Lessons in Leadership — Part One

Can I invite you to take your Bibles and turn again to the portion of Scripture that we read earlier, from 1 Timothy chapter 5?

For those of you who are visiting this morning, you may wonder why it is that we’re dealing with these particular verses. It’s because the last time, we got as far as 5:16, and we are fulfilling what is essentially a pattern for us in working consecutively, verse by verse, through various portions of the Bible. I mention that because from time to time, visitors will ask, “How did you decide that you would speak on this particular passage this morning?” And the answer is, “Well, just in the way in which the calendar has fallen out, but for no other express purpose.”

Now, it’s not always important to point it out, but as will become apparent this morning, since it has to do with money, it’s probably a good thing to point out, because people will often assume that whenever the question of money is mentioned in the church, that there must be some particular concern about money. And that is often the case when money is mentioned in a church. It’s sometimes mentioned with such frequency that people think that that’s all the place is about. And in other cases, it is only mentioned when there is some kind of crisis. Well, you should know that the only reason there’s any mention of it in the coming weeks is because Paul is addressing it here in 1 Timothy, and since we’re studying 1 Timothy, we come, in the course of events, to these verses.

Now, with the verses before us and our Bibles open on our laps, let’s pause and ask for God’s help:

Gracious God and loving Father, we pray now that you will take my words and speak through them, you will take our minds and help us to think through them, and that you will take our lives and fill them with a passionate desire to live in obedience to the truths that you are teaching us. For Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Contrary to so much popular opinion, the church is not a democracy. The fact that many churches may try and operate in that fashion does not make them right. The church is neither a dictatorship, and the fact that some churches may operate with a little pope who rules them does not make it right. There is no place in Scripture that you can go to, to either democratize the church or determine that it should be ruled by an individual in terms of a dictatorship. In fact, when we turn to the Bible, we discover that the church is a theocracy—namely, that it is God who rules and governs, and he chooses to mediate his rule through the direction of godly men; that God has appointed some to be responsible for the leadership of others while he has appointed all to be responsible to the leadership of Jesus Christ. And this is not unfamiliar territory to those of us who have been here over a period of time.

God has appointed some to be responsible for the leadership of others while he has appointed all to be responsible to the leadership of Jesus Christ.

The English word that is most used to describe the individuals who are involved in this responsibility of ruling the church is elders. And you will find that the word comes almost exclusively in the plural form, because there is no suggestion that there is only to be an elder in a church but rather that this responsibility is to be exercised in plurality and in a biblical form of parity. These elders are to be men of spiritual maturity. The Greek word presbyteros is the word which conveys that notion, primarily, of maturity. They are to be men who exercise a God-given spiritual authority, and the Greek word epikopos conveys that. And they are to be exercising this authority in the realm of specific spiritual responsibility. And this specific responsibility is, as we discover in Acts 20:28, to “be shepherds of the church of God.” And the Greek word for “shepherd” is simply the word poimēn, which, if you were to try and anglicize, it would be p-o-i-m-e-i-n.

So these individuals set apart by God, acknowledged by the congregation, are called to act not as the representatives of segments of the congregation, taking up the interests of particular groups within the congregation in the way in which a congressman might represent his district. It’s very important to point out, because in many churches who are prepared to acknowledge the idea of eldership, they regard the elders as being representatives of little caucuses within the church. So every little group tries to get an elder represented in the hope that this elder will represent their charge and their concern. In point of fact, the representation that the elders bring is the representation of God to the people, not the people to the rest of the elders.

The elders are not responsible to the congregation; they are responsible for the congregation. They are responsible as brothers to brothers, as brothers to sisters, as we’ve seen in Paul’s instruction to Timothy as a pastor: he should treat the “younger men as brothers,” the older men as he would fathers, the “older women as mothers,” and the “younger women as sisters.”[1] And within that framework of relationships, there is all kind of accountability. So it is not that once the elders are appointed to the task of eldership, they are somehow now immune from the “one another” dimensions of Christian living. It’s not that. But it is that in the exercising of their God-given responsibility, they are accountable to God for those under their care. And that, of course, is the most chilling form of accountability that could ever be conceived of. And it is addressed in Hebrews 13:17, where the writer says, “They keep watch over you”—that is, the elders do—“as men who must give an account.” To whom? To God.

