Monthly Archives: January 2019

Truly God, Truly Man

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dr. Nicholas Needham, minister of Inverness Reformed Baptist Church in Inverness, Scotland, and lecturer in church history at Highland Theological College in Dingwall, Scotland. He is author of 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power.

It’s hard enough to pronounce “Chalcedon.” Getting to grips with its theology can be even more daunting. But the effort will be very richly rewarded. For the past 1,500 years, right up to the present day, virtually all orthodox Christian theologians have defined their “orthodoxy” with reference to the Council of Chalcedon. That certainly includes the Reformed tradition. We may not think that the early ecumenical councils were infallible. But we have generally held that they were gloriously right in what they affirmed, and that Christians who take the church and its history seriously must reckon with these great councils as providential landmarks in the unfolding life story of God’s people.

What was Chalcedon all about? Basically it was trying to settle the aftermath of the Arian controversy in the fourth century. Biblical theologians had struggled successfully against Arianism to affirm the deity of Christ. But this led to further controversy. This time, the issue was the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ. Two tendencies quickly became prominent. One was associated with the church in Antioch. It wanted to protect the full reality of Christ’s deity and humanity. To do this, it tended to keep them as far apart as possible. The Antiochenes were afraid that any close blending of the two natures might mix them up. Christ’s human limitations might get applied to His deity — in which case He wasn’t fully God. Or His divine attributes might get applied to His humanity — in which case He wasn’t fully human. This was fine, as far as it went. The trouble was, Antiochenes sometimes separated Christ’s two natures so much, He seemed to end up as two persons: a human son of Mary indwelt by a divine Son of God. The most famous Antiochene thinker who took this line was Nestorius, a preacher who became patriarch (chief bishop) of Constantinople in 428. Nestorius was condemned by the third ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 (it also condemned Pelagianism as heresy).

The other tendency was associated with the church of Alexandria. Their main concern was to protect the divine person of the Son as the one single “subject” of the incarnation. In other words, there is in Christ only one “I,” only one personal agent, and this is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. And again, this was fine as far as it went. The trouble was, Alexandrians sometimes became so zealous for Christ’s divine person, they could lose sight of His humanity. To the extremists of Alexandria, any sort of emphasis on Christ’s human nature seemed to threaten the sovereignty of His single divine person. Would Christ not break apart into two persons — the hated Nestorian heresy — if one insisted too much on the full reality of His manhood?

In the aftermath of Nestorius’ condemnation at Ephesus in 431, the Alexandrians made all the running. Their greatest thinker was Cyril of Alexandria. But when Cyril died in 444, a more extreme figure stepped into his place. This was Eutyches, a leading monk in Constantinople. Eutyches was so violent in his commitment to Christ’s single divine person, he could tolerate no rivalry (as it were) from His humanity. So in an infamous phrase, Eutyches taught that in the incarnation, Christ’s human nature had been swallowed up and lost in His divinity: “like a drop of wine in the sea.” This extreme Alexandrian view triumphed at another ecumenical council in Ephesus in 449. Its victory, however, was due less to theological argument and persuasion, and due more to gangs of unruly Alexandrian monks who terrorized the proceedings, supported by the troops of emperor Theodosius II, who favored Eutyches.

The council was condemned in the western, Latin-speaking half of the Roman Empire. Pope Leo the Great thundered against it as the “Robber Synod” (and the name stuck). After the death of emperor Theodosius, a new emperor, Marcian, called a new council at Chalcedon (in Asia Minor) in 451. This time, Eutyches and the extreme Alexandrians were defeated. The council skillfully wove together all that was good and true in the Antiochene and Alexandrian outlooks, producing a theological masterpiece on the person of Christ:

So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; of one essence with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same of one essence with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, the same born of Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity.

