Somebody dropped by my office with an offer to replace all our fluorescent lights with l.e.d. fixtures. At first I thought it might be a scam but it turned out to be a legitimate offer from a state initiative to reduce electrical demands. Since they offered to swap out the lights for free, I figured there was nothing to lose; I’d be an idiot to turn down the opportunity. Aside from being free, what made it particularly attractive is that many of the ballasts in the existing fixtures were starting to fail. Replacing them is expensive and I’d been putting it off. As a result, the light in some areas in the building, like the entryway, was dimmer than it should have been.

An added benefit was that the new fixtures came equipped with motion sensors. The building is divided up into zones and the fixtures in each zone only come on when someone is there. For example, we have a fairly extensive library which occupies several rooms. Occupation is erratic. Some rooms see use several times per day. Others might be visited a few times per month. The light switches are located half a building away, so we often had to back-track to turn the lights on. The alternative was to leave the lights on continuously, even though nobody was in the room. Now we can leave all the switches on. The various zones illuminate when someone enters. If the lights don’t detect further motion after a few minutes, they automatically turn off. It’s saved tremendously on our electric bill.

The downside to the arrangement is that a zone remains dark until you step into it. When the system was first installed, I happened to observe a co-worker’s first encounter with it. He opened a door to enter an area which we only occasionally use. In the past, the area was always illuminated as the switch is too far away to turn the lights on only as needed. He did a double-take as the situation was not what he expected. Then, he hesitantly took a step forward. It was only after he took that step into the dark that the lights came on and he could see where he needed to go.

I thought that experience was a perfect illustration of faith. So many times we are hesitant to step forward because we can’t see where we are going. Christ asks us to do something but we are reluctant to step into the unknown. We know the end or the goal of our journey but we balk because moving forward means stepping into the dark. It is only when we trust Christ to provide the guidance we need and take that first step that He illuminates the pathway. Even then, He most often does not disclose the entire route. He only gives us what we need for the moment and, perhaps, a couple of steps ahead. We have to keep on moving forward before the next phase of our journey becomes clear to us. The question is whether I am willing to take that step into the dark. If I refuse to move unless I see the entire pathway to the destination, chances are I will never begin the journey.

Why doesn’t Christ disclose the entire journey before we begin? One reason may be is that if we knew everything which will befall us on the way, it would either discourage us or immobilize us with fear. It is only as we travel the road set before us that we gain the experience and the competence to cope with what is to come.

However, I think there is another reason Christ doesn’t disclose everything to us at once. It comes back to faith. Christ has promised to always be with us. He’s promised that we will not face anything that is beyond our ability to cope. Do we trust Him? Do we have confidence that He will provide what we need, when we need it? If not, then maybe our faith isn’t as strong as we think it is?

Recently, I’ve had two opportunities to take an in-depth look at 1st Corinthians. The first occasion was when the church I serve did a series of expository sermons on the book. The second was when a man in another country whom I am mentoring asked me to teach the book to him.

It’s fair to say that most of us read Paul’s letter and shake our heads in wonder at the problems in that church. In spite of the fact that Paul spent considerable time there, the church at Corinth had not yet absorbed some of the basics of Christian character. Among other things, they congratulated themselves for their tolerance of egregious sexual sin. They embraced the concept of “alternative lifestyles” long before the term was invented.

In addition, their doctrine was hardly orthodox in certain areas. Some of them denied one of the basic tenents of the Christian faith, namely the resurrection. Not only that, a faction in Corinth even turned against Paul, the very person who taught them about Christ, and questioned his apostleship.

My guess is that if we knew of a church like Corinth today, many of us would question whether they were Christians at all. That very thought came home to me when we reached chapter 6 which talks about the lawsuits the Corinthians were bringing against one another. The man I’m mentoring spoke up, “Do you remember Brother X? He’s been preaching at….” He named a church which played a huge role in both our lives though neither of us attends there now.

“Well, Brother C took offense at something X preached. He attacked X and put him in the hospital, then sued him. Now X has counter-sued. Ironically, love is one of the most frequent sermon topics at that church.”

I could only grimace at the horrible example the whole mess set for the community. The church’s reputation already was none too good. This just confirmed people’s view of the church’s character. In the larger context, what do incidents like this say to the world about the ability of Christians to handle problems and differences of opinion among themselves? More importantly, why would anybody be attracted to Christ? If those who claim to follow Christ can’t resolve their problems, then why would anyone think that Christ can help them with their own issues?

There is another aspect of this, too. Paul seems to advocate the establishment of an ecclesiastical court to adjudicate disputes among believers. He probably had something ad-hoc in mind – a temporary committee to deal with a specific incident. However, he leaves open the possibility of a more formal body appointed on a permanent basis. Whether ad-hoc or permanent, those so appointed would make binding decisions. Is this what Christ had in mind when He told believers who couldn’t resolve their differences to “take it to the church”? (Matthew 18:17)

Muslims already have something like these tribunals in their Sharia Courts. The difference, as I understand it, is that the judicial panels the New Testament contemplates are restricted to the local congregation while the Sharia Courts hold sway over the entire society.

As an aside, don’t let the advocates of establishing Sharia Courts deceive you into thinking this is merely a matter of cultural sensitivity. Establishing such courts is the equivalent of imposing Canon Law on the entire body politic. Only it would be Islamic law.

However, this whole discussion of ecclesiastical jurisprudence obscures a more fundamental problem. As Paul points out, the very fact that Christians have disputes with one another which need adjudication means that they have already been defeated. The real problem at Corinth wasn’t their aberrant lifestyles; it wasn’t their taking one another to court; it wasn’t their fights over the spiritual gifts, etc. Instead, it was their lack of love. If people really acted in love, they wouldn’t have disputes and, if they did, they would resolve them quickly without the need of adjudication. “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10 NIV)

There is something else, too. We are quick to judge. As I mentioned earlier, most of us would question whether people like those at Corinth were even Christians. Yet, Paul consistently calls them “brothers” and goes out of his way to praise them for their good characteristics, even while taking the to task for their shortcomings. What does it say about my love when I am so quick to write off people like X and C?

A preacher friend and I were talking about church finance. He told me of an experience that left me shaking my head in wonder. The context is that this brother has faithfully served in the same congregation for well over 20 years. The church never has provided a living wage so he’s had to supplement his salary by driving bus. Among the congregations I’m familiar with, this is not unusual.

Where the story became surreal is when my friend told me about being invited to speak one Sunday at another congregation. The other congregation gave him a modest honorarium. This, in my opinion, is only good and right – particularly as travel was involved. After all, “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” Upon his return, someone in his home congregation objected. “You’re double-dipping!” he stated. “You’re already receiving a salary to speak and you should pay the church back for the Sunday you missed!”

Say what?! I couldn’t believe the gall of this guy. For over 20 years the salary you’ve paid your preacher was so paltry he couldn’t make ends meet and now you want him to refund part of it? When did he become your slave with no time off? Since when did it become any of your business what he does on a vacation day? As long as it doesn’t interfere with what he’s agreed to do for the local congregation, what difference does it make if he receives a little income from somewhere else? If what he makes is such a concern to you, why don’t you pay him a living wage? I wonder what this guy would think if his employer demanded a salary refund for any moonlighting he did.

