Why I believe in six literal days of creation

Three statements about what I am not, one statement about what I am:  I am not anti-science; I am not insane; I am not an idiot; I am a young earth believer.  I think these things need to be addressed, though not actually in that order, in order to have a discussion on the age of the earth.  In order I intend to address the fact that I'm not insane, then that I'm not anti-science, then finally that I'm not an idiot.  Only once all of these points are answered will I then move on to laying out a positive case for my position.  With that being said, please be aware that this post will not get into the positive argument for a young earth, this post will instead only address the negative arguments; that one cannot be a young earth believer and still be intelligent at the same time.  This post will only address the three statements on what I am not, I will leave the next post to address what I am.

So, to the first point, am I insane?  Well, I think it would be hard for a truly insane person to answer that question in a way that would be convincing to anyone else.  But, I'm going to argue that I'm not insane, rather I have different presuppositions than others have.  This is where the really interesting battles in science are fought, for where we begin in an argument will often dictate where we end.  If we assume there is no God, or at least that the question of God is irrelevant to science, then we assume that we can find no evidence in creation to support that there is a God, so anything that might indicate the work of this God must instead be interpreted as deriving from some other non-God explanation.

But, if I assume there is a God, and that this God has spoken to the specifics of creation, then I begin to look at creation and wonder whether I can find evidence to support this.  I begin to look and see if there is evidence that the specifics given are true.  Similarly I should be looking for evidence to disprove the specifics given if I was interested in determining whether this God was trustworthy or not.  My presupposition both describes the evidence I am willing to look for, and the interpretive lens I will seek to examine that evidence through.

Because presuppositions are so important they naturally lead into the next question, as to whether nor not I am anti-science.  If my presupposition is that scientists are all evil and attempting to lead the world to hell, then I would be anti-science.  However, even as I sit here I think to myself, "I'm typing on a computer, sending information through the air to a wireless router that is then taking that information and putting it online on servers thousands of miles away, which are then interpreting that data and storing it so that you, an unknown reader, can access that information on your own computer, a highly sophisticated machine which could not have existed prior to the last decade (unless your computer is really, really old) without the advances of modern science."  In essence, what I'm saying is that I am not anti-science.

I think science and scientific investigation are both great.  I look to men like Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Albert Einstein as geniuses who moved the world forward in great ways.  Science is a tool, or a process, by which lives across the world have been made better.  However, science has also allowed us to do horribly immoral things that we couldn't have done in prior generations, such as the development of bio-weapons.  Again, science is a tool, and the ability to engage in scientific investigation is a great gift from God that humans should engage in as part of our purpose for existence.

But, if I'm not insane, and I like science, why do I disagree with the pre-suppositions of science?  Am I an idiot?  No.  I have a different world view, a world view that says both that there is a living God, and that this living God has spoken to how he created the world.

But how do I address the scientific evidence for the age of the earth?  Ah, now that is a great question.  Obviously I don't disagree with the evidence itself.  To disagree with the evidence as it exists would be insanity; it would be a denial of reality.  To say that science can't say anything from this evidence would be anti-science.   To remain uneducated as to the evidence because I was afraid it would destroy my world view would be idiocy.  Therefore I must address the evidence directly.

As I understand scientific argument, the way for determining the age of the earth must be based on dating radioactive materials.  How this is done most accurate is through isochron dating.  Isochron dating checks a daughter element against its parent radioactive element, and against other isotopes of the daughter element itself that are also present in the same formation.  If you aren't familiar with chemistry, I will explain what all this means below.

Radioactive decay of an element produces a daughter element (uranium to lead, for example).  But, not all lead is evidence of uranium, there are some isotopes (or types) of lead that exist independently of uranium.  So, if I check for the amount of a lead isotope that derives from the uranium isotope present in a rock, and compare that number to the amount of lead that does not derive from the uranium isotope present and I do this over multiple rocks that all came into being at the same time in the same location I should find that they all agree on the amount of each isotope present, that is in terms of the ratios of the isotopes.  (I know this is difficult to follow, so I'll try an illustration.)

So, for an illustration, let's say you had a bottle of ink.  Now, the ink in your bottle is not particularly stable.  Some of it breaks down occasionally so that you end up with a mixture of strong and weak ink.  Now, into that bottle you then pour another kind of ink.  If I were to mix that all together so that it was all evenly distributed through the bottle, the isochronic method indicates I should be able to figure out how much of the original pure ink existed, even without measuring the whole amount in the bottle.

Here's how it works: I know that I (ink) decays into M (milky ink) and that S (strong ink) is an additive not related to M or I.  So, if I measure the amount of I, M, and S in a series of samples I expect that the ratio of M to S will be higher as the ratio of I to S is higher.  So, the more I in a sample, the more M in the sample, and the less S in the sample.  Now if my measurements of multiple samples all agree then I have a strong reason to believe that I can conclude what the original amount of I was.  The reason I can conclude how much I was in the original canister is because I can deduce the actual ratio of I to S in the canister, and the ratio of M to I in the canister, then once I do the math assuming how much M is present going back to I, I can tell you how much I should have been in the canister.  In this I have also determined the age of the canister because I had to do that to get how much should have been there.  (If you still don't understand isochronic dating then the only thing I can recommend is doing some research on it.  It is a difficult concept to grasp and I don't know how to make it easier.)

So, with this being the most accurate method of dating, what would I have to argue with?  Well, let's address assumptions in the argument and then figure it out from there.  The assumptions are: radioactive decay rates are known; these rates are unchanging; the elements we are measuring are evenly distributed; no additional amounts of the parent or daughter element have been introduced into the samples.  Not all of these assumptions are valid.

In fact, the assumption of an even distribution is the hardest one to prove.  Why?  Because that isn't the way rocks form.  Rocks form in an uneven distribution form.  That is, rocks form in a mixed way, with the amount of any given element not being uniformly distributed through the rock.  Thus when you measure for age using a whole rock you must have the whole rock.  That means you would have to access the entire formation, and then you would have to have a uniform amount of the elements present in every section of that rock.  In any other situation you do not have a uniform mixture.  The assumption underlying isochronic dating is flawed on a logical level, not on a scientific level.  If the logic were correct then the science would be correct.

In order to get around the rock issue you could simply do a test of a smaller area where you know that you could have different levels of the various elements.  The problem is that then you can't determine how much of the original element you had because the two samples came from a rock that not perfectly mixed in the first place.  If I find differing levels of elements in the samples then that indicates that the rock was not perfectly mixed, and I would need a perfectly mixed rock in order to determine the age of the rock based on the amounts of elements I have present.  This is what is seen in nature.

In other words, the best science for determining the age of the earth rests of an assumption that cannot be logically demonstrated.  This is not to say that the assumption is false, only that it cannot be demonstrated as being true.  Whether or not the assumption is accepted must be based upon the presuppositions of the person examining the argument.  Evidence does not interpret itself, rather it must be interpreted by the reader.

What is my point with all of this?  My point is not to say that those who believe in an old earth are wrong or foolish or anything else.  My argument is merely that there is room in the logical bedrock to erect the edifice of an argument for a young earth.  The presuppositions of the old earth are not so solid that they cannot be undermined, they are not so strong as to withstand all attacks.  Being a young earth believer does not make one an idiot, unscientific, or insane.  Being a young earth believer means starting with different assumptions and building on those.