He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation. At no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being. He is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

Perhaps we can best appreciate what the Council of Chalcedon achieved by asking what the consequences would have been if either Nestorius or Eutyches had won the day. Let’s take Nestorianism first. If the incarnation is really a case of a human son of Mary being indwelt by a divine Son of God, then Christ is no different in principle from any holy human. Every sanctified man is indwelt by the Son. Was Christ merely the highest example of that? If so, no true incarnation has taken place at all. We cannot say “Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.” We can only say “Jesus of Nazareth had a relationship with the Son of God.” Think of what this does to our doctrine of the atonement. We would have to say we are saved by the sufferings of a merely human Jesus who happened to be indwelt by God (as all holy people are). Would that not inevitably lead to a belief that human suffering — perhaps our own — can atone for our sins? And think of what it would do to our worship. We would not be able to worship Jesus — only the divine Son by whom Jesus was indwelt. That would destroy Christian worship entirely.

But then, think what would have happened if Eutychianism had won out. If Christ’s humanity was lost and swallowed up in His deity “like a drop of wine in the sea,” then once again, no real incarnation has taken place. Rather than God becoming man, we have man being annihilated in God. One can see how this would easily have lent itself to all manner of humanity-denying mysticism. After all, if Christ is our pattern, shouldn’t we too seek for our own humanity to be lost and swallowed up in deity like a drop of wine in the sea?

The fathers at Chalcedon set themselves firmly against both of these unwholesome tendencies. They affirmed that Christ is indeed one single divine person, not some alliance of a divine and a human person, as in Nestorianism. The subject, the “I,” the personal agent whom we meet in Jesus Christ is singular, not plural; this person is “the Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord” — the second person of the Godhead. Mary is therefore rightly called the “God-bearer,” a truth passionately rejected by Nestorius. The person whom Mary bore was precisely God the Son! Mary is the mother of God incarnate (although not, of course, the mother of the divine nature). The fathers of Chalcedon equally affirmed that this one person exists in two distinct natures, complete deity and complete humanity, thus rejecting the Eutychian absorption of one into the other. We see in Christ everything that it is to be human, and everything that it is to be divine, at one and the same time, without either being compromised by the other. We could say that in Christ, for the first time and the last, all the fullness of human being, and all the fullness of divine being, have come together and exist together in exactly the same way — as the Son of the Father and the Bearer of the Holy Spirit. Or to put it more simply, Christ is fully and truly man, fully and truly God, at the same time, in a single person.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 
Hail the incarnate deity! 
Pleased as Man with man to appear: 
Jesus, our Emmanuel here.

The fathers of Chalcedon did a fine job. In matters christological, we can perhaps only ever be dwarfs on their giant shoulders. We may be enabled to see even further, if we sit there. But if we climb off, I somehow doubt that we’ll see anything but Nestorian and Eutychian mud.

A man found him there

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Chris Gibbs, Pastor of Denver Baptist Church, Denver, NC

(original source: https://missionbeforeme.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-man-found-him-there.html

