Posts Tagged ‘ Paul ’

Designated For Assignment

Some afterthoughts from last night’s sermon:  How did you end up in the ministry you now serve?  This isn’t a question aimed at a specific people group, because all believers are serving in one ministry or another.  If you’re a mother, that’s a ministry.  The same goes for husbands, workers, children, pastors, elders, deacons, teachers, etc.  So who put you in the ministry?

The Apostle Paul speaks about his role in the ministry as having come not through himself — he didn’t decide “I can be just as good an apostle as Peter or Thomas.  I’ve got a better education, I read poets & philosophers… I’m going to do it!”  No, Paul affirms in 1 Timothy 1:11 that it was God who entrusted him with the gospel.   He goes on to say in 1 Timothy 1:12 “I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service…”

Paul understands his ministry not as something he hasto do, but assomething he gets to do by the grace of God.  Having to do something versus getting to do something makes a tremendous difference.  My kids have to eat their veggies.  They get to eat dessert.  Very often, it’s the same with Christians who lose sight of what Paul sees — that these opportunities to serve the Lord Jesus Christ are gifts bestowed through grace, not the fine print accompanying salvation.

It’s easy an easy trap to fall into:

If you’re a Christian mother, you may well ask yourself if you really have to be cleaning up another mess right now, or waking up yet another time in the middle of the night.   But shifting the perspective leaves room for bitterness and resentment, both which play a large role in the modern tendency to forsake the ministry of motherhood for a foray into the work world (something husbands often feel they have to do).  How much greater is the home where raising children is something we get to do by the grace of God(Psalm 127:3)?

Christians husbands all too regularly are guilty of the same “Do I really have to?” when it comes to parenting and couple it with a similar attitude with respect to investing into the marriage relationship.  Football season is upon us, and being a guy who used to wonder why I “had” to talk with my wife when the game was on, let me encourage husbands to wake up, realize that the ministry they tend to in marriage is a gift by the grace of God and acknowledge that they get to serve their wives because while the Direct TV has given you access to game upon game, God’s Grace has entrusted you with one woman.   And who are we to choose the 12th man over God?

2010
09/13
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
Sermons
Tacoma BPC
TAGS









Write comment

A Fear of Works

Does the Reformed tradition breed an unbiblical fear of works?  Perhaps fear is the wrong word.  Let me elaborate: When I write a particular sermon that  I call  the “If you’re a Christian, act like it” sermon, my Reformed cohorts can get kind of squirrelly.   Eyes dart back & forth.  Eyebrows raise.  Thumb and index finger move to stroke the chin.

I preached one on Sunday evening.  1 Timothy 1:3-11.  Paul’s charge for Timothy to live out true doctrine out of faith & love naturally leads for a call to repentance and obedience to the Christian and a proclamation of the Gospel to the unregenerate.  But why the discomfort?

That works have no part in our justification is a doctrine clearly taught in the Scriptures (Ephesians 2, etc.).  This truth was obscured by a hegemony in the church that valued tradition and non-biblical authority more than the Bible itself.  It took a Reformation to give an unfiltered gospel to the masses.  Reformed Christians today continue in the Reformation tradition, but perhaps we have become something of an overprotective mother when it comes to justification and works.

How so?  Raise your hand if the mere mention of works made your doctrine alarms go off sending you into full apologist mode, scanning to see if I’m about to get all Pelagius up in this blog.  Go ahead.  I can see you through your webcam.

And that response is what I’m talking about.  I’m thinking that we’ve become so careful to guard against the ever popular heresy of salvation (full or part) via works that we get all itchy whenever works are brought up.  ESPECIALLY when works are brought up in conjunction with a call to, you know, actually do them.

As a result of this, we are constantly having to put caveats in our speech whenever we discuss works.  Just like the good Calvinist knows to say “providence” and never “luck” so the good Reformed believer knows never to mention good works without adding “Not that [works] will provide you with salvation.” — Not that there’s anything wrong with that!  I’m a Presbyterian, so naturally I’m fond of precision.  But too many caveats sometimes lead us to bend our thinking away from Biblical doctrine and into a warped theology that allows us to declare “We are not saved by works.  Therefore, I don’t need ‘em!”

A few weeks ago I tweeted that I see far more Christians struggle with antinomianism (armchair definition: Faith in Christ makes the moral law irrelevant. Sin and be free, faith will bail you out).  Several folks replied that they were shocked that such was the case, having grown up in churches where salvation was offered for those who ne’r took a sip of beer.  They wondered where I was going to church.  While a legalistic attitude (if not legalism) is common among certain groups — I think w\ us Reformed peeps it can be just the opposite.  We get that we’re not saved by what we do.  It’s a part of our heritage.  Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone is the gigantic belt buckle of the Reformed cowboy.   In some cases the buckle is getting too big for the britches, and we overreact when someone points out that you still need to wear chaps when you’re riding the trail.

//end cowboy illustrations

Anyone seeing this, or am I making things up again?  If you have noticed it, how do you deal with it?

