New Thoughts (04/24/17-04/29/17)
Pastoral Stewardship (04/26/17-04/27/17)
We have two major topics to consider, each with some number of sub-topics. The first topic is that of the pastoral office. While Paul may be taken as considering the Apostolic office, the points he makes apply to all of the teaching offices of the church which, if truly considered, means all the church. But, let us start with the higher office. For if these are matters of concern for every believer, the concern must increase as responsibilities increase.
We begin, then, with the Apostles; men tasked with the founding of the church and its doctrines. Here were these few men, a handful really, entrusted with the mysteries of heaven, bearing the direct revelation of the Gospel. Here were men tasked with clearly expositing this revelation – adding nothing, subtracting nothing – so as to ensure that what they had been taught would be preserved to all ages. Did they know this was the case? I don’t think we can say so with certainty, but they assuredly knew this was big. You sense it in Paul’s writings, that he knows himself to be a mouthpiece for God, and knows also that he risks mistaking his opinion for God’s.
For him to come out with the claim of clean conscience, even allowing that this assessment is restricted to his fulfilling of his office, given that awareness, ought rightly to be stunning. This is, after all, the same Paul who very clearly reminds us all that there is not one man in all history who can claim to have done good, and he assuredly includes himself in that number.
But, what do we learn of Paul’s sense of the office? “We are stewards.” There is so much wrapped up in that statement. We are familiar with the Apostles describing themselves as bond-servants, slaves of Christ, and so on. We recognize that they all have a certain tendency to try and remove themselves from the picture so that Christ can show more readily. But, this is a stronger claim on the one hand, and combined with another description that sets them as the lowest of laborers.
The role of the steward is largely lost to us in terms of any real experience. In that day, however, it was very well understood. The steward was one who had a great deal of authority, even if it was entirely delegated. Picture the situation. You are a man of means in this city. You have your business interests, your farming ventures outside of town, your estate in the city, and your family. But, you also have certain civil responsibilities. Those responsibilities, likely involving military service, call you away from home for lengthy periods, years even. What is to become of your varied enterprises during that time? What is your family to do? After all, depending on which regions we’re talking about, the opportunities for your wife to earn a living are limited, even if you were willing to accept such an idea.
The only real solution is to have a trustworthy second. But, what sort of second? After all, you won’t really have much opportunity to check on his work while you’re gone. If he starts funneling off your profits, you won’t even hear about it until it’s far too late, and even for lesser matters, your rapid response time is going to be measured in months. What will happen? How can you have any measure of peace while you’re gone? You can’t really afford to be distracted by such concerns in the midst of battle. So, you seek out a steward. He will be a servant, it is true, a slave really. But, he will not be just any slave. He will need to be trustworthy. One can see the absolute necessity of that. And his trustworthiness will need to be a proven quality. You are, after all, trusting him with everything you hold dear.
Think back to Joseph in Potiphar’s house. That was a steward’s role. He was in charge of all Potiphar’s dealings. He ran the place. He bought. He sold. He assigned others to their tasks. He ensured that everybody had food and clothing. And, as proves a critical feature in that story, he’s alone all day with Potiphar’s wife. He must be trustworthy, and if anything – ANYTHING – erodes that trust, the consequences for our steward are going to be dire. He will be unemployable at best, dead at worst.
This is the role Paul describes for the Apostles. “We are stewards.” They own nothing. They are entrusted with everything. They act as the executors of their master’s interests. Their word is as binding as if it came from Him. Their word is His word. So, we have this as the repeatedly noted primary qualification for office: The Apostle must be faithful, trustworthy. As we saw with our own case, we will not choose a steward without first making careful inquiry into their character. We can be assured that God does the same for His stewards. We can be assured that He does a far better job than do we, but that pushes us to the other subject, so let us save matters of judgment and assay for that place. For now, accept that God, infallible and all-wise, has taken the measure of His stewards and found them suitable. This must surely inform our own opinion of them, which is directly to the point here.
With that in mind, we see that Paul’s offering of clear conscience is perhaps not so shocking as it seems at first glance. It is a necessity for the office he holds, and it must combine, as Calvin notes, with prudent counsel. Here is a man possessed of the mysteries of God and tasked with their distribution. Well, then! This is no small duty. This is possession of the wealth of God and requirement to put it to best use. That’s where the wisdom of prudent counsel comes in. It’s not enough to say you’ve faithfully delivered those mysteries to the people of God. If you’ve simply shoveled the stuff out on them, feeding them to overflow and never taking into account what state they’re in and what they can handle, you’ve not done well. If you’ve held it back and kept it to yourself, the problem is obvious. But, if you’re overfeeding, the problem is just as bad. You are not seeing to their welfare.
The servant of God must set himself to serve faithfully, in such manner as will honor the Master to whom he belongs. That should be self-evident, I suppose, but how does that play out? Well, it means the servant of God remains within the boundaries set out by his Master. Matthew Henry gives us the picture. “They must not require anything from them without their Master’s warrant. They must not feed them with the chaff of their own inventions, instead of the wholesome food of Christian doctrine and truth.” That is, clearly, an issue the Corinthians were dealing with. They had some very inventive teachers, apparently, and they were enjoying the show. But, they were not being fed sound doctrine and truth. These were not good stewards. These were self-important, self-promoting individuals. We needn’t go so far as to say they were false teachers. Paul doesn’t. But, they were not so grand as was made out to be the case.
