Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.8)

Posted on March 4, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Sterling Shepherds)

8.0. Elevating Elders.

The last issue that must be addressed with the closing words in this series is the critical deficiencies that exist within the Eldership today. As a Reformed Christian, time has been spent in different Reformed denominations and the one thing that they all have in common is a deficient Eldership.

In one major Reformed denomination, it is not uncommon to find unbelievers and unskilled men holding the office of Elder – something contrary to the Word of God – which leads to poor pastoral care and shepherding. In another denomination, there is great organisation of the Eldership, but little effectiveness in reality. In other words, there is a really good system, but there seems to be little substance to the system. However, what most Reformed denominations seem to have in common is their inability or unwillingness to take seriously the Biblical instructions in regard to Elders and Eldership. By this we specifically refer to the Biblical criteria for elders, their Biblical character, and their charter.

Some years ago, we found ourselves in hot water for insisting that prospective elders be measured by the Biblical standards. You would not think that such a request would have brought such vehement responses, but it did. On one occasion, we were hit with everything from, “Why don’t you leave?” to the guilt-trip-inducer of “You realise that you are judging God!”

Now, we are happy to admit that in those days our zeal outweighed our tact and verbal articulation. However, we must also admit that as we have grown a little wiser, understood Scripture better, and continued to raise the same objections, the opposition has not lessened one iota! This is tragic because it is really the fundamental cause of many of our current problems within the Church.[1] Biblically speaking, a people are only as faithful as those who govern them. Thus, if we are truly serious about reform in the Church, we must begin by addressing the deficiencies within the Eldership. This can only take place effectively when the Elders clothe themselves in humility. This is so because the Elders are the ones who have the greatest ability to bring substantial reform, but that reform needs to begin willingly from within their own ranks.

We have no desire to turn these pages into an exercise in “Elder bashing” or to simply create a catalogue of disasters. Yet, it is also important that people understand what these deficiencies look like, how they come to the fore, and how they present themselves. Thus, we will try and give a few varied examples:

In one instance, the Elders found themselves in a vacancy. After several months, these Elders announced that they would not be doing any pastoral visitation because it was, in essence, beyond them. To highlight this betrayal of their role, you need to understand that there was something like twenty of them. The problem was not that they were stretched for resources; they were simply stretched for talent, willingness, and a genuine understanding of their role.
A second instance concerns the election of Elders. In this denomination, the church order added a few qualifications to the criteria for eldership, namely age and sex. Consequently, when the voting form was produced, every member of the congregation who met those two criteria was listed. Can you guess the number of candidates? We will give you a hint. They wanted to fill eight positions. No, you are probably not even close. The finished list exceeded eighty names. Yes, 80, just for clarification.
A third instance involves a visiting VIP. In the worship service children, and possibly women, read the Scriptures. This was a new event in this congregation, not witnessed up until this time. Upon viewing this, a concerned citizen who was due to preach, and whose identity will be kept secret to protect the …, wrote to the elders raising this issue, insisting that, according to Scripture and the Confessional standards of the denomination, qualified men alone should read the Scriptures in worship. Their response? The concerned citizen was disinvited to preach 36 hours before worship and upon turning up to worship was confronted with an elder’s wife reading Scripture. The concerned left. The next week another woman got up and read the Scriptures. The association was terminated soon thereafter.

Of importance, though, is the reaction. It was antagonistic and ungodly. Rather than talk, instruct, counsel, or listen, these Elders responded with vitriol and hostility and then began to parade their error in a manner not heretofore seen. In short, they acted from pride and were simply happy to see a family driven out of worship, rather than act in a Biblically sound manner.[2]

The fourth instance is a general instance. In a certain Reformed heritage, it is commonplace for ruling elders to do a “reading” service if the teaching elder (minister) is absent. This means that the Elder must read from a manuscript prepared by a minister. This practice is raised for two reasons. First, it has the tendency to turn the Reformed view of Eldership into an Episcopalian view. Second, this practice cuts the heart out of the Scriptural instruction which says that an Elder must be a “faithful man, who will be able to teach others”; able “both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”[3]
Lastly, we return to the statement above, wherein we were accused of “judging God”. In this discussion, the elder who opposed us was greatly displeased that we had dared to criticise the Elders’ stand. Discussions turned to all sorts of fancy – Who is perfect? So and so did not really stack up, but he turned out to be a good elder! Then, the words etched in our mind for good came to the fore when the standard of an elder’s family was raised. This elder responded with a “come back when you’ve got teenage children!” which seemed both then and now as though he wished that our family would fail just so that our stand would be proven wrong. This conversation only came to a close when we put before him this question – Does the Bible state that a prospective elder must meet certain criteria to be worthy of office? This chap was like a dog with a toffee. His mouth went round and round; lips pursed and danced, then came the affirmation, “Yes!” This man knew enough to know that the Bible did list the criteria for office, yet he fought tooth and nail to defend an indefensible position and an Eldership that had together abandoned the Biblical principles.

Okay, let’s move on. We have no desire to focus on the people herein represented. Sins offered, sins committed, we pray sins confessed, are all in the past and have all been dealt with by Jesus’ all powerful and cleansing blood. Rather, the intent is to look at the fallout of these “instances” and to make sure that we learn the lessons.

Ask yourself these questions: Are the eighty men in one congregation all Biblically qualified? On what authority does a Session / Consistory vote to “opt out” of their calling? Why would an elder who knows the Bible’s teaching in regard to an Elder’s qualifications fight that teaching? Why would a Session / Consistory react to a congregant with antagonism and in essence provoke that person publicly, so much so that they cannot worship and eventually leave the congregation? Lastly, why would denominations, knowing God’s instruction to Elders, limit their calling and thereby passively create a divide within the Eldership?

The one common answer to all these questions is: a defective view of Elders and Eldership! In the current context of our discussion on Biblical Counselling, we then must ask, “What is the outcome of this deficiency? Answer: The sheep suffer!!

Not properly vetting the candidates for Eldership means that the standards are not upheld and that ungodly and unable men are elected to office. When a Consistory / Session votes not to fulfill their calling, then there are no guardians of the flock. When Elders argue against the clear teachings of Scripture in order to hide their errors, it is an act of pride that robs the sheep of protection and blessing. When a Consistory / Session acts in an antagonistic fashion, then they are guilty of driving sheep into the dangers of the wilderness.[4] Lastly, when denominations adopt practices that divide the Eldership in an unBiblical manner, why are we surprised when the bulk of the Eldership are viewed disparagingly as second rate and are, therefore, not esteemed by the sheep? Similarly, why are we surprised when the ‘exalted’ ones end up burnt-out or on stress leave because the “workload is just too much!”

In all this the sheep suffer. In all this the cause of Christ suffers. In all of this the very Elders and Elderships themselves suffer. Each failing is of great concern because it plays into the hands of those who argue that Eldership needs supplementation by the university trained.[5] These deficiencies help to give rise to the “Christian Counselling” phenomena that is rife at the moment.

As anecdotes alone prove little, let us explain the detriment of these anecdotes by relating them to the commands and instructions given in Scripture—our ultimate and only authority. Regarding Elders and Eldership, Scripture states:[6]

1 Timothy 3:1-7: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9: For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

1 Timothy 5:17-20: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.

“If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires” – How many elders are selected and elected on the basis that they genuinely “aspire” to be an elder? How many assent simply because it is their turn and it is expected of them? How many accept the role because they are interested simply in status? How many of the eighty had this aspiration?
“Above reproach… temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable… not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money” – My wife tells the story from her youth in which several elders were drunk at a wedding – no censure. How many elders do you know who are truly wise (prudent)? When was the last time an elder invited you home for a meal or showed hospitality simply because he cared? Pugnacious and uncontentious – we know of more than one situation in which an elder failed this test. Havoc was wreaked, yet the one not measuring to the standard was left in office, in some cases while others around resigned because of stress and the unworkable situation. What of the “love of money”? How many elders put their businesses before their calling and duty? How many elders try to “keep up with the Jones’” and therefore find themselves less inclined to put in the necessary time to pastoral care?
“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion” – This criterion is crucial, yet how often is it insisted upon? How many are elders with young children? Have they displayed adequate evidence to be qualified for the position of Elder? What of the old adage, too often true, that “the minister’s children are the most misbehaved”? How do we think we will find blessing at the hand of God if we are disobedient to such a fundamental criterion? Equally, if family is such an important marker with regards to eligibility for Eldership, why does the job often strain those families? What then does this say in regard to families having a sense of call and duty?[7]
“Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict; able to teach” – In our experience, this would have to be one of the most disobeyed commands when dealing with Eldership. This is also one of the practical failings associated with the divide in the Eldership – when we call one ‘minister’ and the others ‘elder’. One is expected to know at a higher level, the others can be “also-rans” because they have someone to fall back upon. If Elders and the Eldership are to be a true collective, then there needs to be obedience to this command. The Elder must be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error. He must be able to preach and construct a sermon or a series of instructions. This is his job! Why is this so important?—“For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach, for the sake of sordid gain”(Titus 1:10-11). Likewise, this divide robs and debilitates. Why do we ring “the minister” when we have a problem? Why do we not call our Elder or any Elder? Subconsciously, and maybe not so subconsciously, we have created a divide within the Eldership, which cuts against the very principal of “the plurality of Elders.” This divide, as noted, has relegated some to the status of “also-rans” and in so doing has robbed them of the ability to have true pastoral input. Such a situation defeats the whole point of having a “plurality of elders” and in essence relegates these men to the position of administrators or “rubber stamp” applicators.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” – Several issues are raised here. First, why is it only the minister who, in our modern world, is paid? Why do we never consider paying Elders in general? If an Elder must make a living from other means, it stands to reason that he must then have limited time to devote to being an Elder. In one denomination, this irony was marveled at—the church rules allowed for an organist to be paid, but never mentioned anything of this sort for the Elders, outside of the minister! Second, does this teaching undermine the point above? No. All Elders stand on an equal footing. Their roles may differ, but when honour is due, it must be given. Note the plural, please – the elders who… are worthy of double. Not just the minister or an Elder who preaches or teaches, but all Elders who do their job well. Now, the word for honour can and often does mean “money” or “price”. Interpretations vary, but the context cannot mean that monetary considerations are excluded, otherwise Paul’s analogy of the ox and labourer are irrelevant. Equally, if the excellent Elder is worthy of double, does this not suggest that they already receive, or, at least, should receive something? Might this also be a reason for Paul’s caution that the Elder be “free from the love of money?”
“Not a new convert, lest he become conceited” – At this point, we would like to take a different tack. If the Elder is to be able, then he must be one who has grown through instruction into Christ’s likeness. The question often pondered is, “How many Elders are “new converts” even though they have been in the Church for decades?” In other words, how many have been elected to office because they have been in the Church for decades, yet, practically speaking, they are new converts because they have not grown and blossomed?[8]

The closing point, relevant to our whole discussion, comes from James. There we read this instruction: Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit.[9]

This text is important for our discussion because it provides a Biblical framework for our understanding of Biblical psychology and, in that context, an understanding of healing and wellbeing.

