Examining Elders – Context

context  noun  1 the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its full meaning or effect   2 the conditions, facts and circumstances that are relevant to, or surround an event, situation, etc

It was the end of the court proceedings, and after sentencing Lewis Jones to five years the judge leaned over the bench and said, “Lewis, you are going to prison for five years this time, and at your age you will likely serve your sentence and return to society. But let me give you something to think about while you serve your time. If you ever appear in this court again on these same charges, and found guilty, you will not live long enough to get out of prison. I hope you understand.” With that, the judge stood and left the courtroom and Lewis was escorted back to his cell. 

Now those were some strong words by the judge—official words since they are recorded in the trial records. Without any additional information (or knowing the context) one could imagine all sorts of dreadful applications. In this Judge’s county, get a second speeding ticket, a second late child support payment, a second not appearing for jury duty, a second not driving with your car properly licensed, etc. and you will go to prison for the remainder of your life.

As it was (the context), Lewis was 60 years old, arrested for DWI, blood-alcohol test showed he was nine times over the limit, this was his fourth DWI conviction, he had served a year in state jail on his last conviction, and to top off this incident, his four year old grandson was in the truck with him when he was arrested. In light of those pieces of information, the judge’s comments take on a complete new understanding. 

I tell the above story to parallel how Scripture is often applied, especially the instructive letters of Paul. Paul wrote letters to real churches, with real people, dealing with real and specific problems, at a certain time in history, in certain places in the world, to people from diverse cultures and religious heritages, giving them specific instructions on how to deal with their issues. 

I often wonder, when we take Paul’s instructions and view them the manner one would view an auto “fix-it” manual, bringing them straight across to current times for application, mirroring his instructions without considering any context, I wonder if we are doing what the Lord intended. In one case, Paul tells Timothy to go and appoint elders in every town (probably meaning every church). These elders were to preserve and teach what the apostles had conveyed to them, which they themselves had gotten from the Lord. Elders were the “go to guys”—the source— from which to learn as well as guardians of the gospel message. 

One of the qualifications for elders was to be able to teach. This would be naturally so since the members of the early church did not have access to Scripture (printed Bibles), concordances, computers with Lexicons, and all the other resources we today are blessed with. The people had to learn it from elders. So my question is, do Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding elders apply to us today, i.e. to appoint elders in every church? The elders I know did not receive the gospel message from an apostle, or under-apostle as was the case of Timothy and Titus, someone close to the “Real Source”—the Lord. They received their instructions from contemporary preachers (for better or worse), seminary professors (for better or worse), popular theologians (for better or worse), and a printed translation of the Scripture—a Bible—just like those you and I have. Point is, we are as close to the Real Source as anyone in today’s world. When I listen to the preaching and teaching of some elders, I have my doubts if they have ever truly studied the Scriptures. So I wonder, regarding elders, just how applicable are Paul’s instructions to us today.

Is everyone today who has a second offense for any infraction of the law being sentenced to life in prison?  No. That would be stupid. Instead circumstances are wisely considered. Maybe we should revisit the application of some of Paul’s instructions with similar wisdom.

It will be surprising if my writing on this subject doesn’t get me drug in front of the Sanhedrin. So if I turn up missing, you will know it was my second offense with someone. 

Gene Pool   

 

A Courageous Man of Character

Do you have a favorite movie?  I do.  My favorite movie of all time is High Noon with Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, Katy Jurado, and Lloyd Bridges.  I have long since lost track of how many times I have watched it.  It’s an old black and white made in days when the only animation was a cartoon following the feature attraction…and when something was left for the imagination.

High Noon is about a town marshal (Gary Cooper) who is liked and respected by the town’s people.  It is the day of his wedding (the bride being Grace Kelly).  He has resigned as marshal with the plans of settling down with his new wife and becoming a shopkeeper.

