c. Pastors and Teachers
[11/15/20]
Let’s proceed on with Paul’s lists. If we follow the list in 1Corinthians 12:28, we arrive at teachers, after which the list seems more directly to address matters of gifting rather than office. That is to say, the first three items, which we are considering here, appear to combine gifting with office. It is not a gift of prophecy that is mentioned, but prophets. It is not a gift for teaching which is addressed, but teachers. Curiously, pastors don’t show up as directly mentioned. That might be cause for the view the prophet and pastor are the same office, I suppose. Except that in the somewhat parallel thought expressed in Ephesians 4:11, we find evangelists interposed between mention of prophet and pastor. More importantly, we find prophet and pastor identified as two distinct positions. If there is an equating happening here, it would seem to be between pastors and teachers, but even there, though I have combined them in the heading of this section, I think there is significant distinction to be made.
I would start with this thought, which has been lingering in mind the last day or two. It seems from what we have looked at thus far, that each office tends to incorporate the role of the ones which follow. That is to say, the Apostles exercise to some degree the prophetic office as well as the Apostolic extension. The prophetic office exercises some of the pastoral office, and I dare say the pastoral office shall be seen to exercise much of the teaching office. It’s something of a case of ‘all that and more’. The office of pastor does not, I think, incorporate in its execution the functions of the prophetic office, and certainly not the apostolic office.
So, what is this pastoral office? It has aspects of teaching, certainly, and some would argue this an exercise of the prophetic office, as they bring God’s word to the body. If that is an accurate assessment, then I should have to suggest that most every believer then exercises the prophetic office whenever they bring Scripture to bear on some matter or other. But I don’t believe that to be the case. I would suggest that is more a matter of exercising the teacher’s office. The prophet’s office adds a certain something to the mix, even if we have difficulty quantifying just what that is exactly.
The pastor plays a dual role, though. For he also, after his fashion, brings the people of God before God in prayer. Now again, we must note this is an exercise we all ought to be undertaking, and hopefully do, to some extent. But there is a greater responsibility, I dare say, laid upon the pastor in this regard. Here is a counselor and a caretaker. Here is, after a fashion, a father figure to the local church. Here is an authority established. This is not an authority to lord it over the flock, to insist on a specific subset of beliefs as regards sundry secondary and tertiary doctrinal positions. But it is an authority, one hopes, as to a proper approach to understanding Scripture and doctrine. It is an authority, we should seek to ensure, as to how Scripture and doctrine are applied in practice, and as to how we ought rightly to deal with matters of debate and disagreement in God-honoring fashion.
The pastoral role, as the word itself implies, is not one of lording, but of guiding. It is a very service oriented office. If you consider that term in its more general application, it pertains to shepherds, to animal husbandry. But let us stick with the first and chief meaning. What is pastoral relates the shepherds and their activities. The one who exercises pastoral office, then, fills the roll of pastor, or shepherd. The shepherd does not, generally speaking, tell the sheep what to think, nor can he. But he takes a protective and provisioning role with them. He guides them to green pastures and quiet waters (Ps 23:2). Of course, that Psalm points us not to a pastor, but to the Pastor, our Lord, the Good Shepherd. I will come back to that point momentarily, but what is said of the Shepherd applies to the pastor. “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps 23:4b). There is a twofold image here: Of defense on the one hand, and discipline on the other. There is guidance in this image, a careful fencing off from danger. Consider the setting. “I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.” To quote an old favorite song that I happened to hear again the other day. “This is a dangerous place!”
Indeed it is, this life. We are ever in that valley, though most of the time we pay it no mind. This is not quite the “I fear no evil” of the Psalm, but more generally a matter of being oblivious sheep. That’s what makes shepherds so necessary. Sheep are inherently oblivious. But God has seen to it that we have shepherds, pastors to guide and guard. David, the man after God’s own heart, was such a shepherd over his father’s sheep. This is another key factor for us to consider, and returns me to my point as concerns Psalm 23. The Lord is indeed my shepherd. But in His wisdom, He has appointed undershepherds to serve Him in shepherding His flock. And this is exactly where the pastor comes in. He is a shepherd, and he has a flock, but the flock is not his own. Like David, the man after God’s own heart, he shepherds his Father’s flock, and bears in mind always that this flock is not his, but his Father’s. This is not a calling by which to grow wealthy, nor even by which to earn a living, although the flock ought surely to see to it that the shepherd’s living is well made as it is well earned. This is a calling to a hard life of service in the field.