Let us look at the constituent parts of this text. James first refers to someone who is suffering. The remedy? Turn to God and pray. Next James addresses the cheerful person. His counsel is to sing praises to God. Please note, at this point, the place that God holds. Both prayer and praise are to be unto God. In other words, we must see that life, all life, ups and downs, is directly connected to God. In affliction we turn to the One, and only One, who is able to rectify or change that situation. We turn to the only One who can provide patience, endurance, steadfastness, and victory.[10] Similarly, recognising that this world of sin has many dangers and discouragements, we should sing praises unto God when we are able to be of a cheerful disposition by God’s providential care.[11]

Next James addresses sickness. It is necessary to grasp the fact that the term for sickness means “weakness” and can, therefore, be thought of as any malaise or precursor to sickness. It is used of those who are physically ill as well as those who are spiritually ill. This is important for us in that it divorces this current discussion from some of the more perverted views on “healing” and places the discussion fairly and squarely in the realms of genuine pastoral care.

In advancing our understanding, we need to begin by comparing the cases presented. In the first instance, the “suffering” one encounters the trials and tribulations of life. This “suffering” or “hardship” is a physical reality, but it is one that does not penetrate the person, so to speak. For example, Paul speaks of this “hardship” in the context of his imprisonment.[12] Whilst wronged and confined, Paul was still well, physically and spiritually.

In these cases, James instructs the person to pray. The Christian in such circumstances is called upon to apply his energies to resolving the situation or overcoming the situation through prayer; through his personal prayers.

By comparison, the “sick” one is obviously infirmed in body and soul. His malaise is of a greater degree and has evidently impacted body and soul. This seems to be shown by the fact that he is “to call” or summon the elders to himself. Apparently, he is unable to make his way to them. This interpretation is also backed up by the phrase “and the Lord shall raise him up.”

Here, then, we view an individual who is weighed down and is oppressed to such a degree that they are bedridden or housebound. They are in need of added help.

What is that help? It is prayer! Is this not a marvelous statement? The cure, if you will, in both cases is identical. Prayer. The only difference is in who is and how many are praying. When it comes to the “weak” one, the “big guns” are called in to help in this situation. Now, we are not saying that this individual is not to pray for himself; indeed he should and he must. What we are saying, however, is that the elders add something that is missing. We could speculate, but let us be content to stand on this foundation – the elders are called to prayer.

Before moving on, we must ask the pointed question: Do our elders pray? No, I am not talking about the five second verbiage that is required by constitutions to open and close a meeting; I am talking about serious, earnest, wrestling before the Throne of Grace. Let me ask another pointed question for clarification: How often does your eldership meet specifically for prayer? Indeed, does your eldership ever meet just to pray?

These questions are raised precisely because the text raises them. This whole pericope, verses 13-18, focus on prayer. Prayer is the key to understanding. People get hung up on the “oil” or on the verb “to save” or on the “raise up”, but these are really side issues. “Hardship” sufferer – pray! “Weak one” – pray! Elders – pray! ‘Oh yes, just in case you still don’t grasp the importance of this “prayer” concept,’ says James, ‘consider this dude Elijah. He was pretty big stuff in his day. He prayed and shut the heavens. He prayed and he opened the heavens. So successful was his prayer that the earth brought for its produce.’ James then adds, ‘Well just in case you are tempted to say, “Oh, but he was a mighty prophet!” consider the fact that he was a man, just like us.’

Please read and reread this text to note this point. The whole pericope hinges on prayer. The Christian is to pray. The elders are to pray. Encouragement in this area is drawn from the prophet Elijah. But wait, there is more …! Note even the example of Elijah has a bearing upon the need for prayer. Elijah shut the heavens. Life and vitality dwindled. Hardship comes upon all the people of Israel. Food was scarce. Water was not in abundance. The land withered.[13] Is this not a picture of the “weak” or “sick” one? Vitality is sapped from the bones. Life withers. In essence, death awaits. However, when the prophet prayed, the rains came and the earth produced its fruit in abundance. Similarly, when the elders prayed to their Lord,[14] He heard from heaven and raised up the weak one. The prayer of the righteous brought an abundance of life.

In finishing with this text, we need to make one further statement. Because there are perverted views on healing abounding in the Church today, it is important that we back up our statements with other Scriptures. One in particular springs to mind: “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”[15] In this text, Jesus’ disciple met a challenge. They had tried to “cast out” a demonic force – a feat Jesus completed – but they failed. In giving instruction to His disciples, Jesus noted that “this kind” had to be prayed out, not cast out.

This text, and its parallel in Matthew 17:14ff, are instructive in that there is some correlation with the teaching of James. In Matthew, the disciple failed because of faith.[16] James refers to the “prayer of faith”. In Mark 9:27, Jesus, having rebuked the evil spirit, takes the boy by the hand and “raises him up”. As we have already noted, whilst the elders pray, it is the Lord Who raises up the weak one.

Thus, it seems to this writer that James is doing nothing more than applying His Master’s teaching to real life. James is not urging flights of fancy, but obedience to all that Jesus commanded. James is not dealing with the ethereal and the contents of the “too hard basket”, but with the everyday reality of powerful pastoral care in a fallen world.

To round out these comments even further would be to add unnecessary tedium. However, some words of application are in order.

We have argued that the Church does not need “university trained” experts. On the contrary, the Church needs to return to a Biblical understanding of pastoral care and of those primarily responsible for pastoral care. We need nothing short of godly, obedient, faithful men who will implement the Master’s teaching. We need men who are genuinely called by God, who have a sense of this calling, and who are willing to live up to that calling.

University training may fill the head, but it rarely fills the heart.[17] In short, university does not train men in the knowledge of God, practical godliness, personal holiness, or the art of spiritual warfare. The psychology texts will not mention the Armour of God or the necessity of prayer.[18] They will not mention Satan and his hatred of God’s people; yet, these so called “trained” ones will dare to step into the arena and demand to be heard because they have the goods! Not likely. These have been deceived by the father of lies and if they are allowed to peddle their wares they will but deceive others. Indeed, they have deceived and are currently deceiving many. One of those deceptions is – Elders are passé!

To meet such a challenge, the Church of Christ must reform. She must return to a diligent study of God’s word and be prepared to learn from God. In short, listening to the whole counsel of God, the Church must allow the Head of the Church to do the teaching and instructing on these issues.

First, when Jesus walked this earth, He did not need a psyche degree. Jesus did not insist that His followers go to Ichabod University and gain a degree so that they could serve. No, Jesus gave something far greater. Jesus gave His Word and His Spirit! Thus, when we insist that the Church needs something newer and greater – especially something designed by the world – we are displaying a haughty spirit of the most grievous kind; a spirit that essentially says that God does not know what He is doing.

Think here of the woman at the well. How different would the account of that interaction be if we allow for the moment that Jesus was a psychologist instead of the Saviour? The psychologist would not have upbraided her. That might impact upon self-esteem. The psychologist would not have passed comment on the multiple husbands, for that is really a moral judgement and outside the scope of the discussion. If comment were made in regard to the husbands, it would probably have been to explore the links to a derelict father who gave her such a poor view on men or some such.

You see, Jesus the Saviour stopped her at every turn and confronted her with the reality of God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It was through this paradigm that Jesus was “perceived to be a prophet” and that the door to further discussion was opened. This in turn led this woman to approach the men of the town with the result that many believed.

Would Jesus the psychologist have changed this town in like manner?

Second, Jesus knew that Man’s plight is spiritual and that it is based in warfare. Some years ago, praise be to God, R. C. Sproul Junior was used to open my eyes to this when he focused upon those words in Genesis – I will pit enmity …! These are God’s words. It is our God who issued the war cry and it is this holy war cry that defines human history and human eternity. This whole concept is probably best captured in the title of a book by the late Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. Thus, when the moderns come to the fore with their theories, do you ever ask, “Whose side are you on?” Do we take Scripture seriously and “test the spirits”[19] or do we just take “his word for it”?

Now this may seem a bit too Charismatic or Pentecostal for some, if so, please read John. Why do we test the spirits? “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world!” If we do not put forth the test, how do we know if we are dealing with a false prophet or not?

Third, this brings us directly to the need for qualified and obedient Elders. Another name for Elders is “shepherds”. The term shepherd is really a job description.[20] As such, it tells us that the shepherds should be out to shoot the lions, bears, and wolves that come to attack Christ’s sheep. The shepherds are to feed and care for the sheep. Here, again, we are brought back to the Biblical criteria. To feed the sheep, the shepherds must be able to teach. To bring cure and ward of harm, the Elders must be able to exhort in sound doctrine and be able to refute error. The Elders must, as good shepherds, be able to pick up and carry those sheep that are week and ill so that they are removed from danger and placed in a position in which they can fully recover.

Fourth, to come anywhere near to achieving these outcomes, our Elders must be godly, faithful men who have the right Biblical experience. For example, if war breaks out, we do not rally behind the lowest ranked private who has just arrived in boot camp, do we? No, we look for a man who has years of experience and preferably experience in battle.

