Ignorantly Putting Historical on Equal Footing with Scripture

As I was reading my devotions this morning I came to 1 Chronicles 1 and 2 which lists the general genealogy of the the children of Israel.  In 1 Chronicles 1:10, Nimrod is listed once again for the third of four times in the Scriptures.  But as I read his name it hit me that some ignorantly place history equal to Scripture and not even realize they are doing it.  Let me explain.

My father was a preacher for over 50 years and was an ardent defender of salvation by grace and an equally strong attacker of Catholic “church doctrine.”  He was a historian of sorts and would often meld historical events into his sermons, and I guess I do the same today to a lesser degree.  But of all the historical things that my father preached about, there was none more compelling and nor more frequent than the history of the Catholic church.  But I must add that he was not alone in this endeavor either, as many preachers down through my lifetime have done the same thing.

What does that have to do with Nimrod and placing history on the same level with Scripture?

According to many preachers, including my father, Nimrod was actually the beginning of the Catholic religion as his wife Semiramus and their son Tammuz began the first mother-child religion, which would later be melded into the Christian religion by Constantine as the Roman Catholic church.  I myself have on more than one occasion shared that tidbit of historical data and so I am not disputing it at all.  I believe these vents are historically accurate but this morning it hit me that we may have a problem with our usage of things.

As I read again the name of Nimrod this morning, my heart was convicted about the fact that sometimes I have used historical events as if they were hard and true facts almost equal to God’s Word, especially when they supported my views such as standing against Catholic heresy.  You see, there is no where in Scripture that Nimrod, Semiramus, Tammuz, Constantine, or even the Catholic “church” are mentioned in connection with each other or even mentioned at all for that fact.  You will not find Tammuz's birth, on supposed December 25, in any book of the Bible, yet many publicly assault Christians because of this event not based on Scripture itself.  There is no mention of the melding together of their mother-child religion with Christianity....and thus we now have our problem.  Why a problem?  Because I, and many others, have shared these events AS FACT since they fit the narrative of our doctrine and not because they are in God’s Holy Word!  Now mind you, I have NEVER said these events were in Scripture but when we represent them in the context of preaching some people will not know the difference.

Did these events happen?  I believe they did.  But should we preach them or teach them to our people as if they for sure happened?  That is another subject to think about.  The only book we should have absolute confidence in is the Word of God.  It is the only book given by Inspiration and it is the only book where we can have full confidence to preach without reservation.  We must not use history, no matter how compelling, to the same degree, such as preaching an entire message on the history of the Catholic church based upon something other than Scripture.  This causes great confusion in some hearts and minds because they do not know where to draw the line between man’s fallible writings and God’s infallible Word.

By the way, this does not end with just the Catholic church history as many subjects are preached on without the benefit of full Scripture as foundational.  What about exact style of music, exact level of modesty, or any other number of important subjects that we often preach upon ardently?   We need to be honest enough to say that we are preaching based upon our personal application of principles and not a direct Scriptural mandate.

Would we not be better to say, “This is what history says” or “This is how I am applying these verses” and leave “Thus says the Lord” for those things which the Lord actually said?  Would not the cause of Christ be better represented if we let people know that when we apply principles of Scripture they are NOT the same as the direct commands of God?

Who is Qualified to Pastor

Recently I was at a major IFB college to present our training institute ministry to the ministerial department.  Although I did not talk to each and every ministry student, I was a bit disheartened to hear that many of the pastoral students I spoke to had never considering being bi-vocational but were only planning on being a “full time” staff member of an established church, even though the needs of church planting and small church ministry are great.  To add to this disappointment, I recently spoke to a young “pastor” who had just taken, less than a year ago, a church in a very rural town here in New York state and had done so with the understanding that he would have to be bi-vocational.  However, the reason I was involved with him was because he had quit his full time job and is preparing to resign from the small struggling church because in his words, “I am called to be a full time pastor, and that cannot happened here.”

When did we lose our way?

You see in 1 Timothy 3 we find the qualifications of a pastor and for some reason we have focused on a few of the things listed there but have not gotten the others covered effectively in our thinking.  For instance, we debate and preach hard about whether a pastor can be divorced or not due to the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2, yet we say nothing when a pastor makes his home a fortress that no one is allowed to visit unannounced which goes against the qualification of “given to hospitality” in the same verse.  We write articles and even books about the fact that a pastor MUST NEVER drink alcohol because 1 Timothy 3:3 admonishes “not given to wine,” yet, in the same verse we find that money should NEVER drive our decisions on where to pastor, “greedy of filthy lucre.”

Why are we “cherry picking” our qualifications?

Now I am not going to select a single qualification from this 1 Timothy 3 list, but want to ask this simple question based upon the entire list - who is qualified to pastor?  If a pastor or pastoral candidate has never divorced but has struggles with being patient with people, which one of those disqualifies him more quickly? 

Now mind you some of the qualifications are easier to see, such as the divorce issue or whether or not his children are brats or not.  I get that, but why do we seemingly ignore certain things for the more obvious?  Are we that desperate to fill pulpits or are we that naive to think that a preacher’s age is NOT as important as his character? 

Let’s make this discussion practical shall we?  How about this possible situation - a larger established IFB church is looking for a sound Bible preaching pastor but also wants to grow the church with young families.   They have narrowed their search down to two men.  The first is a young man who has his masters degree in Bible exposition from a famous Bible college, and is working on his doctoral degree in the same, but, he has never pastored or served in any church as leadership, just gone to college.  Now mind you, his personality is stellar and his family is young and very gifted in many areas as well.  Then second man that the church is looking at is a seventy year old widower who has never graduated from Bible college but has been in ministry over forty years and is now having some health issues.  The older man is biblically sound and is a tremendous preacher of the Word due to years of personal study.  But he is alone, “old,” and unhealthy.  Is the first more qualified to pastor their church than the second just because of age and health, even though those qualities are not listed in 1 Timothy 3?  Should a church pick a pastor solely because of greater education and youth over experience?  Is the younger man even qualified to pastor because of being a “novice?”