Now, in chapter 3, Paul has already addressed the qualifications for serving as an elder in the first seven verses. And he now returns to this particular group to provide further direction for the way in which they function within the church. And the link between what he has said about the widows in verses 3–16 and what he’s now about to say concerning elders, I think, is simply this question of honor. The widows were to be given, according to verse 3, “proper recognition,” or honor. And the way in which they were to be honored had a direct reference to the providing for their practical needs. Now he is saying that the elders in the church are also to be given proper recognition. They, too, are to be honored. And it is impossible to think in terms of honoring elders without also entering into this matter of compensation and remuneration.

And so, in verses 17 and 18, we’re going to think for a moment or two about the matter of compensation. And then, in verse 19 and in verse 20, we’re going to consider the issue—and 21—the issue of accusation. And then, in verse 22, to which we’ll come this evening, we’ll deal with this matter of ordination. So there are just those three words that help me as I go through: compensation, accusation, ordination. I say to myself, “Okay, I know where I am in this passage. And I share that with you in case that might help you around. Of course, if it doesn’t, then you can think up three words of your own, or twenty words of your own for that matter.

The Matter of Compensation

But anyway, compensation is the issue here in verses 17 and 18.

The elders are those who direct the affairs of the church. That’s what they do. They are responsible for the spiritual oversight of the congregation. The King James Version uses the word “rule,” and they are to rule the church.

Now, how do they rule the church? Not on the strength of their personality, not on the basis of peculiar whims that they may have picked up along the journey, but they rule the church by the crook—the shepherd’s crook—of the Word of God. In other words, all of their ability to bring oversight, all of their expressions of pastoral care, all of the matters of teaching are established and governed by this book.

And that is why, you see, it is imperative that elders are men of spiritual maturity. And their maturity is directly related to their knowledge of the Word of God. Because if you put a man in a position of leadership in the church simply because he was financially successful or was uniquely competent in the realm of business but is not a man of spiritual maturity, then you will do a disservice both to that individual as well as to the flock under his care. Because when it comes to the issue of ruling, he will immediately revert to business practices, or he will revert to the power of his personality, but if he is unfamiliar with the Scriptures, he will not be able to go to the Bible and to say, “This is why we do what we do, and this is why we believe what we believe, and this is why we are going where we’re going.” It is all wrapped up in this matter of directing the affairs of the church.

It is imperative that elders are men of spiritual maturity. And their maturity is directly related to their knowledge of the Word of God.

And it is these individuals, we’re told, who are “worthy of double honor.” Now, this matter of “double honor” is important, and I think it is simply this—or this is at least a pointer in the right direction—that the “double honor” is this: they are honored for the role that they fulfill as elders, and then, on account of the excellency of their work, they are honored all over again. So there is an honor which attaches to the privilege of eldership, and there is an honor which then attaches to the doing of the work well. Isn’t that the distinction there? “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well.” Now, that should be all the elders. But maybe he’s making a point there. Maybe he is, you know, putting a little barb into the seat of the pants of some who are reading, some who are hearing the letter read: “I wonder: Am I one of the ones who directs the affairs of the church well, or am I just directing the affairs of the church?” And these who do so well, are “worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and [is] teaching.”

Now, notice that the word “work” is used. Their “work is preaching and teaching.” It’s customary for people to say of those who labor in the Word and in doctrine, “Of course, you don’t really work, do you? You know, you don’t really have a job. You just, you know, read your Bible, pray every day, and grow, grow, grow, as it were. But you don’t work.” Well, the word here, kopiaō, is a word for toil. And Paul uses it purposefully. It’s the word that he uses in 2 Timothy 2: when he uses the various pictures of an athlete and of a farmer, he says it is “the hardworking farmer” who deserves a share of what he is providing. He “should be the first to receive” the benefits of his work.[2] And the word there is for toil. And Paul, interestingly, uses this whether he is referring to physical or the mental toil that is involved in the responsibility of eldership. First Corinthians 15:10, he says, “By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them.” “I was a hard worker,” he says. And the word there is kopiaō: “I was toiling.”

