The decline in civic engagement in Western countries, especially among the young, is often decried. Expensive and glitzy ‘get out the vote’ campaigns in recent years have largely failed to draw the large numbers of young voters they aimed to attract to the polling stations.
The lack of interest in actively participating in the democratic process at the most basic level is often attributed to cynicism and disillusionment with political leaders.
Yet, for Christians to be drawn into the temptation of always maligning political leaders and refusing to actively engage is to neglect their God-given civic responsibility.
The Westminster Confession of Faith explains the sphere of government as follows: “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good.”
Civil government, after all, is a means ordained by God for ruling and maintaining order. I believe that Christians have a duty to remind our political leaders that God has ordained them to rule, protect and keep order. Civic apathy is not an option for a Christian.
The apostle Paul recognized that Christians must acknowledge the government as part of God’s order (Romans 13:1,2) and in his letter to Timothy, reminded him to pray for political leaders.
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (2:1-2)
One of the things I love about Anglican liturgy is that prayers are offered each Sunday for the Queen, and often for political leaders. It’s a wonderful weekly reminder that while politicians (and monarchs) may sometimes fall short of our expectations, Christians are obliged to intercede on behalf of them and pray for them.
John Gill explained the differences among supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings well. He wrote, “The first of these, ‘supplications’, signifies such petitions for things that are wanted by men, either by themselves or others.” The second word, ‘prayers’, “signifies good wishes and desires, directed and expressed to God for things that are in themselves to be wished for, and desired of God, either for ourselves or others.” The third word, ‘intercessions’, “intends either complaints exhibited in prayer against others that have done injuries; or prayers put up for others, either for the averting of evil from them, or for the bestowing some good thing on them.” The last word ‘thanksgivings’ are “that branch of prayer in which thanks are given to God for mercies received, whether temporal or spiritual.”
The term ‘all people’ is interesting, because (according to the editors of the Reformation Study Bible) it does not actually refer to every ‘human being’. Instead, Paul was referring to ‘all types of people’ whatever their position in life.
“That we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” is interesting too. Matthew Henry noted, “Here we have our duty as Christians summed up in two words: godliness, that is, the right worshipping of God; and honesty (dignified), that is, a good conduct towards all men.”
Paul continues, “This is good and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (3-4)
The term ‘who desires all people to be saved’ does not mean that God sovereignty wills every human to be saved. It may refer to God’s general benevolence in taking no delight in the death of the wicked, or to God’s desire that all types of people be saved. In other words, God does not choose His elect from any single group.
Next time, Lord-willing, I will look at Paul’s discussion of Christ as the Mediator.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
1 Timothy 1:12-20
From his comments about the law, Paul turns his attention to his call by Christ and provides an explanation of the grace that God pours out on sinners in Jesus Christ.
He starts with his powerful testimony: “I thank Him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because He judged me faithful, appointing me to His service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” (1:12-15)
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Christian conversions – and hope to prepare a series of postings on conversion later this month, or early in the new year. I’ve heard many testimonies. Many were troubling because they were so centered on the transformed – not the transformer.
Not Paul. His testimony is soaked in praise of his creator and redeemer. Paul recognized that God granted him not what he deserved, but what he needed – mercy.
He continues, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1:13)
When Paul said ‘I am the foremost’ he was not referring to himself prior to his conversion. Rather, as Paul had grown in Christ, he had become better aware of his own sinfulness.
I know what Paul is describing. As I have matured in Christ, I’ve become more and more conscience of my utter and complete vileness in of myself. I’ve prayed that the Lord would instil within me a sense of my inherent depravity, and He has responded to that prayer by doing just that.
I love how John Calvin expressed this reality in his Sunday liturgy.
