My Top Ten Most Influential Books

I was asked to list my top ten most influential books and then give a brief discussion of why they are important to me.  I posted it to Facebook earlier but figured I would post it here as well.

1. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis): whereas the rest of the list is in "no particular order" this one is mentioned first for a reason. Shortly after reading this book I began to consider C.S. Lewis--whom I affectionately call "Jack" just as his friends did--my mentor. His writings, especially this book, brought about an entire paradigm shift in the way that I think about my relationship with God and others. I read this book, on average, about once every 6 months (hey, Scot MckNight reads a few pages everyday).

2. A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (William Law): Sadly, I have only read the abridged version (Dallas Willard recommends the unabridged), but what a glorious day it was when I read this book. I had nothing to read and flopped backwards in my chair in utter dismay when my eyes lit upon the thin cover of this book which had been sitting on my shelf for years, unread. "Well, I have nothing else" I said to myself. Would to God I had read this book earlier. For those of you who are fans of Crazy Love by Francis Chan, drop it and read this. This book is Crazy Love 300 years ago and, in my opinion, much meatier. He was the first writer to bust my chops about pride (I went forward shortly after reading it). C.S Lewis was the second with his chapter The Great Sin in Mere Christianity (see #1). Among the other things that were greatly helpful were his thoughts on prayer (especially fixed hour prayer with his recommended schedule) and his thoughts about the stewardship of our money. To paraphrase, "I would rather help a dishonest man than not help and honest man."

3. The Imitation of Christ (Thomas a Kempis): Again, I paraphrase, "On the last day it will not be demanded of us what we have read, but what we have done; not how well we have spoken, but how holily we have lived." And again, "I had rather feel contrition than be skilled in the definition thereof." Thomas of Kempen was a disciple in the first degree who knew what it was to LIVE like Christ rather than argue about the life of Christ. He begins with a quotation of John 8:12, "He who followeth me shall not walk in darkness" and then proceeds to describe that lighted path. He was a Catholic, so be prepared for that especially in the latter books which discuss the Eucharist. Regardless, this book should be read and treasured by all. There are many editions and translations. Mine sounds like the King James (and I like it that way), but you can purchase others which sound like the NIV (if that your taste).

4. The Intellecutal Life (A.G. Sertillanges): If I ever taught a class on The Preacher and His Work, this would likely be the text. Granted, he does not write for the "pastor" but for the intellectual (hence the title), Regardless, his advice on discipline is invaluable. He helped open my eyes to a holistic view of life and ministry. He has a chapter discussing the care of the body. He says, in essence, that those who live and think about prime reality and the great ideas must have their minds in top shape, but the mind is dependent upon the proper functioning of the brain and the brain is dependent upon the whole of the body. There is a reason that the eye doctor may ask about your diet. Our body is one living organism and it is foolish to think that the neglect of one part will not effect the other part. We need adequate sleep, appropriate diet, exercise, and recreation. To have a sharp mind you must have a keen body. There are many other jewels in the book, I have only mentioned the one. James Schall, who writes the preface, recommends this book to be on the desk of every serious student.

5. Orthodoxy (G.K. Chesterton): I discovered Chesterton through Jack. Chesterton was called The Apostle of Common Sense, and this book reflects that common sense. He was a top shelf intellectual and yet a common man. His writing is interesting and humorous. This book is a record of how he came to faith (hear "Catholicism"). But what grand contribution did he make to my thinking? Namely this: he helped me learn to reason; he sharpened my wits. Included in that is the fact that he validated paradox in my mind as an acceptable manner of speaking and of understanding certain things. Some who are products of Post-Enlightenment reductionist thought reject paradox outright (as I did in the past), but Chesterton has made paradox his bedfellow. This appreciation for paradox is, I think, necessary for every Christian. Our faith is founded upon the greatest paradox, Jesus Christ: the God-Man (I do not think that we take this paradox seriously or realize how "foolish" an idea the God-Man is). To reject paradox is to destroy the underpinning of prime reality.

6. The Spirit of the Disciplines (Dallas Willard): At this point I am glad that this list is my top 10 and not my top 5. I have often felt that this book belonged on my top 5 but I could not bring myself to "dethrone" a single book from the list, and so this book is relegated to #6. Do not expect a "How-To Manual" from this book. This is not "The Spiritual Disciplines" but "The SPIRIT of the Disciplines." This is more like a defense of their necessity and relevance. I use an example common to all within my tradition: "What about fasting?" And someone will inevitably object, "Well, it's a fine idea I suppose, but we have no command to fast." Willard's defense of fasting and indeed all of the disciplines is unrivaled (in my opinion). After reading this book I became convinced that the spiritual disciplines are not an option for the Christian (as many suggest in regard to fasting) but an absolute necessity. They are the thing which places us in the path of God's grace by which He changes us. To borrow from Richard Foster and his book on the disciples, we cannot make a seed grow, but we can prepare the soil. The disciplines prepare the soil of our hearts, God gives the increase. NOTE: I feel bound to mention Foster's book on disciplines, Celebration of Discipline. I have not included his book on my list (as no doubt Evan Kirby will--shout out), only for this reason: this book was not the game changer. In general one will not,practice the disciplines unless they are first convinced of their necessity, and that's what Willard's work does. However, having been convinced of their vital nature, one will then want to know how to practice them. This is not provided by Willard's work; it is by Foster. If one needs guidance through the disciplines and the how-to's, Celebration of Discipline is the book to read. Indeed. Celebration of Discipline is on Christianity Today's Top 100 Books of the Century (it's #8, along with Mere Christianity #1 and Orthodoxy #6), and Spirit of the Disciplines is not. However, for me, my choice still stands.

