A Word of Love

[OBW]

ZNP,

I got timed out this morning (guess I just thought I x’d the little box at the top when signing in) and lost my post, so I need to take a different approach this afternoon.

And I will do it in reverse order.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, you begin this teaching on the assumption that "not every word in the Bible is for me" but this leads you to a place where "that word is for my pastor, not for me". That to me flies in the face of the Lord's word "judge not lest you be judged for with what judgement you judge you shall be judged". Ultimately you know that word was spoken and written for someone, just not you. That is a scary teaching.

First, I am not giving a “teaching.”

Second that is a novel use of the “judge not lest you be judged.” You are taking a pretty closed minded approach to simply say that because I see words clearly given to a subset as possibly indicating that we are not all told to do everything that is written that I am teaching something scary. Go wash in the Jordan 7 times. Now. Do it. God told that Syrian(??) prince to do it. So it is for you too.

As to the point in the first paragraph, I feel that this reading reduces the Gospel of Matthew to a book that explains to pew sitters that their "leaders" have been commissioned, so putting money in the offering is nice, but not necessary. Why would you even call the book a gospel? Because we are not required to give tithes? You might think that is a better than plausible explanation, I don't.

Sorry you don’t. But you seem determined to treat the whole of Matthew as a vanilla book written to everyone in one plain vanilla way. If you truly understand the difference between a commission to go to the far reaches of the earth and the general charge to be ready with a defense, then you understand what I am talking about when I suggest that the “great commission” was given to those who were to go to the far reaches. I forget how many of Jesus’ remaining followers after the resurrection actually saw him, but I believe it was greater than the number in the “upper room” at Pentecost. Yet only 11 were sent separately to a place where Jesus made this commission. It takes some real blinders to not at least ask why. Wonder out loud whether this one thing has been handed down since some 18th or 19th century Evangelical sort of got this thing going as a command to all of us and we just take it like a tradition and don’t think about it.

I’m not saying we don’t preach the gospel. (And I’ve already said this.) But is this “commission” simply about that? The Baptists, Presbyterians, LRC, Brethren, and virtually all the Evangelicals simply say it is so. But when I read it I don’t see it that way.

But what is most irksome is not that you don’t agree with me. You don’t even have any room in your closed system to consider that it could be a reasonable reading of the passage, and instead are incredulous that I even bring it up. You do not seem to be seeking truth, but standing firm with a sledge hammer to stop any attempt to read something in a different way than has traditionally been done.

And we wonder why there are divisions.

Does a specific, particular promise made to someone become something that we can all bank on if we can dredge up enough "faith"? . . . . Two promises here, "all power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." and "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Yes, I believe we can all bank on these two promises if we receive them by faith.

”If you obey all that I command, you will prosper.” (very paraphrased). Is that a promise to us? Are we truly to read this as a command with a promise for all times for all people and in all places? Do you assert this to be true? Can I bank on this? How about my sister and her husband who have struggled for many years. They are very “obedient” yet she has to work as Starbucks to get the insurance and make ends meet.

The problem is that you throw out two promises that we can bank on and end the discussion. I did not say that none of the promises are to us. I said that not all of the promises are to us. Yet there is a whole cottage industry of little trinkets to carry and put around your house reminding you of all those “precious promises,” at least some of which are not much different from that promise to those who entered the good land back in the OT. Yes, we can argue about hypothetical “good land” equivalents that are spiritual rather than physical, but the prosperity mentioned back in the OT was physical.

As for your discussion of the qualification of elders, I start with the general premise that like the OT, where the Torah is God’s word and the rest is commentary (in the mind of the Jew), the gospels are God’s word and the rest is commentary. (Yes, it is all God’s word. And a lot of what is in the OT “commentary” is clearly quotes of God speaking.”) “Commentary” does not mean lower than the Word of God. Just that it is explanation. The core is in the Torah and the Gospels.

So when I read qualifications for elders written by Paul, I do not presume that it is God moving Paul’s hand (or his lips) to get some precise “this is it” list of qualifications. It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate. And so you trot out some pithy dichotomy as if how we would judge that one is proof of concept. There are many problems with it. First, if those are your choices, someone didn’t look very far for candidates. And they didn’t even bother to use the ultimate criteria to put them on the “list” in the first place. But assuming that we can get past that, the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot. Some of it may be about the ones who would leave. But some of it is about the one chosen as elder. If there is that little respect, then maybe you (whoever) have not looked at the parts of the qualifications about their stature in the community. If 10 percent of Christians have a problem, then what about the unbelievers. What do they think?

But the worst part of it all is that I was not talking about trying to select an elder. I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians. We do not reject from membership those who could not be elders. We do not declare that everyone who has divorced and now lives with a second spouse is simply continually living in sin. (There are some who take this kind of stance. And I was aware of your situation, although I did not think of it before I wrote what I did before.) So when you read the passage(s) where that seems to be indicated, it cannot be simply stated as true because we have reason to limit the applicability of that statement.

There is an army and there are citizens. Despite the mantra against it in this particular environment, there is a clergy and most of us are not it. That does not mean we are simply pew sitters throwing in our “tithes and offerings.” You really insist upon taking as extreme a position as possible. I simply state that it would appear that the “great commission” was actually a specific charge to some rather than all and you have acted as if I have said the entire gospel of Matthew is just an FYI and not really written to us. What balderdash!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

If you truly understand the difference between a commission to go to the far reaches of the earth and the general charge to be ready with a defense, then you understand what I am talking about when I suggest that the “great commission” was given to those who were to go to the far reaches.

