Category Archives: Ministry

09/01/2021

On Pastoral Tenure as Covenant

I recently read an article about an Oklahoma pastor who is retiring after serving in the same church for 60 years. And let me just begin by saying that this is the kind of pastor that deserves the platform though he would probably never ask for it. So often, we platform the personalities that are the most visible, those pastors who have the largest churches, who have published the most books, who speak regularly on the conference circuit. It would seem we have missed the mark. Our measures of ministry success reflect all of the values and metrics of the world and none of the values of God, who says in His Word that, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) This pastor exemplifies the kind of nameless faithfulness that is the backbone of Christ’s church; pastors serving tirelessly in insignificant and forgotten places, loving people who are regular and ordinary, proclaiming the Word of God week in and week out. He never published any books; he wasn’t asked to speak at anyone’s conference. He held no denominational influence or power beyond his local association. May his tribe increase!

However, this story is not simply about a pastor who served in the same place for six decades. According to the pastor in question, and I quote, “A lot of it has to do with a church that has kept a pastor for years.” This, it would seem, is the key to long term pastoral tenure; it is churches that keep pastors. A pastor’s theological fidelity and moral integrity notwithstanding, churches bear a God given responsibility to keep the pastors that God has called to care for their souls. (c.f. Hebrews 13.17) According to research, the average pastoral tenure has risen over the years, from 3.6 years in 1996 to 6 years in 2016, but it is clear that the constant churning of pastoral leadership in churches all across this county is at least one major contributor to the weakness of American Christianity. Every pastor I know, myself included, has been hurt by churches who prematurely requested their resignation at the first sign of disagreement, disappointment, or difficulty. Sadly, these stories are often filled with the tears of betrayal, of broken trust, and of shattered confidences.

The point is that we need a better paradigm for thinking about the relationship between pastors and congregations. An employer/employee model that is driven by consumeristic expectations fundamentally lacks the virtues of grace that should define the church’s life together. This is why I believe we must recover the biblical idea of covenant, because covenants move us beyond a “what’s in it for me, what have you done for me lately” mindset by forcing us to consider our own responsibility for maintaining the relationship. There are many examples of covenants in the Bible: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New to name just a few. But I would suggest that it is the marital covenant that stands as the closest parallel to the relationship between a pastor and a congregation. Consider the following similarities.

During the “dating” period, the pastoral candidate and the interviewing church put their best foot forward. Both parties accentuate their assets and their strengths and conceal their weaknesses. For the most part, this “get to know you” phase is full of excitement and anticipation of the possible match and its attendant benefits, and each subsequent interaction merely adds to the perception that this is a “match made in heaven.” Both parties wonder if the other might be “the one God intended”. The votes are totaled; the call is accepted. And the relationship moves into the “honeymoon phase”; it is a time that is filled with great idealism and blissful naiveté. Both the pastor and the congregation view each other through “rose colored glasses”; neither party can do any wrong in the eyes of the other. As the relationship grows, every new experience, every new situation is an opportunity to relish in the seeming perfections of the other.

Eventually, however, the difficulties come. The rose petals fall off; the idealism fades. What was once endearing is now annoying; what was once a source of great fulfillment now causes great frustration. Differences in opinion and perspective on all sorts of issues seem nearly insurmountable. The waves of conflict and division threaten to tear the relationship apart, and sadly, in many cases, it does. Marriages end in divorce, and pastors resign, sometimes of their own volition, other times at the behest of church leaders. It is a cycle that is all too familiar, but it need not be so. As in marriage, so also in the church, both parties have a decision to make as to how they will navigate this season. Instead of separation, they can choose to remain committed to each other. They can choose to work through their differences by listening, by showing grace, by compromise. They can persevere and come out on the other side together and stronger for it. Churches can choose to keep their pastors, and pastors can choose to love and serve the church that God has called them to.

This is what relationships should look like within the Body of Christ. We do not give up each other when relationships get hard; we do not throw in the proverbial towel because circumstances are difficult or challenging. We choose love, we choose grace, we choose hope. We covenant together for the sake of the Gospel, for the growth of each other in Christlikeness, for the glory of God. It has been said that most pastors, and I would include most churches, overestimate what can be accomplished in the span of three years, but underestimate what can be accomplished in the span of ten years. So, rather than aiming for some set of five year goals that are ultimately unrealistic, let us strive for that biblical standard of godly faithfulness over time. And when we do this, we can rest assured that we will one day hear those most blessed of commendations from our Lord Jesus, “Well done, good and faithful servant! Share your master’s joy!”

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

Leave a comment | tags: Church, Commitment, Covenant, Divorce, Faithfulness, Firing Pastors, Keeping Pastors, Marriage, Pastoral Calling, Pastoral Candidacy, Pastoral Ministry, Pastoral Tenure, Phillip Powers, Resignations | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

06/23/2021

On Theological Discourse, False Teaching, and the Ministry of Rebuke

By Phillip Powers

In my previous post, I began to outline the general contours of a biblical ethic for theological discourse. The ability to discuss questions of theology and biblical interpretation Christianly, especially where there is disagreement, is a primary indication of a person’s maturity in Christ. However, so often in this current cultural climate, godly virtues like humility, gentleness, kindness, love, and grace are glaringly absent from most (online) theological discourse. In addition to that, the proliferation of social media has created a practical cacophony of voices making it nearly impossible to know which ones are faithful and true. As Christians, we are called to contend passionately for the truth, which necessarily includes calling out those errors which are in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Bible. And so, the question remains, how can we contend for theological truth without being unnecessarily contentious?

