Archive for March, 2006

Divorce And Remarriage

There is no more challenging topic on which to write than divorce. Theology and sociology often clash on this. It is a sensitive emotional issue.

Very, very few people believe in divorce. Those who believe in it least of all are often persons having experienced it. They know the complexity and pain involved. They know the feeling of failure, loneliness, and often a sense of moral impropriety.

Joseph Epstein, social science researcher on divorce, says, “To go through a divorce is still, no matter how smooth the procedure, no matter how “civilized’ the conduct of the parties involved, no matter how much money is available to cushion the fall, a very special private hell.”

Author Paul Bohanan points out there is no such thing as A divorce. There is (1) the emotional divorce, (2) the legal divorce, (3) the economic divorce, (4) the co-parental divorce, (5) the community divorce, (6) the psychic [personal identity] divorce, and (7) the spiritual divorce.

Some persons are cavalier about divorce. If their spouse isn’t making them “happy” it is time to cop out. They see it as an escape hatch to happiness. It isn’t. One large study survey compares unhappy spouses who divorce or separate with unhappy spouses who stay in their marriages. In general unhappy spouses who divorced or separated were not happier five years later than those who stayed in their unhappy marriages. Two-thirds of unhappy spouses who stayed married ended up happily married five years later.

Some spouses are victims of spousal abuse which may include neglect, physical beatings, financial bondage, or sexual degradation. They may not believe in nor want a divorce. Neither do we believe in being run over by Mack trucks but it happens. In spite of efforts to avoid it there are some persons who strive to preserve the marriage who still suffer divorce.

In the secular world divorce is the accepted norm. In the realm of Bible principles it isn’t. However, in trying to aid in divorce recovery it often appears the practice is acceptable. Though it isn’t the support of those who have experienced it is most commendable.

There is little difference in the church and non-church community in the divorce rate. About 25% of people in North America have been though at least one divorce. Among churchgoers who claim to be born-again the figure is actually higher: 27%.

God said, “He hates divorce…” (Malachi 2: 16). Like God, we should love spiritually restored divorcees and yet not approve of divorce.

Divorcees need to be understanding at this point also. They should not be condemning of persons who do not approve of un-Biblical divorce. Some who love and support divorcees the most are persons who do not approve of un-Biblical divorce.

Two situations deserve special attention. There may be marriages when it is virtually impossible to live with an abusive spouse. It is safer to live apart. Such separation should be considered temporary and the person open to reconciliation.

I Corinthians 7: 10, 11 speaks to this type situation. “A wife must not be separated from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” This affords only two options: remain single or be reconciled.

When persons who have divorced and married another person become convinced divorce and remarriage are wrong they sometimes question what to do. Should they divorce again? No. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Seek the Lord forgiveness, confess sin, seek His mercy, and commit yourself and your marriage for Him to us. Remembering His grace is freely given but at great expense to Him. Don’t impose on it.

There are two cases in which the Bible allows divorce. Persons considering a divorce should not rationalize their case and try to pretend it is in one of those categories when it isn’t. They do not encourage divorce but do permit it in these instances. The first is when one spouse is guilty of sexual unfaithfulness (Matthew 5: 32; 19:9). The other is when a non-Christian spouse abandons a spouse who is a Christian (I Corinthians 7: 12-16). In both of these instances divorce is a result of sin, but such divorces are not sinful.

The Deity Of Jesus Christ

There are cults that profess to believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If asked and they respond truthfully they will admit they do not believe He is God the Son. They believe He was a Son of God just as they believe all persons are. They do not however believe in His deity, that is, He is God.

There are over 330 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Christ. Scripture says:

“So all things were done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophets, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,'” which is translated, “God with us.”
(Matthew 22:23)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1.)

“Word” translates the Greek word “Logos.” To understand the meaning of a word not the way it was used in the time it was uses. Philo used the word in the same period meaning “all that is known or knowable of God.” That is who Jesus was.

“…great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up into glory” (I Timothy 3:16). That is a distinct reference to Jesus.

“…in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians :9).

Acts 20:28 refers to “…the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

Whose church is it? God’s. How did it become His? He purchased it. With what did He purchase it? His own blood. When did God shed blood? On Calvary.

In natural procuration the fetus does not get any of its blood from the mother or father. It is developed within and by the fetus. When Jesus shed His blood it was the blood of God according to this text. He was deity in flesh and blood.

Thomas referred to the resurrected Christ as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Titus 1:3 refers to Him as “God our Savior.” Therein we are urged to always be “looking of the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Greek grammar reveals the names “great God and Savior Jesus Christ” refer to the same person. Jesus is the manifestation of God, Immanuel, God with us.