I fully agree that those who serve in the church should not regard their their work as they would secular employment. But where do churches get the idea that it’s okay to exploit those who serve them? As a personal example, a church some 4 hours away asked me to come and speak to them. It turns out there was some miscommunication on their end between the mission committee which invited me and the preacher. As a result, I ended up with a total of 5 minutes to speak during the morning service. No one asked us to lunch afterwards, so my wife and I were on our own. Then, a traffic accident added 2 hours to our return trip. Gas and a meal out of our pockets on top of 10 hours of driving for the privilege of speaking 5 minutes! And the church didn’t give us a thin dime for our trouble. To be fair, this particular congregation regularly supports the mission work I do, so maybe they thought that entitled them to a visit from me. But still! It sure didn’t make me feel very appreciated.

In contrast, how refreshing it was to encounter a church on the other end of the spectrum. I once held a seminar for a small congregation. Afterward I found out that when the men gathered to discuss what they should pay me, someone said, “Be generous. Knock his socks off with generosity.” They did, and it made me feel very appreciated. They’ve continued the tradition. Whenever they have me speak, they pay good money. In addition, at times someone in the church has paid for a hotel room so my wife and I could come down early and have a mini-vacation. They are also good about taking us out for meals. It’s meant so much to me that I try to copy their example at the congregation where I serve.

Unfortunately, it’s not only churches which have strange ideas about compensation. Preachers can be just as guilty. Perhaps one of the most benign self-delusions preachers have is that they don’t have to tithe their income from the church. They justify this attitude by claiming that their compensation from the church actually should be higher than it is. The difference between what they get and what they should get is their tithe. “After all,” they say, “if the church did pay me the higher amount I’d just have to pay taxes on it and why should the Lord’s money be taxed?”

That argument has just enough logic in it to seem half-way plausible. However, when you stop and think about it, it involves at least one lie. Preachers who do this are under-reporting their compensation to the Internal Revenue Service. If the church has not agreed to the higher salary, and to withhold it, then it isn’t compensation and the preacher can’t truthfully claim that it belongs to him but he merely didn’t collect it. Therefore he’s lying to himself and/or God. On the other hand, if the higher amount truly is compensation because the church has agreed to pay, yet withhold the amount, then the preacher is understating his income. Thus lying to the IRS.

At least this group of preachers acknowledges that they should pay tithes. There’s another group who claims that preachers and other church leaders are exempt altogether from returning a portion of their compensation to the Lord. They try to justify it by using the Old Testament priesthood as their example. Since the priests in the Old Testament collected tithes from everybody else, they protest, isn’t it self-evident that they didn’t pay tithes? This merely shows the ignorance of the protester. If they ever bothered to read the Law they’d find out that the priests were expected to pay a tithe of the tithes they collected (Numbers 18:26-28, Nehemiah 10:38-39).

But these irregularities pale beside the preachers who claim control over all the contributions made to the church. I know of preachers who pocket the entire offering, claiming it belongs to them. (I suppose people make out checks in the preacher’s name?) Then they dole out sums at their own discretion for expenses. More than likely, rather than dip into the funds they’ve already pocketed, they will ding the congregation to give even more to meet expenses. Personally, I find the practice repugnant. And, depending on the details, it may even be illegal. It certainly is not transparent and there is no accountability. It’s a practice which is ripe for abuse and leads to delusions of grandeur on the preacher’s part. Show me a preacher who claims all the offerings as his and I’ll also show you a man who refuses to let go of any power.

How, then, should church finances and preacher pay be handled? It might not always be possible – particularly when a congregation is small and just starting up – but my conviction is that a preacher should not have any power of the purse at all. He will probably need to know how much is donated but he should not know who donates what or how much. Two unrelated persons should count each offering. It goes without saying that their tally should match the deposit slip. The Deacons should prepare the church’s budget. Obviously, the budget should reflect the vision and the direction of the Elders and/or the preacher, assuming the congregation does not have Elders. The congregation should have the opportunity to approve the budget. It might be advantageous for the church to grant a preacher an expense account, but a preacher should not have signature authority on the bank account. The church administration should be totally transparent about where the money goes. Each month a copy of the church’s income statement and balance sheet should be posted where the congregation can see it.

While tithing is no longer commanded, giving in proportion as a person prospers is the standard under the New Covenant (Deuteronomy 16:7, Acts 11:29, 2 Corinthians 8:11-12). Having said that, I tend to think that a tithe of income should be the beginning point for a church leader. A preacher or other leader should not play games by counting phantom income as his tithe. Instead, he should give a portion of whatever money he actually receives, whether it be much or little.

In regard to preacher compensation, there is no question that “a laborer is worthy of his hire.” A congregation does have an obligation to compensate those who labor among them, teaching and preaching the Word. If possible, a congregation should pay its leaders a living wage. If they are unable, then they should not begrudge leaders whatever funds they manage to come up with from other sources to meet their needs. For their part, leaders should not expect a congregation to support a lifestyle which is higher than that of the members.

My personal decision has been to follow the example of Paul and not burden the congregation I serve, by taking a salary. I am bi-vocational and don’t need compensation from the church. Not only does this free up money which the church can use for other purposes, part of my reason for not taking a salary is to set a good example for those I mentor. I don’t want anyone to fall into the trap of thinking of church work as a career or occupation rather than a calling, a vocation. However, I also do not wish to deprive the church of the grace of giving. So, if they offer an occasional honorarium, I receive it with thanks for the extra blessing it is.

Along with the idea of calling, if a church asks me to come and speak to them, or I’m asked to speak at a rally, I don’t set any terms or conditions. If the locale is further than I can easily drive to, I may ask to stay in someone’s home, but I do not ask what they will pay, or even if they will pay me for coming. When you go expecting nothing, then whatever you receive is a blessing, not a right.

As in all things, when both leaders and the congregations act in love with the goal of bringing glory to the Lord, the questions of finance and pay will resolve themselves. Let’s take our egos out of the equation and leave our compensation in Christ’s hands. He is more than capable of supplying our personal needs as well as those of the church!

Have you ever had the experience of talking to someone without being able to communicate? Neither of you used any esoteric words or complex sentences yet, somehow, you seemed to be talking right past each other. There was no mutual understanding.

Sometimes when this occurs, it turns out that you are defining the meaning of words differently. What I mean by a particular word is very different that what you understand it to mean, and vice versa. It’s like that old saw about the British and Americans: “Two peoples divided by a common language.”

The vocabulary we use and the meaning we ascribe to words can cause a great deal of confusion not only in interpersonal relations, but also in the church and in regard to the faith. There is a particular word which is in common use in our church culture that, I believe, is the source of untold confusion. Rather, it’s the misuse and wrong definition of the word which is causing the confusion. People mean something very different by it than the Scriptures do. It’s that word, “Pastor.”

