Friends,
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the Confessing Baptist Blog and the Confessing Baptist Website are closing up shop. I’ve never been the kind of person that likes to do things half-heartedly- I’m typically an all or nothing type of guy. Yet, various life situations and increasingly more important concerns have lead me to give less attention to these aspects of ministry. Frankly, I have little interest in anything I can’t pour myself into- I feel it becomes a waste of my time and belittles the time of others- neither of which do anything for Christ's glory.
To be more specific, an opportunity regarding the website has arisen for me to contemplate the future. I originally started the website to be a base of operation to promote my book. I’ve come to find out that there’s just not that much interest in confessional theology. And really, while the days we are living in necessitate a more robust confessional involvement from the people of the church, I can’t blame anyone for seeking out other interests that may help to promote their spiritual well-being. I also don’t blame anyone for not plopping down dollars on a no-name writer.
A part of that same line of thinking has lead me to conclude the blog as well. When I originally started the blog I wanted it to be a place of discussion for confessional Baptist matters. I drifted from that mission and began to see that my blog was much like other Baptist blogs- rants and raves about all matter of things with no truly edifying matters to walk away with. I shifted from that point to discussing practical ministry and, well, let’s face it, practical ministry matters just aren’t juicy enough to keep floating in the blogosphere.
Nevertheless, I have enjoyed the blog and especially interacting with others on the blog. I have been edified and strengthened through the discussion and I hope others have through me.
I will be posting two other blog entries after this one that I had previously written and I will be interacting with them if anybody desires it. But after that the shop will be closed, so to speak.
Thanks for reading and may the richest blessings of our Lord be with you and yours.
In Him,
TJ
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Signs We Are Loosing Our Baptist Identity
Friends,
Readers of the Confessing Baptist Blog have probably realized that I have intentionally tried to turn this blog into a resource for practical ministry above all else. Nevertheless, there are times when commentary on contemporary matters is necessary. I believe one such time has come.
I recently began receiving emails titled "Stimulus Package an Attack on Faith" or something like it. Then, Richard Land, guru of all things ethical in the convention weighed in on it from Baptist Press. Then I read a blog over at Founders that blasts Malcolm Yarnell for believing that saved people will and should want to follow Christ faithfully in believer’s baptism.
An attack on faith? Really? Yarnell wrong for holding to believer’s baptism? What’s up?
Regarding the proposed and now passed package, many conservative Christians have been in an uproar over a provision of that package regarding the upgrading of school facilities. In short, the package does not allow funds to be distributed to schools whose primary focus is on religion or facilities in schools where religious assemblies are held. This practically means that seminaries or other "Christian" schools cannot receive funds and that chapels and so forth on secular campuses cannot receive funds. This is what these folks are calling an attack on faith.
Friends, what this really reveals is just how far Baptists have gone in loosing our identity. I even received a snickering jeer from one Baptist pastor while discussing this matter after I told him, "no, we do believe in separation of church and state!" Baptists believe, or at least use to believe, more strongly than anyone else that church and state should be separate. We had been there and done that when church and state was one. One doesn’t have to witness too many Baptists beat, drowned and imprisoned before you start to realize this isn’t a good thing and Christ never desired it all along. We don’t take funds from them and they don’t take it from us. They don’t do anything to encourage or deny particular religions and we don’t do anything to make church and state one. This is a classic- even hallmark- Baptist belief. If our chapel needs an upgrade, we’ll do it. If the prayer rooms needs new paint, we’ll handle it. We gladly count ourselves on our own and, in what may be the last vestige of it in this society, we don’t want a government hand-out for it.
Regardless of the merits of the proposal one way or the other, at the end of the day we can be thankful that government is staying out of religious practice. Richard Land writes in the Baptist press that he sees a danger coming that could even bar students from reading and praying in their dorm rooms. What he fails to see is that those who do such things are probably ready to deal with the supposed "persecution." It’s the rest who are left worrying and squabbling about it.
Then to the matter over at Founders. At heart, I really believe the issue lays between Calvinists wanting to fellowship with other Calvinists regardless of belief in baptism. Some, seemingly such as Ascol, elevate Calvinism as a primary matter over baptism while others, such as Yarnell, find baptism to be no tertiary belief.
To be very clear, I personally believe a man can be saved and not undergo Scriptural baptism. In the sense of, "is this man a brother," I can fellowship with him. But, I can’t allow my conscience to receive such error as a part of fellowship in my church- for I am directly responsible for that. So, we all draw lines and at heart, proper baptism is a significant issue to fellowship- even a greater one than Calvinism. I could be wrong about the whole issue, but one can’t deny that the following scenario has serious implications. Imagine a man comes to church. He is a believer. He was baptized as an infant through sprinkling. Most Southern Baptist churches would require him to be baptized. In other words Baptists believe baptism is an incredibly important part of following Christ- even to the point that we received the name Baptists (shocking, I know). Yet, if that same man came into an otherwise Calvinist leaning Baptist church but he wasn’t a Calvinist and he had been baptized in another Baptist church- he would be received.
I guess at heart the issue is, "which is a greater "test" of fellowship- Calvinism or authentic Baptism." Baptists have long held which side they are going to fall on with this one.
Worry not, however, the ACLJ is on the stimulus case and the endless debate over the roll of Calvinism in fellowship will have no end. This blog will, however.
Let’s remain distinctly Baptist either way.
Blessings,
TJ
Readers of the Confessing Baptist Blog have probably realized that I have intentionally tried to turn this blog into a resource for practical ministry above all else. Nevertheless, there are times when commentary on contemporary matters is necessary. I believe one such time has come.
I recently began receiving emails titled "Stimulus Package an Attack on Faith" or something like it. Then, Richard Land, guru of all things ethical in the convention weighed in on it from Baptist Press. Then I read a blog over at Founders that blasts Malcolm Yarnell for believing that saved people will and should want to follow Christ faithfully in believer’s baptism.
An attack on faith? Really? Yarnell wrong for holding to believer’s baptism? What’s up?
Regarding the proposed and now passed package, many conservative Christians have been in an uproar over a provision of that package regarding the upgrading of school facilities. In short, the package does not allow funds to be distributed to schools whose primary focus is on religion or facilities in schools where religious assemblies are held. This practically means that seminaries or other "Christian" schools cannot receive funds and that chapels and so forth on secular campuses cannot receive funds. This is what these folks are calling an attack on faith.