There is that other side of the picture, though. Not only is the steward to keep his work within the bounds of his Master’s authorizing instructions, but he is to administer with prudence. He must know his fellow slaves. He must be acquainted with their weaknesses and their capabilities, so as to assign to each the work that is best suited to him, and so as to provision each as best meets their needs. That means that deeper doctrines are not the stuff to be teaching new believers, nor do you try and satisfy the mature believer with Pablum. You see that in Paul’s description of his work. He couldn’t speak of these deeper matters with them because they weren’t ready for such things yet, but where he found believers with sufficient capacity, he was glad to do so.
This puts me in mind of the situation I find myself in at work of late. Having become familiar with my little corner of verification, it becomes easier to parse through the results, compare and contrast to expectations, and recognize an issue. After all, I’ve pretty much rewritten the code that drives our tests, I’ve put together scripts to sift the data into a form I find useful, and I’ve just got this flow down by which to observe the progress of the test in fairly short order. It’s not like I’ve done anything rand here. I’ve just become familiar. I’ve matured, if you will, in this little task.
So, I’ve been sent out to the next team to try and help. Meanwhile, somebody exceedingly new to verification in general, and this specific matter particularly is trying to pick up where I left off on the other project. He comes looking for aid and assistance, which is as it should be. But, how do I aid? Do I just fly through things in my usual fashion? If I do, chances are I can find the issue pretty quickly, and maybe impress him with my mad emacs skills. But, it’s not terribly helpful for helping him understand what’s going on. That requires stopping, remembering what it was like for me not so many months ago, when everything was overwhelming, the picture too huge to ever get a grip on, and the pile of jargon too deep to get through. Stop. Remember. Back up and explain. Slow down and proceed at a speed that he can keep up with. Don’t become impatient. Take time. Help everybody come up to the same speed you’ve attained (oh, and seek out those who go faster, because you haven’t arrived, you’ve just managed the first few steps).
There’s a model for the minister, or the minister as model for the engineer. Take your pick. Faithfulness and trustworthiness are demanded in the office of minister, and they are assuredly valued everywhere else. That faithfulness goes so far beyond simply managing not to steal from your boss, or idling away your hours in minimal effort. A good day’s work for a good day’s wage (or even a poor day’s wage, really,) is sound, biblical practice. Awareness of your coworker’s condition, and how best to help him excel together with you is also sound, biblical practice. It’s a great boon in the workplace. It’s an absolute necessity of the job in the church.
You can quickly see that what held for the Apostles in this regard passes to the pastors, particularly as the Apostles depart the stage of history. Pastors are given the self-same task, but without the weight of revelation. Be faithful to what has been revealed. What you have learned from faithful men (the Apostles), pass on to men of faith. Do not add or subtract. Do not prefer style over substance. Do not work for the approval of man but for the honor of God.
The same continues to hold for every teacher of biblical doctrines. Be faithful rather than imaginative. It is not evil to have a skillful and compelling style that engages the students, but your style isn’t the thing that matters. Your accuracy is. How is it that we understand this when it comes to teaching the ‘hard sciences’, yet we ignore it almost completely when it comes to teaching matters that bear more on character? Teacher, pastor, understand what Adam Clarke says of your situation. “From Him alone [you] received [your] appointment, [your] work, and [your] recompense.” If you need reward, there is the only fit place to look. If you need approval, there is the only fit place to seek it. Whatsoever it is you have been given to do, do it as unto the Lord and for His glory.
Now, I said this holds for the whole Church, and here is something to encourage you that this is the case. Peter writes, “Since each has received a gift, employ it in serving one another. Be good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1Pe 4:10). We are all of us to be good stewards. We are not all called to be Apostles, or pastors, or even teachers. But, we are called to be stewards. You have a gift. Use it. But, don’t use it for amusement, or any selfish purpose. Don’t hide it away. Don’t make it a profit center, or an ego stroker or any such thing. Employ it to serve your fellow stewards, knowing that they employ their gifts to serve you! What a marvelous economy God has devised for His household! We are all stewards. We are all accounted and required to be trustworthy servants in His household. We are all commanded to look to one another’s benefit and growth.
Before I move on, there is something which Calvin brings up in regard to the sacraments which I would consider. The sacraments, being defined as baptism and communion, are things he says should be reserved to the pastor, as concerns their administration. He is certainly not advocating that their application is for the pastor only, but that they, as stewards of the mysteries of God, are rightly seen as the stewards of these ‘visible appendages’ of the mysteries. I have to admit I am of mixed feeling about this. In general practice, I would probably hold to the idea, but I don’t find basis for reserving it to the pastor exclusively.