Now, I happen to be one of those critters and it jars me when I hear people – even though they do it in good faith – misuse the term. Let me give you an illustration of what I’m driving at. The other day I received an invitation to a conference for church leaders. One of the lines in the brochure reads, “…we’ll look at how to strengthen the relationships between Elders and Pastors.” My guess is that most church people would contemplate that phrase without batting an eye. They would see nothing amiss with it and would laud the intent of the conference sponsors.

To me, however, that use of the words “Elders” and “Pastors” shrieks of biblical illiteracy. Further, it is a symptom of a far deeper problem – that of a church polity which is far removed from what the Lord intended. Please do not misunderstand. I do not question the motives or the intent of people who mangle the terms in this way. But I can’t help wonder if even church leaders are so ignorant about what the Bible says in this area, how many other things are being misrepresented or twisted into something unrecognizable to the early church. No wonder our churches are struggling!

“What’s the big deal?” you ask. “Aren’t the terms as used in that brochure perfectly clear? The Pastor is the man who leads the church while the Elders are the elected officials who help oversee the implementation of the Pastor’s vision for the congregation. What’s so difficult to understand about that?”

The problem is that Biblically speaking, the division of church leaders into the two classes of Pastors and Elders is totally artificial and arbitrary. According to the New Testament, the terms Pastor and Elder refer to exactly the same person. They merely express different aspects of the role. For example, the Apostle Peter writes, “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” (1 Peter 5:1-4 NIV)

In this passage, Peter is speaking to Elders and he tells them to be shepherds. ‘Shepherd’ is simply another word for ‘Pastor.’ In other words, Peter regards Elders and Pastors as one and the same people. We see exactly the same thing when the Apostle Paul addresses the Elders from Ephesus in Acts 20:17, 28.

The word ‘Elder’ refers to the leader’s spiritual maturity and/or his age, while the term ‘Pastor’ refers to the leader’s responsibility to tend to the ‘flock,’ that is a local congregation of the church. Both Peter and Paul also say that the Elders are to ‘oversee’ the ‘flock.’ That is, Elders/Pastors are to give direction to the congregation and to protect it. Along with directing the church, preaching and teaching also are among the responsibilities of Elders (1 Timothy 5:17). It’s also worth noting that according to the examples we have in the New Testament, each congregation should have more than one Pastor. Christ did not intend the churches to become “one-man-bands” but, rather, be led, governed, administered and fed by several co-equal Elders/Pastors.

How the mighty have fallen! In the church of today there are many congregations which are led by one man who claims the title of ‘Pastor’ yet does not meet the qualifications of Pastors in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-5. If the congregations have Elders at all, they are all too often little more than business managers who sort of fall in line with the head honcho’s vision. Many of them could not teach or preach if their lives depended on it. Is it any wonder that churches are weak and ineffective? The very people whom Christ intended to guide, nurture and protect the church have abdicated their responsibilities.

It is my conviction that we will never become the church Christ wants us to be until we start using the terminology as the New Testament does and, even more importantly, organizing our congregations as Christ intended. Let’s start appointing men to leadership who truly meet the qualifications of Elder/Pastors. Let’s recognize that each congregation needs several Pastors. Let’s end the division between Pastors and Elders!

Jeremiah is one of my favorite prophets. One reason is that I can relate to his reluctance when God called him. Jeremiah’s response was, “I do not know how to speak; I’m only a child.”

Like Jeremiah I, too, felt unqualified to speak. I am a shy introvert who prefers to stay in the background. It took me a long time to realize that I have a gift for teaching. Even so, I would shake from stage-fright before facing a class. As for speaking or preaching to the church, I ran from it as hard as I could. If someone had told the young me that one day I would come to enjoy speaking from the pulpit, I would have called him crazy.

Age also factored into my views of my un-fittedness for public ministry. What could I possibly have to say to the “gray-heads” of the church? I was somewhat in awe of my father and others of his generation who, seemingly evangelized without effort, started churches, had a pulpit presence and could reel off Scripture at the drop of a hat. Was it not my place to look up to and learn from them? It was something of a shock to realize that I had insights which others didn’t. As time passed it was even more of an adjustment to realize that I had become one of the “gray-heads” who had been in the church longer than many others. It was startling to realize that people were starting to look up to and defer to me.

But there is another reason I feel affinity for Jeremiah. There are times when I look at my ministry and ask the question, “Have I really accomplished anything?” Jeremiah’s ministry was fraught with disappointment and heartache. People not only rejected his message, they rejected him – to the point that, more than once, they tried to take his life. I, too, know something of rejection. Nobody has tried to physically scrag me but, more than once, people have tried to “kill the messenger” by slandering me, speaking against my character and falsely accusing me. People have turned against me because they rejected the message I tried to bring them.

I sense that Jeremiah was a profoundly lonely man. Not only because the Lord denied him marriage but because he was an outsider. He belonged to a priestly clan which was an historical rival to those in power in the Temple. Even when Hilkiah found the Book of the Law and King Josiah sent people to inquire of the Lord about it, they consulted the prophetess Huldah instead of Jeremiah. The message Jeremiah proclaimed about the future of the kingdom, Babylon and regarding the exiles taken to Babylon proved extremely unpopular. He was labeled a traitor, imprisoned, thrown into a cistern and threatened with execution. Jeremiah was so unpopular that King Zedekiah had to consult him in secret. Even then, the king rejected his advice. King Jehoiakim burned the scroll on which Jeremiah transcribed the messages God sent him.

There have been times when I, too, have felt the pain of isolation. My views regarding the church and the reforms which are needed have not always been well received. I’ve been labeled a troublemaker for challenging the status-quo and expressing the principles I see in Scripture. Even those who said they agreed with me have hesitated to stand with me when the crunch came. I’ve wondered whether I was the only one to see what needs to be done and had the courage to act on my convictions.

The thing which stands out to me most about Jeremiah’s ministry is that, from a human point of view, it was a total failure. After over 23 years of proclaiming God’s word, he had possibly two converts – Baruch the scribe and Ebed-melech the Cushite. Jeremiah himself wondered what the point of his ministry was when God had him buy a field during the siege of Jerusalem. It made no earthly sense – particularly since Jeremiah had no descendants to pass it down to. Then, the crowning indignity came when the survivors of the Babylonian invasion asked Jeremiah to consult the Lord for them. They not only disobeyed the divine instructions Jeremiah passed on to them not to migrate to Egypt, they forced Jeremiah to go with them! Yes, no matter how you slice it, Jeremiah’s ministry looked like a complete failure.

Fortunately, I’ve been blessed with more visible success than Jeremiah. Along with the rejection there have been some people who have listened. I have been able to introduce some reforms. I have been able to mentor a few men who have caught the vision. I’m seeing spiritual growth in the congregation I lead. However, I also have to say that for much of my ministry I’ve carried a sense of guilt. The guilt results from those who have not responded. I’ve taken the blame on myself. “If I had just been a little more persuasive! If I had only phrased things differently! If only I had approached the problem from a different angle! If only…”

However, pondering on Jeremiah has helped me understand that my sense of guilt is misplaced. Jeremiah was not a failure! Why? Because he obeyed what God told him to do and that is all God requires. God does not hold us responsible for the decisions and actions of other people. The only question is whether or not we have obeyed. We are not responsible for results! That realization has been incredibly freeing for me. Thank you Jeremiah!

