“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money” (1 Timothy 3:1-3).
“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).
“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 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, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:5-9).
Something my mentor and Crown College theology professor, Dr. Don Alexander, once said has stuck with me all these years, etched in my memory. It came first in the form of a question: “By what means does the New Testament teach that a church grows? Through spiritual gifts or leadership?” He went on to explain and concluded the answer lies in “leadership.” Throughout my Christian life, now over thirty years, we’ve been have, ad nauseam, heard about the importance of spiritual gifts, finding our spiritual gifts (I always thought the NT taught they were given, not sought—and the only ones we are to pursue are faith, hope and love), using our spiritual gifts, etc., etc., etc. And as far back as I can remember, there have been some voices on leadership, but most of them just mimic of the business world or some new trend. I think about this every time we “vote” and “elect” new leaders for our churches—how is leadership really defined and characterized in the NT descriptions. This is not a critique of my church’s process (necessarily) or of any church’s—in fact the men and women leaders and the ones to be elected are usually very good people, active in our church, and faithful. One area, however (and there is always a however with me), over the years of my Christian life, I have found to be minimized and made marginal, but is a loud part of biblical leadership, namely can the leader teach? And more specifically, can leadership teach the foundations of the Christian faith as passed on by the apostles? A church leader, at least deacons and elders, ought to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute unsound doctrine. When the NT writer uses “teach” (didaskoo), it carries the weight of “apostolic teaching.” In other words, church leaders need to be able to teach the apostolic truth of the Gospel to their generation of believers in order to keep the church strong, faithful, and alive. They are to guard the church in this way. Size doesn’t matter. It didn’t in the NT—and as far as I can tell, the canon hasn’t been reopen and there isn’t a new redemptive era upon us with more revelation to be included in the canon on church growth and church leadership. Size doesn’t mean the church is being faithful to Scripture or to its Lord—in fact, the opposite seems more true…the larger the church, the more like the world is becomes. What matters is, can leaders teach? Can they guard the Gospel? That’s the legacy of leadership. That’s how a church grows.
Another and final reason, akin to the first (2 of 3), is that the preacher/Sunday School teacher/Bible Study leader doesn’t show the Christians in the pew how to dig into the Bible. We preachers and teachers actually teach, not just in the content of what we preach or teach, but in how we model. If we are apt to use the Bible and its words to back up what we want to say, we are not showing the everyday person in the pew how to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. The preacher/teacher becomes the hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. But if we show them how we got our interpretation (let alone our application), we help them to see how to do it for themselves.
As mentioned above, we all have been before preachers and teachers who are telling us great things, even those we need to hear, but the texts they are quoting and the passages of Scripture they are using don’t match. At least we can’t see from the text where or how they are getting their message. At most, really at the worst, we are learning it doesn’t matter, we don’t have the secret gift to get “behind the words” and we just need to trust that the preacher/teacher is telling the truth that “God gave them the message.” At worst.
Now I grant it, sometimes it hard, but preachers/teachers need to—ought to—try hard to show, from the text, how they get their interpretation and then how the application matches the Word from God which is from the text.
It is no wonder that everyday Christians don’t devour the Bible for themselves. They are actually taught not to. We preachers and teachers need to turn that around. Take pains to show how and where they get their message, their interpretation from the texts of Scripture they are preaching/teaching from.
Additionally, topical preaching/teaching is the biggest culprit. This means a lot of “proof texting” and very little explanation on how we are getting our message. Preaching/teaching from passages and learning to listen to passages of Scripture is the best way to help the person in the pew hear from God (rather than the preacher) and, as a by product, teaches how to read the passages for themselves.
I believe Christians are lethargic about knowing their Bibles because our preachers and teachers in our churches don’t enable them to read and hear the biblical text for themselves. The preacher/teacher best serves those hearing them when they explain, from the text, where they got their message and how they got their message. Unless, truthfully, despite our chastising that Christians aren’t devouring the Bible, we actually want that power and want to keep them lethargic about getting into their Bibles.
Almost every Christian in America has their own Bible. Most have a high enough literacy level to be able to read it. Comprehending might be harder, but I think most American Christian can give it a good shot. So, there I was teaching in a Sunday School class, many years ago now, when I had everyone open to Matthew 6:33 and I read,
“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
After reading it I asked a simple—well what I thought was a simple—question: ”What does this verse say?” I was actually surprised—no one said a thing. They stared at their Bible and then stared back at me—a few times. Their lips pinched together and scrunched up and foreheads frowned, all motioning they had no idea. So I prodded a little more. But nothing. Then someone said, “I don’t know what you mean ‘what does it mean.’ I am not sure what it really says.” I was dumbfounded. Perplexed. Here’s what I got out of that. Even the plain English wasn’t enough to get what this verse said, at least to the “lay reader.” They weren’t let in on the “secret” behind the text. That secret knowledge only certain people have to interpret the Bible.
