Friday, December 7, 2018


My oldest boy turned 10 just now,
He's grown big! Can't you see?
It seems so short a while ago,
He sat here on my knee.

For reading books and playing games
And nursery rhymes with glee.
My oldest boy turned 10 just now,
While sleeping silently.

He used to run and play and hide,
And still does to this day.
My oldest boy turned 10 just now,
In bed there where he lay.

Through Kindergarten, Sunday school,
And on throughout the grades,
My oldest boy turned 10 just now,
He's growing, so they say.

And on it goes, it never stops,
He's bigger every year.
One day soon he'll be the pops,
With his own children near.

My oldest boy turned 10 just now,
From all these too fast years.
But now, for now, he's still my boy,
And ever will be here.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Mastering Sin

In Genesis 4:7 God tells Cain, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” I feel that this translation, while basically accurate, misses the bigger part of what God is warning Cain about.

In fact, it would be better translated “And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is to master you, but you should rule over it.” That sounds a little more urgent. It is more forceful and (at least to me), a little more frightening.

I wonder if we often fail to recognize that sin is not a benign presence. Far too often we seem to treat sin as though it is passive. We say we “fall” into sin, as though it were a hole in the ground that we simply did not see and fell into. God never talks about sin like that. To Him it is something active. It is a hunter who tracks down its prey, waits until the opportune moment, then strikes out to tear it apart and consume it. Sin itself is really spoken of in the same way that Satan is: an active force out to destroy people and separate them from God.

James writes in 1:15 that “sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” I don’t know about you, but I have never heard of a passive, benign object “bringing forth” anything. Only that which is active and capable has the ability to “bring forth” something, let alone something as enormous as death itself.

It is to our detriment if we fail to see sin for what it is. It is an active, predatory force on the lives of people. If we are not prepared to fight back against it, it will happily consume and destroy us. How often the Scriptures warn us to be prepared and to resist sin! But resistance is an action, and action will never be taken unless we believe it needs to be. If our view of sin is one of passivity, we will not see the need to mount a resistance until it is already upon us.

This is not something we can do on a whim with no forethought. Paul tells us to run the race like we mean to win it. In Ephesians we are told to put on the full armor of God. Both of these things take training in order to do well. Without proper training you will never get very far in a race. In a similar way without proper training it will be very difficult to wear and move in armor and use shields and swords. In both of these cases the one who refuses to train and prepare becomes a drain on those who do.

This brings us to the fact that fighting sin is not something we do alone. A relay racer who refuses training will cost his team dearly. A warrior who refuses to train could cost the lives of those next to him. One who does train and improve himself, however, becomes a bigger and bigger boon to those around him over time. In the case of sin, God has given us the church to encourage, edify, strengthen, and hold one another accountable.

Let us be a church who takes sin seriously, who trains to fight back against it, and who strengthens each other to live as we are called by the King Above All.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Slowing Down

It is fairly popular today to tell people to "slow down" in order to improve their life. In a world where marketers and culture is saying "Buy more! Do more! Get more! Have more! Be more!" it is only natural that some segment rises up to fight back against it. The "slow down" movement instead says to have less, do less, and that ultimately, "less is more."

Now notice I only said it is popular to tell people to slow down in order to improve their life. I never said it was popular for people to actually do it. You see, it is far easier to talk about  than follow through on, because if we follow through on it then we might get bored or miss out. FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is a real thing, and it keeps people from slowing down even when they say they want to. This seems to be especially true in the realm of making decisions.

When was the last time you took a significant amount of time in order to make a decision on something? Now I am not talking about analysis paralysis when choosing whether to buy Cereal A or Cereal B. Rather, when was the last time that you put a decision on hold in order to figure out what was should be done in a given situation?

Often there is a great deal of pressure upon us to make a decision "right now." The pressure says that if we do not decide right now, we will miss the opportunity and be stuck always having wondered what could have been, and we will never get another chance like this one. Its "now or never," and we've got to "strike while the iron is hot," less this one and only chance escapes our grasp forever.

Now to be fair, there are occasional circumstances where we must make a decision quickly. There are moments where time is up and something has to happen. But more and more I am beginning to feel like that is the exception rather than the rule. Where the world around us (especially in marketing) tells us you have to choose now, in reality, we do not. How many times have you seen an email or commercial saying "Last Chance for 20% off!!! Today Only!!! Final Sale for Real this Time!!" only to see another one the following week saying very nearly the same thing? How often have you felt pressured to make a decision about something in life right now when waiting a day or two would make very little difference if any at all?

In those moments when pressure is being applied to decide now, I want to encourage you to take a step back, figure out if it really must be decided on right this instant and if not, take a breather and take some time to move through the process of making the decision.

In the ancient world it looks like this is what people did. There were no cars or planes. There were no phones or emails. If you wanted to do something or get something chances were it would take at least a few days before it would even be possible to get there. Then you had to go through the process of the work without modern technology and get back. Life moved at a slower pace because the environment demanded it. There was no other option.

It is this slower pace of life that (I believe) encouraged and enabled people to take the time to make decisions on important matters. I also believe that this led to a less stressful life with a deeper sense of meaning about what was happening. When we rush through decision after decision based on whim or feeling or a random internet review we might "do" a lot but the decisions are often shallow. When we take our time to think through choices, see what they will cost us, and discover whether or not they are truly worthy of our time we may "do" less, but the decisions carry a good deal more weight and allow us to experience more deeply the things that we actually care about. Furthermore, it allows us to make better decisions and end up with better results.