Thus, we need to take a long hard look at our practices in regard to electing Elders and we need to ask some tough questions. Here is a little list:

Is term Eldership Biblical? Now, my brothers will be on the defensive, but here is the curve ball. Most who practice term Eldership expect that the teaching elder accepts his call as a permanent obligation. They do not allow him to have a year off after every third year of service. Hmmm! So, do we have a consistent view of the plurality of elders? Equally, such a system puts a strain on the talent pool within a congregation and will lead to men being ‘tapped on the shoulder’ when they are not really qualified. Similarly, this pressure tempts congregations to fiddle with the Biblical criteria.
How serious are we in regard to the Biblical criteria? St Angus of Garvoc used to speak often of “having runs on the board”. In other words, there had to be evidence. Do we look for the evidence that the men for whom we are voting have met the Biblical criteria? How many of the eighty, mentioned above, were Biblically qualified? Did the Session / Consistory responsible for that election make any effort to find out? No, they did not.

Did the elder, mentioned above, who argued over Biblical criteria have God’s perspective or Man’s when he argued so? Obviously, Man’s. The question then becomes, “Why?” The answer seems to be the old catch 22 situation. Elders who were not elected according to Biblical criteria do not know that criteria or understand the importance of that criteria, therefore they fall back upon “their experience” rather than God’s command. Consequently, these men, well-meaning though they be, are either unable to raise the bar or simply do not see the need to raise the bar. In a worst case scenario, it is more than probable that pride plays its part. These men are unwilling to lift the bar because it is a tacit admission that they have not measured up. Either way, the simple reality is that if Elders in Elderships do not see the need for change, and personal change at that, then we will not see the reforms that we so desperately need.

Therefore, it must be asked in all solemnity, “Are we as Christ’s Church willing to take the Biblical criteria for Eldership seriously and demand that our shepherds be measured by and comply with these standards?” This is the only question that really matters.

Yes, you can fire the: “Oh no one’s perfect!” or “He is looking for the ideal or perfect Church!” etc; yet the reality of the situation remains the same – these are God’s standards for God’s officers in God’s Church! This writer did not invent these standards so that he could write an article; they are God’s revealed will for His people.

Consider this a little more. Did God give impossible standards to His Church? Surely God, of all beings, knows only too well that all Adam’s sons of natural progeny are imperfect. Jesus was well aware of the imperfections of His disciples. Yet, the Godhead wrote these standards to imperfect, but sanctified and holy, men for the betterment of His Church and people.

Similarly, we know that there will not be an “ideal” Church this side of glory. However, there is not one passage in Scripture that tells us that because this reality is not attainable now that it should not be our goal or ideal! Unless the Bible I read is faulty, there are no passages that say, “Give up. It is all futile!” The text reads, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” not “I cannot do a thing for no one strengthens me.”

Much rather, Scripture says, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. We are encouraged to “run the race” and to persevere so that “no one takes our crown”, and just like Jesus, we are to be “overcomers”. All this is possible because, “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

Therefore, any and all negative arguments that are used to halt the progress of the Church must be dismissed. This is especially the case when these arguments are used to justify the Church’s noncompliance to Her Biblical obligations. God’s word is clear. Elders are appointed by God to shepherd His blood bought sheep. They are appointed to shoot wolves. They are appointed to clean up fly strike. They are appointed to search out the lost sheep. They are appointed to carry the lame. They are appointed to trim the dags.

This is the calling of the Elder. If, therefore, you are not willing to pick up a gun; deal with the nauseating; burn up some shoe leather; bend you back; or get your hands dirty, then do not put up your hand or the hand of someone equally unwilling when they call for nominations. If you are an Elder and you realise that you are not suitably qualified, you have two choices. First, ask forgiveness of God and then pray earnestly that you will live up to and exceed criteria. Second, resign – but only after you have made your case so that those who remain will not repeat the same mistake.

Brethren, a look around the Church, no matter what denomination, shows that we are in serious trouble. We do not see the blessing of God and the forward progress of the Church. The reason for this is manifold, yet certain trends can be discerned. Chief among these is that the Elders or, if it is more acceptable, the office-bearers have abdicated their responsibilities in regard to being guardians of the sheep. That is to say, the teaching Elders no longer preach the whole counsel of God. Many have become mere ear ticklers.

Let me give a very recent example. Locally a Creation Seminar was run. Approach was made to a minister to see about hosting the event. He commented that while he supported the idea a number in his congregation did not. Therefore, he declined. Question. If he is the preacher and he believes in the literal account of Genesis, then how will the sheep in his care ever be taught this truth if he will not preach on it? If the preacher never preaches on a Biblical topic because of a few dissenters, how will the truth be proclaimed? If Biblical topics are avoided because of a few dissenters, then how long will it be before the Church is bereft of all orthodoxy?

Brethren, the point is simple. If the preachers do not preach the whole counsel of God and call God’s people to belief, we will wither and die. If the Elders will not shepherd God’s sheep to this same standard, then the sheep will be torn by ravenous animals, will fall ill, will fall into snares, will remain lost, and will die of exposure – for there will be none to care, none to aid, none to warn!

We must, therefore, repent and return to the ideal of God’s word and insist that Elders meet the criteria laid down in Scripture.

Lastly, a few words to the non-elders. Whilst this article aims at seeing a radical change in the Eldership through the strict implementation of the Biblical criteria for those to be elected as Elders, those who are not and will never be Elders are not exempt from this challenge. In most systems, it is you who will cast a vote. So, are you voting correctly?

Similarly, like a political election, we may say a few prayers around polling day, but do we continue to pray for our Elders. It is easy to knock when things go awry, but have we been praying? Do you pray for the Elders that have charge over you? Do you name them before God’s throne on a regular basis? Do you regularly pray for the Consistory / Session as a whole? It may be worth remembering how Aaron and Hur held up Moses’ hands so that the battle went in Israel’s favour.

Thus, do not underestimate your role in this reform process. You too need to be acutely aware of the Biblical criteria for Eldership. You need to be willing to ‘stick to your guns’ and ask that only qualified men be put on the voting list. You need to resist popularity contests, family and political cliques, and the pressure to maintain the status quo. If you agree with the thrust of these articles, then begin to pray that these reforms will be realised in your midst and before your eyes.

Conclusion:

This series was sparked by comments in a Reformed publication suggesting that the Elders of the Church needed to be supplemented by the university trained. This led us on a journey to explore worldviews and to explain why, on the basis of worldviews, the Church could not embrace any form of Secularism.

In the end, the conclusion of the matter is that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ does not need anything new and it most certainly does not need the latest proffering from the World. What is needed is Reform! We must repent of our failings and return to the standards specified in God’s word. We must stop making excuses to condone our sin and we must begin to seek blessing through righteousness. In other words, if there are no suitable candidates in our midst, we do not fiddle with the Biblical requirements; we get down on our knees and ask God to provide someone suitable.

The words of Paul are apt here – there is no authority but from God and those who oppose the ordinance of God will come under judgement![21] These words are not to unbelievers, but are addressed to all. Hence, we must take the warning seriously. Just as Peter was rebuked because he argued contrary to God’s desire,[22] so we too will be rebuked and judged if we stiff-neckedly pursue our own agendas. There is no excuse for disobedience. Faith is the mark of the Christian; disobedience is the mark that faith and belief are missing.

Therefore, let us return to the position of faith and obedience. Let us only put men into Eldership who are worthy according to the Biblical criteria. Let us resist all efforts to supplant God’s Elders and God’s order. Let us wait on God alone and stand in awe as we behold His marvellous benefits and His manifold answers to the prayers of the righteous.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Whilst these words are specific to Reformed denominations, they also hold an element of truth for all denominations. The simple reality is that the Biblical data has been set aside and most in Church government have been measured by an alternative form. My father had a conversation with a gentleman from outside the Reformed camp who stated that his “denomination was now turning out administrators, not pastors.”

[2] See Jeremiah 44:15-19 for what seems to be an excellent parallel. When these people were confronted by the prophet they stubbornly defended their idolatry rather than repent.

[3] 2 Timothy 2:2 and Titus 1:9.

[4] Jeremiah 23:1.

[5] It must also be said that these malaise make for a weak and feeble Church that does not adequately fulfil her mission in obedience to Jesus.

[6] These are not the only texts that relate to Elders and Eldership, but they are among the most well known and will be used because they speak directly to the issue.

[7] Though there is some debate regarding the translation of 1 Timothy 3:11, it seems, in the context, no small thing that Paul addresses himself to the wives of office-bearers. The “two shall become one” says God, yet how often is Eldership “his thing” and the wife remains detached?

[8] It must be remembered that time does not equal growth. It is hoped that it would, but it is by no means a certainty. Therefore, we must truly investigate to see that genuine growth in Jesus Christ has taken place. We need to become “fruit inspectors”!

[9] James 5:13-18.

[10] Psalm 23; Psalm 145:18; Psalm 46:1-3; Psalm 70:5; Psalm 121.

[11] Romans 12:15.

[12] 2 Timothy 2:9.

[13] 1 Kings 18:2b.

[14] John 16:24.

[15] Mark 9:29.

[16] The words “this kind can only come out by prayer” are considered to be an addition to Matthew.

[17] This is not a head / heart distinction popular in many circles. Rather, it is aimed at highlighting the difference between knowledge and practice; the difference between learning about God and learning God; the difference between academia and practical and personal holiness.

[18] Ephesians 6:10-17.

[19] 1 John 4:1.

[20] Acts 20:28.

[21] A paraphrase of Romans 13:1-2.

[22] Matthew 16:23.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.7)

Posted on March 4, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Loose ends and clarification)

In this article, it is our intention to deal with a few loose ends. Specifically, we would like to deal briefly with the concepts of Sin and the Medical Model and then conclude with a few words on psychology.

7.1. Sin is the Cause.

When the documentation regarding Counselling is reviewed, it is soon apparent that the Doctrine of Sin is central to the argument. In essence, three positions are evident, a) Sin is the cause; b) Sin might be the cause; and c) Sin is not the cause.

In relation to c), it must be noted that the denial of sin as causative is usually accompanied by an explicit and overt denial of sin as a reality. This is the position taken by the Secularists. It is a position that is completely at odds with Scripture. Thinking back to the Biblical worldview, we have God is, Creation, Fall …! It is the Fall, the entrance of sin into this world, that undoes the Creation and brings strained relationships, erroneous thought patterns, and faulty reference points into being. Similarly, some may use the term sin, but reinterpret it so that it comes to mean an innate dissatisfaction with oneself rather than being a state of lawlessness—rebellion against God’s Law (1 John 3:4). Thus, these views are to be rejected; having no basis in Scripture they should never be found in the Christian’s thought pattern.