The fact is that false teaching has always been a plague on the people of God. From Mosaic prescriptions that lay out the consequences for those making false prophecies to the writing prophets and their warnings about those who offer false promises of peace and security in the face of judgment to the warnings of the New Testament Gospels and epistles even to Revelation’s descriptions of an eschatological false prophet, the Bible is consistent in calling the people of God to be on guard, always watching our lives and our doctrine closely. However, we are also responsible for the lives and doctrine of each other within the community of faith. We bear a mutual responsibility for each other’s souls as we pursue biblical faithfulness, and when a brother or sister wanders off the path of truth, when they are swept up by the deceptions of false teaching, then we are called to the ministry of a loving rebuke that we may point them back to faithfulness.

The challenge, however, comes in identifying exactly what is and what is not false teaching. It has become common practice it seems to label our theological opponents with ideological and emotionally charged epithets that end up causing more confusion than clarity, which results in even more division. Labels like false teacher, heretic, liberal, etc. simply cannot be thrown around carelessly. Merely holding a different theological conclusion than someone else does not mean that they deserve to be identified as a false teacher. This is why we need a clear definition of what false teaching is. False teaching is any teaching that contradicts the primary and essential truths of the Bible. It is any doctrine that stands contrary to the fundamental essence of the Gospel. This has been the common understanding throughout the history of the church, but it would seem that in the current cultural climate many people have forgotten how to distinguish between friend and foe.

We desperately need to recover the discipline of theological triage. The ability to appreciate what is primary and what is secondary or tertiary is an ability that seems all but lost in most theological discourse. The threat of false teaching only applies at the level of the primary, those core truths that if compromised place one outside of the Christian faith. Historically, these primary doctrines have been defined by the classic creeds of the early church. These creeds (e.g. Apostle’s, Nicene/Constantinopolitan, Athanasian, etc.) were forged in the crucible of theological controversy, so they are helpful in identifying what does and does not constitute false teaching. Of course, they do not replace or supersede the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but they can be helpful in clarifying the contours of Christian orthodoxy. Clearly, as it was then so also now, any teaching or doctrine that falls outside of these bounds is rightly called heresy or false teaching, and anyone who holds, affirms, or promotes this kind of doctrine must be rebuked for their error. With that being said, in what follows, I would like to outline a few biblical priorities that we must keep in mind as we engage each other in these matters.

The first priority is the priority of the local church. The local church is the primary locus of God’s redemptive and sanctifying work, and this includes the ministry of rebuke. It is in the local church that we are taught sound doctrine. It is in the local church where we submit to pastor-elders who keep watch over our souls. It is in the local church where we hold each other accountable and consider how we might provoke one another to love and good deeds. All of the commands that instruct us to correct and rebuke false teaching are addressed to the local church. This means that the local church is the right and proper context for hammering out our theological differences, for wrestling with the text of Scripture. It should be a safe place where people can ask questions, where they can express their understanding of particular issues and questions without fear of judgment or ridicule, and when necessary, where they can be pointed back to the way of biblical truth by correction or rebuke. In other words, it is not our job as pastors or as church members to police the theology of all Christians everywhere. Rather, it is our job to maintain biblical faithfulness within the context of the local church community where God has placed us.

The second priority is the priority of relationships. Relationships matter. What we must realize is that the Great Commandment to love God and to love people is not two but one. These are two sides of the same coin, to halves of one whole. Loving God necessarily includes loving others, and we can only do this in personal intimate friendships. When these relationships are grounded in mutual love for God and for each another, then and only then can we be assured of a person’s intent, that they are for our good and not for our harm, that they only wants what’s best for us. This unwavering trust is the currency that must be spent in speaking words of rebuke to one another. Outside of this basic assurance of a person’s good intentions, our rebukes will almost always come across as harsh, demeaning, belittling, and divisive. This is why the greater the relational distance that exists between us and our theological opponents, the greater amount of grace we must be willing to show them. This means giving the benefit of the doubt; it means taking our opponents at their word. And it means attributing questions or concerns first to misunderstanding, differing emphases, or lack of clarity before immediately impugning, slandering, and mischaracterizing someone’s biblical fidelity and devotion.

The third priority in the ministry of rebuke is the priority of repentance. Repentance, restoration, reconciliation. This must be the guiding principle, the primary purpose, in every church discipline situation. This is especially so when it comes to the ministry of rebuke. There may be occasions where a stern rebuke is necessary and warranted, but we are not simply trying to win arguments for the sake of being right. We are not engaged in a game where we need to win theological points to defeat our opponents. If false teaching is any doctrine or belief that would invalidate the Gospel, then we cannot pretend that these questions have no consequence. We are engaged in a spiritual battle for the soul, that we might turn them to Christ. This is why doctrine matters; this is why we must contend for the faith. It can never merely be a question of who is right and who is wrong. Every theological conversation must be guided by the primary desire of both parties to be more like Christ, to submit more to Christ, to trust more in Christ. This is why we must be ready and willing to repent and seek forgiveness, and it is why we must engage our theological differences in ways that invite others to do likewise.