I don’t think I was far off on this. These good people had grown up in the Church or listened for years to preachers who preached from texts, telling them what a text meant, but the “meaning” wasn’t always obvious. That’s why the preacher had to explain it. This took a special insight; a gift not given to the laity. Or so it seemed. The meaning preached wasn’t what the plain English set before their eyes. The preacher/Sunday school teacher “has special insight” and powers to get a meaning that couldn’t be gotten from words, syntax, and grammar. Now come on—admit it. How many times have you liked what the preacher said, but it’s really not what the text says. And secretly, you just don’t know where the preacher got it.
I think many Christians are simply not motivated to devour the Bible for themselves because what is preached and taught isn’t matched up with the texts the preaching/teaching is from. And it takes special insight and a special connection to God to get this information. One reason the people of the pew don’t dig deep in and devour the Bible is that they don’t have the “secret knowledge” to get what it “really” says. They have been taught this over and over for years as preachers and Sunday School leaders bombard them week after week with “interpretation” that only they could get—because they have special insight and for crying out loud, they have a special connection to God. Heck some, maybe even most, tell us week after week that God gave them this interpretation. They speak for God. We can’t do that. We are not on the in. And who are we to disagree once a preacher says, “I prayed and God gave me this message.” Even if the texts used don’t match up with the interpretation. It must be us—we don’t have that special, secret insightful power. Of course the preacher, et. al. will disagree with me publically, most anyway, but it is what they teach week after week, subtly, some innocently, some purposely. It is what they say with their actions each week.
Another reason, akin to the first, is that the preacher/Sunday School teacher/Bible Study leader doesn’t show the Christians in the pew how… the topic of the third post in this thread…
Pastor asked a very good question Sunday morning. “Why don’t more Christians devour the Bible?” He inferred, why don’t more Christians really dig into and get to know their Bibles more. I have thought about this for more than two decades, ever since my graduate school days. I do have thoughts on this, and I don’t blame the everyday Christian sitting there in the pew. I think the burden here rests on Pastors and church leaders. First of all, for much of Church history people didn’t have Bibles and relied on the preaching-teaching ministries of the church, whether in cathedrals or in caves or in house churches. Pointing to Colossians 3:16 (“May the word of Christ dwell in your hearts…”) doesn’t resolve the issue, for certainly this text (although Pastor’s try) does not speak to “the Bible” in the Christian’s heart, but the gospel—the oral tradition—which would have been the only knowledge-base available to Christians as early as when Paul wrote these words. (See my Rough Cut on Colossians 3:16, The Gospel-Driven Church)
Why place this at the feet of preachers and local church leaders? Because the New Testament does. It is as simple as that. Furthermore, I believe there is a connection between the poor modeling of Bible exposition interpretation that happens in the pulpit (and in Sunday School, mid-week Bible studies, and so-called special-speaker and evangelistic events) and why the average Christian doesn’t truly get to know and learn their Bible. In other words, I contend that poor exegesis and exposition of the Bible from people and places of power correspond to the poor Bible literacy rates and the where with all to get into the Bible among the laity. In this short thread, I’d like to explain why I believe these are the issues on this matter.
First, I am not saying that Christians ought not to avail themselves to get to know their Bible as a matter of personal faith. However, prior to the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible (1450), no one really had access to a Bible. The “laity” was totally dependent on the preacher/pastors and elders among them for examples and content of the Gospel and other portions of “the Bible.” Now there are, on average, over a dozen Bibles in every home and a Christian Book store in almost every community here in the U.S. Add to this countless radio, TV, and online broadcasts where the Bible is read, printed, preached, and taught 24/7. You would think no-one, at least in the United States, is without excuse about knowing the Bible and “devouring” its contents. But just because we’ve multiplied the availability, doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve increased the ability or the yearning.
First, in the New Testament models, we have the discipler-disciple method of learning the Bible and about the Christian life. Jesus and His disciples being the primary example or paradigm. Second, we have how Paul puts this process in his writings. I refer to Ephesians 4:11-16:
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
We can argue about the exact roles and whether the list is made up of categories that exist today in the Church, but we must agree that the list identifies the body of people called Church Leaders. These leaders are in place to equip the saints. That’s plain in the text. What is often overlooked is that these leaders also are how the church body grows—personally, as a church, and the church geographically—into the fullness of Christ. “As a result” such leader-teaching-knowledge of the Son of God-building-up is to make sure that we, as children in the Lord, are not “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” The mention of doctrine is probably a reference to apostolic teaching and tradition concerning the content of the Gospel and what it means to have faith in Christ. So, it is pretty clear that it is the role of church leaders to provide such knowledge—whether it be in teaching or preaching or even table-talk. This is how the church grows in the knowledge of God. Interestingly, Paul nor any New Testament writer, tells the laity to know their Septuagint (the LXX Greek Old Testament) or their Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). There is no mention to devour the parchments! The laity learned it all at the feet and by example from the foundation-people of the church, universal and local, that is church leaders.
Next I am drawn to Paul’s admonishments to Timothy. In First Timothy 3:1-2 we hear
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach… (cf. 2 Tim 2:24).
It is the overseer, the elder, who is to be able to teach who bears the burden. I have found it interesting that when elders are chosen within a church, all the characteristics except the one “able to teach” is applied as a criteria. “[A]ble to teach” is not teach by example, but certainly “able to teach” apostolic teaching and traditions. It is the elders that are charged with guarding and passing on the knowledge of the Gospel and of the Christian faith.