In regard to b), some well-meaning folk choose to limit the extent of sin. They take the Bible’s statements concerning sin seriously; however, they end up, for various reasons, limiting the extent, power, and prevalence of sin. When this position is embraced, it inevitably leads to the adoption or quasi-adoption of c). The practitioner who limits the extent, power, and prevalence of sin, must, as a consequence, believe that the problem encountered can have its source elsewhere; therefore they must seek a corrective that either dismisses sin or which limits the prevalence and influence of sin.

It is at this point that we encounter the Medical Model in regard to psychology and counselling.[1] The Medical Model, in essence, renders the patient blameless and innocent. At its core, in very simplified terms, is the idea that problems come upon us from uncontrollable external sources. As these external sources were not rationally chosen by the individual, the individual can, therefore, refuse to accept any responsibility for either his exposure or the consequences of his exposure.[2] Think here of a man. He is fit and healthy. Upon going to work, he meets a friend who is ailing. The friend inadvertently sneezes on our man, contaminating him with the virus, causing our man to call in sick the following day. When questioned as to why he is sick, our man can reply, “It’s not my fault. Friend sneezed on me!”

In a similar way, the Medical Model looks for these external, uncontrollable, and unavoidable occurrences in the patient’s life as a means of explaining and healing the manifestations of “the virus” that has been unleashed upon him. Such factors may be parentage, environment, social status, religion, governmental, anatomical, or anything that comes into view.

The essence of the point can be refined down to this syllogism: Choice or Decision precedes responsibility; I did not choose or decide for option (…); therefore I am not responsible for option (…)! As can readily be seen, this is an extremely dangerous philosophy. Consider the fact, as one example, that all our significant beginnings in life are not chosen by us—our birth, our sex, our parents, our location, our government,[3] and so on. Thus, in a world where “personal choice” is the new god, absolution is given to the most wicked and depraved of individuals on the basis that they did not choose to be born … etc, etc, and so on ad nauseam!

The detrimental impact of this philosophy is evident all around us, especially in our so-called Justice System. How many people have not been punished or held to account because of this belief system? How many times have you heard of a crime committed, a person apprehended, only to hear that said individual is being sent for a “psychiatric assessment”? How often do you hear a litany of reasons as to why this person should not be held to account even though they are clearly guilty of the crime committed? How many times are irrelevant and extenuating circumstances brought forth in order to excuse guilt and lessen punishment? This is the Medical Model at work.[4] This is Man’s attempt to diagnose and treat himself apart from God. Therefore, when Christians adopt such a model, in part or in whole, to that degree they must abandon the truth as God has revealed it to us.

Turning our attention to proposition a), we are left with this as the only tenable position based on God’s revelation. Sin is, has been since the Fall, and will be until Christ’s return, the root of all Man’s problems. As soon as this statement is made, one can hear the vociferous choir of dissent warming in the background. “What about …? Explain this …? Science has proven …!” and an assortment of related questions and exclamations. Even the well meaning Christian will chime in with, “I read in John 9 of the blind man. Jesus disciples asked, ‘Who sinned?’ and Jesus said ‘No one!’ so how do you claim that sin is always the root of Man’s problems?”

In answer to such opposition, it must be remembered that we are primarily talking worldviews and presuppositions. In regard to John 9, the specific answer is that the disciple posed a ‘cause and effect’ question based on their outlook to life. This man is blind. Blindness is an abnormality. Abnormalities occur as a result of God’s judgement of sin[5]. Thus, they logically asked, ‘who sinned?’ Jesus, in answering with the word “neither”, does not say that sin is not present, that sin did not cause the man’s blindness, nor that the man is sinless. Jesus’ answer simply denies the assertion made. In this case, the blindness is not attributable to a specific sin by the man or his parents. Yet, as we know from Scripture, blindness comes to men physically as a result of sin and indeed such physical blindness becomes a metaphor for of our sinful estate – spiritual blindness.[6]

Here, it is important that we distinguish “sin” from “personal guilt”. All men are sinners – their beings are ravaged by sin. The world has been radically altered by the entrance of sin – chaos instead of peace; estrangement rather than fellowship. However, this does not necessarily mean that when something bad / chaotic befalls a person that the person is paying the penalty for a personal infraction. Examples are that of Job and of the man in John 9, currently before us. Neither of these men was considered to be “personally guilty” or to be paying the penalty for a “personal infraction”. In fact, just the opposite is true in both cases. These men underwent trial in order that they might learn a substantive truth concerning God. However, that does not mean that “sin” was not present in terms of being an exploitative defect. The man of John 9 was blind. Blindness does not occur in perfection. Job’s children died, his livestock were stolen, his servants slain. Death, thievery, and murder are abnormalities caused by the entrance and presence of sin. Hence, the absence of personal culpability does not mean, by any stretch, the absence of sin.

It is important that this point be grasped. Those who rail against men like Jay Adams, often do so because of the emphasis placed on sin. However, their rants are fuelled by the misconception that sin equals personal guilt. Now, to be sure, in some cases personal guilt is also present, however, in all cases sin is present.

This leads us to consider another informative aspect of John 9. When Jesus instructs His disciples ‘that neither the man nor his parents had sinned’ causing the man’s blindness, Jesus does us the courtesy of explaining the situation and ending the drama. Says Jesus, in effect, “This man is blind in order that God will be glorified.” This statement is profound, to say the least, and is worthy of some attention.

Consider Jesus’ statement in light of all that has been discussed in this series so far:

God is; (Jesus affirms the fundamental starting point of the Biblical worldview.)
God has a plan; (God is Sovereign.)
God’s plan involves men; (Man is governed.)
God’s plan involves men whether they understand that or not; (God works through men for His glory even in the most adverse circumstances.)
God’s glory supersedes Man’s glory. (Man is always the creature and must glorify his Creator.)
God displays His glory, design, and purposes in His sin affected creatures. (God works in, with, and through fallen Man in order to better display the awesome wonder of His Being.)

If we try and put these points into a sentence, it would read something like this: “Though sin has entered the world and severely marred Man as a consequence, diminishing him greatly, yet God’s power, plans, and purposes are by no means diminished or thwarted; allowing God, the absolute Sovereign, to display His glory through and in such marred creatures.”

This may sound like we have forgotten the topic in hand and wandered off in to a vague theological discussion. Not so. Throughout this series, we have laboured the point of presuppositions, of letting the Bible speak, and of judging all things by God’s revelation. We even went so far as to challenge the reader to understand what Christian writers mean by the terms “Biblical” and “authoritative”. We did so precisely because they are important and that importance is now on display.

John 9 clearly educates us on a number of important issues, not least of which, in regard to counselling, is the fact that in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted in order to display God’s glory. We might take this one step further and say: in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted by God as a means of showing Man his spiritual bankruptcy and his need of God’s salvation’ which can also be, at times, a precursor to God graciously bestowing that salvation. Examples of this can be found in Naaman the Aramean (2 Kings 5), Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 4:34-37); these pointing forward to and culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ, Messiah, and the testimony that, “He healed them, so that the multitude marveled as they saw the dumb speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel” (Matthew 15:31).

Therefore, when we deny the Biblical worldview, and the fact that God is, we not only deny the doctrine of sin, but we deny God as the Sovereign. In denying God as Sovereign, we deny the fact that Man’s afflictions have a higher purpose and end than just that of “hardship”. In God’s providence, that affliction may lead to a gracious encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and to the bestowal of life eternal.

Think this through. If God is not and the Fall never happened, as the Secularists espouse, then there is no genuine and absolute explanation for suffering and of why things go awry in this world. This means that a person’s affliction can have no higher end than that of being a personal affliction. That is it. There is no superior purpose, grand scheme, or big picture. It also means that there is no hope in the form of a higher Being’s interposition. The only hope comes from a fallen Man who is afflicted in the same manner as you are.

Hence, we must understand that man’s insistence on “Choice” is just an echo and reverberation from the Garden. It is Man again asserting that he has the right to be Sovereign over his own life. It is Man once more opposing God’s sovereignty.

In John 9, we witness a man who had been “blind from birth”. He had spent years without the ability to enjoy the aspects of life that others took for granted. Think of this. He never experienced something as simple as his mother’s smile or her eyes light up when he had achieved something significant. He ended up begging in the streets. This was his life and his existence. Decades[7] of darkness, fear, disappointment. Then, one day, there is movement beside him. He hears a conversation. The voices of strangers? Maybe not. Possibly he had heard this voice before preaching a better message. Next thing he is touched. A stranger has put mud on his eyes. He is now commanded to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. He does so without question. As the mud disappears from his eyes, he is overwhelmed by light. For the first time in his life he sees!

All of the agonies that this man faced now pale. He has come face to face with God’s true prophet, Jesus Christ. His physical blindness has been removed. He receives sight, physically and spiritually. He knew God was behind his blindness and his sight. Now is God glorified, because this man believes in Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God! Now is God glorified, for this man’s seeing becomes a testimony to the truth of Jesus’ claims.

The point is very simple. By Divine providence this man was born blind because of sin and corruption which entered through the Fall. This man was appointed a time; a time to be born, a time to wait, a time to be healed, and a time to be freed. All of these times were appointed by God and for His glory. Read John 9! Note Jesus’ words, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.” The blind man was one of God’s works! Just as Jesus came at the appointed time,[8] so this man was, by God’s sovereign power, appointed a time and an affliction. His time coincided with Jesus’ time. Saviour and sinner meet by Divine providence and the sinner receives the gifts of healing and salvation. God is glorified. God’s Saviour, Jesus, is honoured and worshipped.

The blind man’s affliction led him to a direct and compassionate encounter with Jesus. In the end, nothing is said of his years of affliction, he simply rejoices at meeting the Son of Man and bows in worship.