7. The Mission of God (Christopher Wright): I have been searching for The Thing, the one thing that ties the whole Bible together. I had intimations early on, and I was helped by N.T. Wright, but it was Christopher Wright (no relation) that gave it to me in The Mission of God. The subtitle of the book is even "Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative." I am still in the process of reading the book, but it has already delivered (for me) on its promise. It is a weighty book and, at times, technical, but it will benefit those who are manly enough to tackle it. It discusses "mission" and what it means. Most often when we speak of "mission" or "missions" we have in mind what we do; Wright says that mission is what God is doing; we are swept up in His story. NOTE: I think that N.T. Wright probably could have provided me with a framework for understanding the whole Bible as well, but since I have not read his Christian Origins series yet I cannot say for sure.

8. The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence): I never thought I would hear anyone say "I do not care whether I am saved or lost," but Brother Lawrence did. His point was not that eternal destiny is unimportant, but that it was not his motivation. Lawrence served God for God's sake, not for his own sake. He was motivated by love for God, not by the pursuit of blessing. He "sought God' face and not His hand." For me this was revolutionary. Though the idea is present in many of Lewis' writings (see #1, as well as The Great Divorce) and Thomas a Kempis (see #3) has a great section about "mercenary Christians," what Dallas Willard calls "Vampire Christians" (see The Divine Conspiracy), it was brother Lawrence who somehow brought this idea home. Ever since reading this book I have tried to forget about blessing and to think more about God; I have tried to serve Him and be like Him because He is worth it, not because I'm afraid of what will happen if I don't.

9. Who Is My Brother? (F. LaGard Smith): I struggle to know what to say about this book, perhaps because what it means to me now and in the past 2 years of my life is intensely personal. Simply put, and in the most literal way possible, I would not be where I am today if it were not for this book. This should be required reading for everyone within the Restoration tradition (incidentally, it is required at the Sunset International Bible Institute). Where I come from in the south east the circles of fellowship are scarily narrow. Christ will not be won for the world so long as He has no place in the church, and I am afraid there are many churches who have so little of the spirit of Christ in them that I would prefer they not name themselves "churches of Christ." So what do I say about this book? Only that I wish it enjoyed a wider audience and even more adherents.

10. How to Read a Book (Mortimer J. Adler): if you need a book on hermeneutics, put down Virkler (though he's worth it) and pick up Adler (I also highly recommend Fee [How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth] and F. LaGard Smith [Cultural Church]). This book changed the way I read forever. Once I was afraid to mark in my books, even my Bible, now every book I read is annotated (thanks to Adler). He helped me understand, not only how to read a book, but how to determine which books are worth reading (an indispensable skill for bibliophiles who know how expensive books an be). All of this considered, his most important contribution was that he helped me learn to read the Bible. Previously I had approached the whole of it as Law and therefore I constantly searched for rules; Adler helped me learn to read the Bible as Story (on this I also recommend Leland Ryken's Word's of Delight).

A Hellish Story

                The stories of Jesus are often misunderstood and reduced to mere “earthly stories with a heavenly meaning.”  Not the least of these is the Rich Man and Lazarus.  This, however, is decidedly not an “earthly story with a heavenly meaning.”  It is not even, as N.T. Wright describes some of Jesus’ stories in his book Simply Jesus, “a heavenly story with an earthly meaning.”  It is indeed a “hellish story.”  Each one should take care lest he miss what the Son of Man has to say to our generation.

                I can only speak for my tradition, but most often this story is seen as nothing more than a proof text carried around in our back pockets like a familiar hanky which we believe gives “Jesus’ answer” to the question, “Where do we go when we die?”  But I’m getting ahead of myself.  First we usually concern ourselves with whether or not this story “actually happened” or whether it is “just a parable.”  For our present discussion, let us set both of these things aside.  Where we go when we die is a much more difficult topic than many care to admit, and whether the story is a parable or not is irrelevant.  Jesus’ point remains the same.  We must ask ourselves, “What did Jesus mean?”  and “Why did he tell the story in the first place?”

                Of the many difficulties reading Jesus stories, we will name only two.  First, many of us misunderstand how Jesus used them. After the style of Nathan (cf. 2 Samuel 12:1-14), they were often prophetic judgments against the wicked.  A few examples will suffice.  After telling his Parable of the Tenants the audience knew very well about whom he spoke.  “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them” (Matthew 21:45; cf. Mark 12:12).  Even on occasions where it is not explicitly stated that the parable was directed against his audience the fact remains too obvious to miss.  After his Parable of the Two Sons in the same chapter (Matthew 21:28-32) Jesus speaks directly to his audience.  The you is emphatic.  “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.  For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him.  And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him” (vv. 31, 32).  And who can doubt whether or not the Pharisees felt condemned by Jesus’ image of the elder brother in Luke 15?  This was Jesus’ way.  Therefore, when we arrive at the following chapter we should not think that he sets aside this habit to tell an unrelated and esoteric story about “where we go when we die.” 