And finally, the fourth priority for our theological discourse is the priority of Christlikeness. We are called to demonstrate the virtues of Christian character in every situation, in every interaction, in every conversation. Even when we must speak hard words, we are not permitted to speak them harshly. We cannot give into attitudes like hate, bitterness, or pride. We cannot treat our theological opponents, no matter the severity of their error, with derision or disregard or contempt. We must always seek to “speak the truth in love” even when that truth is confronting. Of course, there are plenty of examples in the Gospels where Jesus had to deliver hard words, and to our ears, his confrontations with the Pharisees may seem downright combative or argumentative. I will consider these examples and how they relate to theological discourse in my next post; however, suffice it say here that tone matters. Even when we must confront those who are descending into grave theological error, we must endeavor to deliver our rebukes with the virtues of Christ-like character, not the least of which are grace, humility, and love.

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

1 Comment | tags: Accountability, Christlikeness, Disagreement, Discourse, Discussion, Ethics, False Teaching, Heresy, Local Church, Ministry, Orthodoxy, Phillip Powers, Rebuke, Repentance, Theology | posted in Bible Exposition, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

05/19/2021

On Theological Discourse, Disagreement, and Division

By Phillip Powers

The legacy of Donald Trump’s term as President of the United States will not be measured in terms of legislation passed, appointments made, or diplomatic accords achieved. It will not be counted by any advancements of the Republican party’s agenda, by any conservative causes that were championed, or by any national or international crises that were averted. No, the lasting influence of the 45th President will only be measured by the bitter division and caustic animosity that has absolutely engulfed our country. It is an insidious sickness that has pervaded every sphere of our public discourse, and sadly, the church is no exception. We are a people divided, perhaps more than ever, and this is much to our shame.

Nowhere has this mood been more evident than in the Christian blogosphere. Interactions between Christians on social media, whether via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, podcasts, etc., have become more and more antagonistic over the past several months. Whether the question has to do with CRT/Intersectionality, COVID restrictions, or with issues related to the role of women in the ministry of the church, Christians on both sides of these issues have been quick to vilify and condemn those with whom they are not in perfect agreement. This trend has resulted in an atmosphere online that is hateful, ugly, and disheartening.

Now, what we must affirm is that discussion, debate, and even disagreement are essential to the theological enterprise. The Scriptures affirm that “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27.17) It is through the fires of irenic debate that clarity is achieved, understanding is sharpened, and unity is hammered out. We can see this on vivid display in the Bible in the Book of Acts. In chapter 15, at the Jerusalem Council, the early church leaders met to consider the question of the Gentiles inclusion into the people of God. After hearing both sides of the discussion and airing out differences in reasoning and perspective, truth won the day and a foundation for unity was forged. It is a beautiful picture of the way that theological discussion and debate are beneficial to the church. However, in light of the current climate of anger and animosity, what we need most are clear Biblical principles for theological discourse, and in the space remaining I would like to recommend a few possibilities.

Of course, the Scriptures are replete with principles for how Christians should and should not speak to one another, and while an exhaustive examination of these principles would be beyond the scope of this medium, there is one that it is particularly helpful in the current discussion. In the Letter from James, we find an explicit warning about the power and danger of the tongue (and by extension our typing fingers). Quote:

And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members. It stains the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. … It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in God’s likeness. Blessing and cursing come out of the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way.
~James 3.6-10

We must agree with James, “These things should not be this way.” Luckily, James has also provided us with a clear prescription for how these things should be, as he writes in chapter 1, verse 19, “My dear brothers and sisters, understand this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness.” Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. If we would merely apply these three principles to our theological discourse, I believe that we could go a long way in helping to stem the tidal wave a anger and bitterness that has absolutely overwhelmed our theological conversations.

Quick to listen. Being quick to listen means listening to our theological opponents first and foremost for the purpose of clarity and understanding. Listening while only thinking of how to counter the point is not listening at all. This also means listening to the whole sermon, or even more than one sermon, reading the whole book or the entire article, not merely responding to one sentence or one segment. It means giving priority to the context in which statements are given, and giving those statements the benefit of the the doubt, assuming that the speaker is genuinely trying to be biblically faithful, Gospel affirming, and Christ honoring. Quick to listen also means seeking out the best proponents of a given position, reading the best scholarship on the issue, interacting with the best evidence and the most robust arguments.

Slow to speak. Being slow to speak means thinking carefully about our response, discerning whether our motive is to build up our opponent or to tear them down. It means refusing to label our opponents with identities meant to disparage rather than clarify. It means being careful not to caricature, misconstrue, or misrepresent the position of our opponents, not bearing false witness by assigning to them motives and agendas that they do not in fact support. Slow to speak also means humbly admitting our ignorance on some issues, acknowledging that we are not all-knowing on every theological issue or question that is raised. It means that we engage each other always out of a position of love, respect, and unity rather than out of anger and animosity.

Slow to anger. Being slow to anger means being slow to outrage, slow to alarm. It means understanding that every theological disagreement does not rise to the level of heresy or false teaching, that our opponents have not departed from the truth once for all delivered to the saints just because they do not see the issue the way that we do. It means discerning the relative importance of the issue at hand, understanding whether a disagreement is a first tier, second tier, or third tier question. It means refusing to malign the sincerity of our opponents faith over issues that are not orthodoxy defining. Slow to anger means refusing hold our opponents in contempt, refusing to criticize, refusing to castigate, refusing to condemn.

