-----------------------------
Some Biblical Reflection on Texts Relevant to this Season
1. 1 Timothy 3:2 (“above reproach”)
· The phrase “above reproach” in 1 Tim 3:2 has been much in focus in this season. Specifically, some have raised the question of whether or not C.J. is “above reproach”. It is therefore important to sketch out the contours of this term in its context.
· The term (ἀνεπίλημπτος, anepilēmptos) literally means “irreproachable,”[1] indicating, not sinless perfection, but that the elder’s life is fundamentally free of offensive or disgraceful behavior.
· Two points are essential in understanding the term in context:
a. The term is a general requirement that is given concrete definition by the positive and negative qualities that follow it.[2] Therefore, it is not a purely subjective notion left to one’s own sensibilities, but it is defined by the character qualities in vv. 2-7.
b. The term has in view observable conduct that has the potential to commend or discredit the gospel, particularly to outsiders and opponents.[3] It is the evident, outward testimony of a man’s life that is in view, not the private details of his sin known only to his intimates. A number of factors point to this:
1) The immediate context of Paul’s instructions here is vital for understanding this term. Throughout the PE Paul is addressing the problem of opponents who were leaders in the church and whose behavior and character were bringing reproach upon the church’s reputation. In 1 Tim 3, Paul instructs Timothy to appoint elders whose lives counteract this.[4]
2) This qualification forms a bracket with the one in v. 7: “he must be well thought of by outsiders,” indicating that what’s most particularly in view is a man’s external reputation.[5]
· In sum, to be “above reproach” means that no fundamental charge can be lodged against a man’s basic character as outlined in the character qualities of 1 Tim. 3:2-7. The standard for these qualities is the outward, observable testimony of a man’s life, particularly as it commends the truth of the gospel message.
· Care must be taken in applying this term in our modern context. The internet age and our “Wiki-leaks” culture of suspicion and inappropriate disclosure often put things into play here that shouldn’t be brought into consideration. In our circumstances, Brent’s documents introduce things into the public realm that nobody could/should have access to, and that no one who reads it could ever reach full objectivity about or gain complete context on. Indeed, much that he reports and draws conclusions on is information you couldn’t know even as a close friend. Therefore, most of this is not the kind of thing that Paul has in mind for qualifying a man as “above reproach.” What is in view are objective behaviors, and especially matters of public repute.
2. Biblical Injunctions Concerning Slander
· The biblical term for slander (καταλαλέω, katalaleō; cf. Rom 1:30; 2 Cor 12:20; Jas 4:11; 1 Pet 2:1, 12; 3:16) means, literally, “to speak against.” The issue of truthfulness is not in view with this term, but rather the vindictive or hostile intent.[6] The comments of Tim Keller and David Powlison expand upon this idea: “It is not necessarily a false report, just an “against-report.” The intent is to belittle another. To pour out contempt. To mock. To hurt. To harm. To destroy. To rejoice in purported evil. This can’t mean simple disagreement with ideas—that would mean that we could never have a debate over a point. This isn’t respectful disagreement with ideas. James warns against attacking a person’s motives and character, so that the listeners’ respect and love for the person is undermined.”[7] Therefore, for speech to be slanderous from a biblical perspective, it does not have to be false; it only has to tear a person a down, to degrade his reputation. On a related note, gossip serves much the same function and therefore invites Scripture’s rebuke (2 Cor 12:20; cf. Rom 1:29).
· The word occurs in 2 Cor 12:20 in a list of sins Paul feared he would find among the Corinthians: “… quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.” This usage is instructive in that words spoken against someone are part of a relational package that includes anger, hostility, quarreling, and disorder. Speech like this is particularly dangerous because it tears communities apart. Someone is accused before people who have no means of determining the truth of the accusations. So they take up sides. They argue. Some get angry at those who disagree with their side. Personal loyalties come into play. Reputations suffer and churches split for reasons that are never given a fair hearing. Pastors have a particular responsibility to protect the church from the premature judgments and discord that follows speech against a person which damages his reputation with no opportunity for a fair hearing.