Think of those shepherds who were granted first notice that the Good Shepherd had come. Where were they at the time? They were out in the field in the dark of night guarding their sheep against such threats as prowl by night. They were not at home in warm beds and cozy houses. They slept in their garments, when they slept at all, on the hard ground in the cold night. And by and large, the sheep they guarded were not their own, but belonged to another. They would be responsible for any losses. Furthermore, they were, which I have to say is a thing most surprising really, generally looked down upon by society at the time. The shepherd was not, for example, deemed a trustworthy witness at court, or so I have been given to believe. Their testimony was inadmissible. Isn’t that something? Here was a nation whose greatest king had been a shepherd, whose survival in Egypt had largely been on the basis of being shepherds, and they came to despise their own shepherds amongst them.
I wonder if we don’t see some of that same tendency in the Church; that we come to despise, to a certain degree, our pastorate. Certainly, if we look at the society around us, I think we can see that tendency. Who would listen to a pastor? Their testimony is tainted by their faith! They are not men of science and learning, or so the average socialite supposes. In plain point of fact, the majority are in fact men of science and learning, certainly the latter. They have learning in different fields and pursuits, perhaps, than those scientists who go into physics and chemistry and the like, but it is no shallower for all that, and likely deeper as well as broader than most. But society has no value for the testimony of a preacher. We need but look at the recent Supreme Court appointment to see it. Your faith may very well disqualify you. Oh dear. But I digress, which is hardly a surprise.
I think that same dismissal of the pastorate infects the Church to some degree, at least here in American Protestantism. The pastor’s office becomes something of an ignorable bit of advice. We are free to disagree with his opinions, to pass judgment on his sermons, to take or leave his advice and instruction as we please. And we lose sight rather quickly of our status as dumb sheep. Dumb sheep that we are, we tend to overestimate our own brilliance and suppose we know better than this guy with the staff. But primarily, we simply prefer to have things our own way, and if the pastor aids us in that direction, we’re all for him. But if he proves an impediment to our way, we’ll gladly see him shown the highway.
This is an issue that is, I suspect, bigger for churches that apply a Congregational style of governance, whereby the congregation is effectively in charge, and the pastor serves at their pleasure. But in an age when a believer can so readily depart one church and go on to the next, or even start one of his own if he’s so inclined, even a more synodic form of governance is no real deterrent to this poison of the soul.
Here’s the thing we lose sight of. When we prayerfully contemplate that Psalm, with its message that, “The LORD is my shepherd,” that includes His provision of undershepherds. If I trust Him, I have need of trusting the one He has appointed for my oversight. That doesn’t need to be a blind trust. I don’t suppose it ever should be a blind trust. It’s more along these lines: If we, being the people of God, the body of Christ under His headship, have felt called to receive this pastor, and this pastor, whom we have concluded is likewise numbered among the people of God, under His headship, and in this case, particularly called and equipped by God to serve in the office of pastor, then there ought to be a certain foundational trust here. This is a man of God. Yes, he is a man, and as such, he is as fallible as ourselves. But then, we shall have to recall to mind that we are fallible. My point is this: His opinion and advice ought to carry weight with us. By all means, do your diligence. Consider how that which he says measures up against Scripture. But if there is, to your thinking, disagreement between the two, it might be wise to consider that the error (if there is such) could be to either side. It could as readily be your understanding that is askew. The proper response is not knee-jerk rejection of any message that doesn’t perfectly mesh with our preconceptions. Rather, the proper response is further discourse, a pursuit of clearer understanding for both parties. Perhaps, just perhaps, God sent this one at this time for just such purpose of helping us to correct our notions. Or perhaps this is in fact one of those rare occasions where our insight does indeed offer a change of perspective for our pastor.