                Second, we have a habit, not only with Jesus’ stories but with all of scripture, of ignoring context.  This is perhaps most evident in our treatment of the gospels.  The gospel accounts’ anachronistic order presents difficulties, but it also presents us with it a very important point which should not be overlooked.  If the gospels are not in chronological order then the writers are not merely penning history “as it happened”; they are making conscious decisions about when they will record which stories and where.  In this way the gospels are more like art than history.  The gospels are carefully crafted compendiums of events in the life of Christ.  Accepting this, attention should be paid to the order of the things even though they are out of order.  It is no coincidence that just verses before a story about a rich man Luke adds this editorial aside, “The Pharisees (who were lovers of money) heard all these things, and they ridiculed him” (16:14).  Nor is the placement of Jesus’ response an accident.  “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts.  For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (16:15).  What is more exalted among men than riches?  Still yet, what is more abominable in the sight of God than the love of money (Luke 18:24, 25)?  Then, with seemingly no connection at all, Luke turns to the Law and the Prophets, John, the gospel, and in an even more abrupt change of topic, divorce and remarriage.  This rapid change is startling to readers, but we must remember that Luke is an artist at work.  Like an impressionist painting, it can only be appreciated if we take a step back and look at the whole picture.  Otherwise we see oddly placed globs of paint; otherwise we turn these sections into pithy sayings out of context.  But these rapidly shifting colors are from the same palette the Master uses to paint what we call The Rich Man and Lazarus. 

                Once again, here are the colors: the Law and the Prophets, John, the gospel, divorce and remarriage.  First: the Law and the Prophets and John.  Both pointed beyond themselves to something else; both of these also found themselves in opposition to Jesus’ target audience, the Pharisees (Luke 3:1-9; Matthew 3:1-10).  Incidentally, John’s preaching also had something to say about the love of money.  “Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what shall we do?’  And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14).  Tellingly, Luke, who alone records The Rich Man and Lazarus, is also the only writer who includes this detail of John’s preaching or that the Pharisees were, in so many words, lovers of money.

Second:  the gospel.  The gospel is the announcement that the thing, or the person, to which the Law and the Prophets, indeed John himself, pointed has actually arrived (cf. Luke 4:21).  All that they said comes to a head in Jesus (cf. Luke 24:27, 44), and the Law is a faithful guide.  Indeed, “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:17). 

Third: divorce and remarriage (16:18).  This seems to us an abrupt change but really Jesus is continuing the thought from verse 17.  Jesus’ coming, which was prophesied by the Law and the Prophets, preached by John, and proclaimed in the gospel, was not to “abolish the Law” but to “fulfill” it, “not a dot” will pass away (Matthew 5:17, 18).  This is parallel to Luke 16:17.  There, as here, the statement is very shortly followed by talk of divorce (Matthew 5:27-32).  His point in both places is the same: the Law of Moses is brought to fulfillment/perfection in Jesus’ ministry and teaching, including the laws for divorce and remarriage.  Jesus’ kingdom is not just about inner piety, forgiveness, or a new sense of God’s presence.  His kingdom encompasses everything, things like politics and ethics, even mundane things like a meal with the family, games, and sex.  And, as we are about to see, money.

                With these things taken together—Jesus’ prophetic use of parables, the Law as a faithful guide, and the context set against “lovers of money”—it is evident that The Rich Man and Lazarus had a target audience and Christ has impeccable aim.  “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.  At his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table.  Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores” (16:19-21).  Here’s the picture: a rich man eats all he wants every day.  Lazarus, a poor man, has no food.  All he wants are the crumbs from the rich man’s table but that man despises the poor and will not share his excess.  Got it?  Good. 
               Now comes the great reversal (as is typical of Jesus’ stories).  The poor man gets all he wants to eat and the rich man does not even have a drop of water.  “The poor man died and was carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom.  The rich man also died and was buried” (16:22).  The idea of being in Abraham’s bosom is lost on some Westerner’s.  Here it indicates two things: 1. eating a meal and 2. eating that meal at the place of honor, the right hand of the host, in his very bosom (cf. Matthew 8:11; John 13:23).  The fate of the rich man was not so.  “And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.  And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame’” (16: 23, 24).  The rich man ironically calls Abraham “Father.”  Shouldn’t a son of Abraham be at Abraham’s banquet?  Do not miss this.  It was the Pharisees which were so quick to remind Jesus, as well as John, that they were sons of Abraham (cf. Matthew 3:9; John 8:33).  Jesus’ aim is right on target.  He continues his story.  Abraham informs the rich man that the state of things cannot be changed (16:25, 26).  The rich man has chosen his way; he has made his bed and now he must lie in it.  “Fair enough,” so the rich man thinks, “there may still be hope for my brothers.”  “And he said, Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.  But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’  And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.  He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (16:27-31). 
               Here is where our globs of paint come together.  We can imagine what Lazarus might say if he were to go to the rich man’s brothers.  “I sat at your brother’s gate every day and begged for his scraps, yet he would not hear.  Now he is tormented without so much as a drop to drink and I am feasting with Abraham.  Beware lest you see the same fate.”  But Abraham says, “They have Moses and the Prophets for that.”  The prophets had carried Lazarus’ message ahead of him (Deuteronomy 15; Amos 4).  “You misunderstand me,” says the rich man, “I know they, like me, have ignored the Law but if someone rises from the dead surely they will listen to him.”  “No,” says Abraham, “they won’t.”  Jesus prefaced this parable by saying that the Law and the prophets which John preached pointed to him (Luke 24:44-46).  That Law is a trustworthy guide which shall not pass away.  Not even a dot.  Marriage, money, Jesus, resurrection, and all besides.  It’s in there.  Jesus now puts this message in the mouth of Abraham.  It is a message that the Pharisees would hear loud and clear.  They would have known what Jesus was saying and why.  They were lovers of money and had rejected the poor.  They were warned by the Law and the Prophets that mistreating the poor would have disastrous consequences, but they would not hear.  One greater than Moses brought the same message.  Still they would not hear.  But surely, if that one were to die and be resurrected (as Jesus certainly would be), surely then they would listen to the message?  But they would not.  If they will not trust Moses, they will not believe in Christ though he be raised from the dead.  Jesus says as much on other occasions.  “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.  But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47).  The Pharisees justified their love of money before men (Luke 16:15a; cf. also Matthew 15:3-6), and though they stood condemned by Moses, nothing, not even resurrection, could change their minds.  But God knows their hearts.  They are abominable in his sight (Luke 16:15b). 