2010
08/11
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
Sermons
TAGS





8 comments

Weaker (Mario) Brothers

There’s been quite a dust-up over my post on tight jeans & modesty.  I have found that whenever a discussion about modesty occurs a few different things invariably seem to happen:

  • People talk.  Any time you bring up a Christian doctrine that has the potential to challenge or change how people may live their lives, the opinions are going to fly.
  • Men restrain themselves from being frank about the issue and speak in decidedly polite tones.  Seriously ladies, you may well be surprised at the opinion of the guys when ladies are out of the room.  We all know something about one another that you may not, and we’re not quick to share it in public.  More on that another time.
  • Legalism is brought into the discussion (still waiting for someone to actually manufacture that Christian burqa everyone seems to think proponents of modesty are demanding).
  • Weaker brothers are brought into the picture.

It’s the last two points I wanted to look at here because I think they’re often the ones most misunderstood.  When we talk about “weaker brothers” we’re referring to a passage in Romans 14:1-3

1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

What’s often lost when we talk about weaker brothers is the fact that they’re acting weak “in the faith”.  That is, what they’re doing is being done in faith with a real desire is to glorify God.  There is a tendency to look on these people with eyes a’rolling, frustrated with their spiritual immaturity and temporarily forgetting that it is ALL of the grace of God.

“I’m not going to change my life for some schmo who can’t handle life in the real world.”  <— This is a bad thing.

Paul recognized that this response would be a natural one for mature believers who would rather not have their style cramped, so he says “Don’t be like that” in verse 4.

OK, but what about legalism?  Even if we can agree that weaker brothers have troubles with immodest clothing, aren’t they just being legalistic (this leads to the burqa argument, one some common that it would occupy the “free” space on the modesty discussion bingo card).  We often misunderstand legalism to be “anything above or beyond what I feel like doing.”  So if a brother or sister says “Maybe it’s not the best idea in the world to wear the kind of jeans that constantly reveal the color of your underwear” the response is often “Legalist!”

True legalism supposes that the actions taken (say modesty) would serve as a means of justification (Galatians 5:1-3).   That’s a false gospel.  It’s also a false attack when someone calling for modesty is labeled a legalist.  Doing so reveals a lack of understanding for what a legalist truly is and we Reformed folk (especially we Reformed Presbyterian folk) are all about precision when it comes to doctrinal terms.

Remember: Biblically weaker brothers or sisters calling for modesty are doing so in faith to glorify God.  Can the same be said for the man or woman who hears this, but chooses their personal desire for fashion, comfort, appeal or whatever else is of greater value?  These discussions get turned sideways because we try straining gnats instead of looking to the issues at heart for both sides.

In other news, there’s still time to enter a drawing for a free Ligonier lecture series!

2010
08/05
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
TAGS






4 comments

Sermon: 1 Timothy 1:1-3

My sermon from Sunday evening is posted over at the Tacoma BPC site.

It’s an introductory sermon.  As far as introductory sermons go, they can be really good, or really bad.  The really bad ones are basically history lessons.  You get background information about the city, the economic conditions, what was happening elsewhere in the world at the time the letter was written.  Who was emperor, what their reign looked like, etc.  All this might be interesting, but if it’s the meat of your sermon, you missed the mark.  Widely.  After all, we’re called to preach Christ Jesus.

Here’s how I went about it.  First, who is Paul writing to?

Timothy, duh.  But not only Timothy.  His declaration of his apostleship is an indicator that this pastoral epistle was meant to be read by more than just Pastor Timothy, but by the churches in the region, as was customary or the apostolic epistles.  Timothy didn’t need the reminder that Paul was an apostle.  With that bit of info we’re able to look at who Timothy was (and shake the idea that he’s nothing mroe than a weak-stomached inexperienced Pastor unable to decide what he should do next).  We also get to look at the authority of Scripture every time we do a sermon on an epistles introduction.

The gospel meat of the message has to do with Paul’s specific decision to show Jesus as coequal with God the Father as well as his declaration that he’s working under marching orders from God  (both found in 1 Timothy 1:1).  Paul isn’t writing this epistle just because he loves Timothy as a true son, but because Christ has commanded him to do so according to the office he called Paul into.

Unbelievers have marching orders from God.  They are to turn away from sin via repentance and put their faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, 2 Peter 3:9, to name a few instances).

Believers have marching orders from God too, and 1 Timothy deals with a number of them.  So the message calls for repentance and obedience through the proclamation of the Gospel as well as an exhortation to serve Christ in love by remembering what the standing orders God has given us are (think Commission, Great).

Give it a listen. Let me know what you think, about this post or about the sermon in general.

2010
07/28
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
Sermons
Tacoma BPC
TAGS





Write comment

Measuring Up

Have you ever watched an episode of The Way of the Master?  It’s an evangelism/witnessing program.  Folks on the street have their “goodness” challenged in comparison to the law of God.  Some folks acknowledge that they’re guilty of transgressing God’s law, but not everyone admits that such a transgression means judgment.  They seek to justify themselves.  The most common way this is done is by comparing their morality with those around them.  “I’m guilty, but I’m not as guilty as this guy!”