I am not implying that the younger is somehow immoral or unfit, but is he qualified ahead of the older man?  Churches often want younger families and it is usually assumed that a younger man will draw younger families and thus an older man is often overlooked for this reason, even though the older seasoned man is infinitely more qualified.

Then on top of this discussion we must also ask this question, when was the last time a church asked the unsaved world for a recommendation for their pastor?  Yet, the very last qualification in 1 Timothy 3:7 is that an elder/pastor should “have a good report of them which are without….”  Even Jesus said to “make friends of the mammon of this world” (Luke 16:9), yet I have seldom heard of a church calling a candidate’s bank to see if they pay my bills or asking to talk to the unsaved neighbors to see if the possible pastor is good to unsaved.

Please understand that I am not trying to pick a fight or call out certain men, but to get us to actually look at the qualifications of our pastors.  Are we being consistent with ALL that 1 Timothy 3 says or are we “cherry picking” our personal favorites? 

Also, if we are pastors ourselves are we searching our lives to see if we need improvement?

We are in need of sound leadership in our churches today and that begins by actually following ALL the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3.  This begins when churches begin to expect their pastors to be living the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 BEFORE they become pastors not just because they are pastors.  Plus it would help our churches if EVERY CHRISTIAN would see that the 1 Timothy 3 qualifications maybe be required for their pastor, but they should be the goal of every believer too.

Just a thought to ponder.

Should We Rejoice When Wicked People Die

Death is final for everyone.  For the saved death means the end of our service here on earth and the beginning of eternal life and joy in Heaven with Jesus.  Hallelujah!!!  For the unrepentant and lost however, death means no further opportunity for salvation and thus an eternal separation from God.  Once each of us have crossed that threshold of death there is no return to life here and so whatever we do we must do before we crossed that line.

Over the years I have seen the reactions of people to the death of the wicked.  Their reactions very from great sorrow and tears to great rejoicing and almost celebration.  Now it is true that when wicked people who impact our lives pass into eternity, our lives become easier in some ways, but should we rejoice when wicked people die?

Let’s look at Scripture for an answer.

David had been chosen by God to be Israel’s next king and Saul knew that we the case.  Saul had tried to kill David on various occasions and even chased after David in a vain attempt to alter God’s plan.  David knew Saul was against him and that Saul had done wickedly in many areas, yet, David refused to raise his hand agains the “Lord’s anointed.”  But as 2 Samuel opens we find David being told that Saul and Jonathan have died and a young Amalekite says that he has ended Saul’s life.  This young Amalekite lies to David, as Saul had died by his own hand in 1 Samuel 31:4.  This youth’s claim is because he thought David would rejoice in the death of his antagonist and even had brought the crown and bracelet of Saul as proof of his deed.

However, David’s reaction is very different than the young man expected, as David says, “How wast thou not afraid to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” (2 Samuel 1:14).  And in this question we find the reason why David did not raise his hand against Saul and really what the concept seeking harm to the “Lord’s anointed” really is all about.  

More about that is a moment.  First let’s look at another event that shows David’s heart about the death of the wicked as it all fits together.

We fast forward into 2 Samuel and now we find that David has become king of Judah and is trying to reunify the splintered nation.  However, there are those who think that unifying the nation is going to take the destruction of Saul’s entire heritage.  As a result of this philosophy, Joab kills Abner (2 Samuel 3:27), Saul’s general, and some are even seeking to destroy all remaining family members of the former king.  It is in this context we come to 2 Samuel 4 where we find two men Rechab and Baanah killing Saul’s last son, Ishbosheth, and proudly coming to David to announce their actions.  David’s response is swift as he has these two men immediately executed for slaying “a righteous person” (2 Samuel 4:11 &12).  David clearly knew something that these two men and the young Amalekite that “killed” the previous king did not accept.

We should NEVER rejoice in the death of anyone!  Ezekiel 18:23 makes God’s heart clear, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?”  Notice the last phrase…”return from his ways, and live?”  This means that God wants to give people the opportunity to repent of their sin and go forward doing right.  God wants EVERY person to repent…even those we deem wicked.

For us today, we must see every soul as precious in God’s sight and this means that when a wicked person dies, we must not rejoice but sorrow as their opportunity to repent is gone.  We should never have the mindset that they got what they deserve because that might mean we truly may not understand forgiveness (Matthew 6:15) as WE ALL deserve hell and death (Romans 3:23 & 6:23).  

Does this mean no death penalty? Of course not, as governments are commanded by God to take life for life (Genesis 9:5 & 6).  Should we stop all wars?  No, because that is not possible as God commands the righteous nations to defend themselves against those who would destroy the life of its people (1 Samuel 15:8 & Romans 3:10-18).  But we must NEVER think that the death of the wicked is some how worth celebrating.

This morning I read the headlines where one state last night executed two men who had been found guilty of murder.  These men justly suffered the penalty for their crimes, but I refuse to “rejoice” over their deaths, because they went into eternity possibly without Christ and why should I rejoice in it?  They were put to death by law and that is justice, but grace still would have save their souls if they had repented.