I’ll add a bit of an anecdote here from yesterday’s business meeting. Part of that meeting concerned looking over the results of efforts at identifying who we are as a church and who or what we are looking for in our next pastor, as we are currently in the process of calling a new pastor. Now, whatever I may think of surveys and opinion polls in general, I found one particular trending opinion rather curious, if not sadly telling. There was this sense amongst the sheep that the next pastor should not hold so strongly to various (and I’ll presume secondary or tertiary) doctrines as to reject or refuse to teach and preach other perspectives. This, I have to say, seems to me strikingly naïve. I understand that it rather reflects the nature of our congregation which has, by and large, refused to identify a particular set of beliefs in regard to such doctrines as a matter of remaining welcoming to all believers. I get it. I also see its weakness in that it leaves us a congregation with widely divergent views on many subjects, and rife for division. I’ve watched it play out on many occasions, as this family or that decides they simply cannot abide in a place that preaches such and such a message.
I do think a pastor must be able to address doctrinal disagreements in a shepherdly fashion. That is to say, he does not go about declaring all who disagree to be heretics or somehow less Christian. That, in its turn, requires the pastor to have somewhat thick skin in this regard, as his sheep are by and large not going to feel any such compunction. But to suggest he ought to hold his doctrinal positions so loosely as that suggest to me that those who would seek such a pastor have either doctrinal positions of their own that they will not hear questioned, or deem doctrine a small and inconsequential matter to begin with. For my part, I would expect a pastor, particularly as a man of learning and godly pursuit, to have rather firm perspectives on most, if not all doctrinal matters of debate. That does not require intolerance towards other views. Neither does it require an unwillingness to even consider that perhaps those views are incorrect. But barring sound, biblical cause to change said views, I would fully expect his preaching to reflect his perspective, and I would hope those whose perspectives differ might benefit from it, rather than dismissing his preaching wholesale because they disagree with a point of view. Frankly, if the error is truly so egregious as would require tossing the message, perhaps you are in the wrong church, or have the wrong pastor.
As I say, much of this would be made vastly more simple if we were gathered as a people with greater agreement as to the majority of debated doctrines. Whether it would be healthier for us is another question entirely. There is a place for iron sharpening iron, assuredly. But if that is not the end result of so varied a congregation then I see nothing but harm coming of it.
[11/16/20]
It is interesting, is it not, that we find no priests in the New Covenant, as far as the Church is concerned? We have pastors, but not priests. I don’t know as I could say why this is so, but perhaps because, as Peter indicates, we are now a nation of priests (1Pe 2:9). But then I see that Paul laying some claim to that title, noting that, “because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Ro 15:15b-16). This is something of an enigmatic claim, is it not? The language and imagery is that of the sacrificial offering. Here, the gospel is shown in rather a different light, isn’t it? He is indeed serving as a minister of Christ to the Gentiles, but is simultaneously doing so by offering the Gentiles as an offering to God.
This is an image, I think, that needs further investigation, and for our current purpose, investigation as to what it says of the priestly role taken up by Paul here. If I look at the Old Testament priest and his office, I find it involved primarily the worship of God, which is no surprise. It involved the processing and offering up of sacrifices, certainly, and also, through the Levites, the preparation of such materials as constituted a proper sacrifice. He also, by means of sacrificial offering, makes atonement on behalf of the people of God. We might suggest that in some fashion he makes the prayers of the people acceptable and presentable before God. I think in particular of the reticence of God’s people to set foot upon the holy ground of Mount Sinai, or to hear directly from Him. And God, in His gracious mercy, saw fit to acknowledge the fitness of this concern, and to appoint Moses and Aaron as intermediaries.
This, I think, brings us to the matter at issue with suggesting a priestly office in the New Covenant Church. We have our one Mediator, to whom alone we need avail ourselves. What I see, then, in Paul’s comment here is that the Gentiles at that date did not in fact have access to this one Mediator, and could not until such time as the Gospel of God had been applied and done its cleansing work. Whom God has seen fit to sanctify by the Holy Spirit is indeed sanctified. While we may experience it as a work in progress, the heavenly reality is yet contained in the final word of Christ. “It is finished!” Paul’s ministering as a priest stops there, for they are now made priests unto our God, as every other believer, and have no longer a need for any other mediation apart from our Lord Jesus.