There are several minor stories within the main one—a deputy who makes a power grab for the marshal position, an evil man consumed with hate and revenge for being imprisoned, cowering men of the town distancing themselves from the self-reinstated marshal and inevitable showdown with a gang, a pacifist (Quaker) bride wanting her new husband to run from conflict, and so on.

I always wondered why I liked High Noon so much.  The music by Tex Ritter is a classic—one of those songs that rolls around in your head.  But a single element of the story is what I like most and has held my admiration all these years.  It is the personal character of the marshal.  He is a man who has “backbone” to stand his ground against great odds, who is willing to stand alone if need be, a man who is willing to give everything to protect others and stop evil. 

The marshal’s character is what all “real” men would like to be known for, but few achieve in this day in age.  I recall Dad being that kind of a man.  I recall mother being upset because he volunteered the first week of World War II.  I recall him going out in rural Bell county collecting debts from men who owed my grandfather, but refused to pay.  I recall him (after reason failed) physically “undoing” more than one man who thought Dad could be pushed and made to run.  I recall him insisting our family do what was right and just, even if it was unpleasant, inconvenient, or costly.  But Dad lived in a different age, just like the marshal in High Noon.  O well, those were the days—the days when America was being made great by courageous men of character.  We don’t find many like that any more. 

So to wrap up this reflective rambling, if you someday get a chance to watch the old movie, be sure to do so.  Study carefully the courageous character of one man, and the “hide and dodge” character of others.  You may see in them someone you know.

Gene Pool                   

Did Gene paint with too broad of a brush?

One of Gene’s recent posts, Escorted through the gates of hell (April 10th), was taken exception with by a very good friend, a friend who is one of the ever-dwindling faithful pastors and shepherds of God’s flock.  He and I see eye-to-eye on well over 95% of biblical understandings which is a pretty good percentage these days.  From him I have gained much insight into Scripture.  His complaint was that I presented the subject in that post in such a way (and tone) that if any faithful pastor understood that point of Scripture different than Gene Pool, and taught their flock otherwise, then Gene’s assertion appeared to be they were leading their flock to hell.

Hmmm.  Perhaps I did paint with too broad of a brush.  It was not the intent.  The post was aimed at people who put human leaders before the God of Glory as revealed in His Word—to hopefully send people to Scripture to decide for themselves if what Gene said was true.  And if the words or tone of the post offended faithful pastors, and especially my friend, then I hope they accept the apology I offer.  For sure, my friend’s teachings overall are not leading his flock to hell, even though he understands Scripture to mean that one can divorce and remarry if their spouse stumbles in faithfulness.  So be it.  He and I will have to disagree on that point.  But in his case, I am convinced that he teaches what he believes God lays on his heart and does not run ahead of those living in sin in order to have a flock to lead.  Who knows, he very well be right on his matter though personally I don’t think so.  My understanding on the subject is 99.999% solidified.  There is way too much Scripture supporting my (unpopular) position—explicit teaching by both our Lord as well as Paul.  But that is where my friend and I wholesomely differ as brothers in our Lord Jesus Christ.  He sees it different.  And even if my friend it wrong on his interpretation, I don’t think that by itself is a heaven or hell matter for his flock.  They may deeply offend God, but many things we Christians do offend God.  Praise His Holy Name that once we realize our waywardness, become truly broken over our sin and repent, our God forgives us.  That sin then has been paid for by the work of our Lord Jesus at Calvary.  Hallelujah! 

So I say again, perhaps I painted too broad in that post.  If so, then I apologize to all faithful pastors who took exception as well as to my friend.

Gene Pool

Speaking directly

When ol’ Gene worked for a paycheck, which seems like centuries ago, my job was to manage people and operations.  I gave direction to many, many people—over the span of my career, well over a thousand.  I was in a complex business with critical deadlines.  The business had to run like a clock to survive. 

Early on I learned to communicate (both written and oral) in a managerial style, which is very direct.  Many of my instructions had to be relayed to others who interfaced with our operations.  The last thing I could do was communicate indirectly, i.e. speak to the side of subjects hoping people would somehow get the message.  They had to understand exactly what was expected, what they were to do, and when. 