In my next post I will lay out the positive case for why I believe in a young earth.

The end of "What happened in the beginning?"

So, in the previous post I talked about a couple of different ways to view the first day of creation.  On the one hand I noted that many Christians seek to understand Genesis in a way that harmonizes with science, so that what is discussed in the first few verses would be what science understands as the big bang.  But, I went on to note that there is another way to read this text.  In the second way we might read the text, which would be a more theological and bible-centered approach to reading the text we first needed to do a little further reading to understand the text, to really grasp exactly what the bible says happened.

Our goal in looking at this section is to see the picture of creation that God paints in Genesis.  In order to do this we must not only study the text, but try to approach in an educated way while at the same time preserving the power of looking at the text for the first time.  We must act as art critics who are well versed in the history of a particular movement and who know the rules of style governing that movement who are nonetheless looking at a particular piece for the first time.  We must look at the creation story in this way because there is an awe factor, a wonder that the text seeks to speak to, and for that reason we must not let the repetition of reading the text dull us to its impact.

So, with that being said, I hope you read the last post because I want to build on that post without having to repeat myself too much.  Last time I spoke of our goal of trying to understand what the first day of creation might look like, now I want to flesh that out and then speak to its meaning so we can really understand what happened when God said, "Let there be light."

As I noted last time, we must look to the text to understand what is happening, so let us do so again with a bit of education from reading the rest of Scripture as well.  When we read about God creating the heaven's and the earth we must understand that before God created there was nothing.  There was no time, no matter, there was literally nothing.  When God created the heavens and the earth the first thing he had to do was create the stuff from which the earth would be formed.  So, God created the heaven's and the earth, but the earth was without form and void.  There was as of yet no separation between heaven and earth, all of what would become creation was a chaotic abyss, comparable to a wild and untamed sea.

Thus, when we see that God created the heavens and the earth what God did was to make something that was other than him.  He did not "decide" to do this, he did not consider and make a plan, rather, in existing outside of time God simply did what he willed to do.  This is important for us to remember because it will affect the meaning of what really was happening in the text.  The plan of God was not something he had to think up, rather as God knows all things and has all knowledge he does not "remember" things or "forget" things, he is unchanging, he simply knows all things.  That means the plan of creation was something that existed within the mind of will of God outside of time so that when time began God simply was bringing to fruition what he intended eternally.

God first created something other than himself, for before there was creation all there was, was God.  Creation, if you will, was a hole in God, a separation he made in himself so that there would be something not him that existed.  Yet that metaphor breaks down because God is intimately in creation, imminent, in all things at all times upholding all of creation by the power of his word (as Hebrews tells us).  So, God created space, literally, as a space where he would fill and indwell, but as something that would also be other than himself.  But, as Scripture says, "The Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters."  So that even as there was this other from God, he was there the whole time guiding and directing what would happen.

Then, God spoke and said, "Let there be light."  Up until now there was simply God existing and the chaotic creation he was about to bring order to, but with these words God suddenly begins to establish an order, and all throughout creation there was light.  The light was everywhere, diffused into everything, overwhelming all of creation.  This would be like standing in pitch black and suddenly an incredible light is turned on so that everywhere, all around you is nothing but light shining out, no darkness, no shadow, simply light everywhere all at one time.  And this was because God desired to have light, "and he saw the light, that it was good."

But, God's will was for an order in creation, and so God separated the light from the darkness.  Now the light was confined, it was in one area, shining in one place.  There was a cycle established: darkness was everywhere (for darkness is the absence of anything else, it is really nothing) and light came, and now darkness would follow light.  "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."  Now there is order, now creation is not only distinct from God, but is beginning to have form.  Instead of a chaotic and formless mass there is light and dark, there is space and something that light is shining on.  What the light is shining on will come into view in the rest of the creation week, but for now it is enough that we understand that in creating light God has differentiated creation from himself, for as the source of that light there are parts he shines upon, and there are parts he does not shine upon; there are parts of creation in the light, and there are parts in the dark.

But, there is something more here too. What we have discussed so far is the mere technical details with a little bit of the surface layer of theological understanding.  Now I want to posit what I think is a deeper theological reality of what we see happening in creation.  This part of creation was a mystery for the ages and is something that science will never be able to understand.  Understanding the creation story as I am about to lay out takes us beyond merely seeing one part of a painting to realize that the creation story is part of an amazing mural that God wants us to see as one contiguous piece of art work.

So then, let us look from Genesis to John.  In John 1:1-5 we read, "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 any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (John 1:1-5, ESV)  This passage adds so much to our understanding of Genesis.

First what we see is that Genesis is a beautiful picture of the Godhead working in tandem.  Each person of the trinity is doing a distinct work, but all of them are present and are supporting and working with one another.  The Spirit of God is preparing the chaotic sea for the revelation of God, brooding over it, imbuing it with his presence so that God's will will be done.  Then the Father speaks, and his Word is Christ, so that Christ acts on the will of the Father, and the Father shows the Son what he is doing so that the Son acts as the Father wills.  And Christ brings forth the will of the father, so that there is light.  And in this God, in all his glory and all three persons in glorified, each one acting in accordance with the others.  The Father wills, the Spirit prepares, and the Son accomplishes the Father's will by the power of the Spirit.

But, there is one more thing happening in Genesis, something we may miss if we do not pay attention.  God has created and has begun history, but from the beginning of history God is telling a story.  God is telling the story of salvation before the earth is even formed, before man existed.  So God's plan was to act in history, but to act in a way that would show forth the story of salvation and how God would glorify himself from the very beginning thus imbuing history with significance.

Here is the story of salvation as seen in the first day of creation:  In the beginning Christ existed with the Father as God, and God spoke Christ forth, announcing his Son as the one would show forth his glory into creation.  The unseen God would be seen.  And Christ shown forth from the Father, light flooding into all creation so that there was no where that Christ was not, no where that was beyond him and nothing that existed that he had not brought forth.  The darkness that was upon the face of the abyss was wiped out, utterly defeated at the coming of Christ as he revealed the glory of the Father.  Then the Father, seeing the goodness of his revelation chose to bring that goodness into stark contrast, so he separated the light from the darkness.  But, though separate, the darkness would never conquer the light, for the light would always follow the darkness, every evening would be followed by a morning.  Though men would live through darkness, they would always be able to rejoice that the light of God was shining forth into creation, and in the light of God men find life.

Where before there was no life in creation, where darkness ruled because God had not revealed himself, now there was life.  In the revelation of God his presence brought life and that life was light, so that all might see.  Christ, as the Word, as the light, as the life of men, was the first declaration of God.  Before sin, before death, before man, God was already declaring that Christ would be the focus of creation.  His plan was to redeem, even before there was anything to redeem.  God's love is so great that he imbued the story of salvation into the very first day of creation so that we might read the Scripture and see that from the beginning to the end it is about Christ and his glory, as he brings glory to the Father.