Yet, the pastoral office, something we must find distinct from the priestly office of old, persists. Now, at least according to my concordance search of the NASB, the word pastor occurs but once, and that, in Paul’s list of officers given the Church here in Ephesians 4:11. Elsewhere it is consistently translated as shepherds. Jesus expresses his concern for the people of God, ‘scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd’ (Mt 9:36). And, of course, we have his description of Himself as the good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep (Jn 10:1-16). He is the owner shepherd. The flock is His. Indeed, all the flocks of the Church are His. But He has assigned undershepherds, pastors and bishops or guardians, or elders.
Here, I think, may be the reason we don’t find elders mentioned directly in this list of officers. The pastor is an elder, and in some wise, the elder is a pastor. We most certainly distinguish the two, but I’m not sure we have strong basis for doing so from a biblical perspective. The two are both matters of shepherding the flock of Christ. The two both require a gift for teaching, but also a gift for pastoral care. As concerns our present-day implementation of things, the pastor has, by and large, a training which has not been available to the elder, both for teaching and for care and counsel. But as to the requisite gift and purpose, I don’t know that they are so very much distinct.
Some would hold that the pastor, being ordained, which is to say tested and approved by a counsel of his peers, is alone suited to handle the Word of God in the pulpit or to officiate over the ordinances of the Church. I again do not see any great evidence for this in Scripture. What I see is pastor and elder held in very much the same regard. The pastor might be seen as first among equals in that setting, or he might be, as in our own church’s form of governance, held to be subservient to his brother elders in many regards; governed by them even while being, as we are wont to say, a weighted voice in their deliberations. But this again simply serves to amplify the fundamental equality of office. Forgive me. My attempts to organize and categorize my thoughts through this section seem to fail me, and I continually discuss one head under the topic of another. Perhaps, given the inter-relationships of doctrine generally, and these offices specifically, it is inevitable. But let me try and get back to the present office.
What I see in the pastoral role is the elder’s role amplified. This again fits with what I have seen with the other offices, that each rather subsumes the qualifications of the one proceeding, as one goes up the hierarchy, if hierarchy it is. But the pastor, at least by experience, has gifts for counsel and gifts for teaching that excel the typical elder, as their training and preparation has been granted to excel that of the typical elder. Elders are, by and large, called from amongst the flock, whereas the pastor is called to and by the flock. In both cases, there must be that accompanying call of God, confirmed to the degree that such a call may be confirmed by the examination of other officers of the Church, and sanctified by the seal of laying on of hands.
What distinguishes the pastor, then? I might suggest the full-time nature of his role, where the elder is generally a volunteer officer. But that again is a matter of practice, not of Scriptural example per se. I have taken a brief moment to review the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament as concerns this term, and they would hold that it does not in fact describe an office so much as a duty of care for the congregation. They also give explanation for the tendency to take pastors and teachers as indicating a single group, which lies in the fact that they are introduced by a single article. This presumably refers to the ‘some’ which prepends each other entry in the list, but perhaps to the kai which joins pastors to teachers, where the rest of the list is joined by de, though both translate as and.
The general point I would take away, though, is this matter of care for the congregation. Whether or not it was appropriate to associate the pastoral office with the shepherd, or whether it was better to be understood as guardian is another question, but I think the two are sufficiently close-coupled in sense as to allow either. The latter term lies at root in our idea of presbyter, which I again would associate with the office of elder, and which gives rise, so far as I can see, to the idea of the bishop. That is to say, all of these become rather synonymous terms and difficult to distinguish in any real, meaningful sense. Here, I would say, is the fundamental leadership of the local body.
While God gives apostles, prophets, and evangelists as well, and these would seem, by Paul’s ranking, to have primacy to the degree that primacy is an issue, here at the position of pastor and teacher, we arrive at the basic governance of the local church. The others may come and go. They may serve within the body for a season, but may as readily serve a wider role across multiple local bodies. The pastor does not. His office is with the local body, to shepherd and guard that specific flock on behalf of his Master and theirs. He does so by preaching the Word. He does so by teaching those practices that aid in the maturation process. He makes plain the sins and the gifts of his people that they may repent of the former and exercise the latter. He provides guardianship against the admission of false teachers or false teachings brought in by the members of this flock. He stands, if you will, as watchman on the wall, even as the shepherd of old would stand watch over the fold by night, to ensure that no thief or vicious beast should penetrate to do harm to the flock.