Of course, I am already anticipating the push back. You are probably thinking, “Wait a pretty little minute! We are instructed to call out error, to rebuke false teaching, to stand boldly for the truth.” More on this in my next post. However, at this juncture, I would say in response, “yes, the Scriptures do call us to this,” but the manner in which we address our theological disagreements speaks volumes about the Gospel that we profess. When we treat each other as adversaries to be defeated rather than brothers and sisters to be loved, then we betray the very faith we argue so adamantly for. And when the watching world sees nothing but a reflection of itself in us, then we sacrifice all our credibility in calling them to repent and believe in the Savior that we love. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

2 Comments | tags: Anger, Animosity, Community, Debate, Disagreement, Discourse, Discussion, Division, Phillip Powers, Quick to Listen, Slow to Anger, Slow to Speak, The Letter of James, Theology | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

02/16/2021

On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

By Phillip Powers

Text
²⁴And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, ²⁵not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching.

~Hebrews 10.24-25

Title: A Healthy Church Member … Gathers
Series: A Healthy Church Member
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: January 31, 2021

Leave a comment | tags: A Healthy Church Member, Brothers & Sisters in Christ, Church Family, Church Membership, Church Services, Discipleship, Gathering, Hebrews, Phillip Powers, Sermon, South Caraway Baptist Church, Worship | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Sermons, Worship & Liturgy

02/10/2021

On “Able to Teach” as a Qualification for Elders

By Phillip Powers

If you have ever browsed pastoral job descriptions, then you know that for most churches Jesus himself wouldn’t measure up to their desired qualifications. After all, he was a single thirty something with almost no pastoral experience. But I digress. What you have probably also noticed is that almost every one of these descriptions makes some reference to the qualifications for elders mentioned in 1 Timothy 3.1-7 and/or Titus 1.6-9. In these passages, Paul lays out the character virtues that should be true of those who serve the church in the role of pastor/elder.

And this is the point that must be emphasized, that each and every one of these qualifications reflect a man’s character and not his achievements, skills, or experience. As God once told the prophet Samuel, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) Paul wants Timothy and Titus to understand this principle, that what matters in Christian service are the virtues of Christ-like character, godliness that flows outward from a heart that has been transformed by the Spirit. These are what make a person qualified to lead others down the path of Christian discipleship. As the old adage states, “it is impossible to lead someone down a path that you have never traveled yourself.” And so it is for those who would lead Christ’s church.

However, one of these qualifications seems to stand out from the rest, and that is where elders are called to be “able to teach.” (1 Timothy 3.2) Of course, a quick reading of the Pastoral Epistles makes it very clear that teaching/preaching is one of the primary duties of those who serve the church as pastors/elders. Time and again, Paul exhorts his young protégés, Timothy and Titus, to “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4.2) The importance of teaching/preaching in the ministry of a pastor/elder almost seems to trump all other concerns, and understandably so, because “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3.16-17)

Therefore, it would seem that an ability to teach is a primary qualification for those men who aspire to the noble work of pastoral/elder ministry. The problem, though, is that an ability to teach is more of a skill than it is a quality of godly character. It is almost out of place for Paul to include the skill of teaching ability in a list of what is otherwise qualities of Christ-like character. More than that though, in actual practice, we have come to the point where we exalt a man’s rhetorical ability over and above all other concerns when it comes to evaluating pastoral candidates. We have created a celebrity culture in the church where mega-church pastors who have remarkable speaking and teaching ability have become the standard against which all other pastors are measured. Style, personality, and delivery become the criterion by which we judge a pastor/elder. And so, in most cases, pastoral candidates are invited to preach in view of a call, and after a single hearing, the church is asked to vote on that candidate for pastor, a decision which more often than not boils down to mere stylistic preference.

If Paul prioritizes qualities of character over achievements, skills, and experience, then how can a congregation expect to evaluate a man’s character after only a few hours of interaction. This system is flawed, but that is a topic for another post. My concern in this post is to consider anew what the Apostle Paul meant by the phrase “able to teach.” Now, this three word phrase in English renders a single word in the Greek text, διδακτικός/didaktikos, and this word only occurs twice in the New Testament, here in 1 Timothy 3.2 and also in 2 Timothy 2.24. So, we have scant evidence within the New Testament to which we might appeal for a better understanding of this word. However, we do have a similar word that may shed some light on our text, and that is the word διδακτός/didaktos. This adjective describes someone who is taught or instructed (c.f. John 6.45, 1 Corinthians 2.13, 1 Thessalonians 4.9). So, what we have in our text is simply this same adjective with the ending -(t)ikos. This Greek suffix carries the meaning of “concerned with” and “having characteristics of.” In light of this evidence, we may conclude that the meaning of the word in question carries the idea of something like “having the characteristics of someone who has been taught.” In other words, someone who is teachable.

And in the context of both 1 Timothy 3.2 and 2 Timothy 2.24, the meaning “teachable” would seem to fit squarely with the argument that Paul is making. An elder/pastor “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, [teachable].” (1 Timothy 3.2) Likewise, he “must be gentle to everyone, [teachable], and patient.” (2 Timothy 2.24). This reading simply fits better with the contextual and linguistic evidence. The bottom line is that teaching/preaching ability is a skill that can be learned and honed over time. In fact, I would suggest that it is something that even the most prolific preachers continually work on, as they constantly seek to be better communicators of God’s truth. But being teachable is the fruit of God’s spirit working within to make us more like Christ. It is a reflection of godly humility that recognizes that we do not have all the answers, a reflection of the heart that understands there is always more to learn in the School of Christ.