O Lord God, eternal and almighty Father, we confess and acknowledge unfeignedly before thy holy majesty that we are poor sinners, conceived and born in iniquity and corruption, prone to do evil, incapable of any good, and that in our depravity we transgress thy holy commandments without end or ceasing. Wherefore we purchase for ourselves, through thy righteous judgment, our ruin and perdition. Nevertheless, O Lord, we are grieved that we have offended thee; and we condemn ourselves and our sin with true repentance, beseeching thy grace to relieve our distress. O God and Father who is most gracious and full of compassion, have mercy upon us in the name of thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. And as thou dost blot out our sins and stains, magnify and increase in us day by day the grace of thy Holy Spirit: that as we acknowledge our unrighteousness with all our heart, we may be moved by that sorrow which shall bring forth true repentance in us, mortifying all our sins, and producing in us the fruits of righteousness which are pleasing unto thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[i]
Paul was also acutely aware of why he was saved – to bring God glory. “But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display His perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in Him for eternal life.” (1:16)
In other words, God used Paul’s persecution and opposition of His church as well as Paul’s conversion to display His perfect patience.
Along with God being glorified, His people are granted the gift of eternal life. Indeed, God grants to all who believe in Christ not just ‘eternal’ life, but life in all its fullness. A friend refers this fullness of life as the ‘abundant life’.
Paul added after another sweeping statement of praise, “To the King of age, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1:17) that that some have rejected the faith and shipwrecked their faith.
Paul noted that they have been handed over to Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme. This is a reference to putting Hymnaeus and Alexander outside the fellowship of the church, and hence, back into the world – the domain of Satan (John 12:31).
Lord-willing, next time I’ll turn to Paul’s discussion of prayer.
[i] Bard Thompson ed. Liturgies of the Western Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961, p. 198.
He starts with his powerful testimony: “I thank Him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because He judged me faithful, appointing me to His service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” (1:12-15)
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Christian conversions – and hope to prepare a series of postings on conversion later this month, or early in the new year. I’ve heard many testimonies. Many were troubling because they were so centered on the transformed – not the transformer.
Not Paul. His testimony is soaked in praise of his creator and redeemer. Paul recognized that God granted him not what he deserved, but what he needed – mercy.
He continues, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1:13)
When Paul said ‘I am the foremost’ he was not referring to himself prior to his conversion. Rather, as Paul had grown in Christ, he had become better aware of his own sinfulness.
I know what Paul is describing. As I have matured in Christ, I’ve become more and more conscience of my utter and complete vileness in of myself. I’ve prayed that the Lord would instil within me a sense of my inherent depravity, and He has responded to that prayer by doing just that.
I love how John Calvin expressed this reality in his Sunday liturgy.
O Lord God, eternal and almighty Father, we confess and acknowledge unfeignedly before thy holy majesty that we are poor sinners, conceived and born in iniquity and corruption, prone to do evil, incapable of any good, and that in our depravity we transgress thy holy commandments without end or ceasing. Wherefore we purchase for ourselves, through thy righteous judgment, our ruin and perdition. Nevertheless, O Lord, we are grieved that we have offended thee; and we condemn ourselves and our sin with true repentance, beseeching thy grace to relieve our distress. O God and Father who is most gracious and full of compassion, have mercy upon us in the name of thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. And as thou dost blot out our sins and stains, magnify and increase in us day by day the grace of thy Holy Spirit: that as we acknowledge our unrighteousness with all our heart, we may be moved by that sorrow which shall bring forth true repentance in us, mortifying all our sins, and producing in us the fruits of righteousness which are pleasing unto thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[i]
Paul was also acutely aware of why he was saved – to bring God glory. “But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display His perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in Him for eternal life.” (1:16)
In other words, God used Paul’s persecution and opposition of His church as well as Paul’s conversion to display His perfect patience.
Along with God being glorified, His people are granted the gift of eternal life. Indeed, God grants to all who believe in Christ not just ‘eternal’ life, but life in all its fullness. A friend refers this fullness of life as the ‘abundant life’.
Paul added after another sweeping statement of praise, “To the King of age, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1:17) that that some have rejected the faith and shipwrecked their faith.
Paul noted that they have been handed over to Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme. This is a reference to putting Hymnaeus and Alexander outside the fellowship of the church, and hence, back into the world – the domain of Satan (John 12:31).
Lord-willing, next time I’ll turn to Paul’s discussion of prayer.
[i] Bard Thompson ed. Liturgies of the Western Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961, p. 198.