The book of Acts if full of waiting and taking time to make decisions. In chapter 1 the disciples are praying, fellow-shipping, and waiting for the promised Helper. In chapter 6 they take time to seek out men worthy of the service of widows. In chapter 13 Barnabas and Paul are appointed to be missionaries only after spending time fasting and teaching with the church in Jerusalem, and the list goes on and on. We read it as one thing happening after another, but there are days, weeks, and months between many or most of these events and choices being made. Those down-times are often spent fasting, praying, and seeking God's will. They take time to figure things out and, more importantly, they take time bringing their needs and questions before the only One who can truly give them the answer.

We need to ask ourselves, are we taking the time to do this? With everything going on and the pressure to "get more done," are we relying on the help of our Father and King, or are we relying on our own instincts and desires?

I want to encourage you to take the time needed to slow down and make decisions thoughtfully, slowly, and prayerfully. Let us as a people reject the frantic hamster wheel of decision-making the world desires to place on us, and be a people who seek God's will and take the time the listen for His answer before giving ourselves over to something.

Let us be a people of depth and weight, and allow our God to bring us into that depth and weight on His time, through His plans.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Fashionable Heresy

Fashionable: observant of or conforming to the prevailing custom of style of dress, etiquette, socializing, etc.

Heresy: any belief of theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Fashionable Heresy: a belief or theory conforming to prevailing popular thought that is strongly at variance with established belief

I wish I did not have to write on this topic. I wish I didn't because it frustrates me and I am not quite sure how exactly I should go about it. But it is something that has been bugging me for a while now and I cannot ignore it any longer. Y'all...this thing I have named Fashionable Heresy is tearing the Christian faith apart at the seams. We have got to get a handle on this. It has been around since The Way of Christ began, it is never, ever stops. Like the lovely image above, it has no brakes.

Who is it that you follow when it comes to spiritual matters? I know there are some people that I do. I like what they say, how they say it, and the conviction behind their words. There are times where I disagree on some relatively minor points, but that's not a problem. I know where they stand and I know where I stand, and if we met somewhere one day I would not be afraid of speaking and discussing both our similarities and differences. I am sure we would both walk away better for it and happy to have met another member of the family of Christ. We even have Biblical evidence for doing so. In I Corinthians 11:1 Paul writes "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ."

So the question that must be asked, the question that must be answered, is this: do you follow someone, or do you follow them as they follow Christ?

It is very fashionable to hold certain positions in our society. Some of that is good, but some of that is bad. Furthermore, some is simply based on poor theology.

Take poverty for example. It is a real and pressing problem. A good position that is also fashionable is that we should take care of the poor around us. That is a Biblical, sound position to hold. No one who has the right idea of what Scripture says is going to argue against it (and they should be arguing for more of it).

A bad position that is also fashionable is that we must force everyone to take care of the poor by taking what they have and giving it to others. That is not a Biblical position to hold. Christians are told to take care of the poor and hurting, but we are not given leave to force others to against their will. Rather, it is our job to do what we can in following Christ the King as we walk through life.

A position that is based on poor theology would be "we can eradicate poverty!" Unfortunately, though it sounds great and wonderful, it is not Biblical. Jesus says explicitly in Matthew 26:11 that "you will always have the poor among you." There will always be those who are marginalized, exploited, and poor, and we must do all we can to help and aid those in that position. It is not a popular idea, but it is a truthful and sound one.

The problem with Fashionable Heresy is that it takes what is Biblical and inserts ideas that are in tune with the times but not with God. In doing so we either get watered down truth, or the truth is drowned out by the lie. Take the above example and put it together:

"God says we should take care of the poor, so we need to create new government programs and raise new taxes so that we can eradicate poverty."

It sounds nice. It is even couched in Biblical language. But it is not a position based in Scripture. The Bible says nothing about government programs, and specifically states we will never eradicate poverty. If you think it is the government's job to help the poor, that is fine, but you can't make the case through Scripture (that is what philosophy, social commentary, and politics are for).

But do you see how easy it is to inject Fashionable Heresy into a topic? You can make it sound nice, and even holy. But if it does not stand to the test of Scripture we need to be able to see that and call it out. Here is another one (this time a real example):

"If the fruit of doctrine regularly and consistently creates shame, self-harm, suicide & broken hearts, families, and churches, we should listen."

Again, we have Fashionable Heresy injected into a Biblical topic. It is laced with both truth and lie. It also makes an assumption by putting doctrine in the place of the failure of people. It is couched in Biblical language by talking about "the fruit of doctrine". It takes what Jesus says about being wary of false prophets by seeing their fruit in Matthew 7 and applies it to theology.

The problem, however, is that this statement places the blame on doctrine when it should be on people. The doctrine in this case (homosexuality is sin), is blamed as the cause of the bad fruit. But doctrine is nothing more than words on its own. People may use it poorly or produce bad fruit by it, but that does not mean the doctrine is wrong, it means the people are. I can take a hammer and use it to build a house for the homeless or kill someone with a quick whack to the head, but that is not the hammer's fault. I am at fault for how I used it, and no one else (not even the person who made the hammer).

And so we have lies mixed with truth that sounds great and wonderful and Biblical, but that cannot hold up to revealed Truth. The Bible states both implicitly and explicitly that homosexuality is sin, as is sex before marriage, cheating on your spouse, and any other type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. It also states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all are invited to come to Jesus, repent of their sins, and be washed in His blood to live a new life, no matter who they were or what they have done. The doctrine is sound and in line with what God has said. It is people who have messed it up from time to time.

Now yes, there is bad doctrine. It exists in spades in the religious world, even among believing Christians. If there were not we would not have to be warned against it in Scripture so often. But there is also good doctrine used badly. The point is we must be able to tell the difference.

You see, every doctrine, every scrap of it, must be parsed through the lens of the Truth. There are doctrinal truths that all of Christianity, regardless of time, place, and denomination (or lack thereof) has agreed upon for the last 2,000 years up until about 50-60 years ago. That should probably warn us that if we are going to change something, we had better be really, really sure of what we are doing and that it is in line with what Jesus, the Word of God, has revealed. If it is not, we need to run, not walk, away from it.

