GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

            In my Libertarian views, often a discussion of the role of government arises in various conversations. I do not believe my view is vastly different from what the framers of the US Constitution desired. The topic itself holds the potential to be divisive; yet, clear obligations are set aside for government both constitutionally and biblically. The scope here is to focus on the biblical role of government; nevertheless, I will briefly discuss the constitutional role of government as well.

Constitutional Role

            The United States Constitution is a unique document. It is not infallible by any stretch; yet, it is one of the most precise and intentional documents in history. Personally, I believe the framers of the Constitution had in mind particular protections which are transcendent through time and circumstances, i.e. the Bill of Rights and articles of the US Constitution were not intended for one era but for all time. While the scope of my material here is not the constitutional role of government, I would like to briefly mention a few items for consideration.

            Constitutionally, the government exists to protect freedoms and liberties. The Constitution gives three types of power to the federal government: delegated (or numerated) powers, implied powers, and inherent powers.[1] Included in the delegated powers are the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, and to maintain armed forces; the implied powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are rather inferred from what is “necessary and proper” (Article 1, Section 8);[2] and the inherent powers are not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution but are derived from the fundamental necessity for a federal government. While these matters might be discussed in incredible detail, suffice it to say that the constitutional role of government, with state and municipal governments stemming from what is not granted to the federal government, is the protection of citizens’ liberties and freedoms. Seemingly, American government has grown massively and has become an entity that has reached far beyond the bounds of its constitutional role; yet, its foundational purpose for existence is to protect the liberties and freedoms of the people.

Biblical Role

            The scope of the material here is primarily the biblical role of government. While much of what is mentioned relates to federal government, these elements apply also to both state and municipal governments. Scripture does not necessarily distinguish between the three; yet, in an overarching sense, the model for government should be applied to all forms. One might suggest that the biblical model for government is one of a theocratic variety. Such a claim certainly holds weight; yet, I believe biblical theocracies only existed by God’s allowance, not necessarily because God himself demands such. An entire nation that honors God is to be commended; yet, morality should not be legislated, for if it is, it is no true morality at all. I suggest four underlying biblical roles of government: protection, justice, equality, and order.

Protection

            The clearest biblical role of government is the protection of its citizens. Paul discusses the power of the sword (Rom 13:4); the plainest example of this is the waging of war. Solomon confesses that there is indeed a time for war (Eccl 3:8). Since Paul instructs believers to be at peace with all men if possible (Rom 12:18), the implication is that war should be avoided as much as possible but also that it is not always possible to do so. Biblical models of government reveal a role that centers around the protection of its citizens. A government that does not protect its citizens is an unjust government and one which dishonors God. While modern societies attempt to grant numerous other roles to government, the most foundational role is protection.

Justice

            In a strikingly connected manner, justice is the second primary role of government. Scripture makes clear that governors are sent by God to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet 2:14). Furthermore, Paul contends that governmental authorities carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). An inference from these biblical texts is that civilian citizens should not execute legal justice themselves, for vengeance belongs to God (Deut 32:35) through the employment of government. Everyone is held accountable; God’s plan for holding people accountable on this earth is through the process of government. Even on a large scale, government is called to execute justice among its people. If a nation is attacked or wronged, it is government’s responsibility to issue justice toward those who have wronged its people. An unjust government will be severely disciplined by God; thus, the role of justice should be taken seriously by every level of government.

Equality

            Equality is yet another function of government. God is just and does not show favoritism (Rom 2:11); therefore, no government should do so as well. It would be right, however, to consider what biblical equality looks like. As an order of morality, I personally do not believe equality should be legislated among private entities, e.g. private businesses. Government, nonetheless, should strive for equality and perhaps even legislate such in its inner-workings. Equality is vital, for not only is God equal toward his people but, in response to him, his people are called to submit to one another in reverence (Eph 5:21). Equality is a matter of godliness. While government should not mandate private citizens and businesses to manage their operations in any single fashion, e.g. who to hire, how to hire, reasons for termination, etc. (for morality should not be legislated), government should play a crucial role in the protection of human rights and equal opportunity.[3] Equality then is a primary role of government.

Order

            Finally, government’s role is also order. God is a God of order rather than confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Scripture is replete with references to order, self-control, and peace. Part of government’s role is to manage society in such a way that order is a result. While Paul’s instructions, in 1 Corinthians 14, are related to order in corporate worship, because God is a God of order, a good and functioning society should be so also. Without order is chaos and godlessness. I identify as a Libertarian but am often astounded by how many people link Libertarian views to anarchy. I do not know a single Libertarian who supports anarchy; yet, we all support the most limited government possible while still advocating for a government which manages a society of order. Biblically, government’s responsibility is to order a people justly and rightly.