So it is in our lives.  We are each "the new creation" if we have received Christ.  We were without form, and void.  We were the abyss upon which darkness rested.  But "the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep.  And God said, 'Let there be light,'  and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning," a new Christian.  In our walk coming to Christ is only the beginning of the story, the first day of creation.  History is our story, because history is His story, and we are in him, and Christ is the Word of God.

Genesis chapter one is the story of creation.  The first day is the story of how God first separated creation from himself, ordering it and bringing forth light.  The first day is the story of how God would save all of creation, sending forth his Son as his image bearer to shine forth his glory into a world of darkness.  The first day is the story of every Christian, of how we were dead in our trespasses and sin and how the Spirit of God worked upon us so that as we heard the Word of God we were bathed in his light and life came into us and filled us and brought us out of death.  Genesis chapter one is the story of Christ.

What happened "In the beginning"?

I recently received an email from a friend of mine asking my opinion about what happened in the beginning of Genesis.  More specifically I was asked if I could explain "how" creation happened when God said, "Let there be light."  Before I attempt to answer the question though, I want to give a brief explanation of how I understand the question, and then address the question of how creation happened.

What does the question, "How did things happen when God said, 'Let there be light?'" mean?  Well, there are a couple of ways we can seek to understand creation.  The first way we can seek to understand creation is in terms of actually comprehending the mechanics of something coming into being from nothing.  This way of understanding the question is the more straightforward reading, but is very problematic.  The reason the question is problematic when understood this way is that the answer doesn't really help explain anything.  The answer to this question, in terms of understanding how light came into being, is that through his Word God literally caused light to suddenly exist, in all its wavelengths, and at one sudden moment.  As my wife put it, "Poof!  Suddenly there was light!"

But, what does that mean?  This is where the second way of answering the question comes in handy.  Instead of focusing on the mere mechanics of what happened (not that such a task is in any way "mere" for it is well beyond me to explain how anything comes into existence) what if we instead focus on the appearance of what happened?  That is, instead of saying, "How did this happen?" what if we instead seek to understand "What really happened?"

To address what happened we need to look at the text:

In the beginning, God Created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good.  And God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.  And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Those who are familiar with the bible have probably read that text many times.  I know I have probably read that text dozens if not a few hundred times, and repeated it to myself more.  The problem with reading a text multiple times is that we become so familiar with it that we no longer see all of the amazing details in the text.  It would be like walking by a priceless painting every single day.  After a while you become inured to the beauty.  So I think it is with this text for many Christians.

So, how do we read this text?

There are two options I would like to explore.  In one option we can read this text through a modern scientific lens.  That is to say, we accept scientific theories on creation and we apply that view in order to understand what we are seeing here.  This is how many Christians read the text as they seek to understand how the bible and science are complimentary, not at odds with one another.

In this case what we see is a glimpse of what the "big bang" would have looked like if you had been an observer.  Suddenly and with a massive explosion of energy the creative will of God is released and the whole universe comes into existence: time, space, matter, energy, light, heat; everything that the universe would ever contain is suddenly brought into existence in one moment at one finite expression of God's infinite power!  What this looks like is light.  Dazzling light that fills all of space--for at this moment the only space that exists is what is filled with the energy of God--comes pouring forth from God's creative will.  And then as space continues to grow, God causes the energy to coalesce so there is a separation between light, where the energy continues to shine, and darkness, where there is space without light.

I don't know that many Christians would explicitly describe Genesis in this way, but in my experience many have argued that what we see in Genesis is a description of the big bang.  I have attempted to flesh out a little more of what that would mean.  If Genesis is a description of the big bang then this is what Genesis is describing.  But what if that reading isn't right?

Perhaps Genesis is speaking about what science speaks of when it talks about the big bang, but it wasn't written to explain a particular scientific theory.  Instead we need to think as though we were reading Genesis for the first time, and with a right understanding of the text as laid out in Scripture.  That is, we must remember our first curiosity with the text while at the same time being informed as to what the rest of Scripture teaches us about the text.

So, to the second part first, being informed about the text.  Let us look at the text as we have it and explain the parts of it based on what we know from Scripture.  "In the beginning" is speaking of the beginning of time.  This is not merely the beginning of creation, but the very beginning of time.  Before this point there is nothing, so we might say there is no before "in the beginning."  (Of course by nothing what we refer to is the physical universe, God himself did not come into existence and exists independent of time, which is what it means that God is eternal, he literally is outside of time, and yet also fully indwells every moment.)

So, in the beginning, at the start of time, God created the heavens and the earth.  Here also what we generally understand is what the text is speaking about. God literally created what was from what was not.  As Romans speaks of God calling dead men to life, Paul says that God "calls into existence the things that do not exist." (Romans 4:17)  So God here in creation actually calls what did not exist into existence.  That is his power and his will at work.

But, the first verse is really an introduction into what we are about to witness.  You see, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, but we see that God does not actually create the heavens until the second day.  On the first day there were no heavens.  Thus what Genesis 1:1 serves as is an introduction indicating to us that what we are about to read is the story of creation, specifically the creation of the heavens and the earth.  This is confirmed when we look to Genesis 2:4 and read, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."  Genesis 2:4 technically is the end of the creation story of Genesis 1, Genesis 2:5 begins the story of man and his special creation as distinct from the broader creation story of the whole universe.  Thus Genesis 1:1 tells us what we are about to see and explains that this will be the calling into existence of the world that does not exist (as Paul would put it in Romans).

So, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth (this is where we start) was without form and void.  At this section we must remember again that "the earth" here is a discussion of all that exists.  There is nothing apart from "the earth" in the form it is in at this moment in creation.  There is no heaven, there is no light, there is nothing but this unformed, void "earth".  We see that "earth" is here a metaphor from reading just a few words down, "And the darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters." (My rendering.)  "The deep" and "the waters" are referring to the same "earth" from the last sentence.  This is the unformed mass of creation, undifferentiated, one big chaotic mass waiting for creation to bring it into order.

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."  This is the moment when God begins to put creation into order.  Where before there was no form, and void, now there is light, something independent of the chaotic mass that exists as the "earth".  God saw the light was good, he separated the light from the darkness, he called the light Day and the darkness Night, and there was evening and there was morning, the first day.  This speaks to the ordering of the universe as God commanded it, where before there was darkness, now there is light, where before there was an undifferentiated mass of existence, now God has imposed order on time, so that evening follows morning and morning follows evening and a day, the first day, has come to pass.  What we see the text telling us about is the ordering of chaos as God brings his will to pass in creating all things.

But, there is so much more to this text as well.  We've only begun to scratch the surface of what Scripture tells us is going on here.  For that, let's look at a second post, discussing more in detail what the first day of creation means, and hopefully coming to see more detail in Genesis as a picture painted by God.

Why pastor search committees are wrong

Well, after my last post I had some wonderful friends, and my beloved father, discussing various points with me.  One of my friends asked the all important question: Why is it wrong for churches to add qualifications to pastor?  I really wanted to tackle this question already, and in part I wanted to address it in the way churches look for pastors (at least many churches), which is through a pastor search committee.  The reason I want to tackle it in this fashion is because the way a church looks for a pastor will end up being determined by their view of who their pastor should be.  Ergo the issue of whether a church should have the right to add qualifications will necessarily work itself out in the manner in which a church chooses to look for a pastor.