Please. Do not fall for Fashionable Heresy, no matter what the topic is. It shows up in every way and on every subject. It is so, so easy to get caught up in it because someone writes well, or speaks well, or has passion, or is doing so many other great things. But even Fashionable Heresy is still heresy, and it is still dangerous to our life and faith.

So be strong, stay faithful, and keep informed. :-)

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Of Mice and Men

I don't know what made me think of it, but for some reason out of the blue I decided to watch the ending to Of Mice and Men. I would have read the the ending of it, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book. It was as sad as I remembered it being in high school.

Of Mice and Men has one of the saddest, worst, best endings of any book I have ever read. I would even consider saying of any book ever. It is a hard book in general that forces you to think through its controversial ending. It will not settle for being ignored.

In my senior English class we had to read the book, discussing each part of it during the weeks it was assigned. When we got to the end, there were several camps on if George did the right thing (I am not going into specifics here so as not to spoil it for future readers), and what he could have done differently. I still remember my position, though I continue to wonder if it was the right one or not.

What makes the issue in that book so unclear is the fact that it deals with the reality of man and the situation. Lennie has done a great wrong, people are rightly angry, and he is too simple to know what is going on. In that day and age there were no resources for people like him, so should he be doomed to a life of terror and fear or freed? The author gives no clear-cut answers, nor does he expound over whether George's choice is right or wrong. All we know is George loves his friend Lennie, and wants the best for him. Beyond that we are offered no answers in the book. 

This post is not about whether George was right or not, but about how we as Christians need to take life and deal with it as it is, and not as we wish it were.

Far too often I hear fellow brothers and sisters in Christ speak about the world in terms that either whitewashes or sidelines uncomfortable truths. Some things I hear are:

"Christianity is not in decline, revival is just around the corner!"
"The kids are fine. Everyone has smartphones these days."
"We'll make it to church next time. Scouts/sports/school/etc. is so busy this time of year!"
"What racism?"
"What police brutality?"
"What attacks on police?"
"What war atrocities?"
"What illegal immigrant problem?"
"We both have to work if we're ever going to get ahead."
"If only politician/political part XYZ would win, things would be better."
"This generation is so narcissistic and weak."
"We can't associate with that church, they [fill in the blank]."
"LGBT issues are settled."
"Why are you worried about LGBT stuff? It's never going to affect you."

And on and on the list goes...

Now if I have done what was intended, you found at least one of those to be offensive or something you would rather not think about. I know I found at least a couple of them to be, but that is the point. If we never stop to really consider what is going on around us and what the issues are, we are not grappling with the world as it is in reality, but only as we wish it were. This will never get us anywhere, because unless we deal with reality we will never make any progress in dealing with the world around us.

We as Christians do not get the luxury of ignoring what is going on around us. If we do that we will have no answer besides the standard cut-and-paste rhetoric of a Facebook post. For us to reach the world we have to be ready and willing to face it head-on as it is. That is how Jesus interacted with the world after all.

Consider the things Jesus dealt with without resorting to platitudes and standard, rehearsed lines: prostitution, adultery, disease, politics, poverty, hunger, inheritance, God, marriage, children, purpose, racism, Heaven, Hell, Jerusalem's destruction, death. I could go on for a while here but I think you get the point. Instead of pretending like they did not exist or moving them off to the side, Jesus looked at it straight-on, considered it in the context of God's Will and Plan, and dealt with it accordingly. There was no rhetoric when it came to how Jesus spoke. Each situation was dealt with as it was - an individual situation. There was no one-size-fits-all solution for every issue. He did the hard work of not only dealing with the issue, He also went to those who were involved in it. He empathized with them, then lead them to the truth of God in love.

As followers of Christ, we are called to do the same.

Today's post is a call to put away the rhetoric, put away the self-reinforcing news feeds, put away the talking heads and pundits, and come before God Almighty for the real answers to the real issues in life. Today is a call to reject the wisdom of this world and all those who are not giving their lives over to God in favor of His Word and the wisdom of those who strive with all their hearts to follow Christ wherever He leads. Forget the politicians, the celebrities, the bloggers, the memes, the YouTube videos and the Facebook friends who tell you what the world wants you to hear instead of what God wants you to know.

Come to God. Pray for His Spirit to lead you in His Word. Look for His Will and His Truth to come from what He has provided for us. There is only One who we can look to in order to be refreshed by the water of life and nourished by truth.

Let us face the hard issues straight-on with honesty, empathy, and open eyes. Let us face them as Jesus faced them. Let us face them in the truth and love of God.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Beauties, Beasts, and Art

Should I see it? Should I not? AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
I wasn't really planning on writing about this. It wasn't particularly on my radar, and I was pretty much prepared to ignore the Beauty & The Beast release and not worry too much about it. I don't get to go to the movies much, but if I could make it, great!

Then director Condon came out with his big "gay moment" line and the news, Facebook, and everyone blew up and everyone had a meltdown. Many Christians said they wouldn't go, many LGBT activists were overjoyed, and many others kind of shrugged and said "whatevs".

Now this has never been a blog about saying "whatevs", nor has it ever focused on LGBT things (though we have talked about it). What we have done on this blog is try to deal with real issues and the real things behind them, without compromise or backing down. I realize I am not perfect at that, but hey, I'm trying. :-)

So to get back on topic, after the B&B Meltdown, it came to light that in fact the whole "exclusively gay moment" (director Condon's phrase), was very short and not easily noticeable. In fact it was so small that if you didn't know it was there, you would probably miss it.

And so...many Christians who had bemoaned what the director said about the movie...went and saw the movie.

Then...went on social media and gushed over how amazing the movie was.

Then...chided other Christians who were choosing not to see the movie as making something small into a big deal.