It was Winston Churchill who said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” There is an unfortunate tendency in the culture in which I grew up, to treat truth that way not only in wartime, but all the time. Another cultural tendency is to tell people what you think they want to hear.

This makes for some interesting situations. For example, if you go the train station and ask someone, “Is this the train that goes to city A?”, more than likely he’ll say, “Yes.” So you get on the train and find out, after it’s already left the station, that you are headed in the opposite direction, to city Z. You have to learn to ask the right question, like, “Which train goes to city A?”

Growing up surrounded around this kind of thing, I started to pick up those kind of values. One day when I was a teenager, my father asked me a question. I don’t remember what it was, nor do I remember what I answered. I just know that instead of getting right to the point and answering the question, I danced all around it. Dad stopped me cold and said, “You have become altogether too devious. You need to correct that or it’s going to cause you a lot of trouble later on in life.” And he gave me a look of disgust, turned on his heel and walked away. I was left standing there with my mouth hanging open.

In the years since then, I have made a conscious effort to be transparent. I’ve tried to be truthful even when it’s painful to tell the truth. It’s not always easy. Every once in a while I’m still tempted, or prompted by fear, to beat around the bush or to shade the facts.

But sometimes the effort to be transparent and tell the unvarnished truth leads to other problems. In the culture in which I grew up there is a tendency to think that you must always look beneath the surface to discover what someone really means or what he’s really after. “What you see is what you get,” is a foreign concept. It comes as a shock to people that there is no hidden agenda. At times people have become angry with me because I must have meant something other than what I said. After all, if they were the ones saying it, they would have meant something else!

This leads to a second problem with being totally candid. More than once I’ve been told that I’m too blunt. I can really relate to the protagonist, Wallace Wallace, in the young-adult book “No More Dead Dogs” by Gordon Korman. In it he gets suspended from the football team for being upfront in a book review. For example, in response to the question, “Who was your favorite character?” he answered that he hated them all equally. He went on to criticize the plot unfavorably. Unfortunately for him, the book happened to be one of his teacher’s favorites. Personally, I found Wallace Wallace’s candor refreshing. He had the guts and conviction to say what I often wanted to say to my teachers when I was in school. I have to admit, though, that I don’t necessarily appreciate that level of candor when it is directed at me!

This raises a question. Is it possible to be too honest? Is it ever permissible to shade the truth to avoid trouble or to spare someone’s sensibilities?
The answer to this conundrum is in Ephesians chapter 4. The overall theme of Ephesians 4, is living a life “worthy of the calling you have received” (4:1), unity (4:3), spiritual maturity (4:14) and building the body, that is, the church (4:16). How do we attain to maturity? In 4:15, Paul writes, “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” (NIV)

Yes, we must not hesitate to speak the truth. Later, in verse 25 Paul tells us to put off falsehood and speak truthfully. But the piece which is often missing is speaking the truth in love. It’s an area where I still have room for growth.

What does it mean to speak the truth in love? Unfortunately, the NIV translation obscures an important concept in verse 29 when it says, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” The ESV puts it this way, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” In this verse Paul is contrasting talk which is unwholesome or which corrupts with talk which gives grace.

If you study it out, it appears that the word “grace” refers to the blessings we receive when we are in covenant. Putting it all together, what Paul is saying is that the way we speak should help others to keep covenant with God and with each other. It is perfectly possible to speak the truth, yet it still be “unwholesome” because it weakens the bond of covenant. Therefore it is “corrupt” even though it is true. In contrast, “wholesome” speech is not only true, it also encourages others to remain committed to their covenants. To rephrase, speaking the truth without love is unwholesome and corrupting, while speaking the truth in love builds up, is fitting and strengthens covenant ties.

So, is it possible to be too truthful? In a sense, yes! Truth without love tears down and destroys. Does that mean that we should shade the truth or lead people to believe things that inaccurate? Can we lie in the name of love? No! As Paul writes in another place, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6 NIV) To put it another way, if it isn’t truthful, it isn’t love either!

I think one of the reasons we (or at least I!) have trouble in this area is that we put too much emphasis on words – that is, what we say – without paying enough attention to what prompts our speech. When you get right down to it, speaking truth in love is not merely something we should do. It is something which reflects our inner character. Jesus put it this way in Luke 6:43-45, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” (NIV)

When I am a truthful person, speaking truth will come naturally. When I am a loving person, it will be natural for love to temper the truth I tell. May the Lord grant me the ability to “be” so that the doing is a natural extension of my inner being!

What Should We Teach?

It’s been several years since I wrote the first two parts of this series. In the first part I discussed the dearth of leaders in the church and why we cannot depend on the Bible Colleges and Seminaries to train the people we need. In the second of these essays I discussed different teaching methodologies and explored alternatives to the Bible College model. In this third installment I will suggest what should be taught to prospective leaders. I waited to write it until I had some actual experience in putting my ideas into practice.

In Part 2 I wrote that the kind of training we need would revolve around mentoring rather than formal lectures. In the years since, I have mentored and am mentoring several emerging leaders. It has been a rewarding experience. Though I have not been able to implement what I envisioned as completely as I would like, my experience has convinced me that the basic ideas are sound.

Before presenting the things I think we need to teach, let me issue a caveat. Though the goal is to raise up and develop new leaders for the church, it is easy to lose the proper focus. We can become so bound up in the transfer of knowledge that we lose sight of the main purpose for doing so. The teaching can easily become an end in itself. May I suggest that our teaching and our attempts to raise up new leadership will be effective only to the extent that our focus is Jesus Christ. Our teaching must be done for Him, to Him and because of Him. “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith…” (Hebrews 12:2 NIV) Anything less becomes an exercise in human wisdom rather than obedience to the divine will.

With that firmly in mind, I suggest that our mentoring should be in two broad areas: Attitude and Knowledge. Of the two, attitude is far more important. If someone has the proper attitude, he will naturally and organically acquire the knowledge he needs to be an effective leader in the church. If he doesn’t develop the proper attitude he will never become the kind of leader the Lord desires regardless of how much knowledge he may obtain. Character will always trump academics.

What Attitudes Should We Teach?

What sort of attitude or character traits should we encourage in those we mentor? The following five traits will raise a person far above many who consider themselves leaders.

1) An attitude of humility

All too often church leaders tend to view their role in terms of self. They speak of “my” church and what “I” am doing. They take pride in and measure their success by such things as the number of people who attend the church services and the size of the offerings. They take pride in their speaking ability, their management of building projects and the number of ministries they have started.