When he writes in Galatians and chapter 4, he uses the same word in verse 11. (I just turned to Ephesians.) Galatians 4:11: “I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.” The word there is “my toiling.” When he writes to the Philippians, he uses the same word in 2:16: “as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor”—and the word there is kopiaō—“I did not … labor” (“work, toil, expend myself”) “for nothing.” In other words, he says, “This responsibility of laboring in the Word and in doctrine, of directing the affairs of the church”—he says, “let nobody be in any doubt: this is work!” And anyone who engages in the responsibilities of pastoring, of teaching, of being involved as an elder and doesn’t break a sweat, or doesn’t break their back, or it doesn’t break their heart, or it doesn’t keep them awake, or it doesn’t lift their spirits, or it doesn’t devastate them, doesn’t know what it means to be an elder! The word here conveys the fact that it is both vigorous and it is laborious. And at the end of the day, it has the ultimate examination.

Now, some of you did your examinations and passed the bar, and it was tough, but it’s over. Others of you did your examinations and were entered into a trade, and it’s over. Oh, you still work, but you no longer face examinations. You passed the examinations, and now you do your work. Here, you do your work, and then you face your examinations. You work all of your life, and then you get examined. And on that day, you will discover whether your work, your kopiaō, was wood and hay and stubble or silver and gold and precious stones![3] Now, I express this with conviction because it comes to me with conviction.

All the elders, he says, rule. The directing of the affairs of the church falls to all the elders. All the elders teach, insofar as they are men who, according to what he writes to Titus in Titus 1:9, are men who are “apt to teach.”[4] I don’t think that means that every elder has to be somebody who can stand up and preach in a public fashion. Some teach that. I disagree with them. I don’t know if I’m right, but I know that I disagree. Because the phraseology of “apt to teach” does not necessarily mean the gifting necessary to do so in a public forum. But it does mean that every elder needs to be mature enough in the Scriptures that when a member of the congregation approaches them with a matter of doctrine or with a matter practice or whatever it is, that the elder is able to go to the Bible, and to turn the Scriptures up, and to teach from the Bible, and to rule and direct the affairs of the church from the Book. So, in the same way that you would see a shepherd and you would identify a shepherd as—distinct from other workers in fields and other carers of cattle—you would identify that shepherd by the fact that he would move around with his crook, then you would be able to identify the elders, because they would be moving around with theirs as well. Because they would want always to be ready to shepherd the congregation, to direct the affairs of the church, and to do so well by means of this vital instruction.

Now, verse 18 leaves us in no doubt that it is impossible to divorce the notion of honor from remuneration: “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it[’s] treading out the grain.’” Somebody, in hearing verse 17 read, maybe said, “Well, what do you mean, ‘worthy of double honor’? How should we honor them?” Paul says, “Well, just in case you’re missing the point, I’m actually talking about the way in which you provide for them.”

Now, if you turn back to Deuteronomy for a moment—and you should put a marker in Deuteronomy, because we’ll go back here again a couple more times—but in Deuteronomy chapter 25, God is giving instruction to his people about various practical matters. And it is right in the course of all of this vital practical instruction that he says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[5] It’s interesting the way that just drops down there in the midst of all these other instructions.

Now, in the time of Deuteronomy and the time of 1 Timothy, people would have been very familiar with this picture. A flat, often rocky area, circular many times—a piece of level ground exposed to the wind—would become the place in which the grain was brought and laid out symmetrically around in this circle. And then the oxen—often two of them, maybe three of them—would be harnessed to a central point, and they would move, just laboriously, round and round. And as their hoofs crunched into the grain that had been cut and they split it apart, then the wind would pick it up and blow it. And as the good stuff was blown, it would be gathered and set aside for consumption. And the instruction of God is: “When the oxen are doing that, don’t put a muzzle on them. Allow them to eat some of the grain in order that they are welled cared for.”

Now, why was God so concerned about oxen? Well, actually, he wasn’t ultimately concerned about oxen, although he was in passing concerned about oxen. He was concerned about his name and his glory. Because pagans were tempted, on account of greediness, to put muzzles on the oxen. So they would engage in the same process, but when the poor oxen would try to grab some of this stuff, they couldn’t, ’cause they had their mouths all jammed up with one of these leather gubbins. And Paul says, “When the pagan nations see that we don’t muzzle the oxen, and they say, ‘Why don’t you muzzle the oxen?’ you’ll be able to tell them, ‘Because God is a kind God. The God and Father of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob is a God of kindness’”—that they might also understand the principle that is conveyed here: that every worker, whether it is an oxen, whether it is a manual worker, or, in 1 Timothy 5, whether it is someone who labors in the Word and in doctrine, that all of these situations, in every case, the individual or the beast has the right to partake in the fruits of his work. In other words, if God ordained ample provision for oxen that were treading out corn, it is incumbent upon churches to see that those who devote their time and energy to preaching and the teaching of the Word are adequately remunerated. That’s the principle. He says, “If God is concerned about the oxen, don’t you think he’s concerned about the pastors?”