So, it is the church leadership that is responsible for informing and teaching and instructing the laity in the knowledge of God and the Christian faith. No mention here—or elsewhere—of devouring one’s Bible on their own.
Now I must repeat before I am scolded. This affirmation by me here DOES NOT mean I think Christians, on their own, should not have a daily, weekly, regular discipline of Bible reading and study. Not at all. I think we all should. To much has been given; to much will be required. But that sad fact that there is a great deal of biblical illiteracy among the laity and that the laity just doesn’t dig in and devour and read and study the Bible is the fault of preachers and church leaders. First, because, it’s their role in the church! And second, the way people explain the Bible, teach, or preach can hinder the desire to devour or perceived abilities of the laity to study and devour on their own. This second reason will occupy my thoughts in the next post in this thread.
I am going to get in trouble here, but that’s the way it goes. Shouldn’t surprise regular readers of Words’nTone. You can search the New Testament high and low and you will not find the Gospel writers (Luke, James, Peter, or John, even Paul) dwelling on the subject of evangelism. I know to speak against or downplay evangelism (that is, contemporary, individualistic, personal evangelism) is like committing sacrilege—and it certainly would not make one a popular candidate for a pastoral position in today’s modern church. (Maybe that’s one reason the a pastoral position continues to allude me.) I have been a student of the Bible for over 31 years, not just over three decades. I have a Masters in New Testament Theology (with a Greek concentration). I have been a New Testament and Greek Professor at a Bible College and Graduate school, and have pastored churches for about ten years. And I still get strange looks and condemning comments when I ask where are the commands to evangelize. Of course I appreciate the passion of those who are committed “verbal witnesses,” who make it part of their daily lives to share Christ with others. I am moved by the commitment of those who weekly participate in programs like Evangelism Explosion and witnessing teams. But as a formal command to share the Gospel or for a church to develop and plan for evangelism (and to tell people in the pews it is their job, their responsibility to do the work of evangelism), there is a lack in New Testament scripture of such a perspective and application.
Go make disciples (Matthew 28:19), of course. The general call to preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15), this is there, too. The promise of being Christ’s witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), yes, indeed that is there as well. Some will think these are enough to suggest each individual Christian is responsible to evangelize. My issue, however, is we all too often attach “witnessing” and “evangelism” to growing my church, our individual local congregation. There is that expectation, as if the burden to bring “in the numbers” is a people-of-the-pew responsibility. But go ahead, read each New Testament Letter and find me one place where Paul, James, Peter or John (or Luke for that matter) commands those individual churches to get busy evangelizing, or calls for individual Christians among the congregations to go out and bring people in.
Why I am even bringing this up? Don’t I care about people going to hell? Why wouldn’t I emphasize evangelism? What’s wrong with me? I think this cognitive approach to spreading the Gospel is an excuse for actually not doing the work of the Kingdom. I believe church leadership uses this “place-the-burden-on-the-pew” approach to evangelism to replace their responsibility for fulfilling true leadership and the call of pastoring. New Testament writers seems to be more concerned about expanding the influence of Jesus, His kingdom and His righteousness than making a series of individualistic, building-centered church bodies just increase their body-count (i.e., attendance numbers). I’d like to see more biblical theology on church growth (and not just social trends and sociological studies—all good and could be useful, but not just for numerical church growth). The church is called to be an expanding temple of Christ—moving outward, expanding outward to encompass more territory demographically and geographically. As we seek to develop plans for evangelism, church leadership is to, well, lead (and that means do, people, do, not just talk or preach), and whole congregations should implement ways to expand the kingdom, which includes it social dimensions, not just its personal application. It seems to me that the New Testament writers spent their writing time disciplining and assisting the local church communities to be better “Cities” on their respective “hills” and evoking the church’s leadership to lead in developing in this type of evangelism, that is, the growth and advance of the kingdom of God and God’s righteousness.
“What do you think are the one or two most critical needs in our community? Notice this is different than asking people what they would like to see in a church. (Reggie McNeal in The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church
p. 62).
“If you are a pastor or staff member of a local congregation, you must model missionary behavior for the church to see” (The Present Future p.64).
Some of McNeal’s material truly challenges the chaplain status of most evangelical pastors. Yes, of course there is a need to care for the flock, but the flock and the individual sheep will end up imitating, not what the pastor says, but what the pastor does. And this is an important point, especially in regards to discipleship and church ministry. I agree that pastors need to visibly model out-of-church-in-the-community behavior, activity, ministry, outreach, evangelism, care, mission—whatever—in order to demonstrate “this is what we, the church, are about.” This model begins by re-asking congregational questions. We ask both inside and outside of church the question: “What do you want in a church?” This is a good marketing question, for sure. And, it has its place (rarely). But a more biblical question to ask is, “What are the critical needs of this community?” The reason we tend not to ask this question is that the answers might be ones that make us uncomfortable, ones that might take us away from a building-centered ministry, answers that could take away financial and people resources from our church-building-centered comfort, ones that could put us right in the middle of enemy territory. Discovering what are the important issues a community needs or faces might break up the club mentality of most congregations. But, this question is a good modeling question for pastors to be asking and doing!