An Overreaching Government, No Matter How Good the Intentions, Is Unconstitutional and Unbiblical

            What is meant by the title statement here is that while theocracies certainly exist in the Bible, God’s plan is never to legislate morality. Simply because a biblical society, e.g. a society or people in the Bible does something does not mean that the act itself is biblical, e.g. right. The material here does not argue for a theocracy. It is God, nevertheless, who ultimately executes perfect judgment. He has ordained government as an extension of his justice; yet, it is his justice alone that reigns supreme. “For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us” (Isa 33:22). The both constitutional and biblical roles of government extend then from its God-ordained function whether in a society which honors God or not. Consider the Apostle Paul who instructed believers to be subject to the governing authorities in a godless society which killed Christians. Even then, God has positioned leaders who do not exist apart from him. In such a circumstance, the government is overreaching. I dare suggest, in fact, that a government which extends its reach beyond the bounds of its constitutional and biblical roles, no matter how good the intentions may be, is actually unconstitutional and unbiblical. Perspectives on what overreach looks like vary; yet, overreach is possible and occurs. The overarching roles presented here offer the fundamental purposes of government, which should be considered and employed for the good of a people.

---

[1] Such powers are discussed in Article 1, Section 8.

[2] Since these powers are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution, courts are often left to determine their reach.

[3] The discussion of this topic includes a variety of perspectives, which lends itself to common controversy. What is shared here is merely opinion.

DID JESUS CONFESS HIS DEITY?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

DID JESUS CONFESS HIS DEITY?

            Few deny the existence of Jesus and even his resurrection, although many have made feeble attempts at doing so. A common denial, however, is the deity of Christ. Even among professing believers, there are those who would adamantly claim that Jesus is not God and that he made such a claim himself. I counter that not only is Jesus God but the prophets, the Apostles, and Christ himself suggest otherwise.

The Prophets

            First, it is the prophets who testify to the deity of Christ and his lordship as Messiah. No Old Testament prophet does not testify to Christ. Jesus himself confessed that the scriptures testify to himself as the Messiah (John 5:39). It was, further, understood in the early church that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and, in fact, God himself (Acts 10:43). Among Old Testament prophets (and figures) that detailed the Savior’s Advent were Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Abraham. Isaiah explicitly discusses the Messiah in a way related to hope for Israel during the Babylonian period (Isa 53); yet, his reference to the servant who will save Israel is prophetic in that it explicitly portrays Jesus Christ and his life-saving death upon the cross.

            Christ is often referred to as the word in Scripture. In fact, logos (word) almost always refers to Christ in New Testament writings. John writes that the word, i.e. Jesus was with God and Jesus (the word) was God (John 1:1); a statement cannot be much more explicit than that. I have often said that Jesus (and his righteousness) is not derived from the Bible but the Bible is derived from him, i.e. Scripture testifies to Christ; he does not testify to Scripture. Therefore, the reason Christ was perfectly in line with Scripture is not only that he was obedient but that he literally is the word himself.

            From the beginning of the Bible, God’s plan of Christ the Messiah is made evident. God told the serpent that he would place enmity between him and the woman and that her seed would crush his head (Gen 3:15). From that point, the narrative of Scripture reveals Satan’s feeble attempts to thwart the plan of God; yet, he would not and never will succeed. The concept here is that all of Scripture centers around Christ, for Christ has always been the plan. He is Messiah; he is God; the Bible abundantly declares such.

The Apostles

            A clear manifestation of Christ’s divine position is the testimony of the Apostles. Throughout apostolic writings, Jesus is referenced as equal to God. Peter, for example, confesses that they (the Apostles) saw Jesus in resurrected flesh as light from the Father and saw and heard God’s glory and voice (2 Pet 1:16-17). Paul, moreover, likens Christ to God in his worth and imminent worship by all people, for one day all will declare him as Lord (Phil 2:11). Paul also contends that there is but one God and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6) from whom exist all things (Col 1). The deity of Christ is no secret in apostolic writings. Paul even says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority” (Col 2:9-10). Thus, the church, for centuries, has counted Jesus as one with the Father and the Spirit and indeed as God himself in the flesh.

Jesus Himself

C.S. Lewis poses what has become known as the Lewis Trilemma: Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord; if he is Lord, he demands total devotion. “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance; the only thing it cannot be is moderately important,” (Lewis) writes Lewis. Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus is seen referencing his deity. Many scholars have missed the meaning of Jesus’ confessions. For one to claim that Jesus never confesses his deity is to either miss what he has made obvious or blatantly deny such. John is replete with not only Jesus’ admittance to the work which the Father sent him to accomplish but also his oneness with the Father (John 10:30). Jesus himself knew who he was while on this earth, for he is eternally God the Son. Thus, not only do the prophets, the Apostles, and Scripture testify to Jesus’ deity, so also does Jesus himself. He certainly professes his own deity and leaves no room for doubt in such a claim.

Belief in Jesus’ Godship: An Imperative to Christianity

            The church has confessed the Godship of Christ for centuries. In fact, I contend that doing so is necessary to Christianity. To deny the Godship of Jesus is to effectively consider him, the prophets, and the Apostles liars. Jesus, however, speaks nothing but truth and proclaimed the truth that he is God. Christianity has affirmed Christ’s Godship for centuries and must continue to believe in its truth, lest believers diminish Christ to a mere human without total power and might.