Then...started linking to every blog and Facebook post by other Christians who thought the same thing they did so that the people who chose to stand their ground and not see the movie would...just go see the movie already because its great and the story is awesome and the gay thing is no big deal and if the director hadn't said anything you wouldn't even know and besides why are you making such a big deal out of something that is so small and insignificant so just go see the movie already.

I kid you not, this has been my Facebook non-stop. I am not exaggerating. The movie has been out for 3 days, and I cannot log on without someone trying to convince me to go see it.

This. Has. To. Stop.

We're going to take this in 2 parts, because there are 2 different issues here. 

The first is this: why are some Christians trying to convince others to break their conscience to go see a movie?

The second is this: can we so easily rationalize away something which the director of the movie himself says was his goal? How do we square that circle?

I will try not to make this incredibly long. Hopefully I will succeed.

The first issue should be a no-brainer. Remember what Paul wrote in Romans:
14:15 - Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with you food the one for whom Christ died.
14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 
15:1-2 - We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.
This is really very clear. If you know other Christians are of tender conscience about this movie, don't be telling them to go see it. In fact, do not be bragging about going to see it. To do so is to do harm to your brother and sister in Christ and treat them in an unloving way. This is unacceptable behavior for the Christian to engage in, and we should take no part in it. If conscience allows someone to go see it, great! I cannot personally judge that, as my conscience is not theirs. However, I can say without any hesitation that to go bragging about it and telling everyone it is fine, or even worse that they should just go see it already (when they have doubts & reservations) is, in fact, a big deal, and should be avoided at all cost.

We can walk in love and encouragement toward our fellow travelers in Christ, or we can put stumbling blocks in the way.

The second issue is a little more murky and difficult to deal with. Has anyone really stopped to ask why some people are holding out on seeing the movie? All I have heard are people who do see it saying about those who refuse, "they're making a big deal out of nothing," when they weren't the ones who made the controversy in the first place.

Remember, it was not some random blogger or even an actor who said,
"He's confused about what he wants. It's somebody who's just realizing that he has these feelings. And Josh [Gad, who plays LeFou] makes something really subtle and delicious out of it. And that's what has its pay-off at the end, which I don't want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie."
That was the director, Bill Condon. He's the guy who calls the shots and gets to decide what the movie is about. So the controversy does not fall on the shoulders of people who, for reason of conscience, choose not to see the movie. They did not ask for nor bring up the issue. The man who made the movie did. He, not those who see it, gets to decide what the movie and its moments are about. If he had said that when the Beast tosses Gaston off the roof that is represented the feral nature of man overcoming his self-righteous, deified self, that's what it would have been about. If he had said Belle's imprisonment and escape was about women rising up to overtake the patriarchy and bend it to her will, that's what it would have been about.

I still have a visceral reaction against this,
but at least I know what it is about.
Basically, whoever is the creator of something gets to decide what it is for and what it represents. So if the director is hyping up his "exclusively gay moment", then that is what it is. I can determine if I believe it is good or beautiful, but for me to say "that's not really what it is", is ludicrous. It would be like me viewing the art piece titled "Piss Christ" and claiming it is a strictly anti-Christian piece of propaganda. That's not what it is about, and it is ridiculous for me to say so when the artist himself states that it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture. It is the creator, not the viewer or even the participant, who determines meaning.

This is why Christians must be so careful in what they support and what they are involved in. It must be remembered that those with the microphones and those who create are the ones who get to decide what something represents. We don't get to be involved in something and say in our hearts "well, I'm really here for this other reason." It simply doesn't work that way. It is only the organizer, creator, or one with the megaphone, who gets to decide what something is for. Everyone else is simply along for the ride.

As a side-note, this is one reason why worship is so beautiful. Because even though I may mess up or have the wrong mind-set or struggle during that time, Christ, as the Author and Creator of faith, decides what worship is really about and brings me along for the ride. In doing so He makes sure that through Himself, my worship is made perfect despite my imperfections.

I get the feeling that this is the real reason why conscientious objectors to the movie are holding back. It is not whether the moment or scene is big or small, open or covert. Rather, it comes down to what the publicly stated goal of the director. In saying what he said he turned it into a referendum on if it would fly in a Disney movie. Considering it made $170 million in its opening weekend (the largest March opening of all time), I think it is safe to assume that the answer was "yes".

The bottom line is there is a real reason why some people continue to object to the movie. If someone does not agree, that is fine. But please, please remember to always walk in love and to never put a stumbling block in front of our brothers and sisters. It is never OK to try and force someone in Christ to accept what is against their conscience toward God. It is also never OK to mock or treat as ridiculous the reason (any reason) someone chooses not to do something because they are trying to honor God. That is something that should always, without fail, be praised and admired in a person.

So always walk in love, always give in so others may be build up, and always, always choose the path that you believe will honor and glorify God in your life, whatever that choice may be. 

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Leaders and Titles

***This is not mine. I did not write it or even originally come across it. A friend from preaching school shared this on Facebook, which was difficult to read. I shared it here and added some formatting to increase its clarity. This is a long article, but it is very important. I suggest reading it, especially if you are in leadership or considering installing leadership.***

Church Leaders and The Use of Honorific Titles
"But you, are you seeking great things for yourself? Do not seek them" (Jeremiah 45:5)
by Darryl M. Erkel

The Lord Jesus, in His condemnation of the Pharisees recorded in Matthew 23, plainly forbids His followers from either giving or receiving honorific titles. Whereas the religious hypocrites love "respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men Rabbi" (v.7), this is not to be the mark of Christ's disciples: "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted (vv. 8-12).

Jesus is not denying functional differences and roles within the church; nor is He suggesting that it is wrong to term one's biological parent "father." Rather, He is prohibiting the use of self-exalting and honorific titles of distinction among those who have chosen to follow Christ. While conferring honorific titles upon prominent religious authorities may be the way of the world, it is not the path that Christ has called us to pursue.