`               The Pharisees, we can be sure, did not miss what Jesus was saying and neither should we.  The poor are everywhere and everywhere ignored.  We may not be able to give clean drinking water to the hundreds of thousands who live without it, but why can we not spare a bottle for the fellow on the corner?  We may have mouths to feed already, but why neglect the many who have no parents to feed them?  We should remember that pure religion cares for these who cannot care for themselves (cf. James 1:27).  Hopefully, Christians have begun to nod their heads.  But we must be careful.  We may be in the company of the Pharisees, nodding our heads in agreement while “justifying ourselves before men” as to why we needed that $20 more than the man on the street.  The Pharisees claimed to accept the Law, but they rejected the Christ.  Many of us claim to accept Christ, and yet we reject the Law.  “How dare you, sir!” someone may say, “I am a Christian!”  Yes, I know.  And sadly, nothing, not even the resurrection of Christ has convinced us to take the Law seriously.  “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker” (Proverbs 14:31). 

Difficult Questions of Leadership: Part Three--Believing Children

                This series of articles has sought to follow God’s truth where it leads.  It has tried to bind where God binds and loose where God has loosed.  That same spirit will guide the direction of this last article.  What does it mean that an elder must have “believing children” (Titus 1:6)?

                There are two interpretations available to the expositor.  The first is that “believing children” refers to children who are “believers,” i.e. Christians.  The second takes “believing children” to indicate faithful, trustworthy, and obedient children.  The lexicon is no help here.  The word “believing” is pista and can mean believing (1 Timothy 6:2) as well as faithful/trustworthy (Revelation 1:5).  Context must determine the meaning. 

                First, the parallel passage indicates its proper interpretation.  Both lists mention the children of an elder (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:4).  Titus requires that the elder’s “children are believers,” tekna echon pista, while Timothy requires that he “have his children in submission,” tekna echonta hupotage.  The parallelism is obvious.  To have children which are pista is to have children which are hupotage.  The children are to be faithful to the managerial authority of their father.  Therefore we ought to understand the latter half of Titus 1:6 as expanding and explaining the former half.  “If . . . his children are believers [in other words, if they are] not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination [anupotakta].”

                Second, the rationale for this qualification is another helpful insight regarding its interpretation.  Timothy’s list provides that rationale.  “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:5).  Often people will say, “If an elder cannot convince his children of the truth of the gospel, how will he ever convert the unbeliever?”  That, however, was not Paul’s concern.  A man’s ability to convert is not referenced here; it is his managerial ability.  The “care of God’s church” is the care of the already-saved and requires no converting.  It is that same kind of care that must be observable in his family.  It should also be remembered that a man is to be judged according to those things which are within his control.  Certainly a father ought to exercise the most influence over a child’s faith (cf. Ephesians 6:4), but he is not responsible for it.  It is outside of his control.  If a man’s children do not become Christians that does not indicate failure as a father.  To say so would raise many uncomfortable questions.  God is a perfect Father yet the majority of His children do not have saving faith.  Are we prepared to say that God is a failure as a Father?  Is he unfit to care for His own church?  I dare say that some of our brethren would not allow God to be an elder in their congregations.

 A candidate for the eldership must “manage his own household with dignity keeping his children in submission” (1 Timothy 3:4).  His children must not be guilty of “debauchery or insubordination” (Titus 1:6).  Rather, they ought to be faithful—pista—to him and to the rules of his house.  If he has such children then he has fulfilled the requirement.  He has proven worthy of the office.  How often has the church lost its best leaders because one of his grown children lost faith many years down the road?  How many leaders have never had the opportunity to share their wisdom with God’s sheep because they had no Christian children?  We must require what God requires and allow what God allows.  Let us say farewell to the days when our best leaders warm our pews and our churches live as sheep without a shepherd.

Difficult Questions of Leadership: Part Two--Husband of One Wife

                Having established that the purity of the eldership is worth defending, we now move to those qualifications which have the most potential for conflict.  This article will address the requirement that an elder be the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2).

                In order to understand any of the qualifications in the list one must first understand the purpose of that list (1 Tim. 3:1-7).  The list is a way to measure the quality of the man and his suitability for the duty of an elder.  The first item is that which includes all the others, that he be “above reproach.”  He is judged based upon those things which are within his control.  How can anything besides what he controls cause him to fall under reproach?  Therefore, whatever these qualifications require must relate to those things which the man can control.   