Why did David not raise his hand against Saul?  Fear!  David asked the young Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:14, “How wast thou not AFRAID?”  Either David was afraid of having God judge him for taking Saul’s life when it was not his to take or that David feared taking Saul’s life before the king could repent.  Either way, would we not do well to learn for this example?

Scholarship or Showmanship

Over the past several years there has been movement in two direction in general Christianity.  The first is the direction toward viewing God as a Being that adapts Himself to our needs and views.  This is the view in the book and movie “The Shack,” which I will deal with in a post sometime soon.  The second is the direction that biblical scholarship takes the Bible and “ripping it apart" so deeply that understanding it requires vast quantities of education, IE critical text supporters believing that those who stand for the King James being preserved are uneducated and stupid because they do not understand the Greek language and thus King James supporters are less than what God intended.  This second direction can also be seen in Calvinists scoffing at the concept of free will, because those who believe in free will are simpletons who do not understand the vastness of God as Calvinists do.  This second “direction” claims they are being scholarly in their handling of the Word of God.  But are they truly doing that? 

That is the purpose of this post to answer the question, what is true biblical scholarship?

First, biblical scholarship should simplify truth not complicate it.  In 1 Corinthians 1:18-29, Paul write under inspiration of God that God has chosen the foolish (absurd), the weak (physically feeble), the base (low social standing), and the despised (culturally worthless).  In choosing these things God was sending a clear signal as verse 29 says, “That no flesh should glory in his presence.”  God never intended for the truths He wants us to have to be complicated or incomprehensible.  To be honest the greatest truths in the entire Bible are the “simplest” truths, such as God’s love (John 3:16) and salvation by grace through faith (Matthew 18:1-6 & 2 Corinthians 11:3).  We must understand that EVERY truth of God is complicated to the lost and that EVERY truth that God wants us to understand becomes understandable by faith.  However, there are those who feel that the more scholarly a person, the more deep their understanding of God and thus the greater their walk with Him.  But that is not the way God describes it as Jesus Himself said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).  Little children are NOT looking for deep answers and thus simple is always best and that is biblical scholarship.

Second, biblical scholarship accepts that some truths are beyond our ability to comprehend and beyond what God wants us to understands at this time.  There is no doubt that God is vast and beyond our understanding in EVERY area.  Isaiah 55:8 & 9 tell us, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  Though it is true that God’s ways are vast, we must accept that God has given us all that He wants us to have and we MUST be satisfied with that.  As an example of this, John tells us in John 21:25 that there things not written down about Jesus, and that should not be a problem to true biblical scholarship.  But some would say that God wants us to grasp everything and that it just takes more study.  Let me quickly add here that often current biblical scholarship implies that men’s understanding of God is the real foundation of their faith and not their reliance upon the Holy Spirit.  For example, just recently I was a part of a group that was discussing Calvinism and one man made this statement, “No one can get Calvinism from the Bible.  You have to get it from a commentaries’ dissemination of the Bible.”  In other words, if you read the Bible alone, Calvinism will not be seen, but if you read a man’s view of those Scriptures then you might find Calvinism. (By the way Calvinism is not a Bible word and according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:4 basing your pedigree upon a man is carnal.)  

Third, biblical scholarship MUST rest in Holy Spirit reliance not mere education or learning.  When you actually look at the Bible verses that discuss studying God’s Word, you will find that PERSONAL study is first and foremost for our PERSONAL growth not for really for “teaching" purposes (1 Thessalonians 4:11 & 2 Timothy 2:15).  The things we are to teach others come mainly from our receiving them personally from the generation ahead of us sharing their hearts and messages of the Word of God as 2 Timothy 2:2 says, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”  This does not mean the things we study cannot be shared, but that the things we share with others must NOT be based upon our single interpretation of the Scripture but in the  mouth of two or three witnesses.  Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit “shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).  Biblical scholarship MUST NEVER be based upon ourselves alone!

I love the simple truths from a complex God, and I will gladly study the rest of my days what He has given me in His Word and thus seek to be satisfied walking in those “simple” truths.

Should We Have Unsaved Friends

I am an independent fundamental Baptist and I make no apologies for that.  Now just because I am IFB does NOT mean I agree with every other IFB in everything.  Take for instance Westboro Baptist Church, which claims to be IFB as well, but also claims that God hates just about everybody, except them, of course.  Now mind you, God hates sin, but mainly because it separates us from Him since His main thrust was creating mankind for fellowship with Him.  But for some today there seems to be a misplaced understanding of our relationship with the lost and unsaved of the world.  We have preached separation from sin which is clearly biblical, but, we have seemingly misrepresented the love we should have for the unsaved in the process.  So should we be “close” to unsaved people or should we distance ourselves from them?

Once again, why don’t we actually look into Scripture to answer this?