Friends, what this really reveals is just how far Baptists have gone in loosing our identity. I even received a snickering jeer from one Baptist pastor while discussing this matter after I told him, "no, we do believe in separation of church and state!" Baptists believe, or at least use to believe, more strongly than anyone else that church and state should be separate. We had been there and done that when church and state was one. One doesn’t have to witness too many Baptists beat, drowned and imprisoned before you start to realize this isn’t a good thing and Christ never desired it all along. We don’t take funds from them and they don’t take it from us. They don’t do anything to encourage or deny particular religions and we don’t do anything to make church and state one. This is a classic- even hallmark- Baptist belief. If our chapel needs an upgrade, we’ll do it. If the prayer rooms needs new paint, we’ll handle it. We gladly count ourselves on our own and, in what may be the last vestige of it in this society, we don’t want a government hand-out for it.
Regardless of the merits of the proposal one way or the other, at the end of the day we can be thankful that government is staying out of religious practice. Richard Land writes in the Baptist press that he sees a danger coming that could even bar students from reading and praying in their dorm rooms. What he fails to see is that those who do such things are probably ready to deal with the supposed "persecution." It’s the rest who are left worrying and squabbling about it.
Then to the matter over at Founders. At heart, I really believe the issue lays between Calvinists wanting to fellowship with other Calvinists regardless of belief in baptism. Some, seemingly such as Ascol, elevate Calvinism as a primary matter over baptism while others, such as Yarnell, find baptism to be no tertiary belief.
To be very clear, I personally believe a man can be saved and not undergo Scriptural baptism. In the sense of, "is this man a brother," I can fellowship with him. But, I can’t allow my conscience to receive such error as a part of fellowship in my church- for I am directly responsible for that. So, we all draw lines and at heart, proper baptism is a significant issue to fellowship- even a greater one than Calvinism. I could be wrong about the whole issue, but one can’t deny that the following scenario has serious implications. Imagine a man comes to church. He is a believer. He was baptized as an infant through sprinkling. Most Southern Baptist churches would require him to be baptized. In other words Baptists believe baptism is an incredibly important part of following Christ- even to the point that we received the name Baptists (shocking, I know). Yet, if that same man came into an otherwise Calvinist leaning Baptist church but he wasn’t a Calvinist and he had been baptized in another Baptist church- he would be received.
I guess at heart the issue is, "which is a greater "test" of fellowship- Calvinism or authentic Baptism." Baptists have long held which side they are going to fall on with this one.
Worry not, however, the ACLJ is on the stimulus case and the endless debate over the roll of Calvinism in fellowship will have no end. This blog will, however.
Let’s remain distinctly Baptist either way.
Blessings,
TJ
A Position Paper on Elders
Friends,
In a previous article of the Confessing Baptist Blog, I raised the possibility to Pastor Ben Hottel about doing a point/counterpoint debate on the issue of eldership in the church. We never actually got around to handling this issue in such a way, but I thought since this blog is about to
close up shop I would go ahead a post what I had prepared.
It is at this point, however, that born-again, Bible believing people sometimes have a difference in idea on what the Bible teaches about local church leadership. This presents us with a critical junction of consideration, for fewer things impact the people of God in the local church more than the view and practice of church leadership, structure and authority. In light of such mammoth responsibility, one must be assured their position on the matter is biblical.
I have decided that this will be the direct approach I will use to present my position on single pastor leadership in the local church. I have determined not to use any resource for this position save the Bible and a Greek grammar and lexicon. I make as my thesis the following:
The vision of the New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While the New Testament does allow for multiple elders in single churches, the texts in which we find such leadership in the local church always pertains to a church in its infancy. Ultimately, the more mature the church grows the fewer elders it needs until it needs but one. This is the progressive revelation for the nature of local church leadership in the New Testament.
I believe it can be universally accepted that when the New Testament refers to bishops, elders, pastors, shepherds and so forth they are referring to the same office in different titles. I also believe it can be universally accepted that virtually all texts in the Old Testament have little bearing upon the issue at hand. Therefore, I will confine this paper to texts in the New Testament which speak directly about elders, as well as a few associated texts. I will begin with a brief overview of elders in the New Testament; then I will make a critical investigation of crucial texts. This will be followed by an attempt to synthesize the interpretation of the New Testament’s overview regarding elders as well as the crucial texts pertaining to them. Finally, I will make some concluding comments on various issues that result from the debate and my personal thesis.
I. A Brief Overview of Elders in the New Testament
In the Gospels
As one would expect, the gospels are silent on the issue of eldership be it plural or single. The reason for this is obvious as the intent of the gospels is to reveal the life of Jesus up to the formation of His church. All cases of the term "elder" being used in the gospels are in relation to the governance of the Jewish councils.
In the Historic Writing
The book of Acts is pregnant with passages pertaining to elders in the local church (Acts 14:23; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5). The presence of multiple elders is most visible in Acts at the churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus and Antioch. It is safe to assume, in my opinion, that when elders are mentioned in Acts in connection to the church, they can be mentioned in the context of single churches. In other words, Acts presents itself with single churches have a multiplicity of elders.
In the Epistles
The mention of elders in the epistles is somewhat sparse, but this should not surprise us. The governance of the church was not a primary issue in many of the epistles where greater issues, such as the nature and work of Christ, was of preeminent concern. The few places that elders are mentioned will be reviewed in the next section that will handle critical texts pertaining to the issue.
In the Apocalypse
Elders are mentioned quite regularly in the book of Revelation, especially as the word refers to visions and images that John saw in Heaven. As such, most of the references to elders in the book of Revelation shed little light upon our discourse here. What does shed from the book of Revelation upon our discourse are the words of Christ to the churches of Asia Minor in chapters 1 through 3. I will consider these texts shortly.
II. A Critical Investigation of Elders in the New Testament
There are four primary texts in the New Testament that speak to the issue of eldership. The four texts come to us via four Apostles- Paul, James, Peter and John.
The Particular Vision of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles
I believe it can be said that Paul had a definite specific vision for church leadership that consisted of a single elder and multiple deacons in the church from his writings in the pastoral epistles. This vision is particularly transmitted in the texts of 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5. I will examine these below in some depth.
Titus 1:5
The text of Titus 1:5 is one of the most highly contested passages regarding the plural-eldership viewpoint as well as the single elder viewpoint. Those promoting plural-eldeship seize upon the plural term elders while those promoting the single elder viewpoint reference the idea that every town had several churches and therefore Paul was directing Titus to appoint each church an elder. I will admit that both readings from both viewpoints are possible in this Scripture, but I believe only the single elder viewpoint is probable. I will diagram the text in its relevant portions to make my case. Examine:
The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders (masculine plural) in every town: someone (with emphasis on ti masculine singular meaning "who" with the context of "a man" or "a elder") who is blameless, the husband (masculine singular) of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For an overseer (masculine singular) as God’s manager (masculine singular) must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that he (passive deponent accusative masculine singular) will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.