In contrast, a true leader retains a sense of brokenness. He realizes that it is not he, but Christ working through him who builds the church. He realizes that his gifting comes from the Holy Spirit. Following the Apostle Paul’s example, he will not try to win people by means of wise and persuasive words, rather through demonstration of the Spirit’s power (1 Corinthians 2:4-5). He will crucify self so that God’s power will be manifested in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:10). In short, he will constantly direct people’s attention away from himself to Christ.

2) An attitude of service

Many leaders expect deference because of the position they hold. They think that their role entitles them. Someone who was interviewing candidates for a position of leadership in the church once told me that the very first question most of them asked was, “What is the salary and benefit package?” They were viewing the position as a rung on the ladder of their career rather than as a vocation. They were seeking their own benefit rather than the good of the Kingdom.

Jesus taught that greatness in leadership is not measured by service received, but by service given. Leadership in the church is not a career choice. It is the sacrificial giving of oneself to help others become like Christ.

This was a hard lesson for the Apostles to learn. They constantly squabbled over who was the greatest. “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”” (Matthew 20:25-28 NIV)

3) An attitude of setting an example

A true leader will never ask people to do something he himself is unwilling to do. Instead, he will become a model of the behavior and attitude he wishes to instill in others. He is worth following, not because of his position but, because he is following the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12 NIV) As we mentor potential leaders we would do well to emphasize the five areas Paul mentions that Timothy was to exemplify.

4) An attitude of nurturing

Many church leaders are insecure in their position. They tend to regard anyone in the congregation with similar gifts as a potential rival. Instead of helping others to develop and use their gifts for the common good, they stifle them. More than once people have expressed their frustration to me that they had no opportunity reach their full potential or use the gifts God gave them. To minister as they felt God wanted them to, they would have to leave their current congregation and go elsewhere. I myself encountered resistance from church leaders when I asked for mentoring with the goal of becoming an Elder.

This reluctance to nurture potential leaders is one reason for the leader shortage we face. I have often heard preachers excuse the absence of Elders in the congregations they lead by saying that there is no one who is qualified for the position. If, after serving in the same place for ten or twenty years there is still no one who is qualified, could the reason be that the preacher never attempted to prepare anyone for the position? Could it be that those who had the potential, left and went elsewhere because they realized they would never be called on to serve?

The truth is that preparing people for service in the Kingdom is one of the primary responsibilities of leaders. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:11-16 that God gave leaders to the church for this very purpose.

Not only are leaders supposed to nurture and help others develop their gifts, it is to be a self-replicating process. Paul told Timothy, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2 NIV) In that one sentence we see four generations of church leaders passing on the teaching and traditions. We too should pass on what we have learned to others who will be able to pass it along to still more people.

“But if I train others to do my work, what will happen to me?” Nothing, except to increase your influence. But even if training and equipping other leaders would result in your losing your position, your attitude should be the same as that of John the Baptist when his disciples complained about the growing popularity of Jesus, “He must become greater; I must become less.” (John 3:30 NIV) It is high time we left jealousy and rivalry behind and realize that our Master is Jesus Christ. It is Christ who calls us to serve. It is Christ who gives us our reward. When we scramble to hold on to our position and perks by holding others back, we are in danger of losing our eternal reward.

5) An attitude of life-long learning

I have encountered more than one church leader who had the attitude he didn’t need to know any more. Others think that their position of leadership gives them infallibility – whatever they say, goes. Once they have stated a position it cannot be questioned. I know of a man, prominent in his day, who would study an issue, write a pamphlet or booklet on the subject and considered it a closed topic. It could never be revisited. His pronouncement was ex-cathedra. Anyone who cast doubt on the premise or even sought nuance, was usually regarded as anathema. Needless to say, this caused division and strife rather than unity and harmony within the church.

In contrast, a true leader will gently instruct (2 Timothy 2:25, Hebrews 5:2). He will recognize that he, himself, does not know all things. He will realize that though the Gospel is simple enough a child can understand it, it is also so deep and broad that even after a lifetime of study and practical application we will not be able to plumb its depths or measure its breadth. There is always more to learn. There is always another area to surrender to the complete control of Christ. Even the Apostles Paul and John didn’t know everything. In one of the last letters he wrote, Paul cried out, “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:10-11 NIV) John says, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2 NIV) If even Paul and John didn’t yet know as they wanted to know, then it behooves us to be humble about the extent of our knowledge. As Paul wrote, “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:2 NIV)

Not only do we not yet know as we should, we are to continually grow. “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.” (1 Peter 3:18 NIV) If we are not growing and making progress in our knowledge of Christ, we are slipping and are in danger of losing our secure position in Christ (2 Peter 1:3-11). A true leader will continue to learn and grow throughout his life.

What Knowledge Should We Teach?

Though attitude and character are far more important than knowledge, a leader must still have a good understanding of the faith. For example, Paul writes concerning an Elder, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:9 NIV) In light of this, what should we teach prospective leaders? Here are a few suggestions:

1) How to study the Bible

Since it is the Scriptures which testify about Jesus (John 5:39), encourage us and give us hope (Romans 15:4), make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15) and disclose the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12-13), it follows that a leader in the church must have a good understanding of how to read, interpret, explain and apply them. All too often, leaders are guilty of taking passages out of context, misinterpreting or misapplying them. It is bad enough when someone does this on a personal level. It is tragic when he compounds his errors by teaching them to others. James writes, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1 NIV) Leaders must have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. If they don’t know what the Bible says about something, they need to be able to research the Scriptures to find out.

2) Survey of the Bible

The Bible is not a random collection of various kinds of literature. Instead, in it we find the unfolding of God’s eternal plan to reconcile mankind to Himself. Another way to say it is the Bible is a record of covenant history – the story of God’s covenant people. Leaders should have a good grasp of how God created the universe, how sin entered the world, the consequences of man’s fall, the history of God’s chosen people, the message of the prophets, the ministry of Christ and the spread of the Gospel. Without a coherent view of what God has been doing throughout history, it will be difficult to have a deep understanding of the Gospel.

3) Basic doctrine

Not every fact is of equal value. A leader should have a good grasp of what God requires, those things which are important but not essential to salvation and those things in which we have liberty. A leader must also have a good grasp of the essential differences between the law of commandments, and the law of love. Otherwise, he will become legalistic and formulaic in his leadership. He will govern by rote and rule rather than by principle.

4) The church

Since we are trying to raise up leaders in and for the church, it follows that we must teach them about the church. What is the church? What is its purpose? What are its functions? How is it organized? What are the duties of its leaders? To what did the early church devote itself (Acts 2:42)? How is the church financed? And so on.

5) How to teach

As stated above, one of the primary responsibilities of any leader in the church is to teach. It follows that he must know how to do so. Though each person must develop his own style and methods of teaching in order to be effective, there are some basic fundamentals which are common to all teaching. These are, Presentation, Explanation and Application. Since leaders are to instruct and train others to lead, a fourth element in teaching potential leaders is Replication.

6) Message preparation

Closely related to how to teach is how to prepare class material and messages. A leader should know the differences between topical, textual and expository messages. He should know how to tailor his classes and messages to a particular audience. A message for new believers will be different than one for mature Christians. One for children will be different than one for adults. Unbelievers cannot be approached in the same way as those who are in Christ.

