As democracy grows in various human endeavors our lives are subjected to democratization. Society which creates the environment in which such a system is prevalent dupes local churches to adopt the same thought in the conduct of their ministries. Hence, churches geared their ministry administration into similar system, i.e., federal church government, congregationalism are examples. This is the height of humanism gain and its infiltration of local churches. This is grossly immoral. Why? Because the local church ought to be governed not by what society dictates neither by the current educational system but by what the Bible teaches.
Even ministerial relations or organizational structure are democratized already. Not to be designed in such manner is regarded as taboo and inhuman. My position on this matter is that the democratization of the local church is a perfect evidence of worldliness. To run the local church or any para-church in the same manner is also indicative of carnality. With these accepted practices, even biblical hermeneutics were redesigned thus interpretation follows the new model-that which is democratized. This is the reason a scenario similar to the Paul-Barnabas conflict could be repeated.
I want to discuss the reasons of this division between Paul and Barnabas, so we may learn to avoid the evil of this separation as well as integrate that which will equip us to stronger ministry relations. First, let us consider the reasons that support the validity of the Pauline action. Second, let us consider the reasons that reinforce the validity of Barnabas’ action. Third, why did God include this negative event among the early church missionaries in the Bible?
Pauline action was valid due to the following reasons and evidences. One, Paul rejected a quitter Christian worker as it showed immaturity and lack of readiness in the missionary work. He taught this principle in 2 Timothy 2:1-4 and likened the Christian life and work to a battlefield lifestyle. So he did not see John Mark fit for the second journey. Maybe he could be qualified in the future. Second, Paul highly emphasized the duty of ministry and its attendant implications upon the converts or followers. A quitting worker can not exact higher commitment from his disciples and it will affect the overall goal of discipleship.
Paul’s action is an act of faith because although it could result to loss of personnel yet he did not compromise for the sake of personnel retention. He walked by faith that perhaps in the future God will provide replacement. Evidently, verse 40 shows that God raised up a replacement in the person of Silas. The latter was recommended by the church. Paul would be guilty of hypocrisy or of having ulterior motives had he removed John Mark and replaced him with Silas. But we do not have evidence for such charge. 2 Timothy 4:11 indicates the purity of Pauline motive and manner in this conflict. He fully endorsed John Mark when he saw him perfectly fit for the ministry.
The evidence in the book of Acts (from chapters 15-28) shows Paul was favored by the Holy Spirit’s workings. This fact is consistent with what was stated originally in Acts 1:8 where geographical expansion of the church is prophesied. The person to use in such platform was Paul. Although Barnabas was ahead of Paul in membership and influence at Jerusalem church and at Antioch church yet God apparently chose to use Paul as the divine instrument to accomplish the geographical plan.
On the other hand, Barnabas’ action was regarded as valid also on the following grounds. One, being related by blood with John Mark, probably he could not bear to entirely lose him. This is typical of the Filipino way of dealing with church problems. However, we must outgrow such tendency and replace it with higher biblical premises. Second, Barnabas was a man of exhortation. He emphasized such quality in this situation more than anything. We have no evidence to further validate this point, however. If John Mark had repetitiously quit the assigned ministry, then emphasis on such quality has no warrant. Third, although it is out of argument from silence, Barnabas probably thought of starting a mission work with John Mark at Cyprus, his place of origin. Again we do not have evidence to validate this. On the other hand, Paul’s choice of Silas, as well as his continuing of the second missionary journey, was approved by the brethren in that local church.
So why did God expose us to this conflict between two greatly used missionaries? I do not claim exhausting the text. But I want to suggest some to the best of my understanding why this event transpired and was included by the Holy Spirit in the narrative revelation.
First, Luke under the divine inspiration honestly revealed what has transpired for it is relevant to the development of Acts 1:8 the geographical progress of missions work. It will also explain the absence of Barnabas in the succeeding chapters (16-28).
Second, as a narrative it does not necessarily dogmatize imitation. However, it does show the strength and weakness of the characters involved. It demonstrates what can be modeled and rejected by the morality and validity of each action. We can learn the primacy of maintaining the high quality of workers over the number of workers. Delegation of tasks must also be consistent with competence. Exhortation during hardship is a necessity to prevent manpower loss.
Third, integrating the passage in the teachings of Pauline theology and model, we can learn from here that a leader must exercise courage to impose discipline upon his subordinates. Such courage must not be threatened by possible manpower loss. One must also be ready to endorse another in spite of the past provided the candidate is fit for the work. We must also seek the role and contribution of others in such decision such as selection of worker and continuance of the work. Probably, Barnabas, due to his seniority, might have invoked supremacy over Paul that he chose to part ways from him.
Fourth, we are divinely exposed to the possibility of sinful manifestation even among missionaries. Realization of this fact diminishes discouragement during crisis especially among younger Christians and workers.