It is revealing that of the six times Paul references the person/people he desires Titus to appoint in Crete all but one of those references is masculine singular. This does give some credence to the idea that Crete held many churches and Paul wanted Titus to appoint an elder to each church. I believe it can be reasoned that if Paul’s intent was to establish a plural-elder ministry in all the churches of Crete that he could just have easily said the following. The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: men who are blameless, the husbands of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For overseers, as God’s managers must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that they will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.
1 Timothy 3
The passage of 1 Timothy 3 is particularly interesting to our discussion. In this chapter, Paul is informing Timothy of the primary character traits required of those who hold the offices of elders (overseers) and deacons. I will not list those qualifications or enter into an explanation of them as they are most readily apparent from a reading of the text. I do want to draw attention to one subtle, but very revealing aspect of Paul’s writing in this chapter.
Paul begins by telling Timothy this saying is trustworthy: "If anyone aspires to be an overseer (singular), he desires a noble work." An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife….
Then verses 8-13 about deacons. Deacons (masculine plural), likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And they (masculine plural, to have to hold, i.e. "they should/must") must also be tested first; if they (masculine plural) prove blameless, then they can serve as deacons (masculine plural, "serve" as in let the men serve or in context, let them serve).
The critical implication of Paul’s message in chapter three can be found in the undeniable truth that Paul envisioned a singular "elder" with multiple "deacons." If his vision were for multiple elders he could have easily identified them as such in verses 1-7 just as he did with deacons in verses 8-13.
I turn my attention now to the writings of the Apostles James.
James 5:14
The book of James is essentially a commentary on our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. The book can prudently be classified in the "wisdom" genre of the Bible and is, in fact, the only source of that genre in the New Testament. James is writing to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion (James 1:1), which is likely a reference to many Jewish believers amongst the old Roman world.
In chapter 5 and verse 14, while teaching on the ways in which Christians should handle both joy and trial, he says Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. We are faced once again here with difference of plural and singular terms. The singular can be found in the person needing the ministry of the elder/s. The plural can be found in James’ reference to the elders. The question is, "was James speaking to this event occurring in one church or amongst the many churches?" If he is speaking to single churches then he is supporting plural elders in that church. If he is speaking to many churches, then he is speaking to single elders in single churches.
Other considerations are required before coming to a definite position on this verse as it relates to eldership in the church. First, one must remember that the foci of James, especially in this chapter, is to meld wisdom to the pursuit of righteousness. Thus, above all, this is not a theological treatise- James desires his people to understand the power of God in effective prayer. Secondly, we have to consider the broad scope of the writing to many churches. And thirdly, we need to consider how such actions would practically work themselves out in the local church. Thus, when considering all the facets together, there is no reason to believe that James suddenly shifts his early emphasis of writing broadly to many believers in many places. He made no effort to so localize this Scripture that we would understand it apart from the entire epistle’s context, which is a writing given to many churches, not one. Nevertheless, by the fact that he made no effort one way or another, the possibility exists that he was speaking either to local churches with one elder or many churches who each had many elders. Ultimately, this Scripture sheds no light upon the issue at hand- which is nothing against the text itself as it makes no claim to do so.
I will now turn to elders as found in the Apostle Peter’s writing.
1 Peter 5:1-5
Peter utilizes the fifth chapter of his first epistle to speak directly to the elders of the church. He does so both to encourage and spur them on the manner in which they should lead their churches as well as to their proper motive and intent. He then encourages the people of the flock, particularly younger men, on how they should submit to their elders. The text reads as follows: Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah, and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you: shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility, because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Peter identified in 1:1 that he, like James, is writing to the Jewish Christians in the Dispersion. Therefore, we know he is writing this to many congregations over a broad area. This impacts our view of his words, I exhort the elders among you, the you, in this case being the many churches. The ultimate question pertains to the elders among you (5:5). We are presented once again with the case of whether or not Peter had in view the younger men submitting to the many elders in one place, or if he was referring to the younger men in all the congregations submitting to their own elders. Keeping ourselves to the context and confines of Peter’s audience, the most reasonable interpretation is that Peter is still speaking to all the churches and all the elders and is offering a command for all the people to submit to their elders in each local church.
A Brief Analysis of Eldership in Other New Testament Texts
In the Apostle John
John mentions elders in several places of his writings. He has it in his 2 John 1, 3 John 1 and Revelation 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3 and 19:4. All of the references to elders in Revelation point to visions John received of Heaven and do not pertain to the local church on earth. 2 John 1:1 and 3 John 1:1 do have reference to the church on Earth however. In these cases John identifies himself as the Elder (singular). This self-identifying term could have a couple of possible inferences. First, it could be that he is identifying himself as the sole elder of the church universal (unlikely). Secondly, it could be a reference by which all the churches in John’s sphere of influence and ministry identified him as being. This is more likely as it is possible that John was, in a sense "the Elder," from the point that he was the last elder living of the 12 Apostles. It also may play a part in his literal age, which was advanced at this time. In other words, I believe John’s designation in these passages are terms of affection as well as authority and have little bearing to our issue at hand. It does however, nullify the rampant belief by those who hold to plural eldership in the local church that the New Testament nowhere holds the term "elder" in the singular. This is strictly speaking, of course.
And while it is true that the book of Revelation does not link the word "elder" to the local church on Earth, the word "angel" (avgge,lw noun singular) is used of a person in each of the seven local churches addressed by Christ in verses 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14. It seems most likely that this "angel" was indeed the elder in these local churches. For our purposes in the issue at hand, it is important to note that the Word of Christ was not to go to the "angels" of the local church, but the "angel." At this point it is probably wise to dismiss the notion that there were elders in the local church who didn’t teach and address the congregation. In no place of the New Testament is the office of elder addressed apart from the direct role of teaching the flock. Therefore, if the angels of the churches in Revelation were elders, there was only one of them who would receive and distribute this teaching.
The Author of Hebrews
The author of Hebrews says in 13:17, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. The issue confronts us yet again as to whether this is directed to the local church and its elders or all the churches and their respective elder. Since the real emphasis is upon the obedience/reward scenario of submitting to one’s pastor or pastors, the text offers little in the way to aid us in the issue at hand, except to say that one must take the hermeneutic leap of localizing this teaching to make it read in favor of multiple elders. The author himself leads not this way or another, yet it seems safer to assume he did not redirect his entire context in the epistle for this verse alone.