Friday, December 01, 2006
1 Timothy 1:1-11
Several months ago I attended a talk given by Gerald Kennedy, one of the Liberal party leader contenders. He’s drumming up support at the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal as I type this.
I don’t remember what Mr. Kennedy said. Sure, I remember general topics, but nothing specific. What I do remember was his presentation style. He spoke very clearly. Most memorable was his extensive eye contact. When he talked he looked at people in the audience (including me). It felt like he was talking directly to me. He was very convincing. Indeed, even me, as an unlikely supporter of a Liberal politician - and one on the left wing of the party at that - was inspired.
While he wasn’t speaking as a religious leader, he was preaching a false gospel of salvation (in the secular understanding of the world) of society through good works and good government.
I knew what he was saying to be untrue; yet I was attracted to his message.
Paul understood the power of persuasion.
He opens his letter to Timothy with a sense of clarity that contrasts well with the teachers he is about to address. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope. To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (1:1,2) Even his greetings pack a punch!
A few hours ago on the bus, I overheard a young man on a cell phone end his conversation with ‘Peace bro, later’. I smiled for I’m sure he was entirely unaware that he ended his conversation with a traditional Jewish greeting. ‘Peace’ means health, wholeness of life. Although I’m quite confident that the early Jews did not conclude the greeting with ‘later.’
I find it interesting that Paul warned Timothy to stop “certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1:3) His chief concern was not with the people who believed false doctrines, but with those leading members astray. These people were, of course, the leaders.
False teachers and their error cannot be dealt with lightly in the church. In fact Paul gave Timothy a military command. Such of command is not an option--it demands a response to one's superior.(1)
Paul is also concerned that these false teachers had devoted themselves to myths (translated as fables in the KJ version) and endless genealogies. I was struck at the word ‘devote’. Clearly these teachers weren’t just causally mentioning them – but these myths had become the centre of their attention.
I was immediately reminded of C.J Mahoney’s book the Cross Centered Life.
“Too many of us have moved on from that glorious plan,” writes Mahaney. “In our never-ending desire to move forward and make sure that everything we do, say and think is relevant to modern living, too many of us have stopped concentrating on the wonders of Jesus crucified.” (2)
The ramifications from anything but Christ-centered teaching had clearly influenced the church at Ephesus. Paul notes that because of these false doctrines, speculations (or controversies) had arisen, “rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1:4)
Again, I find the contrast fascinating. False doctrine flows from human-conceived fables. True doctrine flows from faith in God.
The myths Paul is addressing may have been Jewish myths referring to the kinds of legends about Old Testament figures. But speculations have trumped thoughtful mediation on God’s Word throughout the generations.
William Miller, for example, came to the conclusion that Christ would return around 1843. Miller’s exegesis paid detailed attention to the smallest parts of the Bible, including its numbers. According to historian Mark Noll, this fit well into the American enthusiasm for scientific endeavour that was popular in antebellum America. Unfortunately thousands of people trusted Miller (despite the Bible being very clear that no one knows when Christ will return). Many grew disillusioned when his predictions did not materialize. (3)
Paul next explains what his directing him to demand the false teachers be silenced. “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” (1:5)
In other words, he wants the church to be led by strong leaders. It’s interesting how Paul’s comments are circular in nature. Bad teachers = bad teaching; good teachers = good teaching.
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (6-7)
John Piper says “These law-teachers do not understand that the goal of the law, which is love, is pursued not by works of law but by inner spiritual transformation which the law itself cannot bring about. They don't get it. Paul says they do not know what they are talking about. They are trying to teach the law, but they are turning aside from matters of the heart and conscience and faith. And that means they are not using the law lawfully. And that is why they are not arriving at the goal of love." (4)
Paul wasn’t writing off the Law. Quite the contrary. “Now we know that the law is good,” (1:8) he wrote. But doesn’t this contradict what he wrote in Romans?