Of course, we must hasten to add that the one directly affects the other, that is to say that being teachable is necessary in the work of preaching and teaching effectively, because the pastor/elder that assumes that he knows it all has already fallen headlong into the pride of human self-sufficiency. But godly pastor/elders understand that they have no sufficiency in themselves, nothing of value to offer; rather, they only speak as those who have been taught of God by the Spirit through the Word, and this is what makes their teaching and preaching effective, namely that it comes from God and not from themselves. This is in keeping with the example of our Lord Jesus who said, “For I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said. I know that his command is eternal life. So the things that I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.” (John 12.49-50)

This, I believe, is what Paul intended when he called pastor/elders to be “able to teach”, namely that they speak only as they have heard from the inspired Word of the one true and living God, that they eschew the temptations of originality, creativity, and novelty in the pulpit, that they accurately and faithfully deliver what was once for all delivered to the saints. As the Apostle Paul puts it,

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, announcing the mystery of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power.
1 Corinthians 2.1-5

Leave a comment | tags: 1 Timothy, Apostle Paul, Elder Candididacy, Elders, Pastor Search, Pastoral Ministry, Pastors, Phillip Powers, Preaching, Qualification for Pastors, Teaching | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry

10/23/2020

On Spirit Led Preaching and the Heresy of Donatism

By Phillip Powers

I once was told by a well meaning deacon in a church that I previously pastored that my preaching was not “spirit led”. Now, in the interest of transparency, at that time, for the AM services I was ordering my preaching schedule by the traditional Christian calendar and selecting my texts from the Revised Common Lectionary. For my reasoning on this, see my posts here and here. And for the PM services, I was preaching expositionally verse-by-verse through the Minor Prophets. My purpose in this post is not to defend myself against the criticism; it was perhaps well intended. Rather, I would like to examine the underlying presupposition that informs such a critique.

In many rural Bible-Belt churches, it is usually assumed that being “spirit led” is synonymous with spontaneity, that the preacher who is “led by the Spirit” receives a direct word from the Lord to be preached to the church every week. To put it another way, it is the spiritual perception of the preacher that informs and empowers the preaching task rather than the systematic study of Holy Scripture. In its most egregious expression, I have seen many a preacher step into the pulpit and cast his prepared sermon aside, explaining that God had given him another sermon just a few moments before during the song service.

The problem with this kind of perspective on preaching is that it locates the efficacy of preaching in the preacher, in his spirituality, in his perceptivity and attunement to the voice of the Spirit. It removes the power of preaching from the inspired Word of God and puts it in the experience of the “so-called” man of God. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”

Of course, this is not a new question in the life of the church; after all, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1.9). This same issue had to be addressed in the early church, and at that time it was called Donatism, so named after Donatus Magnus, who was consecrated as Bishop of Carthage in 313 AD. Beginning in 303 AD, the Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians in the Roman Empire and demanding that they comply with traditional pagan worship practices. This time period is now known as the “Great Persecution”, because this was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, essentially legalizing Christianity.

However, during that ten year period of persecution, rather than become martyrs, some Christian priests capitulated to the persecution and surrendered their copies of Holy Scripture as a token repudiation of their faith. These traditores, as they were later called, were eventually reinstated to their ministerial service, but the validity of their continued ministry was questioned by Donatus and his followers. In other words, the Donatists argued that the administration of the sacraments by traditores was invalidated by their previous moral compromise. This position became known as ex opere operantis, which is Latin for “from the work of the worker”, meaning that the validity of the ministry depended on the worthiness of the bishop performing it.

It was the great theologian Augustine, Bishop of Hippo from 396-430 AD, that was the most vocal opponent of the Donatists. In his seven volume work On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he argued for the counter position ex opere operato, which is Latin for “from the work worked”, meaning that the validity of the ministry rests not in the one who performs it but in the finished work of Christ and is guaranteed by the promise of God. In other words, the efficacy of God’s grace is not dependent upon the human vessel offering it but on the power of God to affect change in the one who receives it. This position eventually won the day, and the Donatists were subsequently condemned by the church as heretics.

Coming back to our original question as to the efficacy and power of preaching, the assumption that this is based on the spirituality of the preacher is not unlike the heresy of the Donatists. It puts the power in the man instead of putting it where it belongs, which is in the Spirit inspired Word of God. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3.16), and as God promises through the prophet Isaiah, “my word that comes from my mouth will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.” (Isa 55.11)

So, instead of placing the blame on our pastors for ineffective and powerless preaching, maybe we should turn the question back on ourselves and ask if we are open to receiving what the Spirit has already said in His Word. As long as the Word of God is being faithfully and accurately proclaimed, then the responsibility falls to the hearers to respond accordingly. Therefore, let us pray that the Spirit will give us the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to receive what He is saying to the church through His inspired Word!