That’s not how it works.  Most followers of the way will point that out.  It’s not the standards set by the world or the people around us, it’s what God commands us.  And yet when the topic of modest dress comes up, I find many Christian women justifying their attire in the same way.  “I’m not dressing as immodestly as that girl!”.  Sometimes that’s true, and sadly sometimes it’s false.  But is it an acceptable answer or is it not so different from the folks getting grilled on WOTM?

Paul speaks to the Church in 1 Timothy 2 on some inherent issues men and women have.  He points out that men have a problem with anger, and that women have a problem with modest dress.   So the apostle says that women should “adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…” (1 Tim. 2:9).  But what exactly does “respectable apparel” mean?  That’s the sticking point that allows a number of interesting apparel choices to go unchecked in worship services.  Respectable attire, in the modern evangelical vernacular means dressing nearly as provocatively as the world, but not quite.  Consider a description of immodest dress given in an article by Doug Wilson:

There are three common problems with immodesty in women’s dress – too much, too little, and too tight.

“Too much” is flamboyant or ostentatious – dressing like a hooker. The sin is not avoided if a woman uses “gold, pearls, and costly array” in order to look like a courtesan – a higher class of hooker. In either case, a woman can send immodest signals even when everything is covered. This means that her immodesty consists, not in what she is doing at that moment, but in what she is promising to do later. The language of her clothing states unambiguously that, however much of it there is, it comes off easily enough.

“Too little” means cleavage, vast expanse of thigh, that sort of thing. Women with this problem dress like a sale at J.C. Penney’s – forty percent off. Too often Christians assume that this kind of skin exposure is the only possible “modesty problem.” This is not true, but it remains common nonetheless. This immodesty is compounded by girls who wear short skirts and who do not know how to sit like a lady, showing the world what’s fore and aft.

“Too tight” is the most popular mode of disobedience among modern evangelicals. The whole world is invited to gawk at the topographical evidence concerning exactly where her underwear starts and stops, along with the exact condition, location, and size of her breasts. Many Christian women go to worship today dressed in a manner that would have gotten them thrown out of a bar fifty years ago. Ah, Christian liberty.

So if this is a problem (and it is) is the answer for women to dress in burlap sacks or to for church gatherings to look like a Little House on the Prairie convention? Nah.  When Paul speaks to not wearing gold or pearls or costly attire or braiding our hair, he’s not legalistically saying that these things are bad in and of themselves.  Rather they’re bad if they’re being used in a manner that does not lead to good works and godliness.  So the solution is to ask how we’re glorifying God with what we wear and how our clothes might impact the brothers and sisters around us.  

This is something that often just isn’t done.  A pair of jeans are purchased and often the only question that was ever considered was whether or not it made the wearer’s butt look good, or big but rarely is there a purpose to wearing a piece of clothing specifically designed to make my posterior look as good as possible to whoever is looking.  Should a husband have the right to visually look upon the garden that is his wife? Absolutely.  Should I?  Not at all and yet all to often Christian women dress in a manner that offers just that.  Some of them do it on purpose.  Most of them know not what they’re doing, but why would they if they never stop to ask?

//Flame on.

2010
07/16
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
Random Stuff
TAGS






2 comments

A thought on paying Pastors…

Arthur Sido wrote a post on why he believes Pastors should not be paid a salary over at the voice of one crying out in suburbia.

It’s a thoughtful piece examining what the Scriptures say on the issue, however much of it seems to hang on an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9.  The summarized argument is:

Paul, more than anyone else, can make a claim to being owed money for his work in the Corinthian Church. But he would suffer anything than actually do that. Therefore, Paul considers being paid to be a Pastor an obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel.

1 Cor. 9:12 – If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.

1 Cor. 9:15 – But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this is truly what Paul is teaching — whether a Pastor being paid to do his work is in itself an obstacle to the gospel? If it is, we can throw the usual proof texts (1 Tim. 5:17-18, 1 Cor. 9:9, 14) for paying a Pastor’s salary out the window, encouraging them to write hand made Greek/Hebrew interlinear moleskines in order to provide food instead.  Fortunately for faithful Pastors, the argument presented above isn’t Paul’s, church the payrolls are safe from editing (for now).

Paul talks about his not taking money from the Corinthian church in his second letter, which provides context for his statement in 1 Corinthians.

2 Cor. 11:5-11 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Or a did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

So Paul makes it clear that he forsook the claim for payment mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:12 not because  he was against it in principle but because knowing the difficulties he faced in the Corinthian church inundated with the “Super Apostles”, the taking payment would be a potential obstacle to preaching the gospel… and Paul would rather die than have that happen.  This is understandable and something that a Pastor should be agreeable towards – I can think of several who take little or no money because of the impact demanding salary from their churches would have.  Rather than take a salary that might be an obstacle to the gospel, Paul gets financial help from churches in Macedonia so he is able meet his needs while Pastoring in Corinth.  With this understanding in view, the notion that Paul is universally making a statement about Pastors receiving payment falls into the realm of eisegesis, however sincere.

2010
05/10
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Christianity
TAGS






8 comments