References

Lewis, C.S. (1952). Mere Christianity.

CHALLANGES TO WHOLENESS

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

CHALLENGES TO WHOLENESS

            Wholeness is a topic of discussion that likely arises in many gospel-centered conversations and indeed one with which believers should toil. Thoughts on how one achieves wholeness are disparate, many, and manifold. A commonality in such thoughts, however, is the necessity in determining challenges to overcome in order to achieve wholeness. For the following, I will suggest and dissect two primary challenges to wholeness: 1) the challenge of satisfaction and 2) the challenge of letting go. Both challenges offer unique thoughts and ideas and bring with them diverse opinions on how to correct them. While my suggestions here are anecdotal, I believe that my experiences are not unique but common not only to those around me but humanity in general. These challenges to wholeness could certainly be key components to Christian contentment and service to God.

The Challenge of Satisfaction

            Genuine wholeness (I believe) is a derivative of satisfaction in Christ alone. The Apostle Paul claims to have discovered the secret to being content in every situation, whether in abundance or need (Phil 4:11-12). He then continues by professing that all things are possible through Christ (Phil 4:13). Often a passage of egregious interpretation, Paul reminds his readers that believers possess the capability to do anything in Christ including starve. Christians should consider the circumstances of Paul as a model in satisfaction. A man who beaten, whipped, stoned, bitten by snakes, shipwrecked, imprisoned, robbed, and adrift a sea (2 Cor 11), among other difficulties, expresses certain joy in Christ on multiple occasions, despite his earthly difficulties. Perhaps, Paul discovered the secret to wholeness in his own satisfaction in Christ.

John Piper contends that God is most glorified in his people when his people are most satisfied in him (Piper, 2003, p. 10), i.e. the work Christians do for Christ is not the primary issue but the foundational reason supporting such work. Human nature involves naturally glorifying that in what one is satisfied. One who loves sports does not have to work to broadcast the glory of sports in the same manner that one who loves God does not have to work at broadcasting the glory of God. When someone is satisfied in Christ, the natural effect is to glorify him. In this sense, Paul finds little trouble in glorifying Christ. Such a complete satisfaction in Christ is necessary for wholeness. Without satisfaction in Christ, people pursue other people or items that will never satisfy and were never intended to do so. What Christians seek then directly impacts wholeness. From this truth, therefore, two imperatives operate in collaboration with one another: 1) the reality of what happens with people seek contentment in anything but Christ and 2) the reality of what happens when believers pursue personal goals without Christ.

Seeking Contentment in Anything else but Christ

            When God’s people seek contentment in anything but Christ, at least anecdotally, the pursuit proves futile. A vivid reminder of this truth is Solomon’s account presented in Ecclesiastes. A man who gained all the world could offer inevitably confessed that all pursuits but God himself are worthless endeavors; to fear God and keep his commandments is the entire duty of humankind (Eccl 12:13). A common challenge to wholeness, therefore, is the charm of all that tempts besides Christ. Since God is eternal, his satisfaction is also eternal; yet, that which he has created, namely everything, is temporary and satisfaction in such created entities should be considered as such. When Christians seek satisfaction in anything worldly, although they may certainly gain those elemental realities, they are left wanting more. To seek contentment in anything else but Christ is to reveal a heart which does not honor God as the only one worthy of everything.

            When Christians seek contentment in anything but Christ, the reality of the inability to satisfy by anything but Jesus is realized. One who seeks contentment in anything but Christ then is disappointed and left in a continuous state of incompleteness. Thus, to overcome the challenge of wholeness, believers should find their contentment in Christ alone, for Jesus in addition to anything else will leave one wanting, while Jesus in addition to nothing else will completely satisfy.

The Pursuit of Goals without Christ

            As Solomon pursued goals without God and eventually understood the futility in doing so, Christians should strive not to pursue goals without Christ. Unless Christ is present, central, and offers his peace in pursuing goals, Christians will ultimately fail at wholeness. Goals are excellent for believers; yet, when Christ does not dictate goals, they will not be enough even when they are reached. When a goal is achieved, one who pursues without Christ will be left wanting more.

            A common thought, among people, is that which believes reaching a significant goal will bring some level of contentment. Anecdotally, I believe this to be false. A challenge to wholeness then is overcoming such a false belief. Believers should seek Christ and his kingdom first; then will the satisfaction of other things be added (Matt 6:33). Nonetheless, when goals are pursued without Christ, the most important part of the equation is missing; therefore, achieving such goals will fail in contentment.

            One who is whole is one who has discovered that Christ alone matters eternally. All other endeavors will not result in wholeness but rather emptiness. It is surely challenging to turn from the pursuit of goals without Christ, for even earthly goals seem to offer humankind ultimate satisfaction. Many believe that proper education will satisfy; many believe that money will satisfy; furthermore, many believe that power and prestige satisfy. Nonetheless, nothing but Christ satisfies. Thus, to reach wholeness and the realization of such, Christians should understand both the challenge and the necessity of turning from the allure of anything which is not eternal, i.e. everything but Christ, and turning to Jesus for eternal wholeness. Satisfaction is key to wholeness. All goals, pursuits, and daily rhythms of life should center around the one who offers living water which will never run dry (John 4:13-14), for any endeavor which seeks wholeness through anything else is futile and wasted. Only Christ satisfies; only Christ makes his people whole.