Leave a comment | tags: Augustine, Church, Donatism, Donatus Magnus, ex opere operantis, ex opere operato, Exposition, Heresy, Holy Spirit, Persecution, Phillip Powers, Preaching, Roman Empire, Sermon, Spirituality, traditores | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Ministry, Worship & Liturgy

12/01/2019

On the Season of Advent

By Phillip Powers

Well, it is that time of year again. ‘Tis the season, and all that jazz. Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, the sights and sounds and smells of Christmas have begun to fill the air. However, with the month of December comes another season that sometimes gets lost in the hustle and bustle of the holidays. I am talking about the Christian season of Advent. Advent, that time of year, according to the Christian calendar, when followers of Jesus prepare themselves to celebrate the incarnation of the Savior at Christmas. Of course, the season of Advent, which consists of the four Sundays leading up to Christmas, stands at the beginning of the church year, and as such, it brings with it a sense of renewal and hope.

The name Advent comes from a Latin word that simply means “coming”, which itself is a translation of the Greek word parousia, meaning “coming”. And in the New Testament, this word almost always refers to the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus when He will return to the earth in glory and power. In other words, the season of Advent is a time when Christians reflect on the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even as we prepare to celebrate His first coming. We look back, so that we may look forward. We look back into the hope and longing of Israel for the coming of Messiah, even as we look forward with hope and longing for the return of Messiah. And we let their expectations inform our expectation.

This sentiment is captured best in the well known hymn, O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, which begins, “O come, o come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel that mourns in lonely Exile here until the Son of God appears.” The chorus follows, “Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to you, O Israel.” Or again, in the hymn Come, thou long expected Jesus,” where we sing, “Come, thou long expected Jesus, born to set thy people free; from our fears and sins release us, let us find our rest in thee. Israel’s strength and consolation, hope of all the earth thou art; dear desire of every nation, joy of every longing heart.” And so, it is understandable that the corresponding lectionary readings for this season emphasize the prophetic expectation that is fulfilled in the coming of Jesus as Messiah.

For the follower of Jesus, then, I believe the season of Advent teaches us three things in preparation for the celebration of Christmas. First, it teaches us to wait. When we look back into the hopes of Israel for the coming of Messiah, we are reminded that they had to wait for quite some time. The last messianic prophecy is given in the Book of Malachi, and it was some 400 years or so after those words were spoken that the Christ-child was born. Even as Israel had to wait, so also we have been waiting for some 2000 years for the return of our King. And as long as He should tarry, we will continue to wait. Sadly, the notion of waiting well has been lost in our fast-paced, instant society, but Advent teaches us to wait patiently.

Secondly, Advent teaches us to hope. It is in the season of Advent that we are reminded that our hope has only partially been fulfilled. And even as we anticipate the celebration of Christmas, we are reminded that the incarnation is only half of the Gospel story. Our Lord Jesus came to this earth the first time as a baby in a manger, and He grew into a man who died on a cross for our sin and then rose again. And after His resurrection, He ascended unto the Father with a promise, that in the same way that He departed, so also would He return one day. He will come a second time with glory and power, and He will finally and permanently establish the kingdom of God on the earth in peace and righteousness. And we should long deeply for that day!

And lastly, Advent teaches us to be faithful. In other words, even as we wait, we are not waiting passively. We are not merely sitting back on our hands looking to the sky for His return. No, we have been given a commission, a Great Commission, to go into all the world making disciples of our Lord Jesus the Christ. We are called to be faithful, to serve, and love, and live in Christ-likeness, until that time when we will meet Him in the air. As the Apostle Paul puts it in the Letter to Titus, chapter 2, verses 11-13,

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

This Advent season, I pray that you all will be filled with this blessed hope.

For Further Study, see:
On the Use and Benefit of the Christian Calendar

4 Comments | tags: Advent, Christian Calendar, Christmas, Church Year, Incarnation, Liturgy, Mission, Parousia, Phillip Powers, Second Coming, Spiritual Formation | posted in Christian Education, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

01/18/2019

On Modern Translations of the Bible and Missing Verses

By Phillip Powers

bible_greek

One of the primary complaints that is most often levied against modern translations of the Bible into English by the King James Version faithful is that modern translations of the Bible omit some verses. Of course, it is typically the New International Version (NIV) that bears the brunt of these critiques, but the truth is that all modern translations omit some verses that are otherwise included in the Authorized Version (AV/KJV). Surprisingly, that point is actually not up for debate. There are verses that are found in the King James Version of the Bible that are generally not found in modern translations. There are other verses where the text is shortened as compared with their KJV counterparts, and there are still others where words and phrases are modified. The question, then, is not whether there are differences in modern translations as compared with the KJV; rather, the more important question is why there are differences.

And we cannot get too far into the consideration of this question without running headlong in the discipline of textual criticism. However, the problem is that most of the people who sit in the pews week in and week out have very little, or even no, understanding of this important discipline; they have no conception of how the text of Holy Scripture was transmitted from the pen of the original authors to the Bibles that we hold in our hands today. And whether it is due to the negative connotations associated with the word “criticism” or other presuppositions about the way that modern translations came to be, this crucial science is usually met with skepticism, fear, and denial. And this simply should not be.

Simply defined, textual criticism is “the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.” In other words, the Biblical authors of Holy Scripture were the ones who were inspired by God; therefore, it is their words that are the words of God. The challenge, though, for modern translators is that none of the documents that they produced actually exist. These original documents, called the autographs, have passed into the dust of history. Nevertheless, what we do have are copies of those autographs that have been passed down through time, called manuscripts. Of course, before the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century CE, these copies had to be made manually by the hands of scribes.