A while ago, my alma mater, Crown College, asked me to put a few words together on my “Marketplace Ministry” in a non-church vocational career…or something like that. Crown has begun a major called Social Entrepreneurship, which caught my eye in a recent email discussion with the current President, Rick Mann (no relation to my own CEO and boss, Joseph Mann, but it is ironic nonetheless). I keep telling my own kids, my time at college was the greatest time of my life. And now, as I commented to President Mann, it is nice to see that my own Christian College had ventured into the same journey I eventually ended up in as a grew older in my Christian life—non-church vocational ministry in the marketplace. Below is the quote that appears in Crown’s most recent alumni magazine, Bridge.
“The Gospel Jesus came to preach to the poor was the Gospel of the presence of God’s Kingdom, the invasion of His rule and reign into the life of this world, into our communities,” Chip shares. For over 40 years, Norwalk Economic Opportunity Now, Inc. (NEON) has welcomed low-income and economically vulnerable families through its doors to find help—help with anything from food/rent assistance to childcare/preschool to job search to energy assistance. Chip designs, implements, and monitors programs that help low-income people become less dependent on assistance and move toward self-sufficiency. Chip realizes, “My job, although not directly a vocational ‘church’ ministry, is a fulfilment of the Kingdom of God.”
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one” (Ezekiel 22:30).
Who can argue with a preacher calling on Christians to step up to prayer before God? Once that is called for, frankly it seems no one cares what the preacher’s text actually says or means. And when, in our America, preachers cry out for prayer warriors to step up into the gap of prayerlessness and beseech God to prevent the destruction of the country that gives us so much freedom, comfort, and, dare I say, wealth, who will listen to someone who says, “But that’s not what the text says. That is not what God is calling for from the text?” Very few Christians it seems. They already have heard what they want and they have already been taught not to care what the text says as long as the preacher sounds spiritual and preaches the Gospel and makes strong references to a dedicated, prayerful, sanctified Christian life. Now that’s preaching! Yes, even if that’s not what the text the preacher is using actually says.
Although a good thing for sure and even needed, Ezekiel 22 is not calling for prayer warriors to stand in the gap for America or your city or your hometown. So what is God calling for in this text? The first clue is actually in the verse itself:
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land” (v 30a).
In order to connect application to the meaning of this passage of Scripture, we need to find out what’s wrong with the land that God intends, through judgment, to destroy. What does God seek for the one who stands in the gap to do?
Well, from the text itself we hear that Jerusalem is a “bloody city” (v 1) and that it produces “idols” (v 3). We know from verse 4 that it is the production and following of idols that the land is defiled. It seems the land (i.e., the people), through the “rulers of Israel” (v 6) have broken many of the social-related commandments and laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy. In fact, besides the obvious breaking and misuse of the Sabbath and worship rites, as well as dishonoring parents, there are a number of economic references (e.g., the taking of interest and profit, injuring neighbors through oppression, v 12; dishonest gain, v 13; along with production and manufacturing that is oppressive, v 22, etc.). What is noteworthy is that in the midst of the defiled and immoral behavior that Ezekiel alludes are references to the mistreatment of the economically vulnerable:
“The alien they have oppressed in your midst; the fatherless and the widow they have wronged in you” (v 7b).
“…they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice” (v 29).
And it is through this misplaced and idol-produced economic approach to community life that has done violence to the economically vulnerable and have devoured lives and made many widows in the midst of her (v 25). And, as well, in direct opposition to Mosaic stipulations in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the alien/stranger in their midst has been abused and oppressed (v 29). It is likely that even the references to robbery may have more to do with withholding provisions for basic needs (sufficient for daily life) to the economically vulnerable or depriving people of their appropriate status as sharers of the land rather than a reference to thieves simply breaking into to homes and stealing.
The Ezekiel 22 passage draws our attention back to covenantal faithfulness and obedience to the ten-words (i.e., the Decalogue), and in particular the stipulations and land-codes related to the economically vulnerable living in the land. We hear from the Book of the Covenant in the Exodus story:
“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious” (Exodus 22:21-27).
And then later on the shores of the promised land, Israel reviews what it means to living as a landed people where in the land there are economically vulnerable landless brethren:
“If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,’ and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:11).
“You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:17).
Ezekiel 22 is a formal judgment upon those (i.e., the landed) who have not fulfilled thier responsibilities toward the landless. Whatever God is seeking in His search for someone “to stand in the gap” has more to do with bringing about righteousness in the land and justice toward the economically vulnerable than with developing a quiet-time or showing up at mid-week prayer meetings—or sounding spiritual in a sermon or looking spiritual because you pray a lot.
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD” (Ezekiel 22:30-31).
Have you ever had to repent of poor interpretations? Have you ever had to admit your once held-so-dearly interpretation of a text was absolutely wrong? I have—way too many times. Mostly where I have had to humble myself has been when I spiritualized a text because the interpretation sounded, well, spiritual and important and would sound like I had some insight into its meaning and application. Many times such spiritualizing of a text was done because it aligned with my deeper-life roots and my commitment to a very individualized Christianity and form of discipleship. Rarely have I had to retract an interpretation that has been built on good exegesis and sound biblical theological thinking.