Consider: On one level, the Apostles are entirely unique in their positions as stewards, and so, if it is stewardship that determines the rightful administration of the sacraments, we ought to reserve that task to the Apostles. That’s obviously not the case. At the other end of the stewardship spectrum, we find Peter’s comment above: We are all called to be good stewards, and it is generally understood that Peter also advocates a priesthood of believers, as we are God’s chosen race, a holy nation of royal priests (1Pe 1:5, 1Pe 1:9). I will grant a distinction between priest and pastor, but I think the combined points leave us in a place where all should be able to rightly handle the word of God, to give a defense for the faith that is in them, to proclaim the good news. We are all called to be stewards of these mysteries in one degree or another. So, on what basis shall we discern the limits? Which steward is fit to apply baptism and which is not? Which steward is granted to distribute the elements, or to lead the congregation in partaking of communion, and which is not?
Take it from a slightly different perspective. Suppose, as happens on occasion, a church is deprived of its pastor. Does the church close up shop until a replacement can be found? No. It continues. God provides. Perhaps one of the elders steps up to take care of the teaching duties. What happens if the next communion Sunday comes and there’s still no pastor? Do we skip the table? No. Again, one of the elders can preside. Well, then, what of baptism? If a believer reaches the point of desiring baptism during this period, do we tell him he has to wait? I think not.
Go another step. You are out in the mission field, or traveling to some other land, and there is no church, no pastor to which you can turn those who might be coming to faith. Do you then refuse baptism? Do you deprive them of the grace of communion? Were you stranded alone on a desert isle, but had at least the materials to apply as elements, would you forego taking communion yourself because there was no pastor or elder around? Could it not be argued that you are, in that moment, a de facto elder?
If the case holds here, why not in less strained circumstance? You’ve been ministering to a friend or acquaintance who has come to faith, but for one reason or another cannot come to church. Do you deny that friend the grace of baptism? Do you insist that they must wait until they can come to a pastor?
As I say, I think in the general economy of the church, reserving the administration of these sacraments to the pastor is reasonable and even laudable, just as we would generally reserve the ministry of the Word to the pastor. These are matters of God’s mysteries, matters of great value to be valued greatly, to be treated with all due reverence. Let it be so. If it be allowed that circumstance may permit of another administering the Word, then I think it must be allowed that circumstance may also permit of another administering the sacraments, just so as it is done with all due reverence. If it be that a believer takes it upon himself to administer the sacraments to another, so long as it is done with that same reverence, and with care that the one to whom it is administered is truly (so far as can be discerned by human means) a child of God, let it be so.
I think that last is where the concern begins to creep back in. If the sacraments are for believers, and the pastors and elders are set as guardians of the house, ought they not to have the opportunity to observe and assess the fitness of the one who would partake? And yet, it must be said that we typically leave the matter of fitness for communion to the conscience of the partaker. They are warned of the consequences of unfit participation, but it’s their call in the end. Baptism is considered more carefully, perhaps because it really is seen as something of a lock on the door of the family house. This, it seems to me, is at the very least in keeping with the earliest practices of which we have some record. Indeed, I dare say they took the matter more seriously than we do in many cases today.
But, baptism, particularly for a Baptist, is a serious matter, a mark of true faith and obedience. It has something of the same bearing as, let us say, a Driver’s ID or a Social Security Card has for declaring one a legal citizen. As such, yes, it must be administered with all due care. Yet, I can still accept that it may, at least under certain circumstances, be administered by any believer. If I read Paul’s record of his own ministry in Corinth, it seems to me that the bulk of the baptism must have been done by other than pastors. If Paul didn’t do it, and he had not yet had opportunity to train up and appoint pastors, then who was left to do the baptizing? There were, it seems to me, only other believers.
Pastoral Limitations (04/27/17)
Now, if faithful and trustworthy character is a requirement set upon the one who would pastor God’s people, it also sets firm bounds upon their labors. As concerns the Apostles, the original stewards of this faith, Matthew Henry is quite correct in saying that they, ‘had no authority to propagate their own fancies’. I must add that if they had not the right, we can be exceedingly sure that no man since has had it. This ought to be a stark warning to the many who do that very thing in our day. It is no light thing to lay claim to having visions from heaven, or a word direct from the throne room. The one who would make such a claim ought first to expend many a sleepless night in prayerful supplication, whether indeed these claims are so. He ought to be the more diligent in checking this new data against the proven revelation of Scripture, not as seeking hidden clues to support this new theory, but as ensuring that this new theory truly accords with all that has come before.
I don’t say that we need to act as if the Holy Spirit has been put under a gag order. I do, however, say that the heart is deceptively wicked, and the mind of man forever inclined to suppose its own thoughts to be the thoughts of God. Let an idea strike us as startlingly new, or as being so far out of character for us as to be foreign, and we jump to the conclusion that God has spoken. It may be the case. I do not rule it out. But, it may just as readily be the case that we are hearing deceptive words seeking to find entry into our minds, and through us, entry into the house of God. It may also be that we hear nothing but the rattling of our own thoughts, the effects of indigestion or some other chemical imbalance in the bloodstream.