1. David was God’s selection to replace wayward King Saul as king in Israel.  Though David was not perfect in every area of his life, he clearly was the “man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14).  Because of this selection Saul had come to hate David and chose to seek to kill David instead of acknowledging that God had made the decision already.  So David was forced to flee into the land of the Philistines.  The same Philistines that David had killed the champion Goliath some years before, I might add.  When David arrived he had to fain insanity (1 Samuel 21) but in time he became such a close friend to the king of the Philistines, Achish, that even some of the Philistines began to question Achish’s loyalty to his own people (1 Samuel 29).  David had endeared himself so deeply to the king that there was a complete trust and Acish even called David “an angel of God” in 1 Samuel 29:9.  David had made a friend of the Philistines because God had a greater purpose than the destruction of the Philistine people.  You see God can destroy a person or a nation with or without the aid of people, but He has also chosen His people to reach the lost.
2. When Jesus was preparing His disciples for his soon departure, He tells them a parable of a rich man who had a servant in Luke 16:1-12.  This servant had been less than stellar in his work and was about to be fired.  The servant realized that he had no marketable skills and so started to earn favor with his master’s business clients who owed the master money.  This servant wisely got the clients to write off some of their debt to the master so that when he was fired by the master, maybe one of the clients would hire him on.  Jesus says then in Luke 16:9, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.”  In other words, we need unsaved friends who can help us when we have earthly needs from time to time.  Once again, there is a higher purpose than just the money and a higher purpose to having “unsaved” friends.
3. But the most striking illustration is found when Jesus is accused of being less than godly in His behavior.  The religious leaders of the day had classified Jesus as a “glutton, wine bibber, and a friend of publicans and sinners” (Matthew 11:19).  But was their accusation TRUE?  When it came to being a glutton and wine bibber these hypocritical leaders were wrong as Jesus was Lord of the law and in those times where He broke THEIR dietary laws He did not break GOD’S law (Matthew 12:1-8).  So in other words, Jesus was not a glutton or a winebibber but He was a friend of sinners, and, He wore that badge openly.  Jesus spoke freely about the groups about Him being His “friends” (Luke 12:4 & John 15:14).  He claimed that the greatest love anyone can show is when they “lay down their life for their friends” (John 15:13) and isn’t that what Jesus did on Calvary, for the unsaved world?  Remember that the greatest verse to many in Scripture is John 3:16, which states, “That God so loved the world” and that is not just the saved world but the ENTIRE WORLD….sinners and all.  There is a higher purpose than isolating ourselves from every unsaved person.  That purpose is the reason Jesus came to earth, “Seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

Yes, it is true that we as Christians are not to allow the worldly influences to affect our living for God, but we are also to make and be friends with the unsaved PEOPLE of the world.  There is a higher purpose to being friends with the unsaved and thus we are to live for that higher call.  How can we reach the unsaved world with the Gospel if we only interact with them by "calling them out?"  Stand against sin? YES!  Make friends of the unsaved? YES!  If Jesus did it, then it’s surely the right thing to do.

Who Pastors the Pastor

When my father graduated to Glory almost 18 years ago, I was given the solemn privilege of preaching his funeral.  My father had been an evangelist, a church planter, and pastor during his over 50 years of ministry, he had been faithful to my mother, loved to see see souls saved as an ardent soul winner, and so preaching his funeral was both the easiest and most difficult I have ever done.  It was easiest because there was no hinderance of preaching the Gospel or sharing God’s Word in anyway as I had complete liberty, which I do not always have at every funeral.  But in turn it was most difficult because it was MY father and so while I was grieving myself I was called upon to “pastor” my family through their grief.  Now it is true that God’s grace was wonderfully present and I kept my composure right up to the invitation which I turned over to the pastor of the church building where the funeral was being held, and, wonderfully two souls were saved that day.

But something unique occurred just before the funeral service began and that is the heart of my post today.   You see, as my family was sitting in the side room waiting to walk into the arraigned seats at the front of the church, my sister-in-law came up to me, knowing my duty for the day, put her arm around my shoulder, and said she was praying for me because she knew, “On days like this, no one pastors the pastor.”  Her words were, “No one pastors the pastor.”  As I have pondered upon that thought for the past several years, I felt it time to share a few thoughts here today.  Because during my over 28 years in ministry with almost 20 of those years spent as senior pastor, I have gone without the benefit of having an actual pastor, because I WAS the pastor.  I was the one that people were looking to for support and strength during times of grief and struggle and I had to learn how to be “pastored” by other means.

Yet everyone of us, pastors included, have those moments of time where we need encouragement and support from someone outside of ourselves.  That is one of the reasons God gave pastors in the first place.  Now mind you, pastors cannot always meet everyone’s needs and sometimes they don’t even realize there is a need.  So there are going to be times pastors are proactive because they see a need and seek to fill it without being asked.  While there are other times people are going to need to ask their pastor’s help, because the pastor does realize the full extent of the need.  But to whom does a pastor go when he has a need or a burden going unnoticed or unmet?  

I ask you today, “Who pastors the pastor?”  To really understand this I believe we must look at the three titles given to the pastor and see who can fill each role to “pastor the pastor.”