Yet, in spite of the clarity of Jesus' command, Christians have historically ignored His words. We continue, for example, to address our church shepherds as "Reverend," "Doctor," or "Minister" and, unfortunately, far too many of them are glad to receive such flattery and even love to have it so! Commenting on the words of our Lord in Matthew 23, the noted New Testament scholar, R.T. France, has perceptively written:
These verses, while still commenting on the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, are addressed directly to Jesus' disciples, warning them against adopting this status-seeking attitude. "Rabbi" (v.8) and "Master" (v.10) probably act here as synonyms. They are titles appropriate only to the One Teacher (v.8), the Christ (v.10), in relation to whom all His followers stand on an equal footing as "brothers"... Over against that unique authority His disciples must avoid the use of honorific titles for one another ("Christian rabbinism," Bonnard)--an exhortation which today's church could profitably taken more seriously, not only in relation to formal ecclesiastical titles ("Most Rev.", "my Lord Bishop," etc.), but more significantly in its excessive deference to academic qualifications or to authoritative status in the churches (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew [Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985] p.325).

Christian magazines are filled with advertisements for books or products recommended by "Doctor" so-and-so; and churches continue to promote their ministries led by "Reverend" so-and-so. The Christian world, it seems, is consumed with exalted and honorific titles for those in positions of leadership or influence. Some pastors, in fact, are rather offended when their congregational members address them by their first name or simply as "brother." It is thought by many to be disrespectful or unbecoming to address a Christian theologian in any other way than "Doctor" or "Professor."

But we must ask, are such titles necessary for church leaders? Have evangelicals genuinely honored the words of Christ in Matthew 23:8-12 by prefacing the names of their leaders with such flattering titles as "Reverend" or "Senior Pastor"? Church history, according to J.C. Ryle, has all too clearly demonstrated that we have missed the true meaning of Jesus' words:
Happy would it have been for the Church of Christ, if this passage had been more deeply pondered, and the spirit of it more implicitly obeyed. The Pharisees are not the only people who have imposed austerities on others, and affected a sanctity of apparel, and loved the praise of man. The annals of church history show that only too many Christians have walked closely in their steps (Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Reprint, 1977] p.299).

Greg Ogden, a writer and church shepherd in Saratoga (CA), states:
I mourn for the church because we seem to display so many of the characteristics that Jesus said, "Not so among you" (Mark 10:43). Shameful arrogance and haughtiness have reached epidemic proportions among church leaders... A direct implication of Jesus' servant stance was His obliteration of titles... We have refused to take Jesus' words at face value. Jesus' obvious intent was to remove any basis for "lording it over" others by dispensing with titles that give people an elevated place in the "pecking order." We all occupy the same level ground at the foot of the one Teacher, Jesus Christ. We are not "great ones" or "lords"... Finally, do not accept the designation "master" or "leader." No human can usurp the position of the head of the body, Christ. Our tendency seems always toward idolatry, to make someone larger than life. Never forget: Jesus alone is Lord (The New Reformation: Returning the Ministry to the People of God [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990] p.172,174).

The Son of God "made Himself of no reputation" (Philippians 2:7), yet His servants seem bent on following an opposite course. Christ bids us to learn of Him who was "meek and lowly" (Matthew 11:29), yet His representatives continue to exalt themselves with self-glorifying titles. But someone may ask, what real harm is there in such titles of prominence? Perhaps the following points will help to explain their danger and assist Christians in avoiding them.

1. The New Testament simply provides no warrant for giving congregational leaders priestly or honorific titles. Thus, any man who seeks or permits such titles to be given to him violates the express commands of Christ (Matthew 23:8-10) as well as apostolic practice. Alexander Strauch, a writer and shepherd in Littleton (CO), has stated:
The modern array of ecclesiastical titles accompanying the names of Christian leaders--reverend, archbishop, cardinal, pope, primate, metropolitan, canon, curate--is completely missing from the New Testament and would have appalled the apostles and early believers. Although both the Greeks and Jews employed a wealth of titles for their political and religious leaders in order to express their power and authority, the early Christians avoided such titles. The early Christians used common and functional terms to describe themselves and their relationships. Some of these terms are "brother," "beloved," "fellow-worker," "laborer," "slave," "servant," "prisoner," "fellow-soldier," and "steward." Of course there were prophets, teachers, apostles, evangelists, leaders, elders, and deacons within the first churches, but these were not used as formal titles for individuals. All Christians are saints, but there was no "Saint John." All are priests, but there was no "Priest Philip." Some are elders, but there was no "Elder Paul." Some are overseers, but there was no "Overseer John." Some are pastors, but there was not "Pastor James." Some are deacons, but there was no "Deacon Peter." Some are apostles, but there was no "Apostle Andrew." Rather than gaining honor through titles and position, New Testament believers received honor primarily for their service and work (Acts 15:26: Romans 16:1,2,4,12; 1 Corinthians 16:15,16,18; 2 Corinthians 8:18; Philippians 2:29,30; Colossians 1:7; 4:12,13; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 3:1). The early Christians referred to each other by personal names (Timothy, Paul, Titus), the terms "brother" or "sister," or by describing an individual's spiritual character or work: "Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5); "Barnabas, a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11:24); "Philip the evangelist" (Acts 21:8); "Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3); "Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you" (Romans 16:6) (Biblical Eldership [Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth Publishers/Revised, 1995] pp. 302-303).