And yet, this is but one danger for the one whom God would have as steward. Calvin points to another. “For every one that teaches the truth is not necessarily faithful, but only he who desires from the heart to serve the Lord and advance Christ’s kingdom.” This, it seems to me, more clearly captures the general situation in Corinth. The Judaizers being excluded, it can be accepted that those who taught were teaching truth. That may not be the case for all, but let it be accepted for the sake of argument. Even so, Calvin notes, there is the question of motive. There is the matter of what is being taught, but this must be accompanied by the question of why. If we are teaching as an opportunity to show our stuff, to stoke our pride and our ego, we are not faithful stewards. We are braggarts. This is the sort of activity that will destroy a ministry faster than just about anything else, and it’s a danger as old as man, if not older.
What was it that caused Satan’s fall, if not pride? He was, by many accounts, a leader of worship, and gloriously good at it. He ministered truth, but did so from a place of pride, and eventually pride corrupted that truth in him, leading him to prefer his own glory to God’s. Adam and Eve, in their turn, took up the same idea, and it has cost us dearly. It cost God dearly. Arguably, that same disease infects the Papal order, and many another church besides. I think again of that odd case up in Canada – a person filling the pulpit who admits to unbelief. That is, in fairness, just the most transparent case of a common enough disease, for it’s clear that many pulpits are occupied by men and women who deny Christ by their messages. But, if you don’t accept Christ’s claims, on what basis do you stand up there – I do not call you a pastor or a minister in this case, for you do not minister anything of value, nor do you serve Christ. It can only be that you serve yourself. Perhaps you find no other way to make a living, although it is hardly a lazy man’s occupation to take upon themselves such a role, even done poorly. Is it not for the prestige, the admiration, the applause of the congregants? It’s all about you, and if it’s all about you, you are no steward. You are a thief, robbing God and robbing God’s people.
Here is yet another limitation set upon the steward of God, in whatever capacity he serves. Teachers ‘are not the depositories, but the dispensers’, as the JFB sets it before us. If we are storing up our understanding of God and not using that most marvelous gift to serve our fellows, we are again robbing God and robbing God’s people. Go back to what Peter said: Use what you are given in service of your brothers. Build one another up. That’s the job of every member of this priesthood of believers! Much is required of the one to whom much is given. That still holds.
Then, let it be fully understood that the Apostles were not sent as heads of the church. The Church has only One who is its Head, and that is Jesus Christ. If the Apostles had no claim to such status, assuredly no pastor, no elder, no anybody in the church can make such claim. The Church belongs to God. It is His to establish, His to direct, His to preserve. You and I are but servants, set to do the work given us in the strength provided us.
I go back to that particular imagery Paul brings in with his choice of words for servants. We are lowest-tier oarsmen in the galley commanded by Christ. He speaks, we pull. He says halt, we stop. We have some idea of the situation from movies we have seen, but we can be pretty certain those movies have distorted the picture for us. But, consider this. The trireme was largely a vessel for combat. Yes, there was trade going on, but here was the battleship of its day. Chances were if you were an oarsman down there on the lowest tier, you hadn’t volunteered. You probably didn’t have the option of rushing the exit and jumping overboard when things got hot. If you were going into battle, whether you felt the battle justified or not, you had a stake in it. There were only two possible outcomes, really. Either your trireme would be captained to victory and you live to see another day, or it was not, and you sink with the ship.
So far, you have a common lot with those up on the first-tier oars, and even with the captain himself. But, add this. You’re down in the depths. Other than the hole through which your oar is stuck, you have no visibility. Chances are pretty good that even that little bit is blocked by the slave next to you, or the oar itself. You have no idea what’s out there, and certainly no picture of what you are rowing toward. Even if you can see more than the waves outside, you cannot see forward. You cannot steer because you don’t know what lies ahead. That being the case, you have all the more reason to heed the instructions being given. If you are told to row, follow the stroke. This is no time for improvisation. If you are told to lift oars, lift! Your life very well may depend on it.
What an apt picture, then, for those who are set to the task of propelling the Church. If we are not unified, if we are not all of us listening for the commands that come from our Head, we are effectively adrift, for all the energy we may be expending. If I’m pulling forward, you’re pulling backward, and the guys on the other side of the boat just have their oars planted, we’re going nowhere, and we can’t maneuver. We are sitting ducks for whatever attack may come. And make no mistake about it: The Church is in a warzone. Enemies abound, and seek opportunity to strike. If we do not heed our Head, we lay ourselves open to that attack, and we can expect to sink with the ship. If, however, we are attentive to His command, victory is assured, for He is the Victorious Warrior King. He knows what’s ahead. He knows every strategy of our enemy, and He has fullness of wisdom to plot our course to victory. Listen to Him!
Appropriate Judgment (04/28/17)
Before we can discuss appropriate judgment, we must establish whether there can be any such thing. Many would look to verse 5 and conclude that all judgment is rejected. Other passages will be brought to bear. “Judge not lest you be judged” (Mt 7:1), is another favorite. And yet, the same Jesus who says that says, “Don’t judge according to appearances, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn 7:24). It might also be noted that Matthew 18:15-18, while it does not explicitly use the word judgment, it assuredly discusses the matter. That whole passage is discussing what amounts to court proceedings in the Church. Discipline requires judgment, and faith requires discipline.