The one for whom we are to be looking is “Christ [who] came, who is over all, the eternal blessed God” (Romans 9:5).

Death and Grief

Nothing impacts us like the death of a loved one. It is so final and strips our emotions raw. When our beloved is a Christian there are great consolations. To these we must cling and from them draw strength.

There is only one of three reasons Christians die.
1. They have finished the work on earth the Lord has for them and He welcomes them home to get their reward.
2. They die as Christian martyrs who by their death advance the cause of Christ.
3. They sin the sin unto death and their life is terminated by our standards prematurely. The sin unto death is noted in I John 5:16. It is any sin which destroys a person’s witness of which they adamantly refuse to repent. The death of such a person brings more glory to the Lord than for them to continue to live is an unrepentant state of disobedience. This person being a Christian, though disobedient, goes to heaven. Death is the discipline.

In the first two of these there is honor and dignity giving cause for celebration. The third is an object lesson for all.

When our loved ones die they go to be with the only one who loves them more than we. In that instant they are more alive than we. It is their induction to “The Society of the Just Perfected.”
The Lord gives
and the Lord takes away.
Blessed be
The Name of the Lord.

He gives far more than He will ever take away. He has given memory. As long as anyone who knew the beloved departed is alive, the gift remains.

Emerson wrote: “Let the measure of time be spiritual, not mechanical. Life is unnecessarily long. Moments of insight, of fine personal relation, a smile, a glance — what ample borrowers of eternity they are.”

The Lord takes away BUT it is not as though He is a ghoulish God greedily taking away from us. Rather, He is a generous God graciously taking to Himself.

God does not lose His beloved ones by giving them to us. We do not lose them by giving them to Him. We must reason out our brooding. Would we pluck the diadem of blessings from the brow of our beloved? Would we remove the palm of victory out of a hand that will never know pain?

Our loved ones go not to the grave but to glory. We can with confidence give them proudly to God. To resent their going is to resist the blessings they have coming. When our beloved are willingly given to God He heals the pain.

Job knew the extremity of loss, the extension of pain, and the exhaustion of grief. His classic conclusions give stability and strength. Make them yours.

First, he affirmed God knows me:
“He knows the way that I take: when He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10).

Second, he asserted I know God:
“For I know that my redeemer lives. And He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 1:25).

Third, he attested to their mutual commitment: “Though He slay me yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15).

God knows you. He takes no pleasure in your grief but He will take a part.

Deacon Ministry

The ministry role of the deacon has changed dramatically over the years. Churches would do well to study the role model found in the New Testament to best utilize its human resources. When this is done those serving are more fulfilled and the church is better served.

Godly deacons fulfilling their roles within the parameters of the Scripture are among the biggest blessings in a church. The Christlike spirit and faithful ministry of such persons benefits all believers. The body of Christ functions more productively and the fellowship operates more harmoniously because of dedicated deacons. There is no adequate tribute that can be paid to such persons. Their servant temperament inspires the total membership.

It is an open secret that in many churches the way deacons function contributes to discord in the body and results in ministry not performed. The subject is so sensitive that in a lot of instances members prefer to live with the status quo rather than challenge a deacon hierarchy. Once the Biblical model is abandoned power brokers often emerge who seek to micro manage the church.

Often voluntarily change results when such an existent “Board of Deacons” is challenged to study the ministry of New Testament deacons. This is frequently true because this non-Biblical role does not emerge in most instances because of a power grab. Recurrent pastor turnover or lack of pastoral leadership has in many instances necessitated someone leading. Generally that responsibility has gravitated to deacons. In churches where this has been the practice for a long time those presently serving know no other way to serve. Relinquishing that style is sometimes difficult. For them it is the way it has always been. In reality it isn’t. In such cases the evolution of the role has moved it away from the Bible model. Consider these changes in the role of deacon that have occurred over the years.

The English word “deacon” translates the Greek word DIAKONOS. It is used 30 times in the New Testament and in 25 of those instances it is translated “servant.” It came from dia (through) and konis (dust). It spoke of one so eager to serve he kicked up dust rushing to minister.

Jesus’ life serves as a model of such a person for He “came not to be served but to serve” [DIAKONEO] (Mark 10:45).

Jesus went so far as to make servanthood the very sign of greatness, “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant” [DIAKONOS] (Mark 10: 43).

In Ephesians 4: 12 it is noted the Lord gives the church some persons “for the work of ministry.” The word translated “ministry” is DIAKONIA.