In Genesis 37 we read about the well-known story of Joseph, who is the 11th son of the old patriarch Jacob, whose father was Isaac, whose father with Abraham. We are told that Joseph is Jacob’s favorite son, which doesn’t sit well with his brothers. In fact, the text says that after Joseph was given a “robe of many colors” that his brothers “hated him and could not bring themselves to speak peaceably to him.” 
Joseph didn’t help improve relations with his brothers by telling them about a couple of dreams he had. The first involved seeing all these sheaves of grain bundled up and laying in a field. Joseph’s sheaf stood up, and his brothers sheaves bowed down before it. His brothers clearly understood the message–Joseph thought that one day he would rule over them.
The second dream didn’t sit any better with them. Joseph told them that he saw the sun, moon and eleven stars bowing down before him. Eleven stars represented his eleven brothers, the ones who already hated him (except for the youngest, Benjamin). This dream even upset dear old dad, who “rebuked him” for elevating himself as someone that even his parents would bow down to. 
If you know the rest of the story, then you know that it was to be true. What Joseph saw in those dreams actually happened. One day Jacob sent Joseph out to visit with his brothers, who had traveled some distance away to pasture the flock and herds. He wanted to know how things were going, so he sent Joseph to get a report and bring it back to him. When Joseph showed up the anger of his brothers showed out and they threw him into a pit. They debated whether or not they should kill him, but eventually decided to sell him into slavery when a caravan of Ishmaelites passed by. Say goodbye, Joseph, to your robe, your dreams, and your spot as dad’s favorite. 
The brothers watched Joseph ride off towards Egypt, then returned home with a mangled robe that they smeared with goat’s blood. Jacob mourned the “death” of his son, thinking a wild animal had torn him to pieces. 
Years later a severe famine would hit the land, and Jacob’s family would find themselves in a dire situation. Word had come that there was grain in Egypt, so off the boys went. You know how the story plays out–Joseph had been favored by God, risen to second in command, and put in place a savings plan that allowed there to be plenty of grain stored up when the famine hit. One day he notices his brothers, hoping to buy grain, and guess what? They eventually bow before Joseph, who in time reveals that he is their brother. Instead of killing them for their betrayal, he forgives them and  says, “What you meant for evil, God meant for good.”
The small band of Israelites are saved from destruction, eventually move to Egypt and grow into a flourishing nation. From there they make it to the Promised Land, which God had promised their father Abraham when He made His covenant with him earlier in Genesis. Fast forward a few thousand years and another covenant promise is kept when Jesus, the “offspring” of Abraham comes on a mission to save sinners from another kind of destruction through His death and resurrection. In Him, Jesus, all the nations would be blessed, just as God had promised. 
It is a familiar story. But there is one event in Genesis 37 that is easy to overlook or quickly read past without thinking much about it. As I re-read this chapter, I sat on these words for a while, pondering them and wondering why they made it into the story. Here they are, from Genesis 37:15-17…

15  A man found him [Joseph] there, wandering in the field, and asked him, “What are you looking for?”
16  “I’m looking for my brothers,” Joseph said. “Can you tell me where they are pasturing the flocks?”
17  “They moved on from here,” the man said, “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.” So Joseph set out after his brothers and found them at Dothan.