Now, it’s a dreadful shame when congregations conclude that eldership, and particularly the teaching eldership—the responsibility of laboring in the Word and in doctrine—that somehow or another, congregations conclude that this is not really work, and somehow or another, these people are on a sort of—they’re at a Bible conference that lasts for the rest of their lives. They sort of went on retreat for the rest of their lives—the kind of things that the congregation gets the opportunity to do, you know, for a day and a half. Well, somehow or another, these characters got to do it for the rest of their lives, you know. And any notion of honoring them will come when they die. And when they die, we’ll say a lot of nice things about them. We will extol them—tell a lot of lies about them, actually—but we will extol them, and we will get a marble plaque, and we’ll stick it somewhere. And every so often, once every two or three months, we’ll look over, and we’ll say, “Oh yes, that was old Henry. Good old Henry. What a boy he was.” And we will honor them—in their funeral sermons. But we’re not going to honor them now. We don’t want them to get whatever we don’t want them to get.

Now, I don’t speak here out of personal experience. I speak here out of observation. God knows that if I were to die right now while I’m preaching, I could never have been as graciously and wonderfully and well cared for over all of my life as I have been—far and beyond deserving and/or expectation. But in moving around the country and in going from place to place, not all enjoy such benefits.

And I remember speaking at a pastors conference about ten years ago, when I had been asked to give two seminars. I gave one on the subject of biblical church discipline, which was averagely attended, and I gave one on the matter of ministerial depression. I called it “Dealing with Ministerial Depression,” because I thought I knew a little bit about that. Not clinical depression. I changed it when the men came; I called it “the blues”: “Dealing with the Blues.” Well, it was the biggest seminar in the whole event—and no one knew my name from a hole in the ground. There were names there giving seminars that were marginally attended when they went back-to-back or head-to-head with dealing with ministerial depression. And it was standing room only.

And as soon as we got to Q and A, it was obvious that there were all kinds of concerns and heartaches that were represented in the minds and lives of these elders who were seeking to serve their congregation. And there were actually elders there and leaders of the church there who had not been set aside to the task of preaching and teaching. And these individuals were responsible for the exercising of the principle of remuneration and compensation here. And one of these non-pastoral elders, if you like, asked the question: “We have a problem in our church,” he says, “if you could address this. It’s not a concern about the pastor being depressed. It’s about his wife being depressed. She seems to be just down in the dumps. She has no apparent joy in what’s going on. We find that somehow or another, she is increasingly isolated from any aspect of ministry. Do you have any insight on this, or do you have any suggestion as to what we might do?” And I don’t know why I said it, but shooting from the hip, just straight (which is something I hardly ever do), I said, “I suggest that you increase your minister’s salary by five thousand dollars a year.” Total silence, and the guy sat down. Didn’t even have a follow-up question.

Someone from that church came to me afterwards and said, “You don’t know it, but you just answered that question. Because our pastor’s wife has never had the privilege of buying her children new shoes. She has hand-me-downs from members of the congregation. She shops sometimes in the Goodwill. And the congregation think that they are doing her an amazing service while they do her husband an amazing service of ensuring that he will not become a lover of money by never giving him any money that he could possibly love.”

And some of you serve on boards for the City Mission, and you serve on boards for missionary organizations, and you serve on boards for Christian schools, and so on. And I think you’d better take real carefully your responsibilities when you sit in those meetings and make decisions about the pittance of a salary that you are prepared to pay for someone who is prepared to invest their whole life in the cause of the gospel. Say, “Does the Bible speak to pressing issues?” Sure does: “Do not muzzle the ox while it’s treading out the grain. Don’t be like the pagans. The worker deserves his wages.”

Now, this is not isolated here. Paul makes this point all the way through his letters: in 1 Thessalonians 2, in 2 Corinthians 11, in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, and nowhere more clearly than when he says, “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.”[6] “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?”[7] And then he’s able to say—and I envy them this—and then he says, “But of course, although it is legitimate for this to take place, we didn’t take any of it because we didn’t want ever to obscure the issue. We didn’t want anybody ever to get the wrong position.”[8]

I’d like that. I would. I’d like my source of income to come from somewhere other than this church, so that every Sunday, when I showed up to preach, you could never say, “Oh, he only preaches ’cause he gets paid,” ’cause then you wouldn’t pay me—in the same way that when I do the radio rallies, nobody can come to the radio rallies and say, “Oh, he only comes to San Antonio, he only goes to Houston, he only goes Dallas because he gets all the money that’s given in the offering.” There’s not a dime comes to me. “He only does this because he gets royalties off his tapes.” There’s not a dime comes from the tapes. “He only does this because the books generate income.” They don’t generate a dime of income. So there’s total freedom there. I understand that freedom. It’s wonderful! Would it be legitimate to take money? Absolutely. Many guys do. They’re not wrong. They can do what they like. I’m afraid to take any more. And I would like that. Because then I would have total freedom. If I could make tents and show up, I’d have a go at it.[9]

Criswell, the pastor, since he was about eighteen years of age, of First Baptist Church in Dallas, did a dramatic thing some years ago upon his retirement. When he had gone as a young man to pastor the church when it was just no place and nowhere and nothing, a gentleman in his congregation said to him, “I want you to give me x dollars out of every paycheck that you have, and I’m going to put them where I put mine, and,” he says, “I think you’ll be okay.” And this man at that time, at the early ’20s and ’30s, was investing in oil. And every time he made an investment in oil, he made an investment for Criswell. So by the time Criswell retired, he was able to sit down and write a check and repay his entire salary over forty-five years to First Baptist Church of Dallas. He wrote them a check for every dime they had ever given him. Now, don’t be getting any ideas, you know. You think I’m going to build the gymnasium for you or something. I’m willing; I’m just not able—yet.

But what wonderful freedom, you see. Do you understand this? Do you understand the way this works? That the church appoints elders. If you did it in its pristine form, this would be how it was: Here you got a group of people, and they set apart elders. They recognize them to have capacities and rule. And then they just got this little virgin church, and they get it going, and one of the guys is a mailman, he’s a postman, and he works in the mail, and he does the sermons on Sunday because he’s the most gifted out of the five guys that they’ve set apart to eldership. And then, as the church begins to grow as a result of his instruction, the elders say to him, “You know, Bob, I think that you would be even better at doing this teaching on the Lord’s Day if you didn’t have to go out and be a mailman. So we’re going to say to the congregation, ‘Maybe we should set you apart to the task of preaching and teaching.’ So now we will remunerate you in order to set you free. We won’t pay you per sermon, but we will pay you in order that you don’t have to derive your income from the mailman, and then you’ll be able to proceed in that way.”

And so the individual is set apart. He still functions as an elder, he still is to direct the affairs of the church, but now he’s in the privileged position of not having to go out and do those other things, which is in part provision, part privilege, and it is part not privilege. Because it would be nice to go out and do those things. It’d be nice to sort of live in the real world every so often. Be nice to hear a few “damns” and “hells,” you know, so that you could respond to it. And you could live there. But that’s not what you’re to do. You’re to go over here, and you’re to give yourself. You’re to toil. You’re not to skive. You’re not to clown around. You’re not to show up late. You’re not to leave early. You are to bear the burden of the responsibility of shepherding the flock of God that’s in your charge. And remember, the test comes at the very end.

Now, I have never understood why it is that certain groups have tried to suggest that it is wrong to have full-time pastors who receive remuneration in the exercise of oversight within the church. For the Scriptures are so abundantly clear. Paul understood that those who proclaim the gospel may make a living by the gospel, and that in no way negates the concern that he’s mentioned earlier that such individuals, elders, should not be those who love money.[10]

Well, that’s probably more than enough on compensation, wouldn’t you agree? All right.

The Matter of Accusation

Now, let’s go to this matter of accusation—verse 19 and 20. We’ll just start it. I just want to introduce it, and we’ll return to it this evening.

Trapp, the commentator, says, “Every fool ha[s] [an arrow] to shoot at a faithful preacher.”[11] “Every fool ha[s] [an arrow] to shoot at a faithful preacher.” To be involved in the leadership of God’s people is to be on the receiving end of all kinds of allegations and accusations. Fact. Fact. In fact, if to be accused were sufficient to make a man guilty, then no good minister would ever be innocent. If the accusation was enough to confer guilt, then none of us could ever exist. And that is why, recognizing that these accusations come, Paul says they are not to be entertained without corroboration.