Frank A. Viola has, likewise, written:
In keeping with our Lord's command, biblical elders did not permit themselves to be addressed by honorific titles such as "Pastor Bill," "Elder Tom," "Bishop Jake," or "Reverend Sam" (Matthew 23:7-12). Such titles naturally elevate church leaders to a plane above the other brethren in the assembly. Thus, congregations and clergy alike are responsible for creating the current "Christian guruism" that is rampant in the church today wherein religious leaders are recast into spiritual celebrities and lauded with fan club status. By contrast, New Testament leaders were viewed as ordinary brethren and were just as approachable and accessible to the saints as any other believer in the church. For this reason, 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13 exhorts the saints to intimately know their leaders (a near impossible mandate to fulfill in most contemporary churches where the pastor is trained to keep his distance from the people lest he lose his authority). In this regard, the common image of church leaders as "sacred men of the cloth" is utterly foreign to the biblical concept (Rethinking the Wineskin [Brandon, FL: Present Testimony Ministry, 1997] p.63).

2. The apostles of Christ employed lowly and unofficial terms when describing themselves or others. Notice the expressions which Paul, Peter, and John repeatedly chose to use--which tends to argue against any notion of honorific titles:

Acts 15:23, "The apostles and elders, your brothers."

1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."

2 Corinthians 12:11, "I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody."

Ephesians 3:8, "To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given..."

1 Thessalonians 3:2, "And we sent Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the Gospel of Christ..."

1 Timothy 1:15-16, "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience..."

1 Peter 5:1, "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder..."

2 Peter 3:15, "And regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved brother Paul..."

Revelation 1:9, "I, John, your brother and fellow partaker..."

In light of these clear passages, should we not, then, heed the practice of our Lord's apostles? "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us" (Philippians 3:17).
Acts 15:23 ("The apostles and elders, your brothers") is particularly interesting since, in an official decree that was to be sent to all the churches, the apostles and elders simply referred to themselves as "your brothers." It contained no honorific titles or hierarchical expressions; only the phrase, "your brothers." Thus, the apostles and elders are brethren writing to fellow brethren. The Lutheran Bible commentator, R.C.H. Lenski, writes: 
"'The apostles and the elders' write for themselves and for the entire church but as 'brethren.' Some texts have 'and the brethren,' referring to the congregation, but this reading lacks attestation. The apposition 'brethren' is highly significant in this communication. The apostles and the elders of Jerusalem speak to the Gentile Christians only as brethren and not as superiors... Brethren salute brethren. The communication is fraternal and asks to be accepted as such and as such alone" (The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961] p.621).

Another significant passage is 1 Peter 5:1 ("Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder"). Here was Peter's great opportunity to use an exalted title for himself (e.g., "Senior Pastor," "Chief Elder," "Bishop of Rome"), but chooses not to. Instead, he simply refers to himself as "your fellow elder." Such terminology, as Peter H. Davids points out, is "consistent with the tendency among the early leaders to avoid the use of exalted titles such as were used about them in the second century" (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle of Peter [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1990] p.176).

It is important to emphasize that such terms as "elder," "overseer," and "pastor" are functional terms, and were never intended to serve as formal titles. In other words, the terminology is descriptive of one's task; they help to picture a church leader's function or may even denote one's spiritual maturity as in the term "elder." Thus, it is just as foolish and unnecessary to speak of "Pastor Bob" as it is to speak of one who possesses the gift or function of hospitality as "Hospitality Harry"; or one who has the gift of mercy as "Mercy Mary"; or one who has the gift of giving as "Giving George."

3. Honorific titles feed the pride of men. It tends to inflate one's ego, thus provoking church leaders to think more highly of themselves than they should (Romans 12:3). Let's face it: we all struggle with sin and pride; but why compound that struggle by exalting oneself with special titles which have no basis in the New Testament? While seeing nothing inherently wrong with titles per se, even Craig L. Blomberg, associate professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, is compelled to recognize its dangers:
But one wonders how often these titles are used without implying unbiblical ideas about a greater worth or value of the individuals to whom they are assigned. One similarly wonders for how long the recipients of such forms of address can resist an unbiblical pride from all the plaudits. It is probably best to abolish most uses of such titles and look for equalizing terms that show that we are all related as family to one Heavenly Father (God) and one teacher (Christ)... In American Christian circles perhaps the best goal is to strive for the intimacy that simply makes addressing one another on a first-name basis natural (The New American Commentary: Matthew, Vol. 22 [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992] p.343).

4. Honorific titles, contrary to what many ecclesiastical authorities would assert, are a form of self-promotion. In fact, some men employ the title "Doctor" for the express purpose of making their opinions or books carry greater authority than they actually do. We tend to assume that the man with an earned doctorate is an "expert," whose words are beyond question. But no man's opinions should be accepted merely because he has a Th.D. or Ph.D. behind his name. Every doctrine or human opinion is to be tested by the rule of Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Revelation 2:2), not one's educational achievements.

If we were to look at degrees only, we might also conclude that the apostles of our Lord were not particularly trustworthy, since none of them (except Paul) had any recognizable formal training: "Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus" (Acts 4:13). Moreover: 
"teachers amongst the Lord's people do not need titles granted by men as a sign of theological authority to teach; authority and ability to teach in spiritual things come from the Lord through the Holy Spirit, and not through the schools of men. Such titles, both then and now, distract from the preeminence of Christ over all those who are brethren in the family of God... We are all brethren and we are all servants (diakonos); this excludes self-exaltation. God reverses what man would esteem" (J. Heading, Ritchie New Testament Commentaries: Matthew [Scotland: John Ritchie, LTD., 1984] pp. 307-308).

Perhaps one reason why some pastors feel compelled to preface their names with a degree or honorific title, is because they have an inferiority complex or are ineffective in gaining respect in ways that are more servant-oriented. It's also important to note that many clergymen have pursued a career in pastoral ministry for reasons less than the glory of God. Far too many are seeking the honor and recognition of men, rather than the honor of Christ (John 5:44; Galatians 1:10). The use of self-glorifying titles only helps to attract such kind.