Right in the middle of the story an unnamed man shows up and points Joseph in the right direction. Apparently he had been around his brothers earlier, close enough to hear them discuss their travel plans. 
Why is this little, seemingly insignificant event a part of this story? Who is this nameless man? What is the point? Those were the questions I rolled over in my mind as I read this chapter. I think I found the answer by asking some other questions: what if Joseph gives up looking for his brothers and goes back home? What if he is never sold into slavery and never winds up in Egypt? What if his family perishes during the future famine? What if the young band of Israelites is destroyed?
See, that little random, nameless man matters. He reminds us that the God we worship is a God who keeps His promises and accomplishes His plans. He had made a covenant with Abraham and He intended to keep it. There is young Joseph, wandering around in some field. Then suddenly this man shows up and points him in the right direction. It is possible that Joseph may have been sitting in the bottom of that pit, which his brothers overhead eating their lunch and plotting his demise, thinking, “I wish I had never met that man in the field.”
That encounter in that field wasn’t some random, lucky meeting. It was a weapon of war. Ever since Genesis 3:15, when God promised the serpent that he would be crushed by the seed of the woman, who is Jesus, that serpent had been trying to derail the redemptive plan of God, to wipe out God’s people so that the One promised never arrives. This happens over and over again in the Old Testament. Pharaoh orders all the Israelite baby boys thrown into the Nile. Goliath, dressed in armor that looks like snake scales, threatens to rip apart young David, from whom the true King would come. Haman tricks the king into passing a law that all the Jews should die, which sprung Queen Esther into action for “such a time as this.”
You really can summarize the redemptive story of the Bible with three phrases: Satan rages, God laughs, and Jesus wins. 
Satan doesn’t want God to keep His covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because he knows that means his ultimate defeat. He wants God’s promises to fail, so he rages against God’s people and wars against them. So, see Joseph scratching his head in that field as a pivotal moment in this spiritual war. “Go home Joseph,” the snake may have whispered. 
But God laughs. “He who sits in the heavens laughs…” (Psalm 2:4). He laughs in the face of anyone who thinks that they can diminish His glory or thwart His plans. Everything is under God’s control, including every little detail in the universe. Satan can rage and plot all he wants to against Jesus. He can stir up kings and generals to plot against those who follow Jesus. He can convene councils, lead rebellions, even possess people and lead them to act against the glory of God. He who sits in the heavens laughs. Why? Because nothing can stop Him from fulfilling His plan to rescue sinners, to defeat the devil, to exalt His Son Jesus Christ in all the earth. Nothing and no one can derail the sovereign plan of our all-powerful, all glorious, all gracious, holy, righteous, just, magnificent God!
In the end, Jesus wins. Like Joseph, Jesus was uniquely loved by His Father. He was also hated by His brothers, who rejected the idea that He would rule over them. Like Joseph, Jesus was also sent to His brothers by His Father, and those brothers conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and handed Him over to Gentiles. Like Joseph, Jesus is sold for the price of a slave. He, too, is stripped of His garments and condemned to die. Like Joseph, Jesus is numbered with transgressors even though He was faithful amid temptation and was innocent. And also like Joseph, Jesus is exalted through humiliation, forgives those who betrayed Him and uses His power to save them.
But Jesus is unlike Joseph in one important way–his brothers only threatened to kill him but instead sent him away. Jesus’ brothers made good on their threats and actually put Him to death. Joseph can only offer grain to hungry people, that they may go and make bread; but Jesus is the bread come down from heaven. His body, represented at His table by bread, was broken for us. The blood of a goat is sprinkled on Joseph’s garment and presented to his father, which was a cover-up for their sin; but Jesus, the Lamb of God, presented His own blood to the Father as an offering for our sin. 
Just as people bowed before Joseph, the Bible says that one day “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.” Joseph’s brothers found favor with Pharaoh because of their relationship to Joseph; today we find favor with God because of our relationship to Jesus. Joseph was called a “savior” in his day for saving his people from physical death; but Jesus has done something greater–He has delivered us from spiritual death in His cross and resurrection and has been given a name is the exalted above all names. Jesus wins.
Be encouraged that if God has gone to great lengths to keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, He will keep His promises to you. Nothing can stop His plans from coming to pass. He is orchestrating every event of this universe to accomplish His desires–whether it is sending a nameless man to a field to direct Joseph, or some other event of history. 
So, fill your heart with hope today! Rest in His promises to you! Rejoice in the victory of Jesus! Be faithful to Him and His mission until He comes for you. Endure suffering, knowing that a day of deliverance has been promised for you. Stay the course, knowing that one day you shall see Him. Though Satan may rage, Jesus will not fail.

Sam Waldron Series: Parity in the Eldership and the Need for Balance

Posted on by
Reply

Original source: https://cbtseminary.org

Part 1:

We distribute a book as a Seminary that I helped to write and edit many years ago.  It is entitled, In Defense of Parity. In that short volume, I with a few other men defend the notion (which many of us hold as Reformed Baptists) that there is no official distinction to be made between the different elders of the church.  In other words, such a view of parity says that biblically all elders are pastors and all pastors are elders.  This view is based on what seems to me to be an indisputable exegetical reality.  That reality is that in the Bible the three words presbuteros, episkopos, and poimein refer to the same office in the church.  This is a little confusing because each of these three Greek words has both an older and a newer.  Presbuteros is translated presbyter in older English and elder in newer English.  Episkopos is translated in older English as bishop and as overseer in newer English.  Poimeinis translated pastor in older English but shepherd in newer English.  Parity simply asserts that all these words refer to the identical office in the church.

But to repeat myself, I am not going to spend a lot of time defending that conclusion or implication of the parity of the eldership and the equivalence of the terms shepherd, elder, and overseer with regard to referencing the same office in the church. The reason is that this conclusion is the assumption or presupposition of these blog posts rather than their thrust or focus.  Here I want to speak of my growing conviction over the years that the parity of the eldership needs to be balanced by the biblical teaching regarding the diversity of the eldership.