A leader should be able to prepare a Communion talk which fits the theme of a church service. He should know how to use the elements of pathos, ethos and logos in his speaking and teaching. He needs to learn how to be transparent and share of himself when he speaks. He should be able to choose appropriate illustrations to illuminate what he says.

It’s About Relationships

The above suggestions can be daunting. How can we possibly encourage those attitudes? How can we convey all the knowledge a prospective leader needs? The key is to spend time with and develop relationships with those we are trying to teach. That’s really what mentoring is all about – getting to know someone intimately enough that we can have input into their lives as well as their intellect. It takes time. It takes commitment. It takes dedication, persistence and patience. However, the end result is worth the effort. I am convinced that if we will make the time to mentor (even though it seems an impossibility in our busy schedules) God will bless the results. We will receive the help we need in shepherding and leading God’s people only to the extent we mentor the next generation of leaders.

Have you taken a look around at the congregation during the music portion of your worship assemblies? Perhaps it is different where you are, but recently I’ve noticed a trend. In several places I’ve been, very few people in the congregation were singing. I’ve wondered why.

One reason why so few people sing these days in comparison to the past is that, at least to my ear, most contemporary music doesn’t lend itself to congregational singing. Many of the tunes (what tunes?) aren’t memorable. Lyrics are often trite, overly repetitious and don’t scan well. The timing is tricky. The range and/or pitch may be outside the scope of untrained voices.

Type of music aside, one of the biggest impediments to congregational participation is that in many cases, the sound level of those “leading” the singing is just too high. I’ve been in many venues where it is almost impossible to hear yourself, let alone those around you. What’s the point of even trying to sing when you can’t tell whether or not you’re on key? Sometimes the sound is so loud it’s one big reverberant mess. If it weren’t for the lyrics projected on screen, you couldn’t tell what was being sung, let alone join in. Not to mention poor mixes which submerge vocals to inaudibility relative to the instruments. I have often felt pity for older saints with hearing aids who vainly struggle to make sense out of the auditory assault and overload.

Then there’s prejudice. Some feel that all things related to the public functions of the church should be relegated to the “professionals.” They feel it reflects poorly on the church if any part of the service lacks “polish.” Anything less will turn people away. I recall reading statements by C.S. Lewis in which he opined that there shouldn’t be any congregational singing at all. In his view, music should only be presented by trained choirs.

It’s Nothing New

Controversies over music have been with us from time immemorial. Almost from the start, music and the role it should play has been one of the most contentious issues to plague the church. It seems that almost every generation struggles with the issue. The use of harp and flute, the chant, polyphony (singing in parts), trained choirs, the use of popular/secular/folk styles for spiritual purposes, a cappella versus instrumental accompaniment, praise songs, traditional versus contemporary, all have been controversial. It would be pathetic were it not for the fact that the controversies over music often mask far more serious issues. The real heart of the controversy may be the question of to what extent the church may accommodate culture, and how reverence should be shown to a holy God.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It can be very difficult to articulate what is felt intuitively through one’s spirit. As a result, discussion tends to focus on musical style or type instead of the spiritual heart of the matter. People on all sides can easily become frustrated. As Dan Bouchelle aptly put it in his address at Restoration Unity Forum XIX, “…the real tension is between those who want a worship that emphasizes God’s holiness and transcendence and those who want a worship that makes God feel near and approachable. And we have a cultural rift on this. Both kinds of worship say something true about God, and both can distort God if that’s all they say. …My chief objection against instrumental music, and really my only objection to instrumental music, is that it tends, and I do say, tends, to discourage congregational participation in singing and give it an entertainment feel.”

Form follows function. It seems to me that many of the controversies about music could be resolved if we would go back and see what the Scriptures say about the purpose for music. What did God intend for music to accomplish? Once we understand what God intended, we can structure the music in our assemblies to meet those goals.

So You Won’t Forget

Do you ever find yourself humming an advertising jingle that you heard years ago? Canny advertising people know that a catchy tune will stick in people’s minds long after they have forgotten a specific company or product. That’s why they spend so much time and money creating a tune that you can’t get out of your head. It’s not surprising that ad companies do this. God intended music to be unforgettable. For example, God told Moses, “Now write down for yourselves this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it… And when many disasters and difficulties come upon them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants…” (Deuteronomy 31:19-21 NIV) Many people find it difficult to memorize Scripture. Scripture songs can be a great help in ‘hiding the word in our hearts.’ (see Psalm 119:9-13) In addition to help in remembering Scripture, song may also aid in recalling what God has done. Since remembrance is part of what the assembly is about, it seems appropriate that this type of song should be part of it.

To Praise His Name

Much more could be said about music and song from the Old Testament. In fact, in speaking of song, the New Testament points back to the Old. In Romans 15:9-11 Paul writes, “…that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” … “Praise the Lord, all Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”” (NIV) From this passage it is clear that one of the purposes of song is to praise God. It’s worth asking whether the songs we sing and the way we sing them bring glory to God or to the singer/performer.

Minister To One Another

Ephesians 5:19-20 is another important passage in understanding the purpose of music in the church services. “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father in everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NIV) Colossians 3:16 is a parallel passage, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in yours heart to God.” (NIV) A more accurate translation of this passage is, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (updated NASB) These passages present a two-fold purpose for music. a) It aids in ministry to one another. Music is to be used both in teaching and admonishing. b) It helps in expressing thankfulness to God.

These passages shed light on other characteristics of appropriate music. Commentators have attempted to link ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ to specific forms or styles of music. There can be little doubt that the Old Testament Psalms are included in these, but beyond that, the rest is really speculation. The lesson we can draw is that a variety of styles and forms of music are acceptable. But there are other characteristics which must also be taken into account. It is worth noting that the songs are called ‘spiritual songs.’ In other words, they are either inspired by, or sung under the influence of, the Holy Spirit. There are many great songs, some of which even have good lessons or morals. But if they are not spiritual, they have no place in the assembly. In addition, the songs are to be useful for teaching and admonishing. Since the teaching and admonishing is to be done wisely, it follows that the music which is used for these purposes must not be foolish or sung in a foolish fashion.

It is also worth stressing the participatory nature of the singing. The idea conveyed by these verses is not a group performing for an audience. Instead, it is of people singing to each other. We can also see the participatory aspect of singing in the assembly in what Paul writes to the church at Corinth. “…When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV) Unfortunately, in the modern church the use of ‘worship teams’ and ‘praise bands’ on stage tends to divide the congregation into performer and audience instead of enhancing unity through a shared experience. Very rarely do we allow anyone in the pew to teach us or admonish us through song. We can also infer from these passages that we underutilize rounds and antiphony (responsive singing) in our worship services.

(The church might also be able to learn something from the theater. Why do orchestra pits exist? They exist so that the orchestra, and the movements of the musicians will not distract from what is happening on stage. The orchestra is intended not to draw attention to itself, but to provide a background accompaniment which enhances the effectiveness of the story line. Unfortunately, the action and movement of those in ‘praise bands’ and ‘worship teams’ often detracts or distracts from, rather than enhances, the ability of the congregation to worship. Let the musicians remain unnoticed while their music helps the congregation to focus on God and the lessons God intends for us to teach each other!)