"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (Romans 7:4)
Not at all, because we do not completely die to the law. We rejoice in the law in some ways (Romans 7:22), and in the law we see a witness to the “righteousness of God through faith in Christ” (Romans 3:21), and we establish the law through faith in Christ (Romans 3:31); the goal of the law is Christ. (5)
That is why the law is for the lawless and disobedient. Because the ‘just’ are already aware of their sinfulness and rejoice that they have been made just because of the righteousness of Christ that was reckoned unto them.
As John Piper said, “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.”
Paul ends this section of his letter with another powerful testimony stressing that everything contrary to sound doctrine is wrong. Why? Because that sound doctrine is in “accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” (1:11)
This has three lessons.
A) The gospel is glorious and wonderful. I must never forget that. In fact, the sermon at evening worship last Sunday was about this.
B) The gospel comes from God. Or, to quote John Piper’s book, ‘God is the Gospel’
C) This gospel was entrusted to Paul and is imparted to all His children.
And what exactly is this gospel? That’s next time, Lord-willing.
[1] John MacArthur, How to Treat False Teachers, Accessed 30 November 2006. Available:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/
[2] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2002, p. 17
[3] Mark Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992, p. 193.
[4] John Piper, “How to Use the Law Lawfully to Bear Fruit,” 25 Nov. 2001. Accessed 30 Nov. 2006.
[5] Ibid.
I don’t remember what Mr. Kennedy said. Sure, I remember general topics, but nothing specific. What I do remember was his presentation style. He spoke very clearly. Most memorable was his extensive eye contact. When he talked he looked at people in the audience (including me). It felt like he was talking directly to me. He was very convincing. Indeed, even me, as an unlikely supporter of a Liberal politician - and one on the left wing of the party at that - was inspired.
While he wasn’t speaking as a religious leader, he was preaching a false gospel of salvation (in the secular understanding of the world) of society through good works and good government.
I knew what he was saying to be untrue; yet I was attracted to his message.
Paul understood the power of persuasion.
He opens his letter to Timothy with a sense of clarity that contrasts well with the teachers he is about to address. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope. To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (1:1,2) Even his greetings pack a punch!
A few hours ago on the bus, I overheard a young man on a cell phone end his conversation with ‘Peace bro, later’. I smiled for I’m sure he was entirely unaware that he ended his conversation with a traditional Jewish greeting. ‘Peace’ means health, wholeness of life. Although I’m quite confident that the early Jews did not conclude the greeting with ‘later.’
I find it interesting that Paul warned Timothy to stop “certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1:3) His chief concern was not with the people who believed false doctrines, but with those leading members astray. These people were, of course, the leaders.
False teachers and their error cannot be dealt with lightly in the church. In fact Paul gave Timothy a military command. Such of command is not an option--it demands a response to one's superior.(1)
Paul is also concerned that these false teachers had devoted themselves to myths (translated as fables in the KJ version) and endless genealogies. I was struck at the word ‘devote’. Clearly these teachers weren’t just causally mentioning them – but these myths had become the centre of their attention.
I was immediately reminded of C.J Mahoney’s book the Cross Centered Life.
“Too many of us have moved on from that glorious plan,” writes Mahaney. “In our never-ending desire to move forward and make sure that everything we do, say and think is relevant to modern living, too many of us have stopped concentrating on the wonders of Jesus crucified.” (2)
The ramifications from anything but Christ-centered teaching had clearly influenced the church at Ephesus. Paul notes that because of these false doctrines, speculations (or controversies) had arisen, “rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1:4)
Again, I find the contrast fascinating. False doctrine flows from human-conceived fables. True doctrine flows from faith in God.
The myths Paul is addressing may have been Jewish myths referring to the kinds of legends about Old Testament figures. But speculations have trumped thoughtful mediation on God’s Word throughout the generations.
William Miller, for example, came to the conclusion that Christ would return around 1843. Miller’s exegesis paid detailed attention to the smallest parts of the Bible, including its numbers. According to historian Mark Noll, this fit well into the American enthusiasm for scientific endeavour that was popular in antebellum America. Unfortunately thousands of people trusted Miller (despite the Bible being very clear that no one knows when Christ will return). Many grew disillusioned when his predictions did not materialize. (3)
Paul next explains what his directing him to demand the false teachers be silenced. “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” (1:5)
In other words, he wants the church to be led by strong leaders. It’s interesting how Paul’s comments are circular in nature. Bad teachers = bad teaching; good teachers = good teaching.