The pointed question for us moderns is, “How many people miss out on healing and freedom, true healing and freedom, because the Secular model does not allow for sin or the fact that people may suffer in order that God would be manifestly glorified when they are healed by Jesus, Son of Man and Son of God?” By removing God, the Biblical worldview, and the doctrine of sin from modern counselling, we remove the Divine response and answer to sin. Therefore, such counselling is ultimately useless because it will never declare the one true answer, Jesus Christ.

7.2. Psychology.

The second point of clarification that needs to be made is that psychology, in and of itself, is not wrong. Throughout this series we have resisted making this clarification in order to drive home a significant point. We questioned Jay Adams stand against psychiatry whilst allowing for psychology. We did so in order to make the same point: psychology has been hijacked!

To help the reader understand, allow us to draw a parallel with anthropology. If you open a standard systematic theology, you will usually find the term anthropology or a reference to ‘the doctrine of Man’. Anthropology, as a term, is derived from the Greek and means the study of Man (words about Man). When found is the context of theology, the study of Man is first of all passive. A picture and understanding of Man is given to us based on the paradigm God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It is this revelation that shows us what, who and why Man is.

If you compare this Biblical anthropology with the anthropology of modern universities, you will find little similarity. Modern anthropology does not or rarely discusses morals. God does not factor into the equation. Religion is defined as how “this” people understood the concept of god and worshipped in that context. The study is not based in revelation, but upon evolution. If you want an up close example, watch an episode or two of the television series, Bones.

In the same way, psychology, meaning a study of the soul (words about the soul), as it is commonly understood, has forsaken all Biblical roots. It is no longer a passive study that first listens to God’s revelation and then deals with Man in light of that revelation. No, this modern concept denies God from first to last. That is why we have, throughout this study, maintained the rage against psychology as understood by most people. The degradation is so radical and so complete that the Christian concept of psychology really needs a new term.[9]

In short, Biblical psychology is moral. As such, it accords perfectly with the point made above, sin is the cause. Biblical psychology, being moral, also means that it is based in law, God’s Law to be specific, and thus refers to an ultimate, absolute, and objective standard that is applicable to every Man. Sin is a transgression of God’s Law. Having transgressed, Man now fosters his state of rebellion by developing relative and subjective standards of morality by which he judges his own actions as ethical or not. This is not abstract theology, it is reality. It is the source of Man’s pain. Man, rejecting God’s Law and rule, seeks now to find happiness, contentment, and purpose by his own hand. However, he cannot escape the intrinsic fact that he is a created being living in his Creator’s world. He is an image bearer and everything he looks at in this world reminds him of God’s claims upon him. It is this that leads the soul of Man into conflict and which leads to anguish. In other words, Man, the image bearer now fallen, cannot escape God. Man thus invents false standards of morality that accord with and appease his conscience, yet none of these avail, for they only lead him into greater conflict within himself. Man is moral. He was created by a moral God. Man’s rebellion brings conflict, internal conflict, which cannot be ameliorated by the self-manufacture of morals that are more to his liking.

This point is clear when we consider the Bible’s view of psychology in comparison to that of the moderns. Adam and Eve, created in perfection, fellowshipped with God. They were both naked. Neither felt shame. They lived in the open. When Man rebelled, they immediately felt shame and they hid from God and each other. Their shame lead them to the inadequate measure of sowing fig leaves together and this simple act belied the fact that their mindset had been radically altered.

You see, my brethren, Man’s dual relationship with himself individually and corporately was always dependent upon his relationship with God. When Man sinned against God all other relationships were broken. Man’s path to restoration could only be in reconciliation to God. However, Man, now being left to a morality of his own making, rationalised that as he now felt shame in the presence of Man he could alleviate his shame by sewing fig leaves together. Phew! Disaster avoided. Man was content in the presence of Man – well that was until God turned up! Then Man had to go scurrying for cover and seek for himself an even greater “fig leaf” that would hide him from God.

When we look at the Biblical narrative, we see that fallen Man was content with a morality of his own making and a remedy to his conflict that was of his own design (sewn fig leaves). However, when God arrived on the scene in the fullness of His righteousness, Man’s efforts were shown to be futile. The lesson is simple. Why does modern psychology distance itself from God? Why does modern immoral psychology prevail? Because fallen Man, despite all his so-called advances, is still shown to be sewing fig leaves together and hiding behind them. The fig leaves seemingly work well in regard to Man’s relationship individually and corporately and Man is pleased with the level of peace this gives him. However, Man is keenly aware that God’s Almighty Eye penetrates fig leaves and thus Man erects signs which state, “God not allowed!” Man becomes hostile when he hears mention of the fact that God is in the vicinity because he knows that God’s Light will dry out the leaves and His Breath scatter the dried fragments, leaving Man, once more, naked and without excuse.

Therefore, we have maintained the rage against secular psychology because it has forsaken its Biblical roots. Biblical psychology is a welcome asset. It works with Elders because it is born out of Scripture. Biblical psychology understands sin and its effects upon this world and all in this world. Biblical psychology equips Elders to fulfil their God-given task as under-shepherds.

What true psychology does not do is supplant Elders and usurp their role. What true psychology does not do is force Elders into a holding pattern until something better comes forth from our secular universities. What true psychology does not do is label Eldership as passé—a concept of the past that is no longer fit or viable for the modern world. Christian, if your view of psychology suggests, hints at, or actively seeks the reality of any of these positions, even if it is not marketed in those words, then you are peddling a blasphemy. You need to repent because you are attacking the Church of Jesus Christ and seeking to inject into it nothing less than idolatry.

Elders, if you are peddling these concepts, then you are actively pulling the rug from under your own feet. You are destroying the very foundation on which you are to stand. You are part of the problem and not part of the cure. Repent. Believe God and take Him at His word. Reject the world’s philosophy and cling to that which has been taught by Christ. Jesus is the Church’s Head. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. Jesus knows what is best for His blood bought sheep.

Is it not time we took these words to heart: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.[10]

Shepherding Shepherds Part 8 (The Last in the Series)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is to be pointed out that the Medical model applies to c) as well. See Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p xvi-xvii for a brief discussion on the Medical Model.

[2] Here, we need to understand that most of the problems encountered by us are not actively chosen by us. So this is not the point of contention. The true point of contention is our accountability to and for the way we respond. Biblically, we are accountable for how we respond to any situation, whether it is of our choosing or not. This truth is summed up in the old adage, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right!’ In the Medical model, excuses are proffered on the basis that the individual did not choose what has befallen them or that, in the case where it is their own action that caused the grief, there was yet another catalyst that must be viewed as the prime cause.

[3] We often see this mentality expressed, in regard to the government, by the phrase, “Don’t blame me, I did not vote for them!”

[4] The Medical Model has been superseded in some ways today, but the basics remain. The supersession has to do, not so much with a change in philosophy, but with the way this philosophy has become endemic to society. Blame-shifting and excuse-making are rife.

[5] Deuteronomy 28:28.

[6] Note that in Matthew 23:16-26 Jesus labels the Pharisees as “blind” five times.

[7] Commentators debate over this person’s age. The phrase “he is of age” is claimed by some to mean that he had attained to 30 years of age; others to 13 years of age. It would seem that the person was older rather than younger from other facts. He was known to the people (v8). He is referred to as a “man” when there are a number of Greek words that could be applied if he were a child. This “manhood” seems to be evident from the man’s situation (begging) and his ability to reason with the Pharisees. Similarly, it is hard to conceive of parents so readily abandoning a 14 year old and leaving him at the mercy of these voracious Pharisees.

[8] Galatians 4:4.

[9] The term “Christian psychologist” is misleading because it does not equate to Biblical psychology, but to a dualistic or pluralistic position in which Christian principles are injected into a secular discipline or, more correctly, where secular principles are injected into a Biblical discipline. Think back to our illustration regarding Christian education in Part 2 of this series. Christian education is not the combination of a person who is a Christian and who also has a degree in education from the local university. No, a Christian teacher and a Christian education are those things that flow from, uphold, and apply the Christian worldview. Thus a true Christian education for example, will be given when the faithful mother, without a degree teaches her child that this world was created by God in six days. Christian education is not that which is taught in the Christian school by the teacher with a degree from a prestigious university when he says that God created via evolution or by long ages. So too, Christian psychology must begin with the Biblical worldview and its consistent application; not with the counsellor and what degrees he possesses.

[10] Proverbs 3:5-6.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy. Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Authority)

5. God’s Authority:

The next relevant aspect in regard to the Office of Eldership is that these men, being instituted by God, act with God’s authority. This point is critical, yet it is overlooked and often despised today.

To drive this home, let me ask this related question, “What makes preaching powerful?” The moderns will tend to answer this question by focusing on personalities, oratory, word skills, and dynamism. The orthodox and Reformed Christian will answer, “Authority!”

Why does the preacher preach? He is commissioned to that task. What makes the preacher’s voice or words any more relevant, convincing, or convicting? The answer is power through authority! To be specific, it is Jesus’ authority. The preacher is commissioned of God, thus, when he speaks, he speaks with the very voice of Christ. This it is that rouses dead hearts and brings rebellious hearts to heel. This it is that pierces seared consciences and makes them responsive. This it is that makes the Christian yield to sound counsel.[1]

Please understand, it is authority and authority alone that marks the preacher as different. Nothing else! He has no special quality in and of himself. His words are powerful because the Holy Spirit works through him so that his voice is Christ’s voice and his words Christ’s words.

In the same way, the commissioned elder rightly wields God’s authority. That which sets his administration apart – his rule, counsel, deliberations, intercession, and judgements – is not his qualities as a person[2], as such, but the fact that he speaks and acts not only with the authority of God, but as God Himself.[3] This means that the elder must be humble in his use of this power, but it equally means that we who sit under the elder must be humble so as to submit to God’s authority administered through the elder. The relevance of this for pastoral care is almost unfathomable, however, fathom we must.