III. Arriving at a Synposis and Theology of Elders in the New Testament
It seems clear that a dichotomy exists in the New Testament from the place in which we first found elders to the development of elders in the churches at later periods. Primarily, we seem to find several elders in local churches in the book of Acts, but then we are given the distinct vision of Paul in which single churches have one elder and many deacons. In between there is some ambiguity in the rest of the epistles as to how the Apostles viewed elders in the church. The question we are ultimately confronted with is, "how are we to make sense of the New Testament in regard to eldership in the local church?"
A Possible and Probable Explanation
There are two presuppositions we must consider. The first is, "is the model of the church as given in Acts completely normative for every church in every age?" The second is, "does the New Testament progressively lay itself out in a way that directs us to the more full and mature model of eldership in the church?"
If the answer to the Acts model is "yes," then we must agree that multiple elders in single churches is the normative model. However, in order for us to accept the answer of "yes" we must discard the vision of eldership in the church from the Apostle Paul in his pastoral epistles. I am not willing to make such a leap, so this brings us to the second presupposition of the New Testament progressively expanding God’s revelation as to the vision of eldership in the church.
This, in my opinion, is not only a possible scenario- it is a probable one. The nature of biblical revelation itself is progressive; therefore we should be willing to accept that the nature of the church as viewed in the Bible can be the same. Thus, what we have in the New Testament is elder-filled local churches when the church is in its earliest infancy. Then, as time marches on we begin to see how a more mature church model exists wherein single elders are brought to single churches. Ultimately, the time will come upon the glorification of Christ’s church when the church will need no pastors.
This thesis brings in the full scope of the New Testament. It helps us to see why there were multiple elders in the churches of Acts and why the epistles speak vaguely in terms of possible single elders in single churches as well as multiple elders. And it helps to finalize our understanding of single elders in single churches according to the instruction of Paul in the pastoral epistles. In other words, the vision of New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While it is true that some churches in the New Testament had multiple elders in single churches, again, these churches were in their infancy. As the Kingdom of God expanded and churches began to reach their full maturity, the need for multiple elders diminished on the basis of 1) the local church no longer needed them and 2) new churches did.
IV. Concluding Comments
If it is true that the New Testament vision for the local church is single pastor leadership, why do so many churches have multiple elders?
The history of the church, and even of Baptists, have contained many theologically solid churches practicing a plural form of eldership ministry. Some Baptist confessions even speak to the plurality of elders. Focusing on Baptist churches particularly, I would venture to say that those in our history who held to plural elder leadership were undoubtedly churches that had Calvinist or reformed theological leanings. In our modern day, Calvinism coupled with pragmatism seems to be the driving motives. This is not to say such churches are not Bible believing churches or that all Calvinistic churches are multiple elder churches. It is to say that oftentimes pastors and churches have trouble separating themselves from reformed salvation theology as well as reformed church theology.
Aren’t most Baptist churches pragmatically driven in their leadership structures? If so, why could a church not have multiple elders on the basis of pragmatism alone?
I will accept it that there are many roles in ministry that are not directed by the New Testament such as "Youth Minister," "Children’s Minister," "W.M.U. Director," etc. We all readily accept these positions as valid when the New Testament doesn’t authorize them, so why can we not have the same with elders?
There is a fundamental reason as to why. When Baptists utilize such positions as Youth Ministers, Children’s Ministers, etc., we are simply living the reality of the priesthood of the believer among us. These positions are simply figureheads for the gifting of Christ in His Church. We can pay them if we wish or we cannot pay them. We can elevate their authority in the church or give them no authority at all. You can strip the titles from those positions and yet the people can function in them just the same. The church can exist and is not defined by Youth Pastors, Children Ministers or W.M.U. directors. It cannot exist and is defined by its adherence to the two biblically ordained offices of pastors and deacons. These titles bear with them the authority of Christ to govern His own church. The New Testament gives very specific direction for who these people should be, how the church should follow them, how they should be remunerated for their work, etc.
This presents us with a dilemma that churches utilizing multiple elders must consider. Are all the elders called, viewed, minister and paid the same way? If not, these people should not be called elders, according to the New Testament. There is absolutely no such position in the New Testament for a "lay elder" or an "executive elder" or the "elder in charge of this, that and the other thing." It is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical office to handle multiple elders any other way. And this misrepresentation presents the opportunity for violating many of the things pertaining to the nature of the church.
Some Real Dangers Regarding Local Church Leadership
The are two twin dangers of multiple elders in the local church.
The first is that those proposing the plural eldership model can begin to believe that multiple elders are normative for the church, i.e. a church is not a church without them. This cannot be supported from Scripture.
The second danger is that since there is such a pragmatic drive for the reasoning of having multiple elders, it seems logical to assume that such pragmatism can bleed into the church. In the worst of cases, the members of the local church may not be able to guide the church, much less "rule" the church (and for the sake of clarity, Baptists do not believe in any form of "elder rule." We believe in congregational rule). Ultimately, problems can exist in church leadership regardless of the leadership style used. It is just as possible for a single elder to dictate and minister pragmatically as it is for multiple elders. However, particularly as it pertains to Baptist churches, this seems an especial temptation and practice in multiple elder ministries.
In a previous article of the Confessing Baptist Blog, I raised the possibility to Pastor Ben Hottel about doing a point/counterpoint debate on the issue of eldership in the church. We never actually got around to handling this issue in such a way, but I thought since this blog is about to
close up shop I would go ahead a post what I had prepared.
A Biblical Position for Single Pastor Models of Church Leadership
Introduction
God’s ordained means of leading His people is a matter our Lord does not take lightly. He has given us copious amounts of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments that intricately detail the required character and purposes of those who would lead the people of God. Being a matter of such great importance to our Lord, it should certainly become a matter of great importance to us. And truly, the leadership of the local church is of vast importance to every faithful member in the local church. From the various debates of female pastorates, to the issue of divorced pastors, right into the issue for our current debate, church leadership matters to the people of God.
Introduction
God’s ordained means of leading His people is a matter our Lord does not take lightly. He has given us copious amounts of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments that intricately detail the required character and purposes of those who would lead the people of God. Being a matter of such great importance to our Lord, it should certainly become a matter of great importance to us. And truly, the leadership of the local church is of vast importance to every faithful member in the local church. From the various debates of female pastorates, to the issue of divorced pastors, right into the issue for our current debate, church leadership matters to the people of God.