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (6-7)
John Piper says “These law-teachers do not understand that the goal of the law, which is love, is pursued not by works of law but by inner spiritual transformation which the law itself cannot bring about. They don't get it. Paul says they do not know what they are talking about. They are trying to teach the law, but they are turning aside from matters of the heart and conscience and faith. And that means they are not using the law lawfully. And that is why they are not arriving at the goal of love." (4)
Paul wasn’t writing off the Law. Quite the contrary. “Now we know that the law is good,” (1:8) he wrote. But doesn’t this contradict what he wrote in Romans?
"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God" (Romans 7:4)
Not at all, because we do not completely die to the law. We rejoice in the law in some ways (Romans 7:22), and in the law we see a witness to the “righteousness of God through faith in Christ” (Romans 3:21), and we establish the law through faith in Christ (Romans 3:31); the goal of the law is Christ. (5)
That is why the law is for the lawless and disobedient. Because the ‘just’ are already aware of their sinfulness and rejoice that they have been made just because of the righteousness of Christ that was reckoned unto them.
As John Piper said, “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.”
Paul ends this section of his letter with another powerful testimony stressing that everything contrary to sound doctrine is wrong. Why? Because that sound doctrine is in “accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” (1:11)
This has three lessons.
A) The gospel is glorious and wonderful. I must never forget that. In fact, the sermon at evening worship last Sunday was about this.
B) The gospel comes from God. Or, to quote John Piper’s book, ‘God is the Gospel’
C) This gospel was entrusted to Paul and is imparted to all His children.
And what exactly is this gospel? That’s next time, Lord-willing.
[1] John MacArthur, How to Treat False Teachers, Accessed 30 November 2006. Available:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/
[2] C.J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2002, p. 17
[3] Mark Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992, p. 193.
[4] John Piper, “How to Use the Law Lawfully to Bear Fruit,” 25 Nov. 2001. Accessed 30 Nov. 2006.
[5] Ibid.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
1 Timothy: An Introduction
Credibility, wrote James Kouzes and Barry Posner “ is the foundation on which leaders and constituents will build the grand dreams of the future. Without credibility, visions will fade and relationships will wither.”[i] The root origin of credibility is credo and means ‘I trust or believe.’
Paul intuitively knew this. His advice to his close friend Timothy was clear: Be a leader; be a leader who teaches rightly, who lives rightly and who seeks to please God. And then, and only then, will you be credible enough to be trusted.
And the result is good. Problems resolve. Divisions dissolve. God’s people mature.
These are probably some of the reasons why Paul sent the letter to Timothy, who was leading a struggling church. The message, now codified in the Bible as 1Timothy, is the first letter in the New Testament that Paul wrote to an individual and not to a church.
It’s also the book my friend Joel and I have decided to study together. This is the first in a series of postings that will examine 1 Timothy.
Paul recognized Timothy’s leadership abilities before assigning him to pastor the church. Timothy “was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium” and “genuinely concerned” for the welfare of the believers at Epaphroditus (Acts 16:2, Philippians 2:20).
He was a humble servant, who nearly died for the sake of the Gospel. “But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served me with the gospel,” wrote Paul (Philippians 2:22) He also understood grappling with the challenge of integrating cultures. His mom was a Jewish believer and his dad was a Greek (Acts 16:1).
Paul was aware of Timothy’s gifts, but he also knew his younger brother needed encouragement. Paul exhorted his friend not to let anyone look down on him because of his youth (4:12), not to neglect the spiritual gifts he had received (4:14), and not to be ashamed to speak the gospel boldly (2 Timothy 1:8).
Timothy had to speak truthfully because his church was being torn apart by false teachers. Indeed, Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus because of the presence of false teachers in the city (1 Timothy 1:3). Paul warned the Ephesians elders that false teachers would plague the church.
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31).
Sadly, Paul’s prediction came true. (1 Timothy 1:6).