The Word of Authority: This is to say, as we have suggested, that the elder speaking as elder is speaking authoritatively in the name and as an ambassador of God. This means that his counsel immediately stands above the counsel of others. It is not to say that it is necessarily different in kind, rather it is different in degree. Where one may readily dismiss a brother with a hasty, “That’s your opinion!” one cannot do so with the elder.
The Action of Authority: The above aspect is made all the more pertinent when we look at the concept of discipline. In Matthew 18 we note that the issue begins among the brothers. It then extends to the brethren as witnesses. At this point, we observer the difference in degree. The brethren may have sound counsel, but it goes unheeded. However, when the issue is escalated to the Church, to the elders, the ballgame, as they say, changes. Now the Word is spoken with Christ’s voice and authority. It is backed by the possibility of severe punishment and eternal consequence, all of which are sanctioned by Christ Jesus. Here, the counsel changes from a positive suggestion to an ought!
The Need of Authority: This then leads to the crux of the matter. Man is spiritually dead. Man can only be brought to life by the Divine command issued by the commissioned man. Illustrative of this is the text in which Ezekiel commands the dry bones to live.[4] Equally, as God’s children, we can still, in varying degrees, fall into sin and become hardened to the things of God.[5] In such circumstances, we too need the voice of authority to command us to awaken and repent. So it is that often the difference is not in the quality of the counsel given, but in the authority with which it is given; not kind, but degree. Importantly, it must be understood that we need the authoritative voice.[6] Sound counsel is not enough. Sound counsel given authoritatively is what is most necessary.[7]

Let us take these points and transfer them to the real world. Bill Bloggs, Christian and local member of the Church, goes to a Christian counsellor. Let us grant that the counsellor is indeed sound. He counsels Bill to leave his sin. Session after session he pleads with his brother to forsake this sin and be reconciled to Christ. Bill refuses. What next? The counsellor has no ability to sanction Bill. The counsellor does not possess the keys of the Kingdom. The counsellor has no juridical power. The counsellor cannot cast him out of the Church for his rebellion. In point of fact, the counsellor cannot even truly implement the process of Matthew 18.

Moreover, depending on how the counsellor operates, he could not take the matter to the Church, even if he desired to do so, because he would be in breach of privacy laws enacted by the State. In some cases, there would even be other factors in play that protect Bill’s indiscretion from finding its way to the Church.

In another scenario, Bill’s rebellion and unrepentant heart may lead to depression. As the counsellor has no other means at his disposal, he is left to simply medicate the symptoms. Bill is left in his rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion are simply masked by the application of medicines.

Therefore, we need to grasp the serious reality that when we step out from under God’s order and authority, we step into impotency. The so-called ‘Christian counsellor’ may counsel, but in the end he is impotent. The counsellor only has as much authority or power to realise change as the so-called patient will give him or the State allows. Thus, it is the sinner who effectively sits in the pilot’s seat and guides his craft to the destiny of his choosing. He hides behind State protections and only allows inputs to the craft’s control column that will not alter his desired course. The counsellor, Christian or otherwise, is ineffectual in these circumstances.

Now, as we have noted, some will find this difficult, but that does not alter the truth of the matter. If we look around us, we will already see that counsellors, Christian and otherwise, are being constrained by the secular laws under which they operate. This has clearly come to the fore in regard to those who counsel homosexuals. In some instances, and increasingly so, those whose counsel to homosexuals is “forsake the practice” are being shut down or muzzled. The State has defined the air corridor – effectively conjoining itself to the rebellious sinner/pilot – and in so doing does not allow inputs to the control column that would see the craft deviate from its course—even though it is evidently heading for a mountain. Thus, the counsellor bound to obey the State must bow to his master’s will; even the so-called Christian counsellor.[8]

Equally, we must address the sinner and state boldly that they too, in seeking out the uncommissioned are placing themselves in a position of impotency. They are walking away from the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[9] in which they can actually find help, power, strength, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Brother Posthuma rightly noted that some seek out the counsellor for anonymity.[10] This is understandable, but only to a minute degree; for we must ask as to the point of anonymity, if it also means impotency. Could it be that the anonymity sought is a guise in which one can soothe the troubled conscience without seeking a real remedy to the problem? Why would a person suffering from an ailment and supposedly seeking a cure, turn away from a medical centre simply because they were known at that clinic? Why seek out the backyard quack for the sake of anonymity when such action could prolong your suffering or lead to greater harm?[11] In point of fact, being known may lead to better, swifter, and more compassionate treatment.

The only genuine reason for anonymity is the fear of shame. After all, you only seek out a medical doctor anonymously if you have a medical condition or are in need of medical assistance because you are fairly certain that the condition arose out of a spurious circumstance. Similarly, you only seek out a counsellor anonymously when your spiritual circumstances are a result of spurious activities. Consequently, the whole counselling phenomena has, at its root, a faulty and unBiblical premise.

The reality is very simple. In turning from God’s order, we turn from God’s power and authority. As such, we turn to the impotent and embrace that which can never truly bring us the genuine help we need.

More coffee on the newspaper? If so, we are not sure why. Let us be frank. In Psychiatry, it is well known that many of the problems are medicated, not healed. People are forced to exist in a drug induced state in order to function, and that term is used very loosely. Medication is used because there is a fundamental inability to deal with the core issues. This is the impotency of which we speak. There is no God-empowered command that causes the dead to live and the rebellious to heel. There is no worldview that rises above. No hope on the horizon that can be given – particularly from the secular standpoint.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we grasp the importance of the fact that the elder operates under God’s commission and with His authority. The elder operates within the Biblical worldview and thus gives God’s answers to the troubles of this world. These attributes are not known to the secular counsellor, even the Christian counsellor, for at some point, they seek to introduce another worldview that conflicts with the Biblical worldview.

As an example, you would not go to a witchdoctor for advice, would you? Yet, the secular science of psychology comes from the same poisonous root. So why do we give it credence simply because it comes from a university? What makes this theory or view of Man more acceptable than the one outlined by God in His Word?

Friends, it is here that we come to the pointy end of the stick, for the essence of our contention, as we have noted, comes down to a clash of worldviews and to these two questions:

a) Will we faithfully accept what God says about Man and His creation as it is revealed in Scripture or will we seek out another worldview, another wisdom that is more acceptable to us in our circumstance?

b) Which man will we choose to counsel us—the man who stands with God’s authority and administers wisdom according to the Biblical worldview or will we seek out the man of compromise who seeks to supplant God’s wisdom with the wisdom of fallen Man; baptised though it may be?

Footnotes:

[1] It must also be remembered that in the Biblical covenantal paradigm, counselling and preaching can also legitimately harden a person in their rebellion so that God’s judgement is proved just (Psalm 51:4; See also Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 as a practical example). God’s word is, as it always has been, both life and death. It is to one the aroma of life; to another the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). It is for this reason that much of the modern Church Growth theory should be despised and rejected. The truth does not in every case bring life. Sometimes it brings death. The only sure, categorical, and absolute statement that we can make in regard to God’s Word proclaimed is this: So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

[2] This is not to say that personal qualities are not important; they are! Biblically, the office of elder is only open to those who have certain, proven character traits. The point here is that we do not elect a good man, but a righteous man. We do not elect a smart man, but a wise man. We do not elect the popular man, but the godly man. We do not elect the rich man, but the spiritually wealthy man. We do so, on God’s command, so that, once in office, these traits are subject to and magnified by the power of God’s Spirit. Such a man becomes a powerful instrument in God’s hands because he is blessable; he is a worthy instrument through which God will work. As such he stands in God’s stead and should not be trifled with.

[3] Some may doubt this. If so, please turn to Exodus 16:2&8. There you will see that Israel grumbled against Aaron and Moses and in so doing they grumbled against the Lord.

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

[6] Is it not for this very reason that we are urged to attend upon the preaching of the Word in constancy. We are in absolute need of hearing God’s word – Christ’s voice – proclaimed with His full authority.

[7] It may be an oversimplification, but it is worth remembering that Man is a subordinate being to God. Thus God was right to give the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Helpful Pointers.

[8] It is worth noting the power of secularism at this point. Many pastoral care positions that are now advertised require that the applicant be eligible for enrolment in a Psychological Association or some such. This requirement alone generally rules out the Biblical counsellor and therefore puts the pressure on this group to undertake further studies so as to be “approved”. In essence, these situations effectually force a compromise. It also sees the field heavily stacked in favour of Humanism.

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[10] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[11] A pertinent example, here, is that of abortion. At every step along the way it was argued that legalising abortion would do away with the need for backyard practitioners who were causing pain and death. Yet, legalising abortion did not resolve this problem. The very same argument was once again paraded in the recent discussion over the abortion drug RU86.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on October 2, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Institution)

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ^“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!^”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests. Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.

Of Shepherding Sheep (Pt 2)

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Beware the False Standard)

Alright, now that we have “stirred the pot” and hopefully piqued your interest, we need to set about explaining why Humanism and Rationalism are so dangerous and why adopting their methods will spell disaster for the Church.

2. Secular Standards are Poison:

The absolute problem with Humanism and Rationalism is that they are, at heart, Secular or Anti-God. Thus, not only should they not, but they simply cannot inform the Christian. The Secularist’s basic presupposition, in Nietzsche’s words, is, “God is Dead”! On the contrary, the Christian’s basic presupposition, in Schaeffer’s words, is, “He is there and He is not silent”!

Thus, we are faced with two mutually exclusive systems.

As each piece of knowledge in each system is based upon the one presupposition, there can only be agreement between the systems when the adherents of the systems are inconsistent with their presupposition. For example, I have heard David Attenborough, an evolutionist, talk both of ‘creation’ and ‘design’. How does an evolutionist, whose base presupposition denies the existence of God and in His place posits that the worlds exist through time, chance, and chaos, ever use the terms ‘creation’ and ‘design’? Similarly, I hear Christians use the term ‘luck’. How do those who believe in an all Sovereign God use such an inane term?

Therefore, it is only when we are inconsistent to our basic presupposition and to our worldview that we can find any common ground with the opposition.

This then means that if we supplement our elders with secularly trained people, we are immediately compromising. As Brother Posthuma rightly asked, “How can someone who is not one with us in faith even begin to comment on let alone promote such matters [of the intimacies of the Christian life]?”[1] The answer is, “They cannot!”

Some will baulk at this. There will be Christian counsellors who have now spit their coffee all over this article as an involuntary reaction to what they have read. Nonetheless, like Brother Posthuma, we must push on. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” This means that in all of life there is no neutrality. We often use the old adage, ‘to sit on the fence’, meaning that a person has no position on a particular point or is refusing to take sides. This, however, is not a possibility when it comes to Christianity. We are either for Christ or against Christ – ethically, philosophically, spiritually, and physically.