It is at this point, however, that born-again, Bible believing people sometimes have a difference in idea on what the Bible teaches about local church leadership. This presents us with a critical junction of consideration, for fewer things impact the people of God in the local church more than the view and practice of church leadership, structure and authority. In light of such mammoth responsibility, one must be assured their position on the matter is biblical.
I have decided that this will be the direct approach I will use to present my position on single pastor leadership in the local church. I have determined not to use any resource for this position save the Bible and a Greek grammar and lexicon. I make as my thesis the following:
The vision of the New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While the New Testament does allow for multiple elders in single churches, the texts in which we find such leadership in the local church always pertains to a church in its infancy. Ultimately, the more mature the church grows the fewer elders it needs until it needs but one. This is the progressive revelation for the nature of local church leadership in the New Testament.
I believe it can be universally accepted that when the New Testament refers to bishops, elders, pastors, shepherds and so forth they are referring to the same office in different titles. I also believe it can be universally accepted that virtually all texts in the Old Testament have little bearing upon the issue at hand. Therefore, I will confine this paper to texts in the New Testament which speak directly about elders, as well as a few associated texts. I will begin with a brief overview of elders in the New Testament; then I will make a critical investigation of crucial texts. This will be followed by an attempt to synthesize the interpretation of the New Testament’s overview regarding elders as well as the crucial texts pertaining to them. Finally, I will make some concluding comments on various issues that result from the debate and my personal thesis.
I. A Brief Overview of Elders in the New Testament
In the Gospels
As one would expect, the gospels are silent on the issue of eldership be it plural or single. The reason for this is obvious as the intent of the gospels is to reveal the life of Jesus up to the formation of His church. All cases of the term "elder" being used in the gospels are in relation to the governance of the Jewish councils.
In the Historic Writing
The book of Acts is pregnant with passages pertaining to elders in the local church (Acts 14:23; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5). The presence of multiple elders is most visible in Acts at the churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus and Antioch. It is safe to assume, in my opinion, that when elders are mentioned in Acts in connection to the church, they can be mentioned in the context of single churches. In other words, Acts presents itself with single churches have a multiplicity of elders.
In the Epistles
The mention of elders in the epistles is somewhat sparse, but this should not surprise us. The governance of the church was not a primary issue in many of the epistles where greater issues, such as the nature and work of Christ, was of preeminent concern. The few places that elders are mentioned will be reviewed in the next section that will handle critical texts pertaining to the issue.
In the Apocalypse
Elders are mentioned quite regularly in the book of Revelation, especially as the word refers to visions and images that John saw in Heaven. As such, most of the references to elders in the book of Revelation shed little light upon our discourse here. What does shed from the book of Revelation upon our discourse are the words of Christ to the churches of Asia Minor in chapters 1 through 3. I will consider these texts shortly.
II. A Critical Investigation of Elders in the New Testament
There are four primary texts in the New Testament that speak to the issue of eldership. The four texts come to us via four Apostles- Paul, James, Peter and John.
The Particular Vision of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles
I believe it can be said that Paul had a definite specific vision for church leadership that consisted of a single elder and multiple deacons in the church from his writings in the pastoral epistles. This vision is particularly transmitted in the texts of 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5. I will examine these below in some depth.
Titus 1:5
The text of Titus 1:5 is one of the most highly contested passages regarding the plural-eldership viewpoint as well as the single elder viewpoint. Those promoting plural-eldeship seize upon the plural term elders while those promoting the single elder viewpoint reference the idea that every town had several churches and therefore Paul was directing Titus to appoint each church an elder. I will admit that both readings from both viewpoints are possible in this Scripture, but I believe only the single elder viewpoint is probable. I will diagram the text in its relevant portions to make my case. Examine:
The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders (masculine plural) in every town: someone (with emphasis on ti masculine singular meaning "who" with the context of "a man" or "a elder") who is blameless, the husband (masculine singular) of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For an overseer (masculine singular) as God’s manager (masculine singular) must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that he (passive deponent accusative masculine singular) will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.
It is revealing that of the six times Paul references the person/people he desires Titus to appoint in Crete all but one of those references is masculine singular. This does give some credence to the idea that Crete held many churches and Paul wanted Titus to appoint an elder to each church. I believe it can be reasoned that if Paul’s intent was to establish a plural-elder ministry in all the churches of Crete that he could just have easily said the following. The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town: men who are blameless, the husbands of one wife, having faithful children not accused or wildness or rebellion. For overseers, as God’s managers must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled, holding the faithful message as taught so that they will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.
1 Timothy 3
The passage of 1 Timothy 3 is particularly interesting to our discussion. In this chapter, Paul is informing Timothy of the primary character traits required of those who hold the offices of elders (overseers) and deacons. I will not list those qualifications or enter into an explanation of them as they are most readily apparent from a reading of the text. I do want to draw attention to one subtle, but very revealing aspect of Paul’s writing in this chapter.
Paul begins by telling Timothy this saying is trustworthy: "If anyone aspires to be an overseer (singular), he desires a noble work." An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife….
Then verses 8-13 about deacons. Deacons (masculine plural), likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And they (masculine plural, to have to hold, i.e. "they should/must") must also be tested first; if they (masculine plural) prove blameless, then they can serve as deacons (masculine plural, "serve" as in let the men serve or in context, let them serve).
The critical implication of Paul’s message in chapter three can be found in the undeniable truth that Paul envisioned a singular "elder" with multiple "deacons." If his vision were for multiple elders he could have easily identified them as such in verses 1-7 just as he did with deacons in verses 8-13.
I turn my attention now to the writings of the Apostles James.
James 5:14
The book of James is essentially a commentary on our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. The book can prudently be classified in the "wisdom" genre of the Bible and is, in fact, the only source of that genre in the New Testament. James is writing to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion (James 1:1), which is likely a reference to many Jewish believers amongst the old Roman world.
In chapter 5 and verse 14, while teaching on the ways in which Christians should handle both joy and trial, he says Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. We are faced once again here with difference of plural and singular terms. The singular can be found in the person needing the ministry of the elder/s. The plural can be found in James’ reference to the elders. The question is, "was James speaking to this event occurring in one church or amongst the many churches?" If he is speaking to single churches then he is supporting plural elders in that church. If he is speaking to many churches, then he is speaking to single elders in single churches.