Yet, what is perhaps rather obvious but is sometimes forgotten is that these scribal copyists were humans, and as humans, they sometimes made mistakes in the duplication process. Whether in spelling or word order, whether by omission of words, phrases, and verses or by the addition of words, phrases, and verses, the reality is that no inerrant copy of scripture exists. So, when manuscripts from different places and from different times in the history of the church are compared, the truth is that there are incongruities and discrepancies in the manuscript tradition; no one manuscript agrees with every other manuscript in every instance. But this is where the role of textual criticism comes into the discussion. It is the textual critics role to compare these manuscripts with each other, along with evidence from patristic citations and other ancient versions, in an effort to reconstruct the original inspired wording of the Biblical authors.

And the result of this very tedious and time consuming endeavor is referred to as a critical edition. A critical edition represents what textual scholars, after much analysis and research, believe to be the earliest form of the text, the closest reproduction of the autographs, the most accurate reconstruction of the actual words of the inspired biblical authors. This critical edition, then, is used as the basis for translations into other languages like English. Of course, bible translators don’t just take the critical edition at its face value. Where a textual discrepancy makes significant difference in translation, I am sure they analyze the evidence for themselves, but, for the most part, the latest critical edition, usually Nestle/Aland or UBS, is what is translated into English in our modern translations.

Now, going back to the original question regarding omitted and modified verses in modern versions of the Bible as compared to the KJV, the reality is that the KJV, first published in 1611, is not based on the best and most reliable manuscripts that are available today. Of course, for its time, it was the epitome of textual scholarship and translation, but since then, many additional discoveries of biblical manuscripts have been made around the world that are both older and more reliable. Therefore, when there is a difference in the modern translations, rather than jumping to the conclusion that bad people are trying to change the Bible, we must entertain the possibility that they are simply translating a more accurate version of the text.

In the final analysis, the simple fact of the matter is that textual issues cannot simply be ignored in the teaching ministry of the local church. The sheer proliferation of footnotes, asteri, and other such indications in the vast majority of modern translations begs the question as to their meaning and significance. So, whether it is in small group bible studies, e.g. Sunday School, women’s groups, men’s groups, etc., or in the large group preaching/teaching setting, eventually this issue will demand our attention, and both pastors/teachers and members must be willing to have an open and honest discussion about these things.

For further study:
Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

1 Comment | tags: Holy Bible, Inspiration, King James Version, Missing Verses, Phillip Powers, Textual Criticism, Translations | posted in Church History, Hermeneutics, Ministry

08/20/2018

On Denominational Identity

By Phillip Powers

denominations

In my last post, I considered the benefit and value of denominations within the body of Christ, and I concluded that denominations, in their noblest expressions and forms, are a beautiful mosaic of the diversity that exists within the one holy and apostolic church of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the glaring reality is that in their most ignominious of forms, they can be downright disgraceful, divisive, and even destructive to the cause of Christ and the mission of the church. This is especially true in the “Bible Belt” where denominational boundaries seem like firmly drawn lines in the sand which dare not ever be crossed and where denominational distinctives are seen more as fronts in the battle that must be defended at all costs than as opportunities to learn from each other in humility.

This more vitriolic and antagonistic form of Christian denominations is the direct result of placing our denominational identity before our identity in Christ. In other words, denominational affiliation is understood to be more primary and more determinative for our faith and practice than who we are in Christ. So, when we are asked the question “Who am I?” or “Who are we?”, more often than not, the first answer that comes to mind is whatever our particularly denominational affiliation might happen to be. We might answer, “Well, I am a Southern Baptist” or “Oh, I am Assemblies of God” or maybe “I am Roman Catholic” or insert your preferred denominational label here.

We actually sound a lot like those first-century Christians in the church at Corinth. It could be argued that the Corinthian churches caused the Apostle Paul more grief and heartache than all of his other churches combined, or it could be that we simply know more about their problems than we do any other church in the first century. Nevertheless, in the letter we know as First Corinthians, which was probably the second letter that Paul had written to them, he had this to say in chapter 1, verses 11-12:

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by members of Chloe’s people, that there is rivalry among you. What I am saying is this: One of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

Obviously, this is unacceptable to the great Apostle; he said back in verse 10:

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction.

Of course, Paul’s instruction here does not completely preclude the existence of denominations all together, but it does temper the extent to which we should emphasize the differences among us. In other words, denominational diversity in the body of Christ need not necessarily be the same as denominational division. As Paul explains later in that same letter, “For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ.” (12:12)

That is really the key, namely expressing our unity even in the context of our diversity. Christianity is united by its central and essential truths; these are the bounds of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is grounded in the truths of the Gospel, and its contours are outlined by the historic councils, creeds, and confessions of the church throughout its history. These are the things that a person must believe to be called a Christian. Our unified identity as Christians must take controlling precedence over any and all of our denominational distinctives. As Paul went on to say, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink.” (12:13)

Our identity as Christians, as those that are hidden in Christ, must come first, and our denominational affiliation must come second or even third in order of importance. It is this unity expressed in diversity that gives the church its prophetic witness in the world, because in this they are see firsthand what life in the Kingdom of God under the rule King Jesus looks like. We are Christians first, and we are members of the body of Christ, which is the church. And our mission is to build that body through evangelism and discipleship, not to prove ourselves right in every obscure point of Christian theology.