The word translated deacon was first and principally used as an adjective to speak of one’s activity, not an office. Later it was used as a noun to speak of an office. Even then it was used to speak of one who fulfilled his role of service with such haste as to kick up dust rushing to serve.

Secular church history reveals that in the first centuries after Christ the role of deacons was to visit the martyrs in prison, prepare the dead for burial, provide for widows, minister to the sick.

In the plague of 258 AD deacons were described as those who “visited the sick fearlessly,” and “died with them most joyfully.”

In a later time they were forbidden to marry and required to wear clerical collars.

Perhaps the most dramatic change that still influence the office occurred in the late 1800s. The industrial revolution resulted in the emergence of large corporations. To manage these groups of persons were enlisted to give guidance. They met around tables made of boards. The room in which they met became known as the board room and the persons who met around the table known as “the board.”

Until this time deacons were never referred to as a board. Churches began to adopt the model. Thus, the world influenced the church. Deacons gravitated from a ministry role to one of a board of directors and business managers.

This concept was strengthened by misunderstanding one word in the Acts 6. This passage deals with the growth of the church and the emerging need to provide a ministry to meet that need and settle a growing dispute. A “murmuring” began in the church because the Hellenists (Greek speaking members) felt their widows were not being cared for by the Hebrews. To settle this seven men were selected to minister to them. It should be noted these seven are not referred to as “deacons.” It is, however, commonly assumed they were. The little word misused to bolster the business nature of deacon service that emerged in the 1800s was “this” (Acts 6:3). Some read the passage to mean these seven were responsible for “the” business of the church. In reality the task assigned the seven was to fulfill a servant role by ministering to the widows. That was the specific reference of the expression “this business.”

It should be further noted that “business” in Acts is not synonymous with the oversight, administrative, managerial, regulatory or financial life of the modern church. Such was not the role of the New Testament deacon. These areas of ministry are not the responsibility of deacons by divine right.

The New Testament word, CHREIA, translated “business” in Acts 6:3 literally means “need” or “necessity.” There was a need to provide for the widows and the seven were to meet it.

This is a wonderful way to avoid problems. First, identify a need, next propose a solution, and finally implement the solution. The result, the problem goes away. They found a need, established a team to meet the need, and the problem went away.

Deacons would aid the church significantly if they would abandon the board or directors and business manager form of deacons and adopt the “Ministry Team” example. Evaluate what needs exist and establish teams to meet them. Not all of these teams need to be permanent. Some might well relate to long range needs and others more immediate temporary ones.

Moving away from the biblical servant role to the more modern business model robbed and continues to rob churches of the servant deacon role. This has perpetuated further “murmuring” resulting from a lack of persons with servant temperaments. Recovery of the Scriptural servant ministry of deacons is imperative for the advancement of the modern church.

The fact we have changed means we can change. Reality reveals and Scripture mandates we must change. The change needed is to revert to the New Testament era servant role. Doing so not only provides a committed core of ministering servants but opens the door to broader participation in church life.

A ministry more nearly following the New Testament prototype is the “Deacon Family Ministry.” It involves dividing the membership into small groups with a deacon assigned to minister to each. The deacon visits each household in his group. By staying in closer contact with members fewer are lost. In times of need members know to contact their deacon who is responsible for ministering to them. This model multiplies the ministry of the church.

Many churches believe the Bible to teach the deacon is to be a male who has not been divorced. Within churches there are many deeply devoted gifted persons with a divorce in their background. Also there are many talented and gifted females. By disenfranchising these two reservoirs of capable members churches rob themselves great human resources. There is no prohibition in Scripture against them serving in other roles in the church.

Progressive churches that adopt the Deacon Family Ministry format usually change their concept of committees also. Committees are of the 1950s. They are slow to act and thus retard progress. Times were slower in the 50s and this worked. A book entitled, “It is Not the Big that Eat the Small, It’s the Fast that Eat the Slow” speaks of a need for more immediate action in our fast paced society.

A second characteristic of the modern era is that younger people are reluctant to make long term commitments. It is not that they are not committed but rather that they are committed to so many things. They will make short term commitments. Therefore, enterprising churches move from having a lot of standing committees to having facilitators and/or ministry teams. That is, when a job needs doing a group is enlisted to get it done. When the task is done their role is fulfilled and finished. People respond to this short term type of responsibility.

Long term church committees can thus be reduced basically to finance, personnel, and trustees. Spiritually mature and gifted males and females as well as divorced and not divorced persons can serve in these roles. This broadens the leadership base while allowing for greater ministry by servant deacons. The church benefits and “murmuring” is minimized.