So, I've already tipped my hand to the fact that I think the way most churches do this is just wrong.  The question really becomes one of "Why?"  Allow me to back up one minute here and note first of all that I intended my title to be a little too all-encompassing.  I recognize there are some churches that do form biblical pastor search committees.  However, I recognize also that these churches are few and far between and that the vast majority (and I do mean the vast majority) do not form biblical search committees.

So, why do I say pastor search committees are wrong?  Well, first of all because in many churches there should be no need for a pastor search committee.  Beyond that point the individuals chosen for the pastor search committee are often ignorant of what they should be looking for, and thus should not be there in the first place.  Finally, because of the second point, the qualifications chosen by most pastor search committees (this ties into the last post) are not biblical and thus the pastor search committee ends up making decisions based more on feeling than biblical reasoning.  Most pastor search committees are wrong because they are simply not biblical or biblically literate.

I know I sound like I'm throwing some harsh barbs here, but let me be clear: my only goal is that the church would be conformed to the pattern laid out in Scripture, in order that we might grow into the fullness of him who fills everything.  I'm laying out my charges clearly and bluntly so that there can be no mistake with what I am saying.  I recognize that I am destroying my own future of finding a church, as any who would read this blog would immediately reject me as I have rejected their model of finding a pastor.  In other words I'm arguing I should be taken seriously because I am figuratively throwing away any hope I have of being a pastor by posting so public a complaint against modern church polity.  (In case you think I'm exaggerating, trust me, by my own experience I can well guarantee you I'm not.)

Okay, so let's take these issues in the following order:  What qualifications should a man meet to be a pastor?  Who should be on a committee considering a man for the position of a pastor?  How should a church find a pastor?  If we address these three questions, starting with the first, then we will be able to lay out a biblical model for a pastor search committee.

So, to the first question: What qualifications should a man meet to be a pastor?  Here we have a very easy answer: the bible gives us the list of qualifications.  Let us look to the two passages that explicitly answer this question: Titus 1:6-9; and 1 Timothy 3:1-7.  Looking at these two sections, taken as a composite, what we read is:

"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task[, so] if anyone is above reproach, sober-minded the husband of one wife, he manages his own household well, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination (for an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?); he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered, quarrelsome, or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, respectable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, gentle and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction (able to teach) in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." (Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 modified from the ESV)

Note that Paul states in Titus "if anyone..." and goes on to explain the qualifications of an elder.  Note also that in 1 Timothy Paul says that a man who desires to be an overseer must meet these qualifications, and then goes on to list the qualifications he must meet.  But, in neither case does Paul say that the church has a right to modify this list or add to it.  Okay, but some will respond that the bible does not prohibit them from modifying the list.  But does it?

If we look to the opening verses of 1 Timothy we see that Paul tells Timothy to charge those in the church not to deviate from Paul's doctrine in the gospel.  Well, part of the doctrine of the gospel is that Christ is the one who sets up the church and provides for her the various leaders and members she needs.  So we read in 1 Corinthians 12:28, "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, various kinds of tongues."  What we see is that it is God who appoints a man to be a preacher, a teacher, or any other role within the church.  Therefore, when the church considers, "Who should we call to be our [fill in the blank]?" the answer will be, "Who meets the qualifications God has laid out for that role?

For a church to assume the authority of adding qualifications to this role would be to assume that their understanding of who would be right for their congregation is more authoritative than Scripture.  So, for instance, a man might say, "You are looking for a pastor, I meet all the qualifications to be a pastor, and I am willing to come and serve at your church."  For a church to say to such a man, "We are not interested in having you, we want someone with different qualifications" would be tantamount to that church saying that they do not care that Scripture says he is qualified, they themselves want to determine who is truly qualified.  In many ways this would be like the ancient Israelites ignoring those who fulfilled the true office of prophet in order to listen to the other false prophets of the day.

But, what if a church needs a pastor, and there are a bunch of guys who all meet the qualifications of being a pastor, as laid out in Scripture, and all of them want to be the pastor of that church?  We'll get to that when we talk about a church actually calling a pastor.  For now let's address one issue at a time.  The simple fact is that Scripture lays out the qualifications, and Paul says that no one in the church is to deviate from the doctrines of the gospel, and one of those doctrines is that God is the only one with the authority to raise up and appoint the leadership of the church because it is the body of Christ.  Therefore, no church has the right to modify the doctrine of who is qualified to be an elder, either in relaxing the qualifications, or in making those qualifications more strict.

Okay, so with that out of the way (I hope it is out of the way, if not I'll write more on it once you, my gracious reader, let me know that I failed to carry my argument) let us get on to the matter of who should be on a committee considering a man for a pastor?  The answer to this question is actually the fuzziest of all the questions we'll be looking at in this post.  The answer is quite simply whoever is biblically informed, mature, doctrinally sound, and capable of exercising the discretion needed to make sure a man meets the qualifications as listed.  On this matter a church should exercise wisdom and discretion.  However, this is accepting the church as it is currently, not addressing the situation as it would be ideal.

The ideal answer to this question is: whoever the other elders are.  In other words the pattern laid out in Scripture is that there should be multiple elders in most churches.  Thus these men should be the ones determining who meets the qualifications of an elder, and they should be the ones to bring these men before the congregation.  From the perspective of doing a thorough review of the person the best option would be to then allow the congregation to verify the fitness of the man through asking whatever questions may be necessary (they may know of a weakness that the elders do not, or they may wonder themselves if the elders addressed all the potential weaknesses).  Thus the elders, recognizing that God has called a man to serve as an overseer, interview that man, examine his life, and once satisfied make that recommendation to the church.  The church then has the opportunity to interview that man and should, unless there is a flaw found in him, accept him as an elder based upon his meeting the qualifications as laid out in Scripture.  In this way the church, through the officers God has provided her, acknowledges the call of God.  (No, I'm not going to cite specific Scripture here because there is no specific Scripture that lays this method out, rather this is a biblical theology based upon reading Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, and following the thread of God's calling through the Old Testament.  If you have a better method that actually fits with Scripture you are welcome to argue for it.)

Okay, but that last section certainly opens the question of when a church should call a new elder.  After all, if you already have three elders, how many more do you need?  And if we are addressing the question of when we also need to address the question of how the church finds this new elder.  It is great if we know the mechanics of how the church should verify a man as an elder, but how do they even find the man?  And what if, as I noted before, there are a lot of men all applying for the same position of elder?

To the first question we can apply the answer that many churches want to apply too frequently: It is up to the church.  Clearly you need to call an elder when you have no elders, but in a larger church the obvious answer seems to be, "Whenever the need arises."  For instance, no deacons were called in the church until that role was needed, and when the role was needed the church chose as many as was necessary to fulfill the role.  If you have a church of 50 members you probably don't need more than a couple of elders (perhaps one, but two is safer, we'll discuss why shortly), but if you have a church of 2500 you probably will need several elders to make sure the spiritual needs of the flock are being met.  Since it is the role of the elder to care for the flock spiritually you need as many elders as it takes to do so.