Here, I would say a pastor’s primary tool is prayer, as it is for all of us. But as concerns his active preparatory work with the sheep, let us also recognize the central importance of preaching, of inculcating a sound, biblical comprehension of Scripture both as to its meaning and as to its application. He both explains the texts from a depth of learned handling of the same, and also renders them applicable to our day to day course of life. This, I dare say, is an art every believer ought rightly learn to exercise in his own right. But here is one with specific preparation for the task. He has been trained in the languages in which Scripture has its original form. He has been trained in the proper rules of hermeneutics, of parsing the text within its context so as to obtain its intended meaning and to avoid, as best one may, the tendency to read expectations into the text. He has also been trained in the skills necessary to take what has been learned and present it to his flock in a manner suited to his flock. That is to say, he has gifts for assessing the relative maturity of his flock and providing for them such food from the Word as is suited to their stage of growth. And, which always strikes me as a most amazing thing, he is gifted to do so in such fashion as allows the whole of the flock, in all its varied stages of growth, to benefit. Truly, here is a gift of the Holy Spirit!
He is called upon to offer counsel where counsel is sought, and sometimes, where counsel is most distinctly unwanted. He is called to know his flock quite intimately, to be aware of their individual strengths and weaknesses, quite probably more fully than they know themselves. He is called to minister to the sheep of this flock where he finds them, and to aid them in their growth, that they all may come to full maturity. He is to take such care as to avoid the loss of even one small lamb from those who have been entrusted to his care by their Lord Jesus. It is a wonder that any ever take up such a calling.
[11/17/20]
The teacher, if indeed this is a separate office, is focused primarily on matters of instruction, as one might expect. His is the task of expounding on matters of sound doctrine and proper exposition of Scripture. In this, the teacher must ever have an eye to many of the same concerns as the pastor. If he teaches, it is for edification, for building up those he teaches and aiding them along the course of maturity. That is to say, doctrine taught is of little value if it is not taught as applied doctrine, or what we term orthopraxy. It is not enough to say, “Here is what the text says and means.” It must also move into the space of, “How shall we then live?” What does it look like in practice? What does this truth require of us if we indeed love the truth? Doctrine, I might go so far as to say, is not doctrine unless and until it results in worldview, in practice.
In some respects, I suppose this is what teachers attempt to get at when they speak of a distinction between head knowledge and heart knowledge, and we might even add hand knowledge. The head may know many things that it does not really put into practice. We could discount it as trivia, but I don’t think that’s quite the concept. It’s more a matter of knowing what is right and yet continuing to do what is wrong. And James says to us, that for him who knows the right and does it not, this is sin (Jas 4:17); for, “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Ro 14:23).
To put it another way, the seed of faith must produce the fruit of faith, and the fruit of faith is shown to be there by deeds of faith. True faith cannot be passive. True faith is a matter quite distinct from philosophy; something far more than an intellectual pursuit. It either presents in a life changed by knowledge of God received and incorporated at the deepest levels of one’s being, or it is not in fact present at all. Who reduces Christian faith the level of philosophy does himself and all who hear him great harm, for he chases a false security that is not in fact faith at all. But where God has come to abide, He produces a deep love of His truth. He causes His word to sink deep into the hearts of His chosen, that they may know, as Jeremiah prophesied, the law of God put within them, written on their hearts (Jer 31:31-33). What is written on the heart is of the essence of the person. It is not mere concept, but character. And where godly character is established, it will, cannot cannot but result in outward action.
Here is the message of the teacher. He presents the truth of God as God has presented His truth. He seeks that it may in fact become that sort of knowledge which is of the essence of his student, having become that sort of essential knowledge in himself. The teacher cannot properly teach others that which he has not learned himself, after all. But he seeks to exhort by his teaching, to encourage growth, to nurture the tender sprig of faith that it may grow to full flower, and bear fruit in another mature Christian brought to fullness and equipped for service.