One common argument used to support honorific titles is that the man who has earned a doctorate in theology worked hard for it and, thus, is entitled to display his accomplishments. But so has the man who has earned a Master of Divinity degree or even a Bachelor of Arts! Should we, then, continually refer to such persons as "Master of Divinity Dave" or "Bachelor of Arts Bill"? If not, why should we continue to employ the title "Doctor" before one's name?

We remind the reader as well that Jesus clearly forbid such titles of distinction among His followers in Matthew 23:8-12. Any person, therefore, who seeks to justify the use of honorific titles must ultimately answer to Jesus Himself. It might also be interesting to note that "Rabbi," as used during the time of Jesus, was employed "much as 'Doctor' is today. In fact, the Latin equivalent of rabbi comes from docere, which means to teach and is the term from which the English word doctor is derived" (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16-23 [Chicago: Moody Press, 1988] p.366).

Another argument used to justify honorific titles is that they are a means of expressing respect to church leaders. The early Christians, however, were still able to express their esteem toward each other without having to resort to special titles (Philippians 2:25-30; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 1 Timothy 5:17).

5. Honorific titles draw unnecessary attention to oneself. The man who uses them is subtly telling others that he is someone important and worthy of their respect. Although he may never admit to it, the great day of judgment promises to disclose his true motivation and inner-secrets (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5).

6. Honorific titles detract from the glory that rightfully belongs to Christ alone. Such titles of distinction as "Reverend" (meaning, "he who is to be revered") not only esteem persons higher than is humanly permissible, but it intrudes in a realm that is not rightfully theirs. We would be wise to listen to the counsel of J.C. Ryle:
But still we must be very careful that we do not insensibly give to ministers a place and an honor which do not belong to them. We must never allow them to come between ourselves and Christ. The very best are not infallible. They are not priests who can atone for us. They are not mediators who can undertake to manage our soul's affairs with God. They are men of like passions with ourselves, needing the same cleansing blood, and the same renewing Spirit, set apart to a high and holy calling, but still after all only men. Let us never forget these things. Such cautions are always useful. Human nature would always rather lean on a visible minister, than an invisible Christ (Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Vol. 1, pp. 299-300).

Many churches in our day refer to their most gifted or experienced leader as "Senior Pastor." However, the only "Senior Pastor" that the New Testament speaks of is Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:3). He alone is "the great Shepherd of the sheep" (Hebrews 13:20; cf. John 10:11,14,16; Ephesians 5:23). Those who serve in a leadership function within the local church are undershepherds. They are called to be humble servants of the sheep (1 Corinthians 3:5; 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:5), not lords who reign over their fiefdom (1 Peter 5:3). Thus, it is quite arrogant to take on the lofty title of "Senior Pastor" when Scripture reserves this for Christ alone! Even the apostle Peter merely referred to himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). The Christian apologist, J.P. Moreland, has said it well:
The local church in the New Testament contained a plurality of elders (see Acts 14:23, 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Hebrews 13:17). The New Testament knows nothing about a senior pastor. In my opinion, the emergence of the senior pastor in the local church is one of the factors that has most significantly undermined the development of healthy churches... Given these facts, the senior pastor model actually produces a co-dependence that often feeds the egos of senior pastors while allowing the parishioners to remain passive. None of this is intentional, but the effects are still real. The senior pastor model tends to create a situation in which we identify the church as "Pastor Smith's church" and parishioners come to support his ministry. If a visitor asks where the minister is, instead of pointing to the entire congregation (as the New Testament would indicate, since we are all ministers of the New Covenant), we actually point to Pastor Smith... The local church should be led and taught by a plurality of voices called elders, and these voices should be equal... No one person has enough gifts, perspective, and maturity to be given the opportunity disproportionately to shape the personality and texture of a local church. If Christ is actually the head of the church, our church structures ought to reflect that fact, and a group of under-shepherds, not a senior pastor, should collectively seek His guidance in leading the congregation (Love Your God With All Your Mind [Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing, 1997] pp. 190-191).

7. Honorific titles tend to attract carnal and power-seeking men to positions of church leadership. As pointed out earlier, if our churches continue to give to their leaders lofty and self-glorifying titles of distinction, we will continue to attract a large percentage of men seeking prestige, recognition, and power. This is not meant to suggest that every church leader who employs an honorific title is necessarily seeking to have his ego stroked or possesses less than genuine motives, but only that far too many fall into this category. Some are simply naive as to the dangers and implications of their lofty titles.

Let's face it: if you set up a religious clerical system that promotes power, prestige, and self-exaltation (as opposed to the humble servant-model of Jesus presented in Mark 10:35-45 and John 13:3-17), such a system will repeatedly attract men seeking such power and prestige. This is one of the major reasons why our churches have historically had the wrong kind of men in positions of leadership. But, we must ask, what kind of men would be attracted to church leadership if they were told they will be servants, not lords; not titled; probably not salaried (Acts 20:33-35); not the sole preacher/teacher (Acts 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:17); an equipper, not a shining superstar; and only one amongst a plurality of other leaders (Acts 14:23; Hebrews 13:17)? Only the most dedicated, humble, and self-sacrificing would be desirous of such a noble task! And, yet, these are the very kind of men that Christ wants to shepherd His sheep--and who are often most lacking in our churches. Greg Ogden writes:

We get the kind of leaders we deserve. It often seems that the world's view of greatness is the standard we use when we select our leaders. We have allowed arrogant, unaccountable, and self-professed channels of the Spirit to shoot off like loose cannon. We sometimes have a penchant in the Christian community for holding up the proud and arrogant as our ideal because "they get the job done." Using the world's view of power, we want leaders to exercise influence, work their way into positions of power, and throw their weight around. We therefore get what we ourselves honor--Christian leaders who act like potentates rather than self-sacrificing servants of Jesus Christ. Our actions show that we do not believe that real power is expressed through servanthood that leads to a cross. The Church Growth Movement has identified strong pastoral leadership as a key ingredient in the growth of a congregation. I will grant that leaders must lead. But what gets passed off as leadership often has no resemblance to servant leadership as modeled and taught by our Lord... Our natural tendency is to concentrate power at the top, but Jesus modeled and taught a different way of life (The New Reformation, pp. 172-173).