1. Bishop - the one who leads.  In 1 Timothy 3 we are given the qualities of the pastoral position of “Bishop.”  However, upon closer examination of this list we see that these are mainly qualities of personal behavior as an example in leadership.  In other words, the “Bishop” part of being a pastor, at least based upon 1 Timothy 3, is setting an example before others.  This is much the same role model concept as Paul references in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”  So who “Bishops” the “bishops?”  I as a pastor need someone to set the pace in front of me as my “Bishop” or example and I need someone to mirror my life after in such a way that I can safely trust their example, and there is only One who can fill that role effectively - Christ!  Remember Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “..as I also am of Christ.”  So when it comes to fulfilling the pastor’s role in a pastor’s life in a “Bishop” fashion - it is Christ.  There can be no greater “Bishop” for a pastor than Christ (1 Peter 2:25).  Follow Him whenever you need a “pastor for the pastor.”  Pastors may need advise from time to time, but let Jesus be the pastor’s “Bishop.”
2. Shepherd - the one who ministers.  I truly believe that the greatest fulfillment of being a pastor is not the preaching or authority over their church, but the ability to minister to people in their sorrow.  As an example, I do not enjoy hospitals or funeral homes but I always come away from these places with a sense of peace and fulfillment greater than walking away from the pulpit after a sermon.  I cannot explain it, because in my flesh I would loath these events, yet I am called, and, enabled by God to “shepherd” or care for people..any people in their times of need.  Jesus shows us this in John 10 as he speaks of being the “Shepherd” and Paul writing in Hebrews 13:20 calls Jesus the “Great Shepherd” or “Minister” of the sheep.  But who do pastors have that ministers to the minister?  I know the obvious answer is Christ again, and He truly can minister to our souls, but every pastor can surely use another person to come along side just to encourage and uplift.  Here is where I remind of the need to seek out help when no one sees the need.  Yes, it is humbling to seek out help, but it is not a failure for a pastor to seek help from another trustworthy believer.  If you are a pastor and need encouragement, don’t ignore the need, ask for it.  You see we are told to “Bear ye one another’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2).  How can we do that if we do not know there is a burden to carry?  Jesus is the Great Shepherd, but even the under shepherds can be encouraged by others.
3. Elder - the one who has wisdom.  Pastors have been called to be a voice of reason in a world of confusion.  This means that there are going to be times that people seek the advise of their pastor, hopefully NOT in a “may I have my pastor’s permission” attitude, but more in the vein of “I am seeking an opinion” mindset.  This is what I believe the “elder” part of pastoring is all about.  But once again, who serves as the elder for the elder?  When I struggled with this concept some years ago, I found a truth in 1 Peter that made it crystal clear!  Peter is explaining the qualities of a pastor/elder in 1 Peter 5:1-5.  But  notice his words in the first verse, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder…”  He is saying that one of the duties/qualifications of being an elder is being able to serve as an elder for other elders.  This is the wonderful truth shared in Proverbs 27:17 where “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”  We NEED other pastors to get wisdom from.  No pastor has the right or the ability to just make every decision without the counsel of others.  Our church members would probably be surprised how many times I have called other pastors to just seek advise on a decision I was about to make.  There is no shame in a pastor seeking wisdom from another pastor.

Here is the point of this lengthy article - every pastor needs to be pastored!  A pastor may not have a single pastor to go to, but, the process of being pastored does not stop when you become THE PASTOR.   If you are a pastor, you must intentionally seek to be “pastored” by the Lord Himself and with the help of others.  I am convinced that the minute a pastor/bishop/shepherd/elder stops being pastored…IT’S TIME FOR HIM TO STEP OUT OF THE PULPIT!!!!  He is no longer pliable and “He is proud, knowing nothing…” (1 Timothy 6:4).  Because “pastor” is not a position alone, but a biblical process of being ministered to and ministering to others.  

So pastor friend, are you being pastored?

Dressing Like a Preacher

This morning I am visiting one of our deacons in the hospital and so I pulled out a pair of newer jeans and our VBBC church logo stitched shirt.  But then it dawned on me that some preachers would say I’m not properly dressing as an IFB pastor.  However, there would be others who would say that since I’m pastoring a rural church where suits are only locally available through walmart.com, a new pair of jeans and collared shirt ARE appropriate for my situation.  But rather than listen to others, I decided to actually look into God’s Word and see what is appropriate attire for preachers.  I do this not because I am trying to assault or defend the notion that it is okay for pastors to wear whatever they want, but to understand for myself the real heart of the issue of how I as a pastor should daily dress.  If I find that jeans and a collared shirt are not appropriate then it’s time for me to change my clothes.  But let’s look first and then decide.

1. The first preacher I looked at was Noah in Genesis 5-9.  Noah clearly is described in 2 Peter 2:5 as a “preacher of righteousness” and some would contend that Noah is the FIRST preacher in time.  Either way, this does not make Noah a pastor, but surely the principles of “preacher-hood” would still work.  So as I read Noah’s life, I realized that there is nothing directly said about Noah’s method of dress, thus I have to look at his lifestyle to glean anything useful.  You see, Noah was a working man who had to build a boat so I find it hard to fathom that he would dress any other way than a working man might, at least while he was working.  This does not mean that Noah would have been immodest or unbiblical, but functional in his dress.  That is an assumption I know, but I feel it is fitting for my understanding of a preacher’s attire.  We need to be functional in our dress.  Now I could spend some time talking about the fact that Noah clearly got out of God’s will when he got drunk and was naked in Genesis 9:18-23, but truthfully that was in the privacy of his own tent and the curse of Noah on Ham was because Ham shared his father’s private “undressed shame” in a public manner with his brothers (Genesis 9:24-27).  So from Noah I found dress would have been functional and I can live with that.
2. Then I came to Elijah and Elisha in 1 Kings 17 to 2 Kings 13.  These two preachers of God were literally cut from a very different type of material, no pun intended, than any other Old Testament prophet as they were men of straight forward sermons and down to earth actions.  Many modern preachers use them as role models in so many areas and rightfully so as God mightily used these men of God to turn hearts back to God.  Yet their dress was, to say the least, not typical preacher’s attire.  In 2 Kings 1:8, Elijah’s clothes were described as “a garment of hair, with a belt of leather…”  As a matter of fact, Elijah’s dress was so distinctive that the king knew immediately that it was Elijah the prophet of God just by the description given by his servants of the clothes which Elijah wore, and, by the way, he was not the happiest to see the prophet either.  Was Elijah’s clothing “preacher-like?”  You will have to decide on that, I guess.  Then we come to the mantle that passed from Elijah to Elisha.  It was clearly very “preacher” like as it was seen as the marker of God’s call on the man of God.  But what was this mantle?  That has been a subject of minor debate for centuries as some say that it was nothing but a simple piece of cloth that God had blessed, while others believe it was a fur cloak that was the sign of the prophet’s office.  But either way, it was seen by both Elijah and Elisha as the symbol of God’s power and blessing (2 Kings 2:12-14).   Whether or not you wish to draw from this mantle that the preacher today ought to dress in such a way that is obviously distinctive, IE “garment of hair,” or even if you think that a suit and tie is the mantle of God’s blessing, I guess that is you choice.  But for me I once again see two men who seemed to recognize that the clothes they wore could be a powerful thing, but really that the power is in the blessing of God and really not in the method of style.
3. Then I looked at who I believe to be the last Old Testament prophet - John the Baptist.  What is there to say here?  He dressed in camel hair with a girdle of skin (Matthew 3:4 & Mark 1:6) and his diet was, seemingly, only locusts and wild honey.  Now some might say that this style of dress was just for convenience as it would have been appropriate for a preacher who spent a great deal of his ministry in the water and they might be right, but doesn’t that show practicality as part of the “how to dress” decision?  Clearly John’s dress was not the normal dress of the day among his people or nothing would have been said that drew attention to his unique fashion style.  Yet, once again, we hold John the Baptist as a true role model of preachers, and even Jesus said there was none greater among women than John (Luke 7:28).  So can we once again assume that common sense dress fits the description of John the Baptist and not some specific style of manner?
4. Then I looked at numerous others, such as Jesus who had nothing that drew men to Him as far as looks are concerned (Isaiah 53:2).  Or Paul who described himself as “…Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5) and so his dress would have, at least before salvation, been very traditional among his people, but nothing more is said of his dress after that.  Then there was Isaiah who preached in sackcloth until God told him to remove it and preach as a sign, naked and barefoot for three years (Isaiah 20:2 & 3).  Now I did found there were a few “preachers” who dressed in very fine garments, but the clothes were not their’s at all, because they were the high priests (Exodus 28-29).   And so on it went in my study.  But as I read nothing specific, as far as exact type of dress came out of the study. 