The Challenge of Letting Go

            Human nature seems to demand a sense of personal control, i.e. people desire the perception that they can change and manipulate situations to suit their wants and needs. When that sense is violated, the response seems often to be one of anger and resentment. The reality of wholeness, nevertheless, requires letting go of one’s past, present, and future and accepting the fact that only God is in control. To let go is to realize that no one is ever in control at any given moment, although it certainly may seem so at times. God’s sovereignty should cause Christians to live in peace, for he alone controls the past, present, and future.

Past

            One’s past often impacts their present and future. Paul contends that he forgets what is past and presses on to what lies ahead (Phil 3:13). Believers should adopt this attitude, for one may not live in the fulfillment of God’s present and future joy while simultaneously clinging to the past. Whether good or bad, one’s past must be separated (not neglected). Christians should surely rejoice in what God has done in the past; yet, the past should not control the decisions of the present and future.

            A common action taken by local churches is to dwell on the good times of the past. While it is good and right to acknowledge God’s work in the past, there is a future God desires for his people as well. To cling tightly to the past is to disregard what God has for his people in the future. Moreover, Christians often cling to the negative parts of the past by neglecting to realize God’s forgiveness and newness. One who is redeemed in Christ no longer holds to the sin of the past. What he or she has done in the way of sin then is irrelevant to what God does in their life now. To experience complete wholeness in Christ, therefore, Christians should let go of the past. Remember it certainly; yet, remembrance does not demand clinging to what has been. Hold loosely to the past while concurrently using it to inform God’s future work of grace.

Present

            Believers should also let go of the present by trusting God for his timely provision. Worry typically happens because of the present rather than the past or future. Whether one worries about finances, job security, family problems, or anything else, God stalwartly controls the present. When God’s people let go of the present and acknowledge that Christ alone is supreme, cares for his people, and provides for them, wholeness is experienced. Letting go of present struggles is challenging because of the innate human desire for control. In pursuing wholeness, God’s people, for centuries, have discovered that he alone is sovereign. Often, such a discovery comes at a great cost where people make feeble attempts to control their own lives and destinies themselves. A tremendous example lies in the story of Jonah. One who was called to Nineveh and made an attempt to obey his own fleshly desires was ultimately disciplined and clearly led by God to the place he tried to avoid. As challenging as it may be, no matter how uncomfortable situations may be and no matter how dire they may seem, if God’s people would simply let go of present situations and trust God for his guidance and provision, the result would be wholeness.

Future

            Finally, letting go of the future is yet another challenge to wholeness. Jesus instructs his people not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself (Matt 6:34), i.e. today has enough problems; additionally, God controls all circumstances so his people have no need to worry. Letting go of the future is a personal challenge, as I am one who desires to plan abundantly so that circumstances will seemingly carry out in the way I desire.[1] It seems likely that most believers understand or at least acknowledge that God controls the future; yet, many of God’s people continue to live as if they control the future themselves. A key component to letting go of the future is understanding its foundation of both the past and the present: they three build on each other. The present is informed by the past; the future is informed by the present. For one to let go of the future then, he or she must understand that what has already occurred cannot be changed or controlled; the future, therefore, is most obviously given to God for control. I dare argue, however, that the future is the most difficult of which to let go. People seem to make feeble attempts to correct past mistakes in the future. When people live their lives in debt to the past, however, wholeness may never be achieved, for nothing can correct the mistakes of the past except the righteous grace of Jesus Christ. Thus, to achieve wholeness is to let go of the past, present, and future with the realization that God controls and guides his people in all three.

The Glory of God Is Always the Issue

            Wholeness is met when Christians realize that God alone is sovereign and that humanity has no ability to supersede his control. Realizing such a fact, however, includes more than simply understanding it, for even Satan himself understands this truth. Realizing God’s control equates to not only acknowledging it but also finding joy in it. When one seeks pleasure in God’s pleasure, he or she finds satisfaction so that serving God is not the issue, i.e. people naturally serve that in what or whom they are satisfied. When one’s joy is found in Christ, he or she serves Jesus out of an abundance of satisfaction in him. Exaltation is the result of exultation; theology is the result of doxology. The Reformers often used the adage, lex orando lex credenda, which loosely translates, “How we worship is how we become.” Often, it seems that Christians hold to the idea that serving God makes them more satisfied in him when the reverse is true: the more satisfied people are in God, the more they serve him. To find satisfaction in God then is to abandon all charms the world offers and let go of the past, present, and future by trusting God and seeking him alone. Then will God’s people reach a point of wholeness.

References

Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers.

---

[1] Many of the challenges mentioned in this paper directly correspond to those who possess a naturally controlling personality, i.e. one who desires a sense of control in their life will likely struggle with these challenges more than one who does not.