Let’s pause here and take a breath. Some of our readers may be struggling with the terms and concepts that they have just read. This may be, to them, nothing short of highfalutin gobbledygook. So, please, let me simplify things with explicit teaching from Jesus. Our Lord gave the following wisdom and guidance so that the Church would be equipped to face challenges in all ages. Says our Lord: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”[2]

What I wish you to see is the inherent philosophical principle in Jesus’ declaration, namely, that an object cannot contradict its true nature. The wolf may dress as a sheep, but in the end, its actions will be lupine[3] not ovine.[4] Two trees may share similar foliage. They may look alike to the eye, but an examination of the fruit will bring instant identification. Similarly, each piece of fruit bears within itself the seed that will duplicate the inherent nature of its own species.

Let us now apply this to the case before us. Elders are men who are both born again and appointed to office by the Spirit of God. They are so because they are to govern in a spiritual[5] manner over the Kingdom. As such, their inherent nature is that which is born from above and draws upon the three Persons of the Trinity for all aspects of their ministry. No matter what detail of their lives we would examine, we should see clearly that the root extends into and draws its nourishment from “the river of the water of life … flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”.[6]

In opposition to this, the Secular counsellor comes to the Church offering us a ‘truck load’ of Humanistic ‘wisdom’ that has proceeded forth, not from the mouth of God, but from experts, research, and academia. This ‘wisdom’ is highly credentialed, flowing forth from prestigious universities. It can be seen to be used to great effect in the world. There is even an introductory offer with a free set of steak knives! So, why delay? Let us grab hold of this offer and do ourselves a good turn! Besides, helping out our overworked elders and our burdened brethren can only be a good thing, right? After all, what harm could it do?

Well, it could kill! Yes, in fact, it will kill. (Do I hear more coffee being sprayed?) Okay, let’s go back to Jesus’ words – wolf = wolf; sheep = sheep; good tree = good fruit; bad tree = bad fruit! When the Secularist comes to you, he does so without the knowledge of God[7]; he does so without the wisdom of Christ[8]; and he does so without the power of the Holy Spirit.[9] His root is not extracting nourishment from the river of life, but from the pit of Hell. He is of his father the devil, whom Jesus pronounced to be a murderer and liar.[10] Why then would we invite such a one into the midst of God’s people, mistakenly believing that any good could come from the words he would speak?

Let me be frank. Would you invite a local prostitute to give your daughters lessons on how to apply makeup and do their hair? Would you invite a homosexual to give your sons lessons on health and obtaining a suave dress sense? Methinks not. I am confident that I would hear much dissention and many rumblings and words akin to, “These do not have the mind of Christ. They have no place in the Church and certainly no place instructing our children.” To which I would reply, “Preach it, Brother!”

Why, then, the gross inconsistency in our thought processes and actions? Why is it that Christians and Churches seem to think that secular counsellors can be of any assistance whatsoever to the Church? Why do we either invite into our midst or send our people out to those who imbibe of a poisoned root and who, by their nature, must bring forth poisoned fruit?

Why does life insist on receiving counsel from death!

3. The Christian Counsellor or Beware the Lupine in the Ovine:

In speaking of the Secularist and his inability to say anything to the Church, we may have received a few hearty, “Amens!” However, we must now move to the more sensitive and controversial area and address the so-called Christian Counsellor.

As Brother Posthuma noted, this area needs to be treated with sensitivity because it has become very popular for Christians to consult counselors of all types.[11] However, like every pastoral situation, the need for sensitivity cannot override the demand for God’s truth to be spoken. Thus, straight talk should not be construed as insensitive talk.

As we broach this subject, I would ask that you remember what has just been said about Secularism, for it is extremely relevant at this point. You see, most Christian counsellors take on that title after some study within the realms of the secular. That may be a degree, a diploma, or some other course. It may have even come from a “Christian” college.

The question for us, however, is not that of the external, but that of the data on which the external is built. Thus, you may well have a fine Christian man who genuinely seeks to serve his brethren. Having seen or experienced hurt and pain, he decides that counselling would be a boon. To achieve this, he heads off to an institution to be trained. Here, we encounter the problem. If the institution is purely secular the young man will be saturated in ungodly data. If the institution is Christian, there are no guarantees that it is God’s truth that flows through that institution.

There are many in the Church who peddle nothing but baptised secularism. That is to say that these people take the latest and greatest secular idea, rip a verse or two from the Bible (verses out of context add more aroma), feed it through the pepper grinder, then sprinkle it generously over said idea. Then there is the obligatory quick prayer, followed by a little holy water, and “voilà!” the latest concept in Christianity. The final product is rushed off the assembly line and hurriedly pressed into service. Many doe not question such practices because they either stand in awe of the prestigious establishment peddling such concepts or they themselves do not have the Biblical knowledge to adequately critique the concept.

The problem is that, regardless of the model, you end up with lupine in the ovine – your sheep smells and acts wolfy!

When a Christian seeks to become a good counsellor by following the ideas of the world, studies secular counseling techniques, or has been trained in the secular sciences, then he is trying to live as though neutrality exists and is achievable. He is found to be vigorously pursuing the impossible, namely, the melding of two contrary worldviews. This is nothing short of a fool’s errand. It is a sheer impossibility. The futility of this comes from Jesus’ mouth – “No man can serve two masters”!

In essence then, the young man returns to his home to begin counseling. People trust him because he is a Christian. However, like Snow White, they are unaware that inside the fruit on offer there is poison. The amount of poison will depend on how much Humanism was imbibed, but poison there will be.

You see, the Christian’s counsel is only as good as his conformity to Scripture – the Biblical data. In this he is like the preacher. We believe that the preacher preaching truth preaches God’s Word. To the degree that he is unfaithful, so that word ceases to be the Word. Thus, the Christian may counsel, but whether he is indeed a Christian counsellor depends on whether or not the counsel given is thoroughly Biblical.

Let me illustrate with reference to Christian education. Many, if not most, Christian teachers gain their qualifications through a secular system.[12] Does the fact that the State says that they are now qualified as educators mean that they will be Christian educators? Many would say, “yes”, but they would be mistaken. To be a Christian educator is not simply a case of being a Christian with a teaching degree. No, no, no! A Christian educator is a Christian, yes, but a Christian with a sound Biblical worldview; who teaches from the presupposition that God is; and, as a consequence, passes all facts through this one true paradigm.

I recently went for a job at a Christian school. I sat across from the principal and outlined this theory as Christian education. He was amazed. His reaction told me that he had never heard such a thing before. Yet, here he sat as the principal of a prominent Christian school. His concept, like that of so many, was that a Christian with a teaching degree equalled Christian education.[13]

This said; let us take the analogy back to counselling. A Christian may well counsel, but true Christian counselling is found in the content of the counsel and not in the adjective used to describe the counsellor. One would hope that adjective and content would go together, but, alas, it is not so.[14] Therefore, all Christian counsellors, to be worthy of the title, must first prove that their counsel is Christian – that which belongs to Christ!

This then begs the question, who should provide the examination in which the counsellor is proven to be bona fide? The only Biblical answer available is, “the elders”.

Thus, unlike our good Brother, it is my contention that we do not open the gate to Counselling, Christian or otherwise, in the Church, nor wait for a superfluity of the “university trained”, but rather return to a studied application of God’s appointed means, the elder. The first step in this process is to lock the gate, apply a padlock, and post a large sign that reads, “Do not open. Trespassers prosecuted!” This must be done because we cannot build esteem for the institution of eldership whilst actively undermining it. Such is to work at cross purposes. It is to be the “double-minded” man condemned by Scripture.[15]

In prophetic voice, the question becomes, “How long will we hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”[16]

[1] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[2] Matthew 7:15-18.

[3] Wolf like.

[4] Sheep like.

[5] By using the term “spiritual”, we do not intend any type of dualism or include any suggestion that the elder’s governance does not extend to the physical. The term is used in the sense that the elder’s wisdom, motives, ethics, and power are other worldly. Theirs is the power of the coming age – the Age of the Holy Spirit. These are of the Kingdom that has come in Jesus Christ. These are of the Kingdom of God. They have nothing to do with the principalities and powers of this present age.

[6] Revelation 22:1.

[7] That is, a true and intimate relationship with God.

[8] Colossians 2:2-3.

[9] Romans 8:9&14.

[10] John 8:44.

[11] This has tragically become the norm as more and more Christians have abandoned the Biblical concept of sin and embraced the humanist model (Medical model) of blame shifting.

[12] This is almost universal now as the Secular hierarchy insist on tickets for almost everything, including profession registration.

[13] It will not surprise you to hear that, later in the interview, another on the panel insisted that they had to teach evolution in order to comply with regulations and provide a good education.

[14] In essence, a so-called Christian counsellor can give rubbish advice if his data is coming from a poisoned stream. On the other hand, the secular counsellor could pull out some gems if they, contrary to their nature, offered Biblical wisdom. I have a Christian friend who criticised the position outlined in this article. He contended that he had heard a secular counsellor who had given good counsel. On further evidence, said counsellor was found to be a Jewess who took seriously the writings of Moses.

[15] James 1:8.

[16] 1 Kings 18:21.

Of Shepherding Shepherds

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Eldership in the 21st Century)

In a recent edition of Una Sancta[1], Brother P. Posthuma wrote on Eldership. In that article he contended that there is a place in the Church for Christian counsellors. To be sure, he upheld the primacy of Eldership, but nonetheless hinted that elders needed supplementation in our day, particularly by those trained to deal with mental illness. This article was of great interest to the current author as it is a topic that is near and dear to his heart. As I read Brother Posthuma’s work, I must admit to feeling as though I had been placed on a roller coaster at a popular theme park. I felt the emotions soaring then plummeting. After the ride, my head was spinning and my knees were the consistency of jelly.

Now, before moving on, let me make a few things very clear:

This article is not an attempt to discredit my Brother. Far from it. Referring back to the roller coaster ride, there were indeed high points. I am sure that we agree on much.
The importance of the Eldership is such that we need to deal with it Biblically. Neglect in this area will be calamitous.
As such, this article is issued as one more step in constructing a Biblical perspective on Eldership. I wish, therefore, not to diminish brother Posthuma’s work, but to build upon it.