Not only is the singing to be a mutual, shared experience, it is to be from the heart. Not only from the heart, but from a thankful heart. This is one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to discuss these issues. It is impossible to see into someone else’s heart. What may be acceptable in one setting and manner of singing may be totally inappropriate in another. One person might be able to sing a particular song to the benefit and edification of the congregation while it would be a travesty if a different person were to sing the same song. These things may be sensed in the spirit, but it may be impossible to articulate in rational terms why something is appropriate or inappropriate. On the other hand, we must exercise care not to approve or condemn something merely because of personal likes or dislikes instead of on a true spiritual basis.

I Sing Because I’m Happy

There is a further purpose in singing. It should be an outward expression of happiness. James writes, “…Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.” (James 5:13 NIV) Are we stifling people’s happiness by the way we structure the music in our assemblies? Instead, shouldn’t people be able to express their joy when they come and participate?

In short, I think that many congregations have forgotten one of the purposes for our services. We all would do well to take another look at Scripture and modify how we use music so that we can accomplish what God intended for it.

Someone once asked me whether the people in a certain religion sing during their worship services. I had to stop and think about it. Music and song certainly does exist in the cultures where this religion is prevalent. In fact, they enjoy a rich heritage of religious music. Nor, is their musical tradition obscure. It has had a major influence on the music of other cultures. The thing which stumped me is whether music or song has a role in their formal worship services. Chanting is certainly employed. Some of it may even be considered musical. Perhaps one could say that these chants are songs. However, something which is beyond question is that you will never encounter any musical instruments in the walls of their places of worship – certainly during their times of worship. Some sects of this religion go so far as to totally ban all forms of music whether secular or sacred.

For some reason this bias against music and song in worship really bothered me. I couldn’t understand why, until I started thinking about the character of God. When we think about the nature of God, we often consider His characteristics of love, grace, compassion, justice, faithfulness and the like. However, what I hadn’t realized until the question about the other religion was posed to me is that song is also a part of God’s nature.

When we look at mankind we see indirect evidence of this. Genesis 1:27 states that God created mankind in His own image. Something which all races and cultures have in common is music and song. The styles and modes of song differ from place to place, but there is no human culture in which there is no song at all. Since song is universal, and since mankind is made in God’s image, we can say that song is a reflection of one aspect of God’s character.

However, there is also direct evidence in Scripture that song is part of God’s nature. Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus “…is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, …” (NIV) Then, in chapter 2, verses 11 through 12 it says, “Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”” (NIV)

To put it another way, since Jesus is the exact representation of God, and Jesus sings, then singing is a part of God’s nature. (In case anyone balks at the notion of Jesus singing. Take a look at Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26.)

There are even more direct statements which indicate that song is part of God’s nature. Zephaniah 3:17 says, “The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing.” (NIV)

Psalm 68:6 confirms this as well. “God sets the lonely in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing; but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.” (NIV)

Since we have been created in God’s image and since we are being recreated into the image of Christ, who is the exact representation of God, it follows that it is not only appropriate for us to sing, it is imperative that we sing. We cannot become like Christ and God if we do not sing. This also means that any religion which discourages or forbids singing (and there are some like the one I was asked about) hinders people from becoming like God. It prevents people from being restored to the divine nature we once had before sin entered the world.

Here’s something to think about: In recent years with the proliferation of “praise teams” and the like who “lead” the church in worship, we have gone more and more from a participatory model to one of performer-audience. I understand why this happened. Churches hoped to attract more people by the excellence of the music – particularly in this day and age when the common person has access to so much high-quality music outside of the church assemblies. The average, untrained person in the pew simply cannot compete with the musicians on stage. A second trend which favors the trained musician is that vast majority of contemporary music is hard for the average person to sing. The melodies are not memorable, and the timing is complicated. To put it another way, most contemporary “praise” or “worship” songs were written for soloists, rather than with congregational singing in mind.

However, this emphasis on professionalism has a downside. If you look around most worship services you see very few people singing. Most are merely listening to the band and the vocalists on stage. I can’t help but wonder if our bias toward the performer on stage is counterproductive. Are we hindering the very thing which we hope to accomplish, which is to help people become more like God? Are we stunting the development of their divine nature by suppressing their song? Perhaps it’s time for us to reevaluate. Perhaps it’s time for us to let the people sing!

The other day I re-read one of those dystopian stories written at the height of the “Cold War” when everyone half expected the major powers to annihilate each other by means of a nuclear bombardment. In the story a couple managed to anticipate the destruction of their city and escape to a remote ranch house used as a hunting lodge. They wanted to be married but were afraid to go to town to find a preacher, lest their retreat be discovered. Lacking a preacher, they simply knelt together and repeated the marriage vows. After doing so, they regarded themselves as husband and wife.

In one sense, the story was refreshing in that, unlike in the majority of contemporary yarns which take unmarried sex for granted and normal, the couple didn’t just take “a roll in the hay.” They were unwilling to sleep together without first making a commitment to each other.

But, on the other hand, the story raises an important question: What constitutes a legitimate marriage? Before we can answer that, we have to answer an even more fundamental question: What is marriage? Many in our culture scoff that it is nothing more than a piece of paper. On the other hand, others demand that we not only recognize, but endorse and applaud same-sex marriage. To them, marriage must be far more than a piece of paper or they wouldn’t expend so much energy making sure that everybody and the dog’s uncle accepts it. So, is marriage something trivial or is it something worth fighting for?

To answer to these and similar questions it’s necessary to realize where marriage originated. The short answer is that it originated with God. After creating the first man and woman – Adam and Eve – God brought the two of them together in marriage. Their relationship is the pattern for all subsequent marriages. In reference to it the Bible declares, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 NIV)

That short sentence contains a world of meaning. For one thing, it tells us that there is a reason and purpose for marriage. In the context, the “reason” the verse mentions is to provide a man with a helper, who is suitable to him (see verse 18). Nor is this idea of help one sided. In his commentary on this verse, the Apostle Paul writes that a husband must provide for and care for his wife (Ephesians 5:29 and context). If a marriage is to fulfill its purpose, the partners will be a mutual help and benefit to each other.

The Genesis account also says that a marriage changes our social relationships. A man no longer identifies himself with his parents. Instead, he and his wife form a new family. That doesn’t mean that a married couple disowns their parents. On the contrary, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that we have a responsibility to care for and to respect our parents. However, a married couple is no longer under the authority of their parents. They are now responsible for their own decisions. They are accountable, not to the families they came from, but to God. In other words, their marriage transforms them into a distinct family unit.