And that brings us back to credibility because the false teachers won the trust and led astray some of the church members. To prevent further heresy, Paul encourages Timothy to scrutinize the other leaders in the church and establish clear requirements for leadership.
Paul is confident in Timothy because he sees within him an understanding that true Christian leadership always involves knowing and teaching the truth, loving God above personal gain, and a willingness to lay down one’s life for the sheep.
“True Christian leadership always involves that kind of love, because such love is the gospel,”[ii] said Mark Dever.
To that end, Paul urges Timothy to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” and “guard the deposit entrusted to you.” (1 Timothy 6:11, 20). Anything less threatens his leadership and imperils his credibility.
[i] James Kouzes, Barry Posner, Credibility How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993, p. 22.
[ii] Mark Dever, Promises Kept: The Message of the New Testament. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, p. 355.
Paul intuitively knew this. His advice to his close friend Timothy was clear: Be a leader; be a leader who teaches rightly, who lives rightly and who seeks to please God. And then, and only then, will you be credible enough to be trusted.
And the result is good. Problems resolve. Divisions dissolve. God’s people mature.
These are probably some of the reasons why Paul sent the letter to Timothy, who was leading a struggling church. The message, now codified in the Bible as 1Timothy, is the first letter in the New Testament that Paul wrote to an individual and not to a church.
It’s also the book my friend Joel and I have decided to study together. This is the first in a series of postings that will examine 1 Timothy.
Paul recognized Timothy’s leadership abilities before assigning him to pastor the church. Timothy “was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium” and “genuinely concerned” for the welfare of the believers at Epaphroditus (Acts 16:2, Philippians 2:20).
He was a humble servant, who nearly died for the sake of the Gospel. “But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served me with the gospel,” wrote Paul (Philippians 2:22) He also understood grappling with the challenge of integrating cultures. His mom was a Jewish believer and his dad was a Greek (Acts 16:1).
Paul was aware of Timothy’s gifts, but he also knew his younger brother needed encouragement. Paul exhorted his friend not to let anyone look down on him because of his youth (4:12), not to neglect the spiritual gifts he had received (4:14), and not to be ashamed to speak the gospel boldly (2 Timothy 1:8).
Timothy had to speak truthfully because his church was being torn apart by false teachers. Indeed, Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus because of the presence of false teachers in the city (1 Timothy 1:3). Paul warned the Ephesians elders that false teachers would plague the church.
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31).
Sadly, Paul’s prediction came true. (1 Timothy 1:6).
And that brings us back to credibility because the false teachers won the trust and led astray some of the church members. To prevent further heresy, Paul encourages Timothy to scrutinize the other leaders in the church and establish clear requirements for leadership.
Paul is confident in Timothy because he sees within him an understanding that true Christian leadership always involves knowing and teaching the truth, loving God above personal gain, and a willingness to lay down one’s life for the sheep.
“True Christian leadership always involves that kind of love, because such love is the gospel,”[ii] said Mark Dever.
To that end, Paul urges Timothy to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” and “guard the deposit entrusted to you.” (1 Timothy 6:11, 20). Anything less threatens his leadership and imperils his credibility.
[i] James Kouzes, Barry Posner, Credibility How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993, p. 22.
[ii] Mark Dever, Promises Kept: The Message of the New Testament. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, p. 355.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Tolerant?
For a woman so dedicated to promoting tolerance, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church, has the unfortunate tendency to insult large chunks of the American people.
In a recent interview with the New York Times she was asked a simple question. How many members does your church have?
“About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.”[i]
Perhaps.
But then she was asked: ‘Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?’[ii]
She replied, “No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”
In other words, large Mormon and Catholic families are immoral because they impose a disproportionate burden on the environment .
Mark Steyn noted, “Even in their vigorous embrace of gay bishoprics and all the rest, I don't recall the Episcopalians formally embracing the strategy that worked out so swell for the Shakers and enshrining a disapproval of reproduction at the heart of their doctrine.”[iii]
[i] Deborah Solomon, "State of the Church." New York Times. 19 Nov. 2006. Accessed 27 Nov. 2006. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/
19WWLN_Q4.html?ex=1321592400&en=75d6d152dbba
85f3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Mark Steyn, “Quartet of ladies shows where we're headed” Sun-Times, 26 Nov. 2006. Accessed 27 Nov. 2006. Available:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/149527,CST-EDT-steyn26.articleprint
In a recent interview with the New York Times she was asked a simple question. How many members does your church have?