So, how does the church find this elder, and what if there are multiple men who all want to be elder at the same time?  Okay, let's address the first question in two ways, the first being the ideal, and the second being the real world.  In the ideal situation the way the church finds the new elder is through the body.  That is, if there is a need for an elder in the church, then it is reasonable to suppose that the same God who organized the body will provide for the needs of that body by raising up a member of the body to fulfill the role of elder.  A sign of a healthy church is that it is producing spiritually mature men who fulfill the requirements of being elders and is thus self-replicating.  In reality most churches couldn't function like this because most churches are not that healthy and haven't trained their members to be elders.

So, in reality the way a church finds an elder is through putting out word that they are looking for such a man.  Here the fact is there is no one right way to do things because the church has already failed in what should have been one of its primary tasks.  (I recognize that in persecuted churches things are different, but you probably aren't reading this post if you are in a church where your pastor was recently arrested in the middle of the night and the government has threatened to execute the remaining members. I'm not joking, we really need to be in prayer for our persecuted brothers and sisters.)  So, the best way to find a qualified man is to look where there are a multitude of qualified men: seminaries, larger churches, bible colleges, etc.  God has given Western churches a great blessing by establishing institutions where you can find a large number of men who meet the qualifications for being an elder in one place.

The problem is that "large number" part.  If a church is looking for an elder they are likely to draw a large number of men who all meet the qualifications of being an elder.  But how then does the church determine who the "best" man would be?  Well, again, there is no one simple answer to this, there are, however, multiple wrong answers.  One potential answer would be to follow the footsteps of the apostles and gamble.  If you read Acts 1 you'll note that the apostles replaced Judas by casting lots, accepting that there were multiple men who met the qualifications to be an apostle, and yet they only had one position to fill in order to complete the 12.  Thus it seems that it is perfectly biblical for a church to draw a name out of a hat or do some other random means of determining which of the multiple candidates God would call to serve them.  (I can see some people getting really upset at this already, but I'm standing on Scripture on this one unless you can show me I'm reading it wrong.)

The second option would be to limit the time frame and then simply do a "first come" sort of call, basically simply saying that the first man who meets the qualifications gets the call.  Or you could say the one who is closest because he would already know the community.  Basically there are a number of ways a church can make their decision, but they should have all of this ironed out before they even begin considering elders or else they and all those they consider will be in for one long headache.  (This is a major reason a church should seek to have multiple elders, so that if one leaves, dies, or can no longer serve for any reason the church is not without leadership while it looks to replace that man.  Thus at least two elders should be preferable for any church, so that the body may continue to function when faced with these kinds of issues.) 

But, most significantly, there are even more ways that a church may not determine who should be the elder.  No church, in any circumstance, has the right to add qualifications to the elder.  No church has the right to say one man has more education and therefore would be better, or more experience, or a larger family, or any other non-biblical attribute.  As we have already covered, the bible gives the qualifications for who may be an elder, and it is not in the purview of the church to change those qualifications even for the purpose of limiting the potential applicant pool.  A church who has failed in two tasks,of properly organizing itself with multiple elders so as not to be without an elder in the case of one leaving the church and of being self sustaining and generating elders within its body, does not rectify its failure by then failing in yet a third task and adding to the qualifications God has established in order to determine who may serve as elder of such a body.

Ecclesiology and Hierarchy

I really wanted to do this post about another topic altogether, that being pastor search committees and their place in the church.  However, I realized before I could do a post on search committees I would first need to explain the proper role and function of a pastor.  After all, how could we form a committee to search for a pastor if we do not know what a pastor is?  And then I realized that before I could even speak to what a pastor is I would need to lay out some ground work on basic church ecclesiology in general with a specific examination of the hierarchical structure of the church.

Everyone with me so far?  No?  Oh, well I guess I should explain some of the words I'm throwing around so we can all be on the same page then.

What do I mean by ecclesiology?  Well, ecclesiology is basically a fancy term for the structure of the church. I'm sure that's about as clear as mud, so let me explain it a little further.  Ecclesiology is the study of what the church as a body or group should look like.  So ecclesiology addresses questions such as who can be a member of the church, should the church have certain rules, can the church kick someone out, who is the head of the church, how should authority be concentrated in the church, etc.  All those questions that people tend to think aren't really very important until their church goes and does something crazy like try and replace the carpet because the deacons thought it would be good to go with pile carpeting instead of shag are basically covered in ecclesiology.

And, because I'm using the term a little different than others, I want to take a minute to define "hierarchy" as well.  What I mean by hierarchy is really just the issue of roles and authority.  I do not mean to intimate that there is necessarily someone who is higher up the chain of command in a church, but rather what roles are there and who fills those roles.  The issue of roles may very well mean that someone is higher up the chain of command than someone else, for instance the Catholic Church is very much organized with different levels of command.  In other churches, such as some Baptist churches, the pastor may have very little to no real authority outside of his preaching, teaching, and visitation (we'll act like it's the same thing as counseling, but we won't use that term so that people don't get all flustered thinking their pastor is judging their psychiatric state).

So, here's the million dollar question (And since I'm going to answer it, you can feel free to send me a million dollars. No, really.): Does the bible contain instructions on ecclesiology that are binding on all churches in all times and in all places?

Some people argue that the bible does not contain instructions on ecclesiology, or at least the instructions are flexible.  That is to say, if the bible does not explicitly forbid something then that must mean it is okay.  This argument basically says that while God has given the Christian some instructions (for instance the basic qualifications for deacons and pastors) these instructions will look different in differing social and cultural contexts.  Whether we have one pastor or two, whether the pastor is the sole decision maker in the church or whether the deacons make the decisions, these are all cultural questions left up to each church if this argument is correct.

But, the other side of the argument is that the bible contains explicit instructions on church make up.  That is to say that God has voiced a definite order for the church and the church is only healthy when it conforms to that order.  If this argument is correct then that means the role and function of a deacon is described in the New Testament and to add to or modify the responsibilities of those who serve as deacons is not the right of the churches, for God designed the body and only he has the right to say how each part should function.  This position says that roles such as pastor and deacon are not culturally determined and do not change based on social context.

Now, I've divided the arguments rather woodenly, the fact is that both sides would agree there must be some cultural adaptation, and there must be some absolutes that do not change.  Every church agrees that this is true, and it is necessary to accept this to even have church.  For instance whereas a Reformed Baptist and a Traditional Presbyterian church would both agree on issues such as election, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and many other issues as well.  These two churches may agree on eschatology, soteriology, Christology, theology, and pneumatology, but they will disagree on ecclesiology.  For the Presbyterian the covenantal nature of the church indicates that the children of the covenant people are part of the body, for the Baptist the regenerate nature of the church indicates that only professing believers should be a part of the body.  This is an ecclesiological difference that results in a situation where the two would be hard pressed to worship together because they would see the body of Christ very differently.  (Which is why we have Baptists and Presbyterians today.)