So, then, how can Paul be telling us not to pass judgment? Well, we must note the context and allow this to qualify the command. After all, those in authority in the Church, like those in authority in civil society, are required by their office to judge. Civil law would be an impossibility without judgment. Going back to Matthew 18, and contemplating the priesthood of all believers, we are all of us called to make judgments. When we are told by this teacher or that what it is that Scripture says about some topic, we are to judge their exposition by the Word. When somebody claims to be a believer, while we must always be as charitable as the situation allows, we are in need of judgment. Do the actions of this person demonstrate a lively faith? “Faith without works is dead” (Jas 2:26), so are the works we see such as comport with faith, or such as demonstrate a reprobate heart?
As Matthew Henry suggests, the judgment Paul has in view does not concern judgment in regard to ‘known and notorious’ facts. If, as we shall see in Chapter 5, it is common knowledge that so and so is leading a life of blatant, unrepentant sin, by all means judge! If the purported teacher of Christian doctrine is teaching heresy, you better believe you should judge. But, if that’s the case, what’s Paul’s problem here?
The problem is that the Corinthians weren’t assessing facts. They were rewarding points on style. They were operating on a theory that what seemed impressive must therefore be true. It shows up in this whole business of choosing favorites amongst their various teachers, and on that basis despising, or at least devaluing the rest. We have three pastors in our church, albeit that one is wholly occupied with a church plant, and we don’t hear his preaching back at home base. But, the other two we hear regularly. Their styles are different. Their ages and experiences are different. No doubt, people have their favorite. It is somewhat unavoidable, I think, that we will find one or the other more to our taste, and there’s nothing terribly wrong with that. But, when we start lauding one to the detriment of the other or, God forbid, begin skipping the services when one is preaching because we really don’t care much for their style, we fall into this passage’s rebuke.
In general, I think Paul is actually correcting for positive judgment here, rather than negative. Yes, he was facing undue criticism because his style wasn’t as compelling or his demands as super-spiritual as some of these others. But, the point he seems to be driving at is not so much that they condemn those who ought not be condemned, but that they heap up praises on men who may very well be wholly unworthy of praise. That is actually the bigger issue, and it’s there in the way Paul describes his own situation. “I don’t even judge myself.”
Surely, Paul is not saying that he just does whatever and assumes no consequences. Go read Romans 6-8 again. Shall I go on sinning because grace abounds? No way! Yet, here I am, sinning when I want nothing so much as to be righteous. What is going on here? There is a war in my own body, and I can’t win it. I need Christ! I shall ever need Christ. So, his point here is not that he never takes himself to task, never listens to conscience, never finds cause to repent. Far from it! Rather, his point is that he knows himself well enough not to trust his judgment when it comes to self. And so should you.
By and large, we are inclined to be entirely too charitable in our self-evaluations. We may see the sin, but we’re pretty sure we have a good excuse. We don’t. We may not even see the sin, and that’s more to Paul’s point. Just because my conscience doesn’t accuse me does not by any means indicate there’s nothing awry. By the same token, we can fall into periods of horrid self-condemnation, that is equally off-base. The heart is deceptively wicked, and I am convinced, utterly convinced, that this cuts both ways. If we stop thinking too much of ourselves, we will instantly swing to thinking too little. It is well to remember that we are sinners yet. It is also well to remember that He who called you has already exonerated you and accounted you righteous.
Now, then, if we can’t manage sound judgment in regard to ourselves, how are we to judge another? How can we laud another as though we know him to be righteous and upstanding? Knowing the evil of your own heart, how can you then conclude that so and so over there has no evil in his? Do you not believe God? There are those we are so sure are true men of God, and we may even be right. I could look at several historically who have passed the test of time. Yet, even there, you find some truly questionable moments. I can think of many today that I would consider entirely trustworthy. Yet, I must remain equally certain that they can be wrong on some topic, and may yet turn out to be outright frauds. It seems unthinkable, but I suspect you, like me, have already experienced the unthinkable on some prior occasion. And those occasions prove the point Paul is making. Here is one I thought a pillar of the faith, and see how he has fallen! How could I have been so wrong?
Well, dear Christian, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1Co 10:12). No, nor suppose you have heard the final judgment in regard to that one who disappointed you by his fall from grace. If he was indeed embraced by grace, then know that it is God and not your fallen brother who is in control, and He is faithful to complete the work He has begun. If that one was not embraced by grace, then he could not fall from it. He has simply dropped his disguise, and God is to be praised for ending the deception before more damage could be done.
