate architect of the victory. Two Thousand years of Church history with Empires and Ideologies falling like dominoes show us that God is still doing this today.

V. 2 "And when the Lord gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

Working from the assumption of success prior to the attempt, Moses is telling them what to do with their victory. Defeat them. Destroy them. Do we destroy them today? Not the people, since our battle is for the hears and minds of men. But we must clash with ideas and ideologies. No covenant, no mercy. We do it in the same way that MADD (for example) is aggressively targeting the practice of drunk driving with the intention of thoroughly destroying it. We offer the olive branch to people, but not to poisonous ideas.

Today, the words NAZI and KKK are so thoroughly stigmatized and repulsive that people want to distance themselves from any association with these ideas. That is the objective here.

v. 3 is a warning against intermarriage, and v. 4 explains why: because their children would turn to worship other gods.

Much of Israel's historical problem came from Syncretism. That is, a blending of Jewish and pagan religious beliefs and practices. Not much has changed today. We have imprecise belief, and do-it-yourself theology. We've got golden calves popping up all over the place. We make judgments about what scripture we will or will not accept based on what we assume about God.

What happens when you've become a god-crafter, when you tweak Him to suit your tastes? What is he trying to avoid by putting such a strong emphasis of not merely co-existing with these ideologies? v. 4 goes on to say that God's wrath would include ourselves.

Illustration: your city's rickety apartment block that even the rats and cockroaches have abandoned for safety reasons is scheduled to be knocked down. Signs are posted. Explosives are set. You ignore them and hop the fence in the dark of night, sneak into a bedroom on the top floor, and congratulate yourself on your room with a view. You took up residence in a condemned building, knowing that you risked being caught in the destruction, but ignored the warnings. The building comes down with you in it. Who is responsible? You or the city? You, naturally. That's more or less what this is trying to convey.

(Notice the shift from "I" to "you". God is responsible for verses 1 and 2a. Israel for 2b through 4.)

God gives the solution: BUT...

Doesn't the goodness of God just blaze through that one word?
Danger. Don't go there. Don't cross that line. Stay out of harms' way. I'm going to tell you what you can do to avoid it. Hear me. Heed the warnings.

What does he say we must do?

Break down their altars. Dash in pieces their pillars. Chop down their Asherim. Burn their carved images with fire.

Target the idols and ideologies. Reduce them to nothing. Do not let them hold sway over people. Do not make peace with them or keep them as trophies. Do not adapt them to your culture. If it strives to rival the position and place of God, hunt it down.

Why? (v. 6) Because you are a people holy to the Lord.

If we truly value the righteousness and holiness of God, if the souls of men are precious to us, we do them no favours by playing patty-cake with the very ideas and convictions that enslave them and hold them back from knowing and loving Jesus Christ.

If we saw a child about to drink a bottle of drain cleaner, we would intervene. Yet we see people drinking the spirit of this age all the time, and do nothing. Which has the more far-reaching effect?

Jesus Christ lived the perfect life, and conquered sin, and suffered death, and rose to life eternal, so that we too, could share in His victory over sin, and the eternal life He offers.

The way we participate in the Holiness that makes us His treasured possessions, isn't from keeping score on an ethical check-list. It's by accepting that His death in my place and yours is sufficient to satisfy the same wrath of a holy God that verse 4 warned of, and that his righteousness is freely given as a gift to us. One we can never earn and could never repay. We are not his debtors, but his children, if we trust in Jesus, and turn from our sin.

Marriage and Prayer

²But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. ³The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. ⁵Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.God's word is very frank and practical. It isn't afraid to directly address sensitive issues, or issues of practical importance.

What is being said here?
First, the obvious application of the passage: The preservation of the sanctity of marriage.

God acknowledges our natural appetites, and directs us to their proper and healthy uses.

Physical intimacy is sanctioned within marriage. [You might notice also, that there is no ambiguity about the relationship: one male, one female.]
More than sanctioned, the marriage covenant is elevated and sanctified in Hebrews 13.

Marriage is especially significant to a Christian because it is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church. -- but we will come to that point shortly.

What is required of husband and wife?

In contrast to the Shiite law which states that a man must be permitted to approach his wife every 4th day, the Bible requires that we respond to one another's affections. What this means is NOT a legalistic mark-the-days-on-the-calendar sense. Who wants their loved one to engage in a merely mechanical duty-based response? Yuck.

To belabour the point a little, the Bible is not a hard-and-fast-comply-at-gunpoint instruction in this matter. Every commandment is kept by loving (1) God and (2) one another.

As Christians we are to be available our spouses. No using intimacy as a leverage for behaviour modification. No punishing the spouse by withheld affection. Intimacy (at any level) is to be freely returned, because (and only because) of our mutual love. We have been made one, this motivates us to nurture the relationship. To fix quarrels quickly. To remain positive, kind and loving to one another. The only exception noted was fasting, and then only under an agreed circumstance. Recap: no unilateral withholding of intimacy with your spouse. (By the way... Men, this includes emotional intimacy.)

I Peter 3:7 shows a relationship between giving proper honor to your spouse and the effectiveness of your prayers. If you fail to honour your spouse (in this case, wife), it will inhibit your prayers.

REMEMBER: Marriage is to be a picture, or an echo of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

What does this tell us? First, that we should not think we who call Christ "Lord" can pick and choose which of his ways are worth following. He is Lord, or He is not. We can't have it both ways. He does not heap heavy burdens on us, and what he does ask of us is less than what He himself gave to us.

Second, since it tells us about our reasonable response to Christ, it also tells us about what we can expect about His reaction toward His bride (the Church).

He does not withdraw His affections. He is good. He has already given himself for His Church, and in so doing, proven His love for her. We should be confident that he hears and answers when we call.

Consider this, too: If natural marriage is given this instruction to safeguard the relationship between man and wife, so that they will delight in one another, and not seek some unlawful outside comfort, what does this tell us about Christ and his Church?

He is our delight. He is our delight in His PERSON, not just His benefits.

Would our good God and Saviour withdraw Himself from us? We are made to worship. We are "idol factories". If we do not find ourselves worshiping God, we worship elsewhere.

Whatever comfort, hope, identity, satisfaction or delight might lawfully be sought in God, is an abomination when sought in the Created Order. We cannot help ourselves, we worship. If God were to withdraw Himself, we would worship something else. Would a loving husband put his spouse intentionally into equivalent temptation? No! You can see a picture of how he guards and purifies his love in Hosea. Re-read that seldom-read Biblical book if you haven't lately.

Paul connects the dots in Ephesians. These (Eph 5:22-33) should be verses that inform and embolden us in our faith, and fan our love for the Lamb of God. They explicitly transpose some aspect of the unity and reciprocity of marriage to the mystery of Christ and His Church.