Now, once again, he is bringing into the New Testament principles that were clearly understood and practiced in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 19:15: “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Now, this is why, when you turn to Matthew 18 and the instruction Jesus gave on church discipline,[12] that when you go to an individual, and you point something out to them, and that individual denies the existence of it, you are to go with two or three who are able to corroborate the concern that is expressed. These individuals act as witnesses to the accusation.

Now, Paul reminds Timothy that in relationship to this, there is a need for public censure. Now, in saying that, it should be absolutely clear that the reference to the sin here is to a matter of public import. All right? Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly. Now, clearly, that doesn’t mean that every time something happens with an elder, there is to be some great legal brouhaha that emerges on account of it. We have to understand Scripture with Scripture. When we understand the principle in Matthew 18 of going on a personal basis regarding a personal matter, of extending it when there is an unrepentant spirit, of bringing it to the church when there is no response to that, then when you take that and coalesce it with this, you understand that public rebuke is a response to public sin, so that it is not that we simply take and make much of that which is a matter of privacy.

Let me give you Calvin on this: “Paul [is] here [speaking] of … sins [that] give rise to public scandal, for if any [elder] commits a fault not in [this] category, it is clearly preferable that he should be admonished privately rather than openly accused.”[13] However, if then that elder was to refuse the private admonishment, then the church would have no other recourse than to make a matter which was originally private then become public.

Now, the concern and principle is this: Sin amongst leaders in churches is not to be shielded. It is not to be covered up. It is not to be hidden away. It is to be publicly rebuked. In other words, when an elder sins in a public fashion he—and a church member, for that matter—he or she is to be rebuked in a public manner so that the principle in application will be such that the others may take warning.

Sin amongst leaders in churches is not to be shielded. It is not to be covered up. It is not to be hidden away. It is to be publicly rebuked.

Now, loved ones, if in the average church the approach to compensation is pretty poor, believe me, the situation in the average church in relationship to dealing with matters like this is worse than the way in which they deal with the matter of remuneration. The spinelessness that exists at the leadership level in many churches and the favoritism and the politicking is incredible. And that’s why churches are in total chaos: because people won’t do what the Bible says. And when we don’t do what the instruction book says—if we won’t run the plays out of the book, then who knows where the ball ends up, and who knows where the team goes? Says Guthrie, “When faced with sinning elders a spineless attitude is deplorable.”[14]

Now, the action to be taken is not only punitive; it is purposeful. And one of the reasons that we have such difficulty with this, and one of the reasons that we have such manifold confusion in the contemporary situation on Capitol Hill, is because any notion of jurisprudence, any notion of justice, is just about completely shot—the idea that punishment is punitive, the idea that punishment can be restorative, the idea that punishment is purposeful so as to enable others to heed the warning. J. B. Phillips says this should be done “as a salutary warning to others.” The King James Version: “That others [may also] fear.” The NIV: “So that … others may take warning.”

Deuteronomy for the last time, and then we’re through. Deuteronomy 13:6: “If your very own brother, or your son or [your] daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’”—okay, somebody tries to draw you away into heresy—“([the] gods that neither [know] you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him.” Listen! “You must certainly put him to death.”

Do you think God is concerned about doctrine? Do you think God is concerned about purity? Do you think God is simply sitting up, looking at the chaos of evangelicalism and going, “You know, this isn’t really a problem”? In the Old Testament, he said, “If somebody actually tries to seduce you into heresy, even if it’s your wife, stone her to death, and your hand should be the first to cast the stone.” Why? Verse 11: “Then all Israel will hear and be afraid”—notice—“and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”

Now, that’s the principle here. If you’ve got an elder, and he blots his copy book, and he sins morally, don’t run him out of town on the late bus and come back to the congregation and make up some notion about how “His mother wasn’t feeling well,” or something else, and “We’ve got to deal with a few things,” and then hope that it will all die down—create a distraction, start a war in Iraq, do something like that, you know? “Don’t do that stuff!” he says. “The pagans do that stuff. They’ve got that down. You stand up and say, ‘Here’s the deal’”—through your tears, through your brokenness. “Loved ones, this is what has happened. And we’re here to tell you because the Bible says we have to come and tell you. Otherwise, we’d run for it. We’d go on the late bus. And we believe that if we do this, then it will be a solid dose of preventative medicine.”