To be “the husband of one wife” is literally a “man of one woman”; we might say a “one woman man.”  Therefore, this does not concern his marital status per se.  A man who was a faithful husband, who was and remains a one-woman kind of man, may be deserted by an unfaithful wife.  The woman’s decision to leave does not change the character of the man and that is what is under consideration.  An attentive, caring, loving, sacrificial husband remains “above reproach” even if his wife falls under reproach.  His wife’s desertion does not diminish his character in any way.  Why then does Paul require that an elder be a “man of one woman?”

An illustration may be of help.  The NT often commands Christians to greet one another with a holy kiss/kiss of love (cf. Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14).  Why then do not all Christians greet with a kiss?  Paul was not instituting a new practice, only regulating a previously existing one.  Paul did not require that they kiss—they already did that—he required that their kissing be holy.  If he had written to a church which did not kiss he would not have required that they begin, only that their greeting, whatever form it took, be done in a holy manner.  Today, it is not necessary that Christians begin to kiss one another.  It is necessary, however, that whatever form of greeting we use be extended in holiness without impurity.  So it is with marriage among elders.  Paul does not require that an elder be married; he assumes an elder is married already.  Then, as now, it is expected that older men will be married.  Paul merely regulates this previously existing marriage.  Paul’s concern is for the man’s conduct within that marriage.  He is to be a man who is above reproach in regard to sexual morality.  For the married man this means that he is a one-woman kind of man.

One other consideration is worth notice.  Should not a church desire its best men for its shepherds?  All will readily agree, yes.  With that in mind It would seem odd for Paul to require marriage.  Elsewhere Paul is clear that the unmarried are able to give more attention to spiritual things (1 Cor. 7:32-35).  The unmarried man is only concerned with “how to please the Lord” (7:32).  He encourages celibacy “to promote . . . undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35).  Now imagine testing two men for the eldership.  One is “anxious about worldly things” and his “interests are divided” (7:33, 34).  The other is “anxious about the things of the Lord . . . how to be holy in body and spirit” and his devotion to the Lord is “undivided” (7:32, 34, 35).  Which of the two sounds most suitable for the eldership?  Obviously the latter.  It is that very one which many would hinder from becoming an elder.  

To be “above reproach” concerns those things which are under a man’s control.  To be a “man of one woman” does not require that a man be married; that may be outside of his control altogether.  It requires only that he be “above reproach” in his sex life.  So long as a man is sexually pure then he meets the qualification.  We must require what God requires and allow what God allows.  Requiring marriage will cost the church some of its best leaders.  Men who cannot marry for various reasons may be better suited for shepherding than some married men.  A church rarely grows past its leadership.  If we are to ensure maximum growth among Christ’s church we need its best men leading the way.  The best men are all one-woman kinds of men, whether they are married or not. 

Difficult Questions of Leadership: Part One--The Necessity of the Questions

                This series of articles will address two difficult questions concerning biblical eldership: 1. What does it mean that an elder must be “the husband of one wife”?  2. What does it mean that an elder must have “believing children”?  First, however, we must know why these questions are necessary.  This article addresses that necessity. 

                Some think that such questions are silly or unprofitable.  It may seem to others as if these questions cause undue conflict among brethren.  Without doubt, these questions—perhaps more than any others related to an elder’s qualifications—have caused much conflict and that is unfortunate.  We strive to “live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18).  We “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).  That was our Lord’s Prayer (cf. John 17:20, 21).  That is our aim.  We ought not to erect boundaries where none exist.  There are, however, boundaries worth defending (cf. Gal. 2:11-14; Tit. 1:9-13).  We must require what God requires while allowing what God allows.

                From God’s perspective there is a necessary order to appointing elders and deacons.  Paul writes concerning deacons, “And let them also [i.e. in addition to the elders] be tested first; then let them serve as deacons” (3:10).  A man must first be tested, then let him serve.  This is a clear boundary.  Each qualification forms a part of the proving process and is worth defending.  Though conflict is regrettable, maintaining the purity of the eldership is worth the fight.  It is of such great importance that an elder who falls into sin is to be publicly rebuked “so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Tim. 5:19, 20).  Paul calls Timothy to account with God, Christ, and angels as witnesses.  “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21).  Rebuking an elder, even removing an elder, is a responsibility which must be carried out faithfully.  This situation can be avoided, however, if those who appoint elders give adequate attention to the testing process.  If the purity of the eldership is jealously defended at the outset then public rebuke becomes less likely. 

                Paul warns Timothy against the dangers of appointing a man too quickly.  Appointment to duty was often accompanied by the laying on of hands as a way to show partnership with and approval of the candidate (cf.  Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14).  So, Paul admonishes Timothy: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands [i.e. to appoint a leader to office], nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).  He insists that Timothy be thorough in his investigation and offers these two maxims to aid in carefully appointing elders.  “The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.  In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden” (1 Tim. 5:24, 25 NIV).  First, Paul addresses those who are unfit to be shepherds.  Those whose sins are “obvious” are clearly unfit for duty.  There is no need to examine or even consider such men for office.  Others may appear suitable but with further inspection their sins “trail behind them.”  Second, he remarks concerning those who prove worthy of the office.  There are some men whose good works and character are so apparent that one feels great confidence in their ability to fulfill the role of an elder.  There are others whose good works may go unnoticed.  However, if one will take the time to look, their good works “cannot be hidden.”  In this way Timothy is to make a full investigation of the candidates.  These maxims guard against appointing unfit men and help to ensure that suitable men are not overlooked.