So, why do I say that everyone agrees there must be some cultural adaptation?  Simply because it is true.  There are fringe groups who say that churches are not mentioned in the New Testament, therefore Christians should only meet in homes and the only valid churches are house churches.  However, most Christians agree that there is no prohibition against building churches and that the development of church buildings set aside as specific meeting places is a natural and acceptable development based on the way Christianity has grown throughout the centuries.  Likewise we do not see guitars, organs, snare drums or didgeridoos mentioned anywhere in the bible as musical instruments available for use in worship, yet most Christians would agree such instruments are perfectly acceptable. (I really have no intention of arguing for what most people already agree on.)

Okay, so we have to have some cultural adaptation.  It would be nearly impossible to practice Christianity without cultural adaptation in some way.  I don't speak Greek and would have a hard time understanding a pastor who only gave his sermons in Greek.  In fact I don't even understand Koine Greek well enough to be able to follow someone reading the Greek New Testament without pausing fairly often to interpret it so I can understand.  (And that's reading, just listening is harder still.)

So, to go back to our million dollar question (got that check book out yet?): Are there rules given on ecclesiological structure that are non-negotiable?  To this question I believe we can give a firm and absolute, "Yes!"  In fact I think not only that there are definite rules on ecclesiology, but that the vast majority of churches today are in violation of those rules.  I will address what churches should look like, starting with hierarchy, but from this point on I want to make clear that I am addressing this from a very particular view.  I am a Baptist, by choice and tradition both.  I am not going to make the argument for why a Baptist ecclesiology is right and any other ecclesiology is wrong.  I am going to begin with the assumption of a Baptist ecclesiology and build from there.  There will be significant overlap with all churches who agree to a regenerate membership only, and there will be significant overlap with other traditions as well, but I am not here going to lay out why the Baptist ecclesiology is right.  Thus the applications from this point on will be somewhat more limited depending on whether you are examining other non-Baptist traditions (the majority of Christianity).

So, from a baptist perspective, what can we say about the hierarchy, that is the defined roles and positions within the church?  And what evidence can we find in Scripture to show us whether these roles are non-negotiable or culturally dependent?

First, let us address pastors.  The term "pastor" is not used in the New Testament.  However, the terms "Elder" and "Overseer" are used.  In the ESV the term "Elder" is used in the New Testament in the following places: Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1.  The term overseer is used in: 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25.  So, what can we learn about these two terms from these passages?

The first thing we see is that it appears that "elder" and "overseer" are interchangeable, depending on context.  So Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.  Without going into the issue of "ruling elders" vs. "preaching and teaching elders" we can see that all elders were expected to "rule" in some sense.  In the context the only thing they could be ruling over would be the church.  In 1 Timothy 3:5 we see that overseers are to be those who "care for God's church" in the same context as people who "manage" their own households.  Thus the overseer is to be one who manages the church.  Finally in Titus 1:7 we see that Paul says an overseer is God's steward.  Thus the overseer and the elder are the same thing: those who manage or rule the church, given to teaching and preaching the word of God and caring for his people.

But, we see more than just that.  If we look closely at 1 Peter 5:5 we see something more.  Throughout 1 Peter the term "elders" is used, mostly in the plural.  Now, the letter itself was a circular letter, that is it was intended to be read by many churches.  In many cases the term could be plural because Peter was speaking to multiple churches and wanted to make sure that everyone understood he was speaking to all churches, not just one elder who was in one of the churches.  However, in 1 Peter 5:5 we see that Peter says, "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders."  This indicates that Peter was assuming that each church would have multiple elders.  Peter could easily have said, "you who are younger be subject to your elder" if he intended to indicate that each church should have one and only one elder.  By stating that the "younger" should be subject to the "elders" he assumes there are multiple "elders" each "younger" person should be subject to.  Likewise in Acts 14:23 we see that Paul and Barnabas appointed "elders" in "each church."  Explicitly in Acts we see the idea that there are multiple elders being appointed in "each church."

What's my point?  Well, the indication in Scripture is that the proper ecclesiology for a church, when we are discussing pastors/elders/overseers/bishops (yes the term "bishop" is a valid interpretation as well) is that there should be more than one in most churches.  On top of that, the role for an elder is fairly well defined: they are the shepherds, overseers, rulers, and stewards of God for the church.  The elder is to preach and teach, to visit the sick, to care for God's people, to counsel, and to watch over the church in general.

But wait, there's more!  Not only is the office well defined, and not only do we see indications that it is expected that multiple elders would be over most churches, but the qualifications are well defined too!  Paul tells Timothy and Titus both exactly what they should be looking for in an elder.  Paul doesn't say things like: "He must have a degree in theology, have at least 5 years experience as a leader in another congregation, be between 35-45 years old, be creative in his preaching, smile when he speaks, and be a good problem solver."  Paul gives an explicit list containing the attributes that God says are the qualifications for an elder, and none of the ones I listed above are on that list.

Yes, and? Okay, if we add any additional qualifications to an elder, for instance saying he cannot drink at all, or he cannot smoke at all, or he cannot wear tennis shoes, or he has to have a certain accent, what we are saying is that God's list is not sufficient for our church.  We are saying that though God gave a list of qualities for what we should be looking for in a pastor, we know better than God who would fit in our church.  We can justify this in any way we want, but that's what we are saying.  If we accept that God is the sovereign ruler of his church then we must also accept that anyone who meets his qualifications should be allowed to serve as the overseer of his church, even if that person isn't who we would have thought would be the best fit.

Our justifications (for instance saying, "Well the older people in our community won't accept a pastor who drinks a beer with his steak") do not hold muster when compared to the light of Scripture.  If we say only a certain man who meets a list of 50 qualifications can lead our church and grow it because of our local community, what we are saying is that the growth of the church is not dependent on the gospel or on God's adding people daily, but rather upon us having the right man who will speak with the right vocabulary and be eloquent enough to convince people to join.  This goes against everything we see in Scripture.

Most of our churches do not have a biblical ecclesiology when it comes to this first rung of hierarchy.  Most churches have one pastor.  In many churches the deacons are actually the rulers of the church.  In churches that have multiple pastors usually one is the "Senior" pastor and the others are "associates," having no real authority but to advise and carry out the orders of the "Senior pastor".  We do not see such divisions in Scripture, but rather see all elders treated equally, and held to the same standards.  If we would worship God rightly and expect him to bless us, we should first begin by aligning the body of God with his word, after all, what is the worship of our mouths if we deny his word with how we live?

A couple of additional (and better laid out) arguments on the issue of plurality of elders:

From a Southern Baptist Perspective

And another SBC perspective making the argument

Why 2 Chronicles 7:14 doesn't mean what you think it does

A lot of Christians quote Chronicles 7:14 as a verse that enjoins us to pray for our nation with the understanding that God will hear such a prayer and heal our nation from whatever evil besets us.  The verse itself reads, "if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14 ESV)  This seems a very straight forward verse, God clearly says that if his people who are called by his name (we Christians believe we are the people of God, and we are called by the name of Christ) humble themselves, pray, seek his face, and turn from their wicked ways (we like all of these things) then God will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land.  That seems like a done deal.  So why am I saying it doesn't mean what you think it does?