Other considerations are required before coming to a definite position on this verse as it relates to eldership in the church. First, one must remember that the foci of James, especially in this chapter, is to meld wisdom to the pursuit of righteousness. Thus, above all, this is not a theological treatise- James desires his people to understand the power of God in effective prayer. Secondly, we have to consider the broad scope of the writing to many churches. And thirdly, we need to consider how such actions would practically work themselves out in the local church. Thus, when considering all the facets together, there is no reason to believe that James suddenly shifts his early emphasis of writing broadly to many believers in many places. He made no effort to so localize this Scripture that we would understand it apart from the entire epistle’s context, which is a writing given to many churches, not one. Nevertheless, by the fact that he made no effort one way or another, the possibility exists that he was speaking either to local churches with one elder or many churches who each had many elders. Ultimately, this Scripture sheds no light upon the issue at hand- which is nothing against the text itself as it makes no claim to do so.
I will now turn to elders as found in the Apostle Peter’s writing.
1 Peter 5:1-5
Peter utilizes the fifth chapter of his first epistle to speak directly to the elders of the church. He does so both to encourage and spur them on the manner in which they should lead their churches as well as to their proper motive and intent. He then encourages the people of the flock, particularly younger men, on how they should submit to their elders. The text reads as follows: Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah, and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you: shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility, because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Peter identified in 1:1 that he, like James, is writing to the Jewish Christians in the Dispersion. Therefore, we know he is writing this to many congregations over a broad area. This impacts our view of his words, I exhort the elders among you, the you, in this case being the many churches. The ultimate question pertains to the elders among you (5:5). We are presented once again with the case of whether or not Peter had in view the younger men submitting to the many elders in one place, or if he was referring to the younger men in all the congregations submitting to their own elders. Keeping ourselves to the context and confines of Peter’s audience, the most reasonable interpretation is that Peter is still speaking to all the churches and all the elders and is offering a command for all the people to submit to their elders in each local church.
A Brief Analysis of Eldership in Other New Testament Texts
In the Apostle John
John mentions elders in several places of his writings. He has it in his 2 John 1, 3 John 1 and Revelation 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3 and 19:4. All of the references to elders in Revelation point to visions John received of Heaven and do not pertain to the local church on earth. 2 John 1:1 and 3 John 1:1 do have reference to the church on Earth however. In these cases John identifies himself as the Elder (singular). This self-identifying term could have a couple of possible inferences. First, it could be that he is identifying himself as the sole elder of the church universal (unlikely). Secondly, it could be a reference by which all the churches in John’s sphere of influence and ministry identified him as being. This is more likely as it is possible that John was, in a sense "the Elder," from the point that he was the last elder living of the 12 Apostles. It also may play a part in his literal age, which was advanced at this time. In other words, I believe John’s designation in these passages are terms of affection as well as authority and have little bearing to our issue at hand. It does however, nullify the rampant belief by those who hold to plural eldership in the local church that the New Testament nowhere holds the term "elder" in the singular. This is strictly speaking, of course.
And while it is true that the book of Revelation does not link the word "elder" to the local church on Earth, the word "angel" (avgge,lw noun singular) is used of a person in each of the seven local churches addressed by Christ in verses 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14. It seems most likely that this "angel" was indeed the elder in these local churches. For our purposes in the issue at hand, it is important to note that the Word of Christ was not to go to the "angels" of the local church, but the "angel." At this point it is probably wise to dismiss the notion that there were elders in the local church who didn’t teach and address the congregation. In no place of the New Testament is the office of elder addressed apart from the direct role of teaching the flock. Therefore, if the angels of the churches in Revelation were elders, there was only one of them who would receive and distribute this teaching.
The Author of Hebrews
The author of Hebrews says in 13:17, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. The issue confronts us yet again as to whether this is directed to the local church and its elders or all the churches and their respective elder. Since the real emphasis is upon the obedience/reward scenario of submitting to one’s pastor or pastors, the text offers little in the way to aid us in the issue at hand, except to say that one must take the hermeneutic leap of localizing this teaching to make it read in favor of multiple elders. The author himself leads not this way or another, yet it seems safer to assume he did not redirect his entire context in the epistle for this verse alone.
III. Arriving at a Synposis and Theology of Elders in the New Testament
It seems clear that a dichotomy exists in the New Testament from the place in which we first found elders to the development of elders in the churches at later periods. Primarily, we seem to find several elders in local churches in the book of Acts, but then we are given the distinct vision of Paul in which single churches have one elder and many deacons. In between there is some ambiguity in the rest of the epistles as to how the Apostles viewed elders in the church. The question we are ultimately confronted with is, "how are we to make sense of the New Testament in regard to eldership in the local church?"
A Possible and Probable Explanation
There are two presuppositions we must consider. The first is, "is the model of the church as given in Acts completely normative for every church in every age?" The second is, "does the New Testament progressively lay itself out in a way that directs us to the more full and mature model of eldership in the church?"
If the answer to the Acts model is "yes," then we must agree that multiple elders in single churches is the normative model. However, in order for us to accept the answer of "yes" we must discard the vision of eldership in the church from the Apostle Paul in his pastoral epistles. I am not willing to make such a leap, so this brings us to the second presupposition of the New Testament progressively expanding God’s revelation as to the vision of eldership in the church.
This, in my opinion, is not only a possible scenario- it is a probable one. The nature of biblical revelation itself is progressive; therefore we should be willing to accept that the nature of the church as viewed in the Bible can be the same. Thus, what we have in the New Testament is elder-filled local churches when the church is in its earliest infancy. Then, as time marches on we begin to see how a more mature church model exists wherein single elders are brought to single churches. Ultimately, the time will come upon the glorification of Christ’s church when the church will need no pastors.
This thesis brings in the full scope of the New Testament. It helps us to see why there were multiple elders in the churches of Acts and why the epistles speak vaguely in terms of possible single elders in single churches as well as multiple elders. And it helps to finalize our understanding of single elders in single churches according to the instruction of Paul in the pastoral epistles. In other words, the vision of New Testament is for mature churches to have one elder in one church. While it is true that some churches in the New Testament had multiple elders in single churches, again, these churches were in their infancy. As the Kingdom of God expanded and churches began to reach their full maturity, the need for multiple elders diminished on the basis of 1) the local church no longer needed them and 2) new churches did.
IV. Concluding Comments
If it is true that the New Testament vision for the local church is single pastor leadership, why do so many churches have multiple elders?
The history of the church, and even of Baptists, have contained many theologically solid churches practicing a plural form of eldership ministry. Some Baptist confessions even speak to the plurality of elders. Focusing on Baptist churches particularly, I would venture to say that those in our history who held to plural elder leadership were undoubtedly churches that had Calvinist or reformed theological leanings. In our modern day, Calvinism coupled with pragmatism seems to be the driving motives. This is not to say such churches are not Bible believing churches or that all Calvinistic churches are multiple elder churches. It is to say that oftentimes pastors and churches have trouble separating themselves from reformed salvation theology as well as reformed church theology.