Wycliffe’s commentary seems to take the alternate view here, and assume that the judgment Paul has in mind is more severe. They write, “There was to be no pre-judgment seat judgment!” Perhaps they actually have the same point in view, that when it comes to praise and assigning of glory to the individual, that remains for Christ to do. But, so too does the verdict of condemnation. The ‘reward’ of verse 5 may not be a positive. It is more by way of being wages earned. But, whether you assess one as a True Believer ™ or an assured reprobate, it’s a point worth bearing in mind. You don’t know with anywhere near the certainty you think. It’s possible, particularly with those who have come to the end of their days, that we might form a pretty reasonable and accurate assessment. It is doubtful, for instance, that we shall find ourselves wrong about a Hitler on the one side, or an Augustine on the other. But, we might be. As to the living? Well, you shall know them by their fruits. Of course, the same can be said of you, yes? Do the fruits of your work life project an image you would desire your church elders to know about? Do your private habits, your web-browser’s history, your financial accounts, reflect the fruits of a Christian life?
I am going to go out on a fairly sturdy limb here and suggest that every last one of us knows of certain aspects of our lives that we would just as soon our Christian family was not privy to. I can say with utmost assurance that there are aspects of each of our lives that we would prefer God was not privy to. And that being the case, the first point must hold, as well. Again, we are back at Paul’s point. It’s not that we ought to pass no judgments, form no opinions. But, we ought to recognize our limits, and our own condition should make that obvious. If it hasn’t, it’s because we haven’t really looked at ourselves.
So, then: The judgments of men are not without value, and that’s not what Paul is saying. Neither is it what he demonstrates by his actions. He values the opinion of men, and knows that to some degree a good opinion is necessary for good ministry. But, next to God’s judgment, these opinions pale to insignificance. If the choice is between fidelity to God and a favorable opinion from man, there is no choice. Fidelity must rule. The steward is required to be faithful. But, the steward is not required to be obnoxious.
Where are we left, who hear the ministers? Well, Barnes would tell us that it is perfectly right and acceptable to cherish your minister and give him true honor. If you cannot do that, you might call either your own character into question or question whether you ought to be under the ministry of such a man. But, the minister rightly considered, ought to be found honorable and so ought to be honored. Yet, we have this boundary set: Never overrate their importance any more than you should underrate them. Be thankful for sound teachers, and even let them know of it. But, don’t exalt them above their due. That’s the message we are given.
By all means, give esteem to faithful workmen, and if their work is poor, by all means pass judgment in that regard as well. But, all such judgment MUST be done according to the word of God. This applies to the standards by which judgment is made. This applies to the way said judgment is carried out. What the Corinthians had wrong, Calvin says, is that they had a tendency toward rash judgments that gave preference to one in a spirit of ambition rather than on the basis of merits. It was style over substance.
This ought to clarify the esteem we give our faithful teachers, as well, as well as our acceptance of such applause if we are teachers. If the approval comes on the basis of style – my what a stirring message! You really moved me today – we have a problem. If we are giving such approvals, we are assessing the matter wrongly. If we are receiving them, be polite, but be rebuked by the approval. Apparently, while your teaching is moving, it has failed to instill this basic point that approval is due for substance, not style. “You really made that message clear. I understand it now!” That’s approval any teacher ought to appreciate. “I get it!” I had this muddled concept of what that passage was teaching, and now it’s come clear. Thank you! Yes, and thank you for the encouragement.
Given the whole reason I took up this book to study, I cannot finish this point without reiterating what I hope is an obvious point. When it comes to defending sound doctrine against the multitude of attempted perversions, rest assured: Judgment and even censure is most assuredly in order. Defend the Truth. Demand the Truth. This doesn’t require resorting to violence, nor even to unpleasantness. Indeed, I could argue that if we are moved to angry, vitriolic defense of Truth, we have lost the battle. It’s much like disciplining your child, isn’t it? If you lose it, and become angry, you’ve lost. You cannot discipline successfully from anger. Likewise, you cannot rightly defend the Gospel from anger. Yes, it’s true, that Jesus could be pretty angry and even violent in His opposition to religious hypocrisy. John, it seems, could also counsel some pretty stern measures when it came to heretical teachers. There’s a place for that. But, it’s not likely to win any arguments or make any converts. In defense of the sheep, I think that warlike spirit has its place. In seeking to bring the lost back around to the Truth, not so much.
Fallible Judgment (04/29/17)
I am no doubt at risk of repeating points already made at this point, but let me proceed. We have seen the issue at hand. It is an issue of judgment, of assay. We might draw a distinction between the two. We should, really. The former is a weighing of evidence in pursuit of discerning right from wrong. The latter is to do with determining the quality. If, for example, we are presented with a thing that is said to be a diamond and which has at least the outward appearance of being a diamond, we may seek to pass judgment on the validity of that claim. To that end, we might, for example, see if the stone can scratch glass, that being one of the favored tests. By this, and various other measures, we may be able to determine whether this stone is truly a diamond or not. We can pass judgment on that matter. But, as to its value? This is an assay. How pure is the stone, how well cut and polished? Are there some imperfections which might, rather than detract from its beauty and value, be seen as adding to it? What price might this stone fetch on the market today? The analogy is not perfect, but we see that there are points here that begin to be more opinion than fact.
When it comes to taking the measure of a man, the challenge is that much greater. There are, to be sure, those things we can observe and measure. If we hear a teacher teach, we have his words, and these can be measured against the Scriptures to discern whether he teaches truth of something apart from truth. If, to again take the example of Chapter 5, the one who purports to be a faithful Christian is living in blatant and obvious sin of which he refuses to repent, we can take his actions as evidence that his claims are false.