“About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.”[i]
Perhaps.
But then she was asked: ‘Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?’[ii]
She replied, “No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”
In other words, large Mormon and Catholic families are immoral because they impose a disproportionate burden on the environment .
Mark Steyn noted, “Even in their vigorous embrace of gay bishoprics and all the rest, I don't recall the Episcopalians formally embracing the strategy that worked out so swell for the Shakers and enshrining a disapproval of reproduction at the heart of their doctrine.”[iii]
[i] Deborah Solomon, "State of the Church." New York Times. 19 Nov. 2006. Accessed 27 Nov. 2006. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/
19WWLN_Q4.html?ex=1321592400&en=75d6d152dbba
85f3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Mark Steyn, “Quartet of ladies shows where we're headed” Sun-Times, 26 Nov. 2006. Accessed 27 Nov. 2006. Available:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/149527,CST-EDT-steyn26.articleprint
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Obedience of Christ
The following is adapted from a Theological Note in the Reformation Study Bible.
The three Persons of the Trinity are eternal and self-existent, having equally all aspects and attributes of deity, and always acting together. But the Persons are distinct in their mutual relationships. This is revealed in the submission of Christ to the Father’s will, and also in the way that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to confirm the work of salvation in human hearts.
The Father’s will for Christ is sometimes called the covenant of redemption because a ‘covenant’ is an agreement between two parties. The Westminster Confession summarizes the agreement (the Father’s purpose, accepted by the Son) as follows:
‘It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophets, Priest, and King; the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did, from all eternity, give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified’ (Westminster Confession, VIII. 1).
Christ fulfilled this covenant through two stages called His ‘humiliation’ and His ‘exaltation.’ In his humiliation, He left behind the eternal glory that was His, taking on a perfect and complete human nature: body, soul, and spirit. Through His incarnation He lived a life of poverty and suffering. He was rejected by His nation, finally to die the shameful death of a common criminal (2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 3:13)
In His exaltation, Christ rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and reigns as King over the world and the church. Together with the Father, He has sent the Holy Spirit to complete the work of redemption that He won for us.
The three Persons of the Trinity are eternal and self-existent, having equally all aspects and attributes of deity, and always acting together. But the Persons are distinct in their mutual relationships. This is revealed in the submission of Christ to the Father’s will, and also in the way that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to confirm the work of salvation in human hearts.
The Father’s will for Christ is sometimes called the covenant of redemption because a ‘covenant’ is an agreement between two parties. The Westminster Confession summarizes the agreement (the Father’s purpose, accepted by the Son) as follows:
‘It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophets, Priest, and King; the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did, from all eternity, give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified’ (Westminster Confession, VIII. 1).
Christ fulfilled this covenant through two stages called His ‘humiliation’ and His ‘exaltation.’ In his humiliation, He left behind the eternal glory that was His, taking on a perfect and complete human nature: body, soul, and spirit. Through His incarnation He lived a life of poverty and suffering. He was rejected by His nation, finally to die the shameful death of a common criminal (2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 3:13)
In His exaltation, Christ rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and reigns as King over the world and the church. Together with the Father, He has sent the Holy Spirit to complete the work of redemption that He won for us.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Canadian Baptists
I’ve experienced a cross section of the Canadian Baptist world. I was baptized in a Southern Baptist (CCSB) congregation in the baptismal tank of a Convention Baptist Church. I attended an independent Baptist church for a year, and am now a member of a Fellowship Baptist church.
I’m reading a collection of essays on Canadian Baptist History in a book published ten years ago called Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History.