As much as I want to agree and give a hearty, "Amen!" to the idea of Christians praying for our land and seeking God's healing upon our land, I cannot agree that this verse is the one to hold to for that point.  If I were to point to any verse I would much rather point to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, wherein we are specifically told what, or who, to pray for.  In this case we are told directly to pray for those in authority, and with the specific goal that we may lead godly quiet lives.  Such verses have great value in that we are instructed first to pray, second to pray for certain people, and third to pray for a specific goal.  The Christian who lifts up prayers on behalf of his rulers with the goal that he wants to live in peace in his community quietly doing the will and work of God knows that this prayer is in line with the will of God.

Okay, so I agree that we should be praying for our communities, so what's my beef with 2 Chronicles 7:14? Simply put, it is a matter of exegesis.

Recognizing that this passage results in a conditional statement of action the questions that must be asked are the following:  Who is this command written to?  When is the condition of the command met so that it goes into effect?  What are individuals commanded to do when the command goes into effect?  The argument most commonly put forward among Christians is that this command was written to Israel, and is written to the church today, so that when God brings judgment on the nation (i.e. when bad things happen), then Christians should be the first to repent of the wickedness going on in their culture and should pray to God, with the result being that God will heal the nation.

My argument is that this exegesis misunderstands who the command is written to, and thus today misunderstands the proper application of this verse.  By misunderstanding the "who" of the command the "what" and the "when" of the command are also misunderstood.  (This is not to argue for a causative relation, one could very well have misunderstood the "when" of the verse and thus misunderstood the "who" of the verse based on application.)  In order to demonstrate a full understanding of the "who" of this verse I am going to first attempt to explain the "when" and the "what" of this command.  Once we understand when this command goes into effect and what this command entails in terms of the action of the people under the command, then we will be in a position to better understand who this command applies to.  Once all of that is done then we can understand what the result of obedience was, and thus have a full understanding of the verse that will then allow us to understand how to apply this verse today.

So, as to the "when."  When should this command be applied?  Well, the verse indicates that God will heal the land, so that implies that the command goes into effect when the land needs healing.  But, if we back up one verse to 2 Chronicles 7:13 we see that this command applies specifically to when God causes drought, sends locusts, or brings pestilence upon the land.  This is not to say that God would not also hear prayers in other situations, but rather that God made specific reference these events.  But so what?

Well, if we want to know "so what" let us go to Deuteronomy.  Specifically let us read Deuteronomy 28.  If you notice in this chapter God discusses the curses that he will bring upon Israel when they disobey him and fail to keep his law.  He starts with pestilence (Deuteronomy 28:21), then discusses drought (Deuteronomy 28:22, 23-24), and then talks about locusts (Deuteronomy 28:38).

The point of looking at Deuteronomy is that we see the situation God is describing in 2 Chronicles is a reference to the rebellion that is about to start in Israel after the time of Solomon (even during the time of Solomon as his idolatrous wives are said to have turned his heart away from God).  God warned Israel that when they forsook his commandments and his law that he would bring about a series of judgments involving pestilence, drought, and locusts.  Included in these judgments was also the fact that Israel would suffer exile and be brought out from the land. In reference to the exile God made a promise in Deuteronomy 30:1-3 that he would hear the cries of the exiles and would bring them back to their land, but there was no promise of forgiveness prior to exile, only the continuing harshness of judgment up to and then throughout the exile itself.

What we see in 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the gracious act of a kind God choosing to modify the covenant he made with Israel hundreds of years prior in Moab.  When God renewed the covenant with Israel in Moab they agreed, acting on behalf of their children, to take on all the blessings and all the curses of the covenant.  Thus the children of those men found themselves living in a time when the curses could finally come to fruition.  They finally had a king over them, one they had chosen and God had consecrated, and the full weight of the curses could be executed, and they had no way to escape the coming curses once they began to slide into immorality.  Yet, God, in his love for his people, by making this promise, gave his people a way to escape the curses once they began and forestall the utter destruction of their kingdom.  Once the curses began, if the people acknowledged that they had broken God's laws and had transgressed the covenant, then they could humbly come to God and pray to him, and he would forgive them this transgression and heal the land of the pestilence, the drought, or the locust, and thus forestall the exile.

When understood this way we see that this command had a special application under the covenant relationship that God had established with Israel.  But, this opens up a very interesting dilemma for us.  If I have understood the "when" correctly, and the "what" correctly (when the people realize they have transgressed the covenant, what they must do is pray for God's forgiveness), along with understanding the result correctly (God will forgive them and hold back the exile for a time), then the "who" of the command stands out in rather stark relief.  The only "who" this can apply to is the people of Israel during the time of the Old Testament.  The reason why is quite simple: This command was dependent upon the Old Covenant which was renewed at Moab as recorded in Deuteronomy, the Old Covenant has been done away with, it has been replaced by the New Covenant made by the blood of Christ.

Understanding the New Covenant opens up multiple problems for the direct application of this command.  For instance, as this was a command that reflected the judgment of God during the Old Covenant upon those who broke his law, it would be impossible to apply such a judgment to those in the New Covenant who do not live under the law and instead live under grace.  Likewise, as this was a command that developed by way of rebellion, we would be hard pressed to argue that the New Covenant people could live lives that would require repentance and turning from their wickedness.  Prior to being people of the New Covenant, most certainly, that is how we all lived, but now being in the New Covenant, having the Spirit of God, being filled with the love of Christ, to live in such a way seems impossible.  The idea of a New Covenant individual, much less a great number of individuals making up the New Covenant community, living in such wickedness certainly seems foreign to Scripture.  If indeed we are living such wicked lives that are not marked by regular repentance and a continual turning from wickedness, then I would honestly question whether any of us has a right to call ourselves "Christian" as such lives do not match up to the pictures of the saints we see in the New Testament.

So what do we do with this verse then?  I believe 2 Timothy 3:16 to be true.  Therefore I look to this verse and say that it was breathed out by God and that it is applicable to the Christian today.  But how shall we apply it, being as I have already said it cannot be directly applied?  We apply it through the atoning work of Christ, for all of God's promises are "yes" in Christ Jesus.

In Christ we recognize that we are in covenant with God, just as the people of Israel were.  In Christ we recognize that we have dire need for constant repentance, and that we are fully deserving of the wrath of God, of pestilence, drought, and locust.  And in Christ we recognize that the fullness of God's amazing forgiveness has been applied to us, so that our sins are forgiven and God is not waiting until some future date to pardon us.  Once we see all of this in Christ we look to our land and realize that we, like Abraham do not have a land here on earth.  Our country, our city, our neighborhood, none of it is our "land" in any final sense.  Israel was in the promised land, and we are waiting for the land promised to us.  Where God promised to heal the land stricken by curses for Israel we look forward to the land that will never be judged again, the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, and we acknowledge that all of this, our forgiveness, our claim to this land, our hope in a bright future where the curse is totally done away with, is all because of Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior forever more.