A married couple is also united. They are bound together for good or ill. They are to stick together whatever the circumstances. The word “united” also indicates that a married couple should have the same goals, the same desires and the same purpose. As the prophet Amos said, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3:3 NIV)

A couple is not only united in marriage, they become “one flesh.” This certainly includes sexual intercourse, but it is much more than that. It implies that the two individual people become a single organism. Their spirits are joined into a new being. This does not mean that marriage partners lose their individual person-hood. They are still recognizable as themselves. However, together they become more than they were apart. The “one” is greater than the single parts from which it was formed. The two are linked on many levels. As the Apostle Paul wrote concerning the church body, “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.” (Romans 12:15 NIV) And again, “Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?” (2 Corinthians 11:29 NIV) You can often see this in couples who have been married a long time. Their thoughts are so similar that they will sometimes communicate with a glance or tiny gesture that those around cannot pretend to fathom. They are so “in tune” with each other that a few words are all that are needed. They know what the other is thinking. They are often aware of the other’s presence or absence without a word being spoken.

This “oneness,” by the way, is why divorce is such a serious matter. It is like taking a puppy and ripping it in two.

The other thing which the Genesis account makes clear is that it was God who ordained and instituted marriage. This has huge implications. Marriage is not merely a social construct. It is God, not culture and not the state which determines what marriage is. This is how I put it in one of my novels: “A true marriage is valid whether a government even exists to recognize it. Conversely, if a state recognizes a relationship which falls outside of the covenant established by God, it is not a valid marriage regardless of how loudly the state sanctions it.” (Strangers and Aliens, p. 197)

Though Genesis plainly indicates that it is God who instituted marriage between the man and woman He created, it does not mention the means by which He married them. I deliberately used the word “covenant” in the quote given above. Though not mentioned by that name in the Genesis passage the marriage relationship is a covenant. The prophet Malachi says this explicitly while talking about divorce. “…she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (Malachi 2:14-15 NIV) So, according to Malachi, to break faith with your spouse is to violate the covenant of marriage.

The realization that marriage is a covenant relationship clarifies just what is a marriage and when it takes place. A marriage takes place when the parties involved make the covenant vow. Without the vow, there is no valid marriage. If a couple has a license from the state but have not made the covenant vow, in God’s sight they are merely living in state-sanctioned fornication. If a couple has taken the vows, they are married whether the state recognizes it or not. For example, earlier in our history when states denied marriage to slaves it could not thereby invalidate the covenant vows of couples who chose to “jump the broom.” Said couples were married in God’s eyes no matter what the government claimed.

In another of these musings I quoted the definition of covenant provided by Malcolm Smith: “A covenant is a binding, unbreakable obligation between two parties, based on unconditional love sealed by blood and sacred oath, that creates a relationship in which each party is bound by specific undertakings on each other’s behalf. The parties to the covenant place themselves under the penalty of divine retribution should they later attempt to avoid those undertakings. It is a relationship that can only be broken by death.” (Malcolm Smith, The Power of the Blood Covenant, Harrison House, 2002, pp. 12-13) This is why the traditional marriage vows include that phrase, “Till death do us part.” Marriage is intended by God to be an exclusive, unbreakable and life-long relationship between a man and a woman. And, whether people wish to acknowledge it or not, a same sex relationship falls outside of the covenant parameters which God established. Therefore, it can never be a marriage as God defines it – regardless of how any government or court may rule. God set it up; God defines what is valid and what is not.

The idea of marriage as a covenant relationship established by God helps clarify other things in our social relationships. By its very nature a covenant is exclusive. There is no room in it for anyone outside of the covenant. Therefore, since marriage is a covenant, and sexual union is one of the benefits of the marriage covenant it, by its very nature, excludes sexual relationships with anyone outside of marriage. Sexual promiscuity is pervasive in our culture (actually, in most cultures). People think nothing of recreational sex. Many regard the hookup culture as the norm. In reality, casual sex, one night stands, living together and so on are all a cop-out. To indulge is trying to enjoy one of the benefits and joys of the marriage covenant without accepting the responsibility. However, as all too many discover after it is too late, the piper must eventually be paid. God is not mocked. We cannot take what He instituted and pervert it to our own liking without consequences. The emotional and psychological, not to mention the spiritual, toll on those who ignore God’s covenant parameters is staggering. Whatever the short-term pleasures involved may be, the long-term cost is not worth it.

I’m well aware that most of what I’ve written in this essay is not “politically correct.” A great many people would scoff at the idea that God intended for the sexual act to be reserved for marriage and that sex outside of marriage is a parody of the covenant relationship. To many the idea that sex should be exclusive is ludicrous. Someone is sure to bring up polygamy (or polyandry, for that matter). If marriage is an exclusive covenant, then why did God endorse polygamy during the Old Testament period and why did He tell David that if the wives he had weren’t enough He (that is, God) would have given him (that is, David) even more (2 Samuel 12:8)?

I suspect that the answer to this dilemma is the same as why God permitted divorce even though He clearly stated that He hates divorce (Malachi 2:36). Jesus said that the reason God put up with divorce, even though it was no part of His original intent, was because of people’s hard hearts (Matthew 19:8). It was the best that could be done considering man’s fallen nature. Personally, I have never observed a divorce which did not involve at least one hard heart.

However, divorce should never be an option between Christian couples. Instead of becoming harder, our hearts ought to become more tender, both toward God and other people. God is transforming us into the image of Christ and the more Christlike we become the further divorce should be from our thinking. As the Apostle Paul put it: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” (Ephesians 5:22-28 NIV)

Be that as it may, the truth is that we are fallen and live in a fallen world. Therefore, though God did not design it to be this way, we have to face the reality that people have violated the one man, one woman, for life ideal. The consequences don’t just disappear when someone becomes a Christian. Polygamy and polyandry is a problem – in our culture at least in the sense of serial divorce and remarriage.

It becomes even more complex when we encounter other cultures where polygamy is practiced as a societal norm. In the past, some missionaries taught that a man with several wives had to divorce all but one of them before he could become a Christian. My personal view is that was a mistake; actually worse than a mistake – an abomination. Assuming that the wives had taken a covenant vow when entering the marriage (and whether or not we agree with the form, vows are involved in cultures which allow polygamy) the marriage is valid, even though it is not according to God’s intent or ideal. To arbitrarily break that vow because marriage should be monogamous is to invite the penalties of the covenant. No, the man shouldn’t have married more than one woman. But having done so, to divorce all but one is merely compounding the violation of God’s standards. “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, “My vow was a mistake.” Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?” (Ecclesiastes 5:4-6 NIV)

Whether we like it or not, as our culture becomes more and more pagan, and as we have more and more contact with other cultures, the more we are going to have to confront issues regarding marriage. We need to be clear in our own minds what marriage is and what God intended it to be. A marriage is determined by whether marriage vows have been taken. If they have, then they better not be broken – even if multiple spouses are involved. We must also be clear about the consequences for violating God’s standard. For example, a polygamist may make a wonderful teacher or even an evangelist. But he can never become an Elder in the church (that is a Pastor) because a Pastor (that is a Shepherd or Elder) must (not just should!) be a “one woman man” (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6).

In summary, as the Scriptures admonish us, let’s keep the marriage bed pure! (See Hebrews 13:4.)