PRAY FOR EVERYONE: A CHRISTIAN REASON

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

PRAY FOR EVERYONE: A CHRISTIAN REASON

            The content of the church’s prayers is a crucial issue in worship. As worship not only tells the story of a covenant God but also participates in and does that story^[1] (which is vast and diverse in the church), so corporate prayer ought to reflect the diverse narrative that exists between God and his people. The Apostle Paul, writing as a mentor to young Timothy, spent time teaching how the church is to pray (1 Tim 2). Paul’s instructions to Timothy here center around the church’s prayers in unity. Paul often makes clear his concerns for unity in the church. In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle suggests that all in the body of Christ are equal when he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Unity among God’s people plays a significant role in Paul’s instructions to Timothy here regarding prayer. External factors are of no concern in the body of Christ, for all are equal. Paul makes clear that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:4-5). No one is excluded here. While the church is diverse, she is, nevertheless, a unified people through the mediator, Jesus Christ.

            The instructions given in these verses relate to for whom the church is to pray. In a broad scope, the directions given to Timothy are to pray for all people, not merely brothers and sisters in Christ. John Calvin spoke of praying for all people in the following manner:

The prayer of the Christian ought then to be conformed to this rule in order that it may be in common and embrace all who are his brothers in Christ: not only those whom he presently sees and recognizes as such, but all people who dwell on earth. For what the Lord has determined regarding them is beyond our knowing, except that we ought to wish and hope for the best for them.^[2]

Paul’s instructions are not limited to praying only for the church but for everyone including “kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Tim 2:2). As divisive as they may be, even political differences should not hinder the prayers of God’s people for everyone, but rather a unified people are called to pray on behalf of others as a reflection of God’s character and desire for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). As the body of Christ is diverse, so also are the needs of the world, thus beckoning God’s people to pray for everyone.

The types of prayers that are to be offered should vary. The church here is instructed to offer “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” on behalf of all people (1 Tim 2:1). The various types of prayers mentioned here seem to be related to the specific needs of those for whom are being prayed. Where we tend to use the word, prayer, in a broad sense, the terms used in these verses contain specific meanings. Supplications (δεήσις) seems to “focus on asking for some special need”^[3] in a person’s life. Prayers (προσευχή) “is the more general word for prayer…although it can be more focused when additional terms are added to it.”^[4] Intercessions (ἔντευξις) “means here ‘petition’ or more appropriately ‘appeal’…with a note of both urgency and boldness of access.”^[5] Thanksgivings (εὐχαριστία) “refers to…expressions of gratitude…to God on behalf of all.”^[6]

The prayers of the church are to be offered on behalf of all, bearing in mind the specific needs that exist in the world at large and with an ever-present realization of a covenant God who hears the cries of his people. The recognition that humankind has no standing with the Father apart from Christ is fundamental to Paul’s reflection here,^[7] for without the mediation of Jesus, the church cannot rightly pray to God. Paul states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim 2:5-6). The doctrine of Christ as mediator is fully connected to the covenant^[8] relationship between God and his people. Without the pleas of the church through the mediator, Jesus Christ, the needs of all people are not heard. It is the church then that intercedes on behalf of all people. Paul’s instructions here point to a God who hears and responds to his people in meeting the needs of the world.

Praying for the specific needs of all people despite differences among all humans may seem to be a daunting task. Nonetheless, the principle involved is the unity of the church. Paul’s desire for unity is evident when he says, “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Tim 2:8). The seemingly divisive issues and people that are included in the broad scope of praying for all people are impossible to conquer except that the church is unified in Jesus Christ. Union with Christ is the only way to live at peace with one another without anger and quarreling. Without his unity, the differences of humankind supersede. Throughout the centuries, writers have “defined salvation and the Christian life in terms of being united to Christ.”^[9] “Union with Christ means that you are in Christ and Christ is in you.”^[10] The prayers of the church should be unified because individually and collectively God’s people are members of one body, namely the body of Christ, and he is actively working in each of his adopted people. Because Christ is the mediator between the Father and his people, unity is crucial. In the text here, the Apostle Paul evokes a crucial understanding of Christ as the mediator in the new covenant.

The prayers of the church are imperative in a broken world. Only through Christ does the Father reconcile all things to himself (Col 1:20). A fallen and sinful people are redeemed and found positionally righteous in Jesus Christ, and through him, are also being made actually righteous. For this reason, the church alone has standing before the Father in prayer; therefore, the prayers of the church for all people and by all members of her body are crucial. God’s people then pray in unity through Jesus Christ who intercedes on her behalf for the needs of the world.

---

[1] Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 23.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), quoted in Elsie McKee, “Calvin and Praying for ‘All People Who Dwell on Earth,” Interpretation 63, no. 2 (April 2009): 130.

[3] George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster Press, 1992), 114.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 86.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Rankin Wilbourne, Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2016), 340, Kindle.

[10] Ibid., 431, Kindle.