So what is my conclusion for my style of dress?  I believe my dress as a pastor/preacher should be appropriate for the situation and practical for the culture in which live.  I believe that when I stand in the pulpit to preach the truth of God’s Word I should dress in a manner that shows my respect for the power of God and the position of the pastor.  I should never enter the pulpit dressed in a manner that puts my personal desire or comfort or the comfort of those people who are seated in front of me ahead of God's glory and holiness.  But I also see that a pastor wearing jeans in his daily work routine is not a compromise either.  I believe that the conscience God gives His servants must be followed and that every pastor should always let the Spirit of God drive his decisions, even in dress style.  I may not always dress the way other preachers say a preacher should, but by God’s grace I intend to dress everyday in a manner that pleases Him!  Just for clarification…I wear a suit and tie every Sunday to church and have no plans of changing that either.

Glorifying God

Several years ago I was told by a seasoned servant of God, “When you don’t know what to preach - PREACH CHRIST.”  Those words have rung in my ear and stuck in my heart ever since.  The truth of that statement is just as true today as it was then, because our focus must be on the Lord Himself.  However, this is becoming increasingly hard to find sometimes as the philosophy of our modern Christian era seems to be the comfort of the hearer.  We see this in the modern  church growth movements which tell us that we need to make church more “relevant” to the hearer, thus, asking the the local churches to change and shift from truth to what people feel they need or want.  Now it is true that this “relevant” movement will garner numbers and these modern church movements are seeing large growth numerically, but is that what we are supposed to be work toward, numbers?  Or is our task to glorify the God of Heaven?

One of the most quoted verses in various teachings today is 1 Corinthians 10:11, which states “…do all to the glory of God.”  Some want us to think that Paul is telling the church at Corinth that God is glorified by all that we do and we should not limit what people want to do in serving the Lord as it does not matter as long as their heart is in the right place.  In other words, if a person believes in their heart that secular sounding music glorifies God then who are we to say it doesn’t.  In some minds, who are we to say that a person cannot continue to live in fornication and still glorify God.  But is that really what the verse in 1 Corinthians 10:11 is teaching?

No!  

What 1 Corinthians 10:11 teaches is very simple - DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD!  This does not mean that all we do will be to the glory of God but that our actions should be driven by the purpose of glorifying our God.  The context is Paul reminding the believers at Corinth that though all things are lawful to do (1Corinthians 10:23), meaning he will not lose his salvation by doing them, but that all things have an effect on others (1 Corinthians 10:24-30) and our main motive MUST be the put God first in all our actions.  Paul directly states that our actions must be driven by the glorification of God in such a way that no one can accuse that we are NOT doing what glorifies God best and in that goal and clearly seen purpose, men will come to Christ in salvation (1 Corinthians 10:32-33).

When our church does what it does, it must be based upon the glory of God and not for the praise of men or for the comfort of mankind.  It must be that the glorification of God is causing the decisions that we make to be lived out.  It is why we have the dress standards that we do, the music standards that we do, and the daily practices that we follow.  We must never seek to just do things that make people feel comfortable or at ease as that is an error in judgment (Amos 6:1).  We must take a stand for God and do it ONLY for His glory.

However, it is also true that when you take up the mantel of glorifying God as your purpose that there will be a few who will use the mantle of God’s glory as a cloak of maliciousness (1 Peter 2:16).  In other words there will be a few who will place standards and guidelines upon others in the name of “God’s glory” but are doing it for their own personal conscience’s sake.  These are the ones that will set a standard for themselves based upon their conscience but then assume that anyone who has a “lesser” standard is somehow not as close to God as they are.  Thus these “spiritual” people have used the glory of God their theme but in reality are using their liberty to be malicious (1 Peter 2:16 again).  This is just as wrong as letting cultural desires drive the actions of the churches.