I am not clear what you have been trying to say, I will try to say what I understand you to have said, and perhaps that is where the problem will show up.

It seems to me that you are saying that Matt 28:16-20 was spoken directly to the 11 disciples. It was recorded by Matthew so that we could get some insight into the commission the Lord gave to the apostles and is not written by Matthew as a "great commission" to all that read the gospel of Matthew, though you do not reject that view outright. You also, based on this that I have just quoted above, seem to understand verse 19 "Go ye therefore and teach all nations" to indicate that this commission was a charge to the 11 to go to the far reaches of the Earth.

Here is where I differ.

Yes, it was spoken to the 11, and yes Matthew specifically noted that, so it is certainly relevant, and yes, that would therefore give us insight into the commission the Lord gave to the apostles.

However, I have a much broader understanding of the word "go ye therefore and teach all nations". No doubt, for some, and especially for the apostles that indicates evangelistic journeys. But I see this as a charge to all believers to become actively involved in the gospel. This is why I listed a variety of services someone could do that would, to my understanding, fulfill this commission. I have never read this, nor was I aware that anyone else had read this, to mean that every Christian is supposed to be another Billy Graham.

We have had a thorough discussion of the Apostles and I came to the conclusion that the apostolic gift was a gift to go into a land that was previously not evangelized and evangelize it. However, in doing so the church is established and so the land is no longer unevangelized and therefore this gift becomes dormant. But that merely means that the work of evangelizing that was commissioned by the Lord in these verses is carried out by the church. One individual's service in this gospel might be to make sure the meeting hall has the heat turned on an hour before the meeting starts, etc. So, if you look at an individual it might be difficult to see that this is a response to the commission, but if you look at the church it should be very clear. You should see on a weekly basis that the church as a corporate Body is doing the work of teaching the nations to observe all things commanded by the Lord. You should see evidence that all power has been given unto the Lord and that He is with you always.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that you throw out two promises that we can bank on and end the discussion. I did not say that none of the promises are to us. I said that not all of the promises are to us.

But we were talking about the commission in Matthew 28. I quoted the verses that we were referring to, I identified two promises, and I answered your question.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for your discussion of the qualification of elders, I start with the general premise that like the OT, where the Torah is God’s word and the rest is commentary (in the mind of the Jew), the gospels are God’s word and the rest is commentary. (Yes, it is all God’s word. And a lot of what is in the OT “commentary” is clearly quotes of God speaking.”) “Commentary” does not mean lower than the Word of God. Just that it is explanation. The core is in the Torah and the Gospels.

So when I read qualifications for elders written by Paul, I do not presume that it is God moving Paul’s hand (or his lips) to get some precise “this is it” list of qualifications. It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate. And so you trot out some pithy dichotomy as if how we would judge that one is proof of concept. There are many problems with it. First, if those are your choices, someone didn’t look very far for candidates. And they didn’t even bother to use the ultimate criteria to put them on the “list” in the first place. But assuming that we can get past that, the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot. Some of it may be about the ones who would leave. But some of it is about the one chosen as elder. If there is that little respect, then maybe you (whoever) have not looked at the parts of the qualifications about their stature in the community. If 10 percent of Christians have a problem, then what about the unbelievers. What do they think?

But the worst part of it all is that I was not talking about trying to select an elder. I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians. We do not reject from membership those who could not be elders. We do not declare that everyone who has divorced and now lives with a second spouse is simply continually living in sin. (There are some who take this kind of stance. And I was aware of your situation, although I did not think of it before I wrote what I did before.) So when you read the passage(s) where that seems to be indicated, it cannot be simply stated as true because we have reason to limit the applicability of that statement.

Let me respond to the three points in red

1. "It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate." This is why I said that they should be treated with the utmost respect, not followed blindly. Second, the reason i used examples is because there are always exceptions to the rule, but in my experience, people make exceptions because they want to, not because they need to. I believe the reason for this is that too few among Christians appreciate why Paul would make these criteria. There is no criteria that says a man who had been imprisoned for a felony before receiving the Lord, could not become an elder. It says the man has to be of good repute, but lets be real, Malcolm X, had he been a Christian, would have been a man of good repute. This is not a holier than thou, or being judged by a higher standard. It is a job description. One of the key jobs of an elder is in counseling and shepherding the married saints in the congregation. It undermines your ability to counsel others to not get divorced if you have been divorced. There is nothing in the qualifications of an elder that talk about being charismatic, or an electrifying preacher, yet in many congregations that is their first choice. What happens? They get thousands of people, TV and radio, and then the man's sinfulness is exposed, and just like Gideon, all the children are slain on one rock. You end up with 0.

2. "the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot." Which leads us to your second point. Yes, it does say a lot. We have many congregations that are concerned about filling pew seats, paying mortgages, etc. We have many superficial Christians who view meetings as entertainment. This sad story has repeated itself over and over again on the front pages of the newspaper to the shame of all Christians. If you choose the elder according to your flesh, then you will reap of the flesh destruction. The way of the Cross is a narrow way. If you choose the elder according to Paul's instructions you will have to crucify the flesh.

3. "I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians." What do I have to do to get my point across? You are complaining that I won't even countenance your position and yet it is you who refuse to countenance my position. My point is that Paul's criteria are not a matter of judging elders by a higher standard. My point is that it is a job description. Firemen need to be strong enough to carry a person out of burning building, does that mean that they are being judged by a higher standard than say a jockey who has won the triple crown? The fireman could not do the job of the jockey and the jockey cannot do the job of the fireman. This is common sense, not being judged by a higher standard.