· Scripture not only categorizes slander as serious sin, but it also governs how slander is to be managed the moment it erupts. It further warns against receiving it or passing it on:
Ø You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up
against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:16)
Ø Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit
keeps a thing covered. (Pro 11:13)
Ø Whoever covers an offense seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates close
friends. (Pro 17:9)
Ø The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels; they go down into the inner parts
of the body. (Pro 18:8)
Ø The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
(Pro 18:17)
Ø You give your mouth free rein for evil, and your tongue frames deceit. You sit and
speak against your brother; you slander your own mother's son. (Psa 50:19-20)
· Because of the dangerous potential of words, Scripture does not condone the kind of full-disclosure and unbridled transparency that our culture (assisted by technology) indulges in. Rather, there are times when we are to conceal information and use discretion in our speech, despite whatever charges we may receive of “managing information” or “spin.”
Ø Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains
silent. (Prov 11:12)
Ø Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit
keeps a thing covered. (Pro 11:13)
Ø When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is
prudent. (Prov 10:19)
Ø Whoever covers an offense seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates close
friends. (Pro 17:9)
Ø Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of
understanding. (Pro 17:27)
Ø A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Prov 18:2)
Ø If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Prov 18:13)
· Leaders bear a particular responsibility to discourage destructive language:
Ø Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words,
which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself
to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. (2 Ti 2:14-17)
Ø Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Eph 4:29)
Ø Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. . . . So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! . . . With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. . . . Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. (Jas 3:1-13)
· Beyond the clear and abundant biblical testimony, the frequent references to slander in the post-apostolic fathers shows how seriously the early church took Scripture on this matter and offers a strong counterbalance to our own cultural numbness to this sin and its effects[8]:
Ø “Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking . . . . Let us cleave, then, to those whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from whispering and evil-speaking . . . “ (1 Clem, 30)
Ø “He said to me, “Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins the life of men. First, then, speak evil of no one, nor listen with pleasure to anyone who speaks evil of another. But if you listen, you will partake of the sin of him who speaks evil, if you believe the slander which you hear; for believing it, you will also have something to say against your brother. Thus, then, will you be guilty of the sin of him who slanders. For slander is evil and an unsteady demon. It never abides in peace, but always remains in discord. Keep yourself from it, and you will always be at peace with all.” (Herm. Mand. 2)
· However foreign it may seem to our culture, or even our own hearts and words, Scripture allows no room for slander and gossip among Christians. When such speech is uttered, whether privately between individuals or publicly among the church, it is to be identified as such and corrected. Moreover, from a biblical standpoint, much of what has been published online about C.J. and SGM contains language that fits the biblical definition of “slander.” Therefore, leaders have a biblical responsibility to instruct people concerning the kinds of speech they contain, to warn against their destructive potential, to guard against allowing defiling speech to enter their hearts, etc. To fail to do so is to contravene Scripture, to lead people into sin, and to expose Christ’s church to its destructive effects.
3. 1 Timothy 5:19-21
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 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.
· This is perhaps the most immediately relevant text, dealing as it does with charges against elders. Although that Brent’s documents contain personal offenses between C.J. and Brent, the bulk of what we received were in substance charges against an elder—i.e., charges that go to his fitness for ministry. And so they should be treated as such.
· The intention of Paul’s instructions is first to protect elders from malicious and unsubstantiated accusations. Pastors lives are public, they deal in sensitive areas of people’s lives, and so they’re particularly vulnerable to opposition and attack. As we stressed in our polity teaching at T4G, this text also implies that there should be a recourse for someone with a complaint against an elder—so the text also provides protection for people as well.
· The handling of the charges is to be performed by Timothy or, in his absence, the elders. Paul addresses Timothy as his delegate who operates with his authority. In his absence the elders, who are given the responsibility to manage the church (1 Tim 3:5), would fulfill this task. So there is a clear process laid out, the responsibility for which is the elders’. The congregation is not established as the jury to hear and adjudicate the charges.
· Elders are provided protection in that multiple witnesses are required, not for a conviction, but before an accusation can be entertained at all.[9] This emphasizes the care that should be taken with charges against an elder. While there is to be no partiality toward an elder and thus no double standard (v. 21), there are also greater protections for accusations against them.