See, our culture doesn’t believe this. That’s why kids don’t get the paddle. It’s one of the reasons. But you remember that sound, don’t you? And it was only intermittent, because it went … “Ah!” … “Ooh!” … “Ah!” And you remember sitting there, going, “My goodness gracious, that could have been me! I mean, that was almost me. That should have been me!” you’re saying. “Whoo! Made it! Yes, I’m looking. No, I’m not chewing. Yes, ma’am. Yes, sir. Oh, yes!” It’s the same with our kids. The Muslims understand it. Orthodox Jews understand it. But all the weak-willy Christians have lost it completely. Almost completely.

I’ve been here for fourteen and a half years now, on the receiving end of letter after letter and call after call and invitation after invitation to go and fight the big giants that are working against the church, to encourage all of you to phone 1-800 numbers and call your congressman, and we’ll fix this place. It’s really getting fixed, isn’t it? We’re really fixing it good. Yesterday’s headline: fourteen-year-old boy accused of killing his own son. Simultaneously, the sixteen-year-old, seventeen-year-old girl in all of the sorry predicament in her young life. Do you really think the answer to that is political? Get serious. These well-meaning souls can’t even take care of their own situation.

What is the answer? The answer is to live out the life of Christ. The answer is “you in your small corner and I in mine.”[15] The answer is to be so radically different that the culture comes to inquire of us how it is that we’ve managed to deal with this, how it is that we manage to live in this way. Why would they ever come and ask us about premarital sex when the statistics for premarital sex in the average evangelical church are the same as the statistics in the secular culture? Why would they ever come and ask us about marriage and divorce when the statistics within the average evangelical church are the same for divorce as in the secular culture? Why would they ever come and ask us about dealing with pornography when the statistics that are given in the average evangelical church are that forty percent of the men are involved themselves in pornography?

See how easy it is to play with our minds—phone the number, sign the ticket, send the dollar bill, and think we did it? God says, “Listen, it’s time for judgment to begin at the house of God.”[16] That means it’s time for judgment to begin with me. It’s time for judgment to begin with you. And the only way in which we will make a radical impact in our culture, as we’re going to see in the coming weeks, is by being the kind of worker who really works, the kind of teacher who really teaches, the kind of father who really fathers, the kind of elder who really cares.

You say, “What? Don’t you realize there are 250 million people here?” Yeah. “Well, how do you change the world?” Just one person at a time. Can you imagine, if we were able to mobilize a company like this to concerns like this, what an amazing difference it would be? And we wouldn’t need to have our evangelical leaders quoted in the New York Times this week, letting the Republicans know that “the five million people we represent are not going to like them anymore, and we won’t be able to support them for this and for that.” Big deal. Big deal.

Well, I kind of rambled off here at the end. I’m sorry. We should pray together.

Let us pray:

O God, look upon us in your mercy, we pray. Thank you that Jesus said, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell [will] not prevail against it.”[17] Thank you for the victory that is ours in Christ. Thank you for the chilling rectitude of the instruction of your Word, which turns the gaze, the spotlight, on our very souls. Save us, Lord, from spinelessness, from laziness, from capitulating to the world around us, and grant instead that we might increasingly be men and women of the Book.

And now may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be the abiding portion of all who believe, today and forevermore. Amen.

[1] 1 Timothy 5:1–2 (NIV 1984).

[2] 2 Timothy 2:6 (NIV 1984).

[3] See 1 Corinthians 3:12–13.

[4] 2 Timothy 2:24 (KJV).

[5] Deuteronomy 25:4 (NIV 1984).

[6] 1 Corinthians 9:14 (NIV 1984).

[7] 1 Corinthians 9:11–12 (NIV 1984).

[8] 1 Corinthians 9:12 (paraphrased).

[9] See Acts 18:1–4.

[10] See 1 Timothy 3:3.

[11] John Trapp, A Commentary on the New Testament (1656; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 646.

[12] See Matthew 18:15–17.

[13] John Calvin, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, trans. T. A. Smail, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 264.

[14] Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 119.

[15] Susan Bogert Warner, “Jesus Bids Us Shine” (1868).

[16] 1 Peter 4:17 (paraphrased).

[17] Matthew 16:18 (KJV).