Part 2:

A few years ago a friend of mine mistakenly affirmed that I believed in the absolute parity of the eldership.  I informed him, and let me now inform all of my readers, that I emphatically do not believe in such a view of parity.  I believe, in fact, in three different kinds of diversity within the elders of the church.  I will argue that there is diversity of spiritual gift, financial support, and actual influence.  I believe that these three areas of diversity are much more than theoretical in their significance.  They have important practical applications with regard to how the eldership and the church does its holy business.

The diversity of elders is clearly taught in the Scriptures.  It is not, as we have seen, a diversity with regard to office, authority, or title.  But in what, then, does this diversity in the eldership consist? It consists, as I said, in a diversity of spiritual gift, financial support, and actual influence.

Consider, first, the diversity of spiritual gift.

Both the Bible and experience show that elders may have greatly varying gifts.  To think through this matter systematically, let me ask you to consider several things. First, the New Testament emphasizes the sovereignty of God in imparting those gifts.  1 Corinthians 12:11 affirms: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.”

Second, the New Testament also emphasizes (and in the same passage) the variety of spiritual gifts which the Spirit in His sovereignty imparts, and the variation given to different members of the body of Christ.  1 Corinthians 12:4-7 says: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”  This same emphasis is found in Romans 12:3-7 and 1 Pet. 4:10-11.  What is true of the gifts of the Spirit to the church in general is, of course, true for the elders of the church as well.  Here too there is variety of gift according to the sovereignty of the Spirit.

Third, there are several different gifts that are important specifically for the eldership.  Romans 12:7-8 names the gifts of teaching, exhorting, and leading.  1 Corinthians 12:28 mentions the gifts of teaching and administration.  1 Peter 4:11 mentions the gift of speaking.  But once more we must remember that God gives these spiritual gifts in varying degrees.  The parable of Jesus emphasizes this in Matthew 25:14-15.  The varying degrees of gift given to Christians and especially to ministers is also taught in Ephesians 4:7-11.  What these passages clearly teach, church history and our own experience confirm. Great diversity exists in the mix and measure of spiritual gifts given to pastor-teachers.

Now this reality has very important practical implications.  For one thing, this means that the qualifications for the eldership should not be measured in terms of the gifts of the outstanding preacher-pastor that we admire so much.  There may be lesser degrees of gift which still qualify a man for the eldership.  Similarly, we must also not limit the exercise of the highly gifted pastor by insisting on an artificial equality in the public ministry of the Word in the church.  Equality of office does not mean equality in opportunities for public ministry in the church.  This should make us accept men of more slender gifts as true elders, but also makes us feel that no artificial equality needs to be implemented in the public ministry of the church.

Part 3:

In our last post we looked at the reality that there is a diversity of spiritual gifts in true elders.  I commented that this has important practical implications for the church and its elders.  But there is also diversity in other respects, specifically there is diversity of financial support.

The New Testament teaches that there is diversity in the matter of financial support.  Some elders may be fully supported by the church.  Other elders may work at another vocation to support themselves.  Let it be emphasized that this diversity is not the product of human sinfulness.  It is ecclesiastically lawful for it to be so.  The key text here is, of course, 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Two questions must be answered with regard to this passage.  First, what is double honor? Second, to whom is such double honor to be given?

(1)       What is double honor?

Double honor in 1 Timothy 5:17 means generous financial support.  How do we know this?  Double honor in the context of 1 Timothy 5:17 is contrasted with the honor to be given to widows.  Without any doubt this honor for widows consists in financial support (1 Tim. 5:3, 4, 8, 16).  Widows are, then, to be honored, while well-ruling elders are to be given double honor—the generous financial support necessary to comfortably support a man in a leadership position who may also have a wife and children.

The financial character of this honor is confirmed by verse 18.  Here Paul cites the same Old Testament text that he used in 1 Corinthians 9:9 to teach that ministers of the gospel should live of the gospel or be generously, financially supported.  He also cites a saying of the Lord that in both Matt. 10:10 and Luke 10:7 had to do with the financial support of those who preach the gospel.