                The appointment of elders is a serious event in the life of the church.  The elders must be thoroughly tested before their appointment.  Later, if they fall into disrepute, they are to be publicly rebuked.  The purity of the eldership is worth the conflict that may follow.  We must heed Paul’s charge today.  Before God, His Son, and all the angels, we must guard the purity of the eldership unapologetically.  We must insist on rigorous adherence to the New Testament qualifications for the leadership of the church of Christ.   

Why I Preach

                The reasons I preach are many.  Some of them are mildly selfish.  For example, I preach because it helps to hold me accountable.  I preach because I believe it will help me obtain eternal life.  There are other reasons, however, that center upon who God is and who we are as human beings.  These reasons will be the subject of this paper.

                Preaching, at its simplest, is speaking—usually in public—for God.  We speak His message and when we do we become “co-workers” with Him (1 Corinthians 3:9) in accomplishing His purposes.  Therefore, any Theology of Preaching must begin with God since it is His work.  One must ask, “What is God up to?”  Whatever God about is what men ought to be about doing.  Consequently, if men are good men then they will preach for the right reasons, that is, for God’s reasons.  Of course, I consider myself to be a fairly good chap—an honest one at least—so my reasons for preaching will be those of the good man which we have shown are God’s reasons for giving us the message.

What Is God Up To?

                God created Man.  His reasons are His own.  We may never know them entirely but we must learn as much as we can because God’s intentions for us in the beginning are His intentions for us today.  Whatever He wanted us to be doing when He created us is the thing He wants us to be doing now.  The first thing we must know is that God did not create us out of necessity.  Some have argued, “God is Love.  Therefore He needed something to love and that’s why He created Man.”  There are at least three problems with this.  One, were not the angels created before Man?  Job records that the angels rejoiced when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:4-7).  Would not these creatures have satisfied God’s apparent need for something to love?  Two, to say an all sufficient Being needs anything is self-contradictory.  God is not now, nor has He ever been, compelled by need.  God says to Man, “If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine” (Psalm 50:12).  He needs nothing to eat.  He lacks no wisdom or any such thing.  “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?  Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?” (Romans 11:34, 35).  God has no need.  Third, to think that God needs something because God is Love is to misunderstand all together what the words mean.  “God is Love” is a statement about God’s very nature, not His action (although actions flow out of His nature like heat flows from a fire).  Before Man was created, or the world was, or there were angelic beings or any such thing God was alone and God was Himself.  Even at that time—though it is improper to speak of God as “in time”—God was Love. 

All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love.’  But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons.  Love is something that one person has for another person.  If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love . . . Christians . . . believe that the living, dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else.  (Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174, 175).

                Scripture affirms Lewis’ clever “unpacking” of the phrase.  Jesus Himself says to God, “You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).  So, when answering the question, “What was God up to when He created us?”  the thing we must not say is that He needed to create us.  It was by choice, by God’s own will.  John records, “You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created” (Revelation 4:11b, italics mine).

                The second thing we need to know also flows out of the fact that God is love.  Being Love does not mean necessity, but it certainly does mean joy, beauty, and life; all three of which are best enjoyed by increasing them.  It is like a husband and his wife.  They have each other to love and such love brings joy and beauty to their lives, so their life increases and abounds.  It is this love—ideally—that moves them to create a child.  Not because they do not have enough love but because they have so much!  They want to give it away.  They want to share it and increase it.  They do not need a child in order to be themselves or to love one another.  Rather, they choose to have a child to expand themselves, to share their love and give it away.  The illustration break downs of course because men, being wicked, often have very wicked reasons for producing a child, but this is as near as we can get.  We do what we can.  God calls Himself a Father and we are His sons and daughters.  God did not create us out of necessity but as a free choice bounding forth from His overflowing Love.

                The third thing we need to know is that we were created for God’s glory. God speaks of His sons and daughters saying, “Everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7).  When Adam extended himself by having his third son, the Bible records, “He fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Genesis 5:3).  Seth was a bearer of Adam’s image.  There was something of Adam in Seth and therefore Seth pointed back to his father.  Anytime one saw Seth he also saw something of Adam.  The same is said of God and His children.  “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .’ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:26, 27).  In that we are created in God’s image we point back to Him.  But we are like slanted mirrors, pointing in two directions.  We reflect God’s image into the world—which we will soon see involves ruling over God’s world—and we reflect the glory of creation back to God.  We are the place where God intersects with the world He made.  We are His Kings (to rule over creation) and His priests (to sum up creations’ praise back to Him).

                The fourth thing we need to know is this: part of being God’s image means that Man is to rule the world under the sovereignty of God.  Having made Man in His own image, God says, “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26).  Men were made lords of the earth.  God is, of course, the true LORD. “Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it” (Deuteronomy 10:14).  But he made Man a kind of vice-regent.  “The heavens are the LORD’s heavens, but the earth He has given to the children of man” (Psalm 115:16).  Who can forget the beautiful Psalm 8 which epitomizes Man?  “Yet You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.  You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea” (8:5-8).  God created the world with the intention that it would be ruled rightly by Man under His direction.

                There is one other thing we need to know about why God created us and what it means to be His image-bearers.  When God made Man He specifically mentioned two duties: One, to have dominion over the world.  Two, to be fruitful and multiply.  God not only wants us to be image-bearers but He wants us to make more image-bearers.  As image-bearers are multiplied God extends Himself through the agency of Man.