Over the years I have found that I can rely on exegesis to sustain my interpretations of the Bible and its texts. As well, I can readily see that texts I have spiritualized, disregarding their context and original meaning, have been found wanting and in need of being retracted—and hopefully replaced with sound interpretation. One text that has hit me pretty hard recently where I have had to admit that I was wrong and have offered a poor interpretation in the past is found in the passage above, Ezekiel 22:30-31.
My understanding of this text over the years was a very spiritualized and popular interpretation of Ezekiel’s judgment on Israel and in particular its leadership (priests, v 26; princes, v 27; prophets, v 28). What I had understood was that Ezekiel was explaining God’s case against Israelite leadership because they had forsaken their spiritual leadership and had led Israel to abandon their commitment to Yahweh their God. In a sense, this was correct and is indeed the case in Ezekiel 22, however I turned the words into a case against Israel’s lack of prayer and godliness. Thus the search for someone to build the wall and stand in the gap was spiritualized to mean God searched for someone to step up and lead His people in prayer, standing in the gap between man and God, between the Church and God, between the unsaved and God.
The danger in spiritualizing a text is two-fold: 1) We don’t apply sound exegetical skills and proper contextual considerations to form our interpretation and 2) many preachers (myself included) want to sound spiritual, heavenly-minded to our peers and to those who listen. Spiritualized interpretations allow the preacher to say whatever he or she wants and claim that it’s from the Bible. The words don’t mean what the original author meant—the words mean what the preacher wants them to mean. This is more like a Humpty Dumpty interpretative method than a sound exegesis of an author’s words. (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”) Spiritualizing the Biblical text is more about the preacher than about the actual word from God through which the texts seeks to give us. Although this is sermonic and makes the preacher—which in this case was me as well—sound spiritual (and how could anyway argue against such an interpretation that calls people to prayer!), the fact of the matter is that the interpretation and its application disregarded both the text and the proper repentance needed to repair what was broken. Consequently, the Church misses God’s Word in the end.
Over the next two posts I will retract my spiritualized interpretation, offer a more, contextual one which is more faithful to the text and to what actually is the case against the Israelite leadership, and finally some suggestions at how we can apply Ezekiel’s words to us today.
So for us who need an “excused divorce” for vocational Church ministry, do Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 provide our parameters? Do these texts offer guidelines for those in power over ministry credentials in determining access for those who are divorced? These are the questions that confront both those who are divorced and seeking vocational church ministry, as well as those with institutional power over who has access to Church ministry and who does not. Before I conclude, I’d like to make clear three things:
1) Unless I missed it, there is no text in all of the Bible that states a divorced and/or a divorced-remarried person cannot be a pastor of a Church. Many turn to I Timothy 3:2—An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife—as a “proof text.” However, there is nothing in the Greek nor the sentence to indicate anything other than what it says, namely an “overseer must…be a husband of one wife.” For those that take it as a reference prohibiting a divorced person being an overseer, would also see that the text says “must” and would then apply to a prohibition of single people being a pastor as well! Of course, no one reads it that way because they are after one thing--a proof text for a policy on divorce and vocational church ministry. Consistency of interpretation is not one of our virtues way too often! Although it is within the right of institutions to make rules and regulations on accreditation and licensing, I only wish for consistency of interpretation, fair readings of the intent of Scripture, and forthright explanations.
2) I am not suggesting God is at all pleased with divorce. Making this assumption about me, would not only judge me wrongly, but miss the point of the discussion and the Deuteronomy (and Matthew) text. God Himself says that He hates divorce (Mal 2:16), while He had presented His own Certificate of Divorce to Israel who had left Him, remarried foreign gods, and now sought to return (Jer 3:8; cf. Isa 50:1ff).
3) And finally, I did not come to view these issues of divorce and remarriage after I divorced. In fact, I struggled with the miss-reading of these texts and views on divorce and ministry even back in my Bible College days. I knew something was wrong then with these proof-texts and their application. I even said back then—perhaps some of my classmates and friends will remember—that divorce is worse than murder in many denominations.
This leads me to summarize what I think these texts imply for application to marriage/divorce and ministry. First, without question Jesus refers back to the creation account in order to address an age-old Israelite (male) question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Mt 19:3). To which Jesus reaches back to the Genesis account to answer that God’s intention did not include divorce and that the only reason He permitted it was because we have hard hearts. The reading from the Deuteronomy 24 text kept the possibility of giving a Certificate of Divorce for any reason. Jesus stops that cold—there is no reason for divorce save for allowing it because of our hard hearts. This context is not about “Can a divorced person be in vocational Church ministry?” It is the land issues in Deuteronomy 24 that are implied through the text, which links the context of Deuteronomy to the Decalogue’s commandments of not stealing and coveting. What it does provide is a text that speaks to the wider issues of protection of the vulnerable and the mis-use of people within a social context. Perhaps in this the “exception” or loop-hole (or excused divorce) needs to be rethought (e.g., single parents who divorced out of protection for themselves or their children are “excused").