But, bend it the other way. Before us stands a man whose public persona at least is impeccable. When he speaks, he speaks what comports with sound doctrine. What we can see of his actions are in no way contradictory to an upright life. We see, by the evidence available to us, a man worthy of honor and esteem him such. But, in doing so, we must remain keenly aware that Scripture does not lie. “There is none found good; no, not one” (Ro 3:10). However much we may look upon this one and say, “he’s a good man,” the fact remains that he is not. There are secrets in the depths of his heart which demand we conclude otherwise. There are secrets in the depths of our own heart which demand we conclude otherwise.
This gets to the core of the Corinthian problem. They made their assessments on presentation, on what the senses report. In their case, the problem runs a bit deeper, perhaps, in that they set form over substance. What the teacher was teaching did not matter so much as how he taught it. So, too, with their assessment of those gifts the Spirit was pouring out upon them: It wasn’t the usefulness of the gift, or how it could be used to serve others which captured their attention. It was how spectacular the gift appeared to be. If it flashed it must be better. If it wowed, then clearly the one with that gift had higher rank than the one who had the gift of offering quiet, sound advice, or the even more mundane gift of keeping things organized and functional. Never mind which was more needful to the health of the body of believers. Their interest was in the show. But, the reminder of Paul is simply this: Whatever the skills, what is required – absolutely REQUIRED – of the steward is faithfulness. Talents are secondary. Character is primary.
If the proper test of the sermon is not how well the material is presented, but how True his material is, then the proper test of the Christian is of a kind. It is not how well he presents himself, but how True he is. It is not how skillfully he is, it is how faithful. For, by works shall no man be saved, but the righteous shall live by faith!
On this basis, Paul has proceeded to his second point. When he sets the judgments of man as of no account, this is not a comment on their capabilities, per se. It is a comparative statement, and one in which he includes himself on the human side of the equation. The sum of the point is simply that whatever the judges rank, and however great his skill, it remains inconsequential as concerns this specific case: The case of the ministerial office. That office must answer to a higher Judge, and it is His judgment – and only His judgment – that can arrive at sound verdict. The office, and the faithfulness of him who fills it, are in the end subject only to the assay of that God Who alone can weigh the deepest thoughts and motives of the man.
Again, this does not mean that a pastor found to teach falsehood, or one who actively pursues a life of flagrant sin cannot be dealt with and removed from the pulpit. Would that congregants in some of our so-called churches would recognize this. If the pastor permits and promotes what Scripture proclaims as sin, he ought not to be heeded or even welcomed. “Do not even greet such a one,” to take the loving Apostle’s advice on the matter (2Jn 10). But, be careful of your high assessments, for these have, more likely than not, even less sound a basis than your censorious measure of the one you count false. The truth remains that in both cases, your judgment is impaired. Whatever your gifts and skills, you are simply not up to the task. You cannot see the soul. Yet, you will convince yourself you can.
Here is our boundary and our problem. What we are discussing in this passage is not taking the measure of what can be observed and assessed. We are discussing what Calvin speaks of as ‘the eminence of each individual’, which we might think of as their glory or their repute. But, in our attempts to make such assessments, we have lost sight of a very basic point. “It belongs to God alone to determine what distinction every one holds, and what honor he deserves.” We are discussing an examination of qualities, and we are unfit to make the assay. Our opinions are too tainted and our understanding too limited. Barnes writes, “There are so many things that go to make up his character that we cannot know; and so many secret failings and motives which are all concealed from us.” Indeed, any assay we would make on this matter of faithfulness can only be an estimate, and a poor one at that.
But, notice the direction in which this has gone. It is not our condemnation of sin that is in view so much as our tendency toward positive assay. What we are inclined to consider glorious and worthy of praise is merely artifice. But, the beauty of the man is not found in the fact that he cleans up nice. It is found in the fact that he is indwelt by Christ. The fact remains that only the Lord knows the heart motive. As Paul insists, that continues to pertain even when we would judge ourselves. The heart is desperately sick. We are so biased in our own favor (or in moments of profound guilt, so biased against), that we cannot take our own measure. How, then, can we hope to measure another? We can’t.
At one level, the Christian who can see no cause for shame in himself has quite plainly never looked. At another, the Christian who sees himself convicted and condemned has never truly grasped the magnificence of what Christ has done on his behalf. He rescued me; a sinner! He loved me while I was busy hating Him, fighting Him on the rare occasion I wasn’t simply denying His existence. There I was, busily suppressing the truth in all unrighteousness, committed to a life of indulging whatever sins I was able to indulge, and how did this perfectly holy God respond? He loved me! He removed the blinders I had carefully strapped in place, that I might see the beauty of His ways and the deadly folly of my own.
