Shepherding one another

[aron]

I am going to try to present some ideas which I have had recently about shepherding one another. And I am going to do so in a very specific context, which is what I call the School of Hard Knocks. Experience. Struggle. Failure after failure.

I was drawn to this line of thinking by two verses, which seemed to parallel one another. First was Psalm 51. David has failed, horribly. In verses 7 through 12 he gives a great catalogue of God's restoration process, appealing again and again to God's ability to bring him back out of the pit of sin.

Then, verse 13 has a remarkable declaration. "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." (KJV). David the transgressor, the sinner, will then, post-restoration, be a vehicle for God to bring back other transgressors, other sinners. God's mercy, displayed through the restored David, will be a beacon to other lost souls.

I might have dismissed verse 13 as the kind of bold declaration often made in what we call the "Old Testament" by God-fearing men according to their natural concepts. I mean, God doesn't need you, right? God is holy -- why are you, a sinner, trying to cut a deal with Him? What can you do for God? Nothing. What does He do for you? Everything. Who are you, o man, trying to wheedle a quid pro quo arrangement with the Almighty?

But here is the second verse, from what we call the "New Testament". Luke 22:32 says "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (NIV) Peter's failure, and God's merciful restoration through Jesus' intercession, became the means for Peter to shepherd others. Peter would later come across those who wavered, who faltered, and who fell. And Peter's experience of being a transgressor and a sinner would now allow him to help others similarly afflicted.

So I am thinking that an elder is simply someone who has been there, done that; and a shepherd is someone who uses that experience to help someone who comes along after them, who is facing similar peril, and/or is attempting to extricate themselves. Our hard experience of failure can help someone avoid the same trap, and/or extricate themselves if they are caught. Our unpleasant experience of failure can make someone else's experience a little less unpleasant.

[aron]

Another failure of Peter was his "I am going fishing" episode in John chapter 21. Peter declared he was going fishing. The brothers said they were going with him. All of them tried all night, but caught nothing. Then at dawn the Lord appeared. Suddenly they got all the fish they could ask for, not only in the net, but on the shore, cooked and ready to eat!

Then came the hard question. "Peter, do you love Me?" When answered in the affirmative, came the rejoinder: "Shepherd My sheep... feed My lambs". Jesus was shepherding Peter, in resurrection, just as He had done before his death. And His shepherding example was now drawing Peter to do the same, to shepherd others.

Now look at Peter's first epistle, in the passage where he writes to the more experienced ones. 1 Peter 5:1 "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away." (NIV)

Peter's many failures became a kind of 'cautionary tale', as David's had been, for the ones who were attempting to follow in the footsteps of the flock. In this sense we do not hide history, but rather admit it. Because our history shows that we are nothing, that God is everything. Our history shows that God's enemy is always sneaking around, trying to snare us. Paul said, "We do not let the adversary get an advantage over us. We are not ignorant of his schemes. We place no confidence in our flesh" (2 Cor 2:11; Phil 3:3; see also 2 Cor 3:4). And most of all, our history of repeated failures displays the open triumph of our righteous God's mercy. "Mercy triumphs over judgment". Satan's rebellion has failed. God has triumphed in His Christ, not in punishment, but in restoration. He is truly the Savior of the world.

[aron]

One more point needs to be strongly made here, at least initially. The experience of failure eventually leads the seeking one to triumph in the Christ, because he is no longer ignorant of Satan's schemes. When the tempter comes, again and again, the pilgrim eventually says, "You fooled me once. Shame on you. You will not fool me again. Get behind me, Satan."

When we boast of God's mercy over our failures, we should be very clear that we are not saying, "Let us sin, that God may be abounding in mercy". (see e.g. Rom 6:1) No; God has called us to be a holy people. But if and when we fail, as David did, and as Peter did, we don't give up. We avail ourselves of the Great High Priest who is interceding for us in the heavens, whose blood speaks of better things. And our hard experience of being lost and then found, and of being dead and then restored to life, then can become the beacon of hope for others similarly looking for a way out of the darkness.

[Cal]

Gee, aron. I thought being a great shepherd meant you were faithful to THE MINISTRY no matter what.

Oh, I get it...all our experiences of failure should teach us that THE MINISTRY knows better than anyone about everything.

Failure should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. Being humbled should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. If we backslide we should come once again prostrate before THE MINISTRY. Only then will we be set right as shepherds. God, MINISTRY. MINISTRY, God. What's the difference?

That's what you meant, right?

[MacDuff]

Aron

The only myth I would dispel is the notion that God doesn’t need anyone. It comes, I think, from Calvinistic thinking that God is sovereign and does everything. We can only go with the flow, as it were. God chose people to represent him in the Old Testament and Jesus chose the twelve in the New Testament. Doesn’t seem to me like either God or the Son of God didn’t need anybody. Besides why would God create something superfluous? And then want to save something superfluous after the fall? There are indications that the plan of God existed prior to the act of creation. Which is what seems to give many Christians the impression of a Calvinistic scenario.

As far as what you said, the nail has been struck squarely on the proverbial head in my view. But it does not concern the Churches of Christianity. Rather you’re speaking with reference to the ekklesia. And it must be made clear that to me there is a definite distinction to be made between the two.

In the ekklesia, the purpose of the overseer/elder as a leader is to serve, not to rule. In imitation of Jesus prior to the crucifixion. Christianity, with its ruling leaders, miss a significant lesson Jesus was teaching when he washed the disciples feet.