Also, in communicating managerially, communications had to be with a minimum of words.  Time was money and long “flowered” dissertations were often either not read or misread.  So short, direct communication was a style I tried to perfect.

That brings me to Gene Pool’s blog.  I have noted that most folks first scroll down blogs to see how long they are to determine if they have the time to read what is written.  If blogs are long and drawn out, many readers are lost quick.  And second, if readers have to work to determine what the writer means, they will stop reading.  I don’t blame them because I do the same myself.  Today everyone’s time is limited, and with the volume of “stuff” that vies for our attention, we just don’t have the time to read long dissertations trying to figure out where they are going.  So my standard limit for blog subjects is one page of 12-point type.  If it runs over one page, I go back and streamline the communication. 

All that said, I have found that in normal social life some people are not used to short, crisp communications.  They perceive them to be blunt and thus confrontational, offensive, abrasive, or all the above.  They are not used to being communicated with as such.  Also, the old saying in written communications if it can be misunderstood, it will be is always present.     

Well, ol’ Gene and his blog has not meant to offend or ruffle feathers, at least thus far.  And if I do, there will be little doubt of the offence or ruffle.  A question that has always been one of my pet peeves is, “what do you mean by that?”  I have, and will try to say what I mean, and mean what I say the best I can.  And when I error or misstate something, please point it out so I can correct and apologize.  I do not want to unintentionally hurt someone’s feelings. 

So, here I am running close to the end of one page of 12-point type.  I must come to a close.  Thanks for staying with me on this matter, assuming you have.

Gene Pool

Chicken poop and flower nectar

This year is the year of the chickens for Cess and me.  Four weeks ago a box was delivered by the mail man containing fifty-five little chicks, each about the size of a ping pong ball.  Their specific breed is broiler chickens, to be raised for slaughter in just eight weeks.  During the eight weeks they will rapidly grow to about eight pounds thanks to many bags of high protein feed and lots of fresh water.  Thus far they have consumed about 400 pounds of feed.

Yesterday, Cess informed me that I needed to replace the wood shavings spread on the floor of the chicken house—that even though she tries to keep it as clean as possible by scooping up the poop, there are little white worms now in the shavings.  These worms are maggots from the flies chicken poop attracts.  And boy howdy, 400 pounds of feed going through chickens produces lots of chicken poop that attracts lots of flies.

As I went about the less than pleasant task I noted some little yellow flowers just outside the chicken house that were in bloom.  And fluttering around the flowers were several pretty butterflies, sipping sweet nectar.  I thought to myself there has to be a parallel or analogy here—pesky flies inside attracted by what attracts flies, and lovely butterflies five feet away attracted by what attracts butterflies.  There were no flies on the flowers and no butterflies on the chicken poop.  I guess one moral to this could be, if you want butterflies plant flowers.  And if you want pesky flies, spread chicken poop.

Then this scripture started rolling around in my head:

What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? …  What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

Now where might the application be?

Gene Pool

Why I keep only nine of the Ten Commandments

Those of us with children know from experience that kids can sometimes ask the most penetrating of questions.  Mine sure have, that’s for sure!  And as they have grown to adulthood they still ask questions that ol’ Dad doesn’t always have ready answers for.  I think they do it just to watch me squirm. 

Sweet daughter, who now has grown kids of her own asking her penetrating questions (which she so richly deserves), asked me a few months ago, “Dad, if you are such a faithful believer in the Lord why do you only keep nine of His Ten Commandments?”  Of course, she was referring to the command

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.  

I tried to give sweet daughter the standard comebacks I have been indoctrinated with over the years, such as there is a verse saying believers came together on the first day of the week and broke bread (for that matter there is a verse that says believers met every day and broke bread together), that the Lord Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week, etc.  But as I listened to myself I noted how absolutely feeble those answers sounded when placed opposite a command of God he himself burnt into stone.