One of the essays looks at well-known early 19th century Baptist leaders, most of whom had their share of oddities. William Aberhart, who was premier of Alberta from 1935 to 1943, led a church that used the “Jesus only” baptismal formula. He also believed in British-Israelism, which stressed the manifest destiny of Great Britain in future world affairs.[i]
I found the history of Thomas Todhunter Shields most interesting. Rev. Shields led Toronto’s Jarvis Street Baptist Church (the pastor at the independent church I attended used to serve here). Jarvis Street was Canada’s largest Baptist church in the early 20th century. Known for his fundamentalism, and criticism of the Baptist McMaster University, he created a rift among Canadian Baptists.
Because of his disruptive activities he was read out of his convention and started his own. This denomination split only a few years later, and eventually helped to form the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches. He became acting president of a Bible college in Iowa, which the state was forced to close in 1929 because of faculty controversies and student riots (!) over Shield’s leadership.[ii] It was also rumoured that Shields had an affair with the school’s secretary.
Perhaps most tragic is that TT Shields wasn’t always so eccentric. He was known to preach consistent solid Christ-centred messages before 1918. “Shield’s evangelical beliefs failed to point away from themselves to the person of Jesus Christ because he moved from a Trinitarian to a Christomonistic position in which Christ was defined in monophysitic and docetic terms. This so distanced the Redeemer from humanity that Christ’s mediatorial role was lost and a vacuum was left into which Shields placed the Scriptures, which were treated in the same manner as he once had treated the person of Christ.”[iii]
As he grew older he became obsessed with secondary doctrine and legalistic practices. It’s a wonderful reminder for believers to remain steadfast in sound doctrine.
[i] David Elliott, "Three Faces of Baptist Fundamentalism in Canada: Aberhart, Maxwell, and Shields." In David Prestley, ed. Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1996, pp. 171-182 (173)
[ii] Ibid, p. 179.
[iii] Mark Parent, “The Irony of Fundamentalism: T.T. Shields and the Person of Christ." In David Prestley, ed. Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1996, pp. 183-196 (194).
I’m reading a collection of essays on Canadian Baptist History in a book published ten years ago called Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History.
One of the essays looks at well-known early 19th century Baptist leaders, most of whom had their share of oddities. William Aberhart, who was premier of Alberta from 1935 to 1943, led a church that used the “Jesus only” baptismal formula. He also believed in British-Israelism, which stressed the manifest destiny of Great Britain in future world affairs.[i]
I found the history of Thomas Todhunter Shields most interesting. Rev. Shields led Toronto’s Jarvis Street Baptist Church (the pastor at the independent church I attended used to serve here). Jarvis Street was Canada’s largest Baptist church in the early 20th century. Known for his fundamentalism, and criticism of the Baptist McMaster University, he created a rift among Canadian Baptists.
Because of his disruptive activities he was read out of his convention and started his own. This denomination split only a few years later, and eventually helped to form the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches. He became acting president of a Bible college in Iowa, which the state was forced to close in 1929 because of faculty controversies and student riots (!) over Shield’s leadership.[ii] It was also rumoured that Shields had an affair with the school’s secretary.
Perhaps most tragic is that TT Shields wasn’t always so eccentric. He was known to preach consistent solid Christ-centred messages before 1918. “Shield’s evangelical beliefs failed to point away from themselves to the person of Jesus Christ because he moved from a Trinitarian to a Christomonistic position in which Christ was defined in monophysitic and docetic terms. This so distanced the Redeemer from humanity that Christ’s mediatorial role was lost and a vacuum was left into which Shields placed the Scriptures, which were treated in the same manner as he once had treated the person of Christ.”[iii]
As he grew older he became obsessed with secondary doctrine and legalistic practices. It’s a wonderful reminder for believers to remain steadfast in sound doctrine.
[i] David Elliott, "Three Faces of Baptist Fundamentalism in Canada: Aberhart, Maxwell, and Shields." In David Prestley, ed. Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1996, pp. 171-182 (173)
[ii] Ibid, p. 179.
[iii] Mark Parent, “The Irony of Fundamentalism: T.T. Shields and the Person of Christ." In David Prestley, ed. Memory and Hope: Strands of Canadian Baptist History, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1996, pp. 183-196 (194).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