BIBLICAL CHURCH OFFICES

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

BIBLICAL CHURCH OFFICES

            Upon Jesus’ ascension, a task was given to the church: to go and teach all nations, baptizing them. To accomplish such a task, Christ gave the church five distinct types of ministers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11). Such offices should not be confused with spiritual gifts, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12. All believers possess spiritual gifts; yet, only a few hold an office of the church. Holding an office is a privilege, not a right, and one which requires exceeding accountability and seriousness.

Of the five offices of the church, there subsist a variety of opinions and interpretations. For example, are these offices reserved only for men? The answer to that question will vary greatly depending on the hermeneutic of the one answering (and some more informed perhaps than others). Rather than outlining my own reasons for holding my view, suffice it to say that I believe these offices are not reserved only for men; yet, I am certainly able to see the perspective of one who believes so.

Another question asked by many believers is whether all five churches offices Paul lists continue to exist today, primarily the role of apostle and prophet. Some reference Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth to argue that tongues and prophecy (often including apostleship) do not exist. “…but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). Since Paul speaks of prophecy and tongues in this context, the assumption could be that such abilities existed only for an ordained interval of time and not any further. I believe that such a claim is a stretch and, yet, do not discount its credibility.

While different in function, the goal of all five offices of the church is the same: namely the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry and building the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). For the following, I will operate under the view that all five offices subsist today. How then should Christians understand the roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher? My aim is to examine each office and how it should appear in current contexts.

Apostle

            An apostle is an ambassador of the gospel and one who is sent from and by his or her local congregation. Many church planters would be considered apostles. There should, however, be a distinction between the Twelve Apostles[1] and the general role of apostle. Scripture often speaks of apostles in both senses. As founders and leaders of the early church, the Twelve Apostles were given the unique role of serving the early church specifically. No person has ever nor will ever have a role as the Twelve Apostles did. Some may, however, hold the general role of apostle, i.e. one who is sent by God to accomplish a specific task. As the Twelve Apostles held the responsibility of establishing the church, the office of apostle also brings with it the task of building local churches. Many missionaries seem to hold this office as well. The Twelve Apostles dispersed around the nations and influenced people for the gospel of Christ; the same is true of the general office of apostle but on a local level rather than an establishment of the church universal, which was given to the Twelve. One who is an apostle today might have a distinct gift of building local churches and ministering at a foundational level.

Prophet

            Where Old Testament prophets were given the responsibility of declaring God’s message of repentance, the New Testament role of prophecy is disparate in that one who prophesies boldly declares the message of God by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. It is not as if Old Testament prophets did not do so as well; yet, Old Testament prophets were given a specific message for a specific people, e.g. Judah or Israel, while New Testament and modern prophets proclaim a broader message with the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, Old Testament prophets offered God’s revelation, which had not already been given to his people. Because the canon of Scripture is complete, however, church-era prophets offer no such extra revelation, for God’s complete revelation has already been given; anyone who claims to be a prophet offering an extra word from God, particularly one that contradicts the text of the Bible, is a false prophet and, therefore, no prophet at all. True prophecy is totally accurate, a prophecy will never be incorrect or mistaken; if the claimed word from God is incorrect, it is not prophecy. Prophets often see spiritual issues in a clearer sense than others. Sin or righteousness is blatantly obvious to a prophet; he or she then is obliged to point out such issues to the people to whom they minister. A prophet is recognized in the way of proclamation. One who prophesies, therefore, proclaims the message of God with authority and with the obvious emboldening of the Holy Spirit.

Evangelist

            The evangelist is often considered in an incorrect manner, e.g. one who travels to various local churches ministering. While one who does so may certainly be an evangelist, it should be remembered that an evangelist is an office of the local church given for the equipping of the saints. Evangelists then hold an equipping ministry to the local church. Evangelists tend to possess a rare ability to present the gospel in an announcing fashion, which beckons others to salvation. Salvation obviously does not come by the power of any human but only by the Holy Spirit; yet, the Spirit of God empowers evangelists to preach the gospel announcing the good news of Christ and bringing others to salvation. Bear in mind, however, that evangelists are given by God to the local church for the equipping of the saints. Therefore, evangelists minister in a local congregation. While there is nothing inherently wrong with itinerant ministry, one who holds the office of evangelist is given a ministry in a local church.

Pastor

            The pastor is often translated as shepherd (1 Pet 5:2-4). The ultimate model for a shepherd (and indeed all churches offices) is Jesus who refers to himself as the good shepherd who gathers the flock, cares for them, knows them, rescues them, and lays down his life for them (John 10:2-16). Guidelines and criteria are given for pastors by the Apostle Paul (1 Tim 3:1-13). The term he uses, however, is elder. The term, bishop, is also used interchangeably (Acts 20:28). The overarching ministry of a pastor is that of an overseer or one who spiritually guides a local body of believers.

 

Teacher

            Often, the role of pastor is coupled with that of teacher. In the Greek, the two terms are used together as pastor-teacher. In Paul’s instructions on pastoral duties, a pastor is to have the ability to teach. Therefore, the role of pastor also involves teaching and, in the opinion of many, implies a dual role of pastor-teacher. Teachers hold the task of interpreting God’s divine revelation through Scripture. Like the other four offices of the church, a teacher is ultimately required for equipping the saints for the work of ministry. Teaching then does not see an end of learning but rather life transformation, which results in the public ministry of the local church. One who can rightly exposit the text of Scripture to God’s people is a teacher and is given such a task for the equipping of the saints.