Churches must never compromise with the world. However, they must adjust in order to minister to their culture. This New Testament model meets the needs of today.
The fast do eat the slow. Eastern Airlines was the second largest air carrier in America at the time it went out of business. Howard Johnson was one of the major food service companies before failing in 1961. In 1968 Holiday Inn was inventive and initiated the concept of advance reservations. Today they are only a minor player in the motel business. All three of these had one thing in common. They did not adjust to changing times. Churches that do no risk their effectiveness if not their lives.

Moving back to the New Testament model of deacons is one of the most progressive actions a church can take.

Substance and style are two aspects of church life. Substance refers to the Scripture. It is a fixed unchanging stabilizing source. Style speaks of how we do things. Style changes frequently. A coiled spring often has one end attached to a fixed object and the other to a moveable one. The spring pulls the moveable object back to the fixed one. When the Bible is the fixed factor to which our style of ministry is constantly drawn adjustments to its principles are made. The style of deacon ministry in many churches is being drawn back to the substance of Scripture.

ORDINATION/INSTALLATION COMMITMENT
At the time deacons are ordained or installed it is appropriate that they should make a public commitment to the role. This can be done by having husband and wife stand and the husband first respond to the following four questions one at the time and then the wife respond to her question.

DEACON:

• 1. Will you endeavor to live to the uttermost a commendable Christian life?
• 2. Will you strive to attend the services of the church at which your presence is beneficial to you and the program?
• 3. Do you believe in and will you follow the Bible plan of Christian stewardship?
• 4. Will you cooperate with your pastor, your fellow deacons, and the entire church in supporting the total church?

WIFE:

• Will you support your husband in every way essential to enable him to fulfill his responsibilities as a deacon and will you likewise comply with the requirements of the four questions just asked him?

Each party should answer “I will” in response to each question.

REQUIREMENTS FOR DEACONS
D – stands for “DEDICATION.” They must be men “full of the Holy Ghost” with convictions and without possibility of compromise. Dedication is the one big need for our churches today. For lack of it Christianity suffers.

E – would call for “ENTHUSIASM.” It means zeal in being about Christ’s mission. Enthusiasm takes the drudgery out of work. It takes the brakes off progress and shoots the project into orbit to function so long as enthusiasm lasts.

A – would introduce “AFFECTION” or, better still, the synonym of love which is a warmer word. Affection first to God, to be sure, and then an affection for people. It should be an affection which draws the people into love for God.

C – introduces “COURAGE.” Churches are filled with people who know right from wrong, but few are the number willing to take their stand regardless of price. Silence in an hour of trial condones evil and has no place for men of courage.

O – and “OBEDIENCE” comes into focus. It is obedience to God and all He commands. It is carrying out the wishes of the church as it projects its program. Obedience, in a distinct way, is ministering to others to the glory of God.

N – would stand for “NAME, or as the Bible puts it, “men of honest report.” All that has gone before combines to build a reputation or name. There can be no leadership without reputation.

D-E-A-C-0-N It is an acrostic of the New Testament teaching for “Men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom ye may appoint over this business.”

Crucify Him!: Who Said It?

Jesus was from Galilee. Each tribe had an area where they camped near Jerusalem for feasts. The Galileans always camped on the southern end of the Mount of Olives. The Bible does not say this but historical records attest to it. These were rural people who detested the Romans and had nothing to lose by opposing them.

When Jesus left Bethany/Bethphage (Luke 19: 29) to go to Jerusalem He would have had to travel across the southern end of the Mount of Olives and through these people who knew Him. His home town, Nazareth, was in Galilee. He spent much of His ministry among them.

As He moved through them they celebrated His presence with great delight (Luke 19:37). At this time Jesus was not in Jerusalem. He was still on the Mount of Olives.

These are the people referred to on another occasion as “the common people (who) heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37).

Across the Kedron Valley (less that 1/4 mile) that separated the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem the folks in Jerusalem heard all the shouting and went out to see what was happening.

In the Gospel of John the expression “the Jews” was used to refer to the religious leaders. They were the wealthy people in Jerusalem. They lived in luxury like people in Rome. They had much to lose so they placated the Romans and sought to please them.

It was this group in Jerusalem who incited the crowd within the city to cry “Crucify Him.” Note in John 19: 6 “the chief priest and officers cried out, saying crucify Him.” In John 19: 14 Pilate said “to the Jews….”

This reference to the Jews is addressed to “the chief priest and officers” of verse 6. It was they in John 19: 15 who are represented as having “… cried out, ‘Crucify Him!'”