· The nature of the sin in the text is not explicit, but the context and the nature of the qualifications suggest serious sin that has a significant effect on others.[10] What is not in view are things such as leadership errors, conflicts with co-laborers (Acts 15), lack of tact, and—something I think we need to be careful about in SGM—cultural definitions of what humility or kindness or reasonableness entails.[11]
· The weighing of the charge appears to be a private matter (corresponding to the private appeals in earlier stages of church discipline, Mt 18:15-16).[12] Indeed, a public airing of the accusation contradicts the very protections against slander and false accusation that Paul prescribes. So this is clearly not something that is to be aired in public, with all the assumptions and rumors and gossip and slander that can result.
· The handling of the charges results in one of three outcomes:
a. False, frivolous, or unsubstantiated charges are dismissed.
b. In cases where the charges are true and the elder is unrepentant (“As for those who persist in sin”[13]), he is to be rebuked publicly by the elders.[14]
c. True charges that result in repentance have fulfilled their intention and, as in the case of church discipline in Matt 18, no public disclosure is required. If the sin is serious and its effects public, the elders may choose to publicly disclose the sin.
· This text finds many applications in our current situation. Given the nature of Brent’s allegations, they should be treated as charges against an elder. This at least means that C.J. should be protected from the public dissemination of the charges, that due process be vigilantly guarded, that the matter should be dealt with privately, that people should be carefully led through the unfortunate public dimensions this has already taken on, including, e.g., appropriate biblical categories used for aspects of Brent’s documents and his actions with them (this would include blogs as well), and that C.J.’s confession and repentance should be fully accounted for.
4. Matthew 18
· This text is less relevant for the current situation in that (a) it does not deal with charges against an elder, and (b) the full process envisions unrepentant sin and excommunication. It does, however, offer some insights that can inform our perspective.
· It’s important to bring the full biblical witness to bear in applying Matt 18, lest it be applied in unwise and hermeneutically illegitimate ways. The cases of church discipline/excommunication in the NT imply the kinds of sin to which this process applies. This involves three primary categories of sin: (a) major moral defection (1 Cor 5); (b) serious doctrinal deviation by leaders (2 Tim 2:14-19); and (c) persistent and destructive divisiveness (Titus 3:10-11). Other principles (a hard/unrepentant heart, the public nature of a sin) also come into play when evaluating sins. Given all this, the sins with which C.J. is being charged do not fit the Matt 18 category and the broad biblical witness that informs it.
· It is, however, instructive to note that the public disclosure of sin (“telling it to the church”) in Matt 18 only occurs in the face of unrepentant sin, which is not the case here. In Matt 18, the process of discipline is to end when a person repents. In the present situation, C.J. has listened, confessed and asked forgiveness. By his own admission, he may not be seeing everything, but who can ever claim to do so? That would be an unscriptural standard indeed. He has, however, been leaning into this process. The dissemination of Brent’s documents under the guise of “telling it to the church” is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of Scripture.
· Repentance is demonstrated by the deeds of one’s life (Acts 26:20). Brent is insisting upon unbiblical standards of repentance (e.g., written confession in detail, public confession, resignation) based solely on his documents. Neither is repentance proved by the apparent sincerity of confession. It is unbiblical and dangerous to judge the sincerity of a person’s confession by his words and countenance when we can’t know his heart. One’s heart is demonstrated by change over time and not by some perceived quality of confession.
· It is unjust to say that C.J. has been unresponsive to his sin for seven years. When the process began seven years ago, this was not characterized as a Matt 18/1 Tim 5 situation, and the other men involved, though no doubt frustrated with C.J., continued to minister with him (presumably in good faith), offered public commendations of him, and by all accounts agreed to forbear with him. Moreover, those walking closely with him over the past few years would testify to C.J.’s pursuit of godliness, responsiveness to correction, and overall posture of humility. More recently, once Brent’s charges were brought to C.J., he has pursued input, listened to rebuke, and confessed to sin.
5. Concluding Thoughts
· This entire process has been fraught with imperfections, mistakes, and sins. However, that reality only heightens the need to move and to lead in as biblical a way as possible.
· With all that there is to learn in this season, some of the most important lessons are surely in the area of pastoring people regarding areas of speech. Although it exceeds the scope of this small exercise, a biblical-theological study of human speech reveals just how important this area of life, and especially ethics, is. At the root of the ethics of speech is our creation in the image of God. Biblical commands regarding speech aren’t culturally limited, much less merely moralistic; rather, our speech is among the most fundamental ways we reflect the God in whose image we are created. Thus, we are to tell the truth, because God is “the unlying God” (Titus 1:2) and we’re created in his image, and therefore to lie is to distort that image (and to imitate Satan, the father of lies, John 8:44). It’s for this reason that Jesus said that we’ll give an account for every careless word we speak (Matt 12:36).
· Ultimately, then, our speech is about the glory of God. In his book War of Words, Paul Tripp approaches the subject of our words from this lofty perspective:
“This is the bottom line of biblical communication, the first and highest goal of all of our talk: that our words would reflect an attitude of worship that recognizes our utter dependency on God for salvation.”[15]
“In light of this, every word we speak must meet two standards. First, all of our words should bring God the glory he deserves. And second, our words should bring redemptive good into the lives of the people God has placed around us. This is a high calling for all our words – worship and redemption. But this is also why there is a great war of words, for the Enemy fights to keep us from fulfilling this calling. The Deceiver wants us to claim the world of words as our own, to speak out of our own will, to speak for our own glory, and to speak out of selfish hearts committed only to what seems best for us. Here again, the war of words is really a war of sovereignty. Whatever or whoever rules our hearts will control the words we speak. The clear message of Scripture is that we are called to speak out of a thankful heart of submission to God, in every circumstance and situation.”[16]
[1] BDAG, 77.
[2] As Marshall
[3] [4] Mounce, 169. See also Fee, 7-10.
[5] So also Mounce, 170; Towner, 250; Marshall, 477. Fee (78-79) notes that the elder is to exemplify not simply Christian virtues, but those that reflect the highest ideals of culture as well for the purpose of his external reputation.
[6] “The essence of the matter is probably to be sought in the kata-, i.e., in the hostility and malice of speech directed against one’s neighbor. It violates the early Christian commandment because of its uncharitableness rather than its falsity. The importance of resisting evil-speaking for Christianity (cf. also y 100:5, where it is the first individual sin) is shown by the fact that the command to do this is often the first in a general list or occurs individually as a special exhortation.” G. Kittel, TDNT IV, 4.
[7] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/08/04/keller-and-powlison-should-you-pass-on/. This article by Tim Keller and David Powlison is highly recommended for a broader discussion on the topic of hearing negative information about others.
[8] See Kittel, TDNT IV, 5, for other references in the early church fathers.
[9] So also Mounce, 311; Ryken, 226.[10] Fee (131) believes false teachers are in view. Marshall, drawing upon Polycarp, suggests “moral misdemeanours, possibly involving the misuse of money” (617); Towner (370) observes that Paul’s language (ἁμαρτάνω, harmartano) places the sin in the categories of unbelief and rebellion against God; Mounce notes the other use of κατηγορία (katēgoria, “charge”) in the PE in Titus 1:6, which links the term with debauchery and insubordination (a term used of Paul’s opponents in 1:10 and 1 Tim 1:9); Knight (236) helpfully suggests one who sins publically or who is unrepentant. Regardless of the specific identification, commentators agree that serious sin and moral failure is in view.
[11] Cf. Strauch, 218.
[12] Mounce, 305.
[13] “Those who persist in sin” renders the present participle Τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας (tous hamartanontas, lit. “those sinning”), almost certainly indicating unrepentant sin. So also Mounce, 312 (“an elder living a life of sin”); Marshall, 618; Fee, 131. [14] In v. 20, “all” refers to the congregation as a whole, while “the rest” refers to the other elders (although this would no doubt engender godly fear in everyone watching).
[15] Paul David Tripp, War of Words (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 76.
[16] Tripp, 82.
No comments:
Post a Comment