Recall where Paul was going with this list. He gave us these offices and the officers who fill them. That ought rightly to remain at the forefront of our understanding. Whatever our systems may be for discerning those who would hold office over us, or on our behalf, it remains the underlying Truth that God gave them as gifts to the Church. That is no call for pridefulness on the part of those called, nor of those who do the calling. It is a call to glorify God for His generosity, and to honor those given for their selflessness in being willing to be thus used by God, for I tell you it is, by and large, a thankless duty, whatever the office. The praises for a pastor or a teacher are as often as not empty words from hearts that will turn in a moment if the teaching and ministering take a different direction than the hearer would prefer.
But let me get back to my point. How readily I wander from it! Why did God give these officers as gifts to His church? It was not as reward to them, nor was it as a means of their gaining a living for themselves. No. He gave them, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up [or edification] of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:12-13).
I should, perhaps, continue the quote. “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph 4:14-16). How difficult it is to find a proper point to break off with Paul!
But look! The purpose of every office is to build up those served; to aid them in their maturation; to inculcate a shared and complete (as complete as may be had) grasp of both doctrine and practice. The teacher shares with the pastor this duty and the care that comes with it. He must be careful in his handling of the Word and wise in his application thereof to those whom God has called him to serve. He must have a capacity for perceiving the growth of his students and tailoring his application to the capacity of his students: Never the meaning, only the presenting of it in ways suited to the maturity of his class and its many individuals. This is indeed a gift, and requires both God-given insight and a willingness to expend the necessary effort to thus know the student and the Word alike.
This may be something of an odd conception, but it strikes me that the teacher must be able to apply a proper hermeneutic to his class as readily as to his text. I should think this must apply to pastor as well. It is all well and good to have one’s plan and schedule, one’s scope and sequence. But if these things are not fitted to the present need, they are of minimal value, are they not? This does not, I should note, require us to abandon all thought of planning and orderliness. Far from it! But it has been my observation across the years that God is perfectly capable of so guiding our planning and scheduling as to have us on the right topic at the right moment. Or, as so often happens in these studies, we may find that He has ever so conveniently caused a number of wholly disparate schedules to perfectly coincide so as to cross-pollenate one another. How often, for example, do I find some point made in a Table Talk devotional happening to mesh together with whatever point my studies have reached? Or how often does the sermon turn out to touch on matters currently under consideration in these morning times?
I don’t suppose for a moment that these things are unique to my experience. They certainly ought not to be so. But they are evidence of the need for humility. Were we not told? “The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps” (Pr 16:9). That is the voice of wisdom, and the wise man will bring these things often to mind. The wise teacher will likewise remain keenly aware of this reality, and ought rightly to give thought, as each opportunity to teach unfolds, just what God’s purpose is in not merely the material to be presented, but in the timing of presenting it to this people on this day? That may cause us to divert and digress from time to time. I don’t suggest that my every diversion and digression in these studies has been such a case. It is just the way of me, so far as I can tell, that I wander down whatever avenue of thought presents. Perhaps I have need yet of maturity, as Paul would measure it. But these being times primarily for my own feeding, I accept that they serve God’s purpose for me.
Let me come back to Paul’s statement of purpose here. He appoints, or calls these officers in the Church to equip us, not to lord it over us. The officer of the Church is servant to all, as Christ both modeled and instructed. The goal here is that all who are of the body may in their own gifting and purpose contribute to the body. Christianity is not ever intended to be a self-focused, self-serving faith; as if my status as redeemed is good enough and I need give no thought to my fellow man. By no means! Rather, count every man your neighbor, and love him as you love yourself. Indeed, love him better than you love yourself, for you likely don’t even love yourself as you ought. Help your neighbor to grow, rather than competing with him in growth. Seek to truly know the Son of God, not just as a concept – for even demons know that much, and even believe it; yet so as to shudder at the knowing (Jas 2:19) – but as informing your very being. Get it down in your heart. Let His ways become your ways not as imitative practice, but as native instinct, if you please, as the innate response of the system to every stimuli.
And observe as well that maturity in Christ consists in unity of faith. Now, whether that unity consists in uniformity or in harmony is, perhaps a matter for debate. But I should have to think that the warning against being carried about by every wind of doctrine, or allowing craftiness and deceit to mislead us, certainly steers us nearer the former than the latter, does it not? It does not require that we denounce as heretic every brother in Christ whose views on secondary issues diverges from our own, no. But neither does it require that we teach and minister as having no views at all on such issues. If they were that inconsequential, they would have no place in the realm of doctrine whatsoever. If they were that inconsequential, the Church would hardly expend so much ink and so much energy in seeking to understand correctly, and in defending that understanding it has obtained.
