The Church Then & Now
I had a conversation with a friend earlier this week on being "baptized with the Holy Spirit." Of course the "fruits" of this are speaking in tongues, miraculous healing, etc. Which of course becomes a discussion of how we view these "gifts of the Spirit." We did both agree on the popular explanation of these gifts coming as a blessing at a time when the Church was just beginning, the full sense of the Gospel was being taken to the Gentiles, and these gifts were ways of edifying, encouraging, and growing the Church during its beginnings. But also, as the Church grew and became stable, these gifts were no longer needed, and so they began to "disappear."
I also want to point out how we see God's "presence" or communication with Israel change throughout the Old Testament. In the Garden, God walks with Adam; God talks to Cain, Abel, Noah, etc.; Christ appears before Abraham, Jacob, etc. Then, when God leads His people out of Egypt, He literally goes before them as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. But after awhile, once Israel is established in the promised land, we see God's presence begin to change form. The LORD rarely "appears" to anyone anymore, and He begins to speak only through the profits. Once God establishes His people, He makes them strong, He makes them numerous, He sets up a weekly Sabbath for them; the people now begin to work out their faith a little bit differently.
So here is where I feel like I run into some inconsistencies, and I would very much like this post to be the first comment for a discussion:
In the first statement, we are more than willing to say that the Church is different now than it was in its beginnings, and so "gifts of the Spirit" are no longer needed to help advance the church, but are we willing to hold to that argument in other areas? The main one that comes to mind is selection of deacons, elders, and church leaders. When I urge against selecting a young man for one of these positions who may meet a third of the qualifications, I am always given the argument that the lists of qualifications for these positions are more like guidelines, and it is impossible to find a man that will meet all of the qualifications. I'm okay with that a little bit; but I still ask, "Why not wait till the man is married, has children, and has shown he can raise them faithfully?" And of course the response is, "Paul wasn't married, Timothy didn't have kids, even Christ Himself wouldn't have met all these qualifications. Besides, we really need more leaders in our church right now." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be a similar argument to the one used by the Charismatic churches for still practicing the use of "gifts of the Spirit"; the same argument we just refuted at the beginning.
The Church today is not the Early Church; it is bigger, grander, and even more beautiful now because Christ in His rule over it has made it so. I would argue that time is in our favor, the numbers are in are favor, again, victory is already ours, and Christ rules as sovereignly today as ever. We have time, so why don't we wait for young men to grow into godly leaders? We are numerous, so why aren't we more patient in finding faithful leaders? Our LORD rules, so why don't we pray, pray, and pray some more and then wait for God's answer?
I also want to know if this theme we see in the Old Testament plays out in the life of the Church after Christ? There seem to be some similarities. And we also wait, as the faithful remnant of Israel did, but with much greater expectation in the next coming of our LORD and Savior. But I also feel like God has delivered us into the promised land and we have just decided to pitch tents and live as nomads until Christ brings us full redemption; instead of realizing that, although Christ will finally establish His people completely, we need to continue building that nation now.
I also want to point out how we see God's "presence" or communication with Israel change throughout the Old Testament. In the Garden, God walks with Adam; God talks to Cain, Abel, Noah, etc.; Christ appears before Abraham, Jacob, etc. Then, when God leads His people out of Egypt, He literally goes before them as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. But after awhile, once Israel is established in the promised land, we see God's presence begin to change form. The LORD rarely "appears" to anyone anymore, and He begins to speak only through the profits. Once God establishes His people, He makes them strong, He makes them numerous, He sets up a weekly Sabbath for them; the people now begin to work out their faith a little bit differently.
So here is where I feel like I run into some inconsistencies, and I would very much like this post to be the first comment for a discussion:
In the first statement, we are more than willing to say that the Church is different now than it was in its beginnings, and so "gifts of the Spirit" are no longer needed to help advance the church, but are we willing to hold to that argument in other areas? The main one that comes to mind is selection of deacons, elders, and church leaders. When I urge against selecting a young man for one of these positions who may meet a third of the qualifications, I am always given the argument that the lists of qualifications for these positions are more like guidelines, and it is impossible to find a man that will meet all of the qualifications. I'm okay with that a little bit; but I still ask, "Why not wait till the man is married, has children, and has shown he can raise them faithfully?" And of course the response is, "Paul wasn't married, Timothy didn't have kids, even Christ Himself wouldn't have met all these qualifications. Besides, we really need more leaders in our church right now." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be a similar argument to the one used by the Charismatic churches for still practicing the use of "gifts of the Spirit"; the same argument we just refuted at the beginning.
The Church today is not the Early Church; it is bigger, grander, and even more beautiful now because Christ in His rule over it has made it so. I would argue that time is in our favor, the numbers are in are favor, again, victory is already ours, and Christ rules as sovereignly today as ever. We have time, so why don't we wait for young men to grow into godly leaders? We are numerous, so why aren't we more patient in finding faithful leaders? Our LORD rules, so why don't we pray, pray, and pray some more and then wait for God's answer?