Alright, back to the topic at hand and that nagging question that you have in your mind – Why was my head spinning and my knees the consistency of Jelly?

The basic reason is that the good Brother’s article hinted at some very important issues that need to be grappled with, but, regrettably, did not follow through to a consistently Biblical conclusion. Thus, one was caused to soar to lofty heights before being brought back down in a hurry with all the attendant “gut wrenching” sensations that normally accompany such an exercise.

There is no doubt that our Brother pushed very hard to establish eldership as a God given model that is to hold pride of place. However, as noted, there were the lows. If God has appointed elders, why do we need counsellors? Why have we erected ecclesiastical roadblocks that hinder Biblical practice? What can a university add to a man that the Spirit of God cannot? Are we today confronted by situations to which the Bible does not speak either explicitly or by “good and necessary consequence?”[2]

These questions, and others, must be answered candidly. We must seek the Biblical data and the Biblical data alone, lest we be found to be introducing threads of ungodliness to our thought process. Regrettably, this author believes that such threads were, in part, introduced in the article to which we referred. The gate was left ajar and unlatched – yes, ever so slightly. Nonetheless, that small oversight means that the slightest nudge will see the gate swing further open.

With Brother Posthuma, I wholeheartedly agree that God has ordained elders for the governance of His Church and the wellbeing of His sheep. Peter’s restoration is a clear testament to this fact.[3] These men should be esteemed. These men rightly occupy Moses seat and are therefore worthy of respect.[4] These men are, literally, on the front line of the Kingdom battle as we seek to eject Satan from this our Father’s world. Consequently, we should not make their task difficult. We should pray for them often and by name. This is our great privilege as the non-elders.

However, we cannot esteem elders and eldership, on the one hand, and then introduce unBiblical data, on the other, that erodes the very standard that we have just professed. Thus, we must question whether or not many of the issues surrounding elders and eldership in our day do not in fact come from the tacit acceptance of unBiblical data.

(This said, I may need to encourage you to continue reading whilst sitting on the floor with a ribbon holding your hat firmly in position.)

My background is that of a different Reformed denomination – a denomination that actually sees unregenerate men appointed as elders. As a consequence, there are many horror stories to tell. You may reply, “Well, we do not have such lax practices!” To which I would reply, “No, not yet!” (Gasp!)

You see Brethren, the point is not to focus upon current practice, but on the ideas (theology) that inform our practice? Our focus is not merely to be on the external and outward, but on the data that informs our ideas and which, thereby, undergirds and instructs our practice.[5] Thus, the problem surrounding elders and eldership in the 21^st Century has less to do with the examination of divergent practice and more to do with the degree to which divergent data has been inculcated into our systems of belief and governance.[6]

Thus, a denomination that ordains ungodly men to the eldership is different from the one that does not only because the former has travelled further down the “slippery slope” of disbelief. In short, it has adopted more unBiblical data and thus the practices in that denomination have become more obviously corrupt.

Again, if we focus merely on the externals and begin to feel all warm and gooey inside because we do not do what they do, we miss the fundamental point that, at some stage, these people also once had a Biblical practice founded on Biblical data. They then adopted a faulty standard or data set, a standard other than Scripture, which led to a corruption of the Biblical standard and the implementation of the corrupt. Consequently, the salient question must be, “Have we begun to allow unBiblical data into our thought process in regard to elders and eldership?”

1. Rationalism:

Living in our individualistic, scientific age, we are no longer content with, “Thus saith the Lord!” Rather, we want to find a researched article or some other academic device that supports the Biblical position. This seems harmless enough. Yet, here, there is great danger. Why? Very simple; in the end, we begin to argue science, research, or academic opinion rather than the Word of God.

Just today, as I construct this article, the following headline came to me from a prominent Christian organisation: “WHY Fathers MATTER – research reveals the truth!” Does this mean that fathers did not matter until science stepped in with a helping hand? If so, then fathers can be relegated to irrelevancy by another study that takes a contrary position.

Please allow a further illustration using coffee. As a middle aged man, I hear all sorts of reports on the consumption of coffee and most are contradictory or limited in their application. If I drink too much coffee, I may have high blood pressure or end up with a failing heart. Then, another report says, ‘Na. Coffee is great!’ Finally I hear, ‘If you are middle aged, drink five cups per day as it has been proven to combat prostate cancer.’

So, my options are: 1. Bathe in coffee and flourish in every way; 2. Bathe in coffee and have my head explode from high blood pressure, but not die of prostate cancer; 3. Don’t bathe in coffee, maybe avoid high blood pressure and heart problems, but open myself up to prostate cancer! Anyone for a coffee?

The point that I hope you will see is that there is no absolute answer available in Rationalism. Research contradicts research; academic paper contradicts academic paper; expert contradicts expert, and so on.

Therefore, if we Christians adopt this rationalistic approach, we begin to rely on the so-called ‘wisdom of men’ rather than upon the absolute wisdom of God. When this happens, we find ourselves at the ‘whim and fancy’ of every research paper produced or that of every so-called expert that makes an announcement.

Sadly, this rationalism is too prevalent in Christian circles. Recently, during the debate over homosexual union[7], this rationalism came to the fore. We were told to write to our politicians and insist that children “need a mum and dad.” The obvious question then is, “What is a “mum” or a “dad”?

If we rely on the definitions given by rebellious man, these terms could mean anything. Moreover, these terms would change with every new piece of research. If you question this, please conduct a simple experiment. Find yourself both a new and an old dictionary. Now look up some moral term, for example, marriage. What you will note is that these definitions are changing. The dictionary is being made to conform to current practice. Similarly, the terms “mum” and “dad” will be moulded to conform to the current (secular) view of the family.

Relating this to eldership, the obvious force is to question why we need to wait for “enough university qualified and trusted persons totally committed to what the Bible teaches who could also advise and consult with elders.”[8] The implicit connotation in this statement is that elders are neither “academically qualified” nor “totally committed to what the Bible teaches” and as such are in desperate need of supplementation by other (Humanistic) professionals in order to ensure that they stay on the path of truth.

Here we encounter one of those “head spinners”. The statement unequivocally upholds a Biblical standard – these must be “committed to what the Bible teaches” – yet, in the very same sentence, we see the introduction of that which the Bible does not teach—the university qualified.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 we read, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. You will note that this list is devoid of counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Also, you will note that there is no mention of the need to be “university qualified”. What you will see is that God, in Christ, appointed, for the edification and building of the Church, certain offices, which are to be filled by qualified officers. Among these is the pastor (Gk: Shepherd).

Turning to Acts 20:28-29, we witness Paul giving the following counsel to the Ephesian elders: “Keep watch[9] over yourselves and all the flock[10] of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[11] Be shepherds[12] of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock[13].”

The point in bringing these texts together is to show what the Bible does and does not emphasise. Extracurricular offices are absolutely denied. No room is given to the concept that secular institutions may turn out a superior product of which the Church should avail Herself. On the contrary, Scripture stands firm. God has given offices to His Church. In these offices are God’s officers, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit. These and these alone are to govern and to defend; for only that appointed, anointed, and empowered by God’s Spirit can adequately care for God’s precious blood bought Church.

It must be remembered that only the true shepherd stands in the face of adversity. The hireling tucks tail and runs.[14] The hireling simply will not defend against the “savage wolf”. Equally, those not having the mind of Christ cannot relate to the Christian whose mind is set on Christ. “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”[15] In similar vein, the one trained by the world, will tend to bring the world’s ideas into the Christian arena, polluting it to one degree or another.

Consequently, Biblical wisdom behoves us to follow the Biblical pattern. God instituted elders for the governance of the Church in the Old Testament. Christ did not alter this. Much rather, Christ’s Apostles continued the practice[16] thereby reaffirming the validity of the elder and his office.

If there are issues regarding elders and eldership in our day, then they are not with the concept of eldership. The problem must be in our inadequate application of the Biblical data, both in regard to the standards for elders and our duty toward elders. Our responsibility then is to return to the data revealed for us by God’s Spirit – the same Spirit who appoints elders – and to stand in that light making sure that we conform to every jot and tittle. This is our only option, for the Bible does not give us warrant to abandon or supplement elders or the eldership.

With Brother Posthuma, we must assert an absolute belief in God’s order and standard as revealed in His infallible Word. This confident stand must, in the first instance, cause us to treasure that order so dearly that we will automatically reject anything that seeks to encroach upon the oracles of God. Thus, we must reject both Humanism and Rationalism at the outset. To accept data from these sources is to step onto the “slippery slope”. It is to introduce that thin thread of false data that will eventually corrupt the whole system.

[1] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 165-167.

[2] The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Chapter 1, Section 6. See also The Belgic Confession Article 7 – that the teaching (of Scripture) is perfect and complete in all respects.

[3] John 21:15-19.

[4] Matthew 23:1ff.

[5] This concept is a two-way street. The Biblical data addresses both the shepherd and the sheep. Hence, whilst the bulk of this article will look at the shepherds, the sheep must realise that the same data places obligations upon them also.

[6] For clarity, think here of the old adage, ‘Ideas have consequences.’

[7] I refuse to use the term “homosexual marriage”.

[8] Shepherding the Flock, p.166. Emphasis added.

[9] This is an imperative or command.

[10] This is the same noun as used in Ephesians 4:11. God gave pastors (shepherds) to watch over the flock (sheep).

[11] Overseers and Elders are two different Greek terms. Whilst some believe these terms to refer to different offices, the Biblical data would suggest that they refer to the same office. Here in Acts 20:17, Paul calls the “elders” to himself and then states that they have been appointed as “overseers” (20:28). Seemingly, Paul saw no difference. Hence, the best way to understand these terms is that the term “elder” refers to the character of the officer, whilst the term “overseer” refers to the character of the office.

[12] This is the same root word as already encountered and it means “to act as a shepherd”.

[13] The same term as previously used.

[14] John 10:12-13.

[15] Romans 8:7.

[16] Titus 1:5.

PostTenebrasLux

The Dominion of Jesus Christ is Light: The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn! Proverbs 4:18

Category Archives: Eldership