In his commentary, John MacArthur suggests that 1 Corinthians 4:14-21 describes six characteristics of Christian ministers. Faithful servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries (1Co4:1-2)serve Christ by 1) admonishing, 2) loving, 3) begetting, 4) setting an example, 5) teaching, and 6) disciplining.
The Apostle Paul, in this letter, addresses the Corinthian church's attitudes that ran directly counter to his description of the Christian minister.
They certainly didn't want to be 'admmonished' for any poor behavior or attitude, for what business was it of Paul, after all, to pry into their private affairs? Any attempt by other men to point out error, with a view to positive change and conformity to the image of Christ, was seen as an affront to their 'liberty in Christ', the 'priesthood of believers', and --perhaps the sine qua non of Christian deferrals -- it was not 'loving.'
But Paul anticipated this response, and as he frequently did, combined two seemingly disparate and contradictory concepts in such a joinder that neither can be believed or experienced without the other: Paul wrote "to admonish [them] as beloved children."
What? How can that be? And, perhaps for many today, who have swallowed the world's line and suppose that loving children means never speaking harshly to them, let alone administering corporal punishment, it is a mind-blower to think that loving someone means admonishing them from time to time.
Furthermore, Paul did not merely mention the "rod" in verse 21 as a rhetorical flourish: he would deal with them as their level of repentance -- or lack thereof -- required, in order to preserve the edification of the body and the hallowing of God's name.
Admonishment is largely out of fashion in today's pulpit. The congregation considers the minister who attempts it ill-suited to serve them. Many preachers lack Paul's boldness to insist that it is included in his charge to serve Christ. And one can only suppose that our failure to recognize this mark of the minister has resulted in much leaven in the lump.
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Ministers as Kitchen Managers
"This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy." (1 Corinthians 4:1-2, ESV)
Instructive is what these descriptions eliminate in our typical view of Christian ministers. Servants of Christ are necessarily not servants of man, though we typically use terms such as "servant-leader." Leaders in the church are certainly servants, but servants of Christ, and lead Christ's flock through serving Him. It is only in serving Christ and in leading his people that Christian ministers serve their congregation.
A minister should consider his service to the flock, but when the congregation views its minister as serving it, rather than serving Christ, problems arise.
Similarly, ministers are stewards of God's mysteries: that is, they are responsible for delivering God's revelation through exposition and application to those who hear it. Some, however, view the minister as a misguided kitchen manager, who, instead of serving up fresh, nutritious meals to his patrons, instead either hoards all the goods to attain a well-stocked pantry, or only serves the one course he finds interesting or easy to prepare.
The faithful minister serves up dishes from all of God's word, not just those that please the palate of his diners, or that land him a photo in the culinary arts journal.
Instructive is what these descriptions eliminate in our typical view of Christian ministers. Servants of Christ are necessarily not servants of man, though we typically use terms such as "servant-leader." Leaders in the church are certainly servants, but servants of Christ, and lead Christ's flock through serving Him. It is only in serving Christ and in leading his people that Christian ministers serve their congregation.
A minister should consider his service to the flock, but when the congregation views its minister as serving it, rather than serving Christ, problems arise.
Similarly, ministers are stewards of God's mysteries: that is, they are responsible for delivering God's revelation through exposition and application to those who hear it. Some, however, view the minister as a misguided kitchen manager, who, instead of serving up fresh, nutritious meals to his patrons, instead either hoards all the goods to attain a well-stocked pantry, or only serves the one course he finds interesting or easy to prepare.
The faithful minister serves up dishes from all of God's word, not just those that please the palate of his diners, or that land him a photo in the culinary arts journal.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Leader or Tour Guide?
Ten spies with a bad report outvoted the two with a good report, and the word they brought back to Israel about the Promised Land reflected their attempt to justify their own reaction (Numbers 13:30-33).
Israel then 1) raised a loud cry; 2) wept; then 3) grumbled against their leaders (Numbers 14:1-4) -- a familiar sequence in ministry. In their dialogue with themselves (there is no record that they actually discussed this with Moses, or with God) they concluded "Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt."
In this instance they did not want a leader: they simply wanted a tour guide. They had already decided what they wanted and "leadership" -- from God or otherwise -- was the last thing on their minds. Leaders such as Israel wanted in this instance are the ones used to trip the booby traps or be the first ones eaten in a bear attack.
Israel then 1) raised a loud cry; 2) wept; then 3) grumbled against their leaders (Numbers 14:1-4) -- a familiar sequence in ministry. In their dialogue with themselves (there is no record that they actually discussed this with Moses, or with God) they concluded "Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt."
In this instance they did not want a leader: they simply wanted a tour guide. They had already decided what they wanted and "leadership" -- from God or otherwise -- was the last thing on their minds. Leaders such as Israel wanted in this instance are the ones used to trip the booby traps or be the first ones eaten in a bear attack.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Anti-myopia
"He is no leader who does not recognize leadership in others. He is no Christ-follower who cannot see the gift of the Spirit in his brother."
Monday, June 16, 2008
WHY MEN RULE
In a recent post to his website (www.albertmohler.com), Al Mohler refers to an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Why Men Rule -- and Conservatives will Inherit the Earth." The gist of the article is that society will experience a return to patriarchy, and despite feminist doom saying, this will be a good thing.
