pay your church leader's wage?

Please read 1Timothy 5

This passage is sometimes used to justify a call for people to financially support the leaders of local churches and parishes.  But is this an accurate assessment of the passage?

It should first be noted that of the various English bible translations, only a few mention "financial support".  Of these, the inclusion sometimes appears within brackets indicating uncertainty as to whether or not it should really be there.

For the most part, the translation typically reads: "Consider the elders who rule/lead you.   Honour them, especially if they work hard to peach and teach."

Can we say with confidence that God asks people to financially support their leaders?  Maybe, bu  because is verse is unclear, it is not safe to assume we do.  Let us continue.

The next question is who these elders are.  Are they elders in character regardless of age, such as appear in Titus or Timothy? Or are they elders as in older members of a community?

Please read again versus 5:1 and 5:17 and also use the concordance (left sidebar).  What is the Greek word being translated as elder in each verse? Are they the same or different words?  What is their respective contexts?

• 5:1 ... indicates elder as in age
• 5:17... unclear
• However, the focus is similar in both verses.  What is this focus?  Even the wording seems almost identical.
• What does this similarity suggest about who 1Timothy 5 is speaking of?

Could an analogy be being made between how we treat older people (5:1) and our church leaders (5:17)?  Maybe, but to do this requires using everything before 5:17, and treating it as a metaphor. This includes what is spoken of about widows because what is shared about them flows out of 5:1.   In short, everything prior to 5:17 is about elder in age.  Also there  is no transition (eg like, therefore, parable intro, etc) to suggest 5:17 starts a new topic.

So for the moment imagine an analogy is being made.  How would this read?  But before you do, consider what does it mean to "honour them"?  Again use the concordance to look up the word "honour".  What is the Greek word?  Now use the concordance to look at 5:3.  Find where this Greek word also appears.  Why in this sentence does it not translate "honour" but instead "take care of"?  Why is it specifically used for widows?

What happens if we insert the translation, because we treat what is written as an anology, of elder as church elder as in function regardless of age, as occurs in the church life today?  It would read something like:  "Care for your local church elders.  However, if they have the ability to support themself, let them.  If they cannot, but have kids or grandkids, let their own family support them so it may not be a burden on the broader church.  Failing these, please take care of them yourself."

Okay, they may not be widows, nor older members of the community, but care for church leaders anyway.  How?  In the same way as the frail, the vulnerable, the isolated, the family-less, the ones who have little option but the support of others.  Care for them because they have one of a wide variety of roles among God's kingdom.

Does this sound like an analogy of leadership?  Does this sound like a gospel founded leader?  Why would a list be given for what it means to be a true widow, someone really in need, and then say to someone who takes up a leadership role, be like that, this is how God want his leaders to be?

In other words, does 1Timothy 5 speak of leaders of local churches as we understand them today? Does either the text or God's heart allow it?  Does the language or context speak of people older in age with certain needs or leaders whatever their age?  Yes, we may choose to cared for/support our church leaders because they lead, but does this passage either  raise the issue, let alone require it?

Does the pastor, priest, leaders of your church or parish fit this need?  Does choosing to go into full time ministry qualify that person for being support according to is passage?  Could doing other work, a job, detract from running the logistics of the local church?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But regardless, does worrying about the consequences of ministry involvement create the meaning of this passage or simply your interpretation of it?

Read More

please, discipline me nicely

Discipline is doing what you don't want to do when you don't want to do it.

Have you forgotten the encouraging words God spoke to you as his children? Don’t downplay God's discipline, and don’t give up when he corrects you. For he disciplines those he loves, and punishes all those he accepts as his child.  Endure by remembering  God is treating you as his own children. Who ever heard of a child who is never disciplined by their father?  If God didn't you are not his children at all. (Hebrews 12:5-8)

click on concordance (left sidebar tools) to seek definition of discipline

• Why does God need to discipline you?
• Do you get to choose what you are disciplined for?
• Will complaining or ignoring about being disciplined stop it from happening?
• How does the author of Hebrews ask you to respond to God's discipline?
• Is this asked of you for your benefit or to harm you?  What if the discipline feels painful or is difficult?

If you are someone who believes that "only good things happen to good people" or "I know things are from God when they make me feel positive" then you are unlikely to enjoy this message.

How did Moses feel when reprimanded about his whining when asked to relay God's message to the Hebrew people captive in Egypt?

How did Job feel when put through many life trials?

What about Jonah, David, and Peter?

Read More

what is a church?

The following is adapted from an article written by  Mark D. Roberts © 2011 website link

where people get their ideas of church

past experience of church … Although many have no church background, some do even if limited to weddings and funerals.  Some come with negative memories they want to avoid again.  Others are nostalgic about the past, even if it didn’t help them know God better.

pop culture … Even people who have never entered a church building may see church depicted on TV shows, movies, or books.  These shape the expectations of Christians and non-Christians alike.  While there are good images, the negative ones show pastors and church members as judgmental hypocrites or unthinking extremists.

the news … Though exceptions exist, the news in general is not positive.  Reporting on good things doesn't attract viewers or sell advertising.  Scandals do, and tend to make the headlines.

projection of personal needs and preferences … Sometimes when people have needs they expect the church to meet them, and therefore view the church through these eyes.

from analogous institutions

[table id=10/]

Before you conclude that the bible only speaks of church as specific gatherings, please read Colossians 1 and Ephesians 3-5.  These letters indicate the church is anyone who follows Jesus. It is something that can be spoken of as a body, with Christ as the head, and appears to be some reality transcending ordinary space and time that encompasses more than a single gathering of believers.