The term, double, used here is not intended literally.  It is used figuratively in the New Testament to refer to a large or generous portion of something (Matthew 23:15; Rev. 18:6).  Matthew 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”Revelation 18:6 “Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.”

In accord with its usage in the New Testament, then, double here simply means or denotes that this financial support is to be ample or generous.  The generosity with which elders should be financially supported is confirmed by the parallel passages (Galatians 6:6; 1 Corinthians 9:14).

(2)       To whom is such double honor to be given?

This financial support of the elders—according to the Apostle Paul—is not to be indiscriminately divided among or necessarily given to all elders.  Notice how the passage speaks of this matter.  Timothy and the church at Ephesus under his leadership are to focus that financial support on the elders who rule well. Among those who rule well financial support is especially to be given to those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

I think of this passage as viewing the eldership in terms of three concentric circles.  Financial support is focused on the innermost circle, may extend to the next circle outward, but does not extend to all elders in general.

The measure of a man’s spiritual gifts in ruling and especially teaching and preaching (as well as his experience, maturity, diligence, and godliness) is related to the matter of financial support.  Of course, the church’s ability may in some cases prevent the church from doing all it should do with regard to the financial support of elders.  In such cases the priorities set by 1 Timothy 5:17 should govern the distribution of financial support to elders.

We may draw from all this a clear conclusion.  The Scriptures could not be more clear that there is diversity with regard to the financial support of elders.

Let me state plainly that voting a man in as a pastor or elder does not mean that the church has any necessary commitment to support that man financially.  Nor does it mean that they are committed to financially supporting that man at the level that they may be supporting pastors already.  Practically, all this means that a separate act of the church from the election of a pastor may be appropriate or even necessary to grant a pastor financial support.  1 Timothy 5:17 makes very clear that some elders or pastors may not be financially supported at all.  This is, then, a different issue than recognizing that a man is a qualified elder.

Part 4:

We have looked at the reality that there is diversity of spiritual giftedness in true elders and that there is also diversity of financial support.  In this post a third area of diversity among the elders will be our focus.  With regard to biblical eldership, there is also the diversity of actual influence.

It is also clear that there may be great diversity in a man’s actual influence as a Christian minister.  This was certainly true even of the highest office in Christ’s church—the office of Apostle.  Paul labored more than all the Apostles.  He had, thus, a proportionately greater influence (1 Cor. 15:10).  It also seems clear that Peter exercised a greater influence than many of the other Apostles (Matt. 16:18; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:1).

What is true of the extraordinary office of Apostle certainly must be true of the ordinary office of the pastor or elder.  The sovereignty of God in the work of salvation and the differing gifts the Spirit gives lead to differing degrees of influence for good in Christ’s church.  Of course, once more church history and Christian experience demonstrate that this is true.

The New Testament, then, teaches the plurality, the parity, and the diversity of elders in the eldership of the local church.  It is in light of these three principles that the eldership of every local church ought to be organized.  The distribution of responsibilities and ministries must be guided by each of these three principles.  The diversity of gift, influence and support must not disguise the parity of official authority belonging to each elder.  The parity and plurality of the elders should not suppress the implications of the diversity of elders in the distribution of the responsibilities and ministries in the church.  Parity of office does not require an artificial equality in the distribution of ministry or financial support.  Rather, the sovereignty of Christ in giving a diversity of gifts should be acknowledged in such matters.

One great implication of the diversity of the eldership as we have seen it in this blog series is that part of the calling of a pastor is giving the man who is to be called a clear job description.  This is especially true where the man is not to be the first or sole supported pastor of a church.  Of course, the Bible provides every elder such a job description in its explanation of the duties of the office.  These duties, however, will vary in their proportion and their weight depending on his particular gifts and specific responsibilities.  His ability to fulfill such duties will also be dependent on the time he can devote to such responsibilities.  In turn this will be dependent on whether and to what extent he is financially supported.

To re-emphasize my main point:  all of this requires that the elder-to-be must be provided a clear idea or specific, job description of the particular duties he is called to fulfill as an elder.  This is necessary in order to help a conscientious man make a responsible decision to accept the position being offered to him.  This is also necessary in order to assure that hopes are not raised by the call to the eldership which are false or unrealistic.