I also want to know if this theme we see in the Old Testament plays out in the life of the Church after Christ? There seem to be some similarities. And we also wait, as the faithful remnant of Israel did, but with much greater expectation in the next coming of our LORD and Savior. But I also feel like God has delivered us into the promised land and we have just decided to pitch tents and live as nomads until Christ brings us full redemption; instead of realizing that, although Christ will finally establish His people completely, we need to continue building that nation now.
posted by Brian | 9:34 PM
2 Comments:
Good to see that the blog is up and running again, Brian. I'll try and do better at getting into the fray and throwing a couple punches myself from now on. (But don't hold me to that, like my scalp I have a tendancy to flake. I'm working on it though, there's all kinds of special shampoos for it.)
Good post, also. It touches on a topic I've been thinking about lately. I actually had the discussion about young, unmarried men in leadership positions last week with an older, wiser friend. (Funny how olderness often equates with wiserness.) He was touting the biblical qualifications for elders and deacons and I countered with the traditional responses you quoted in your post. I thought his responses were very good. He admitted that he needed to examine Timothy's situation more closely, but asked why we are so sure that Paul wasn't ever married? Does it seem normal for a Jewish man in Paul's day to remain unmarried, especially a member of the Sanhedrin? How do we know he was not a widower? Some questions to ponder. Moving along, Jesus not meeting the biblical qualifications seems to be a ridiculous argument. Jesus Christ was not meant to be an elder or a deacon. He is the Word of God, Savior, and Lord; not a redeemed overseer. After doing a little more thinking, it seems that even if Timothy never had children, or Paul was never married your argument about the more pentecostal "gifts of the Spirit" eventually ceasing could similarly be applied here. What I mean is, the early Christian church, prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, seems to be in a transitionary phase for the "end of the age", and it may not be entirely appropriate to apply the qualifications to all the leaders of that time.
There is much more discussion and thought needed in this area, and I'm looking forward to seeing what others more astute than myself will post. As you know, I'm a bit new to being reformed, too; but it feels like some in regards to elder and deacon qualifications are taking an exception to Scripture and justifying it with the WCF's silence on the subject. (I'm not as well acquainted with the WCF as I should be, so if I'm mistaken please let me know. And don't get me wrong, the WCF is a great help and guide.)
As a corollary point of discussion, I wish to add the following: based upon the biblical requirements for elders, what evidence is there for differentiating between the requirements for pastors (teaching elders) and ruling elders? This question arises from the current practice of most Presbyterian churches to select only pastors who have been sent from the seminaries and, as the current government structure goes, alone are members of presbytery. Ruling elders are only members of session, not presbytery. Please forgive me if I'm wrong (after a swift boot to the head), but this does not seem like a Presbyterian structure of government, but rather that of Episcopalianism. This question also arises from the fact that the church I am a member of here in Southcentral Alaska (Anchorage-Palmer-Wasilla) holds to a two-office structure of government, not differentiating between teaching and ruling elders.
Hopefully you (and others) can provide some discussion/input on the subject and my meanderings that, as I look back to what I've written, appear to contain more words than actual content. (My apologies.)
Have a blessed Lord's Day!
Derrick, what a blessing to hear from you! I have been thinking about calling, but have just failed to do so. Actually, I have thought about calling your parents and letting them know there are a number of civil engineering jobs open in Bozeman right now. ;oP
Thanks for the great comment! I was beginning to get worried that no one would have anything to say on the subject. I'm not sure how much I have to add either, which is why I was hoping to start a short discussion on the subject. I honestly have not studied, nor do I have a current position on the distinctions or lack there of that should be given to ruling and teaching elders.
My main concern is that we may be prone at times to be too quick to pick men for leadership roles in the church; especially, when we feel "shorthanded". So you pick a couple men, the work load is now more manageable, but two, five, or ten years down the road the church begins to suffer because it does not have faithful leaders. One of my older, wiser friends reminded me last week that a need doesn't necessitate a call; and that it is naive to assume that when a church feels shorthanded that God will automatically provide someone to fill the position.
In both 1 and 2 Timothy, it seems that Paul gives the "list of qualifications" so that Timothy might have a guide in finding the type of men who will be faithful to the Gospel, and faithful in teaching it or preaching it to others. Paul gives these lists to Timothy in his letters because the purpose of the letters are to encourage him and instruct him in how to fight against the false teachers and the unfaithful elders that were already in the church in Ephesus and in other churches throughout that part of Asia.
I did also hope to present a slightly different perspective or mentality for the church today; one that is more triumphant in Christ, and a little less nervous and impulsive.
I'd love to hear anymore thoughts you have! My apologies again for my inconsistencies in posting.
Post a Comment
<< Home