2 Chronicles 7:14 does not apply to us in promising that God will heal our country, because we are not the people of Israel in the Old Covenant, rather we are the true Israel, adopted by Christ in the New Covenant. We, like our father Abraham look for the land we shall inherit, and we recognize that we are but sojourners in the land here on earth.  We are not those who need to turn from wickedness, but rather we are those who have turned, and who daily take up our crosses and follow after our Lord.  We are not those who must humble ourselves, but rather those who recognize in full humility that we are objects of mercy, having nothing of our own we may brag about, though we must be reminded about this fact regularly.  The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is bigger for us, it is a promise of an undefiled land, a land beyond the curse, a perfect land.  And to this promise we say, like Job, that though we die, we will see our redeemer, we ourselves and no other, with our own eyes, for our redeemer was slain and he lives.

The death of dreams

What does life look like when dreams die? I'm asking this question because I find myself there. You see, though I can't place when it happened, my greatest dream has died. For years, since I was in high school, my goal was to be a teacher of the Word of God. Really what I wanted was to be a preacher, in an expository fashion, of the Word, but I didn't know that's what I wanted until I was exposed to expository preaching in seminary; but that's all come and gone.

That which animated my life for the longest has now become but a bit of background noise. I devoted my life to fulfilling my dream. The courses I chose at college, the groups I associated with, developing my skills and reading books on subjects that I thought might make me better, all of this was geared to one goal. When I graduated college I took a job I didn't like with one goal: to spend time there to put money aside to pay for seminary. Then I chose a seminary I thought would be the best to help me achieve the dream of teaching God's people.

At seminary I chose the course of training that I thought would give me the most rounded education and the ability to serve Christ's church the best. You see, at Southern the Biblical and Theological Studies track is one of the most challenging (not that any are easy!) but is also very well rounded, requiring the student to be familiar with both the Old and New Testaments, with Greek and Hebrew, and with a multitude of theological approaches. That was what I wanted, to be as familiar with the Bible as I could be, to be as well equipped to serve the church as a pastor as I could possibly be. My goal was to do this as fast as possible, so I could go from school and preparation to service as quickly as I could. So my wife and I sacrificed what we could, we sold what we could to get the money we needed, and I finished school in three years. All of this had one goal in mind: to be a preacher of the Word and an effective servant of the church and of Christ.

After seminary my wife and I moved in with her grandmother. I thought it would be temporary, lasting only a few months. After all, I'd already had my resume out for several months. I'd sent my resume to dozens of churches already, so there was no way I wouldn't hear from someone soon. But, lest we think we are the architects of our own destiny, life tends to turn out differently than we expected. After not hearing from any church for a year, I started looking for a job in the secular world.

My goal was simple: find a temporary secular job, keep looking for a church, and just help make enough money so that we could afford our own place. Well, things didn't work out that way. I found a temporary job, but due to various events, we could never really set enough money aside to move out on our own.

Well, since I've been out of seminary, 2 years now, I've heard from three churches who asked me to come and preach for them, and many, many more who didn't need my preaching to tell them they weren't interested in me. (Oh, and one search committee who asked me to set up an evening preaching engagement at a local church so they could come and hear me, but they never contacted me again, so I can only assume they found someone else.) Basically, its been a long and very frustrating two years. I've complained to God, I've asked those in my church whether I may have misunderstood the calling of God in my life, and I've gone to the depths of depression, seeking nothing more than darkness and solitude. Through it all though, I've continued to hope that there was a church out there, somewhere, that needed me, that wanted me to come and be their pastor. But now... now I don't really care any more.

It's surprising to hear myself say that, and to know I'm being honest. It's surprising because even now I'm in the first semester of an Ed.D. Program from Southern. I began this program hoping to get a doctorate so I would be even more prepared for the church. I figured a doctorate in education would make me even more useful, and would help me to be even more prepared to teach in the church. I still have a lot of work to do, but it's only 6 semesters long, and I'm almost 25% of the way through the course work now. But as I said, I don't really care about it any more.

You see, the temporary job I found has become more than temporary. I've been offered a full-time salaried position. It isn't a lot, but it is enough for me to care for my family, to provide a roof for my wife and daughter, and to be out on our own. I know I won't ever wake up saying, “I can't wait to go to work today!” but at the same time I don't wake up saying, “I hate this job.” While I may not be thrilled about what lies before me, I don't dislike it. It is, for all intents and purposes, sufficient.

Looking back, I've spent half my life trying to find a way to be a teacher of the Word, to serve the people of God. My hope was to be a pastor, with all that entails: counseling, visiting, preaching, praying, teaching, encouraging and rebuking, I wanted to do it all. So I spent years studying, learning, being a student of what I wanted to teach. And perhaps, in some small way, I have done that which I desired. I've taught classes, I've preached the Word, I've encouraged the discouraged, I've rebuked the foolish, I've counseled the hurting, I've visited the sick, and I've prayed through all of it.

In looking back at what I've done and what I've been I can honestly say that I haven't accomplished my dreams. Yes, in some small way I did a little of everything I hoped to do, but I never served in the capacity I had hoped for. In looking forward at what God has laid before me I see little to no reason to think the future will be any different than the past. But, perhaps there is something here in the present, something I never expected to find while I was dreaming about a future that never happened. Perhaps, where I am today, though there is no excitement, there is contentment.

The death of dreams is not an awful thing, it is not a depressing thing, not is it a part of life to be raged against. The death of dreams is perhaps the birth of contentment. Depression, anger, frustration, and bitterness in regards to life occur because the dreams of life have not died. In the midst of the dream, when I could not have what I desired, when I could not accomplish what I was seeking, no matter how hard I tried, there I found depression, there I was angry, there I was frustrated and bitter. Now, now that the dream is dead, I'm not depressed about it, I'm not angry, I'm resigned to the realization that this is life, and I'm content with that.

Paul says that if we have food and clothing, with this we should be content. He said to Timothy that godliness with contentment is great gain. So I am content to be where I am. Instead of raging about what I want, instead of sinking to depression thinking I'll never accomplish my dreams and desires, I'm at rest, content that this is what my life is.

Do I still desire to be a pastor? Yes, most certainly. Would I take a position if one was offered to me and it was sufficient to support my family? Again, of course I would take such a position. But I'm okay with what I have, I'm okay with the fact that I will never be a pastor, that I will always be a “layman” and that I will never serve the church in an “official” capacity.

My dream was to change the world for Christ. To preach the Word with boldness and see many come to know the amazing love of God that sent his Son to die for sinners such as me was what I wanted. I wanted to be great in the kingdom of heaven, to use the gifts the Lord had given me to really make an impact in my generation. I wanted to be like Paul, saying that I worked with all the might that God had given me, and yet not I but the Spirit who lived within me. But God's plan was something different.

Maybe I'll impact the world, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll preach the Word and see many come to Christ, and maybe I won't. Regardless of what I accomplish in the future I know this: I've impacted the lives of those around me. I've preached Christ to friends and family, to co-workers and strangers as I've had opportunity. More important than anything else though, I know I still have my ministry to my family, and no matter what else may happen, this is the ministry I have to focus on.

So while my dreams may be dead, I'm content with where I am. I've given up thinking I'll be a pastor, but I know I'll never stop being a husband and a father. I'll never change my nation, but I can change the lives of my wife and daughter for the better. This ministry, the opportunity to serve my family and love them no matter what, is worth a few dead dreams. In this I am content.

To God be the glory, amen.