Leave a comment | tags: Church, Community, Denominations, Diversity, Phillip Powers, Unity | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry

06/16/2018

On the Benefit and Value of Denominations

By Phillip Powers

-murbrd02-21-2012dnj1a00320120220imgsouthernbaptistnam31ci11a.jpg

Last week (June 12-13, 2018), we all watched with bated breath as denominational leaders and messengers from local churches across the nation met in Dallas, TX for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. To be quite honest, the weeks and months leading up to this year’s annual meeting were trying to say the least. We watched in horror and sadness as several of our top leaders resigned or were removed from their positions due to moral failings. We endured divisiveness and contention in social media outlets as various groups argued over their particular theological and ministerial soap boxes. And we questioned how, or maybe even if, it would possible for our beloved denomination to move forward in its primary purpose, i.e. the proclamation of the Gospel.

Now, looking back, we must say that there is great cause for hope for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many good things were both said and done by our delegates in Dallas, and it seems, in hindsight, that Godly wisdom prevailed. Oh sure, there were some vocal minorities who continued to clamor for their particular pet agenda, but for the most part the Gospel was prioritized, Christian love and unity was maximized, and our churches were energized. However, this raises another question, namely, what is the benefit, the value, of denominational entities? Are they still useful and beneficial for the cause of Christ, or are they more like distractions that divide the body of Christ?

It is no secret that most of the mainline denominations in our country are on the decline, and, over the past 20 years or so, we have seen the exponential proliferation of “non-denominational” churches across the Christian landscape. Some groups even refer to themselves as “pre-denominational” as if they have thrown off the baggage of denominationalism and gone back to the nobler and more biblical way of being and doing church. Still others point to the numerous theological, ministerial, and organizational differences that separate and divide Christians from one another. “Can’t we all just get along?” seems to be the sentiment of the day. After all, didn’t Jesus and the New Testament authors teach us that our unity and love for one another is a primary means by which we display and proclaim the truth of the Gospel?

Living and ministering in the Bible Belt, I am uniquely sensitive to these critiques. Growing up, denominational divisions were like hard lines drawn in the sand which could never be crossed. There seemed to be constant argument over various denominational distinctives. So, it would be very easy for me to succumb to the temptation of believing that denominations are ultimately ploys of the enemy meant to divide us. However, I do believe that denominations are still good and useful in the body of Christ, so in what follows, I want to provide just a few reasons why I believe that denominations are still beneficial and valuable.

First, denominations allow us to embrace our cultural, theological, and ministerial distinctives. There is great diversity within the body of Christ when it comes to how we express and practice our faith in Christ. This diversity is a good thing, because it helps us to realize that the Gospel transcends the particularities of time and place. The simple fact of the matter is that no one person, group, or tradition can claim to have an exhaustive and complete knowledge of God’s word, God’s will, or God’s ways. Differences in belief and practice among Christian denominations are vivid indications that people and churches are grappling with the inspired Word and how God has revealed Himself to us through that Word by His Spirit. So, distinctives should be embraced, cherished, and held dear by those who have done the hard work of studying to show themselves approved.

Secondly, and this follows on the first, denominations force us to listen to, learn from, and love those with whom we differ on the non-essential facets of belief and practice. An oft quoted but wrongly attributed quotation expresses this thought succinctly, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” There are certainly beliefs and practices that are essential to the Christian faith. These essentials define Christian orthodoxy, and any person, group, or church calling themselves Christian must adhere to these essentials. These are most clearly defined in the classic creeds of the church. However, beyond these first order essentials, there is room for discussion, or even passionate debate, all the while grounded in humility and Christian love for one another. There is a great many things Christian denominations can learn from each other, or as Proverbs 27.17 says, “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” Or we might say, “one denomination sharpens another.”

Finally, denominations allow people and churches of like minded belief and practice to pool their resources for the church’s primary mission, namely, the advancement of the kingdom. This is one hallmark of the Southern Baptist Convention that stands out in particular distinction among the many denominational bodies that speckle the Christian landscape. Southern Baptist churches across the country designate a portion of their undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program, and through this Cooperative Program, the Southern Baptist Convention funds its six seminaries, the International and North American Mission Boards, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Lifeway, and Guidestone. Through this Cooperative Program, smaller churches with limited financial resources are able to join with churches across the nation in a participation that advances the global cause of Christ.

Ultimately, as good and beneficial as denominational bodies are, we must remember that

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

We are all part of the body of Christ, and as a part of that body, we all have our part to play in the advancement of the Kingdom of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, let us embrace our unique theological and ecclesiological distinctives, even as we join together for to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

1 Comment | tags: Church, Cooperative Program, Denominations, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Phillip Powers, Southern Baptist Convention | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry

Faith seeking Understanding

Category Archives: Ministry

On Pastoral Tenure as Covenant

On Theological Discourse, False Teaching, and the Ministry of Rebuke

On Theological Discourse, Disagreement, and Division

On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

On “Able to Teach” as a Qualification for Elders

On Spirit Led Preaching and the Heresy of Donatism

On the Season of Advent

On Modern Translations of the Bible and Missing Verses

On Denominational Identity

On the Benefit and Value of Denominations

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow

Faith seeking Understanding

Category Archives: Ministry

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow