Threefold Cords and Pastoral Plurality

9 Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. 10 For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! 11 Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? 12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

This text is quite often used for marriage.  The husband, the wife, and Jesus are not easily broken.  That’s a good enough principle, and is certainly true that a Christ-centered marriage is “not quickly broken”. 

In as much as this verse may be helpful for marriage it may be even more helpful when considering ministry.  This is why it appears that the New Testament church consistently established a plurality of elders (pastors).  Even in the new church at Crete filled with relatively new converts, Paul admonishes Titus to “put what remained into order, and appoint elders [note the plurality] in every town as I directed you”. 

So, not only do I find this to be the New Testament form of church leadership but I also see things like Ecclesiastes 4.  How many pastors have been “quickly broken” because he “has not another to lift him up”?  How many pastors have seen a spark of grace (or even a wildfire) quickly die out because he “can’t keep warm alone”? 

I support a plurality of elders because I have seen numerous pastors “broken” without it.  Yes, I still support congregationalism (that means the congregation votes and “rules”), but I support a congregation that is led by a plurality of elders.  We pastors need one another.  And not just a distant fellowship of associations.  We pastors need other brothers in our immediate circumstances to keep grace warm and to hold us up. 

Some May Be Shocked By the Author of This One…

Defending the truth is a crucial part of [pastoral ministry], but it is not the main part.  Holding the truth and permeating all our ministry with the greatness and sweetness of truth for the transformation of our people’s lives is the main part of our ministry. 

Who said that?  …

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Piper. 

Shocked?  If you are, then perhaps you should reconsider the way that you view Piper.

But more than anything, may we learn from what Piper says here.  As pastors (and congregants) we probably do not have time to defend the truth.  But we certainly can hold onto it and allow it to permeate every bit of our being. 

May we savor Truth. 

Young, Restless, and Newtonian

One of the reasons why posting has been a little slow (at least as far as original material is concerned) is because I have been blocking off a little more time to work on a book I hope to write on John Newton.  I believe Newton to be a great model of a pastor-theologian that provides a wonderful pattern of effective soul-care and evangelical Calvinism. 

One particular area that I feel we “Young, Restless, and Reformed” can learn from Newton is in the way he held his Calvinism, and how he debate it—or rather how he did not debate it. 

In June of 1772 he published a letter On the Doctrines of Election and Final Perseverance (you can read that here).  Shortly thereafter a Methodist preacher by the name of Nicholas Manners published a detailed line by line response to Newton.  (I can’t find it online but you can buy it here). 

Let’s imagine that this took place in 2011.  Newton wrote an article on a popular blog (let’s say The Gospel Coalition).  To this another brother strongly disagreed and posted a lengthy series on his personal blog, going through Newton’s article line by line and disputing it. 

What would be the typical response in 2011? 

Pop your knuckles, get your Mountain Dew, sit at your swivel chair, and slam out a response.  Line by line.  Defending your argument and your dearly loved doctrine, under the guise of gospel fidelity. 

You know what Newton did? 

Nothing.

That’s right.  Nothing. “He let the dispute die in silence” (Hindmarsh, 162)

Why?  As Bruce Hindmarsh has rightly noted, “He [Newton] was increasingly convinced that a person became a Calvinist through personal experience, not by argument” (162). 

Newton to Ryland: Be Helpful, Not Displeasing

His advice to a young John Ryland is worth heading.  After a young and seemingly arrogant Ryland wrote in his book of poetry that he “aimed to displease the Arminians”, Newton responded thus:

You say, I aimed to displease the Arminians, I had rather you had aimed to be useful to them, than to displease them.  There are many Arminians who are so only for want of clearer light.  They fear the Lord, and walk humbly before him.  And as they go on, by an increasing acquaintance with their own hearts and the word of God, their objections and difficulties gradually subside.  And in the Lord’s time (for he is the only effectual teacher) they receive the doctrines of grace which they were once afraid of. 

Now these should not be displeased, by our endeavoring to declare the truth in terms the most offensive to them which we can find, but we should rather seek out the softest and most winning way of encountering their prejudices.  Otherwise we make a parade, and grow big with a sense of our own wisdom and importance, but we shall do little good. 

Our Lord you know taught his disciples that they were able to bear it, he did not aim to displease them though it is pretty plain they had a good deal of the Arminian spirit in them for some time after they began to follow him.  You will perhaps say, ‘An humble Arminian, Surely that is impossible!’ I believe it not more impossible to find a humble Arminian, than a proud and self-sufficient Calvinist.  The doctrines of grace are humbling, that is in their power and experience, but a man may hold them all in the notion, and be very proud.  He certainly is so, if he thinks his assenting to them is a proof of his humility, and despises others are proud and ignorant in comparison of himself.  (Wise Counsel, 15)

If we Calvinist long for our brothers and sisters to savor the doctrines of grace that we so treasure, perhaps the best way to see that happen would be for us to relish them ourselves, to trust the Lord’s sovereignty in this matter as well, and go about our days enjoying God’s grace and extending His glory. 

How to Examine Yourself

If you came here hoping to find how to give yourself a prostate exam you are in the wrong place…

—–

I’m really digging these old editions of The Gospel Magazine.  In the June 1766 version there is a discussion on examining yourselves.  I found this particularly helpful:

“…Look into Scripture and see what God has made marks of the Christian, and do not let fancy be your guide in a matter of such an importance: Distinguish between marks of grace, and marks of growth in grace; and apply each to their proper subjects in your inquiries.  For instance, if you would know whether you are a Christian, do not inquire into the measures of degrees of faith, love, etc. but into the reality of them.  A weak faith renders the Christian as safe as a strong faith; and a spark of real love is an evidence of a saving change, though it is not blown up into a flame.”

I also found this an interesting quote.  I am honestly still considering its implications and I am not 100% sure that I agree.  (Consider my recent interview with author Mike McKinley—particularly question 4). 

“If you can find but one mark, you may draw a favorable conclusion.  This is an evidence that God has begun a good work in your heart.  Should you have reason to conclude that you love the brethren; love them for the image of CHRIST in them, you may conclude yourself to be in a safe state: for this love is the exercise or goings out of that grace God has implanted.  Sometimes one mark appears visible, and sometimes another.  If you have but one be thankful, and give God all the glory.”

What do you think?  Do you agree that “if you can find but one mark, you may draw a favorable conclusion”?