God wants us to put His glory first and foremost in our actions and motives.  He created us for that purpose and anything less than His glory if failing in that.  

May today be a day that we each as individuals commit to serve the Lord and glorify him with all that we say and do….and let each other believer have the same liberty as well.

The Day After Easter

Now before I share anything let me say that I am trying to use the term “Resurrection Sunday” instead “Easter” mainly because for some the word “Easter” is a word that causes ire due to its supposed pagan history. Though I can easily use the words interchangeably without feeling I have comprised as most do not see the word “Easter” as something sinister within itself. 

Let me say also that we must remember that Jewish days begin at sundown and not at midnight as our days do today.  Thus a Jewish day runs from sundown to sundown because the Jewish people who wrote the Bible were following God’s description of days in Genesis 1:1, 8, 13, and so on, as “the evening and the morning.”  Thus when we look at days in the Bible, it is often dependent that we recognize the timing of events is based upon their view of what constitutes a day not our view.

What was the day after the Resurrection all about?  Remember it began on what would have been our Sunday evening at sundown and ended on what would today be considered Monday evening.  The events are recorded in Luke 24, and the other Gospels, as follows:

1. The women, on Resurrection Sunday morning early, went to the tomb and found it empty.  Some of them were told to go to the disciples and tell them that Jesus had risen and they immediately left to see the disciples (Luke 24:1-10).  Mary, however, lingered and actually got to see the Lord and then afterward also went to report to the disciples (John 20:11-18).
2. Peter and John heard the women’s words and ran to the tomb and find what they had doubted from the women’s mouths was actually true - Jesus WAS alive (Luke 24:11-12).  They obviously returned to the other disciples and reported the body was gone (Luke 24:34).  
3. But evidently two of the disciples, Cleopas and an unnamed disciple, did not stay in Jerusalem but decided to travel to Emmaus for some reason. For sake of understanding, the village of Emmaus was about 7.5 miles from Jerusalem. 
4. These two walked away from Jerusalem but along the journey Jesus met them in His resurrected state (Luke 24:15).  But they did not recognize Him at first and continued on their journey talking with Him on the way until the day was nearly done (Luke 24:28, 29).  These two then asked Jesus to stay with them and the three sat down to eat the evening meal and, then, finally, the two disciples recognized Jesus (Luke 24:30, 31).
5. They immediately return to Jerusalem, probably running all the way (Luke 24:33a), where they find the other disciples waiting for something to happen (John 20:19-23).  I say running because they obviously made it before the end of Sunday at evening as Jesus appears on this “first day of the week” per John 20:19.
6. But this meeting, for sure, went well into the night, thus being the “day” after Resurrection Sunday.

But now the point I wish to make, and, it’s about telling others of Christ’s Resurrection!  You see, as soon as these two road to Emmaus disciples stated they now believed Simon Peter’s words because they had seen the Lord after He broken bread and then accepted His Resurrection as true (Luke 24:34-35), they were obviously saved.  They were literally at that moment before the other disciples saying, “We now believe!”  And what immediately followed that confession?  Jesus appears in the midst of them all.  Notice the words of Luke 24:36, “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them…”  I believe that Jesus had waited to appear to the other disciples until these two returned in belief and confessed Him before the group.

Today the same can be true for us.  Jesus will show Himself to others when we confess Him publicly as our Savior.  You do not have to be a great orator to share the Gospel, just tell them what you believe and Who saved you and let Him do the rest.  Today is the day after Easter and it’s a great day to start sharing the Gospel afresh

Is It Wrong to Complain?

I was raised to “suck it up” when it came to certain things.  For example, when I was a young child my parents would rarely ever complain about anything in a restaurant, even if the waiter served the wrong meal.  I can remember my mother saying, “I’ll eat it anyway,” when cold food or a plate of food she had not ordered was set before her.  Now mind you, it did not happen often, but when it did, it really seemed to mean nothing to them.  They would express that this event wasn’t worth complaining about it and that we should just eat the food served.  To be honest, I did notice as my parents got older they also got bolder, as they, before their deaths, seemed to have found their voice to express their displeasure more often at being served improperly.  But as a child, I have a clear memory of them allowing themselves to be mis-served on numerous occasions and saying nothing.  They had taught me by this example that complaining about everything wasn’t right.

So I ask you today - when is it wrong to complain?

The dictionary defines “complain” as follows:

1. to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault:

He complained constantly about the noise in the corridor.

2. to tell of one's pains, ailments, etc.:

to complain of a backache.

3. to make a formal accusation:

If you think you've been swindled, complain to the police.

Some might argue that it is never right for a godly believer to complain, but the Bible seems to give a different view.  For instance, the word “complain” is used four times in the Bible, and half of those times were by godly Job in the midst of his suffering (Job 7:11 & 31:38).  The word “complaint” is only used nine times in the Scriptures and of those nine five were also spoken by Job, the man God called “perfect” in Job 7:13, 9:27, 10:1, 21:4, & 23:2.  Clearly the Apostle Paul “complained” about the unfair accusations of the Jewish leaders in Acts 24:10-14 and of his unjust beating as a Roman citizen in Acts 22:25-29.  Jesus seems to be “complaining” about the wrong motivation of the Jewish hypocrite leaders in Matthew 23:1-13.  Although Jesus does says to obey their rules (Matthew 23:3) he commands the people not follow to their hearts.  So clearly “complaining” is not out of bounds for the believer in certain areas, but do we have a license to complain about EVERYTHING that bothers us? 