A proper understanding of Truth must surely inform us here. Yes, we finite beings with our partial sight and partial knowledge are unlikely, in these cases, to arrive at definitive, unassailable position. But that does not diminish the seriousness of the matter. If there is disagreement, then no matter how much post-modern thought may strive to convince us otherwise, we cannot both be right. We might both be right in part. That’s certainly possible. We might both be wholly wrong. That also is well within the realm of the possible. But if one holds the position that doctrine A means B, and the other that doctrine A means not B, then it can only be that one or the other, if not both, is in fact quite incorrect. Doctrine matters. Therefore, teaching matters. For faith holds to doctrine. Faith is not something apart from understanding, but in fact the expression of understanding that has its foundations in the love of God. Faith may yet allow that one holds this view, and another that, and that in spite of this reality, both can recognize and acknowledge the other as a man of faith, devoted to God and to worshiping Him as he ought. But I would be hard-pressed to find unity between the two – harmony, perhaps, but unity will at best be a major challenge.
The teacher, being a teacher of doctrine, indoctrinates. That will offend the modern sensibility, but it must be so, mustn’t it? To pretend otherwise is to attempt believing the man who teaches to be some ideal never yet achieved in mankind, and unlikely to ever be so achieved this side of heaven. It is a fatal flaw to any philosophy or any measure of a man to require the ideal in order to explain the reality.
If we are not carried about by every wind of doctrine, is it not because we have been well taught and well established in one shared doctrine? I should think it must be so. Does this require that we denounce every competing view as crafty, deceitful thinking? No. It requires us to be wise as serpents, and well aware that such crafty, deceitful teachings are ever around us, and ever seeking to make inroads. But it does not require us to go the full skeptic and question everything. It requires that we are well founded upon God’s Truth, deeply familiar with His Word both in its stating and its meaning, in order that no least deception shall gain foothold with us.
It requires us to have a proper assay of our own maturity; to recognize that we are not so perfected as to be immune to such trickery. Let one pronounce a doctrine that is slightly off, but in a direction that pleases us, and we must needs beware! These deceits are not of the sort that are so glaringly wrong as to instantly set us on our guard. Rather, they seek to present as godly. They deviate by small degrees in hopes we may not notice. They offer much that is true so as to cover and hide the lie within. The mature man, the one who has been taught rightly, and who teaches himself rightly, will make assay of this new message and recognize the falsity. But he will, if he is wise, not depend wholly upon himself and his fine talents for the task, but will avail himself of wise counsel from men of like faith. There is a first contribution that each part of the body, having been equipped by the ministry of these officers, makes to the building up of the body.
And where indeed error must be corrected and excised, still it is to be done in accordance with Christ’s message and model: By speaking the truth in love. We do not seek to destroy even such a one, but rather to see him put upon the path of righteousness, that he, too, may live. Oh, there may well come a point where excision is the only option. There is that point to which John points us, where we must refrain even from greeting such a one, lest it be taken as approval of his lies (2Jn 10). To greet would be, in such a case, to participate in his evil deeds. But still, the call remains, that we not make vengeance our own affair, but leave it in the hands of God.
Here, too, is a particular burden for the pastor and for the elders at large. Much must be left to the hands of God. Much which is done in righteousness must suffer the misunderstandings and even defamations of one’s fellow believers undefended; for the duties of office and the discretion and guarding of particular sheep within the flock leave no place for divulging details to the rest of the flock by which to provide full understanding to one and all. There are occasions for such public presenting of the facts, and we shall get to that, I should think, in considering matters of discipline. But much that the pastor and the elders must do in the course of their duties will, of necessity, remain unknown and unclear to the congregation at large, at least the reasons for the doing. Questions will arise that will permit of no answer, and the pastor and the elder must alike bear up under the burden of being doubted by those they serve. It requires a significant gift of God’s grace to do so, and again, it gives me pause to wonder how any are ever willing to answer the call. I don’t know as I would do so again. Perhaps the day will come, but I could not at this juncture say I expect so.