Part 5:

In this last post I want simply to collect a number of practical thoughts which flow out of a biblical view of the plurality, parity, and diversity of the eldership.

1.) See in the diversity, parity, and plurality of the eldership the glory of the one, supreme, and almighty Shepherd of the church!  I argue here in the same way that the Epistle to the Hebrews argues.  Cf. Hebrews 7:19-28.  Just as the limited duration and plurality of levitical priests pointed forward to the one, everlasting priest after the order of Melchizedek, so also the plurality of human pastors, the parity of human elders, and the diversity of human elders points up to the glory of the Chief Shepherd of the church.  He alone can make us perfect in every good work to do His will working in us that which is well-pleasing in God’s sight.

2.) Look not to any human pastor for everything you need.  Do not limit yourself to one pastor’s gifts or teaching.  Do not virtually say I am of Apollos! or I am of Peter! or I am of Paul!  Such a posture is both limiting to your growth and potentially divisive.  Do not look finally to any limited, human pastor, but to the unlimited Christ and His unlimited grace.

3.) Observe the constant need for humility and the perpetual danger of pride in connection with the vocation to which pastors are called.  Thankfully, I have not spent a lot of time in the typical pastors’ fraternals, but I have heard enough about such fraternals to know that they are often characterized by boasting and one-up-manship on the part of those named as Christ’s under-shepherds.  I will also confess to you that I often feel the green monster of envy rising in my own heart and need to thrust the sword of the Spirit through that monster. But equally debilitating to the minister is another monster.  The twin of the green monster of envy is the black monster of discouragement about my lack of usefulness which rises in my heart.  That monster sucks the zeal and desire to labor earnestly for Christ out of my soul.  It says to the pastors’ soul, “It will not do any good to preach.  They will not listen.  You will do no good.  You have never done any good.”  I think this black monster is also born of pride like the green monster.  What will slay both these monsters is deep humility before Christ, the seeking of grace from Christ, and the determination to simply do what Christ has called us to do to the best of our ability.

4.) Be careful not to impose on the eldership your limited, human ideas and structures.  The study of the church and the various views of the eldership that have developed in it is cluttered with views of the eldership which are simply too limiting.  What views am I talking about?  There is the notion that you can have only one pastor in a church.  There is the notion that you can have only one bishop in a church.  There is the notion that you must have a senior pastor who hires and fires the other so-called pastors.  There is the notion that you can have only one supported pastor.  There is the notion that you can impose on the eldership the cookie-cutter view which says that there are only two kinds of elders:  teaching elders and ruling elders. There are other sorts of defective views as well.  Some who get a hold of the biblical vision for the parity and equality of elders go to extremes as well.  Since all elders are equal, then all must have equal profile in the church.  They must all preach or teach or lead equally.  They must be supported equally.  Others who hold the parity of the eldership actually conclude that no elders at all should be financially supported.  Perhaps this was the extreme which Paul was combatting in 1 Timothy 5:17. Others conclude that only missionaries or traveling evangelists should be supported, but not ordinary elders.  All of these views are based on a one-sided and imbalanced view of the eldership which takes one part of the biblical teaching to an extreme and ends up denying other aspects of the biblical teaching.  We must hold together the plurality, the parity, and the diversity of the eldership!

5.) Make sure your church is a good steward of the gifts of its elders. One of the saddest things about the limiting views which I just listed in the previous observation is that often it means that some elders’ gifts are not fully utilized in the church.  Or it means that some men who should be elders are not even recognized by the church.  Or it means that to exercise their God-given gifts men are forced to leave their church to find a place of ministry.  If only there had been in the church a biblical vision for the eldership, if only there had not been the humanly limited views of the eldership that prevail in so many places, the church might have been blessed and God’s kingdom advanced.  But no!  The limited views of the eldership dictated by human wisdom had to be honored; and God’s blessing on the church through gifted men was lost.