And in this sense, we need to ask questions like:

• Can everything God needs the church to do be achieved through occasional gatherings?
• Do we exclude anything if we limit who we interact with?
• How can what God gifts you with strengthen what God asks of others to do from other areas of your community?
• What is God doing that he does not do on a Sunday between 10am-12noon?  Where is he doing this?

Read More

postmodern church

"I'm alright - I don't believe in the law of gravity"

Everyone has a way of thinking, a way of viewing how the world works.  Postmodernism describes one of these. Consequently, people who accept a postmodern mindset tend to behave in certain ways, as others do according to their mindset. And as such, given people inhabit the church, how do the mindsets we bring affect the church? How do they impact you, your family, your friends?

Exploring this begins by understanding where people, generally, tend to gain their views about truth and reality. Assuming they are generational ignores the exceptions within a population and that people can and do change, for various reasons, how they see their world over time.

What are the main differences how each of the three "moderns" relate to truth and reality?

foundations of postmodernism

If the individual, you, is the source of truth and reality, no one else may determine what you believe or do. This includes God. And assuming you do accept his existence, this mindset will help you ignore or downplay his voice.

Please be aware this is necessary because when you decide what is true and real, absolute truths, like the ones God speaks of, become impossible. Why? Because when everyone has the right to their own opinions, every opinion must be considered equally valid, including what is in the bible. Truth is made relative and now it depends on personal preferences and interpretations.

Consequently, no one single faith/religion can claim itself as the only truth. To do so is viewed as arrogant. You may include and exclude whatever suits you, and then mix them together, from a variety of faiths and other areas. This affects both evangelism (new believers) and discipleship (new and existing believers) because accepting God and understanding his ways doesn't necessitate giving anything up or changing anything if it doesn't suit you. For example, reading the bible, praying, hearing sermon messages, and prophecy, are approached in terms of "what does this mean to you?" instead of "what does God mean by this?" In short, considering matters of faith as opinions makes it difficult to see God's truths since each view is given equal importance.

Are you doing this? What are the implications of fully listening to God?

What could happen if a priest/pastor or other church leaders lived this way? How could this affect what is taught? What if you need to ask a question, or reveal that God actually disagrees with their claims?

"That might be true for you, but not for me.” "You are welcome to your opinion, but mine is..."

When confronted, people with a post-modern mindset tend to avoid arguments. Turning issues into opinions is easier than listening, considering the merits of what is being proposed, and then choosing to reject or embrace it. Therefore, if absolute truths about faith/religion cause this type of response, so will morality, ethics, and justice.

Why? Because morality is based upon the absolutes of right and wrong. But, if each person is the source of what is true, then 'what is right' and 'what is wrong' becomes subjective. "What you see as wrong, might not be for me” or "The way I choose to live is my business, who are you to interfere?" Thinking like this only considers how things and situations affect you and ignores any personal responsibility you might have to others.

For example, a man is lying in the gutter, an open bottle of alcohol in his hand. He is very drunk. You walk past him thinking, "He made his choices. This is his journey. Who am I to interfere?" But stop for a moment. What if that was your own son? Could you walk past him? How would you respond to see others walking past him? Stop again. What if that was you drunk in the gutter? Why are you there? Is it right to be left alone in your hopelessness?

Now reexamine this in the following situations. Do you call the police when your home is burgled? If there is no right or wrong, why? What if your sister was raped or your child molested? If there is no right or wrong please don't complain, let alone seek justice. And yes it could be argued, the source of this outrage was you. But then why interfere when it was someone else who was impacted?

exception to the rule

Ultimately, when the line between self, the world, and your beliefs is blurred, the way you seek the acceptance of others is to advocate tolerance of the views of others, in the hope the curtesy will be returned. Accepting, or at least claiming to accept other opinions is seen the same as valuing the people who hold them.

The one exception to this rule is anyone who seeks truths that universally apply to everyone, particularly anyone who dares to criticize the views of others, disagree with them, or suggest they are wrong.

In other words, all views about truth are possible, except if your view about truth disagrees with this stance. As a follower of Christ, you must expect this toward you from people who hold a postmodern mindset.  Why?

• God communicates about and with absolute truths (Jn 18:37)
• The foundations of Jesus' life and mission apply to everyone (e.g. forgiveness, sacrifice, sin, repentance, reconciliation)
• Teachings by Jesus and his disciples did not offer the option based upon a “this is true for me, but may not be true for you” philosophy.  They were simply offered.  People regularly rejected it (e.g. ).

conclusion

If you are postmodern, you must accept all faiths/religions as equally true.  Hence, you must accept God is real and Jesus was sent to earth to free you and restore you with God. To refuse is to reject your pluralistic philosophy.  Sure, you can reject Jesus, but do so honestly.

Similarly, if you are a postmodern christian, you must accept every interpretation someone tells you about God's ways and character as equally true.  Hence, you must, for example, accept the need to let go of everything you love more than him. You must be missional and not merely a Sunday attendee. You must sacrificially love all your enemies. You must stop being sectarian in how you treat the church, Christ's body. To refuse is to reject your pluralistic philosophy.  Sure, you can reject these proposals but do so by first seeking what God's reality is, not how you interpret it.

Read More