The one with experience is the best person to serve because of experience. And that is what leading is all about in the ekklesia. Who better to lead others in the right direction than one who has already been there and experienced what is there?

In Christianity, the best leader is an educated leader. Educated by colleges and seminaries. Because the one being educated is being educated to rule. All that kind of education in the world won’t make one a better leader in the ekklesia. That kind of education can’t replace experience and common sense. Not common sense from a human perspective, common sense as given by God. Wisdom. And the overseer/elder shouldn’t be the only one with experience. There should be more who are experienced, than are overseer/elders.

The Churches of Christianity obviously are singing a different tune. A natural human tune, not a heavenly one related to God or Jesus Christ. And it was hearing that natural human song that revealed to me that Christianity is just a man-made religion.

Witness Lee didn’t innovate the idea of everyone sitting in a circle in the Recovery meetings. Neither is the term meetings for Liturgy his innovation, for that matter. The Mennonites and groups like them had it long before Witness Lee (or Charles Taze Russell who called their gatherings meetings and their places of meeting, halls) were born.

It’s a way of meeting that originally was intended to show that all have the same life. And it gives everyone opportunity to function (in the sense of 1Cor 12-14) in the meetings. More than that, for the Holy Spirit to function in the meetings through anyone he chooses. In the Recovery that became more of a time for a testimonial than for the Spirit to function through them. And Lee called the testimonials prophesying. Making the same error of emphasis that the Pentecostals made.

The whole point of Paul in 1Cor 12-14 was that all the Spiritual functions are equally necessary. Paul was dealing with an emphasis on speaking in tongues. Sound familiar? When he said it was better to prophesy, Paul in no way intended to convey the idea it was more important. He said it in the context of dealing with an emphasis. The Pentecostals and Witness Lee totally missed that. Not surprising. Seeing as neither saw the difference between the ekklesia portrayed in the New Testament and the historically developed Churches of Christianity.

Today it’s all a matter of Tradition in the Recovery. If the Spirit was ever allowed to function in the Recovery, the greatest opportunity would have been during the era of Elden Hall in those few years prior to the move to Anaheim. The influx of people during that period made it more difficult for Lee to rule in the stead of the Spirit. He was at that point spread quite thin as a ruler. He even had a hard time controlling the so-called leading ones apparently. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole purpose for the move to Anaheim for Witness Lee was to gain better control of the people. The idea of the meshing of the Ministry with the Church was certainly for that purpose. It was already evident by the time I was involved with Elden Hall in the early 70’s. But my inexperience at that time hindered my seeing that fact. At the time I thought it was all spontaneous, and that Jesus was really leading, and that it was not under a human ruler at all. Of course, I’m aware of certain things that lead me to a different conclusion today.

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

The only myth I would dispel is the notion that God doesn’t need anyone. It comes, I think, from Calvinistic thinking that God is sovereign and does everything. We can only go with the flow, as it were.

Yes, I was sort of making a straw man argument there. How well I represented the thinking I don't know. And I also conflated it with the LSM OT exegesis: "man is a sinner and useless before God. Christ is everything". Well, Christ is a man. Duh.

In the ekklesia, the purpose of the overseer/elder as a leader is to serve, not to rule. In imitation of Jesus prior to the crucifixion. Christianity, with its ruling leaders, miss a significant lesson Jesus was teaching when he washed the disciples feet.

The one with experience is the best person to serve because of experience. And that is what leading is all about in the ekklesia. Who better to lead others in the right direction than one who has already been there and experienced what is there?

Yes, I am speaking of the ekklesia. Which is seen, as you said, with Jesus washing the disciples' feet. And which is often not seen in organizations in which the leader is elevated above, both literally and figuratively, the "small potatoes". Yes, Jesus occasionally elevated and/or distanced Himself: He got in a boat and spoke to those on shore, and He went upon the mountain to speak (the "sermon on the mount"). But then He left the rock, and He left the boat.

The "rule", or mastery, or dominion, of Jesus was on an entirely different level, as you note. We usually see the organization, striving to present Jesus to the world, inevitably creating a different "rule" entirely.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

But it does not concern the Churches of Christianity. Rather you’re speaking with reference to the ekklesia.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that "Churches of Christianity" are somehow different from "the ekklesia"? Isn't it all Christianity? That is the label given to those who are Christ-followers. And the churches (ekklesia) of Christianity would be the ekklesia.

What are you saying? Is there some differentiator between Christians?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gee, aron. I thought being a great shepherd meant you were faithful to THE MINISTRY no matter what.

Oh, I get it...all our experiences of failure should teach us that THE MINISTRY knows better than anyone about everything.

Failure should lead us back to THE MINISTRY. Being humbled should lead us back to THE MINISTRY.

I know that acolytes of THE MINISTRY might say that my points on experience making us shepherds, assuming that they are valid and valuable, will have been already presented in, say, "The Experience of Life" chapter 23 and in "The Collected Works of Watchman Nee", vol. 17 pp. 283-297. All of which are, naturally, brought to you by a certain publishing house in Anaheim California.

To which I might in turn ask, "Who wants to go through all those volumes in order to find a few valuable teachings? I'd rather go to the Bible." Of course I do check my ideas against others'. I like getting counsel. But to primarily rely on THE MINISTRY for counsel is to be misled. God is today speaking to us in His Son (Heb. 1:2). And contrary to what some might believe, the Son has not been captured and held hostage, and made to speak on demand, by a certain publishing house in Anaheim California.