                Everything we know about Man and the universe must start here.  God created us by free choice and Man is gifted with free choice.  God is love and our free will makes it possible for men to love.  God is the ruler of the world and He made men to rule over His creation under His direction.  God is the Father of children who bear His image and we are to father other image-bearers.  We are His slanted mirrors, reflecting His image into the world and summing up the world’s praise back to Him.  But this is only the beginning of the Story.  It is not long before something goes horribly wrong.  Man breaks the mirror.

Broken Mirrors

                God’s image-bearers, Adam and Eve, His very own slanted mirrors, were placed in the garden of Eden.  They were to go about the work God had set for them to do i.e. willingly ruling the world under God’s direction as prompted by their love for God and Man.  Indeed, what does love mean but the free decision to give one’s self to another?  This is what the Three-persons of the Godhead were doing before time and eternity; One freely giving Himself to the other and so on forever.  But what does free choice mean except the ability to choose evil as well as good?  The ability to give as well as to take?  The ability to love as well as to hate?  The ability to submit in love or rebel in pride?  The sad commentary of Man is that he so often makes the wrong choice.

                Now enters a third character into our Story, the serpent (Genesis 3:1), “that ancient serpent who is called the devil and Satan” (Revelation 12:9).  God had withheld nothing from His children except the fruit of one tree, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Satan’s asks, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1).  The heroine of our Story seems to fair well at first.  “And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”  (3:3).  Eve knew what awaited her and all who ate of the Tree: death.  But Satan was not deterred from his scheme.  “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eye, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (3:5, 6).  And so our world was broken.  The mirrors, intended to reflect God’s image perfectly, were shattered.  Death, from which Man had been immune, now passed into the world.  “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).  Just chapters later we read words that were never intended to be written: “And he died” (Genesis 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31).

Though the mirrors were broken they did not cease to reflect God’s image, only now it was distorted.  Man continued to exercise his freedom of choice (a reflection of God’s image) but he has consistently chosen what it wicked (not a reflection of God).  Man has continued to rule the world (a reflection of God’s image) but he rules it with tyranny instead of tenderness (not a reflection of God).    Man continues to give his life in love (a reflection of God’s image) he also begins to take life by violence (not a reflection of God).  It is not long before men learn murder.  “Cain spoke to Abel his brother.  And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him” (Genesis 4:8).  The mirror exists, but it is broken.  God’s image is reflected, but distorted.

The Good News

What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God.  And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.  (Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.49).

                This is obviously bad news.  But thankfully this is not the whole Story.  God has not given up on Man.  He has not abandoned His original intent.  He still wants to have a world full of sons reflecting His image into the world and summing up its praises back to Him.  He still wants His sons to rule the world under His sovereignty with justice, wisdom, self-control, and courage motivated by faith, hope, and love.  He intends to fix the broken mirrors.  The show must go on.  Though the Play has taken a terrible turn, God knows exactly how to fix it.  Because the intent was through Man so must the solution be.  God peers down from heaven and chooses one such creature.  “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.  And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing . . . and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3).  There you have it.  God will save Man, through Man, a descendant of Abraham.  But the way He does it is not something any of us could have guessed.

                The long history of Abraham’s descendents, later known as the Israelites, is punctuated with failure over and over again.  God intends for them to reflect His image and be “a light to the nations” (cf. Isaiah 42:6; 49:6).  They repeatedly come up short.  Still, God sticks to the project and does something beyond imagining.  God becomes Man.

                “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.  In Him was life, and the life was the light of men . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-4, 14).  God’s glory was finally reflected perfectly into the world when God Himself became Man, the man Christ Jesus.  Scripture constantly draws attention to this fact.  Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).  “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3).

                Remember how we said that God intended to fix what was broken?  When Adam was created he must have reflected God’s image perfectly; his mirror was not yet broken.  It is no mistake that Christ is called the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. also 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:14-19).  Christ is Ideal Humanity.  He is the Unbroken Man.  Do you see now why this is so important?  It takes an Unbroken Man to fix men who are broken.  A drowning man cannot save another drowning man, for he too needs rescuing.  It takes someone firmly planted on the shore to help them both.  

                If you think this Story very strange, it is about to get even more curious.  Part of Man’s brokenness is death.  Knowing that, it seems very odd indeed that the way in which Christ heals death is by dying.  (I told you before, this is not something that any of us could have guessed).  “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). 

                How Christ’s death overcomes death itself, I do not know.  We are not told.  Though we may think of it this way.  Christ has “life in Himself” (John 5:26).  When Christ died on the cross all of Death—past, present, and future—converged upon Him; but in so doing He exhausted the power of Death.  Death has been worn out.  All of its resources were spent on the cross.  On the third day, Christ was brought to life again.  That life which is in Himself came welling up and burst forth into the world again.  Death has no more power, but Christ has life to share. 

Of course, we are speaking of things which we have not been told.  This is just a guess.  If it helps you, fine.  If not then you need not think of it again.  The Bible does not ask us to believe any particular theory about how Christ’s death and resurrection defeated the devil; only to believe that they have.  Indeed, Paul says this Story is of first importance.  “Now I would remind you brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).  The word which he uses to describe this message is immensely important.  Our English word “gospel” translates the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euangélion) which literally means, “Good news.”

Mysteriously, through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection He has overcome Death itself.  He has saved us.  He has healed the world’s brokenness.  And that is good news indeed.