Is the life I now lead one of holiness and perfect fidelity? Far from it, much as I could wish it were. The enticements of this world still entice and entangle. But, there is this: I know my Father, that He knows me. I know I am His, and though sin may be met with willing acceptance for a season, there comes that point of, “This is wrong. What am I doing? I know better, and Father deserves better. Oh, Lord, forgive me and strengthen this weak flesh to serve You.”
So we find Paul concluding that however clear the conscience, a clear conscience does not justify. By the same token, a low view of oneself does not condemn. That decision is simply not ours to make. A clean conscience is indeed a thing to be valued, and even sought after, but it is not by any stretch a basis for assurance of salvation. Our self-assessments are simply not impartial. “Conscience is not an infallible guide,” as the JFB says. We can read plentiful accounts of those amoral psychopaths who demonstrate a near total absence of conscience. Scripture speaks of those whose consciences have been seared by the lies of their own hypocrisy. Such men, in that they advocate behavior in keeping with their own, are spoken of as paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (1Ti 4:1-2). They insist on outward form, on looking good, but have become utterly blind to their own evil. And they are us. We may appeal to a clean conscience, but we are at risk none the less. My conclusions about myself are, in the end, no more trustworthy than your conclusions about me.
And, all of our judgments together are of little account to that on who can appeal to the judgment of Christ in good conscience. That is the counterbalance. Because, the one who can thus appeal must first know himself to belong to Christ, and must know himself to be an incapable judge. My conscience is clear, but I shall not trust in this. My conscience is clear, and I thank God that He has honored those prayers which followed David’s model and asked that He make known any sin in me, that I might be rid of it and restored to good fellowship. In all of this, if we have sought to faithfully pursue the duties our Lord has assigned, if we have done our utmost as faithful stewards, then we can at least lay claim to clear conscience in that regard. But even having done our utmost does not provide merit to which we may appeal. No, we have not earned Christ’s high regard. We have held Him in high regard, and trust that He has done a work in us such that as He willed and worked in us, He was able to shape our poor efforts to His glory. We appeal to Christ as one appealed to Caesar, with this in mind: “The Lord is the sole Decider,” as the JFB puts it.
One did not appeal to Caesar on a whim, but because everything within oneself said the charges were false and the judgments being rendered in the lower courts was tainted. It was no guarantee of a positive ruling, but it was a protection of sorts against the vagaries of self-interest on the lower bench. As we look to Christ as the sole Decider, we do so with even greater cause for confidence. He alone is our Master, whose stewards and slaves we are. To Him alone do we answer in the end, whatever man’s opinion. If we have had the accolades of one and all, it will matter naught unless He concurs. If we have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, it will matter naught if He has found us faithful. His opinion is, and ever shall be, the only one that matters. What remains to us is to endeavor as best we may to be faithful to the instructions He gives us.
I would look back once again on that one I considered a dear brother, a paragon, a model of the true Christian. What happened? Was he a believer or not? Is he incorrigible reprobate or lapsed saint? I cannot say. But, I can see examples from Scripture that require me to hold out hope. Though his sin was ever so egregious, and his fall spectacular, yet might his restoration to grace be the more spectacular and impactful? As I wrote my first pass through, think of David and Bathsheba. Was ever a greater crime committed by one man against another? Was ever a marriage begun on worse footing? David had multiplied his sins on this one. He saw a desirable woman and used the power God had given him to take her for himself, even knowing that she belonged to another. Then, learning that she bore his child, and that the secret act must necessarily become public, does he repent and seek to make things right? No, he commands his generals to send her husband into a certain-death situation. He has now not only sinned against Bathsheba, and is not now adding only his sin against Uriah. He has again abused that power and authority God entrusted to him to involve his general in the sin. The leaven is spreading.
But, God does not simply throw David out, as He had done with Saul. Was David a better man? Not on the evidence, no. But, God saw fit to bring David to a repentance that Saul could never find. There was to be a price to pay for this sin, a high price indeed. But, that price was not so high as could erase the sin from David’s record. That would have to wait. Yet, there was this: That would come! David, in spite of this and many more abject failings on his part, remained a man after God’s own heart. Bathsheba, in spite of the sin she represented, remained a wife in David’s household. Solomon, in spite of being the fruit of this sinful union, became a ruler wise after the ways of God, at least until he wasn’t. And, here is perhaps the most shocking, stunning outcome of this whole thing: God would make David’s line the lineage from which His own Son would enter the realm of human life! The very one whose death would finally put paid to David’s sins would be born to his sinful line.
I belabor the story for what it says of our own case, of my brother’s case. We don’t know what God may bring out of it. We don’t know the outcome. We don’t know where repentance is real and where it is simply the rueful response to getting caught. We don’t know what God may do. He does. He alone is the Decider.
For us, this ought to be cause for great comfort. God alone decides, and dear believer, He has called you His child. He has declared you, like David before you, a man after His own heart. You may not feel like it today. You may not be acting like it today. But, repentance will come, God will perfect His work in you, and keep you unto the day of His return. You will be found faithful, but not because you’re a good guy. You will be found faithful because the One who has purchased you and made you His own is Righteous and True, and by His own right arm, He has done it. This is all my righteousness: Nothing but the blood of Jesus! Yes, and He has paid it all.