The reason for the barrier and the excused-divorce clause is preference. It certainly isn’t based on a real, faithful interpretation of Scripture. In the case of permitting entrance into Church-Ministry, for many divorce is worse than murder.
Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action. The “Certificate of Divorce” allowed her to marry again, freely, which was also a way to avoid poverty as well. So the defilement comes not because of her action, but because of her intended use. I know poor word, but it fits the concept of defilement, namely that the first husband has caused her to be defiled by the (freedom) to marry and be “used” in a second marriage.
The defilement has religious overtones—similar to the defilement of a temple or altar, whereas it is not the action of the temple or altar that brings defilement, but the action toward it. Again, the text seems to be implying that the first cause (i.e., the issuing of a “Certificate of Divorce”) brought the affect of the defilement—the “use” as a wife of another. The defilement had no religious, political, or land/inheritance affect until the former first husband wished to remarry the woman (if she became available—again). The “abomination” relates to remarrying the woman for whom he divorced in the first place. We tend to think that it’s all the woman (ah, so convenient for us guys, isn’t it?), but it is the man’s action that would bring about the sin/guilt on the land of inheritance (if he does remarry her).
Someone has rightly pointed out, and I believe is correct, that the purpose of this text relates to “the property aspect of marriage” and “the financial consequences of its dissolution.” The “Certificate of Divorce” allows the husband some justification for divorce without any financial consequences to himself. This is significant in that the first husband is actually “the sinner” here (not the woman) and in need of repentance; but more so, that there is no mention of a similar rationale of indecency in the second divorce. Why does this latter observation matter?
The second marriage dissolution is based solely on the second husband either “turning against” his wife (literally “hating” her) or she is widowed—both are mentioned as cause. Both, also add a financial and/or land/inheritance aspect with regard to the former first husband if he seeks to remarry her. He, that is, the former first husband might attempt to have another dowry (which is like stealing) and, if the second husband has died, the inheritance of the second husband would infringe on the family inheritance laws, promises, and expectations given elsewhere in the Pentateuch. And this would especially be a problem if any children are produced in the second marriage in terms of proper land/inheritance. The first husband ought not to benefit twice by the marriage and then remarriage of the first wife—again this is stealing, and at least dishonest and coveting. This is an unjust act that the law/code in Deuteronomy seeks to prevent. Furthermore, God will not allow dishonest gain to corrupt (pollute, defile) his intention and promises of land/inheritance. This is why such a second remarriage to the first husband brings a curse on the land.
So for us who need an “excused divorce” for voctaional Church ministry, do Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 provide our parameters? Do these texts offer guidelines for those in power over ministry credentials in determining access for those who are divorced? These are the questions… to be continued in the next post...
Continuing with Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.”
Deut 24:1ff might actually strike some as sexist, for the reciprocal—i.e., the male who leaves or divorces marries another wife and is, thus, prohibited from returning to the first—is not mentioned or prohibited anywhere in Scripture. Anywhere! Nor, is there any prohibition for returning to one’s first wife or reference of defilement of the “second” husband. The prohibition is solely for the woman in this sequence of events. It seems reasonable to think beyond our moralistic framework and ask larger questions of why God includes this prohibition in the first place?
First, doesn’t anyone think it odd that the first divorce and then first remarriage does not have a defilement aspect (nor any reference to sin or shame) included. (So why is divorce and remarriage so shameful or prohibitive of professional church ministry? Certainly it’s not from this text.) It is the potential third relationship (i.e., the second remarriage) that would jeopardize the community. Some form of distortion is, according to the text, bringing guilt on the land (cf. v 4: “and shall not bring guilt upon the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance”). This is case law whereby Moses (as Yahweh’s mouth-piece) is creating a series of laws/codes (throughout Deuteronomy) that have an effect on the land of gift. This code here is not just about infidelity, not even about the right or wrong of divorce, but one that is concerned with land/inheritance.
No question that such divorce-remarriage-remarriage is a defilement to God’s order. This text states so. But why is it? Why isn’t the first divorce, in this case, a defilement of the land? Why is returning to the first husband a defilement? Something about the third marriage (the second remarriage) of a woman back to her first husband damages the community and social order. Here’s a more probably framework to consider for this prohibition:
The first husband has “gotten” out of the marriage without having to hand over any dowry or financial consideration to his wife. The reference to “indecency” (v 1) is not limited to sexual infidelity, but more probably refers to the inability to bear children (i.e., that’s probably the social context and connotative meaning of “bringing shame” which is what the words means). This makes sense within the context of land/inheritance. It is unlikely that the “charge” of indecency is related to adultery, because Moses had already indicated that adultery was punished by death, not divorce (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24). Additionally, we already know that there are many circumstances addressed in the Old Testament for which divorce is certainly prohibited (e.g., a man defiling his wife before marriage, Deut 22:28-29; falsely accusing a wife of not being a virgin, Deut 22:13-19).
We note that the rejected wife is sent out with a “certificate of divorce,” which does not indicate a rationale for divorce, nor its acceptance. The man just does it. This “certificate” allowed the wife to remarry freely to another man, but furthermore enabled the former first husband to be free from returning the dowry or from any financial obligation toward his former first wife. In Israel, the chief deterrent to divorce most certainly was financial, for divorce caused the divorcing husband to forfeit the dowry, and as well was obligated to make “divorce payments” as well (usually). The “Certificate of Divorce” is not a requirement of the code, but a description of what was culturally acceptable in divorce case law. It was a matter of cultural custom and seems to have provided the divorcing husband cover or a way of eliminating any financial responsibility toward the wife he was divorcing.
Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action...to be continued…
I was asked why I divorced…but they were looking for only one reason to justify acceptance back into ministry. I could have murdered my wife, been tried and convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced, even as someone who had “a testimony” but not living as I should, but while in jail got serious about Jesus and (with a little miracle after many, many years) was paroled for good behavior—and I’d be accepted for licensing as a pastor in most conservative denominations. But simple because I am divorced and I don’t fit the one accepted reason, I cannot be received for pastoral ministry. Divorce is worse than murder.
The one reason normally looked for to “excuse” a potential ministry candidate who is divorced is that the spouse committed adultery. All other reasons bar one from pastoral ministry—and in some cases almost any form of vocational church ministry. Usually the proof-text is an appeal to Matthew 19:7-9:
“They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’.”
The reference in the text is a quote from Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. The proof-text’s meaning is narrowed to the action of adultery as the only “exception.” It is the acceptation for an “excused” divorce. Like when one of my high schoolers missed school, if I call in with an acceptable excuse, the absence is excused and not marked against my teen. Likewise, when someone is divorced or married to someone divorced, applies for vocational ministry, if the spouse divorced from committed adultery, the divorce is excused—and the barrier is removed for professional ministry. The problem is, the loop-hole is not really, well, a loop-hole, and is a little—no, a lot—misleading and misses the point of the Old Testament reference, and bars people, unnecessarily, from potential, vocational church ministry. Divorce is worse than murder…when it comes to who can and who cannot be accepted for professional church ministry.
A text often used improperly over and over and over, especially when it is policy and written in to manuals, is hard to unlock from its faulty interpretation in order to hear what’s really there. The Deuteronomy 24 divorce-remarriage passage is one such text. But hopefully with some patience, the text will be heard more clearly.I’d like to review Deuteronomy 24 in order to see how narrow the “exception clause” really is and even if it should be applied the way it usually is by those in power over professional ministry. This is not meant to be a commentary or a deep and detailed exposition of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. However, the text in its context offers insight often missed because we are drawn to words isolated from their intended meaning and use in a text.
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
This divorce-remarriage law/code here in Deuteronomy 24 is intended as social law, and implies both a social/legal and religious sphere as the context, before and after the text, suggests. The issue at hand is not divorce of marriage or even remarriage, but land and property and how families and individuals related to each other and property. Both divorce and remarriage (and remarriage again) is not just related to, well, divorce, but the issue of land and property, which were very important within the ancient Israelite world. This is a text clearly submitting the moral laws of marriage/divorce to the land/inheritance laws and intentions of God—or, at a minimum, a blending them. Remarriage to the original husband, after having married another, would bring potential land-disputes and confusion over inheritance—especially if children are involved through the second marriage. This is not just a moral issue (i.e., divorce-remarriage) as so often suggested, but one regarding a public domain/public square related issue (i.e., economical vulnerability and land-inheritance); a code that was instituted to help protect and reinforce the fulfillment of the social order God had intended under His authority.
How typical is this of marriages, anyway? How many female divorcees return, after marrying a second husband and then divorces or widowed, to the first husband? Is there no guilt on the divorcing first husband? Why does this not apply to the males? The men seem to be free of the prohibition. No wonder many have turned to this text for “the exception clause” to marriage. (No wonder men like this text!) But that is not its use (which was corrected even by Jesus himself in Matthew 19 and Mark 10). I think we need to see this more broadly related to case law that deals with financial and land/inheritance concerns.
First, doesn’t anyone think it odd that the first divorce and then first remarriage does not have a defilement aspect...to be continued..
“…discontinuous change is much more disturbing and difficult. Unlike the continuous form, it creates a situation that requires something different from and more potent than the normal habits and skills that were so useful during a stable period of continuous change. Congregations do not do well with this unexpected, dramatic change; they need entirely different skills and capacities from those that have service them well in the past” [Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk in The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World
, pp 57-58]
Although I spend most of my time reading up on issues of poverty, urban blight and suburban sprawl, the tensions of economic advantages and disadvantages, the significance of demographic data and profiles of populations, and of course taxes, legislation, and politics, I try to keep up on church-related, ministry and mission issues facing Christianity and the Church. To be frank, I have been so unimpressed with much that I have read on the so-called emergent and emerging church (including anything smacking of contemporary church growth or just trying to be trendy), and books on missional churches have been as well unimpressive. Same ol’. Same ‘ol. I have heard it all before—just an attempt at keeping up on the times. Just trendy stuff and approaches wrapped in postmodern (hyper-modern, really just modernity gone wild) language.
I am very skeptical of the down-play given to the place of Scripture coming from most of the new elite authors. There is one set of authors that caught my attention and left me a little impressed (there I said it), that is, with Roxburgh and Romanuk’s book on the The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World. I appreciated the analysis of their church leadership approach to change and how various congregations fit within the continuous-discontinuous change mode. I like the honesty. The star statement comes on page 54, although it had already been hinted at on almost every page:
“Decisions must be made and action taken that no longer fit an established paradigm.”