The End Means of Each Office

            The overarching purpose of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (or any combination of them one believes exist now) stems from the glory of God and is manifested in the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. A key component in this concept is that the work of ministry is not (only) reserved for the ministers and leaders of the church themselves but rather for the members of the body, i.e. ministers function primarily to equip rather than to work as the sole ministers of the fellowship. Such an assignment has two parties involved: the ministers and the congregants where both must take their responsibility seriously. A minister in the local church should understand his or her role as equipping, as a lay member should understand his or her role as one being equipped for ministry. When church offices function in this manner, God’s work is accomplished and he is glorified.

---

[1] The specifics of who is a biblical Apostle is debated, e.g. Paul or Mathias. Commonly, both are regarded for various reasons; yet, Scripture is clear about the number being twelve so one must ascribe to one or the other.

THE LOSS OF REVERENCE IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

THE LOSS OF REVERENCE IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

            Christian worship has changed significantly over the years. Nevertheless, its vitality to Christian life has remained. In recent years (and decades), I contend that reverence in Christian worship has been lost. There are likely a number of contributing factors for this loss of reverence, which I believe stem from an overemphasis on consumerism, i.e. the church, to appeal to unbelievers, has created an atmosphere of worship, which takes a casual approach. I do not argue for legalism or for an impersonal relationship with God but rather for a realization of who God is and subsequently an appropriate response to him in worship. I intend here to discuss the dangers of Christian worship’s loss of reverence. In my observations, three primary results have occurred, which I will discuss not only as reality but also as a warning to the church so that the trend may be reversed.

A Diminishment of the Splendor of God

            The increasing casual approach to worship in the church has surely contributed to a diminishment of the splendor of God. It is not as if God’s splendor itself has been diminished; rather, the realization of such splendor has been diminished and will continue to diminish if a casual attitude continues to compound. Consider Isaiah’s response to being in the presence of God during his vision in Isaiah 6. Moreover, consider Paul’s response to the presence of Christ and Moses at the burning bush. One might argue that these are extraordinary circumstances. While such a rebuttal would be accurate, it does not suffice, for, through the Holy Spirit, God’s presence is a reality of Christian worship, i.e. believers are always in the presence of God and certainly when they gather to worship him. Perhaps, the underlying issue then is not the absence of God’s presence but the lack of realization about it. These extraordinary circumstances in Scripture reveal people who responded drastically because they realized God’s presence. A casual approach to worship is not conducive to realizing the presence of God. A casual attitude is about selfish comfort, selfish desires, and selfish goals. If people are not careful, the casual approach to worship will diminish the realized splendor of God.

An Augmentation of Humankind

            While the realization of God’s splendor is surely diminished as a result of casualness in worship, there also subsists an augmentation of selfishness and human glory. Humanity is not worthy to receive all praise and honor, as God is; thus, any augmentation of humankind is false. Because of humanity’s wretched depravity, no person (but Christ) deserves any glory whatsoever. One might contend that Christians are made holy in Christ; nonetheless, holiness is not achieved but is given and only by and in Christ. Believers should not, therefore, confuse holiness as a product of their own making but as God’s gift to his people. Humanity is fallen because of feeble attempts to steal glory from God, which never works. To approach Christian worship casually then is to not only diminish the reality of God’s glory but to also falsely grant glory to humans. A casual approach to worship is not an augmentation of humanity’s glory, for humanity truly does not possess any, but rather a false bequeathal of glory that never belongs to people but only to God. To worship God rightly is to realize his holiness and to understand that humankind does not even belong in the same universe with such splendor.

A Minimization of Sin

            A casual approach to Christian worship also cultivates a minimization of sin. In the presence of God, Isaiah understood his wretchedness because he saw God’s holiness (Is 6:5). When believers see God for who he is, it should rightly cause them to subsequently see themselves for who they are: namely wretched and sinful people in need of a Savior. Additionally, seeing God for who he is and understanding the magnificence of God’s grace in Christ should cause the church to worship God simply for who he is and praise him for his undeserved mercy. As Isaiah realized his own unrighteousness in God’s presence, Christian worship should cause believers to do the same. A casual attitude in Christian worship yields a lack of understanding about who God is and, therefore, a minimization of sinfulness that exists in every human.

For Christians to Worship God Rightly, They Must First See God for Who He Is: Holy

            Christian worship is a dialogue between God and his people; it is responsive in nature, i.e. God initiates his revelation and his people then respond. The first step, however, is God’s revelation. To worship rightly, Christians must first see God for who he is: namely holy. Without such revelation, a proper response is not possible. To cultivate that an atmosphere for such a revelation, reverence is necessary. A casual approach to worship should not exist in the church. One would not consider a meeting with someone of nobility to be a casual encounter. Why then should Christians consider worship gatherings a casual social meeting? Perhaps, the church, in the name of standing against legalism and stiffness, has created too casual of an environment for proper Christian worship and should return to the roots of God’s holiness and splendor. Worship is a privilege but is certainly not casual; therefore, the church’s attitude toward worship should be one of utmost reverence.

THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

            Socialism has become a trending topic in recent years. Usually, one side is adamantly opposed to it while the other side strongly supports it. Those who have not lived in or seen societies who have been destroyed by socialism tend to be more lenient toward its evils. My aim here is to provide a Christian case against socialism since many of the arguments for it have growingly come from Christians.

            Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community or government as a whole. It is not new; yet, modern socialism is a direct derivative of Marxism, which is a way of organizing society where the workers own the means of production. Marx even proposed that socialism was the next necessary step in the progress of history. My disclaimer is that I am a firm believer in small government (as small as possible). Socialism is diametrically opposed to the small government mindset. Nonetheless, I intend to present a brief Christian case against the dangers of socialism.

Despite Modern Claims, a Defense of Socialism Is Not Biblical

            Many seem to make the argument now that socialism is biblical, Christian, or even that Jesus was or is a socialist. These claims, while containing a certain shock-factor, do not hold the weight necessary to justify them. Certainly, Jesus spoke of helping the needy, the poor, the widows, the orphans, and even paying taxes; yet, Jesus did so in relation to individuals rather than the government. Paying taxes is necessary because obedience to the law is necessary. Nonetheless, to equate such a command with government responsibility to make life better for everyone is a far stretch. When Jesus commands to care for the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked (Matt 25:35-40), his illustration clearly references an individual rather than the government. A government’s primary role is not one which protects the quality of life but rather life itself. The United States Constitution has in mind freedom as its underlying purpose. Quality of life and the pursuit of happiness then belongs to the individual, i.e. if freedoms^[1] are protected by the government, the pursuit of happiness is possible. Certainly, issues of justice are replete throughout the scriptures; yet, the responsibility always falls on the individual rather than the government. Thus, to claim that socialism is biblical or that Jesus is a socialist is hermeneutically irresponsible.

Socialism Demands Theft

            Prior to 1913, the United States did not have a federal income tax; such became law with the institution of the 16^th Amendment. It may come as a surprise to many that the country functioned well without such a tax burden. Moreover, since the implementation of federal income tax and the United States Treasury, both taxes and debt have increased; this is likely not coincidental, for human nature desires even more when more is taken. While Jesus commands his followers to pay taxes, as it is the law (Matt 22:21), his command is not necessarily an affirmation of its wrongness just as his submission to authorities during his crucifixion was not support of what they were doing. If a government’s primary role, both biblically and constitutionally, is to protect the freedoms of its people (which I believe it is), anything over and beyond that obligation requires, at its foundation, theft. Consider the various programs, agencies, and people to whom tax money is paid; it is certainly not for the foundational function of government, i.e. protection of freedom. Tax money, by its nature, is taken from individuals who have earned it, many of who might not otherwise pay for many of the programs government employs. In most other contexts, if money is unwillingly taken from individuals, it is considered theft. Taxes are no different. Taxation, by its nature, is theft. Such a claim has a shock-factor to it; yet, when reasoned, it is sensible. For a society to implement socialism, taxes must increase; therefore, blatant theft must increase. In this way, socialism is not biblical nor right but is, in fact, immoral.

Socialism Neglects Individual Responsibility

Briefly mentioned already, the implementation of socialism demands a neglect of individual responsibility. The Bible and Jesus Christ never discuss social concerns as government responsibilities but rather as those that belong to individuals. Certainly, in the name of protection, governments are to carry out justice. Nevertheless, the tasks of caring for the needy is assigned to individuals. To employ socialism is to take that responsibility away from the individual. Additionally, employing socialism makes it likely that people who benefit from it become complacent in their responsibility to not only offer assistance to the needy but to also hold a sense of entitlement, i.e. because the government provides their needs, they do not feel a sense of urgency to change their situation. Scripture always gives the responsibility of helping those in need to individuals rather than government. Socialism then is not biblical because it often encourages a lack of responsibility.

Socialism: It Sounds Too Good to Be True

            A common adage is this: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Socialism is such an item. Rarely has socialism worked in human history. In fact, countries and societies where it is implemented currently are still too new to make a determination on its effectiveness. Largely, however, the majority of countries who have tried socialism have failed, the effects of which are seen today, e.g. Venezuela and Cuba.^[2] While socialism shines with its tempting luster, the proven and effective forms of small government which currently exist have worked the best. Christians should stand for freedom, for individual liberty, and for responsibility. Socialism does not support this mindset and is, in fact, opposed to it. To hold a godly worldview then, Christians should understand the dangers and pitfalls of socialism.

---

[1] Freedoms here is broader than many attempt to make it. Freedoms do not refer to specifics, e.g. marriage, driving, etc. but rather to the general ability to live life as one wishes without interference as long as decisions do not impact the rights of others.

[2] Communism is not used interchangeably with socialism here but is considered to be stalwartly tied.