Things have been busy. That is probably quite common to all and a common refrain in our lives as there are many responsibilities tugging at our time. It has been several weeks since the last post on 1 Timothy. Quite a lot of ground has been covered in that time, from verse 20 in chapter 5 through chapter 6 and verse 2. Again, due to time constraints this post will cover these passages briefly, and possible the discussions spurred on from them is where more considerable time can be taken.
Entertaining an accusation against an elder provoked a discussion that was quite possibly entertaining in iteself. Ultimately the context of the passage and principle presented is for the protection of the elder against slanderous accusations. Also in the comments following the previous post, additional clarification to the word "entertain" brought more light to the imperative not to take to heart accusations brought against elders without witnesses. Obviously the Bible, in this passage which is specifically dealing with eldership, is not advocating a "gag order" on all reports of abuse. In the 1 Timothy church the current elders and membership have a responsibility to look carefully at the man being presented for eldership and his meeting of the clearly written qualifications (both things he must exhibit in his character and things that must be absent in his character) so that such cases would be a great exception. Also in the 1 Timothy church there will be a plurality of elders, such that if a report of abuse did arise the member to whom the accusation was brought can present the accuser to the other elder(s) so that the abuse is not neglected but also not entertained. Verse 20 then moves to what action is taken in the case of legitimately discovered sin in the life of the elder. Public rebuke. That seems harsh in today's moral economy. Think about how many times in your lifetime an elder has been publicly rebuked for sin. What did you come up with? 10 times? 5 times? 2 times? Never? Personally I cannot recall ever having experienced such a public rebuke. Now, I must also explain that until my current 5 year membership I have also never been in a church that was established according to the 1 Timothy church. So it stands to reason that since the leadership was not arranged according to 1 Timothy that church discipline would not be handled according to 1 Timothy. So what? What is missed if sin in not publicly addressed, even among the eldership? Just read verse 20 again - so that the others may take warning. No warnings to the membership regarding discipline and consequences for sin in the church, this is a huge loss. If part of the responsibility of the church is to watch their life and doctrine closely, then what good does it do the body to make things so lax with respect to discipline that there is no encouragement from the church to watch their life and doctrine closely? If relationship with Christ is the most important thing in an individual believers' life how could the church not address through discipline issues that hinder or block altogether growth, worship, adoration of God with those who are living in active disobedience? The church should love them enough to seek reconciliation through discipline, in this case public rebuke even for elders.
Chapter 6 references masters and servants, and in today's common scenario in the United States employers and employees. Very briefly here, everyone for whom God shines the light of Truth into his/her heart lives a certain life in a certain place. Those temporal circumstances may or may not change immediately or over time, but what is significant is that the miracle of a change of heart has taken place. So, one person may have 200 people in his employ when she becomes a believer. The question before her is how will the love of Christ and the change of heart effect her life as an employer (her treatment, her expectations, her demands, her compensation, her attitude toward her employees). Another person may be employed by a great boss, a terrible boss or something in between. The question before him is how will the love of Christ and the change of heart effect his life as an employee (his treatment, his expectations, his thoughts, his attitude, his appreciation toward his employer). Much can be said regarding slavery, the yoke placed on others, and the outworking in a culture with the understanding of the equality of all mankind as image bearers. However, suffice it to say for this post that each person who is brought to a saving knowledge of Christ will be responsible for how he/she worships God in whatever situation they are in or transition into for the remainder of their lives. We are all responsible individually to God for how we behave as disciples of Christ and striving to live in contentment with godliness, which is great gain. Whatever any of our current situation, we can all find something to change so that we can do better at being content and godly right where we are, for His glory.
That "entertaining an accusation against an elder" thing is interesting. Other translations say "receive" or "admit". But it appears from the text that the concern is a public accusation. No public accusation should be made against an elder unless there are multiple witnesses. In the case of a single victim, so to speak, the Matthew 18 approach is certainly not ruled out. This is private accusation elevated to public when repentance is not forthcoming. It allows for thorough examination of the accusation before it goes public. In the Matt. 18 version, it doesn't go public until the final stage. I think that's what's in mind in Paul's letter to Timothy.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I've known of public reprimands. Some made the news. The media is happy to find pastors who sin and get removed from office for their indiscretions. Rarely have I seen it done right, but I've seen it done.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I see an emphasis on public versus private, at least not directly. I agree that it is easy to see that understanding being implicit in the care taken to elect elders, the honor they are to be afforded and the other Scripture (Matthew 18 as you've mentioned) references. It seems that what is being addressed in 1 Timothy 5:19 is the attitude of the receiver of the accusation. Obviously no one can control whether or not they will ever receive an accusation, or in what setting (public or private), only how they (we) will respond upon receipt of that accusation. Certainly if we follow the 1 Timothy "model" then such matters will be taken care of "in house" by those in leadership and in whom the membership has submitted themselves in terms of authority in the church.
I also had never seen any of the issues discussed in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy or Titus regarding the church, its leadership and church discipline "lived out" until joining where I currently attend. Since that time I have witnessed first hand church discipline carried out, the struggle involved, the desire for reconciliation in the hearts of the elders and how things can turn out. I have also witnessed an elder step down (in front of the congregation, with the other elders in full support of the man and his family, and his family present) due to rebellion of one of his sons. I can tell you that there has been little more powerful or effectual in driving home the solemnity with which these matters should be considered or beneficial in terms of fruit born in the congregation as a result.
That's really what I was wondering. If anyone had seen it done right.