Rather than give where those boundaries are in complaining, let’s just look at a few Bible verses that talk about being content and then let the Lord help you draw the line where complaints are warranted:

1. Paul refused to complain about God’s care of him in Philippians 4:10-13.  He stated that God had taught him to do without and to deal with having more than he needed.
2. God inspired Paul to admonish young Pastor Timothy to learn that financial wealth is not going to worthy of a complaint in 1 Timothy 6:6-10.  Here Paul says that “contentment” is clearly the godly reaction when it comes to not having the finances that other might have.
3. The believers at Corinth had clearly done wrong when they had chosen to go to the civil courts when another believer had somehow done them a harm.  In 1 Corinthians 6:7-11, Paul tells them it is better to be “defrauded” than always get their own way.  He then compares a person seeking to get their own way all the time to some of the most ungodly type people you can name.
4. Once again we find Paul encouraging a church to act properly when it comes to their gratefulness, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18.  Here he tells the believers to “give thanks” IN everything, not for everything.
5. Finally, how about Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5?  Here he teaches the people the there are going to be things that do not go our way and we are going to be “blessed” when we learn to deal with these in a spiritual reaction, such as being “merciful” and then in return receiving mercy.

I wish I could get the balance right when it comes to complaining.  I know there is a time to speak up, but, I also must accept that there is also a time to remain silent about my care and treatment.  However, for me, I am afraid that too often my flesh gets in the way and I complain too much when I should be silently content.  To be honest, I don’t think I am erring on the side of not enough complaining, but clearly complain more than I should.  I pray that these few verses above will at least give us pause to think about a godly response before we complain next time.

The Simplest Way to Share the Gospel

It seems that almost on a daily basis we see “new” methods of sharing the Gospel being presented to us.  Now mind you not all of them cost financially, but it is interesting to note how many of these “new” ideas are either a new printed tract or book which you need to purchase or a video series available for download after purchase.  I understand that printing costs money and paying properly for things is clearly biblical.  Also I am glad that there are people who are seeking to give a fresh vision to giving out the Gospel to the unsaved world, but are we missing the most simple method of sharing the Gospel in exchange for a “new” method?

The word “Gospel” is used 101 times in the King James New Testament.  The first is in Matthew 4:23 and the last is in Revelation 14:6.  Twenty five times “Gospel” is mentioned as having been “preached,” twenty four times it is associated with the word “preach” as in “preach the gospel,” and six times the word “preaching” precedes the word “Gospel.”  So in other words, of the 101 times it is used in the New Testament, over half (55) are directly associated with being publicly shared by the method of preaching.  It is also interesting to note that Paul used the word “Gospel” more than all others combined as he uses it seventy four times in his epistles and in almost every occasion of Paul it is directly attached to the “Gospel” being spoken out loud.  

I share these details not for some mindless fact, but to point out something I believe is very important…the Gospel is first and foremost a spoken message.  Now please do not think I am opposed to the printing of God’s Word as our church is home to Northeast Baptist Seedline, which is a scripture publication ministry.  Also I want it to be known that the written presentation of the Gospel is clearly precious to God as He inspired Paul to say “…as it is written, The just shall live by faith” in Romans 1:17, thus showing the importance of the written Gospel.  Nor am I saying tracts are unbiblical as they have been one of the greatest tools of the modern era in evangelism, as they can remain in the hands of the unsaved long after the believer is gone from their presence.  But my point is that the Gospel, in the Bible, appears to be clearly a primarily spoken truth.  

But why is there such an emphasis on the Gospel being spoken?

1. Of course the obvious response must begin with what the word “Gospel” means, which is good news.  The word “Gospel” is a literal translation of the Greek word “Euaggelion” which means “good spiel (news or tidings)” and is always seen as a spoken type of word.  It is the idea of someone sharing a tidbit of information that you did not know but will thoroughly enjoy hearing (2 Samuel 18:27).
2. The “gospel” is spoken of in various ways using other words as well, such as when the angel came to the shepherds and said, “…behold I bring you GOOD TIDINGS of great joy…” (Luke 2:10).  Thus the “Gospel must go beyond just saving grace or the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ since it contains more details than just those things.
3. Really the “Gospel” is the entire plan of redemption given by God to free mankind from the bondage of sin.  The “Gospel” includes the Fall of Man, the sacrifice of blood for sin, the life of Christ, His Resurrection, and of course, God’s saving grace by faith. Because of this, the Gospel being presented is going to require some “preaching” as each unsaved person is going to be in a different part of  their understanding of the “Gospel.”  What I mean by that is that there are some who know there is a God, believe the Bible is God’s Word, know they are sinners, but have never been explained salvation by grace not works.  Thus the “Gospel” starting point for these folks is the kind mentioned in Hebrews 4:1-2.  But, there are others who have no knowledge of the true God, His Word, and Jesus Christ and so the “Gospel” for them begins in another place such as Paul’s “Gospel” message to the pagans near Mars’ hill in Acts 17:22-31, which begins with Creation and ends with the Resurrection of Christ. Think of the Gospel as a line with all the details of the message of salvation on that line beginning with Creation and the Fall of Man and then concluding with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We need to find where the person we are trying to win to Christ is on that line.  This is only possible when we talk to them and thus "new" methods are simply not the same as the "old" method of "preaching" the Gospel one on one.

I believe in the printed Word of God and encourage its usage, but more importantly, we must understand that the printed Word is not to take the place of personally sharing the “Gospel” with others.  They need answers and direction that God has chosen the “foolishness of preaching” to reveal to them (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).  Today, let’s all commit to sharing the “Gospel” in the simplest way we can - one on one, finding where people are in their search for God.