Fifth, we can also avoid similar repeat if a local church has clear organizational structure and sustained culture. Everything in the church must end at the office of the pastor. It will not work if it ends at a certain committee consisting of people who need to vote and get a majority to decide. An obscure structure is an impediment to the attainment of any organizational goal. The leaner or simpler your organization the better it will be. It does not also prevent the organization from achieving greater or complicated tasks. Everyone in the organization must subscribe to the system upon entry and strengthen it by constant support and promotion of it.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Practice of Correcting Church Members
Matthew 18:15-18
Christ taught the disciples, by prophecy, on how to conduct disciplinary cases in a local church. He prophesied earlier in Matthew 16:18 concerning the birth of His church which found fulfillment in Acts 2. The above text is an appropriate preparation for His disciples who will lead His church after His departure. He knew problems among members will come up due to sin. Since He has promised that His church will prevail over the devil’s attacks then this biblical manner of handling problems provide an answer to the preservation of the church.
When separation is neglected then there is a possibility the church might lead to destruction. God does not want it to happen. His church must be purged from elements who desire her destruction. Avoiding biblical discipline to spare greater or more significant members from leaving the church may lead to spiritual weakness and eventual death. Thus, the practice of separation is a great necessity both at the individual and ecclesiastical level.
Every local church must have its governing guidelines, doctrinal stand, ministerial approaches, and own local culture that describe its own identity. All these must be constructed in conformity with biblical standards. It must be constantly assessed to agree with the biblical parameters. When any of these is violated then a certain correction must be enforced. Such law or rule must be carried out or else it is irrelevant to be retained. Violation of it must be punished to prevent repetition which could bring in weakness to the church. The Savior provided clear standards on how to handle such violations.
First, it must be settled on a personal level (v.15). The offended person must go and tell the offender of his sin or violation. He must do it privately. It must only be between him and the other person. He must do it to win the offender into the right position or doctrine.
Some interpersonal problems could be prevented from becoming a local church problem if the people involved had only followed this injunction. One should not be tempted to disclose matters with others prior to fulfilling this first step of correction.
Second, if the first level of correction fails then the offended must ask another to accompany him in the task of winning the offender into his position as stated in verse 16. This is now beyond the private and personal level. The third person who accompanies the offended person learns about the problems. He needs to know all for him to do his work of convincing the offender to repentance.
The offended person must exercise care in the selection of the person to accompany him at this level of correction. Spiritual maturity is an utmost qualification. Sincerity and competence are a necessity in this task. Clear goals such as stated in Gal. 6:1 must be at the forefront.
Third, if the first two steps fail, the offended party and the accompanying person must inform the local church of the problem with the aim of possible ecclesiastical correction (v.17). We call this ecclesiastical level of correction where members will need to know about the problem. In this case, the offended person will have to inform the whole assembled membership concerning the problem of the offender. Thus, the original private sin becomes a public matter known to all people comprising the church membership. In this delicate level, the church pastor must lead and moderate the meeting so as not to allow it to become like of the world’s way of proceedings. The local church must exercise care in the administration of this disclosure so as not to make it like the ungodly judicial court proceedings. Debates and attempts to win sides must not be given forum. Here all will know about the sin of the offender and the attendant issues. Even at this level of correction the aim remains—to bring the offender to repentance and to restore him in right fellowship with the church (the premise: when one sins you sever fellowship from the body!).
Finally, if the ecclesiastical level of correction fails to bring the offender to repentance, the offender must be publicly regarded by the church through its pastor as an unbeliever. This level of correction is the ultimate avenue of correction. The shame brought by public disclosure of one’s sin must move the offender to repentance and admission of disciplinary measures. Repentance at this level means admission of all sins raised against the offender. It also involves readiness to submit to church disciplinary measures. The Lord called such person as a “heathen or publican”. As a heathen person his claim of belief in Christ is regarded as false. As a publican he is regarded as an outcast from the local church. By the usage of these terms Christ expressed strong and harsh treatment to the offender who failed to repent from sin and restore fellowship with the local church membership. No member should have any fellowship in whatever level with this person.
To some this biblical injunction may appear unloving and stern. But note well who is speaking in this context. If your Bible is a “red letter edition” then this passage is printed in red. Consider also verse 18. It teaches that the decisions made by the local church concerning these issues above have already been affirmed in the court of heaven. If one has been shortchanged by the overpowering human church leaders and members then God will avenge for him in the future. The church’s correction inflicted on him is irrelevant. If on the other hand one is truly guilty of such sin then he deserves such correction. Circumventing or any form of evading such correction is powerless. God will surely demonstrate in the future the vindication of His word.
Local church autonomy may impede the full implementation of this biblical imperative. One church may properly correct a member who may circumvent the correction by misrepresentation as he attemps to join another local church. If the latter local church neglects the former’s correction then she abets the offending person in his unrepentant position. The latter church damages the former church as well as the offender. She also damages the name of the Lord of the church. At this point fundamental local churches destroy one another by misbehavior, misrepresentation, and inciting the offender to deeper spiritual backsliding. What is the course of action to consider by the former local church whose autonomy and integrity has been doubted? The Lord strongly commanded treating the offender as a heathen and publican. Any local church that cuddles such offender-member is guilty of tolerating the wrongdoing and impeding the correction of the same. Such local church must be severed from the fellowship. Her action is detrimental to the membership. She is helping the disobedient church member to remain in his sin by going against the authority of the local church. May God spare our fellowship from such destructive local church misbehavior. CBC members mark and avoid such ruinous influence (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14,15). Amen.