Aren’t most Baptist churches pragmatically driven in their leadership structures? If so, why could a church not have multiple elders on the basis of pragmatism alone?
I will accept it that there are many roles in ministry that are not directed by the New Testament such as "Youth Minister," "Children’s Minister," "W.M.U. Director," etc. We all readily accept these positions as valid when the New Testament doesn’t authorize them, so why can we not have the same with elders?
There is a fundamental reason as to why. When Baptists utilize such positions as Youth Ministers, Children’s Ministers, etc., we are simply living the reality of the priesthood of the believer among us. These positions are simply figureheads for the gifting of Christ in His Church. We can pay them if we wish or we cannot pay them. We can elevate their authority in the church or give them no authority at all. You can strip the titles from those positions and yet the people can function in them just the same. The church can exist and is not defined by Youth Pastors, Children Ministers or W.M.U. directors. It cannot exist and is defined by its adherence to the two biblically ordained offices of pastors and deacons. These titles bear with them the authority of Christ to govern His own church. The New Testament gives very specific direction for who these people should be, how the church should follow them, how they should be remunerated for their work, etc.
This presents us with a dilemma that churches utilizing multiple elders must consider. Are all the elders called, viewed, minister and paid the same way? If not, these people should not be called elders, according to the New Testament. There is absolutely no such position in the New Testament for a "lay elder" or an "executive elder" or the "elder in charge of this, that and the other thing." It is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical office to handle multiple elders any other way. And this misrepresentation presents the opportunity for violating many of the things pertaining to the nature of the church.
Some Real Dangers Regarding Local Church Leadership
The are two twin dangers of multiple elders in the local church.
The first is that those proposing the plural eldership model can begin to believe that multiple elders are normative for the church, i.e. a church is not a church without them. This cannot be supported from Scripture.
The second danger is that since there is such a pragmatic drive for the reasoning of having multiple elders, it seems logical to assume that such pragmatism can bleed into the church. In the worst of cases, the members of the local church may not be able to guide the church, much less "rule" the church (and for the sake of clarity, Baptists do not believe in any form of "elder rule." We believe in congregational rule). Ultimately, problems can exist in church leadership regardless of the leadership style used. It is just as possible for a single elder to dictate and minister pragmatically as it is for multiple elders. However, particularly as it pertains to Baptist churches, this seems an especial temptation and practice in multiple elder ministries.
Blessings,
TJ
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Don't Give Them Art Supplies, Draw Them Pictures Instead
Friends,
It is my aim in this blog to discuss the topic of illustrations in sermons. I do so having always felt that some of the best knowledge we receive on any given topic comes from those who have so miserably failed in their endeavors and yet achieved some success. My physics teacher in high school explained to me the workings of a light bulb, but I have no doubt I would have learned more from Edison. The theory would be the same between both men, but only Edison can teach from the advantage of success by failure. If I were caught in the sin of adultery, I would seek counsel from David, not Moses. Therefore, as I write on the topic of sermon illustrations in this blog, I feel I can speak about it usefully. For the coarse grains of dry sand have more than once filled my mouth in preaching. It was once my practice, as it is practice with many conservative, Bible believing pastors, to believe they are being most true to the Word when they are delivering only the raw meat of God’s truth. It is my suggestion that the preacher’s task is not to deliver raw meat, raw facts, raw data to his congregation. Rather, I suggest it is the preacher’s task to draw his congregation the picture of God’s truth, to prepare the meat of God’s Word to be eaten. God in grace has sprinkled my lips and tongue with milk and honey to the point that while I still count myself as one in the wilderness regarding sermon illustrations, my mind knows there is a better land and to that land I strive. I suppose I am saying that from my failures I have some credit to speak on this topic. Nevertheless there is a gorge we need to bridge before continuing as it pertains to content and delivery.
Content and Delivery
I’m going to make a statement at this point and we will see where the chips fall. It is often said that content is more important than delivery, but I believe delivery is as important as content. To be sure, if the content isn’t biblically square, the delivery means nothing because the whole road of the sermon is crooked. But when the content is biblically square, delivery means everything, for the aim of God in preaching is missed, even if one has their land level and the materials ready, if the road itself isn’t ultimately laid.
To test my hypothesis in yourself I bid you to answer the questions "is it the preacher’s task to deliver a book report from the Bible or to be a herald of Christ’s gospel?" and "Is a preacher one and the same thing as a professor?" Is this preaching in worldly wisdom, the very thing Paul rebuked in his Corinthian epistles? No. Paul was rebuking using worldly wisdom for preachers to win listeners to themselves instead of Christ. This, to be sure, misses the mark. When illustrations are used in preaching for the sake of leading people to Christ according to His truth one is not relying on worldly wisdom but merely using the gifts God has given them while resting in the power of the gospel proclaimed. After all, our Lord Himself used illustrations so copiously that one cannot find a single sermon of his that was not ripe with illustrations.
There is, of course, the Edwards and MacArthur edict against sermon illustrations. Some say these men do not use illustrations and God uses their sermons in a powerful way. They will go on to say that Edwards read from a manuscript and spoke in a monotone voice. And, while not using a monotone voice, if one has ever seen MacArthur preach in his home church, he generally keeps his head down and reads the whole time. So, according to the thought, these men don’t use illustrations and God uses them powerfully in preaching, so why should we? You know, I really believe people who think such things of Edwards and MacArthur must have never heard them preach. For example, in MacArthur’s sermon of 2 Timothy 4:3-5 (which, of all texts we would expect him to not use "worldly illustrations"), if one counts his cross references, personal experiences, hypotheticals, comparatives and graphic descriptions he used over 200 illustrations in a single sermon! And to say the Edwards did not use them is simply preposterous. In fact, I believe Edwards is one of the single best illustrating preachers of all time. Take for example this snippet from his famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." "O sinner, you hang over the pit of Hell by a slender thread, like a spider over a burning fire; the flames of divine wrath thrashing about it ready to singe it at any moment and drop you in the pit." In this single sentence Edwards used 11 illustrations. Time and length fail us to consider the illustrations used by Spurgeon and Lee and other great preachers. In fact, I believe the case can be made that all the prophets and all the apostles used illustrations freely, regularly and with great power. It behooves us, then, to accept that illustrations are a vital component of sermon delivery. I would like to talk about a particular type of illustration that all of these great preachers used for the remainder of this blog.