Good Infection

                It is just here that someone may raise an objection.  “If Christ defeated Death, then why do we still die?”  This is simply a misunderstanding of what we mean when we say that Death has been defeated.  We do not mean that men have ceased to die.  That men continue to die is very obvious.  We do not mean that Death has ceased to exist anymore than Cornwallis ceased to exist when defeated by Washington.  We mean, rather, that Christ has rendered Death without power.    Think of it this way.  If some doctor was to discover a cure for cancer the headlines might read: “Dr. Smith Defeats Cancer.”  Now, no one reading paper would think that there was no one without cancer, only that Dr. Smith had found the cure.  What is left is for the cure to be administered.  But it is right to say that by the discovery of the cure cancer had been defeated for it was the discovery that defeated the power of cancer.

                In the same way, sin is the spiritual cancer that brought Death to the world and Christ has defeated it.  We only need to be healed.

Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection.  If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water.  If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them.  They are not a sort of prize which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone.  They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality.  If you are close to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry.  Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever?  Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but whither and die?  (Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.176).

Euangelizō

                Recognizing that in order to live a man must unite with Him who has life, Lewis goes on to ask the question, “But how is he to be united to God?” (Lewis, p.177).  I preach because the message I bring is the answer to that question.  Euangelizō is the verb form of the word euangélion.  It means “to proclaim the good news.”  It is the word from which we get our English word “evangelize.”  When we evangelize we are—to join Scot McKnight in coining a new verb—“gospeling” (McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel, p.60).   I preach because there is good news to share.  Something happened 2,000 years ago that changed the world forever.  Christ defeated Death.  God fixed what was broken. 

                Remember that God’s original intent was for men to bear His image and to rule the world under His direction.  But remember also that He wanted men to multiply.  He wanted His image-bearers to make more image-bearers.  If I am to be an image-bearer myself I must go about the work of telling men how God can fix the image they have distorted into their own likeness. 

                We said before that if a man wants life he must get near or into the One who has it.  We must unite with Him.  Now uniting with Christ means following Him and doing what He did, and that means death and resurrection.  We must walk the same path, and the message I preach tells men just how to do that.  “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?  We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with Him in a death like this, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His” (Romans 6:3-5).  Christ died and was resurrected.  To unite with Him we must do the same.

                This only begins our new life.  Just like an infection, this good infection takes time to spread.  There is a sense in which death is put away and we are alive already.  But there is another sense in which we must continue to die every day.  It seems to be a law of God that the way to life is always through death.    Each day we must die a little more so that we can live a little more.  Christ says, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).  Do not miss His point.  We do not merely carry a cross daily.  We are to die upon it.  This is why Paul writes, “I am crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20).  And again, “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24).  Just like Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God brought death, so each time we rebel against God we invite death into our lives.  Therefore, we must crucify our rebel desires every day.  We must lay down our arms.  It is only by this kind of dying that we are united with Christ, that we are infected with life and “have it abundantly” (John 10:10). 

God built us and He knows which things run the human machine well and which things will cause the machine to crash—to die. 

God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine.  A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else.  Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself.  He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on.  There is no other.  That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion.  God cannot give us happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there.  There is no such thing.  (Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.50).

The message I preach tells people which desires admit death into their lives.  The message I preach tells them what things need to die so that they may live.  This dying is what we call morality, or ethics, or good conduct.  It means living rightly.  And living rightly means living.  If being united with Christ fixes the broken mirror, right living ensures that dust does not settle on it.  We must clean it every day to make sure God’s image still shines brightly.

                Daily dying the death of Christ by crucifying all our desires which rebel against God is only one part of reflecting His image. There is another part that we must not forget: summing up the praises of the world and reflecting them back to God.  This part of our duty is what we call worship.  Our daily dying, what we call morality or right behavior, is one hand with which we wipe the dust from our mirrors.  The other hand is worship.  It is a rule of God that we become like what we worship.  N.T. Wright calls this “the first of two golden rules at the heart of spirituality” (Wright, Simply Christian, p.148).  He draws, of course, from the Psalms.  “Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands . . . Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them” (Psalm 115:4-8).  Certainly we have witnessed this, if not in our lives at least in the lives of so many we admire on television.

When you gaze in awe, admiration, and wonder at something or someone, you begin to take on something of the character of the object of your worship.  Those who worship money become, eventually, human calculating machines.  Those who worship sex become obsessed with their own attractiveness or prowess.  Those who worship power become more and more ruthless.  (Wright, Simply Christian, p.148).

                When we worship an idol, with no life in it, we are less alive which you will notice is the same thing as being more dead.  But the good news moves men to worship the living God.

So what happens when you worship the creator God whose plan to rescue the world and put it to rights has been accomplished by the Lamb who was slain?  The answer comes in the second golden rule: because you were made in God’s image, worship makes you more truly human.  When you gaze in love and gratitude at the God in whose image you were made, you do indeed grow.  You discover more of what it means to be fully alive.  (Wright, Simply Christian, p.148, italics original).

                The world is full of brokenness and everyone wants it to be fixed.  The message I preach says that God has already fixed it.  The message I preach tells men that God can fix them too.  It tells men how to unite with Him who has life in Himself.  It tells men how to walk the path of Christ and die His death every day.  It tells men who to worship and how to worship so that they can continually become more of what they were created to be—more fully human.  I preach because every man loves getting good news.

Only a Line

                I have said much in this paper, but only because my simplest answer would not have been a paper at all, only a line.  I preach because “It pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21b).