Of course this book on Church Leadership is coming from guys who aren’t doing church, they advise, consult, and critique churches and church leaders. That’s always a problem for me. Doesn’t mean what they are saying isn’t right (and so far, I am about 90% in agreement—thus far, all good excepting, again, with their low view of Scripture and the eschewing of strategic planning—for another Thought), just that its easier to consult than do. But I digress.
In my reading: First we must face up to it—we make changes and respond to change (or instability) in ways that find its basis in protecting the current structures, authorities, and dare I say jobs (i.e., position and place). The book, The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World, stresses that we simply cannot make changes and do church the way we have always done it, or even to attempt to try harder at the same thing. The social and cultural contexts have vastly changed from what the older church structures were built upon. Something else must emerge (oh, man I can’t believe I wrote that!). A different type of church must emerge (ouch, even that word I can’t believe I actually wrote out-loud) in order to compete with the changes surrounding the church—and that doesn’t mean just being trendy or mod. And the direction we face—we can’t think that serving up religious goods and services is the call of the Church. We continue to think it’s our job to create something the un (or even the churched from a competing church) will desire and come get, as if potential members of the congregation are consumers and we are selling a product. Some church leaders and authors continue to think we are, and some church growth gurus still portray church growth in such terms—but they are dead wrong, unregenerately wrong. And this book I have appreciated the idea of imaging a new future for God’s people (within a congregation), and allowing the Word, the sacraments, and our worship to be more formative in helping the congregation imagine that new future. What the authors paint is scary for pastors and congregational leaders—some might lose their jobs and their elite status!
It’s an older paper now, and I wrote it to critique the status and state of the bible college movement and offer a future direction—don’t think anyone listened—but some of you might be interested in the thoughts in my paper on ministerial training, “
Ministerial Training & (Post)Modernity: Institution-Based Ministerial Training Creates Concrete (Post)Modern Experiences for Students”
This isn’t just spin. As a conservative and a republican, I am all for being more fiscally responsible and to minimize the tax burden on American citizens. This always bring economic growth. But it is of national interest to maximize our resources, as the purpose of the Community Services Block Grant program affirms, “to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.” For sure there is government waste (heck, there is wasteful spending in almost every home and institution, including the church!), and I agree some of the tax dollars funneled into welfare and poverty programs are wasted, not well implemented, unaccountable, and unwisely distributed—but I say some, not all. (Strengthen, don’t eliminate; fix, not do away with.) As the disaster in New Orleans and the broken levies has shown even other federally supported programs (like the ones that were supposed to build good levies) can be wasted and misused and misappropriated. But does that mean we stop building levies? Of course not. We fix what is wrong. Same should be applied to our goal—isn’t it a good goal, of national and of personal interest?—“to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.” Why would you be against that goal? Why would anyone? This idea that it is up to individuals, or even should be left up to the religious organizations is a phony hypothetical. Those claiming such are often religious, few of whom ever lift a finger to do a thing about poverty.
What gets me now is that we hear over and over that the major talking heads of evangelical leadership community are asking the Federal government to work on global warming and world poverty—over there, of course. Let’s see these same evangelical leaders do something about it right here, on our shores, in our backyard. Politically-correct-evangelical-ese has now succumbed to the Bono-syndrome: It is all over there. (Apparently Bono and our status leaders show up at these evangelical leader’s offices now.) Forget what’s here, right next door. Not in my back yard (NIMBY). The NIMBY principle is alive and well among evangelicals. If evangelicals, together, wanted to actually do something about poverty here in America, they would because they could. Os Guinness in his Gravedigger File points out
“It may be true that there are more Christians in America than ever before and that they have never had so much money at their disposal, such powerful technologies to use, such positions of influence to fill, or such a global opportunity to which to respond. But the signs are that the opportunity will be squandered and that much of American Christendom is more modern and more American than it is decisively Christian.”
Whereas I agree that we will always have the poor among us (actually a poor interpretation and reference to Jesus’ words), why is that the primary working (Biblical) principle among those who claim to be following Jesus Christ? Yet James, the brother of Jesus and an apostle reminds the Christian community that was divided over the issues and thought patterns of rich-poor, haves-have nots:
“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).
This is obviously what the church community should be busy about, since it was written to an established church.
We use the “poor will always be with you” principle as an excuse. How is it that we escape the words from Proverbs?
“He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14: 31).
“The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern” (Proverbs 29:7).
We think we escape them. We won’t. NIMBY will not work on judgment day!
I know I have wondered about here with my ranting. I am greatly disturbed when I hear that top leaders within the Evangelical community from church and denominational leaders to Presidents of institutions of higher Christian education sign “A Call to Action” to stop global warming (and aren’t we cooling now, anyway?) and world hunger (now we’re players on the political scene and apparently our Evangelical talking heads have become “people to see”), yet ignore the poverty right here. Where is the call to action for alleviating the causes and conditions of poverty right here in our communities? In our back yard? “Not in my back yard!” God forgive us.