Word Pictures
Illustrations come in various sizes and shapes. They can be historical, personal, scientific, etc. Virtually any story or fact that can be used to magnify the truth of Scripture can be used as an illustration, provided it is a story or fact within the realm of Christian civility and etiquette. There is a particular type of illustration that I believe is the king of all illustrations and that is the illustration of a word picture.
A word picture is nothing more and nothing less than the truth of God’s Word expressed graphically. It differs from historical illustrations or personal stories (both of which have their place) in the sense that while these two provide mental support for knowing God's truth, word pictures draw those truths for the mind's eye to see. We find these all over Scripture and the best way to define them is to simply list a few by contrast. For example, when James is teaching about the dangers of teaching and the dangers of words, he desires for his people to understand that one must be critically careful about what they say at all times and in all things. He teaches that our words convey our hearts and our words condemn us or justify us. In technical language he simply could have told his people: do not speak wrongly but with a right heart speak purely. Instead, his uses word pictures to drive this truth home. He says in James 3:3-6, Now when we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we also guide the whole animal. And consider ships: though very large and driven by fierce winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So too, thought the tongue is a small part of the body, it boasts great things. Consider how large a forest a small fire ignites. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among the parts of our bodies; it pollutes the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is set on fire by hell. By these words James invites us to see things such as a horse's bit, a rudder, a fire, a world in such a way that amplifies his overarching message.
A scant review of God’s Word will reveal that the Bible is pregnant with word pictures (and, yes, this sentence is a word picture).
Using Word Pictures
So how does one come to use word pictures in their own preaching? I would suggest the following.
First, attempt to visualize the word pictures of the Bible in your own personal devotions and preaching. For example, when you read in Scripture that Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, instead of having words like "propitiation," "atonement" and "justification" fill your thinking and preaching, quite literally imagine a Lamb, pure, spotless and innocent being delivered unto the priests. Envision the knife cutting it’s throat and consider the blood that pours forth. View in your mind’s eye the laying of hands of the Lamb by which one’s sin was placed upon the sacrifice. Do the same with the writings of the prophets, the parables of Christ and all of Scripture. By these efforts you can train yourself to see truth graphically and over time will be able to transfer those thoughts into your preaching. One of my favorite biblical word pictures is drawing for my audience a picture of the event when God made His covenant with Abraham.
Secondly, while using the Bible as your primary source of seeing and developing your own word pictures, read works from pastors who are well crafted in this trade. The Puritans knew how to use word pictures better than most. Spurgeon, Edwards, Lee and many others are also well versed in using them.
Thirdly, develop a habit of mentally recording events you see in the world and then, using your imagination, relate these matters in your sermon (and yes, preachers can and should use their imaginations in preaching- it is poor preacher who has no imagination or else refuses to use what they have). For example, nature itself is filled with events for word pictures in preaching (and Jesus used many of these). But, nearly everything can be used that we see around us. The key is to always use word pictures that are familiar to our people. A congregation in a rural setting will get agricultural word pictures easily whereas they might not get one about subways as easily. The converse is also true.
Fourthly, deliberately try to present the best word picture in preaching. This takes some labor and effort, especially at first, but will become more natural over time. Write or type out your first thought and then continually refine it until it makes the greatest impact.
Fifthly, be liberal with word pictures, but avoid overuse. There is no criteria to tell when this is or is not enough. Jesus often gave word pictures in sets of threes. This is not to say we should all use sets of threes, it is simply to say that word pictures should be copious enough to expose the truth from different angles, but not so much that it overburdens and confuses the listener.
Sixth, determine when a word picture is useful and when it is not. Let’s take the Scripture of Genesis 2:16 as an example. The text reads, And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." A preacher could, prudently and astutely, teach the truth of this passage as a theologically treatise. He could, if he desired, spend the whole sermon developing a theology of sin and its consequence. Or, a preacher could seek a way to encapsulate all of that theology and teaching into one succinct statement or paragraph, allowing the rest of the time to draw His hearers to the glory of Christ crucified. The best way he could accomplish this latter goal and still fulfill the former comes via the use of word pictures. Let me give a brief example of how each style would look and preach.
Without Word Pictures: "God had filled the Garden of Eden with everything man needed. He gave him plenty of trees to eat from and allowed him to enjoy the blessings of harmonious existence directly with His Creator. God only gave one command to man and forbid him from eating one tree in the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised man that if man ate of that tree, man would die. This death is a spiritual death, a disruption of peaceful communion with God. This spiritual death would lead to physical death, so that if man sinned against God he was sure to die in every way."
Without Word Pictures: "God had filled the Garden of Eden with everything man needed. He gave him plenty of trees to eat from and allowed him to enjoy the blessings of harmonious existence directly with His Creator. God only gave one command to man and forbid him from eating one tree in the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised man that if man ate of that tree, man would die. This death is a spiritual death, a disruption of peaceful communion with God. This spiritual death would lead to physical death, so that if man sinned against God he was sure to die in every way."
Now, in and of itself this would be a very accurate interpretation and there is nothing wrong with preaching the text in this way. Observe, however, how different the message becomes when word pictures are used.
With Word Pictures: "God gave our ancestors Adam and Eve an absolute treasure chest of plenty. Everything they could desire was placed within their finger’s reach and they could have it without bearing one single drop of sweat on their brows. Their environment was pristine, as was their souls. But Adam and Eve were not holy, they were innocent. And before being proved either holy or defiled they would need to be tested. Therefore God put before them a "No Trespassing" sign, a sign that simply read, "You Must Not Eat of This Tree." God’s command was as ultimate as His offer was free- "obey Me and life, defy Me and die." There are no compromises in the command. Purely, plainly, man was not to crave the tree, nibble from the tree or eat from the tree. If he put his heart upon it and extended his hand to it and placed its produce upon his mouth, he would effectively be spitting in the face of God. He would be divorced and torn in two from His Maker. His life would be sit to walk over the rotten planks of a bridge that spanned a river of fire. Obedience meant abundant life, disobedience meant sure death. It is no slight offense to have pride rise from your heart and fill your mouth with gall and spit in the face of God by disobedience. Does He lack holiness that we would dare do so? Does He lack power and sight that we believe He will not see and if He does He has no justice for us to answer to? Does He lack grace that He would withhold from us every good thing? Friends, it is no small thing to say "no" to God- for he who sins shall most surely die.
One way you can determine if your word picture was useful is to compare both ways of preaching it and see what you most remember. I’ll leave it to your judgment to see what you remembered most about the above two comparisons.
Seventh, always consider a dry, dull, lifeless sermon a sin. Draw pictures, don't give them art supplies.
Blessings,
TJ
TJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