One wonders whether -- if accurate -- this prediction will also affect the evangelical church, which, while almost exclusively patriarchal in terms of pastoral gender, has become almost exclusively matriarchal in government. There is no dispute that there have been abuses in the exercise of male authority. We are, after all, sinners. But there is also abuse when the authority pendulum has swung to the other extreme and matriarchal influence is in ascendancy.
Some church women, aware of the virtually all-male leadership in evangelical churches, might now be thinking "What female authority?" But one must realize that there is official authority and then there is unofficial authority. Most churches present a paradigm of de jure male leadership and authority, but engage in practices and procedures that result in de facto female leadership and authority. Deacons (and/or elders) are typically male, but the various systems of committees and ministries ensure that women, who generally are more involved in the average church, are the ones actually doing things and exercising authority.
Some might say that this is not so bad, and given the fact that many male church leaders don't measure up to the biblical standard of spiritual leadership, that argument has legs. But it is not the picture of the church that God paints in Scripture.
Female influence typically -- perhaps stereotypically -- includes such concerns as unity, affirmation and nurture. The paternal instinct, by contrast, includes the interest in assessment, progress, classification and repair. The resulting conflict can be readily seen in the interest of the male Sunday school director attempting to implement a method of training and evaluating bible teachers when it meets the maternal interest of teachers themselves, who are far and away predominately female, to preserve unity and harmony. The director wants to ensure that all bible teachers are properly handling the word of God, while the female teachers see that effort as a threat to the self-esteem of teachers.
The tension between the patriarchal and matriarchal influences can also be seen in how each proposes to handle the problems that inevitably arise in churches. The feminine response to problems includes: 1) "I don't want to talk about it" or "There is no problem", 2) it is not 'loving' to speak of the problem, 3) it will go away, 4) if we 'love on each other' all will be well. Men, too, have been feminized to the extent that they avoid conflict, contention and struggle of any kind.
Much has been written about the reasons men are staying away from churches in droves. David Murrow wrote about this in Why Men Hate Going To Church. There is also The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Leon Podles), No More Christian Nice Guy (Paul Coughlin) and Manly Dominion in a Passive-Purple-Four-Ball World (Mark Chanski), to name a few. Undoubtedly one of the reasons that men stay away from church is the feminization they find there, which is most significantly manifested (how's that for irony?) in the exercise of authority and the style leadership employed.
Women are vital for the health and vitality of the church. The maternal instinct, influence and interests are crucial for the church to fulfill its role in God's kingdom. But male interests and passions are also indispensable for the balance and vigor of the church, as can be readily seen where the masculine influence has been forsaken in favor of the feminine.
One wonders whether -- if accurate -- this prediction will also affect the evangelical church, which, while almost exclusively patriarchal in terms of pastoral gender, has become almost exclusively matriarchal in government. There is no dispute that there have been abuses in the exercise of male authority. We are, after all, sinners. But there is also abuse when the authority pendulum has swung to the other extreme and matriarchal influence is in ascendancy.
Some church women, aware of the virtually all-male leadership in evangelical churches, might now be thinking "What female authority?" But one must realize that there is official authority and then there is unofficial authority. Most churches present a paradigm of de jure male leadership and authority, but engage in practices and procedures that result in de facto female leadership and authority. Deacons (and/or elders) are typically male, but the various systems of committees and ministries ensure that women, who generally are more involved in the average church, are the ones actually doing things and exercising authority.
Some might say that this is not so bad, and given the fact that many male church leaders don't measure up to the biblical standard of spiritual leadership, that argument has legs. But it is not the picture of the church that God paints in Scripture.
Female influence typically -- perhaps stereotypically -- includes such concerns as unity, affirmation and nurture. The paternal instinct, by contrast, includes the interest in assessment, progress, classification and repair. The resulting conflict can be readily seen in the interest of the male Sunday school director attempting to implement a method of training and evaluating bible teachers when it meets the maternal interest of teachers themselves, who are far and away predominately female, to preserve unity and harmony. The director wants to ensure that all bible teachers are properly handling the word of God, while the female teachers see that effort as a threat to the self-esteem of teachers.
The tension between the patriarchal and matriarchal influences can also be seen in how each proposes to handle the problems that inevitably arise in churches. The feminine response to problems includes: 1) "I don't want to talk about it" or "There is no problem", 2) it is not 'loving' to speak of the problem, 3) it will go away, 4) if we 'love on each other' all will be well. Men, too, have been feminized to the extent that they avoid conflict, contention and struggle of any kind.
Much has been written about the reasons men are staying away from churches in droves. David Murrow wrote about this in Why Men Hate Going To Church. There is also The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Leon Podles), No More Christian Nice Guy (Paul Coughlin) and Manly Dominion in a Passive-Purple-Four-Ball World (Mark Chanski), to name a few. Undoubtedly one of the reasons that men stay away from church is the feminization they find there, which is most significantly manifested (how's that for irony?) in the exercise of authority and the style leadership employed.
Women are vital for the health and vitality of the church. The maternal instinct, influence and interests are crucial for the church to fulfill its role in God's kingdom. But male interests and passions are also indispensable for the balance and vigor of the church, as can be readily seen where the masculine influence has been forsaken in favor of the feminine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)