When separation is neglected then there is a possibility the church might lead to destruction. God does not want it to happen. His church must be purged from elements who desire her destruction. Avoiding biblical discipline to spare greater or more significant members from leaving the church may lead to spiritual weakness and eventual death. Thus, the practice of separation is a great necessity both at the individual and ecclesiastical level.
Every local church must have its governing guidelines, doctrinal stand, ministerial approaches, and own local culture that describe its own identity. All these must be constructed in conformity with biblical standards. It must be constantly assessed to agree with the biblical parameters. When any of these is violated then a certain correction must be enforced. Such law or rule must be carried out or else it is irrelevant to be retained. Violation of it must be punished to prevent repetition which could bring in weakness to the church. The Savior provided clear standards on how to handle such violations.
First, it must be settled on a personal level (v.15). The offended person must go and tell the offender of his sin or violation. He must do it privately. It must only be between him and the other person. He must do it to win the offender into the right position or doctrine.
Some interpersonal problems could be prevented from becoming a local church problem if the people involved had only followed this injunction. One should not be tempted to disclose matters with others prior to fulfilling this first step of correction.
Second, if the first level of correction fails then the offended must ask another to accompany him in the task of winning the offender into his position as stated in verse 16. This is now beyond the private and personal level. The third person who accompanies the offended person learns about the problems. He needs to know all for him to do his work of convincing the offender to repentance.
The offended person must exercise care in the selection of the person to accompany him at this level of correction. Spiritual maturity is an utmost qualification. Sincerity and competence are a necessity in this task. Clear goals such as stated in Gal. 6:1 must be at the forefront.
Third, if the first two steps fail, the offended party and the accompanying person must inform the local church of the problem with the aim of possible ecclesiastical correction (v.17). We call this ecclesiastical level of correction where members will need to know about the problem. In this case, the offended person will have to inform the whole assembled membership concerning the problem of the offender. Thus, the original private sin becomes a public matter known to all people comprising the church membership. In this delicate level, the church pastor must lead and moderate the meeting so as not to allow it to become like of the world’s way of proceedings. The local church must exercise care in the administration of this disclosure so as not to make it like the ungodly judicial court proceedings. Debates and attempts to win sides must not be given forum. Here all will know about the sin of the offender and the attendant issues. Even at this level of correction the aim remains—to bring the offender to repentance and to restore him in right fellowship with the church (the premise: when one sins you sever fellowship from the body!).
Finally, if the ecclesiastical level of correction fails to bring the offender to repentance, the offender must be publicly regarded by the church through its pastor as an unbeliever. This level of correction is the ultimate avenue of correction. The shame brought by public disclosure of one’s sin must move the offender to repentance and admission of disciplinary measures. Repentance at this level means admission of all sins raised against the offender. It also involves readiness to submit to church disciplinary measures. The Lord called such person as a “heathen or publican”. As a heathen person his claim of belief in Christ is regarded as false. As a publican he is regarded as an outcast from the local church. By the usage of these terms Christ expressed strong and harsh treatment to the offender who failed to repent from sin and restore fellowship with the local church membership. No member should have any fellowship in whatever level with this person.
To some this biblical injunction may appear unloving and stern. But note well who is speaking in this context. If your Bible is a “red letter edition” then this passage is printed in red. Consider also verse 18. It teaches that the decisions made by the local church concerning these issues above have already been affirmed in the court of heaven. If one has been shortchanged by the overpowering human church leaders and members then God will avenge for him in the future. The church’s correction inflicted on him is irrelevant. If on the other hand one is truly guilty of such sin then he deserves such correction. Circumventing or any form of evading such correction is powerless. God will surely demonstrate in the future the vindication of His word.
Local church autonomy may impede the full implementation of this biblical imperative. One church may properly correct a member who may circumvent the correction by misrepresentation as he attemps to join another local church. If the latter local church neglects the former’s correction then she abets the offending person in his unrepentant position. The latter church damages the former church as well as the offender. She also damages the name of the Lord of the church. At this point fundamental local churches destroy one another by misbehavior, misrepresentation, and inciting the offender to deeper spiritual backsliding. What is the course of action to consider by the former local church whose autonomy and integrity has been doubted? The Lord strongly commanded treating the offender as a heathen and publican. Any local church that cuddles such offender-member is guilty of tolerating the wrongdoing and impeding the correction of the same. Such local church must be severed from the fellowship. Her action is detrimental to the membership. She is helping the disobedient church member to remain in his sin by going against the authority of the local church. May God spare our fellowship from such destructive local church misbehavior. CBC members mark and avoid such ruinous influence (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14,15). Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