The more I pondered her question the more I was driven to I ask myself “specifically who does history say it was that changed the rest and worship day from the seventh day of the week to the first?”  It did not take long with a computer and Goggle to come up with a guy named Constantine the Great, a Roman emperor during the third century AD.  On March 7, 321AD he single-handedly decided that all the religions of the empire, of which there were many, would unify in working Mondays through Saturdays, and take Sundays (the day of the sun god) as the day of rest and worship.  That’s it!  Done deal!  So from then on, for Christians, Jews, pagans, et al, it was Sun(god)day—the venerable day of the sun.  And if anyone resisted the order of the established church or emperor there were all sorts of unpleasant things that awaited him. What’s new? 

Now it seems great Constantine claimed to be a Christian since he had some sort of vision that led his army to a victory somewhere.  But at the same time he carried the title of pontifex maximus, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood.   He also went about sporting the Apollonian sun-rayed diadem, and had coins struck with his face appearing on one side and pagan gods on the other with inscription “committed to the invincible sun.”  To his credit (?) he authorized bishops of the then Roman (Catholic) church to determine doctrine (what is believed and taught) and dogma (a system of doctrines), whereby he assigned himself to enforcement throughout the empire of such doctrine and dogma.  Towards the Roman church he was friendly.  And the Roman church was friendly to him in return.  But to Christians who did not go along with “the program” i.e. those who tried to follow Scripture, they found themselves cross-wise with the empire—a bad place to be.   

So to sum it up, that’s the kind of guy who is basically responsible for why I go to church on Sundays, and keep only nine of God’s Ten Commandments.  All I can say is, “go figure.”

Gene Pool     

 

Reefs on the narrow road—Gene’s ship hits a few

I stand amazed at scriptural interpretations of some who are looked to for religious guidance these days.  No wonder our society is on the wide road to hell.  Recently I was at GotQuestions.org, a religious website I have a degree of respect for, and found this:

“Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage, but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave” (emphasis is mine). 

What a miserable interpretation!  I have to ask, does anyone ever consider context any more?...and look up words and terms in a lexicon?  In this chapter, Paul is discussing the subject of husbands and wives satisfying their partners sexual needs, specifically the husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time.   

The word translated bound is douloo, which means give one’s self wholly to one's needs and service.  An example of what Paul is describing would be if a husband abandoned his home and spouse, caroused around behaving like an unmarried man, and later returned to his wife expecting his sexual needs to be fulfilled.  In this scenario his wife is not obligated (bound) to fulfill them.  And the same if the wife left and then came back for sexual fulfillment.  It has nothing to do with divorce, and for sure it does not provide for remarriage.  Just the removal of the obligation for sexual activity with a wayward spouse. 

And while on the subject of divorce, would you not consider the apostle Paul to be a qualified interpreter of what Jesus said and meant on various subjects?  Well, here is what the Lord personally instructed him to command us regarding divorce: 

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

I have to ask, how can anyone read those words and then come up with a marriage escape clause a few verses later?!!!  There are two clearly stated options, (1) separate or (2) reconcile.  Nowhere does Paul say anything about divorce being an option.  And nowhere in the Bible is there provision for divorce and remarriage.  If someone comes up with a biblical reason for divorce from 1 Corinthians 7, they are manufacturing that reason—also known as twisting Scripture.

I hope this is the last on this subject for a while.  Needless to say, ol’ Gene’s ship has hit several reefs (some hidden) in putting forth his understanding of Scripture as related to marriage—it goes opposite the flow of our pagan culture.  But please understand, my intentions are not to alienate.  I am convinced that God intends for people to marry and be one as long as they both shall live.  And after they have become “one flesh,” it’s done.  Marriage may be undone in the eyes of the world, but there is no undoing it in the eyes of God.  Our Lord meant it when he said what God has joined together let no man separate.  If someone does separate the union, they not only sin against their spouse and family, they sin against God.

Gene Pool