8. Honorific titles tend to promote an elitist attitude and authoritarian forms of church leadership. Even the best of men can find self-glorifying titles intoxicating and begin to form lofty opinions of themselves. Within time, they begin to look upon their congregational members as mere "common folks"; an ignorant mass of "laity" who desperately need their wisdom and insight (John 7:49; 9:34).

Church leaders, however, must never give themselves the airs of stuffy, official, and fussy "ministers" as is common among many claiming to be pastors in our day. Instead, their behavior and attitude should conform to the words of Paul in Romans 12:16, "Do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly" and in Philippians 2:3-4, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." The 19th century Baptist preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, warned his pastoral students of the danger of ministerial pride:
My brethren, be not priests yourselves. It is very possible to give yourselves the airs of hierarchs, even though you are avowedly nothing more than Nonconformist pastors. There is a style of dress--the affectation of it is not praiseworthy. There is a style of language--the imitation of it is not commendable. There is an assumption of superiority, looking down upon the common people as mere laity; this piece of pompousness is ridiculous. Avoid the way of certain clerics who seem intent on making their people feel that a minister is a dignified individual, and that the rest of the members of the church should hardly venture to differ from him. Say what we like about all believers in Christ being a generation of priests, we still find vain fellows among us who would be thought of as possessors of a mystic specialty. Our office, as pastors, deserves to be respected, and will be if properly carried out; but I have observed that some who are very anxious to magnify their office, really try to magnify themselves (An All-Round Ministry [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960] pp. 371-372).

9. Honorific titles help to perpetuate the "clergy-laity" division. While it is common for people to speak of church leaders as the "clergy" and the rest of God's people as the "laity," the New Testament never divides the body of Christ into two classes known as "clergy" and "laity."

The root meaning of kleros, from which we get our word "clergy," is "inheritance" or "lot" and refers to the believer's inheritance in Christ, not to a special class of ministers. The word laos, from which we get our word "laity," refers to all of a group; in some cases, it specifically denotes the people of God. Thus, all believers in Christ are part of the laos (or "laity"), including pastors! Every believer is a minister and priest before God with authority to do the work of ministry (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6). The New Testament never confines "ministry" to a select few.

Clericalism has done much to harm and weaken the body of Christ. It clearly divides the Christian brotherhood; it hinders the saints from behaving like the ministers they are; it obscures, if not annuls, the essential oneness of the people of God; and it exalts the pride of church leaders by conferring upon them special titles and privileges. Howard Snyder, a prolific author on the subject of church renewal, has stated:
The New Testament simply does not speak of two classes of Christians--"minister" and "laymen"--as we do today. According to the Bible, the people (laos, "laity") of God comprise all Christians, and all Christians through the exercise of spiritual gifts have some "work of ministry." So if we wish to be biblical, we will have to say that all Christians are laymen (God's people) and all are ministers. The clergy-laity dichotomy is unbiblical and therefore invalid. It grew up as an accident of church history and actually marked a drift away from biblical faithfulness. A professional, distinct priesthood did exist in Old Testament days. But in the New Testament this priesthood is replaced by two truths: Jesus Christ is our great high priest, and the Church is a kingdom of priests (Hebrews 4:14; 8:1; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6). The New Testament doctrine of ministry rests therefore not on the clergy-laity distinction but on the twin and complementary pillars of the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the Spirit. Today, four centuries after the Reformation, the full implications of this Protestant affirmation have yet to be worked out. The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principle obstacles to the Church effectively being God's agent of the Kingdom today because it creates the false idea that only "holy men," namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity (The Community of the King [Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977] pp. 94-95).

What Can Church Leaders Do to Help Correct This Problem?
They must humble themselves and begin to view their ministry in terms of servanthood, not lordship (Mark 10:35-45; 1 Peter 5:3).
They must remove all clerical titles and gowns (Matthew 23:8-12). The saints must be taught to refer to their leader(s) as "brother" or by one's first name.
They must return ministry to the people of God, seeing them as full partners in the task of building up the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:4-14; 14:12,26; Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Peter 4:10-11).
We are in dire need of language reform. The terms that we use for ourselves ("layman") and those used to describe our leaders ("Reverend," "Minister") are very important since, not only do they convey our thinking on such fundamental issues as the nature of the church and how local church leadership should be structured, but the use of unbiblical or improper terms may help to stunt the growth of Christ's body. As Alexander Strauch has wisely stated:
It is critically important for Christians today to understand that the language we use to describe our church leaders has the power to accurately reflect biblical thinking and practice or, conversely, to lead us far away from the true Church of Jesus Christ and into the false church... In the end, every local church is responsible to teach its people the meaning of the terms it uses to describe its spiritual leaders, whether it be elders, overseers, ministers, preachers, or pastors. Biblically sensitive church leaders will insist that the terminology they use represents, as accurately as possible, the original biblical terms and concepts of a New Testament eldership. False teachers have had their greatest triumphs when they redefine biblical words in a way that is contrary to the original meaning... Much of our church vocabulary is unscriptural and terribly misleading. Words such as clergyman, layman, reverend, minister, priest, bishop, ordained, and ministerial convey ideas contrary to what Jesus Christ and His apostles taught. Such terminology misrepresents the true nature of apostolic Christianity and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to recapture it. As a result, most of our churches are in desperate need of language reform (Biblical Eldership, pp. 32-34).